Thursday, October 17, 2002

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 420 Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category; Final Rule

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64216 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION semi-wet air pollution control systems; DATES: This regulation shall become AGENCY and to establish technology-based effective November 18, 2002. effluent limitations guidelines and ADDRESSES: The public record for this 40 CFR Part 420 standards for electric arc furnaces rulemaking has been established under [FRL–7206–7] operating semi-wet pollution control docket number W–00–25 II and will be systems. EPA is eliminating rule RIN 2040–AC90 located in the Water Docket, East Tower references to the following obsolete Basement, room #57, 401 M St. SW., operations: beehive cokemaking in the Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Washington, DC 20460 until August 15, cokemaking subcategory, Pretreatment Standards, and New 2002. After August 27, 2002 the public ferromanganese blast furnaces in the Source Performance Standards for the record will be located at EPA West, ironmaking subcategory, and open Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room hearth furnace operations in the Source Category B135, Washington, DC 20460. The steelmaking subcategory. EPA is not record is available for inspection from 9 AGENCY: Environmental Protection revising effluent limitations guidelines a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, Agency (EPA). and standards for the remaining excluding legal holidays. For access to ACTION: Final rule. subcategories within this industrial the docket materials before August 15, category: vacuum degassing, continuous call (202) 260–3027 to schedule an SUMMARY: This final rule represents the casting, hot forming, salt bath descaling, appointment. After August 27, call (202) culmination of the Agency’s effort to acid pickling, cold forming, alkaline 566–2426. You may have to pay a revise (CWA) effluent cleaning and hot coating. Nor is EPA reasonable fee for copying. limitations guidelines and standards for codifying a new subcategorization wastewater discharges from the iron and scheme and associated definitions to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For steel manufacturing industry. The final support the new subcategorization for technical information concerning regulation revises technology-based this industrial category. today’s final rule, contact Mr. George effluent limitations guidelines and EPA expects compliance with this Jett at (202) 566–1070, or Ms. Yu-ting standards for certain wastewater regulation to reduce the discharge of Guilaran at (202) 566–1072. For discharges associated with metallurgical conventional by at least economic information contact Mr. cokemaking, sintering, and ironmaking 351,000 pounds per year and toxic and William Anderson at (202) 566–1008. operations; and codifies new effluent non-conventional pollutants by at least SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: limitations guidelines and standards for 1,018,000 pounds per year. EPA Regulated Entities direct reduced ironmaking, briquetting, estimates the annual cost of the rule will and forging. EPA is also revising the be $12.0 million (pre-tax $2001). EPA Entities potentially regulated by this regulations for the steelmaking estimates that the annual benefits of the action include facilities of the following subcategory, to provide an allowance for rule will range from $1.4 million to $7.3 types that discharge pollutants to waters existing basic oxygen furnaces operating million ($2001). of the U.S.:

Category Examples of regulated entities Primary SIC and NAICS codes

Industry Discharges from facilities engaged in metallurgical cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, SIC 3312, 3316; NAICS 3311, steelmaking, direct reduced ironmaking, briquetting, and forging. 3312.

This table is not intended to be this action to a particular entity (after Compliance Dates exhaustive, but rather provides a guide consulting relevant subsections), for readers regarding entities likely to be consult one of the persons listed for Existing direct dischargers must regulated by this action. Other types of technical information in the preceding comply with limitations based on the entities not listed in the table could also FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT best practicable control technology be regulated. To determine whether section. currently available (BPT), the best your facility is regulated by this action, conventional control you should carefully examine the Judicial Review technology (BCT), and the best available technology economically achievable applicability criteria listed in § 420.01 In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, and the applicability criteria in § 420.10 (BAT) as soon as their National today’s rule is promulgated for the Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (metallurgical cokemaking), § 420.40 purposes of judicial review as of 1 pm (steelmaking), and § 420.130 (other (NDPES) permits include such Eastern Daylight Time on October 31, operations) of today’s rule and limitations. Existing indirect dischargers 2002. Under section 509(b)(1) of the applicability criteria in § 420.20 subject to today’s regulations must Clean Water Act (CWA), judicial review (sintering), § 420.30 (ironmaking), comply with the pretreatment standards of today’s effluent limitations guidelines § 420.50 (vacuum degassing), § 420.60 for existing sources no later than (continuous casting), § 420.70 (hot and standards is available in the United October 17, 2005. New direct and forming), § 420.80 (salt bath descaling), States Circuit Court of Appeals by filing indirect discharging sources must § 420.90 (acid pickling), § 420.100 (cold a petition for review within 120 days comply with applicable guidelines and forming), § 420.110 (alkaline cleaning), from the date of promulgation of these standards on the date the new sources and § 420.120 (hot coating) of Title 40 guidelines and standards. Under Section begin discharging. For purposes of new of the Code of Federal Regulations. The 509(b)(2) of the CWA the requirements source performance standards (NSPS) table lists the types of entities that EPA of this regulation may not be challenged and pretreatment standards for new is now aware could potentially be later in civil or criminal proceedings sources (PSNS), a source is a new source regulated by this action. If you still have brought by EPA to enforce these if it commenced construction after questions regarding the applicability of requirements. November 18, 2002.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64217

Supporting Documentation is presenting in the public record VIII. The Final Regulation certain information in aggregated form A. Cokemaking Subcategory The final regulations are supported by 1. Best Practicable Control Technology three major documents: or, alternatively, is masking facility identities or employing other strategies. (BPT) 1. ‘‘Development Document for Final 2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Effluent Limitations Guidelines and This approach assures that the Technology (BCT) Standards for the Iron and Steel information in the public record 3. Best Available Technology Economically Manufacturing Point Source Category’’ explains the basis for today’s final rule Achievable (BAT) (EPA–821–R–02–004), referred to in the without compromising CBI claims. 4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) preamble as the Technical Development Organization of This Document 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Document (TDD). This TDD presents the I. Legal Authority Sources (PSES) technical information that formed the II. Legislative Background 6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources basis for EPA’s decisions concerning the A. Clean Water Act (PSNS) final rule. In it, EPA describes, among 1. Best Practicable Control Technology B. Sintering Subcategory other things, the data collection Currently Available (BPT)–Section 1. Best Practicable Control Technology activities, the wastewater treatment 304(b)(1) of the CWA (BPT)/Best Conventional Pollutant technology options considered, the 2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Control Technology (BCT) Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of 2. Best Available Technology Economically pollutants found in the iron and steel Achievable (BAT) manufacturing wastewaters, and the the CWA 3. Best Available Technology Economically 3. New Source Performance Standards estimation of costs to the industry to Achievable (BAT)—Section 304(b)(2) of (NSPS) comply with the final limitations and the CWA 4. Pretreatment Standards for Existing standards. 4. New Source Performance Standards Sources (PSES) 2. ‘‘Economic Analysis of Final (NSPS)—Section 306 of the CWA 5. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing (PSNS) Standards for the Iron and Steel Sources (PSES)—Section 307(b) of the C. Ironmaking Subcategory Manufacturing Point Source Category’’ CWA D. Steelmaking Subcategory E. Vacuum Degassing Subcategory (EPA–821–R–02–006) referred to in this 6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)—Section 307(c) of the CWA F. Continuous Casting Subcategory preamble as the Economic Analysis B. Section 304(m) Requirements G. Hot Forming Subcategory (EA). The EA estimates the economic III. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Industry H. Salt Bath Descaling Subcategory and financial costs of compliance with Effluent Guideline Rulemaking History I. Acid Pickling Subcategory the final regulation on individual A. 1982 Rule and 1984 Amendments J. Cold Forming Subcategory process lines, facilities and companies. B. Preliminary Study K. Alkaline Cleaning Subcategory 3. ‘‘Environmental Assessment of the C. October 31, 2000 Proposed Regulation L. Hot Coating Subcategory Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines D. February 2001 Notice of Data M. Other Operations Subcategory and Standards for the Iron and Steel Availability 1. Best Practicable Control Technology E. April 4, 2001 Notice (BPT) Manufacturing Point Source Category’’ IV. Current Economic Condition of the 2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control (EPA–821–R–02–005) referred to as the Industry Technology (BCT) Environmental Assessment in this V. Summary of Significant Decisions 3. Best Available Technology Economically preamble. A. Decisions Regarding the Content of the Achievable (BAT) Regulations 4. New Source Performance Standards How To Obtain Supporting Documents 1. New or Revised Effluent Limitations (NSPS) Supporting documents are available Guidelines and Standards 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing and on the internet at www.epa.gov/ost/ 2. Subcategorization Structure New Sources (PSES/PSNS) ironsteel and before August 15, 2002 3. Phenol Pass Through Analysis for IX. Pollutant Reduction and Compliance Cost from the Office of Water Resource Cokemaking Estimates 4. Regulation of Phenols (4AAP) A. Pollutant Reductions Center, MC–4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M 5. Retention of the Central Treatment 1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; Provision 2. Priority and Non-conventional Pollutant telephone (202) 260–7786 for 6. Production Basis for Calculating Permit Reductions publication requests. After August 18, Limits B. Regulatory Costs 2002, the Office of Water Resources will 7. Applicability of Part 420 to 1. Cokemaking Subcategory be located at 1200 Pennsylvania Electroplating and Certain Finishing 2. Sintering Subcategory Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Operations 3. Steelmaking Subcategory The telephone number will be 202–566– 8. Ammonia-N Standard Waiver for 4. Other Operations Subcategory 1729. Indirect Discharging Cokemaking, X. Economic Analyses Ironmaking, and Sintering Operations A. Introduction and Overview Protection of Confidential Business 9. Nitrates in Acid Pickling Wastewater B. Economic Description of the Iron and Information (CBI) B. Decisions Regarding Methodology Steel Industry 1. Economic Analysis Methodology C. Economic Impact Methodology EPA notes that certain information 2. Selection of Facilities with Model 1. Introduction and data in the record supporting the Treatment and Evaluation of Available 2. Methodology Overview final rule have been claimed as CBI and, Data Sets in Establishing Long Term D. Economic Costs and Impacts of therefore, are not included in the record Averages Technology Options by Subcategory that is available to the public in the 3. Reassessment of Production-Normalized 1. Cokemaking Water Docket. Further, the Agency has Flows (PNFs) 2. Sintering withheld from disclosure some data not 4. Changes in Methodology for 3. Ironmaking Determining the Baseline Loadings and 4. Integrated Steelmaking claimed as CBI because release of this Average Baseline Concentrations 5. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming information could indirectly reveal 5. Determination of POTW Percent 6. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot information claimed to be confidential. Removal Estimates Forming To support the rulemaking while VI. Scope/Applicability of the Regulation 7. Steel Finishing preserving confidentiality claims, EPA VII. Industry Description 8. Other Operations

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64218 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

E. Facility Level Economic Impacts of the I. Legal Authority 1. Best Practicable Control Technology Regulatory Options Currently Available (BPT)—Section F. Firm Level Impacts The U.S. Environmental Protection 304(b)(1) of the CWA G. Community Impacts Agency is promulgating these H. Foreign Trade Impacts regulations under the authority of In the regulations, EPA defines BPT I. Small Business Analysis sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, J. Cost-Benefit Analysis effluent limits for conventional, toxic, K. Cost-Reasonableness Analysis and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 and non-conventional pollutants. L. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, Section 304(a)(4) designates the 1. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 1342, and 1361. following as conventional pollutants: 2. Non-recovery Cokemaking II. Legislative Background biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), 3. Other Operations (TSS), fecal XI. Analysis and A. Clean Water Act Environmental Benefits coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk Congress adopted the Clean Water Act B. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human as conventional. The Administrator (CWA) to ‘‘restore and maintain the Health Hazard designated oil and grease as an chemical, physical, and biological C. Improved Ecological Conditions and additional conventional pollutant on integrity of the Nation’s waters’’ Recreational Activity July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501). EPA has D. Effect on POTW Operations (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To identified 126 pollutants as priority E. Other Benefits Not Quantified achieve this goal, the CWA prohibits the toxic pollutants. See Appendix A to Part F. Summary of Benefits discharge of pollutants into navigable 403 (reprinted after 40 CFR 423.17). All XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental waters except in compliance with the Impacts statute. The Clean Water Act confronts other pollutants are considered to be A. Air Pollution non-conventional. B. Solid Waste the problem of on a C. Energy Requirements number of different fronts. Its primary In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a XIII. Regulatory Implementation reliance, however, is on establishing number of factors. EPA first considers A. Implementation of the Limitations and restrictions on the types and amounts of the total cost of applying the control Standards pollutants discharged from various technology in relation to the effluent 1. Introduction industrial, commercial, and public reduction benefits. The Agency also 2. Compliance Dates sources of wastewater. considers the age of the equipment and 3. Applicability 4. Production Basis for Calculation of Congress recognized that regulating facilities, the processes employed and Permit Limitations only those sources that discharge any required process changes, 5. Water Bubble effluent directly into the nation’s waters engineering aspects of the control 6. Compliance with Limitations and would not be sufficient to achieve the technologies, non-water quality Standards CWA’s goals. Consequently, the CWA environmental impacts (including 7. Internal Monitoring Requirements and energy requirements), and such other Compliance with ML Limitations for requires EPA to promulgate nationally Sintering Subcategory applicable pretreatment standards that factors as the EPA Administrator deems 8. Implementation for Iron and Steel restrict pollutant discharges for facilities appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Facilities Subject to Multiple Effluent that discharge wastewater through Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT Limitations Guidelines or Pretreatment sewers flowing to publicly-owned effluent limitations based on the average Standards treatment works (POTWs) (Section of the best performances of facilities 9. Revisions Affecting Certain Steelmaking 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and within the industry of various ages, Operations sizes, processes or other common 10. Non-process Wastewater and Storm (c)). National pretreatment standards are Water in the Immediate Process Area established for those pollutants in characteristics. Where existing B. Upset and Bypass Provisions wastewater from indirect dischargers performance is uniformly inadequate, C. Variances and Modifications which pass through, interfere with, or BPT may reflect higher levels of control 1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) are otherwise incompatible with POTW than currently in place in an industrial Variances operations. Generally, pretreatment category if the Agency determines that 2. Water Quality Variances standards are designed to ensure that the technology can be practically 3. Permit Modifications wastewater from direct and indirect XIV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive applied. Orders and Agency Initiatives industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition, 2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of Planning and Review POTWs are required to develop and B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as enforce local pretreatment limits the CWA Amended by the Small Business applicable to their industrial indirect The 1977 amendments to the CWA Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of dischargers to satisfy any local required EPA to identify effluent 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. requirements (40 CFR 403.5). C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act reduction levels for conventional D. Paperwork Reduction Act Direct dischargers must comply with pollutants associated with BCT for E. National Technology Transfer and effluent limitations in National discharges from existing industrial point Advancement Act Pollutant Discharge Elimination System sources. In addition to the other factors F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of (NPDES) permits; indirect dischargers specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the Children from Environmental Health must comply with pretreatment Risks and Safety Risks CWA requires that EPA establish BCT standards. These limitations and limitations after consideration of a two G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation standards are established by regulation and Coordination With Indian Tribal part ‘‘cost-reasonableness’’ test. EPA Governments for categories of industrial dischargers explained its methodology for the H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism and are based on the degree of control development of BCT limitations in July that can be achieved using various I. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects 1986 (51 FR 24974). J. Congressional Review Act levels of pollution control technology.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64219

3. Best Available Technology framework for the implementation of and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Economically Achievable (BAT)— national pretreatment standards, are Category, 40 CFR part 420 in May 1982 Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA found at 40 CFR part 403. (47 FR 23258). This rule established BPT, BCT, and BAT effluent limitations In general, BAT effluent limitations 6. Pretreatment Standards for New guidelines represent the best available that apply to wastewater discharges to Sources (PSNS)—Section 307(c) of the waters of the U.S. from existing iron and economically achievable performance of CWA steel facilities and NSPS limits that plants in the industrial subcategory or Like PSES, PSNS are designed to apply to wastewater discharges to category. The factors considered in prevent the discharges of pollutants that waters of the U.S. from new iron and assessing BAT include the cost of pass through, interfere with, or are steel facilities. It also established achieving BAT effluent reductions, the otherwise incompatible with the pretreatment standards that apply to age of equipment and facilities operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be wastewater discharges to POTWs from involved, the process employed, issued at the same time as NSPS. New existing and new iron and steel facilities potential process changes, and non- indirect dischargers have the (PSES and PSNS). water quality environmental impacts, opportunity to incorporate into their The 1982 rule was based on an including energy requirements. The plants the best available demonstrated approach that mirrored the sequential Agency retains considerable discretion technologies. The Agency considers the process steps through a typical mill. in assigning the weight to be accorded same factors in promulgating PSNS as it EPA concluded that it was reasonable to these factors. BAT limitations may be considers in promulgating NSPS. establish a subcategorization structure based on effluent reductions attainable based on the type of manufacturing through changes in a facility’s processes B. Section 304(m) Requirements operation employed. This resulted in and operations. Where existing Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by twelve subcategories. performance is uniformly inadequate, the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires The American Iron and Steel Institute, BAT may reflect a higher level of EPA to establish schedules for (1) certain members of the iron and steel performance than is currently being reviewing and revising existing effluent industry, and NRDC filed petitions to achieved within a particular limitations guidelines and standards review the 1982 regulation. On February subcategory based on technology (‘‘effluent guidelines’’); and (2) 4, 1983, the parties in the consolidated transferred from a different subcategory promulgating new effluent guidelines. lawsuit entered into a comprehensive or category. BAT may be based upon On January 2, 1990, EPA published its settlement agreement that resolved all process changes or internal controls, first Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80), issues raised by the petitioners. In even when these technologies are not which established schedules for accordance with the settlement common industry practice. developing new and revised effluent agreement, EPA modified and clarified 4. New Source Performance Standards guidelines for several industry certain parts of the Iron and Steel rule (NSPS)—Section 306 of the CWA categories. and published additional preamble The Natural Resources Defense language regarding the rule. The Iron NSPS reflect effluent reductions that Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen, Inc. and Steel rule was amended on May 17, are achievable based on the best filed suit against the Agency, alleging 1984 (49 FR 21024). The major changes available demonstrated control violation of Section 304(m) and other included in the amendment are technology. New sources have the statutory authorities requiring discussed in the preamble to the 2000 opportunity to install the best and most promulgation of effluent guidelines proposed rule (65 FR 81964–82083) and efficient production processes and (NRDC, et al. v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89–2980 in Chapter 2 of the Technical wastewater treatment technologies. As a (D.D.C.)). Plaintiffs and EPA settled the Development Document for today’s final result, NSPS should represent the most litigation by means of a consent decree rule. The 1982 regulation, as amended stringent controls attainable through the entered on January 31, 1992. The in 1984, can be found on line at: application of the best available consent decree, which has been www.epa.gov/ost/ironsteel/reg.html. demonstrated control technology for all modified several times, established a pollutants (i.e., conventional, non- B. Preliminary Study schedule by which EPA is to propose conventional, and priority pollutants). The Clean Water Act requires EPA to and take final action for eleven point In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to review effluent limitations guidelines source categories identified by name in take into consideration the cost of and standards periodically to determine the decree and for eight other point achieving the effluent reduction and any whether it is appropriate to revise them. source categories to be selected by EPA. non-water quality environmental Furthermore, under the consent decree After completing a preliminary study impacts and energy requirements. discussed in Section II.B, EPA is also (EPA 821–R95–037, September 1995) as required to undertake rulemaking with 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing required by the decree, EPA selected the respect to the effluent limitations Sources (PSES)—Section 307(b) of the iron and steel industry as the subject for guidelines and standards on a set CWA a revised rule. Under the decree, as schedule and was required to complete modified, the Administrator was PSES are designed to prevent the a study of the iron and steel industry. required to sign a proposed rule for the discharge of pollutants that pass Accordingly, EPA developed and iron and steel industry no later than through, interfere with, or are otherwise published the ‘‘Preliminary Study of the October 31, 2000, and must take final incompatible with the operation of Iron and Steel Category’’ (EPA 821–R– action no later than April 30, 2002. publicly-owned treatment works 95–037) in September 1995. (POTWs), including sludge disposal III. Iron and Steel Manufacturing In the preliminary study, EPA methods at POTWs. Pretreatment Industry Effluent Guideline assessed the status of the iron and steel standards for existing sources are Rulemaking History industry with respect to the regulation technology-based and are analogous to promulgated in 1982 and amended in BAT effluent limitations guidelines. A. 1982 Rule and 1984 Amendments 1984; identified better performing The General Pretreatment EPA promulgated effluent limitations facilities that use conventional and Regulations, which set forth the guidelines and standards for the Iron innovative in-process pollution

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64220 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

prevention and end-of-pipe performing mills were discharging existing rule by adding electroplating technologies; estimated possible effluent wastewater loadings far below the operations and by including direct iron reduction benefits if the industry were current standards; however, not all of reduction, briquetting, and forging upgraded to the level of better the industry had improved wastewater operations. In addition, EPA proposed performing facilities; discussed treatment or implemented proactive excluding from the iron and steel regulatory and implementation issues pollution prevention practices. As a guideline in Part 420 some wiring, cold associated with the current regulation; result of the study, EPA initiated this forming, and hot dip coating operations. and identified possible solutions to rulemaking to reassess the effluent In a proposed rule for the Metal those issues. This study concluded that limitations guidelines and standards for Products and Machinery (MP&M) the industry has changed substantially the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point industrial category published on in production technology and pollution Source Category. The Preliminary Study January 3, 2001 (66 FR 424), EPA control since the 1982 regulations were can be found on line at www.epa.gov/ proposed to address these operations OST/ironsteel/pstudy.html. promulgated. Pollutant loadings had under Part 438. decreased due to advances in treatment C. October 31, 2000 Proposed The Agency proposed to revise the system operations and improved Regulation subcategorization scheme to create wastewater treatment processes. In On October 31, 2000, the EPA seven subcategories of iron and steel addition, the study also found that Administrator signed proposed facilities based on co-treatment of many pollution prevention revisions to technology-based effluent compatible waste streams. This would opportunities exist in the areas of limitations guidelines and standards for have replaced the present structure of increased process water recycle and wastewater discharges from new and 12 subcategories. The proposed reuse, the cascade of process existing iron and steel facilities. The subcategorization approach would have wastewaters from one operation to proposed rule was published in the reflected the way treatment systems are another, residuals management, and Federal Register on December 27, 2000 run in the iron and steel industry. EPA non-discharge disposal methods. At the (65 FR 81964). EPA proposed to alter proposed the following seven time of the study, many better- the applicability and scope of the subcategories:

Subcategory Segment

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

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

PROPOSED SUBCATEGORIES, OPTIONS, AND TECHNICAL COMPONENTS

Subcategory (segment) Regulatory level Option proposed Summary of technical basis

Subpart A. Cokemaking: (By-Product Recovery) ...... BAT/NSPS ...... BAT–3 ...... Tar removal, equalization, free and fixed ammonia stripping, temperature control, equalization, single-stage biological treat- ment with nitrification, alkaline chlorination, and sludge dewatering. PSES/PSNS ...... PSES–3 ...... Tar removal, equalization, free and fixed ammonia stripping, temperature control, equalization, and single-stage biological treatment with nitrification.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64221

PROPOSED SUBCATEGORIES, OPTIONS, AND TECHNICAL COMPONENTS—Continued

Subcategory (segment) Regulatory level Option proposed Summary of technical basis

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

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64222 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

PROPOSED SUBCATEGORIES, OPTIONS, AND TECHNICAL COMPONENTS—Continued

Subcategory (segment) Regulatory level Option proposed Summary of technical basis

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

The proposed regulation is on line at: importer (and a net importer for at least and steel industry experienced a www.epa.gov/ost/ironsteel/ the last two decades); indeed, the U.S. precipitous decline after 1997. Based notices.html. was nearly the only viable steel market upon publicly available sources, at least to which other countries such as South twenty companies, that could be subject D. February 2001 Notice of Data Korea, Russia and Ukraine could export to the iron and steel effluent guidelines, Availability during 1998. U.S. imports of steel mill have filed for bankruptcy since 1997. On February 14, 2001, EPA published products jumped by 10.4 million tons The companies are Bethlehem Steel, a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) at from 31.1 million tons to 41.5 million LTV Steel, National Steel, Republic 66 FR 10253. This notice provided ton, a 25 percent increase, from 1997 to Technologies, Wheeling Pittsburgh additional discussion and clarification 1998. The previous record level of Steel, Geneva Steel, Gulf States Steel, on some of the issues raised in the imports had been established in 1997. Acme Metals, Laclede Steel, Qualitech proposal. For example, the notice The high levels of imports persisted in Steel, Northwestern Steel and Wire, Erie discussed EPA’s new finding that 1999 and 2000, with 35.7 million tons Forge and Steel, CSC Ltd., Heartland phenol does not pass through POTWs, and 38.0 million tons, respectively. The Steel, GS Industries, Trico Steel, and indicated that EPA was rethinking sustained high level of steel imports has Freedom Forge, J&L Structural Steel, its proposal to establish a nation-wide been associated with a substantial drop Empire Specialty Steel and Riverview limit on ammonia from steel finishing in the market value of steel products. Steel. In aggregate, these companies operations. The prevailing prices for commodities represent more than a third of domestic EPA also noticed changes to certain such as hot rolled sheet, cold rolled steelmaking capacity. Of the bankrupt portions of the proposed regulation and sheet, and many other products have firms, Empire Specialty, Acme Steel, accompanying preamble to eliminate fallen by 20 to 40 percent since 1996. Laclede Steel, Qualitech Steel, Gulf inconsistencies. Finally, it corrected Substantial increases in energy prices, States Steel, Northwestern Steel and potentially confusing typographical including natural gas and electricity, Wire, CSC Ltd., and LTV Steel have errors and extended the proposal’s during the last few years have also ceased steelmaking operations, affecting comment period from February 26, 2001 affected domestic producers. Natural gas over 15,000 employees. to March 26, 2001. The complete details is used extensively in reheat and The industry filed numerous of the February NODA are located on annealing furnaces, coke oven countervailing duty and anti-dumping line at: www.epa.gov/ost/ironsteel/ underfiring and blast furnace injection, cases over the 1998-2001 period with reg.html. as well as in direct reduced iron the U.S. Department of Commerce and production. Electricity is necessary E. April 4, 2001 Notice U.S. International Trade Commission throughout the steel production process, (hereafter ‘‘ITC’’), charging various On April 4, 2001, EPA published a with electric arc furnaces, of course, countries (for example, Japan, Russia, notice (66 FR 17842) reopening the being particularly dependent on China, and Brazil) with unfair trade comment period to April 25, 2001. electricity costs and availability. practices concerning carbon steel Finally, in the last year, the domestic IV. Current Economic Condition of the products, stainless steel products, and market for steel has declined as Industry foundry coke. The ITC ruled in favor of domestic industrial production in the the U.S. industry in many cases (for The financial situation of the United States has fallen. Industries, example, hot rolled carbon sheet and domestic iron and steel industry such as automotive and major carbon plate), meaning that it changed dramatically between 1997 and appliances, that use significant amounts 2001 due to factors including the Asian of steel have been particularly impacted. determined that the domestic industry financial crisis, slow economic growth The coke industry is comprised of two was materially injured or threatened in Eastern Europe, the continued types of producers: Integrated and with material injury by the unfairly strength of the dollar versus other merchant. Integrated producers traded imports. currencies, a period of increased prices typically supply furnace coke for their More significantly, on June 22, 2001, for natural gas and electricity, and a own blast furnace facilities. Merchant the Office of the United States Trade sharp drop in domestic demand as the producers may produce and sell furnace Representative requested the initiation U.S. economy slowed. The following coke (used in blast furnaces), foundry of an investigation by the ITC of certain analysis of economic conditions coke (used in foundries to make iron steel imports under the section 201 of occurring after the 1995–1997 time castings) and other industrial coke. Both the Trade Act of 1974. A later request frame is based upon publicly available integrated and merchant producers of from the Senate Finance Committee was sources such as trade journal reports, furnace coke have been affected by the consolidated under the same Securities and Exchange Commission trends described regarding iron and investigation. Investigations under this filings, and trade case filings with the steel production. Foundry coke law may be requested when increased U.S. Department of Commerce and the producers have been affected by falling imports of a product from all countries U.S. International Trade Commission. automotive production, the largest are alleged to be a substantial cause of The relatively high value of the dollar consumer sector for iron castings. serious injury, or threat of serious compared to the currencies of many Foundry coke has also been affected by injury, to a U.S. industry. The steel exporting nations has led to a sharply increasing imports from China. investigation does not require the sharp increase in import penetration in As a result of the increased imports, finding of an unfair trade practice. The the domestic steel market. The U.S. is, declining demand, and falling prices, investigation is composed of two and has been, the world’s largest steel the financial health of the domestic iron phases, the injury phase and, if an

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64223

affirmative injury determination is quota volume is set at 5.4 million tons As described in Section V.A.8, made, the remedy phase. In the remedy and the out-of-quota (i.e., above the ammonia-N pretreatment standards do phase, the ITC recommends a remedy to quota level) tariff of 30 percent. The not apply to cokemaking, ironmaking, the President, who decides what relief, level of relief described reflects the and sintering facilities discharging to if any, will be imposed. The remedy initial safeguard measures, with POTWs with nitrification capability. may consist of tariffs, quantitative periodic reductions throughout the For the steelmaking subcategory, EPA restrictions, orderly marketing three year duration of the measures. is revising BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES agreements, and trade adjustment Canada and Mexico were excluded from limitations for the semi-wet basic assistance. In addition, the ITC may the quota and tariff measures on all oxygen furnace (BOF) operations to recommend that the President initiate products. Developing countries that allow discharge of process wastewater, international negotiations to address the export only small quantities of steel to when merited by safety considerations. underlying cause of the increase in the U.S. were also excluded from the As explained in the 2001 Notice of Data imports or that he implement any other quota and tariff measures. Availability (NODA) at 66 FR 10253, action authorized under the law that is V. Summary of Significant Decisions EPA is allowing discharge of process likely to facilitate positive adjustment to wastewater because certain safety import competition. A. Decisions Regarding the Content of concerns currently preclude some sites On October 22, 2001, the ITC the Regulations from balancing the water applied for affirmatively determined that 12 BOF gas conditioning with evaporative products (or product categories) are 1. New or Revised Effluent Limitations losses to achieve zero discharge. Also in being imported into the U.S. in such Guidelines and Standards the steelmaking subcategory, for the increased quantities that they are a EPA has decided to revise effluent semi-wet EAF operations, EPA is substantial cause of serious injury or limitations guidelines and standards establishing limitations of no discharge threat of serious injury to the U.S. only for current Subpart A of process wastewater pollutants for industry. On an additional four (cokemaking), Subpart B (sintering), new direct dischargers and existing and products (or product categories), the ITC Subpart C (ironmaking), and Subpart D new indirect dischargers, making these was evenly divided, meaning these (steelmaking), and to promulgate new limitations equivalent to the previously products will continue to be included in effluent limitations guidelines and promulgated BPT, BCT, and BAT the investigation. The imported standards for new Subpart M (other limitations applicable to semi-wet products covered by the investigation operations). Also, as a result of EPA’s electric arc furnace (EAF) operations. accounted in year 2000 for 27 million technical and economic review, EPA is EPA received no comments on this tons of steel valued at $10.7 billion. The promulgating revised BAT limitations, proposed change, and identified none of products include carbon steel slabs, NSPS and pretreatment standards for the safety or production concerns plate, hot rolled sheet, cold rolled sheet, the cokemaking by-product recovery discussed for semi-wet BOF operations. coated sheet, tin mill products, hot segment based on technologies that are rolled bar and light structural shapes, different than those proposed. The technology bases for the effluent cold finished bar, rebar, welded tube, Specifically, EPA is promulgating limitations guidelines and standards for stainless bar, stainless rod, tool steel, effluent limits based primarily on direct reduced iron segment and the and stainless wire. ammonia still and biological treatment briquetting segment of the new subpart The next phase of the investigation is with nitrification for direct dischargers M (other operations) are unchanged the remedy phase. The ITC voted on a and pretreatment standards based from proposal. In the case of the forging remedy recommendation on December primarily on ammonia still treatment for segment of the new subpart M, the 7, 2001, and forwarded its findings and indirect dischargers. At proposal, EPA technology basis at proposal was remedy recommendations to the had designated the technology option as incorrectly described as high rate President on December 20, 2001. The BAT–1, NSPS–1, PSES–1 and PSNS–1. recycle and oil/water separation. The ITC recommended a four-year program Section VIII.A explains why the Agency technology basis should have been of tariffs and tariff-rate quotas, with is promulgating limitations and described as high rate recycle, oil/water additional ad valorem duties of up to 20 standards based on different model separation, and mixed-media filtration. percent in the first year and declining technologies than EPA proposed for the Section VIII discusses the technology thereafter. cokemaking subcategory. bases for each of these subcategories in The President announced his decision For the sintering subcategory, EPA is more detail. on March 5, 2002, to impose temporary revising the current regulation to add 2. Subcategorization Structure safeguards on key steel products to limitations and standards for one provide relief to those parts of the U.S. additional pollutant, 2,3,7,8- In 2000, EPA proposed a steel industry that have been most tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF), while subcategorization structure that was damaged by import surges. The level of keeping the rest of the limits significantly different from the structure relief varies by product with tariffs of 30 unchanged. The technology basis for in the 1982 iron and steel rule (see 65 percent imposed on imports of plate, new TCDF limitations and standards for FR 81974–81975). Unlike the 1982 rule, hot-rolled sheet, cold-rolled sheet, the sintering subcategory remains EPA proposed to consolidate operations coated sheet, tin mill products, hot- unchanged from the proposal and is the such as salt bath descaling, acid rolled bar, and cold-finished bar and same as the technology basis for the pickling, and other finishing operations tariffs of 15 percent imposed on imports 1982 regulations except for the addition into a single ‘‘Finishing Subcategory.’’ of rebar, stainless steel bar, and stainless of mixed-media filtration. EPA is also Similarly, the Agency proposed to steel rod. Imports of slab are subject to establishing limitations of no discharge consolidate sintering and ironmaking tariff rate quotas. Tariff rate quotas are of process wastewater pollutants for into a single ‘‘Ironmaking Subcategory.’’ two-part tariffs, with imports up to the new and existing direct dischargers and The following table presents a quota subject to a lower duty and new and existing indirect dischargers comparison of the 1982 imports above the quota level subject to for sintering operations with dry air subcategorization scheme and the one a higher duty. In the case of slab, the in- pollution control systems. EPA proposed in 2000:

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64224 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE V.A.1.—SUBCATEGORY COMPARISON OF 1982 AND THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS

Subcategories promulgated in 1982 Subcategories proposed in 2000

A. Cokemaking ...... A. Cokemaking. B. Sintering ...... B. Ironmaking. C. Ironmaking D. Steelmaking ...... C. Integrated Steelmaking ...... D. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Form- ing. E. Vacuum Degassing F. Continuous Casting G. Hot Forming ...... E. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming ... D. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Form- ing. H. Salt Bath Descaling ...... F. Steel Finishing. I. Acid Pickling J. Cold Forming K. Alkaline Cleaning L. Hot Coating G. Other Operations.

The Agency proposed a new make stainless or carbon/alloy steels. structure with the addition of an ‘‘other subcategorization scheme to reflect not Finally, EPA also proposed to eliminate operations’’ subcategory. As a result, the only the modern state of the industry, in from the rule references to the following final rule covers the following 13 terms of both process and wastewater obsolete operations: beehive subcategories: management, but also the experience cokemaking in the cokemaking Subcategory A: Cokemaking (includes that the Agency and other regulatory subcategory, ferromanganese blast by-product and non-recovery entities have gained from implementing furnaces in the ironmaking subcategory, operations) the 1982 iron and steel effluent and open hearth furnace operations in Subcategory B: Sintering, limitations guidelines and standards. the steelmaking subcategory. Subcategory C: Ironmaking, EPA also expected that the revised While EPA did not receive any Subcategory D: Steelmaking (includes subcategorization scheme would comments specific to the proposed basic oxygen furnace and electric arc simplify the regulatory structure and subcategorization scheme, the Agency furnace operations) reflect co-treatment of compatible did receive a number of comments on Subcategory E: Vacuum degassing, wastewaters, which is currently the change in segmentation for the Subcategory F: Continuous casting, practiced by the industry. As a result, cokemaking subcategory. The Subcategory G: Hot forming, many of the proposed subcategories commenters opposed EPA’s proposal to Subcategory H: Salt bath descaling, would have included various operations drop the segmentation on the basis of Subcategory I: Acid pickling, that are regulated under different ‘‘iron and steel’’ and ‘‘merchant’’ coke Subcategory J: Cold forming, segments or subcategories in the 1982 plants; however, the commenters agreed Subcategory K: Alkaline cleaning, rule. EPA also proposed a number of with EPA’s assessment that production Subcategory L: Hot coating, and specialized definitions to support the process and wastewaters from merchant Subcategory M: Other operations subcategorization scheme. coke plants are similar to those from the (includes forging, direct-reduced In addition to the subcategory integrated ‘‘iron and steel’’ facilities. ironmaking, and briquetting). structure, EPA proposed segmentation The Agency also evaluated potential For the cokemaking subcategory, changes in the proposed cokemaking, economic differences between today’s rule combines the ‘‘Iron and integrated and stand alone hot forming, ‘‘merchant’’ and ‘‘iron and steel’’ Steel’’ and ‘‘Merchant’’ segments into a non-integrated and stand alone hot facilities, but did not find substantial newly-created ‘‘By-product’’ forming, finishing, and the integrated differences in profitability or other cokemaking segment for most regulatory steelmaking subcategories. First, EPA factors which might affect economic purposes, although EPA is retaining the proposed to combine two 1982 segments acheivability, although some difference ‘‘Iron and Steel’’ and ‘‘Merchant’’ in the cokemaking subcategory, ‘‘Iron in facility size was observed. Some segments for purposes of reflecting the and Steel’’ and ‘‘Merchant,’’ into a commenters also expressed confusion existing BPT limitations. EPA single ‘‘By-Product Recovery’’ segment regarding the segmentation of stainless concluded that this was appropriate because differences in wastewater flow and carbon/alloy steels. No comments because the production processes, rates observed in the 1982 rulemaking were received on eliminating provisions wastewater characteristics, and are no longer apparent within the for beehive cokemaking, ferromanganese wastewater flow rates from all by- current population of by-product coke blast furnaces, or open hearth furnace product recovery cokemaking plants. In addition to combining all by- operations. operations, including merchant product cokemaking operations into one As explained in Section V.B, based on facilities, are similar. segment, the Agency also proposed a comments, the Agency re-evaluated the EPA is also eliminating the segment new ‘‘Non-Recovery’’ segment to economic conditions and technology in BAT for by-product coke plants with accommodate the two non-recovery bases of the proposed rule. The Agency physical chemical treatment systems. coke plants. Second, for the proposed decided to promulgate new or revised EPA has determined that technology integrated steelmaking and hot forming limits for only five subcategories: basis for BAT limitations promulgated subcategory, the non-integrated cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, in today’s rule are technically and steelmaking and hot forming steelmaking, and other operations. Due economically achievable for all direct subcategory, and the steel finishing to the small number of subcategories discharging by-product coke plants. subcategory, EPA proposed segmenting affected by today’s rule, the Agency has EPA is also creating a new based on whether facilities primarily decided to retain the 1982 subcategory cokemaking segment for non-recovery

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64225

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

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64226 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64227

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

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64228 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

sintering) subcategory if the receiving the dissolved metals is periodically sent 1997) to provide an upper-bound POTW’s operations included effective to wastewater treatment. analysis. For this final rule, EPA operation of a nitrification system. Commenters provided information to employed two additional forecast EPA received several compelling the Agency on the efficiency and methods to reflect to the maximum comments supporting this proposal, and performance of acid purification extent possible the effect of the industry encouraging EPA to extend this technology, which indicated EPA had downturn. The fourth forecasting mechanism to the cokemaking substantially overestimated the method is a six-year average covering subcategory also. No commenters capability of acid purification units in 1995 to 2000, with the years 1998 opposed this mechanism. the proposed rule. No information on through 2000 scaled by industry level Upon a final review of its record, EPA potential alternative pollution control performance. The fifth forecasting continues to believe this waiver is equipment was provided in response to method uses only the year 2000 as a appropriate and agrees with the solicitation for cost and performance lower-bound analysis. commenters that it should apply to the data. The Agency was also unable to The second revision to the economic cokemaking, sintering, and ironmaking acquire sufficient information on methodology since proposal is subcategories. EPA concludes this alterative pollution control technologies modification of the scoring test to waiver will be equally protective of the to provide a best available technology evaluate potential economic impacts. environment and lead to potential cost basis for the effluent limitations EPA calculates the baseline status of a savings for some iron and steel facilities. guidelines and standards. site as the present value of forecasted Thus, ammonia-N pretreatment EPA is aware of a potential problem earnings. With five forecasting methods, standards do not apply to cokemaking, associated with nitrate discharge from there are five ways to evaluate each site. ironmaking, and sintering facilities one stainless steel finishing operation If, using a particular forecast method, a discharging to POTWs with nitrification with combination (hydrofluoric and site’s baseline status is negative capability. As a further point of nitric) acid pickling. It may be that (negative present value of forecasted clarification, EPA is defining similar problems are associated with earnings), EPA assigned a score of ‘‘1’’ nitrification capability as described in discharges coming from similar for that forecasting method. A single the following paragraph. operations in other parts of the country. site, then, may have a score ranging POTWs with nitrification capability Nitrates, when consumed in drinking from zero to five (with five indicating oxidize ammonium salts to nitrites (via water, can be associated with health negative present value of forecasted Nitrosomas bacteria) and then further problems in humans, particularly earnings under all five forecasts). oxidize nitrites to nitrates via infants. EPA expects this problem to be Similar to the methodology at proposal, Nitrobacter bacteria to achieve greater addressed through BAT limitations EPA considers any sites with negative removals of ammonia than POTWs established on a site-specific best present value of forecasted earnings in without nitrification. Nitrification can professional judgment basis or through the majority of cases (in this case, a be accomplished in either a single or water quality-based effluent limitations. score of ‘‘3’’ or higher) to be a baseline two-stage activated sludge system. In For further discussion of the possible closure. addition, POTWs that have wetlands technological alternatives for nitrate Then for all sites considered viable in which are developed and maintained for control in site-specific circumstances, the baseline, EPA calculates the post- the express purpose of removing please see Chapter 8 of the TDD. regulatory status of a site as the present ammonia with a marsh/pond value of forecasted earnings minus the configuration are also examples of B. Decisions Regarding Methodology after-tax present value of regulatory having nitrification capability. 1. Economic Analysis Methodology costs. With five forecasting methods, Indicators of nitrification capability are: there are five ways to evaluate each site. (1) biological monitoring for ammonia This section presents several If, using a particular forecast method, a oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and nitrite important adjustments made to the site’s post-regulatory status is negative oxidizing bacteria (NOB) to determine if methodology since proposal. A more (after-tax present value of regulatory the nitrification is occurring, and (2) detailed discussion of EPA’s costs exceeds present value of analysis of the nitrogen balance to methodology for analyzing the forecasted earnings), EPA assigned a determine if nitrifying bacteria reduce economic achievability of the candidate score of ‘‘1’’ for that forecasting method. the amount of ammonia and increase BAT options is presented in Section X.C A single site, then, may have a score the amount of nitrite and nitrate. of this preamble and in the EA. ranging from zero to five (with five In response to the challenges indicating that the after-tax present 9. Nitrates in Acid Pickling Wastewater represented by the significant industry value of regulatory costs exceeds In today’s final rule, EPA is not downturn described in Section IV, EPA present value of forecasted earnings establishing nitrate limits for acid made two revisions to the economic under all five forecasts). In an effort to pickling operations. The model BAT analysis methodology it employed at reflect the significant industry technology for stainless steel finishing proposal. In the case of forecasting downturn, the Agency has chosen to operations includes acid purification future industry cash flows, the Agency reflect any incremental change in the units for recovery and reuse of spent added two additional forecast methods score from the baseline condition to the nitric and nitric/hydrofluoric acid to the three used in the proposal. Two post-regulatory condition due to pickling solutions. This technology of the models used at proposal regulatory compliance costs as a comprises removal of dissolved metals explicitly address the sharp downturn potential closure. (e.g., iron, chromium, nickel) from a in the industry after 1997 but differ in One additional item of note was side stream of the strong acid pickling reflecting the strength and duration of incorporated into the economic analysis solution and return of the purified acid recovery and subsequent downturns. of the rule since proposal. Two to the acid pickling bath. This That is, both address the cyclicality seen proposed rules being undertaken by the essentially extends the life of the in the iron and steel industry, but with Agency’s Office of Air Quality Planning pickling acids, thereby reducing the differing magnitudes and timing. The and Standards may impact iron and consumption of virgin nitric acid. A third forecasting method used at steel facilities potentially subject to the reject stream containing dilute acid and proposal is a three-year average (1995 to current rule: Coke Ovens: Pushing,

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64229

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

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64230 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

instances, EPA needed to develop a considering revising its traditional in the midwest and northeast. The methodology to estimate these methodology for determining POTW smaller stand-alone forming and concentrations. Consequently, for each performance. Specifically, it discussed finishing facilities are generally located subcategory under consideration, where and requested comment on possible near larger steel manufacturing sites. site-specific data are available EPA revisions to the methodology EPA uses EPA has identified general processes calculated the site-specific baseline to calculate POTW percent removals typically found at iron and steel concentrations for each pollutant before using data from the ‘‘Fate of Priority facilities. The following is a brief averaging the site-specific values across Pollutants in Publically Owned description of these key manufacturing the subcategory to obtain the Treatment Works’’ (EPA 440/1–82/303, processes. subcategory-specific average baseline September 1982), commonly referred to Cokemaking concentrations. These values were then as the ‘‘50–POTW Study.’’ See 65 FR applied to facilities and/or pollutants 82012–82013. This process turns carbon in raw coal for which EPA lacked specific data. For EPA received only one comment on into metallurgical coke, which is some subcategories, EPA estimated the methodology changes. As these subsequently used in the ironmaking baseline concentrations for different changes would affect a wide range of process. There are two types of technologies, while for others it industries, EPA had hoped to engage a cokemaking operations: By-product and developed a single set of concentration much broader audience. Consequently, non-recovery. In by-product coke plants, estimates. At the time of the proposal, for this final rule, EPA continues to use metallurgical coke is produced by EPA eliminated data from facilities that its traditional approach. EPA also distilling coal in refractory-lined, slot- were used in its LTA calculations (i.e., performed its analyses using the revised type ovens at high temperatures in the ‘‘BAT facilities’’). After a review methodology. EPA found that its absence of air. In non-recovery coke following the proposal, EPA realized conclusions would be the same using plants, coal is made into coke in that this procedure assumed that all either methodology. negative pressure, higher temperature facilities for which EPA did not have As a further point of clarification, coke ovens. specific pollutant loading calculations EPA also noticed the possible revisions In by-product coke operations, the were performing at a level less than in its POTW performance methodology moisture and volatile components BAT. EPA’s database does not support in its proposed Metal Products and generated from the coal distillation this conclusion. Consequently, for the Machinery (MP&M) effluent guidelines process are collected and processed to final rule, EPA has included all data, and standards (66 FR 424). EPA is recover by-products, such as crude coal including that representing ‘‘BAT currently re-visiting this issue for that tars, light crude oil, etc. Another type of facilities,’’ in its average pollutant rulemaking. cokemaking process is performed in baseline calculations. non-recovery plants. These facilities use VI. Scope/Applicability of the In addition, for the proposal, EPA higher temperature ovens which destroy Regulation estimated baseline pollutant volatile organics, and they do not concentrations for indirect and direct The universe of facilities that are recover any by-products. Furthermore, dischargers separately. After a review of subject to 40 CFR part 420 includes their negative pressure coke ovens also its record, EPA recognized that, except facilities engaged in iron and steel ensure no leakage of air and smoke to for conventional pollutants, effluent making operations using blast furnaces, the atmosphere. pollutant concentrations are largely basic oxygen furnaces (BOFs), or electric In by-product coke plants, wastewater dependent on the treatment technology arc furnaces (EAFs). Part 420 also such as waste ammonia liquor is used rather than a facility’s discharge applies to metallurgical cokemaking generated from moisture contained in status. This is not the case for facilities and stand-alone facilities the coal charge to the coke ovens, and conventional pollutants, however, engaged in hot forming and/or finishing some wastewater is generated from the because most indirect dischargers are of steel. In a change from the 1982 by-product recovery operations. The not required to control or optimize their regulations, today’s rule also applies to non-recovery coke plants, on the other treatment systems for the removal of facilities engaged in other related hand, do not generate any process conventional pollutants because they operations such as direct iron reduction, wastewater. are treated by the receiving POTW. forging, and iron briquetting. On the Consequently, for the final rule, except other hand, today’s rule no longer Sintering for conventional pollutants, EPA has not applies to obsolete operations such as Sinter plants upgrade the iron content distinguished between direct and beehive cokemaking, ferromanganese of ores and recover iron from a mixture indirect discharging facilities in blast furnaces and open hearth furnaces. of wastewater treatment sludges, mill estimating baseline pollutant A detailed discussion of iron and steel scale from integrated steel mills, and concentrations. Chapter 11 in the TDD wastewaters is provided in Chapter 7 of fine coke particles (also known as coke contains additional information on the TDD. In summary, all wastewater breeze) from cokemaking operations. In EPA’s pollutant loadings and average discharged to a receiving stream or sinter plants, the iron source mixture is baseline concentration calculations. introduced to a publicly owned combined with limestone and charged treatment works from a facility that is to a furnace. Sinter of suitable size and 5. Determination of POTW Percent within the scope of one of the subparts weight is formed for charging to the Removal Estimates is subject to the provisions of part 420. blast furnace. Wastewaters are generated In its analyses at the time of the See 40 CFR 420.01(a). from wet air pollution control devices proposal, EPA used its traditional on the wind box and discharge ends of VII. Industry Description approach to determine POTW the sinter furnace. No process performance (percent removal). POTW EPA estimates there are 254 facilities wastewater is generated from dry air performance is a critical component of owned by 115 companies in the iron pollution control systems. the pass-through methodology EPA uses and steel industry. The iron and steel to identify pollutants to be regulated for facilities are located throughout the U.S. Ironmaking PSES and PSNS. In addition, the with a high concentration of integrated In ironmaking, blast furnaces are used proposal discussed that EPA was steelmaking and cokemaking facilities to produce molten iron, which makes

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64231

up about two-thirds of the charge to Casting ability to hold paint. Wastewaters result basic oxygen steelmaking furnaces. The This process continuously casts the principally from cleaning operations raw materials charged to the top of the molten steel into semi-finished shapes prior to the molten bath. blast furnace include coke, limestone, after the vacuum degassing and/or ladle Direct-Reduced Ironmaking (DRI) refined iron ores, and sinter. Preheated metallurgy processes. The continuous This process produces relatively pure air is blown into the bottom of the casting machine includes a receiving furnace and exits the furnace top as vessel for molten steel, water-cooled iron by reducing iron ore in a furnace blast furnace gas in enclosed piping. molds, secondary cooling water sprays, below the melting point of the iron The off-gas is cleaned and cooled in a containment rolls, oxygen-acetylene produced. DRI is used as a substitute for combination of dry dust catchers and torches for cutoff, and a runout table. scrap steel in non-integrated high-energy venturi scrubbers. Direct Wastewater is generated by a direct steelmaking process to minimize contact water used in the gas coolers contact water system used for spray contaminant levels in the melted steel and high-energy scrubbers comprises cooling and for flume flushing to and to allow economic steel production nearly all of the wastewater from transport scale from below the caster when market prices for scrap are high. Process wastewaters are generated from ironmaking blast furnace operations. runout table. The other main casting operation type is ingot casting, in which air pollution control devices. Steelmaking molten steel is poured into ingot molds. Briquetting Steelmaking in the United States is Hot Forming This process of agglomeration forms conducted either in basic oxygen In this process, ingots, blooms, billets, materials into discrete shapes of furnaces (BOFs) or electric arc furnaces slabs, or rounds are heated to rolling sufficient size, strength, and weight so (EAFs). BOFs are typically used for high temperatures so that the products will that the material can serve as feed for tonnage production of carbon steels at form under mechanical pressure into subsequent processes. Briquetting does integrated mills, while EAFs are used to semi-finished shapes for further hot or not generate process wastewater. produce carbon steels and low tonnage cold rolling or as finished shapes. Forging alloy and specialty steels at non- Process water is used for scale breaking, This is a hot forming operation in integrated mills. flume flushing, and direct contact which a metal piece is shaped by cooling. Integrated steel mills use BOFs to hammering or by processing in a refine a metallic charge consisting of Salt Bath Descaling hydraulic press. Process wastewaters are approximately two-thirds molten iron generated from direct contact cooling and one-third steel scrap. Off-gases from Oxidizing and reducing molten salt baths are used to remove heavy scale water. the furnace are controlled by one of The data collected for this rulemaking three wet air pollution control methods: from specialty and high-alloy steels. Process wastewaters originate from indicate that, in the past 25 years, much Semi-wet, wet-open, and wet- of the steel manufacturing industry has suppressed. Wastewaters are generated quenching and rinsing operations conducted after processing in the shifted from generally larger, older from the wet air pollution control integrated facilities to newer, smaller devices. On the other hand, non- molten salt baths. Electrolytic sodium sulfate descaling is performed on non-integrated facilities. In addition, integrated mills use EAFs to melt and stainless steels for essentially the same there is a substantial trend toward the refine a metallic charge of scrap steel. In purposes as salt bath descaling. establishment of specialized, stand- addition, most mills operate EAFs with alone finishing facilities that process dry air cleaning systems, which produce Acid Pickling semi-finished sheet, strip, bars, and rods no process wastewater discharges. There Solutions of various acids are used to obtained from integrated or non- are a small number of wet and semi-wet remove oxide scale from the surfaces of integrated facilities. systems. semi-finished products prior to further Of the 254 iron and steel manufacturing facilities, approximately Vacuum Degassing/Ladle Metallurgy processing by cold rolling, cold drawing, and subsequent cleaning and 133 discharge directly to surface waters Vacuum degassing is a batch process coating operations. Process wastewaters of the U.S., 70 discharge indirectly to where molten steel is subjected to a include spent pickling acids, rinse POTWs, and 56 facilities achieve zero vacuum for composition control, waters, and pickling line fume scrubber discharge (either because they do not temperature control, deoxidation, water. generate process wastewater or because they dispose of their process wastewater degassing, decarburization, and the Cold Forming removal of impurities from the steel. through underground injection or other Oxygen and hydrogen are the principal Cold forming is conducted on hot methods not directly involving waters of gases removed from the steel. In most rolled and pickled steels at ambient the United States). Some facilities may degassing systems, the vacuum is temperatures to impart desired discharge both directly to surface waters provided by barometric condensers; mechanical and surface properties in of the U.S. and to POTWs. In 1997, thus, direct contact between the gases the steel. Process wastewater process wastewater discharges ranged and the barometric water occurs. characteristics result from using from less than 200 gallons per day for synthetic or animal-fat based rolling a stand-alone finisher to more than 50 Likewise, ladle metallurgy is also a solutions, many of which are million gallons per day for a larger batch process where molten steel is proprietary. integrated facility. refined in addition to, or in place of, vacuum degassing. These operations Hot Coating VIII. The Final Regulation include argon bubbling, argon-oxygen This process immerses pre-cleaned For a detailed discussion of all decarburization (AOD), electroslag steel into baths of molten metal. Hot technology options considered in the remelting (ESR), and lance injection. coating is typically used to improve development of today’s final rule, see These additional refining operations do resistance to corrosion, and for some the proposal (65 FR at 81982–82096) not generate any process water. products, to improve appearance and and Chapter 9 of the TDD.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64232 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Based on the record before it, EPA has provided that the new source was EPA is not revising the existing BPT determined that each model technology constructed to meet those new limitations. EPA has chosen as a basis for today’s standards. EPA is also retaining by cross EPA is establishing BPT limitations revised BAT and PSES limitations is reference, the pretreatment standards for for the non-recovery segment of the technically available. EPA has also new sources previously promulgated for cokemaking subcategory. These determined that each is economically Subparts A and B for facilities limitations are: no discharge of process achievable for the segment to which it constructed between November 19, 2012 wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.1 applies. Further, EPA has determined, and November 18, 2002, except that of the TDD for more information about for the reasons set forth in this section, EPA is rescinding the pretreatment what constitutes process wastewater for that none of the chosen technologies has standards for phenols for Subpart A this segment. Because non-recovery unacceptable adverse non-water quality because EPA has determined in this cokemaking operations do not generate environmental impacts. Finally, EPA rulemaking that phenol (measured as any process wastewater, the Agency has determined that each chosen 4AAP) does not pass through with concludes that non-recovery technology achieves greater pollutant respect to the cokemaking subcategory. cokemaking operation itself represents removals than any other economically This implements the provisions of the best practicable technology achievable technology considered by CWA Section 306(d), which provides currently available and that no EPA and, for that reason, also represents that new sources may not be regulated discharge of process wastewater the best technology among those to achieve more stringent technology- pollutants is a reasonable BPT considered for the particular segment. based limitations (e.g., revised BAT) for limitation. For the same reason, the EPA also considered the age, size, pollutants regulated by NSPS for Agency concludes that there are no processes, and other engineering factors approximately ten years following costs associated with achieving this pertinent to facilities in the proposed completion of construction. EPA’s limitation, and expects that no segments for the purpose of evaluating regulations at 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1) additional pollutant removals the technology options. None of these specify the precise duration of this grace attributable to this segment will occur. factors provides a basis for selecting period. Thereafter, the discharger is 2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control different technologies than those EPA subject to any more stringent applicable Technology (BCT) has selected as its model BAT and PSES BPT/BCT/BAT limitations. This means technologies for today’s rule. that facilities currently subject to the In deciding whether to adopt different In selecting its NSPS technologies for 1982 NSPS or PSNS remain subject to BCT limits, EPA considered whether the segments and subcategories being those standards during a ten-year period there are technologies that achieve revised today, EPA considered all of the beginning on the date of completion of greater removals of conventional factors specified in CWA Section 306, the new source or during the period of pollutants than adopted for BPT, and including the cost of achieving effluent depreciation or amortization of such whether those technologies are cost- reductions. The NSPS technologies for facility, whichever period ends first. reasonable under the standards these segments are presently being After such time, the BAT and PSES established by the CWA, and employed at facilities in each segment limitations promulgated today apply to implemented through regulation. EPA of these subcategories. Therefore, EPA those dischargers for toxic and generally refers to the decision criteria has concluded that such costs do not nonconventional pollutants. For direct as the ‘‘BCT cost test.’’ EPA is not present a barrier to entry. The Agency dischargers, limitations on conventional revising any existing BCT limitations for also considered energy requirements pollutants will be based on the formerly the by-products recovery segment of this and other non-water quality promulgated BPT/BCT limitations subcategory (which in the 1982 environmental impacts for the NSPS corresponding to the BPT/BCT segment regulation was divided between ‘‘iron options and concluded that these applicable to the discharger or on the and steel’’ and ‘‘merchant’’ coke plants) impacts are acceptable. EPA therefore 1982 NSPS for conventional pollutants, because there are no technologies that concluded that the NSPS technology whichever is more stringent. achieve greater removals of bases chosen for these segments conventional pollutants than the A. Cokemaking Subcategory constitute the best available technology basis for the current BPT demonstrated control technology for EPA is promulgating limits and and pass the BCT cost test. those segments. (These findings also standards for two segments within the For the non-recovery segment of this apply to the PSNS for these segments.) cokemaking subcategory: by-products subcategory, EPA identified no EPA is making no changes to the BPT recovery cokemaking, and non-recovery technologies that can achieve greater and BCT limitations previously cokemaking. EPA is also removing the removals of conventional pollutants promulgated for part 420, except for beehive cokemaking segment from the than those that are the basis for BPT revisions to BPT and BCT limitations for cokemaking subcategory because the (i.e., the non-recovery cokemaking semi-wet BOF operations and the beehive process of cokemaking is operations resulting in no discharge) deletion of limitations for obsolete obsolete and has not been used in the and, therefore, it cannot perform the operations (beehive cokemaking in the United States for over 25 years. BCT cost test. Accordingly, EPA is cokemaking subcategory, adopting BCT effluent limitations equal ferromanganese blast furnaces in the 1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT) to the BPT effluent limitations for the ironmaking subcategory, and open non-recovery segment of this hearth furnace operations in the EPA is not revising any existing BPT subcategory. steelmaking subcategory). Similarly, limitations for the by-products recovery EPA is retaining, by cross reference to segment of this subcategory (which in 3. Best Available Technology title 40 of the Code of Federal the 1982 regulation was divided Economically Achievable (BAT) Regulations, revised as of July 1, 2001, between ‘‘iron and steel’’ and EPA is establishing BAT limits for the NSPS promulgated in 1982 in ‘‘merchant’’ coke plants). EPA did not both the by-products recovery and for Subparts A and B for new sources that propose such revisions, but did solicit the non-recovery segments of the commenced discharge after November comment on the issue in the notice. EPA cokemaking subcategory. 19, 2012 but before November 18, 2002, received no comment on the issue, so a. By-products recovery segment.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64233

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

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64234 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64235

pretreatment standard for ammonia-N. recycle and metals precipitation, this segment reflects the 1982 This is because EPA has determined alkaline chlorination, and mixed-media technology basis of the existing that ammonia-N does not pass through filtration of blowdown wastewater. This limitations with the addition of mixed- such POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for was known as Ironmaking BAT1. At the media filtration. 2,3,7,8-TCDF is one of more details. time, EPA determined that the option a number of extremely toxic congeners b. Non-recovery segment. was technically and economically of the dioxin/furan family of Based on EPA’s evaluation of pass- achievable. compounds. During four EPA sampling through and EPA’s recognition that no In addition, EPA had proposed to episodes, several of these congeners process wastewater is generated in regulate phenol instead of the group were found in both the raw and treated connection with non-recovery parameter phenol (measured at 4AAP). wastewater from sinter plants operating cokemaking, EPA is today promulgating EPA had also proposed to add 2,3,7,8- wet air pollution control technologies. PSNS for the non-recovery segment of TCDF to the list of regulated parameters EPA chose to use 2,3,7,8-TCDF as an the cokemaking subcategory based on for sintering operations with wet air indicator parameter for the whole family the same technologies selected as the pollution control systems and for blast of dioxin/furan congeners for several basis for PSES for this segment. These furnace segment where the wastewater reasons. First, 2,3,7,8-TCDF is the most standards are: No discharge of process is co-treated with sintering wastewater. toxic of the congeners found in treated wastewater pollutants. Because non- Finally, EPA had proposed that sintering wastewater. Second, 2,3,7,8- recovery cokemaking operations do not sintering facilities would need to meet TCDF was the most prevalent of the generate any process wastewater, EPA the proposed total residual chlorine dioxin/furan congeners in these has determined that the technology (TRC) limitation only if they employ wastewaters. Finally, 2,3,7,8-TCDF is basis for today’s PSNS does not present chlorination in their wastewater chemically similar to the other dioxin/ a barrier to entry, and that there will be treatment. furan congeners and its removal will no additional energy requirements or EPA revisited its proposal for several similarly indicate removal of the other non-water quality environmental reasons. First, commenters noted that, congeners. impacts. by regulating the compound phenol The TCDF limit is expressed as instead of the bulk parameter phenols B. Sintering Subcategory ‘‘

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64236 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

standards for subpart B, the limitation concentrations to non-detectable levels. wastewater. See Chapter 16.8.3 of the for 2,3,7,8-TCDF will continue to be This is true even for raw wastewater TDD. associated with the minimum level that has undergone no other treatment. EPA is also promulgating, as specified today in Section § 420.21(c). EPA has determined that the costs of proposed, a provision that sintering implementing mixed-media filtration, facilities need not meet the current total 1. Best Practicable Control Technology including the costs of compliance residual chlorine (TRC) limitations if (BPT)/Best Conventional Pollutant monitoring, are economically achievable they do not employ chlorination in the Control Technology (BCT) because EPA predicts no adverse wastewater treatment technology. a. Sintering operations with wet air economic impacts. See Section X. b. Sintering operations with dry air pollution control. Therefore, EPA has determined that pollution control. EPA is leaving unchanged BPT mixed-media filtration in addition to the EPA is adopting BAT limitations for limitations currently in effect for the 1982 technology basis is the best the sintering operations with dry air sintering subcategory, now codified in available technology economically pollution control segment of the the new segment for sintering achievable for the removal of 2,3,7,8- sintering subcategory based on the same operations with wet air pollution TCDF. technologies selected as the basis for control systems. Survey responses indicate that it is BPT for this segment. These limitations b. Sintering operations with dry air common practice for facilities to are: no discharge of process wastewater pollution control. combine their sintering wastewater with pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.2 of the TDD EPA is establishing BPT/BCT other iron and steel wastewaters prior to for more information about what limitations for the sintering operations discharge to the receiving waterbodies. constitutes process wastewater for this with dry air pollution control segment This combination results in dilution of segment. EPA identified no technologies of the sintering subcategory. These dioxin and furan concentrations to that can achieve greater removals of limitations are: no discharge of process levels below the detection limit toxic and non-conventional pollutants wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.2 specified in the analytical method. than those that are the basis for BPT of the TDD for more information about Because EPA wants to ensure that (i.e., the sintering operations with dry what constitutes process wastewater for dioxin and furan congeners have been air pollution control resulting in no this segment. Because sintering removed from the wastewater and not discharge.) EPA has also determined operations with dry air pollution control simply diluted (to ensure that the that this basis is economically do not generate any process wastewater, limitations reflect the actual reductions achievable, because no facilities the Agency concludes that sintering that can be achieved using the BAT currently discharge process wastewater operation with dry air pollution control technology), EPA is requiring all pollutants. Therefore, EPA is itself represents the best practicable facilities to monitor for 2,3,7,8-TCDF at promulgating BAT limitations equal to technology currently available and that a point prior to co-mingling with any BPT. no discharge of process wastewater non-sintering or non-blast furnace 3. New Source Performance Standards pollutants is a reasonable BPT/BCT operations. See 40 CFR 420.29. The only (NSPS) limitation. For the same reason, the exception to this rule is that facilities Agency concludes that there are no may co-mingle ancillary non-blast a. Sintering operations with wet air costs associated with achieving this furnace wastewater (comprising 5% of pollution control. limitation, and expects that no total flow or less) with their sintering For sintering operation with wet air additional pollutant removals wastewater. See Chapter 16.8.3 of the pollution control system in the sintering attributable to this segment will occur. TDD. subcategory, EPA is promulgating a new EPA analyzed requiring facilities to source performance standard for 2,3,7,8- 2. Best Available Technology monitor for 2,3,7,8-TCDF prior to TCDF based on: clarification, high-rate Economically Achievable (BAT) combination with any other waste recycle, metals precipitation, alkaline a. Sintering operations with wet air streams including blast furnace chlorination (if treated with blast pollution control. wastewater. Three of the five sintering furnace wastewaters) and mixed-media The technology basis for the 2,3,7,8- wastewater treatment systems have blast filtration. This technology basis is the TCDF limitation is mixed-media furnace wastewater recycle systems that same that exists for the 1982 regulation, filtration in addition to the 1982 are joined with them. EPA determined with the addition of mixed-media technology basis. Although none of the that facilities would more likely shut filtration. EPA is leaving unchanged all sampled facilities has this technology in down their sintering operations rather other NSPS for the sintering place (at or prior to the compliance than incur the cost of separating the two subcategory. The mixed-media filtration monitoring point), EPA concludes that systems. EPA determined that this technology used to control 2,3,7,8-TCDF this technology will result in the economic impact is not reasonable in at existing facilities is fully applicable to removal of this congener, and thus all light of the fact that removal efficiencies new facilities. Furthermore, EPA did not the dioxin/furan congeners, below the are not significantly improved by identify any technically feasible options method detection limit, because dioxins separating the two wastewater streams, that provide greater environmental and furans are hydrophobic compounds, and thus is specifying that facilities protection. In addition, EPA determines meaning they tend to adhere to solids with combined blast furnace and the technology basis does not constitute present in a solution. Thus removal of sintering wastewater recycling systems a barrier to entry because the technology the solids, which is accomplished by may monitor for 2,3,7,8-TCDF after basis was economically achievable for mixed-media filtration, will result in these two waste streams are combined, existing sources, and new sources removal of the dioxins/furans adhering but before co-mingling with any non- would face lower costs due to absence to them as well. Furthermore, EPA has sintering or non blast-furnace of retrofit costs. See Chapter 10 for the data from two sampling episodes at operations. See 40 CFR 420.29. The only discussion in the TDD. The Agency sinter plants demonstrating that exception to this rule is that facilities considered energy requirements and filtration of wastewater samples may co-mingle ancillary non-blast other non-water quality environmental containing dioxins and furans at furnace wastewater (comprising 5% of impacts and found no basis for any treatable levels will reduce their total flow or less) with their sintering different standards than the selected

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64237

NSPS. Therefore, EPA is promulgating would not be subject to the pretreatment ammonia-N does not pass through such NSPS for TCDF for the sintering standard for ammonia-N. This is POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for more subcategory that is identical to the because EPA has determined that details. TCDF limitation being promulgated as ammonia-N does not pass through such b. Sintering operations with dry air BAT. In addition, for the reasons set POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for more pollution control. forth in Section VIII.B.2.a, EPA is details. Based on EPA’s evaluation of pass- requiring facilities to monitor for b. Sintering operations with dry air through and EPA’s recognition that no compliance with the TCDF standard at pollution control. process wastewater is generated in a point prior to co-mingling with any Based on EPA’s evaluation of pass- connection with sintering operations non-sintering or non-blast furnace through and EPA’s recognition that no with dry air pollution control, EPA is operations. See 40 CFR 420.29. The only process wastewater is generated in today promulgating PSNS for the exception to this rule is that facilities connection with sintering operations sintering operations with dry air may co-mingle ancillary non-blast with dry air pollution control, EPA is pollution control segment of the furnace wastewater (comprising 5% of today promulgating PSES limitations for sintering subcategory based on the same total flow or less) with their sintering the sintering operations with dry air technologies selected as the basis for wastewater. See Chapter 16.8.3 of the pollution control segment of the PSES for this segment. These standards TDD. sintering subcategory based on the same are: no discharge of process wastewater b. Sintering operations with dry air technologies selected as the basis for pollutants. Because sintering operations pollution control. BPT for this segment. These standards with dry air pollution control do not EPA is promulgating NSPS limitations are: no discharge of process wastewater generate any process wastewater, EPA for the sintering operations with dry air pollutants. There are no incremental has determined that the technology pollution control segment of the costs associated with compliance, and basis for today’s PSNS does not present sintering subcategory based on the same therefore, no economic impacts. a barrier to entry, and that there will be technologies selected as the basis for Consequently, EPA has determined the no additional energy requirements or BPT for this segment. These limitations technologies are economically non-water quality environmental are: no discharge of process wastewater achievable. impacts. pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.2 of the TDD 5. Pretreatment Standards for New C. Ironmaking Subcategory for more information about what Sources (PSNS) constitutes process wastewater for this EPA is leaving unchanged all segment. Because sintering operations a. Sintering operations with wet air limitations currently in effect for this with dry air pollution control do not pollution control. subcategory, except to delete the generate any process wastewater, EPA Based on EPA’s evaluation of pass- limitations for the obsolete has determined that the technology through potential, 2,3,7,8-TCDF will ferromanganese blast furnaces and to basis for today’s NSPS does not present pass through, and thus EPA is establish a mechanism by which a barrier to entry, and that there will be promulgating a PSNS standard for ironmaking facilities discharging to no additional energy requirements or 2,3,7,8-TCDF equal to PSES for the POTWs with nitrification capability non-water quality environmental sintering subcategory. EPA considered would not be subject to the pretreatment impacts. the cost of the PSES technology for new standard for ammonia-N. EPA had facilities in this segment. In addition, proposed revised effluent limitations 4. Pretreatment Standards for Existing EPA determines the technology basis guidelines and standards for this Sources (PSES) does not constitute a barrier to entry subcategory, which included both a. Sintering operations with wet air because the technology basis was sintering and blast furnace ironmaking pollution control. economically achievable for existing operations, under BAT, NSPS, PSES, Based on EPA’s evaluation of pass- sources, and new sources would face and PSNS. The proposed technology through potential, 2,3,7,8-TCDF will lower costs due to absence of retrofit basis for the BAT and NSPS limits was pass through, and thus EPA is a costs. The Agency considered energy solids removal, high-rate recycle, metals promulgating PSES standard for 2,3,7,8- requirements and other non-water precipitation, alkaline chlorination, and TCDF equal to the BAT effluent quality environmental impacts and mixed-media filtration of blowdown limitation for the sintering operation found no basis for any different wastewater. This was known as with wet air pollution control system in standard than the selected PSNS. In Ironmaking option BAT1. The proposed the sintering subcategory. Similar to addition, for the reasons set forth, EPA technology basis for the PSES and PSNS direct dischargers, EPA concludes that is requiring facilities to monitor for standards was the same as BAT1, but indirect discharging sintering operations compliance with the TCDF standard at without alkaline chlorination and must monitor at a point prior to co- a point prior to co-mingling with any mixed-media filtration. This was known mingling with any non-sintering or non- non-sintering or non-blast furnace as Ironmaking option PSES1. blast furnace operations. See 40 CFR operations. See 40 CFR 420.29. The only EPA revisited these decisions for two 420.29. The only exception to this rule exception to this rule is that facilities reasons. First, commenters noted that, is that facilities may co-mingle ancillary may co-mingle ancillary non-blast by regulating the compound phenol non-blast furnace wastewater furnace wastewater (comprising 5% of instead of the bulk parameter phenols (comprising 5% of total flow or less) total flow or less) with their sintering (4AAP), facilities would not be able to with their sintering wastewater. See wastewater. See Chapter 16.8.3 of the qualify for the CWA Section 301(g) Chapter 16.8.3 of the TDD. To EPA’s TDD. variances that are currently an knowledge, there are no existing In today’s action, EPA is also important part of their compliance indirect dischargers of sintering establishing a mechanism by which strategy, and that EPA had not taken wastewater. sintering facilities discharging to this into account when performing its In today’s action, EPA is also POTWs with nitrification capability cost analysis. Accordingly, EPA has establishing a mechanism by which would not be subject to the pretreatment decided to continue to regulate the bulk sintering facilities discharging to standard for ammonia-N. This is parameter phenols (4AAP). See Section POTWs with nitrification capability because EPA has determined that V.A.4 for further details about this issue.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64238 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Second, increased performance of high- included with wastewaters from This technology option would have rate recycle system is the major vacuum degassing operations and applied to all existing direct and difference between the proposed BAT1 continuous casting operations to make indirect discharging facilities (BAT/ technology basis and the 1982 up the ‘‘Integrated Steelmaking’’ PSES) and was known as non-integrated technology basis. Commenters using subcategory. Hot forming operations steelmaking and hot forming Option pulverized coal injection in their blast that took place either at integrated mills BAT1. After considering comments furnaces pointed out that they had or were not associated directly with objecting to EPA’s methodology at learned through experience that recycle steelmaking operations were to be proposal of estimating costs and of ironmaking wastewater at the high covered by the ‘‘Integrated and Stand loadings, EPA performed a new costing rate described in the proposal leads to Alone Hot Forming’’ subcategory. and loadings analyses. See TDD a buildup of chlorides in the recycle Wastewaters from electric arc furnaces Chapters 10 and 11. Judging from the system and the wet scrubber, which can were included with wastewaters from installation costs and the pollutant cause extensive corrosion damage in the vacuum degassing operations, reductions associated with these piping, premature equipment failure, continuous casting operations and hot treatment technologies, EPA concluded and lengthy production interruptions. forming operations to make up the that the technology simply was not the Other commenters not using pulverized ‘‘Non-integrated and Stand Alone Hot best available to achieve pollutant coal injection also provided information Forming’’ subcategory. The purpose of removals (EPA estimated that the on operational problems associated with this revised subcategorization scheme technology could remove approximately elevated dissolved solids levels in the was to recognize typical wastewater 230 pound-equivalents per year at an recycle system at recycle rates higher combination and treatment practices at estimated cost of $2,069 per lb-eq for than described in the proposal. existing steel mills. direct discharging stainless segment, Therefore, EPA has determined that The proposed revised and 3,891 pound-equivalents per year at BAT1 and PSES1 are not the best subcategorization scheme also an estimated cost of $941 per lb-eq in available technologies for existing blast distinguished between those facilities the direct discharging carbon and alloy furnace ironmaking operations or the making primarily carbon and alloy segment, and 78 pound-equivalents per best available demonstrated steels from those making primarily year at an estimated cost of $1,970 per technologies for new blast furnace stainless steels. This differentiation was lb-eq for the indirect discharging ironmaking operations. EPA has also proposed for ‘‘Non-integrated and Stand stainless segment). concluded that, because the proposed Alone Hot Forming,’’ ‘‘Integrated and The proposed effluent limitations limits and standards for the ironmaking Stand Alone Hot Forming,’’ and guidelines and standards for new subcategory are not being promulgated, ‘‘Finishing’’ subcategories. sources in the ‘‘Non-integrated it is not necessary to combine the two For reasons discussed below, Steelmaking and Hot Forming’’ 1982 subcategories (sintering and however, EPA is not promulgating new subcategory (NSPS/PSNS) were: No ironmaking) into a single subcategory as effluent limitations guidelines and discharge of process wastewater proposed. standards for any of the proposed pollutants. EPA has not adopted these EPA had proposed limits and revised subcategories. Therefore, EPA is limits and standards because, after standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF for the not adopting the proposed further reviewing the rulemaking ironmaking subcategory, but it was to subcategorization scheme. Changing the record, EPA determined that these apply only to facilities that combined subcategorization scheme only made guidelines and standards were not their blast furnace and sintering sense when EPA believed it would appropriate because it is not always wastewater. 2,3,7,8-TCDF was not found promulgate new limits and standards for possible, or even desirable, for non- in the blast furnace wastewater. By the new subcategories. integrated steelmaking facilities to preserving the 1982 subcategorization The proposed effluent limitations design and operate their manufacturing scheme and promulgating limits and guidelines and standards for the processes to achieve zero discharge. The standards for the compound in the ‘‘Integrated Steelmaking’’ subcategory Agency has identified technical barriers sintering subcategory, EPA has had as its technology basis: Solids to achieving zero discharge via addressed this issue, and is therefore removal, cooling tower, high-rate evaporative uses such as electrode spray not promulgating limits and standards recycle, and metals precipitation. This cooling and slag quenching, particularly for 2,3,7,8-TCDF for the ironmaking technology option applied to all new for hot forming wastewater. subcategory. and existing direct and indirect EPA is promulgating revised BPT, In today’s action, EPA is also discharging facilities (BAT/NSPS/PSES/ BAT, BCT, and PSES limitations and establishing a mechanism by which PSNS) and was known as integrated standards for one segment of the ironmaking facilities discharging to steelmaking Option BAT1. EPA is not steelmaking subcategory—basic oxygen POTWs with nitrification capability promulgating effluent limitations and furnaces with semi-wet air pollution would not be subject to the pretreatment standards based on this technology control, and is establishing NSPS, PSES, standard for ammonia-N. This is because it determined that it was not and PSNS limitations and standards for because EPA has determined that economically achievable. The proposed another segment of the steelmaking ammonia-N does not pass through such option when considered together with subcategory—electric arc furnaces with POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for more options for other subcategories resulted semi-wet air pollution control. This is details. in a significant economic impact that consistent with what was appeared in EPA determined is unreasonable. See the proposal (65 FR 81980) and the D. Steelmaking Subcategory Section X.E for more details. February 14, 2001 document (66 FR EPA proposed a revised The proposed effluent limitations 10253–10254), although rather than subcategorization scheme (see Section guidelines and standards for the ‘‘Non- establishing a specific limitation, EPA III.C) which recognized the differences integrated Steelmaking and Hot has allowed the permit authority or between integrated and non-integrated Forming’’ subcategory had as its pretreatment control authority to steelmaking facilities. Under the technology basis: Solids removal, sludge determine limitations based on best proposed scheme, wastewaters from dewatering, cooling tower, high-rate professional judgment, when safety basic oxygen furnace operations were recycle, and mixed-media filtration. considerations warrant. The Agency

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64239

believes best professional judgment will limitations guidelines and standards for proposed subcategorization scheme was allow the permit authority or the ‘‘Integrated and Stand Alone Hot to consider separately finishing facilities pretreatment control authority to reflect Forming’’ subcategory had as its making primarily carbon and alloy the site-specific nature of the discharge. technical basis: Scale pit with oil steels and those making primarily EPA is doing this because, although the skimming, roughing clarifier, cooling stainless steels. For reasons discussed 1982 regulation requires basic oxygen tower with high-rate recycle, and below, however, EPA is not furnace semi-wet air pollution control to mixed-media filtration of blowdown. promulgating new effluent limitations achieve zero discharge of process This applied to all new and existing guidelines and standards for any of the wastewater pollutants, currently not all direct discharging facilities (BAT/NSPS) proposed revised subcategories. of the sites are able to achieve this and was known as integrated and stand Therefore EPA is not adopting the discharge status because of safety and alone hot forming Option BAT1A. proposed subcategorization scheme. operational considerations. The Agency EPA has not adopted limits and Changing the subcategorization scheme recognizes the benefit of using excess standards based on this technology only made sense when EPA believed it water in basic oxygen furnaces with because it determined that it was not would promulgate new limits and semi-wet air pollution control systems economically achievable, based on the standards for the new subcategories. in cases where safety considerations are results presented in Section X.E. EPA The proposed effluent limitations present. The Agency justifies the has determined that the impact is guidelines and standards for the carbon increased allowance in this case because unacceptable in view of the precarious and alloy segment of the finishing of the employee safety and financial situation of the proposed subcategory had the following manufacturing considerations (reduced subcategory as a whole. Moreover, many technology basis: Recycle of fume production equipment damage and lost facilities are already at or below scrubber water, diversion tank, oil production). EPA estimates that the discharge levels of the proposed effluent removal, equalization, hexavalent industry will incur no costs due to this limitations guidelines and standards, chromium reduction (where applicable), change. EPA could identify no potential and EPA has no reason to believe that metals precipitation, sedimentation, adverse environmental impacts facilities will reverse this trend and sludge dewatering, and counter-current associated with the potential discharge. increase pollutant discharges above the rinses. This technology option applied In the case of electric arc furnaces 1997 levels in EPA’s record database. to all new and existing direct with semi-wet air pollution control, the EPA had proposed a second BAT discharging facilities, as well as new Agency is promulgating NSPS, PSES, option, known as BAT1B, for the indirect discharging facilities (BAT/ and PSNS limitations and standards of Integrated and Stand Alone Hot NSPS/PSNS) and was known as carbon zero discharge of process wastewater Forming subcategory in order to attempt & alloy finishing Option BAT–1. EPA pollutants. The 1982 regulation to ameliorate the predicted economic did not propose standards for existing previously established BPT, BCT, and impacts of BAT1A. Under this option, indirect discharging facilities because BAT limitations of zero discharge of the proposed BAT limits would not the projected pollutant removals per process wastewater pollutants for apply until 2007. EPA explained at the facility associated with the technology electric arc furnaces with semi-wet air time of proposal that EPA would select option were too small to justify the pollution control. (EPA is modifying the this option only if it concluded that five projected costs. BPT, BAT, and BCT portions of this years would be sufficient time to allow EPA is not revising effluent segment only to eliminate references in the subcategory as a whole to raise the limitations guidelines and standards for the title to basic oxygen furnace capital necessary to implement the the finishing subcategory because the steelmaking-semiwet). EPA identified model BAT in a way to ensure its flow reductions that were an integral no discharges from electric arc furnaces economic achievability. However, EPA part of the technology interfered with with semi-wet air pollution control and cannot reach that conclusion on this product quality, thus indicating that the received no comments regarding the record, especially in view of the current technology was not the best technology establishment of zero discharge of financial condition of the industry. available for these finishing operations. process wastewater pollutants for this Therefore, EPA has not selected option Moreover, after considering comments segment. EPA estimates that the BAT1B. objecting to EPA’s methodology at industry will incur no costs due to this EPA did not propose standards for proposal of estimating costs, EPA change since all known facilities are indirect discharging facilities because performed a new cost analysis. See TDD currently achieving compliance with EPA’s analysis of the effect of the Chapter 10. Judging from the retrofit zero discharge of process wastewater technology option projected pollutant costs and the costs associated with necessary production shutdown during pollutants. removals per facility that were too small to justify the projected costs. installation of new treatment E. Vacuum Degassing Subcategory technologies, EPA concluded that the H. Salt Bath Descaling Subcategory EPA is leaving unchanged all technology simply was not the best limitations currently in effect for this EPA is leaving unchanged all available to achieve pollutant removals. subcategory. See discussion in Section limitations currently in effect for this The proposed effluent limitations VII.D. subcategory. EPA proposed a revised guidelines and standards for the subcategorization scheme in which salt stainless segment of the finishing F. Continuous Casting Subcategory bath descaling, acid pickling, cold subcategory had the following EPA is leaving unchanged all forming, alkaline cleaning, and hot technology basis: Counter-current limitations currently in effect for this coating operations would be combined rinses, recycle of fume scrubber water, subcategory. See discussion in Section into a new subcategory called acid purification units, diversion tank, VIII.D. ‘‘Finishing.’’ The purpose of this oil removal, equalization, hexavalent proposed subcategorization scheme was chromium reduction (where applicable), G. Hot Forming Subcategory to recognize the tendency of facilities to multiple-stage pH control for metals EPA is leaving unchanged all combine and co-treat wastewaters from precipitation, sedimentation, and sludge limitations currently in effect for this these operations. As mentioned in dewatering. This technology option subcategory. The proposed effluent Section VIII.D, another feature of the would have applied to all new and

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64240 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

existing direct discharging facilities, as significant comments on its regulatory option in relation to the effluent well as new indirect discharging approach for this subcategory. reduction benefits (pollutant removals facilities (BAT/NSPS/PSNS) and was For the briquetting segment, EPA is of approximately 400 lbs.) and known as stainless finishing Option establishing BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, determined these costs were reasonable. BAT–1. EPA did not propose standards PSNS, and NSPS. These limitations and 2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control for existing stainless indirect standards are: no discharge of process Technology (BCT) discharging facilities because projected wastewater pollutants. EPA established pollutant removals per facility these limitations because briquetting DRI and Forging segments. associated with the technology option operations do not generate any process EPA is adopting BCT limitations for were simply too small per facility. See wastewater. For this reason, the Agency TSS for the DRI segment and oil and 65 FR 82025. EPA did not promulgate concludes that there are no costs grease and TSS for forging segment of limitations for the stainless finishing associated with these limitations and the other operations subcategory based subcategory for the same reasons listed standards. Furthermore, EPA projects no on the same technologies selected as the for the carbon and alloy finishing additional pollutant removals basis for BPT for these segments. EPA segment, with one addition. attributable to this segment. identified no technologies that can achieve greater removals of Commenters with experience operating 1. Best Practicable Control Technology conventional pollutants than those that acid purification units stated that they (BPT) experienced neither the level of are the basis for BPT that are also cost- pollutant removal nor the cost savings a. DRI segment. reasonable under the BCT Cost Test. EPA is promulgating BPT limitations EPA had envisioned in the analysis Accordingly, EPA is adopting BCT for TSS and pH for the DRI segment of supporting the proposal. The effluent limitations equal to BPT for the the Other Operations subcategory. The recognition of this fact had an adverse DRI and forging segments of the other technology basis for this limitation is: impact both on the effluent reduction operations subcategory. solids removal, clarifier, high-rate benefit and the projected cost of this recycle, and filtration of blowdown 3. Best Available Technology technology option. For further wastewater. This technology option was Economically Achievable (BAT) discussion, see Section V.A.9 and known as DRI Option BPT1 in the Chapter 10 of the TDD. DRI and Forging segments. proposal. The Agency has determined EPA did not identify significant levels I. Acid Pickling Subcategory that this treatment system represents the of priority or non-conventional best practicable technology currently pollutants in wastewater from DRI or EPA is leaving unchanged all available and should be the basis for the forging operations. Therefore, EPA is limitations and standards currently in BPT limitations for the following not promulgating BAT for these effect for this subcategory. See reasons. First, this technology option is segments. discussion under Section VIII.H. one that is readily applicable to all 4. New Source Performance Standards J. Cold Forming Subcategory facilities in this segment. Second, the adoption of this level of control would (NSPS) EPA is leaving unchanged all represent a significant reduction in DRI and Forging segments. limitations and standards currently in pollutants discharged into the The technology basis for NSPS for the effect for this subcategory. See environment by facilities in this DRI segment is: solids removal, clarifier, discussion under Section VIII.H. subcategory. (EPA is not able to disclose high-rate recycle, and filtration of K. Alkaline Cleaning Subcategory the estimated amount of pollutant blowdown wastewater, and the reduction because data aggregation and technology basis for NSPS for the EPA is leaving unchanged all other masking techniques are forging segment is high-rate recycle, oil/ limitations and standards currently in insufficient to protect information water separation and mixed-media effect for this subcategory. See claimed as confidential business filtration. In both cases, these are the discussion under Section VIII.H. information.) Third, the Agency same as the BPT technology basis. EPA L. Hot Coating Subcategory assessed the total cost of water pollution did not identify any technically feasible controls likely to be incurred for this options that provide greater EPA is leaving unchanged all option in relation to the effluent environmental protection. In addition, limitations and standards currently in reduction benefits and has determined EPA concluded these technology effect for this subcategory. See these costs were reasonable. options do not present a barrier to entry discussion under Section VIII.H. b. Forging segment. because all facilities currently employ EPA is promulgating BPT limitations M. Other Operations Subcategory the technologies (although minor for oil & grease, TSS, and pH for the adjustment of flow control may be The other operations subcategory is forging segment of the other operations necessary for some DRI operations). The comprised of three segments: Direct subcategory. The technology basis for Agency considered energy requirements reduced ironmaking (DRI), forging, and these limitations are: high-rate and other non-water quality briquetting. The options described in recycling, oil/water separation, and environmental impacts and found no this section for the direct reduced mixed-media filtration. The Agency has basis for any different standards than ironmaking and briquetting segments concluded that this treatment system the selected NSPS. Therefore, EPA is are exactly as they appeared in the represents the best practicable adopting NSPS limitations for the DRI October 2000 proposal. In the case of technology currently available and and forging segments of the Other the forging segment, the technology should be the basis for the BPT Operations subcategory based on the basis at proposal was incorrectly limitation for the following reasons. same technologies selected as the basis described as high rate recycle and oil/ First, this technology option is one that for BPT for these segments. water separation. The technology basis is readily applicable to all facilities in should have been described as high rate this segment. Second, the Agency 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing recycle, oil/water separation, and assessed the total cost of water pollution and New Sources (PSES/PSNS) mixed-media filtration. EPA received no controls likely to be incurred for this DRI and Forging segments.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64241

EPA identified only conventional limitations guidelines and standards The estimated reductions in priority pollutants in DRI and forging promulgated today. This section and non-conventional pollutants wastewaters at treatable levels. These summarizes these estimated reductions. directly discharged in treated final pollutants do not pass through when Chapter 11 of the TDD includes the effluent resulting from implementation discharged to POTWs from facilities estimated pollutant reductions for of the model BPT/BCT/BAT within this subcategory. Therefore, EPA options considered but not technologies are listed in Table IX.A.1. is not promulgating pretreatment promulgated, and discusses the The Agency estimates that today’s BPT/ standards for these segments. methodology in detail. BCT/BAT standards will reduce direct IX. Pollutant Reduction and 1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions discharges of priority and non- Compliance Cost Estimates The Agency estimates that this conventional pollutants by approximately 754,000 pounds per year. A. Pollutant Reductions regulation will reduce discharges of BOD5, TSS and oil and grease by The Agency only estimated the Presented below for the Cokemaking, approximately 351,000 pounds per year. reduction in 2,3,7,8-TCDF discharge in Sintering, and Other Operations the Sintering subcategory, thus the subcategories are the pollutant 2. Priority and Non-conventional removal when measured in pounds per reductions obtainable through the Pollutant Reductions year is negligible. application of the model technologies a. Direct Discharge Facilities (BPT/ that form the basis of the effluent BAT).

TABLE IX.A.1.—REDUCTION IN DIRECT DISCHARGE OF PRIORITY AND NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF BPT/BAT REGULATIONS PROMULGATED TODAY

Non-priority Priority metal metal and Total metal Subcategory and organics organic and organic compounds compounds compounds lbs/year lbs/year lbs/year

Cokemaking ...... 30,164 718,136 748,300 Sintering ...... 0 0 0 Other Operations ...... 0 5,684 5,684

Total Removals for all Subcategories ...... 30,164 723,820 753,984

b. PSES Effluent Discharges from regulations will reduce indirect facility are provided on a subcategory basis in POTWs. discharge to POTWs by 264,000 pounds Chapter 11 of the Technical Table IX.A.2 lists, by subcategory, the per year. These figures are adjusted for Development Document. The Agency estimated reductions in priority and pollutant removals expected from did not identify any priority or non- non-conventional pollutants discharged POTWs, and thus reflect reductions in conventional pollutants at treatable from POTWs following implementation discharges to the receiving waters. concentrations is the wastewater of the of the model PSES technologies. The Estimated reductions in pollutants Other Operations subcategory. Agency estimates that today’s PSES discharged indirectly to surface waters

TABLE IX.A.2.—REDUCTION IN DISCHARGES FROM POTWSOFPRIORITY AND NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF PSES REGULATIONS PROMULGATED TODAY

Non-priority Priority metal metal and Total metal Subcategory and organics organic and organic compounds compounds compounds lbs/year lbs/year lbs/year

Cokemaking ...... 4,388 259,776 264,164 Sintering ...... 0 0 0 Other Operations ...... 0 0 0

Total Removals for All Subcategories ...... 4,388 259,776 264,164

B. Regulatory Costs the methodologies, including cost engineering analysis. The cost curves and basis, used to estimate these components reported in this section The Agency estimated the cost for costs. In addition, the TDD contains cost represent estimates of the investment iron and steel facilities to achieve each estimates for each option, segment and cost of purchasing and installing of the effluent limitations guidelines subcategory considered for today’s final equipment, the annual operating and and standards promulgated today, as well as the costs for facilities to achieve rule, including those which EPA has maintenance costs associated with that the effluent limitations guidelines and decided not to promulgate. All cost equipment, land costs associated with standards considered but not estimates in this section are expressed equipment, and additional costs for promulgated. Chapter 10 of the Final in terms of 1997 dollars, which discharge monitoring. The capital costs, TDD provides detailed information on corresponds with the base year of the pre-tax total annualized costs, and post-

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64242 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

tax total annualized costs for these 1. Cokemaking Subcategory indirect discharging by-products subcategories are presented in Section X a. By-products Recovery Segment. recovery cokemaking facilities to in terms of 2001 dollars. Table IX.B.1 shows the costs EPA comply with the BAT limitations or estimated for existing direct and PSES standards promulgated today.

TABLE IX.B.1.—ESTIMATED COSTS FOR BY-PRODUCT RECOVERY COKEMAKING FACILITIES

Number of Total capital Annual O&M Discharge status facilities and land costs costs

Direct ...... 12 $26,039,400 $4,593,800 Indirect ...... 8 6,138,600 1,462,600

Total ...... 20 32,178,000 6,056,400

b. Non-recovery Segment. in any incremental compliance costs BAT limitation for 2,3,7,8-TCDF EPA is promulgating limitations and because all facilities are currently promulgated today. Note that even standards for this segment expressed as achieving them. though EPA has promulgated PSES for no discharge of process wastewater 2. Sintering Subcategory this subcategory EPA is not aware of any pollutants. The Agency has determined sintering facilities currently discharging that implementation of BPT, BCT, BAT, Table IX.B.2 shows the costs EPA to a POTW and has therefore not or PSES limitations and standards by estimated for direct discharging included any compliance costs. facilities in this segment will not result sintering facilities to comply with the

TABLE IX.B.2.—ESTIMATED COSTS FOR SINTERING FACILITIES

Number of Total capital Annual O&M Discharge status facilities and land costs costs

Direct ...... 5 $11,046,100 $1,304,300

3. Steelmaking Subcategory 4. Other Operations Subcategory EPA is not promulgating PSES or PSNS Table IX.B.3 shows the costs limits for the DRI and forging segments, EPA has determined that the industry indirect dischargers in this subcategory will incur no costs due to the alternate estimated for direct discharging forging facilities to comply with the BPT will not incur costs as a result of this limitations and standards based on best limitations promulgated today. The regulation. For the briquetting segment, professional judgment applicable to estimated costs for direct discharging because all facilities in this segment are basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air DRI facilities are not presented because currently meeting the promulgated pollution control. Likewise, EPA has there are only two direct dischargers in limitations and standards for BPT, BCT, determined that there will not be any this segment and data aggregation or BAT, PSES, PSNS, and NSPS of no compliance costs incurred by facilities other masking techniques are discharge of process wastewater with electric arc furnaces with semi-wet insufficient to avoid disclosure of pollutants, there are no incremental air pollution control to comply with information claimed as confidential compliance costs associated with this today’s rule. business information. Also, because limit.

TABLE IX.B.3.—EPA ESTIMATED COSTS FOR FORGING FACILITIES

Number of Total capital Annual O&M Segment facilities and land costs costs

Forging ...... 8 $120,200 $20,400

X. Economic Analysis EPA’s economic assessment is presented output, domestic and international in detail in the report titled ‘‘Economic markets, and environmental justice A. Introduction and Overview Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations issues. EPA conducted a small business This section describes the estimated and Standards for the Iron and Steel analysis, which estimates effects on capital investment and annualized costs Manufacturing Point Source Category’’ small entities, and a cost-effectiveness of compliance with the final effluent (hereafter, ‘‘EA’’) and in the rulemaking analysis of all evaluated options. record. The EA estimates the economic limitations guidelines and standards B. Economic Description of the Iron and effect of compliance costs on promulgated today for the iron and steel Steel Industry industry and the potential impacts of subcategory operations at a site where these compliance costs on the industry. feasible, the combined cost for all The United States is the third largest This section also presents the estimated subcategory operations at a site for steel producer in the world with 12 costs and projected impacts for selected cost combinations, aggregate percent of the market, an annual output technology options EPA considered but costs for all sites owned by each of between 100 and 115 million tons per rejected for all of the subcategories. company, impacts on employment and year, and around 150,000 employees.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64243

Major markets for steel are service distressed’’ either because they are start- analytical time frame to generate the centers and the automotive and up companies and joint ventures or annual cost of compliance for each construction industries. Together these because they are established firms option EPA considered. EPA based the three markets account for 61 percent of which still showed losses. For 16-year time frame for analysis on the steel shipments. The remaining 40 discussion of the changes in industry depreciable life for equipment of this percent is dispersed over a wide range financial conditions in the period type—15 years according to Internal of products and activities, such as between 1997 and 2001, see Section IV. Revenue (IRS) rules, with an estimated agricultural, industrial and electrical actual life of 25 years—plus a mid-year machinery, oil and gas, containers, and C. Economic Impact Methodology convention for putting the new appliances. 1. Introduction equipment in operation (for example, The iron and steel rulemaking six months between purchase, This section (and, in more detail, the includes sites within the North installation, and operation). The model EA and the accompanying American Industry Classification generates the present value and administrative record) evaluates several System (NAICS) codes 324199 (coke annualized post-tax cost for each option measures of economic impacts that ovens, part of ‘‘all other petroleum and for each site in the survey, which are result from the estimated compliance coal product manufacturing’’), 331111 then used in the subcategory, site, and costs associated with each technically (iron and steel mills), 331210 (steel company analyses, described below. feasible BAT and PSES option. The pipes and tubes), and 331221 (cold The Agency adopts an assumption of analysis in the EA consists of eight finishing of steel shapes). The iron and zero ‘‘cost pass-through’’ of compliance steel and proposed metal products and major components: (1) An assessment of costs for this industry, which is machinery effluent guideline the number of facilities that could be consistent with the facts of significant rulemakings both may have sites in the affected by this rule; (2) an estimate of import competition and declining last two NAICS codes. the annualized aggregate costs for these product prices. The iron and steel effluent guideline facilities to comply with the rule using In the subcategory analysis, EPA as proposed would have applied to site-level capital, one-time non-capital, models the economic impacts of approximately 254 iron and steel sites. and annual operating and maintenance regulatory costs from individual Of these sites, EPA was able to analyze (O&M) costs; (3 and 4) two separate site- subcategories on a site. The site analysis approximately 211 for post-regulatory level closure analyses to evaluate the evaluates the combined costs on the compliance impacts at the site level. For impact of compliance costs for profitability of the site. In both, the the remaining 43 sites, thirteen did not operations in individual subcategories model compares the present value of report data at the site level, fourteen (where possible) at the site and for the forecasted cash flow over 16 years with could not be analyzed because they combined cost of the options for all the present value of the regulatory were jointly owned sites, foreign owned subcategories at the site; (5) an option over the same 16-year period. If sites, or newly constructed sites, and evaluation of the corporate financial the present value of regulatory costs sixteen were in poor financial condition distress that the companies in the exceeds that of the projected cash flow, prior to the regulation and are treated as industry would be likely to incur as a it does not make financial sense to closures under the prevailing baseline result of combined compliance costs for upgrade the site. That is, if the present conditions. Of the 254 iron and steel all sites owned by the company; (6) an value of projected cash flow is positive sites, approximately 60 sites are owned evaluation of secondary impacts such as before, but negative after, the incurrence by small business entities. those on employment and economic of regulatory costs, the site is presumed The 254 sites are owned by 115 output; (7) an analysis of the effects of to close. companies, as estimated by the EPA compliance costs on small entities; and EPA developed five forecasting survey. The global nature of the (8) a cost-benefit analysis pursuant to models for the iron and steel industry. industry is illustrated by the fact that Executive Order 12866. None of these methods assumes any eighteen companies have foreign All costs are reported in this section growth in real terms and all are ownership. Twelve other companies are of the preamble in 2001 dollars, with calculated in terms of constant 1997 joint entities with at least one U.S. the exception of cost-effectiveness dollars. This conservative assumption company partner. Excluding joint results, which, by convention, are precludes sites from growing their way entities and foreign ownership, the reported in 1981 dollars. The primary out of financial difficulties imposed by database contains 85 U.S. companies, sources of data for the economic the regulation. Site-specific data are more than half of which are privately analysis are the Collection of 1997 Iron only available for 1995–1997. The owned. Responses to the EPA survey are and Steel Industry Data (Section 308 period from 1998 to 2001 is the the only sources of financial Survey) and data provided by industry rulemaking period and when the information for these privately-held during the public comment period. forecasting methods begin. Because firms. Other sources include government data promulgation occurs in 2002, this is The EPA survey collected financial from the Bureau of Census and industry taken as the first year of implementation data for the 1995–1997 time period (the trade journals. and the beginning of the 16-year period most recent data available at the time of over which to consider the regulatory the survey). This three-year time frame 2. Methodology Overview impact on projected earnings. The first marked a high point in the business The starting point for the economic two methods explicitly address the cycle. The high point in the business analysis is the cost annualization model, sharp downturn in the industry after cycle allowed companies to replenish which uses site-specific cost data and 1997 but differ in predicting the retained earnings, retire debt and take other inputs to determine the strength and duration of recovery and other steps to reflect this prosperity in annualized capital, one-time non- subsequent downturns. That is, both their financial statements. Even so, an capital, and O&M costs of improved address the cyclicality seen in the iron initial analysis of the pre-regulatory pollution control. This model uses these and steel industry, but reflect differing condition of the 115 companies in the costs along with the company-specific magnitudes and timing. The third EPA survey indicated that 27 of them real cost of capital (discount rate) and forecasting method is a three-year would be considered ‘‘financially the corporate tax rate over a 16-year average (1995 to 1997) to provide an

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64244 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

upper-bound analysis. The fourth thus avoiding the difficulty of facilities are projected to close under forecasting method is a six year average interpreting multiple ratios with baseline conditions and are not covering 1995 to 2000, with the years differing implications for financial included further in the economic 1998 through 2000 scaled by industry health. The single index, Z’, is analysis. For this reason, the costs and level performance. The fifth forecasting compared against ranges developed by removals presented in Section X will method uses only the year 2000 as a Altman to indicate ‘‘good,’’ differ from the results reported in the lower-bound analysis. The fourth and ‘‘indeterminate,’’ and ‘‘distressed’’ engineering analysis in Chapter 10 of fifth forecasting methods were added financial conditions. EPA examined the TDD. after proposal to reflect to the maximum 1997 financial data (the most recent The Agency evaluates the first stage of extent possible the effect of the industry collected in the survey) to estimate the the impact analysis by projecting the downturn. pre-regulatory conditions. EPA then impacts associated with the regulatory EPA calculates the post-regulatory aggregated costs for all sites belonging to costs for a single subcategory (or status of a site as the present value of that company. EPA recalculated Z’ after segment) at a site. For example, a site forecasted earnings minus the after-tax incorporating the effects of the pollution may have cokemaking, sintering, and present value of regulatory costs. With control compliance costs into the other operations, but the post- five forecasting methods, there are five income statement and balance sheet for compliance cash flow analysis only ways to evaluate each site. If a site’s the company. EPA classified as reflects the regulatory costs associated post-regulatory status is negative (after- impacted all companies whose with a single subcategory. This stage of tax present value of regulatory costs ‘‘Altman’s Z’’’ score changes such that the analysis serves as a screening exceed present value of forecasted the company goes from a ‘‘good’’ or mechanism for potentially significant earnings), EPA assigned a score of ‘‘1’’ ‘‘indeterminate’’ baseline category to a impacts for facilities which may be for that forecasting method. EPA then ‘‘distressed’’ post-compliance category. impacted by options in multiple tallied, for each site, the score it Such companies may have significant subcategories. Alternatively, for any received for each forecasting method. A difficulties raising the capital needed to facility with operations only in a single site, then, may have a score ranging comply with the options under subcategory such as a stand alone coke from zero to five (with five indicating consideration, which can indicate the plant, this stage represents the complete after-tax present value of regulatory likelihood of bankruptcy, loss of facility level analysis. Unfortunately, for costs exceed present value of forecasted financial independence, or shedding of a number of subcategories related to earnings under all five forecasts). In an assets. integrated steelmaking operations, the effort to reflect the significant industry EPA uses input-output analyses to first stage of the analysis could not be downturn, the Agency has chosen to determine the effects of the regulation constructed due to interdependent cost reflect any incremental change in the using national-level employment and estimates. For integrated steel facilities score from the baseline condition to the output multipliers. Input-output with operations in ironmaking, post-regulatory condition due to multipliers allow EPA to estimate the integrated steelmaking, integrated and regulatory compliance costs as a effect of a loss in output in the iron and standalone hot forming, and steel closure. steel industry on the U.S. economy as a finishing, particularly those which make EPA could not perform an economic whole. Every projected closure has extensive use of co-treatment of analysis of a number of sites at the direct impacts in lost employment and compatible wastewaters and central subcategory and site levels, even though output. These direct losses also have treatment, the cost estimates for one annualized costs were calculated: where repercussions throughout the rest of the subcategory depend upon the selected the site is a cost center; where it is a economy. The input-output multipliers technology option for related captive site that exists primarily to allow EPA to calculate the national subcategories. As a result, the produce products transferred to other losses in output and employment based subcategory impact results for sites under the same corporate on the direct impacts. ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, and ownership; where components for the EPA also determines the impacts on integrated and standalone hot forming analysis are not recorded on the site’s regional-level employment. The will not be presented below, but rather books, only those of the company; or increase in metropolitan statistical area will be presented on an aggregated basis where the site’s cash flow is negative (MSA) unemployment level, or county, in the facility analysis in Section X.E. In and therefore sufficient by itself to if non-metropolitan, is calculated for the case of steel finishing, a large project a negative present value for each MSA or county in which there is number of facilities, in addition to the earnings. For these sites, the analysis at least one projected closure. integrated steel facilities discussed defaults to the company level. D. Economic Costs and Impacts of previously, are in the scope of the Consistent with OMB guidance, EPA Technology Options by Subcategory subcategory and the subcategory impact estimated post-compliance closures due results are presented, but the results do solely to the effect of the rule. Direct In this section, EPA presents the understate the potential economic impacts, such as loss in employment, capital costs and post-tax total impact to the integrated steel facilities. revenues, production and (possibly) annualized costs for each technically exports are calculated from projected achievable option EPA considered in 1. Cokemaking closures. each subcategory. As discussed in a. By-product Cokemaking EPA evaluated many methods to Section X.C.2, the cost annualization estimate corporate financial distress model derives total post-tax annualized i. BAT reported in the economic literature of costs from site-specific capital costs, The regulatory compliance costs the last ten years and chose the one-time non-capital costs, and associated with BAT 1 are not projected ‘‘Altman’s Z’’’ model. This well-known operating and maintenance costs; to result in any postcompliance and well-tested model was developed to however, only capital costs are reported closures, while the regulatory analyze the financial health of both here to simplify the presentation. For a compliance costs associated with BAT 3 private and public manufacturing firms. detailed presentation of all costing are projected to result in two It is based on empirical data and creates information, see Chapter 10 of the TDD. postcompliance closures, with potential a weighted average of financial ratios, As noted in Section X.B, sixteen job losses of 500 FTEs. Because there are

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64245

a total of only twelve directly removals attainable through application determined that option BAT 3 is not discharging by-product cokemaking of BAT1 and the general economic state economically achievable for existing facilities, the projected closures of the industry, EPA does not believe sources, but that option BAT 1 is represent seventeen percent of the that it is reasonable to impose the economically achievable. potentially regulated population. Given economic impacts associated with BAT the significant additional pollutant 3. For this reason, the Agency has

TABLE X.D.1.—BAT COSTS AND IMPACTS FOR BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING

Post-tax total Capital cost annualized Impacts Option ($2001M) cost Closures/Job Losses ($2001M)

BAT 1 ...... 26.3 6.6 0/0 BAT 3 ...... 59.2 10.5 2/500

ii. PSES Because there are a total of only eight through application of PSES1, and the The regulatory compliance costs indirectly discharging by-product general state of the industry, EPA does associated with PSES option 1 are not cokemaking facilities, the projected not believe that it is reasonable to projected to result in any closures represent 25 percent of the impose the economic impacts associated postcompliance closures. The regulatory potentially regulated population. In with PSES3. For these reasons, the compliance costs associated with PSES view of the fact that these facilities are Agency has determined that option option 3 are projected to result in two presently subject to pretreatment PSES3 is not economically achievable postcompliance closures, with potential standards in Part 420, the significant for existing sources, but that option job losses of between 500 and 750 FTEs. additional pollutant removals attainable PSES1 is economically achievable.

TABLE X.D.2.—PSES OPTIONS, COSTS, AND IMPACTS FOR BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING

Post-tax total Capital cost annualized Impacts Option ($2001M) cost Closures/Job Losses ($2001M)

PSES 1 ...... 6.7 2.0 0/0 PSES 3 ...... 25.5 6.6 2/ 500–750

iii. NSPS and PSNS cost of installing pollution control to those it considered for existing systems during new construction is less dischargers. No incremental compliance The technology options EPA than the cost of retrofitting existing costs are associated with the no considered for NSPS are identical to facilities, so EPA projects the discharge option, just as in the case of those it considered for existing compliance costs for new sources are existing sources, because the non- dischargers. Engineering analysis less than existing sources and no indicates that the cost of installing recovery method of producing coke impacts are projected and no barrier to generates no process wastewater. As no pollution control systems during new entry can result. construction is less than the cost of compliance costs are expected, no retrofitting existing facilities. Because b. Non-recovery Cokemaking barrier to entry can result. EPA projects the compliance costs for i. BPT, BAT and PSES 2. Sintering new sources are less than existing The technology option for BPT, BAT sources and because limited or no a. Sintering Operations with Wet Air and PSES is no discharge of process impacts are projected for existing Pollution Control wastewater pollutants. No incremental sources, then no impacts are expected compliance costs are associated with i. BAT and PSES for new sources and no barrier to entry these options as all existing sources are is anticipated. currently meeting the no discharge The regulatory compliance costs The technology option EPA requirement. Because there are no associated with the regulation of 2,3,7,8- considered for PSNS is equivalent to incremental compliance costs, there are TCDF under the BAT option and the PSES 3, which is more stringent rather no impacts resulting from the BPT, BAT PSES option are not projected to result the promulgated option PSES 1. PSES 3 and PSES options. in any postcompliance closures. To the was rejected for existing sources as not Agency’s knowledge, there are no economically achievable due to ii. NSPS and PSNS current indirect dischargers of sintering projected facility closures. However, The technology option EPA wastewater. engineering analysis indicates that the considered for new sources are identical

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64246 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE X.D.3.—BAT COSTS AND IMPACTS FOR SINTERING SUBCATEGORY

Post-tax total Capital cost annualized Impacts ($2001M) cost Closures/Job Losses ($2001M)

BAT ...... 12.0 1.9 0/0

ii. NSPS and PSNS disclosure of information claimed as hot forming, and steel finishing, confidential business information. particularly those which make extensive The technology options EPA Unfortunately, for a number of use of co-treatment of compatible considered for new sources are identical subcategories related to integrated to those it considered for existing wastewaters and central treatment, the steelmaking operations, this stage of the cost estimates for one subcategory dischargers. Engineering analysis analysis could not be constructed due to indicates that the cost of installing depend upon the selected technology interdependent cost estimates. For option for related subcategories. As a pollution control systems during new integrated steel facilities with construction is less than the cost of result, the subcategory impact results for operations in ironmaking, integrated ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, and retrofitting existing facilities. Because steelmaking, integrated and stand alone EPA projected the costs for new sources integrated and stand alone hot forming hot forming, and steel finishing, will not be presented, but rather will be are less than existing sources and particularly those which make extensive because limited or no impacts are presented on an aggregated basis in the use of co-treatment of compatible facility analysis in Section X.E. projected for existing sources, then no wastewaters and central treatment, the impacts are expected for new sources cost estimates for one subcategory TABLE X.D.5.—BAT AND PSES COST and no barrier to entry can result. depend upon the selected technology FOR INTEGRATED STEELMAKING b. Sintering Operations With Dry Air option for related subcategories. As a result, the subcategory impact results for Pollution Control Post-tax ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, and i. BPT, BAT and PSES Capital total integrated and stand alone hot forming cost annualized The technology option for BPT, BAT will not be presented, but rather will be ($2001M) cost and PSES is no discharge of process presented on an aggregated basis in the ($2001M) facility analysis in Section X.E. wastewater pollutants. No incremental BAT ...... 46.8 10.4 compliance costs are associated with PSES ...... these options as all existing sources are TABLE X.D.4.—BAT AND PSES COST currently meeting the no discharge FOR IRONMAKING requirement. Because there are no 5. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot incremental compliance costs, there are Post-tax Forming Capital total no impacts resulting from the BPT, BAT cost annualized a. Carbon and Alloy and PSES options. ($2001M) cost i. BAT ($2001M) ii. NSPS and PSNS The regulatory compliance costs BAT AND PSES ...... 54.4 10.5 The technology option EPA associated with the BAT option are considered for new sources are identical presented below. Unfortunately, for a 4. Integrated Steelmaking to those it considered for existing number of subcategories related to dischargers. No incremental compliance a. BAT and PSES integrated steelmaking operations, this costs are associated with the no The regulatory compliance costs stage of the analysis could not be discharge option, just as in the case of associated with the BAT option and the constructed due to interdependent cost existing sources, because the non- PSES option are presented below. The estimates. For integrated steel facilities recovery method of producing coke Agency does not present costs for with operations in ironmaking, generates no process wastewater. As no indirect dischargers, because there is integrated steelmaking, integrated and compliance costs are expected, no only one indirect discharger in this stand alone hot forming, and steel barrier to entry can result. subcategory and data aggregation or finishing, particularly those which make 3. Ironmaking other masking techniques are extensive use of co-treatment of insufficient to avoid disclosure of compatible wastewaters and central a. BAT and PSES information claimed as confidential treatment, the cost estimates for one The regulatory compliance costs business information. subcategory depend upon the selected associated with the proposed BAT Unfortunately, for a number of technology option for related option and the PSES option are subcategories related to integrated subcategories. As a result, the presented below. The Agency does not steelmaking operations, this stage of the subcategory impact results for present costs for indirect dischargers analysis could not be constructed due to ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, and separately, because there is only one interdependent cost estimates. For integrated and stand alone hot forming indirect discharger in this subcategory integrated steel facilities with will not be presented, but rather will be and data aggregation or other masking operations in ironmaking, integrated presented on an aggregated basis in the techniques are insufficient to avoid steelmaking, integrated and stand alone facility analysis in Section X.E.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64247

TABLE X.D.6.—BAT COSTS FOR INTEGRATED AND STAND ALONE HOT FORMING, CARBON AND ALLOY

Post-tax total Capital cost annualized cost ($2001M) ($2001M)

BAT ...... 149.4 27.5

6. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming a. Carbon and Alloy i. BAT The regulatory compliance costs associated with the BAT option are not projected to result in any postcompliance closures.

TABLE X.D.7.—BAT COSTS AND IMPACTS FOR NON-INTEGRATED STEELMAKING AND HOT FORMING

Post-tax total Capital cost annualized cost Impacts ($2001M) ($2001M) Closures/Job Losses

BAT ...... 30.6 5.1 0/0

ii. NSPS EPA proposed new source limitations of no discharge of process wastewater pollutants, but has determined that technological barriers prevent promulgation of the proposed limitations. See Section VIII.D. 7. Steel Finishing a. Carbon and Alloy i. BAT The regulatory compliance costs associated with the BAT option are not projected to result in any postcompliance closures.

TABLE X.D.8.—BAT COSTS AND IMPACTS FOR STEEL FINISHING

Post-tax total Capital Cost annualized cost Impacts ($2001M) ($2001M) Closures/Job Losses

BAT ...... 23.1 8.6 0/0

8. Other Operations a. Direct Reduced Iron i. BPT The regulatory compliance costs associated with the BPT option are not projected to result in any postcompliance closures. The Agency does not present costs for direct dischargers, because there are only two direct dischargers in this segment and data aggregation or other masking techniques are insufficient to avoid disclosure of information claimed as confidential business information.

TABLE X.D.9.—BPT COSTS AND IMPACTS DIRECTED REDUCED IRON

Post-tax total Capital cost annualized cost Impacts ($2001M) ($2001M) Closures/Job Losses

BPT ...... 0/0

b. Forging i. BPT The regulatory compliance costs associated with the BPT option are not projected to result in any postcompliance closures.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4755 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64248 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE X.D.10.—BPT COSTS AND IMPACTS FORGING

Post-tax total Capital cost annualized cost Impacts ($2001M) ($2001M) Closures/Job Losses

BPT ...... 0.13 0.04 0/0

c. Briquetting EPA is not promulgating revised Direct Reduced Iron and Forging) and i. BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES effluent limitations guidelines and found them to be economically standards for each subcategory as achievable at the facility level. For the briquetting segment, EPA is proposed. Rather, EPA is revising Additional limitations and standards for establishing BPT of no discharge of effluent limitations guidelines and basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air process wastewater pollutants. EPA standards where the limits are pollution control, electric arc furnaces established these limitations because technically and economically with semi-wet air pollution control, briquetting operations do not generate achievable. sintering with dry air pollution control, any process wastewater. For this reason, For this purpose, the Agency has also non-recovery cokemaking, and the Agency concludes that there are no analyzed a reduced set of regulatory briquetting are projected to incur no costs associated with these limitations. options consisting of By-Product compliance costs. This set of options E. Facility Level Economic Impacts of Cokemaking BAT 1 and PSES 1 and does not cause any firm level impacts as the Regulatory Options Sintering BAT (see description in measured by the postcompliance Section VIII.B), in addition to BPT for Altman Z’ score. Accordingly, the In this section, EPA presents the Direct Reduced Iron and Forging. Agency determines that each selected impacts of capital costs and post-tax Additional limitations and standards for model technology in itself and when total annualized costs for combinations basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air considered collectively with the of technology options across all pollution control, electric arc furnaces technologies across the relevant subcategories. The Agency evaluates the with semi-wet air pollution control, subcategories is economically second stage of the impact analysis by sintering with dry air pollution control, achievable. projecting the impacts associated with non-recovery cokemaking, and the regulatory costs for all subcategories briquetting are projected to incur no G. Community Impacts affected at a facility or site (the terms are compliance costs. No facilities are The Agency evaluates community used interchangeably). For example, a projected to close as a result of the impacts by examining the potential fully integrated facility may have compliance costs of the reduced set of increase in county unemployment. The cokemaking, ironmaking, integrated regulatory options. The Agency Agency assumes all employees of the steelmaking, hot forming and finishing determines that the chosen set of model affected facilities reside in the county (if operations, and the postcompliance technologies are economically the county is not part of a larger cash flow analysis reflects the regulatory achievable for the affected metropolitan area) or metropolitan area costs associated with all affected subcategories. in which the facilities are located. As no operations at the site. This stage of the facility closures are projected as a result F. Firm Level Impacts analysis evaluates the aggregate of the estimated compliance costs, no regulatory costs and impacts upon each In this section, the Agency evaluates measurable impacts on county facility which may be affected in the economic impacts of the regulatory unemployment are expected. multiple subcategories. The analysis in options to the firms that own the this section reflects both those affected facilities. EPA evaluates the H. Foreign Trade Impacts integrated facilities for which third stage of the impact analysis by The Agency evaluates the potential subcategory cost estimates are incorporating the regulatory costs borne for foreign trade impacts by application interdependent (as discussed in Section by each facility into the financial status of the market model. The aggregate X.D) and other facilities which may of the firm that owns the facility or regulatory compliance costs are incur costs in multiple subcategories, multiple facilities. For example, if a incorporated to estimate the but whose cost estimates are not company owns an integrated facility, a postcompliance impacts on foreign interdependent. stand alone coke facility, and a stand trade. The analysis indicates less than The incorporation of the aggregate alone finishing facility, the aggregate 0.1 percent increase in imports and less regulatory costs based upon the regulatory costs are added to the than 0.1 percent decrease in exports. technology options in the proposed rule baseline or precompliance financial I. Small Business Analysis (except for By-product Cokemaking conditions of the firm as reflected by the where BAT 1 is evaluated rather than firm income statement and balance Based upon information provided in BAT 3; see Section XIII.A.3) across all sheet. The Agency then calculates the the Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel subcategories into the postcompliance postcompliance Altman Z’-score and Industry Data (Section 308 Survey), the cash flow analysis generates a total of checks for changes in financial status Agency was able to reasonably either 2 or 4 facility closures, depending from good or indeterminate to determine the appropriate NAICS on whether the By-Product Cokemaking distressed, with any such changes classification for each firm. EPA applied PSES 1 or 3 options are used (see considered to be impacts. the relevant Small Business Section X.D.1 and the EA). The facility The Agency evaluated the set of Administration (SBA) size standard for closures have potential job losses of options identified in Section X.E (By- each NAICS to determine whether each 3750 to 4000 FTEs. The aggregated Product Cokemaking BAT 1 and PSES 1 firm was to be considered a small entity. effect of those impacts is not and Sintering BAT (see description in The NAICS classifications observed economically achievable. Therefore, Section VIII.B), in addition to BPT for were predominantly NAICS 324199

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64249

(coke ovens, part of ‘‘all other petroleum of the Other Operations Subcategory. effectiveness is defined as the and coal product manufacturing’’) and CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a incremental annual cost of a pollution NAICS 331111 (iron and steel mills). cost-reasonableness assessment for BPT control option in an industry The relevant size standards varied from limitations. In determining BPT subcategory per incremental pollutant 500 to 1500 employees; they also limitations, EPA must consider the total removal. The increments are considered included a few revenue-based cost of treatment technologies in relative to another option or to a standards. EPA identified an estimated relation to the effluent reduction benchmark, such as existing treatment. 35 small entities that may be affected by benefits achieved by such technology. In cost-effectiveness analysis, pollutant the proposed rule among the estimated This inquiry does not limit EPA’s broad removals are measured in toxicity 115 total companies potentially affected discretion to adopt BPT limitations that normalized units called ‘‘pound- by the proposed set of options. Given are achievable with available technology equivalents.’’ The cost-effectiveness the chosen set of final options, EPA unless the required additional value, therefore, represents the unit cost identified an estimated five small reductions are wholly out of proportion of removing an additional pound- entities that may be affected by the final to the costs of achieving such marginal equivalent (lb.-eq.) of pollutants. In rule among the estimated 22 total reduction. general, the lower the cost-effectiveness companies. EPA has fully evaluated the The cost-reasonableness ratio is value, the more cost-efficient the economic achievability of the final rule average cost per pound of pollutant regulation will be in removing to affected small entities. The economic removed by a BPT regulatory option. pollutants, taking into account their achievability analysis was conducted The cost component is measured as pre- toxicity. While not required by the using a discounted cash flow approach tax total annualized costs ($2001). In Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness for facility analysis and the Altman Z’ this case, the pollutants removed are analysis is a useful tool for evaluating test for the firm analysis (for a full conventional pollutants. The Agency regulatory options for the removal of discussion, see Section X.C.). EPA evaluated a technology option for the toxic pollutants. Cost-effectiveness projects that no small entities will incur Non-recovery Cokemaking segment analysis does not take into account the an impact such as facility closure/firm which is based on no discharge of removal of conventional pollutants (e.g., failure. Further, for small entities, EPA process wastewater pollutants and is oil and grease, biochemical oxygen examined the cost to revenue ratio to estimated to have no associated demand, and total suspended solids). incremental regulatory compliance identify any other potential impacts of For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the costs. For the Direct Reduced Iron the rule upon small entities. EPA has estimated pound-equivalents of segment, the evaluated BPT option 1 has determined that none of the five small pollutants removed were calculated by a cost-reasonableness ratio of $3. For the entities will experience an impact of 1% multiplying the number of pounds of Forging segment, the evaluated BPT or greater ratio of costs to revenue. each pollutant removed by the toxic option 1 removes approximately 3500 weighting factor for each pollutant. The J. Cost-Benefit Analysis pounds of conventional pollutants with more toxic the pollutant, the higher will The Agency estimates the total a cost-reasonableness ratio of $9. The be the pollutant’s toxic weighting factor; monetized social costs of the final rule Agency evaluated a technology option accordingly, the use of pound- to be $12.0 million ($2001) and the total for the Briquetting Segment which is equivalents gives correspondingly more monetized social benefits to range based on no discharge of process weight to pollutants with higher between $1.4 million and $7.3 million wastewater pollutants and is estimated toxicity. Thus, for a given expenditure ($2001). The total annualized costs for to have no associated incremental and pounds of pollutants removed, the each subcategory ($2001, pre-tax) are regulatory compliance costs. EPA cost per pound-equivalent removed presented in Table X.L.1. The final rule considers the cost-reasonableness ratio would be lower when more highly toxic as promulgated includes costs for By- to be acceptable and the selected option pollutants are removed than if Product Cokemaking BAT 1 and PSES 1 to be cost-reasonable in all four pollutants of lesser toxicity are and Sintering BAT 1, in addition to BPT segments. for Direct Reduced Iron and Forging. removed. Annual costs for all cost- Additional limitations and standards for L. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis effectiveness analyses are reported in basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air This section provides the cost- 1981 dollars so that comparisons of pollution control, electric arc furnaces effectiveness analysis of the BAT and cost-effectiveness may be made with with semi-wet air pollution control, PSES regulatory options by subcategory. regulations for other industries that sintering with dry air pollution control, The cost-effectiveness analysis were issued at different times. non-recovery cokemaking, and compares the total annualized cost 1. Cost Effectiveness Analysis briquetting are projected to incur no incurred for a regulatory option to the compliance costs. The total monetized corresponding effectiveness of that The table below presents the pre-tax benefits are presented in Table XI.F.1 option in reducing the discharge of total annualized costs, removals (in lb- pollutants. equivalents), and the incremental cost K. Cost-Reasonableness Analysis Cost-effectiveness calculations are effectiveness for each technically The Agency is promulgating BPT used during the development of effluent feasible regulatory option. In cases limitations for the Non-recovery limitations guidelines and standards to where the technology has been found Cokemaking segment of the Cokemaking compare the efficiency of one regulatory not to be feasible, the term ‘‘NA’’ Subcategory and the Direct Reduced option in removing pollutants to appears in Table X.L.1 for removals and Iron, Briquetting, and Forging segments another regulatory option. Cost- incremental cost-effectiveness.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64250 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE X.L.1.—BAT AND PSES REMOVALS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Pretax total Incremental cost Subcategory and segment Option annualized cost Removals (lb-eq) effectiveness ($2001M) (1981$/lb-eq)

By-Product Cokemaking ...... BAT 1 7.1 185,441 $21 By-Product Cokemaking ...... PSES 1 2.1 26,251 45 By-Product Cokemaking ...... PSES 3 7.7 77,783 61 Ironmaking ...... BAT1 and PSES1 13.7 NA NA Sintering ...... BAT 1 2.8 14,515 107 Integrated Steelmaking ...... BAT 1 14.0 94,494 83 Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming, Carbon & Alloy ...... BAT 1 36.7 247,280 83 Nonintegrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming, Carbon & Alloy BAT 1 6.6 3,891 941 Nonintegrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming, Stainless ...... BAT 1 0.9 230 2,069 Nonintegrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming, Stainless ...... PSES 1 0.3 78 1,970 Steel Finishing, Carbon & Alloy ...... BAT 1 11.1 NA NA Steel Finishing, Stainless ...... BAT 1 5.4 NA NA

2. Non-recovery Cokemaking through the consumption of instead includes many organic contaminated fish and drinking water. compounds with varying physical, The Agency has selected a technology Furthermore, these pollutants may chemical, and toxicological properties, option for the Non-recovery also interfere with POTW operations in it is difficult for EPA to establish a Cokemaking Segment which is based on terms of inhibition of activated sludge numerical criterion which would be no discharge of process wastewater or biological treatment and applicable to all types of oil and grease. pollutants for BPT, BAT and PSES and contamination of sewage sludges, For this reason, EPA does not model the is estimated to have no associated thereby limiting the methods of disposal effects of oil and grease on the regulatory compliance costs. This is for sewage sludge and the POTW’s costs environment. because all existing non-recovery (though, as noted below, there is no Of a total of 254 iron and steel cokemaking facilities achieve the no evidence of this for this sector). Most of facilities potentially affected by the rule, discharge of process wastewater these pollutants have at least one known EPA presents here the analysis results pollutants limitation. As a result, a cost- toxic effect (human health carcinogen for 22 of the facilities affected by this effectiveness analysis cannot be and/or systemic toxicant or aquatic final rule. The facilities modelled are constructed for this segment. toxicant). In addition, many of these the discharging facilities in the 3. Other Operations pollutants bioaccumulate in aquatic cokemaking and sintering subcategories. organisms and persist in the In the case of the other operations The Agency evaluated technology environment. subcategory, no pollutants other than options for Direct Reduced Ironmaking The Agency did not evaluate the conventional pollutants were identified and Forging segments only for the effects of conventional pollutants as pollutants of concern and the Agency control of conventional pollutants at discharged from iron and steel mills on did not undertake environmental BPT (see Section X.K). The Agency aquatic life and human health because modelling. Of the 22 facilities, fifteen evaluated a technology option for the of a lack of numeric AWQC for those are direct wastewater dischargers that Briquetting Segment which is based on parameters. EPA did not evaluate the discharge up to 50 pollutants to thirteen no discharge of process wastewater effects of conventional pollutants on receiving streams and eight are indirect pollutants and is estimated to have no POTWs because POTWs are designed to wastewater dischargers discharging up associated incremental regulatory treat these pollutants. However, the to 26 pollutants through POTWs to compliance costs. As a result, a cost- discharge of a conventional pollutant seven receiving streams. One facility effectiveness analysis cannot be such as total suspended solids (TSS) or discharges both directly and indirectly. constructed for these segments. oil & grease can have adverse effects on To estimate some of the benefits from XI. Water Quality Analysis and aquatic life and the environment. For the improvements in water quality Environmental Benefits example, habitat degradation can result expected to result from this rule, EPA from increased suspended particulate modeled in-stream concentrations for EPA evaluated the environmental matter that reduces light penetration, the pollutants and then compared these benefits of controlling the discharges of and thus primary productivity, or from concentrations to aquatic life and 50 priority and nonconventional accumulation of suspended particles human health AWQC guidance pollutants from iron and steel facilities that alter benthic spawning grounds and documents published by EPA or to toxic to surface waters and POTWs in feeding habitats. effect levels. States often consult these national analyses of direct and indirect Oil and grease may have toxic effects water quality criteria guidance discharges. EPA identified more than 50 on aquatic organisms (i.e., fish, documents when adopting water quality pollutants of concern in iron and steel crustacea, larvae and eggs, gastropods, criteria as part of their water quality effluents at treatable levels, but EPA bivalves, invertebrates, and flora). The standards. However, because those presently has only published marine larvae and benthic invertebrates State-adopted criteria may vary, for this recommended ambient water quality appear to be the most intolerant of oil analysis, EPA used the nationwide criteria (AWQC) or toxicity profiles for and grease, particularly the water- criteria guidance as the representative 50 of those pollutants. Discharges of soluble compounds, at concentrations values for the particular pollutants. EPA these pollutants into freshwater and ranging from 0.1 ppm to 25 ppm and 1 also modeled the effects of iron and estuarine ecosystems may alter aquatic ppm to 6,100 ppm, respectively. steel discharges on seven POTWs which habitats, adversely affect aquatic biota, However, because oil and grease is not receive discharges from the eight iron and adversely impact human health a definitive chemical category, but and steel indirect discharging facilities.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64251

Because the affected iron and steel using a discount factor to account for 22 percent. The analysis comparing facilities may discharge in multiple latency in cases (such as cancer) where modeled instream pollutant waste subcategories, and some there is a lag between exposure and concentration to AWQC estimates that waterbody reaches receive discharges mortality. This was not done in the current discharge loadings result in from more than one iron and steel current analysis because EPA needs excursions at fifteen streams receiving facility, EPA chose to perform the more information to estimate latency the discharge from iron and steel environmental assessment analyses on a periods associated with cancers caused facilities. The final rule would reduce reach-by-reach basis. The reach-by- by iron and steel pollutants. For the number of receiving streams with reach basis has the advantage over a example, EPA based the risk excursions to fourteen. subcategory-specific basis in that it assessments for several pollutants on EPA estimates that the annual more accurately predicts the overall data from animal bioassays; these data monetized recreational benefits to effects of the rule on the environment. are not sufficiently reliable to estimate anglers associated with the expected In addition, EPA reviewed the CWA a latency period for humans. changes in water quality range from Section 303(d) lists of impaired $82,000 to $290,000 ($2001). EPA waterbodies developed by States in B. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human evaluates these recreational benefits by 1998 and noted that at least 3 Health Hazard applying a model that considers the waterbodies, identified with industrial Exposure to toxic substances poses increase in value of a ‘‘contaminant-free point sources as a potential source of risk of systemic and other effects to fishery’’ to recreational anglers resulting impairment, receive direct discharges humans, including effects on the from the elimination of all pollutant from iron and steel facilities as well as circulatory, respiratory or digestive concentrations in excess of AWQC at other sources. Eight additional systems and neurological and one of the fifteen receiving streams. EPA waterbodies that receive direct developmental effects. This final rule is estimated the monetized value of discharges are also identified as expected to decrease human exposure impaired recreational fishing impaired. However, the States did not (through consumption of contaminated opportunity by first calculating the identify the potential sources of fish tissues) to such pollutants. baseline value of the receiving stream impairment. EPA also identified 10 However, EPA does not claim a using a value per person day of waterbodies with fishing advisories that reduction in noncarcinogenic human recreational fishing, and the number of receive direct discharges from iron and health risk since the instream person-days fished on the receiving steel facilities as well as other sources. concentrations at both baseline and stream. EPA then calculated the value of EPA expects a variety of human treatment option are below the improving water quality in this fishery, health, environmental, and economic threshold of noncarcinogenic human based on the increase in value to anglers benefits to result from reductions in health risk. of achieving contaminant-free fishing. effluent loadings (see the Environmental C. Improved Ecological Conditions and In addition, EPA estimates that the Assessment). In particular, the benefits Recreational Activity annual monetized intrinsic benefits to assessment addresses the following the general public, as a result of the benefit categories: (a) Human health EPA expects this final rule to generate same improvements in water quality, benefits due to reductions in excess environmental benefits by improving range from at least $41,000 to $145,000 cancer cases; (b) human health benefits water quality. There is a wide range of ($2001). These intrinsic benefits are due to reductions in noncarcinogenic benefits associated with the estimated as half of the recreational hazard (systemic); (c) ecological and maintenance and improvement of water benefits and may be under or recreational benefits due to improved quality. These benefits include use overestimated. water quality with respect to toxic values (e.g., recreational fishing), pollutants; and (d) benefits to POTWs ecological values (e.g., preservation of D. Effect on POTW Operations from reductions in interference, pass habitat), and passive use (intrinsic) EPA considers two potential sources through, and biosolid contamination, values. For example, water pollution of benefits to POTWs from this final and elimination of some of the efforts might affect the quality of the fish and regulation: (1) reductions in the associated with establishing local wildlife habitat provided by water likelihood of interference, pass through, pretreatment limits. resources, thus affecting the species and biosolid contamination problems; using these resources. This in turn A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk and (2) reductions in costs potentially might affect the quality and value of incurred by POTWs in analyzing toxic EPA expects that reduced loadings to recreational experiences of users, such pollutants and determining whether to, surface waters associated with the final as anglers fishing in the affected and the appropriate level at which to, rule would reduce excess cancer cases streams. EPA considers the value of the set local limits. by approximately 0.50 per year with recreational fishing benefits and EPA has concluded from its analysis estimated monetized benefits of $1.3 to intrinsic benefits resulting from this that under current conditions, POTW $6.9 million ($2001). These estimated final rule, but does not evaluate the operations (interference) and biosolid benefits are attributable to reducing the other types of ecological and quality are not significantly affected by cancer risks associated with consuming environmental benefits (e.g., increased discharges from any of the eight contaminated fish tissue. EPA assimilative capacity of the receiving modeled iron and steel mills. EPA, developed these benefit estimates by stream, protection of terrestrial wildlife therefore, projects no potential applying an existing estimate of the and birds that consume aquatic economic benefits from reduced value of a statistical life to the estimated organisms, and improvements to other biosolid disposal costs. This will also be number of excess cancer cases avoided. recreational activities, such as true once facilities come into The estimated range of the value of a swimming, boating, water skiing, and compliance with today’s regulation. statistical life used in this analysis is wildlife observation) due to data $2.6 million to $13.7 million ($2001). limitations. E. Other Benefits Not Quantified EPA’s Science Advisory Board recently Modeled end-of-pipe pollutant The benefit analyses focus mainly on recommended that the values of a loadings of the 22 facilities are identified compounds with quantifiable statistical life be adjusted downward estimated to decline by approximately toxic or carcinogenic effects. This

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64252 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

potentially leads to an underestimation feeding habitats. BOD5 and COD loads this final rule and in placing a dollar of benefits, because some pollutant can deplete oxygen levels, which can value on these effects. As indicated in characterizations are not considered. produce mortality or other adverse Table XI.F.1, these monetized benefits Forexample, the analyses do not include effects in fish, as well as reduce ranges do not reflect some benefit the benefits associated with incidental biological diversity. categories, including improved removal of the particulate load F. Summary of Benefits ecological conditions from (measured as TSS), or the oxygen improvements in water quality, EPA estimates that the annual demand (measured as BOD and COD) improvements to recreational activities 5 monetized benefits, at the national level, of the effluents. TSS loads can degrade resulting from this final rule range from (other than fishing), and reduced ecological habitat by reducing light $1.4 million to $7.3 million ($2001). discharges of conventional pollutants. penetration and primary productivity, Table XI.F.1 summarizes these benefits, Therefore, the reported benefit estimate and from accumulation of solid particles by category. The range reflects the may understate the total benefits of this that alter benthic spawning grounds and uncertainty in evaluating the effects of final rule.

TABLE XI.F.1—POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS (NATIONAL LEVEL)

Millions of Benefit category 2001 dollars per year

Reduced Cancer Risk ...... 1.3–6.9 Reduced Noncarcinogenic Hazard ...... Unquantified Improved Ecological Conditions ...... Unquantified Improved Recreational Value ...... 0.08–0.29 Improved Intrinsic Value ...... 0.04–0.15

Total Monetized Benefits ...... 1.4–7.3

XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental chromium electroplating and chromium biological treatment system by the Impacts anodizing (60 FR 4948, January 1995). maximum design flow and the Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act For the cokemaking subcategory, operational period reported in the U.S. require EPA to consider non-water maximum achievable control EPA Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel quality environmental impacts technology (MACT) standards were Industry Data. EPA determined the associated with effluent limitations proposed by EPA on July 3, 2001 (66 FR concentrations of the individual VOCs guidelines and standards. In accordance 35326) for pushing, quenching, and entering the biological treatment with these requirements, EPA has battery stacks at cokemaking plants. systems from the sampling episode data. considered the potential impact of These regulations are currently Assuming all the VOCs entering the today’s technical options on air scheduled for promulgation in biological treatment systems are emitted emissions, solid waste generation, and December 2002. Like effluent to the atmosphere (no biological energy consumption. While it is guidelines, MACT standards are degradation), the maximum VOC difficult to balance environmental technology based. The CAA sets emission rate would be approximately impacts across all media and energy maximum control requirements on 1,800 pounds per year for all facilities. use, the Agency has determined that the which MACT can be based for new and EPA believes that this is an impacts identified below are acceptable existing sources. By-products recovery overestimate, because VOCs can be in light of the benefits associated with operations in the cokemaking degraded through biological treatment. compliance with the final effluent subcategory remove the majority of EPA concludes that, even if this likely limitations guidelines and standards. HAPs through processes that collect tar, overestimate of VOC emission rate were heavy and light oils, ammonium sulfate accurate, this would be an acceptable A. Air Pollution and elemental sulfur. Ammonia removal rate of emissions that would not have a Various subcategories within the iron by steam stripping could generate a significant impact on the environment. and steel industry generate process potential air quality issue if See TDD, Chapter 15. waters that contain significant uncontrolled; however, ammonia concentrations of organic and inorganic stripping operations at cokemaking For the subcategories for which EPA compounds, some of which are listed as facilities capture vapors and convert is not revising effluent limitations Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in ammonia to either an inorganic salt or guidelines and standards today, EPA Title III of the Clean Air Act (CAA) anhydrous ammonia, or destroy the does not project any change in air Amendments of 1990. The Agency has ammonia. emissions. For the mills without developed National Emission Standards Biological treatment of cokemaking cokemaking operations that are affected for Hazardous Air Pollutants wastewater can potentially emit by revisions to part 420 (sintering, (NESHAPs) under section 112 of the hazardous air pollutants if significant steelmaking, forging, direct reduced iron Clean Air Act (CAA) that address air concentrations of volatile organic (DRI) manufacturing, and briquetting), emissions of HAPs for certain compounds (VOCs) are present. To EPA anticipates that facilities that manufacturing operations. estimate the maximum annual air employ the model technologies will Subcategories within the iron and steel emissions from biological treatment, experience no increase in air emissions. industry where NESHAPs are applicable EPA multiplied the individual As such, no adverse air impacts are include cokemaking (58 FR 57898, concentrations of all VOCs in expected to occur as a result of the October 1993) and steel finishing with cokemaking wastewater entering the revised regulations.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64253

B. Solid Waste consumption is primarily due to the authority must apply those limitations Solid waste, including hazardous and incorporation of components such as or standards. See CWA Section nonhazardous sludge and waste oil, will pumps, mixers, blowers, and fans. 301(b)(1)(C). be generated from a number of the 2. Compliance Dates model treatment technologies used to TABLE XII.1—ADDITIONAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS BY SUBCATEGORY New and reissued Federal and State develop today’s effluent limitations NPDES permits to direct dischargers guidelines and standards. These solids Energy must include the effluent limitations will need to be disposed of and may be required promulgated today. The permits must subject to RCRA Land Disposal Subcategory (million require immediate compliance with Restrictions if they are characteristically kilowatt hours/year) such limitations. If the permitting hazardous. Solid wastes include sludge authority wishes to provide a from biological treatment systems, Cokemaking 1 ...... 17 compliance schedule, it must do so clarification systems, gravity separation, Sintering 2 ...... 4 through an enforcement mechanism. mixed-media filtration, and oil/water Other Operations 3 ...... 0.01 Existing indirect dischargers must separation systems. EPA accounted for comply with today’s pretreatment the associated costs related to on-site Total ...... 21.01 standards no later than October 17, recovery and off-site treatment and 1 BAT–1 and PSES–1 2005. New direct and indirect disposal of the solid wastes generated 2 BAT–1 and PSES–1 discharging sources must comply with 3 due to the implementation of the Other operations include DRI, briquetting, applicable limitations and standards on and forging various technology options. These costs the date the new sources begin were included in the economic Approximately 3,100,000 million operations. New direct and indirect evaluation for the part 420 regulation. kilowatt hours of electric power were sources are those that began Biological nitrification included in generated in the United States in 1997 construction of iron and steel operations the technology basis for cokemaking by- (Energy Information Administration, affected by today’s rule after November product segment will produce a Electric Power Annual 1998 Volume 1, 18, 2002. See 65 FR at 82027. biological treatment sludge that Table A1). Total additional energy facilities would need to dispose. EPA needs for all cokemaking, sintering, DRI, 3. Applicability estimates that approximately 190 tons briquetting, and forging facilities to In Section VI, EPA provided detailed (dry wt.) per year of additional comply with this rule correspond to less information on the applicability of this biological treatment sludge will be than 0.001 percent of the national rule to various operations. Permit generated by the cokemaking energy demand. The increase in energy writers and pretreatment authorities subcategory as a result of today’s rule. demand due to the implementation of should closely examine all iron and These non-hazardous biological this rule will in turn cause an air steel operations to determine if they are treatment sludge can be disposed in a emission impact from the electric power subject to the provisions of this rule. Subtitle D landfill, recycled to the coke generation facilities. The increase in air Also see 40 CFR 420.01. ovens for incineration, or land applied. emissions is expected to be proportional 4. Production Basis for Calculation of Additional solids captured by to the increase in energy requirements. Permit Limitations roughing clarifiers and sand or mixed- Consequently, EPA has concluded no media filters for sintering and forging adverse energy impacts are expected to The NPDES permit regulations at operations will account for less than an occur as a result of today’s regulation. § 122.45(f) require that NPDES permit additional 0.08 percent of the solids effluent limitations be specified as mass currently being collected. XIII. Regulatory Implementation effluent limitations (e.g., lbs/day or kg/ Data provided in the industry surveys A. Implementation of the Limitations day), except under certain enumerated indicate the total annual sludge and and Standards circumstances that do not apply here. In scale production from all iron and steel order to convert the final effluent facilities to be 3,522,500 tons/year (dry 1. Introduction limitations expressed as pounds/ weight). Solids removal equipment Effluent limitations and pretreatment thousand pounds to a monthly average associated with the promulgated options standards act as a primary mechanism or daily maximum permit limit, the for this rule is expected to generate less to control the discharges of pollutants to permitting authority would use a than 277 tons per year of additional dry waters of the United States. These production rate with units of thousand wastewater treatment sludge. limitations and standards are applied to pounds/day. The current part 420 and Consequently, EPA has concluded no individual facilities through NPDES § 122.45(b)(2) NPDES permit regulations adverse solid waste impacts are permits issued by the EPA or authorized require that pretreatment requirements expected to occur as a result of today’s States under Section 402 of the Act and and NPDES permit limits, respectively, regulation. through local pretreatment programs be based on a ‘‘* * * reasonable under Section 307 of the Act. measure of actual production.’’ C. Energy Requirements In specific cases, the NPDES The 1982 iron and steel regulation at EPA estimates that compliance with permitting authority or local POTW may 40 CFR 420.04 sets out the basis for this regulation will result in a net elect to establish technology-based calculating mass-based pretreatment increase in energy consumption at iron permit limits or local limits for requirements and requires that they be and steel facilities. The maximum pollutants not covered by this based on a reasonable measure of actual estimated increased energy use by listed regulation. In addition, if State water production. That regulation provides subcategories is presented in Table quality standards or other provisions of the following examples of what may XII.1. The costs associated with these State or Federal law require limits on constitute a reasonable measure of energy requirements are included in pollutants not covered by this regulation actual production: the monthly average EPA’s estimated operating costs for (or require more stringent limits or for the highest of the previous five compliance with today’s rule. The standards on covered pollutants to years, or the high month of the previous projected increase in energy achieve compliance), the permitting year. Similar provisions exist in the

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64254 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

national pretreatment regulations at 40 —Allow trades involving cold rolling bubble provision to be used as a tool to CFR 403.6(c)(3) for deriving mass-based operations. See 40 CFR 420.03(a). achieve the pollutant reductions pretreatment requirements. Specifically, —Allow trades for new, as well as required by Part 420 at the least cost. 40 CFR 403.6(c)(3) states that the same existing, sources. See 40 CFR This new flexibility is especially production of flow figure shall be used 420.03(a). important in view of the economic in calculating limitations based on —Eliminate the minimum net reduction condition of the industry at this time. pretreatment standards. These values provision (formerly codified at 40 EPA notes that nothing in the regulation are converted to a daily basis (e.g., tons/ CFR 420.03(b)). prevents the permitting authority from day) for purposes of calculating mass- —Prohibit trades of oil and grease. See imposing minimum net reductions on a based pretreatment requirements. EPA 40 CFR 420.03(c). case-by-case basis when appropriate. is making no revision to 420.04. —Prohibit trades of 2,3,7,8–TCDF in EPA also notes that the water bubble still retains the provision that a 5. Water Bubble sintering operations. See 40 CFR 420.03(f)(2). discharger cannot qualify for alternative The ‘‘water bubble’’ is a regulatory The first change reflects EPA’s effluent limitations if the application of flexibility mechanism described in the concern about co-occurring such alternative effluent limitations current regulation at 40 CFR 420.03 to contaminants in cokemaking wastewater would cause or contribute to an allow for trading of identical pollutants (e.g., benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, exceedance of any applicable water at any single steel facility with multiple fluoranthene for cokemaking). Allowing quality standards. compliance points. The bubble has been EPA is prohibiting trades involving a relaxation of the limits for cokemaking used at some facilities to realize cost oil and grease because of differences in wastewater could allow undetected savings and/or to facilitate compliance. the types of oil and grease used among increases in discharges of these co- The restrictions on use of the water the I&S operations. Finishing operations occurring contaminants that would not bubble are described in the proposal tend to use and discharge synthetic and necessarily be offset by tighter limits on preamble. See 65 FR at 82031–32. animal fats and oils used to lubricate the regulated pollutants in another While at present NPDES permits for metal materials, the hot-end operations waste stream. As was the case in the only nine facilities have alternative tend to discharge petroleum-based oil 1982 regulation, EPA is promulgating effluent limitations derived from the and grease used to lubricate machinery, effluent limitations for certain water bubble, there may be increased and cokemaking operations tend to ‘‘indicator’’ pollutants, including interest in the water bubble with the discharge oil and grease containing phenols (4AAP), naphthalene, and promulgation of today’s rule. EPA polynuclear aromatics generated by the benzo(a)pyrene for cokemaking. The proposed some changes to the water combustion of coal. EPA is similarly data available to EPA generally show bubble, but invited comment on all prohibiting trades involving 2,3,7,8– that control of the selected ‘‘indicator’’ aspects of the provision. These changes TCDF due to the internal monitoring pollutants will result in comparable EPA proposed and EPA’s rationale are requirements and the associated ML control of other toxic pollutants found discussed at 65 FR at 82031–32. EPA limitation. received some comments opposing in cokemaking wastewaters but not EPA concludes that these changes some of the proposed revisions specifically limited. A trade of phenols will give added compliance flexibility to (generally industry commenters were (4AAP) enacted between cokemaking facilities that choose to take advantage supportive of expansions of the water and ironmaking wastewaters would not of the water bubble provision, while bubble and environmental group be environmentally protective if the still providing for a high level of commenters were supportive of increased limitation for phenols (4AAP) environmental protection. restrictions on the water bubble). EPA occurred in the cokemaking wastewater, also received comments urging the due to the co-occuring contaminants. 6. Compliance With Limitations and elimination of the provision codified in EPA also notes that trades involving Standards the 1984 amendment to part 420 that cokemaking operations were previously The same basic procedures apply to required a minimum net reduction of precluded, so this change is an the calculation of all effluent limitations the amount of the pollutant otherwise expansion in the water bubble. guidelines and standards for this authorized by the regulation. Under this EPA is allowing trades involving cold industry, regardless of whether the provision, the amount of the pollutant rolling operations which were technology is BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, discharges authorized by the bubble previously precluded. In the 1982 PSNS, or NSPS. For simplicity, the must be 10% to 15% less than the rulemaking, tetrachloroethlylene was a following discussion refers only to discharges otherwise authorized by the pollutant of concern in cold rolling effluent limitations guidelines; however, rule without the bubble. These wastewaters, thus leading to the the discussion also applies to comments argued that the water bubble preclusion of trades. However, this is pretreatment and new source standards. should be used, first and foremost, as a not the case today, based on information tool to achieve the pollutant reductions in the Agency’s rulemaking record and a. Definitions required by the guideline at the least Chapter 7 of the TDD. EPA likewise is The limitations for pollutants for each cost. allowing trades involving Subcategory option, as presented in today’s notice, After considering the public M operations, since no toxic pollutants are provided as maximum daily comments, EPA makes the following were identified as pollutants of concern. discharge limitations and maximum changes to the water bubble: EPA is eliminating the requirement monthly average discharge limitations. —Allow trades for cokemaking that all alternative effluent limitations Definitions provided in 40 CFR 122.2 operations but only if the cokemaking based on the water bubble must achieve state that the ‘‘maximum daily discharge alternative limitations are more a minimum net reduction (depending limitation’’ is the ‘‘highest allowable stringent than the limitations in on the pollutant) of at least 10–15% of ‘‘daily discharge’’ ‘‘ and the ‘‘ maximum Subpart A. See 40 CFR 420.03(f)(1). the discharges that would otherwise average for monthly discharge —Allow trades for new Subpart M have been allowable under the limitation’’ is the ‘‘highest allowable operations. See 40 CFR 420.03(a) and regulation. EPA is eliminating the average of ‘‘daily discharges’’ over a (e). requirement in order to allow the water calendar month, calculated as the sum

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64255

of all ‘‘daily discharges’’ measured statutory framework, which requires internal waste streams is provided in 40 during a calendar month divided by the that discharge limitations reflect the CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii), 122.45(h), and 40 number of ‘‘daily discharges’’ measured best available technology. CFR 403.6(e)(2) and (4). Permit writers during that month.’’ Daily discharge is or local pretreatment control authorities c. Requirements of Laboratory Analysis defined as the ‘‘discharge of a pollutant’’ may establish additional internal measured during a calendar day or any The permittee is responsible for monitoring points to the extent 24-hour period that reasonably communicating the requirements of the consistent with EPA’s regulations. represents the calendar day for purposes analysis to the laboratory, including the As explained in Section VIII.B, iron of sampling.’’ sensitivity required to meet the and steel dischargers subject to the regulatory limits associated with each sintering subcategory must demonstrate b. Percentile Basis for Limits, Not analyte of interest. In turn, the Compliance compliance with the effluent limitations laboratory is responsible for employing and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF at the EPA promulgates limitations that the appropriate set of method options point after treatment of sinter plant facilities are capable of complying with and a calibration range in which the wastewater separately or in combination at all times by properly operating and concentration of the lowest non-zero with blast furnace wastewater, but prior maintaining their processes and standard represents a sample to mixing with process wastewaters treatment technologies. EPA established concentration lower than the regulatory from processes other than sintering and these limitations on the basis of limit for each analyte. For example, EPA ironmaking, non-process wastewaters percentiles estimated using data from Methods 420.1 and 420.2 provide and non-contact cooling water in an facilities with well-operated and several options for sample preparation amount greater than 5 percent by controlled processes and treatment and analysis, including a preliminary volume of the sintering process systems. However, because EPA uses a distillation designed to remove wastewaters. See 40 CFR 420.29. percentile basis, the issue of interferences and a chloroform In today’s rulemaking for the sintering exceedances (i.e., values that exceed the extraction procedure (Method 420.1) subcategory, EPA is establishing limitations) or excursions is often raised designed to improve the sensitivity of in public comments on limitations. For the method. Both methods also provide limitation and standard for 2,3,7,8- example, comments often suggest that information on the concentrations of the TCDF that is expressed as less than the EPA include a provision that allows a calibration standards that may be Minimum Level (‘‘

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64256 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

measurements are less than the method limitation for 2,3,7,8-TCDF. Such situations can be avoided by careful ML of 10 ppq specified in § 420.21(c). sample-specific Minimum Levels may adherence to sample collection and When monitoring for compliance with result from sample volume shortages, laboratory analysis procedures. this final rule, a sample-specific breakage or other problems in the Table XIII.A.1 provides some Minimum Level greater than the method laboratory, or from failure to properly examples demonstrating compliance Minimum Level of 10 ppq will not remove analytical interferences from the with the ML limitation for 2,3,7,8-TCDF. demonstrate compliance with the ML sample. EPA believes that all of these

TABLE XIII.A.1.—EXAMPLES DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE

2,3,7,8-TCDF value re- Does the Is concentration reported as ‘‘detected’’ or ported by lab- sample dem- Explanation for compliance determination: ‘‘non-detected’’ in the sample? oratory (ML is onstrate com- 10 ppq) pliance?

Detected 4 ppq Yes 4 ppq is less than the ML of 10 ppq specified in § 420.21(c). Detected 10 ppq No Compliance is demonstrated only with measurements less than the ML of 10 ppq specified in § 420.21(c). Non-detected <5 ppq Yes <5 ppq is less than the ML of 10 ppq specified in § 420.21(c). Non-detected <10 ppq Yes Compliance is demonstrated for all values less than the ML specified in § 420.21(c). Non-detected <11 ppq No The sample-specific ML must be less than the ML of 10 ppq specified in § 420.21(c).

EPA did not establish monthly standards would be applied using the 124.5 within 90 days after the Federal average limitations and standards for ‘‘combined wastestream formula’’ as Register notice of the action on which 2,3,7,8-TCDF because the daily defined in 40 CFR 403.6(e). the modification request is based. See maximum limitations and standards for 40 CFR 122.62(a)(3). 9. Revisions Affecting Certain these pollutants are expressed as less In today’s rule, EPA is revising Steelmaking Operations than the Minimum Level (

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64257

authorized to use their best professional product recovery processes (e.g., C. Variances and Modifications judgment to include increased mass ammonia, cyanide, phenolic Upon the promulgation of these discharge allowances to account for compounds, and polynuclear aromatic regulations, all new and reissued certain non-process wastewaters when hydrocarbons). As a result, many coke Federal and State NPDES permits issued they are appropriately cotreated with plants commonly collect storm water to direct dischargers in the iron and process wastewaters using best from these areas and pump it to the steel industry must include the effluent professional judgement. Non-process process wastewater equalization tank for limitations. In addition, the indirect wastewaters may include utility treatment with process wastewaters. dischargers must comply with wastewaters (for example, water Because the levels of contaminants and pretreatment standards for existing treatment residuals, boiler blowdown, dissolved salts in the collected storm sources codified today by November 18, and air pollution control wastewaters water are relatively low compared to 2002. from heat recovery equipment); treated those found in process wastewaters, or untreated wastewaters from facilities can also temporarily use storm 1. Fundamentally Different Factors groundwater remediation systems; water in lieu of uncontaminated water (FDF) Variances dewatering water for building to optimize of biological treatment The CWA requires application of the foundations; and other wastewater systems. EPA has provided guidance on effluent limitations established pursuant streams not associated with a process area storm water at by-product to Section 301 or the pretreatment production process. When considering recovery coke plants in Section 17 of the standards of Section 307 to all direct such non-process wastewaters, permit Final TDD and will provide additional and indirect dischargers. However, the writers and pretreatment control guidance in a separate guidance statute provides for the modification of authorities should determine whether document. these national requirements in a limited they contain process wastewater For other iron and steel processes, number of circumstances. Moreover, the pollutants, or whether they would EPA believes it is prudent to collect Agency has established administrative simply be dilution flows. For example, storm water from the area within mechanisms to provide an opportunity wastewater from coke plant outdoor wastewater treatment facilities, for relief from the application of groundwater remediation systems particularly where wastewater treatment national effluent limitations guidelines would be expected to contain coke plant sludges are dewatered and handled at and pretreatment standards for wastewater pollutants, whereas building blast furnaces, sinter plants, steelmaking categories of existing sources for foundation dewatering water would be operations, hot forming mills (scale and priority, conventional, and non- expected to be relatively clean. In the oil removal as well as wastewater conventional pollutants. former case, the permit writer or treatment), and steel finishing EPA will develop effluent limitations pretreatment control authority may wastewater treatment plants. or standards different from the include additional mass discharges EPA does not advocate unrestricted otherwise applicable requirements if an based on the average groundwater collection and treatment of process area individual existing discharging facility remediation flow and the concentrations storm water with process waters, either is fundamentally different with respect used by EPA to develop the effluent at by-product recovery coke plants or at to factors considered in establishing the limitations guidelines and standards in facilities in other subcategories. For limitations or standards applicable to developing the mass limits. In the latter example, by-product recovery and non- the individual facility. Such a case, no increase in mass discharges recovery coke plants should use modification is known as a may be appropriate. conventional storm water control ‘‘fundamentally different factors’’ (FDF) EPA has provided a definition of measures to handle coal and coke pile variance. storm water in the immediate process runoff, storm water from the battery Early on, EPA, by regulation, area at § 420.02(t). EPA has included areas, and storm water collected away provided for FDF modifications from provisions in the regulation for permit from the by-products recovery areas. BPT effluent limitations, BAT writers and pretreatment control Other examples of storm water that limitations for priority and non- authorities to provide for additional would be either impracticable or conventional pollutants, and BCT mass discharge allowances for process uneconomic to treat in process limitations for conventional pollutants area storm water, when they deem wastewater treatment facilities include for direct dischargers. For indirect appropriate. With advances in storm building roof storm drainage from hot dischargers, EPA provided for FDF water pollution prevention and spill forming and steel finishing mills and modifications from pretreatment prevention and control, collecting and storm drainage from raw material standards for existing facilities. FDF treating limited amounts of process area storage areas and plant roadways. variances for priority pollutants were storm water with process wastewaters is challenged judicially and ultimately B. Upset and Bypass Provisions the most practicable and effective means sustained by the Supreme Court of limiting discharges of contaminated A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion (Chemical Manufacturers Ass’n v. storm water. This is particularly the of waste streams from any portion of a NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)). case for by-product recovery coke treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an Subsequently, in the Water Quality plants, where contaminated storm water exceptional incident in which there is Act of 1987, Congress added new is typically collected from the following unintentional and temporary Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to operations: tar decanters, ammonia noncompliance with technology-based authorize modification of the otherwise liquor storage, crude tar storage, crude permit effluent limitations because of applicable BAT effluent limitations or light oil recovery (benzol plant), crude factors beyond the reasonable control of national effluent pretreatment standards light oil storage, ammonia recovery, the permittee. EPA’s regulations for existing sources if a facility is ammonium sulfate recovery, and others. concerning bypasses and upsets for fundamentally different with respect to Storm water collected from these areas direct dischargers are set forth at 40 CFR the factors specified in Section 304 often contains oil & grease and some of 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect (other than costs) from those considered the nonconventional and toxic dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16 and by EPA in establishing the effluent pollutants associated with the by- 403.17. limitations or pretreatment standards.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64258 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Section 301(n) also defined the different are, in fact, fundamentally XIV. Related Acts of Congress, conditions under which EPA may different from those factors considered Executive Orders, and Agency establish alternative requirements. by the EPA in establishing the Initiatives Under Section 301(n), an application for applicable guidelines. The pretreatment A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory approval of FDF variance must be based regulations incorporate a similar Planning and Review solely on (1) information submitted requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9). during the rulemaking raising the Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR factors that are fundamentally different, An FDF variance is not available to a 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency or (2) information the applicant did not new source subject to NSPS or PSNS. must determine whether the regulatory have an opportunity to submit. The 2. Water Quality Variances action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore alternate limitation or standard must be subject to OMB review and the no less stringent than justified by the Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes requirements of the Executive Order. difference, and not result in markedly a variance from BAT effluent guidelines The Order defines ‘‘significant more adverse non-water quality for certain non-conventional pollutants regulatory action’’ as one that is likely environmental impacts than the due to localized environmental factors to result in a rule that may: national limitation or standard. so long as the discharge does not violate (1) Have an annual effect on the EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125 any water quality-based effluent economy of $100 million or more or subpart D, authorizing the EPA Regional limitations. These pollutants include adversely affect in a material way the Administrators to establish alternative ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and economy, a sector of the economy, limitations and standards, further detail phenols (4AAP). Dischargers subject to productivity, competition, jobs, the the substantive criteria used to evaluate environment, public health or safety, or new or revised BAT limitations FDF variance requests for existing direct State, local, or tribal governments or promulgated today for those pollutants dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) communities; identifies six factors (for example, may be eligible for a section 301(g) (2) create a serious inconsistency or volume of process wastewater, age, and variance. Please note that section otherwise interfere with an action taken size of a discharger’s facility) that may 301(g)(4)(c) requires the filing of section or planned by another agency; be considered in determining if a 301(g) variance applications pertaining (3) materially alter the budgetary facility is fundamentally different. The to the new or revised limits not later impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, Agency must determine whether, on the than July 14, 2003. Existing section or loan programs or the rights and basis of one or more of these factors, the 301(g) variances for limitations not obligations of recipients thereof; or facility in question is fundamentally being revised today are not affected by (4) raise novel legal or policy issues different from the facilities and factors today’s action. arising out of legal mandates, the considered by the EPA in developing President’s priorities, or the principles the nationally applicable effluent 3. Permit Modifications set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive guidelines. The regulation also lists four Even after EPA (or an authorized Order 12866, it has been determined other factors (for example, infeasibility State) has issued a final permit to a that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory of installation within the time allowed direct discharger, the permit may still be or a discharger’s ability to pay) that may action.’’ As such, this action was modified under certain conditions. not provide a basis for an FDF variance. submitted to OMB for review. Changes (When a permit modification is under In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), made in response to OMB suggestions or a request for limitations less stringent consideration, however, all other permit recommendations will be documented than the national limitation may be conditions remain in effect.) A permit in the public record. approved only if compliance with the modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could include a B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as national limitations would result in Amended by the Small Business either (a) a removal cost wholly out of regulatory inspection or information Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of proportion to the removal cost submitted by the permittee that reveals 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. considered during development of the the need for modification. There are two national limitations, or (b) a non-water classifications of modifications: major The RFA generally requires an agency quality environmental impact and minor. From a procedural to prepare a regulatory flexibility (including energy requirements) standpoint, they differ primarily with analysis for any rule subject to notice fundamentally more adverse than the respect to the public notice and comment rulemaking requirements impact considered during development requirements. Major modifications under the Administrative Procedure Act of the national limits. EPA regulations require public notice while minor or any other statute unless the agency provide for an FDF variance for existing modifications do not. Virtually any certifies that the rule will not have a indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. modification that results in less significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The conditions for approval of a request stringent conditions is treated as a major Small entities include small businesses, to modify applicable pretreatment modification, with provisions for public small organizations, and small standards and factors considered are the notice and comment. Conditions that same as those for direct dischargers. governmental jurisdictions. The legislative history of Section would necessitate a major modification For purposes of assessing the impacts 301(n) underscores the necessity for the of a permit are described in 40 CFR of today’s rule on small entities, small FDF variance applicant to establish 122.62. Minor modifications are entity is defined as: (1) A small business eligibility for the variance. EPA’s generally non-substantive changes. The based on full time employees (FTEs) or regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are conditions for minor modification are annual revenues established by SBA; (2) explicit in imposing this burden upon described in 40 CFR 122.63. a small governmental jurisdiction that is the applicant. The applicant must show a government of a city, county, town, that the factors relating to the discharge school district or special district with a controlled by the applicant’s permit population of less than 50,000; and (3) which are claimed to be fundamentally a small organization that is any not-for-

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64259

profit enterprise which is independently under Section 203 of the UMRA, a small at [email protected]. A copy may owned and operated and is not government agency plan. The plan must also be downloaded off the internet at dominant in its field. provide for notifying potentially http://www.epa.gov/icr. Include the ICR After considering the economic affected small governments, enabling and/or OMB number in any impacts of today’s final rule on small officials of affected small governments correspondence. entities, I certify that this action will not to have meaningful and timely input in Burden means the total time, effort or have a significant economic impact on the development of EPA regulatory financial resources expended by persons a substantial number of small entities. proposals with significant Federal to generate, maintain, retain or disclose No small governments are regulated by intergovernmental mandates, and or provide information to or for a this action. EPA identified an estimated informing, educating, and advising Federal Agency. This includes the time five small companies (owning five small governments on compliance with needed to review instructions; develop, facilities) out of the 22 companies that the regulatory requirements. acquire, install, and utilize technology may be affected by the final rule. For EPA has determined that this rule and systems for the purposes of small entities, EPA examined the cost to does not contain a Federal mandate that collecting, validating, and verifying revenue ratio to identify the impacts of may result in expenditures of $100 information, processing and the today’s rule on small entities. EPA million or more for State, local and maintaining information, and disclosing has determined that none of the five tribal governments, in the aggregate, or and providing information; adjust the small entities will experience an impact the private sector in any one year. EPA existing ways to comply with any of 1% or greater ratio of costs to has estimated total annualized costs of previously applicable instructions and revenue. Further, EPA has fully the final rule as $12.0 million ($2001). requirements; train personnel to be able evaluated the economic impact of the Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the to respond to a collection of final rule to affected small entities. The requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of information; search data sources; economic achievability analysis was the UMRA. complete and review the collection of conducted using a discounted cash flow EPA has determined that this rule information; and transmit or otherwise approach for facility analysis and the contains no regulatory requirements that disclose the information. Altman Z’ test for the firm analysis (for might significantly or uniquely affect An Agency may not conduct or a full discussion, see Section X.C.). EPA small governments. No small sponsor, and a person is not required to projects that no small entities will incur governments are subject to this rule. The respond to a collection of information a significant impact such as facility final rule, at most, imposes only unless it displays a current valid OMB closure or firm failure. minimal administrative requirements on control number. The OMB control small local governments that are numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act administering approved pretreatment in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter Title II of the Unfunded Mandates programs. The final rule does not 15. Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public uniquely affect small governments E. National Technology Transfer and Law 104–4, establishes requirements for because small and large governments Advancement Act Federal agencies to assess the effects of are affected in the same way. Thus, their regulatory actions on State, local, today’s rule is not subject to the As noted in the proposed rule, and tribal governments and the private requirements of Section 203 of the Section 12(d) of the National sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, UMRA. Technology Transfer and Advancement EPA generally must prepare a written Act of 1995 (NTTAA), (Public Law 104– statement, including a cost-benefit D. Paperwork Reduction Act 113, section 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note) analysis, for proposed and final rules This action does not impose any new directs EPA to use voluntary consensus with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may information collection burden. There standards in its regulatory activities result in expenditures to State, local, are no new information collection unless to do so would be inconsistent and tribal governments, in the aggregate, reporting requirements for facilities that with applicable law or otherwise or to the private sector, of $100 million comply with the limits in any of the impractical. Voluntary consensus or more in any one year. Before subcategories. However, the Office of standards are technical standards (e.g., promulgating an EPA rule for which a Management and Budget (OMB) has materials specifications, test methods, written statement is needed, Section 205 previously approved the information sampling procedures, and business of the UMRA generally requires EPA to collection requirements and burden practices) that are developed or adopted identify and consider a reasonable contained in the regulation under by voluntary consensus standards number of regulatory alternatives and ‘‘National Pollutant Discharge bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to adopt the least costly, most cost- Elimination System (NPDES)/ provide Congress, through the Office of effective, or least burdensome Compliance Assessment/Certification Management and Budget (OMB), alternative that achieves the objectives Information’’ ICR (EPA ICR No.1427.05; explanations when the Agency decides of the rule. The provisions of Section OMB Control No. 2040–0110) and in the not to use available and applicable 205 do not apply when they are ‘‘National Pretreatment Program (40 voluntary consensus standards. inconsistent with applicable law. CFR part 403)’’ ICR (EPA ICR No. Today’s rule does not establish any Moreover, Section 205 allows EPA to 0002.081; OMB Control No. 2040–0009) technical standards. Thus, NTTAA does adopt an alternative other than the least under the provisions of the Paperwork not apply to this rule. It should be costly, most cost-effective, or least Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et noted, however, that dischargers burdensome alternative if the seq. complying with this rule may need to Administrator publishes with the final Copies of the ICR documents may be use previously approved technical rule an explanation of why that obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail at standards to analyze for some or all of alternative was not adopted. Before EPA the Office of Environmental the following pollutants: establishes any regulatory requirements Information, Collection Strategies benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene, phenols that may significantly or uniquely affect Division; U.S. Environmental Protection (4AAP), TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), small governments, including tribal Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., total cyanide, ammonia as Nitrogen, governments, it must have developed, NW, Washington, DC 20460, or by email 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and pH. Consensus

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64260 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

standards have already been H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism EPA will submit a report containing promulgated in tables at 40 CFR 136.3 Executive Order 13132, entitled this rule and other required information for measurement of all of the analytes. ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure General of the United States prior to Children From Environmental Health publication of the rule in the Federal Risks and Safety Risks ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of Register. A major rule cannot take effect The Executive Order ‘‘Protection of regulatory policies that have federalism until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a Children from Environmental Health implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, federalism implications’’ is defined in 804(2). This rule will be effective April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: the Executive Order to include November 18, 2002. (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct significant’’ as defined under Executive effects on the States, on the relationship List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 420 Order 12866, and (2) concerns an between the national government and environmental health or safety risk that the States, or on the distribution of EPA has reason to believe may have a power and responsibilities among the Environmental protection, Iron, Steel, disproportionate effect on children. If various levels of government.’’ Waste treatment and disposal, Water the regulatory action meets both criteria, This final rule does not have pollution control. the Agency must evaluate the federalism implications. It will not have Dated: April 30, 2002. substantial direct effects on the States, environmental health or safety effects of Christine Todd Whitman, on the relationship between the national the planned rule on children; and Administrator. explain why the planned regulation is government and the States, or on the For the reasons set out in the preferable to other potentially effective distribution of power and responsibilities among the various preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code and reasonably feasible alternatives of Federal Regulations is amended as considered by the Agency. This rule is levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule only follows: not subject to Executive Order 13045 directly affects the private sector. It because it is neither ‘‘economically establishes effluent limitations for iron PART 420—IRON AND STEEL significant’’ as defined under Executive and steel facilities. The rule does not MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE Order 12866. Further, it does not apply directly to States and localities CATEGORY concern an environmental health or and will only affect State and local safety risk that EPA has reason to 1. The authority citation for part 420 governments when they are continues to read as follows: believe may have a disproportionate administering CWA permitting effect on children. programs. The rule, at most, imposes Authority: Secs. 301; 304(b), (c), (e), and (g); 306(b) and (c); 307; 308 and 501 of the G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation minimal administrative costs on States Clean Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution and Coordination With Indian Tribal that have an authorized NPDES Control Act Amendments of 1972., as Governments program. (These States must incorporate amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977) the new limitations and standards in (the ‘‘Act’’); 33 U.S.C. 1311; 1314(b), (c), (e), Executive Order 13175, entitled new and reissued NPDES permits.) and (g); 1316(b) and (c); 1317; 1318, 1361; 86 ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92–500; 91 Stat. 1567; Pub. Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR apply to this rule. L. 95–217. 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA I. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects General Provisions to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 2. Section 420.02 is amended by tribal officials in the development of action’’ as defined in Executive Order adding paragraphs (r), (s), (t) and (u) to regulatory policies that have tribal 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations read as follows: That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal § 420.02 General definitions. implications’’ is defined in the Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May Executive Order to include regulations 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have * * * * * that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on a significant adverse effect on the (r) The term Non-process wastewaters one or more Indian tribes, on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. means utility wastewaters (for example, relationship between the Federal The maximum estimated additional water treatment residuals, boiler blowdown, and air pollution control government and the Indian tribes, or on energy needs associated with today’s wastewaters from heat recovery the distribution of power and rule represents less than 0.001 percent equipment); treated or untreated responsibilities between the Federal of national energy demand, which is not wastewaters from groundwater government and Indian tribes.’’ considered significant. remediation systems; dewatering water This final rule does not have tribal J. Congressional Review Act for building foundations; and other implications. It will not have substantial The Congressional Review Act, 5 wastewater streams not associated with direct effects on tribal governments, on U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small a production process. the relationship between the Federal Business Regulatory Enforcement (s) The term Nitrification means government and Indian tribes, as Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides oxidation of ammonium salts to nitrites specified in Executive Order 13175. that before a rule may take effect, the (via Nitrosomas bacteria) and the further EPA determined no facilities in the agency promulgating the rule must oxidation of nitrite to nitrate via scope of the final rule are owned by submit a rule report, which includes a Nitrobacter bacteria. Nitrification can be Indian tribes nor are any facilities copy of the rule, to each House of the accomplished in either: located in tribal lands. Thus, Executive Congress and to the Comptroller General (1) A single or two-stage activated Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. of the United States. sludge wastewater treatment system; or

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64261

(2) Wetlands specifically developed (c) Use of the water bubble to develop § 420.11 Specialized definitions. with a marsh/pond configuration and alternate effluent limitations for oil & (a) For the cokemaking subcategory, maintained for the express purpose of grease is prohibited. the term product means the production removing ammonia-N. (d) A discharger cannot qualify for of coke plus coke breeze. Indicators of nitrification capability alternative effluent limitations if the (b) The term by-product cokemaking are: application of such alternative effluent means operations in which coal is (1) Biological monitoring for ammonia limitations would cause or contribute to heated in the absence of air to produce oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and nitrite an exceedance of any applicable water metallurgical coke (furnace coke and oxidizing bacteria (NOB) to determine if quality standards. foundry coke), and the recovery of by- the nitrification is occurring; and (e) Each outfall from which process products derived from the gases and (2) Analysis of the nitrogen balance to wastewaters are discharged must have liquids that are driven from the coal determine if nitrifying bacteria reduce specific, fixed effluent limitations for during cokemaking. the amount of ammonia and increase each pollutant limited by the applicable (c) The term cokemaking—non- the amount of nitrite and nitrate. subparts A through M of this part. recovery means cokemaking operations (t) The term storm water from the (f) Subcategory-Specific Restrictions: for production of metallurgical coke immediate process area means storm (1) There shall be no alternate effluent (furnace coke and foundry coke) water that comes into contact with limitations for cokemaking process without recovery of by-products. Does process equipment located outdoors, wastewater unless the alternative not include co-generation facilities storm water collected in process area limitations are more stringent than the located at non-recovery coke facilities. and bulk storage tank secondary limitations in Subpart A of this part; (d) The term coke means a processed containment structures, and storm water and form of coal that serves as the basic fuel from wastewater treatment systems (2) There shall be no alternate effluent for the smelting of iron ore. located outdoors, provided that it has limitations for 2,3,7,8–TCDF in sintering (1) The term foundry coke means coke the potential to become contaminated process wastewater. produced for foundry operations. with process wastewater pollutants for 4. Add § 420.07 to General Provision (2) The term furnace coke means coke the particular subcategory. Storm water to read as follows: produced for blast furnace operations from building roofs, plant roadways, (e) The term merchant coke plant and other storm waters that do not have § 420.07 Effluent limitations guidelines means by-product cokemaking the potential to become contaminated and standards for pH. operations that provide more than fifty with process wastewater pollutants are (a) The pH level in process percent of the coke produced to not storm water from the immediate wastewaters subject to a subpart within operations, industries, or processes process area. this part shall be within the range of 6.0 other than ironmaking blast furnaces (u) The term 2,3,7,8–TCDF means to 9.0. associated with steel production. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran. (b) The pH level shall be monitored at (f) The term iron and steel coke plant means by-product cokemaking 3. Revise § 420.03 to read as follows: the point of discharge to the receiving water or at the point at which the operations other than those at merchant § 420.03 Alternative effluent limitations wastewater leaves the wastewater coke plants. representing the degree of effluent treatment facility operated to treat (g) The term coke oven gas wet reduction attainable by the application of effluent subject to that subpart. desulfurization system means those best practicable control technology systems that remove sulfur and sulfur currently available, best available 5. Add § 420.08 to General Provisions to read as follows: compounds from coke oven gas and technology economically achievable, best generate process wastewater. available demonstrated control technology, § 420.08 Non-process wastewater and (h) The term coke breeze means fine and best conventional pollutant control storm water. coke particles. technology (the ‘‘water bubble’’). Permit and pretreatment control (i) The term indirect ammonia (a) Except as provided in paragraphs authorities may provide for increased recovery system means those systems (c) through (f) of this section, any loadings for non-process wastewaters that recover ammonium hydroxide as a existing or new direct discharging point defined at § 420.02 and for storm water by-product from coke oven gases and source subject to this part may qualify from the immediate process area in waste ammonia liquors. for alternative effluent limitations to NPDES permits and pretreatment (j) The term iron and steel means those specified in subparts A through M control mechanisms using best those by-product cokemaking operations of this part, representing the degree of professional judgment, but only to the other than merchant cokemaking effluent reduction attainable by the extent such non-process wastewaters operations. application of best practicable control result in an increased flow. (k) The term merchant means those technology currently available (BPT), by-product cokemaking operations that best available technology economically Subpart A—Cokemaking Subcategory provide more than fifty percent of the achievable (BAT), best conventional coke produced to operations, industries, pollutant control technology (BCT), and 6. Section 420.10 is revised to read as or processes other than ironmaking blast best available demonstrated control follows: furnaces associated with steel technology (NSPS). The alternative production. § 420.10 Applicability. effluent limitations for each pollutant (l) The term O&G (as HEM) means are determined for a combination of The provisions of this subpart are total recoverable oil and grease outfalls by totaling the mass limitations applicable to discharges and the measured as n-hexane extractable allowed under subparts A through M of introduction of pollutants into publicly material. this part for each pollutant. owned treatment works resulting from (m) The term wet desulfurization (b) The water bubble may be used to by-product and other cokemaking system means those systems that remove calculate alternative effluent limitations operations. sulfur compounds from coke oven gases only for identical pollutants (e.g., lead 7. Section 420.11 is revised to read as and produce a contaminated process for lead, not lead for zinc). follows: wastewater.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64262 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

8. Section 420.12 is amended by application of the best practicable source subject to this subpart must revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: control technology currently available achieve the following effluent (BPT): There shall be no discharge of limitations representing the degree of § 420.12 Effluent limitations representing process wastewater pollutants to waters the degree of effluent reduction attainable effluent reduction attainable by the by the application of the best practicable of the U.S. application of the best available technology currently available (BPT). 9. Section 420.13 is revised to read as technology economically achievable * * * * * follows: (BAT): (c) Cokemaking—non-recovery. § 420.13 Effluent limitations guidelines (a) By-product cokemaking. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 representing the degree of effluent through 125.32, any existing point reduction attainable by the application of source subject to this segment must the best available technology economically achieve the following effluent achievable (BAT). limitations representing the degree of Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 effluent reduction attainable by the through 125.32, any existing point

SUBPART A.—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Regulated parameter Maximum Maximum daily 1 monthly avg.1

Ammonia-N ...... 0.00293 0.00202 Benzo(a)pyrene ...... 0.0000110 0.00000612 Cyanide ...... 0.00297 0.00208 Naphthalene ...... 0.0000111 0.00000616 Phenols (4AAP) ...... 0.0000381 0.0000238 1 Pounds per thousand lb of product.

(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed (3) Increased loadings, not to exceed (1) Any new source subject to the 13.3 per cent of the above limitations, 44.2 percent of the above limitations, provisions of this section that shall be provided for process shall be provided for water used for the commenced discharging after November wastewaters from coke oven gas wet optimization of coke plant biological 19, 2012, and before November 18, desulfurization systems, but only to the treatment systems. 2002, must continue to achieve the extent such systems generate process (b) Cokemaking—non-recovery. There standards specified in § 420.14 of title wastewaters. shall be no discharge of process 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1, 2001, except as (2) Increased loadings shall be wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S. provided below. For toxic and provided for process wastewaters from nonconventional pollutants, those other wet air pollution control systems 10. Section 420.14 is revised to read standards shall apply until the (except those from coal charging and as follows: expiration of the applicable time period coke pushing emission controls), coal specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); tar processing operations and coke plant § 420.14 New source performance standards (NSPS). thereafter, the source must achieve the groundwater remediation systems, but effluent limitations specified in only to the extent such systems generate New sources subject to this subpart § 420.13(a). process wastewaters and those must achieve the following new source (2) The following standards apply wastewaters are co-treated with process performance standards (NSPS), as with respect to each new source that wastewaters from by-product applicable. commences construction after cokemaking wastewaters. (a) By-product cokemaking. November 18, 2002:

SUBPART A.—NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Regulated parameter Maximum Maximum daily 1 monthly avg.1

Ammonia-N ...... 0.00293 0.00202 Benzo(a)pyrene ...... 0.0000110 0.00000612 Cyanide ...... 0.00297 0.00208 Naphthalene ...... 0.0000111 0.00000616 O&G (as HEM) ...... 0.00676 0.0037 pH 2 ...... (2) (2) Phenols (4AAP) ...... 0.0000381 0.0000238 TSS ...... 0.0343 0.0140 1 Pounds per thousand lb of product. 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

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

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64263

coke pushing emission controls), coal optimization of coke plant biological § 420.15 Pretreatment standards for tar processing operations and coke plant treatment systems. existing sources (PSES). groundwater remediation systems, but (b) Cokemaking—non-recovery. There Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 only to the extent such systems generate shall be no discharge of process and 403.13, any existing source subject process wastewaters and those wastewater pollutants to waters of the to this subpart that introduces wastewaters are co-treated with process pollutants into a publicly owned U.S. wastewaters from by-product treatment works must comply with 40 cokemaking wastewaters. 11. Section 420.15 is revised to read CFR part 403 and must achieve the (C) Increased loadings, not to exceed as follows: following pretreatment standards for 44.2 percent of the above limitations, existing sources (PSES): shall be provided for water used for the (a) By-product cokemaking.

SUBPART A.—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES)

Maximum Regulated parameter Maximum daily 1 monthly avg.1

Ammonia-N 2 ...... 0.0333 0.0200 Cyanide ...... 0.00724 0.00506 Naphthalene ...... 0.0000472 0.0000392 1 Pounds per thousand lb of product. 2 The pretreatment standards for ammonia are not applicable to sources that discharge to a POTW with nitrification capability (defined at § 420.02(s)).

(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed shall be provided for water used for the (1) Any new source subject to the 13.3 per cent of the above limitations, optimization of coke plant biological provisions of this section that shall be provided for process treatment systems. commenced discharging after November wastewaters from wet coke oven gas (b) Cokemaking—non-recovery. There 19, 2012 and before November 18, 2002 desulfurization systems, but only to the shall be no discharge of process must continue to achieve the standards extent such systems generate process wastewater pollutants to POTWs. specified in § 420.16 of title 40 of the wastewaters. Code of Federal Regulations, revised as (2) Increased loadings shall be 12. Section 420.16 is revised to read as follows: of July 1, 2001, (except for the standards provided for process wastewaters from for phenols 4AAP) for ten years other wet air pollution control systems § 420.16 Pretreatment standards for new beginning on the date the source (except those from coal charging and sources (PSNS). commenced discharge or during the coke pushing emission controls), coal Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, period of depreciation or amortization tar processing operations and coke plant of the facility, whichever comes first, groundwater remediation systems, but any new source subject to this subpart after which the source must achieve the only to the extent such systems generate that introduces pollutants into a standards specified in § 420.15(a). process wastewaters and those publicly owned treatment works must wastewaters are co-treated with process comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must (2) Except as provided in 40 CFR wastewaters from by-product achieve the following pretreatment 403.7, the following standards apply cokemaking wastewaters. standards for new sources (PSNS), as with respect to each new source that (3) Increased loadings, not to exceed applicable. commences construction after 44.2 percent of the above limitations, (a) By-product cokemaking. November 18, 2002:

SUBPART A.—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS)

Regulated parameter Maximum Maximum daily 1 monthly avg.1

Ammonia-N2 ...... 0.00293 0.00202 Benzo(a)pyrene ...... 0.0000110 0.00000612 Cyanide ...... 0.00297 0.00208 Naphthalene ...... 0.0000111 0.00000616 1 Pounds per thousand lb of product. 2 The pretreatment standards for ammonia are not applicable to sources that discharge to a POTW with nitrification capability (defined at § 420.02(s)).

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

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64264 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

There shall be no discharge of process or amends a pretreatment permit (e) The term sintering means a process wastewater pollutants to POTWs. requiring such compliance. Until that for agglomerating iron-bearing materials 13. Section 420.17 is amended by date, the pretreatment standards for into small pellets (sinter) that can be revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: existing sources set forth in Subpart A charged to a blast furnace. of title 40 of the Code of Federal (f) The term wet air pollution control § 420.17 Effluent limitations representing Regulations, revised as of July 1, 2001, the degree of effluent reduction attainable system means an emission control by the application of the best conventional shall continue to apply. system that utilizes water to clean pollutant control technology (BCT). Subpart B—Sintering Subcategory process or furnace off-gases. * * * * * 16. Section 420.22 is revised to read (c) Cokemaking—non-recovery. 15. Section 420.21 is added to read as as follows: Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 follows: through 125.32, any existing point § 420.22 Effluent limitations guidelines source subject to this segment must § 420.21 Specialized definitions. representing the degree of effluent achieve the following effluent As used in this subpart: reduction attainable by the application of limitations representing the degree of (a) For the sintering subcategory, the the best practicable control technology effluent reduction attainable by the term product means sinter agglomerated currently available (BPT). application of the best conventional from iron-bearing materials. (b) The term dry air pollution control Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 pollutant control technology (BCT): through 125.32, any existing point There shall be no discharge of process system means an emission control system that utilizes filters to remove source subject to this subpart must wastewater pollutants to waters of the achieve the following effluent U.S. iron-bearing particles (fines) from blast furnace or sintering off-gases. limitations representing the degree of 14. Section 420.18 is added to Subpart effluent reduction attainable by the A to read as follows: (c) The term minimum level (ML) means the level at which the analytical application of the best practicable § 420.18 Pretreatment standards system gives recognizable signals and an control technology currently available compliance dates. acceptable calibration point. For 2,3,7,8- (BPT). Compliance with the pretreatment tetrachlorodibenzofuran, the minimum (a) Sintering operations with wet air standards for existing sources set forth level is 10 pg/L per EPA Method 1613B pollution control system. The following in § 420.15 of this subpart is required for water and wastewater samples. table presents BPT limitations for not later than October 17, 2005 whether (d) The term pg/L means picograms sintering operations with wet air or not the pretreatment authority issues per liter (ppt = 1.0×10–12 gm/L). pollution control systems:

SUBPART B.—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BPT)

BPT effluent limitations Pollutants or pollutant property Average of daily Maximum for any 1 values for 30 con- day secutive days

Kg/kkg (pounds per 1000 lb) of product

TSS ...... 0.0751 0.0250 O&G ...... 0.0150 0.00501 pH ...... (1) (1) 1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) Sintering operations with dry air § 420.23 Effluent limitations guidelines effluent reduction attainable by the pollution control system. There shall be representing the degree of effluent application of the best available control no discharge of process wastewater reduction attainable by the application of technology economically achievable the best available technology economically pollutants to waters of the U.S. achievable (BAT). (BAT). 17. Section 420.23 is revised to read Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 (a) Sintering operations with wet air as follows: through 125.32, any existing point pollution control system. The following source subject to this subpart must table presents BAT limitations for achieve the following effluent sintering operations with wet air limitations representing the degree of pollution control systems:

SUBPART B.—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)

Maximum monthly Regulated parameter Maximum daily1 avg.1

Ammonia-N2 ...... 0.0150 0.00501 Cyanide2 ...... 0.00300 0.00150 Lead ...... 0.000451 0.000150 Phenols (4AAP)2 ...... 0.000100 0.0000501 2,3,7,8–TCDF ......

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64265

SUBPART B.—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (BAT)—Continued

Maximum monthly Regulated parameter Maximum daily1 avg.1

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

(b) Sintering operations with dry air performance standards (NSPS), as 122.29(d)(1), the source must also pollution control system. There shall be applicable. achieve the effluent limitations no discharge of process wastewater (a) Any new source subject to the specified in § 420.23 for 2,3,7,8-TCDF. pollutants to waters of the U.S. provisions of this section that (b) The following standards apply commenced discharging after November with respect to each new source that 18. Section 420.24 is revised to read 19, 2012 and before November 18, 2002 commences construction after as follows: must continue to achieve the applicable November 18, 2002. § 420.24 New source performance standards specified in § 420.24 of title (1) Sintering operations with wet air standards (NSPS). 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, pollution control system. The following revised as of July 1, 2001, except that table presents NSPS for sintering New sources subject to this subpart after the expiration of the applicable operations with wet air pollution must achieve the following new source time period specified in 40 CFR control systems:

SUBPART B.—NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)

Maximum monthly Regulated parameter Maximum daily1 avg.1

TSS ...... 0.0200 0.00751 O&G ...... 0.00501 Ammonia-N2 ...... 0.0150 0.00501 Cyanide2 ...... 0.00100 0.000501 Phenols (4AAP)2 ...... 0.000100 0.0000501 TRC3 ...... 0.000250 Lead ...... 0.000451 0.000150 Zinc ...... 0.000676 0.000225 pH ...... (4) (4) 2,3,7,8–TCDF ......

(2) Sintering operations with dry air § 420.25 Pretreatment standards for following pretreatment standards for pollution control system. There shall be existing sources (PSES). existing sources (PSES): Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 no discharge of process wastewater (a) Sintering operations with wet air and 403.13, any existing source subject pollutants to waters of the U.S. pollution control system. The following to this subpart that introduces 19. Section 420.25 is revised to read pollutants into a publicly owned table presents PSES for sintering as follows: treatment works must comply with 40 operations with wet air pollution CFR part 403 and must achieve the control systems:

SUBPART B.—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES (PSES)

Maximum monthly Regulated parameter Maximum daily1 avg.1

Ammonia-N2,3 ...... 0.0150 0.00501 Cyanide2 ...... 0.00300 0.00150 Phenols (4AAP)2 ...... 0.000100 0.0000501 Lead ...... 0.000451 0.000150 Zinc ...... 0.000676 0.000225 2,3,7,8-TCDF ......

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64266 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

(b) Sintering operations with dry air achieve the following pretreatment discharge or during the period of pollution control system. There shall be standards for new sources (PSNS), as depreciation or amortization of the no discharge of process wastewater applicable. facility, whichever comes first, after pollutants to POTWs. (a) Sintering operations with wet air which the source must also achieve the 20. Section 420.26 is revised to read pollution control system. pretreatment standard for 2,3,7,8–TCDF as follows: (1) Any new source subject to the specified in § 420.25. provisions of this section that § 420.26 Pretreatment standards for new commenced discharging after November (2) Except as provided in 40 CFR sources (PSNS). 19, 2012 and before November 18, 2002 403.7, the following standards apply Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, must continue to achieve the standards with respect to each new source that any new source subject to this subpart specified in § 420.26 of title 40 of the commences construction after that introduces pollutants into a Code of Federal Regulations, revised as November 18, 2002: The following table publicly owned treatment works must of July 1, 2001, for ten years beginning presents PSNS for sintering operations comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must on the date the source commenced with wet air pollution control systems:

SUBPART B.—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES (PSNS)

Maximum monthly Regulated parameter Maximum daily 1 avg.1

Ammonia-N 2,3 ...... 0.0150 0.00501 Cyanide 2 ...... 0.00100 0.000501 Phenols (4AAP) 2 ...... 0.000100 0.0000501 Lead ...... 0.000451 0.000150 Zinc ...... 0.000676 0.000225 2,3,7,8-TCDF ......

(b) Sintering operations with dry air non-contact cooling water, if such or other location remote from the blast pollution control system. There shall be water(s) are in an amount greater than furnace. no discharge of process wastewater 5 percent by volume of the sintering (c) The term iron blast furnace means pollutants to POTWs. process wastewaters. all blast furnaces except ferromanganese 21. Section 420.28 is added to Subpart (b) Sintering Indirect Dischargers. An blast furnaces. B to read as follows: indirect discharger must demonstrate (d) The term existing indirect compliance with the pretreatment dischargers means only those two iron § 420.28 Pretreatment standards standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF by compliance dates. blast furnace operations with discharges monitoring at the point after treatment to publicly owned treatment works prior Compliance with the pretreatment of sinter plant wastewater separately or to May 27, 1982. standards for 2,3,7,8–TCDF for existing in combination with blast furnace sources set forth in § 420.25(a) is wastewater, but prior to mixing with § 420.32 [Amended] required not later than October 17, 2005 process wastewaters from processes whether or not the pretreatment other than sintering and ironmaking, 24. Section 420.32 is amended by authority issues or amends a non-process wastewaters and non- removing and reserving paragraph (b). pretreatment permit requiring such contact cooling water in an amount § 420.33 [Amended] compliance. greater than 5 percent by volume of the 25. Section 420.33 is amended by 22. Section 420.29 is added to Subpart sintering process wastewaters. removing and reserving paragraph (b). B to read as follows: Subpart C—Ironmaking Subcategory § 420.34 [Amended] § 420.29 Point of compliance monitoring. 23. Section 420.31 is revised to read 26. Section 420.34 is amended by (a) Sintering Direct Dischargers. as follows: Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(i) and removing and reserving paragraph (b). 122.45(h), a direct discharger must § 420.31 Specialized definitions. 27. Section 420.35 is amended by demonstrate compliance with the (a) For ironmaking blast furnaces, the adding a footnote in the table to effluent limitations and standards for term product means the amount of paragraph (a) for the entry Ammonia-N 2,3,7,8–TCDF at the point after molten iron produced. and by removing and reserving treatment of sinter plant wastewater (b) The term molten iron means iron paragraph (b) to read as follows: separately or in combination with blast produced in a blast furnace as measured furnace wastewater, but prior to mixing at the blast furnace, and may include § 420.35 Pretreatment standards for with process wastewaters from relatively minor amounts of blast existing sources (PSES). processes other than sintering and furnace slag that may be skimmed from * * * * * ironmaking, non-process wastewaters or the molten iron at the steelmaking shop (a) Iron blast furnace.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64267

SUBPART C.—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for any values for 30 con- 1 day secutive days

Kg/kkg (pounds per 1000 lb) of product

Ammonia-N1 ...... 0.00876 0.00292

*******

1 The pretreatment standards for ammonia are not applicable to sources that discharge to a POTW with nitrification capability (defined at 420.02(s)).

* * * * * and by removing and reserving § 420.36 Pretreatment standards for new 28. Section 420.36 is amended by paragraph (b) to read as follows: sources (PSNS). adding a footnote in the table to * * * * * paragraph (a) for the entry Ammonia-N (a) Iron blast furnace.

SUBPART C.—PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES

Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for any values for 30 con- 1 day secutive days

Kg/kkg (pounds per 1000 lb) of product

Ammonia-N1 ...... 0.00876 0.00292

******* 1 The pretreatment standards for ammonia are not applicable to sources that discharge to a POTW with nitrification capability (defined at § 420.02 (s)).

Subpart D—Steelmaking Subcategory (c) Basic oxygen furnace (c) Basic oxygen furnace steelmaking—wet open combustion; and steelmaking—wet open combustion; and 29. Section 420.40 is revised to read electric arc furnace steelmaking—wet. electric arc furnace steelmaking—wet. as follows. * * * * * * * * * * (d) Basic oxygen furnace § 420.40 Applicability; description of the (d) Basic oxygen furnace steelmaking subcategory. steelmaking—semi-wet. steelmaking—semi-wet. (1) No discharge of process The provisions of this subpart are (1) No discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable applicable to discharges and to the wastewater pollutants to navigable waters. introduction of pollutants into publicly waters. (2) If the permittee demonstrates to owned treatment works resulting from (2) If the permittee demonstrates to the satisfaction of the permitting steelmaking operations conducted in the satisfaction of the permitting authority that safety considerations basic oxygen and electric arc furnaces. authority that safety considerations prevent attainment of these limitations, prevent attainment of these limitations, § 420.41 [Amended] the permitting authority may establish the permitting authority may establish alternative limitations on a best 30. Section 420.41 is amended by alternative limitations on a best professional judgment basis. removing and reserving paragraph (b). professional judgment basis. 33. Section 420.44 is amended by 31. Section 420.42 is amended by 32. Section 420.43 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing revising paragraph (a), the heading of revising paragraph (a), the heading of paragraph (d) to read as follows. paragraph (c) (the table is unchanged), paragraph (c) (the table is unchanged), § 420.44 New source performance and adding paragraph (d) to read as and adding paragraph (d) to read as standards (NSPS). follows. follows. * * * * * § 420.42 Effluent limitations representing § 420.43 Effluent limitations representing (a) Basic oxygen furnace the degree of effluent reduction attainable the degree of effluent reduction attainable steelmaking—semi-wet; and electric arc by the application of the best practicable by the application of the best available furnace steelmaking—semi-wet. No control technology currently available control technology economically achievable discharge of process wastewater (BPT). (BAT). pollutants to navigable waters. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (a) Electric arc furnace steelmaking— (a) Electric arc furnace steelmaking— 34. Section 420.45 is amended by semi-wet. No discharge of process semi-wet. No discharge of process revising paragraph (a), the heading to wastewater pollutants to navigable wastewater pollutants to navigable paragraph (c) (the table is unchanged), waters. waters. and adding paragraph (d) to read as * * * * * * * * * * follows.

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 64268 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

§ 420.45 Pretreatment standards for § 420.48 Pretreatment standards (e) For direct reduced iron (DRI), the existing sources (PSES). compliance dates. term product means the amount of * * * * * Compliance with the pretreatment direct reduced iron and any fines that (a) Electric arc furnace steelmaking— standards for existing sources set forth are produced and sold commercially (as semi-wet. No discharge of process in § 420.45(d) of this subpart is required opposed to fines that may be wastewater pollutants to navigable not later than October 17, 2005 whether reprocessed on site). waters. or not the pretreatment authority issues (f) For forging, the term product * * * * * or amends a pretreatment permit means the tons of finished steel forgings (c) Basic oxygen furnace requiring such compliance. produced by hot working steel shapes. (g) The term O&G (as HEM) means steelmaking—wet open combustion; and 38. Subpart M is added to read as total recoverable oil & grease measured electric arc furnace steelmaking—wet. follows: as n-hexane extractable materials. * * * * * Subpart M—Other Operations Subcategory (d) Basic oxygen furnace Sec. § 420.132 Effluent limitations attainable by steelmaking—semi-wet. 420.130 Applicability. the application of the best practicable (1) No discharge of process 420.131 Subcategory definitions. control technology currently available (BPT). wastewater pollutants to navigable 420.132 Effluent limitations attainable by waters. the application of the best practicable Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 control technology currently available through 125.32, any existing point (2) If the permittee demonstrates to (BPT). source subject to this subpart must the satisfaction of the pretreatment 420.133 Effluent limitations guidelines achieve, for each applicable segment, control authority that safety representing the degree of effluent the following effluent limitations considerations prevent attainment of reduction attainable by the application of representing the degree of effluent these limitations, the pretreatment the best available technology reduction attainable by the application control authority may establish economically achievable (BAT). of the best practicable control alternative limitations on a best 420.134 New source performance standards (NSPS). technology currently available (BPT): professional judgment basis. 420.135 Pretreatment standards for existing (a) Direct-reduced iron. 35. Section 420.46 is amended by sources (PSES). revising paragraph (a) and removing 420.136 Pretreatment standards for new SUBPART M.—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS paragraph (d) to read as follows. sources (PSNS). (BPT) 420.137 Effluent limitations guidelines § 420.46 Pretreatment standards for new representing the degree of effluent sources (PSNS). Pollutant Maximum Maximum reduction attainable by the application of daily1 monthly avg.1 * * * * * the best control technology for (a) Basic oxygen furnace conventional pollutant (BCT). TSS ...... 0.00998 0.00465 pH ...... (2) (2) steelmaking—semi-wet; and electric arc Subpart M—Other Operations furnace steelmaking—semi-wet. No Subcategory 1 Pounds per thousand pound of product. discharge of process wastewater 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0. pollutants to navigable waters. § 420.130 Applicability. (b) Forging operations. * * * * * The provisions of this subpart are 36. Section 420.47 is amended by applicable to discharges to waters of the SUBPART M.—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS revising the section heading, paragraph U.S. and the introduction of pollutants (BPT) (a), and adding paragraph (d) to read as into publicly owned treatment works resulting from production of direct- follows. Pollutant Maximum Maximum reduced iron and from briquetting and daily 1 monthly avg.1 § 420.47 Effluent limitations guidelines forging operations. representing the degree of effluent O&G (as reduction attainable by the application of § 420.131 Specialized definitions. HEM) ...... 0.00746 0.00446 the best conventional pollutant control As used in this subpart: TSS ...... 0.0123 0.00508 technology (BCT). (a) The term briquetting operations pH ...... (2) (2) (a) Electric arc furnace steelmaking— means a hot or cold process that 1 Pounds per thousand pound of product. semi-wet. No discharge of process agglomerates (presses together) iron- 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0. wastewater pollutants to navigable bearing materials into small lumps (c) Briquetting. There shall be no waters. without melting or fusion. Used as a discharge of process wastewater * * * * * concentrated iron ore substitute for pollutants to waters of the U.S. (d) Basic oxygen furnace scrap in electric furnaces. (b) The term direct-reduced iron (DRI) § 420.133 Effluent limitations guidelines steelmaking—semi-wet. means iron produced by reduction of representing the degree of effluent (1) No discharge of process iron ore (pellets or briquettes) using reduction attainable by the application of wastewater pollutants to navigable gaseous (carbon monoxide-carbon the best available technology economically waters. dioxide, hydrogen) or solid reactants. achievable (BAT). (2) If the permittee demonstrates to (c) The term forging means the hot- Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 the satisfaction of the permitting working of heated steel shapes (e.g., through 125.32, any existing point authority that safety considerations ingots, blooms, billets, slabs) by source subject to this subpart must prevent attainment of these limitations, hammering or hydraulic presses, achieve the following effluent the permitting authority may establish performed at iron and steel mills. limitations representing the degree of alternative limitations on a best (d) For briquetting operations, the effluent reduction attainable by the professional judgment basis. term product means the amount in tons application of the best available control 37. Section 420.48 is added to Subpart of briquettes manufactured by hot or technology economically achievable D to read as follows: cold agglomeration processes. (BAT):

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64269

(a) Direct-reduced iron. [Reserved] SUBPART M.—NEW SOURCE PER- that introduces pollutants into a (b) Forging operations. [Reserved] FORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)— publicly owned treatment works must (c) Briquetting. There shall be no Continued comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must discharge of process wastewater achieve the following pretreatment pollutants. standards for new sources (PSNS): Pollutant Maximum Maximum daily1 monthly avg.1 § 420.134 New source performance (a) Direct-reduced iron. [Reserved] standards (NSPS). pH ...... (2) (2) (b) Forging operations. [Reserved] New sources subject to this subpart 1 Pounds per thousand pound of product. (c) Briquetting. There shall be no must achieve the following new source 2 performance standards (NSPS), as Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0. discharge of process wastewater applicable. (c) Briquetting. There shall be no pollutants to POTWs. (a) Direct-reduced iron. discharge of process wastewater § 420.137 Effluent limitations guidelines pollutants to waters of the U.S. representing the degree of effluent SUBPART M.—NEW SOURCE reduction attainable by the application of § 420.135 Pretreatment standards for ERFORMANCE TANDARDS the best control technology for P S (NSPS) existing sources (PSES). conventional pollutants (BCT). Maximum Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 Pollutant Maximum daily 1 monthly avg.1 and 403.13, any existing source subject Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 to this subpart that introduces through 125.32, any existing point TSS ...... 0.00998 0.00465 pollutants into a publicly owned source subject to this subpart must 2 2 pH ...... ( ) ( ) treatment works must comply with 40 achieve the following effluent 1 Pounds per thousand pound of product. CFR part 403 and must achieve the limitations representing the degree of 2 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0. following pretreatment standards for effluent reduction attainable by the (b) Forging operations. existing sources (PSES): application of the best control (a) Direct-reduced iron. [Reserved] technology for conventional pollutants SUBPART M.—NEW SOURCE (b) Forging operations. [Reserved] (BCT): The limitations shall be the same (c) Briquetting. There shall be no PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) as those specified for conventional discharge of process wastewater pollutants (which are defined in 40 CFR Maximum pollutants to POTWs. 401.16) in § 420.132 for the best Pollutant Maximum daily1 monthly avg.1 practicable control technology currently § 420.136 Pretreatment Standards for New available (BPT). O&G (as Sources (PSNS). HEM) ...... 0.00746 0.00446 Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, [FR Doc. 02–11295 Filed 10–16–02; 8:45 am] TSS ...... 0.0123 0.00508 any new source subject to this subpart BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate 0ct<09>2002 17:27 Oct 16, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2