Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source Category; Proposed Rule
Federal RegisterJan 3, 2001
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 413, 433, 438, 463, 464, 467, and 471
[FRL-6897-6]
RIN 2040-AB79
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source Category; Proposed Rule
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY:
This proposal represents the Agency's second look at Clean Water Act national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges from metal products and machinery facilities. EPA initially proposed effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for a portion of this category on May 30, 1995 (60 FR 28210). This proposal completely replaces the 1995 proposal. Today's proposed regulation would establish technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges associated with the operation of new and existing metal products and machinery facilities. The metal products and machinery industry includes facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain metal products, parts, or machines.
EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation will reduce the discharge of conventional pollutants by at least 115 million pounds per year, priority pollutants by 12 million pounds per year, and nonconventional metal and organic pollutants by 43 million pounds per year for an estimated compliance cost of $1.98 billion (pre-tax, 1999$) annually. EPA estimates that the annual benefits of the proposal range from $0.4 billion to $1.1 billion. In addition, this proposal solicits comment on new methodologies for expanding the analysis to include additional categories of recreational benefits.
DATES:
EPA must receive comments on the proposal by May 3, 2001. EPA is conducting a public meeting (9:00 AM—12:00 PM) and hearing on the pretreatment standards (1:00 PM—4:00 PM) for this proposed rule on each of the following dates: February 6, 2001 in Oakland, CA; February 13, 2001 in Dallas, TX; and February 22, 2001 in Washington, DC.
ADDRESSES:
Submit written comments to, Mr. Michael Ebner, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 if by mail and to Mr. Michael Ebner, U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW, Room 611 West Tower, Washington, DC 20460 if by hand delivery. Comments may also be sent via E-mail to “mpm.comments@epa.gov”. Please submit any references cited in your comments. EPA requests an original and three copies of your comments and enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For additional information on how to submit electronic comments see “
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION,
How to Submit Comments.”
EPA will be holding public meetings and pretreatment hearings on today's proposal on three separate dates. The meeting in Oakland, CA will be held at the Oakland Mariott, City Center, 1001 Broadway, Oakland, CA 96607. The meeting in Dallas, TX will be held in the Oklahoma and Texas rooms at the EPA Region 6 Offices, 1455 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX. The meeting in Washington, DC will be held in EPA's Auditorium, Waterside Mall, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC.
EPA established the public record for this proposed rulemaking under docket number W-99-23. It is located in the Water Docket, East Tower Basement, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. The record is available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. For access to the docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment. You may have to pay a reasonable fee for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical information concerning today's proposed rule, contact Mr. Michael Ebner at (202) 260-5397 or Ms. Shari Barash at (202) 260-7130. For economic information contact Dr. Lynne Tudor at (202) 260-5834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action include:
Category
Examples of regulated entities
Industry
• Facilities that manufacture, maintain, or rebuild metal parts, products or machines used in the following sectors: Aerospace, Aircraft, Bus & Truck, Electronic Equipment, Hardware, Household Equipment, Instruments, Job Shops, Mobile Industrial Equipment, Motor Vehicles, Office Machines, Ordnance, Precious Metals and Jewelry, Printed Wiring Boards, Railroad, Ships and Boats, Stationary Industrial Equipment, and Miscellaneous Metal Products.
Government
• State and local government facilities that manufacture, maintain, or rebuild metal parts, products or machines (
e.g.,
a town that operates its own bus, truck, and/or snow removal equipment maintenance facility).
• Federal facilities that manufacture, maintain, or rebuild metal parts, products or machines (
e.g.,
U.S. Naval Shipyards).
EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but rather it provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria proposed in Sections III and VI.C and detailed further in section 438.1 of the proposed rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult one of the persons listed for technical information in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
How To Submit Comments
Electronic comments must be identified by the docket number W-99-23 and must be submitted as an ASCII, or WordPerfect 5/6/7/8/9 or Microsoft Word 97 file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. EPA also will accept comments and data on disks in Word Perfect 5/6/7/8/9, Microsoft Word 97 or ASCII file format. Electronic comments on this notice may be filed online at some Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential business information (CBI) should be sent via e-mail. In the public record for
the final MP&M regulation, EPA will respond to comments from the 1995 Phase I proposal as well as today's proposal. Therefore, comments submitted on the Phase I rule do not need to resubmitted in response to this proposal.
Public Meeting and Pretreatment Hearing Information:
In each location, the public meeting will be held in the morning and the pretreatment hearing will be held in the afternoon (see
DATES
and
ADDRESSES
for dates and locations of public meetings and pretreatment hearings). During the public meeting, EPA will present information on the applicability of the proposed regulation, the technology options selected as the basis for the proposed limitations and standards, and the compliance costs and pollutant reductions. EPA will also allow time for questions and answers during this session. During the pretreatment hearing, the public will have the opportunity to provide oral comment to EPA. EPA will not address any issues raised during the pretreatment hearing at that time, but these comments will be recorded and included in the public record for the rule. Persons wishing to present formal comments at the public hearing should contact Mr. Michael Ebner before the hearing and should have a written copy of their comments for submittal.
Protection of Confidential Business Information
EPA notes that many documents in the record supporting the proposed rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore, EPA has not included these documents in the public record. To support the rulemaking, EPA is presenting certain information in aggregated form or, alternatively, is masking facility identities in order to preserve confidentiality claims. Further, the Agency has withheld from disclosure some data not claimed as CBI because release of this information could indirectly reveal information claimed to be confidential.
Facility-specific data, claimed as CBI, are available to the company that submitted the information. To ensure that EPA protects all CBI in accordance with EPA regulations, any requests for company-specific data should be submitted to EPA on company letterhead and signed by the official authorized to receive such data. The request must list the specific data requested and include the following statement, “I certify that EPA is authorized to transfer confidential business information submitted by my company, and that I am authorized to receive it.”
Supporting Documentation
Several key documents support the proposed regulations:
1. “Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point Source Category” [EPA-821-B-00-005]: This document presents EPA's methodology and technical conclusions concerning the Metal Products & Machinery Point Source Category.
2. “Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Metal Products & Machinery Rule” [EPA-821-B-00-008]: This document presents the methodology employed to assess economic and environmental impacts of the proposed rule and the results of the analysis.
3. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point Source Category” [EPA-821-B-00-007] This document analyzes the cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulation.
4. “Statistical Support Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Industry” [EPA-821-B-00-006]: This document establishes the statistical methodology for developing numerical discharge limitations.
Major supporting documents are available in hard copy from the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), U.S. EPA/NSCEP, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA 45242-2419, (800) 490-9198,
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/.
You can obtain electronic copies of this preamble and rule as well as the technical and economic support documents for today's proposal at
http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/mpm.
Overview
The preamble describes the terms, acronyms, and abbreviations used in this notice; the background documents that support these proposed regulations; the legal authority of these rules; a summary of the proposal; background information; and the technical and economic methodologies used by the Agency to develop these regulations. This preamble also solicits comment and data on specific areas of interest.
In addition, this preamble proposes to update references in the relevant parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to include the Metal Products & Machinery Point Source Category. References in 40 CFR would be updated in the Electroplating (part 413), Metal Finishing (part 433), Plastic Molding and Forming (part 463), Metal Molding and Casting (part 464), Aluminum Forming (467), and Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders (part 471) effluent guidelines point source categories.
Table of Contents
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Statutory Authorities
B. Existing Regulation for Metals Industries
C. 1995 Proposal for Phase I Sectors
D. Summary of Most Significant Changes from 1995 Proposal
III. Scope of Proposal
IV. Industry Description
V. Summary of Data Collection Activities
A. Existing Data Sources
B. Survey Questionnaires
C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
D. Industry Submitted Data
E. Summary of Public Participation
VI. Industry Subcategorization
A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization
B. Proposed Subcategories
C. General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory
VII. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics
A. Wastewater Sources and Characteristics
B. Pollution Prevention, Recycle, Reuse, and Water Conservation Practices
VIII. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Overview of Technology Options
B. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and Limitations
IX. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
A. General Metals Subcategory
B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
X. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
A. July 9, 1986 BCT Methodology
B. Discussion of BCT Option for Metal-Bearing Wastewater
C. Discussion of BCT Option for Oily Wastewater
XI. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
A. General Metals Subcategory
B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
A. Need for Pretreatment Standards
B. Overview of Technology Options for PSES
C. Overview of Low Flow Exclusions
D. General Metals Subcategory
E. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
F. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
G. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
H. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
I. Oily Wastes Subcategory
J. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
K. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
XIII. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
A. NSPS for the General Metals Subcategory
B. PSNS for the General Metals Subcategory
C. NSPS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
D. PSNS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
E. NSPS for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
F. PSNS for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
G. NSPS for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
H. PSNS for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
I. NSPS for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
J. PSNS for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
K. NSPS for the Oily Wastes Subcategory
L. PSNS for the Oily Wastes Subcategory
M. NSPS for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
N. PSNS for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
O. NSPS for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
P. PSNS for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
XIV. Issues Related to the Methodology Used to Determine POTW Performance
A. Assessment of Acceptable POTWs
B. Assessment of Acceptable Data
C. Assessment of Removals When Effluent Is Below the Analytical Method Minimum Level
XV. Methodology for Estimating Costs & Pollutant Reductions
XVI. Economic Impact and Social Cost Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Facility Level Impacts
C. Firm Level Impacts
D. Impacts on Governments
E. Community Level Impacts
F. Foreign Trade Impacts
G. Impacts on New Facilities
H. Social Costs
XVII. Cost Effectiveness Analysis
A. Methodology
B. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Indirect Dischargers
C. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Direct Dischargers
XVIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Air Pollution
B. Solid Waste
C. Energy Requirements
XIX. Water Quality, Sewage Sludge, and Other Environmental Impacts
A. Introduction
B. Beneficial Impacts of the MP&M Proposed Rule
XX. Benefit Analysis
A. Overview of Benefits
B. Reduced Human Health Risk
C. Ecological, Recreational, and Nonuser Benefits
D. Productivity Changes: Cleaner Sewage Sludge (Biosolids)
E. Total Estimated Benefits of the Proposed MP&M Rule
F. Benefit-Cost Comparison
XXI. Regulatory Implementation
A. Compliance Dates
B. Implementation of Limitations and Standards
C. Monitoring Flexibility
D. Pollution Prevention Alternative for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
E. Upset and Bypass Provisions
F. Variances and Modifications
G. Relationship of Effluent Limitations and Pretreatment Standards to NPDES Permits and Local Limits
H. Best Management Practices
XXII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency Initiatives
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
D. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Plain Language Directive
K. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas
L. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)
XXIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
XXIV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data
A. Types of Data Requested
B. Analytes Requested
C. Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements
Appendix A to the Preamble:Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other Terms Used in This Document.
I. Legal Authority
EPA is proposing this regulation under the authorities of sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402 and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361 and under authority of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13101
et seq.
, Pub L. 101-508, November 5, 1990.
II. Background
A. Statutory Authorities
1. 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 CWA 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)). EPA establishes national pretreatment standards for those pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or interfere with POTW operations. Generally, the Agency develops pretreatment standards to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition, EPA requires POTWs 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. EPA establishes these limitations and standards by regulation for categories of industrial dischargers and bases them on the degree of control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
a. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)—Sec. 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.
b. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)—Sec. 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, EPA determines the economic achievability on the basis of the total cost to the industrial subcategory and the overall effect of the rule on the industry's financial health. The Agency may base BAT limitations upon effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may base BAT upon technology transferred from a different subcategory within an industry or from another industrial category. In addition, the Agency may base BAT upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry practice.
c. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)—Sec. 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).
d. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)—Sec. 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, the CWA directs EPA to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.
e. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)—Sec. 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.
f. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)—Sec. 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. 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.
2. Pollution Prevention Act
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101
et seq.
, Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) makes pollution prevention the national policy of the United States. The PPA identifies an environmental management hierarchy in which 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* * *” (42 U.S.C. 13103). In short, preventing pollution before it is created is preferable to trying to manage, treat or dispose of it after it is created. According to the PPA, source reduction reduces the generation and release of hazardous substances, pollutants, wastes, contaminants or residuals at the source, usually within a process. The term source reduction “* * * includes equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory
control. The term ‘source reduction' does not include any practice which alters the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant through a process or activity which itself is not integral to or necessary for the production of a product or the providing of a service.” In effect, source reduction means reducing the amount of a pollutant that enters a waste stream or that is otherwise released into the environment prior to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or disposal.
B. Existing Regulation for Metals Industries
EPA has established effluent guidelines regulations for thirteen industrial categories which may perform operations that are sometimes found in MP&M facilities. These effluent guidelines are:
• Electroplating (40 CFR part 413);
• Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR part 420);
• Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR part 421);
• Ferroalloy Manufacturing (40 CFR part 424);
• Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433);
• Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR part 461);
• Metal Molding & Casting (40 CFR part 464);
• Coil Coating (40 CFR part 465);
• Porcelain Enameling (40 CFR part 466);
• Aluminum Forming (40 CFR part 467);
• Copper Forming (40 CFR part 468);
• Electrical and Electronic Components (40 CFR part 469); and
• Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders (40 CFR part 471).
In 1986, the Agency reviewed coverage of these regulations and identified a significant number of metals processing facilities discharging wastewater that these 13 regulations did not cover. Based on this review, EPA performed a more detailed analysis of these facilities that were not subject to national effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. This analysis identified the discharge of significant amounts of pollutants. This analysis resulted in the decision to develop national limitations and standards for the “Machinery Manufacturing and Rebuilding” (MM&R) point source category. In 1992, EPA changed the name of the category to “Metal Products and Machinery” (MP&M) to clarify coverage of the category (57 FR 19748).
EPA recognizes that in some cases unit operations performed in industries covered by the existing effluent guidelines are the same as unit operations performed at MP&M facilities. In general, when unit operations and their associated wastewater discharges are already covered by an existing effluent guideline, they will remain covered under that effluent guideline. (See § 438.1(b)). However, for the existing Electroplating (40 CFR 413) and Metal Finishing (40 CFR 433) effluent guidelines some facilities will be covered by this proposal. EPA is proposing to replace the existing Electroplating (40 CFR 413) and Metal Finishing (40 CFR 433) effluent guidelines with the MP&M regulations for all facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory (see proposed rule § 438.40) and the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory (see proposed rule § 438.20). (See Table II.B-1 for clarification for details and Section VI.C for a discussion of subcategory-specific applicability).
When a facility covered by an existing metals effluent guidelines (other than Electroplating or Metal Finishing) discharges wastewater from unit operations not covered under that existing metals guideline but covered under MP&M, the facility will need to comply with both regulations. (See § 438.1(c)). In those cases, the permit writer or control authority (
e.g.,
Publicly Owned Treatment Works) will combine the limitations using an approach that proportions the limitations based on the different in-scope production levels (for production-based standards) or wastewater flows. POTWs refer to this approach as the “combined wastestream formula” (40 CFR 403.6(e)), while NPDES permit writers refer to it as the “building block approach.” Permit writers and local control authorities currently issue permits and control mechanisms for many facilities in other effluent guidelines categories where overlaps with more than one effluent limitation guidelines regulation occur (
e.g.,
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers; Pesticide Manufacturing; Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging; and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing). See Sections III and VI.C of this preamble for additional discussion of applicability.
Table II.B-1.—Clarification of Coverage by MP&M Subcategory
Subcategory
Proposing to continue to cover under 40 CFR Part 413
(Electroplating)
Proposing to continue to cover under 40 CFR Part 433
(Metal Finishing)
Proposing to cover under
40 CFR Part 438
(Metal Products & Machinery)
General Metals
Existing facilities that are currently covered by 413 AND are indirect dischargers that introduce less than or equal to 1 million gallons per year into a POTW
Existing facilities that are currently covered (or new facilities that would be covered) by 433 AND are indirect dischargers that introduce less than or equal to 1 million gallons per year into a POTW
All new and existing direct dischargers in this subcategory regardless of annual wastewater discharge volume and all new and existing indirect dischargers in this subcategory with annual wastewater discharges greater than 1 million gallons per year.(See § 438.10).
Metal Finishing Job Shops
none (see non-chromium anodizing)
none (see non-chromium anodizing)
All new and existing direct and indirect discharges under this subcategory. These facilities would no longer be covered by 413 or 433. (See § 438.20).
Non-Chromium Anodizers
Note: Facilities that perform anodizing with chromium or with the use of dichromate sealants (or commingle their non-chromium anodizing process wastewater with wastewaster from other MP&M subcategories) will be covered by 40 CFR 438
Existing indirect dischargers that are currently covered by 413 AND that only perform non-chromium anodizing (or do not commingle their non-chromium anodizing wastewater with other process wastewater for discharge)
New and existing indirect dischargers (not covered by 413) that only perform non-chromium anodizing (or do not commingle their non-chromium anodizing wastewater with other process wastewater for discharge)
Existing and new direct dischargers that only perform non-chromium anodizing (or do not commingle their non-chromium anodizing wastewater with other process wastewater for discharge). (See § 438.30).
Printed Wiring Board (Printed Circuit Board)
None
None
All new and existing direct and indirect dischargers under this subcategory. These facilities would no longer be covered by 413 or 433. (See § 438.40).
Steel Forming & Finishing
N/A
N/A
All new and existing direct and indirect discharges under this subcategory as described. (See § 438.50).
Oily Waste
N/A
N/A
All new and existing direct and indirect dischargers under this subcategory as described. (See § 438.60) (This subcategory excludes new and existing indirect dischargers that introduce less than or equal to 2 MGY into a POTW. Facilities under the cutoff are not and will not be covered by national categorical regulations).
Railroad Line Maintenance
N/A
N/A
All new and existing direct dischargers under this subcategory as described. (See § 438.70) There are no national categorical pretreatment standards for these facilities.
Shipbuilding Dry Docks
N/A
N/A
All new and existing direct dischargers under this subcategory as described. (See § 438.80) There are no national categorical pretreatment standards for these facilities.
EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but rather it provides a guide for readers regarding the clarification of the proposed applicability to the Electroplating, Metal Finishing, and Metal Products & Machinery effluent guidelines. In order to determine whether EPA is proposing to regulate a particular facility by this action, please carefully examine the applicability criteria detailed in the codified text of this proposed rule accompanying today's preamble.
C. 1995 Proposal for Phase I Sectors
On May 30, 1995, EPA published a proposal entitled, “Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Metal Products and Machinery” (60 FR 28210). Throughout this preamble, EPA refers to this 1995 proposal as the “Phase I” or the “1995” proposal for the Metal Products and Machinery industry. EPA initially divided the industry into two phases based on industrial sector as the Agency believed that would make the regulation more manageable. The Phase I proposal included the following industry sectors: Aerospace; Aircraft; Electronic Equipment; Hardware; Mobile Industrial Equipment; Ordnance; and Stationary Industrial Equipment. At that time, EPA planned to propose a rule for the Phase II sectors approximately three years after the MP&M Phase I proposal.
EPA received over 4,000 pages of public comment on the Phase I proposal. One area where commenters from all stakeholder groups (
i.e,
industry, environmental groups, regulators) were in agreement was that EPA should not divide the industry into two separate regulations. Commenters raised concerns regarding the regulation of similar facilities with different compliance schedules and potentially different limitations solely based on whether they were in a Phase I or Phase II MP&M industrial sector. Furthermore, many facilities performed work in multiple sectors. In such cases, permit writers and control authorities (e.g., POTWs) would need to decide which MP&M rule (Phase I or II) applied to a facility.
Based on these comments, EPA decided to combine the two phases of the regulation into one proposal—today's proposal. Today's proposal will completely replace the 1995 proposal. Under the 304(m) decree as amended, these MP&M rules are to be promulgated in December 2002. EPA developed today's proposal using data from both the Phase I and II data collection efforts. (See Section V for discussion on MP&M data collection efforts). In the public
record for the final MP&M regulation, EPA will respond to comments from the 1995 Phase I proposal as well as today's proposal. Therefore, comments submitted on the Phase I rule do not need to be resubmitted in response to this proposal. In addition, compliance deadlines proposed in the 1995 Phase I proposal would obviously no longer apply.
D. Summary of Most Significant Changes from 1995 Proposal
In addition to the merging of the Phase I and Phase II industry sectors under one proposed rule, as discussed in Section II.C. above, there were several areas of comments from the 1995 proposal that EPA attempted to address in today's proposed rule.
Use of Aluminum and Iron as Indicator Parameters
In the 1995 proposal, EPA proposed pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) for seven metals and cyanide as well as oil & grease. Aluminum and iron were two of the seven metals with numerical pretreatment standards. As discussed in the Phase I preamble (60 FR 28228), EPA intended to regulate aluminum and iron as indicator metals for removal of non-regulated metals that may be processed at MP&M sites. Due to the fact that the optimal pH levels for the removal of aluminum (pH = 7.5-8) and iron (pH = 10.5) represent the end points of the pH range for the removal of most metals that EPA expected to be in MP&M wastewater, the Agency concluded that the removal of aluminum and iron would indicate effective removal of other metal types. EPA received many comments from various stakeholder groups, including Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) on this issue. The comments from POTWs indicated that in addition to MP&M sites using aluminum and iron as treatment chemicals, POTWs also use coagulants and flocculation aids containing these metals for treatment. Many POTWs considered it desirable to receive discharges containing aluminum and iron as it may reduce their treatment chemical costs. Therefore, EPA has decided not to propose pretreatment standards for aluminum and iron from indirect discharging MP&M facilities in today's combined MP&M proposal. However, EPA is proposing aluminum limitations for facilities in one subcategory (
i.e.,
Non-Chromium Anodizing) that discharge directly into the nation's surface waters (see Section VI for a discussion on subcategorization).
Use of Oil and Grease as an Indicator Parameter
EPA also received many comments on the Phase I proposal regarding regulation of another pollutant, oil & grease (O&G), as an indicator parameter. In an effort to reduce the burden of analytical monitoring for organic pollutants on the Phase I MP&M facilities, EPA chose to propose the use of O&G as an indicator parameter for organic pollutants. EPA proposed a limit (daily maximum of 35 mg/L and a monthly average of 17 mg/L) that demonstrated good removals of organic pollutants in MP&M wastewater. As discussed in the preamble of the 1995 proposal (60 FR 28231), EPA identified several organic pollutants (2-methylnapthalene, 2-propanone, n-octadecane, and n-tetradecane) that would “pass through” a POTW (see Section XII for a discussion of POTW pass through). EPA stated that “these organic pollutants are more likely to partition to the oily phase than the water phase, thus EPA believed that the treatment and removal of oil and grease in wastewater will also result in significant removals of these pollutants.” Many commenters stated that the pretreatment standard proposed for O&G was too stringent. They commented that EPA typically does not establish pretreatment standards for conventional pollutants such as O&G and that local POTWs are in the best position to establish standards for O&G, where necessary, taking into account POTW design and current O&G loading and that the typical local limits for O&G are between 100-200 mg/L.
Based on these comments, EPA expanded its wastewater sampling and analysis program to include a variety of potential organic pollutant indicators. EPA investigated the correlation of organic pollutant concentrations and removals at MP&M sites with the following parameters: Oil & Grease (as Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)), Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), 5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD
5
), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (as Silica Gel Treated-Hexane Extractable Material (SGT-HEM)), and Total Recoverable Phenolics. EPA determined TOC to be the best correlation for removal of organic pollutants from MP&M wastewater.
To determine which parameter best indicated the amount of organic pollutants in an MP&M wastestream, EPA researched the analytical methods for each parameter to determine what organic constituents the method measures, how the method measures them, and the limitations of the method. Because sampling at MP&M facilities generally lasted five days, EPA did not have enough data available to statistically establish a correlation on a site level. Therefore, EPA grouped all of the data from EPA sampling at MP&M facilities into the following organic-pollutant-bearing wastestream categories that fed sampled treatment systems: machining and grinding, washing and maintenance, wastewater expected to have low concentrations of organic compounds, and oily wastewater from shipbuilding dry docks. The Agency chose to group the wastestreams in this manner in order to determine if a particular organic indicator parameter was more appropriate for different types of wastewater. That is, machining and grinding wastewater tended to have more concentrated organic constituents while wastewater from washing and maintenance was more dilute. EPA also identified other unit operations (apart from washing and maintenance) that resulted in wastewater with low concentrations of organic constituents. And, EPA chose to analyze wastewater from shipbuilding dry docks separately because of the type of treatment in place. Shipbuilding dry docks tend to treat their wastewater with dissolved air flotation (DAF); therefore, the Agency analyzed the data from these facilities in order to determine the best organic indicator parameter for these treatment systems.
For each wastewater type and its associated wastewater treatment system, EPA characterized the composition of organic pollutants in all of the influent samples, in all of the effluent samples, and the total samples (influent, effluent, and intermediate sampling points) associated with the treatment system. EPA studied the correlation of the concentration of each indicator parameter noted above to the sum of the concentrations of the organic pollutants by calculating the Pearson and Spearman Rank correlation coefficients and comparing the coefficients of each parameter against each other. Additionally, EPA compared the general removal of the sum of organic pollutant compounds with the removal of each indicator parameter (see the Technical Development Document for a detailed discussion of these analyses).
EPA determined TOC to be the best overall indicator parameter for the evaluated MP&M wastestreams because this analysis measures all types of organic compounds. Total recoverable phenolics, O&G (as HEM), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (as SGT-HEM), and BOD
5
analyses only measure
specific organic components so they would not measure all possible organic compounds in an effluent stream.
In addition to expanding its sampling program, EPA considered a variety of approaches to address the comments on the use of O&G as an indicator for organic pollutants. EPA considered the use of a Total Organics list or an organics management plan (similar to the Total Toxic Organics (TTO) list and solvent management plan used in the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR 433)) as well as allowing facilities to choose from a list of possible indicator pollutants (where they would demonstrate a correlation to their wastewater) or to choose to monitor for the specific organic pollutants themselves. EPA shared these ideas with small entity representatives during the SBREFA process (see Section XXII.C for a discussion on the SBREFA process) and with stakeholders during various public meetings and industry conferences. (See Section V.E for a discussion on EPA's public outreach efforts).
EPA has decided to propose three alternatives to allow for maximum flexibility while ensuring reductions in the amount of organic pollutants discharged from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing to require MP&M facilities within the scope of this rule to either: (1) Meet a numerical limit for the total sum of a list of specific organic pollutants (similar to the TTO parameter used in the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines); (2) meet a numerical limit for the specified indicator parameter; or (3) develop and certify the implementation of an organics management plan. (See Section XXI.C.2 for a discussion on regulatory implementation and proposed monitoring flexibility).
Variability of MP&M Process Wastewater Discharges
EPA also revised its analytical wastewater sampling program to address two other issues raised by commenters in response to the 1995 proposal. First, commenters stated that EPA's analytical data did not accurately reflect the variability in the wastewater flow and pollutant concentration experienced over time at MP&M sites. More specifically, metal finishing and electroplating job shops stated that EPA did not account for the variability of the metal types and products processed at their facilities; and therefore, EPA's proposed numerical limits did not accurately reflect pollutant concentrations achievable by these types of facilities (see Section VI.C.2. for a description of metal finishing job shops). EPA has addressed this by performing specific sampling targeted to assess the wastewater variability at metal finishing and electroplating job shops. EPA sampled raw wastewater from a variety of unit operations as well as wastewater treatment systems at three job shops for five days each. After a period of a few months, the Agency then returned to each facility a second and/or a third time for three days of analytical wastewater sampling. In addition, when determining proposed limits for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory, EPA, when possible, only used data collected from metal finishing and electroplating facilities. However, EPA had to transfer data from the General Metals subcategory for several pollutants that are being proposed in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. Based on this approach, the limits for facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory include increased variability factors as compared to the General Metals subcategory (
i.e.,
the subcategory that EPA considers to be the most similar in terms of raw wastewater characterization).
Second, commenters stated the variability factors that EPA used in the development of limitations were relatively small. Commenters expressed their view that EPA's variability factors did not reflect the variations in raw wastewater pollutant concentrations nor the variations in the effectiveness of treatment technologies (particularly in the case of cyanide). Section VIII.B of today's preamble discusses the statistical methodology used for developing variability factors. In an effort to ensure that the variability factors represent the variability found in MP&M wastewater, EPA performed 44 sampling episodes during post-1995 proposal data collection in addition to the 27 sampling episodes performed during the Phase I data collection effort. EPA also specifically included sampling of 20 cyanide destruction systems.
In addition, the Agency has collected long-term effluent data from facility Compliance Reports and Discharge Monitoring Reports in an effort to perform a “real world” check on the achievability of today's proposed limits. This data is available for review in the public record for today's proposal (see Section 6.6.1 of the public record). Indirect dischargers file compliance monitoring reports with their control authority (
e.g.,
POTW) at least twice per year as required under the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR part 403) while direct discharges file discharge monitoring reports with their permitting authority at least once per year. The Agency received these reports from 14 well-operated BAT facilities whose analytical data EPA used in establishing limitations. EPA sent letters to nine facilities requesting this data. In addition, five sites provided EPA with this data during site visits or sampling episodes or as part of their questionnaire response. Because this data is not in a form that allows direct use for calculating limits or for comparison to the proposed limits, EPA was not able to use this data in setting or evaluating the compliance aspects of the limits and standards in today's proposal. However, following proposal, EPA will reformat and evaluate this long-term effluent monitoring data in relation to the proposed limits. In cases where EPA finds a facility in its costing database that was used to set the numerical limits and is not in compliance with the proposed pollutant limitations, EPA will reassess the achievability of these limits by a well-operated BAT system. When a system is not achieving the proposed limits consistently it may be because either the system is not achieving the projected long-term average (LTA) or the system has higher variability than EPA determined using its standard methodology. EPA requests comment on its methodology for determining LTAs and variability factors. In cases where EPA determines that improved system operation will allow the limits to be consistently achieved it will include additional treatment costs for the facility in its cost estimations for the final rule where EPA has not already done so. EPA concludes, in following the approach described above, that it will address the concerns of commenters on the Phase I proposed rule related to the achievability of the numerical limits by well operated and economically achievable treatment systems. EPA requests comment on this method of performing a “real world” check on the achievability of its proposed limits.
Finally, as compared to the 1995 proposed limits, today's proposed numerical limits for total cyanide have increased almost one order of magnitude from 0.03 mg/L for the daily maximum and 0.02 for the monthly average to 0.21 and 0.12, respectively. This increase is largely due to increased variability factors.
Low Discharge Flow Exclusion
Another significant change from the 1995 proposal is EPA's proposed low wastewater discharge flow exclusion (“low flow cutoff”) for indirect dischargers. In the 1995 proposed rule, EPA set a low flow cutoff at one million gallons per year (1 MGY) for all indirect
discharging facilities included in the Phase I sectors. This meant that EPA proposed to exclude, from the MP&M pretreatment standards, facilities discharging less than 1 MGY to a POTW. The Agency included the low flow cutoff to reduce the potentially large burden on POTWs related to issuing permits or other control mechanisms to thousands of the smallest MP&M Phase I sector facilities. EPA received many comments on the level of the proposed flow cutoff. Based on these comments and the recommendations of the SBREFA panel (see Section XXII.C on the SBREFA process), EPA analyzed a range of flow cutoffs for indirect dischargers ranging from no flow cutoff to 6.25 million gallons per year. EPA notes that at 6.25 million gallons per year, the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR part 403) classify indirect discharging facilities as “Significant Industrial Users” (SIUs). Under the General Pretreatment Standards, control authorities (
e.g.,
POTWs) must issue permits or other control mechanisms to SIUs and, therefore, no POTW burden reductions are realized above a flow cutoff of 6.25 MGY. (However, there may be some minimal increase in burden for modifying permits or control mechanisms).
EPA estimates that there are a total of 89,000 facilities within the scope of the proposed rule. Many of these facilities are small facilities and may be contributing minimal pollutant loadings to the environment. A low flow exclusion allows regulatory authorities to focus attention on those facilities with significant discharges. This may also improve the cost-effectiveness of the rule. In developing today's proposal, EPA considered POTW burden, costs, pollutant removals, and economic impacts of the various flow cutoffs.
Unlike the 1995 proposal, EPA is now proposing to subcategorize (
i.e.,
subdivide) the MP&M category (see Section VI of this preamble for a discussion on subcategorization of the industry). Therefore, EPA has analyzed the various low flow cutoffs by subcategory, noting in particular which subcategories are not currently covered under existing pretreatment standards. When existing pretreatment standards already cover all facilities in a particular subcategory, POTWs will not be relieved of their administrative burden, regardless of whether or not a low flow exclusion exists in the MP&M pretreatment standards. But other factors, such as a disproportionate economic impact have been considered.
The combination of subcategorization of the industry, current coverage under existing pretreatment standards, and analysis of a range of low flow cutoffs has led EPA to propose different levels for the low flow exclusion for indirect dischargers in various subcategories. For example, EPA is proposing the 1 MGY cutoff for indirect dischargers in the General Metals subcategory, but is proposing no flow cutoff for indirect dischargers in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory (see Section VI.C. for descriptions of the proposed subcategories). This difference is partially due to the fact that under the Electroplating and Metal Finishing pretreatment standards (40 CFR parts 413 and 433), EPA already regulates (thus it already requires POTWs to issue control mechanisms for) all indirect discharging facilities in the proposed Printed Wiring Board subcategory (approximately 620 facilities). In addition, EPA does not project any severe or moderate economic impacts for the small estimated number of printed wiring board facilities (52) that would be eligible for a low flow cutoff of 1 MGY. In contrast, EPA has not previously established pretreatment standards for approximately 75 percent of the indirect discharging facilities in the proposed General Metals subcategory (approximately 26,000 total facilities). Approximately 23,000 indirect dischargers in the proposed General Metals Subcategory discharge less than 1 MGY. If EPA did not exclude these facilities, the number of permit issuances that POTWs are responsible for would increase significantly. There are approximately 30,000 industrial users currently covered nationally by existing pretreatment standards for all effluent guidelines. Low flow exclusions being proposed for the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories, POTWs (or other control authorities) would have to issue an additional 51,000 permits/control mechanisms. EPA discusses further the rationale for proposing a low flow cutoff exclusion for certain subcategories in Section XII.
Mass-Based v. Concentration-Based Limits
EPA also received many comments on the issue of mass-based versus concentration-based limits. In the 1995 proposal, EPA proposed concentration-based limits with the requirement that control authorities (
e.g.,
POTWs) implement them as mass-based limits. EPA notes that under the NPDES permit program, the Agency already requires permit writers to implement effluent limitations guidelines as mass-based limits whenever feasible (40 CFR 122.45(f)). EPA proposed requiring this conversion to mass-based limits because the Agency believed that it was necessary to ensure the use of water conservation and pollution prevention practices similar to those that were part of EPA's selected option (60 FR 28230). EPA expected permit writers and control authorities to use historical flow as a basis for the conversion to mass-based limits for facilities that demonstrated good water conservation practices. However, for facilities that did not have good water conservation in place, EPA provided detailed guidance to permit writers and control authorities in the Technical Development Document (TDD) for the 1995 proposal. The TDD included information on a full range of water use levels (in gallons/sq.ft.) for a large variety of MP&M operations as well as guidance on how permit writers and control authorities could determine if a facility was using good water conservation practices.
EPA received comments on the administrative burden on POTWs associated with implementation of mass-based limits. The commenters stated that the burden was largely due to the fact that most MP&M facilities do not collect production information on a wastestream-by-wastestream basis. POTWs have continued to voice these concerns at recent public stakeholder meetings. To address this issue, EPA collected additional MP&M unit operation-specific information on pollution prevention practices, water use, and wastewater generation in the data collection efforts that followed the Phase I proposal.
In today's proposal, EPA is again proposing concentration-based limits (for all but one subcategory) and is providing detailed information on water use levels for specific unit operations in the Technical Development Document. However, the Agency is no longer proposing to require control authorities (
e.g.,
POTWs) or permit writers to implement the limits on a mass basis. Instead EPA is proposing to authorize control authorities and permit writers to decide when it is most appropriate to implement mass-based limits. EPA believes that this approach will reduce implementation burden on POTWs and will result in increased use of water conservation practices at the facilities where POTWs and permit writers think it is most needed. EPA believes that MP&M facilities that use the best pollution prevention and water conservation practices may request that the control authority or permit writer use mass-based limits in their permits or other control mechanisms. (See Section XXI.B for a discussion on regulatory implementation).
III. Scope of Proposal
Today's proposed effluent guideline applies to process wastewater discharges from existing or new industrial sites engaged in manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance of metal parts, products or machines to be used in one of the following industrial sectors:
• Aerospace;
• Aircraft;
• Bus and Truck;
• Electronic Equipment;
• Hardware;
• Household Equipment;
• Instruments;
• Job Shops;
• Mobile Industrial Equipment;
• Motor Vehicle;
• Office Machine;
• Ordnance;
• Precious Metals and Jewelry;
• Printed Wiring Boards;
• Railroad;
• Ships and Boats;
• Stationary Industrial Equipment; and
• Miscellaneous Metal Products.
EPA has identified these eighteen industrial sectors in the MP&M category; these sectors manufacture, maintain and rebuild metal products under more than 200 different SIC codes. See Appendix A of today's proposed rule for a description of typical products within these eighteen MP&M industrial sectors. Although EPA is using these 18 industrial sectors to generally describe the scope of today's proposal, the Agency notes that it is not using these industrial sectors to subcategorize (or subdivide) the regulations for the industry. EPA's analysis to date suggests that the industrial sectors do not correlate well with the types of waste generated, and many facilities perform operations covered by multiple sectors. Instead, EPA is proposing to define subcategories based on unit operations performed and the nature of the waste generated (see Section VI of today's notice for a discussions on subcategorization and subcategory-specific applicability).
EPA does not intend to include maintenance or repair of metal parts, products, or machines that occur only as ancillary activities at facilities that it did not include in the 18 industrial sectors. (See § 438.1(d)). EPA believes that these ancillary repair and maintenance activities would typically generate only small quantities of wastewater. In most cases, these periodic repair and maintenance activities at facilities not in one of the 18 industrial sectors would comprise only a very small portion of the total wastewater flow at the facility. The Agency believes local limits will be adequate to address these discharges for indirect dischargers and that permit writers can establish limits using Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) to regulate these ancillary waste streams for direct dischargers. Permit writers should consult the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the primary category of such a facility (See 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N for all existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards). As an example, EPA does not intend for the MP&M proposal to include process wastewater discharges from an on-site machine or maintenance shop at a facility engaged in the manufacture of organic chemicals when the facility operates that shop to maintain the equipment related to manufacturing their products (
i.e.,
organic chemicals). As discussed above, these wastewaters can be regulated through local limits or through BPJ using the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) regulations. Alternatively, since aircraft is an in-scope MP&M industrial sector, EPA is proposing to include process wastewater discharges from activities related to maintaining or repairing aircraft or other related (metal) equipment (
e.g.,
deicing vehicles) at airports.
EPA also intends to cover wastewater from MP&M operations related to maintenance and repair of metal products, parts, and machinery at military installations. For example, this proposal includes wastewater generated from the maintenance and repair of aircraft, cars, trucks, buses, tanks (or other armor personnel carriers), and industrial equipment—all of which are commonly performed at military installations.
Today's proposal only covers process wastewater generated at MP&M facilities. EPA is not covering non-process wastewater which includes sanitary wastewater, non-contact cooling water, and storm water. EPA has characterized typical MP&M unit operations as belonging to one or more of the following types: Assembly/disassembly; metal deposition; metal shaping; organic deposition; printed wiring board; surface finishing; surface preparation; and dry dock operations. Typical unit operations at MP&M facilities include any one or more of the following: abrasive blasting, abrasive jet machining, acid treatment, adhesive bonding, alkaline cleaning for removal of oil, alkaline treatment, anodizing, aqueous degreasing, assembly, barrel finishing, brazing, burnishing, calibration, chemical conversion coating, chemical milling, chromate conversion coating, corrosion preventive coating, disassembly, electrical discharge machining, electrochemical machining, electroless plating, electrolytic cleaning, electroplating, electron beam machining, electropolishing, floor cleaning, grinding, heat treating, hot-dip coating, impact deformation, laminating, laser beam machining, machining, metal spraying, painting (spray/brush or immersion), photo resist applications, physical vapor deposition, plating, plasma arc machining, polishing, pressure deformation, rinsing, salt bath descaling, soldering, solvent degreasing, sputtering, stripping (paint or metallic coating), testing, thermal cutting, thermal infusion, ultrasonic machining, vacuum metalizing, washing finished product, welding, wet air pollution control, and numerous sub-operations within those listed above. EPA notes that not all MP&M unit operations generate process wastewater. In addition, many of these operations frequently have associated rinses that remove materials that preceding processes deposit on the surface of the workpiece and water-discharging air pollution control devices which become contaminated with process contaminants removed from the air. EPA is including both of these wastewater flows under the scope of today's proposed regulation. (See § 438.2(e)).
The Agency is also including under today's proposed regulation wastewater discharges from non-contact, nondestructive testing performed at MP&M facilities. (See § 438.2(e)). A common source of “nondestructive testing” wastewater is photographic waste from nondestructive X-ray examination of parts. The Agency is proposing to cover this wastewater because of the potential concentration of silver in the wastewater discharge.
EPA is not covering wastewater generated from electroplating-type operations during semiconductor wafer manufacturing or wafer fabrication processes (
i.e.,
tape automated bonding—“TAB” and controlled collapse chip connection—“C-4”) occurring in a “clean room” environment because it believes that these operations are much different than the other electroplating operations that EPA is covering by these guidelines and do not contribute significant amounts of pollutants to the wastewater discharge. (See § 438.1(e)). The new and emerging technologies involved in semiconductor wafer fabrication add microscopic amounts of metal (usually copper) to only selective portions of the wafer to
enhance circuitry and decrease wafer size. Other electroplating operations that EPA is proposing to cover under this guideline generally occur on a larger scale and produce a more concentrated metal-bearing wastewater. Moreover, the wafer fabrication processes occur in a clean room with a highly-controlled atmosphere and using highly-purified materials and specialized tools that are much different from typical metal-finishing equipment. These specialized tools and conditions enable the manufacturer to add microscopic levels (less than one micron) of metal to only one side of the wafer, in contrast to the non-selective, macroscopic (micron to micron-inch) plating used in common metal finishing. Therefore, EPA is proposing not to cover wastewater from wafer fabrication processes under this rule. However, in today's proposal the Agency is covering wastewater generated from electroplating during semiconductor final wafer assembly. (See § 438.1(e)).
EPA is proposing to cover wastewater generated from washing vehicles only when it occurs as a preparatory step prior to performing an MP&M unit operation (
e.g.,
prior to disassembly to perform engine maintenance or rebuilding). (See § 438.1(f)). MP&M facilities may perform these preparatory washes to remove oils, dirt and grit prior to performing the maintenance or repair operations and as a result the combined wastewater contains significant amounts of oil and grease along with total suspended solids. However, this proposed regulation does not cover the washing of cars, aircraft or other vehicles when it is performed only for aesthetic/cosmetic purposes because EPA does not expect these washes to contain significant concentrations of pollutants. (See § 438.1(f)).
EPA is also proposing to cover wastewater generated from unit operations performed by drum reconditioners/refurbishers to prepare drums for reuse. (See § 438.1(a)). These facilities perform operations on metal drums such as chaining, caustic washing, acid cleaning, acid etching, impact deformation, leak testing, corrosion inhibition, shot blasting, and painting. The Agency considers facilities that perform these operations as part of the Stationary Industrial Equipment sector. However, the Agency notes that it is currently considering the development of an effluent guideline for the drum reconditioning industry. If EPA develops regulations for this new industrial category, it is possible that the Agency would cover these facilities under that rule and not under the MP&M regulation. EPA solicits comment on whether these facilities would be more appropriately covered under the MP&M rule or under a new industrial category for drum reconditioners.
EPA did not collect information with respect to MP&M operations at gasoline service stations (SIC code 5541), passenger car rental facilities (SIC code 7514), or utility trailer and recreational vehicle rental facilities (SIC code 7519); therefore, this proposed regulation does not cover process wastewater generated by maintenance and repair activities when they occur at gasoline stations or car rental facilities. (See § 438.1(g)). As discussed in Sections VI.C and XII of this notice, EPA is proposing to exclude facilities in the General Metals and Oily Waste subcategories that discharge MP&M process wastewater below a specified flow rate (one and two million gallons per year, respectively). EPA expects that many facilities that only perform repair and maintenance activities (
e.g.,
auto repair shops, light aircraft maintenance) will be excluded as most will fit into the applicability of either the General Metals or Oily Waste subcategories and have process wastewater discharges below the subcategory-specific flow cutoffs.
EPA is proposing to cover MP&M process wastewater at mixed-use facilities (
i.e.,
any municipal, private, U.S. military or federal facility which contains both industrial and commercial/administrative buildings at which one or more industrial sites conduct operations within the facility's boundaries). (See § 438.1(h)). However, unlike the typical industrial facility, such as an aircraft or electronic equipment manufacturing plant with one primary manufacturing activity, the majority of military installations are mixed-use facilities and are more like municipalities with several small industries as well as other operations within their boundaries. Many of these installations also include a variety of tenant activities, including contractor and other Department of Defense federal agency activities. At these mixed-use facilities, EPA is proposing to cover wastewater from manufacturing, maintenance and repair activities performed on metal parts, products or machines (
e.g.
maintenance and repair of vehicles and aircraft). (See § 438.1(h)). EPA concluded that these types of operations will generate wastewater containing either high metals content or high oil and grease, or both. EPA is not proposing to cover wastewater from other non-metal repair, maintenance or manufacturing operations at mixed-use facilities such as wastewater from residential housing, schools, churches, recreational parks, shopping centers, gas stations, utility plants, and hospitals. The Agency believes that wastewater generated from these activities will not contain the same types and concentrations of pollutants (such as metals and oil and grease) as wastewater from MP&M operations. Finally, the geographic size of many military installations (for example, over 300 square miles at Fort Hood, TX and over 1.1 million acres at the China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center, CA) makes it difficult to treat them as a single facility. Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow wastewater generated at different sites (individual buildings as well as outdoor locations where manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance occur on metal parts, products, or machines) within a mixed-use facility to be dealt with as separate discharges for the purpose of applying the appropriate low flow cutoff (when applicable). EPA is proposing to allow the control authority to use its discretion in determining which wastewater discharges can be considered separate discharges for the purposes of applying the appropriate low flow cutoff (when applicable). The determination would likely be based on the degree of proximity between industrial operations and a practical application of the requirements for applicable MP&M subcategories. Control authorities (and permit writers) will have to determine when it is appropriate to apply standards for more than one subcategory to a mixed-use facility and when to use the combined waste stream formula (or building block approach). For example, a military installation that generates wastewater from vehicle maintenance operations that is treated in a separate wastewater system than wastewater generated from its metal finishing operations could be covered by both the Oily Wastes subcategory for its vehicle maintenance operations and by the General Metals subcategory for it surface finishing operations. (See Section VI for a discussion of subcategorization and subcategory-specific applicability).
EPA seeks information from other facilities that believe they would fall within this mixed-use facility category. In addition, EPA seeks comments on the choice to allow control authorities to make a determination concerning applying the low flow cutoffs to separate discharges and the factors for making such a decision as well as alternative ways to divide a mixed-use facility.
See Section II.B for a discussion on the applicability of today's proposed rule with respect to the thirteen existing
metals-related effluent limitations guidelines and standards regulations.
IV. Industry Description
As described in Section III, the MP&M industry is comprised of facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain metal parts, products or machines to be used in one of 18 industrial sectors. Based on results of the MP&M survey database, there are an estimated 89,000 MP&M sites. Based on detailed survey results, an estimated 63,000 MP&M sites discharge process water. Of the facilities discharging process wastewater, EPA estimates that 93 percent are indirect dischargers and 7 percent are direct dischargers. The Agency estimates that there are approximately 26,000 facilities that fall into one of three zero discharge categories: zero discharge, non-water-using, or contract haulers.
MP&M water-discharging sites range in size from less than 10 employees to sites with tens of thousands of employees and from wastewater discharge flow rates of less than 100 gallons per year to wastewater discharge flow rates exceeding 100 million gallons per year. Of water discharging facilities, approximately 98 percent of MP&M sites have 500 or fewer employees and approximately 78 percent of MP&M sites have 100 or fewer employees. EPA estimates that facilities with less than 100 employees discharge approximately 11 percent of the total annual wastewater discharged by the MP&M industry and that facilities having between 100 and 500 employees discharge approximately 50% of the industry total flow. Facilities with greater than 500 employees discharge 39 percent of the industry total.
MP&M facilities are located throughout the United States. The Agency received survey data from every EPA region and 48 separate states. EPA estimates that the largest concentrations of MP&M facilities are located in EPA Regions III (MD, PA, VA, WV), V (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), and IX (AZ, CA, HI). In addition EPA estimates the seven states with the largest concentrations of MP&M facilities are: California (25 percent), Pennsylvania (23 percent), Virginia (11 percent), Ohio (5 percent), Colorado (4 percent), Texas (3 percent), and Indiana (2 percent).
EPA estimates that approximately 3 percent of the industry (water dischargers and zero dischargers) generates annual revenues less than $100,000, approximately 41 percent generate annual revenues between $100,000 and $500,000, approximately 5 percent generate annual revenues between $500,000 and $1,500,000, and approximately 33 percent generate over $5,000,000 annual revenues. The Agency notes that facilities with annual revenues greater than $5,000,000 discharge approximately 73 percent of the total wastewater discharged by the industry.
Although facilities in the MP&M industry produce a wide range of products, the operations performed can be described by two types of activities: manufacturing, and rebuilding/maintenance. Manufacturing is the series of unit operations necessary to produce metal products, and is generally performed in a production environment. Rebuilding/maintenance is the series of unit operations necessary to disassemble used metal products into components, replace the components or subassemblies or restore them to original function, and reassemble the metal product. These operations are intended to keep metal products in operating condition and can be performed in either a production or a non-production environment.
Table IV-1, below, summarizes the estimated number of MP&M sites (water dischargers and zero dischargers) and total discharge flow (prior to implementation of the proposed rule) by activity or activity combination. The largest number of sites, approximately 44,000, perform “rebuilding/maintenance only” and account for approximately 9 percent of the total estimated discharge flow for the industry. “Manufacturing only” represents the next largest number of facilities (27,000) and represents the largest percentage of the total estimated discharge flow for the industry (75.2 percent).
Table IV-1.—MP&M Sites * and Total Discharge Flow by Activity Combination
Activity
Estimated number of water
discharging MP&M sites
Total estimated discharge flow (million gal/yr)
Percentage of total water
discharging MP&M sites
Percentage of total discharge flow
Manufacturing, Rebuilding/Maintenance
7,400
11,200
8.3
9.1
Manufacturing Only
27,000
91,700
30.4
75.2
Rebuilding/Maintenance Only
44,000
11,100
49.5
9.1
Unknown/others
10,500
8,100
11.8
6.6
Total **
89,000
122,000
100.0
100.0
* This table includes all MP&M sites, for a presentation of this distribution for water discharging sites only, see the Technical Development Document for today's proposal.
** Totals may not add due to rounding.
Of the 26,000 sites that achieve zero discharge of process wastewater, many use but do not discharge process water. Based on information from the MP&M Detailed Surveys, site visits, and technical literature (see Section V for a discussion of the data collection activities), these sites achieve zero discharge of process wastewater in one or more of the following ways:
• Sites contract haul for off-site disposal all process wastewater generated on site;
• Sites discharge process wastewater to either on-site septic systems or deep-well injection systems;
• Sites perform end-of-pipe treatment and reuse all process wastewater generated on site;
• Sites perform either in-process or end-of-pipe evaporation to eliminate wastewater discharges; or
• Sites perform in-process recirculation and recycling to eliminate wastewater discharges.
EPA's Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act, regulates shallow on-site systems and deep wells that discharge fluids or wastewater into the subsurface and thus may endanger underground sources of drinking water.
If a facility disposes any wastewater (other than solely sanitary waste) into a shallow disposal system (
e.g.,
septic system or a floor drain connected to a dry well) that well is covered by the UIC program. If you think you have a UIC
disposal well on your facility, you should contact your State UIC Program authority to determine your compliance status.
EPA published the Class V Rule in the
Federal Register
on December 7, 1999 (64 FR 68545), which affected facilities using on site systems to dispose waste associated with motor vehicle service and repair in state-designated groundwater protection areas. The EPA is scheduled to develop additional requirements for other Class V wells that receive endangering waste. Contact your State UIC Program for more information on these developing regulations.
V. Summary of Data Collection Activities
A. Existing Data Sources
While developing today's proposal, EPA reviewed data from other metals industry effluent guidelines, the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) treatability database, the 50 POTW Study, the Domestic Sewage Study, and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
For the MP&M technology effectiveness assessment effort, EPA reviewed sampling data collected to characterize treatment systems for the development of effluent guidelines for other metals industries (see Section II.B for a discussion on other metals industry effluent guidelines). For several previous effluent guidelines, EPA used treatment data from metals industries to develop the Combined Metals Database (CMDB), which served as the basis for developing limits for these industries. EPA also developed a separate database used as the basis for limits for the Metal Finishing category. EPA used the CMDB and Metal Finishing data as a guide in identifying well-designed and well-operated MP&M treatment systems. EPA did not use these data in developing the MP&M technology effectiveness concentrations, since the Agency collected sufficient data from MP&M sites to develop technology effectiveness concentrations.
EPA also reviewed the Technical Development Documents (TDDs), sampling episode reports, and supporting record materials for the other metals industries' rulemakings to identify available data. EPA used these data for the preliminary assessment of the MP&M industry, but did not use these data for estimating MP&M pollutant loadings because EPA obtained sufficient data for the MP&M sampling program to characterize the MP&M unit operations.
EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) developed a treatability database (formerly called the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database) to provide data on the removal and destruction of chemicals in various types of media, including water, soil, debris, sludge, and sediment. This database contains treatability data from POTWs and industrial facilities for various pollutants. The database includes physical and chemical data for each pollutant, the types of treatment used to treat the specific pollutants, the types of wastewater treated, the size of the POTW or industrial site, and the treatment concentrations achieved. EPA used this database as one means to assess removal of MP&M pollutants of concern by POTWs.
In September 1982, EPA published the
Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works
, referred to as the 50 POTW Study. The purpose of this study was to generate, compile, and report data on the occurrence and fate of the 129 priority pollutants in 50 POTWs. The report presents all of the data collected, the results of preliminary evaluations of these data, and the results of calculations to determine the quantity of priority pollutants in the influent to POTWs; discharged from the POTWs; in the effluent from intermediate process streams; and in the POTW sludge streams. EPA used the data from this study as one means to assess removal by POTWs of MP&M pollutants of concern (see Section XII.A for additional discussion on the use of the 50 POTW Study).
In February 1986, EPA issued the “Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works”, referred to as the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS). This report, which was based in part on the 50 POTW Study, revealed a significant number of sites discharging pollutants to POTWs, which are a threat to the treatment capability of the POTW. These pollutants were not regulated by national categorical pretreatment standards at that time. EPA used the information in the DSS in developing the Preliminary Data Summary (PDS) for the MP&M category (October 1989).
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database contains specific toxic chemical release and transfer information from manufacturing facilities throughout the United States. EPA considered using the TRI database in developing the MP&M effluent guidelines. However, EPA did not use TRI data on wastewater discharges from MP&M sites because sufficient data were not available for effluent guidelines development. For example, in developing the MP&M effluent guidelines, EPA uses wastewater influent concentrations to characterize a facility's wastewater and to calculate treatment efficiency (
i.e.,
percent removal across the treatment system). TRI does not provide concentrations for the influent to a facility's treatment system. EPA also did not use the data on wastewater discharge because many MP&M sites do not meet the reporting thresholds for the TRI database.
B. Survey Questionnaires
As discussed in Section II.C, EPA originally intended to propose the MP&M rulemaking in two phases. Therefore, EPA's data collection efforts, particularly the use of survey questionnaires, was handled in two phases to collect data from the relevant industrial sectors. EPA distributed two screener and six detailed questionnaires (surveys) between 1989 and 1996. For a list of surveys by distribution date, see the Technical Development Document for today's proposed rule.
1. Screener Surveys
EPA developed and distributed two screener surveys. In 1990, EPA distributed 8,342 screener surveys to sites believed to be engaged in the original seven Phase I MP&M sectors. In 1996, EPA distributed 5,325 screener surveys to sites believed to be engaged in the eleven Phase II MP&M sectors. The purpose of the screener surveys was to identify sites to receive the more detailed follow-up surveys and to make a preliminary assessment of the MP&M industry.
In each case, EPA identified the SIC codes applicable to the respective MP&M sectors and then calculated the number of sites to receive the screener within each SIC code by a coefficient of variation (CV) minimization procedure (see the respective Database Summary Reports for the screener surveys in the public record for a detailed discussion of the CV procedure). Based on the number of sites selected within each SIC code, the Agency purchased a list of randomly selected names and addresses from Dun & Bradstreet. This list included twice the number of sites specified by the CV minimization procedure for each SIC code. Dun & Bradstreet randomly selected the requested number of sites from the Dun & Bradstreet database for each SIC code. From this list of potential recipient sites, the Agency randomly selected sites to receive the screener surveys. For a more detailed discussion on the screener surveys, see the Technical
Development Document for today's proposed rule.
EPA also sent the 1996 screener survey to 1,750 randomly selected sites in Ohio for the purpose of collecting information for an environmental benefits study. (See Section XX.F or the Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis for today's proposed rule for a detailed discussion of EPA's Ohio Benefits Case Study).
2. Industrial Detailed Surveys
Based on responses to the 1990 screener, EPA sent a more detailed survey to a select group of water-using MP&M sites. The Agency designed this survey to collect detailed technical and financial information. EPA selected 1,020 detailed survey recipients from the following three groups of sites:
• Water-discharging 1989 screener respondents (860 sites);
• Water-using 1989 screener respondents that did not discharge process water (74 sites); and
• Water-discharging sites from well-known MP&M companies that did not receive the 1989 screener (86 sites).
EPA used information from the first two groups of survey recipients to develop pollutant loadings and reductions and to develop compliance cost estimates. Because EPA did not randomly select the third group of recipients, EPA did not use the data to develop national estimates.
In an effort to reduce burden on survey recipients for the second phase of the data collection effort, EPA developed two similar detailed surveys. Based on the development of the 1995 MP&M proposal, EPA chose to collect more detailed information from sites with annual process wastewater discharges greater than one million gallons per year (1 MGY). EPA sent the “long” detailed survey to all 353 1996 screener respondents who indicated they discharged one million or more gallons of MP&M process wastewater annually and performed MP&M operations. The Agency sent the “short” detailed survey to 101 randomly selected 1996 screener respondents who indicated they discharged less than one million gallons of MP&M process wastewater annually and performed MP&M operations.
The detailed surveys collected information to identify the site location and contact person, number of employees, facility age, process wastewater discharge status and destination, and wastewater discharge permits and permitting authority as well as general information about metal types processed, MP&M products and production levels, water use for unit operations, and wastewater discharge from unit operations. EPA used the process information to evaluate water use and discharge practices and sources of pollutants for each MP&M unit operation. EPA also requested detailed information on MP&M wet unit operations, pollution prevention practices, wastewater treatment technologies, costs for water use and wastewater treatment systems, and wastewater/sludge disposal costs. EPA also requested each site to provide block diagrams of the production process and the wastewater treatment system. The unit operation information included: metal types processed, production rate, operating schedule, chemical additives, volume and destination of process wastewater and rinse waters, in-process pollution prevention technologies, and in-process flow control technologies. The information EPA requested for each wastewater treatment unit included: operating flow rate, design capacity, operating time, chemical additives, and unit operations discharging to each treatment unit. In addition, EPA asked each site to provide the type of MP&M wastewater sampling data collected. EPA used these data to characterize the industry, to perform subcategorization analyses, to identify best management practices, to evaluate performance of the treatment technology for inclusion in the regulatory options, and to develop regulatory compliance cost estimates.
EPA also collected detailed financial and economic information about the site or the company owning the site. In addition, the 1996 long detailed questionnaire included a section that requested supplemental information on other MP&M facilities owned by the company. EPA included this voluntary section to measure the combined impact of proposed MP&M effluent guidelines on companies with multiple MP&M facilities that discharge process wastewater. This section requested the same information collected in the 1996 MP&M screener survey. Responses to questions in this section provided the size, industrial sector, revenue, unit operations, and water usage of the company's other MP&M facilities.
The 1996 short survey included the identical general site and process information and economic information collected in the long detailed survey. However, to minimize the burden on facilities discharging less than one million gallons of process wastewater, EPA did not require these facilities to provide the detailed information on MP&M unit operations or treatment technologies that the Agency requested in the long survey. For a question-by-question comparison of the short and long 1996 detailed surveys, see the Technical Development Document for today's proposed rule.
Finally, EPA developed a detailed survey, under a separate rulemaking effort, to collect detailed information from facilities that are currently covered by the Iron and Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines. Following field sampling of iron and steel sites and review of the completed industry surveys, EPA decided that some iron and steel operations would be more appropriately covered by the MP&M rule because they were more like MP&M operations (see Section VI.C.5 for a discussion on the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory). Based on EPA's decision regarding these operations, the Agency coded and entered process information from 47 iron and steel surveys into the MP&M costing input database.
3. Municipality Survey
EPA distributed the municipality surveys in 1996 to city and county facilities that might operate MP&M facilities. The Agency designed this survey to measure the impact of this rule on municipalities and other government entities that perform maintenance and rebuilding operations on MP&M products (
e.g.,
bus and truck, automobiles).
The Agency sent the municipality survey to 150 city and county facilities randomly selected from the
Municipality Year Book-1995
based on population and geographic location. EPA allocated sixty percent of the sample to municipalities and 40 percent to counties. The 60/40 distribution was approximately proportional to their aggregate populations in the frame. EPA divided the municipality sample and the county sample into three size groupings as measured by population. For municipalities, the population groupings were: less than 10,000 residents, 10,000-50,000 residents, and 50,000 or more residents. For counties, the population groupings were: less than 50,000 residents, 50,000-150,000 residents, and 150,000 or more residents. The geographic stratification conformed to the Census definitions of Northeast, North Central, South, Pacific, and Mountain states. The technical questions in the Municipality Survey were basically identical to the 1996 short detailed survey; however, EPA adapted the financial and economic questions so that they were appropriate for these facilities.
4. Federal Facilities Survey
In April 1998, EPA distributed the federal facilities detailed survey to the following federal agencies:
• Department of Energy;
• Department of Defense;
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA);
• Department of Transportation (including the United States Coast Guard);
• Department of the Interior;
• Department of Agriculture; and
• United States Postal Service.
EPA designed this survey to assess the impact of the MP&M effluent limitations guidelines and standards on federal agencies that operate MP&M facilities. EPA distributed the survey to federal agencies likely to perform industrial operations on metal products or machines. The Agency requested that the representatives of the seven listed federal agencies voluntarily distribute copies of the survey to sites they believed performed MP&M operations. The information collected in the 1996 federal survey was identical to the long survey. After engineering review and coding, EPA entered data from 44 federal surveys into the database. Because EPA did not randomly select the survey recipients, data from these questionnaires was not used to develop national estimates.
5. POTW Survey
EPA distributed the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) survey in November 1997. The Agency designed this survey to estimate benefits associated with implementation of the MP&M regulations and to estimate possible costs and burden that POTWs might incur in writing MP&M permits or other control mechanisms. The Agency sent the POTW survey to 150 POTWs with flow rates greater than 0.50 million gallons per day. EPA randomly selected the recipients from the 1992 Needs Survey Review, Update, and Query System Database (RUQus). The Agency divided the POTW sample into two strata by daily flow rates: 0.50 to 2.50 million gallons, and 2.50 million gallons or more.
In addition to the total volume of wastewater treated at the site, the POTW survey requested the number of industrial permits written, the cost to write the permits, the permitting fee structure, the percentage of industrial dischargers covered by National Categorical Standards (
i.e.,
effluent guidelines), and the percentage of permits requiring expensive administrative activities. EPA used this information to estimate administrative burden and costs. In addition, EPA requested information on the use or disposal of sewage sludge generated by the POTW. The Agency only required POTWs that received discharges from an MP&M facility to complete those questions. The sewage sludge information requested included the amount generated, use or disposal method, metal levels, use or disposal costs, and the percentage of metal loadings from MP&M facilities. The Agency used this information to assess the potential changes in sludge handling resulting from the MP&M rule and to estimate economic benefits to the POTW (See Section XIX.B.2 for a discussion of the results of the POTW survey.)
C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
The Agency visited 201 MP&M sites to collect information about MP&M unit operations, water use practices, pollution prevention and treatment technologies, and waste disposal methods, and to evaluate sites for potential inclusion in the MP&M sampling program (described below). In general, the Agency visited sites to encompass the range of sectors, unit operations, and wastewater treatment technologies within the MP&M industry.
The Agency based site selection on information contained in the MP&M screener and detailed surveys. The Agency also contacted regional EPA personnel, state environmental agency personnel, and local pretreatment coordinators to identify MP&M sites believed to be operating in-process source reduction and recycling technologies or end-of-pipe wastewater treatment technologies. The Agency also attempted to visit sites of various sizes. EPA visited sites with wastewater flows ranging from less than 200 gallons per day to more than 1,000,000 gallons per day. Site-specific selection criteria are discussed in site visit reports (SVRs) prepared for each site visited by EPA.
In addition to performing site visits, EPA conducted wastewater sampling episodes at 72 sites to obtain data on the characteristics of MP&M wastewater and solid wastes, and to assess the following: The loading of pollutants to surface waters and POTWs from MP&M sites; the effectiveness of technologies designed to reduce and remove pollutants from MP&M wastewater; design and operational parameters; and the variation of MP&M wastewater characteristics across unit operations, metal types processed in each unit operation, and sectors.
The Agency used information collected during MP&M site visits to identify candidate sites for sampling. The Agency used the following general criteria to select sites for sampling:
• The site performed MP&M unit operations EPA was evaluating for development of the MP&M regulation;
• The site processed metals through MP&M unit operations for which the metal type/unit operation combination needed to be characterized for the sampling database;
• The site performed in-process source reduction, recycling, or end-of-pipe treatment technologies that EPA was evaluating for technology option development; and
• The site performed unit operations in a sector that EPA was evaluating for development of the MP&M regulation.
The Agency also attempted to sample at sites of various sizes. EPA sampled at sites with wastewater flows ranging from less than 200 gallons per day to more than 1,000,000 gallons per day.
In addition, EPA worked with several stakeholders to collect site visit and sampling data from MP&M facilities. Following the 1995 proposal of the Phase I MP&M rule, the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD), and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) proposed potential sampling sites to the Agency, and EPA visited these sites to identify candidates for sampling. After conducting site visits, EPA selected five sites for sampling episodes to characterize end-of-pipe treatment technologies in metal finishing and aircraft parts job shops and the railroad and shipbuilding industrial sectors. EPA prepared detailed sampling plans based on the information collected during the five site visits, and supported AAR, HRSD and LACSD sampling episodes for the collection of wastewater samples, and EPA prepared the sampling episode reports.
The Agency collected the following types of information during each sampling episode:
• Dates and times of sample collection;
• Flow data corresponding to each sample;
• Production data corresponding to each sample of wastewater from MP&M unit operations;
• Design and operating parameters for source reduction, recycling, and treatment technologies characterized during sampling;
• Information about site operations that had changed since the site visit or that were not included in the SVR; and
• Temperature and pH of the sampled wastestreams.
EPA documented all data collected during sampling episodes in the
sampling episode report (SER) for each sampled site which are located in the MP&M Administrative Record. Non-confidential information from these reports is available in the public record for this proposal. For detailed information on sampling and preservation procedures, analytical methods, and quality assurance/quality control procedures see the Technical Development Document for today's proposed rule.
D. Industry Submitted Data
EPA evaluated other industry data in developing the MP&M effluent guidelines. The data sources reviewed include: public comments to the 1995 MP&M Phase I proposed rule; the Metal Finishing F006 Benchmark Study (September 1998); data supporting the 180-Day Accumulation Time Under RCRA for Waste Water Treatment Sludges From the Metal Finishing Industry Final Rule (65 FR 12377, March 8, 2000); data provided by the Aluminum Anodizing Council (AAC), the American Wire Producers Association (AWPA), and the Aerospace Association; data and storm water pollution prevention plans provided by several shipbuilding sites, and data from periodic compliance monitoring reports/discharge monitoring reports for several sites that were part of EPA's wastewater sampling program. Data submitted with the MP&M Phase I comments did not include the quality control data required to verify the accuracy of sample analyses and, therefore, EPA did not use the data. These data sources are located in the MP&M Administrative Record. Non-confidential information is available in the public record for this proposal.
E. Summary of Public Participation
EPA has met regularly with industry trade associations and their members at various association annual meetings and conferences. There are over 20 trade associations that represent facilities that were part of the initial scope of the MP&M proposed rule. These trade associations have formed an informal coalition (referred to as the “MP&M” coalition) that coordinates regular meetings with representatives from the various affected industries. In the past year, EPA has also participated in several of the Small Business Administration's “Small Business Roundtable” meetings.
As discussed in detail in Section XXII.C, EPA conducted outreach and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. For this proposed rule, the small entity representatives included nine small MP&M facility owner/operators, one small municipality, and the following six trade associations representing different sectors of the industry: National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF)/Association of Electroplaters and Surface Finishers (AESF)/MP&M Coalition; the Association Connecting Electronics Industries (also known as IPC); Porcelain Enamel Institute; American Association of Shortline Railroads (ASLRA); Electronics Industry Association (EIA); and the American Wire Producers Association (AWPA).
Because many facilities affected by this proposal are indirect dischargers, the Agency also conducted outreach to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) individually and through the Association of Municipal Sewerage Agencies (AMSA). EPA also conducted a survey of 150 POTWs to assess the burden associated with implementing the proposed MP&M rule (see Section V.B.5 above for discussion of the POTW survey). In addition, EPA made a concerted effort to consult with pretreatment coordinators and state and local entities that will be responsible for implementing this regulation.
EPA sponsored three stakeholders' meetings between November 1997 and May 2000. Two meetings were held in Washington, DC, and the third was held in Chicago, IL. The primary objectives of the meetings were to present the Agency's current thinking regarding the technology bases for the MP&M proposed rule and to solicit comments, issues, and new ideas from interested stakeholders, including members of environmental groups.
EPA provided information on the potential technology options and in-process pollution prevention practices as well as the potential subcategories. EPA also provided preliminary information on pollutant reductions, compliance costs, and potential monitoring flexibility.
Most recently, EPA has put up a website (http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/mpm) to provide ongoing information on the MP&M project. The site includes background information, links to related documents, and information presented at MP&M stakeholders meetings.
VI. Industry Subcategorization
A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization
EPA may divide a point source category (
e.g.,
MP&M) into groupings called “subcategories” to provide a method for addressing variations between products, raw materials, processes, and other factors which result in distinctly different effluent characteristics. Regulation of a category by using formal subcategories provides that each subcategory has a uniform set of effluent limitations which take into account technological achievability and economic impacts unique to that subcategory. In some cases, effluent limitations within a subcategory may be different based on consideration of the factors described in section 304(b)(2)(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). The CWA requires EPA, in developing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards, to consider a number of different subcategorization factors. The statute also authorizes EPA to take into account other factors that the Agency deems appropriate. Stakeholders specifically suggested that EPA consider subcategories based on industry sector or type of activity within an industry sector (
e.g.,
repair and maintenance versus manufacturing), some of which appear to have very low baseline pollutant loadings.
EPA considered the following factors in its evaluation of potential MP&M subcategories:
• Unit operation;
• Activity;
• Raw materials;
• Products;
• Size of site;
• Location;
• Age;
• Nature of the waste generated;
• Economic impacts;
• Treatment costs;
• Total energy requirements;
• Air pollution control methods;
• Solid waste generation and disposal; and
• POTW burden.
One result of grouping similar facilities into subcategories is the increased likelihood that the regulations are practicable, and it diminishes the need to address variations between facilities through a variance process (Weyerhaeuser Co. V. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).
EPA considered subcategorizing the MP&M category by industrial sector (
e.g.,
aerospace, aircraft, bus and truck, electronic equipment, hardware, household equipment, instruments, job shops, mobile industrial equipment, motor vehicles, office machines, ordnance, precious metals and jewelry, printed wiring boards, railroad, ships and boats, stationary industrial equipment, and miscellaneous metal products). Sectors are broadly defined and not only include manufacturing and repair facilities within the sector (
e.g.,
shipbuilding facilities in the ship and boat sector), but also include facilities that produce products that are used within the sector (
e.g.,
a facility that
manufactures hydraulic pumps used on ships is also in the ship and boat sector). The Agency determined that subcategorization based solely on industrial sector would require much more detailed subcategorization scheme than the approach proposed (see below). Adopting a subcategorization scheme based on industrial sector would complicate the implementation of the limitations and standards because permit writers might be required to develop facility-specific limitations across multiple subcategories.
The Agency determined that wastewater characteristics, unit operations, and raw materials used to produce products within a given sector are not always the same from site to site, and they are not always different from sector to sector. Within each sector, sites can perform a variety of unit operations on a variety of raw materials. For example, a site in the aerospace sector may primarily machine aluminum missile components and not perform any surface treatment other than alkaline cleaning. Another site in that sector may electroplate iron parts for missiles and perform little or no machining. Wastewater characteristics from these sites may differ because of the different unit operations performed and different raw materials used.
Based on the analytical data collected for this rule, EPA has not found a statistically significant difference in industrial wastewater discharge among industrial sectors when performing similar unit operations for cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, oil & grease, silver, tin, TSS, and zinc. (The analytical data are available in the public record for this rulemaking.) For example, a facility that performs electroplating in the process of manufacturing office machines produces metal-bearing wastewater with similar chemical characteristics as a facility that performs electroplating in the process of manufacturing a part for a bus. Similarly, a facility that performs repair and maintenance on a airplane engine produces oil-bearing wastewater that has similar chemical characteristics to a facility that performs repair and maintenance on construction machinery.
Most MP&M unit operations are not unique to a particular sector and are performed across all sectors. For example, all sectors may perform several of the major wastewater-generating unit operations (
e.g.,
alkaline treatment, acid treatment, machining, electroplating). And, for the most part, the unit operations that are rarely performed (
e.g.,
abrasive jet machining) are not performed in all sectors, but are also not limited to a single sector. Therefore, a facility in any one of the 18 industrial sectors can generate metal-bearing or oil-bearing wastewater (or a combination of both) depending on what unit operations the facility performs.
In addition, two facilities that may be part of the same sector may generate wastewater with vastly different chemical characteristics and thus require different types of treatment. For example, an automobile manufacturer and an automobile repair facility are both part of the motor vehicle sector. However, the automobile manufacturer may perform unit operations that generate metal-bearing and oil-bearing wastewater (aqueous degreasing, electroplating, chemical conversion coating, etc.) while the automobile repair facility may perform unit operations that only generate oil-bearing wastewater (machining, aqueous degreasing, impact deformation, painting, etc.).
Due to the numerous MP&M facilities that could fall under the scope of multiple sectors, EPA determined that a regulation based on MP&M industrial sector would create a variety of implementation issues for State and local regulators as well as for those multiple-sector facilities. Therefore, as mentioned above, EPA is not proposing to use industrial sector to subcategorize the industry.
In the Phase I proposal, EPA did not subcategorize the Phase I segment of MP&M sectors (see 60 FR 28221; May 30, 1995). As discussed in Section II.C, the scope of the 1995 proposal differed from today's proposal in that it only covered seven of the 18 MP&M industrial sectors. For today's proposal, EPA performed the analysis for determining whether or not to subcategorize considering all facilities under the scope of today's rule (
i.e.,
both Phase I and II industrial sectors). See Section III for a discussion on the scope of today's proposal. Based on this analysis, EPA determined that it is necessary to subcategorize the MP&M industry.
A variety of factors influenced EPA's decision to subcategorize the MP&M industry. First, EPA found two basic types of wastestreams in the industry: (1) wastewater with high metals content (metal-bearing), and (2) wastewater with low concentration of metals, and high oil and grease content (oil-bearing). The type of wastewater a facility generates is directly related to the unit operations it performs. For example, unit operations such as machining, grinding, aqueous degreasing, and impact or pressure deformation tend to generate a wastewater with high oil and grease (and associated organic pollutants) loadings without significant concentrations of metal pollutants. While other unit operations such as electroplating, conversion coating, chemical etching and milling, and anodizing generate higher metals loadings with moderate/low oil and grease concentrations.
Although many facilities generate both metal- and oil-bearing wastewater, there are a large number of facilities that only generate oil-bearing wastewater. Such facilities are typically machine shops and maintenance and repair facilities. Since the wastewater at these facilities primarily contains oil and grease and other organic constituents, treatment technologies at these facilities focus on oil removal only and do not require the chemical precipitation step needed for treating metal-bearing wastewater. Treatment technologies in place at these facilities generally include ultrafiltration, or chemical emulsion breaking followed by either gravity floatation, coalescing plate oil/water separators, or dissolved air flotation (DAF). Therefore, EPA first divided the industry on the basis of unit operations performed and the nature of the wastewater generated, resulting in the following two groups: (1) metal-bearing with or without oily and organic constituents group; and (2) oil-bearing only group. As a second step, EPA performed an analysis to see if there were any significant differences in the subcategorization factors within the two basic groups.
When looking at facilities with metal-bearing wastewater (with or without oil-bearing wastewater), EPA identified several groups of facilities which could potentially be subcategorized by dominant product, raw materials used, and/or nature of the waste generated. In two subcategories, EPA also considered economic impacts as a factor in subcategorization because of the reduced ability of these facilities to afford treatment costs. There were also two subcategories where the number of facilities that were not currently covered by an existing effluent guidelines regulation was large enough to present an unacceptable burden to POTWs.
Based on the currently available data, EPA is proposing to subcategorize the metal-bearing (with or without oil-bearing wastewater) MP&M facilities into the following subcategories: non-chromium anodizing; metal finishing job shops; printed wiring board facilities; steel forming and finishing facilities; and general metals facilities. EPA describes its rationale for
subcategorization below (see Section VI.C for additional detailed discussion and applicability of each of these subcategories).
The non-chromium anodizers are different from other MP&M facilities in that all of their products are primarily of one metal type—anodized aluminum—and most importantly, they do not use chromic acid or dichromate sealants in their anodizing process. Based on EPA's limited data for these facilities, EPA expects that these facilities have very low levels of metals (with the exception of aluminum) or toxic organic pollutants in their wastewater discharges. EPA determined that other MP&M facilities had much greater concentrations of a wider variety of metals. In addition, due to the presence of large quantities of aluminum, these facilities require much larger wastewater treatment systems to remove the large amounts of aluminum and low levels of alloy metals. The need for larger treatment systems results in higher costs and large economic impacts for this potential subcategory. EPA found that as many as 60 percent of the non-chromium anodizers could experience closures as a result of complying with the proposed regulation (see Section XVI for a discussion of economic impacts). Therefore, based on the difference in raw materials used, product produced, nature of the waste generated (
i.e.,
low levels of pollutants discharged), treatment costs, and projected economic impacts, EPA concluded that a basis exists for subcategorizing the non-chromium anodizing facilities in the MP&M industry.
EPA investigated whether or not to subcategorize the metal finishing and electroplating job shops covered by the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) effluent guidelines. Although the facilities have metal types that require the same treatment technologies as many other metals-bearing facilities, EPA determined these facilities to be different due to the variability of their raw materials and products as well as the slightly higher level of economic impacts incurred as compared to other costed facilities. As discussed in Section VI.C.2 below, this subcategory includes only those facilities who perform the six operations defining the applicability of the Metal Finishing and Electroplating effluent guidelines and who are “job shops” by the definition provided in the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (
i.e.,
they own less than 50 percent of the products processed on site on an annual area basis). (See 40 CFR 433.11). Because these facilities are job shops and perform work on a contract basis, they cannot always predict the type of plating or other finishing operations required. In addition, because these facilities perform work on a large variety of metal types from various customers, the wastewater generated at these facilities can vary from week to week (or even day to day). EPA performed wastewater sampling to specifically identify the variability in the wastewater generated at metal finishing job shops and found that the variability factors calculated solely on the analytical wastewater sampling data of metal finishing and electroplating job shops is higher for most pollutant parameters than those calculated for similar metal-bearing subcategories (
e.g.,
General Metals) (see Section II.D for a discussion of EPA's job shop variability wastewater sampling and Section VIII.B for a discussion on determining limits and variability factors). In addition, EPA found that up to 10 percent of the indirect discharging metal finishing job shops subcategory could experience facility closures as a result of compliance with the proposed regulatory technology option (see Section VIII for a discussion of technology options). Therefore, EPA concluded that it has an appropriate basis for subcategorizing metal finishing and electroplating job shops.
EPA determined that there is a basis for establishing a different subcategory for the printed wiring board facilities from the other facilities in the group of metal-bearing (with or without oil-bearing wastewater) facilities based on raw materials, unit operations performed, dominant product, and nature of the waste generated. First, these facilities process a more consistent mix of metal types (primarily copper, tin, and lead) than other MP&M facilities to produce a specific product. EPA has concluded that this more consistent mix of metal types enables the printed wiring board facilities to tailor their treatment technology and incorporate more of the advanced pollution prevention and recovery technologies (
e.g.,
ion exchange). Printed wiring board facilities generally work with copper-clad laminate material, allowing them to target copper for removal in their wastewater treatment systems or recover the copper using in-process ion exchange. Second, these facilities apply, develop, and strip photoresist—a set of unit operations which is largely unique to this proposed subcategory. This process results in a higher concentration of a more consistent group of organic constituents than other facilities in the metal-bearing group. Finally, the nature of the wastewater generated at these facilities may also be different due to the fact that these facilities perform more lead-bearing operations (
e.g.,
lead/tin electroplating, wave soldering) than other MP&M facilities.
Steel forming and finishing is another proposed subcategory under the metal bearing (with or without oil-bearing wastewater) group of MP&M facilities. These facilities perform both cold forming and finishing operations on steel at stand-alone facilities as well as at steel manufacturing facilities. EPA formerly covered these facilities under the 1982 Iron and Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 420). Typical operations include: acid pickling, annealing, conversion coating (
e.g.,
zinc phosphate, copper sulfate), hot dip coating and/or electroplating of steel wire or rod, heat treatment, welding, drawing, patenting, and oil tempering. EPA concluded that the basis for subcategorization is the difference in the raw material and dominant product at these facilities. Facilities in this subcategory only process steel and for the most part produce uniformly-shaped products such as wire, rod, bar, pipe and tube. In addition, this is the only subcategory where EPA is proposing to cover forming operations under the MP&M regulations. Effluent guidelines specific to forming operations exist for all other common metal types (
e.g.,
Aluminum Forming (40 CFR part 467); Copper Forming (40 CFR part 468); and Nonferrous Metals Forming & Metal Powders (40 CFR part 471)).
Finally, after subcategorization of the non-chromium anodizing, metal finishing job shops, printed wiring board facilities, steel forming and finishing facilities, EPA is proposing to group the remaining metal-bearing (with or without oil-bearing wastewater) group of MP&M facilities into a subcategory entitled “General Metals.” This subcategory would be a “catch-all” for facilities that did not fall into any of the previous subcategories but whose wastewater, at a minimum, requires metals removal and may also require the preliminary treatment steps of oil/water separation, chromium reduction, and cyanide destruction. For example, wastewater generated from most manufacturing operations and heavy rebuilding operations (
e.g.,
aircraft/aerospace, automobile, bus/truck, railroad) would be regulated under the proposed General Metals subcategory.
When looking at facilities with only oil-bearing wastewater for potential further subcategorization, EPA found that there were two types of facilities that were different from the other
facilities in that group based on size, location, and dominant product/activity. The first type of facility includes MP&M operations that occur in shipbuilding dry docks or similar structures, and the second includes railroad line maintenance facilities (see VI.C.8 and VI.C.9, respectively, for a detailed description of these proposed subcategories). Dry docks (and similar structures such as graving docks, building ways, lift barges, and marine railways) are large, outdoor areas exposed to precipitation that shipyards use to perform final assembly, maintenance, rebuilding and repair work on large ships and boats. Due to their size, outdoor location, low level of pollutant loadings discharged to the environment, and the fact this wastewater is unique to the shipbuilding industry, EPA believes that a basis exists to subcategorize shipbuilding dry docks and similar structures. This proposed subcategory does not include other MP&M operations that occur at shipyards (
e.g.,
shore-side operations).
Similarly, railroad line maintenance facilities are outdoor facilities where light maintenance and cleaning of railroad cars, engines and car-wheel trucks occur. Due to their outdoor location, unit operations performed, and low level of pollutant loadings discharged to the environment, EPA concluded that there is a basis to subcategorize railroad line maintenance facilities. EPA notes that this proposed subcategory does not include railroad manufacturing operations or railroad overhaul/rebuilding facilities.
Finally, after subcategorization of the shipbuilding dry dock and railroad line maintenance facilities, EPA is proposing to group the remaining oily-bearing wastewater group of MP&M facilities into a subcategory entitled “Oily Wastes.” This subcategory would be a “catch-all” for facilities that did not fall into the two above “oily” subcategories but whose wastewater does not have metals loadings at levels where they can be effectively treated. Following further analysis, EPA has decided not to propose pretreatment standards for indirect discharging facilities in the shipbuilding dry dock and railroad line maintenance subcategories (see Section XII for a discussion pertaining to pretreatment standards).
B. Proposed Subcategories
As discussed above in Section VI.A, EPA has determined that a basis exists for dividing the MP&M category into the following subcategories for the proposed rule: General Metals, Non-Chromium Anodizing, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Boards, Steel Forming and Finishing, Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Dock. In Section VI.C below, EPA describes each subcategory and defines the applicability of the rule for facilities in each subcategory. EPA notes that with the exception of the two general subcategories (General Metals and Oily Wastes), the remaining proposed subcategories would not have been relevant to the subcategorization of the Phase I MP&M proposal. The facilities that have been further subcategorized in today's proposal were all part of the Phase II MP&M sectors (see Section II.C for a discussion on the 1995 Phase I proposal).
EPA believes its proposed subcategories make sense, for the reasons discussed above, but requests comment on other possible subcategories. In particular, it has been suggested that the large General Metals subcategory be further subdivided into industrial sectors based on preliminary analyses which suggest that discharges from some sectors may be low enough to warrant exclusion from this regulation. Some of the wastewaters in these sectors may be covered by other effluent guidelines. EPA requests comment on further subdivision of the General Metals subcategory. Commenters should include data to support their suggestions where possible.
C. General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory
1. General Metals
As discussed above in Section VI.A, EPA has created the General Metals subcategory as a “catch-all” for MP&M facilities that discharge metal-bearing wastewater (with or without oil-bearing wastewater) that do not fit the applicability of the Printed Wiring Board, Non-Chromium Anodizing, Metal Finishing Job Shops, or Steel Forming and Finishing subcategories. Therefore, the General Metals subcategory may include facilities from 17 of the 18 MP&M industrial sectors (
i.e.,
all except the printed wiring board sector). This subcategory also includes General Metals facilities that are owned and operated by states and municipalities. (See Section III for a discussion on the general scope of today's proposal). General Metals facilities likely perform manufacturing or heavy rebuilding of metal products, parts, or machines. Facilities that perform metal finishing or electroplating operations on-site, but do not meet the definition of a job shop (
i.e.,
captive shops), would fit in the applicability of the General Metals subcategory.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 26,000 indirect dischargers and 3,800 direct dischargers that could be covered by this proposed subcategory. EPA currently regulates 26 percent of the facilities in this subcategory by existing effluent guidelines. Based on responses to its questionnaires, the Agency estimates that the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) effluent guidelines cover approximately 16 percent of these facilities and other metals related effluent guidelines (such as those discussed in Section II.B.) cover a portion of the wastewater discharges at an additional 10 percent of these facilities.
EPA is proposing to exclude, from the MP&M regulations, indirect discharging facilities that would fall into the General Metals subcategory when they discharge less than or equal to 1 million gallons per year (MGY) of MP&M process wastewater to the POTW. (See Sections II.D, III, and XII for discussions on the proposed low flow cutoff and its impact on POTW burden reduction). In cases where these General Metals facilities discharge less than or equal to 1 MGY to a POTW, these pretreatment standards proposed today do not apply; however, facilities are still subject to other applicable pretreatment standards, including those established under parts 413 and 433. See Sections IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts associated with the MP&M rule for the General Metals subcategory.
2. Metal Finishing Job Shops
Facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory must meet the following criteria: (1) Discharge wastewater from one or more of the six operations identified in the applicability of the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) effluent limitations guidelines regulations; and (2) must meet the definition of a job shop. The six identifying operations are: Electroplating, Electroless Plating, Anodizing, Coating (chromating, phosphating, passivation, and coloring), Chemical Etching and Milling, and Printed Circuit Board Manufacture (
i.e,
Printed Wiring Boards). As in the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433), EPA defines a “job shop” as “a facility which owns not more than 50 percent (on an annual area basis) of the materials undergoing metal finishing.” EPA is proposing to include printed
wiring board job shops in this subcategory based on the unique economics of job shop operation. However, EPA solicits comment on the variability of the raw materials, products, and wastewater at printed wiring board job shops. EPA also solicits comment on including printed wiring board job shops under this subcategory or whether EPA should include them in the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory (see Section VI.C.4 for a discussion on the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory).
The Agency estimates that there are approximately 1,500 indirect dischargers and 15 direct dischargers in the proposed Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. EPA currently regulates all facilities in this subcategory by the existing Metal Finishing or Electroplating effluent guidelines and standards. EPA is proposing to cover all of these facilities under this proposed rule. Therefore, under today's proposal, facilities subject to the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory would no longer be covered by the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in 40 CFR part 413 or 40 CFR part 433. (See § 438.20(a)). EPA estimates that today's proposal could reduce pollutant loadings from this subcategory by an additional 1.75 million toxic pound equivalents
2
annually over the reductions currently achieved.
2
EPA uses toxic pound-equivalents to indicate the amount of toxicity that a pollutant may exert on human health and aquatic life. The Agency calculates toxic pound-equivalents by multiplying the mass of pollutants discharged (or removed) by that pollutant's toxic weighting factor (TWF). EPA develops TWFs using a combination of toxicity data on human health and aquatic life and are relative to the toxicity of copper. (See Section XVII of today's notice or the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Document for this proposed rule for a more detailed discussion of toxic weighting factors).
EPA has identified approximately 30,000 facilities that meet the definition of job shop but do not discharge wastewater from one or more of the six identifying metal finishing operations as defined in 40 CFR part 433. EPA does not consider such job shops to be part of the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. For example, these other job shops perform assembly, painting, and machining on a contract basis and are likely to fall in the General Metals or Oily Waste subcategories.
EPA is considering an alternative compliance option for this subcategory which includes the demonstration of specified pollution prevention practices for all facilities in the subcategory (or possibly only those facilities below a specified flow cutoff). See Section XXI.D for a discussion on the pollution prevention alternative for Metal Finishing Job Shops. Also see Sections IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory.
3. Non-Chromium Anodizing
Facilities covered under the proposed Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory must perform aluminum anodizing without the use of chromic acid or dichromate sealants in their MP&M operations. Anodizing is a surface conversion operation used to alter the properties of aluminum for better corrosion resistence and heat transfer. Generally, non-chromium anodizing facilities perform sulfuric acid anodizing; however, facilities can use other acids, such as oxalic acid, for aluminum anodizing. EPA is not including anodizers that use chromic acid or dichromate sealants under this subcategory. EPA is proposing to cover those facilities in the General Metals subcategory or the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory (if they operate as a job shop). EPA solicits comment on the chromium content of sulfuric acid anodizing baths, anodizing dyes/sealants, and other wastewater from sulfuric acid anodizing.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 190 indirect dischargers and, to date, has not identified any direct dischargers in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory. The wastewater generated at non-chromium anodizing facilities contains very low levels of metals (with the exception of aluminum) and toxic organic pollutants. In addition, as discussed in Section VI.A, above, EPA determined that compliance with the proposed regulation would cause 60 percent of the indirect discharging facilities in this subcategory to close. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in Section XII.F below, EPA is proposing to exclude wastewater from indirect discharging non-chromium anodizing facilities (that also do not use dichromate sealants) from the MP&M categorical pretreatment standards. Such facilities would still need to comply with the pretreatment standards of the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) or Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) effluent guidelines for their non-chromium anodizing wastewater and the general pretreatment standards at 40 CFR part 403. EPA is proposing limits for direct dischargers in this subcategory. EPA solicits comment on whether the applicable standards for indirect discharging non-chromium anodizers should be transferred from 40 CFR part 433 to the MP&M regulation in order to include all non-chromium anodizers under one regulation. Because today's proposal includes a monitoring waiver for pollutants that are not present (see Section XXI.C.1 for a discussion on the monitoring waiver), the Agency believes that transferring the pretreatment standards for these facilities to the MP&M regulation would allow non-chromium anodizing indirect dischargers to reduce the number of parameters for which they have to monitor. See Section IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory.
Some facilities that could potentially fall into the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory may also perform other metal surface finishing operations at their facilities. If these facilities commingle their wastewater from their non-chromium anodizing operations with wastewater from other surface finishing operations (
e.g.,
chromic acid anodizing, electroplating, chemical conversion coating, etc.) for treatment, they would not be covered by the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory. Instead, the General Metals or Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategories would apply. However, for facilities that discharge their non-chromium anodizing wastewater separate from their other surface finishing wastewater, control authorities and permit writers would apply the appropriate limits to each discharge.
4. Printed Wiring Board
EPA is proposing the Printed Wiring Board subcategory to cover wastewater discharges from the manufacture, maintenance, and repair of printed wiring boards (
i.e.,
circuit boards). This subcategory does not include job shops that manufacture, maintain or repair printed wiring boards—EPA is covering these facilities under the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory, see Section VI.C.2 above for a discussion. EPA currently regulates all facilities in this subcategory by the existing Metal Finishing or Electroplating effluent guidelines and standards. EPA is proposing to cover all of these facilities under this proposed rule. Therefore, under today's proposal, facilities subject to the Printed Wiring Board subcategory would no longer be covered by the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in 40 CFR part 413 or 40 CFR part 433. Printed wiring board facilities perform unique operations including applying, developing and stripping of photoresist, lead/tin soldering, and wave soldering. EPA estimates that there are approximately 620 indirect
dischargers and 11 direct dischargers in the proposed Printed Wiring Board subcategory. See Sections IX, XI, XII, and XVI of this preamble for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory.
5. Steel Forming & Finishing
Although many facilities may perform MP&M operations with steel, EPA is proposing to establish the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory for process wastewater discharges from facilities that perform MP&M operations (listed in Section III) or cold forming operations on steel wire, rod, bar, pipe, or tube. This subcategory does not include facilities that perform those operations on base materials other than steel. In a separate notice, EPA is proposing to revise the Iron and Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines. The proposed revisions to the Iron and Steel regulations include revising the applicability to exclude those facilities that EPA has determined to be appropriately regulated by the MP&M proposed rule. EPA based this decision on the information gathered during the data collection effort for the proposed revision to the Iron & Steel Manufacturing regulations.
The MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing proposed subcategory does not cover wastewater generated from performing any hot steel forming operations; or wastewater from cold forming, electroplating or continuous hot dip coating of steel sheet, strip, or plates. As mentioned above, the new proposed Iron & Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines cover wastewater from such operations.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 110 indirect dischargers and 43 direct dischargers in the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory of the proposed MP&M regulation. All facilities in this subcategory have permits or other control mechanisms under the existing Iron and Steel Manufacturing regulation (40 CFR part 420).
EPA is proposing to cover wastewater from these steel forming and finishing operations, regardless of whether they occur at a stand-alone facility or at a steel manufacturing facility. When a steel manufacturing facility performs these MP&M steel forming and finishing operations and commingles the wastewater for treatment with wastewater from other non-MP&M unit operations, control authorities (
e.g.,
POTWs) and permit writers will need to set limits which account for both the MP&M and the Iron & Steel regulations. As mentioned previously, EPA refers to this approach as the combined waste stream formula or the building block approach. For facilities that choose to discharge their MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing wastewater separate from their Iron & Steel wastewater, control authorities and permit writers will apply the appropriate limits to each discharge. See Sections IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts for the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory.
6. Oily Wastes
EPA has created the Oily Wastes subcategory as a “catch-all” for MP&M facilities that discharge only oil-bearing wastewater and that do not fit the applicability of the other MP&M subcategories. EPA is defining the applicability of this subcategory by the presence of specific unit operations. Facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory must not fit the applicability of the Railroad Line Maintenance or Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories and must only discharge wastewater from one or more of the following MP&M unit operations: alkaline cleaning for oil removal, aqueous degreasing, corrosion preventive coating, floor cleaning, grinding, heat treating, impact deformation, machining, pressure deformation, solvent degreasing, testing (
e.g.,
hydrostatic, dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic flux), painting, steam cleaning, and laundering. EPA is defining “corrosion preventive coating” to mean the application of removable oily or organic solutions to protect metal surfaces against corrosive environments. Corrosion preventive coatings include, but are not limited to: petrolatum compounds, oils, hard dry-film compounds, solvent-cutback petroleum-based compounds, emulsions, water-displacing polar compounds, and fingerprint removers and neutralizers. Corrosion preventive coating does not include electroplating, painting, chemical conversion coating (including phosphate conversion coating) operations. EPA is soliciting comment on the differences in metals content of wastewater generated from “light” phosphoric acid operations (such as some phosphoric acid etching operations and cleaning operations using phosphoric acid solutions) and from phosphate conversion coating. EPA is considering including phosphoric acid etching and cleaning using phosphoric acid solutions in the definition of “oily operations” discussed above. However, the Agency is not considering the inclusion of phosphate conversion coating as one of the “oily operations.” Based on EPA's database for this proposal, EPA believes that wastewater generated from phosphate conversion coating operations contains high levels of zinc and manganese.
If a facility discharges wastewater from any of the above listed operations but also discharges wastewater from other MP&M operations, it does not meet the criteria of the Oily Wastes subcategory. Facilities in this subcategory are predominantly machine shops or maintenance and repair shops. EPA has determined that other MP&M unit operations generate metal-bearing wastewater or combination metal- and oil-bearing wastewater and require different treatment technology (
i.e.,
chemical precipitation). EPA included wastewater from floor cleaning and testing operations based on review of the analytical data that confirmed little or no metals content in these two streams. This subcategory also includes state- and municipally-owned facilities only performing the listed operations.
Like the General Metals subcategory, the Oily Wastes subcategory may include a number of facilities from each of 17 of the 18 MP&M industrial sectors (
i.e.,
all except the printed wiring board sector). (See Section III for a discussion on the general scope of today's proposal).
EPA estimates that there are approximately 28,500 indirect dischargers and 900 direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory. EPA has concluded that less than 1 percent of the MP&M process wastewater discharged from facilities in this subcategory are covered by an existing effluent guideline.
For the reasons stated in Section XII, EPA is proposing to exclude from the MP&M regulations indirect discharging facilities that would fall into the Oily Wastes subcategory when they discharge less than or equal to 2 MGY of MP&M process wastewater to the POTW. EPA is also seriously considering a higher flow cutoff of 3 MGY for these indirect dischargers. See Sections IX, XI, XII of this preamble for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts for the Oily Wastes subcategory.
7. Railroad Line Maintenance
EPA has developed the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory to cover facilities that perform routine cleaning and light maintenance on railroad engines, cars, and car-wheel trucks and similar parts or machines. More specifically these facilities only discharge wastewater from MP&M unit
operations that EPA defines as oily operations (see Section VI.C.6, above) and/or washing of final product. For other primarily oily subcategories (oily wastes and shipbuilding dry docks), EPA does not consider the unit operation “washing of final product” an MP&M “oily” operation; however, EPA has reviewed the analytical wastewater sampling data for this wastestream at railroad line maintenance facilities and determined that there is little or no metal content. This subcategory does not include railroad manufacturing facilities or railroad overhaul or heavy maintenance facilities. Railroad line maintenance facilities are similar to facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory in that they produce oil-bearing wastewater and do not perform MP&M operations that generate wastewater that require metals removal treatment technology.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 800 indirect dischargers and 35 direct dischargers in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategories. The wastewater generated at railroad line maintenance facilities contains very low levels of metals and toxic organic pollutants. For the reasons discussed in Section XII, EPA is proposing to exclude wastewater from indirect discharging railroad line maintenance facilities from the MP&M regulations. However, EPA is proposing to regulate conventional pollutants for direct dischargers in this subcategory. See Sections IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts for the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory.
8. Shipbuilding Dry Dock
EPA has created the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory to specifically cover MP&M process wastewater generated in or on dry docks and similar structures such as graving docks, building ways, marine railways and lift barges at shipbuilding facilities (or shipyards). Shipbuilding facilities use these structures to perform maintenance, repair or rebuilding of existing ships, or the final assembly and launching of new ships (including barges). Shipbuilders use these structures to reach surfaces and parts that would otherwise be under water. Since dry docks and similar structures include sumps or containment systems, they also enable shipyards to control the discharge of pollutants to the surface water. Typical MP&M operations that occur in dry docks and similar structures include: abrasive blasting, hydroblasting, painting, welding, corrosion preventive coating, floor cleaning, aqueous degreasing, and testing (
e.g.,
hydrostatic testing). Not all of these unit operations generate wastewater. EPA is also proposing to cover wastewater generated when a shipyard cleans a ship's hull in a dry dock (or similar structure) for removal of marine life (
e.g.,
barnacles) only when in preparation for performing MP&M operations. EPA discusses typical MP&M unit operations in Section III.
EPA is proposing that this subcategory only cover wastewater generated from MP&M operations that occur in or on these structures. The Agency is not including MP&M process wastewater that is generated at other locations at the shipyard (“on-shore” operations) in this proposed subcategory. EPA expects that wastewater from these “on-shore” shipbuilding operations (
e.g.,
electroplating, plasma arc cutting) will fall under either the General Metals or Oily Wastes subcategories of the proposed MP&M regulation. Also, EPA is not including wastewater generated on-board ships when they are afloat (
i.e.,
not in dry docks or similar structures). For U.S. military ships, EPA is in the process of establishing standards to regulate discharges of wastewater generated on-board these ships when they are in U.S. waters and are afloat under the Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) pursuant to section 312(n) of the CWA. (See 64 FR 25125, May 10, 1999). However, when ships are located in dry docks or similar structures, EPA is proposing to cover process wastewater generated and discharged from MP&M operations inside and outside the vessel (including bilge water).
EPA identified three other types of water streams in or on dry docks and similar structures: flooding water, dry dock ballast water, and storm water. Flooding water enters and exits the dry dock or similar structure prior to performing any MP&M operations. For example, in a graving dock, the gates are opened allowing flooding water in and ships to float inside the chamber. Then the flooding water is drained, leaving the ship's exterior exposed so shipyard employees can perform repair and maintenance on the ship's hull. Dry dock ballast water serves a similar purpose. It is used to lower (or sink) the dry dock so that a ship can float over it. Then the dry dock ballast water is pumped out, raising the dry dock with the ship on top. Finally, since these structures are located outdoors and are exposed to the elements, storm water may fall in or on the dry dock or similar structures. EPA is proposing to exclude all three of these water streams from the MP&M regulation. Flooding water and dry dock ballast water do not come into contact with MP&M operations. In addition, EPA has determined that storm water at these facilities is covered by EPA's recent Storm Water Multi-Sector General permit, similar general permits issued by authorized states, and individual storm water permits. In general, storm water permits at shipyards include best management practices (BMPs) that are designed to prevent the contamination of storm water. For example, these practices include sweeping of areas after completion of abrasive blasting or painting. If EPA were to cover storm water in dry docks (or similar structures) under today's proposed rule, it would be unlikely that EPA would set numerical limits similar to those it is proposing for process wastewater. Most likely, EPA would set BMPs similar to those currently used in the storm water permits. Therefore, in an effort to avoid duplication of coverage, EPA is not covering storm water in dry docks (or similar structures) under today's proposal.
EPA estimates that there are 6 indirect dischargers and 6 direct dischargers in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory. The Agency notes that many shipbuilders operate multiple dry docks (or similar structures) and that this is the number of estimated facilities (not dry docks) that discharge MP&M process wastewater from dry docks (and similar structures). Many shipyards only perform dry MP&M unit operations in their dry docks (and similar structures) or do not discharge wastewater generated in dry docks (and similar structures) from MP&M unit operations. Many shipyards prefer to handle this wastewater as hazardous, and contract haul it off-site due to the possible presence of copper (used as anti-foulant) in paint chips from abrasive blasting operations. EPA has determined that shipyards currently discharging MP&M wastewater from dry docks have oil/water separation technology in place, such as dissolved air flotation (DAF).
The wastewater discharged from dry docks and similar structures contains very low levels of metals and toxic organic pollutants. For the reasons discussed in Section XII, EPA is proposing to exclude wastewater from indirect discharging dry docks and similar structures at shipbuilding facilities from the MP&M regulations. However, EPA is proposing to regulate conventional pollutants for direct dischargers in this subcategory. See Sections IX, XI, and XIII of this preamble for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and
economic impacts for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory.
VII. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics
A. Wastewater Sources and Characteristics
EPA classified the MP&M unit operations into the following three groups depending on their water use and discharge: (1) Unit operations that typically use process water and discharge process wastewater; (2) unit operations that typically either do not use process water or use process water but do not discharge wastewater; and (3) miscellaneous operations reported in the MP&M questionnaires by fewer than five respondents.
Process wastewater includes any water that, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the production or use of any raw materials, intermediate products, finished products, by-products, or waste products. Process wastewater includes wastewater from wet air pollution control devices. For the purposes of the MP&M regulation, EPA does not consider non-contact cooling water or storm water a process wastewater nor does it consider non-aqueous wastes used as processing liquids, such as spent solvents or quench oil, as process wastewater. (See Section III for detailed discussion on general applicability of today's proposed rule).
Wastewater from the operations that use process water have different characteristics depending on the unit operation from which they are derived. EPA discusses the five different types of MP&M process wastewater below. First, oil-bearing wastewater is typically generated from the use of metal shaping coolants and lubricants, surface preparation solutions used to remove oil and dirt from components, and associated rinses. Some examples of oil-bearing wastewater are: Machining and grinding coolants and lubricants; pressure and impact deformation lubricants; dye penetrant and magnetic flux testing; and alkaline cleaning solutions and rinses used to remove oil and dirt. This wastewater typically requires preliminary treatment to remove oil and grease. The most common type of treatment for oil-bearing wastewater is chemical emulsion breaking followed by gravity separation and oil skimming. EPA also identified MP&M facilities that used membrane separation technologies for oil and grease removal.
Second, hexavalent chromium-bearing wastewater typically consists of concentrated surface preparation or metal deposition solutions, sealants, and associated rinses. Some examples of hexavalent chromium-bearing wastewater are: Chromic acid treatment solutions and rinses; chromate conversion coating solutions and rinses; and chromium electroplating solutions and rinses. This wastewater typically requires preliminary treatment to reduce the hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium for subsequent chemical precipitation and settling. Typically, MP&M facilities use sodium metabisulfite or gaseous sulphur dioxide as reducing agents in the reduction of hexavalent chromium-bearing wastewater.
Third, many surface preparation or metal deposition solutions and their associated rinses generate process wastewater that contains cyanide. Two examples of cyanide-bearing wastewater are: Cyanide-bearing alkaline treatment solutions and rinses (typically used as a surface treatment step prior to electroplating with cyanide solutions) and cyanide-bearing electroplating solutions and rinses. This wastewater typically requires preliminary treatment to destroy cyanide and facilitate subsequent chemical precipitation and settling. MP&M facilities most often use sodium hypochlorite for the destruction of cyanide by alkaline chlorination.
Fourth, concentrated surface preparation or metal deposition solutions and their associated rinses can generate process wastewater that contain complexed or chelated metals. In particular, electroless plating operations and their rinses typically produce this type of wastestream. This wastewater requires preliminary treatment to break and/or precipitate the complexes for subsequent chemical precipitation and settling. MP&M facilities typically use sodium borohydride, hydrazine, sodium hydrosulfite, or sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate (DTC) as reducing and precipitating agents in this preliminary treatment process.
For the MP&M proposal, EPA based the estimated costs and pollutant removals associated with the treatment of chelated or complexed metals on the use of DTC. When DTC is used appropriately, it may effectively enhance the removal of some difficult to treat pollutants without impacting the environment or POTW operations. However, DTC is toxic to aquatic life and to activated sludge and thus can upset POTW operations. DTC can combine to form, or break down to, a number of other toxic chemicals, including thiram and ziram (both EPA registered fungicides) and other thiurams, other dithiocarbamates, carbon disulfide, and dimethylamine. EPA's pollutant of concern list (see below for a description of the development of this list) contained ziram, carbon disulfide, and N-nitrosodimethylamine. Ziram is known to be toxic to aquatic life at the following levels: LC50 less than 10 ug/L (parts per billion) for several varieties of bluegill and trout; LC 50 between 10 and 100 ug/L in other studies (AQUIRE data base at
http://www.epa.gov/medecotx/quicksearch.htm.
) EPA solicits comment on the use of DTC for the treatment of chelated wastewater and its potential harmful effects on the environment and on POTW operations. The Agency is particularly intereste
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.