Monday, August 14, 2000

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 442 Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category; Final Rule

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49666 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION carried and transportation mode: exteriors, equipment and floor AGENCY Subpart A—Tank Trucks and washings, and TEC contaminated Intermodal Tank Containers stormwater at those facilities subject to 40 CFR Part 442 Transporting Chemical & Petroleum the TEC effluent limitations guidelines [FRLÐ6720±6] Cargos; Subpart B—Rail Tank Cars and standards. Compliance with this Transporting Chemical & Petroleum rule is estimated to reduce the annual RIN 2040±AB98 Cargos; Subpart C—Tank Barges and discharge of priority by at Ocean/Sea Tankers Transporting least 60,000 pounds per year and result Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Chemical & Petroleum Cargos; Subpart in annual benefits ranging from $1.5 Pretreatment Standards, and New D—Tanks Transporting Food Grade million to $5.5 million. The total Source Performance Standards for the Cargos. annualized compliance cost of the rule Transportation Equipment Cleaning For all four subparts, EPA is is projected to be $16.1 million (pre- Point Source Category establishing effluent limitations tax). AGENCY: guidelines for existing facilities and new Environmental Protection DATES: This regulation shall become sources discharging wastewater directly Agency (EPA). effective September 13, 2000. ACTION: Final rule. to surface waters. EPA is establishing pretreatment standards for existing ADDRESSES: The public record is SUMMARY: This regulation establishes facilities and new sources discharging available for review in the EPA Water technology-based effluent limitations wastewater to POTWs in all subparts Docket, 401 M St. SW, Washington, D.C. guidelines, new source performance except for Subpart D, applicable to Food 20460. The public record for this standards, and pretreatment standards Grade Cargos. EPA is not establishing rulemaking has been established under for the discharge of pollutants into effluent limitations guidelines or docket number W–97–25, and includes waters of the United States and into pretreatment standards for facilities that supporting documentation, but does not publicly owned treatment works generate wastewater from cleaning the include any information claimed as (POTWs) by existing and new facilities interior of hopper cars. Confidential Business Information (CBI). that perform transportation equipment The TEC limitations do not apply to The record is available for inspection cleaning operations. Transportation wastewaters associated with tank from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through equipment cleaning (TEC) facilities are cleanings performed in conjunction Friday, excluding legal holidays. For defined as those facilities that generate with other industrial, commercial, or access to docket materials, please call wastewater from cleaning the interior of POTW operations so long as the facility (202) 260–3027 to schedule an tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, cleans only tanks and containers that appointment. rail tank cars, closed-top hopper rail have contained raw materials, by- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For cars, intermodal tank containers, tank products, and finished products that are additional technical information contact barges, closed-top hopper barges, and associated with the facility’s on-site Mr. John Tinger at (202) 260–4992 or ocean/sea tankers used to transport processes. send E-mail to: [email protected]. For materials or cargos that come into direct The wastewater flows covered by this additional economic information contact with the tank or container rule include all washwaters which have contact Mr. George Denning at (202) interior. Facilities which do not engage come into direct contact with the tank 260–7374 or send E-mail to: in cleaning the interior of tanks are not or container interior including pre-rinse [email protected]. considered within the scope of this rule. cleaning solutions, chemical cleaning EPA is subcategorizing the TEC Point solutions, and final rinse solutions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Source Category into the following four Additionally, the rule covers wastewater Regulated Entities: Entities potentially subparts based on types of cargos generated from washing vehicle regulated by this action include:

Category Examples of regulated entities Examples of common SIC codes

Industry ...... Facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning the interior of tank SIC 7699, SIC 4741, SIC 4491. trucks, rail tank cars, intermodal tank containers, tank barges, or ocean/sea tankers used to transport materials or cargos that come into direct contact with tank or container interior, except where such tank cleanings are performed in conjunction with other indus- trial, commercial, or POTW operations..

This table is not intended to be to a particular entity, consult the person after the regulation is considered exhaustive, but rather provides a guide listed for technical information in the promulgated for purposes of judicial for readers regarding entities likely to be preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION review. Under section 509 (b)(2) of the regulated by this action. This table lists CONTACT section. , the requirements in this regulation may not be challenged the types of entities that EPA is now Judicial Review aware could potentially be regulated by later in civil or criminal proceedings this action. Other types of entities not In accordance with 40 CFR Part 23.2, brought by EPA to enforce these this rule will be considered listed in the table could also be requirements. promulgated for purposes of judicial regulated. To determine whether your review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on August Compliance Dates facility is regulated by this action, 28, 2000. Under section 509(b)(1) of the The compliance date for Pretreatment should carefully examine the Clean Water Act, judicial review of this Standards for Existing Standards (PSES) applicability criteria in § 442.1 of the regulation can be obtained only by filing is as soon as possible, but no later than rule language. If you have questions a petition for review in the United August 14, 2003. Deadlines for regarding the applicability of this action States Court of Appeals within 120 days compliance with Best Practicable

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49667

Control Technology Currently Available E. Overlap With Other Guidelines I. Legal Authority F. Modification to Pollutants Selected For (BPT), Best Conventional EPA is promulgating these regulations Control Technology (BCT), and Best Regulation G. Technology Options under the authority of Sections 301, Available Technology Economically IV. Applicability of Final Regulation 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Achievable (BAT) are established in the V. Technology Options Selected for Basis of Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, National Pollutant Discharge Regulation 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361. Elimination System (NPDES) permits. A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum The compliance dates for New Source Subcategory II. Background Performance Standards (NSPS) and B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory A. Clean Water Act Pretreatment Standards for New Sources C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum (PSNS) are the dates the new source Subcategory Congress adopted the Clean Water Act D. Food Subcategory commences discharging. (CWA) to ‘‘restore and maintain the E. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/ chemical, physical, and biological Supporting Documentation Hopper Subcategories integrity of the Nation’s waters’’ VI. Development of Effluent Limitations The regulations promulgated today A. Selection of Pollutant Parameters for (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To are supported by several major Final Regulation achieve this goal, the CWA prohibits the documents: B. Calculation of Effluent Limitations discharge of pollutants into navigable 1. ‘‘Final Development Document for VII. Costs and Pollutant Reductions of Final waters except in compliance with the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Regulation statute. The Clean Water Act confronts A. Changes to Cost Analysis Since Proposal the problem of on a Standards for the Transportation B. Compliance Costs Equipment Cleaning Category’’ (EPA number of different fronts. Its primary C. Changes to Pollutant Reduction Analysis reliance, however, is on establishing 821–R–00–0012). Hereafter referred to Since Proposal as the Technical Development D. Pollutant Reductions restrictions on the types and amounts of Document, the document presents VIII. Economic Impacts of Final Regulation pollutants discharged from various EPA’s technical conclusions concerning A. Changes to Economic Analysis Since industrial, commercial, and public the rule. EPA describes, among other Proposal sources of wastewater. B. Impacts Analysis things, the data-collection activities in Congress recognized that regulating C. Small Business Analysis only those sources that discharge support of the regulation, the D. Market Analysis wastewater treatment technology effluent directly into the nation’s waters E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis would not be sufficient to achieve the options, wastewater characterization, F. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the estimated costs to the industry. IX. Impacts of Final Regulation CWA’s goals. Consequently, the CWA 2. ‘‘Final Economic Analysis of A. Changes to Benefits Analysis Since requires EPA to promulgate nationally Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Proposal applicable pretreatment standards Standards for the Transportation B. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum which restrict pollutant discharges for Subcategory Equipment Cleaning Category’’ (EPA those who discharge wastewater C. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory indirectly through sewers flowing to 821–R–00–0013). D. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 3. ‘‘Final Cost-Effectiveness Analysis publicly-owned treatment works Subcategory (POTWs) (Sections 307(b) and (c), 33 of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and E. Food Subcategory Standards for the Transportation X. Non-Water Quality Impacts of Final U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National Equipment Cleaning Category’’ (EPA Regulation pretreatment standards are established 821–R–00–0014). A. Energy Impacts for those pollutants in wastewater from B. Air Emission Impacts indirect dischargers which may pass How To Obtain Supporting Documents C. Solid Waste Impacts through or interfere with POTW XI. Regulatory Requirements operations. Generally, pretreatment All documents are available from the A. Executive Order 12866 National Service Center for standards are designed to ensure that B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the wastewater from direct and indirect Environmental Publications, P.O. Box Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242–2419, Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) industrial dischargers are subject to (800) 490–9198. The Technical C. Submission to Congress and the General similar levels of treatment. In addition, Development Document and previous Accounting Office POTWs are required to implement local Transportation Equipment Cleaning D. Paperwork Reduction Act treatment limits applicable to their Federal Register Notices can also be E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation obtained on the Internet, located at any local requirements (40 CFR 403.5). and Coordination with Indian Tribal Direct dischargers must comply with WWW.EPA.GOV/OST/GUIDE. This Governments website also links to an electronic effluent limitations in National G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Pollutant Discharge Elimination System version of today’s notice. H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (‘‘NPDES’’) permits; indirect dischargers Table of Contents I. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act must comply with pretreatment I. Legal Authority J. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting standards. These limitations and II. Background Children’s Health standards are established by regulation A. Clean Water Act XII. Regulatory Implementation for categories of industrial dischargers B. Profile of the Industry A. Implementation of Limitations and and are based on the degree of control C. Proposed Rule Standards that can be achieved using various D. Notice of Availability B. Upset and Bypass Provisions levels of pollution control technology. III. Summary of Significant Changes Since C. Variances and Modifications Proposal D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to 1. Best Practicable Control Technology A. Concentration-Based Limitations NPDES Permits & Monitoring Currently Available (BPT)—Section B. Modification to Subcategorization Requirements 304(b)(1) of the CWA Approach E. Analytical Methods C. Low Flow Exclusion Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and In the guidelines for an industry D. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates Abbreviations Used in This Notice category, EPA defines BPT effluent

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49668 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations limits for conventional, toxic,1 and non- changes in a facility’s processes and through, interfere with, or are otherwise conventional pollutants. In specifying operations. As with BPT, where existing incompatible with the operation of BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. performance is uniformly inadequate, publicly owned treatment works EPA first considers the cost of achieving BAT may be based upon technology (POTWs). The CWA authorizes EPA to effluent reductions in relation to the transferred from a different subcategory establish pretreatment standards for effluent reduction benefits. The Agency within an industry or from another pollutants that pass through POTWs or also considers the age of the equipment industrial category. BAT may be based interfere with treatment processes or and facilities, the processes employed upon process changes or internal sludge disposal methods at POTWs. and any required process changes, controls, even when these technologies Pretreatment standards are technology- engineering aspects of the control are not common industry practice. based and analogous to BAT effluent technologies, non-water quality limitations guidelines. 3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control environmental impacts (including The General Pretreatment Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of energy requirements), and such other Regulations, which set forth the the CWA factors as the Agency deems appropriate framework for implementing categorical (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA The 1977 amendments to the CWA pretreatment standards, are found at 40 establishes BPT effluent limitations required EPA to identify effluent CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain based on the average of the best reduction levels for conventional a definition of pass through that performances of facilities within the pollutants associated with BCT addresses localized rather than national industry of various ages, sizes, processes technology for discharges from existing instances of pass through and establish or other common characteristics. Where industrial point sources. BCT is not an pretreatment standards that apply to all existing performance is uniformly additional limitation, but replaces Best non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR inadequate, EPA may require higher Available Technology (BAT) for control 1586, January 14, 1987. of conventional pollutants. In addition levels of control than currently in place 6. Pretreatment Standards for New to other factors specified in Section in an industrial category if the Agency Sources (PSNS)—Section 307(b) of the 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA determines that the technology can be CWA practically applied. establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ‘‘cost- Like PSES, PSNS are designed to 2. Best Available Technology reasonableness’’ test. EPA explained its prevent the discharges of pollutants that Economically Achievable (BAT)— methodology for the development of pass through, interfere with, or are Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR otherwise incompatible with the In general, BAT effluent limitations 24974). operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be guidelines represent the best existing Section 304(a)(4) designates the issued at the same time as NSPS. New economically achievable performance of following as conventional pollutants: indirect dischargers have the direct discharging plants in the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), opportunity to incorporate into their industrial subcategory or category. The (TSS), fecal plants the best available demonstrated factors considered in assessing BAT coliform, pH, and any additional technologies. The Agency considers the include the cost of achieving BAT pollutants defined by the Administrator same factors in promulgating PSNS as it effluent reductions, the age of as conventional. The Administrator considers in promulgating NSPS. equipment and facilities involved, the designated oil and grease as an B. Profile of the Industry processes employed, engineering additional conventional pollutant on aspects of the control technology, July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501). The TEC industry includes facilities potential process changes, non-water that generate wastewater from cleaning 4. New Source Performance Standards the interiors of tank trucks, closed-top quality environmental impacts (NSPS)—Section 306 of the CWA (including energy requirements), and hopper trucks, rail tank cars, closed-top such factors as the Administrator deems NSPS reflect effluent reductions that hopper rail cars, intermodal tank appropriate. The Agency retains are achievable based on the best containers, tank barges, closed-top considerable discretion in assigning the available demonstrated control hopper barges, and ocean/sea tankers weight to be accorded to these factors. technology. New facilities have the used to transport cargos or commodities An additional statutory factor opportunity to install the best and most that come into direct contact with the considered in setting BAT is economic efficient production processes and tank or container interior. achievability. Generally, the wastewater treatment technologies. As a Transportation equipment cleaning is achievability is determined on the basis result, NSPS should represent the performed to prevent cross- of the total cost to the industrial greatest degree of effluent reduction contamination between products or subcategory and the overall effect of the attainable through the application of the commodities being transported in the rule on the industry’s financial health. best available demonstrated control tanks, containers, or hoppers, and to BAT limitations may be based upon technology for all pollutants (i.e., prepare transportation equipment for effluent reductions attainable through conventional, non-conventional, and repair and maintenance activities, such priority pollutants). In establishing as welding. The cleaning activity is a 1 In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA NSPS, EPA is directed to take into necessary part of the transportation efforts emphasized the achievement of BPT consideration the cost of achieving the process. limitations for control of the ‘‘classical’’ pollutants effluent reduction and any non-water Based upon responses to EPA’s 1994 (e.g., TSS, pH, BOD5). However, nothing on the face Detailed Questionnaire for the of the statute explicitly restricted BPT limitation to quality environmental impacts and such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean energy requirements. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Water Act of 1977 with its requirement for point Industry (see discussion in Section V.B sources to achieve best available technology 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing of the proposal (63 FR 34686)), the limitations to control discharges of toxic pollutants, Sources (PSES)—Section 307(b) of the Agency estimates that there are EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority CWA toxic pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT approximately 2,405 facilities in the guidelines continue to include limitations to PSES are designed to prevent the United States that perform TEC address all pollutants. discharge of pollutants that pass activities. This includes approximately

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49669

1,166 facilities that perform tank applicability of the rule. EPA evaluated Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. In cleaning operations on site, but which all of these issues based on additional the NOA, EPA presented the are excluded from this rule because of information collected by EPA or preliminary conclusion for making this their association with other industrial, received during the comment period change, and presented the costs, commercial, or POTW operations. There following the proposal. EPA then loadings, and economic impacts that are 1,239 TEC facilities not associated discussed the results of most of these would result if this change were made. with other industrial, commercial, or evaluations in a Notice of Availability The majority of the commenters on POTW operations. Of these facilities, discussed below. the NOA, including regulatory EPA estimates that 692 facilities authorities, industry stakeholders, and discharge to either a POTW or to surface D. Notice of Availability POTWs, supported combining these waters. The remaining 547 facilities are On July 20, 1999 (64 FR 38863), EPA subcategories. EPA received only one considered zero dischargers. published a Notice of Availability comment supporting separate The TEC industry consists of distinct (NOA) in which the Agency presented subcategories. EPA concluded that the transportation sectors: the trucking a summary of new data collected by proposed definitions of the chemical sector, the rail sector, and the barge EPA or received in comments on the and petroleum subcategories did not shipping sector. Each one of these proposed rule. EPA discussed the major adequately define the difference sectors has different technical and issues raised during the proposal between chemical and petroleum economic characteristics. The comment period and presented several commodities. For the final regulation, transportation industry transports a alternative approaches to address these EPA has combined the proposed wide variety of commodities, and TEC issues. EPA solicited comment on these chemical and petroleum subcategories facilities therefore clean tanks and approaches and on the new data and in both the truck and rail segments of containers with residues (i.e., heels) analyses conducted in response to the industry. from a broad spectrum of commodities, comments. Additionally, EPA has combined the such as food-grade products, petroleum- Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food based commodities, organic chemicals, III. Summary of Significant Changes Subcategories into one subcategory, the inorganic chemicals, soaps and Since Proposal Food Subcategory. For the proposed detergents, latex and resins, hazardous This section describes the most rule, subcategorization by transportation wastes, and dry bulk commodities. significant changes to the rule since mode was necessary because the truck, TEC facilities vary greatly in the level proposal. The majority of these changes rail, and barge facilities had different of wastewater treatment that they have been in response to comments on regulatory flows per tank cleaned, currently have in place. Treatment at the proposal. All of these changes were which resulted in different mass-based existing TEC facilities ranges from no discussed in the Notice of Availability. limits for each subcategory. treatment to tertiary treatment. The Subcategorization of the Food A. Concentration-Based Limitations majority of TEC facilities discharging to Subcategory by transportation mode for surface waters currently employ EPA proposed mass-based limitations. the final regulation is unnecessary primary treatment, such as oil/water In the proposal and NOA, EPA because the limits are all based on the separation or gravity separation, discussed a change to the format of the same BPT technology, and the final followed by biological treatment. rule that would establish concentration- concentration-based limits are identical Indirect discharging facilities typically based rather than mass-based limits. for all TEC facilities cleaning food grade employ some form of primary treatment, EPA received many comments on the cargos. such as oil/water separation, gravity proposal and on the NOA from C. Low Flow Exclusion separation, dissolved air flotation, or regulatory authorities, industry coagulation and flocculation. A stakeholders, and POTWs strongly In the proposal, EPA considered relatively small number of direct and supporting the concentration-based establishing a minimum flow level for indirect facilities currently employ format of the rule. EPA received only defining the scope of the regulation but tertiary treatment, such as activated one comment on the proposal did not propose a low-flow exclusion. carbon adsorption. supporting mass-based limits. In the EPA conducted an analysis to determine NOA, EPA presented concentration- an appropriate flow exclusion level C. Proposed Rule based limitations and explained its based on the economic impacts of low On June 25, 1998 (63 FR 34685), EPA rationale for the change. Comments on flow facilities, the economic impacts on published proposed effluent limitations the NOA were unanimously supportive small businesses, and the relative guidelines and pretreatment standards of concentration-based limits. The final efficiency of treatment technologies for for the discharge of pollutants into limitations and standards being low flow facilities, in terms of pounds waters of the United States and into promulgated today are concentration- of pollutants removed. POTWs by existing and new facilities based. Based on comments on the proposal, that perform transportation equipment EPA re-evaluated a low-flow exclusion cleaning operations. B. Modification to Subcategorization based on 100,000 gallons per year of EPA received comments on many Approach TEC process wastewater and presented aspects of the proposal. The majority of EPA proposed separate subcategories the results in the NOA. EPA presented comments related to the use of mass- for the Truck/Chemical, Truck/ the costs, loadings, and economic based rather than concentration-based Petroleum, Rail/Chemical, and Rail/ impacts that would result if this limits; the subcategorization approach; Petroleum Subcategories. In the exclusion was adopted. EPA’s analyses the technology options used as the basis proposal and NOA, EPA discussed demonstrated that 26 low flow facilities for setting effluent limitations; the combining the Truck/Chemical generated much less than one percent of selection of pollutants proposed for Subcategory and Truck/Petroleum the baseline loadings to the industry. regulation; the costs associated with the Subcategory into the Truck/Chemical & EPA received numerous comments regulation; the cost effectiveness of the Petroleum Subcategory, and combining which supported the adoption of a low regulation; the lack of a low flow the Rail/Chemical Subcategory and Rail/ flow exclusion due to the low amounts exclusion from the regulation; and the Petroleum Subcategory into the Rail/ of toxics generated by these facilities.

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49670 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

EPA also received comments EPA continued to receive comment commenters supported the revised supporting establishing a low flow from the industry that EPA had language, and no commenter opposed exclusion at 200,000 gallons of TEC misidentified several pesticides and the language. Therefore, EPA has process wastewater per year. In the herbicides that were contributing to the adopted language similar to that NOA, EPA noted that one model facility calculation of toxic pound equivalent presented in the NOA for the final (representing nine facilities) excluded at removals in the Truck/Chemical & regulation. The final rule does not apply proposal would be added to the Truck/ Petroleum Subcategory. Based on an to wastewaters associated with tank Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and extensive analysis of the pesticide data cleanings performed in conjunction would therefore be subject to the TEC collected in support of the regulation, with other industrial, commercial, or limitations. EPA noted that an exclusion the EPA must concur that the laboratory POTW operations so long as the facility set at 200,000 gallons per year would analysis does not conclusively support cleans only tanks and containers that exclude this model facility from the the presence of several pesticides that have contained raw materials, by- regulation. Consequently, EPA were believed to be present in the products, and finished products that are evaluated establishing the cutoff at Truck/Chemical & Petroleum associated with the facility’s on-site 200,000 gallons per year. Establishing a Subcategory wastewater. Therefore, the processes. low flow cutoff at 200,000 gallons per Agency has labeled the analytical EPA also received comments year would exclude an additional nine results for EPN and disulfoton as requesting that EPA specifically exclude facilities in the combined Truck/ ‘‘questionable’’ and has subsequently TEC wastewaters generated by POTWs Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory removed these pesticides from the cost that clean out garbage trucks, biosolid which discharge a combined total of 680 effectiveness analysis and benefits waste haulers, tankers that contained pound equivalents. This equates to 3.1 analysis. This approach has resulted in landfill leachate, and street cleaning percent of facilities discharging 2.3 a significant decrease in toxic pound trucks. EPA does not believe that percent of the loadings in the Truck/ equivalent removals when compared to wastewater generated from cleaning Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. the approach used at proposal. garbage trucks, biosolids trucks, landfill EPA determined that the facilities However, EPA believes that pesticides leachate tankers, or street cleaning discharging between 100,000 to 200,000 and herbicides are present in TEC trucks meets EPA’s definition of gallons per year contribute a wastewater. As evidenced by responses cleaning a tank that has contained a proportional amount of toxic loadings to to the Detailed Questionnaire, only 5% chemical, petroleum, or food grade the industry. Additionally, EPA found of tank truck facilities prohibit the product. However, in order to address that if the low flow exclusion was raised cleaning of tank trucks that have the concern that POTWs would from 100,000 to 200,000 gallons per contained pesticides and herbicides, unnecessarily be subject to the TEC rule, year, there would be no decrease in the meaning that 95% of tank truck EPA has added language in the final number of facilities projected to close or facilities may potentially clean a cargo applicability section which states that experience financial stress. that has contained pesticides or wastewater cleaning operations herbicides. As documented by performed at POTWs (in addition to For the final regulation, EPA is comments submitted by the industry, other commercial and industrial excluding facilities that discharge less site visit reports, and a recent trade operations) are not subject to the TEC than 100,000 gallons per year of TEC association journal article, the TEC guidelines. Additionally, EPA has process wastewater. Facilities industry is a service industry that cleans adopted a low flow exclusion of 100,000 discharging less than 100,000 gallons out tank trucks as needed by customers. gallons per year to exclude from this per year will remain subject to EPA has identified over 3,000 cargo rule those facilities which may perform limitations and standards established on types that are cleaned at tank truck a minimal amount of tank cleaning a case-by-case basis using Best facilities, and these cargos have been activities (see Section III.C). Professional Judgement by the documented to include pesticide and In the proposal, EPA stated that permitting authority. herbicides. facilities that are predominantly engaged in Metal Products and D. Revision of Pollutant Loading E. Overlap With Other Guidelines Estimates Machinery (MP&M) operations and EPA proposed language for excluding clean ocean/sea tankers, tank barges, rail In the NOA, EPA discussed a revision certain commercial and industrial tank cars, or tank trucks as part of those to the methodology for calculating facilities from the TEC guideline. Many activities would likely be included in pesticide and herbicide loadings. This commenters believed that this language the upcoming MP&M regulations and, revision was in response to a comment was too restrictive and that the TEC thus, are excluded from the TEC claiming that EPA overestimated rule, as proposed, would encompass guideline. EPA received numerous pollutant reductions by using many industrial facilities that EPA did comments asking EPA to more clearly calculations based on a small number of not intend to cover. In the NOA, EPA define what is meant by ‘‘predominantly data points detected at levels close to described several situations where it engaged.’’ In the NOA, EPA attempted the pesticide/herbicide quantification concurred with commenters that the to address these concerns by clarifying levels. Specifically, EPA revised the proposed language was overly the distinction between MP&M proposed methodology by using the restrictive. These included industrial or wastewaters and TEC wastewaters based same editing criteria for pesticide/ manufacturing facilities that clean a on the purpose of cleaning. All herbicide pollutants as were used for all small number of tank cars on site but commenters supported the revised other parameters. EPA made this change that are not covered by an existing Clean language presented in the NOA as to the editing criteria which resulted in Water Act categorical effluent guideline. addressing their concerns. Therefore, excluding parameters that were not EPA presented revised regulatory EPA is adopting the following language detected in at least two samples and language for excluding certain industrial for the final regulation: ‘‘Wastewater with average concentrations greater than and commercial facilities which the generated from cleaning tank interiors five times the detection limit. The Agency believed addressed the concerns for purposes of shipping products (i.e., revised loadings were presented in the raised by commenters and more clearly cleaned for purposes other than NOA. defined the exclusion. The majority of maintenance and repair) is considered

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49671

TEC process wastewater. Wastewater established limits for any straight chain EPA has eliminated flow reduction generated from cleaning tank interiors hydrocarbon, but has established limits from the technology options for all for the purposes of maintenance and for polyaromatic hydrocarbons for subcategories because it is promulgating repair on the tank is not considered TEC certain subcategories. concentration-based rather than mass- process wastewater.’’ It is possible that Furthermore, as described in Section based limitations. Note, however, that some facilities, or wastewater generated VI. of this notice, EPA has decided to EPA has retained flow reduction as a from some unit operations at these promulgate effluent limitations and cost-effective compliance strategy for facilities, will be subject to the Metals pretreatment standards for mercury in several subcategories. Products & Machinery (MP&M) effluent the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Sections VII, VIII, and IX of this guideline currently being developed by Subcategory and in the Barge/Chemical notice present the final costs, pollutant EPA. Facilities that clean tank interiors & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA has also reductions, economic impacts, and solely for the purposes of repair and eliminated zinc as regulated pollutant in water quality impacts for EPA’s selected maintenance would not be regulated the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum options. The technology options are under the TEC guideline. Subcategory, and has decided to described in Section V of this notice. A Wastewater generated from cleaning eliminate COD as a regulated pollutant description of the wastewater treatment tank interiors for purposes of shipping in all subcategories. technology components of the options products (i.e., cleaned for purposes can be found in Section VIII of the G. Technology Options other than maintenance and repair) is proposal and in the Technical considered TEC process wastewater and EPA presented revised costs and loads Development Document. is subject to the TEC guideline. It is in the NOA for the technology options IV. Applicability of Final Regulation possible that a facility may be subject to considered for the proposal. The costs both the TEC regulations and the MP&M and loads were revised due to a number EPA is establishing effluent regulations. If a facility generates of changes, which were discussed in the limitations guidelines and pretreatment wastewater from MP&M activities which NOA. In summary, EPA revised the cost standards for wastewater discharges is subject to the MP&M guideline and model; reduced the monitoring costs; from facilities engaged in cleaning the also discharges wastewater from revised the list of pollutants effectively interiors of tanks including tank trucks, cleaning tanks for purposes other than removed; combined the Truck/Chemical rail tank cars, intermodal tank repair and maintenance of those tanks, and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories; containers, tank barges, and ocean/sea then that facility may be subject to both combined the Rail/Chemical and Rail/ tankers used to transport commodities guidelines. Petroleum Subcategories; and adopted a that come into direct contact with the low flow exclusion. tank or container interior. Facilities F. Modification to Pollutants Selected EPA also discussed in the NOA which do not engage in cleaning the for Regulation several options it was considering in interior of tanks are not considered EPA proposed limitations for a lieu of the proposed options for the within the scope of this rule. number of conventional, priority, and Truck/Chemical & Petroleum and Rail/ The wastewater flows covered by the non-conventional pollutants. Many Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories, rule include all washwaters that come commenters requested that EPA including the associated costs, loads, into direct contact with the tank or establish oil and grease (measured as economic impacts, and environmental container interior including pre-rinse Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)) and benefits. Based on the revised analysis, cleaning solutions, chemical cleaning non-polar oil and grease (measured as EPA is selecting Option I instead of solutions, and final rinse solutions. Silica-gel Treated Hexane Extractable Option II for PSES and PSNS in the Additionally, the rule would cover Material (SGT–HEM)) as indicator Truck/Chemical & Petroleum wastewater generated from washing pollutants for a number of other Subcategory. For the Rail/Chemical & vehicle exteriors, equipment and floor pollutants proposed to be regulated. In Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is selecting washings, and TEC contaminated the NOA, EPA presented its evaluation Option II for BPT, BAT, BCT and NSPS. wastewater only at those facilities for establishing indicator pollutants, EPA had proposed Option I for BPT, subject to the TEC guidelines and and concluded that oil and grease BAT, and BCT and Option III for NSPS. standards. (HEM) and non-polar oil and grease For indirect dischargers in the Rail/ EPA evaluated the following (SGT–HEM) could serve as indicator Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, subcategorization approach for the final pollutants for the straight chain EPA is selecting Option II for both PSES regulation: Truck/Chemical & Petroleum hydrocarbons proposed to be regulated. and PSNS instead of Option I for PSES Subcategory; Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Comments on the NOA generally and Option III for PSNS. Additionally, Subcategory; Barge/Chemical & supported this conclusion. For the final EPA has decided to establish PSES Petroleum Subcategory; Food regulation, EPA has established limits based on Option II for the Barge/ Subcategory; Truck/Hopper for oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory in Subcategory; Rail/Hopper Subcategory; material (SGT–HEM) as indicator order to prevent pass through or and Barge/Hopper Subcategory. Table 1 pollutants. EPA has therefore not interference at a POTW. presents the final regulatory approach.

TABLE 1.ÐREGULATORY APPROACH FOR THE TEC CATEGORY

BPT Subcategory and BAT NSPS PSES PSNS BCT

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum ...... XXXXX Rail/Chemical & Petroleum ...... XXXXX Barge/Chemical & Petroleum ...... XXXXX Food ...... X ...... X ...... Truck/Hopper ......

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49672 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.ÐREGULATORY APPROACH FOR THE TEC CATEGORYÐContinued

BPT Subcategory and BAT NSPS PSES PSNS BCT

Rail/Hopper ...... Barge/Hopper ......

EPA is establishing effluent that it is not necessary to establish generated from the hopper facilities, or limitations guidelines for existing nationally-applicable effluent from food grade facilities discharging to facilities and new sources discharging limitations for these subcategories. a POTW. wastewater directly to surface waters in Rather, direct dischargers will remain EPA is adopting a low flow exclusion the following subcategories: Truck/ subject to effluent limitations for this regulation. A facility that Chemical & Petroleum, Rail/Chemical & established on a case-by-case basis using discharges less than 100,000 gallons per Petroleum, Barge/Chemical & Best Professional Judgement, and year of TEC process wastewater is not Petroleum, and Food Subcategory. EPA indirect dischargers may be subject to subject to the TEC guidelines. EPA is is establishing pretreatment standards local pretreatment limits as necessary to adopting this exclusion due to the very for existing facilities and new sources prevent pass through or interference. low pollutant loadings associated with discharging wastewater to POTWs in the EPA received comments supporting this facilities discharging less than 100,000 Truck/Chemical & Petroleum, Rail/ conclusion. gallons per year. Chemical & Petroleum, and Barge/ EPA received comments on the Facilities discharging less than Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. proposal requesting that EPA include 100,000 gallons per year of TEC process For the Food Subcategory, EPA is wastewater from cleaning the interiors wastewater will remain subject to establishing effluent limitations of intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) limitations and standards established on guidelines for existing and new facilities within the scope of this regulation. The a case-by-case basis using Best discharging directly to surface waters. commenter believed that IBCs generate Professional Judgement by the These limitations and standards are a significant amount of loadings in the permitting authority. established to control discharges of industry; therefore, excluding IBCs V. Technology Options Selected for conventional pollutants which may would give an economic advantage to Basis of Regulation adversely affect waterways when facilities that clean only IBCs because discharged directly to surface waters. these facilities would not be covered by All of the treatment technologies Few priority pollutants were found in the TEC regulation. In response to these considered for the final regulations were food wastewaters; thus, EPA has chosen comments, EPA collected additional discussed in the proposal. In the NOA, to not establish BAT limitations for the data on IBC cleaning performed by the EPA presented the costs, loads, and Food Subcategory. Because POTWs TEC industry and then conducted an impacts for one option in the Truck/ have the ability to treat conventional economic analysis on the impact of IBC Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory that pollutants, EPA concluded that it was cleaning on the tank truck industry. were not presented in the proposal. This unnecessary to establish pretreatment This information and analysis were option, consisting of equalization and standards for the Food Subcategory. presented in the NOA. Based on the oil/water separation only, was a Comments received on the proposal analysis presented in Section VII of the component of other options in the predominantly supported EPA’s NOA, EPA concluded that wastewater proposal but had not been evaluated regulatory approach for the Food generated from IBC cleaning should not separately as a regulatory option. Subcategory. be included in the scope of this The following sections summarize the EPA is not establishing effluent guideline. As discussed in the NOA, technology options that EPA considered limitations guidelines or standards for EPA will continue to evaluate the for each subcategory. The costs, loads, the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Industrial Container and Drum Cleaning economic impacts, and environmental Barge/Hopper Subcategories. Closed-top Industry as a potential candidate for benefits for the selected options are also hopper trucks, rail cars, and barges are future regulation. presented. All results presented in this used to transport dry bulk materials TEC process wastewater includes all notice are expressed in 1998 dollars. such as coal, grain, and fertilizers. Raw wastewaters associated with cleaning A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum wastewater generated from cleaning the the interiors of tanks including: tank Subcategory interiors of hoppers was found to trucks; rail tank cars; intermodal tank contain very few priority pollutants at containers; tank barges; and ocean/sea 1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the treatable levels. This is likely due to the tankers used to transport commodities Truck/Chemical & Petroleum fact that the residual materials (heels) or cargos that come into direct contact Subcategory from dry bulk goods are easily removed with the tank or container interior. At EPA evaluated the following prior to washing, and that relatively those facilities subject to the TEC treatment options for the final little wastewater is generated from guidelines and standards, TEC process regulation: cleaning the interiors of hopper tanks wastewaters also include wastewater Option I: Equalization, Oil/Water due to the dry nature of bulk materials generated from washing vehicle Separation, Chemical Oxidation, transported. These facts result in low exteriors, equipment and floor Neutralization, Coagulation, pollutant loadings being present in the washings, and TEC-contaminated Clarification, Biological Treatment, wastewater discharges from hopper tank stormwater. TEC process wastewater is and Sludge Dewatering. cleaning. Based on the low pollutant defined to include only wastewater Option II: Equalization, Oil/Water loadings associated with wastewater generated from a regulated TEC Separation, Chemical Oxidation, discharge from the hopper subcategory. Therefore, TEC process Neutralization, Coagulation, subcategories, the Agency concluded wastewater does not include wastewater Clarification, Biological Treatment,

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49673

Activated Carbon Adsorption, and today promulgating a pollution practices that many facilities in the Sludge Dewatering. prevention compliance option for this industry were already incorporating. EPA proposed to establish BPT limits subcategory as well as promulgating a POTWs have also required such based on Option II, and to establish traditional compliance option (i.e. a set practices as part of their local BCT, BAT, and NSPS equivalent to BPT. of numeric pretreatment standards) pretreatment requirements. For In the proposal, EPA stated that all three based on Option I. example, some POTWs have required model facilities have equalization, EPA received comments on the that facilities segregate specific coagulation/clarification, biological proposed technology options from the wastewaters such as cleaning solutions treatment, and activated carbon in affected industry and from other or pesticide residues, or have prohibited place. Two of the three facilities in the stakeholders. Several commenters the discharge of wastewaters associated cost model have sufficient treatment in expressed concern that Option II, which with acid brighteners. place; therefore, costs for additional includes activated carbon adsorption, EPA believes that pollution monitoring only are attributed to these was an excessive and costly level of prevention and effective pollutant facilities. The third facility was costed treatment for indirect dischargers in the management is an appropriate and for flow reduction, sludge dewatering, tank cleaning industry. Commenters effective way of reducing pollutant and monitoring. Flow reduction and also expressed concern that Option A discharges from this subcategory. sludge dewatering generates net cost level of control may be inadequate to Further, the Agency believes that savings for the facility’s entire treatment control tank cleaning wastewater providing a pollution prevention train. In addition, these net cost savings discharges. Several commenters were compliance option may be less costly are larger than the monitoring costs concerned with the discrepancy of than the technology options considered incurred by the other two facilities. treatment options proposed for the truck for regulation. Therefore EPA is EPA determined that Option II is and rail segments of the industry. providing both a pollution prevention EPA also received technical comment economically achievable because it will option based on development and questioning the presence of specific result in a net cost savings to the implementation of a Pollutant pesticides in raw tank truck cleaning industry, and will not cause any facility Management Plan (PMP) and a set of wastewater, and the pollutant removals closures, revenue impacts, or numeric limits allows facility owners associated with these pesticides for the and operators to choose the less employment impacts. EPA did not various options. expensive compliance alternative. Based identify any more stringent treatment EPA also received comments from on its economic analysis of technology technology option which it considers to stakeholders that encouraged EPA to Option I, EPA believes that PSES and represent NSPS level of control. explore the use of pollution prevention PSNS based on a choice between EPA did not consider any changes to plans as an alternative to extensive effective pollution prevention and limits the option selected for this subcategory treatment. Generally, EPA seeks to based on Option I is economically in the NOA. EPA did not receive any encourage practices that reduce achievable for this subcategory. For the comments specific to option selection pollutant generation or minimize the portion of the industry that already has for direct discharging facilities in this extent to which they enter treatment extensive treatment in place, it may be subcategory in the proposal or the NOA. systems because of the substantial more cost effective to comply with the EPA has therefore established BPT, opportunities for reducing both numeric limits. Conversely, for those BCT, BAT, and NSPS based on Option treatment costs and the total pollutant facilities already utilizing good II. load to the environment. Specifically, pollution prevention practices and/or 2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/ the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 operating in accordance with a PMP, it Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub. L. may be more cost effective to use the 101–508, November 5, 1990) ‘‘declares it EPA evaluated the following pollution prevention compliance to be the national policy of the United alternative. treatment options for the final States that pollution should be Nationally applicable pretreatment regulation: prevented or reduced whenever feasible; standards are designed to prevent pass Option A: Equalization and Oil/Water pollution that cannot be prevented through or interference with a POTW. Separation. should be recycled in an The legislative history of the 1972 Act Option I: Equalization, Oil/Water environmentally safe manner, whenever indicates that pretreatment standards Separation, Chemical Oxidation, feasible; pollution that cannot be are to be technology-based and Neutralization, Coagulation, prevented or recycled should be treated analogous to the BAT effluent Clarification, and Sludge in an environmentally safe manner limitations guidelines for removal of Dewatering. whenever feasible; and disposal or toxic pollutants. EPA conducted a pass Option II: Equalization, Oil/Water release into the environment should be through analysis for the pollutants of Separation, Chemical Oxidation, employed only as a last resort * * *’’. concern. EPA determined that several Neutralization, Coagulation, As described in Section VIII.A of the pollutants would pass through a POTW. Clarification, Activated Carbon proposal, EPA identified and evaluated The results of this analysis are Adsorption, and Sludge a number of pollution prevention presented in Section VI. of this notice. Dewatering. controls applicable to the industry, Today’s rule includes numeric limits for In response to comments received, including the use of dedicated tanks, several of these pollutants for facilities EPA has also considered a pollution heel (residual cargo remaining in tanks which choose not to use the pollution prevention approach as a compliance following unloading) minimization, prevention compliance option. option, as discussed below. water conservation practices, and Without considering a pollution EPA proposed to establish PSES and reduction in the toxicity and amount of prevention compliance option, Option PSNS at Option II. In the NOA, EPA chemical cleaning solutions. These A has a post-tax annualized cost of $5.2 presented revised costs, loads and controls were also described in more million ($8.1 million pre-tax) for 286 impacts for each option, and stated that detail in Chapter 8 of the proposed facilities. Option I’s cost is $9.2 million Options I and A were also being Technical Development Document. EPA ($14.4 million pre-tax), and Option II’s considered for PSES and PSNS. EPA is identified these controls as voluntary cost is $20.9 million ($32.9 million pre-

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49674 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations tax). Costs for any of the options in toxic pollutants. The cost effectiveness estimates that under the preferred combination with a pollution of Option A is estimated to be $3,200/ option for this TEC subcategory (Option prevention compliance option would PE. The average cost effectiveness of I), a reduction of 40 PE per facility likely be lower. Option I is estimated to be $740/PE , would be achieved at an average cost of For the final regulation, EPA projects and the incremental cost effectiveness $30,000 ($1998 post-tax). that there will be no closures or over Option A is estimated to be $370/ Third, in terms of the cost employment impacts for any option PE . The average cost effectiveness of effectiveness analysis, the economically (even without a Pollution prevention Option II is estimated to be $940/PE , achievable options for both industries compliance option) when a positive cost and the incremental cost effectiveness had costs per PE that are high. However, pass through assumption is made. When over Option I is estimated to be $1,200/ the CE for laundries (at $2,360/PE) was zero cost pass through is assumed, PE . significantly higher than the CE for this EPA’s economic analysis indicates that EPA notes that these cost- subcategory of the TEC industry (at 14 facilities may experience financial effectiveness estimates do not include $740/PE). stress at Option I, and that 22 facilities any credit for reductions of a number of Finally, in terms of economic impacts, may experience financial stress at pesticides, herbicides, or other toxic EPA determined that the preferred Option II. At Option I, none of the 14 agents that may be present in TEC option was economically achievable in facilities experiencing financial stress wastewater at some facilities but that both cases. However, EPA also noted are small businesses; at Option II, 7 of were not found at the time of EPA’s that 44 laundry facilities were projected the 22 facilities experiencing financial sampling. According to the detailed to close under the preferred option, and stress are small businesses. questionnaire responses, EPA notes that no firms were projected to experience In addition to the financial stress over 3,000 types of cargos are being stress. No facility closures are projected analysis, EPA also evaluated revenue cleaned at tank truck facilities. under the preferred option for this TEC impacts at small businesses. EPA However, absent better estimates, EPA subcategory, and no facilities were projects that the compliance cost would based its analysis on those toxic projected to experience financial stress not be greater than three percent of substances that were confirmed present if they are able to pass some costs revenue for any small businesses at by its sampling protocols. Based on the through to customers. If the facilities Option I, but would exceed that number presented above, EPA was were unable to pass costs through to percentage for 14 small business at concerned that the cost effectiveness customers, 14 facilities are projected to Option II under the positive cost pass estimates were high and the toxic occur financial stress. through assumption. For the zero cost removal estimates were low when EPA also notes that the cost-benefit pass through assumption, 14 small compared to those calculated for many analysis for the preferred treatment businesses are projected to exceed of the primary manufacturing industries option for the industrial laundries revenue impacts of three percent at for which EPA has promulgated industry indicated that the rule, if Option A; 29 small businesses at Option pretreatment standards. published, would have annual pre-tax I; and 36 small businesses at Option II. As the Agency evaluated whether or costs of $131.2 million (1993$) and Option A is projected to result in no not to establish pretreatment standards annual monetized benefits of $0.07– monetized benefits. EPA estimates that for this subcategory, and at what $0.35 million (1993$). The Truck/ implementation of Option I will result technology option, EPA compared its Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory has in significantly higher benefits than information on this subcategory to that an annual pre-tax cost of $14.4 million Option A, ranging from $1.5 million to for the Industrial Laundries point source and annualized monetized benefits of $5.2 million annually. However, EPA category (64 FR 45072), which EPA $1.5–$5.2 million (1998$) annually. estimates that Option II would not result ultimately decided not to regulate at the In summary, EPA has determined that in any significant additional monetized national level. in some respects, this subcategory is benefits incremental to Option I. First, EPA found that the estimated similar to the industrial laundries EPA also examined the projected pollutants were similarly low for both industry that EPA decided not to pollutant removals and cost industries. However, in contrast to the regulate (e.g. small pollutant removals) effectiveness of each option. In Industrial Laundries decision, the TEC but in other respects it is significantly assessing removals of toxic pollutants, record identifies a wide range of different (e.g. greater potential for EPA estimates actual reductions that pollutants of concern to POTWs, and POTW interference and less significant would be achieved by the treatment identified problems (past and recent) economic impacts). option under consideration, adjusts with TEC facilities that have included While EPA believes that pretreatment these to account for removals that occur interference and pass through, upsets standards are appropriate for the TEC at the POTW anyway, and then converts due to slug loads, not meeting local industry, EPA acknowledges that costs the actual pounds removed to toxic limits, and sludge contamination. These for some facilities may be high relative pound equivalents using a standardized problems have generally been addressed to removals. For the 14% of facilities set of toxic weighting factors. For by the application of appropriate local with no treatment in place, EPA Option A, EPA projects total removals limits. Pretreatment authorities estimated that the average cost per for this subcategory of 1,500 toxic submitting comments on the proposal facility could be as high as $100,000 per pound equivalents. For Option I, EPA generally supported regulation of this year on a pre-tax basis, and would projects total removals for this industry. Already, 44% of the industry remove 67 PE per facility per year. The subcategory of 11,700 toxic pound has been required to install technology Agency also does not want to establish equivalents. For Option II, EPA projects equivalent to Option I, and 86% of the an inflexible regulation that may not be total removals for this subcategory of industry has been required to install able to offer the most environmentally 20,900 toxic pound equivalents. technology equivalent to Option A. responsible yet cost effective solution to Section X of the preamble for the Second, for industrial laundries, EPA a particular wastestream at a individual proposed rule describes EPA’s cost estimated a reduction of 32 PE per TEC facility. In light of this, and effectiveness analysis. EPA uses cost facility at an average cost of $84,000 considering the wide variety of tanker effectiveness to evaluate the relative ($1998 post-tax) for the preferred option cargos accepted for cleaning, EPA efficiency of each option in removing among the technology options. EPA recognizes that one of the most

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49675 successful means of reducing the notes that Option II has the potential to given the flexibility to choose the less discharge of pollutants in wastewater cause more economic impacts than expensive compliance alternative, i.e. may be pollution prevention and source Option I. EPA does not believe that the either meeting the specific numeric reduction. considerable cost increase for Option II pretreatment standards, or by EPA evaluated potential regulatory incremental to Option I is justified. implementing a Pollutant Management structures for pollution prevention Therefore, EPA decided that limits Plan. practices and concluded that the based on Option II are not appropriate The management plan would require Agency should promulgate a regulatory for this subcategory. facilities to implement procedures for option that would reduce the pollutant EPA believes that a dual approach identifying cargos, the cleaning of loadings being discharged and also which offers facilities a choice between which is likely to result in discharges of prevent pass through and interference, Pollution prevention and compliance pollutants that would be incompatible but that may allow more opportunities with numeric limits based on Option I with treatment at the POTW. This for pollution prevention than nationally is economically achievable and will would include cargos containing applicable numeric pretreatment significantly reduce pollutant loadings. pesticides, herbicides, and other toxic standards. In evaluating a pollution Option I does not result in any projected compounds that are not effectively prevention alternative, EPA considered closures, even with a zero cost pass treated by biological treatment. The plan a number of factors that included public through assumption. Although 14 would also require facilities to fully comments received, industry support, facilities are projected to incur financial drain heels from such cargos, segregate costs, and environmental benefits. EPA stress under this assumption, this is a those heels from other wastewaters, and believes that the pass through and relatively small percentage of the handle them in an appropriate manner. interference of pollutants of concern to subcategory population (two percent of Appropriate handling of heels could EPA and to the pretreatment authorities the industry) and none of these facilities include return of the heel to the can be appropriately controlled through are small businesses. Under the customer, off-site treatment or disposal, effective pollution prevention and assumption of some cost pass through to or pretreatment that has been pollutant management tailored to the customers, no facilities are projected to demonstrated to result in sufficient circumstances of the individual facility experience financial stress. reductions to prevent pass through or through a Pollutant Management Plan. Additionally, EPA believes that it has interference. The plan would likewise EPA believes these pollutants can also responded to many commenters’ require facilities to prerinse or presteam be controlled through compliance with concerns by requiring similar levels of such cargos as appropriate, segregate the the numeric limits based on technology control for the truck and rail prerinse/presteam wastewaters from Option I. EPA is thus offering both subcategories and by providing the other wastewaters as appropriate and options for compliance with PSES and pollution prevention compliance option handle in an appropriate manner to PSNS. for both subcategories and by omitting ensure that they do not cause or EPA has had discussions with granular activated carbon, a potentially contribute to a discharge that would be industry stakeholders and the U.S. costly treatment addition, from the incompatible with treatment at the Small Business Administration Office of selected PSES and PSNS treatment POTW. Appropriate handling of Advocacy and EPA believes that it has option for the Truck/Chemical & prerinse/presteam wastewaters could sufficient support from stakeholders to Petroleum Subcategory. Also, EPA has include recycle/reuse, off-site treatment proceed with this dual approach, and made a finding of no barrier to entry or disposal, or pretreatment that has that this approach will provide effective associated with Option I level of control been demonstrated to result in sufficient pollutant reductions that prevent pass for new sources (discussed in Section reductions to prevent pass through or through, interference, and sludge VIII). Therefore, EPA is establishing interference. contamination at the POTWs. PSES and PSNS based on a dual In addition, the plan would require EPA has chosen to establish a approach involving a pollution that all spent cleaning solutions be pollution prevention compliance prevention compliance option and segregated as appropriate and handled option, as well as tradition PSES and traditional limits based on Option I in an appropriate manner to ensure that PSNS limits based on Option I. EPA technologies. they do not cause or contribute to a does not believe that the lower cost The Agency believes that the discharge that would be incompatible Option A removed enough toxics to implementation of a Pollutant with treatment at the POTW. Spent justify its selection as the basis for Management Plan that ensures that cleaning solutions include interior pretreatment standards. Additionally, heels, chemicals, and mixtures that are caustic washes, interior presolve EPA agrees with comments received incompatible with POTW systems are washes, interior detergent washes, from pretreatment authorities, including not discharged to POTWs, and ensures interior acid washes, and exterior acid the Association of Metropolitan appropriate handling of such materials brightener washes. Appropriate Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), that oil/ (by recycle, reuse, effective handling of spent cleaning solutions water separation alone is not effective pretreatment, or off-site treatment or could include regeneration of the for achieving appropriate reductions of disposal) would provide comparable solutions, off-site treatment or disposal, the pollutants which may be discharged effluent reductions. Wastewaters or pretreatment that has been by TEC facilities. AMSA also indicated resulting from heel removals, prerinse demonstrated to result in sufficient its support for effective pollution solutions, and cleaning solutions reductions to prevent pass through or prevention practices as an alternative to normally contain the highest interference. numeric limits for these facilities. concentrations of pollutants in TEC The plan would also require the Although Option II removed wastewater. Some facilities will find it appropriate recycling or reuse of significantly more pound equivalents less costly to implement pollution cleaning agents; the minimization of than Option I, Option II does not prevention and pollutant management toxic cleaning agent use; and the achieve significant incremental controls, while others will find it less maintenance of appropriate records on reductions for any regulated pollutant costly to meet numeric limits. As a heel management, prerinse/presteam and is not projected to result in any regulatory compliance alternative, management, cleaning agent increased monetized benefits. Also, EPA facility owners and operators would be management, operator training, and

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49676 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations proper operation and maintenance of establish BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS Activated Carbon Adsorption, and any pretreatment systems. based on Option II, which includes Sludge Dewatering. The plans would also provide dissolved air flotation (DAF). EPA EPA proposed Option I for PSES and information on the volumes, content, believes that this is the most appropriate Option III for PSNS. As discussed in and chemical characteristics of cleaning technology because the dataset used to Section VIII.B.5.d of the proposal, the agents used in cleaning or brightening transfer limits (from both the rail economic impacts to the industry operations. indirect facilities and the barge direct played a large role in EPA’s selection of EPA has identified these pollution facilities) includes DAF treatment. Option I for pretreatment standards. prevention practices through its data Therefore, EPA has included the EPA noted that its preliminary collection efforts in support of this additional costs of DAF treatment for conclusion was that Option II was rulemaking, and EPA believes that it has the one direct discharging rail facility, projected to result in six facility developed the most appropriate even though this has not changed the closures and was not considered to be combination of Pollution prevention limitations presented in the NOA. economically achievable. practices that provides maximum As discussed in Section VIII.B.1.c of EPA received several comments on flexibility while ensuring significant the proposal, EPA evaluated the costs, the pollutant control technologies pollutant reductions. loads, and impacts of the one model proposed for the Rail/Chemical & B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum direct discharging facility. EPA Petroleum Subcategory. EPA received Subcategory estimates that the cost of implementing comments from several entities, Option I, for monitoring only, is about including AMSA, who argued that oil/ 1. BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS for the $4,900 annually on a post-tax basis water separation alone is not sufficient Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory ($7,600 pre-tax). EPA’s estimate of costs pretreatment for the pollutants in Rail/ EPA evaluated three treatment for Option II is $40,800 annually on a Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory options for the final regulation: post-tax basis ($59,000 pre-tax), and for wastewaters. Additionally, many Option I: Oil/Water Separation, Option III is $60,600 annually on a post- commenters have expressed concern Equalization, Biological Treatment, tax basis ($89,000 pre-tax). EPA projects about the discrepancy in treatment and Sludge Dewatering. that this facility would not close or technology proposed for the rail and Option II: Oil/Water Separation, experience revenue impacts, truck facilities. Several commenters Equalization, Dissolved Air employment impacts, or financial stress argued that the wastewater Flotation (with Flocculation and pH at Option I or Option II level of control. characteristics are similar for truck and Adjustment), Biological Treatment EPA’s economic analysis indicates that rail facilities, and that the treatment and Sludge Dewatering. Option III would have higher costs for options should therefore be similar for Option III: Oil/Water Separation, the existing facility used as the basis for facilities which potentially compete Equalization, Dissolved Air today’s regulation. The single direct with each other. Flotation (with Flocculation and pH discharge facility used for analysis EPA has determined that a Pollutant Adjustment), Biological Treatment, would not close under Option III, but Management Plan is an appropriate Organo-Clay/Activated Carbon this facility would have annualized compliance alternative to the numerical Adsorption, and Sludge costs that exceed three percent of pretreatment standards also being Dewatering. annual revenue. The results of the promulgated in today’s rule for the rail/ EPA proposed Option I for BPT, and annualized costs to sales analysis shows chemical and petroleum subcategory. As proposed to establish BCT and BAT a high impact that should be avoided if explained elsewhere in today’s notice, equivalent to BPT. EPA proposed possible since these additional costs the Agency believes this Pollutant Option III for NSPS. EPA did not receive would not provide incremental Management Plan alternative is any comments following the proposal or pollutant removals in comparison to consistent with the CWA and the the NOA specific to establishing limits Option II. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990; is for direct discharging facilities in this In addition, the incremental economic comparable to the numerical standards subcategory. impacts projected at Option III may in terms of pollutant removal and costs All regulated toxic parameters were create a barrier to entry for new sources. incurred by facilities; is economically treated to the same level at Options I, II, Therefore, EPA does not believe that achievable; and will allow an and III. As discussed in Section VI, EPA there are additional removals or benefits appropriate level of flexibility to facility did not have sampling data for direct to be obtained by establishing NSPS at owners and operators on how to best dischargers in this subcategory because a more stringent level of control, and achieve a reduction in pollutants being EPA only identified one direct EPA decided to establish NSPS discharged to the POTW. The full discharger and it does not have the equivalent to BPT, BCT, and BAT. discussion of the Agency’s reasoning is treatment technology used as the basis 2. PSES and PSNS for the Rail/Chemical set forth in section V.A of today’s for BPT. EPA has therefore relied on & Petroleum Subcategory notice. technology transfer from the Barge/ In the proposal, EPA also noted this Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory to EPA considered three options for the discrepancy, and noted that there were establish limits for conventionals, and final regulation: many similarities between the truck and data from indirect dischargers in the Option I—Oil/Water Separation. rail subcategory wastewaters, and that Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory Option II—Oil/Water Separation, the most significant reason for to establish limits for toxic pollutants. Equalization, Dissolved Air proposing dissimilar technology options Although EPA believes that the Flotation (with Flocculation and pH in the truck and rail subcategories was treatment in place at the one rail direct Adjustment), and Sludge due to economic considerations. EPA’s discharging facility (consisting of oil/ Dewatering. analysis showed that several rail water separation, equalization, pH Option III—Oil/Water Separation, facilities were unable to incur the costs adjustment, biological treatment, and a Equalization, Dissolved Air of a more stringent regulatory option filter press) is sufficient to meet the Flotation (with Flocculation and pH without sustaining significant economic limitations, EPA has decided to Adjustment), Organo-Clay/ impacts. However, all of the financially

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49677 stressed rail facilities will now qualify 10 percent. Comparatively, the cost of 2. PSES and PSNS for the Barge/ for the low flow exclusion (see Section Option III is 65 percent higher than the Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory III.C of this notice). Additionally, as costs for Option II, and the EPA considered three options for the discussed in Section VI, EPA has corresponding increase in pound final regulation: reduced monitoring costs by equivalents removed is approximately Option I—Oil/Water Separation, establishing indicator parameters. six percent. While this results in a Dissolved Air Flotation, and Filter Removing low flow facilities and some relatively high incremental cost- monitoring costs from EPA’s analysis Press. effectiveness ratio for both Options II Option II—Oil/Water Separation, has affected the total costs, loads, and and III, EPA has decided to establish economic impacts of the technology Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter PSES based on Option II for the reasons Press, Biological Treatment, and options for this subcategory. discussed above. Option II, which is For the final regulation, EPA Sludge Dewatering. analogous to Option I in the Truck/ estimates that Option I will have an Option III—Oil/Water Separation, annualized cost of $589,000 post-tax Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter ($897,000 pre-tax), Option II will cost achieves a significant reduction in toxic Press, Biological Treatment, Reverse $1.0 million post-tax ($1.5 million pre- loadings and results in no closures, Osmosis, and Sludge Dewatering. tax), and Option III will cost $1.6 financial stress, or revenue impacts. EPA proposed Option II for PSNS. million post-tax ($2.5 million pre-tax). Additionally, EPA has modified the EPA did not propose PSES for the EPA projects that Option I and Option proposal to decrease costs for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum II will both result in monetized benefits industry, and the final costs for Option Subcategory because EPA identified of $54,000 to $285,000 annually, and II are roughly equivalent to the costs only one facility discharging to a POTW. that Option III would result in benefits estimated for Option I at proposal. EPA However, since the proposal, EPA has of $1.0 to $3.9 million annually. has therefore decided to establish PSES identified four facilities which EPA conducted a pass through and PSNS based on Option II. previously discharged directly to analysis for the pollutants selected for surface waters and have since either regulation under BAT. EPA determined C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum switched or plan to switch discharge that several pollutants would pass Subcategory status. EPA noted this change in through a POTW. The results of this 1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the discharge status for these four barge analysis are presented in Section VI. of Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities in the NOA, and EPA now estimates that there are five facilities in this notice. Subcategory For Options I, II, and III, EPA EPA’s model which discharge anticipates no closures, revenue EPA considered two options for the wastewater to a POTW. impacts, or employment impacts at even final regulation: EPA evaluated the treatment in place the most conservative assumption of no and levels of control currently achieved cost pass through. Additionally, EPA Option I: Oil/Water Separation, by the model indirect discharging does not anticipate any facilities will Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities. experience financial stress at Options I, Press, Biological Treatment, and EPA was able to evaluate effluent II, or III. Sludge Dewatering. discharge concentrations of BOD5, TSS, EPA also considers the cost Option II: Oil/Water Separation, and oil and grease from each of these effectiveness to evaluate the relative Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter model facilities (EPA did not have the efficiency of each option in removing Press, Biological Treatment, Reverse data to evaluate the discharge toxic pollutants. Option I is projected to Osmosis, and Sludge Dewatering. concentrations of other parameters). remove 6,600 pound equivalents, Based on the discharge concentrations Option II will remove 7,300 pound EPA proposed Option I for BPT, and of these conventional pollutants, EPA equivalents, and Option III will remove proposed to establish BCT, BAT and believes that all model indirect 7,800 pound equivalents. NSPS equivalent to BPT. EPA estimates discharging facilities are meeting the EPA has decided to establish PSES the annualized costs for Option I at levels of control that would be and PSNS based on Option II. Although $89,500 annually post-tax ($146,300 established under PSES, and that the Option III is projected to remove more pre-tax) and Option II at $345,700 effluent concentrations of other pound equivalents and also result in annually post-tax ($540,900 pre-tax). pollutants of interest would also be higher monetized benefits then Option EPA estimates that both Option I and similarly controlled. II, Option III was not demonstrated to Option II remove 19,300 pounds of Therefore, EPA estimates that the cost achieve significant reductions BOD5 and TSS. Based on the treatment of implementing PSES standards incremental to Option II for any technologies in place at the model equivalent to PSNS would be solely for regulated pollutant. The increase in facilities, coupled with the biological increased monitoring costs, totaling monetized benefits in Option II was due treatment system upgrades estimated by approximately $67,000 (pre-tax) to the removal of several pesticides not EPA to achieve Option I performance annually. EPA believes that all proposed for regulation. EPA has levels, EPA predicts that Option II indirectly discharging facilities have discussed its rationale for not would not result in any additional sufficient treatment in place to meet establishing limitations for pesticides in removal of toxic pollutants because standards that would be established Section VI. Therefore, EPA does not most pollutants are already treated to under PSES. EPA predicts that there believe that the higher costs for Option would be no incremental removals or very low levels, often approaching or III justify its selection for pretreatment benefits associated with establishing below non-detect levels. EPA did not standards for new sources. PSES standards. EPA has not received receive any support for establishing As noted in the NOA, the cost of any comments that disagreed with the BPT, BCT, BAT, or NSPS at Option II. Option II is 70 percent higher than the Agency’s assessment that existing costs for Option I, and the EPA has therefore decided to establish facilities would meet the standards. corresponding increase in pound BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS based on EPA evaluated the pass through of equivalents removed is approximately Option I. pollutants regulated under BAT. As was

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49678 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations discussed at proposal for establishment contained in the proposal. EPA or about two pound equivalents per year of NSPS, and in the NOA for SGT–HEM, therefore continues to believe that all per facility. Comments on the proposal EPA found that a number of pollutants food grade facilities currently have the generally supported EPA’s conclusion would in fact pass through a POTW proposed treatment technology in place, on the hopper subcategories. Therefore, based on BAT treatment. Due to the pass and that Option II represents the average EPA concluded that nationally- through of a number of pollutants, and of the best treatment. EPA has decided applicable regulations are unnecessary due to the number of facilities that have to establish BPT at Option II, and to and hopper facilities will remain subject switched discharge status since establish BCT and NSPS equivalent to to limitations established on a case-by- proposal, EPA concluded that it should BPT. Based on the analysis of existing case basis using Best Professional establish PSES and PSNS based on facilities, EPA concluded that there Judgement. Option II. EPA believes that PSES is would be no barrier to entry for new 2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/ necessary in order to establish similar sources based on Option II. Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper levels of control for direct and indirect Additionally, EPA did not identify any Subcategories dischargers, and especially to establish treatment technology for the Food similar levels of control for those Subcategory that would achieve EPA also did not propose to establish facilities which may decide to switch significant pollutant removals or would PSES or PSNS for any of the hopper discharge status. establish effluent limitations subcategories. EPA estimates that there As noted under NSPS for the Barge/ significantly more stringent than those are 42 indirect discharging hopper Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, being established under BPT. EPA is not facilities which discharge a total of 3.5 EPA believes that Option III, consisting establishing BAT because EPA did not pound equivalents to the nation’s of reverse osmosis treatment, would not identify toxic or non-conventional waterways, or less than one pound- result in a significant reduction of toxic pollutants at levels sufficient to merit equivalent per facility. Additionally, pollutants, because most pollutants are regulation. EPA estimates that the total cost to the already treated to low levels based on 2. PSES and PSNS for the Food industry to implement PSES would be Option II level of control. Option II was Subcategory greater than $350,000 annually. The demonstrated to treat many regulated estimated costs to control the discharge pollutants to effluent levels approaching In the Agency’s engineering of these small amounts of pound the detection limit. EPA has therefore assessment of pretreatment of equivalents were not considered to be decided to establish PSES and PSNS wastewaters for the Food Subcategory, reasonable. EPA also evaluated the based on Option II. EPA considered the types and levels of pollutants in raw wastewaters concentrations of pollutants found in D. Food Subcategory and concluded that none were present raw wastewaters in this subcategory. As at levels that are expected to cause EPA proposed to establish separate expected, food grade facilities did not inhibition to the receiving POTW. subcategories for the Truck/Food, Rail/ discharge significant quantities of toxic Food, and Barge/Food subcategories due pollutants to POTWs. In addition, Therefore, EPA concluded that to the differences in the amount of water conventional pollutants present in the nationally-applicable regulations are generated per cleaning by truck, rail, wastewater are amenable to treatment at unnecessary and hopper facilities will and barge facilities. The different a POTW. As a result, EPA did not remain subject to local pretreatment volumes of wastewater were used to propose to establish pretreatment limits as necessary to prevent pass establish distinct mass-based limits in standards for any of the food through or interference. each of the subcategories. However, EPA subcategories. Comments received on VI. Development of Effluent Limitations is establishing concentration-based the proposal predominantly supported instead of mass-based limits, making EPA’s regulatory approach for the Food A. Selection of Pollutant Parameters for further subcategorization of food Subcategory. Therefore, EPA is not Final Regulation facilities by transportation mode establishing PSES or PSNS for the Food EPA based its decision to select unnecessary. Subcategory in the final regulation. specific pollutants for regulation on a 1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the E. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and rigorous evaluation of available Food Subcategory Barge/Hopper Subcategories sampling data. This evaluation included factors such as the concentration and EPA considered the following options 1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the frequency of detection of the pollutants for the final regulation: Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/ in the industry raw wastewater, the Option I—Oil/Water Separation. Hopper Subcategories. relative toxicity of pollutants as defined Option II—Oil/Water Separation, EPA did not propose to establish BPT, by their toxic weighting factors, the Equalization, Biological Treatment, BAT, BCT, or NSPS regulations for any treatability of the pollutants in the and Sludge Dewatering. of the hopper subcategories. EPA modeled treatment systems, and the Based on screener survey results, EPA concluded that hopper facilities potential of the pollutants to pass estimates that there are 19 direct discharge very few pounds of through or interfere with POTW discharging facilities in the Food conventional or toxic pollutants. This is operations. Particular attention has been Subcategory. based on EPA sampling data, which given to priority pollutants which have EPA proposed Option II for BPT, BCT, showed very few priority toxic been detected at treatable levels. EPA and NSPS. In the proposal, EPA stated pollutants at treatable levels in raw has attempted to select several that no additional pollutant removals wastewater. Additionally, very little pollutants which have been frequently and no additional costs to the industry wastewater is generated from cleaning detected at sampled facilities, which are were projected because all facilities the interiors of hopper tanks due to the possible indicators of the presence of identified by EPA currently have the dry nature of bulk materials transported. similar pollutants, and whose control proposed technology in place. EPA has EPA estimates that nine hopper through some combination of physical, not received any comment objecting to facilities discharge 21 pound chemical, and biological treatment will the assumptions or conclusions equivalents per year to surface waters, be indicative of a well-operated

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49679 treatment system capable of removing a cost per facility by approximately and/or treatability of COD in TEC wide range of pollutants. $12,000 per year, compared to the wastewater to determine if local limits EPA proposed to establish limits for a average per facility cost of the regulation are necessary. list of pollutants that included classical of approximately $30,000 per year). EPA received comments from pollutants, semivolatile organics, and Several commenters disagreed with pretreatment authorities that EPA metals. EPA solicited and received the Agency’s conclusion and thought should regulate pollutants identified in numerous comments from stakeholders that EPA should establish limitations for TEC wastewater that may pass through on the pollutants selected for regulation these parameters due to their toxicity. the POTW or which may accumulate in in each subcategory. In the NOA, EPA However, most comments received by the POTW sludge. The commenter presented several changes being EPA supported EPA’s conclusion not to specifically identified copper, lead, and considered based on the comments regulate these parameters due to the mercury as pollutants of concern to the received. high costs associated with monitoring POTW. The commenter was especially EPA did not propose to establish and due to the fact that these pollutants concerned that mercury was identified effluent limitations for any pesticide, are generally treated by the technologies in the proposal as a constituent of raw herbicide, dioxin, or furan. These identified in this rule. EPA has decided TEC wastewater and was identified as a pollutants were not found in not to establish limitations for pollutant of concern for the Truck/ concentrations high enough to merit pesticides, herbicides, dioxins, or furans Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and regulation, the cost associated with in the final regulation. However, NDPES the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum monitoring for these parameters is very permits for any individual TEC facility Subcategory, but was not proposed for high, and EPA’s sampling data have must include certain other pollutants in regulation in either subcategory. In shown that the discharge concentrations given circumstances. For example, response to these comments, EPA of pesticides, herbicides, dioxins, and permits must include limitations that reevaluated the frequency of detection, furans are generally treated by the are necessary to ensure compliance with the level of concentrations found in raw proposed technology options. In the water quality standards and State wastewater, and the pass through case of dioxins and furans, the most requirements. See 40 CFR 122.44(d). analysis for each of the regulated highly toxic congeners were treated to Moreover, TEC industry permittees subcategories for the pollutants copper, nondetect values based on oil/water must submit with their permit lead, and mercury. separation and coagulation/clarification. application detailed monitoring In the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum In its evaluation of treatment information on an extensive list of Subcategory, neither copper, lead, nor technologies, EPA compared the TEC pollutants. See 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7). mercury was detected at significant treatment data to known characteristics Their permits must include technology- concentrations in raw wastewater to of dioxins and furans, and to the based limits for any toxic pollutant merit national regulation. correlation of TSS and oil & grease which the permit writer determines is or In the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum removals. Dioxins and furans are may be discharged at a level greater than Subcategory, lead was detected at very lipophilic and hydrophobic and are the level which can be achieved by low concentrations and EPA determined most often associated with suspended treatment requirements appropriate to that lead did not merit national particulates and/or oils in wastewater the permittee. The permit writer would regulation. However, copper was matrices. Treatment technologies for establish case-by-case limits for such detected in 10 out of 10 samples, with dioxins and furans vary depending on pollutants. See 40 CFR Part 125.3 (c)(3). an average concentration of 1,100 µg/L, the characteristics of the matrix. If EPA proposed to establish limitations and a maximum concentration of 9,200 wastes such as oils and greases are for chemical oxygen demand (COD). µg/L. Due to the frequency of detects, present, dioxins will tend to bind with EPA received numerous comments relatively high raw wastewater the oil and can be effectively removed opposed to the Agency’s preliminary concentrations, and toxicity of copper, by treatments such as dissolved air decision to regulate COD and, based on EPA has promulgated effluent flotation. If oils are not present, dioxins these comments, EPA has decided to limitations for copper. EPA conducted a will tend to bind with particulates and eliminate COD as a regulated pollutant. pass through analysis, and determined can be effectively removed by The majority of comments received that copper does pass through a POTW. treatments such as clarification and were from POTW operators who did not Therefore, EPA has established filtration. want EPA to establish pretreatment pretreatment standards for copper. The removal efficiencies for dioxins standards for COD. The commenters Mercury was detected 8 out of 10 times, and furans across oil/water separation believed that COD pollutant loads with an average concentration of 1.8 µg/ and coagulation/clarification ranged generated from tank cleaning facilities L and a maximum concentration of 5.0 from 65–97 percent, (they would be 100 were easily treated biologically in a µg/L. Mercury was also determined to percent if the effluent nondetect value POTW. EPA has agreed with pass through a POTW. Due to the high were set at zero), and paralleled the commenters that the levels of COD toxicity of mercury, the high frequency removal efficiencies of oil & grease and/ generated from tank cleaning facilities of detects, relatively high raw or TSS. are adequately treated in a POTW and, wastewater concentrations, and pass In summary, EPA decided not to thus, will not pass through or interfere through analysis, EPA has promulgated establish limitations for dioxin or furan with its operation. Additionally, EPA effluent limitations and pretreatment congeners for several reasons: (1) the believes COD would be adequately standards for mercury in the Truck/ congeners found in TEC wastewater are controlled through the regulation of Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. not priority pollutants and were found other conventional pollutants, including In the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum at very low levels in raw wastewater, (2) BOD and oil and grease for direct Subcategory, mercury was detected the selected technology options were dischargers. EPA did not receive any three out of six times, with an average demonstrated to treat dioxin and furans comments in opposition to this change, concentration of 5.4 µg/L and a to nondetect levels (due to control of and EPA has not included limits for maximum concentration of 81 µg/L. TSS and oil and grease), and (3) dioxin COD in the final regulation. Permit Although the detection frequency was and furan monitoring is very expensive writers and local authorities should only 50%, the raw wastewater (monitoring alone would increase the carefully examine the concentration concentrations reached high enough

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49680 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations levels to be of concern, especially for a were within the range of concentrations (measured as HEM) and total petroleum pollutant as toxic as mercury. Mercury that the commenter describes as being hydrocarbons as indicator pollutants for was also determined to pass through a present in drinking water (i.e. less than straight chain hydrocarbons proposed POTW. Therefore, EPA has decided to 5 mg/l.) Therefore, EPA has concluded for regulation. As descibed in the NOA, promulgate effluent limitations and that zinc is not a pollutant of concern EPA has revised the name of ‘‘total pretreatment standards for mercury in for this subcategory because the zinc petroleum hydrocarbons’’ in Method the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum levels present in dischargers from 1664 to ‘‘non-polar material’’ to indicate Subcategory. Additionally, both lead Truck/Chemical & Petroleum that the new test method is different and copper were detected at significant Subcategory facilities may be due to from previous versions. (64 FR 26315 concentrations in raw wastewater to source water contamination rather than May 14, 1999). Non-polar materials are merit regulation and were determined to a direct result of cleaning tanks. measured by Silica-gel Treated n- pass through a POTW. Due to the Therefore, EPA has decided not to Hexane Extractable Material (SGT– toxicity, frequency of detects, and promulgate effluent limitations or HEM). Oil and Grease continues to be relatively high raw wastewater pretreatment standards for zinc in the synonymous with the Method 1664 for concentrations of lead and copper, EPA Truck/Chemical & Petroleum n-Hexane Extractable Material (HEM). has promulgated effluent limitations Subcategory. However, the average raw EPA proposed to regulate oil and grease and pretreatment standards for lead and wastewater concentration of chromium (HEM) for direct discharging facilities, copper. in raw wastewater was 2.4 mg/L, and and non-polar oil and grease (SGT– EPA did not propose to regulate the maximum concentration was 18.6 HEM) for indirect discharging facilities. mercury in either the Truck/Chemical & mg/L. The levels of chromium in the As discussed in Section XIII.G of the Petroleum Subcategory or the Barge/ source water at these facilities was proposal, EPA recognizes that HEM Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. much lower than raw wastewater analysis can include edible oils (such as However, mercury was identified as a concentrations, and were all less than animal fats and vegetable oils) in pollutant of concern in each of these 0.01 mg/L. Therefore, EPA concluded addition to petroleum-based oils, which subcategories and EPA developed long that chromium is a pollutant of interest are the primary constituents measured term averages and variability factors for in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum by the SGT–HEM analysis. As discussed mercury at the time of proposal, which Subcategory. However, based on the in Section VIII.B of the NOA, EPA has were included in the proposed discussion in Section VI.A of this deemed non-polar material (SGT–HEM) statistical support document (EPA–832– notice, EPA is not promulgating effluent to pass through a POTW due to the B–98–014). In calculating limits for the limitations and pretreatment standards prevalence of petroleum-based final regulation, EPA has used the same for chromium. However, with respect to compounds. methodology as descibed in Section VIII the comment that the chromium limits Many commenters argued that straight of the proposal and as finalized in are too low, EPA has recalculated the chain hydrocarbons are components of Section VI of this notice. Based on limits based on additional self oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar comments, EPA has concluded that it monitoring data received from industry material (SGT–HEM), and that their should establish effluent limitations and after publication of the NOA. The regulation as individual pollutants pretreatment standards for mercury. industry data represents the effluent would be redundant and would impose EPA also received comments from levels attainable at a facility over a additional, unnecessary costs on the pretreatment authorities and much longer time period that was industry. These straight chain stakeholders on EPA’s decision to represented by EPA’s original data set. hydrocarbons include n-Hexadecane, n- establish limits for parameters such as Because this data more accurately Hexacosane, n-Decane, n-Docosane, n- zinc and chromium which are found in accounts for the variability present in Dodecane, n-Eicosane, n-Octacosane, n- potable water supply systems, and tank cleaning wastewater, the limits Octadecane, n-Tetracosane, n- which may be found at levels higher have become less stringent. Tetradecane, and n-Triacontane. EPA than the proposed limitations. The In the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum does not necessarily agree that commenters questioned if the presence Subcategory, the average raw regulation of such individual pollutants of these parameters in TEC wastewaters wastewater concentration of zinc was 19 is redundant but has considered the was the result of cleaning cargos, or the mg/L, and the maximum concentration comment and performed the evaluation result of source water contamination. found was 78.5 mg/L. The highest level described below. The commenter noted that maximum of zinc in source water at barge facilities EPA reviewed the treatment contaminant levels for zinc and was 0.114 mg/L. Additionally, all source effectiveness data collected in support chromium in drinking water are 5 mg/ water concentrations of chromium were of this regulation, and found that the L and 0.1 mg/l, respectively, and that non-detect. Therefore, EPA concluded treatment effectiveness of these the proposed limitations were low in that the levels of zinc and chromium parameters is related to the treatment comparison to drinking water standards. present in barge process water were the effectiveness of HEM and SGT–HEM. In response, EPA evaluated sampling result of barge cleaning operations, and This is consistent with the chemical data from TEC wastewater and source not due to source water contamination. characteristics of HEM and SGT–HEM, water from the Truck/Chemical & EPA concluded that, due to the high which by definition include the straight Petroleum Subcategory and Barge/ levels present in raw wastewater, that chain hydrocarbons as constituents. In Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. zinc and chromium are pollutants of cases where oil and grease (HEM) and Based on a data review of the Truck/ interest. EPA has decided to retain the non-polar material (SGT–HEM) were Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, effluent limitations and pretreatment effectively controlled, all of the EPA concluded that one of the highest standards for zinc and chromium in the pollutants listed above were treated to concentrations of zinc found in truck/ Barge/Chemical & Petroleum very low levels, such as in PSES/PSNS chemical process water was actually Subcategory. Option II in the Rail/Chemical & from source water supplied from a EPA received numerous comments Petroleum Subcategory, which consists domestic water distribution system. from POTWs, industry trade of oil/water separation and dissolved air Furthermore, all of the levels of zinc associations, and affected facilities flotation. This system achieved found in truck/chemical process water suggesting that EPA use oil and grease substantial removals of HEM and SGT–

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49681

HEM, along with the straight chain brighten and remove the tarnish from industry’s self monitoring data, hydrocarbons listed above. Treatment the chrome parts of a tank truck. This inadequate time for additional field effectiveness in the Barge/Chemical & service leaches chromium from the sampling and public notice of any Petroleum Subcategory demonstrated external truck parts. sampling efforts, and the opportunities similar results. On the days that EPA sampled the for appropriate pollution prevention Additionally, EPA reviewed data from facility, it did not perform acid practices, EPA is not establishing a characterization study of the HEM and brightener washes. Therefore EPA’s limitations or pretreatment standards for SGT–HEM test methods conducted for sampling data did not include high chromium and the control authority the Proposed Effluent Limitations concentrations of chromium. EPA may establish BPJ chromium standards, Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards believes that its chromium data is not or require chromium pollution for the Industrial Laundries Point representative of the practices that may prevention practices, based on an Source Category (63 FR 71054 December be performed by tank truck facilities, evaluation of site specific factors. 23, 1998). This study was performed to and that the chromium limits based on For direct discharging facilities, EPA characterize the individual constituents EPA’s sampling data may not be is establishing limitations for the Truck/ measured by method 1664 (HEM and achievable for facilities that are Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory for SGT–HEM); the study is available for performing acid washes for their BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), review in Section 16 of the regulatory customers. Copper, Mercury, and pH. For the Rail/ record for the Industrial Laundries However, because the facility Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, Effluent Guideline. The laundries data provided no data about its raw EPA is establishing limitations for demonstrate that the HEM and SGT– wastewater concentrations, treatment BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), HEM test methods provide a general effectiveness, or treatment unit Fluoranthene, Phenanthrene, and pH. indication of the presence of the straight operations on the days it reported self- For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum chain hydrocarbons listed above in monitoring data, EPA does not believe Subcategory, EPA is establishing wastewater samples. that it would be appropriate to establish limitations for BOD5, TSS, Oil and EPA proposed effluent limitations and long term averages based on the Grease (HEM), Cadmium, Chromium, pretreatment standards for chromium in industry supplied self monitoring data. Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Zinc, the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum EPA is unable to evaluate the and pH. Additionally, EPA is Subcategory based on EPA sampling effectiveness of the treatment system. establishing limits for the Food data from one BAT facility. to develop Therefore, EPA has decided not to Subcategory for BOD5, TSS, Oil and long term averages. At the time of the promulgate the effluent limitations and Grease (HEM), and pH. NOA (July 20, 1999) EPA continued to pretreatment standards for chromium in Finally, EPA conducted a pass- propose effluent limitations and the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum through analysis on the pollutants pretreatment standards for chromium Subcategory, and leave the selected for regulation under BPT and based on the proposal methodology. establishment of any chromium BAT to determine if the Agency should However, during the comment period limitations and standards to the BPJ of establish pretreatment standards for any on the NOA, the industry submitted the permit writer. pollutant. (The pass-through analysis is additional self-monitoring data from the As described in detail in Section X of not applicable to conventional wastewater treatment plant that EPA this notice, EPA has spent a parameters such as BOD5, TSS, and Oil had sampled, and from which EPA had considerable amount of effort in and Grease (HEM). EPA is establishing developed the proposed limits. The data developing an alternative pollution pretreatment standards for those submitted by the facility demonstrated prevention option in lieu of national pollutants which the Agency has that it would actually exceed the pretreatment standards for the industry. determined to pass through a POTW. In proposed limitations on numerous Specific to the concern of chromium in addition, as discussed in the NOA, EPA occasions. Although a significant tank truck washwater, and realizing the has concluded that non-polar material number of effluent monitoring potential for pollution prevention (SGT–HEM) does pass through a POTW chromium concentrations were similar practices in lieu of national numeric in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum, to the concentrations observed by EPA standards, EPA has included in the P2 Rail/Chemical & Petroleum, and Barge/ during its sampling episode, a few data practices the segregation of exterior acid Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. points were significantly higher than the brighteners from other wastewaters, and EPA did not receive any comments on values observed by EPA. has specified that these wastewaters this pass through determination, and The facility only provided EPA copies must be handled in an appropriate EPA has retained its conclusion for the of its DMRs and associated laboratory manner to ensure that they do not cause final regulation. analyses, and did not provide any or contribute to a discharge that would Based on the pass-through analysis, information on raw wastewater be incompatible with treatment at the EPA is establishing PSES and PSNS in concentrations, treatment system POTW. While EPA is not promulgating the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum operation, or lists of cleaning operations this pollution prevention alternative for Subcategory for non-polar material that were performed during the time of chromium for facilities that decided to (SGT–HEM), Copper and Mercury. EPA the self-monitoring sampling. Therefore, meet the numeric limitations, EPA is establishing PSES and PSNS in the EPA cannot evaluate the effectiveness of believes that the control authority may Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory treatment on those days with high wish to incorporate pollution for non-polar material (SGT–HEM), chromium effluent concentrations. prevention in lieu of BPJ numeric Fluoranthene, and Phenanthrene. However, based on its knowledge of the limitations for chromium. EPA has Finally, EPA is establishing PSES and industry, EPA hypothesizes that the received comments from a POTW that PSNS in the Barge/Chemical & high concentrations of chromium in the currently employs such a pollution Petroleum Subcategory for non-polar effluent are the result of the facility prevention practice in order to prevent material (SGT–HEM), Cadmium, performing exterior acid washes on high levels of chrome from being Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, those days. Exterior acid washing is a discharged to its system. Nickel, and Zinc. common service that tank truck Due to concerns about its own data, Regulated facilities can meet the final facilities provide to their customers to insufficient documentation of the limitations through the use of any

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49682 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations combination of physical, chemical, or fraction-level variability factors by Petroleum Subcategories. EPA does not biological treatment, or implementation taking a median of all pollutants have sampling data from a facility of pollution prevention strategies (e.g., effectively removed in a chemical class, operating BPT biological treatment in good heel removal and water rather than using the median of only either the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum conservation). Additional information those pollutants selected for regulation or Rail/Chemical & Petroleum on the development of effluent in a chemical class. EPA believes this Subcategories. Therefore, EPA has limitations and the technology options revised methodology is appropriate transferred effluent limitations for considered for regulation is included in because the Agency believes that all BOD5, TSS, and oil and grease (HEM) Section VIII of the proposed rule, pollutants in a chemical class will from a biological system in the Barge/ Section V of this notice and the behave similarly, regardless of whether Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, as Technical Development Document. or not it is selected for regulation. This was described in Section II of the NOA. change was also presented in the NOA, 2. Methodology for Final Limitations B. Calculation of Effluent Limitations and EPA did not receive any comment 1. Changes in Methodology Since on this revised methodology. EPA has EPA based the effluent limitations Proposal adopted this methodology for the final and standards in today’s notice on regulation. widely-recognized statistical procedures The data and methodology used to Fourth, EPA has used technology for calculating long-term averages and calculate effluent limitations and transfer to establish PSES standards for variability factors. The following pretreatment standards are located in non-polar material (SGT–HEM) in the presents a summary of the statistical Section 21 of the regulatory record. The Truck/Chemical & Petroleum methodology used in the calculation of data and methodology are the same as Subcategory. EPA proposed effluent limitations. proposed with several exceptions. pretreatment standards for SGT–HEM in Effluent limitations for each One, EPA has calculated the Truck/Chemical Subcategory based subcategory are based on a combination concentration-based instead of mass- on the data from two Truck/Chemical of long-term average effluent values and based limits. EPA received many facilities. However, EPA feels that the variability factors that account for comments on the proposal criticizing SGT–HEM standards developed for this variation in day-to-day treatment EPA for proposing mass-based subcategory may not be achievable, performance within a treatment plant. standards. EPA described these because the raw wastewater The long-term averages are average comments in the NOA and described an concentrations at these two facilities effluent concentrations that have been alternative methodology which would were 65 mg/L and 61 mg/L, whereas the achieved by well-operated treatment establish concentration-based limits. average raw wastewater concentration systems using the processes described EPA received almost unanimous for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum in Section V (Technology Options comment in support of concentration- subcategory was measured to be 150 Selected for Basis of Regulation). The based limits and has adopted mg/L. EPA is aware that some facilities variability factors are values that concentration-based limits for the final in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum represent the ratio of a large value that regulation. Subcategory may be generating would be expected to occur only rarely Two, EPA has used data provided by wastewater with significantly higher to the long-term average. The purpose of industry to calculate final effluent concentrations of oil and grease than the variability factor is to allow for limitations. EPA used data from two EPA considered in the proposed normal variation in effluent additional Barge/Chemical & Petroleum limitations. Therefore, EPA transferred concentrations. A facility that designs facilities for the calculation of BOD5 and standards for SGT–HEM from similar and operates its treatment system to TSS limits, as discussed in Section II of treatment technologies operated in the achieve a long-term average on a the NOA. EPA has received no comment Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. consistent basis should be able to on the use of this additional data, and As mentioned previously, this system comply with the daily and monthly EPA has continued to use these data for consisted of oil/water separation limitations in the course of normal developing the final BOD5 and TSS followed by dissolved air flotation operations. limitations. EPA has used additional (DAF) and achieved 98 percent removal The variability factors and long-term data from one Truck/Chemical & of HEM for wastewater that had an averages were developed from a Petroleum Subcategory facility for the influent concentration of 1,994 mg/L. database composed of individual calculation of variability factors for For SGT–HEM, the system achieved a measurements on treated effluent based copper, and mercury. The data provided 97 percent removal for wastewater that on EPA sampling data and from consisted of self monitoring data for a had an average influent concentration of industry supplied data. EPA sampling facility that was sampled by EPA and 206 mg/L. EPA believes that technology data reflects the performance of a used to calculate proposed effluent transfer of SGT–HEM establishes system over a three to five day period, limitations. EPA had already limitations that are achievable for all although not necessarily over determined this site to represent BAT facilities in the Truck/Chemical & consecutive days. treatment. EPA has used this additional Petroleum Subcategory. As discussed in The long-term average concentration self-monitoring data to determine Section III.F and VI.A, EPA is of a pollutant for a treatment system was variability factors because it represents establishing HEM (for direct calculated based on either an arithmetic treatment performance over a much dischargers) and SGT–HEM (for indirect mean or the expected value of the longer time period (4 years) than was dischargers) as indicator pollutants for distribution of the samples, depending demonstrated from EPA sampling data. several other constituents in the Truck/ on the number of total samples and the The complete dataset, including lab Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. number of detected samples for that reports and certified monitoring reports, As in the proposal, EPA has pollutant at that facility. A delta- can be found in Section 15.2.2 of the continued to use technology transfer to lognormal distributional assumption regulatory record. establish BPT limits for conventional was used for all subcategories except the Third, EPA has used the pollutant- pollutants BOD5, TSS, and oil and Truck/Chemical & Petroleum specific variability factor where grease (HEM) in the Truck/Chemical & Subcategory where the arithmetic mean available, and then calculated group and Petroleum and Rail/Chemical & was used. The pollutant long-term

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49683 average concentration for a treatment Limitations were based on actual was assumed to occur four times per technology was the median of the long- concentrations of pollutants measured month for conventional pollutants. term averages from the sampled in wastewaters treated by the proposed Monitoring was assumed to occur once treatment systems within the technologies where such data were per month for all priority and non- subcategory using the proposed available. Actual measured value data conventional pollutants. This has the treatment technology. were available for pollutant parameters result that the daily maximums and EPA calculated variability factors by in all subcategories with the exception monthly averages for priority and non- fitting a statistical distribution to the of pollutants regulated for direct conventional pollutants are the same. sampling data. The distribution was dischargers in the Truck/Chemical & Although the monitoring frequency based on an assumption that the furthest Petroleum and Rail/Chemical & necessary for a facility to demonstrate excursion from the long-term average Petroleum Subcategories. Due to the compliance is determined by the local (LTA) that a well operated plant using small number of direct discharging permitting authority, EPA must assume the proposed technology option could facilities identified by EPA, all of EPA’s a monitoring frequency in order to be expected to make on a daily basis sampling was conducted at indirect assess costs and to determine variability was a point below which 99 percent of discharging facilities in these of the treatment system. the data for that facility falls, under the subcategories. In the case of BPT EPA has assumed facilities will assumed distribution. The daily regulation for conventional, priority, monitor their wastewater four times per variability factor for each pollutant at and non-conventional pollutants, EPA month for conventional pollutants or each facility is the ratio of the estimated concluded that establishing limits based SGT–HEM to ensure that facility TEC 99th percentile of the distribution of the on indirect discharging treatment processes and wastewater treatment daily pollutant concentration values systems was not appropriate because systems are consistently and divided by the expected value of the indirect discharging treatment systems continuously operated to achieve the distribution of the daily values. The are generally not operated for optimal associated pollutant long-term averages. pollutant variability factor for a control of pollutants which are EPA also assumed that facilities will treatment technology was the mean of amenable to treatment in a POTW. For monitor wastewater once per month for the pollutant variability factors from the example, treatment systems at indirect toxic pollutants, providing some facilities with that technology. discharging facilities generally do not economic relief to regulated facilities There were several instances where require biological treatment to control while ensuring that facility TEC variability factors could not be organic pollutants because a POTW will processes and wastewater treatment calculated directly from the TEC control these pollutants. Therefore, in systems are designed and operated to database because there were not at least establishing limits for conventional control the discharge of toxic pollutants. two effluent values measured above the pollutants at direct discharging VII. Costs and Pollutant Reductions of minimum detection level for a specific facilities, EPA has established BPT Final Regulation pollutant. In these cases, the sample size limitations based on the treatment of the data is too small to allow performance demonstrated from two EPA estimated industry-wide distributional assumptions to be made. direct discharging Barge/Chemical & compliance costs and pollutant loading Therefore, in order to assume a Petroleum facilities that utilized removals associated with the effluent variability factor for a pollutant, the biological treatment systems. limitations and standards using a Agency transferred variability factors Limitations for priority and non computer cost model and data collected from other pollutants that exhibit conventional pollutants were based on through survey responses, industry similar treatability characteristics the indirect discharging facilities in that submittals, site visits, and sampling within the treatment system. subcategory. episodes. Cost estimates and pollutant In order to do this, pollutants were The daily maximum limitation is removals for each regulatory option are grouped on the basis of their chemical calculated as the product of the summarized below and in more detail in structure and published data on relative pollutant long-term average the Technical Development Document. treatability. The median pollutant concentration and the variability factor. A. Changes to Cost Analysis Since variability factor for all pollutants The monthly maximum limitation is Proposal within a group at that sampling episode also calculated as the product of the was used to create a group-level pollutant long-term average and the Following a thorough review of the variability factor. When group-level variability factor, but the variability cost model, EPA made several variability factors were not able to be factor is based on the 95 percentile of adjustments to the costing methodology calculated, groups that were similar the distribution of daily pollutant in response to comments on the were collected into analytical method concentrations instead of the 99th proposed rule and Notice of fractions and the median group-level percentile. Availability, and to correct minor variability factor was calculated to By accounting for these reasonable inaccuracies identified by EPA. One of create a fraction-level variability factor. excursions above the LTA, EPA’s use of the most notable changes was to Group-level variability factors were variability factors results in standards eliminate estimated compliance costs used when available, and fraction-level that are generally well above the actual for facilities that would meet the low variability factors were used if group- LTAs. Thus if a facility operates its flow exclusion (i.e., discharge less than level variability factors could not be treatment system to meet the relevant 100,000 gallons per year of TEC process calculated. For the sampling episodes in LTA, EPA expects the plant to be able wastewater). After eliminating these the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum to meet the standards. Variability factors facilities, EPA evaluated the remaining Subcategory, there were not enough data assure that normal fluctuations in a 77 Detailed Questionnaire recipients, to calculate variability factors at any facility’s treatment are accounted for in plus four direct discharging facilities level from EPA sampling data and the limitations. that did not receive the questionnaire, to therefore variability factors were The final limitations, as presented in determine TEC operations, wastewater calculated based on industry supplied today’s notice, are provided as daily characteristics, daily flow rates (process data contained in self-monitoring maximums and monthly averages for flow rates), operating schedules, tank reports. conventional pollutants. Monitoring cleaning production (i.e., number of

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49684 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations tanks cleaned), and wastewater engineering, buildings, site annual O&M costs (equipment and treatment technologies currently in improvements, legal/administrative monitoring) to calculate the total place at the site. fees, interest, contingency, and taxes annualized costs incurred by each Facilities that did not have the and insurance. For the final rule, EPA facility to comply with this regulation. technologies for the selected option increased some of the indirect capital The costs associated with each of the 81 already in place were projected to incur cost factors and included start-up costs facilities in the cost analysis were then costs as a result of compliance with this in total capital cost estimates. modeled to represent the national regulation. A facility that did not have Also for the final rule, EPA made the population by using statistically the technology, or an equivalent following changes: increased capital and calculated survey weights. technology, in place was costed for annual costs for activated carbon, installing and maintaining the equalization, and filter presses; revised All cost models, cost factors, and cost technology. Costs include: (1) total the methodology to credit treatment in assumptions are discussed in detail in capital costs for installed technologies, place; and removed flow reduction for the Technical Development Document including equipment, shipping, some facilities. EPA also significantly for the final rule. indirect, and start-up costs; (2) operating reduced the monitoring costs associated and maintenance (O&M) costs for with compliance by selecting indicator B. Compliance Costs installed technologies, including labor, parameters to replace specific pollutants The final costs for the regulated electrical, material, and chemical usage proposed for regulation and by using subcategories are presented in Table 2. costs; (3) solids handling costs, less expensive analytical methods. Total capital investment, total annual Although EPA has eliminated flow including capital, O&M, and disposal (i.e., O&M), and total annualized costs costs; and (4) monitoring costs. reduction from the technology bases for are shown in 1998 post-tax dollars. BPT, EPA based direct capital costs for all subcategories, EPA has retained flow equipment, shipping, installation, reduction in the cost model for most BCT, and BAT total annual and total controls, and retrofit costs on subcategories. Flow reduction results in annualized costs include weekly information from treatment vendors and significant compliance cost savings and monitoring of regulated conventional other effluent guidelines. EPA also consequently EPA assumes facilities pollutants and monthly monitoring of developed cost factors and applied them will incorporate flow reduction in their all other regulated pollutants. PSES total to the direct capital costs to account for compliance strategy. annual and total annualized costs indirect costs such as site work, The total capital costs were amortized include monthly monitoring of all interface piping, general contracting, over 16 years and added to the total regulated pollutants.

TABLE 2.ÐTOTAL COSTS OF THE TEC RULE, BY SUBCATEGORY [Millions of 1998 dollars]

Total Selected Total capital Total annual annualized Subcategory option investment O&M costs cost (post-tax)

BPT/BCT/BAT

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum ...... II 0.084 a (0) a (0) Rail/Chemical & Petroleum ...... II 0.201 0.038 0.041 Barge/Chemical & Petroleum ...... I 0.093 0.138 0.089 Food ...... II 0 0 0

PSES

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum ...... I 56.3 8.79 9.16 Rail/Chemical & Petroleum ...... II 7.70 0.722 1.02 Barge/Chemical & Petroleum ...... II 0 0.067 0.041 a Net annual cost savings are the result of flow reduction and sludge dewatering for one facility, which results in a greater savings than the monitoring costs incurred by all facilities.

C. Changes to Pollutant Reduction implementation of the BPT, BCT, BAT, the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Analysis Since Proposal and PSES technology bases. Long-term Subcategory. average effluent concentrations at BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES pollutant The BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES proposal were statistically derived using reductions were first estimated on a site- limitations will control the discharge of treatment performance data collected specific basis for affected facilities that conventional, priority toxic, and non- during EPA’s sampling program. For the responded to the Detailed Questionnaire conventional pollutants from TEC final rule, EPA made the following (77 facilities) and for four additional facilities. The Agency developed adjustments to the load removal affected facilities identified from estimates of the post-compliance long- responses to the Screener estimates: revised the list of pollutants term average (LTA) pollutant Questionnaire. Site-specific pollutant for which removals were calculated; concentrations that would be discharged reductions were calculated as the from TEC facilities within each added a new criteria to determine final difference between the site-specific subcategory. These estimates were effluent concentrations; and baseline pollutant loadings (i.e., calculated using the long-term average incorporated additional treatment estimated pollutant loadings currently effluent concentrations of specific performance data for the Truck/ discharged) and the site-specific post- pollutants achieved after Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and compliance pollutant loadings (i.e.,

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49685 estimated pollutant loadings discharged If a given pollutant met the pollutant BAT treatment. The data consisted of after implementation of the regulation). of interest criteria, EPA calculated the influent and effluent self-monitoring The site-specific pollutant reductions treatment effectiveness concentrations data over a one-year period. EPA used were then multiplied by statistically and percent removal efficiencies from these data to calculate BPT effluent derived survey weighting (scaling) the sampling data. Treatment limitations and new source performance factors and summed to represent effectiveness concentrations are the standards for biochemical oxygen pollutant reductions for the entire TEC long-term average concentrations demand (BOD5) and total suspended industry. achievable by the technology option. solids (TSS). These additional data and To estimate pollutant loadings Percent removal efficiencies are the revised effluent limitations were discharged after implementation of the pollutant percent removals achievable presented in the NOA. regulation, EPA estimated pollutant by the technology option, based on the EPA obtained additional treatment load removals for ‘‘pollutants of difference between the influent and interest’’ for each subcategory. EPA effluent concentrations. performance data following the NOA identified pollutants of interest for each For the proposed rule, EPA only from one Truck/Chemical & Petroleum subcategory using a set of data-editing estimated pollutant load removals based Subcategory facility operating PSES/ criteria such that these pollutants are on treatment effectiveness PSNS treatment. The data consisted of typically present at treatable concentrations. For example, the TEC effluent self-monitoring data over a four- concentrations in the subcategory- cost model calculated the difference year period. EPA used these data to specific raw wastewater. These editing between the influent concentration and calculate limitations and pretreatment criteria are: (1) The average influent the treatment effectiveness standards for copper and mercury. technology option concentration must concentration achieved by the treatment For the proposed rule, EPA did not be at least five times the pollutant’s unit; the result was the pollutant consider dioxin and furan removals for method detection limit, and (2) the reduction achieved by the treatment any subcategory because EPA assumed pollutant must be detected in at least unit. For the final rule, EPA that any detections of these pollutants two wastewater characterization incorporated pollutant percent removal were isolated, site-specific instances. In samples (if at least two facilities in the efficiencies (for all pollutants of response to several comments on this subcategory were sampled) or one interest), in addition to treatment issue, EPA reevaluated the presence of wastewater characterization sample (if effectiveness concentrations, in the load dioxins and furans in TEC wastewater only one facility in the subcategory was removal calculations. For example, for based on the pollutants of interest sampled) . pollutants with significant removals (for criteria described above. EPA found that For proposal and the NOA, EPA only pollutants of interest with removals several dioxins and furans meet the considered those pollutants that were greater than 50% by the technology editing criteria and should be removed by at least 50% by EPA’s bases), the TEC cost model compared considered pollutants of interest; technology bases in the subcategory- the influent concentration to two therefore, EPA included their removals specific load removals. In the proposal, possible effluent concentrations, the in the load removal estimates. EPA described how it used a modified treatment effectiveness concentration approach to identify pesticide and and the effluent concentration that D. Pollutant Reductions herbicide pollutants included in the would be achieved after applying the removal estimates; however, for the treatment unit (limited to the pollutant The final pollutant removals for the final rule, EPA applied the same method detection limit) percent removal regulated subcategories are presented in approach to all pollutants. Upon further efficiency. The model selects the lower Table 3, by discharge type. Pollutant review, for the final rule, EPA included of the two effluent concentrations to removals were estimated as the all pollutants of interest in the load calculate the pollutant reductions difference between the subcategory removal estimates that had a removal achieved by the treatment unit. No baseline pollutant loadings (i.e., efficiency greater than 0%. EPA believes removals were credited to a pollutant if estimated pollutant loadings currently its previous data-editing criteria the influent concentration was at its discharged) and the subcategory post- requiring 50% removal was incorrect detection limit. For other pollutants, the compliance pollutant loadings (i.e., because it did not accurately reflect model uses only a percent removal estimated pollutant loadings discharged incidental removals of all pollutants efficiency. after implementation of the regulation). across the various technology options. EPA obtained additional treatment The load removals (in pounds per year) Note, however, that EPA retained the performance data following the are scaled to represent the industry but 50% removal criteria for the purpose of proposed rule from two Barge/Chemical do not account for the relative toxicity selecting regulated pollutants. & Petroleum facilities operating BPT/ between pollutants.

TABLE 3.ÐTOTAL POLLUTANT REMOVALS OF THE TEC RULE

Pounds of Pounds of Pounds of non-conven- Total pounds Selected conventional priority tional of pollutant Subcategory option pollutants pollutants pollutants removed removed removed removed (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr)

BPT/BCT/BAT (for consistency with Table 2)

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum ...... II 47 2.3 670 720 Rail/Chemical & Petroleum ...... II 22 2.2 15,000 15,000 Barge/Chemical & Petroleum ...... I >19,000 (1) >69,000 >88,000 Food ...... II 0 0 0 0

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49686 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 3.ÐTOTAL POLLUTANT REMOVALS OF THE TEC RULEÐContinued

Pounds of Pounds of Pounds of non-conven- Total pounds Selected conventional priority tional of pollutant Subcategory option pollutants pollutants pollutants removed removed removed removed (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr)

PSES

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum ...... I 20,000,000 60,000 21,000,000 41,000,000 Rail/Chemical & Petroleum ...... II 960,000 870 4,500,000 5,500,000 Barge/Chemical & Petroleum ...... II 0 0 0 0 1 Not available.

VIII. Economic Impacts of Final to the methodology was over EPA’s cost the economic analysis are presented in Regulation pass through analysis, which assumes the ‘‘Final Economic Analysis of EPA projects that the final TEC rule that a portion of compliance costs can Effluent Limitations Guidelines and will result in no facility closures, be passed through to the final Standards for the Transportation revenue losses, nor employment losses customers. Several commenters Equipment Cleaning Category’’ and in in the industry. As set forth below, the disagreed with the assumption that a the ‘‘Final Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Agency’s financial analysis found that portion of the compliance costs could of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 14 facilities in the Truck/Chemical & potentially be passed through to the Standards for the Transportation Petroleum Subcategory may experience customer. EPA believes that, given the Equipment Cleaning Category’’. financial stress as a result of this rule. relatively inelastic demand for TEC EPA has updated the economic In addition, the small business analysis, services, a portion of compliance costs analysis to reflect the changes made by using a sales test methodology, shows can be passed through to TEC EPA since the proposal for this final that some small businesses could have customers. In turn, EPA believes that, rulemaking action. These changes are compliance costs that exceed three because TEC services are such a small summarized in Section III of this notice. percent of annual sales revenues. portion of total transportation costs, the Briefly, the changes include However, these impacts are quite small impact on the customer market is promulgation of concentration-based relative to the TEC industry, and EPA minimal. rather than mass-based limitations, certifies, as discussed later, that the The nature of the market demand for modification to the subcategorization regulation will not have a significant TEC services is two-fold. First, tank approach, a low flow exclusion, revised impact on substantial number of small cleaning services are essential services pollutant loading estimates, new entities. in the marketplace, because language for the exclusion of facilities transportation service providers must engaged in other commercial activities, A. Changes to Economic Analysis Since deliver clean and safe products. and changes to the technology options Proposal Therefore, the transportation service and regulated pollutants. EPA has not changed the economic firms and their customers create a EPA has modified the methodology used in the proposal for demand for tank cleaning services that subcategorization approach and reduced the final rulemaking action. As in the is relatively inelastic, i.e., customers the number of subcategories from eleven proposal, the economic methods need the services provided by the TEC in the proposal to seven for this final include a cost annualization model, a industry. Second, EPA believes that regulation. The economic analysis market model (with a commercial some costs can be passed through to the reflects the change in subcategories. For component and an outsourcing customer without losing business example, the number of facilities in the component), a closure model, financial because all facilities transporting similar proposed Truck/Chemical Subcategory ratio analysis, secondary impacts cargos will be subject to the regulation. (288) are added to those in the proposed analysis, small business analysis, and EPA performed a sensitivity analysis to Truck/Petroleum Subcategory (34), cost effectiveness analysis. The evaluate the impacts that would occur giving a total of 322 for the new Truck/ description of these analytical tools can under the most conservative assumption Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. The be found in Section X of the proposal. of zero cost pass through, which economic analysis was conducted for EPA received comments in response assumes that no compliance cost can be the new subcategory rather than the two to the proposal and the NOA from passed through to the final customer. separate subcategories. potentially affected facilities and trade EPA found that, at the most EPA has also decided to establish a associations regarding the economic conservative cost pass through flow exclusion of less than 100,000 analysis. The majority of comments assumption, this rule will result in no gallons per year for process wastewater. reflected concerns about the economic closures, revenue losses, or employment Due to the low flow exclusion, 36 impacts that the effluent guideline losses. indirect Truck/Chemical & Petroleum would have on the industry. EPA’s As in the proposal, the economic Subcategory facilities, 11 indirect Rail/ response is that the economic analysis baseline was established using data Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory finds that the regulation will not cause from the 1993 Tank and Container facilities, and three direct discharge any facility closures, and it will not lead Cleaning Screener Questionnaire and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities to the loss of any business revenues nor the 1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the will be excluded from the effluent the loss of any jobs in the industry. Transportation Equipment Cleaning guidelines. The comments did not generally Industry. Anecdotal market and The Agency has also revised the address EPA’s economic analysis economic information has been used to pollutant reduction analysis for the final methods. The only issue raised related update trends in the industry. Details of guideline which has, in turn, affected

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49687 the cost effectiveness of the regulation. order to analyze these 14 facilities more Petroleum and Rail/Chemical & For the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum carefully, EPA conducted two Petroleum facilities were similar to Subcategory, 17 pollutants were additional financial tests—current ratio indirect discharging facilities in terms of removed and 26 pollutants were added. analysis and times interest earned annual revenue, facility employment, For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum analysis. The current ratio analysis and the number of tanks cleaned. Subcategory, EPA removed 37 indicated that 14 facilities could Information on each of these indices pollutants and added 23 pollutants. For experience financial stress as a result of was provided to EPA by the three direct the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum the regulation. However, the times discharging facilities in the screener Subcategory, three pollutants were interest earned analysis, which questionnaire. EPA then identified removed and 18 pollutants were added. measures the ability of facilities to cover indirect discharge facilities in the The Truck/Chemical & Petroleum their debt, gave results that no financial detailed questionnaire database that Subcategory now includes 95 pollutants stress would occur as a result of the were similar to each of the direct of interest; the Rail/Chemical & regulation. Therefore, EPA concludes dischargers in terms of revenue, Petroleum Subcategory includes 85 that financial stress, if present, is employment and tanks cleaned. EPA pollutants of interest; and the Barge/ minimal among 14 facilities. then simulated the financial and Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory economic profile for the direct 1. BPT, BCT, and BAT includes 82 pollutants of interest. discharging facilities based on data As described in Section V of today’s provided by similar indirect discharging B. Impacts Analysis notice, EPA is issuing final effluent facilities in the same subcategory. Based EPA estimates that the total capital limitations based on BPT, BCT, and on this analysis, EPA determined that costs incurred by regulated facilities BAT for the Truck/Chemical & implementation of BPT would result in (over the sixteen year project life) for the Petroleum Subcategory, Rail/Chemical & no facility closures and anticipates that transportation equipment cleaning Petroleum Subcategory, Barge/Chemical no facilities will have revenue losses or industry effluent limitations guidelines & Petroleum Subcategory, and Food employment losses. and standards will be about $64.4 Subcategory. The summary of costs and For Barge/Chemical & Petroleum million in 1998 dollars. Total economic impacts is presented here for facilities, EPA estimated economic annualized costs on a post-tax basis of each subcategory. For BPT and BCT, impacts for the 10 direct discharge the regulation for all facilities are additional information on cost and facilities based on responses to the estimated to be about $10.4 million in removal comparisons is presented in the detailed questionnaire and incremental 1998 dollars, which includes $4.8 Technical Development Document. compliance costs. EPA has projected no million of annualized capital costs and EPA estimates that the total post-tax closures, revenue losses, or employment $5.6 million in annualized operation annualized compliance costs for BPT, losses for these facilities. EPA also and maintenance costs. BCT, and BAT will be about $130 described in the proposal the costs that EPA estimated the total annualized thousand. EPA based its analysis on may accrue to Barge/Chemical & compliance costs based on the technology Option II for the Truck/ Petroleum facilities under a regulation incremental capital investment, annual Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, published under authority of the Clean operation and maintenance costs, and Option II for the Rail/Chemical & Air Act. EPA analyzed this subcategory monitoring costs required for facilities Petroleum Subcategory, Option I for the assuming that those regulations, and to comply with this final regulation. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum possible consequent costs, were in Capital costs for each TEC facility were Subcategory, and Option II for the Food effect. This analysis may be found in the annualized, using EPA’s cost Subcategory. Due to data limitations as economic analysis for the proposal and annualization model, by spreading them described in the proposed regulation the final regulation. over the 16 year analytic life of the and in this notice, EPA did not have For the Food Subcategory, EPA found project. These annualized capital costs data from the detailed questionnaire for that direct discharge facilities have oil/ are then added to the annual operation direct discharging facilities in the water separators and biological and maintenance costs and to the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum treatment in place. This is the selected annual monitoring costs for each TEC Subcategory and Rail/Chemical & BPT and BCT technology option for the facility to estimate total annualized Petroleum Subcategory because of the Food Subcategory, and the facilities in post-tax costs of the selected technology very small population. Instead, EPA this subcategory will not incur alternative. EPA presented the total used information from the screener incremental compliance costs nor annualized costs on a post-tax basis to survey to identify direct discharging experience economic impacts. show the full opportunity compliance facilities. EPA assumed that the costs that facilities may incur after economic profile for direct discharging 2. PSES taxes. In the later section on cost- facilities is similar to indirect EPA estimates that the total benefits analysis, costs are presented on discharging facilities. EPA believes that annualized compliance costs for PSES a pre-tax basis as a proxy for social this is a reasonable approach, because will be approximately $10.2 million per costs. the Agency does not believe that there year (1998 post-tax dollars). These costs EPA’s economic analysis estimates is a correlation between annual revenue include compliance with PSES for the that the selected technology alternatives or facility employment and the method Truck/Chemical & Petroleum will result in no facility closures. In the facility chooses to discharge its Subcategory, the Rail/Chemical & addition, EPA predicts that the selected wastewater. Rather, the decision on Petroleum Subcategory, and the Barge/ technology alternatives will result in no whether to discharge wastewater Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. loss in revenues or employment. In the directly or indirectly is determined by EPA is not setting PSES for the Food financial stress analysis using the such considerations as cost, proximity and Hopper Subcategories. Total annual Altman Z″ bankruptcy test, EPA found to a POTW, permitting requirements, compliance costs are based on the that 14 facilities in the Truck/Chemical and wastewater treatment technology following technology alternatives: & Petroleum Subcategory could options. Option I for the Truck/Chemical & experience financial stress under the EPA therefore assumed that the direct Petroleum Subcategory, Option II for the selected technology alternatives. In discharging Truck/Chemical & Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory,

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49688 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations and Option II for the Barge/Chemical & through to tank cleaning customers, delaying cleaning (rather than cleaning Petroleum Subcategory. EPA’s market model estimates that tanks after delivery of load) or dropping EPA estimates that the selected prices will increase about 0.1 percent to certain services such as handling toxic technology options will result in no 4.3 percent. Output, or the number of wastes heels. This decline in production facility closures, revenue losses, nor tanks cleaned, will decrease from almost is negligible compared to the employment losses for PSES. As zero percent to about 0.6 percent. approximate 10 to 20 percent per year indicated above, EPA did find that PSES Because tank cleaning is an essential revenue growth between 1992 and 1994, may cause financial stress for 14 service and is a very small part of total (according to data provided in the facilities (4.3 percent) in the Truck/ transportation services costs, customers Detailed Questionnaire) in the TEC Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory may not be as sensitive to tank cleaning industry. under the highly conservative prices as they are to larger cost 3. NSPS and PSNS assumption of zero cost pass through, elements. but confirmatory financial tests EPA expects the rule will have As described in today’s notice, EPA is indicated that financial stress, if minimal impacts on inflation, setting NSPS equivalent to BPT, BCT, present, would be minimal. insignificant distributional effects, and and BAT, and PSNS equivalent to PSES, Within non-TEC industries, EPA’s no major impacts on environmental in all subcategories. economic analysis indicates that some justice. EPA uses a barrier-to-entry analysis to industries that provide materials and EPA also investigated the likelihood analyze the impacts of effluent equipment to the TEC industry may that customers might use methods such guideline and pretreatment standards on experience revenue increases as a result as installing additional on-site new sources. The analysis focuses on of the regulation. However, other non- wastewater treatment in order to comply whether the impact of the regulation TEC industries could incur revenue with the regulation. Substitution will result in a barrier-to-entry into the losses. EPA’s economic analysis possibilities, such as on-site tank market. The methodology for the indicates that the regulation would washing or purchasing dedicated tanks, barrier-to entry analysis is described in result in net losses of 200 to 300 jobs in are associated with potential negative the proposal. Briefly, the analysis all industries (i.e., including TEC and impacts on customers that might deter compares the expected compliance costs non-TEC industries). These impacts them from choosing these potential to the assets of existing facilities. This were estimated using EPA’s input- substitutes. On-site tank cleaning analysis is performed by analyzing the output methodology for the U.S. capabilities require capital investment, costs that each existing facility could economy. Details of EPA’s input-output operation and maintenance, and potentially incur as a result of the analysis are available in the Economic monitoring costs. The decision to build regulations. EPA makes the assumption Analysis. an on-site tank cleaning capability is that new facilities will have impacts Within the TEC industry itself, EPA more likely determined by non-pricing from the regulation that are no greater determined that many financially factors such as environmental liability, than the impact of the regulation on healthy facilities might actually tank-cleaning quality control, and existing facilities. This assumption is experience gains in production (and internal management controls than by a based upon the rationale that new thus gains in output, revenue, and choice to develop alternatives to facilities are better able to include employment). Financially healthy commercial tank washing. regulatory requirements in their design facilities in the local market area might EPA’s analysis does not indicate that and construction plans. The incremental expand to take over a portion of transportation service companies (i.e., compliance costs are compared with the production from a facility having TEC customers) would likely decide to dollar value of assets of the existing financial difficulties. In addition, some build a tank cleaning facility as a result facilities. The dollar value of assets of employment gains are anticipated for of EPA’s regulations. Further, because of each facility provide a measure of the installation and operation of flow high initial capital investment ($1.0– size of the facility in terms of financial reduction and wastewater treatment $2.0 million for a tank cleaning facility) capital in place. EPA has used the dollar facilities. and the small increase in price of value of assets as one indicator, among EPA has also conducted an analysis of transportation equipment cleaning others, of the ability of a facility to the community impacts of the final services discussed earlier, on-site absorb additional costs. The analytic regulation for PSES. EPA has transportation equipment cleaning approach is to divide the compliance determined that most facility financial could require years before any cost costs of each facility by the dollar value stress will result in a community’s savings might be realized. Also, EPA’s of the assets of each facility. The result unemployment rate of no more than 0.2 market model provides a means for of the analysis is reviewed in percent. Because the methodology estimating price increases and comparison to industry trends and assumes that all of the community reductions in quantity demanded for norms. EPA has not set a threshold impacts would occur in one State, the transportation equipment cleaning value for the ratio of incremental more probable impact is considerably services at the higher price. This compliance costs to the dollar value of lower. Thus the community impact from analysis shows a very small decrease in facility assets. However, EPA decisions the transportation equipment cleaning the number of tanks cleaned as a result in the past have generally indicated that industry regulation is estimated to be of the regulation, from almost zero to ratios below 10 percent indicate that negligible. about 0.6 percent of baseline production there is no barrier-to-entry. The results EPA expects the rule to have minimal across the subcategories. Given the of this analysis show the relative impact impact on international markets. disincentives towards substitutes of the effluent guideline on existing Domestic markets might initially be indicated above, EPA does not expect sources. slightly affected by the rule, because the rule to cause many, if any, For the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum tank cleaning facilities will absorb a customers to substitute on-site facilities Subcategory, average facility assets are portion of the compliance costs and will for transportation equipment cleaning about $2.5 million ($1998). In its pass through a portion of the costs services or to substitute dedicated tanks. economic analysis, EPA determined that through to their customers. For the The small reduction in production is the average additional facility capital portion of compliance costs passed more likely to occur from customers costs for PSNS in this subcategory

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49689 would be about $197 thousand. The these costs would not pose a barrier to also analyzed the impact on new, small ratio of average facility capital entry into the market. facilities in the TEC industry. The compliance costs to average facility EPA is regulating only direct analysis shows that there are no small assets would be approximately 8.0 dischargers in the Food Subcategory. facility closures for direct discharging percent. EPA concludes that the capital The Agency is setting BPT, BCT, and small businesses. New, small businesses cost to comply with the standards are NSPS for the Food Subcategory. The will incur costs no higher than costs for modest in comparison to total facility direct dischargers in the Food existing, small businesses. Therefore assets and would not pose a barrier-to- Subcategory have treatment in place there will be no barrier to entry for new, entry into the market. that meets the requirements that EPA is small businesses in the TEC industry. For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum promulgating in today’s rule. Because Subcategory, responses to the detailed Food Subcategory facilities have 4. Economic Analysis of Accepted and questionnaire indicate that the average treatment in place, these facilities will Rejected Options facility assets are about $5.4 million not incur additional costs to comply As discussed in Section V of this ($1998). In its economic analysis, EPA with the regulation. In addition, new notice, EPA considered several determined that the average additional sources will install treatment similar or technology options for each facility capital compliance costs for equivalent to treatment in place for subcategory. A summary of costs and PSNS would be about $257 thousand. existing facilities. New sources will impacts for all BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, The ratio average facility compliance incur no costs as a result of the PSES, and PSNS options are shown in capital costs to average facility assets regulation that is not incurred by Table 4. The annualized costs in Table would be less than five percent of existing facilities. Therefore, there are 4 are presented on a post-tax basis. average facility assets. EPA concluded no costs and no barrier to entry in this that the average annual capital subcategory under the NSPS regulation. EPA also conducted an economic compliance costs are modest in EPA analyzed the number of facilities analysis under the zero cost pass comparison to average facility assets that entered the market each year during through assumption as a sensitivity and that they would not pose a barrier- the three year period of the Detailed analysis. Although these analyses to-entry into the market. Questionnaire. The results of this estimated higher impacts than the For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum analysis can be found in the proposal. analyses using positive cost pass though Subcategory, the average facility assets In essence, new facilities were replacing analysis, EPA believes that the most for a barge chemical cleaning facility are closing facilities. In addition to conservative economic and financial about $3.3 million. The average replacing existing facilities, the industry assumptions are highly unlikely and additional compliance capital costs for also experienced modest growth during that all facilities will be able to pass NSPS are about $13,000, or less than the three year period of the Detailed through a portion of any incremental one percent of average facility assets. Questionnaire. compliance cost that they may incur. This percentage is expected to be lower Similar to PSNS, EPA concludes that Cost pass through is more likely to for new facilities, because they can no barrier-to-entry exists for new direct occur, because the entire industry will include pollution control equipment in discharge facilities to construct, operate, be required to comply with the new the design of new facilities. Therefore, and maintain these technologies. EPA regulation.

TABLE 4.ÐSUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR FINAL BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, AND PSNS OPTIONS

Annualized costs ($1998 Facility Financial Employee Subcategory Option millions post- closures stress losses tax)

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum (Direct) ...... Option I ...... 0 0 0 0 Option II (BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS) ...... 0 0 0 0 Truck/Chemical & Petroleum (Indirect) ... Option A ...... 5.2 N/A N/A N/A Option I (PSES, PSNS) ...... 9.2 0 14 0 Option II ...... 20.9 0 22 0 Rail/Chemical & Petroleum (Direct) ...... Option I ...... 0.005 0 0 0 Option II (BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS) ...... 0.041 0 0 0 Option III ...... 0.61 0 0 0 Rail/Chemical & Petroleum (Indirect) ...... Option I ...... 0.589 0 0 0 Option II (PSES, PSNS) ...... 1.02 0 0 0 Option III ...... 1.61 0 0 0 Barge/Chemical & Petroleum (Direct) ..... Option I (BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS) ...... 0.089 0 0 0 Option II ...... 0.346 0 0 0 Barge/Chemical & Petroleum (Indirect) ... Option I ...... 0.04 0 0 0 Option II (PSES, PSNS) ...... 0.04 0 0 0 Option III ...... 0.240 0 0 0 Food (Direct) ...... Option I ...... 0 0 0 0 Option II (BPT, BCT, NSPS) ...... 0 0 0 0 Food (Indirect) ...... Option I (no regulation) ...... 0 0 0 0 Truck/Hopper (Direct and Indirect) ...... Option I (no regulation) ...... 0 0 0 0 Rail/Hopper (Direct and Indirect) ...... Option I (no regulation) ...... 0 0 0 0 Barge/Hopper (Direct and Indirect) ...... Option I (no regulation) ...... 0 0 0 0

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49690 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

C. Small Business Analysis For the Food Subcategory, facilities 0.1 percent change in the price). The For purposes of assessing the impacts will not incur additional costs, because market response is anticipated to be an of today’s rule on small entities, a small they have the required treatment in imperceptible change in the quantity of entity is defined as a business that has place. Therefore, the sales test was not tank barges cleaned. For the Food Subcategory, EPA’s annual revenues of less than $5,000,000. conducted on the 19 facilities in the EPA provided the initial results of the Food Subcategory. There are no economic analysis indicates that all direct discharging facilities have small business analysis in the proposal. facilities in the Food Subcategory that treatment in place. Therefore, they will As described in the proposal, a key will have an economic impact or have not have to install treatment technology aspect of the small business analysis a sales test greater than zero. EPA believes that the sales test serves or change operation and management was to identify options that would as an indication of relative cost of the practices as a result of today’s minimize the economic impacts for regulation but alone is not sufficient to promulgation. The Food Subcategory small businesses. The Agency determine the economic achievability facilities will not incur costs that exceed considered exclusions based upon for this rule. However, EPA has those that they have already incurred for business size and wastewater flow as concluded that the rule is economically currently installed treatment. The ways to provide relief to small achievable, because there are no impacts market analysis indicates that there will businesses. In the proposal, EPA did not on small businesses in terms of closures be no impacts on the markets served by identify criteria for a facility exclusion or employment losses. In addition, EPA these facilities as a result of the to the regulation. Since the proposal, has determined that there will not be a regulation. however, the Agency has continued to significant impact on a substantial Although transportation cleaning assess possible criteria for facility number of small entities, because the services is a small part of the overall exclusions from the regulations. For this number of small business affected by transportation services sector, cleaning final regulation, the Agency is excluding this rule is relatively low and the impact services are essential for delivery of from coverage all facilities discharging is modest for most of the affected small safe, quality products in the less than 100,000 gallons per year of businesses. The impact on small marketplace. Because these services are TEC process wastewater. businesses is even less when a portion essential, transportation services In the small business analyses for the of the costs are passed through to the companies must have clean tanks, proposal, EPA applied a conservative final transportation industry customers. cleaned by their in-house cleaning set of assumptions, i.e., zero cost past services, or provided by commercial through, to analyze the options available D. Market Analysis cleaning service companies. Given the to provide relief to small businesses. EPA conducts a market analysis using necessity of cleaning tanks to provide Among the analyses the Agency the market model (with commercial and safe, quality products, the price may conducted was a sales test analysis that out source components) developed for increase in the marketplace with little if compares the post-tax cost of the transportation equipment cleaning any response by cleaning customers. compliance with the regulation with the industry. The market analysis provides This finding suggests that prices could annual revenues of each facility in the information on the changes in the increase, in some cases significantly, sample survey. EPA conducted similar marketplace as a result of the regulation. with little if any reduction in the sales test analyses for this final For the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum number of tanks cleaned. regulation using both positive cost pass Subcategory, EPA predicts that the through and zero cost pass through regulation may increase the price of E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis assumptions. For the Truck/Chemical & tank cleaning from about $279 to about EPA conducts the cost-effectiveness Petroleum Subcategory, using the $285 per tank, or about a two percent (CE) analysis to determine the cost per positive cost pass through analysis, 29 price increase. In response to the price pound of pollutant removed as a result of 79 (37 percent) small businesses increase, there could be a small of the regulation. The Agency identifies exceed the one percent sales test and adjustment in the number of tanks the pounds of each pollutant removed zero small businesses exceed the three cleaned from a baseline of 774,000 to by each technology considered as a percent sales test. Using the zero cost about 772,000 (a decrease of less than basis for regulation. These removals are pass through assumption, 29 of 79 (37 0.5 percent). The projected price added for each technology option and percent) small businesses exceed the increases are modest relative to the compared to the incremental costs of one percent sales and 29 of 79 (37 market price and market response is each technology option. EPA estimates percent) small businesses exceed the expected to be minimal. the average and incremental cost three percent sales test. For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum effectiveness of each regulatory option. For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, the market analysis shows Pounds removed are adjusted for the Subcategory, 6 of 12 (50 percent) small that the cost for cleaning rail tank cars removal by POTWs and for the toxic businesses exceed the one percent sales could increase from about $781 to about weights of the specific pollutants. After test under both zero cost pass and $815 per tank cleaned or about 4.3 these two adjustments, the analysis positive cost pass through assumptions. percent. The market response would be provides pound equivalents. The results No small businesses exceed the three a decrease in the number of rail tank of the cost effectiveness analysis for this percent sales test under either zero or cars cleaned from about 33,000 to about rule are presented in 1981 dollars, the positive cost pass through scenarios. 32,800 (about 0.5 percent). The latter for comparing with other effluent For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum projected market price relative the guidelines if appropriate. EPA’s Subcategory, no small businesses market price of cleaning rail tank cars is incremental cost-effectiveness analysis exceed either the one or three percent modest and the expected market for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum sales test under positive cost pass response is minimal. Subcategory indicates a cost through. Using the zero cost pass For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum effectiveness ratio of $370 in 1981 through analysis, three of six small Subcategory, the market analysis dollars. For the Rail/Chemical & businesses exceed the one percent sales indicates that there would be a price Petroleum Subcategory, the CE analysis test and no facilities exceed the three increase from about $6,448 to about indicated a result of $492 in 1981 percent sales test. $6,456 per tank barge cleaned (or about dollars. Further information about the

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49691 cost effectiveness analysis is provided IX. Water Quality Impacts of Final 2. Indirect Dischargers in ‘‘Final Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regulation Effluent Limitations Guidelines and EPA evaluated the potential effect on A. Changes to Benefits Analysis Since aquatic life and human health of a Standards for the Transportation Proposal Equipment Cleaning Category’’. representative sample of 40 indirect EPA has not changed the wastewater dischargers of the 286 F. Cost-Benefit Analysis methodology described in the proposal facilities subject to the guidelines in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum indirect Executive Order 12866 requires to evaluate the environmental benefits subcategory to receiving waters at agencies to prepare a cost-benefit of controlling discharges of pollutants current levels of treatment and at analysis for Federal regulations that may for the final rulemaking action. As in pretreatment levels. These 40 modeled have economic impacts on industry. the proposal, the methodology includes facilities discharge 84 pollutants in Table 5 presents the costs and benefits evaluation of projected in-stream concentrations of pollutants relative to wastewater to 34 POTWs, which then of the TEC final regulation. The details aquatic criteria, analysis of potential discharge to 34 receiving streams. of the cost-benefit analysis are discussed interference with POTW operations in in the Economic Analysis. Total social At the national level, 286 facilities terms of inhibition of activated sludge costs for the cost-benefit analysis are discharge wastewater to 255 POTWs, and contamination of sludges, and the which then discharge into 255 receiving estimated by using pre-tax dollars as an potential for human health impacts approximation for the total social costs streams. EPA projects that in-stream resulting from the ingestion of drinking concentrations of one pollutant will of the regulation. The benefits of the water and fish containing pollutants exceed aquatic life or human health regulation are derived from discharged by TEC facilities. A detailed criteria (for both water and organisms) improvements in water quality resulting description of the methodology can be from reductions in the amount of found in the Environmental Assessment in seven receiving streams at current pollutants discharged. of the Final Effluent Guidelines for the discharge levels. The selected pretreatment regulatory option This rule is expected to have a total Transportation Equipment Cleaning eliminates excursions of aquatic life or annual social cost of $17.0 million (1998 (TEC) Industry. human health criteria in all seven dollars), which includes $16. 4 million Several changes made to the rule streams. Estimates of the increase in in pre-tax compliance costs, $0.6 since proposal have affected this value of recreational fishing to anglers million in administrative costs, and analysis, resulting in removal of a few as a result of this improvement range almost zero costs for administering facilities, the removal of some from $975,000 to $3,484,000 annually unemployment benefits. Total annual pollutants, and the addition of other (1998 dollars). In addition, the nonuse benefits are expected to range from $1.5 pollutants assessed in the analysis for value (e.g. option, existence, and million to $5.5 million (1998 dollars). the proposal. These changes include: (1) bequest value) of the improvement is This includes $1.0 million to $3.5 The modification to the estimated to range from $488,000 to million for recreational benefits, $0.5 subcategorization approach, in which $1,742,000 (1998 dollars). million to $1.7 million associated with EPA combined the Truck/Chemical nonuse values benefits, and $56,000 to Subcategory and Truck/Petroleum The reduction of excess annual cancer $300,000 associated with cancer Subcategory into the Truck/Chemical & cases from the ingestion of benefits. The derivation of annual Petroleum Subcategory, and also contaminated fish and drinking water combined the Rail/Chemical benefits is discussed in more detail in by all populations evaluated generate a Subcategory and Rail/Petroleum Section IX. benefit to society of $2,200 to $13,000 Subcategory into the Rail/Chemical & (1998 dollars). (A monetary value of this Petroleum Subcategory; (2) the benefit to society was not projected at TABLE 5.ÐSUMMARY OF THE COST- establishment of a low flow exclusion, BENEFIT ANALYSIS proposal.) No systemic toxicant effects which excludes facilities that discharge (non-cancer adverse health effects such less than 100,000 gallons per year of as reproductive toxicity) are projected Costs and TEC process wastewater; (3) the benefits for anglers fishing the receiving streams Category clarification of the definition of the ($1998 at current discharge levels. Therefore, millions) exclusion of facilities engaged in activities covered elsewhere (e.g., the no further analysis of these types of Costs (pre-tax) proposed MP&M guideline); and (4) a impacts was performed. revision to the methodology for 3. POTWs Compliance Costs ...... $16.4 calculating pesticide and herbicide Administrative Costs ...... $0.6 loadings. EPA also evaluated the potential Administrative Costs of Un- adverse impacts on POTW operations B. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum employment ...... $0.0 (inhibition of microbial activity during Subcategory Total Social Costs ...... $17.0 biological treatment) and contamination 1. Direct Dischargers of sewage sludge at the 34 modeled Benefits POTWs that receive wastewater from EPA projects that no additional the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum removals of toxics will be achieved by Human Health Benefits Subcategory. At current discharge the regulatory option because all three Cancer Benefits ...... $0.056±$0.30 levels, EPA projects no inhibition or modeled facilities have sufficient Recreational Benefits ...... $1.0±$3.5 sludge contamination problems at any Nonuse Benefits ...... $0.5±$1.7 treatment in place to meet BAT limits. EPA therefore predicts that there are no of the POTWs at current loadings. Total Monetized Benefits .. $1.5±$5.5 additional benefits to be obtained as a Therefore, no further analysis of these result of the selected BAT regulatory types of impacts was performed. option.

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49692 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

C. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum extrapolated to the national level, which 2. Indirect Dischargers Subcategory included 28 POTWs. EPA is not establishing PSES or PSNS 1. Direct Dischargers At current discharge levels, EPA for the Food Subcategory. projects inhibition problems at 13 of the EPA projects that no additional POTWs, caused by two pollutants. At X. Non-Water Quality Impacts of Final removals of toxics will be achieved by the selected pretreatment regulatory Regulation the regulatory option because the one option, EPA projects continued As required by Sections 304(b) and model facility has sufficient treatment inhibition problems at these 13 POTWs 306 of the Clean Water Act, EPA has in place to comply with BAT. EPA because these two pollutants are not considered the non-water quality therefore predicts that there are no treated to sufficiently low levels to environmental impacts associated with additional benefits to be obtained as a affect the POTW inhibition level. The the treatment technology options for the result of the selected BAT regulatory Agency projects sewage sludge TEC industry. Non-water quality option. contamination at none of the POTWs at environmental impacts are impacts of the final rule on the environment that 2. Indirect Dischargers current loadings. Therefore, no further analysis of these types of impacts was are not directly associated with EPA evaluated the potential effect on performed. wastewater, such as changes in energy aquatic life and human health of a The POTW inhibition values used in consumption, air emissions, and solid representative sample of 10 indirect this analysis are not, in general, waste generation of sludge and oil. In wastewater dischargers of the 30 regulatory values. EPA based these addition to these non-water quality facilities in the Rail/Chemical & values upon engineering and health environmental impacts, EPA examined Petroleum Subcategory to receiving estimates contained in guidance or the impacts of the final rule on noise waters at current levels of treatment and guidelines published by EPA and other pollution, and water and chemical use. at pretreatment levels. These 10 sources. EPA used these values to Based on these analyses, EPA finds the modeled facilities discharge 74 determine whether the pollutants relatively small increase in non-water pollutants in wastewater to nine interfere with POTW operations. The quality environmental impacts resulting POTWs, which discharge to nine pretreatment standards today are not from the rule to be acceptable. EPA’s receiving streams. based on these values; rather, they are estimates have not changed significantly At the national level, 30 facilities based on the performance of the from the proposed rule. discharge wastewater to 28 POTWs, selected technology basis for each A. Energy Impacts which then discharge into 28 receiving standard. However, the values used in Energy impacts resulting from the streams. EPA projects that in-stream this analysis help indicate the potential regulatory options include energy pollutant concentrations will exceed benefits for POTW operations that may requirements to operate wastewater human health criteria (for both water result from the compliance with treatment equipment such as aerators, and organisms) in 13 receiving streams pretreatment discharge levels. pumps, and mixers. However, flow at both current and pretreatment reduction technologies reduce energy discharge levels. Since the selected D. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum requirements by reducing the number of pretreatment regulatory option is not Subcategory operating hours per day and/or expected to eliminate all occurrences of 1. Direct Dischargers operating days per year for wastewater pollutant concentrations in excess of treatment equipment currently operated human health criteria at any of the EPA projects that BAT would not by the TEC industry. For some receiving streams, no increase in value result in any additional removals of regulatory options, energy savings of recreational fishing to anglers is toxic pollutants because most pollutants resulting from flow reduction exceed projected as a result of this are already treated to very low levels, requirements for operation of additional pretreatment. often approaching the detection levels. EPA therefore did not quantify wastewater treatment equipment, The reduction of excess annual cancer additional benefits obtained as a result resulting in a net energy savings for cases from the ingestion of of the selected BAT regulatory option. these options. EPA estimates a net contaminated fish and drinking water increase in electricity use of by all populations evaluated generate a 2. Indirect Dischargers approximately 5 million kilowatt hours benefit to society of $55,000 to $290,000 Based on the discharge concentrations annually for the TEC industry as a result (1998 dollars). (A monetary value of this of several conventional pollutants, EPA of the rule, which is an insignificant benefit to society was not projected at believes that all five modeled indirect increase in U.S. industrial electrical proposal.) No systemic toxicant effects discharging facilities are meeting the energy purchase. Therefore, the Agency (non-cancer adverse health effects such levels of control that would be concludes that the effluent pollutant as reproductive toxicity) are projected established under PSES. EPA therefore reduction benefits from the technology for anglers fishing the receiving streams did not additional benefits obtained as options exceed the potential adverse at current discharge levels. Therefore, a result of the selected PSES regulatory effects from the estimated increase in no further analysis of these types of option. energy consumption. impacts was performed. E. Food Subcategory B. Air Emission Impacts 3. POTWs TEC facilities generate wastewater 1. Direct Dischargers EPA also evaluated the potential containing concentrations of volatile adverse impacts on POTW operations EPA estimates no additional pollutant and semivolatile organic pollutants, (inhibition of microbial activity during removals and no additional costs to the some of which are also on the list of biological treatment) and contamination industry because all 19 facilities Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in of sewage sludge at the nine modeled identified by EPA currently have the Title 3 of the Clean Air Act POTWs that receive wastewater from proposed BPT technology in place. EPA Amendments of 1990. These waste the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum is not establishing BAT because EPA is streams pass through treatment units Subcategory. Model results were then not regulating any toxic parameters. open to the atmosphere, which may

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49693 result in the volatilization of organic therefore, for these subcategories, air estimates that the rule will result in an pollutants from the wastewater. emission impacts are overestimated. increase in dewatered sludge generation Emissions from TEC facilities also occur In addition, to the extent that facilities of approximately 35 thousand cubic when tanks are opened and cleaned, currently operate treatment in place, the yards per year, which represents an with cleaning typically performed using results overestimate air emission estimated 120 percent increase from hot water or cleaning solutions. Prior to impacts from the regulatory options. current dewatered sludge generation. cleaning, tanks may be opened with Additional details concerning EPA’s However, this results in a net decrease vapors vented through the tank hatch model analysis to estimate air emission of sludge volume that will be deposited and air vents in a process called gas impacts are included in ‘‘Estimated Air in landfills. freeing. At some facilities, tanks used to Emission Impacts of TEC Industry Compliance cost estimates for the TEC transport gases or volatile material are Regulatory Options’’ in the rulemaking industry regulatory options are based on filled to capacity with water to displace record. disposal of wastewater treatment sludge vapors to the atmosphere or a Based on the sources of air emissions in nonhazardous waste landfills. EPA combustion device. Some facilities also in the TEC industry and limited data sampling of sludge using the Toxicity perform open steaming of tanks. concerning air pollutant emissions from Characteristic Leaching Procedure Other sources of emissions at TEC TEC operations provided in response to (TCLP) test verified the sludge as non- facilities include heated cleaning the 1994 Detailed Questionnaire (most hazardous. Such landfills are subject to solution storage tanks as well as facilities did not provide air pollutant RCRA Subtitle D standards found in 40 emissions from TEC wastewater as it emissions estimates), EPA estimates that CFR parts 257 or 258. falls onto the cleaning bay floor, flows the incremental air emissions resulting The Agency concludes that the to floor drains and collection sumps, from the regulatory options are a small effluent benefits and the reductions in and conveys to wastewater treatment. percentage of air emissions generated by wet sludge generation from the In order to quantify the impact of the TEC operations. For these reasons, air technology options exceed the potential regulation on air emissions at proposal, emission impacts of the regulatory adverse effects from the estimated EPA performed a model analysis to options are acceptable. increase in wastewater treatment sludge estimate the amount of organic generation. pollutants emitted to the air. EPA C. Solid Waste Impacts estimated the increase of air emissions Solid waste impacts resulting from 2. Waste Oil at TEC facilities as a result of the the regulatory options include EPA estimates that compliance with wastewater treatment technology to be additional solid wastes generated by the regulation will result in an increase approximately 153,000 kilograms per wastewater treatment technologies. in waste oil generation at TEC sites year of organic pollutants (volatile and These solid wastes include wastewater based on removal of oil from wastewater semivolatile organics), which treatment residuals, including sludge via oil/water separation. EPA estimates represented approximately 35 percent of and waste oil. that this increase in waste oil generation the total organic pollutant wastewater 1. Wastewater Treatment Sludge will be approximately 670,000 gallons load of raw TEC wastewater. Since the Wastewater treatment sludge is per year, which represents no more than final technology options are fairly an estimated 330 percent increase from similar to the proposed technology generated in two forms: dewatered sludge (or filter cake) generated by a current waste oil generation. EPA options, EPA estimates that these assumes, based on responses to the estimates would not change filter press and/or wet sludge generated by treatment units such as oil/water Detailed Questionnaire, that waste oil significantly. EPA’s estimate of air disposal will be via oil reclamation or emissions reflects the increase in separators, coagulation/clarification, dissolved air flotation, and biological fuels blending on or off site. Therefore, emissions at TEC facilities, and does not the Agency does not estimate any account for baseline air emissions that treatment. Many facilities that currently operate wastewater treatment systems adverse effects from increased waste oil are currently being released to the generation. atmosphere at the POTW or as the do not dewater wastewater treatment wastewater is conveyed to the POTW. It sludge. Storage, transportation, and XI. Regulatory Requirements disposal of greater volumes of un- is expected that much of the increased A. Executive Order 12866 emissions at indirect TEC facilities dewatered sludge that would be calculated for this rule are currently generated after implementing the TEC Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR being released at POTWs or during industry regulatory options is less cost- 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency conveyance to the POTW. To a large effective than dewatering sludge on site must determine whether the regulatory degree, this rule will merely shift the and disposing of the greatly reduced action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore location at which the air emissions are volume of resulting filter cake. subject to OMB review and the released, rather than increasing the total However, in estimating costs for the requirements of the Executive Order. air emissions from TEC wastewater. As rule, EPA has included the costs for TEC The Order defines ‘‘significant a result, air emission from TEC facilities to install sludge dewatering regulatory action’’ as one that is likely wastewater at POTWs are expected to be equipment to handle increases in sludge to result in a rule that may: reduced somewhat following generation. For these reasons, EPA (1) Have an annual effect on the implementation of this rule. EPA’s estimates net decreases in the volume of economy of $100 million or more or model analysis was performed based on wet sludge generated by the industry adversely affect in a material way the the most stringent regulatory options and net increases in the volume of dry economy, a sector of the economy, considered for each subcategory in order sludge generated by the industry. productivity, competition, jobs, the to create a ‘‘worst case scenario’’ (i.e., EPA estimates that the rule will result environment, public health or safety, or the more treatment technologies used, in a decrease in wet sludge generation State, local, or tribal governments or the more chance of volatilization of of approximately 17 million gallons per communities; compounds to the air). For some year, which represents an estimated 98 (2) Create a serious inconsistency or subcategories, EPA is not promulgating percent decrease from current wet otherwise interfere with an action taken the most stringent regulatory option; sludge generation. In addition, EPA or planned by another agency;

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49694 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts to small entities. The final copy of the rule, to each House of the impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, regulation excludes all facilities that Congress and to the Comptroller General or loan programs or the rights and discharge less than 100,000 gallons per of the United States. EPA will submit a obligations of recipients thereof; or year of TEC process wastewater and report containing this rule and other (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues excludes facilities that are engaged in required information to the U.S. Senate, arising out of legal mandates, the non-TEC industrial, commercial, or the U.S. House of Representatives, and President’s priorities, or the principles POTW activities. In addition, EPA the Comptroller General of the United set forth in the Executive Order. projects fewer economic impacts to States prior to publication of the rule in Pursuant to the terms of Executive small entities as a result of selecting a the Federal Register. A major rule Order 12866, it has been determined less stringent technology option in one cannot take effect until 60 days after it that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory subcategory. These and other changes is published in the Federal Register. action.’’ As such, this action was made to the proposal are described in This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as submitted to OMB for review. Changes Section III of this notice. defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule made in response to OMB suggestions or In particular, EPA acknowledges the will be effective September 13, 2000. recommendations have been SBAR Panel’s recommendations documented in the public record. regarding regulatory alternatives, D. Paperwork Reduction Act As discussed in Section V of this B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as applicability of the final rule, and notice, EPA is promulgating a pollution amended by the Small Business comment solicitation in the proposal. prevention alternative as a regulatory Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of EPA carefully considered and adopted compliance option and the final rule 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq. many of the recommendations made by the SBAR Panel as discussed in the contains information collection The RFA generally requires an agency proposal. EPA evaluated comments requirements as a part of this to prepare a regulatory flexibility received on the proposal during the compliance option. Therefore, the analysis of any rule subject to notice notice and comment period and decided information collection requirements for and comment rulemaking requirements to adopt several of the alternatives this rule will be submitted for approval under the Administrative Procedure Act supported by commenters and the SBAR to the Office of Management and Budget or any other statute unless the agency Panel. As discussed throughout this (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction certifies that the rule will not have a notice, EPA has decided to exclude Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An significant economic impact on a drums and Intermediate Bulk Information Collection Request (ICR) substantial number of small entities. Containers from the rule; to establish a document will be prepared by EPA and Small entities include small businesses, less stringent regulatory option for the published in a subsequent Federal small organizations, and small Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Register notice. The information governmental jurisdictions. Subcategory; to establish similar levels requirements are not enforceable until For purposes of assessing the impacts of control for the Truck/Chemical & OMB approves them. EPA will of today’s rule on small entities, a small Petroleum Subcategory and Rail/ incorporate new reporting and record entity is defined as (1) a small business Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory; and keeping requirements and associated that has less than $5 million in annual to adopt a low flow exclusion. burden into a previously approved ICR revenue (based on SBA size standards); EPA’s Economic Analysis includes an (2040–0009) for the National (2) a small government jurisdiction that assessment of the impacts on small Pretreatment Program with an is a government of a city, county, town, entities. EPA projects that no small amendment. school district or special district with a businesses will close as a result of this Burden means the total time, effort, or population of less than 50,000; and (3) rule. Using two sets of assumptions financial resources expended by persons a small organization that is any not-for- related to the ability of a business to to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose profit enterprise which is independently pass the additional costs to customers, or provide information to or for a owned and operated and is not EPA projects that 35 to 38 small Federal agency. This includes the time dominant in its field. businesses would incur costs exceeding needed to review instructions; develop, After considering the economic one percent of revenues, and that zero acquire, install, and utilize technology impacts of today’s final rule on small to 29 small businesses would incur and systems for the purposes of entities, I certify that this action will not costs exceeding three percent of collecting, validating, and verifying have a significant economic impact on revenues. This is approximately a 50 information, processing and a substantial number of small entities. percent reduction in the impacts maintaining information, and disclosing In accordance with section 603 of the projected at proposal for EPA’s most and providing information; adjust the RFA, EPA prepared an initial regulatory conservative cost pass through existing ways to comply with any flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the assumption. Due to the ability to recover previously applicable instructions and proposed rule (see 63 FR 34685) and all or a portion of regulatory costs by requirements; train personnel to be able convened a Small Business Advocacy passing them through to customers, the to respond to a collection of Review Panel to obtain advice and number of small TEC operators affected information; search data sources; recommendations from representatives at these levels is likely to fall in the complete and review the collection of of small entities that would potentially lower end of the ranges. information; and transmit or otherwise be regulated by the rule in accordance disclose the information. with section 609(b) of the RFA. A C. Submission to Congress and the An Agency may not conduct or detailed discussion of the Panel’s advice General Accounting Office sponsor, and a person is not required to and recommendations is found in the The Congressional Review Act, 5 respond to a collection of information Panel Report (DCN T10301). A summary U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small unless it displays a currently valid OMB of the Panel’s recommendations is Business Regulatory Enforcement control number. The OMB control presented in the preamble to the Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed proposed rule at 63 FR 34730. that before a rule may take effect, the in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter In the final rule, EPA made changes agency promulgating the rule must 15. The OMB control number for the to the proposal that reduced the level of submit a rule report, which includes a information collection requirements in

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49695 this rule will be listed in an amendment intergovernmental mandates, and G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) to 40 CFR Part 9 in a subsequent informing, educating, and advising Executive Order 13132, entitled Federal Register document after OMB small governments on compliance with ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, approves the ICR. Because of the the regulatory requirements. 1999), requires EPA to develop an delayed compliance date for the EPA has determined that this rule accountable process to ensure pretreatment standards in today’s rule, does not contain a Federal mandate that ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State indirect dischargers will not be subject may result in expenditures of $100 and local officials in the development of to the information collection burden million or more for State, local, and regulatory policies that have federalism associated with the alternative Pollutant tribal governments, in the aggregate, or implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Management Plan provisions for the rail the private sector in any one year. EPA federalism implications’’ is defined in and tank/truck subcategories until three has estimated total annualized costs of the Executive Order to include years from now. The Agency will the rule as $11.1 million (1998$, post- regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct provide burden estimates for the tax). Thus, today’s rule is not subject to effects on the States, on the relationship paperwork compliance components of the requirements of Sections 202 and between the national government and the Pollutant Management Plan 205 of the UMRA. the States, or on the distribution of alternative (submission of a certification EPA has determined that this rule power and responsibilities among the statement and the Pollutant contains no regulatory requirements that various levels of government.’’ Management Plan to the local control might significantly or uniquely affect This final rule does not have authority, preparation and maintenance small governments. EPA projects that no federalism implications. It will not have of the plan and certain records at the small governments will be affected by substantial direct effects on the States, facility) and obtain ICR clearance for this rule. Thus, today’s rule is not on the relationship between the national these estimates prior to the end of that subject to the requirements of Section government and the States, or on the three-year time frame. 203 of the UMRA. distribution of power and E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation responsibilities among the various Title II of the Unfunded Mandates and Coordination With Indian Tribal levels of government, as specified in Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Governments Executive Order 13132. The rule will Law 104–4, establishes requirements for not impose substantial costs on States or Federal agencies to assess the effects of Under Executive Order 13084, EPA local governments. The rule establishes their regulatory actions on State, local, may not issue a regulation that is not effluent limitations guidelines and and tribal governments and the private required by statute, that significantly or pretreatment standards imposing sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, uniquely affects the communities of requirements that apply to TEC facilities EPA generally must prepare a written Indian Tribal governments, and that when they discharge wastewater or statement, including a cost-benefit imposes substantial direct compliance introduce wastewater to a POTW. The analysis, for proposed and final rules costs on those communities, unless the rule does not apply directly to States with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may Federal government provides the funds and local governments and will only result in expenditures to State, local, necessary to pay the direct compliance affect State and local governments when and tribal governments, in the aggregate, costs incurred by the tribal they are administering CWA permitting or to the private sector, of $100 million governments, or EPA consults with programs. The final rule, at most, or more in any one year. Before those governments. If EPA complies by imposes minimal administrative costs promulgating an EPA rule for which a consulting, Executive Order 13084 on States that have an authorized written statement is needed, section 205 requires EPA to provide to the Office of NPDES programs and on local of the UMRA generally requires EPA to Management and Budget, in a separately governments that are administering identify and consider a reasonable identified section of the preamble to the approved pretreatment programs. (These number of regulatory alternatives and rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s States and local governments must adopt the least costly, most cost- prior consultation with representatives incorporate the new limitations and effective or least burdensome alternative of affected tribal governments, a standards in new and reissued NPDES that achieves the objectives of the rule. summary of the nature of their concerns, permits or local pretreatment orders or The provisions of section 205 do not and a statement supporting the need to permits). Thus, Executive Order 13132 apply when they are inconsistent with issue the regulation. In addition, does not apply to this rule. applicable law. Moreover, section 205 Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to H. National Technology Transfer and allows EPA to adopt an alternative other develop an effective process permitting Advancement Act than the least costly, most cost-effective elected officials and other or least burdensome alternative if the representatives of Indian tribal As noted in the proposed rule, Administrator publishes with the final governments ‘‘to provide meaningful Section 12(d) of the National rule an explanation why that alternative and timely input in the development of Technology Transfer and Advancement was not adopted. Before EPA establishes regulatory policies on matters that Act (NTTAA) of 1995, (Pub L. No. 104– any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect their 113 Section 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note) significantly or uniquely affect small communities.’’ directs EPA to use voluntary consensus governments, including tribal Today’s rule does not significantly or standards in its regulatory activities governments, it must have developed uniquely affect the communities of unless to do so would be inconsistent under section 203 of the UMRA a small Indian tribal governments nor does it with applicable law or otherwise government agency plan. The plan must impose substantial direct compliance impractical. Voluntary consensus provide for notifying potentially costs on them. EPA has determined that standards are technical standards (e.g., affected small governments, enabling no communities of Indian tribal materials specifications, test methods, officials of affected small governments governments are affected by this rule. sampling procedures, and business to have meaningful and timely input in Accordingly, the requirements of practices) that are developed or adopted the development of EPA regulatory section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 by voluntary consensus standard bodies. proposals with significant Federal do not apply to this rule. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49696 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Congress, through the Office of Petroleum Subcategory, Rail/Chemical & from intake water with no increase due Management and Budget (OMB), Petroleum Subcategory, Barge/Chemical to the activities of the dischargers. New explanations when the Agency decides & Petroleum Subcategory). sources and new dischargers are not not to use available and applicable eligible for this waiver for their first J. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting voluntary consensus standards. permit term, and monitoring can be re- Children’s Health This rulemaking involves technical established through a minor standards. The rule requires dischargers The Executive Order ‘‘Protection of modification if the discharger expands to measure for seven metals, two organic Children from Environmental Health or changes its process. Further, the contaminants, BOD5, TSS, Oil and Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, permittee must notify the permit writer Grease (HEM), non-polar material (SGT– April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: of any modifications that have taken HEM), and pH. EPA performed a search (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically place over the course of the permit term to identify potentially voluntary significant’’ as defined under Executive and, if necessary, monitoring can be consensus standards that could be used Order 12866, and (2) concerns an reestablished through a minor to measure the analytes in today’s final environmental health or safety risk that modification. guideline. EPA’s search revealed that EPA has reason to believe may have a consensus standards exist and are disproportionate effect on children. If B. Upset and Bypass Provisions already specified in the tables at 40 CFR the regulatory action meets both criteria, A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion Part 136.3 for measurement of many of the Agency must evaluate the of waste streams from any portion of a the analytes. Pollutants in today’s rule environmental health or safety effects of treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an for which there are voluntary consensus the planned rule on children and exceptional incident in which there is methods include: seven metals; two explain why the planned regulation is unintentional and temporary organics; BOD5; TSS; Oil and Grease preferable to other potentially effective noncompliance with technology-based (HEM); non-polar material (SGT–HEM); and reasonably feasible alternatives permit effluent limitations because of and pH. considered by the Agency. This rule is factors beyond the reasonable control of not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is the permittee. EPA’s regulations I. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act not ‘‘economically significant’’ as concerning bypasses and upsets are set The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform defined under Executive Order 12866, forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n), and Act, Public Law 104–55, requires most and because the rule does not concern 40 CFR 403.16 (upset) and 403.17 Federal agencies to differentiate an environmental health or safety risk (bypass). between and establish separate classes that may have a disproportional effect for (1) animal fats and oils and greases, on children. C. Variances and Modifications fish and marine mammal oils, and oils The CWA requires application of the of vegetable origin, and (2) other greases XII. Regulatory Implementation effluent limitations established pursuant and oils, including petroleum, when Upon promulgation of these to Section 301 or the pretreatment issuing or enforcing any regulation or regulations, the effluent limitations for standards of Section 307 to all direct establishing any interpretation or the appropriate subcategory must be and indirect dischargers. However, the guideline relating to the transportation, applied in all Federal and State NPDES statute provides for the modification of storage, discharge, release, emission, or permits issued to affected direct these national requirements in a limited disposal of a fat, oil or grease. dischargers in the TEC industry. In number of circumstances. Moreover, the The Agency believes that vegetable addition, the pretreatment standards are Agency has established administrative oils and animal fats pose similar types directly applicable to affected indirect mechanisms to provide an opportunity of threats to the environment as dischargers. This section discusses the for relief from the application of petroleum oils when spilled to the relationship of upset and bypass national effluent limitations guidelines environment (62 FR 54508 Oct. 20, provisions, variances and modifications, and pretreatment standards for 1997). The deleterious environmental and monitoring requirements. categories of existing sources for effects of spills of petroleum and non- A. Implementation of Limitations and priority, conventional and non- petroleum oils, including animal fats conventional pollutants. and vegetable oils, are produced Standards through physical contact and Upon the promulgation of these 1. Fundamentally Different Factors destruction of food sources (via regulations, all new and reissued Variances smothering or coating) as well as toxic Federal and State NPDES permits issued EPA will develop effluent limitations contamination (62 FR 54511). However, to direct dischargers in the TEC industry guidelines or standards different from the permitted discharge of TEC process must include the effluent limitations for the otherwise applicable requirements if wastewater containing residual and the appropriate subcategory. Permit an individual existing discharging dilute quantities of petroleum and non- writers should be aware that EPA has facility is fundamentally different with petroleum oils is significantly different now finalized revisions to 40 CFR respect to factors considered in than an uncontrolled spill of pure 122.44(a) which could be particularly establishing the guidelines or standards petroleum or non-petroleum oil relevant to the development of NPDES applicable to the individual facility. products. permits for the TEC point source Such a modification is known as a As discussed in Section VI of the category (see 65 FR 30989, May 15, ‘‘fundamentally different factors’’ (FDF) proposal, and in accordance with the 2000). As finalized, the revision would variance. Edible Oil Regulatory Reform, EPA has require that permits have limitations for Early on, EPA, by regulation, grouped facilities which clean all applicable guidelines-listed provided for FDF modifications from transportation equipment that carry pollutants but allows for the waiver of BPT effluent limitations, BAT vegetable oils or animal fats as cargos sampling requirements for guideline- limitations for priority and non- into separate subcategories (Food listed pollutants on a case-by-case basis conventional pollutants and BCT Subcategory) from those facilities that if the discharger can certify that the limitation for conventional pollutants clean equipment that had carried pollutant is not present in the discharge for direct dischargers. For indirect petroleum products (Truck/Chemical & or present in only background levels dischargers, EPA provided for FDF

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49697 modifications from pretreatment fundamentally more adverse than the the sewage sludge is incinerated, standards for existing facilities. FDF impact considered during development removal credits may be available for variances for priority pollutants were of the national limits. EPA regulations seven metals and for 57 organic challenged judicially and ultimately provide for an FDF variance for existing pollutants (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A)). sustained by the Supreme Court. indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. (2) In addition, when sewage sludge is (Chemical Manufacturers Ass’n v. The conditions for approval of a request used on land or disposed of on a surface NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)). to modify applicable pretreatment disposal site or incinerated, removal Subsequently, in the Water Quality standards and factors considered are the credits may also be available for Act of 1987, Congress added new same as those for direct dischargers. additional pollutants so long as the Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to The legislative history of Section concentration of the pollutant in sludge authorize modification of the otherwise 301(n) underscores the necessity for the does not exceed a concentration level applicable BAT effluent limitations or FDF variance applicant to establish established in Part 403. When sewage categorical pretreatment standards for eligibility for the variance. EPA’s sludge is applied to land, removal existing sources if a facility is regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are credits may be available for two fundamentally different with respect to explicit in imposing this burden upon additional metals and 14 organic the factors specified in Section 304 the applicant. The applicant must show pollutants. When the sewage sludge is (other than costs) from those considered that the factors relating to the discharge disposed of on a surface disposal site, by EPA in establishing the effluent controlled by the applicant’s permit removal credits may be available for limitations or pretreatment standards. which are claimed to be fundamentally seven additional metals and 13 organic Section 301(n) also defined the different are, in fact, fundamentally pollutants. When the sewage sludge is conditions under which EPA may different from those factors considered incinerated, removal credits may be establish alternative requirements. by EPA in establishing the applicable available for three other metals (40 CFR Under Section 301(n), an application for guidelines. The pretreatment regulation 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)). approval of an FDF variance must be incorporate a similar requirement at 40 (3) When a POTW disposes of its based solely on (1) information CFR 403.13(h)(9). sewage sludge in a municipal solid submitted during the rulemaking raising An FDF variance is not available to a waste landfill (MSWLF) that meets the the factors that are fundamentally new source subject to NSPS or PSNS. criteria of 40 CFR Part 258, removal different or (2) information the 2. Removal Credits credits may be available for any applicant did not have an opportunity pollutant in the POTW’s sewage sludge to submit. The alternate limitation or The CWA establishes a discretionary (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)). Thus, given standard must be no less stringent than program for POTWs to grant ‘‘removal compliance with the requirements of justified by the difference and not result credits’’ to their indirect dischargers. EPA’s removal credit regulations,2 in markedly more adverse non-water This credit in the form of a less stringent following today’s promulgation of the quality environmental impacts than the pretreatment standard, allows an pretreatment standards, removal credits national limitation or standard. increased concentration of a pollutant in may be authorized for any pollutant EPA regulations at 40 CFR 125 the flow from the indirect discharger’s subject to pretreatment standards if the Subpart D, authorizing the Regional facility to the POTW (See 40 CFR 403.7). applying POTW disposes of its sewage Administrators to establish alternative EPA has promulgated removal credit sludge in a MSWLF that meets the guidelines and standards, further detail regulations as part of its pretreatment requirements of 40 CFR Part 258. If the the substantive criteria used to evaluate regulations. POTW uses or disposes of its sewage The following discussion provides a FDF variance requests for existing direct sludge by land application, surface description of the existing removal dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) disposal or incineration, removal credits credit regulations. Under EPA’s existing identifies six factors (e.g., volume of may be available for the following metal pretreatment regulations, the process wastewater, age and size of a pollutants (depending on the method of availability of a removal credit for a discharger’s facility) that may be use or disposal): arsenic, cadmium, particular pollutant is linked to the considered in determining if a facility is chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, POTW method of using or disposing of fundamentally different. The Agency molybdenum, nickel, selenium and its sewage sludge. The regulations must determine whether, on the basis of zinc. Given compliance with Section provide that removal credits are only one or more of these factors, the facility 403.7, removal credits may be available available for certain pollutants regulated in question is fundamentally different for the following organic pollutants in EPA’s 40 CFR Part 503 sewage sludge from the facilities and factors (depending on the method of use or regulations (58 FR 9386). The considered by EPA in developing the disposal) if the POTW uses or disposes pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR Part nationally applicable effluent of its sewage sludge: benzene, 1,1- 403 provide that removal credits may be guidelines. The regulation also lists four dichloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, made potentially available for the other factors (e.g., infeasibility of ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, following pollutants: installation within the time allowed or toluene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1- (1) If a POTW applies its sewage a discharger’s ability to pay) that may trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane sludge to the land for beneficial uses, not provide a basis for an FDF variance. and trans-1,2-dichloroethene. disposes of it on surface disposal sites In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), Some facilities may be interested in or incinerates it, removal credits may be a request for limitations less stringent obtaining removal credit authorization available, depending on which use or than the national limitation may be for other pollutants being regulated by approved only if compliance with the disposal method is selected (so long as national limitations would result in the POTW complies with the 2 Under 40 CFR 403.7, a POTW is authorized to either (a) a removal cost wholly out of requirements in Part 503). When sewage give removal credits only under certain conditions. proportion to the removal cost sludge is applied to land, removal These include applying for, and obtaining, approval considered during development of the credits may be available for ten metals. from the Regional Administrator (or Director of a State NPDES program with an approved national limitations, or (b) a non-water When sewage sludge is disposed of on pretreatment program), a showing of consistent quality environmental impact a surface disposal site, removal credits pollutant removal and an approved pretreatment (including energy requirements) may be available for three metals. When program. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii).

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49698 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations this rulemaking for which removal 122.45(h). Permit writers may establish unless specified otherwise by the credit authorization would not additional internal monitoring points to permitting authority. otherwise be available under Part 403. the extent consistent with EPA’s The final rule would require facilities Under Sections 307(b) and 405 of the regulations. in the TEC point source category to CWA, EPA may authorize removal An important component of the monitor for BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease credits only when EPA determines that, monitoring requirements established by (HEM), non-polar material (SGT–HEM), if removal credits are authorized, that the permitting authority is the frequency Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, the increased discharges of a pollutant at which monitoring is required. In Mercury, Nickel, Zinc, Fluoranthene, to POTWs resulting from removal costing the various technology options Phenanthrene, and pH. EPA has credits will not affect POTW sewage for the TEC industry, EPA assumed approved test methods for all these sludge use or disposal adversely. As monthly monitoring for priority and pollutants at 40 CFR Part 136.3. EPA discussed in the preamble to non-conventional pollutants and weekly recently published an amendment to amendments to Part 403 regulations (58 monitoring for conventional pollutants. EPA Methods 625 and 1625 that FR 9382–83), EPA has interpreted these These monitoring frequencies may be expands the list of analytes that can be sections to authorize removal credits for lower than those generally imposed by measured using these methods, (see a pollutant only in one of two some permitting authorities, but EPA Landfills final rule, 65 FR 3008, January circumstances. Removal credits may be believes these reduced frequencies are 19, 2000). authorized for any categorical pollutant appropriate due to the relative costs of As stated in the proposal (see Table (1) for which EPA have established a monitoring when compared to the 10 at 63 FR 34736, June 25, 1998), EPA numerical pollutant limit in Part 503; or estimated costs of complying with the used Method 1625C to collect analytical (2) which EPA has determined will not proposed limitations. data for the semivolatile organics. The threaten human health and the E. Analytical Methods proposal further stated that commenters environment when used or disposed in should use these methods or equivalent sewage sludge. The pollutants described Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act methods for analyses. In 1998, EPA also in paragraphs (1)–(3) above include all directs EPA to promulgate guidelines proposed to amend Methods 625 and those pollutants that EPA either establishing test methods for the 1625 to include additional pollutants to specifically regulated in Part 503 or analysis of pollutants. TEC facilities use be measured under effluent guidelines evaluated for regulation and determined these methods to determine the for the Centralized Waste Treatment would not adversely affect sludge use presence and concentration of point source category (64 FR 2345). and disposal. pollutants in wastewater, and EPA, Since then, EPA has gathered data on State and local control authorities use D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations the capacity of these methods to them for compliance monitoring and for measure the additional pollutants. The to NPDES Permits and Monitoring filing applications for the NPDES Requirements modifications to EPA Methods 625 and program under 40 CFR 122.21, 122.41, 1625 consist of text, performance data, Effluent limitations act as a primary 122.44 and 123.25, and for the and quality control (QC) acceptance mechanism to control the discharges of implementation of the pretreatment criteria for the additional analytes. EPA pollutants to waters of the United standards under 40 CFR 403.10 and validated the QC acceptance criteria for States. These limitations are applied to 403.12. To date, EPA has promulgated the additional analytes in single- methods for conventional pollutants, individual facilities through NPDES laboratory studies that included TEC toxic pollutants, and for some non- permits issued by EPA or authorized wastewater. The collected data are conventional pollutants. In 40 CFR States under Section 402 of the Act. summarized in a report contained in the The Agency has developed the 401.16, EPA defines the five docket for today’s rulemaking. limitations for this regulation to cover conventional pollutants. Table I–B at 40 In today’s rule, EPA is approving the the discharge of pollutants for this CFR 136 lists the analytical methods use of EPA Method 1625 (published at industrial category. In specific cases, the approved for these pollutants. The 65 40 CFR part 136.3, appendix A) for NPDES permitting authority may elect toxic metals and organic pollutants and Fluoranthene and Phenanthrene. to establish technology-based permit classes of pollutants are defined at 40 Method 625 (also published at 40 CFR limits for pollutants not covered by this CFR 401.15. From the list of 65 classes part 136.3, appendix A) may also be regulation. In addition, if State water of toxic pollutants EPA identified a list used to monitor for Fluoranthene and quality standards or other provisions of of 126 ‘‘Priority Pollutants.’’ This list of Phenanthrene since these two analytes State or Federal Law require limits on Priority Pollutants is shown, for are listed in that method for general pollutants not covered by this regulation example, at 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix application. (or require more stringent limits on A. The list includes non-pesticide covered pollutants), the permitting organic pollutants, metal pollutants, Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, authority must apply those limitations. cyanide, asbestos, and pesticide and Abbreviations Used in This Notice Working in conjunction with the pollutants. Currently approved methods AGENCY—The U.S. Environmental effluent limitations are the monitoring for metals and cyanide are included in Protection Agency. conditions set out in a NPDES permit. the table of approved inorganic test BAT—The best available technology An integral part of the monitoring procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table I–B. economically achievable, as described in conditions is the point at which a Table I–C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA. facility must monitor to demonstrate methods for measurement of non- BCT—The best conventional pollutant compliance. The point at which a pesticide organic pollutants, and Table control technology, as described in Section sample is collected can have a dramatic I–D lists approved methods for the toxic 304(b)(4) of the CWA. effect on the monitoring results for that pesticide pollutants and for other BOD5—Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand. A measure of biochemical facility. Therefore, it may be necessary pesticide pollutants. Dischargers must decomposition of organic matter in a water to require internal monitoring points in use the test methods promulgated at 40 sample. It is determined by measuring the order to ensure compliance. Authority CFR Part 136.3 or incorporated by dissolved oxygen consumed by to address internal waste streams is reference in the tables to monitor microorganisms to oxidize the organic matter provided in 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii) and pollutant discharges from TEC facilities, in a water sample under standard laboratory

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49699 conditions of five days and 70° C, see Method or wastewater. COD is expressed as the 3000 liters (793 gallons) capacity. IBCs are 405.1. BOD5 is not related to the oxygen amount of oxygen consumed from a chemical also commonly referred to as totes or tote requirements in chemical combustion. oxidant in a specific test, see Methods 410.1 bins. BPT—The best practicable control through 401.4. INTERMODAL TANK CONTAINER—A technology currently available, as described COMMODITY—Any chemical, material, or completely enclosed storage vessel used to in Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA. substance transported in a tank truck, closed- hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or CARGO—Any chemical, material, or top hopper truck, intermodal tank container, cargos which come in direct contact with the substance transported in a tank truck, closed- rail tank car, closed-top hopper rail car, tank tank interior. Intermodal tank containers may top hopper truck, intermodal tank container, barge, closed-top hopper barge, ocean/sea be loaded onto flat beds for either truck or rail tank car, closed-top hopper rail car, tank tanker, or similar tank that comes in direct rail transport, or onto ship decks for water barge, closed-top hopper barge, or ocean/sea contact with the chemical, material, or transport. Containers larger than 3000 liters tanker that comes in direct contact with the substance. A commodity may also be referred capacity are considered intermodal tank chemical, material, or substance. A cargo to as a cargo. containers. Containers smaller than 3000 may also be referred to as a commodity. CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS—The liters capacity are considered IBCs. CLOSED-TOP HOPPER RAIL CAR—A pollutants identified in Section 304(a)(4) of LTA—LONG-TERM AVERAGE—For completely enclosed storage vessel pulled by the CWA and the regulations thereunder purposes of the effluent guidelines, average a locomotive that is used to transport dry (biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total pollutant levels achieved over a period of bulk commodities or cargos over railway suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, fecal time by a facility, subcategory, or technology access lines. Closed-top hopper rail cars are Commentors, and pH). option. LTAs were used in developing the not designed or contracted to carry liquid CWA—CLEAN WATER ACT—The Federal limitations and standards in today’s final commodities or cargos and are typically used Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of regulation. to transport grain, soybeans, soy meal, soda 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended. NEW SOURCE—‘‘New source’’ is defined ash, lime, fertilizer, plastic pellets, flour, CWA—Centralized Waste Treaters Effluent at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29(b). sugar, and similar commodities or cargos. Guideline. NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT— The commodities or cargos transported come DIRECT DISCHARGER—A facility that Pollutants other than those specifically in direct contact with the hopper interior. conveys or may convey untreated or facility- defined as conventional pollutants Closed-top hopper rail cars are typically treated process wastewater or nonprocess (identified in Section 304(a)(4) of the Clean divided into three compartments, carry the wastewater directly into waters of the United Water Act) or priority pollutants (identified same commodity or cargo in each States, such as rivers, lakes, or oceans. (See in 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A). compartment, and are generally top loaded United States Surface Waters definition.) NON-DETECT VALUE—A concentration- and bottom unloaded. The hatch covers on DRUM—A metal or plastic cylindrical closed-top hopper rail cars are typically container with either an open-head or a tight- based measurement reported below the longitudinal hatch covers or round manhole head (also known as bung-type top) used to sample specific detection limit that can covers. hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or reliably be measured by the analytical CLOSED-TOP HOPPER TRUCK—A motor- cargos which are in direct contact with the method for the pollutant. driven vehicle with a completely enclosed container interior. Drums typically range in NON-POLAR MATERIAL—A method- storage vessel used to transport dry bulk capacity from 30 to 55 gallons. defined parameter that measures the commodities or cargos over roads and FOOD GRADE CARGO—Food grade cargos presence of mineral oils that are extractable highways. Closed-top hopper trucks are not include edible and non-edible food products. in the solvent n-hexane and not absorbed by designed or constructed to carry liquid Specific examples of food grade products silica gel. See Method 1664. commodities or cargos and are typically used include but are not limited to: alcoholic NPDES—The National Pollutant Discharge to transport grain, soybeans, soy meal, soda beverages, animal by-products, animal fats, Elimination System authorized under Section ash, lime, fertilizer, plastic pellets, flour, animal oils, caramel, caramel coloring, 402 of the CWA. NPDES requires permits for sugar, and similar commodities or cargos. chocolate, corn syrup and other corn discharge of pollutants from any point source The commodities or cargos transported come products, dairy products, dietary into waters of the United States. in direct contact with the hopper interior. supplements, eggs, flavorings, food NONPROCESS WASTEWATER— Closed-top hopper trucks are typically preservatives, food products that are not Wastewater that is not generated from divided into three compartments, carry the suitable for human consumption, fruit juices, industrial processes or that does not come same commodity or cargo in each honey, lard, molasses, non-alcoholic into contact with process wastewater. compartment, and are generally top loaded beverages, salt, sugars, sweeteners, tallow, Nonprocess wastewater includes, but is not and bottom unloaded. The hatch covers used vegetable oils, vinegar, and pool water. limited to, wastewater generated from on closed-top hopper trucks are typically HEEL—Any material remaining in a tank restrooms, cafeterias, and showers. longitudinal hatch covers or round manhole or container following unloading, delivery, or NSPS—New Source Performance covers. Closed-top hopper trucks are also discharge of the transported cargo. Heels may Standards, under Section 306 of the CWA. commonly referred to as dry bulk hoppers. also be referred to as container residue, OCEAN/SEA TANKER—A self- or non- CLOSED-TOP HOPPER BARGE—A non- residual materials or residuals. self-propelled vessel constructed or adapted self-propelled vessel constructed or adapted HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL to transport commodities or cargos in bulk in primarily to carry dry commodities or cargos (HEM)—A method-defined parameter that cargo spaces (or tanks) through oceans and in bulk through rivers and inland waterways, measures the presence of relatively seas, where the commodity or cargo carried and may occasionally carry commodities or nonvolatile hydrocarbons, vegetable oils, comes in direct contact with the tank cargos through oceans and seas when in animal fats, waxes, soaps, greases, and interior. There are no maximum or minimum transit from one inland waterway to another. related materials that are extractable in the vessel or tank volumes. Closed-top hopper barges are not designed to solvent n-hexane. See Method 1664. OFF SITE—‘‘Off site’’ means outside the carry liquid commodities or cargos and are HEM is also referred to as oil and grease. contiguous and non-contiguous established typically used to transport corn, wheat, soy INDIRECT DISCHARGER-A facility that boundaries of the facility. beans, oats, soy meal, animal pellets, and discharges or may discharge pollutants into OIL AND GREASE—A method-defined similar commodities or cargos. The a publicly-owned treatment works. parameter that measures the presence of commodities or cargos transported come in INTERMEDIATE BULK CONTAINER (IBC relatively nonvolatile hydrocarbons, direct contact with the hopper interior. The OR TOTE)—A completely enclosed storage vegetable oils, animal fats, waxes, soaps, basic types of tops on closed-top hopper vessel used to hold liquid, solid, or gaseous greases, and related materials that are barges are telescoping rolls, steel lift covers, commodities or cargos which are in direct extractable in either n-hexane (referred to as and fiberglass lift covers. contact with the tank interior. Intermediate HEM, see Method 1664) or Freon 113 (1,1,2- COD—Chemical oxygen demand—A non- bulk containers may be loaded onto flat beds tricholoro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, see Method conventional bulk parameter that measures for either truck or rail transport, or onto ship 413.1). Data collected by EPA in support of the oxygen-consuming capacity of refractory decks for water transport. IBCs are portable the TEC effluent guideline utilized method organic and inorganic matter present in water containers with 450 liters (119 gallons) to 1664.

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49700 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ON SITE—‘‘On site’’ means within the commodities or cargos through oceans and Sec. contiguous and non-contiguous established seas when in transit from one inland 442.1 General applicability. boundaries of the facility. waterway to another. The commodities or 442.2 General definitions. PETROLEUM CARGO—Petroleum cargos cargos transported are in direct contact with 442.3 General pretreatment standards. include the products of the fractionation or the tank interior. There are no maximum or Subpart AÐTank Trucks and Intermodal straight distillation of crude oil, redistillation minimum vessel or tank volumes. Tank Containers Transporting Chemical of unfinished petroleum derivatives, TANK TRUCK—A motor-driven vehicle and Petroleum Cargos cracking, or other refining processes. For with a completely enclosed storage vessel purposes of this rule, petroleum cargos also used to transport liquid, solid or gaseous 442.10 Applicability. include products obtained from the refining materials over roads and highways. The 442.11 Effluent limitations attainable by the or processing of natural gas and coal. For storage vessel or tank may be detachable, as application of best practicable control purposes of this rule, specific examples of with tank trailers, or permanently attached. technology currently available (BPT). petroleum products include but are not The commodities or cargos transported come 442.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the limited to: asphalt; benzene; coal tar; crude in direct contact with the tank interior. A best conventional pollutant control oil; cutting oil; ethyl benzene; diesel fuel; tank truck may have one or more storage technology (BCT). fuel additives; fuel oils; gasoline; greases; compartments. There are no maximum or 442.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the heavy, medium, and light oils; hydraulic minimum vessel or tank volumes. Tank application of best available technology fluids, jet fuel; kerosene; liquid petroleum trucks are also commonly referred to as cargo economically achievable (BAT). gases (LPG) including butane and propane; tanks or tankers. 442.14 New source performance standards lubrication oils; mineral spirits; naphtha; TEC INDUSTRY—Transportation (NSPS). olefin, paraffin, and other waxes; tall oil; tar; Equipment Cleaning Industry. 442.15 Pretreatment standards for existing toluene; xylene; and waste oil. TOTES OR TOTE BINS—A completely sources (PSES). POTW—Publicly-owned treatment works, enclosed storage vessel used to hold liquid, 442.16 Pretreatment standards for new as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(0). solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos sources (PSNS). PRETREATMENT STANDARD—A which come in direct contact with the vessel Subpart BÐRail Tank Cars Transporting regulation that establishes industrial interior. Totes may be loaded onto flat beds Chemical and Petroleum Cargos wastewater effluent quality required for for either truck or rail transport, or onto ship 442.20 Applicability. discharge to a POTW. (CWA Section 307(b).) decks for water transport. There are no 442.21 Effluent limitations attainable by the PRIORITY POLLUTANTS—The pollutants maximum or minimum values for tote application of best practicable control designated by EPA as priority in 40 CFR Part volumes, although larger containers are 423 Appendix A. technology currently available (BPT). generally considered to be intermodal tank 442.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the PSES—Pretreatment standards for existing containers. Totes or tote bins are also referred sources, under Section 307(b) of the CWA. best conventional pollutant control to as intermediate bulk containers or IBCs. technology (BCT). PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new Fifty-five gallon drums and pails are not sources, under Section 307(b) and (c) of the 442.23 Effluent limitations attainable by the considered totes or tote bins. application of best available technology CWA. TSS—TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS—A RAIL TANK CAR—A completely enclosed economically achievable (BAT). measure of the amount of particulate matter 442.24 New source performance standards storage vessel pulled by a locomotive that is that is suspended in a water sample. The used to transport liquid, solid, or gaseous (NSPS). measure is obtained by filtering a water 442.25 Pretreatment standards for existing commodities or cargos over railway access sample of known volume. The particulate lines. A rail tank car storage vessel may have sources (PSES). material retained on the filter is then dried 442.26 Pretreatment standards for new one or more storage compartments and the and weighed, see Method 160.2. sources (PSNS). stored commodities or cargos come in direct VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS contact with the tank interior. There are no (VOCs)—Any compound of carbon, Subpart CÐTank Barges and Ocean/Sea maximum or minimum vessel or tank excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, Tankers Transporting Chemical and volumes. carbonic acid, metallic carbides or Petroleum Cargos RCRA—Resource Conservation and carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which 442.30 Applicability. Recovery Act (PL 94–580) of 1976, as participates in atmospheric photochemical 442.31 Effluent limitations attainable by the amended (42 U.S.C. 6901, et. seq.). reactions. See 40 CFR Part 51.100 for application of best practicable control SILICA GEL TREATED HEXANE additional detail and exclusions technology currently available (BPT). EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL (SGT–HEM)—A ZERO DISCHARGE FACILITY—Facilities 442.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the method-defined parameter that measures the that do not discharge pollutants to waters of best conventional pollutant control presence of mineral oils that are extractable the United States or to a POTW. Also technology (BCT). in the solvent n-hexane and not adsorbed by included in this definition are discharge of 442.33 Effluent limitations attainable by the silica gel. See Method 1664. SGT–HEM is pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-well application of best available technology also referred to as non-polar material. injection, off-site transfer to a treatment economically achievable (BAT). TANK—A generic term used to describe facility, and land application. 442.34 New source performance standards any closed container used to transport (NSPS). commodities or cargos. The commodities or List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 442 442.35 Pretreatment standards for existing cargos transported come in direct contact Environmental protection, Barge sources (PSES). with the container interior, which is cleaned 442.36 Pretreatment standards for new by TEC facilities. Examples of containers cleaning, Rail tank cleaning, Tank sources (PSNS). which are considered tanks include : tank cleaning, Transportation equipment trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, intermodal cleaning, Waste treatment and disposal, Subpart DÐTanks Transporting Food Grade tank containers, rail tank cars, closed-top Water pollution control. Cargos hopper rail cars, tank barges, closed-top 442.40 Applicability. Dated: June 15, 2000. hopper barges, and ocean/sea tankers. 442.41 Effluent limitations attainable by the Containers used to transport pre-packaged Carol M. Browner, application of best practicable control materials are not considered tanks, nor are Administrator. technology currently available (BPT). 55-gallon drums or pails or intermediate bulk 442.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the containers. Accordingly, part 442 is added to 40 best conventional pollutant control TANK BARGE—A non-self-propelled CFR chapter I to read as follows: technology (BCT). vessel constructed or adapted primarily to 442.43 Effluent limitations attainable by the carry commodities or cargos in bulk in cargo PART 442ÐTRANSPORTATION application of best available technology spaces (or tanks) through rivers and inland EQUIPMENT CLEANING POINT economically achievable (BAT). waterways, and may occasionally carry SOURCE CATEGORY [Reserved]

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49701

442.44 New source performance standards considered to be food grade or smaller than 3000 liters capacity are (NSPS). petroleum cargos are considered to be considered IBCs. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, chemical cargos. Ocean/sea tanker means a self or non- 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361. Closed-top hopper means a self-propelled vessel constructed or completely enclosed storage vessel used adapted to transport liquid, solid or § 442.1 General applicability. to transport dry bulk cargos, either by gaseous commodities or cargos in bulk (a) As defined more specifically in truck, rail, or barge. Closed-top hoppers in cargo spaces (or tanks) through each subpart, and except for discharges are not designed or constructed to carry oceans and seas, where the commodity specified in paragraph (b) of this liquid cargos and are typically used to or cargo carried comes in direct contact section, this part applies to discharges transport grain, soybeans, soy meal, with the tank interior. There are no resulting from cleaning the interior of soda ash, lime, fertilizer, plastic pellets, maximum or minimum vessel or tank tanks used to transport chemical, flour, sugar, and similar commodities or volumes. petroleum or food grade cargos. This cargos. The cargos transported come in On-site means within the contiguous part does not apply to facilities that direct contact with the hopper interior. and non-contiguous established clean only the exteriors of Closed-top hoppers are also commonly boundaries of a facility. transportation equipment. Operations referred to as dry bulk hoppers. Petroleum cargos mean products of the fractionation or straight distillation which may be subject to this part Drums mean metal or plastic of crude oil, redistillation of unfinished typically are reported under a wide cylindrical containers with either an petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other variety of Standard Industrial open-head or a tight-head (also known refining processes. For purposes of this Classification (SIC) codes. Several of the as bung-type top) used to hold liquid, rule, petroleum cargos also include most common SIC codes include: SIC solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos products obtained from the refining or 7699, SIC 4741, or SIC 4491 (1987 SIC which are in direct contact with the processing of natural gas and coal. For Manual). container interior. Drums typically purposes of this rule, specific examples (b) This part is not applicable to the range in capacity from 30 to 55 gallons. of petroleum products include but are following discharges: Food grade cargos mean edible and (1) Wastewaters associated with tank not limited to: asphalt; benzene; coal non-edible food products. Specific cleanings operated in conjunction with tar; crude oil; cutting oil; ethyl benzene; examples of food grade cargos include, other industrial, commercial, or diesel fuel; fuel additives; fuel oils; but are not limited to, the following: Publicly Owned Treatment Works gasoline; greases; heavy, medium, and alcoholic beverages, animal by- (POTW) operations, provided that the light oils; hydraulic fluids, jet fuel; products, animal fats, animal oils, cleaning is limited to tanks that kerosene; liquid petroleum gases (LPG) caramel, caramel coloring, chocolate, previously contained raw materials, by- including butane and propane; corn syrup and other corn products, products, or finished products that are lubrication oils; mineral spirits; dairy products, dietary supplements, associated with the facility’s on-site naphtha; olefin, paraffin, and other eggs, flavorings, food preservatives, food processes. waxes; tall oil; tar; toluene; xylene; and products that are not suitable for human (2) Wastewaters resulting from waste oil. consumption, fruit juices, honey, lard, cleaning the interiors of drums, Pollution Prevention Allowable molasses, non-alcoholic beverages, intermediate bulk containers, or closed- Discharge for this subpart means the sweeteners, tallow, vegetable oils, and top hoppers. quantity of/concentrations of pollutants (3) Wastewater from a facility that vinegar. in wastewaters being discharged to discharges less than 100,000 gallons per Heel means any material remaining in publicly owned treatment works after a year of transportation equipment a tank following unloading, delivery, or facility has demonstrated compliance cleaning process wastewater. discharge of the transported cargo. Heels with the Pollutant Management Plan may also be referred to as container provisions in §§ 442.15(b), 442.16(b), § 442.2 General definitions. residue, residual materials or residuals. 442.25(b), or 442.26(b) of this part. (a) In addition to the general Intermediate bulk container (‘‘IBC’’ or Prerinse/presteam means a rinse, definitions and abbreviations at 40 CFR ‘‘Tote’’) means a completely enclosed typically with hot or cold water, part 401, the following definitions shall storage vessel used to hold liquid, solid, performed at the beginning of the apply to this part: or gaseous commodities or cargos which cleaning sequence to remove residual Chemical cargos mean, but are not are in direct contact with the container material from the tank interior. limited to, the following: latex, rubber, interior. IBCs may be loaded onto flat Presolve wash means the use of diesel, plastics, plasticizers, resins, soaps, beds for either truck or rail transport, or kerosene, gasoline, or any other type of detergents, surfactants, agricultural onto ship decks for water transport. fuel or solvent as a tank interior chemicals and pesticides, hazardous IBCs are portable containers with 450 cleaning solution. waste, organic chemicals including: liters (119 gallons) to 3000 liters (793 Rail Tank Car means a completely alcohols, aldehydes, formaldehydes, gallons) capacity. IBCs are also enclosed storage vessel pulled by a phenols, peroxides, organic salts, commonly referred to as totes or tote locomotive that is used to transport amines, amides, other nitrogen bins. liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or compounds, other aromatic compounds, Intermodal tank container means a cargos over railway access lines. A rail aliphatic organic chemicals, glycols, completely enclosed storage vessel used tank car storage vessel may have one or glycerines, and organic polymers; to hold liquid, solid, or gaseous more storage compartments and the refractory organic compounds commodities or cargos which come in stored commodities or cargos come in including: ketones, nitriles, organo- direct contact with the tank interior. direct contact with the tank interior. metallic compounds containing Intermodal tank containers may be There are no maximum or minimum chromium, cadmium, mercury, copper, loaded onto flat beds for either truck or vessel or tank volumes. zinc; and inorganic chemicals rail transport, or onto ship decks for Tank barge means a non-self- including: aluminum sulfate, ammonia, water transport. Containers larger than propelled vessel constructed or adapted ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, 3000 liters capacity are considered primarily to carry liquid, solid or and bleach. Cargos which are not intermodal tank containers. Containers gaseous commodities or cargos in bulk

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49702 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations in cargo spaces (or tanks) through rivers (3) Chromium means total chromium. § 442.12 Effluent limitations attainable by and inland waterways, and may (4) Copper means total copper. the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). occasionally carry commodities or (5) Lead means total lead. cargos through oceans and seas when in (6) Mercury means total mercury Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 transit from one inland waterway to (7) Nickel means total nickel. through 125.32, any existing point another. The commodities or cargos source subject to this subpart must (8) Oil and Grease (HEM) means oil transported are in direct contact with achieve the following effluent and grease (Hexane-Extractable the tank interior. There are no limitations representing the application Material) measured by Method 1664. maximum or minimum vessel or tank of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil volumes. (9) Non-polar material (SGT–HEM) and grease (HEM) and pH are the same Tank truck means a motor-driven means the non-polar fraction of oil and as the corresponding limitation vehicle with a completely enclosed grease (Silica Gel Treated Hexane- specified in § 442.11. storage vessel used to transport liquid, Extractable Material) measured by solid or gaseous materials over roads Method 1664. § 442.13 Effluent limitations attainable by and highways. The storage vessel or (10) TSS means total suspended the application of best available technology tank may be detachable, as with tank solids. economically achievable (BAT). trailers, or permanently attached. The (11) Zinc means total zinc. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 commodities or cargos transported come (c) The parameters regulated in this through 125.32, any existing point in direct contact with the tank interior. part and listed with approved methods source subject to this subpart must A tank truck may have one or more of analysis in Table IC at 40 CFR 136.3, achieve the following effluent storage compartments. There are no are as follows: limitations representing the application maximum or minimum vessel or tank (1) Fluoranthene. of BAT: Limitations for copper, volumes. Tank trucks are also (2) Phenanthrene. mercury, and oil and grease (HEM) are commonly referred to as cargo tanks or the same as the corresponding tankers. § 442.3 General pretreatment standards. limitation specified in § 442.11. Transportation equipment cleaning Any source subject to this part that (TEC) process wastewater means all § 442.14 New source performance introduces process wastewater standards (NSPS). wastewaters associated with cleaning pollutants into a publicly owned Any new point source subject to this the interiors of tanks including: tank treatment works (POTW) must comply subpart must achieve the following trucks; rail tank cars; intermodal tank with 40 CFR part 403. containers; tank barges; and ocean/sea performance standards: Standards for tankers used to transport commodities Subpart AÐTank Trucks and BOD5, TSS, oil and grease (HEM), or cargos that come into direct contact Intermodal Tank Containers copper, mercury, and pH are the same with the interior of the tank or Transporting Chemical and Petroleum as the corresponding limitation container. At those facilities that clean Cargos specified in § 442.11. tank interiors, TEC process wastewater § 442.10 Applicability. § 442.15 Pretreatment standards for also includes wastewater generated from existing sources (PSES). washing vehicle exteriors, equipment This subpart applies to discharges (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR and floor washings, TEC-contaminated resulting from the cleaning of tank 403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph (b) of stormwater, wastewater prerinse trucks and intermodal tank containers this section, no later than August 14, cleaning solutions, chemical cleaning which have been used to transport 2003, any existing source subject to this solutions, and final rinse solutions. TEC chemical or petroleum cargos. process wastewater is defined to include subpart which introduces pollutants only wastewater generated from a § 442.11 Effluent limitations attainable by into a publicly owned treatment works regulated TEC subcategory. Therefore, the application of the best practicable must achieve PSES as follows: control technology currently available TEC process wastewater does not (BPT). include wastewater generated from TABLEÐPRETREATMENT STANDARDS cleaning hopper cars, or from food grade Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point Regulated parameter Maximum facilities discharging to a POTW. daily 1 Wastewater generated from cleaning source subject to this subpart must tank interiors for purposes of shipping achieve the following effluent Non-polar material (SGT± products (i.e., cleaned for purposes limitations representing the application HEM) ...... 26 other than maintenance and repair) is of BPT: Copper ...... 0.84 considered TEC process wastewater. (a) Effluent Limitations Mercury ...... 0.0031 Wastewater generated from cleaning 1 Mg/L (ppm). tank interiors for the purposes of maintenance and repair on the tank is (b) As an alternative to achieving not considered TEC process wastewater. Maximum PSES as defined in paragraph (a) of this Regulated pa- Maximum monthly rameter daily 1 section, any existing source subject to Facilities that clean tank interiors solely avg.1 for the purposes of repair and paragraph (a) of this section may have a pollution prevention allowable maintenance are not regulated under BOD5 ...... 61 22 this Part. TSS ...... 58 26 discharge of wastewater pollutants, as (b) The parameters regulated in this Oil and grease defined in § 442.2, if the source agrees part and listed with approved methods (HEM) ...... 36 16 to control mechanism with the control of analysis in Table IB at 40 CFR 136.3, Copper ...... 0.84 ...... authority as follows: are defined as follows: Mercury ...... 0.0031 ...... (1) The discharger shall prepare a pH ...... (2)(2) (1) BOD5 means 5-day biochemical Pollutant Management Plan that oxygen demand. 1 Mg/L (ppm) satisfies the requirements as specified in (2) Cadmium means total cadmium. 2 Within 6 to 9 at all times. paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and the

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49703 discharger shall conduct its operations (vi) provisions for minimizing the use control authority a certification in accordance with that plan. of toxic cleaning agents (solvents, statement of its intent to utilize a (2) The discharger shall notify its detergents, or other cleaning or Pollutant Management Plan as specified local control authority prior to renewing brightening solutions); in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The or modifying its individual control (vii) provisions for appropriate certification statement must be signed mechanism or pretreatment agreement recycling or reuse of segregated by the responsible corporate officer as of its intent to achieve the pollution wastewaters (including heels and defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l); prevention allowable discharge prerinse/pre-steam wastes); (3) The discharger shall submit a copy pretreatment standard by submitting to (viii) provisions for off-site treatment of its Pollutant Management Plan as the local control authority a certification or disposal, or effective pre-treatment of described in paragraph (b)(1) of this statement of its intent to utilize a segregated wastewaters (including heels, section to the appropriate control Pollutant Management Plan as specified prerinse/pre-steam wastes, spent authority at the time he/she applies to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The cleaning solutions); renew, or modify its individual control certification statement must be signed (ix) information on the volumes, mechanism or pretreatment agreement; by the responsible corporate officer as content, and chemical characteristics of and defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l); cleaning agents used in cleaning or (4) The discharger shall maintain at (3) The discharger shall submit a copy brightening operations; and the offices of the facility and make of its Pollutant Management Plan as (x) provisions for maintaining available for inspection the Pollutant described in paragraph (b)(1) of this appropriate records of heel management Management Plan as described in section to the appropriate control procedures, prerinse/pre-steam paragraph (b)(1) of this section. authority at the time he/she applies to management procedures, cleaning agent (5) The Pollutant Management Plan renew, or modify its individual control management procedures, operator shall include: mechanism or pretreatment agreement; training, and proper operation and (i) Procedures for identifying cargos, and maintenance of any pre-treatment the cleaning of which is likely to result (4) The discharger shall maintain at system; in discharges of pollutants that would be incompatible with treatment at the the offices of the facility and make § 442.16 Pretreatment standards for new available for inspection the Pollutant POTW; sources (PSNS). (ii) For cargos identified as being Management Plan as described in (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR incompatible with treatment at the paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph (b) of POTW, the Plan shall provide that heels (5) The Pollutant Manager Plan shall this section, any new source subject to be fully drained, segregated from other include: this subpart which introduces wastewaters, and handled in an (i) procedures for identifying cargos, pollutants into a publicly owned appropriate manner; the cleaning of which is likely to result treatment works must achieve PSNS as (iii) For cargos identified as being in discharges of pollutants that would follows: incompatible with treatment at the be incompatible with treatment at the POTW, the Plan shall provide that the POTW; TABLEÐPRETREATMENT STANDARDS tank be prerinsed or presteamed as (ii) for cargos identified as being appropriate and the wastewater incompatible with treatment at the Regulated parameter Maximum segregated from wastewaters to be daily 1 POTW, the Plan shall provide that heels discharged to the POTW and handled in be fully drained, segregated from other an appropriate manner, where necessary wastewaters, and handled in an Non-polar material (SGT± HEM) ...... 26 to ensure that they do not cause or appropriate manner; Copper ...... 0.84 contribute to a discharge that would be (iii) for cargos identified as being Mercury ...... 0.0031 incompatible with treatment at the incompatible with treatment at the 1 Mg/L (ppm). POTW; POTW, the Plan shall provide that the (iv) All spent cleaning solutions, tank be prerinsed or presteamed as (b) As an alternative to achieving including interior caustic washes, appropriate and the wastewater PSNS as defined in paragraph (a) of this interior presolve washes, interior segregated from wastewaters to be section, any existing source subject to detergent washes, interior acid washes, discharged to the POTW and handled in paragraph (a) of this section may have and exterior acid brightener washes an appropriate manner, where necessary a pollution prevention allowable shall be segregated from other to ensure that they do not cause or discharge of wastewater pollutants, as wastewaters and handled in an contribute to a discharge that would be defined in § 442.2, if the source agrees appropriate manner, where necessary to incompatible with treatment at the to a control mechanism with the control ensure that they do not cause or POTW; authority as follows: contribute to a discharge that would be (iv) all spent cleaning solutions, (1) The discharger shall prepare a incompatible with treatment at the including interior caustic washes, Pollutant Management Plan that POTW; interior presolve washes, interior satisfies the requirements as specified in (v) Provisions for appropriate detergent washes, interior acid washes, paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and the recycling or reuse of cleaning agents; and exterior acid brightener washes discharger shall conduct its operations (vi) Provisions for minimizing the use shall be segregated from other in accordance with that plan. of toxic cleaning agents (solvents, wastewaters and handled in an (2) The discharger shall notify its detergents, or other cleaning or appropriate manner, where necessary to local control authority prior to brightening solutions); ensure that they do not cause or obtaining, renewing, or modifying its (vii) Provisions for appropriate contribute to a discharge that would be individual control mechanism or recycling or reuse of segregated incompatible with treatment at the pretreatment agreement of its intent to wastewaters (including heels and POTW; achieve the pollution prevention prerinse/pre-steam wastes); (v) provisions for appropriate allowable discharge pretreatment (viii) Provisions for off-site treatment recycling or reuse of cleaning agents; standard by submitting to the local or disposal, or effective pre-treatment of

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49704 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations segregated wastewaters (including heels, source subject to this subpart must described in paragraph (b)(1) of this prerinse/pre-steam wastes, spent achieve the following effluent section to the appropriate control cleaning solutions); limitations representing the application authority at the time he/she applies to (ix) Information on the volumes, of BAT: Limitations for fluoranthene, renew, or modify its individual control content, and chemical characteristics of phenanthrene, and oil and grease (HEM) mechanism or pretreatment agreement; cleaning agents used in cleaning or are the same as the corresponding and brightening operations; and limitation specified in § 442.21. (4) The discharger shall maintain at (x) Provisions for maintaining the offices of the facility and make appropriate records of heel management § 442.24 New source performance available for inspection the Pollutant standards (NSPS). procedures, prerinse/pre-steam Management Plan as described in management procedures, cleaning agent Any new point source subject to this paragraph (b)(1) of this section. management procedures, operator subpart must achieve the following (5) The Pollutant Management Plan training, and proper operation and performance standards: Standards for shall include: maintenance of any pre-treatment BOD5, TSS, oil and grease (HEM), (i) Procedures for identifying cargos, system; fluoranthene, phenanthrene and pH are the cleaning of which is likely to result the same as the corresponding in discharges of pollutants that would Subpart BÐRail Tank Cars limitation specified in § 442.21. be incompatible with treatment at the Transporting Chemical and Petroleum POTW; § 442.25 Pretreatment standards for Cargos existing sources (PSES). (ii) For cargos identified as being incompatible with treatment at the § 442.20 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR POTW, the Plan shall provide that heels This subpart applies to discharges 403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph (b) of be fully drained, segregated from other resulting from the cleaning of rail tank this section, no later than August 14, wastewaters, and handled in an cars which have been used to transport 2003 any existing source subject to this appropriate manner; chemical or petroleum cargos. subpart which introduces pollutants (iii) For cargos identified as being into a publicly owned treatment works incompatible with treatment at the § 442.21 Effluent limitations attainable by must achieve PSES as follows: the application of the best practicable POTW, the Plan shall provide that the tank be prerinsed or presteamed as control technology currently available TABLEÐPRETREATMENT STANDARDS' (BPT). appropriate and the wastewater Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 segregated from wastewaters to be Regulated parameter Maximum through 125.32, any existing point daily1 discharged to the POTW and handled in source subject to this subpart must an appropriate manner, where necessary achieve the following effluent Non-polar material (SGT± to ensure that they do not cause or limitations representing the application HEM) ...... 26 contribute to a discharge that would be Fluoranthene ...... 0.076 of BPT: incompatible with treatment at the Phenanthrene ...... 0.34 POTW; (iv) All spent cleaning solutions, TABLEÐEFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 1 Mg/L (ppm). including interior caustic washes, (b) As an alternative to achieving Maximum interior presolve washes, interior Regulated pa- Maximum monthly PSES as defined in paragraph (a) of this detergent washes, interior acid washes, rameter daily 1 avg.1 section, any existing source subject to and exterior acid brightener washes paragraph (a) of this section may have shall be segregated from other BOD5 ...... 61 22 a pollution prevention allowable wastewaters and handled in an TSS ...... 58 26 discharge of wastewater pollutants, as appropriate manner, where necessary to Oil and grease defined in § 442.2, if the source agrees (HEM) ...... 36 16 ensure that they do not cause or to a control mechanism with the control contribute to a discharge that would be Fluoranthene ... 0.076 authority as follows: Phenanthrene 0.34 incompatible with treatment at the pH ...... (2)(2) (1) The discharger shall prepare a POTW; Pollutant Management Plan that (v) Provisions for appropriate 1 Mg/L (ppm). satisfies the requirements as specified in 2 Within 6 to 9 at all times. recycling or reuse of cleaning agents; paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and the (vi) Provisions for minimizing the use § 442.22 Effluent limitations attainable by discharger shall conduct its operations of toxic cleaning agents (solvents, the application of the best conventional in accordance with that plan. detergents, or other cleaning or pollutant control technology (BCT). (2) The discharger shall notify its brightening solutions); Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 local control authority prior to renewing (vii) Provisions for appropriate through 125.32, any existing point or modifying its individual control recycling or reuse of segregated source subject to this subpart must mechanism or pretreatment agreement wastewaters (including heels and achieve the following effluent of its intent to achieve the pollution prerinse/pre-steam wastes); limitations representing the application prevention allowable discharge (viii) Provisions for off-site treatment pretreatment standard by submitting to of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil or disposal, or effective pre-treatment of and grease (HEM) and pH are the same the local control authority a certification segregated wastewaters (including heels, as the corresponding limitation statement of its intent to utilize a prerinse/pre-steam wastes, spent specified in § 442.21. Pollutant Management Plan as specified cleaning solutions); in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The (ix) Information on the volumes, § 442.23 Effluent limitations attainable by certification statement must be signed content, and chemical characteristics of the application of best available technology by the responsible corporate officer as cleaning agents used in cleaning or economically achievable (BAT). defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l); brightening operations; and Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 (3) The discharger shall submit a copy (x) Provisions for maintaining through 125.32, any existing point of its Pollutant Management Plan as appropriate records of heel management

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 49705 procedures, prerinse/pre-steam Management Plan as described in Subpart CÐTank Barges and Ocean/ management procedures, cleaning agent paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Sea Tankers Transporting Chemical management procedures, operator (5) The Pollutant Management Plan and Petroleum Cargos training, and proper operation and shall include: § 442.30 Applicability. maintenance of any pre-treatment (i) procedures for identifying cargos, system; the cleaning of which is likely to result This subpart applies to discharges § 442.26 Pretreatment standards for new in discharges of pollutants that would resulting from the cleaning of tank sources (PSNS). be incompatible with treatment at the barges or ocean/sea tankers which have been used to transport chemical or (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR POTW; petroleum cargos. 403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph (b) of (ii) for cargos identified as being this section, any new source subject to incompatible with treatment at the § 442.31 Effluent limitations attainable by this subpart which introduces POTW, the Plan shall provide that heels the application of the best practicable pollutants into a publicly owned be fully drained, segregated from other control technology currently available treatment works must achieve PSNS as wastewaters, and handled in an (BPT). appropriate manner; follows: Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 (iii) for cargos identified as being through 125.32, any existing point TABLEÐPRETREATMENT STANDARDS incompatible with treatment at the source subject to this subpart must POTW, the Plan shall provide that the achieve the following effluent Regulated parameter Maximum tank be prerinsed or presteamed as daily1 limitations representing the application appropriate and the wastewater of BPT: Non-polar material (SGT± segregated from wastewaters to be HEM) ...... 26 discharged to the POTW and handled in TABLEÐEFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Fluoranthene ...... 0.076 an appropriate manner, where necessary Phenanthrene ...... 0.34 to ensure that they do not cause or Maximum contribute to a discharge that would be Regulated pa- Maximum monthly 1 rameter daily1 Mg/L (ppm). incompatible with treatment at the avg.1 (b) As an alternative to achieving POTW; BOD ...... 61 22 PSNS as defined in paragraph (a) of this (iv) all spent cleaning solutions, 5 section, any new source subject to TSS ...... 58 26 including interior caustic washes, Oil and grease paragraph (a) of this section may have interior presolve washes, interior (HEM) ...... 36 16 a pollution prevention allowable detergent washes, interior acid washes, Cadmium ...... 0.020 ...... discharge of wastewater pollutants, as and exterior acid brightener washes Chromium ...... 0.42 ...... defined in § 442.2, if the source agrees shall be segregated from other Copper ...... 0.10 ...... to a control mechanism with the control wastewaters and handled in an Lead ...... 0.14 ...... authority as follows: appropriate manner, where necessary to Mercury ...... 0.0013 ...... (1) The discharger shall prepare a ensure that they do not cause or Nickel ...... 0.58 ...... Pollutant Management Plan that contribute to a discharge that would be Zinc ...... 8.3 ...... satisfies the requirements as specified in incompatible with treatment at the pH ...... (2)(2) paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and the POTW; 1 Mg/L (ppm). discharger shall conduct its operations (v) provisions for appropriate 2 Within 6 to 9 at all times. in accordance with that plan. recycling or reuse of cleaning agents; § 442.32 Effluent limitations attainable by (2) The discharger shall notify its (vi) provisions for minimizing the use local control authority prior to the application of the best conventional of toxic cleaning agents (solvents, pollutant control technology (BCT). obtaining, renewing, or modifying its detergents, or other cleaning or individual control mechanism or brightening solutions); Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 pretreatment agreement of its intent to through 125.32, any existing point achieve the pollution prevention (vii) provisions for appropriate recycling or reuse of segregated source subject to this subpart must allowable discharge pretreatment achieve the following effluent standard by submitting to the local wastewaters (including heels and prerinse/pre-steam wastes); limitations representing the application control authority a certification of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil statement of its intent to utilize a (viii) provisions for off-site treatment and grease (HEM) and pH are the same Pollutant Management Plan as specified or disposal, or effective pre-treatment of as the corresponding limitation in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The segregated wastewaters (including heels, specified in § 442.31. certification statement must be signed prerinse/pre-steam wastes, spent by the responsible corporate officer as cleaning solutions); § 442.33 Effluent limitations attainable by defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l); (ix) information on the volumes, the application of best available technology economically achievable (BAT). (3) The discharger shall submit a copy content, and chemical characteristics of of its Pollutant Management Plan as cleaning agents used in cleaning or Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 described in paragraph (b)(1) of this brightening operations; and through 125.32, any existing point section to the appropriate control (x) provisions for maintaining source subject to this subpart must authority at the time he/she applies to appropriate records of heel management achieve the following effluent obtain, renew, or modify its individual procedures, prerinse/pre-steam limitations representing the application control mechanism or pretreatment management procedures, cleaning agent of BAT: Limitations for cadmium, agreement; and management procedures, operator chromium, copper, lead, mercury, (4) The discharger shall maintain at training, and proper operation and nickel, and zinc are the same as the the offices of the facility and make maintenance of any pre-treatment corresponding limitation specified in available for inspection the Pollutant system; § 442.31.

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3 49706 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 442.34 New source performance materials (SGT–HEM), cadmium, TABLEÐEFFLUENT LIMITATIONS standards (NSPS). chromium, copper, lead, mercury, Any new point source subject to this nickel and zinc are the same as the Regulated pa- Maximum Maximum 1 1 subpart must achieve the following corresponding standard specified in rameter daily monthly avg. performance standards: Standards for § 442.35. BOD5 ...... 56 24 BOD5, TSS, oil and grease (HEM), TSS ...... 230 86 cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, Subpart DÐTanks Transporting Food Oil and grease mercury, nickel, zinc and pH are the Grade Cargos (HEM) ...... 20 8.8 same as the corresponding limitation pH ...... (2)(2) specified in § 442.31. § 442.40 Applicability. 1 Mg/L (ppm). § 442.35 Pretreatment standards for This subpart applies to discharges 2 Within 6 to 9 at all times. existing sources (PSES). resulting from the cleaning of tank trucks, intermodal tank containers, rail § 442.42 Effluent limitations attainable by Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 the application of the best conventional and 403.13, any existing source subject tank cars, tank barges and ocean/sea pollutant control technology (BCT). s tankers which have been used to to this subpart must achieve the Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 transport food grade cargos. If following pretreatment standards: through 125.32, any existing point wastewater generated from cleaning source subject to this subpart must TABLEÐPRETREATMENT STANDARDS tanks used to transport food grade achieve the following effluent cargos is mixed with wastewater limitations representing the application Regulated parameter Maximum resulting from cleaning tanks used to daily1 of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, TSS, oil transport chemical or petroleum cargos, & grease (HEM) and pH are the same as then the combined wastewater is subject Non-polar material (SGT± the corresponding limitation specified HEM) ...... 26 to the provisions established for the in § 442.41. Cadmium ...... 0.020 corresponding tanks (i.e., truck, railcar Chromium ...... 0.42 or barge) in Subparts A, B, or C of this § 442.43 Effluent limitations attainable by Copper ...... 0.10 part. the application of best available technology Lead ...... 0.14 economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved] Mercury ...... 0.0013 § 442.41 Effluent limitations attainable by § 442.44 New source performance Nickel ...... 0.58 the application of the best practicable standards (NSPS). Zinc ...... 8.3 control technology currently available (BPT). Any new point source subject to this 1 Mg/L (ppm). subpart must achieve the following Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 § 442.36 Pretreatment standards for new performance standards: Standards for sources (PSNS). through 125.32, any existing point BOD5, TSS, oil and grease (HEM) and source subject to this subpart must pH are the same as the corresponding Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, achieve the following effluent limitation specified in § 442.41. any new source subject to this subpart limitations representing the application must achieve the following pretreatment [FR Doc. 00–15841 Filed 8–11–00; 8:45 am] of BPT: standards: Standards for non-polar BILLING CODE 6560±50±F

VerDate 112000 15:53 Aug 11, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR3.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 14AUR3