Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 442

[FRL—6720-6]

RIN 2040-AB98

Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes technology-based effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, and pretreatment standards for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States and into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) by existing and new facilities that perform transportation equipment cleaning operations. Transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) facilities are defined as those facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning the interior of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail tank cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers, tank barges, closed-top hopper barges, and ocean/sea tankers used to transport materials or cargos that come into direct contact with the tank or container interior. Facilities which do not engage in cleaning the interior of tanks are not considered within the scope of this rule.

EPA is subcategorizing the TEC Point Source Category into the following four subparts based on types of cargos carried and transportation mode: Subpart A—Tank Trucks and Intermodal Tank Containers Transporting Chemical & Petroleum Cargos; Subpart B—Rail Tank Cars Transporting Chemical & Petroleum Cargos; Subpart C—Tank Barges and Ocean/Sea Tankers Transporting Chemical & Petroleum Cargos; Subpart D—Tanks Transporting Food Grade Cargos.

For all four subparts, EPA is establishing effluent limitations guidelines for existing facilities and new sources discharging wastewater directly to surface waters. EPA is establishing pretreatment standards for existing facilities and new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in all subparts except for Subpart D, applicable to Food Grade Cargos. EPA is not establishing effluent limitations guidelines or pretreatment standards for facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning the interior of hopper cars.

The TEC limitations do not apply to wastewaters associated with tank cleanings performed in conjunction with other industrial, commercial, or POTW operations so long as the facility cleans only tanks and containers that have contained raw materials, by-products, and finished products that are associated with the facility's on-site processes.

The wastewater flows covered by this rule include all washwaters which have come into direct contact with the tank or container interior including pre-rinse cleaning solutions, chemical cleaning solutions, and final rinse solutions. Additionally, the rule covers wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors, equipment and floor washings, and TEC contaminated stormwater at those facilities subject to the TEC effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Compliance with this rule is estimated to reduce the annual discharge of priority pollutants by at least 60,000 pounds per year and result in annual benefits ranging from $1.5 million to $5.5 million. The total annualized compliance cost of the rule is projected to be $16.1 million (pre-tax).

DATES:

This regulation shall become effective September 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES:

The public record is available for review in the EPA Water Docket, 401 M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The public record for this rulemaking has been established under docket number W-97-25, and includes supporting documentation, but does not include any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). The record is available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. For access to docket materials, please call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For additional technical information contact Mr. John Tinger at (202) 260-4992 or send E-mail to:

tinger.john@epa.gov.

For additional economic information contact Mr. George Denning at (202) 260-7374 or send E-mail to:

denning.george@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities:

Entities potentially 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 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 industrial, commercial, or POTW operations.

SIC 7699, SIC 4741, SIC 4491.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, should carefully examine the applicability criteria in § 442.1 of the rule language. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed for technical information in the preceding

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

Judicial Review

In accordance with 40 CFR Part 23.2, this rule will be considered promulgated for purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on August 28, 2000. Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, judicial review of this regulation can be obtained only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals within 120 days after the regulation is considered promulgated for purposes of judicial review. Under section 509 (b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, the requirements in this regulation may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

Compliance Dates

The compliance date for Pretreatment Standards for Existing Standards (PSES) is as soon as possible, but no later than August 14, 2003. Deadlines for compliance with Best Practicable

Control Technology Currently Available (BPT), Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), and Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) are established in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The compliance dates for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) are the dates the new source commences discharging.

Supporting Documentation

The regulations promulgated today are supported by several major documents:

1. “Final Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category” (EPA 821-R-00-0012). Hereafter referred to as the Technical Development Document, the document presents EPA's technical conclusions concerning the rule. EPA describes, among other things, the data-collection activities in support of the regulation, the wastewater treatment technology options, wastewater characterization, and the estimated costs to the industry.

2. “Final Economic Analysis of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category” (EPA 821-R-00-0013).

3. “Final Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category” (EPA 821-R-00-0014).

How To Obtain Supporting Documents

All documents are available from the National Service Center for Environmental Publications, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, (800) 490-9198. The Technical Development Document and previous Transportation Equipment Cleaning Federal Register Notices can also be obtained on the Internet, located at

WWW.EPA.GOV/OST/GUIDE.

This website also links to an electronic version of today's notice.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

B. Profile of the Industry

C. Proposed Rule

D. Notice of Availability

III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

A. Concentration-Based Limitations

B. Modification to Subcategorization Approach

C. Low Flow Exclusion

D. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates

E. Overlap With Other Guidelines

F. Modification to Pollutants Selected For Regulation

G. Technology Options

IV. Applicability of Final Regulation

V. Technology Options Selected for Basis of Regulation

A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

D. Food Subcategory

E. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories

VI. Development of Effluent Limitations

A. Selection of Pollutant Parameters for Final Regulation

B. Calculation of Effluent Limitations

VII. Costs and Pollutant Reductions of Final Regulation

A. Changes to Cost Analysis Since Proposal

B. Compliance Costs

C. Changes to Pollutant Reduction Analysis Since Proposal

D. Pollutant Reductions

VIII. Economic Impacts of Final Regulation

A. Changes to Economic Analysis Since Proposal

B. Impacts Analysis

C. Small Business Analysis

D. Market Analysis

E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

F. Cost-Benefit Analysis

IX. Water Quality Impacts of Final Regulation

A. Changes to Benefits Analysis Since Proposal

B. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

C. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

D. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

E. Food Subcategory

X. Non-Water Quality Impacts of Final Regulation

A. Energy Impacts

B. Air Emission Impacts

C. Solid Waste Impacts

XI. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)

C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act

J. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting Children's Health

XII. Regulatory Implementation

A. Implementation of Limitations and Standards

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

C. Variances and Modifications

D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits & Monitoring Requirements

E. Analytical Methods

Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This Notice

I. Legal Authority

EPA is promulgating these regulations under the authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361.

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters” (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act confronts the problem of water pollution on a number of different fronts. Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions on the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial, commercial, and public sources of wastewater.

Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) (Sections 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to implement local treatment limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements (40 CFR 403.5).

Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits; indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.

1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)—Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA

In the guidelines for an industry category, EPA defines BPT effluent

limits for conventional, toxic,

1

and non-conventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any required process changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Agency deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or other common characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology can be practically applied.

1

In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the “classical” pollutants (

e.g.,

TSS, pH, BOD

5

). However, nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted BPT limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water Act of 1977 with its requirement for point sources to achieve best available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority toxic pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines continue to include limitations to address all pollutants.

2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)—Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA

In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best existing economically achievable performance of direct discharging plants in the industrial subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the control technology, potential process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded to these factors. An additional statutory factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally, the achievability is determined on the basis of the total cost to the industrial subcategory and the overall effect of the rule on the industry's financial health. BAT limitations may be based upon effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may be based upon technology transferred from a different subcategory within an industry or from another industrial category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry practice.

3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of the CWA

The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources. BCT is not an additional limitation, but replaces Best Available Technology (BAT) for control of conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part “cost-reasonableness” test. EPA explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).

Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD

5

), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).

4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)—Section 306 of the CWA

NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best available demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (

i.e.,

conventional, non-conventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)—Section 307(b) of the CWA

PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The CWA authorizes EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge disposal methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards are technology-based and analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.

The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for implementing categorical pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass through that addresses localized rather than national instances of pass through and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)—Section 307(b) of the CWA

Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

B. Profile of the Industry

The TEC industry includes facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning the interiors of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail tank cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers, tank barges, closed-top hopper barges, and ocean/sea tankers used to transport cargos or commodities that come into direct contact with the tank or container interior. Transportation equipment cleaning is performed to prevent cross-contamination between products or commodities being transported in the tanks, containers, or hoppers, and to prepare transportation equipment for repair and maintenance activities, such as welding. The cleaning activity is a necessary part of the transportation process.

Based upon responses to EPA's 1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry (see discussion in Section V.B of the proposal (63 FR 34686)), the Agency estimates that there are approximately 2,405 facilities in the United States that perform TEC activities. This includes approximately

1,166 facilities that perform tank cleaning operations on site, but which are excluded from this rule because of their association with other industrial, commercial, or POTW operations. There are 1,239 TEC facilities not associated with other industrial, commercial, or POTW operations. Of these facilities, EPA estimates that 692 facilities discharge to either a POTW or to surface waters. The remaining 547 facilities are considered zero dischargers.

The TEC industry consists of distinct transportation sectors: the trucking sector, the rail sector, and the barge shipping sector. Each one of these sectors has different technical and economic characteristics. The transportation industry transports a wide variety of commodities, and TEC facilities therefore clean tanks and containers with residues (

i.e.,

heels) from a broad spectrum of commodities, such as food-grade products, petroleum-based commodities, organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, soaps and detergents, latex and resins, hazardous wastes, and dry bulk commodities.

TEC facilities vary greatly in the level of wastewater treatment that they currently have in place. Treatment at existing TEC facilities ranges from no treatment to tertiary treatment. The majority of TEC facilities discharging to surface waters currently employ primary treatment, such as oil/water separation or gravity separation, followed by biological treatment. Indirect discharging facilities typically employ some form of primary treatment, such as oil/water separation, gravity separation, dissolved air flotation, or coagulation and flocculation. A relatively small number of direct and indirect facilities currently employ tertiary treatment, such as activated carbon adsorption.

C. Proposed Rule

On June 25, 1998 (63 FR 34685), EPA published proposed effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States and into POTWs by existing and new facilities that perform transportation equipment cleaning operations.

EPA received comments on many aspects of the proposal. The majority of comments related to the use of mass-based rather than concentration-based limits; the subcategorization approach; the technology options used as the basis for setting effluent limitations; the selection of pollutants proposed for regulation; the costs associated with the regulation; the cost effectiveness of the regulation; the lack of a low flow exclusion from the regulation; and the applicability of the rule. EPA evaluated all of these issues based on additional information collected by EPA or received during the comment period following the proposal. EPA then discussed the results of most of these evaluations in a Notice of Availability discussed below.

D. Notice of Availability

On July 20, 1999 (64 FR 38863), EPA published a Notice of Availability (NOA) in which the Agency presented a summary of new data collected by EPA or received in comments on the proposed rule. EPA discussed the major issues raised during the proposal comment period and presented several alternative approaches to address these issues. EPA solicited comment on these approaches and on the new data and analyses conducted in response to comments.

III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

This section describes the most significant changes to the rule since proposal. The majority of these changes have been in response to comments on the proposal. All of these changes were discussed in the Notice of Availability.

A. Concentration-Based Limitations

EPA proposed mass-based limitations. In the proposal and NOA, EPA discussed a change to the format of the rule that would establish concentration-based rather than mass-based limits. EPA received many comments on the proposal and on the NOA from regulatory authorities, industry stakeholders, and POTWs strongly supporting the concentration-based format of the rule. EPA received only one comment on the proposal supporting mass-based limits. In the NOA, EPA presented concentration-based limitations and explained its rationale for the change. Comments on the NOA were unanimously supportive of concentration-based limits. The final limitations and standards being promulgated today are concentration-based.

B. Modification to Subcategorization Approach

EPA proposed separate subcategories for the Truck/Chemical, Truck/Petroleum, Rail/Chemical, and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. In the proposal and NOA, EPA discussed combining the Truck/Chemical Subcategory and Truck/Petroleum Subcategory into the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and combining the Rail/Chemical Subcategory and Rail/Petroleum Subcategory into the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. In the NOA, EPA presented the preliminary conclusion for making this change, and presented the costs, loadings, and economic impacts that would result if this change were made.

The majority of the commenters on the NOA, including regulatory authorities, industry stakeholders, and POTWs, supported combining these subcategories. EPA received only one comment supporting separate subcategories. EPA concluded that the proposed definitions of the chemical and petroleum subcategories did not adequately define the difference between chemical and petroleum commodities. For the final regulation, EPA has combined the proposed chemical and petroleum subcategories in both the truck and rail segments of the industry.

Additionally, EPA has combined the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories into one subcategory, the Food Subcategory. For the proposed rule, subcategorization by transportation mode was necessary because the truck, rail, and barge facilities had different regulatory flows per tank cleaned, which resulted in different mass-based limits for each subcategory. Subcategorization of the Food Subcategory by transportation mode for the final regulation is unnecessary because the limits are all based on the same BPT technology, and the final concentration-based limits are identical for all TEC facilities cleaning food grade cargos.

C. Low Flow Exclusion

In the proposal, EPA considered establishing a minimum flow level for defining the scope of the regulation but did not propose a low-flow exclusion. EPA conducted an analysis to determine an appropriate flow exclusion level based on the economic impacts of low flow facilities, the economic impacts on small businesses, and the relative efficiency of treatment technologies for low flow facilities, in terms of pounds of pollutants removed.

Based on comments on the proposal, EPA re-evaluated a low-flow exclusion based on 100,000 gallons per year of TEC process wastewater and presented the results in the NOA. EPA presented the costs, loadings, and economic impacts that would result if this exclusion was adopted. EPA's analyses demonstrated that 26 low flow facilities generated much less than one percent of the baseline loadings to the industry. EPA received numerous comments which supported the adoption of a low flow exclusion due to the low amounts of toxics generated by these facilities.

EPA also received comments supporting establishing a low flow exclusion at 200,000 gallons of TEC process wastewater per year. In the NOA, EPA noted that one model facility (representing nine facilities) excluded at proposal would be added to the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and would therefore be subject to the TEC limitations. EPA noted that an exclusion set at 200,000 gallons per year would exclude this model facility from the regulation. Consequently, EPA evaluated establishing the cutoff at 200,000 gallons per year. Establishing a low flow cutoff at 200,000 gallons per year would exclude an additional nine facilities in the combined Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory which discharge a combined total of 680 pound equivalents. This equates to 3.1 percent of facilities discharging 2.3 percent of the loadings in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA determined that the facilities discharging between 100,000 to 200,000 gallons per year contribute a proportional amount of toxic loadings to the industry. Additionally, EPA found that if the low flow exclusion was raised from 100,000 to 200,000 gallons per year, there would be no decrease in the number of facilities projected to close or experience financial stress.

For the final regulation, EPA is excluding facilities that discharge less than 100,000 gallons per year of TEC process wastewater. Facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year will remain subject to limitations and standards established on a case-by-case basis using Best Professional Judgement by the permitting authority.

D. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates

In the NOA, EPA discussed a revision to the methodology for calculating pesticide and herbicide loadings. This revision was in response to a comment claiming that EPA overestimated pollutant reductions by using calculations based on a small number of data points detected at levels close to the pesticide/herbicide quantification levels. Specifically, EPA revised the proposed methodology by using the same editing criteria for pesticide/herbicide pollutants as were used for all other parameters. EPA made this change to the editing criteria which resulted in excluding parameters that were not detected in at least two samples and with average concentrations greater than five times the detection limit. The revised loadings were presented in the NOA.

EPA continued to receive comment from the industry that EPA had misidentified several pesticides and herbicides that were contributing to the calculation of toxic pound equivalent removals in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. Based on an extensive analysis of the pesticide data collected in support of the regulation, the EPA must concur that the laboratory analysis does not conclusively support the presence of several pesticides that were believed to be present in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory wastewater. Therefore, the Agency has labeled the analytical results for EPN and disulfoton as “questionable” and has subsequently removed these pesticides from the cost effectiveness analysis and benefits analysis. This approach has resulted in a significant decrease in toxic pound equivalent removals when compared to the approach used at proposal.

However, EPA believes that pesticides and herbicides are present in TEC wastewater. As evidenced by responses to the Detailed Questionnaire, only 5% of tank truck facilities prohibit the cleaning of tank trucks that have contained pesticides and herbicides, meaning that 95% of tank truck facilities may potentially clean a cargo that has contained pesticides or herbicides. As documented by comments submitted by the industry, site visit reports, and a recent trade association journal article, the TEC industry is a service industry that cleans out tank trucks as needed by customers. EPA has identified over 3,000 cargo types that are cleaned at tank truck facilities, and these cargos have been documented to include pesticide and herbicides.

E. Overlap With Other Guidelines

EPA proposed language for excluding certain commercial and industrial facilities from the TEC guideline. Many commenters believed that this language was too restrictive and that the TEC rule, as proposed, would encompass many industrial facilities that EPA did not intend to cover. In the NOA, EPA described several situations where it concurred with commenters that the proposed language was overly restrictive. These included industrial or manufacturing facilities that clean a small number of tank cars on site but that are not covered by an existing Clean Water Act categorical effluent guideline. EPA presented revised regulatory language for excluding certain industrial and commercial facilities which the Agency believed addressed the concerns raised by commenters and more clearly defined the exclusion. The majority of commenters supported the revised language, and no commenter opposed the language. Therefore, EPA has adopted language similar to that presented in the NOA for the final regulation. The final rule does not apply to wastewaters associated with tank cleanings performed in conjunction with other industrial, commercial, or POTW operations so long as the facility cleans only tanks and containers that have contained raw materials, by-products, and finished products that are associated with the facility's on-site processes.

EPA also received comments requesting that EPA specifically exclude TEC wastewaters generated by POTWs that clean out garbage trucks, biosolid waste haulers, tankers that contained landfill leachate, and street cleaning trucks. EPA does not believe that wastewater generated from cleaning garbage trucks, biosolids trucks, landfill leachate tankers, or street cleaning trucks meets EPA's definition of cleaning a tank that has contained a chemical, petroleum, or food grade product. However, in order to address the concern that POTWs would unnecessarily be subject to the TEC rule, EPA has added language in the final applicability section which states that wastewater cleaning operations performed at POTWs (in addition to other commercial and industrial operations) are not subject to the TEC guidelines. Additionally, EPA has adopted a low flow exclusion of 100,000 gallons per year to exclude from this rule those facilities which may perform a minimal amount of tank cleaning activities (see Section III.C).

In the proposal, EPA stated that facilities that are predominantly engaged in Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) operations and clean ocean/sea tankers, tank barges, rail tank cars, or tank trucks as part of those activities would likely be included in the upcoming MP&M regulations and, thus, are excluded from the TEC guideline. EPA received numerous comments asking EPA to more clearly define what is meant by “predominantly engaged.” In the NOA, EPA attempted to address these concerns by clarifying the distinction between MP&M wastewaters and TEC wastewaters based on the purpose of cleaning. All commenters supported the revised language presented in the NOA as addressing their concerns. Therefore, EPA is adopting the following language for the final regulation: “Wastewater generated from cleaning tank interiors for purposes of shipping products (

i.e.,

cleaned for purposes other than maintenance and repair) is considered

TEC process wastewater. Wastewater generated from cleaning tank interiors for the purposes of maintenance and repair on the tank is not considered TEC process wastewater.” It is possible that some facilities, or wastewater generated from some unit operations at these facilities, will be subject to the Metals Products & Machinery (MP&M) effluent guideline currently being developed by EPA. Facilities that clean tank interiors solely for the purposes of repair and maintenance would not be regulated under the TEC guideline.

Wastewater generated from cleaning tank interiors for purposes of shipping products (i.e., cleaned for purposes other than maintenance and repair) is considered TEC process wastewater and is subject to the TEC guideline. It is possible that a facility may be subject to both the TEC regulations and the MP&M regulations. If a facility generates wastewater from MP&M activities which is subject to the MP&M guideline and also discharges wastewater from cleaning tanks for purposes other than repair and maintenance of those tanks, then that facility may be subject to both guidelines.

F. Modification to Pollutants Selected for Regulation

EPA proposed limitations for a number of conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants. Many commenters requested that EPA establish oil and grease (measured as Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)) and non-polar oil and grease (measured as Silica-gel Treated Hexane Extractable Material (SGT-HEM)) as indicator pollutants for a number of other pollutants proposed to be regulated. In the NOA, EPA presented its evaluation for establishing indicator pollutants, and concluded that oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar oil and grease (SGT-HEM) could serve as indicator pollutants for the straight chain hydrocarbons proposed to be regulated. Comments on the NOA generally supported this conclusion. For the final regulation, EPA has established limits for oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar material (SGT-HEM) as indicator pollutants. EPA has therefore not established limits for any straight chain hydrocarbon, but has established limits for polyaromatic hydrocarbons for certain subcategories.

Furthermore, as described in Section VI. of this notice, EPA has decided to promulgate effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for mercury in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA has also eliminated zinc as regulated pollutant in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and has decided to eliminate COD as a regulated pollutant in all subcategories.

G. Technology Options

EPA presented revised costs and loads in the NOA for the technology options considered for the proposal. The costs and loads were revised due to a number of changes, which were discussed in the NOA. In summary, EPA revised the cost model; reduced the monitoring costs; revised the list of pollutants effectively removed; combined the Truck/Chemical and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories; combined the Rail/Chemical and Rail/ Petroleum Subcategories; and adopted a low flow exclusion.

EPA also discussed in the NOA several options it was considering in lieu of the proposed options for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum and Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories, including the associated costs, loads, economic impacts, and environmental benefits. Based on the revised analysis, EPA is selecting Option I instead of Option II for PSES and PSNS in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is selecting Option II for BPT, BAT, BCT and NSPS. EPA had proposed Option I for BPT, BAT, and BCT and Option III for NSPS. For indirect dischargers in the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is selecting Option II for both PSES and PSNS instead of Option I for PSES and Option III for PSNS. Additionally, EPA has decided to establish PSES based on Option II for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory in order to prevent pass through or interference at a POTW.

EPA has eliminated flow reduction from the technology options for all subcategories because it is promulgating concentration-based rather than mass-based limitations. Note, however, that EPA has retained flow reduction as a cost-effective compliance strategy for several subcategories.

Sections VII, VIII, and IX of this notice present the final costs, pollutant reductions, economic impacts, and water quality impacts for EPA's selected options. The technology options are described in Section V of this notice. A description of the wastewater treatment technology components of the options can be found in Section VIII of the proposal and in the Technical Development Document.

IV. Applicability of Final Regulation

EPA is establishing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges from facilities engaged in cleaning the interiors of tanks including tank trucks, rail tank cars, intermodal tank containers, tank barges, and ocean/sea tankers used to transport commodities that come into direct contact with the tank or container interior. Facilities which do not engage in cleaning the interior of tanks are not considered within the scope of this rule.

The wastewater flows covered by the rule include all washwaters that come into direct contact with the tank or container interior including pre-rinse cleaning solutions, chemical cleaning solutions, and final rinse solutions. Additionally, the rule would cover wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors, equipment and floor washings, and TEC contaminated wastewater only at those facilities subject to the TEC guidelines and standards.

EPA evaluated the following subcategorization approach for the final regulation: Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory; Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory; Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory; Food Subcategory; Truck/Hopper Subcategory; Rail/Hopper Subcategory; and Barge/Hopper Subcategory. Table 1 presents the final regulatory approach.

Table

1.—

Regulatory Approach for the TEC Category

Subcategory

BPT and BCT

BAT

NSPS

PSES

PSNS

Truck/Chemical & Petroleum

X

X

X

X

X

Rail/Chemical & Petroleum

X

X

X

X

X

Barge/Chemical & Petroleum

X

X

X

X

X

Food

X

X

Truck/Hopper

Rail/Hopper

Barge/Hopper

EPA is establishing effluent limitations guidelines for existing facilities and new sources discharging wastewater directly to surface waters in the following subcategories: Truck/Chemical & Petroleum, Rail/Chemical & Petroleum, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, and Food Subcategory. EPA is establishing pretreatment standards for existing facilities and new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum, Rail/Chemical & Petroleum, and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories.

For the Food Subcategory, EPA is establishing effluent limitations guidelines for existing and new facilities discharging directly to surface waters. These limitations and standards are established to control discharges of conventional pollutants which may adversely affect waterways when discharged directly to surface waters. Few priority pollutants were found in food wastewaters; thus, EPA has chosen to not establish BAT limitations for the Food Subcategory. Because POTWs have the ability to treat conventional pollutants, EPA concluded that it was unnecessary to establish pretreatment standards for the Food Subcategory. Comments received on the proposal predominantly supported EPA's regulatory approach for the Food Subcategory.

EPA is not establishing effluent limitations guidelines or standards for the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories. Closed-top hopper trucks, rail cars, and barges are used to transport dry bulk materials such as coal, grain, and fertilizers. Raw wastewater generated from cleaning the interiors of hoppers was found to contain very few priority pollutants at treatable levels. This is likely due to the fact that the residual materials (heels) from dry bulk goods are easily removed prior to washing, and that relatively little wastewater is generated from cleaning the interiors of hopper tanks due to the dry nature of bulk materials transported. These facts result in low pollutant loadings being present in the wastewater discharges from hopper tank cleaning. Based on the low pollutant loadings associated with wastewater discharge from the hopper subcategories, the Agency concluded that it is not necessary to establish nationally-applicable effluent limitations for these subcategories. Rather, direct dischargers will remain subject to effluent limitations established on a case-by-case basis using Best Professional Judgement, and indirect dischargers may be subject to local pretreatment limits as necessary to prevent pass through or interference. EPA received comments supporting this conclusion.

EPA received comments on the proposal requesting that EPA include wastewater from cleaning the interiors of intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) within the scope of this regulation. The commenter believed that IBCs generate a significant amount of loadings in the industry; therefore, excluding IBCs would give an economic advantage to facilities that clean only IBCs because these facilities would not be covered by the TEC regulation. In response to these comments, EPA collected additional data on IBC cleaning performed by the TEC industry and then conducted an economic analysis on the impact of IBC cleaning on the tank truck industry. This information and analysis were presented in the NOA. Based on the analysis presented in Section VII of the NOA, EPA concluded that wastewater generated from IBC cleaning should not be included in the scope of this guideline. As discussed in the NOA, EPA will continue to evaluate the Industrial Container and Drum Cleaning Industry as a potential candidate for future regulation.

TEC process wastewater includes all wastewaters associated with cleaning the interiors of tanks including: tank trucks; rail tank cars; intermodal tank containers; tank barges; and ocean/sea tankers used to transport commodities or cargos that come into direct contact with the tank or container interior. At those facilities subject to the TEC guidelines and standards, TEC process wastewaters also include wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors, equipment and floor washings, and TEC-contaminated stormwater. TEC process wastewater is defined to include only wastewater generated from a regulated TEC subcategory. Therefore, TEC process wastewater does not include wastewater generated from the hopper facilities, or from food grade facilities discharging to a POTW.

EPA is adopting a low flow exclusion for this regulation. A facility that discharges less than 100,000 gallons per year of TEC process wastewater is not subject to the TEC guidelines. EPA is adopting this exclusion due to the very low pollutant loadings associated with facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year.

Facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year of TEC process wastewater will remain subject to limitations and standards established on a case-by-case basis using Best Professional Judgement by the permitting authority.

V. Technology Options Selected for Basis of Regulation

All of the treatment technologies considered for the final regulations were discussed in the proposal. In the NOA, EPA presented the costs, loads, and impacts for one option in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory that were not presented in the proposal. This option, consisting of equalization and oil/water separation only, was a component of other options in the proposal but had not been evaluated separately as a regulatory option.

The following sections summarize the technology options that EPA considered for each subcategory. The costs, loads, economic impacts, and environmental benefits for the selected options are also presented. All results presented in this notice are expressed in 1998 dollars.

A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

EPA evaluated the following treatment options for the final regulation:

Option I: Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering.

Option II: Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, Biological Treatment,

Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.

EPA proposed to establish BPT limits based on Option II, and to establish BCT, BAT, and NSPS equivalent to BPT. In the proposal, EPA stated that all three model facilities have equalization, coagulation/clarification, biological treatment, and activated carbon in place. Two of the three facilities in the cost model have sufficient treatment in place; therefore, costs for additional monitoring only are attributed to these facilities. The third facility was costed for flow reduction, sludge dewatering, and monitoring. Flow reduction and sludge dewatering generates net cost savings for the facility's entire treatment train. In addition, these net cost savings are larger than the monitoring costs incurred by the other two facilities.

EPA determined that Option II is economically achievable because it will result in a net cost savings to the industry, and will not cause any facility closures, revenue impacts, or employment impacts. EPA did not identify any more stringent treatment technology option which it considers to represent NSPS level of control.

EPA did not consider any changes to the option selected for this subcategory in the NOA. EPA did not receive any comments specific to option selection for direct discharging facilities in this subcategory in the proposal or the NOA. EPA has therefore established BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS based on Option II.

2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

EPA evaluated the following treatment options for the final regulation:

Option A: Equalization and Oil/Water Separation.

Option I: Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, and Sludge Dewatering.

Option II: Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.

In response to comments received, EPA has also considered a pollution prevention approach as a compliance option, as discussed below.

EPA proposed to establish PSES and PSNS at Option II. In the NOA, EPA presented revised costs, loads and impacts for each option, and stated that Options I and A were also being considered for PSES and PSNS. EPA is today promulgating a pollution prevention compliance option for this subcategory as well as promulgating a traditional compliance option (

i.e.

a set of numeric pretreatment standards) based on Option I.

EPA received comments on the proposed technology options from the affected industry and from other stakeholders. Several commenters expressed concern that Option II, which includes activated carbon adsorption, was an excessive and costly level of treatment for indirect dischargers in the tank cleaning industry. Commenters also expressed concern that Option A level of control may be inadequate to control tank cleaning wastewater discharges. Several commenters were concerned with the discrepancy of treatment options proposed for the truck and rail segments of the industry.

EPA also received technical comment questioning the presence of specific pesticides in raw tank truck cleaning wastewater, and the pollutant removals associated with these pesticides for the various options.

EPA also received comments from stakeholders that encouraged EPA to explore the use of pollution prevention plans as an alternative to extensive treatment. Generally, EPA seeks to encourage practices that reduce pollutant generation or minimize the extent to which they enter treatment systems because of the substantial opportunities for reducing both treatment costs and the total pollutant load to the environment. Specifically, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) “declares it to be the national policy of the United States that pollution should be prevented or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort * * *”.

As described in Section VIII.A of the proposal, EPA identified and evaluated a number of pollution prevention controls applicable to the industry, including the use of dedicated tanks, heel (residual cargo remaining in tanks following unloading) minimization, water conservation practices, and reduction in the toxicity and amount of chemical cleaning solutions. These controls were also described in more detail in Chapter 8 of the proposed Technical Development Document. EPA identified these controls as voluntary practices that many facilities in the industry were already incorporating. POTWs have also required such practices as part of their local pretreatment requirements. For example, some POTWs have required that facilities segregate specific wastewaters such as cleaning solutions or pesticide residues, or have prohibited the discharge of wastewaters associated with acid brighteners.

EPA believes that pollution prevention and effective pollutant management is an appropriate and effective way of reducing pollutant discharges from this subcategory. Further, the Agency believes that providing a pollution prevention compliance option may be less costly than the technology options considered for regulation. Therefore EPA is providing both a pollution prevention option based on development and implementation of a Pollutant Management Plan (PMP) and a set of numeric limits allows facility owners and operators to choose the less expensive compliance alternative. Based on its economic analysis of technology Option I, EPA believes that PSES and PSNS based on a choice between effective pollution prevention and limits based on Option I is economically achievable for this subcategory. For the portion of the industry that already has extensive treatment in place, it may be more cost effective to comply with the numeric limits. Conversely, for those facilities already utilizing good pollution prevention practices and/or operating in accordance with a PMP, it may be more cost effective to use the pollution prevention compliance alternative.

Nationally applicable pretreatment standards are designed to prevent pass through or interference with a POTW. The legislative history of the 1972 Act indicates that pretreatment standards are to be technology-based and analogous to the BAT effluent limitations guidelines for removal of toxic pollutants. EPA conducted a pass through analysis for the pollutants of concern. EPA determined that several pollutants would pass through a POTW. The results of this analysis are presented in Section VI. of this notice. Today's rule includes numeric limits for several of these pollutants for facilities which choose not to use the pollution prevention compliance option.

Without considering a pollution prevention compliance option, Option A has a post-tax annualized cost of $5.2 million ($8.1 million pre-tax) for 286 facilities. Option I's cost is $9.2 million ($14.4 million pre-tax), and Option II's cost is $20.9 million ($32.9 million pre-

tax). Costs for any of the options in combination with a pollution prevention compliance option would likely be lower.

For the final regulation, EPA projects that there will be no closures or employment impacts for any option (even without a Pollution prevention compliance option) when a positive cost pass through assumption is made. When zero cost pass through is assumed, EPA's economic analysis indicates that 14 facilities may experience financial stress at Option I, and that 22 facilities may experience financial stress at Option II. At Option I, none of the 14 facilities experiencing financial stress are small businesses; at Option II, 7 of the 22 facilities experiencing financial stress are small businesses.

In addition to the financial stress analysis, EPA also evaluated revenue impacts at small businesses. EPA projects that the compliance cost would not be greater than three percent of revenue for any small businesses at Option I, but would exceed that percentage for 14 small business at Option II under the positive cost pass through assumption. For the zero cost pass through assumption, 14 small businesses are projected to exceed revenue impacts of three percent at Option A; 29 small businesses at Option I; and 36 small businesses at Option II.

Option A is projected to result in no monetized benefits. EPA estimates that implementation of Option I will result in significantly higher benefits than Option A, ranging from $1.5 million to $5.2 million annually. However, EPA estimates that Option II would not result in any significant additional monetized benefits incremental to Option I.

EPA also examined the projected pollutant removals and cost effectiveness of each option. In assessing removals of toxic pollutants, EPA estimates actual reductions that would be achieved by the treatment option under consideration, adjusts these to account for removals that occur at the POTW anyway, and then converts the actual pounds removed to toxic pound equivalents using a standardized set of toxic weighting factors. For Option A, EPA projects total removals for this subcategory of 1,500 toxic pound equivalents. For Option I, EPA projects total removals for this subcategory of 11,700 toxic pound equivalents. For Option II, EPA projects total removals for this subcategory of 20,900 toxic pound equivalents.

Section X of the preamble for the proposed rule describes EPA's cost effectiveness analysis. EPA uses cost effectiveness to evaluate the relative efficiency of each option in removing toxic pollutants. The cost effectiveness of Option A is estimated to be $3,200/PE. The average cost effectiveness of Option I is estimated to be $740/PE , and the incremental cost effectiveness over Option A is estimated to be $370/PE . The average cost effectiveness of Option II is estimated to be $940/PE , and the incremental cost effectiveness over Option I is estimated to be $1,200/PE .

EPA notes that these cost-effectiveness estimates do not include any credit for reductions of a number of pesticides, herbicides, or other toxic agents that may be present in TEC wastewater at some facilities but that were not found at the time of EPA's sampling. According to the detailed questionnaire responses, EPA notes that over 3,000 types of cargos are being cleaned at tank truck facilities. However, absent better estimates, EPA based its analysis on those toxic substances that were confirmed present by its sampling protocols. Based on the number presented above, EPA was concerned that the cost effectiveness estimates were high and the toxic removal estimates were low when compared to those calculated for many of the primary manufacturing industries for which EPA has promulgated pretreatment standards.

As the Agency evaluated whether or not to establish pretreatment standards for this subcategory, and at what technology option, EPA compared its information on this subcategory to that for the Industrial Laundries point source category (64 FR 45072), which EPA ultimately decided not to regulate at the national level.

First, EPA found that the estimated pollutants were similarly low for both industries. However, in contrast to the Industrial Laundries decision, the TEC record identifies a wide range of pollutants of concern to POTWs, and identified problems (past and recent) with TEC facilities that have included interference and pass through, upsets due to slug loads, not meeting local limits, and sludge contamination. These problems have generally been addressed by the application of appropriate local limits. Pretreatment authorities submitting comments on the proposal generally supported regulation of this industry. Already, 44% of the industry has been required to install technology equivalent to Option I, and 86% of the industry has been required to install technology equivalent to Option A.

Second, for industrial laundries, EPA estimated a reduction of 32 PE per facility at an average cost of $84,000 ($1998 post-tax) for the preferred option among the technology options. EPA estimates that under the preferred option for this TEC subcategory (Option I), a reduction of 40 PE per facility would be achieved at an average cost of $30,000 ($1998 post-tax).

Third, in terms of the cost effectiveness analysis, the economically achievable options for both industries had costs per PE that are high. However, the CE for laundries (at $2,360/PE) was significantly higher than the CE for this subcategory of the TEC industry (at $740/PE).

Finally, in terms of economic impacts, EPA determined that the preferred option was economically achievable in both cases. However, EPA also noted that 44 laundry facilities were projected to close under the preferred option, and no firms were projected to experience stress. No facility closures are projected under the preferred option for this TEC subcategory, and no facilities were projected to experience financial stress if they are able to pass some costs through to customers. If the facilities were unable to pass costs through to customers, 14 facilities are projected to occur financial stress.

EPA also notes that the cost-benefit analysis for the preferred treatment option for the industrial laundries industry indicated that the rule, if published, would have annual pre-tax costs of $131.2 million (1993$) and annual monetized benefits of $0.07-$0.35 million (1993$). The Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory has an annual pre-tax cost of $14.4 million and annualized monetized benefits of $1.5-$5.2 million (1998$) annually.

In summary, EPA has determined that in some respects, this subcategory is similar to the industrial laundries industry that EPA decided not to regulate (

e.g.

small pollutant removals) but in other respects it is significantly different (

e.g.

greater potential for POTW interference and less significant economic impacts).

While EPA believes that pretreatment standards are appropriate for the TEC industry, EPA acknowledges that costs for some facilities may be high relative to removals. For the 14% of facilities with no treatment in place, EPA estimated that the average cost per facility could be as high as $100,000 per year on a pre-tax basis, and would remove 67 PE per facility per year. The Agency also does not want to establish an inflexible regulation that may not be able to offer the most environmentally responsible yet cost effective solution to a particular wastestream at a individual TEC facility. In light of this, and considering the wide variety of tanker cargos accepted for cleaning, EPA recognizes that one of the most

successful means of reducing the discharge of pollutants in wastewater may be pollution prevention and source reduction.

EPA evaluated potential regulatory structures for pollution prevention practices and concluded that the Agency should promulgate a regulatory option that would reduce the pollutant loadings being discharged and also prevent pass through and interference, but that may allow more opportunities for pollution prevention than nationally applicable numeric pretreatment standards. In evaluating a pollution prevention alternative, EPA considered a number of factors that included public comments received, industry support, costs, and environmental benefits. EPA believes that the pass through and interference of pollutants of concern to EPA and to the pretreatment authorities can be appropriately controlled through effective pollution prevention and pollutant management tailored to the circumstances of the individual facility through a Pollutant Management Plan. EPA believes these pollutants can also be controlled through compliance with the numeric limits based on technology Option I. EPA is thus offering both options for compliance with PSES and PSNS.

EPA has had discussions with industry stakeholders and the U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy and EPA believes that it has sufficient support from stakeholders to proceed with this dual approach, and that this approach will provide effective pollutant reductions that prevent pass through, interference, and sludge contamination at the POTWs.

EPA has chosen to establish a pollution prevention compliance option, as well as tradition PSES and PSNS limits based on Option I. EPA does not believe that the lower cost Option A removed enough toxics to justify its selection as the basis for pretreatment standards. Additionally, EPA agrees with comments received from pretreatment authorities, including the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), that oil/water separation alone is not effective for achieving appropriate reductions of the pollutants which may be discharged by TEC facilities. AMSA also indicated its support for effective pollution prevention practices as an alternative to numeric limits for these facilities.

Although Option II removed significantly more pound equivalents than Option I, Option II does not achieve significant incremental reductions for any regulated pollutant and is not projected to result in any increased monetized benefits. Also, EPA notes that Option II has the potential to cause more economic impacts than Option I. EPA does not believe that the considerable cost increase for Option II incremental to Option I is justified. Therefore, EPA decided that limits based on Option II are not appropriate for this subcategory.

EPA believes that a dual approach which offers facilities a choice between Pollution prevention and compliance with numeric limits based on Option I is economically achievable and will significantly reduce pollutant loadings. Option I does not result in any projected closures, even with a zero cost pass through assumption. Although 14 facilities are projected to incur financial stress under this assumption, this is a relatively small percentage of the subcategory population (two percent of the industry) and none of these facilities are small businesses. Under the assumption of some cost pass through to customers, no facilities are projected to experience financial stress. Additionally, EPA believes that it has responded to many commenters' concerns by requiring similar levels of control for the truck and rail subcategories and by providing the pollution prevention compliance option for both subcategories and by omitting granular activated carbon, a potentially costly treatment addition, from the selected PSES and PSNS treatment option for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. Also, EPA has made a finding of no barrier to entry associated with Option I level of control for new sources (discussed in Section VIII). Therefore, EPA is establishing PSES and PSNS based on a dual approach involving a pollution prevention compliance option and traditional limits based on Option I technologies.

The Agency believes that the implementation of a Pollutant Management Plan that ensures that heels, chemicals, and mixtures that are incompatible with POTW systems are not discharged to POTWs, and ensures appropriate handling of such materials (by recycle, reuse, effective pretreatment, or off-site treatment or disposal) would provide comparable effluent reductions. Wastewaters resulting from heel removals, prerinse solutions, and cleaning solutions normally contain the highest concentrations of pollutants in TEC wastewater. Some facilities will find it less costly to implement pollution prevention and pollutant management controls, while others will find it less costly to meet numeric limits. As a regulatory compliance alternative, facility owners and operators would be given the flexibility to choose the less expensive compliance alternative,

i.e.

either meeting the specific numeric pretreatment standards, or by implementing a Pollutant Management Plan.

The management plan would require facilities to implement procedures for identifying cargos, the cleaning of which is likely to result in discharges of pollutants that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW. This would include cargos containing pesticides, herbicides, and other toxic compounds that are not effectively treated by biological treatment. The plan would also require facilities to fully drain heels from such cargos, segregate those heels from other wastewaters, and handle them in an appropriate manner. Appropriate handling of heels could include return of the heel to the customer, off-site treatment or disposal, or pretreatment that has been demonstrated to result in sufficient reductions to prevent pass through or interference. The plan would likewise require facilities to prerinse or presteam such cargos as appropriate, segregate the prerinse/presteam wastewaters from other wastewaters as appropriate and handle in an appropriate manner to ensure that they do not cause or contribute to a discharge that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW. Appropriate handling of prerinse/presteam wastewaters could include recycle/reuse, off-site treatment or disposal, or pretreatment that has been demonstrated to result in sufficient reductions to prevent pass through or interference.

In addition, the plan would require that all spent cleaning solutions be segregated as appropriate and handled in an appropriate manner to ensure that they do not cause or contribute to a discharge that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW. Spent cleaning solutions include interior caustic washes, interior presolve washes, interior detergent washes, interior acid washes, and exterior acid brightener washes. Appropriate handling of spent cleaning solutions could include regeneration of the solutions, off-site treatment or disposal, or pretreatment that has been demonstrated to result in sufficient reductions to prevent pass through or interference.

The plan would also require the appropriate recycling or reuse of cleaning agents; the minimization of toxic cleaning agent use; and the maintenance of appropriate records on heel management, prerinse/presteam management, cleaning agent management, operator training, and

proper operation and maintenance of any pretreatment systems.

The plans would also provide information on the volumes, content, and chemical characteristics of cleaning agents used in cleaning or brightening operations.

EPA has identified these pollution prevention practices through its data collection efforts in support of this rulemaking, and EPA believes that it has developed the most appropriate combination of Pollution prevention practices that provides maximum flexibility while ensuring significant pollutant reductions.

B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

1. BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

EPA evaluated three treatment options for the final regulation:

Option I: Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering.

Option II: Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), Biological Treatment and Sludge Dewatering.

Option III: Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), Biological Treatment, Organo-Clay/Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.

EPA proposed Option I for BPT, and proposed to establish BCT and BAT equivalent to BPT. EPA proposed Option III for NSPS. EPA did not receive any comments following the proposal or the NOA specific to establishing limits for direct discharging facilities in this subcategory.

All regulated toxic parameters were treated to the same level at Options I, II, and III. As discussed in Section VI, EPA did not have sampling data for direct dischargers in this subcategory because EPA only identified one direct discharger and it does not have the treatment technology used as the basis for BPT. EPA has therefore relied on technology transfer from the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory to establish limits for conventionals, and data from indirect dischargers in the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory to establish limits for toxic pollutants. Although EPA believes that the treatment in place at the one rail direct discharging facility (consisting of oil/water separation, equalization, pH adjustment, biological treatment, and a filter press) is sufficient to meet the limitations, EPA has decided to establish BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS based on Option II, which includes dissolved air flotation (DAF). EPA believes that this is the most appropriate technology because the dataset used to transfer limits (from both the rail indirect facilities and the barge direct facilities) includes DAF treatment. Therefore, EPA has included the additional costs of DAF treatment for the one direct discharging rail facility, even though this has not changed the limitations presented in the NOA.

As discussed in Section VIII.B.1.c of the proposal, EPA evaluated the costs, loads, and impacts of the one model direct discharging facility. EPA estimates that the cost of implementing Option I, for monitoring only, is about $4,900 annually on a post-tax basis ($7,600 pre-tax). EPA's estimate of costs for Option II is $40,800 annually on a post-tax basis ($59,000 pre-tax), and for Option III is $60,600 annually on a post-tax basis ($89,000 pre-tax). EPA projects that this facility would not close or experience revenue impacts, employment impacts, or financial stress at Option I or Option II level of control. EPA's economic analysis indicates that Option III would have higher costs for the existing facility used as the basis for today's regulation. The single direct discharge facility used for analysis would not close under Option III, but this facility would have annualized costs that exceed three percent of annual revenue. The results of the annualized costs to sales analysis shows a high impact that should be avoided if possible since these additional costs would not provide incremental pollutant removals in comparison to Option II.

In addition, the incremental economic impacts projected at Option III may create a barrier to entry for new sources. Therefore, EPA does not believe that there are additional removals or benefits to be obtained by establishing NSPS at a more stringent level of control, and EPA decided to establish NSPS equivalent to BPT, BCT, and BAT.

2. PSES and PSNS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

EPA considered three options for the final regulation:

Option I—Oil/Water Separation.

Option II—Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), and Sludge Dewatering.

Option III—Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), Organo-Clay/Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.

EPA proposed Option I for PSES and Option III for PSNS. As discussed in Section VIII.B.5.d of the proposal, the economic impacts to the industry played a large role in EPA's selection of Option I for pretreatment standards. EPA noted that its preliminary conclusion was that Option II was projected to result in six facility closures and was not considered to be economically achievable.

EPA received several comments on the pollutant control technologies proposed for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA received comments from several entities, including AMSA, who argued that oil/water separation alone is not sufficient pretreatment for the pollutants in Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory wastewaters. Additionally, many commenters have expressed concern about the discrepancy in treatment technology proposed for the rail and truck facilities. Several commenters argued that the wastewater characteristics are similar for truck and rail facilities, and that the treatment options should therefore be similar for facilities which potentially compete with each other.

EPA has determined that a Pollutant Management Plan is an appropriate compliance alternative to the numerical pretreatment standards also being promulgated in today's rule for the rail/chemical and petroleum subcategory. As explained elsewhere in today's notice, the Agency believes this Pollutant Management Plan alternative is consistent with the CWA and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990; is comparable to the numerical standards in terms of pollutant removal and costs incurred by facilities; is economically achievable; and will allow an appropriate level of flexibility to facility owners and operators on how to best achieve a reduction in pollutants being discharged to the POTW. The full discussion of the Agency's reasoning is set forth in section V.A of today's notice.

In the proposal, EPA also noted this discrepancy, and noted that there were many similarities between the truck and rail subcategory wastewaters, and that the most significant reason for proposing dissimilar technology options in the truck and rail subcategories was due to economic considerations. EPA's analysis showed that several rail facilities were unable to incur the costs of a more stringent regulatory option without sustaining significant economic impacts. However, all of the financially

stressed rail facilities will now qualify for the low flow exclusion (see Section III.C of this notice). Additionally, as discussed in Section VI, EPA has reduced monitoring costs by establishing indicator parameters. Removing low flow facilities and some monitoring costs from EPA's analysis has affected the total costs, loads, and economic impacts of the technology options for this subcategory.

For the final regulation, EPA estimates that Option I will have an annualized cost of $589,000 post-tax ($897,000 pre-tax), Option II will cost $1.0 million post-tax ($1.5 million pre-tax), and Option III will cost $1.6 million post-tax ($2.5 million pre-tax). EPA projects that Option I and Option II will both result in monetized benefits of $54,000 to $285,000 annually, and that Option III would result in benefits of $1.0 to $3.9 million annually.

EPA conducted a pass through analysis for the pollutants selected for regulation under BAT. EPA determined that several pollutants would pass through a POTW. The results of this analysis are presented in Section VI. of this notice.

For Options I, II, and III, EPA anticipates no closures, revenue impacts, or employment impacts at even the most conservative assumption of no cost pass through. Additionally, EPA does not anticipate any facilities will experience financial stress at Options I, II, or III.

EPA also considers the cost effectiveness to evaluate the relative efficiency of each option in removing toxic pollutants. Option I is projected to remove 6,600 pound equivalents, Option II will remove 7,300 pound equivalents, and Option III will remove 7,800 pound equivalents.

EPA has decided to establish PSES and PSNS based on Option II. Although Option III is projected to remove more pound equivalents and also result in higher monetized benefits then Option II, Option III was not demonstrated to achieve significant reductions incremental to Option II for any regulated pollutant. The increase in monetized benefits in Option II was due to the removal of several pesticides not proposed for regulation. EPA has discussed its rationale for not establishing limitations for pesticides in Section VI. Therefore, EPA does not believe that the higher costs for Option III justify its selection for pretreatment standards for new sources.

As noted in the NOA, the cost of Option II is 70 percent higher than the costs for Option I, and the corresponding increase in pound equivalents removed is approximately 10 percent. Comparatively, the cost of Option III is 65 percent higher than the costs for Option II, and the corresponding increase in pound equivalents removed is approximately six percent. While this results in a relatively high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for both Options II and III, EPA has decided to establish PSES based on Option II for the reasons discussed above. Option II, which is analogous to Option I in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, achieves a significant reduction in toxic loadings and results in no closures, financial stress, or revenue impacts. Additionally, EPA has modified the proposal to decrease costs for the industry, and the final costs for Option II are roughly equivalent to the costs estimated for Option I at proposal. EPA has therefore decided to establish PSES and PSNS based on Option II.

C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

EPA considered two options for the final regulation:

Option I: Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter Press, Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering.

Option II: Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter Press, Biological Treatment, Reverse Osmosis, and Sludge Dewatering.

EPA proposed Option I for BPT, and proposed to establish BCT, BAT and NSPS equivalent to BPT. EPA estimates the annualized costs for Option I at $89,500 annually post-tax ($146,300 pre-tax) and Option II at $345,700 annually post-tax ($540,900 pre-tax). EPA estimates that both Option I and Option II remove 19,300 pounds of BOD

5

and TSS. Based on the treatment technologies in place at the model facilities, coupled with the biological treatment system upgrades estimated by EPA to achieve Option I performance levels, EPA predicts that Option II would not result in any additional removal of toxic pollutants because most pollutants are already treated to very low levels, often approaching or below non-detect levels. EPA did not receive any support for establishing BPT, BCT, BAT, or NSPS at Option II.

EPA has therefore decided to establish BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS based on Option I.

2. PSES and PSNS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

EPA considered three options for the final regulation:

Option I—Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, and Filter Press.

Option II—Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter Press, Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering.

Option III—Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter Press, Biological Treatment, Reverse Osmosis, and Sludge Dewatering.

EPA proposed Option II for PSNS. EPA did not propose PSES for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory because EPA identified only one facility discharging to a POTW. However, since the proposal, EPA has identified four facilities which previously discharged directly to surface waters and have since either switched or plan to switch discharge status. EPA noted this change in discharge status for these four barge facilities in the NOA, and EPA now estimates that there are five facilities in EPA's model which discharge wastewater to a POTW.

EPA evaluated the treatment in place and levels of control currently achieved by the model indirect discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities. EPA was able to evaluate effluent discharge concentrations of BOD

5

, TSS, and oil and grease from each of these model facilities (EPA did not have the data to evaluate the discharge concentrations of other parameters). Based on the discharge concentrations of these conventional pollutants, EPA believes that all model indirect discharging facilities are meeting the levels of control that would be established under PSES, and that the effluent concentrations of other pollutants of interest would also be similarly controlled.

Therefore, EPA estimates that the cost of implementing PSES standards equivalent to PSNS would be solely for increased monitoring costs, totaling approximately $67,000 (pre-tax) annually. EPA believes that all indirectly discharging facilities have sufficient treatment in place to meet standards that would be established under PSES. EPA predicts that there would be no incremental removals or benefits associated with establishing PSES standards. EPA has not received any comments that disagreed with the Agency's assessment that existing facilities would meet the standards.

EPA evaluated the pass through of pollutants regulated under BAT. As was

discussed at proposal for establishment of NSPS, and in the NOA for SGT-HEM, EPA found that a number of pollutants would in fact pass through a POTW based on BAT treatment. Due to the pass through of a number of pollutants, and due to the number of facilities that have switched discharge status since proposal, EPA concluded that it should establish PSES and PSNS based on Option II. EPA believes that PSES is necessary in order to establish similar levels of control for direct and indirect dischargers, and especially to establish similar levels of control for those facilities which may decide to switch discharge status.

As noted under NSPS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA believes that Option III, consisting of reverse osmosis treatment, would not result in a significant reduction of toxic pollutants, because most pollutants are already treated to low levels based on Option II level of control. Option II was demonstrated to treat many regulated pollutants to effluent levels approaching the detection limit. EPA has therefore decided to establish PSES and PSNS based on Option II.

D. Food Subcategory

EPA proposed to establish separate subcategories for the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food subcategories due to the differences in the amount of water generated per cleaning by truck, rail, and barge facilities. The different volumes of wastewater were used to establish distinct mass-based limits in each of the subcategories. However, EPA is establishing concentration-based instead of mass-based limits, making further subcategorization of food facilities by transportation mode unnecessary.

1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Food Subcategory

EPA considered the following options for the final regulation:

Option I—Oil/Water Separation.

Option II—Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering.

Based on screener survey results, EPA estimates that there are 19 direct discharging facilities in the Food Subcategory.

EPA proposed Option II for BPT, BCT, and NSPS. In the proposal, EPA stated that no additional pollutant removals and no additional costs to the industry were projected because all facilities identified by EPA currently have the proposed technology in place. EPA has not received any comment objecting to the assumptions or conclusions contained in the proposal. EPA therefore continues to believe that all food grade facilities currently have the proposed treatment technology in place, and that Option II represents the average of the best treatment. EPA has decided to establish BPT at Option II, and to establish BCT and NSPS equivalent to BPT. Based on the analysis of existing facilities, EPA concluded that there would be no barrier to entry for new sources based on Option II. Additionally, EPA did not identify any treatment technology for the Food Subcategory that would achieve significant pollutant removals or would establish effluent limitations significantly more stringent than those being established under BPT. EPA is not establishing BAT because EPA did not identify toxic or non-conventional pollutants at levels sufficient to merit regulation.

2. PSES and PSNS for the Food Subcategory

In the Agency's engineering assessment of pretreatment of wastewaters for the Food Subcategory, EPA considered the types and concentrations of pollutants found in raw wastewaters in this subcategory. As expected, food grade facilities did not discharge significant quantities of toxic pollutants to POTWs. In addition, conventional pollutants present in the wastewater are amenable to treatment at a POTW. As a result, EPA did not propose to establish pretreatment standards for any of the food subcategories. Comments received on the proposal predominantly supported EPA's regulatory approach for the Food Subcategory. Therefore, EPA is not establishing PSES or PSNS for the Food Subcategory in the final regulation.

E. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories

1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories.

EPA did not propose to establish BPT, BAT, BCT, or NSPS regulations for any of the hopper subcategories. EPA concluded that hopper facilities discharge very few pounds of conventional or toxic pollutants. This is based on EPA sampling data, which showed very few priority toxic pollutants at treatable levels in raw wastewater. Additionally, very little wastewater is generated from cleaning the interiors of hopper tanks due to the dry nature of bulk materials transported. EPA estimates that nine hopper facilities discharge 21 pound equivalents per year to surface waters, or about two pound equivalents per year per facility. Comments on the proposal generally supported EPA's conclusion on the hopper subcategories. Therefore, EPA concluded that nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary and hopper facilities will remain subject to limitations established on a case-by-case basis using Best Professional Judgement.

2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories

EPA also did not propose to establish PSES or PSNS for any of the hopper subcategories. EPA estimates that there are 42 indirect discharging hopper facilities which discharge a total of 3.5 pound equivalents to the nation's waterways, or less than one pound-equivalent per facility. Additionally, EPA estimates that the total cost to the industry to implement PSES would be greater than $350,000 annually. The estimated costs to control the discharge of these small amounts of pound equivalents were not considered to be reasonable. EPA also evaluated the levels of pollutants in raw wastewaters and concluded that none were present at levels that are expected to cause inhibition to the receiving POTW.

Therefore, EPA concluded that nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary and hopper facilities will remain subject to local pretreatment limits as necessary to prevent pass through or interference.

VI. Development of Effluent Limitations

A. Selection of Pollutant Parameters for Final Regulation

EPA based its decision to select specific pollutants for regulation on a rigorous evaluation of available sampling data. This evaluation included factors such as the concentration and frequency of detection of the pollutants in the industry raw wastewater, the relative toxicity of pollutants as defined by their toxic weighting factors, the treatability of the pollutants in the modeled treatment systems, and the potential of the pollutants to pass through or interfere with POTW operations. Particular attention has been given to priority pollutants which have been detected at treatable levels. EPA has attempted to select several pollutants which have been frequently detected at sampled facilities, which are possible indicators of the presence of similar pollutants, and whose control through some combination of physical, chemical, and biological treatment will be indicative of a well-operated

treatment system capable of removing a wide range of pollutants.

EPA proposed to establish limits for a list of pollutants that included classical pollutants, semivolatile organics, and metals. EPA solicited and received numerous comments from stakeholders on the pollutants selected for regulation in each subcategory. In the NOA, EPA presented several changes being considered based on the comments received.

EPA did not propose to establish effluent limitations for any pesticide, herbicide, dioxin, or furan. These pollutants were not found in concentrations high enough to merit regulation, the cost associated with monitoring for these parameters is very high, and EPA's sampling data have shown that the discharge concentrations of pesticides, herbicides, dioxins, and furans are generally treated by the proposed technology options. In the case of dioxins and furans, the most highly toxic congeners were treated to nondetect values based on oil/water separation and coagulation/clarification. In its evaluation of treatment technologies, EPA compared the TEC treatment data to known characteristics of dioxins and furans, and to the correlation of TSS and oil & grease removals. Dioxins and furans are lipophilic and hydrophobic and are most often associated with suspended particulates and/or oils in wastewater matrices. Treatment technologies for dioxins and furans vary depending on the characteristics of the matrix. If wastes such as oils and greases are present, dioxins will tend to bind with the oil and can be effectively removed by treatments such as dissolved air flotation. If oils are not present, dioxins will tend to bind with particulates and can be effectively removed by treatments such as clarification and filtration.

The removal efficiencies for dioxins and furans across oil/water separation and coagulation/clarification ranged from 65-97 percent, (they would be 100 percent if the effluent nondetect value were set at zero), and paralleled the removal efficiencies of oil & grease and/or TSS.

In summary, EPA decided not to establish limitations for dioxin or furan congeners for several reasons: (1) the congeners found in TEC wastewater are not priority pollutants and were found at very low levels in raw wastewater, (2) the selected technology options were demonstrated to treat dioxin and furans to nondetect levels (due to control of TSS and oil and grease), and (3) dioxin and furan monitoring is very expensive (monitoring alone would increase the cost per facility by approximately $12,000 per year, compared to the average per facility cost of the regulation of approximately $30,000 per year).

Several commenters disagreed with the Agency's conclusion and thought that EPA should establish limitations for these parameters due to their toxicity. However, most comments received by EPA supported EPA's conclusion not to regulate these parameters due to the high costs associated with monitoring and due to the fact that these pollutants are generally treated by the technologies identified in this rule. EPA has decided not to establish limitations for pesticides, herbicides, dioxins, or furans in the final regulation. However, NDPES permits for any individual TEC facility must include certain other pollutants in given circumstances. For example, permits must include limitations that are necessary to ensure compliance with water quality standards and State requirements. See 40 CFR 122.44(d). Moreover, TEC industry permittees must submit with their permit application detailed monitoring information on an extensive list of pollutants. See 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7). Their permits must include technology-based limits for any toxic pollutant which the permit writer determines is or may be discharged at a level greater than the level which can be achieved by treatment requirements appropriate to the permittee. The permit writer would establish case-by-case limits for such pollutants. See 40 CFR Part 125.3 (c)(3).

EPA proposed to establish limitations for chemical oxygen demand (COD). EPA received numerous comments opposed to the Agency's preliminary decision to regulate COD and, based on these comments, EPA has decided to eliminate COD as a regulated pollutant. The majority of comments received were from POTW operators who did not want EPA to establish pretreatment standards for COD. The commenters believed that COD pollutant loads generated from tank cleaning facilities were easily treated biologically in a POTW. EPA has agreed with commenters that the levels of COD generated from tank cleaning facilities are adequately treated in a POTW and, thus, will not pass through or interfere with its operation. Additionally, EPA believes COD would be adequately controlled through the regulation of other conventional pollutants, including BOD and oil and grease for direct dischargers. EPA did not receive any comments in opposition to this change, and EPA has not included limits for COD in the final regulation. Permit writers and local authorities should carefully examine the concentration and/or treatability of COD in TEC wastewater to determine if local limits are necessary.

EPA received comments from pretreatment authorities that EPA should regulate pollutants identified in TEC wastewater that may pass through the POTW or which may accumulate in the POTW sludge. The commenter specifically identified copper, lead, and mercury as pollutants of concern to the POTW. The commenter was especially concerned that mercury was identified in the proposal as a constituent of raw TEC wastewater and was identified as a pollutant of concern for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, but was not proposed for regulation in either subcategory. In response to these comments, EPA reevaluated the frequency of detection, the level of concentrations found in raw wastewater, and the pass through analysis for each of the regulated subcategories for the pollutants copper, lead, and mercury.

In the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, neither copper, lead, nor mercury was detected at significant concentrations in raw wastewater to merit national regulation.

In the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, lead was detected at very low concentrations and EPA determined that lead did not merit national regulation. However, copper was detected in 10 out of 10 samples, with an average concentration of 1,100 μg/L, and a maximum concentration of 9,200 μg/L. Due to the frequency of detects, relatively high raw wastewater concentrations, and toxicity of copper, EPA has promulgated effluent limitations for copper. EPA conducted a pass through analysis, and determined that copper does pass through a POTW. Therefore, EPA has established pretreatment standards for copper. Mercury was detected 8 out of 10 times, with an average concentration of 1.8 μg/L and a maximum concentration of 5.0 μg/L. Mercury was also determined to pass through a POTW. Due to the high toxicity of mercury, the high frequency of detects, relatively high raw wastewater concentrations, and pass through analysis, EPA has promulgated effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for mercury in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

In the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, mercury was detected three out of six times, with an average concentration of 5.4 μg/L and a maximum concentration of 81 μg/L. Although the detection frequency was only 50%, the raw wastewater concentrations reached high enough

levels to be of concern, especially for a pollutant as toxic as mercury. Mercury was also determined to pass through a POTW. Therefore, EPA has decided to promulgate effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for mercury in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. Additionally, both lead and copper were detected at significant concentrations in raw wastewater to merit regulation and were determined to pass through a POTW. Due to the toxicity, frequency of detects, and relatively high raw wastewater concentrations of lead and copper, EPA has promulgated effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for lead and copper.

EPA did not propose to regulate mercury in either the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory or the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. However, mercury was identified as a pollutant of concern in each of these subcategories and EPA developed long term averages and variability factors for mercury at the time of proposal, which were included in the proposed statistical support document (EPA-832-B-98-014). In calculating limits for the final regulation, EPA has used the same methodology as descibed in Section VIII of the proposal and as finalized in Section VI of this notice. Based on comments, EPA has concluded that it should establish effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for mercury.

EPA also received comments from pretreatment authorities and stakeholders on EPA's decision to establish limits for parameters such as zinc and chromium which are found in potable water supply systems, and which may be found at levels higher than the proposed limitations. The commenters questioned if the presence of these parameters in TEC wastewaters was the result of cleaning cargos, or the result of source water contamination. The commenter noted that maximum contaminant levels for zinc and chromium in drinking water are 5 mg/L and 0.1 mg/l, respectively, and that the proposed limitations were low in comparison to drinking water standards. In response, EPA evaluated sampling data from TEC wastewater and source water from the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

Based on a data review of the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA concluded that one of the highest concentrations of zinc found in truck/chemical process water was actually from source water supplied from a domestic water distribution system. Furthermore, all of the levels of zinc found in truck/chemical process water were within the range of concentrations that the commenter describes as being present in drinking water (

i.e.

less than 5 mg/l.) Therefore, EPA has concluded that zinc is not a pollutant of concern for this subcategory because the zinc levels present in dischargers from Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facilities may be due to source water contamination rather than a direct result of cleaning tanks. Therefore, EPA has decided not to promulgate effluent limitations or pretreatment standards for zinc in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. However, the average raw wastewater concentration of chromium in raw wastewater was 2.4 mg/L, and the maximum concentration was 18.6 mg/L. The levels of chromium in the source water at these facilities was much lower than raw wastewater concentrations, and were all less than 0.01 mg/L. Therefore, EPA concluded that chromium is a pollutant of interest in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. However, based on the discussion in Section VI.A of this notice, EPA is not promulgating effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for chromium. However, with respect to the comment that the chromium limits are too low, EPA has recalculated the limits based on additional self monitoring data received from industry after publication of the NOA. The industry data represents the effluent levels attainable at a facility over a much longer time period that was represented by EPA's original data set. Because this data more accurately accounts for the variability present in tank cleaning wastewater, the limits have become less stringent.

In the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, the average raw wastewater concentration of zinc was 19 mg/L, and the maximum concentration found was 78.5 mg/L. The highest level of zinc in source water at barge facilities was 0.114 mg/L. Additionally, all source water concentrations of chromium were non-detect. Therefore, EPA concluded that the levels of zinc and chromium present in barge process water were the result of barge cleaning operations, and not due to source water contamination. EPA concluded that, due to the high levels present in raw wastewater, that zinc and chromium are pollutants of interest. EPA has decided to retain the effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for zinc and chromium in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

EPA received numerous comments from POTWs, industry trade associations, and affected facilities suggesting that EPA use oil and grease (measured as HEM) and total petroleum hydrocarbons as indicator pollutants for straight chain hydrocarbons proposed for regulation. As descibed in the NOA, EPA has revised the name of “total petroleum hydrocarbons” in Method 1664 to “non-polar material” to indicate that the new test method is different from previous versions. (64 FR 26315 May 14, 1999). Non-polar materials are measured by Silica-gel Treated n-Hexane Extractable Material (SGT-HEM). Oil and Grease continues to be synonymous with the Method 1664 for n-Hexane Extractable Material (HEM). EPA proposed to regulate oil and grease (HEM) for direct discharging facilities, and non-polar oil and grease (SGT-HEM) for indirect discharging facilities. As discussed in Section XIII.G of the proposal, EPA recognizes that HEM analysis can include edible oils (such as animal fats and vegetable oils) in addition to petroleum-based oils, which are the primary constituents measured by the SGT-HEM analysis. As discussed in Section VIII.B of the NOA, EPA has deemed non-polar material (SGT-HEM) to pass through a POTW due to the prevalence of petroleum-based compounds.

Many commenters argued that straight chain hydrocarbons are components of oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar material (SGT-HEM), and that their regulation as individual pollutants would be redundant and would impose additional, unnecessary costs on the industry. These straight chain hydrocarbons include n-Hexadecane, n-Hexacosane, n-Decane, n-Docosane, n-Dodecane, n-Eicosane, n-Octacosane, n-Octadecane, n-Tetracosane, n-Tetradecane, and n-Triacontane. EPA does not necessarily agree that regulation of such individual pollutants is redundant but has considered the comment and performed the evaluation described below.

EPA reviewed the treatment effectiveness data collected in support of this regulation, and found that the treatment effectiveness of these parameters is related to the treatment effectiveness of HEM and SGT-HEM. This is consistent with the chemical characteristics of HEM and SGT-HEM, which by definition include the straight chain hydrocarbons as constituents. In cases where oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar material (SGT-HEM) were effectively controlled, all of the pollutants listed above were treated to very low levels, such as in PSES/PSNS Option II in the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, which consists of oil/water separation and dissolved air flotation. This system achieved substantial removals of HEM and SGT-

HEM, along with the straight chain hydrocarbons listed above. Treatment effectiveness in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory demonstrated similar results.

Additionally, EPA reviewed data from a characterization study of the HEM and SGT-HEM test methods conducted for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards for the Industrial Laundries Point Source Category (63 FR 71054 December 23, 1998). This study was performed to characterize the individual constituents measured by method 1664 (HEM and SGT-HEM); the study is available for review in Section 16 of the regulatory record for the Industrial Laundries Effluent Guideline. The laundries data demonstrate that the HEM and SGT-HEM test methods provide a general indication of the presence of the straight chain hydrocarbons listed above in wastewater samples.

EPA proposed effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for chromium in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory based on EPA sampling data from one BAT facility. to develop long term averages. At the time of the NOA (July 20, 1999) EPA continued to propose effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for chromium based on the proposal methodology.

However, during the comment period on the NOA, the industry submitted additional self-monitoring data from the wastewater treatment plant that EPA had sampled, and from which EPA had developed the proposed limits. The data submitted by the facility demonstrated that it would actually exceed the proposed limitations on numerous occasions. Although a significant number of effluent monitoring chromium concentrations were similar to the concentrations observed by EPA during its sampling episode, a few data points were significantly higher than the values observed by EPA.

The facility only provided EPA copies of its DMRs and associated laboratory analyses, and did not provide any information on raw wastewater concentrations, treatment system operation, or lists of cleaning operations that were performed during the time of the self-monitoring sampling. Therefore, EPA cannot evaluate the effectiveness of treatment on those days with high chromium effluent concentrations. However, based on its knowledge of the industry, EPA hypothesizes that the high concentrations of chromium in the effluent are the result of the facility performing exterior acid washes on those days. Exterior acid washing is a common service that tank truck facilities provide to their customers to brighten and remove the tarnish from the chrome parts of a tank truck. This service leaches chromium from the external truck parts.

On the days that EPA sampled the facility, it did not perform acid brightener washes. Therefore EPA's sampling data did not include high concentrations of chromium. EPA believes that its chromium data is not representative of the practices that may be performed by tank truck facilities, and that the chromium limits based on EPA's sampling data may not be achievable for facilities that are performing acid washes for their customers.

However, because the facility provided no data about its raw wastewater concentrations, treatment effectiveness, or treatment unit operations on the days it reported self-monitoring data, EPA does not believe that it would be appropriate to establish long term averages based on the industry supplied self monitoring data. EPA is unable to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment system.

Therefore, EPA has decided not to promulgate the effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for chromium in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and leave the establishment of any chromium limitations and standards to the BPJ of the permit writer.

As described in detail in Section X of this notice, EPA has spent a considerable amount of effort in developing an alternative pollution prevention option in lieu of national pretreatment standards for the industry. Specific to the concern of chromium in tank truck washwater, and realizing the potential for pollution prevention practices in lieu of national numeric standards, EPA has included in the P2 practices the segregation of exterior acid brighteners from other wastewaters, and has specified that these wastewaters must be handled in an appropriate manner to ensure that they do not cause or contribute to a discharge that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW. While EPA is not promulgating this pollution prevention alternative for chromium for facilities that decided to meet the numeric limitations, EPA believes that the control authority may wish to incorporate pollution prevention in lieu of BPJ numeric limitations for chromium. EPA has received comments from a POTW that currently employs such a pollution prevention practice in order to prevent high levels of chrome from being discharged to its system.

Due to concerns about its own data, insufficient documentation of the industry's self monitoring data, inadequate time for additional field sampling and public notice of any sampling efforts, and the opportunities for appropriate pollution prevention practices, EPA is not establishing limitations or pretreatment standards for chromium and the control authority may establish BPJ chromium standards, or require chromium pollution prevention practices, based on an evaluation of site specific factors.

For direct discharging facilities, EPA is establishing limitations for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory for BOD

5

, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), Copper, Mercury, and pH. For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is establishing limitations for BOD

5

, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), Fluoranthene, Phenanthrene, and pH. For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is establishing limitations for BOD

5

, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Zinc, and pH. Additionally, EPA is establishing limits for the Food Subcategory for BOD

5

, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), and pH.

Finally, EPA conducted a pass-through analysis on the pollutants selected for regulation under BPT and BAT to determine if the Agency should establish pretreatment standards for any pollutant. (The pass-through analysis is not applicable to conventional parameters such as BOD

5

, TSS, and Oil and Grease (HEM). EPA is establishing pretreatment standards for those pollutants which the Agency has determined to pass through a POTW. In addition, as discussed in the NOA, EPA has concluded that non-polar material (SGT-HEM) does pass through a POTW in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum, Rail/Chemical & Petroleum, and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. EPA did not receive any comments on this pass through determination, and EPA has retained its conclusion for the final regulation.

Based on the pass-through analysis, EPA is establishing PSES and PSNS in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory for non-polar material (SGT-HEM), Copper and Mercury. EPA is establishing PSES and PSNS in the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory for non-polar material (SGT-HEM), Fluoranthene, and Phenanthrene. Finally, EPA is establishing PSES and PSNS in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory for non-polar material (SGT-HEM), Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, and Zinc.

Regulated facilities can meet the final limitations through the use of any

combination of physical, chemical, or biological treatment, or implementation of pollution prevention strategies (

e.g.,

good heel removal and water conservation). Additional information on the development of effluent limitations and the technology options considered for regulation is included in Section VIII of the proposed rule, Section V of this notice and the Technical Development Document.

B. Calculation of Effluent Limitations

1. Changes in Methodology Since Proposal

The data and methodology used to calculate effluent limitations and pretreatment standards are located in Section 21 of the regulatory record. The data and methodology are the same as proposed with several exceptions.

One, EPA has calculated concentration-based instead of mass-based limits. EPA received many comments on the proposal criticizing EPA for proposing mass-based standards. EPA described these comments in the NOA and described an alternative methodology which would establish concentration-based limits. EPA received almost unanimous comment in support of concentration-based limits and has adopted concentration-based limits for the final regulation.

Two, EPA has used data provided by industry to calculate final effluent limitations. EPA used data from two additional Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities for the calculation of BOD

5

and TSS limits, as discussed in Section II of the NOA. EPA has received no comment on the use of this additional data, and EPA has continued to use these data for developing the final BOD

5

and TSS limitations. EPA has used additional data from one Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facility for the calculation of variability factors for copper, and mercury. The data provided consisted of self monitoring data for a facility that was sampled by EPA and used to calculate proposed effluent limitations. EPA had already determined this site to represent BAT treatment. EPA has used this additional self-monitoring data to determine variability factors because it represents treatment performance over a much longer time period (4 years) than was demonstrated from EPA sampling data. The complete dataset, including lab reports and certified monitoring reports, can be found in Section 15.2.2 of the regulatory record.

Third, EPA has used the pollutant-specific variability factor where available, and then calculated group and fraction-level variability factors by taking a median of all pollutants effectively removed in a chemical class, rather than using the median of only those pollutants selected for regulation in a chemical class. EPA believes this revised methodology is appropriate because the Agency believes that all pollutants in a chemical class will behave similarly, regardless of whether or not it is selected for regulation. This change was also presented in the NOA, and EPA did not receive any comment on this revised methodology. EPA has adopted this methodology for the final regulation.

Fourth, EPA has used technology transfer to establish PSES standards for non-polar material (SGT-HEM) in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA proposed pretreatment standards for SGT-HEM in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory based on the data from two Truck/Chemical facilities. However, EPA feels that the SGT-HEM standards developed for this subcategory may not be achievable, because the raw wastewater concentrations at these two facilities were 65 mg/L and 61 mg/L, whereas the average raw wastewater concentration for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum subcategory was measured to be 150 mg/L. EPA is aware that some facilities in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory may be generating wastewater with significantly higher concentrations of oil and grease than EPA considered in the proposed limitations. Therefore, EPA transferred standards for SGT-HEM from similar treatment technologies operated in the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. As mentioned previously, this system consisted of oil/water separation followed by dissolved air flotation (DAF) and achieved 98 percent removal of HEM for wastewater that had an influent concentration of 1,994 mg/L. For SGT-HEM, the system achieved a 97 percent removal for wastewater that had an average influent concentration of 206 mg/L. EPA believes that technology transfer of SGT-HEM establishes limitations that are achievable for all facilities in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. As discussed in Section III.F and VI.A, EPA is establishing HEM (for direct dischargers) and SGT-HEM (for indirect dischargers) as indicator pollutants for several other constituents in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

As in the proposal, EPA has continued to use technology transfer to establish BPT limits for conventional pollutants BOD

5

, TSS, and oil and grease (HEM) in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum and Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. EPA does not have sampling data from a facility operating BPT biological treatment in either the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum or Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. Therefore, EPA has transferred effluent limitations for BOD

5

, TSS, and oil and grease (HEM) from a biological system in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, as was described in Section II of the NOA.

2. Methodology for Final Limitations

EPA based the effluent limitations and standards in today's notice on widely-recognized statistical procedures for calculating long-term averages and variability factors. The following presents a summary of the statistical methodology used in the calculation of effluent limitations.

Effluent limitations for each subcategory are based on a combination of long-term average effluent values and variability factors that account for variation in day-to-day treatment performance within a treatment plant. The long-term averages are average effluent concentrations that have been achieved by well-operated treatment systems using the processes described in Section V (Technology Options Selected for Basis of Regulation). The variability factors are values that represent the ratio of a large value that would be expected to occur only rarely to the long-term average. The purpose of the variability factor is to allow for normal variation in effluent concentrations. A facility that designs and operates its treatment system to achieve a long-term average on a consistent basis should be able to comply with the daily and monthly limitations in the course of normal operations.

The variability factors and long-term averages were developed from a database composed of individual measurements on treated effluent based on EPA sampling data and from industry supplied data. EPA sampling data reflects the performance of a system over a three to five day period, although not necessarily over consecutive days.

The long-term average concentration of a pollutant for a treatment system was calculated based on either an arithmetic mean or the expected value of the distribution of the samples, depending on the number of total samples and the number of detected samples for that pollutant at that facility. A delta-lognormal distributional assumption was used for all subcategories except the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory where the arithmetic mean was used. The pollutant long-term

average concentration for a treatment technology was the median of the long-term averages from the sampled treatment systems within the subcategory using the proposed treatment technology.

EPA calculated variability factors by fitting a statistical distribution to the sampling data. The distribution was based on an assumption that the furthest excursion from the long-term average (LTA) that a well operated plant using the proposed technology option could be expected to make on a daily basis was a point below which 99 percent of the data for that facility falls, under the assumed distribution. The daily variability factor for each pollutant at each facility is the ratio of the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of the daily pollutant concentration values divided by the expected value of the distribution of the daily values. The pollutant variability factor for a treatment technology was the mean of the pollutant variability factors from the facilities with that technology.

There were several instances where variability factors could not be calculated directly from the TEC database because there were not at least two effluent values measured above the minimum detection level for a specific pollutant. In these cases, the sample size of the data is too small to allow distributional assumptions to be made. Therefore, in order to assume a variability factor for a pollutant, the Agency transferred variability factors from other pollutants that exhibit similar treatability characteristics within the treatment system.

In order to do this, pollutants were grouped on the basis of their chemical structure and published data on relative treatability. The median pollutant variability factor for all pollutants within a group at that sampling episode was used to create a group-level variability factor. When group-level variability factors were not able to be calculated, groups that were similar were collected into analytical method fractions and the median group-level variability factor was calculated to create a fraction-level variability factor. Group-level variability factors were used when available, and fraction-level variability factors were used if group-level variability factors could not be calculated. For the sampling episodes in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, there were not enough data to calculate variability factors at any level from EPA sampling data and therefore variability factors were calculated based on industry supplied data contained in self-monitoring reports.

Limitations were based on actual concentrations of pollutants measured in wastewaters treated by the proposed technologies where such data were available. Actual measured value data were available for pollutant parameters in all subcategories with the exception of pollutants regulated for direct dischargers in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum and Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. Due to the small number of direct discharging facilities identified by EPA, all of EPA's sampling was conducted at indirect discharging facilities in these subcategories. In the case of BPT regulation for conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants, EPA concluded that establishing limits based on indirect discharging treatment systems was not appropriate because indirect discharging treatment systems are generally not operated for optimal control of pollutants which are amenable to treatment in a POTW. For example, treatment systems at indirect discharging facilities generally do not require biological treatment to control organic pollutants because a POTW will control these pollutants. Therefore, in establishing limits for conventional pollutants at direct discharging facilities, EPA has established BPT limitations based on the treatment performance demonstrated from two direct discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities that utilized biological treatment systems. Limitations for priority and non conventional pollutants were based on the indirect discharging facilities in that subcategory.

The daily maximum limitation is calculated as the product of the pollutant long-term average concentration and the variability factor. The monthly maximum limitation is also calculated as the product of the pollutant long-term average and the variability factor, but the variability factor is based on the 95 percentile of the distribution of daily pollutant concentrations instead of the 99th percentile.

By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the LTA, EPA's use of variability factors results in standards that are generally well above the actual LTAs. Thus if a facility operates its treatment system to meet the relevant LTA, EPA expects the plant to be able to meet the standards. Variability factors assure that normal fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in the limitations.

The final limitations, as presented in today's notice, are provided as daily maximums and monthly averages for conventional pollutants. Monitoring was assumed to occur four times per month for conventional pollutants. Monitoring was assumed to occur once per month for all priority and non-conventional pollutants. This has the result that the daily maximums and monthly averages for priority and non-conventional pollutants are the same.

Although the monitoring frequency necessary for a facility to demonstrate compliance is determined by the local permitting authority, EPA must assume a monitoring frequency in order to assess costs and to determine variability of the treatment system.

EPA has assumed facilities will monitor their wastewater four times per month for conventional pollutants or SGT-HEM to ensure that facility TEC processes and wastewater treatment systems are consistently and continuously operated to achieve the associated pollutant long-term averages. EPA also assumed that facilities will monitor wastewater once per month for toxic pollutants, providing some economic relief to regulated facilities while ensuring that facility TEC processes and wastewater treatment systems are designed and operated to control the discharge of toxic pollutants.

VII. Costs and Pollutant Reductions of Final Regulation

EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs and pollutant loading removals associated with the effluent limitations and standards using a computer cost model and data collected through survey responses, industry submittals, site visits, and sampling episodes. Cost estimates and pollutant removals for each regulatory option are summarized below and in more detail in the Technical Development Document.

A. Changes to Cost Analysis Since Proposal

Following a thorough review of the cost model, EPA made several adjustments to the costing methodology in response to comments on the proposed rule and Notice of Availability, and to correct minor inaccuracies identified by EPA. One of the most notable changes was to eliminate estimated compliance costs for facilities that would meet the low flow exclusion (

i.e.

, discharge less than 100,000 gallons per year of TEC process wastewater). After eliminating these facilities, EPA evaluated the remaining 77 Detailed Questionnaire recipients, plus four direct discharging facilities that did not receive the questionnaire, to determine TEC operations, wastewater characteristics, daily flow rates (process flow rates), operating schedules, tank cleaning production (

i.e.

, number of

tanks cleaned), and wastewater treatment technologies currently in place at the site.

Facilities that did not have the technologies for the selected option already in place were projected to incur costs as a result of compliance with this regulation. A facility that did not have the technology, or an equivalent technology, in place was costed for installing and maintaining the technology. Costs include: (1) total capital costs for installed technologies, including equipment, shipping, indirect, and start-up costs; (2) operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for installed technologies, including labor, electrical, material, and chemical usage costs; (3) solids handling costs, including capital, O&M, and disposal costs; and (4) monitoring costs.

EPA based direct capital costs for equipment, shipping, installation, controls, and retrofit costs on information from treatment vendors and other effluent guidelines. EPA also developed cost factors and applied them to the direct capital costs to account for indirect costs such as site work, interface piping, general contracting, engineering, buildings, site improvements, legal/administrative fees, interest, contingency, and taxes and insurance. For the final rule, EPA increased some of the indirect capital cost factors and included start-up costs in total capital cost estimates.

Also for the final rule, EPA made the following changes: increased capital and annual costs for activated carbon, equalization, and filter presses; revised the methodology to credit treatment in place; and removed flow reduction for some facilities. EPA also significantly reduced the monitoring costs associated with compliance by selecting indicator parameters to replace specific pollutants proposed for regulation and by using less expensive analytical methods.

Although EPA has eliminated flow reduction from the technology bases for all subcategories, EPA has retained flow reduction in the cost model for most subcategories. Flow reduction results in significant compliance cost savings and consequently EPA assumes facilities will incorporate flow reduction in their compliance strategy.

The total capital costs were amortized over 16 years and added to the total annual O&M costs (equipment and monitoring) to calculate the total annualized costs incurred by each facility to comply with this regulation. The costs associated with each of the 81 facilities in the cost analysis were then modeled to represent the national population by using statistically calculated survey weights.

All cost models, cost factors, and cost assumptions are discussed in detail in the Technical Development Document for the final rule.

B. Compliance Costs

The final costs for the regulated subcategories are presented in Table 2. Total capital investment, total annual (

i.e.

, O&M), and total annualized costs are shown in 1998 post-tax dollars. BPT, BCT, and BAT total annual and total annualized costs include weekly monitoring of regulated conventional pollutants and monthly monitoring of all other regulated pollutants. PSES total annual and total annualized costs include monthly monitoring of all regulated pollutants.

Table

2.

—Total Costs of the TEC Rule, by Subcategory

[Millions of 1998 dollars]

Subcategory

Selected

option

Total capital investment

Total annual O&M costs

Total annualized 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 Analysis Since Proposal

The BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES limitations will control the discharge of conventional, priority toxic, and non-conventional pollutants from TEC facilities. The Agency developed estimates of the post-compliance long-term average (LTA) pollutant concentrations that would be discharged from TEC facilities within each subcategory. These estimates were calculated using the long-term average effluent concentrations of specific pollutants achieved after implementation of the BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES technology bases. Long-term average effluent concentrations at proposal were statistically derived using treatment performance data collected during EPA's sampling program. For the final rule, EPA made the following adjustments to the load removal estimates: revised the list of pollutants for which removals were calculated; added a new criteria to determine final effluent concentrations; and incorporated additional treatment performance data for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES pollutant reductions were first estimated on a site-specific basis for affected facilities that responded to the Detailed Questionnaire (77 facilities) and for four additional affected facilities identified from responses to the Screener Questionnaire. Site-specific pollutant reductions were calculated as the difference between the site-specific baseline pollutant loadings (

i.e.

, estimated pollutant loadings currently discharged) and the site-specific post-compliance pollutant loadings (

i.e.

,

estimated pollutant loadings discharged after implementation of the regulation). The site-specific pollutant reductions were then multiplied by statistically derived survey weighting (scaling) factors and summed to represent pollutant reductions for the entire TEC industry.

To estimate pollutant loadings discharged after implementation of the regulation, EPA estimated pollutant load removals for “pollutants of interest” for each subcategory. EPA identified pollutants of interest for each subcategory using a set of data-editing criteria such that these pollutants are typically present at treatable concentrations in the subcategory-specific raw wastewater. These editing criteria are: (1) The average influent technology option concentration must be at least five times the pollutant's method detection limit, and (2) the pollutant must be detected in at least two wastewater characterization samples (if at least two facilities in the subcategory were sampled) or one wastewater characterization sample (if only one facility in the subcategory was sampled) .

For proposal and the NOA, EPA only considered those pollutants that were removed by at least 50% by EPA's technology bases in the subcategory-specific load removals. In the proposal, EPA described how it used a modified approach to identify pesticide and herbicide pollutants included in the removal estimates; however, for the final rule, EPA applied the same approach to all pollutants. Upon further review, for the final rule, EPA included all pollutants of interest in the load removal estimates that had a removal efficiency greater than 0%. EPA believes its previous data-editing criteria requiring 50% removal was incorrect because it did not accurately reflect incidental removals of all pollutants across the various technology options. Note, however, that EPA retained the 50% removal criteria for the purpose of selecting regulated pollutants.

If a given pollutant met the pollutant of interest criteria, EPA calculated the treatment effectiveness concentrations and percent removal efficiencies from the sampling data. Treatment effectiveness concentrations are the long-term average concentrations achievable by the technology option. Percent removal efficiencies are the pollutant percent removals achievable by the technology option, based on the difference between the influent and effluent concentrations.

For the proposed rule, EPA only estimated pollutant load removals based on treatment effectiveness concentrations. For example, the TEC cost model calculated the difference between the influent concentration and the treatment effectiveness concentration achieved by the treatment unit; the result was the pollutant reduction achieved by the treatment unit. For the final rule, EPA incorporated pollutant percent removal efficiencies (for all pollutants of interest), in addition to treatment effectiveness concentrations, in the load removal calculations. For example, for pollutants with significant removals (for pollutants of interest with removals greater than 50% by the technology bases), the TEC cost model compared the influent concentration to two possible effluent concentrations, the treatment effectiveness concentration and the effluent concentration that would be achieved after applying the treatment unit (limited to the pollutant method detection limit) percent removal efficiency. The model selects the lower of the two effluent concentrations to calculate the pollutant reductions achieved by the treatment unit. No removals were credited to a pollutant if the influent concentration was at its detection limit. For other pollutants, the model uses only a percent removal efficiency.

EPA obtained additional treatment performance data following the proposed rule from two Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities operating BPT/BAT treatment. The data consisted of influent and effluent self-monitoring data over a one-year period. EPA used these data to calculate BPT effluent limitations and new source performance standards for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD

5

) and total suspended solids (TSS). These additional data and revised effluent limitations were presented in the NOA.

EPA obtained additional treatment performance data following the NOA from one Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facility operating PSES/PSNS treatment. The data consisted of effluent self-monitoring data over a four-year period. EPA used these data to calculate limitations and pretreatment standards for copper and mercury.

For the proposed rule, EPA did not consider dioxin and furan removals for any subcategory because EPA assumed that any detections of these pollutants were isolated, site-specific instances. In response to several comments on this issue, EPA reevaluated the presence of dioxins and furans in TEC wastewater based on the pollutants of interest criteria described above. EPA found that several dioxins and furans meet the editing criteria and should be considered pollutants of interest; therefore, EPA included their removals in the load removal estimates.

D. Pollutant Reductions

The final pollutant removals for the regulated subcategories are presented in Table 3, by discharge type. Pollutant removals were estimated as the difference between the subcategory baseline pollutant loadings (

i.e.

, estimated pollutant loadings currently discharged) and the subcategory post-compliance pollutant loadings (

i.e.

, estimated pollutant loadings discharged after implementation of the regulation). The load removals (in pounds per year) are scaled to represent the industry but do not account for the relative toxicity between pollutants.

Table

3.

—Total Pollutant Removals of the TEC Rule

Subcategory

Selected option

Pounds of conventional pollutants

removed

(lbs/yr)

Pounds of

priority

pollutants

removed

(lbs/yr)

Pounds of non-conventional

pollutants

removed

(lbs/yr)

Total pounds of pollutant

removed

(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

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 Regulation

EPA projects that the final TEC rule will result in no facility closures, revenue losses, nor employment losses in the industry. As set forth below, the Agency's financial analysis found that 14 facilities in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory may experience financial stress as a result of this rule. In addition, the small business analysis, using a sales test methodology, shows that some small businesses could have compliance costs that exceed three percent of annual sales revenues. However, these impacts are quite small relative to the TEC industry, and EPA certifies, as discussed later, that the regulation will not have a significant impact on substantial number of small entities.

A. Changes to Economic Analysis Since Proposal

EPA has not changed the economic methodology used in the proposal for the final rulemaking action. As in the proposal, the economic methods include a cost annualization model, a market model (with a commercial component and an outsourcing component), a closure model, financial ratio analysis, secondary impacts analysis, small business analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. The description of these analytical tools can be found in Section X of the proposal.

EPA received comments in response to the proposal and the NOA from potentially affected facilities and trade associations regarding the economic analysis. The majority of comments reflected concerns about the economic impacts that the effluent guideline would have on the industry. EPA's response is that the economic analysis finds that the regulation will not cause any facility closures, and it will not lead to the loss of any business revenues nor the loss of any jobs in the industry.

The comments did not generally address EPA's economic analysis methods. The only issue raised related to the methodology was over EPA's cost pass through analysis, which assumes that a portion of compliance costs can be passed through to the final customers. Several commenters disagreed with the assumption that a portion of the compliance costs could potentially be passed through to the customer. EPA believes that, given the relatively inelastic demand for TEC services, a portion of compliance costs can be passed through to TEC customers. In turn, EPA believes that, because TEC services are such a small portion of total transportation costs, the impact on the customer market is minimal.

The nature of the market demand for TEC services is two-fold. First, tank cleaning services are essential services in the marketplace, because transportation service providers must deliver clean and safe products. Therefore, the transportation service firms and their customers create a demand for tank cleaning services that is relatively inelastic,

i.e.

, customers need the services provided by the TEC industry. Second, EPA believes that some costs can be passed through to the customer without losing business because all facilities transporting similar cargos will be subject to the regulation. EPA performed a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impacts that would occur under the most conservative assumption of zero cost pass through, which assumes that no compliance cost can be passed through to the final customer. EPA found that, at the most conservative cost pass through assumption, this rule will result in no closures, revenue losses, or employment losses.

As in the proposal, the economic baseline was established using data from the

1993 Tank and Container Cleaning Screener Questionnaire

and the

1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry.

Anecdotal market and economic information has been used to update trends in the industry. Details of the economic analysis are presented in the “Final Economic Analysis of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category” and in the “Final Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category”.

EPA has updated the economic analysis to reflect the changes made by EPA since the proposal for this final rulemaking action. These changes are summarized in Section III of this notice. Briefly, the changes include promulgation of concentration-based rather than mass-based limitations, modification to the subcategorization approach, a low flow exclusion, revised pollutant loading estimates, new language for the exclusion of facilities engaged in other commercial activities, and changes to the technology options and regulated pollutants.

EPA has modified the subcategorization approach and reduced the number of subcategories from eleven in the proposal to seven for this final regulation. The economic analysis reflects the change in subcategories. For example, the number of facilities in the proposed Truck/Chemical Subcategory (288) are added to those in the proposed Truck/Petroleum Subcategory (34), giving a total of 322 for the new Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. The economic analysis was conducted for the new subcategory rather than the two separate subcategories.

EPA has also decided to establish a flow exclusion of less than 100,000 gallons per year for process wastewater. Due to the low flow exclusion, 36 indirect Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facilities, 11 indirect Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facilities, and three direct discharge Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities will be excluded from the effluent guidelines.

The Agency has also revised the pollutant reduction analysis for the final guideline which has, in turn, affected

the cost effectiveness of the regulation. For the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, 17 pollutants were removed and 26 pollutants were added. For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA removed 37 pollutants and added 23 pollutants. For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, three pollutants were removed and 18 pollutants were added. The Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory now includes 95 pollutants of interest; the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory includes 85 pollutants of interest; and the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory includes 82 pollutants of interest.

B. Impacts Analysis

EPA estimates that the total capital costs incurred by regulated facilities (over the sixteen year project life) for the transportation equipment cleaning industry effluent limitations guidelines and standards will be about $64.4 million in 1998 dollars. Total annualized costs on a post-tax basis of the regulation for all facilities are estimated to be about $10.4 million in 1998 dollars, which includes $4.8 million of annualized capital costs and $5.6 million in annualized operation and maintenance costs.

EPA estimated the total annualized compliance costs based on the incremental capital investment, annual operation and maintenance costs, and monitoring costs required for facilities to comply with this final regulation. Capital costs for each TEC facility were annualized, using EPA's cost annualization model, by spreading them over the 16 year analytic life of the project. These annualized capital costs are then added to the annual operation and maintenance costs and to the annual monitoring costs for each TEC facility to estimate total annualized post-tax costs of the selected technology alternative. EPA presented the total annualized costs on a post-tax basis to show the full opportunity compliance costs that facilities may incur after taxes. In the later section on cost-benefits analysis, costs are presented on a pre-tax basis as a proxy for social costs.

EPA's economic analysis estimates that the selected technology alternatives will result in no facility closures. In addition, EPA predicts that the selected technology alternatives will result in no loss in revenues or employment. In the financial stress analysis using the Altman Z″ bankruptcy test, EPA found that 14 facilities in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory could experience financial stress under the selected technology alternatives. In order to analyze these 14 facilities more carefully, EPA conducted two additional financial tests—current ratio analysis and times interest earned analysis. The current ratio analysis indicated that 14 facilities could experience financial stress as a result of the regulation. However, the times interest earned analysis, which measures the ability of facilities to cover their debt, gave results that no financial stress would occur as a result of the regulation. Therefore, EPA concludes that financial stress, if present, is minimal among 14 facilities.

1. BPT, BCT, and BAT

As described in Section V of today's notice, EPA is issuing final effluent limitations based on BPT, BCT, and BAT for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and Food Subcategory. The summary of costs and economic impacts is presented here for each subcategory. For BPT and BCT, additional information on cost and removal comparisons is presented in the Technical Development Document.

EPA estimates that the total post-tax annualized compliance costs for BPT, BCT, and BAT will be about $130 thousand. EPA based its analysis on technology Option II for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, Option II for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, Option I for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and Option II for the Food Subcategory. Due to data limitations as described in the proposed regulation and in this notice, EPA did not have data from the detailed questionnaire for direct discharging facilities in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory because of the very small population. Instead, EPA used information from the screener survey to identify direct discharging facilities. EPA assumed that the economic profile for direct discharging facilities is similar to indirect discharging facilities. EPA believes that this is a reasonable approach, because the Agency does not believe that there is a correlation between annual revenue or facility employment and the method the facility chooses to discharge its wastewater. Rather, the decision on whether to discharge wastewater directly or indirectly is determined by such considerations as cost, proximity to a POTW, permitting requirements, and wastewater treatment technology options.

EPA therefore assumed that the direct discharging Truck/Chemical & Petroleum and Rail/Chemical & Petroleum facilities were similar to indirect discharging facilities in terms of annual revenue, facility employment, and the number of tanks cleaned. Information on each of these indices was provided to EPA by the three direct discharging facilities in the screener questionnaire. EPA then identified indirect discharge facilities in the detailed questionnaire database that were similar to each of the direct dischargers in terms of revenue, employment and tanks cleaned. EPA then simulated the financial and economic profile for the direct discharging facilities based on data provided by similar indirect discharging facilities in the same subcategory. Based on this analysis, EPA determined that implementation of BPT would result in no facility closures and anticipates that no facilities will have revenue losses or employment losses.

For Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities, EPA estimated economic impacts for the 10 direct discharge facilities based on responses to the detailed questionnaire and incremental compliance costs. EPA has projected no closures, revenue losses, or employment losses for these facilities. EPA also described in the proposal the costs that may accrue to Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities under a regulation published under authority of the Clean Air Act. EPA analyzed this subcategory assuming that those regulations, and possible consequent costs, were in effect. This analysis may be found in the economic analysis for the proposal and the final regulation.

For the Food Subcategory, EPA found that direct discharge facilities have oil/water separators and biological treatment in place. This is the selected BPT and BCT technology option for the Food Subcategory, and the facilities in this subcategory will not incur incremental compliance costs nor experience economic impacts.

2. PSES

EPA estimates that the total annualized compliance costs for PSES will be approximately $10.2 million per year (1998 post-tax dollars). These costs include compliance with PSES for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA is not setting PSES for the Food and Hopper Subcategories. Total annual compliance costs are based on the following technology alternatives: Option I for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, Option II for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory,

and Option II for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.

EPA estimates that the selected technology options will result in no facility closures, revenue losses, nor employment losses for PSES. As indicated above, EPA did find that PSES may cause financial stress for 14 facilities (4.3 percent) in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory under the highly conservative assumption of zero cost pass through, but confirmatory financial tests indicated that financial stress, if present, would be minimal.

Within non-TEC industries, EPA's economic analysis indicates that some industries that provide materials and equipment to the TEC industry may experience revenue increases as a result of the regulation. However, other non-TEC industries could incur revenue losses. EPA's economic analysis indicates that the regulation would result in net losses of 200 to 300 jobs in all industries (

i.e.,

including TEC and non-TEC industries). These impacts were estimated using EPA's input-output methodology for the U.S. economy. Details of EPA's input-output analysis are available in the Economic Analysis.

Within the TEC industry itself, EPA determined that many financially healthy facilities might actually experience gains in production (and thus gains in output, revenue, and employment). Financially healthy facilities in the local market area might expand to take over a portion of production from a facility having financial difficulties. In addition, some employment gains are anticipated for installation and operation of flow reduction and wastewater treatment facilities.

EPA has also conducted an analysis of the community impacts of the final regulation for PSES. EPA has determined that most facility financial stress will result in a community's unemployment rate of no more than 0.2 percent. Because the methodology assumes that all of the community impacts would occur in one State, the more probable impact is considerably lower. Thus the community impact from the transportation equipment cleaning industry regulation is estimated to be negligible.

EPA expects the rule to have minimal impact on international markets. Domestic markets might initially be slightly affected by the rule, because tank cleaning facilities will absorb a portion of the compliance costs and will pass through a portion of the costs through to their customers. For the portion of compliance costs passed through to tank cleaning customers, EPA's market model estimates that prices will increase about 0.1 percent to 4.3 percent. Output, or the number of tanks cleaned, will decrease from almost zero percent to about 0.6 percent. Because tank cleaning is an essential service and is a very small part of total transportation services costs, customers may not be as sensitive to tank cleaning prices as they are to larger cost elements.

EPA expects the rule will have minimal impacts on inflation, insignificant distributional effects, and no major impacts on environmental justice.

EPA also investigated the likelihood that customers might use methods such as installing additional on-site wastewater treatment in order to comply with the regulation. Substitution possibilities, such as on-site tank washing or purchasing dedicated tanks, are associated with potential negative impacts on customers that might deter them from choosing these potential substitutes. On-site tank cleaning capabilities require capital investment, operation and maintenance, and monitoring costs. The decision to build an on-site tank cleaning capability is more likely determined by non-pricing factors such as environmental liability, tank-cleaning quality control, and internal management controls than by a choice to develop alternatives to commercial tank washing.

EPA's analysis does not indicate that transportation service companies (

i.e.,

TEC customers) would likely decide to build a tank cleaning facility as a result of EPA's regulations. Further, because of high initial capital investment ($1.0-$2.0 million for a tank cleaning facility) and the small increase in price of transportation equipment cleaning services discussed earlier, on-site transportation equipment cleaning could require years before any cost savings might be realized. Also, EPA's market model provides a means for estimating price increases and reductions in quantity demanded for transportation equipment cleaning services at the higher price. This analysis shows a very small decrease in the number of tanks cleaned as a result of the regulation, from almost zero to about 0.6 percent of baseline production across the subcategories. Given the disincentives towards substitutes indicated above, EPA does not expect the rule to cause many, if any, customers to substitute on-site facilities for transportation equipment cleaning services or to substitute dedicated tanks. The small reduction in production is more likely to occur from customers delaying cleaning (rather than cleaning tanks after delivery of load) or dropping certain services such as handling toxic wastes heels. This decline in production is negligible compared to the approximate 10 to 20 percent per year revenue growth between 1992 and 1994, (according to data provided in the Detailed Questionnaire) in the TEC industry.

3. NSPS and PSNS

As described in today's notice, EPA is setting NSPS equivalent to BPT, BCT, and BAT, and PSNS equivalent to PSES, in all subcategories.

EPA uses a barrier-to-entry analysis to analyze the impacts of effluent guideline and pretreatment standards on new sources. The analysis focuses on whether the impact of the regulation will result in a barrier-to-entry into the market. The methodology for the barrier-to entry analysis is described in the proposal. Briefly, the analysis compares the expected compliance costs to the assets of existing facilities. This analysis is performed by analyzing the costs that each existing facility could potentially incur as a result of the regulations. EPA makes the assumption that new facilities will have impacts from the regulation that are no greater than the impact of the regulation on existing facilities. This assumption is based upon the rationale that new facilities are better able to include regulatory requirements in their design and construction plans. The incremental compliance costs are compared with the dollar value of assets of the existing facilities. The dollar value of assets of each facility provide a measure of the size of the facility in terms of financial capital in place. EPA has used the dollar value of assets as one indicator, amo

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.