Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 420

[FRL-7206-7]

RIN 2040-AC90

Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule represents the culmination of the Agency's effort to revise Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent limitations guidelines and standards for wastewater discharges from the iron and steel manufacturing industry. The final regulation revises technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for certain wastewater discharges associated with metallurgical cokemaking, sintering, and ironmaking operations; and codifies new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for direct reduced ironmaking, briquetting, and forging. EPA is also revising the regulations for the steelmaking subcategory, to provide an allowance for existing basic oxygen furnaces operating semi-wet air pollution control systems; and to establish technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for electric arc furnaces operating semi-wet pollution control systems. EPA is eliminating rule references to the following obsolete operations: beehive cokemaking in the cokemaking subcategory, ferromanganese blast furnaces in the ironmaking subcategory, and open hearth furnace operations in the steelmaking subcategory. EPA is not revising effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the remaining subcategories within this industrial category: vacuum degassing, continuous casting, hot forming, salt bath descaling, acid pickling, cold forming, alkaline cleaning and hot coating. Nor is EPA codifying a new subcategorization scheme and associated definitions to support the new subcategorization for this industrial category.

EPA expects compliance with this regulation to reduce the discharge of conventional pollutants by at least 351,000 pounds per year and toxic and non-conventional pollutants by at least 1,018,000 pounds per year. EPA estimates the annual cost of the rule will be $12.0 million (pre-tax $2001). EPA estimates that the annual benefits of the rule will range from $1.4 million to $7.3 million ($2001).

DATES:

This regulation shall become effective November 18, 2002.

ADDRESSES:

The public record for this rulemaking has been established under docket number W-00-25 II and will be located in the Water Docket, East Tower Basement, room #57, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460 until August 15, 2002. After August 27, 2002 the public record will be located at EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B135, 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 before August 15, call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment. After August 27, call (202) 566-2426. You may have to pay a reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical information concerning today's final rule, contact Mr. George Jett at (202) 566-1070, or Ms. Yu-ting Guilaran at (202) 566-1072. For economic information contact Mr. William Anderson at (202) 566-1008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action include facilities of the following types that discharge pollutants to waters of the U.S.:

Category

Examples of regulated entities

Primary SIC and NAICS codes

Industry

Discharges from facilities engaged in metallurgical cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, steelmaking, direct reduced ironmaking, briquetting, and forging

SIC 3312, 3316; NAICS 3311, 3312.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to 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 listed in § 420.01 and the applicability criteria in § 420.10 (metallurgical cokemaking), § 420.40 (steelmaking), and § 420.130 (other operations) of today's rule and applicability criteria in § 420.20 (sintering), § 420.30 (ironmaking), § 420.50 (vacuum degassing), § 420.60 (continuous casting), § 420.70 (hot forming), § 420.80 (salt bath descaling), § 420.90 (acid pickling), § 420.100 (cold forming), § 420.110 (alkaline cleaning), and § 420.120 (hot coating) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. If you still have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity (after consulting relevant subsections), consult one of the persons listed for technical information in the preceding

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

Judicial Review

In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, today's rule is promulgated for the purposes of judicial review as of 1 pm Eastern Daylight Time on October 31, 2002. Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), judicial review of today's effluent limitations guidelines and standards is available in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review within 120 days from the date of promulgation of these guidelines and standards. Under Section 509(b)(2) of the CWA the requirements of this regulation may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

Compliance Dates

Existing direct dischargers must comply with limitations based on the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT), the best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT), and the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) as soon as their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) permits include such limitations. Existing indirect dischargers subject to today's regulations must comply with the pretreatment standards for existing sources no later than October 17, 2005. New direct and indirect discharging sources must comply with applicable guidelines and standards on the date the new sources begin discharging. For purposes of new source performance standards (NSPS) and pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), a source is a new source if it commenced construction after November 18, 2002.

Supporting Documentation

The final regulations are supported by three major documents:

1. “Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category” (

EPA-821-R-02-004

), referred to in the preamble as the Technical Development Document (TDD). This TDD presents the technical information that formed the basis for EPA's decisions concerning the final rule. In it, EPA describes, among other things, the data collection activities, the wastewater treatment technology options considered, the pollutants found in the iron and steel manufacturing wastewaters, and the estimation of costs to the industry to comply with the final limitations and standards.

2. “Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category” (

EPA-821-R-02-006

) referred to in this preamble as the Economic Analysis (EA). The EA estimates the economic and financial costs of compliance with the final regulation on individual process lines, facilities and companies.

3. “Environmental Assessment of the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category” (

EPA-821-R-02-005

) referred to as the Environmental Assessment in this preamble.

How To Obtain Supporting Documents

Supporting documents are available on the internet at www.epa.gov/ost/ironsteel and before August 15, 2002 from the Office of Water Resource Center, MC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7786 for publication requests. After August 18, 2002, the Office of Water Resources will be located at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number will be 202-566-1729.

Protection of Confidential Business Information (CBI)

EPA notes that certain information and data in the record supporting the final rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore, are not included in the record that is available to the public in the Water Docket. 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. To support the rulemaking while preserving confidentiality claims, EPA is presenting in the public record certain information in aggregated form or, alternatively, is masking facility identities or employing other strategies. This approach assures that the information in the public record explains the basis for today's final rule without compromising CBI claims.

Organization of This Document

I. Legal Authority

II. Legislative Background

A. Clean Water Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Section 304(m) Requirements

III. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Industry Effluent Guideline Rulemaking History

A. 1982 Rule and 1984 Amendments

B. Preliminary Study

C. October 31, 2000 Proposed Regulation

D. February 2001 Notice of Data Availability

E. April 4, 2001 Notice

IV. Current Economic Condition of the Industry

V. Summary of Significant Decisions

A. Decisions Regarding the Content of the Regulations

1. New or Revised Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

2. Subcategorization Structure

3. Phenol Pass Through Analysis for Cokemaking

4. Regulation of Phenols (4AAP)

5. Retention of the Central Treatment Provision

6. Production Basis for Calculating Permit Limits

7. Applicability of Part 420 to Electroplating and Certain Finishing Operations

8. Ammonia-N Standard Waiver for Indirect Discharging Cokemaking, Ironmaking, and Sintering Operations

9. Nitrates in Acid Pickling Wastewater

B. Decisions Regarding Methodology

1. Economic Analysis Methodology

2. Selection of Facilities with Model Treatment and Evaluation of Available Data Sets in Establishing Long Term Averages

3. Reassessment of Production-Normalized Flows (PNFs)

4. Changes in Methodology for Determining the Baseline Loadings and Average Baseline Concentrations

5. Determination of POTW Percent Removal Estimates

VI. Scope/Applicability of the Regulation

VII. Industry Description

VIII. The Final Regulation

A. Cokemaking Subcategory

1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

B. Sintering Subcategory

1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)/Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

3. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

4. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)

5. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

C. Ironmaking Subcategory

D. Steelmaking Subcategory

E. Vacuum Degassing Subcategory

F. Continuous Casting Subcategory

G. Hot Forming Subcategory

H. Salt Bath Descaling Subcategory

I. Acid Pickling Subcategory

J. Cold Forming Subcategory

K. Alkaline Cleaning Subcategory

L. Hot Coating Subcategory

M. Other Operations Subcategory

1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources (PSES/PSNS)

IX. Pollutant Reduction and Compliance Cost Estimates

A. Pollutant Reductions

1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions

2. Priority and Non-conventional Pollutant Reductions

B. Regulatory Costs

1. Cokemaking Subcategory

2. Sintering Subcategory

3. Steelmaking Subcategory

4. Other Operations Subcategory

X. Economic Analyses

A. Introduction and Overview

B. Economic Description of the Iron and Steel Industry

C. Economic Impact Methodology

1. Introduction

2. Methodology Overview

D. Economic Costs and Impacts of Technology Options by Subcategory

1. Cokemaking

2. Sintering

3. Ironmaking

4. Integrated Steelmaking

5. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming

6. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming

7. Steel Finishing

8. Other Operations

E. Facility Level Economic Impacts of the Regulatory Options

F. Firm Level Impacts

G. Community Impacts

H. Foreign Trade Impacts

I. Small Business Analysis

J. Cost-Benefit Analysis

K. Cost-Reasonableness Analysis

L. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

1. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2. Non-recovery Cokemaking

3. Other Operations

XI. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits

A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk

B. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human Health Hazard

C. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity

D. Effect on POTW Operations

E. Other Benefits Not Quantified

F. Summary of Benefits

XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

A. Air Pollution

B. Solid Waste

C. Energy Requirements

XIII. Regulatory Implementation

A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards

1. Introduction

2. Compliance Dates

3. Applicability

4. Production Basis for Calculation of Permit Limitations

5. Water Bubble

6. Compliance with Limitations and Standards

7. Internal Monitoring Requirements and Compliance with ML Limitations for Sintering Subcategory

8. Implementation for Iron and Steel Facilities Subject to Multiple Effluent Limitations Guidelines or Pretreatment Standards

9. Revisions Affecting Certain Steelmaking Operations

10. Non-process Wastewater and Storm Water in the Immediate Process Area

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

C. Variances and Modifications

1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variances

2. Water Quality Variances

3. Permit Modifications

XIV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders and Agency Initiatives

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

I. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

J. Congressional Review Act

I. Legal Authority

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

II. Legislative Background

A. Clean Water Act

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

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

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

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

In the regulations, EPA defines BPT effluent limits for conventional, toxic, and non-conventional pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), 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). EPA has identified 126 pollutants as priority toxic pollutants. See Appendix A to Part 403 (reprinted after 40 CFR 423.17). All other pollutants are considered to be non-conventional.

In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers the total cost of applying the control technology 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 EPA Administrator 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, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology can be practically applied.

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

The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT for discharges from existing industrial point sources. In addition to the 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).

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

In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best available economically achievable performance of 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 process employed, potential process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved within a particular subcategory based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry practice.

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

NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control technology. New sources have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent controls attainable through the application of the best available demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, non-conventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.

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

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

The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for the implementation of national pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR part 403.

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

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

B. Section 304(m) Requirements

Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) reviewing and revising existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (“effluent guidelines”); and (2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January 2, 1990, EPA published its first Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80), which established schedules for developing new and revised effluent guidelines for several industry categories.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen, Inc. filed suit against the Agency, alleging violation of Section 304(m) and other statutory authorities requiring promulgation of effluent guidelines (

NRDC, et al.

v.

Reilly,

Civ. No. 89-2980 (D.D.C.)). Plaintiffs and EPA settled the litigation by means of a consent decree entered on January 31, 1992. The consent decree, which has been modified several times, established a schedule by which EPA is to propose and take final action for eleven point source categories identified by name in the decree and for eight other point source categories to be selected by EPA. After completing a preliminary study (EPA 821-R95-037, September 1995) as required by the decree, EPA selected the iron and steel industry as the subject for a revised rule. Under the decree, as modified, the Administrator was required to sign a proposed rule for the iron and steel industry no later than October 31, 2000, and must take final action no later than April 30, 2002.

III. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Industry Effluent Guideline Rulemaking History

A. 1982 Rule and 1984 Amendments

EPA promulgated effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, 40 CFR part 420 in May 1982 (47 FR 23258). This rule established BPT, BCT, and BAT effluent limitations that apply to wastewater discharges to waters of the U.S. from existing iron and steel facilities and NSPS limits that apply to wastewater discharges to waters of the U.S. from new iron and steel facilities. It also established pretreatment standards that apply to wastewater discharges to POTWs from existing and new iron and steel facilities (PSES and PSNS).

The 1982 rule was based on an approach that mirrored the sequential process steps through a typical mill. EPA concluded that it was reasonable to establish a subcategorization structure based on the type of manufacturing operation employed. This resulted in twelve subcategories.

The American Iron and Steel Institute, certain members of the iron and steel industry, and NRDC filed petitions to review the 1982 regulation. On February 4, 1983, the parties in the consolidated lawsuit entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement that resolved all issues raised by the petitioners. In accordance with the settlement agreement, EPA modified and clarified certain parts of the Iron and Steel rule and published additional preamble language regarding the rule. The Iron and Steel rule was amended on May 17, 1984 (49 FR 21024). The major changes included in the amendment are discussed in the preamble to the 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 81964-82083) and in Chapter 2 of the Technical Development Document for today's final rule. The 1982 regulation, as amended in 1984, can be found on line at: www.epa.gov/ost/ironsteel/reg.html.

B. Preliminary Study

The Clean Water Act requires EPA to review effluent limitations guidelines and standards periodically to determine whether it is appropriate to revise them. Furthermore, under the consent decree discussed in Section II.B, EPA is also required to undertake rulemaking with respect to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards on a set schedule and was required to complete a study of the iron and steel industry. Accordingly, EPA developed and published the “Preliminary Study of the Iron and Steel Category” (EPA 821-R-95-037) in September 1995.

In the preliminary study, EPA assessed the status of the iron and steel industry with respect to the regulation promulgated in 1982 and amended in 1984; identified better performing facilities that use conventional and innovative in-process pollution

prevention and end-of-pipe technologies; estimated possible effluent reduction benefits if the industry were upgraded to the level of better performing facilities; discussed regulatory and implementation issues associated with the current regulation; and identified possible solutions to those issues. This study concluded that the industry has changed substantially in production technology and pollution control since the 1982 regulations were promulgated. Pollutant loadings had decreased due to advances in treatment system operations and improved wastewater treatment processes. In addition, the study also found that many pollution prevention opportunities exist in the areas of increased process water recycle and reuse, the cascade of process wastewaters from one operation to another, residuals management, and non-discharge disposal methods. At the time of the study, many better-performing mills were discharging wastewater loadings far below the current standards; however, not all of the industry had improved wastewater treatment or implemented proactive pollution prevention practices. As a result of the study, EPA initiated this rulemaking to reassess the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category. The Preliminary Study can be found on line at www.epa.gov/OST/ironsteel/pstudy.html.

C. October 31, 2000 Proposed Regulation

On October 31, 2000, the EPA Administrator signed proposed revisions to technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for wastewater discharges from new and existing iron and steel facilities. The proposed rule was published in the

Federal Register

on December 27, 2000 (65 FR 81964). EPA proposed to alter the applicability and scope of the existing rule by adding electroplating operations and by including direct iron reduction, briquetting, and forging operations. In addition, EPA proposed excluding from the iron and steel guideline in Part 420 some wiring, cold forming, and hot dip coating operations. In a proposed rule for the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) industrial category published on January 3, 2001 (66 FR 424), EPA proposed to address these operations under Part 438.

The Agency proposed to revise the subcategorization scheme to create seven subcategories of iron and steel facilities based on co-treatment of compatible waste streams. This would have replaced the present structure of 12 subcategories. The proposed subcategorization approach would have reflected the way treatment systems are run in the iron and steel industry. EPA proposed the following seven subcategories:

Subcategory

Segment

Subpart A Cokemaking Subcategory

By-product.

Non-recovery.

Subpart B Ironmaking Subcategory

Blast Furnace.

Sintering.

Subpart C Steelmaking Subcategory

Subpart D Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming Mills Subcategory

Carbon and Alloy.

Stainless.

Subpart E Non-integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming Operations Subcategory

Carbon and Alloy.

Stainless.

Subpart F Steel Finishing Subcategory

Carbon and Alloy.

Stainless.

Subpart G Other Operations

Direct-Reduced Ironmaking.

Forging.

Briquetting.

For most of the subcategories, except for cokemaking, finishing, and the newly added subcategory for other operations, the Agency proposed limits based on improved performance and operation of the same technologies that were the basis for the limits and standards promulgated in 1982 and amended in 1984. Consequently, the proposed limitations were more stringent than the limitations promulgated in 1982. For the cokemaking subcategory, EPA proposed BAT limits based on a technology option that was essentially the same as the 1982 technology basis but included an additional treatment step—alkaline chlorination. For finishing, EPA proposed limits based on the 1982 technology basis with the addition of counter-current rinsing and acid purification.

For many of the proposed subcategories, wastewater flow reduction steps, in concert with better performance of the blowdown treatment systems, provided the primary basis for the proposal limits and standards. The subcategorization scheme and technology bases for the proposed limits and standards are summarized below:

Proposed Subcategories, Options, and Technical Components

Subcategory (segment)

Regulatory level

Option proposed

Summary of technical basis

Subpart A. Cokemaking:

(By-Product Recovery)

BAT/NSPS

BAT-3

Tar removal, equalization, free and fixed ammonia stripping, temperature control, equalization, single-stage biological treatment with nitrification, alkaline chlorination, and sludge dewatering.

PSES/PSNS

PSES-3

Tar removal, equalization, free and fixed ammonia stripping, temperature control, equalization, and single-stage biological treatment with nitrification.

Co-proposed PSES

PSES-1

Tar removal, equalization, and free and fixed ammonia stripping.

(Non-Recovery)

BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS

Zero discharge

No wastewater generated.

Subpart B. Ironmaking:

(Blast Furnaces and Sintering)

BAT/NSPS

BAT-1

Solids removal, high-rate recycle, metals precipitation, alkaline chlorination, and mixed-media filtration of blowdown, and sludge dewatering.

PSES/PSNS

PSES-1

Solids removal, high-rate recycle and metals precipitation of blowdown and sludge dewatering.

Subpart C. Integrated Steelmaking

BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS

BAT-1

Solids removal, high-rate recycle, metals precipitation of blowdown, cooling towers for process wastewaters from vacuum degassing or continuous casting operations, and sludge dewatering.

Subpart D. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming:

(Carbon & Alloy Steel)

BAT/NSPS

BAT-1

Scale pit with oil skimming, roughing clarifier, cooling tower, high rate recycle, mixed-media filtration of blowdown, and sludge dewatering.

PSES/PSNS

N/A

No proposed modification from existing PSES/PSNS.

(Stainless Steel)

BAT/NSPS

BAT-1

Scale pit with oil skimming, roughing clarifier, cooling tower, high rate recycle, mixed-media filtration of blowdown, and sludge dewatering.

PSES/PSNS

N/A

No proposed modification from existing PSES/PSNS.

Subpart E. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming:

(Carbon & Alloy Steel)

BAT

BAT-1

Solids removal, cooling tower, high rate recycle, mixed-media filtration of blowdown or of recycled flow, and sludge dewatering.

PSES

N/A

No proposed modification from existing PSES.

NSPS/PSNS

Zero discharge

Water re-use, evaporation, or contract hauling.

(Stainless Steel)

BAT/PSES

BAT-1

Solids removal, cooling tower, high rate recycle, mixed-media filtration of blowdown or of recycled flow, and sludge dewatering.

NSPS/PSNS

Zero discharge

Water re-use, evaporation, or contract hauling.

Subpart F. Steel Finishing:

(Carbon & Alloy Steel)

BAT/NSPS/PSNS

BAT-1

Recycle of fume scrubber water, diversion tank, oil removal, hexavalent chrome reduction (where applicable), equalization, metals precipitation, sedimentation, sludge dewatering, and counter-current rinses.

PSES

N/A

No proposed modification from existing PSES.

(Stainless Steel)

BAT/NSPS/PSNS

BAT-1

Recycle of fume scrubber water, diversion tank, oil removal, hexavalent chrome reduction (where applicable), equalization, metals precipitation, sedimentation, sludge dewatering, counter-current rinses, and acid purification.

PSES

NA

No proposed modification from existing PSES.

Subpart G. Other Operations:

(Direct Reduced Ironmaking)

BPT/BCT/NSPS

BPT-1

Solids removal, clarifier, high-rate recycle, filtration of blowdown, and sludge dewatering.

BAT/PSES/PSNS

Reserved.

No new facilities expected.

(Forging)

BPT/BCT/NSPS

BPT-1

High rate recycle, and oil/water separator for blowdown.

BAT/PSES/PSNS

Reserved.

No new facilities expected.

(Briquetting)

BPT/BCT/BAT/

NSPS/ PSES/PSNS.

zero discharge

No wastewater generated.

The proposed regulation is on line at: www.epa.gov/ost/ironsteel/notices.html.

D. February 2001 Notice of Data Availability

On February 14, 2001, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) at 66 FR 10253. This notice provided additional discussion and clarification on some of the issues raised in the proposal. For example, the notice discussed EPA's new finding that phenol does not pass through POTWs, and indicated that EPA was rethinking its proposal to establish a nation-wide limit on ammonia from steel finishing operations.

EPA also noticed changes to certain portions of the proposed regulation and accompanying preamble to eliminate inconsistencies. Finally, it corrected potentially confusing typographical errors and extended the proposal's comment period from February 26, 2001 to March 26, 2001. The complete details of the February NODA are located on line at: www.epa.gov/ost/ironsteel/reg.html.

E. April 4, 2001 Notice

On April 4, 2001, EPA published a notice (66 FR 17842) reopening the comment period to April 25, 2001.

IV. Current Economic Condition of the Industry

The financial situation of the domestic iron and steel industry changed dramatically between 1997 and 2001 due to factors including the Asian financial crisis, slow economic growth in Eastern Europe, the continued strength of the dollar versus other currencies, a period of increased prices for natural gas and electricity, and a sharp drop in domestic demand as the U.S. economy slowed. The following analysis of economic conditions occurring after the 1995-1997 time frame is based upon publicly available sources such as trade journal reports, Securities and Exchange Commission filings, and trade case filings with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission.

The relatively high value of the dollar compared to the currencies of many steel exporting nations has led to a sharp increase in import penetration in the domestic steel market. The U.S. is, and has been, the world's largest steel importer (and a net importer for at least the last two decades); indeed, the U.S. was nearly the only viable steel market to which other countries such as South Korea, Russia and Ukraine could export during 1998. U.S. imports of steel mill products jumped by 10.4 million tons from 31.1 million tons to 41.5 million ton, a 25 percent increase, from 1997 to 1998. The previous record level of imports had been established in 1997. The high levels of imports persisted in 1999 and 2000, with 35.7 million tons and 38.0 million tons, respectively. The sustained high level of steel imports has been associated with a substantial drop in the market value of steel products. The prevailing prices for commodities such as hot rolled sheet, cold rolled sheet, and many other products have fallen by 20 to 40 percent since 1996.

Substantial increases in energy prices, including natural gas and electricity, during the last few years have also affected domestic producers. Natural gas is used extensively in reheat and annealing furnaces, coke oven underfiring and blast furnace injection, as well as in direct reduced iron production. Electricity is necessary throughout the steel production process, with electric arc furnaces, of course, being particularly dependent on electricity costs and availability. Finally, in the last year, the domestic market for steel has declined as domestic industrial production in the United States has fallen. Industries, such as automotive and major appliances, that use significant amounts of steel have been particularly impacted.

The coke industry is comprised of two types of producers: Integrated and merchant. Integrated producers typically supply furnace coke for their own blast furnace facilities. Merchant producers may produce and sell furnace coke (used in blast furnaces), foundry coke (used in foundries to make iron castings) and other industrial coke. Both integrated and merchant producers of furnace coke have been affected by the trends described regarding iron and steel production. Foundry coke producers have been affected by falling automotive production, the largest consumer sector for iron castings. Foundry coke has also been affected by sharply increasing imports from China.

As a result of the increased imports, declining demand, and falling prices, the financial health of the domestic iron and steel industry experienced a precipitous decline after 1997. Based upon publicly available sources, at least twenty companies, that could be subject to the iron and steel effluent guidelines, have filed for bankruptcy since 1997. The companies are Bethlehem Steel, LTV Steel, National Steel, Republic Technologies, Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel, Geneva Steel, Gulf States Steel, Acme Metals, Laclede Steel, Qualitech Steel, Northwestern Steel and Wire, Erie Forge and Steel, CSC Ltd., Heartland Steel, GS Industries, Trico Steel, Freedom Forge, J&L Structural Steel, Empire Specialty Steel and Riverview Steel. In aggregate, these companies represent more than a third of domestic steelmaking capacity. Of the bankrupt firms, Empire Specialty, Acme Steel, Laclede Steel, Qualitech Steel, Gulf States Steel, Northwestern Steel and Wire, CSC Ltd., and LTV Steel have ceased steelmaking operations, affecting over 15,000 employees.

The industry filed numerous countervailing duty and anti-dumping cases over the 1998-2001 period with the U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. International Trade Commission (hereafter “ITC”), charging various countries (for example, Japan, Russia, China, and Brazil) with unfair trade practices concerning carbon steel products, stainless steel products, and foundry coke. The ITC ruled in favor of the U.S. industry in many cases (for example, hot rolled carbon sheet and carbon plate), meaning that it determined that the domestic industry was materially injured or threatened with material injury by the unfairly traded imports.

More significantly, on June 22, 2001, the Office of the United States Trade Representative requested the initiation of an investigation by the ITC of certain steel imports under the section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. A later request from the Senate Finance Committee was consolidated under the same investigation. Investigations under this law may be requested when increased imports of a product from all countries are alleged to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat of serious injury, to a U.S. industry. The investigation does not require the finding of an unfair trade practice. The investigation is composed of two phases, the injury phase and, if an

affirmative injury determination is made, the remedy phase. In the remedy phase, the ITC recommends a remedy to the President, who decides what relief, if any, will be imposed. The remedy may consist of tariffs, quantitative restrictions, orderly marketing agreements, and trade adjustment assistance. In addition, the ITC may recommend that the President initiate international negotiations to address the underlying cause of the increase in imports or that he implement any other action authorized under the law that is likely to facilitate positive adjustment to import competition.

On October 22, 2001, the ITC affirmatively determined that 12 products (or product categories) are being imported into the U.S. in such increased quantities that they are a substantial cause of serious injury or threat of serious injury to the U.S. industry. On an additional four products (or product categories), the ITC was evenly divided, meaning these products will continue to be included in the investigation. The imported products covered by the investigation accounted in year 2000 for 27 million tons of steel valued at $10.7 billion. The products include carbon steel slabs, plate, hot rolled sheet, cold rolled sheet, coated sheet, tin mill products, hot rolled bar and light structural shapes, cold finished bar, rebar, welded tube, stainless bar, stainless rod, tool steel, and stainless wire.

The next phase of the investigation is the remedy phase. The ITC voted on a remedy recommendation on December 7, 2001, and forwarded its findings and remedy recommendations to the President on December 20, 2001. The ITC recommended a four-year program of tariffs and tariff-rate quotas, with additional ad valorem duties of up to 20 percent in the first year and declining thereafter.

The President announced his decision on March 5, 2002, to impose temporary safeguards on key steel products to provide relief to those parts of the U.S. steel industry that have been most damaged by import surges. The level of relief varies by product with tariffs of 30 percent imposed on imports of plate, hot-rolled sheet, cold-rolled sheet, coated sheet, tin mill products, hot-rolled bar, and cold-finished bar and tariffs of 15 percent imposed on imports of rebar, stainless steel bar, and stainless steel rod. Imports of slab are subject to tariff rate quotas. Tariff rate quotas are two-part tariffs, with imports up to the quota subject to a lower duty and imports above the quota level subject to a higher duty. In the case of slab, the in-quota volume is set at 5.4 million tons and the out-of-quota (i.e., above the quota level) tariff of 30 percent. The level of relief described reflects the initial safeguard measures, with periodic reductions throughout the three year duration of the measures. Canada and Mexico were excluded from the quota and tariff measures on all products. Developing countries that export only small quantities of steel to the U.S. were also excluded from the quota and tariff measures.

V. Summary of Significant Decisions

A. Decisions Regarding the Content of the Regulations

1. New or Revised Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

EPA has decided to revise effluent limitations guidelines and standards only for current Subpart A (cokemaking), Subpart B (sintering), Subpart C (ironmaking), and Subpart D (steelmaking), and to promulgate new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for new Subpart M (other operations). Also, as a result of EPA's technical and economic review, EPA is promulgating revised BAT limitations, NSPS and pretreatment standards for the cokemaking by-product recovery segment based on technologies that are different than those proposed. Specifically, EPA is promulgating effluent limits based primarily on ammonia still and biological treatment with nitrification for direct dischargers and pretreatment standards based primarily on ammonia still treatment for indirect dischargers. At proposal, EPA had designated the technology option as BAT-1, NSPS-1, PSES-1 and PSNS-1. Section VIII.A explains why the Agency is promulgating limitations and standards based on different model technologies than EPA proposed for the cokemaking subcategory.

For the sintering subcategory, EPA is revising the current regulation to add limitations and standards for one additional pollutant, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF), while keeping the rest of the limits unchanged. The technology basis for new TCDF limitations and standards for the sintering subcategory remains unchanged from the proposal and is the same as the technology basis for the 1982 regulations except for the addition of mixed-media filtration. EPA is also establishing limitations of no discharge of process wastewater pollutants for new and existing direct dischargers and new and existing indirect dischargers for sintering operations with dry air pollution control systems.

As described in Section V.A.8, ammonia-N pretreatment standards do not apply to cokemaking, ironmaking, and sintering facilities discharging to POTWs with nitrification capability.

For the steelmaking subcategory, EPA is revising BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES limitations for the semi-wet basic oxygen furnace (BOF) operations to allow discharge of process wastewater, when merited by safety considerations. As explained in the 2001 Notice of Data Availability (NODA) at 66 FR 10253, EPA is allowing discharge of process wastewater because certain safety concerns currently preclude some sites from balancing the water applied for BOF gas conditioning with evaporative losses to achieve zero discharge. Also in the steelmaking subcategory, for the semi-wet EAF operations, EPA is establishing limitations of no discharge of process wastewater pollutants for new direct dischargers and existing and new indirect dischargers, making these limitations equivalent to the previously promulgated BPT, BCT, and BAT limitations applicable to semi-wet electric arc furnace (EAF) operations. EPA received no comments on this proposed change, and identified none of the safety or production concerns discussed for semi-wet BOF operations.

The technology bases for the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for direct reduced iron segment and the briquetting segment of the new subpart M (other operations) are unchanged from proposal. In the case of the forging segment of the new subpart M, the technology basis at proposal was incorrectly described as high rate recycle and oil/water separation. The technology basis should have been described as high rate recycle, oil/water separation, and mixed-media filtration. Section VIII discusses the technology bases for each of these subcategories in more detail.

2. Subcategorization Structure

In 2000, EPA proposed a subcategorization structure that was significantly different from the structure in the 1982 iron and steel rule (see 65 FR 81974-81975). Unlike the 1982 rule, EPA proposed to consolidate operations such as salt bath descaling, acid pickling, and other finishing operations into a single “Finishing Subcategory.” Similarly, the Agency proposed to consolidate sintering and ironmaking into a single “Ironmaking Subcategory.” The following table presents a comparison of the 1982 subcategorization scheme and the one EPA proposed in 2000:

Table V.A.1.—Subcategory Comparison of 1982 and the Proposed Regulations

Subcategories promulgated in 1982

Subcategories proposed in 2000

A. Cokemaking

A. Cokemaking

B. Sintering

B. Ironmaking

C. Ironmaking

D. Steelmaking

C. Integrated Steelmaking

D. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming.

E. Vacuum Degassing

F. Continuous Casting

G. Hot Forming

E. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming

D. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming.

H. Salt Bath Descaling

F. Steel Finishing

I. Acid Pickling

J. Cold Forming

K. Alkaline Cleaning

L. Hot Coating

G. Other Operations

The Agency proposed a new subcategorization scheme to reflect not only the modern state of the industry, in terms of both process and wastewater management, but also the experience that the Agency and other regulatory entities have gained from implementing the 1982 iron and steel effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA also expected that the revised subcategorization scheme would simplify the regulatory structure and reflect co-treatment of compatible wastewaters, which is currently practiced by the industry. As a result, many of the proposed subcategories would have included various operations that are regulated under different segments or subcategories in the 1982 rule. EPA also proposed a number of specialized definitions to support the subcategorization scheme.

In addition to the subcategory structure, EPA proposed segmentation changes in the proposed cokemaking, integrated and stand alone hot forming, non-integrated and stand alone hot forming, finishing, and the integrated steelmaking subcategories. First, EPA proposed to combine two 1982 segments in the cokemaking subcategory, “Iron and Steel” and “Merchant,” into a single “By-Product Recovery” segment because differences in wastewater flow rates observed in the 1982 rulemaking are no longer apparent within the current population of by-product coke plants. In addition to combining all by-product cokemaking operations into one segment, the Agency also proposed a new “Non-Recovery” segment to accommodate the two non-recovery coke plants. Second, for the proposed integrated steelmaking and hot forming subcategory, the non-integrated steelmaking and hot forming subcategory, and the steel finishing subcategory, EPA proposed segmenting based on whether facilities primarily make stainless or carbon/alloy steels. Finally, EPA also proposed to eliminate from the rule references to the following obsolete operations: beehive cokemaking in the cokemaking subcategory, ferromanganese blast furnaces in the ironmaking subcategory, and open hearth furnace operations in the steelmaking subcategory.

While EPA did not receive any comments specific to the proposed subcategorization scheme, the Agency did receive a number of comments on the change in segmentation for the cokemaking subcategory. The commenters opposed EPA's proposal to drop the segmentation on the basis of “iron and steel” and “merchant” coke plants; however, the commenters agreed with EPA's assessment that production process and wastewaters from merchant coke plants are similar to those from the integrated “iron and steel” facilities. The Agency also evaluated potential economic differences between “merchant” and “iron and steel” facilities, but did not find substantial differences in profitability or other factors which might affect economic acheivability, although some difference in facility size was observed. Some commenters also expressed confusion regarding the segmentation of stainless and carbon/alloy steels. No comments were received on eliminating provisions for beehive cokemaking, ferromanganese blast furnaces, or open hearth furnace operations.

As explained in Section V.B, based on comments, the Agency re-evaluated the economic conditions and technology bases of the proposed rule. The Agency decided to promulgate new or revised limits for only five subcategories: cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, steelmaking, and other operations. Due to the small number of subcategories affected by today's rule, the Agency has decided to retain the 1982 subcategory structure with the addition of an “other operations” subcategory. As a result, the final rule covers the following 13 subcategories:

Subcategory A: Cokemaking (includes by-product and non-recovery operations)

Subcategory B: Sintering,

Subcategory C: Ironmaking,

Subcategory D: Steelmaking (includes basic oxygen furnace and electric arc furnace operations)

Subcategory E: Vacuum degassing,

Subcategory F: Continuous casting,

Subcategory G: Hot forming,

Subcategory H: Salt bath descaling,

Subcategory I: Acid pickling,

Subcategory J: Cold forming,

Subcategory K: Alkaline cleaning,

Subcategory L: Hot coating, and

Subcategory M: Other operations (includes forging, direct-reduced ironmaking, and briquetting).

For the cokemaking subcategory, today's rule combines the “Iron and Steel” and “Merchant” segments into a newly-created “By-product” cokemaking segment for most regulatory purposes, although EPA is retaining the “Iron and Steel” and “Merchant” segments for purposes of reflecting the existing BPT limitations. EPA concluded that this was appropriate because the production processes, wastewater characteristics, and wastewater flow rates from all by-product recovery cokemaking operations, including merchant facilities, are similar.

EPA is also eliminating the segment in BAT for by-product coke plants with physical chemical treatment systems. EPA has determined that technology basis for BAT limitations promulgated in today's rule are technically and economically achievable for all direct discharging by-product coke plants.

EPA is also creating a new cokemaking segment for non-recovery

operations and a new sintering segment for dry air pollution control systems for the reasons stated in the proposal. Because the promulgated rule makes no change to the hot forming, vacuum degassing, casting, or various finishing operations, the segmentation for these operations in the 1982 rule remains applicable. Finally, in today's rule, EPA is eliminating segments for the following obsolete operations: beehive cokemaking, ferromanganese blast furnaces, and open hearth furnaces.

3. Phenol Pass-Through Analysis for Cokemaking

Generally, EPA establishes pretreatment standards for pollutants regulated under BAT that pass through POTWs to waters of the U.S. or interfere with POTW operations or sludge disposal practices. In conducting its pass-through analysis, the Agency generally compares the median percentage of a pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs performing secondary treatment to the median percentage of a pollutant removed by BAT treatment. When the median percentage removed nationwide by well-operated POTWs is less than the median percentage removed by direct dischargers complying with the BAT effluent limits, EPA typically determines that the pollutant passes through.

The February 14, 2001 iron and steel notice explained that EPA planned to use an alternate procedure to determine whether or not the BAT pollutant phenol would pass through for wastewater from cokemaking operations. See 66 FR 10257. This notice explained that EPA planned to determine pass-through for phenol for the cokemaking subcategory using a methodology previously developed for phenol in the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) guideline. Under this methodology, EPA determined in the OCPSF rule that phenol did not pass through because phenol is highly biodegradable and is treated by POTWs to the same non-detect levels (10 parts per billion (ppb) or 10 μg/L) that the OCPSF direct dischargers achieve. Additionally, like the OCPSF direct dischargers, the cokemaking direct dischargers receive significantly higher influent phenol concentrations than the POTWs, with the result that the direct dischargers showed higher removals than the performance at the POTWs. Therefore, EPA reasoned that application of the traditional approach to these facts would reflect the significant differences in influent concentrations rather than a real difference in the POTWs' ability to treat phenols. As a result, EPA selected this alternate methodology because the traditional pass-through methodology failed to account for special circumstances presented by phenol in cokemaking wastewater.

The notice explained that, using this alternate methodology, phenol did not pass through in connection with cokemaking operations. The notice further explained that a supplemental analysis using more recent data from a well-operated POTW performing secondary treatment on process cokemaking wastewater supports this determination.

EPA did not receive any comments on the alternate methodology and continues to believe that this alternate methodology is appropriate for determining pass through for phenolic compounds for cokemaking operations. Consequently, for this final rule, EPA has determined, with respect to by-product cokemaking, that phenolic compounds do not pass through. Accordingly, EPA has not established any pretreatment standards for phenols (4AAP) for that segment.

4. Regulation of Phenols (4AAP)

EPA regulated the non-conventional bulk parameter phenol (measured as 4 amino-antipyrene (4AAP)) in 1982 for cokemaking, sintering, and blast furnace ironmaking. In 2000, EPA proposed regulation of the compound phenol (as measured with a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer (GC-MS)) instead of the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), because, in general, it believes that, in effluent limitations guidelines, targeting specific pollutants is often more appropriate than regulating a parameter that measures a variety of pollutants. For reasons presented in comments, EPA has decided to continue to regulate phenol (measured as 4AAP) and is not making the change as proposed.

EPA received one comment supporting the proposed approach on the grounds that it would give a much more reliable measure of the actual amount of phenol in the discharge. However, several other commenters disagreed with EPA's proposal. These comments raised three principal objections. First, they expressed concern that changing the regulated parameter from 4AAP to phenol would increase costs for both sampling and analyses, with no environmental benefit. Based on a survey of three labs and assuming two sample events per week, costs at one location would likely increase by over $25,000 per year. Second, the comments asserted that the proposed changes could present unintended adverse environmental effects. One commenter reported that its facility runs several operational samples for phenols (4AAP) as part of the daily routine, which allows it to identify and respond to potential upset conditions. The time required to run the GC-MS analytical method for phenol and the instrumentation required, the commenter said, would discourage onsite monitoring for wastewater treatment process control purposes. Finally, commenters noted that, because phenol is a priority pollutant, it is not eligible for CWA Section 301(g) waivers. These waivers allow facilities to request a variance from effluent limitations for nonconventional bulk pollutants such as phenols (4AAP) based upon cost and economic impact considerations, provided that the facilities comply with all local water quality-based effluent limitations. See Section XIII.C for more information regarding 301(g) waivers. Commenters stated that by regulating phenol instead of the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), EPA would eliminate the option of obtaining such a waiver. Commenters further stated that because many iron and steel facilities are currently regulated under a 301(g) waiver for phenols (4AAP), this would substantially increase the costs of the proposed rule, and that EPA did not account for these costs at the time of its proposal.

EPA reviewed its record on this issue. The data show that there are two primary phenolic compounds present in iron and steel wastewater: phenol, and 2,4-dimethylphenol. Furthermore, the data show that by controlling the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), both of these compounds are effectively controlled. Therefore, while EPA agrees with the comment that regulating phenol would provide a more reliable measure of the actual amount of phenol, EPA does not believe that this degree of precision is necessary in view of the other considerations identified in comments. EPA agrees that compliance monitoring costs are greater for phenol than for the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), and EPA does not want to discourage routine monitoring that allows a mill to identify and respond quickly to potential upset conditions. Also, in light of the current financial conditions of the industry, EPA wants to ensure that iron and steel facilities continue to have the option of the 301(g) waiver. EPA has been unable to find anything in its database to suggest that regulating the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP) instead of the compound phenol would negatively impact the environment. Consequently, after careful review of comments received and its database,

EPA had concluded that it is appropriate to continue to regulate the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP) rather than phenol.

5. Retention of the Central Treatment Provision

Under the applicability Section of the 1982 iron and steel regulation, 40 CFR 420.01(b), EPA identified 21 plants that were temporarily excluded from the provisions of Part 420 because of economic considerations. This exclusion would not be granted unless the owner or operator of the facility requested the Agency to consider establishing alternative effluent limitations and provided the Agency with certain information consistent with 40 CFR 420.01(b)(2) on or before July 26, 1982.

See

47 FR 23285 (May 27, 1982). At the time of the 2000 proposal, EPA believed that none of the facilities currently had permits based on the central treatment provision and proposed to remove it from Part 420.

The Agency did not receive any comments supporting the removal of the central treatment provision. Rather, commenters asked EPA to expand the provision. Commenters requested this expansion because they were concerned that the costs of the proposed rule would be too high if the limits and standards were made more stringent. Commenters stated that economic conditions were similar to those in 1982 and that the central treatment provision should remain a viable compliance option in Part 420.

EPA disagrees with commenters that it should expand the central treatment provision. Because of the prevailing economic situation in the iron and steel industry, technological reasons in some subcategories, and performance issues in others, EPA has decided to go forward with new or revised regulations for only five subcategories (cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, steelmaking, and a subcategory for other operations). The five subcategories affected by the final rule have minimal impact on the 21 eligible mills. With the substantially reduced projected economic burden on the industry, the Agency does not believe that expanding § 420.01(b)(2) is necessary.

EPA also reviewed its database in determining whether it should remove the central treatment provision as proposed. EPA confirmed that very few of the twenty-one facilities applied for the central treatment waiver provision. However, contrary to its belief at the time of the proposal, EPA found that, of those that did apply, at least one mill currently has a permit based on the central treatment provision for one parameter (zinc). Because EPA has decided to leave the ironmaking subcategory unchanged from the 1982 regulation, this facility is likely to continue to need the central waste treatment provision available in § 420.01(b). This particular company is projected to need to spend at least two times the model costs to come into compliance with the current Part 420 requirements for this one parameter, and would likely remain eligible for the central treatment waiver provision. One additional facility may also have a current permit based on the central treatment provision.

Based upon EPA's review, today's final rule leaves the central treatment provision (§ 420.01(b)(2)) unchanged from the 1982 regulation. This allows any mill whose permit is based on this provision to continue to use it, but does not extend the provision to any additional mills.

6. Production Basis for Calculating Permit Limits

The limitations and standards promulgated today are expressed in terms of mass (e.g., lbs/day or kg/day). This means that NPDES permit limitations derived from today's rule similarly must be expressed in terms of mass. See 40 CFR 122.45(f). These requirements are for direct discharging facilities. Similar requirements exist for indirect discharging facilities and are found in 40 CFR 403.6(c)(3). In order to convert effluent limitations guidelines and standards expressed as pounds/thousand pounds to a monthly average or daily maximum permit limit, the permitting authority would use a production rate with units of thousand pounds/day. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 420.04, 122.45(b)(2), and 403.6(c)(3) require that NPDES permit and pretreatment limits be based on a “reasonable measure of actual production,” but do not define the term. In its 2000 proposal, EPA solicited comment on whether to codify a definition of that term in part 420 for the iron and steel category. After considering the comments and reviewing the rulemaking record, EPA has decided not to codify a definition of “reasonable measure of actual production.”

a. Background

As explained above, the current iron and steel regulation does not define what constitutes a “reasonable measure of actual production,” although it offers the following examples: “production during the high month of the previous year, or the monthly average for the highest of the previous five years.” See 40 CFR 420.04.

EPA believes that some NPDES permitting and pretreatment control authorities have identified production rates that do not reflect a “reasonable measure of actual production” specified at 122.45(b)(2)(I), 403.6(c)(3), and 420.04. In some cases, maximum production rates for similar process units discharging to one treatment system were determined from different years or months, which may provide an unrealistically high measure of actual production. In EPA's view, this would occur if the different process units could not reasonably produce at these high rates simultaneously.

In addition, industry stakeholders have also noted that permitting and pretreatment control authorities interpret the reasonable measure of actual production inconsistently. Accordingly, iron and steel industry stakeholders requested that EPA publish a consistent policy on how to implement this requirement. Industry stakeholders have indicated that (1) in order to promote consistency, EPA should codify the method used to determine appropriate production rates for calculating allowable mass loadings, so that the permit writers can all use the same basis; and (2) EPA should use a high production basis, such as maximum monthly production over the previous five year period or maximum design production, in order to ensure that a facility will not be out of compliance during periods of high production.

b. 2000 Proposal

Because the “reasonable measure of actual production” concept is inconsistently applied, EPA proposed in 2000 to include in its final iron and steel rulemaking specific direction on making this determination. EPA solicited comment on four alternative approaches to implement the “reasonable measure of actual production.” See 65 FR at 82029-82031. Each alternative excluded, from the calculation of operating rates, production from unit operations that do not generate or discharge process wastewater. EPA proposed the following four alternative definitions of reasonable measure of actual production: (a) include production only from units that can operate simultaneously; (b) apply multi-tiered permit limits with different limits for different rates of production as defined in Chapter 5 of U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers Manual, EPA 833-B-96-003; (c) use the average daily production from the highest production year during the previous five years; and

(d) use one of the methods for monthly average limits but use concentration limits for daily maximum limits.

Each alternative had its supporters and detractors in comments. Several commenters preferred alternative A, but incorrectly described the alternative as the high month of production over the past five years. No commenters provided data that showed they would be unable to meet the proposed limits and standards under any of the four alternatives.

c. Final Rule

At this time, EPA has decided not to revise section 420.04 in any respect. EPA has also decided not to codify a definition for the term “reasonable measure of actual production” applicable to part 420. The Agency has thoroughly evaluated all comments supporting other interpretations and is not convinced that departing from past practices is justified here. Consequently, EPA concludes that continuing to allow flexibility to permitting and pretreatment control authorities to apply site-specific factors in determining a reasonable measure of production is appropriate.

7. Applicability of Part 420 to Electroplating and Certain Finishing Operations

At the time of the proposed rulemaking, the Agency determined that certain facilities subject to the 1982 iron and steel rule operated processes that more closely resemble those in facilities to be covered by the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) rule than those found in iron and steel facilities. So that these facilities might be addressed under a regulation that best fits them, EPA proposed to move these types of facilities into the MP&M category, which would be regulated under the part 438 effluent limitations guidelines and standards, when finalized. Specifically, EPA proposed to move the following operations from iron and steel to MP&M: surface finishing or cold forming of steel bar, rod, wire, pipe or tube; batch electroplating on steel; continuous electroplating or hot dip coating of long steel products (e.g.wire, rod, bar); batch hot dip coating of steel; and steel wire drawing. These operations produce finished products such as bars, wire, pipe and tubes, nails, chain link fencing, and steel rope.

EPA received several comments regarding the proposed transfer. The commenters did not support such transfer for two main reasons. First, the stand alone wire companies commented that they would be at a competitive disadvantage because they believe certain non-integrated facilities that also produce and sell wire and wire products would continue to be regulated under part 420 alone. EPA disagrees with the commenters on this issue because, like stand alone wire facilities, the wire operations of the non-integrated steelmaking facilities would be subject to the MP&M category, as regulated under the part 438 effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA expects that the discharge permits for these non-integrated facilities would be based on a combined waste stream formula approach.

Additionally, the commenters also claimed that the transferred operations are similar to various operations in the proposed iron and steel finishing subcategory. Furthermore, the commenters also felt that EPA has not demonstrated any significant differences in the wastewater characteristics between the proposed to be transferred operations and the proposed iron and steel finishing operations. Since proposal, EPA revisited the record of the iron and steel finishing operations (all operations with available influent data) and compared the associated wastewater characteristics to those from the wire facilities that were sampled under the MP&M rulemaking effort. EPA confirmed that the wastewater characteristics from the operations EPA proposed to transfer indeed resemble more closely those from the MP&M operations than those from the iron and steel finishing operations. For instance, the average lead and zinc concentrations from the wire facilities are one to three orders of magnitude higher than those from the iron and steel finishing facilities. On the other hand, the concentrations for these pollutants are within the range of pollutant concentrations found in similar MP&M operations.

Furthermore, most of the unit operations present in the facilities EPA proposed to transfer are the same as those found in the MP&M facilities, while only around 30% of these operations are found in the iron and steel finishing facilities. Lastly, EPA performed a comparison of flow rates between the facilities EPA proposed to transfer and the proposed finishing subcategory. The average flow rate from the proposed finishing subcategory is approximately half billion gallons per year, while the average flow rate from the facilities EPA proposed to transfer is less than 30 million gallons per year. EPA also notes that the average flow rate from the general metals subcategory of the MP&M rule is of the same order of magnitude as that from the facilities EPA proposed to transfer. As a result of the above evaluations, EPA preliminarily concluded that the operations EPA proposed to transfer are more appropriately regulated in part 438, the MP&M effluent limitations guidelines and standards.

EPA also proposed moving certain electroplating operations currently subject to the Metal Finishing Part 433 effluent limitations guidelines and standards into the revised part 420. Commenters strongly opposed the incorporation of the continuous electroplating of flat steel products (

e.g.

, sheet, strip, plate) into part 420, indicating the preference for electroplating operations of all types to be considered as a whole (

e.g.

, under the part 433 regulations or eventually the MP&M regulations). For the reasons stated in the comments, EPA agrees. Therefore, EPA is not including wastewater discharges from continuous electroplating of flat steel products in part 420.

For the reasons set forth above, EPA believes that the following operations would be most appropriately regulated as MP&M facilities: surface finishing or cold forming of steel bar, rod, wire, pipe or tube; batch electroplating on steel; continuous electroplating or hot dip coating of long steel products (e.g.wire, rod, bar); batch hot dip coating of steel; and steel wire drawing. However, EPA will not decide whether to establish an MP&M category in part 438 until December 2002. Therefore, it would be premature in today's final rule to change the applicability of the existing iron and steel rule to exclude the operations and EPA has not done so. If EPA finalizes limitations and standards for subcategories of the MP&M regulation (which would encompass these operations), EPA will also amend the applicability section of the iron and steel rulemaking to reflect this change. Until then, these operations continue to be regulated under part 420, respectively.

8. Ammonia-N Standard Waiver for Indirect Discharging Cokemaking, Ironmaking, and Sintering Operations

In today's final rule, EPA is setting or retaining pretreatment standards for ammonia for the cokemaking and sintering subcategories because of the high loads of ammonia in wastewaters from those subcategories to POTWs that do not have nitrification capability. However, EPA is aware that some POTWs treating iron and steel wastewaters from these subcategories have nitrification capability. Consequently, in 2000, EPA proposed to waive the ammonia-N pretreatment standard for the ironmaking (including

sintering) subcategory if the receiving POTW's operations included effective operation of a nitrification system.

EPA received several compelling comments supporting this proposal, and encouraging EPA to extend this mechanism to the cokemaking subcategory also. No commenters opposed this mechanism.

Upon a final review of its record, EPA continues to believe this waiver is appropriate and agrees with commenters that it should apply to the cokemaking, sintering, and ironmaking subcategories. EPA concludes this waiver will be equally protective of the environment and lead to potential cost savings for some iron and steel facilities. Thus, ammonia-N pretreatment standards do not apply to cokemaking, ironmaking, and sintering facilities discharging to POTWs with nitrification capability. As a further point of clarification, EPA is defining nitrification capability as described in the following paragraph.

POTWs with nitrification capability oxidize ammonium salts to nitrites (via Nitrosomas bacteria) and then further oxidize nitrites to nitrates via Nitrobacter bacteria to achieve greater removals of ammonia than POTWs without nitrification. Nitrification can be accomplished in either a single or two-stage activated sludge system. In addition, POTWs that have wetlands which are developed and maintained for the express purpose of removing ammonia with a marsh/pond configuration are also examples of having nitrification capability. Indicators of nitrification capability are: (1) biological monitoring for ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and nitrite oxidizing bacteria (NOB) to determine if the nitrification is occurring, and (2) analysis of the nitrogen balance to determine if nitrifying bacteria reduce the amount of ammonia and increase the amount of nitrite and nitrate.

9. Nitrates in Acid Pickling Wastewater

In today's final rule, EPA is not establishing nitrate limits for acid pickling operations. The model BAT technology for stainless steel finishing operations includes acid purification units for recovery and reuse of spent nitric and nitric/hydrofluoric acid pickling solutions. This technology comprises removal of dissolved metals (

e.g.

, iron, chromium, nickel) from a side stream of the strong acid pickling solution and return of the purified acid to the acid pickling bath. This essentially extends the life of the pickling acids, thereby reducing the consumption of virgin nitric acid. A reject stream containing dilute acid and the dissolved metals is periodically sent to wastewater treatment.

Commenters provided information to the Agency on the efficiency and performance of acid purification technology, which indicated EPA had substantially overestimated the capability of acid purification units in the proposed rule. No information on potential alternative pollution control equipment was provided in response to the solicitation for cost and performance data. The Agency was also unable to acquire sufficient information on alterative pollution control technologies to provide a best available technology basis for the effluent limitations guidelines and standards.

EPA is aware of a potential problem associated with nitrate discharge from one stainless steel finishing operation with combination (hydrofluoric and nitric) acid pickling. It may be that similar problems are associated with discharges coming from similar operations in other parts of the country. Nitrates, when consumed in drinking water, can be associated with health problems in humans, particularly infants. EPA expects this problem to be addressed through BAT limitations established on a site-specific best professional judgment basis or through water quality-based effluent limitations. For further discussion of the possible technological alternatives for nitrate control in site-specific circumstances, please see Chapter 8 of the TDD.

B. Decisions Regarding Methodology

1. Economic Analysis Methodology

This section presents several important adjustments made to the methodology since proposal. A more detailed discussion of EPA's methodology for analyzing the economic achievability of the candidate BAT options is presented in Section X.C of this preamble and in the EA.

In response to the challenges represented by the significant industry downturn described in Section IV, EPA made two revisions to the economic analysis methodology it employed at proposal. In the case of forecasting future industry cash flows, the Agency added two additional forecast methods to the three used in the proposal. Two of the models used at proposal explicitly address the sharp downturn in the industry after 1997 but differ in reflecting the strength and duration of recovery and subsequent downturns. That is, both address the cyclicality seen in the iron and steel industry, but with differing magnitudes and timing. The third forecasting method used at proposal is a three-year average (1995 to 1997) to provide an upper-bound analysis. For this final rule, EPA employed two additional forecast methods to reflect to the maximum extent possible the effect of the industry downturn. The fourth forecasting method is a six-year average covering 1995 to 2000, with the years 1998 through 2000 scaled by industry level performance. The fifth forecasting method uses only the year 2000 as a lower-bound analysis.

The second revision to the economic methodology since proposal is modification of the scoring test to evaluate potential economic impacts. EPA calculates the baseline status of a site as the present value of forecasted earnings. With five forecasting methods, there are five ways to evaluate each site. If, using a particular forecast method, a site's baseline status is negative (negative present value of forecasted earnings), EPA assigned a score of “1” for that forecasting method. A single site, then, may have a score ranging from zero to five (with five indicating negative present value of forecasted earnings under all five forecasts). Similar to the methodology at proposal, EPA considers any sites with negative present value of forecasted earnings in the majority of cases (in this case, a score of “3” or higher) to be a baseline closure.

Then for all sites considered viable in the baseline, EPA calculates the post-regulatory status of a site as the present value of forecasted earnings minus the after-tax present value of regulatory costs. With five forecasting methods, there are five ways to evaluate each site. If, using a particular forecast method, a site's post-regulatory status is negative (after-tax present value of regulatory costs exceeds present value of forecasted earnings), EPA assigned a score of “1” for that forecasting method. A single site, then, may have a score ranging from zero to five (with five indicating that the after-tax present value of regulatory costs exceeds present value of forecasted earnings under all five forecasts). In an effort to reflect the significant industry downturn, the Agency has chosen to reflect any incremental change in the score from the baseline condition to the post-regulatory condition due to regulatory compliance costs as a potential closure.

One additional item of note was incorporated into the economic analysis of the rule since proposal. Two proposed rules being undertaken by the Agency's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards may impact iron and steel facilities potentially subject to the current rule: Coke Ovens: Pushing,

Quenching & Battery Stacks (66 FR 35325) and Integrated Iron and Steel (66 FR 36835). As a result, the final economic analysis incorporates in the economic condition of each potentially affected facility and firm the potential regulatory costs projected for the aforementioned proposed rules. This approach is consistent with existing Agency and OMB guidance on conducting economic analysis. Further, the other potential rulemakings represent expenditures which are projected to occur during the analytical and compliance time horizon and the costs must be reflected to insure the Agency does not underestimate adverse economic impacts.

2. Selection of Facilities With Model Treatment and Evaluation of Available Data Sets in Establishing Long Term Averages

EPA uses long term averages (LTAs), which represent the pollutant concentrations achievable, and production normalized flows (PNFs), which reflect volumes of wastewater generated, by model facilities in order to calculate the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in today's rule. See the TDD for more details. EPA received a number of comments on the ability of existing facilities to achieve both the LTAs and the PNFs. This section explains the procedure EPA used to select the BAT facilities upon which it based its LTAs and its updated data editing procedures for LTA and variability calculations. For a discussion of PNFs, see Section V.B.3 and Chapter 13 of the TDD.

First, EPA evaluated each data set to determine what technology or series of technologies the data represented. In this manner, EPA eliminated many data sets because they did not represent a technology basis considered during development of this rule. In a few instances, EPA included data from facilities that employ technologies in addition to the technology bases being considered. In these cases, EPA had data from intermediate sampling points representing the model technologies; in other words, the data EPA employed reflect only the application of technologies under consideration. Next, EPA reviewed the remaining data sets to ensure that each facility was effectively operating its technologies. For example, EPA eliminated facilities that experienced repeated operating problems with their treatment systems or have discharge points located after addition of significant amounts (i.e., greater than 10 percent by volume) of non-process water.

For the data sets that remained, EPA performed a detailed review of the data and all supporting documentation accompanying the data. This includes both EPA sampling data and industry-supplied data (often referred to as industry self monitoring data (ISMD)). EPA performed this review to ensure that the data were obtained during a treatment system's normal operating conditions and to ensure that the data accurately reflect the performance expected by the BAT treatment systems. Thus, EPA excluded data that were collected while a facility was experiencing exceptional incidents or upsets.

After determining the data sets to be included to calculate LTAs and variability for each technology option under consideration for the final rule, EPA applied further data editing criteria on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. For facilities where EPA possessed paired influent and effluent data, it performed a long-term average test. The test looks at the influent concentrations to ensure a pollutant is present at sufficient concentration to evaluate treatment effectiveness. If a pollutant failed the test (

i.e.,

was not present at a treatable concentration), EPA excluded the data for that pollutant from its LTA and variability calculations. In this manner, EPA would ensure that its limitations resulted from treatment and not simply the absence of that pollutant in the wastestream. In many cases, however, industry supplied EPA with effluent data, but not the corresponding influent data. In these cases, EPA used the effluent data without performing a long-term average test. EPA decided to use these data for two reasons. First, EPA wanted to include as much data as possible in its calculations. Second, the vast majority of pollutants for which industry supplied self-monitoring data are pollutants regulated in the existing iron and steel regulation; EPA has already established the presence of the regulated pollutants in treatable levels in iron and steel wastestreams. Therefore, EPA is confident that these effluent data represent effective treatment and not the absence of the pollutant in the wastestream.

Lastly, in some cases, EPA also had information that the technology at a particular facility, while effective overall, was ineffective for individual pollutants. In these instances, EPA excluded the data from that facility for that particular pollutant only.

The Agency then used the remaining data from the facilities with the model technology basis to calculate the LTA, the associated daily and monthly variability factors, and the limitations. Chapter 14 of the Technical Development Document provides more detailed information on EPA's data editing criteria and the long-term average test. In addition, the final rulemaking record contains supporting documentation on all data exclusions.

3. Reassessment of Production-Normalized Flows (PNFs)

EPA performed a comprehensive review of the data sets used and analyses performed to determine the model PNFs. EPA's revised analyses are described in Section 13 of the TDD, with additional documentation provided in the rulemaking record. The purpose of the review was to identify and correct any errors in the data sets and to ensure that the resulting model PNFs are technically achievable for all facilities in each subcategory and segment. EPA's revised PNF analyses considered age of equipment and facilities, type of process employed, products produced (incorporates product quality needs), geographic location, non-water quality impacts (including air pollution regulations and energy), compliance costs, storm water considerations, and seasonal variation. EPA also considered combinations of these factors and evaluated the pollutant control upgrades considered for each facility to ensure the model PNFs and LTAs are technically feasible for all facilities in each subcategory and segment. In addition, EPA considered whether any individual facilities achieve the model PNFs and LTAs simultaneously, but did not include this factor as a requirement in determining the model LTAs and PNFs.

For two subcategories, ironmaking and steel finishing, EPA's subsequent analyses concluded that the model PNFs were not technically achievable for all facilities, and this was one factor in EPA's decision to retain the existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards for these subcategories as discussed in Sections VIII.C and VIII.H. EPA also made minor adjustments to the model PNFs for some other subcategories and segments.

4. Changes in Methodology for Determining the Baseline Loadings and Average Baseline Concentrations

An important factor in calculating current or baseline pollutant loadings for a facility is the concentration of each pollutant in a facility's discharge. When possible, EPA determined these pollutant concentrations based on information reported by that facility. However, EPA does not have this information for every pollutant at every iron and steel facility. In these

instances, EPA needed to develop a methodology to estimate these concentrations. Consequently, for each subcategory under consideration, where site-specific data are available EPA calculated the site-specific baseline concentrations for each pollutant before averaging the site-specific values across the subcategory to obtain the subcategory-specific average baseline concentrations. These values were then applied to facilities and/or pollutants for which EPA lacked specific data. For some subcategories, EPA estimated baseline concentrations for different technologies, while for others it developed a single set of concentration estimates. At the time of the proposal, EPA eliminated data from facilities that were used in its LTA calculations (i.e., “BAT facilities”). After a review following the proposal, EPA realized that this procedure assumed that all facilities for which EPA did not have specific pollutant loading calculations were performing at a level less than BAT. EPA's database does not support this conclusion. Consequently, for the final rule, EPA has included all data, including that representing “BAT facilities,” in its average pollutant baseline calculations.

In addition, for the proposal, EPA estimated baseline pollutant concentrations for indirect and direct dischargers separately. After a review of its record, EPA recognized that, except for conventional pollutants, effluent pollutant concentrations are largely dependent on the treatment technology used rather than a facility's discharge status. This is not the case for conventional pollutants, however, because most indirect dischargers are not required to control or optimize their treatment systems for the removal of conventional pollutants because they are treated by the receiving POTW. Consequently, for the final rule, except for conventional pollutants, EPA has not distinguished between direct and indirect discharging facilities in estimating baseline pollutant concentrations. Chapter 11 in the TDD contains additional information on EPA's pollutant loadings and average baseline concentration calculations.

5. Determination of POTW Percent Removal Estimates

In its analyses at the time of the proposal, EPA used its traditional approach to determine POTW performance (percent removal). POTW performance is a critical component of the pass-through methodology EPA uses to identify pollutants to be regulated for PSES and PSNS. In addition, the proposal discussed that EPA was considering revising its traditional methodology for determining POTW performance. Specifically, it discussed and requested comment on possible revisions to the methodology EPA uses to calculate POTW percent removals using data from the “Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publically Owned Treatment Works” (EPA 440/1-82/303, September 1982), commonly referred to as the “50-POTW Study.” See 65 FR 82012-82013.

EPA received only one comment on the methodology changes. As these changes would affect a wide range of industries, EPA had hoped to engage a much broader audience. Consequently, for this final rule, EPA continues to use its traditional approach. EPA also performed its analyses using the revised methodology. EPA found that its conclusions would be the same using either methodology.

As a further point of clarification, EPA also noticed the possible revisions in its POTW performance methodology in its proposed Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) effluent guidelines and standards (66 FR 424). EPA is currently re-visiting this issue for that rulemaking.

VI. Scope/Applicability of the Regulation

The universe of facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 420 includes facilities engaged in iron and steel making operations using blast furnaces, basic oxygen furnaces (BOFs), or electric arc furnaces (EAFs). Part 420 also applies to metallurgical cokemaking facilities and stand-alone facilities engaged in hot forming and/or finishing of steel. In a change from the 1982 regulations, today's rule also applies to facilities engaged in other related operations such as direct iron reduction, forging, and iron briquetting. On the other hand, today's rule no longer applies to obsolete operations such as beehive cokemaking, ferromanganese blast furnaces and open hearth furnaces.

A detailed discussion of iron and steel wastewaters is provided in Chapter 7 of the TDD. In summary, all wastewater discharged to a receiving stream or introduced to a publicly owned treatment works from a facility that is within the scope of one of the subparts is subject to the provisions of part 420. See 40 CFR 420.01(a).

VII. Industry Description

EPA estimates there are 254 facilities owned by 115 companies in the iron and steel industry. The iron and steel facilities are located throughout the U.S. with a high concentration of integrated steelmaking and cokemaking facilities in the midwest and northeast. The smaller stand-alone forming and finishing facilities are generally located near larger steel manufacturing sites.

EPA has identified general processes typically found at iron and steel facilities. The following is a brief description of these key manufacturing processes.

Cokemaking

This process turns carbon in raw coal into metallurgical coke, which is subsequently used in the ironmaking process. There are two types of cokemaking operations: By-product and non-recovery. In by-product coke plants, metallurgical coke is produced by distilling coal in refractory-lined, slot-type ovens at high temperatures in the absence of air. In non-recovery coke plants, coal is made into coke in negative pressure, higher temperature coke ovens.

In by-product coke operations, the moisture and volatile components generated from the coal distillation process are collected and processed to recover by-products, such as crude coal tars, light crude oil, etc. Another type of cokemaking process is performed in non-recovery plants. These facilities use higher temperature ovens which destroy volatile organics, and they do not recover any by-products. Furthermore, their negative pressure coke ovens also ensure no leakage of air and smoke to the atmosphere.

In by-product coke plants, wastewater such as waste ammonia liquor is generated from moisture contained in the coal charge to the coke ovens, and some wastewater is generated from the by-product recovery operations. The non-recovery coke plants, on the other hand, do not generate any process wastewater.

Sintering

Sinter plants upgrade the iron content of ores and recover iron from a mixture of wastewater treatment sludges, mill scale from integrated steel mills, and fine coke particles (also known as coke breeze) from cokemaking operations. In sinter plants, the iron source mixture is combined with limestone and charged to a furnace. Sinter of suitable size and weight is formed for charging to the blast furnace. Wastewaters are generated from wet air pollution control devices on the wind box and discharge ends of the sinter furnace. No process wastewater is generated from dry air pollution control systems.

Ironmaking

In ironmaking, blast furnaces are used to produce molten iron, which makes

up about two-thirds of the charge to basic oxygen steelmaking furnaces. The raw materials charged to the top of the blast furnace include coke, limestone, refined iron ores, and sinter. Preheated air is blown into the bottom of the furnace and exits the furnace top as blast furnace gas in enclosed piping. The off-gas is cleaned and cooled in a combination of dry dust catchers and high-energy venturi scrubbers. Direct contact water used in the gas coolers and high-energy scrubbers comprises nearly all of the wastewater from ironmaking blast furnace operations.

Steelmaking

Steelmaking in the United States is conducted either in basic oxygen furnaces (BOFs) or electric arc furnaces (EAFs). BOFs are typically used for high tonnage production of carbon steels at integrated mills, while EAFs are used to produce carbon steels and low tonnage alloy and specialty steels at non-integrated mills.

Integrated steel mills use BOFs to refine a metallic charge consisting of approximately two-thirds molten iron and one-third steel scrap. Off-gases from the furnace are controlled by one of three wet air pollution control methods: Semi-wet, wet-open, and wet-suppressed. Wastewaters are generated from the wet air pollution control devices. On the other hand, non-integrated mills use EAFs to melt and refine a metallic charge of scrap steel. In addition, most mills operate EAFs with dry air cleaning systems, which produce no process wastewater discharges. There are a small number of wet and semi-wet systems.

Vacuum Degassing/Ladle Metallurgy

Vacuum degassing is a batch process where molten steel is subjected to a vacuum for composition control, temperature control, deoxidation, degassing, decarburization, and the removal of impurities from the steel. Oxygen and hydrogen are the principal gases removed from the steel. In most degassing systems, the vacuum is provided by barometric condensers; thus, direct contact between the gases and the barometric water occurs.

Likewise, ladle metallurgy is also a batch process where molten steel is refined in addition to, or in place of, vacuum degassing. These operations include argon bubbling, argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD), electroslag remelting (ESR), and lance injection. These additional refining operations do not generate any process water.

Casting

This process continuously casts the molten steel into semi-finished shapes after the vacuum degassing and/or ladle metallurgy processes. The continuous casting machine includes a receiving vessel for molten steel, water-cooled molds, secondary cooling water sprays, containment rolls, oxygen-acetylene torches for cutoff, and a runout table. Wastewater is generated by a direct contact water system used for spray cooling and for flume flushing to transport scale from below the caster runout table. The other main casting operation type is ingot casting, in which molten steel is poured into ingot molds.

Hot Forming

In this process, ingots, blooms, billets, slabs, or rounds are heated to rolling temperatures so that the products will form under mechanical pressure into semi-finished shapes for further hot or cold rolling or as finished shapes. Process water is used for scale breaking, flume flushing, and direct contact cooling.

Salt Bath Descaling

Oxidizing and reducing molten salt baths are used to remove heavy scale from specialty and high-alloy steels. Process wastewaters originate from quenching and rinsing operations conducted after processing in the molten salt baths. Electrolytic sodium sulfate descaling is performed on stainless steels for essentially the same purposes as salt bath descaling.

Acid Pickling

Solutions of various acids are used to remove oxide scale from the surfaces of semi-finished products prior to further processing by cold rolling, cold drawing, and subsequent cleaning and coating operations. Process wastewaters include spent pickling acids, rinse waters, and pickling line fume scrubber water.

Cold Forming

Cold forming is conducted on hot rolled and pickled steels at ambient temperatures to impart desired mechanical and surface properties in the steel. Process wastewater characteristics result from using synthetic or animal-fat based rolling solutions, many of which are proprietary.

Hot Coating

This process immerses pre-cleaned steel into baths of molten metal. Hot coating is typically used to improve resistance to corrosion, and for some products, to improve appearance and ability to hold paint. Wastewaters result principally from cleaning operations prior to the molten bath.

Direct-Reduced Ironmaking (DRI)

This process produces relatively pure iron by reducing iron ore in a furnace below the melting point of the iron produced. DRI is used as a substitute for scrap steel in non-integrated steelmaking process to minimize contaminant levels in the melted steel and to allow economic steel production when market prices for scrap are high. Process wastewaters are generated from air pollution control devices.

Briquetting

This process of agglomeration forms materials into discrete shapes of sufficient size, strength, and weight so that the material can serve as feed for subsequent processes. Briquetting does not generate process wastewater.

Forging

This is a hot forming operation in which a metal piece is shaped by hammering or by processing in a hydraulic press. Process wastewaters are generated from direct contact cooling water.

The data collected for this rulemaking indicate that, in the past 25 years, much of the steel manufacturing industry has shifted from generally larger, older integrated facilities to newer, smaller non-integrated facilities. In addition, there is a substantial trend toward the establishment of specialized, stand-alone finishing facilities that process semi-finished sheet, strip, bars, and rods obtained from integrated or non-integrated facilities.

Of the 254 iron and steel manufacturing facilities, approximately 133 discharge directly to surface waters of the U.S., 70 discharge indirectly to POTWs, and 56 facilities achieve zero discharge (either because they do not generate process wastewater or because they dispose of their process wastewater through underground injection or other methods not directly involving waters of the United States). Some facilities may discharge both directly to surface waters of the U.S. and to POTWs. In 1997, process wastewater discharges ranged from less than 200 gallons per day for a stand-alone finisher to more than 50 million gallons per day for a larger integrated facility.

VIII. The Final Regulation

For a detailed discussion of all technology options considered in the development of today's final rule, see the proposal (65 FR at 81982-82096) and Chapter 9 of the TDD.

Based on the record before it, EPA has determined that each model technology EPA has chosen as a basis for today's revised BAT and PSES limitations is technically available. EPA has also determined that each is economically achievable for the segment to which it applies. Further, EPA has determined, for the reasons set forth in this section, that none of the chosen technologies has unacceptable adverse non-water quality environmental impacts. Finally, EPA has determined that each chosen technology achieves greater pollutant removals than any other economically achievable technology considered by EPA and, for that reason, also represents the best technology among those considered for the particular segment. EPA also considered the age, size, processes, and other engineering factors pertinent to facilities in the proposed segments for the purpose of evaluating the technology options. None of these factors provides a basis for selecting different technologies than those EPA has selected as its model BAT and PSES technologies for today's rule.

In selecting its NSPS technologies for the segments and subcategories being revised today, EPA considered all of the factors specified in CWA Section 306, including the cost of achieving effluent reductions. The NSPS technologies for these segments are presently being employed at facilities in each segment of these subcategories. Therefore, EPA has concluded that such costs do not present a barrier to entry. The Agency also considered energy requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts for the NSPS options and concluded that these impacts are acceptable. EPA therefore concluded that the NSPS technology bases chosen for these segments constitute the best available demonstrated control technology for those segments. (These findings also apply to the PSNS for these segments.)

EPA is making no changes to the BPT and BCT limitations previously promulgated for part 420, except for revisions to BPT and BCT limitations for semi-wet BOF operations and the deletion of limitations for obsolete operations (beehive cokemaking in the cokemaking subcategory, ferromanganese blast furnaces in the ironmaking subcategory, and open hearth furnace operations in the steelmaking subcategory). Similarly, EPA is retaining, by cross reference to title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1, 2001, the NSPS promulgated in 1982 in Subparts A and B for new sources that commenced discharge after November 19, 2012 but before November 18, 2002, provided that the new source was constructed to meet those new standards. EPA is also retaining by cross reference, the pretreatment standards for new sources previously promulgated for Subparts A and B for facilities constructed between November 19, 2012 and November 18, 2002, except that EPA is rescinding the pretreatment standards for phenols for Subpart A because EPA has determined in this rulemaking that phenol (measured as 4AAP) does not pass through with respect to the cokemaking subcategory.

This implements the provisions of CWA Section 306(d), which provides that new sources may not be regulated to achieve more stringent technology-based limitations (

e.g.,

revised BAT) for pollutants regulated by NSPS for approximately ten years following completion of construction. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1) specify the precise duration of this grace period. Thereafter, the discharger is subject to any more stringent applicable BPT/BCT/BAT limitations. This means that facilities currently subject to the 1982 NSPS or PSNS remain subject to those standards during a ten-year period beginning on the date of completion of the new source or during the period of depreciation or amortization of such facility, whichever period ends first. After such time, the BAT and PSES limitations promulgated today apply to those dischargers for toxic and nonconventional pollutants. For direct dischargers, limitations on conventional pollutants will be based on the formerly promulgated BPT/BCT limitations corresponding to the BPT/BCT segment applicable to the discharger or on the 1982 NSPS for conventional pollutants, whichever is more stringent.

A. Cokemaking Subcategory

EPA is promulgating limits and standards for two segments within the cokemaking subcategory: by-products recovery cokemaking, and non-recovery cokemaking. EPA is also removing the beehive cokemaking segment from the cokemaking subcategory because the beehive process of cokemaking is obsolete and has not been used in the United States for over 25 years.

1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)

EPA is not revising any existing BPT limitations for the by-products recovery segment of this subcategory (which in the 1982 regulation was divided between “iron and steel” and “merchant” coke plants). EPA did not propose such revisions, but did solicit comment on the issue in the notice. EPA received no comment on the issue, so EPA is not revising the existing BPT limitations.

EPA is establishing BPT limitations for the non-recovery segment of the cokemaking subcategory. These limitations are: no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.1 of the TDD for more information about what constitutes process wastewater for this segment. Because non-recovery cokemaking operations do not generate any process wastewater, the Agency concludes that non-recovery cokemaking operation itself represents the best practicable technology currently available and that no discharge of process wastewater pollutants is a reasonable BPT limitation. For the same reason, the Agency concludes that there are no costs associated with achieving this limitation, and expects that no additional pollutant removals attributable to this segment will occur.

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

In deciding whether to adopt different BCT limits, EPA considered whether there are technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than adopted for BPT, and whether those technologies are cost-reasonable under the standards established by the CWA, and implemented through regulation. EPA generally refers to the decision criteria as the “BCT cost test.” EPA is not revising any existing BCT limitations for the by-products recovery segment of this subcategory (which in the 1982 regulation was divided between “iron and steel” and “merchant” coke plants) because there are no technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than the technology basis for the current BPT and pass the BCT cost test.

For the non-recovery segment of this subcategory, EPA identified no technologies that can achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than those that are the basis for BPT (

i.e.,

the non-recovery cokemaking operations resulting in no discharge) and, therefore, it cannot perform the BCT cost test. Accordingly, EPA is adopting BCT effluent limitations equal to the BPT effluent limitations for the non-recovery segment of this subcategory.

3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

EPA is establishing BAT limits for both the by-products recovery and for the non-recovery segments of the cokemaking subcategory.

a. By-products recovery segment.

For this segment, EPA is today establishing BAT limits for five pollutants: ammonia-N, benzo(a)pyrene, cyanide, naphthalene, and phenols (4AAP). EPA is eliminating the 1982 BAT limitations for benzene because control of naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene should ensure adequate removal of benzene. EPA is promulgating revised BAT limitations for phenols (4AAP), rather than establishing BAT limitations for phenol (GC/MS), as described in Section V.A.4. In addition, in a change from proposal, EPA is not promulgating BAT limitations for this segment for thiocyanate, mercury, or selenium because information in the record shows that the technology basis for this segment would not result in consistent removal of these pollutants, and EPA has identified no other available and economically achievable technology that will do so. Therefore, at this time, these pollutants are not amenable to categorical regulations. Also, EPA is not promulgating BAT limitations for this segment for total recoverable chlorine (TRC). EPA had proposed to regulate this parameter because TRC monitoring can ensure correct operation of alkaline chlorination systems. However, alkaline chlorination is not a component of the technology basis for the limits of this segment; therefore, limitations on TRC are no longer necessary to reflect the application of the model technology.

The technology basis for these BAT limits is cokemaking option BAT1: oil and tar removal, equalization, fixed and free ammonia stripping, heat exchanger, equalization tank, biological treatment with nitrification followed by secondary clarification, and sludge dewatering. (In the proposal, EPA described the heat exchanger component of this treatment train as temperature control. Similarly, EPA had described today's biological treatment component as single-stage biological treatment with nitrification followed by secondary clarification. In each instance, only the names are different; these technologies at proposal and final are substantially identical.)

The BAT technology chosen for this rule is a different technology from the technology for this segment proposed in 2000. In 2000, the proposed technology basis for the BAT limits was BAT3, and consisted of the BAT1 technology plus breakpoint chlorination (EPA erroneously referred to this technology component as alkaline chlorination in the proposal) prior to biological treatment with nitrification. (Prior to proposal, EPA had also considered two other technology options—BAT2 and BAT4—but rejected them for reasons set forth in the proposal preamble at 65 FR at 82016-82017.) EPA has rejected BAT3 because it is not economically achievable. EPA projects that two closures and 500 job losses would result.

The Agency has now concluded that the BAT1 treatment system represents the best available technology economically achievable for this segment of this subcategory. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion. First, the BAT1 technology is readily available to all cokemaking facilities. Approximately 75% of the facilities in this segment currently use it. Second, the BAT1 technology will ensure a high level of removal of all cokemaking pollutants of concern. Well-operated free and fixed ammonia stills will remove gross amounts of ammonia-N, cyanide, and many organic pollutants while biological treatment with nitrification followed by secondary clarification will remove more ammonia-N, phenols (4AAP), and other organic constituents of the wastewater to low levels. Third, adoption of this level of control would represent a significant reduction in conventional, nonconventional, and toxic pollutants discharged into the environment by facilities in this subcategory. Even though 75% of the facilities currently employ this technology, EPA predicts significant removals attributable to this rule because today's limitations reflect substantial improvements in how these technology components are designed and operated. Finally, EPA has evaluated the economic impacts associated with this technology and found it to be economically achievable.

b. Non-recovery cokemaking.

EPA is adopting BAT limitations for the non-recovery segment of the cokemaking subcategory based on the same technologies selected as the basis for BPT for this segment. These limitations are: no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.1 of the TDD for more information about what constitutes process wastewater for this segment. EPA identified no technologies that can achieve greater removals of toxic and non-conventional pollutants than those that are the basis for BPT (

i.e.

, the non-recovery cokemaking operations resulting in no discharge.) EPA has also determined that this basis is economically achievable, because no facilities currently discharge process wastewater pollutants. Therefore, EPA is promulgating BAT limitations equal to BPT.

4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

a. By-products recovery segment.

For the by-products recovery segment of the cokemaking subcategory, EPA is promulgating NSPS that would control the same conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants controlled at the BPT, BCT, and BAT levels. The technology basis for NSPS for this segment is BAT1: oil and tar removal, equalization, fixed and free ammonia stripping, heat exchanger, equalization tank, biological treatment with nitrification followed by secondary clarification, and sludge dewatering. The technologies available to control pollutants at existing facilities are also available to new facilities. EPA rejected BAT3 as a basis for NSPS because it determined that the costs associated with this technology were not reasonable. EPA considers BAT1 as the “best” demonstrated technology for new sources in the by-product segment of the subcategory. EPA concluded that the chosen technology does not present a barrier to entry because 75% of existing facilities currently employ the technology. The Agency considered energy requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts and found no basis for any different standards than the selected NSPS. Therefore, EPA is promulgating NSPS for the by-products recovery cokemaking segment that are identical to BAT for toxic and non-conventional pollutants, while also promulgating TSS, oil and grease (measured as HEM), and pH limitations, using the same technology basis.

b. Non-recovery segment.

EPA is promulgating NSPS limitations for the non-recovery segment of the cokemaking subcategory based on the same technologies selected as the basis for BPT for this segment. These limitations are: no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.1 of the TDD for more information about what constitutes process wastewater for this segment. Because non-recovery cokemaking operations do not generate any process wastewater, EPA has determined that the technology basis for today's NSPS does not present a barrier to entry, and that there will be no additional energy requirements or non-water quality environmental impacts.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)

a. By-products recovery segment.

Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through potential, EPA is promulgating PSES for three pollutants: ammonia-N, cyanide, and naphthalene. EPA has determined that each of these pollutants would pass through. EPA had proposed to establish PSES for this segment for thiocyanate, selenium, and phenol. The

Agency is not promulgating PSES limits for thiocyanate or selenium for the reasons discussed in connection with BAT. EPA is not establishing PSES for phenol in this segment because, upon re-evaluating the data, EPA concluded that phenolic compounds in cokemaking wastewaters do not pass through. For additional discussion on phenol, see 66 FR 10257 and Section V.A.3.

For naphthalene, EPA has selected 100 μg/L and 83.1 μg/L as the concentration-based values used for today's production-normalized daily maximum standard and monthly average standard, respectively. EPA has determined that well-operated facilities should be capable of operating well below these levels based on the data EPA obtained from mills employing the model technology. When naphthalene was detected, all samples were at or below 33 μg/L. However, naphthalene was not detected in all samples. This is because of analytical difficulties caused by interferences from high levels of phenol in the samples. Although the laboratory overcame the interferences in the five samples for one episode and succeeded in achieving values close to the minimum level of 10 μg/L specified in the analytical method, for the other EPA sampling episode, it could not do so for two samples. Rather, in order to overcome the interferences, the laboratory diluted two of the five samples for analysis; this resulted in a sample-specific minimum level of 100 μg/L for each diluted sample. While there was no evidence of any chromatographic peaks for naphthalene in the chromatograms associated with the two diluted samples, the best that EPA can say with a high degree of confidence is that the naphthalene concentrations were between zero (i.e., not present) and 100 μg/L for these two samples. In order to demonstrate compliance with the naphthalene standard, a sample would have to be analyzed with a sample-specific minimum level of at or below the standard. Because EPA could not overcome the phenol interferences without diluting the two samples, EPA cannot say with confidence that naphthalene samples can be analyzed with a sample-specific minimum level of less than 100 μg/L in every case. For this reason, EPA has determined that 100 μg/L should be the concentration-basis of today's daily maximum standard. EPA also has determined that the concentration-based monthly average standard could be less than 100 μg/L, because EPA assumes that the facilities will monitor for naphthalene more than once a month. (In fact, EPA has assumed that facilities will monitor four times a month and has accounted for those costs in this rule.) EPA expects that laboratories will usually be able to measure at levels lower than 100 μg/L, because most of the data supporting the standards demonstrated that laboratories could overcome interferences in the samples. Thus, it has established a value at 83.1 μg/L as the concentration-basis for the monthly average standard. Section 14 of the TDD describes the derivation of the concentration-based monthly average standard from the daily maximum standard. See Section 4 of the TDD for a discussion of reducing interferences.

EPA recognizes that today's value of 100 μg/L for the daily maximum standard for naphthalene is considerably less than the concentration-basis for the proposed standard of 2030 μg/L. Upon review of the proposed standards, EPA determined that some data should be excluded for various reasons (see DCN IS10816 in section 14.10 of the record) including data that were in excess of the facility's permit and therefore would be inappropriate to use in developing national standards.

EPA is promulgating PSES for by-products recovery cokemaking based on option PSES1: tar/oil removal, equalization, free and fixed ammonia stripping. This is one of two options EPA co-proposed in 2000. The other co-proposed option, PSES3, consisted of PSES1 plus an equalization tank, biological treatment with nitrification followed by secondary clarification, and sludge dewatering. Option PSES3 is identical to option BAT1 that serves as the basis for the BAT limitations adopted today. While PSES3/BAT1 would achieve greater removals than PSES1, EPA has rejected it as the basis for PSES because it is not economically achievable. EPA estimated that costs associated with PSES3 would cause an adverse economic impact on two facilities, resulting in closures and/or job losses. Because there are only eight indirectly discharging by-products recovery cokemaking facilities in the nation, EPA determined that this predicted closure—representing 25% of the related universe—was significant in this case. See Section X for more detail on the economic analysis.

Today, the Agency concludes that PSES1 represents the most appropriate basis for pretreatment standards for the following reasons. First, option PSES1, in combination with treatment occurring at the receiving POTWs, will substantially reduce the levels of all cokemaking pollutants of concern. Well-operated free and fixed ammonia stills will remove gross amounts of ammonia-N, cyanide, and some organic pollutants such as the volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, while the activated sludge biological treatment at the POTWs will remove additional ammonia-N, cyanide, naphthalene, and the other organic constituents of the wastewater to low levels. Second, EPA has considered the compliance costs associated with this option and determined they are economically achievable.

In today's action, EPA is also establishing a mechanism by which by-product cokemaking facilities discharging to POTWs with nitrification capability would not be subject to the pretreatment standard for ammonia-N. This is because EPA has determined that ammonia-N does not pass through such POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for more details.

b. Non-recovery segment.

Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through and EPA's recognition that no process wastewater is generated in connection with non-recovery cokemaking, EPA is today promulgating PSES limitations for the non-recovery segment of the cokemaking subcategory based on the same technologies selected as the basis for BPT/BAT for this segment. These standards are: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants. There are no incremental costs associated with compliance, and therefore, no economic impacts. Consequently, EPA has determined the technologies are economically achievable.

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

a. By-products Recovery Segment.

EPA is today establishing pretreatment standards for new sources for four pollutants: Ammonia-N, cyanide, naphthalene, and benzo(a)pyrene. The technology basis for these standards is PSES3. EPA considered the cost of PSES3 technology for new facilities in this segment. EPA concluded that such costs are not so great as to constitute a barrier to entry, as demonstrated by the fact that three of the eight currently operating indirect discharging facilities are using these technologies. The Agency considered energy requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts and found no basis for any different standards than the selected PSNS.

In today's action, EPA is also establishing a mechanism by which by-product cokemaking facilities discharging to POTWs with nitrification capability would not be subject to the

pretreatment standard for ammonia-N. This is because EPA has determined that ammonia-N does not pass through such POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for more details.

b. Non-recovery segment.

Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through and EPA's recognition that no process wastewater is generated in connection with non-recovery cokemaking, EPA is today promulgating PSNS for the non-recovery segment of the cokemaking subcategory based on the same technologies selected as the basis for PSES for this segment. These standards are: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants. Because non-recovery cokemaking operations do not generate any process wastewater, EPA has determined that the technology basis for today's PSNS does not present a barrier to entry, and that there will be no additional energy requirements or non-water quality environmental impacts.

B. Sintering Subcategory

Today, EPA is promulgating an effluent limitations guideline and standard for one parameter, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, for sintering operations with wet air pollution control systems in this subcategory, establishing a mechanism by which sintering facilities discharging to POTWs with nitrification capability would not be subject to the pretreatment standard for ammonia-N, and otherwise leaving unchanged existing limits and standards for all other parameters. This is a change from what was proposed in October 2000.

In October 2000, EPA proposed combining the sintering and ironmaking subcategories from the 1982 regulation into a single subcategory to be known as ironmaking, with a single treatment technology basis. EPA proposed these changes because survey responses indicated that facilities with both operations on site tended to commingle their wastewaters before treatment. EPA also judged at that time that because wastewater characteristics of the two subcategories were similar, further subcategorization was unnecessary. The subcategory, however, was divided into “blast furnace” and “sinter” segments to take into account differences in the production-normalized flow rates used to develop the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards. With the exception of cooling towers, which apply to blast furnace operations only, EPA considered the same technologies for both segments. The basis for the proposed ironmaking limits and standards for the sintering segment with wet air pollution control system was: Solids removal with high-rate recycle and metals precipitation, alkaline chlorination, and mixed-media filtration of blowdown wastewater. This was known as Ironmaking BAT1. At the time, EPA determined that the option was technically and economically achievable.

In addition, EPA had proposed to regulate phenol instead of the group parameter phenol (measured at 4AAP). EPA had also proposed to add 2,3,7,8-TCDF to the list of regulated parameters for sintering operations with wet air pollution control systems and for blast furnace segment where the wastewater is co-treated with sintering wastewater. Finally, EPA had proposed that sintering facilities would need to meet the proposed total residual chlorine (TRC) limitation only if they employ chlorination in their wastewater treatment.

EPA revisited its proposal for several reasons. First, commenters noted that, by regulating the compound phenol instead of the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), facilities would not be able to qualify for the CWA Section 301(g) variances that are currently an important part of their compliance strategy. See Section V.A.4 for further details about this issue. Second, the increased rate of recycle is the principal difference between the proposed BAT1 technology basis and the 1982 technology basis, and commenters raised achievability concerns with the increased recycle rates. For these reasons, EPA has determined that BAT1 as proposed (with the increased rate of high rate recycle) is not the best achievable technology for sintering operations. Nor is it the best available demonstrated technology for these operations. EPA has also concluded that it is unnecessary to combine the two 1982 subcategories into a single subcategory as proposed, because today's rule is not changing the 1982 limits and standards except as noted below. EPA is therefore leaving unchanged all limitations and standards currently in effect for the sintering subcategory.

EPA is creating two new segments for the sintering subcategory. The segment, sintering operations with wet air pollution control, is a recodification of what were formerly subcategory-wide limitations. The second segment, sintering operations with dry air pollution control, is new. It applies to sinter operations that do not generate process wastewater. However, as proposed, EPA is promulgating a new limitation for 2,3,7,8-TCDF for sintering operations with wet air pollution control systems segment in the sintering subcategory. The technology basis for this segment reflects the 1982 technology basis of the existing limitations with the addition of mixed-media filtration. 2,3,7,8-TCDF is one of a number of extremely toxic congeners of the dioxin/furan family of compounds. During four EPA sampling episodes, several of these congeners were found in both the raw and treated wastewater from sinter plants operating wet air pollution control technologies. EPA chose to use 2,3,7,8-TCDF as an indicator parameter for the whole family of dioxin/furan congeners for several reasons. First, 2,3,7,8-TCDF is the most toxic of the congeners found in treated sintering wastewater. Second, 2,3,7,8-TCDF was the most prevalent of the dioxin/furan congeners in these wastewaters. Finally, 2,3,7,8-TCDF is chemically similar to the other dioxin/furan congeners and its removal will similarly indicate removal of the other congeners.

The TCDF limit is expressed as “<ML,” which means less than the minimum level. The “ML” is an abbreviation for the minimum level identified in § 420.21(c) of today's rule for the analytical methods that EPA used to determine the level of pollution reduction achievable through the use of BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS model technologies for 2,3,7,8-TCDF.

EPA intends for facilities subject to the ML limitation to have 2,3,7,8-TCDF discharges with concentration less than the minimum level of the analytical method specified today in 40 CFR 420.21(c). Method 1613 provides precise definitions of the ML for 2,3,7,8-TCDF. EPA expects that future analytical method will be more sensitive than today's methods, and the minimum level will have a value that is less than identified today in § 420.21(c). However, the analytical method (and the minimum level) specified in § 420.21(c) was used to chemically analyze the wastewaters from facilities in subpart B. EPA used the data from the chemical analysis to determine that today's ML limitation was technically and economically achievable. EPA is unable to determine, based on the data from the chemical analysis, whether more stringent limitation (that is, limitation with value or associated with minimum level less than the minimum level published today in § 420.21) would be technically and economically achievable. To determine whether the technologies are capable of achieving more stringent limitations, EPA would need to evaluate data from chemical analysis using these future more sensitive methods. Those data obviously are not available today. Until further revision of today's limitations and

standards for subpart B, the limitation for 2,3,7,8-TCDF will continue to be associated with the minimum level specified today in Section § 420.21(c).

1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)/Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

a. Sintering operations with wet air pollution control.

EPA is leaving unchanged BPT limitations currently in effect for the sintering subcategory, now codified in the new segment for sintering operations with wet air pollution control systems.

b. Sintering operations with dry air pollution control.

EPA is establishing BPT/BCT limitations for the sintering operations with dry air pollution control segment of the sintering subcategory. These limitations are: no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.2 of the TDD for more information about what constitutes process wastewater for this segment. Because sintering operations with dry air pollution control do not generate any process wastewater, the Agency concludes that sintering operation with dry air pollution control itself represents the best practicable technology currently available and that no discharge of process wastewater pollutants is a reasonable BPT/BCT limitation. For the same reason, the Agency concludes that there are no costs associated with achieving this limitation, and expects that no additional pollutant removals attributable to this segment will occur.

2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

a. Sintering operations with wet air pollution control.

The technology basis for the 2,3,7,8-TCDF limitation is mixed-media filtration in addition to the 1982 technology basis. Although none of the sampled facilities has this technology in place (at or prior to the compliance monitoring point), EPA concludes that this technology will result in the removal of this congener, and thus all the dioxin/furan congeners, below the method detection limit, because dioxins and furans are hydrophobic compounds, meaning they tend to adhere to solids present in a solution. Thus removal of the solids, which is accomplished by mixed-media filtration, will result in removal of the dioxins/furans adhering to them as well. Furthermore, EPA has data from two sampling episodes at sinter plants demonstrating that filtration of wastewater samples containing dioxins and furans at treatable levels will reduce their concentrations to non-detectable levels. This is true even for raw wastewater that has undergone no other treatment.

EPA has determined that the costs of implementing mixed-media filtration, including the costs of compliance monitoring, are economically achievable because EPA predicts no adverse economic impacts. See Section X. Therefore, EPA has determined that mixed-media filtration in addition to the 1982 technology basis is the best available technology economically achievable for the removal of 2,3,7,8-TCDF.

Survey responses indicate that it is common practice for facilities to combine their sintering wastewater with other iron and steel wastewaters prior to discharge to the receiving waterbodies. This combination results in dilution of dioxin and furan concentrations to levels below the detection limit specified in the analytical method. Because EPA wants to ensure that dioxin and furan congeners have been removed from the wastewater and not simply diluted (to ensure that the limitations reflect the actual reductions that can be achieved using the BAT technology), EPA is requiring all facilities to monitor for 2,3,7,8-TCDF at a point prior to co-mingling with any non-sintering or non-blast furnace operations. See 40 CFR 420.29. The only exception to this rule is that facilities may co-mingle ancillary non-blast furnace wastewater (comprising 5% of total flow or less) with their sintering wastewater. See Chapter 16.8.3 of the TDD.

EPA analyzed requiring facilities to monitor for 2,3,7,8-TCDF prior to combination with any other waste streams including blast furnace wastewater. Three of the five sintering wastewater treatment systems have blast furnace wastewater recycle systems that are joined with them. EPA determined that facilities would more likely shut down their sintering operations rather than incur the cost of separating the two systems. EPA determined that this economic impact is not reasonable in light of the fact that removal efficiencies are not significantly improved by separating the two wastewater streams, and thus is specifying that facilities with combined blast furnace and sintering wastewater recycling systems may monitor for 2,3,7,8-TCDF after these two waste streams are combined, but before co-mingling with any non-sintering or non blast-furnace operations. See 40 CFR 420.29. The only exception to this rule is that facilities may co-mingle ancillary non-blast furnace wastewater (comprising 5% of total flow or less) with their sintering wastewater. See Chapter 16.8.3 of the TDD.

EPA is also promulgating, as proposed, a provision that sintering facilities need not meet the current total residual chlorine (TRC) limitations if they do not employ chlorination in the wastewater treatment technology.

b. Sintering operations with dry air pollution control.

EPA is adopting BAT limitations for the sintering operations with dry air pollution control segment of the sintering subcategory based on the same technologies selected as the basis for BPT for this segment. These limitations are: no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.2 of the TDD for more information about what constitutes process wastewater for this segment. EPA identified no technologies that can achieve greater removals of toxic and non-conventional pollutants than those that are the basis for BPT (

i.e.,

the sintering operations with dry air pollution control resulting in no discharge.) EPA has also determined that this basis is economically achievable, because no facilities currently discharge process wastewater pollutants. Therefore, EPA is promulgating BAT limitations equal to BPT.

3. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

a. Sintering operations with wet air pollution control.

For sintering operation with wet air pollution control system in the sintering subcategory, EPA is promulgating a new source performance standard for 2,3,7,8-TCDF based on: clarification, high-rate recycle, metals precipitation, alkaline chlorination (if treated with blast furnace wastewaters) and mixed-media filtration. This technology basis is the same that exists for the 1982 regulation, with the addition of mixed-media filtration. EPA is leaving unchanged all other NSPS for the sintering subcategory. The mixed-media filtration technology used to control 2,3,7,8-TCDF at existing facilities is fully applicable to new facilities. Furthermore, EPA did not identify any technically feasible options that provide greater environmental protection. In addition, EPA determines the technology basis does not constitute a barrier to entry because the technology basis was economically achievable for existing sources, and new sources would face lower costs due to absence of retrofit costs. See Chapter 10 for the discussion in the TDD. The Agency considered energy requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts and found no basis for any different standards than the selected

NSPS. Therefore, EPA is promulgating NSPS for TCDF for the sintering subcategory that is identical to the TCDF limitation being promulgated as BAT. In addition, for the reasons set forth in Section VIII.B.2.a, EPA is requiring facilities to monitor for compliance with the TCDF standard at a point prior to co-mingling with any non-sintering or non-blast furnace operations. See 40 CFR 420.29. The only exception to this rule is that facilities may co-mingle ancillary non-blast furnace wastewater (comprising 5% of total flow or less) with their sintering wastewater. See Chapter 16.8.3 of the TDD.

b. Sintering operations with dry air pollution control.

EPA is promulgating NSPS limitations for the sintering operations with dry air pollution control segment of the sintering subcategory based on the same technologies selected as the basis for BPT for this segment. These limitations are: no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.2 of the TDD for more information about what constitutes process wastewater for this segment. Because sintering operations with dry air pollution control do not generate any process wastewater, EPA has determined that the technology basis for today's NSPS does not present a barrier to entry, and that there will be no additional energy requirements or non-water quality environmental impacts.

4. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)

a. Sintering operations with wet air pollution control.

Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through potential, 2,3,7,8-TCDF will pass through, and thus EPA is a promulgating PSES standard for 2,3,7,8-TCDF equal to the BAT effluent limitation for the sintering operation with wet air pollution control system in the sintering subcategory. Similar to direct dischargers, EPA concludes that indirect discharging sintering operations must monitor at a point prior to co-mingling with any non-sintering or non-blast furnace operations. See 40 CFR 420.29. The only exception to this rule is that facilities may co-mingle ancillary non-blast furnace wastewater (comprising 5% of total flow or less) with their sintering wastewater. See Chapter 16.8.3 of the TDD. To EPA's knowledge, there are no existing indirect dischargers of sintering wastewater.

In today's action, EPA is also establishing a mechanism by which sintering facilities discharging to POTWs with nitrification capability would not be subject to the pretreatment standard for ammonia-N. This is because EPA has determined that ammonia-N does not pass through such POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for more details.

b. Sintering operations with dry air pollution control.

Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through and EPA's recognition that no process wastewater is generated in connection with sintering operations with dry air pollution control, EPA is today promulgating PSES limitations for the sintering operations with dry air pollution control segment of the sintering subcategory based on the same technologies selected as the basis for BPT for this segment. These standards are: no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. There are no incremental costs associated with compliance, and therefore, no economic impacts. Consequently, EPA has determined the technologies are economically achievable.

5. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

a. Sintering operations with wet air pollution control.

Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through potential, 2,3,7,8-TCDF will pass through, and thus EPA is promulgating a PSNS standard for 2,3,7,8-TCDF equal to PSES for the sintering subcategory. EPA considered the cost of the PSES technology for new facilities in this segment. In addition, EPA determines the technology basis does not constitute a barrier to entry because the technology basis was economically achievable for existing sources, and new sources would face lower costs due to absence of retrofit costs. The Agency considered energy requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts and found no basis for any different standard than the selected PSNS. In addition, for the reasons set forth, EPA is requiring facilities to monitor for compliance with the TCDF standard at a point prior to co-mingling with any non-sintering or non-blast furnace operations. See 40 CFR 420.29. The only exception to this rule is that facilities may co-mingle ancillary non-blast furnace wastewater (comprising 5% of total flow or less) with their sintering wastewater. See Chapter 16.8.3 of the TDD.

In today's action, EPA is also establishing a mechanism by which sintering facilities discharging to POTWs with nitrification capability would not be subject to the pretreatment standard for ammonia-N. This is because EPA has determined that ammonia-N does not pass through such POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for more details.

b. Sintering operations with dry air pollution control.

Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through and EPA's recognition that no process wastewater is generated in connection with sintering operations with dry air pollution control, EPA is today promulgating PSNS for the sintering operations with dry air pollution control segment of the sintering subcategory based on the same technologies selected as the basis for PSES for this segment. These standards are: no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. Because sintering operations with dry air pollution control do not generate any process wastewater, EPA has determined that the technology basis for today's PSNS does not present a barrier to entry, and that there will be no additional energy requirements or non-water quality environmental impacts.

C. Ironmaking Subcategory

EPA is leaving unchanged all limitations currently in effect for this subcategory, except to delete the limitations for the obsolete ferromanganese blast furnaces and to establish a mechanism by which ironmaking facilities discharging to POTWs with nitrification capability would not be subject to the pretreatment standard for ammonia-N. EPA had proposed revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards for this subcategory, which included both sintering and blast furnace ironmaking operations, under BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. The proposed technology basis for the BAT and NSPS limits was solids removal, high-rate recycle, metals precipitation, alkaline chlorination, and mixed-media filtration of blowdown wastewater. This was known as Ironmaking option BAT1. The proposed technology basis for the PSES and PSNS standards was the same as BAT1, but without alkaline chlorination and mixed-media filtration. This was known as Ironmaking option PSES1.

EPA revisited these decisions for two reasons. First, commenters noted that, by regulating the compound phenol instead of the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), facilities would not be able to qualify for the CWA Section 301(g) variances that are currently an important part of their compliance strategy, and that EPA had not taken this into account when performing its cost analysis. Accordingly, EPA has decided to continue to regulate the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP). See Section V.A.4 for further details about this issue.

Second, increased performance of high-rate recycle system is the major difference between the proposed BAT1 technology basis and the 1982 technology basis. Commenters using pulverized coal injection in their blast furnaces pointed out that they had learned through experience that recycle of ironmaking wastewater at the high rate described in the proposal leads to a buildup of chlorides in the recycle system and the wet scrubber, which can cause extensive corrosion damage in the piping, premature equipment failure, and lengthy production interruptions. Other commenters not using pulverized coal injection also provided information on operational problems associated with elevated dissolved solids levels in the recycle system at recycle rates higher than described in the proposal. Therefore, EPA has determined that BAT1 and PSES1 are not the best available technologies for existing blast furnace ironmaking operations or the best available demonstrated technologies for new blast furnace ironmaking operations. EPA has also concluded that, because the proposed limits and standards for the ironmaking subcategory are not being promulgated, it is not necessary to combine the two 1982 subcategories (sintering and ironmaking) into a single subcategory as proposed.

EPA had proposed limits and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF for the ironmaking subcategory, but it was to apply only to facilities that combined their blast furnace and sintering wastewater. 2,3,7,8-TCDF was not found in the blast furnace wastewater. By preserving the 1982 subcategorization scheme and promulgating limits and standards for the compound in the sintering subcategory, EPA has addressed this issue, and is therefore not promulgating limits and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF for the ironmaking subcategory.

In today's action, EPA is also establishing a mechanism by which ironmaking facilities discharging to POTWs with nitrification capability would not be subject to the pretreatment standard for ammonia-N. This is because EPA has determined that ammonia-N does not pass through such POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for more details.

D. Steelmaking Subcategory

EPA proposed a revised subcategorization scheme (see Section III.C) which recognized the differences between integrated and non-integrated steelmaking facilities. Under the proposed scheme, wastewaters from basic oxygen furnace operations were included with wastewaters from vacuum degassing operations and continuous casting operations to make up the “Integrated Steelmaking” subcategory. Hot forming operations that took place either at integrated mills or were not associated directly with steelmaking operations were to be covered by the “Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming” subcategory. Wastewaters from electric arc furnaces were included with wastewaters from vacuum degassing operations, continuous casting operations and hot forming operations to make up the “Non-integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming” subcategory. The purpose of this revised subcategorization scheme was to recognize typical wastewater combination and treatment practices at existing steel mills.

The proposed revised subcategorization scheme also distinguished between those facilities making primarily carbon and alloy steels from those making primarily stainless steels. This differentiation was proposed for “Non-integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming,” “Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming,” and “Finishing” subcategories.

For reasons discussed below, however, EPA is not promulgating new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for any of the proposed revised subcategories. Therefore, EPA is not adopting the proposed subcategorization scheme. Changing the subcategorization scheme only made sense when EPA believed it would promulgate new limits and standards for the new subcategories.

The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the “Integrated Steelmaking” subcategory had as its technology basis: Solids removal, cooling tower, high-rate recycle, and metals precipitation. This technology option applied to all new and existing direct and indirect discharging facilities (BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS) and was known as integrated steelmaking Option BAT1. EPA is not promulgating effluent limitations and standards based on this technology because it determined that it was not economically achievable. The proposed option when considered together with options for other subcategories resulted in a significant economic impact that EPA determined is unreasonable. See Section X.E for more details.

The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the “Non-integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming” subcategory had as its technology basis: Solids removal, sludge dewatering, cooling tower, high-rate recycle, and mixed-media filtration. This technology option would have applied to all existing direct and indirect discharging facilities (BAT/PSES) and was known as non-integrated steelmaking and hot forming Option BAT1. After considering comments objecting to EPA's methodology at proposal of estimating costs and loadings, EPA performed a new costing and loadings analyses. See TDD Chapters 10 and 11. Judging from the installation costs and the pollutant reductions associated with these treatment technologies, EPA concluded that the technology simply was not the best available to achieve pollutant removals (EPA estimated that the technology could remove approximately 230 pound-equivalents per year at an estimated cost of $2,069 per lb-eq for direct discharging stainless segment, and 3,891 pound-equivalents per year at an estimated cost of $941 per lb-eq in the direct discharging carbon and alloy segment, and 78 pound-equivalents per year at an estimated cost of $1,970 per lb-eq for the indirect discharging stainless segment).

The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for new sources in the “Non-integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming” subcategory (NSPS/PSNS) were: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants. EPA has not adopted these limits and standards because, after further reviewing the rulemaking record, EPA determined that these guidelines and standards were not appropriate because it is not always possible, or even desirable, for non-integrated steelmaking facilities to design and operate their manufacturing processes to achieve zero discharge. The Agency has identified technical barriers to achieving zero discharge via evaporative uses such as electrode spray cooling and slag quenching, particularly for hot forming wastewater.

EPA is promulgating revised BPT, BAT, BCT, and PSES limitations and standards for one segment of the steelmaking subcategory—basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control, and is establishing NSPS, PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards for another segment of the steelmaking subcategory—electric arc furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control. This is consistent with what was appeared in the proposal (65 FR 81980) and the February 14, 2001 document (66 FR 10253-10254), although rather than establishing a specific limitation, EPA has allowed the permit authority or pretreatment control authority to determine limitations based on best professional judgment, when safety considerations warrant. The Agency

believes best professional judgment will allow the permit authority or pretreatment control authority to reflect the site-specific nature of the discharge. EPA is doing this because, although the 1982 regulation requires basic oxygen furnace semi-wet air pollution control to achieve zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants, currently not all of the sites are able to achieve this discharge status because of safety and operational considerations. The Agency recognizes the benefit of using excess water in basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control systems in cases where safety considerations are present. The Agency justifies the increased allowance in this case because of the employee safety and manufacturing considerations (reduced production equipment damage and lost production). EPA estimates that the industry will incur no costs due to this change. EPA could identify no potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the potential discharge.

In the case of electric arc furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control, the Agency is promulgating NSPS, PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards of zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants. The 1982 regulation previously established BPT, BCT, and BAT limitations of zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants for electric arc furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control. (EPA is modifying the BPT, BAT, and BCT portions of this segment only to eliminate references in the title to basic oxygen furnace steelmaking-semiwet). EPA identified no discharges from electric arc furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control and received no comments regarding the establishment of zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants for this segment. EPA estimates that the industry will incur no costs due to this change since all known facilities are currently achieving compliance with zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants.

E. Vacuum Degassing Subcategory

EPA is leaving unchanged all limitations currently in effect for this subcategory. See discussion in Section VII.D.

F. Continuous Casting Subcategory

EPA is leaving unchanged all limitations currently in effect for this subcategory. See discussion in Section VIII.D.

G. Hot Forming Subcategory

EPA is leaving unchanged all limitations currently in effect for this subcategory. The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the “Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming” subcategory had as its technical basis: Scale pit with oil skimming, roughing clarifier, cooling tower with high-rate recycle, and mixed-media filtration of blowdown. This applied to all new and existing direct discharging facilities (BAT/NSPS) and was known as integrated and stand alone hot forming Option BAT1A.

EPA has not adopted limits and standards based on this technology because it determined that it was not economically achievable, based on the results prese

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