Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Centralized Waste Treatment Category

SUMMARY: This proposed regulation would establish technology-based

limits for the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of the

United States and into publicly-owned treatment works by existing and

new facilities that receive industrial waste from off-site for

treatment or recovery. This regulation will reduce the discharge of

pollutants by at least 123 million pounds per year, reducing excursions

of aquatic life and/or human health toxic effect levels in thirty

waterbodies. As a result of consultation with stakeholders, the

preamble solicits comments and data not only on issues raised by EPA,

but also on those raised by State and local governments who will be

implementing these regulations and by industry representatives who will

be affected by them.

DATES: Comments on the proposal must be received by April 27, 1995.

In addition, EPA will conduct a workshop covering this rulemaking,

in conjunction with a public hearing on the pretreatment standards

portion of the rule. The workshop will be held on March 24, 1995, from

8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. The public hearing will be conducted from 11

a.m. to 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to Ms. Debra DiCianna,

Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), 911 East Tower, U.S. EPA, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. The public record is in the Water

Docket located in the basement of the EPA Headquarters building, Room

L102, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone number (202)

260-3027. The Docket staff requests that interested parties call for an

appointment between the hours of 9 am and 3:30 pm, before visiting the

docket. The EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2 provide that a reasonable

fee may be charged for copying.

The workshop and public hearing covering the rulemaking will be

held in the Lake Michigan Conference Room at the U.S. EPA Region V

Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL. Persons wishing to

present formal comments at the public hearing should have a written

copy for submittal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information

contact Ms. Debra DiCianna at (202) 260-7141. Additional economic

information may be obtained by contacting Ms. Susan M. Burris at (202)

260-5379. Background documents supporting the proposed regulations are

described in the ``Background Documents'' section below. Many of the

documents are also available from the Office of Water Resource Center,

RC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone

(202) 260-7786 for the voice mail publication request line.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

The preamble describes the definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations

used in this notice; the background documents that support these

proposed regulations; the legal authority of these rules; a summary of

the proposal; background information; and the technical and economic

methodologies used by the Agency to develop these regulations. This

preamble also solicits comment and data on specific areas of interest.

Organization of This Document

Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

Background Documents

Legal Authority

I. Summary and Scope of the Proposed Regulation

A. Background

B. The Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

C. Scope

D. Proposed Limitations and Standards

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

B. Summary of Public Participation

C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program

III. Description of the Industry

A. Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities

B. Waste Treatment Processes

IV. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts

A. EPA Initial Efforts to Develop Guidelines for the Waste

Treatment Industry

B. Wastewater Sampling Program

C. 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire

D. Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire

V. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

A. Industry Subcategorization

B. Characterization of Wastewater

C. Pollutants Not Regulated

D. Available Technologies

E. Rationale for Selection of Proposed Regulations

F. Monitoring to Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation

G. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and

Limitations for BPT

H. Regulatory Implementation

VI. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternative

A. Costs

B. Pollutant Reductions

C. Economic Impact Assessment

D. Water Quality Analysis

E. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket and Public Record

B. Clean Water Act Procedural Requirements

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Executive Order 12875

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

VIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments

A. Introduction and General Solicitation

B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations

Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

Administrator--The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

Agency--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Average monthly discharge limitation--The highest allowable average

of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of

all ``daily discharges'' measured during the calendar month divided by

the number of ``daily discharges'' measured during the month.

BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, as

described in Sec. 304(b)(2) of the CWA.

BCT--The best conventional pollutant control technology, as

described in Sec. 304(b)(4) of the CWA.

BOD5--Biochemical oxygen demand--Five Day. A measure of

biochemical decomposition of organic matter in a water sample. It is

determined by measuring the dissolved oxygen consumed by microorganisms

to oxidize the organic contaminants in a water sample under standard

laboratory conditions of five days and 70 deg.C. BOD5 is not

related to the oxygen requirements in chemical combustion.

BPT--The best practicable control technology currently available,

as described in Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA.

Centralized waste treatment facility--Any facility that treats any

hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes received from off-site by

tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge, or other forms of

shipment. A ``centralized waste treatment facility'' includes (1) a

facility that treats waste received from off-site exclusively and (2) a

facility that [[Page 5465]] treats wastes generated on-site as well as

waste received from off-site.

Centralized waste treatment wastewater--Water that comes in contact

with wastes received from off-site for treatment or recovery or that

comes in contact with the area in which the off-site wastes are

received, stored or collected.

Clarifier--A treatment unit designed to remove suspended materials

from wastewater--typically by sedimentation.

COD--Chemical oxygen demand. A bulk parameter that measures the

oxygen-consuming capacity of refractory organic and inorganic matter

present in water or wastewater. COD is expressed as the amount of

oxygen consumed from a chemical oxidant in a specific test.

Commercial facility--Facilities that accept waste from off-site for

treatment from facilities not under the same ownership as their

facility.

Conventional pollutants--The pollutants identified in Sec.

304(a)(4) of the CWA and the regulations thereunder (biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, fecal

coliform, and pH).

CWA--Clean Water Act. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, inter alia, by

the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and the Water Quality

Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4). CWT--Centralized Waste Treatment.

Daily discharge--The discharge of a pollutant measured during any

calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a

calendar day.

Direct discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge

treated or untreated pollutants into waters of the United States.

Effluent--Wastewater discharges.

Effluent limitation--Any restriction, including schedules of

compliance, established by a State or the Administrator on quantities,

rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other

constituents which are discharged from point sources into navigable

waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean. (CWA Sections

301(b) and 304(b).)

EIA--Economic Impact Analysis.

EPA--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Facility--A facility is all contiguous property owned, operated,

leased or under the control of the same person. The contiguous property

may be divided by public or private right-of-way.

Fuel Blending--The process of mixing organic waste for the purpose

of generating a fuel for reuse.

Indirect discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge

pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works.

LTA--Long-term average. For purposes of the effluent guidelines,

average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time by a facility,

subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in developing the

limitations and standards in today's proposed regulation.

Metal-bearing wastes--Wastes that contain metal pollutants from

manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations.

These wastes may include, but are not limited to, the following:

process wastewater, process residuals such as tank bottoms or stills

and process wastewater treatment residuals, such as treatment sludges.

Minimum level--The level at which an analytical system gives

recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point.

Mixed Commercial/Non-commercial facility--Facilities that accept

some waste from off-site for treatment from facilities not under the

same ownership, and some waste from off-site for treatment from

facilities under the same ownership as their facility.

New Source--``New source'' is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29.

Non-commercial facility--Facilities that accept waste from off-site

for treatment only from facilities under the same ownership as their

facility.

Non-conventional pollutants--Pollutants that are neither

conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR

Section 401.

Non-detect value--A concentration-based measurement reported below

the sample specific detection limit that can reliably be measured by

the analytical method for the pollutant.

Non-water quality environmental impact--An environmental impact of

a control or treatment technology, other than to surface waters.

NPDES--The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

authorized under Sec. 402 of the CWA. NPDES requires permits for

discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the United

States.

NSPS--New Source Performance Standards.

OCPSF--Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers

Manufacturing Effluent Guideline.

Off-Site--``Off-site'' means outside the boundaries of a facility.

Oily Wastes--Wastes that contain oil and grease from manufacturing

or processing facilities or other commercial operations. These wastes

may include, but are not limited to, the following: spent lubricants,

cleaning fluids, process wastewater, process residuals such as tank

bottoms or stills and process wastewater treatment residuals, such as

treatment sludges.

Oligopoly--A market structure with few competitors, in which each

producer is aware of his competitors' actions and has a significant

influence on market price and quantity.

On-site--``On-site'' means within the boundaries of a facility.

Organic-bearing Wastes--Wastes that contain organic pollutants from

manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations.

These wastes may include, but are not limited to, process wastewater,

process residuals such as tank bottoms or stills and process wastewater

treatment residuals, such as treatment sludges.

Outfall--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from which

a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.

Pipeline--``Pipeline'' means an open or closed conduit used for the

conveyance of material. A pipeline includes a channel, pipe, tube,

trench or ditch.

Point source category--A category of sources of water pollutants.

Pollutant (to water)--Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator

residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions,

chemical wastes, biological materials, certain radioactive materials,

heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and

industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.

POTW or POTWs--Publicly-owned treatment works, as defined at 40 CFR

403.3(0).

Pretreatment standard--A regulation that establishes industrial

wastewater effluent quality required for discharge to a POTW. (CWA

Section 307(b).)

Priority pollutants--The pollutants designated by EPA as priority

in 40 CFR part 423, appendix A.

Process wastewater--``Process wastewater'' is defined at 40 CFR

122.2.

PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect

discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the CWA.

PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect

discharges, under Sec. 307 (b) and (c) of the CWA.

RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PL 94-580) of 1976,

as amended.

SIC--Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). A numerical

categorization system used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to

catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or group

of products, produced or distributed, or to services

[[Page 5466]] rendered by an operating establishment. SIC codes are

used to group establishments by the economic activities in which they

are engaged. SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary,

tertiary, etc. economic activities.

Small business--Businesses with annual sales revenues less than $6

million. This is the Small Business Administration definition of small

business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems (13 CFR Ch.1, Sec. 121.601).

Solidification--The addition of agents to convert liquid or semi-

liquid hazardous waste to a solid before burial to reduce the leaching

of the waste material and the possible migration of the waste or its

constituent from the facility. The process is usually accompanied by

stabilization.

Stabilization--A hazardous waste process that decreases the

mobility of waste constituents by means other than solidification.

Stabilization techniques include mixing the waste with sorbents such as

fly ash to remove free liquids. For the purpose of this rule, chemical

precipitation is not a technique for stabilization.

TSS--Total Suspended Solids. A measure of the amount of particulate

matter that is suspended in a water sample. The measure is obtained by

filtering a water sample of known volume. The particulate material

retained on the filter is then dried and weighed.

Variability factor--The daily variability factor is the ratio of

the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of daily values

divided by the expected value, median or mean, of the distribution of

the daily data. The monthly variability factor is the estimated 95th

percentile of the distribution of the monthly averages of the data

divided by the expected value of the monthly averages.

Waste Receipt--Wastes received for treatment or recovery. Waters of

the United States--The same meaning set forth in 40 CFR 122.2.

Zero discharge--No discharge of pollutants to waters of the United

States or to a POTW. Also included in this definition are discharge of

pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-well injection, off-site

transfer, and land application.

Background Documents

The regulations proposed today are supported by several major

documents. (1) EPA's technical conclusions concerning the wastewater

regulations are detailed in the ``Development Document for Proposed

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry,'' hereafter referred to as the Technical

Development Document (EPA-821-R-95-006). (2) Detailed documentation of

the procedure and equations used for costing the technology options is

included in the ``Detailed Costing Document for the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry,'' hereafter referred to as the Costing Document

(EPA-821-R-95-002). (3) The Agency's economic analysis is found in the

``Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines

and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry,'' hereafter

called the Economic Impact Analysis (EPA-821-R-95-001). (4) The

Agency's assessment of environmental benefits is detailed in the

``Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry,'' hereafter called the

Environmental Assessment (EPA-821-R-95-003). (5) An analysis of the

incremental costs and pollutant removals for the effluent regulations

is presented in ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry,'' hereafter called the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

(EPA-821-R-95-004). (6) The methodology used for calculating

limitations is discussed in the ``Statistical Support Document for

Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' hereafter referred to as the

Statistical Support Document (EPA-821-R-95-005).

Legal Authority

These regulations are being proposed under the authority of

Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33

U.S.C. Sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.

I. Summary and Scope of the Proposed Regulation

A. Background

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. Sec. 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

attacks the problem of water pollution on a number of different fronts.

Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions on the

types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial,

commercial, and public sources of wastewater.

Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that

discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be

sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires

EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which

restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater

indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works

(POTWs) (Section 307 (b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1317 (b) & (c)).

National pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in

wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or

interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are

designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial

dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition,

POTWs are required to implement local treatment limits applicable to

their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements

(40 CFR 403.5).

Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits;

indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These

limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories

of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that

can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.

In addition, pretreatment standards must be established for those

pollutants which are not susceptible to treatment by POTWs or which

would interfere with POTW operations (CWA Sections 301(b), 304(b), 306,

307 (b)-(d), 33 U.S.C. Secs. 1311(b), 1314(b), 1316, and 1317 (b)-(d)).

Today's proposal represents the Agency's first attempt to develop

national guidelines that establish effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards for new and existing dischargers from the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. EPA estimates that the regulation

being proposed today would reduce the discharge of conventional,

priority, and non-conventional pollutants by at least 123 million

pounds per year. EPA performed an analysis of the water quality

benefits that would be derived from this proposal and predicts that

contributions by centralized waste treatment facilities to current

excursions of aquatic life and/or human health toxic effect levels

would be eliminated for twenty streams and reduced for ten others. EPA

also projects through modeling that eleven of the seventeen POTWs

expected to experience inhibition of treatment due to

[[Page 5467]] centralized treatment facilities would no longer

experience inhibition from these sources.

B. The Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

The adoption of the increased pollution control measures required

by CWA and RCRA requirements had a number of ancillary effects, one of

which has been the formation and development of a waste treatment

industry. Several factors have contributed to the growth of this

industry. Thus, for example, in order to comply with CWA discharge

limits, categorical industries have installed new (or upgraded

existing) wastewater treatment facilities in order to treat their

process wastewater. But the wastewater treatment may produce a residual

sludge which itself may require further treatment before disposal under

EPA RCRA requirements. Furthermore, many industrial process by-products

now are either RCRA listed or characteristic hazardous wastes which

require special handling or treatment before disposal.

A manufacturing facility's options for managing these wastes

include on-site treatment with its other wastes or sending them off-

site. Because a large number of operations have chosen to send their

wastes off-site, specialized facilities have developed whose sole

commercial operations are the handling of wastewater treatment

residuals and industrial process by-products. Moreover, some industrial

operations also have chosen to accept wastes from off-site for

treatment in their on-site facilities. Further, there are some

commercial facilities to which wastes are piped for treatment. Other

wastes go to landfills or incinerators for disposal.

The waste treatment industry includes facilities which receive both

hazardous and non-hazardous industrial waste. These facilities receive

a variety of wastes for treatment and recovery of waste components.

Among these wastes are wastewater treatment sludges, process residuals,

tank bottoms, off-spec products, and wastes generated from clean-up

activities. Some facilities may also treat industrial process

wastewater with these wastes.

In the early 1990's, this industry experienced a slow down because

many existing facilities were designed to handle larger quantities than

the market produced. Reduced economic activity generally in combination

with pollution prevention measures resulted in a decrease in the amount

of waste sent off-site for treatment. As a result, competition among

facilities increased resulting in facilities operating below capacity

and experiencing economic and financial difficulties. This may be

changing at the present. Recently, participants in the March 1994

public meeting for this proposal stated that the industry is

experiencing new growth due to increasing environmental regulations.

The Agency solicits information and data on the current size of the

industry and trends related to the growth or decline in need for the

services provided by these facilities.

C. Scope

Today's proposal would establish discharge limitations and

standards for discharges from those facilities which the rule defines

as ``centralized waste treatment facilities.'' The facilities which are

covered by this guideline include stand-alone waste treatment and

recovery facilities which treat waste received from off-site.

``Centralized waste treatment facilities'' also include treatment

systems which treat on-site generated process wastewater with wastes

received from off-site. However, the rule does not apply to facilities

which receive wastes from off-site by pipeline from the original source

of waste generation.

Centralized waste treatment facilities include the following: (1)

Commercial facilities that accept waste from off-site for treatment

from facilities not under the same ownership as the treating facility;

(2) non-commercial facilities that accept waste from off-site for

treatment only from facilities under the same ownership (intra-company

transfer); or (3) mixed commercial/non-commercial facilities that

accept some waste from off-site for treatment from facilities not under

the same ownership and some waste from facilities under the same

ownership.

This summary section highlights the technology bases and other key

aspects of the proposed rule. The technology descriptions in this

section are presented in abbreviated form; more detailed descriptions

are included in the Technical Development Document and Section V.E.

Today's proposal presents the Agency's recommended regulatory approach

as well as other options considered by EPA. The Agency's recommended

approach for establishing discharge limitations is based on a detailed

evaluation of the available data. As indicated below in the discussion

of the specifics of the proposal, the Agency welcomes comment on all

options and issues and encourages commenters to submit additional data

during the comment period. Also, the Agency plans additional

discussions with interested parties during the comment period to ensure

that the Agency has the views of all parties and the best possible data

upon which to base a decision for the final regulation. EPA's final

regulation may be based upon any technologies, rationale or approaches

that are a logical outgrowth of this proposal and public comments,

including any options considered but not selected for today's proposed

regulation.

In today's notice, EPA is proposing for the Centralized Waste

Treatment Point Source Category effluent limitations guidelines and

standards based on BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for new and

existing facilities that are engaged in the treatment of industrial

waste from off-site facilities.

The proposed regulation today applies to the following activities:

Subcategory A: Discharges from operations which treat, or

treat and recover metals from, metal-bearing waste received from off-

site,

Subcategory B: Discharges from operations which treat, or

treat and recover oil from, oily waste received from off-site, and

Subcategory C: Discharges from operations which treat, or

treat and recover organics from, other organic- bearing waste received

from off-site.

Facilities subject to the guidelines and standards would include

facilities whose exclusive operation is the treatment of off-site

generated industrial waste as well as industrial or manufacturing

facilities that also accept waste from off-site for centralized

treatment. A further discussion of the types of waste included in each

subcategory is included in the Technical Development Document and

Section III.B. of this notice.

The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards are

intended to cover wastewater discharges resulting from treatment of, or

recovery of components from, hazardous and non- hazardous industrial

waste received from off-site facilities by tanker truck, trailer/roll-

off bins, drums, barges, or other forms of shipment. Any discharges

generated from the treatment of wastes received through an open or

enclosed conduit (e.g., pipeline, channels, ditches, and trenches,

etc.) from the original source of waste generation are not included in

the regulation. However, discharges generated from the treatment of CWT

wastes received by pipeline from a facility acting as an intermediate

collection point for CWT wastes received from off-site would be subject

to the proposed requirements. Based on information collected in the

1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and discussions with

operators of waste treatment facilities, EPA has concluded that

facilities which [[Page 5468]] receive all their wastes through a

pipeline or trench from the original source of waste generation are

receiving continuous flows of process wastewater with relatively

consistent pollutant profiles. In the case of these treatment

facilities, the process wastewater flows in virtually all cases would

be subject to categorical regulations if discharged from the original

point of waste generation. However, these companies, instead of

discharging to a surface water or POTW, discharge process wastewater to

a ``centralized pipeline'' facility. EPA has concluded that the

effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for centralized waste

treatment facilities should not apply to such pipeline treatment

facilities because their wastes differ fundamentally from those

received at centralized waste treatment facilities. In large part, the

waste streams received at centralized waste treatment facilities are

more concentrated and variable, including sludges, tank bottoms, off-

spec products, and process residuals. The limitations and standards

developed for centralized waste treatment facilities, in turn, reflect

the types of waste streams being treated and are necessarily different

from those promulgated for discharges resulting from the treatment of

process wastewater for categorical industries. However, this proposed

pipeline exclusion would not apply to facilities which receive waste

via conduit (i.e., pipeline, trenches, ditches, etc.) from facilities

that are acting merely as waste collection centers that are not the

original source of the waste generation.

In evaluating the current operation and performance of centralized

waste treatment facilities, the Agency is concerned about the effective

management of such highly-concentrated waste streams. Due to the

variability of waste streams, the possibility exists for dilution to

occur rather than effective treatment. Therefore, the Agency is

proposing to require monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the

limitations and standards for the regulated treatment subcategories The

limitations and standards proposed today are based on treatment systems

that optimize removals for homogeneous wastes. If a facility commingles

different subcategories of CWT wastes before treatment or mixes CWT

wastes with non-CWT waste streams before treatment, the facility must

demonstrate that its treatment system achieves pollutant limits

equivalent to the effluent limitations and standards that would be

achieved if the CWT wastes were treated separately. (In addition, there

may be circumstances where the mixing of off-site and on-site waste

streams is necessary to prevent upset of treatment systems, such as

with biological treatment for organic waste streams.) Equivalent

treatment is demonstrated when Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

pollutants of concern are (1) detectable at quantifiable levels prior

to mixing, (2) are detected at quantifiable levels following mixing,

and (3) the on-site treatment system is designed to treat the

pollutants of concern in some manner other than incidental removals by

partitioning to sludge or air. The Agency believes such an approach is

necessary to ensure achievement of the pollutant discharge levels which

the Agency has preliminarily determined may be obtained through proper

treatment of the CWT wastes. In the absence of such a requirement to

demonstrate achievable removals, facilities may merely dilute wastes

with other waste streams to meet the required discharge levels.

The Agency also solicits comment on including a de minimis quantity

or percentage of off-site receipts in comparison to the total facility

flow for which facilities would not be considered in the scope of this

regulation. According to comments received on the May 1994 proposed

Effluent Guideline Plan (59 FR 25859), some manufacturing facilities

may receive a few shipments of waste or off-spec products to be treated

on-site with wastewater from on-site manufacturing processes, but these

facilities do not actively accept large quantities of waste from off-

site for the purpose of treatment and disposal. In the 1991 Waste

Treatment Industry Questionnaire, no facilities were identified with

intermittent shipments of waste, but the questionnaire mailing list was

developed on the basis of a facility's regular business. Therefore,

manufacturing facilities which do not accept off-site waste on a normal

basis were not included in the mailing list. The EPA is requesting

information on the amounts of waste received and the reasons the waste

were accepted to determine if a de minimis quantity should be

established to limit the applicability of this rulemaking. At present,

no de minimis quantity has been established for this rulemaking.

Facilities are included in the scope of this regulation regardless of

the quantity received for treatment.

D. Proposed Limitations and Standards

1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)

The Agency is proposing to set BPT effluent limitations guidelines

for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry to

control conventional, priority, and non- conventional pollutants in the

waste treatment effluent. In the case of metal-bearing wastes that

include cyanide streams, achievement of BPT limitations requires

pretreatment for cyanide. Table I.D-1 is a summary of the technology

basis for the proposed effluent limitations for each subcategory.

Table I.D-1.--Technology Basis for BPT Effluent Limitations

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed

subpart Name of subcategory Technology basis

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A........... Metal-Bearing Waste Selective Metals Precipitation,

Treatment and Pressure Filtration, Secondary

Recovery. Precipitation, Solid-Liquid

Separation, and Tertiary

Precipitation.

For Metal-Bearing Waste which

includes concentrated Cyanide

streams: Pretreatment by Alkaline

Chlorination at elevated operating

conditions.

B........... Oily Waste Treatment Ultrafiltration or Ultrafiltration,

and Recovery. Carbon Adsorption, and Reverse

Osmosis.

C........... Organic Waste Equalization, Air Stripping,

Treatment and Biological Treatment, and

Recovery. Multimedia Filtration.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5469]]

The pollutants controlled and the points of application vary for

each subcategory and are described in Sections V.

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

The EPA is proposing BCT effluent limitations guidelines for Total

Suspended Solids (TSS) and Oil and Grease for the Metals and Oils

Subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. The EPA is

also proposing to set BCT effluent limitations guidelines for

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS)

for the Organics Subcategory. The proposed BCT effluent limitations

guidelines are equal to the proposed BPT limitations for conventional

pollutants. The development of proposed BCT effluent limitations is

further explained in Section V.

3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

The Agency is proposing to set BAT effluent limitations guidelines

for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.

These proposed limitations are based on the technologies proposed for

BPT. The pollutants controlled and the points of application vary for

each subcategory and are described in Section V.

4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

EPA is proposing to set NSPS equivalent to the proposed BPT/BCT/BAT

effluent limitations for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry. NSPS are discussed in more detail in Section V.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)

For pollutants that pass-through or otherwise interfere with POTWs,

EPA is proposing to set PSES equivalent to the proposed BAT effluent

limitations for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry. PSES are further discussed in Section V.

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

For pollutants that pass-through or otherwise interfere with POTWs,

EPA is proposing to set PSNS equivalent to the proposed NSPS effluent

limitations for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry. PSNS are further discussed in Section V.

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

1. Statutory Requirements of Regulation

As previously discussed, Section 301(a) of the CWA prohibits

discharges of pollutants to navigable waters except in compliance with

the statute. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). Section 301(b) requires that direct

dischargers comply with effluent limitations established by EPA for

categories of industrial dischargers or in the case of certain

categories of new dischargers, new source performance standards.

Section 307 requires indirect dischargers to comply with

pretreatment standards and Section 306 requires compliance with new

source performance standards.

These guidelines and standards are summarized below:

a. Best practicable control technology currently available (BPT)--

Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA. In the guidelines, EPA defines BPT effluent

limits for conventional, priority,\1\ and non-conventional pollutants.

In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first

considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the

effluent reduction benefits. The Agency next considers: the age of the

equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any required

process changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-

water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements),

and such other factors as the Agency deems appropriate. CWA

Sec. 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

characteristic. Where, however, existing performance is uniformly

inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in

place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the

technology can be practically applied.

\1\In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts

emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the

``classical'' pollutants (e.g., TSS, pH, BOB5). However,

nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted BPT

limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water

Act of 1977 with its requirement for points sources to achieve best

available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic

pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority

pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines continue to

include limitations to address all pollutants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT)--Sec.

304(b)(4) of the CWA. The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to

identify effluent reduction levels for conventional pollutants

associated with BCT technology for discharges from existing industrial

point sources. In addition to other factors specified in Section

304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after

consideration of a two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA explained

its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51

FR 24974).

Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional

pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (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).

c. Best available technology economically achievable (BAT)--Sec.

304(b)(2) of the CWA. In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines

represent the best 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. Unlike BPT

limitations, BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions

attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations. As

with BPT, where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may

require a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved

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.

d. New source performance standards (NSPS)--Sec. 306 of the CWA.

NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best

available demonstrated treatment technology. New facilities have the

opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes

and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should

represent the most stringent controls attainable through the

application of the best available control technology for all pollutants

(i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In

establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost

of achieving the [[Page 5470]] effluent reduction and any non-water

quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.

e. Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES)--Sec. 307(b)

of the CWA. PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants

that pass-through, interfere-with, or are otherwise incompatible with

the operation of publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). The CWA

authorizes EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that

pass-through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge

disposal methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards are technology-based

and analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.

The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework

for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found

at 40 CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass-

through that addresses localized rather than national instances of

pass-through and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all

non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.

f. Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS)--Sec. 307(b) of

the CWA. Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of

pollutants that pass-through, interfere-with, or are otherwise

incompatible with the operation of POTWs. 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.

2. Section 304(m) Consent Decree

Section 304(m) of the Act, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987,

requires EPA, before February 4, 1988, to establish a schedule (1) for

reviewing and revising existing guidelines and standards and (2) for

promulgating effluent guidelines for categories of sources of priority

or nonconventional pollutants for which effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards had not previously been published. The statutory

deadline for such guidelines is no later four years after February 4,

1987, for categories identified in the first published plan.

The Natural Resource 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 limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, new

source performance standards and pretreatment standards. (NRDC, et al.

v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980 (D.D.C.). Under the terms of a consent

decree dated January 31, 1992, which settled the litigation, EPA

agreed, among other things, to propose and promulgate 20 new guidelines

establishing BPT, BCT and BAT limitations and pretreatment standards,

including guidelines and standards for CWT facilities.

B. Summary of Public Participation

During the data gathering activities that preceded development of

the proposed rules, EPA met with representatives from the industry, the

Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, the National Solid Waste Management

Association, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Because most of

the facilities affected by this proposal are indirect dischargers, the

Agency has made a concerted effort to consult with State and local

entities that will be responsible for implementing this regulation. EPA

has met with pretreatment coordinators from around the nation and

presented our regulatory approach before the Association of

Metropolitan Sewerage Authorities to solicit feedback on implementation

issues. Today's proposal solicits comment on many of the issues raised

by EPA's co-regulators.

On March 8, 1994, EPA sponsored a public meeting, where the Agency

shared information about the content and the status of the proposed

regulation. The meeting was announced in the Federal Register, agendas

and meeting materials were distributed at the meeting. The public

meeting also gave interested parties an opportunity to provide

information, data, and ideas on key issues. EPA's intent in conducting

the public meeting was to elicit input that would improve the quality

of the proposed regulations.

At the public meeting, the Agency clarified that the public meeting

would not replace the notice-and-comment process, nor would the meeting

become a mechanism for a negotiated rulemaking. While EPA promised to

accept information and data at the meeting and make good faith efforts

to review all information and address all issues discussed at the

meeting, EPA could not commit to fully assessing and incorporating all

comments into the proposal. EPA will assess all comments and data

received at the public meeting prior to promulgation.

C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program

1. Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions

The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted on November 8, 1984,

largely prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. Once

a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, the statute

provides only two options for legal land disposal: meet the treatment

standard for the waste prior to land disposal, or dispose of the waste

in a land disposal unit that has been found to satisfy the statutory no

migration test. A no migration unit is one from which there will be no

migration of hazardous constituents for as long as the waste remains

hazardous. RCRA Sections 3004 (d), (e), (g)(5). The treatment standards

may be expressed as either constituent concentration levels or as

specific methods of treatment. These standards must substantially

diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the

likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so

that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the

environment are minimized. RCRA Section 3004(m)(1). For purposes of the

restrictions, the RCRA program defines land disposal to include any

placement of hazardous waste in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste

pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome formation,

salt bed formation, or underground mine or cave.

2. BDAT and Land Disposal Restrictions Standards

EPA generated a set of hazardous waste treatability data to serve

as the basis for land disposal restrictions standards. First, EPA

identified Best Demonstrated Available Treatment Technology (BDAT) for

each listed hazardous waste. BDAT was that treatment technology which

EPA found to be the most effective for that waste and which was also

readily available to generators and treaters. In some cases EPA

designated as BDAT for a particular waste stream a treatment technology

shown to have successfully treated a similar but more difficult to

treat waste stream. This ensured that the land disposal restrictions

standards for a listed waste stream were achievable since they always

reflected the actual treatability of the waste itself or of a more

refractory waste.

[[Page 5471]]

3. RCRA Phase 2 and the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent

Guidelines

The RCRA Phase 2 final rule July 27, 1994, promulgated Universal

Treatment Standards (UTS) for all constituents regulated by the RCRA

Land Disposal Restrictions program. The UTS are a series of

concentration levels for wastewater and nonwastewaters that provide a

single treatment standard for each constituent regardless of the

process generating it. Previously, many constituents were regulated

with several numerical treatment standards depending on the identity of

the original waste. Comments from generators and treaters supported the

UTS as a means of simplifying compliance with LDR requirements by

ensuring that only one treatment standard applies to any constituent in

any waste residue.

While the UTS may not apply to those facilities addressed by the

CWT effluent guidelines (due to the lack of land disposal), both

involve many of the same wastewater and both are technology-based.

Consequently, EPA is identifying the major differences between the

development of the two rules.

4. General Differences in Approaches Between LDR UTS and Centralized

Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guidelines

Comparing the effluent guidelines proposed by today's rule for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry with the UTS finalized in July

1994 shows that the RCRA and CWA approaches are similar in that both

rules address many of the same waste streams and base treatment

standards on many of the same wastewater treatment technologies.

However, the two sets of treatment standards differ both in their

format and in the numerical values set for each constituent.

The differences in format between effluent guidelines and LDR's are

relatively straightforward. The effluent guidelines provide for several

types of discharge (new vs. existing sources, pretreatment vs. direct

discharge) while the LDR program makes no distinctions among different

types of land disposal. While the effluent guidelines address both

monthly and daily limits, UTS only sets daily limits.

For many pollutants, there are differences in the numerical values

of the limits. The differences result from the use of different legal

criteria for developing the limits and resulting differences in the

technical and economic criteria and data sets for establishing the

respective limits. As described above, the LDR UTS establish a single

numerical standard for each regulated pollutant parameter that applies

to all waste streams.

The Clean Water Act pollutant specific numerical effluent

limitations guidelines and standards (40 CFR Subchapter N) often differ

not only from the LDR UTS but also from point-source category to point-

source category (e.g., Electroplating, 40 CFR part 413; and Metal

Finishing, 40 CFR part 433). The effluent guidelines limitations and

standards are industry-specific, subcategory-specific, and technology-

based. The numerical limits are typically based on different data sets

that reflect the performance of specific waste water management and

treatment practices. Differences in the limits reflect differences in

the statutory factors that the Administrator is required to consider in

developing technically and economically achievable limitations and

standards--manufacturing products and processes (which for CWT

facilities includes types of treatment or waste management services

performed), raw materials, wastewater characteristics, treatability,

facility size, geographic location, age of facility and equipment, non-

water quality environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

Limits for CWT's are developed for individual industrial

subcategories leaving the permit writer with the responsibility of

assembling the ``building blocks'' into a discharge limit. There is,

however, only one set of LDR standards, the Universal Treatment

Standards (UTS) applying to all constituents regardless of the waste

stream. While there is one set of standards for LDR rules, the limits

are generally based on BDAT applied to the waste that is most difficult

to treat.

A consequence of these differing approaches is that similar or

identical waste streams are regulated at different levels. Several of

the effluent guidelines discharge categories reflect pretreatment prior

to discharge to POTW's where there is further treatment and are

therefore not directly comparable to LDR wastewater standards. However,

those categories that represent daily maximum standards for discharge

of treated wastes are analogous to the LDR wastewater standards, and

the numerical differences in these standards reflect differences in

methodology as described above.

EPA's survey of CWT facilities identified no wastewater discharges

which would be regulated under the CWT effluent limitations guidelines

and standards and the Universal Treatment Standards. Because none of

the 72 CWT discharging CWT facilities discharge wastewater effluent to

land disposal units, the proposed regulations for the CWT Industry are

not redundant requirements.

III. Description of the Industry

A. Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities

Presented below is a brief summary description of the Centralized

Waste Treatment Industry for which EPA is today proposing guidelines.

Based upon responses to EPA's 1991 Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire (see discussion below), the Agency estimates that there

are approximately 85 centralized waste treatment facilities in 31

States of the type for which EPA is proposing limitations and

standards. These include both stand-alone treatment facilities as well

as facilities which treat their own process wastewater and treatment or

process residuals as well as wastes received from off-site. The major

concentration of centralized waste treatment facilities in the U.S. are

found in the Midwest, Northeast, and Northwest regions, due to the

proximity of the industries generating the wastes undergoing treatment.

As previously noted, centralized waste treatment facilities accept

a variety of different wastes for treatment. Before these facilities

accept a waste for treatment, the waste generally undergoes a rigorous

screening for compatibility with other wastes being treated at the

facility. Waste generators initially furnish the treatment facility

with a sample of the waste stream to be treated. The sample is analyzed

to characterize the level of pollutants in the sample and bench-scale

treatability tests are performed to determine what treatment is

necessary to treat the waste stream effectively. After all analysis and

tests are performed, the treatment facility determines the cost for

treating the waste stream. If the waste generator accepts the cost of

treatment, shipments of the waste stream to the treatment facility will

begin. For each truck load of waste received for treatment, the

treatment facility collects a sample from the shipment and analyzes the

sample to determine if it is similar to the initial sample tested. If

the sample is similar, the shipment of waste will be treated. If the

sample is not similar but falls within an allowable range as determined

by the treatment facility, the treatment facility will reevaluate the

estimated cost of treatment for the shipment. Then, the waste generator

decides if the waste will remain at the treatment facility for

treatment. If the sample is not similar [[Page 5472]] and does not fall

within an allowable range, the treatment facility will decline the

shipment for treatment.

Treatment facilities and waste generators complete extensive

amounts of paperwork during the waste acceptance process. Most of the

paperwork is required by Federal, State, and local regulations. The

amount of paperwork necessary for accepting a waste stream emphasizes

the difficulty of operating Centralized Waste Treatment facilities.

In its information and data-gathering effort, EPA also looked at

how these facilities handle wastes after they are accepted for

treatment. Even though a waste must surmount a number of hurdles before

being accepted for treatment at a facility, many facilities do not

devote the same level of attention to the process of managing and

treating wastes for optimal removals. Thus, EPA's data show that

approximately half of the facilities in the industry 1) accept wastes

for treatment in more than one of the waste categories (metal-bearing,

oily or organic-bearing) being considered here or 2) operate other

industrial processes that generate wastes at the same site. In most

cases, the waste streams from these various sources are mixed prior to

treatment or after minimal pretreatment.

The problems associated with the mixing of the different types of

wastes and wastewater treated at centralized waste treatment facilities

or mixing with other industrial wastewater and non-contaminated

stormwater exacerbated the difficulty of evaluating adequate treatment

performance. EPA concluded that mixing waste streams adversely affects

pollutant removal in the discharge water. Rather than treating to

remove pollutants, the facilities were diluting their streams to

achieve required effluent levels. Therefore, EPA has concluded

reasonable further progress to the goal of reducing discharges requires

achievement of discharge levels associated with treatment of segregated

wastestreams. Consequently, as explained above, the Agency is proposing

to establish effluent limitations which reflect achievable effluent

reductions for unmixed wastes.

B. Waste Treatment Processes

As the Agency learned from data and information collected as a

result of the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, CWTs accept

many types of hazardous and non-hazardous industrial waste for

treatment in liquid or solid form. In 1989, approximately 1.1 billion

gallons of industrial waste were accepted for treatment of which 53

percent were hazardous and 47 percent were non-hazardous.

1. Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment or Recovery

In 1989, 709 million gallons of metal-bearing wastes were accepted

for treatment by 56 facilities. This metal-bearing waste comprised the

largest portion of the waste treated by the Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry. The typical treatment process used for metal-bearing wastes

was precipitation with lime or caustic followed by filtration. The

sludge generated was then landfilled in a RCRA Subtitle C or D landfill

depending upon its content. A small fraction of facilities recovered

metals from the waste using selective metals precipitation or

electrolytic metals recovery processes. Most facilities that recovered

metals did not generate a sludge that required disposal, instead, the

sludges were sold for the metal content.

2. Oily Waste Treatment or Recovery

Approximately 223 million gallons of oily waste were accepted for

treatment by 35 facilities in 1989. A wide range of oily wastes were

accepted for treatment and the on-site treatment scheme was determined

by the type of oily waste accepted. The oily waste accepted for

treatment could typically be classified as either: (1) stable oil-water

emulsions, such as coolants and lubricants; or (2) unstable oil-water

emulsions, such as bilge water. Stable oil-water emulsions are more

difficult to treat because the droplets of the dispersed phase are so

small that separation of the oil and water phases by settling would

occur very slowly or not at all and required a chemical process to

break the emulsion to adequately treat the waste. From the data

collected in the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, chemical

emulsion breaking processes were the most widely-used treatment

technology at the 29 oil recovery facilities, and, therefore, EPA

believes that these facilities primarily accept for treatment stable

oil-water emulsions. The wastewater effluent resulting from the

emulsion-breaking process was typically mixed with wastewater from

other CWT subcategories or stormwater for further treatment prior to

discharge. Six facilities did not operate oil recovery processes and

used only dissolved air flotation (DAF), a technique used to separate

oil and suspended solids from water by skimming, to treat the oily

waste receipts. Consequently, EPA concluded that these facilities were

receiving for treatment less stable oil-water emulsions that were

amenable to gravity separation or dissolved air flotation, and did not

require chemical emulsion breaking treatment processes. EPA's sampling

program focused on facilities that treated the more concentrated and

more difficult to treat stable oil-water emulsions as reported by waste

manifest forms and facility records. In August 1994, EPA conducted

additional sampling at an oily waste treatment facility to further

characterize the types of oils accepted for treatment and the

technologies used. The data has not been reviewed at the time of this

proposal, but the data is included in the rulemaking record and will be

evaluated prior to promulgation. EPA solicits comments with detailed

information and data on the concentrations of pollutants and type of

oily wastes accepted for treatment by these facilities so that EPA can

develop a more thorough understanding of the facility operations. Any

new information used to establish the basis for the final regulation

will be made available for public comment.

3. Organic Waste Treatment or Recovery

In 1989, 22 facilities accepted 147 million gallons of organic

wastewater for treatment. Most facilities with treatment on-site used

some form of biological treatment to handle the wastewater. Most of the

facilities in the Organics Subcategory have other industrial operations

as well, and the CWT wastes are mixed with these wastewater prior to

treatment. The relatively constant on-site wastewater can support the

operation of conventional, continuous biological treatment processes,

which otherwise could be upset by the variability of the off-site waste

receipts.

IV. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts

A. EPA's Initial Efforts to Develop a Guideline for the Waste Treatment

Industry

In 1986, the Agency initiated a study of waste treatment facilities

which receive waste from off-site for treatment, recovery, or disposal.

The Agency looked at various segments of the waste management industry

including centralized waste treatment facilities, landfills,

incinerators, fuel blending operations, and waste solidification/

stabilization processes (Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous

Waste Treatment Industry, EPA 1989). EPA conducted a separate study of

the Solvent Recycling Industry (Preliminary Data Summary for the

Solvent Recycling Industry, EPA 1989). [[Page 5473]]

Development of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for

this industry began in 1989. EPA originally studied centralized waste

treatment facilities, fuel blending operations and waste

solidification/stabilization facilities. EPA has decided not to propose

nationally applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards for

fuel blending and stabilization operations because, even though these

operations are integral to a facility's waste management practices,

wastewater generation and disposal practices are not similar to the

operations of centralized waste treatment operations. Most fuel

blending and stabilization processes are ``dry,'' i.e., they generate

no wastewater. Therefore, EPA decided to limit this phase of the

proposed rulemaking to the development of regulations for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.

B. Wastewater Sampling Program

In the sampling program for the Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry

Study, twelve facilities were sampled to characterize the wastes

received and the on-site treatment technology performance at

incinerators, landfills, and hazardous waste treatment facilities.

Since all of the facilities samples had more than one on-site

operation, the data collected can not be used for this project because

data were collected for mixed waste streams and the waste

characteristics and treatment technology performance for the hazardous

waste treatment facilities cannot be differentiated.

Between 1989 and 1993, EPA visited 26 of the 85 centralized waste

treatment facilities. During each visit, EPA gathered information on

waste receipts, waste and wastewater treatment, and disposal practices.

Based on these data and the responses to the 1991 Waste Treatment

Industry Questionnaire, EPA selected eight of the 26 facilities for the

wastewater sampling program in order to collect data to characterize

discharges and the performance of their treatment system. Using data

supplied by the facilities, EPA applied four criteria in initially

choosing which facilities to sample. The criteria were as follows:

whether the wastewater treatment system (1) was effective in removing

pollutants; (2) treated wastes received from a variety of sources, (3)

employed either novel treatment technologies or applied traditional

treatment technologies in a novel manner, and (4) applied waste

management practices that increased the effectiveness of the treatment

unit. An additional facility was sampled to characterize the wastes

received and treatment processes of a facility that treated only non-

hazardous waste. From the data collected at the non-hazardous waste

treatment facility, waste stream characteristics were similar to that

of a facility that treats hazardous waste. The other 17 facilities

visited were not sampled, because they did not meet these criteria.

During each sampling episode, facility influent and effluent

streams were sampled. Samples were also taken at intermediate points to

assess the performance of individual treatment units. This information

is summarized in the Technical Development Document. In the first two

sampling episodes, streams were analyzed for over 480 pollutants to

identify the range of pollutants possible at these facilities. After

the analytical data were reviewed for the first two sampling episodes,

the number of pollutants analyzed were reduced to approximately 180

that were detected in the initial sampling efforts.

In 1994, an additional four facilities were visited that are not

included in the 85 Centralized Waste Treatment facilities identified in

1989. These facilities were not in business at the time the

questionnaire was mailed. These facilities specialized in the treatment

of bilge waters and unstable oil-water mixtures. From these site

visits, one facility was chosen to be sampled based on the on-site

treatment and type of oily waste accepted for treatment. As previously

discussed, the data has not been reviewed at the time of this proposal,

but the data is included in the regulatory record and will be evaluated

prior to promulgation.

1. Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling

From the ten sampling episodes completed from 1989 to 1994, only

six sampling episodes contained data which were used to characterize

this subcategory's waste streams and treatment technology performance.

All of the facilities used some form of precipitation for treatment of

the metal-bearing waste streams. Only one facility was a direct

discharger and was therefore designed to effectively treat the

conventional pollutants important for this subcategory, TSS and Oil and

Grease.

2. Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling

From the sampling data collected between 1989 and 1994, five

sampling episodes contained data which are applicable to the treatment

of oily wastes. Data for the remaining five sampling episodes could not

be used because the facilities did not accept oily waste for treatment

or recovery. Identification of facilities to be sampled was difficult

because most facilities in the oily waste treatment subcategory had

other centralized waste treatment processes on-site. Three of the four

facilities had other on-site Centralized Waste Treatment processes. The

oily wastewater after emulsion-breaking was commingled with other

subcategory waste streams prior to further treatment of the oily waste

stream. In all three cases most of the pollutants of concern that were

detected prior to commingling were at a non-detect level after

commingling. Therefore, dilution resulted from the mixing and no

further treatment may have occurred. Data from the three facilities

could be used only to characterize the untreated waste streams after

emulsion-breaking. Data from one of the facilities could not be

evaluated prior to this proposal but is included in the public record.

Therefore, data from only one facility could be used to assess

treatment performance at the facilities in this subcategory.

3. Organic Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling

Similar to the case with the Oily Waste Subcategory, identification

of facilities for assessing waste streams and treatment technology

performance was difficult, because most organic waste treatment

facilities had other industrial operations on-site. The centralized

waste treatment waste streams were small in comparison to the overall

site flow. Two facilities were identified and sampled which treated a

significant portion of off-site generated organic waste streams. Data

from one of the facilities could not be used when developing technology

options for proposal because the treatment system performance was not

optimal at the time of sampling, but data from this facility was used

to characterize the raw waste streams.

Therefore, sampling data from one facility was used to determine

the treatment technology basis for this subcategory.

C. 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire (Census of the Industry)

Under the authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act, EPA sent

a questionnaire in 1991 to 455 facilities that the Agency had

identified as possible Centralized Waste Treatment facilities. Since

the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry is not represented by a SIC

code, identification of facilities was difficult. Directories of

treatment facilities, Agency information, and telephone directories

were used to identify the 455 facilities to which the questionnaires

were mailed. The [[Page 5474]] responses from 416 facilities indicated

that 89 facilities treated, or recovered material from, industrial

waste from off-site in 1989 and the remaining 327 facilities did not

treat, or recover materials from, industrial waste from off-site. Out

of the 89 facilities that received industrial waste from off-site for

treatment, four facilities received all of the off-site waste via

pipeline. For the reasons discussed previously, this proposed

regulation does not cover waste transferred from the original source of

generation by pipeline. Therefore, based on this data base, 85

facilities are currently in the scope of this regulation. The

questionnaire specifically requested information on: (1) the type of

wastes accepted for treatment; (2) the industrial waste management

practices used; (3) the quantity, treatment, and disposal of wastewater

generated during industrial waste management; (4) available analytical

monitoring data on wastewater treatment; (5) the degree of co-treatment

(treatment of centralized waste treatment wastewater with wastewater

from other industrial operations at the facility); and (6) the extent

of wastewater recycling and/or reuse at the facility. Information was

also obtained through follow-up telephone calls and written requests

for clarification of questionnaire responses. Information obtained by

the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire is summarized in the

Technical Development Document for today's proposed rule.

D. Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire (Follow-Up Questionnaire to a

Subset of the Industry)

EPA also requested a subset of centralized waste treatment

facilities to submit wastewater monitoring data in the form of

individual data points rather than monthly aggregates. These wastewater

monitoring data included information on pollutant concentrations and

waste receipt data for a six week period. The waste receipt data were

collected to provide information about the types of wastes treated and

the influent waste characteristics due to the absence of influent

wastewater monitoring data. Data were requested from 19 facilities.

V. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

A. Industry Subcategorization

1. Development of Current Subcategorization Scheme

For today's proposal, EPA considered whether a single set of

effluent limitations and standards should be established for this

industry or whether different limitations and standards were

appropriate for subcategories within the industry. In its preliminary

decision that subcategorization is required and in developing the

subcategories set forth in this rulemaking, EPA took into account all

the information it collected and developed with respect to the

following factors: waste type received; treatment process; nature of

wastewater generated; facility size, age, and location; non-water

quality impact characteristics; and treatment technologies and costs.

In this industry, a wide variety of wastes are treated at a typical

facility. Facilities employ different waste treatment technologies

tailored to the specific type of waste being treated in a given day.

EPA concluded a number of factors did not provide an appropriate

basis for subcategorization. The Agency concluded that the age of a

facility should not be a basis for subcategorization because many older

facilities have unilaterally improved or modified their treatment

process over time. Facility size is also not a useful basis for

subcategorization for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry because

wastes can be treated to the same level regardless of the facility

size. Likewise, facility location is not a good basis for

subcategorization; no consistent differences in wastewater treatment

performance or costs exist because of geographical location. Although

non-water quality characteristics (solid waste and air emission

effects) are of concern to EPA, these characteristics did not

constitute a basis for subcategorization. Environmental impacts from

solid waste disposal and from the transport of potentially hazardous

wastewater are a result of individual facility practices and do not

reflect a trend that pertains to different segments of the industry.

Treatment costs do not appear to be a basis for subcategorization

because costs will vary and are dependent on the following waste stream

variables: flow rates, wastewater quality, and pollutant loadings.

Therefore, treatment costs were not used as a factor in determining

subcategories.

EPA identified only one factor with primary significance for

subcategorizing the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry: the type of

waste received for treatment or recovery. This factor encompasses many

of the other subcategorization factors. The type of treatment processes

used, nature of wastewater generated, solids generated, and potential

air emissions directly correlate to the type of wastes received for

treatment or recovery. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the type of

waste received for treatment or recovery is the appropriate basis for

subcategorization of this industry. EPA invites comment on whether the

specific subcategories proposed today should be further subdivided into

smaller subcategories or whether an alternative basis for

categorization should be adopted.

2. Proposed Subcategories

Based on the type of wastes accepted for treatment or recovery, EPA

has determined that there are three subcategories appropriate for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.

Subcategory A: Facilities which treat, or treat and

recover metal from, metal-bearing waste received from off-site,

Subcategory B: Facilities which treat, or treat and

recover oil from, oily waste received from off-site, and

Subcategory C: Facilities which treat, or treat and

recover organics from, other organic waste received from off-site.

a. Discharges from metal-bearing waste treatment and recovery

operations. Metal-bearing wastes represent the largest volume of wastes

treated at the facilities which are the subject of this guidelines

development effort. Included within this subcategory are facilities

which treat metal-bearing wastes received from off-site as well as

facilities which recover metals from off-site metal-bearing waste

streams. Currently, EPA has identified 56 facilities as treating metal-

bearing wastes. A small percentage of these facilities recover metals

from the wastes for sale in commerce or for return to industrial

processes. EPA proposes to establish limitations and standards for

those conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants

discharged in this subcategory. Among the metal-bearing wastes

typically treated at the facilities in this subcategory are, in some

cases, highly-concentrated, complex cyanide waste streams. In the case

of CWTs that treat complex cyanides, based on the results of its site

visits and data sampling effort, EPA has initially concluded that

without first achieving a given level of cyanide reduction prior to

metals treatment, the presence of cyanide will interfere with

subsequent metals treatment, thus jeopardizing achievement of

attainable effluent metals removals.

b. Discharges from oily waste treatment and recovery operations.

EPA identified 35 facilities that currently discharge wastewater from

treatment and recovery operations for oily wastes. EPA proposes to

regulate conventional, priority, and non-conventional

[[Page 5475]] pollutants in wastewater discharged from this

subcategory.

c. Discharges from organic waste treatment operations. EPA

identified 22 facilities that currently discharge wastewater from the

treatment of organic wastes that are received at the facility from off-

site for treatment. As explained previously, wastewater discharges from

organic recovery process operations, such as solvent recovery, are not

included within the scope of this regulation. EPA proposes to regulate

the conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants wastewater

discharges from this subcategory.

B. Characterization of Wastewater

This section describes current water use and wastewater

characterization at the 85 centralized waste treatment facilities in

the U.S. All waste treatment processes covered by this regulation

typically involve the use of water; however, specifics for any facility

depend on the facility's waste receipts and treatment processes.

1. Water and Sources of Wastewater

Approximately 2.0 billion gallons of wastewater are generated

annually at centralized waste treatment facilities. It is difficult to

determine the quantity of wastes attributable to different sources

because generally facilities mix the wastewater prior to treatment. EPA

has, as a general matter, however, identified the sources described

below as contributing to wastewater discharges at centralized waste

treatment operations that would be subject to the proposed effluent

limitations and standards.

a. Waste receipts. Most of the waste received from customers comes

in a liquid form and constitutes a large portion of the wastewater

treated at a facility. Other wastewater sources include wastewater from

contact with the waste at receipt or during subsequent handling.

b. Solubilization water. A portion of waste receipts are in a solid

form. Water may be added to the waste to render it treatable.

c. Waste oil emulsion-breaking wastewater. The emulsion breaking

process separates difficult water-oil emulsions and generates a

``bottom'' or water phase. Approximately 99.2 million gallons of

wastewater were generated from emulsion-breaking processes in 1989.

d. Tanker truck/drum/roll-off box washes. Water is used to clean

the equipment used for transporting wastes. The amount of wastewater

generated was difficult to assess because the wash water is normally

added to the wastes or used as solubilization water.

e. Equipment washes. Water is used to clean waste treatment

equipment during unit shut downs or in between batches of waste.

f. Air pollution control scrubber blow-down. Water or acidic or

basic solution is used in air emission control scrubbers to control

fumes from treatment tanks, storage tanks, and other treatment

equipment.

g. Laboratory-derived wastewater. Water is used in on-site

laboratories which characterize incoming waste streams and monitor on-

site treatment performance.

h. Contaminated stormwater. This is stormwater which comes in

direct contact with the waste or waste handling and treatment areas.

(Stormwater which does not come into contact with the wastes would not

be subject to today's proposed limitations and standards.)

2. Wastewater Discharge

Approximately 3 billion gallons of wastewater were discharged at

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry operations in 1989. In general,

the primary source of wastewater discharges from these facilities are:

waste receipts, solubilization wastewater, tanker truck/drums/roll-off

box washes, equipment washes, air pollution control scrubber blow-down,

laboratory-derived wastewater, and contaminated stormwater. Centralized

waste treatment facilities do not generate a ``process wastewater'' in

the traditional sense of this term.\2\ As a service industry, there is

no manufacturing or commercial ``process'' which is generating water.

Because there are no ``manufacturing processes'' or ``products'' for

this industry, ``process'' wastewater for this industry will include

any wastes received for treatment (``waste receipt'') as well as water

which comes into contact with the waste received or waste processing

area. The wastewater resulting from contact with the wastes or waste

processing area is referred to by the short-hand term ``centralized

waste treatment wastewater.''

\2\Process wastewater is defined in 40 CFR 122.2 as ``any water

which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact

with or results from the production or use of any raw material, by-

product, intermediate product, finished product, or waste product.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 85 facilities identified by the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire can also be characterized by their type of wastewater

discharge. Sixteen facilities discharge wastewater directly into a

receiving stream or body of water. Another 56 facilities discharge

wastewater indirectly, i.e., discharge to a publicly-owned treatment

works (POTW).

Thirteen facilities do not dispose of wastewater directly to

surface waters or indirectly to POTWs. At these facilities, (1)

wastewater is disposed of by alternate means such as on-site or off-

site deep well injection or incineration (four facilities); (2)

wastewater is sent off-site for treatment (six facilities); (3) the

process does not generate wastewater (one facility); and (4) wastewater

is evaporated (two facilities). One facility discharges wastewater

directly as well as on-site deep well injection.

This regulation applies to direct and indirect discharges only.

3. Wastewater Characterization

The Agency's sampling program for this industry detected over 100

pollutants (conventional, priority, and non-conventional) in waste

streams at treatable levels. The quantity of pollutants currently being

discharged is difficult to assess due to the lack of monitoring data

available from facilities for the list of pollutants identified from

the Agency's sampling program prior to commingling of the wastewater

with non-contaminated stormwater and other industrial wastewater before

discharge. Methodologies were developed to estimate current performance

for each subcategory by assessing performance of on-site treatment

technologies, wastewater permit information, and monitoring data

supplied in the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and the

Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire. For the Metals Subcategory, a ``non-

process wastewater'' factor was used to quantify the amount of non-

contaminated stormwater and other industrial process water in a

facility's discharge. A facility's current discharge of treated

Centralized Waste Treatment wastewater was calculated using the

monitoring data supplied multiplied by the ``non-process wastewater''

factor. For the Oils Subcategory, present treatment schemes were

studied. Most facilities mixed oily wastewater with other CWT or

industrial wastewater or stormwater. This generally resulted in

inadequate treatment of oily waste because the pollutants detected in

oily wastewater were typically not detected in the untreated mixed

streams due to dilution. Therefore, current performance was estimated

at the point prior to mixing different types of wastewater. For the

Organics Subcategory, current performance could not be estimated from

the discharge monitoring data submitted by the facilities due to the

[[Page 5476]] presence of other industrial wastewater in the discharge.

Current performance was estimated by projecting the removal of

pollutants resulting from the technologies used on-site. The Agency is

soliciting comments on the approaches used to calculate the current

performance as well as requesting any monitoring data available before

the addition of non-contaminated stormwater or other industrial

wastewater.

C. Pollutants Not Regulated

EPA is not proposing effluent limitations or standards for all

conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants in this

proposed regulation. Among the reasons EPA may have decided not to

propose effluent limitations for a pollutant are the following:

(a) The pollutant is deemed not present in Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry wastewater, because it was not detected in the

influent during the Agency's sampling/data gathering efforts with the

use of analytical methods promulgated pursuant to Section 304(h) of the

Clean Water Act or with other state-of-the-art methods.

(b) The pollutant is present only in trace amounts and is neither

causing nor likely to cause toxic effects.

(c) The pollutant was detected in the effluent from only one or a

small number of samples and the pollutant's presence could not be

confirmed.

(d) The pollutant was effectively controlled by the technologies

used as a basis for limitations on other pollutants, including those

limitations proposed today, and therefore regulated by the limitations

for the indicator pollutants or (e) Insufficient data are available to

establish effluent limitations.

D. Available Technologies

The treatment technologies presently employed by the industry

represent the range of wastewater treatment systems observed at

categorical industrial operations. All 85 centralized waste treatment

facilities operate wastewater treatment systems. The technologies used

include physical-chemical treatment, biological treatment, and advanced

wastewater treatment. Based on information obtained from the 1991 Waste

Treatment Industry Questionnaire and site visits, EPA has concluded

that a significant number of these treatment systems need to be

upgraded to improve effectiveness and to remove additional pollutants.

Physical-chemical treatment technologies in use are:

Precipitation/Filtration, which converts soluble metal

salts to insoluble metal oxides which are then removed by filtration;

Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF), which separates solid or

liquid particles from a liquid phase by introducing air bubbles into

the liquid phase. The bubbles attach to the particles and rise to the

top of the mixture;

Activated Carbon, which removes pollutants from wastewater

by adsorbing them onto carbon particles;

Multi-media/Sand Filtration, which removes solids from

wastewater by passing it through a porous medium. Biological treatment

technologies in use are:

Sequential Batch Reactor, which uses microorganisms to

degrade organic material in a batch process;

Activated Sludge, which uses microorganisms suspended in

well-aerated wastewater to degrade organic material;

PACT System, a patented process in which powder

activated carbon is added to an activated sludge system; and

Coagulation/Flocculation, which is used to assist

clarification of biological treatment effluent.

Advanced wastewater treatment technologies in use are:

Ultrafiltration, which is used to remove organic

pollutants from wastewater according to the organic molecule size; and

Reverse osmosis, which relies on differences in dissolved

solids concentrations to remove inorganic pollutants from wastewater.

The typical treatment sequence for a facility depends upon the type

of waste accepted for treatment. Most facilities treating metal-bearing

wastes use precipitation/filtration to remove metals. Those that treat

oily wastes relied on dissolved air flotation largely to remove oil and

grease, but this technology is typically ineffective in removing the

metal pollutants that are in many cases also present in these

wastewater. Aerobic batch processes and types of conventional activated

sludge systems were the most widely-found treatment technology for the

organic-bearing wastes.

E. Rationale for Selection of Proposed Regulations

To determine the technology basis and performance level for the

proposed regulations, EPA developed a database consisting of daily

effluent data collected from the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire and

the EPA Wastewater Sampling Program. This database is used to support

the BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS effluent limitations and

standards proposed today.

1. BPT

a. Introduction. EPA today is proposing BPT effluent limitations

for the three discharge subcategories for the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry. The BPT effluent limitations proposed today would

control identified conventional, priority, and non-conventional

pollutants when discharged from CWT facilities.

b. Rationale for BPT limitations by subcategory. As previously

noted, the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry receives for treatment

large quantities of concentrated hazardous and non-hazardous industrial

waste which results in discharges of a significant quantity of

pollutants. The EPA estimates that 176.8 million pounds per year of

pollutants are currently being discharged directly or indirectly.

As previously discussed, Section 304(b)(1)(A) requires EPA to

identify effluent reductions attainable through the application of

``best practicable control technology currently available for classes

and categories of point sources.'' The Senate Report for the 1972

amendments to the CWA explained how EPA must establish BPT effluent

reduction levels. Generally, EPA determines BPT effluent levels based

upon the average of the best existing performances by plants of various

sizes, ages, and unit processes within each industrial category or

subcategory. In industrial categories where present practices are

uniformly inadequate, however, EPA may determine that BPT requires

higher levels of control than any currently in place if the technology

to achieve those levels can be practicably applied. A Legislative

History of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,

p. 1468.

In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost effectiveness

assessment for BPT limitations. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad

discretion to adopt BPT limitations that are achievable with available

technology unless the required additional reductions are ``wholly out

of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal level of

reduction.'' A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act

Amendments of 1972, p. 170. Moreover, the inquiry does not require the

Agency to quantify benefits in monetary terms. See e.g. American Iron

and Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F. 2d 1027 (3rd Cir., 1975).

In balancing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction, EPA

considers the volume and nature of expected [[Page 5477]] discharges

after application of BPT, the general environmental effects of

pollutants, and the cost and economic impacts of the required level of

pollution control. In developing guidelines, the Act does not require

or permit consideration of water quality problems attributable to

particular point sources, or water quality improvements in particular

bodies of water. Therefore, EPA has not considered these factors in

developing the limitations being proposed today. See Weyerhaeuser

Company v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

EPA concluded that the wastewater treatment performance of the

facilities it surveyed was, with very limited exceptions, uniformly

poor. Under these circumstances, for each subcategory, EPA has

preliminarily concluded that only one treatment system meets the

statutory test for best practicable, currently available technology.

EPA has determined that the performance of facilities which mix

different types of highly concentrated CWT wastes with non-CWT waste

streams or with stormwater are not providing BPT treatment. The mass of

pollutants being discharged is unacceptably high, given the

demonstrated removal capacity of treatment systems that the Agency

reviewed. Thus, comparison of EPA sampling data and CWT industry-

supplied monitoring information establishes that, in the case of metal-

bearing waste streams, virtually all the facilities are discharging

large total quantities of heavy metals. As measured by total suspended

solids (TSS) levels following treatment, TSS concentrations are

substantially in excess of levels observed at facilities in other

industry categories employing the same treatment technology--10 to 20

times greater than observed for other point source categories.

In the case of oil discharges, most facilities are achieving low

removal of oils and grease relative to the performance required for

other point source categories. Further, facilities treating organic

wastes, while successfully removing organic pollutants through

biological treatment, fail to remove metals associated with these

organic wastes.

The poor pollutant removal performance observed generally for

discharging CWT facilities is not unexpected. As pointed out

previously, these facilities are treating highly concentrated wastes

that, in many cases, are process residuals and sludges from other point

source categories. EPA's review of permit limitations for the direct

dischargers show that, in most cases, the dischargers are subject to

``best professional judgment'' concentration limitations which were

developed from guidelines for facilities treating and discharging much

more dilute waste streams. EPA has concluded that treatment performance

in the industry is widely inadequate and that the mass of pollutants

being discharged is unacceptably high, given the demonstrated removal

capability of treatment operations that the Agency reviewed.

(i) Subcategory A--Metals Subcategory. The Agency is today

proposing BPT limitations for the Metals Subcategory for 22 pollutants.

EPA considered three regulatory options to reduce the discharge of

pollutants by centralized waste treatment facilities. For a more

detailed discussion of the basis for the limitations and technologies

selected see the Technical Development Document.

The three currently available treatment systems for which the EPA

assessed performance for the Metals Subcategory BPT are:

Option 1--Chemical Precipitation, Liquid-Solid Separation,

and Sludge Dewatering. Under Option 1, BPT limitations would be based

upon chemical precipitation with a lime/caustic solution followed by

some form of separation and sludge dewatering to control the discharge

of pollutants in wastewater. The data reviewed for this option showed

that settling/clarification followed by pressure filtration of sludge

yields removals equivalent to pressure filtration. In some cases, BPT

limitations would require the current treatment technologies in-place

to be improved by use of increased quantities of treatment chemicals

and additional monitoring of batch processes. For metals streams which

contain concentrated cyanide complexes, BPT limitations under Option 1

are based on alkaline chlorination at specific operating conditions

prior to metals treatment. As previously noted, without treatment of

the cyanide streams prior to metals treatment, metals removal are

significantly reduced.

Option 2--Selective Metals Precipitation, Pressure

Filtration, Secondary Precipitation, and Solid-Liquid Separation. The

second option evaluated for BPT for centralized waste treatment

facilities would be based on the use of numerous treatment tanks and

personnel to handle incoming waste streams, and use of greater

quantities of caustic in the treatment chemical mixture. (Caustic

sludge is easier to recycle.) Option 2 is based on additional tanks and

personnel to segregate incoming waste streams and to monitor the batch

treatment processes to maximize the precipitation of specific metals in

order to generate a metal-rich filter cake. The metal-rich filter cake

could possibly be sold to metal smelters to incorporate into metal

products. Like Option 1, for metals streams which contain concentrated

cyanide complexes, under Option 2, BPT limitations are also based on

alkaline chlorination at specific operating conditions prior to metals

treatment.

Option 3--Selective Metals Precipitation, Pressure

Filtration, Secondary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, and

Tertiary Precipitation. The technology basis for Option 3 is the same

as Option 2 except an additional precipitation step at the end of

treatment is added. For metals streams which contain concentrated

cyanide complexes, like Options 1 and 2, for Option 3, alkaline

chlorination at specific operating conditions would also be the basis

for BPT limitations.

The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT effluent limitations based on

Option 3 for the Metals Subcategory. These limitations were developed

based on an engineering evaluation of the average of the best

demonstrated methods to control the discharges of the regulated

pollutants in this Subcategory.

EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option 3 treatment

reflects primarily an evaluation of three factors: the degree of

effluent reduction attainable, the total cost of the proposed treatment

technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved, and

potential non-water quality benefits. In assessing BPT, EPA considered

the age, size, process, other engineering factors, and non-water

quality impacts pertinent to the facilities treating wastes in this

subcategory. No basis could be found for identifying different BPT

limitations based on age, size, process or other engineering factors.

Neither the age nor the size of the CWT facility will directly

significantly affect either the character or treatability of the CWT

wastes or the cost of treatment. Further, the treatment process and

engineering aspects of the technologies considered have a relatively

insignificant effect because in most cases they represent fine tuning

or add-ons to treatment technology already in use. These factors

consequently did not weigh heavily in the development of these

guidelines. For a service industry whose service is wastewater

treatment, the most pertinent factors for establishing the limitations

are costs of treatment, the level of effluent reductions obtainable,

and non-water quality effects.

Generally, for purposes of defining BPT effluent limitations, EPA

looks at the performance of the best operated [[Page 5478]] treatment

system and calculates limitations from some level of average

performance of these ``best'' facilities. For example, in the BPT

limitations for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers

Point Source Category, EPA identified ``best'' facilities on a BOD

performance criteria of achieving a 95 percent BOD removal or a BOD

effluent level of 40 mg/l. 52 FR 42535 (November 5, 1987). For this

industry, as previously explained, EPA concluded that treatment

performance is, in virtually all cases, poor. Without separation of

metal-bearing streams for selective precipitation, metal removal levels

are uniformly inadequate across the industry. Consequently, BPT

performance levels are based on data from the one well-operated system

using selective metals precipitation that was sampled by EPA.

The demonstrated effluent reductions attainable through the Option

3 control technology represent the BPT performance attainable through

the application of demonstrated treatment measures currently in

operation in this industry. The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT

limitations based on the removal performance of the Option 3 treatment

system for the following reasons. First, these removals are

demonstrated by a facility in this subcategory and can readily be

applied to all facilities in the subcategory. The adoption of this

level of control would represent a significant reduction in pollutants

discharged into the environment.

Second, the Agency assessed the total cost of water pollution

controls likely to be incurred for Option 3 in relation to the effluent

reduction benefits and determined these costs were economically

reasonable.

Third, adoption of these BPT limits could promote the non-water

quality objectives of the CWA. Use of the Option 3 treatment regime--

which generates a metal-rich filter cake that may be recovered and

smelted--could reduce the quantity of waste which are being disposed of

in landfills.

The Agency proposes to reject Option 1 because, as discussed above,

EPA concluded that mixing disparate metal-bearing waste streams is not

the best practicable treatment technology currently in operation for

this subcategory of the industry. Consequently, effluent levels

associated with this treatment option would not represent BPT

performance levels. Option 2 was rejected, although similar to Option

3, because the greater removals obtained through addition of tertiary

precipitation at Option 3 were obtained at a relatively insignificant

increase in costs over Option 2.

See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to

Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation.

(ii). Subcategory B--Oils Subcategory. The Agency is today

proposing BPT limitations for the Oils Subcategory for 33 pollutants.

EPA identified four regulatory options for consideration in

establishing BPT effluent reduction levels for this subcategory of the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. For a more detailed discussion of

the basis for the limitations and standards selected see the Technical

Development Document.

The four technology options considered for the Oils Subcategory BPT

are:

Option 1--Emulsion-Breaking. Under Option 1, BPT

limitations would be based on present performance of emulsion-breaking

processes using acid and heat to separate oil-water emulsions. At

present, most facilities have this technology in-place unless less

stable oil-water mixtures are accepted for treatment. Stable oil-water

emulsions require some emulsion- breaking treatment because gravity or

flotation alone is inadequate to break down the oil/water stream.

Option 2--Ultrafiltration. Under Option 2, BPT limitations

would be based on the use of ultrafiltration for treatment of less

concentrated, stable oily waste receipts or for the additional

treatment of wastewater from the emulsion-breaking process.

Option 3--Ultrafiltration, Carbon Adsorption, and Reverse

Osmosis. The Option 3 BPT effluent limitations are based on the use of

carbon adsorption and reverse osmosis in addition to the Option 2

technology. The reverse osmosis unit removes metal compounds found at

significant levels for this subcategory. Inclusion of a carbon

adsorption unit is necessary in order to protect the reverse osmosis

unit by filtering out large particles which may damage the reverse

osmosis unit or decrease membrane performance.

Option 4--Ultrafiltration, Carbon Adsorption, Reverse

Osmosis, and Carbon Adsorption. Option 4 is similar to Option 3 except

for the additional carbon adsorption unit for final effluent polishing.

The Agency is proposing BPT effluent limitations for the Oily Waste

Subcategory based on Option 3 as well as Option 2 treatment systems.

EPA has preliminarily concluded that both options represent best

practicable control technologies. The technologies are in-use in the

industry and the data collected by the Agency show that the limitations

are being achieved. In assessing BPT, EPA considered age, size,

process, other engineering factors, and non-water quality impacts

pertinent to the facilities treating wastes in this subcategory. No

basis could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on

age, size, process or other engineering factors for the reasons

previously discussed. For a service industry whose service is

wastewater treatment, the pertinent factors here for establishing the

limitations are costs of treatment, the level of effluent reductions

obtainable, and non-water quality effects.

Among the options considered by the Agency, both Options 2 and 3

would provide for significant reductions in regulated pollutants

discharged into the environment over current practice in the industry

represented by Option 1. EPA is nonetheless, concerned about the cost

of Option 3 because it is substantially more expensive than Option 2.

However, EPA's economic assessment indicates, that Options 2 and 3 are

economically reasonable.

As noted, the Agency is proposing Option 2 because it is a

currently available and cost-effective treatment option. However, the

BPT pollutant removal performance required for a number of specific

pollutants (particularly oil and grease and metals) is less stringent

than current BPT effluent limitations guidelines promulgated for other

industries. EPA is concerned about the potential for encouraging off-

site shipment of oily waste now being treated on-site if the

limitations for this subcategory are significantly different from those

other BPT effluent limitations currently in effect.

EPA is proposing both options for comment because the Agency is

concerned that, while both Options 2 and 3 are proven treatment

technologies currently available to this industry, the additional

effluent reductions associated with Option 3 are very expensive. EPA

has preliminarily concluded that, even though the cost of Option 3 is

significantly greater than Option 2 (because of installation,

operation, and maintenance of reverse osmosis equipment), the costs are

not unreasonable, given other factors. EPA is asking for comment on

whether the effluent reduction benefits of Option 3 outweigh the high

cost of the additional removal obtained through reverse osmosis. The

Agency is particularly interested in comments on the ancillary effects

of the less stringent Option 2 limitations. [[Page 5479]]

As previously discussed, the Agency will be re-estimating the

current performance at facilities that treat oily waste based on

comments received and information collected in the August 1994 sampling

episode and re-calculating the cost and impacts of Options 2 and 3. The

data from the August 1994 sampling episode is included in the record

for this proposal, but was not incorporated into calculations because

it was not received with sufficient time to review and incorporate.

The Agency proposes to reject Option 1, because the technology does

not provide for adequate control of the regulated pollutants. The

Agency also proposes to reject Option 4 because Option 4 treatment

technology results in a lower level of pollutant reductions in

comparison to Option 3. Theoretically, Option 4 should provide for the

maximum reduction of pollutants discharged due to the addition of

carbon adsorption units, but specific pollutant concentrations increase

across the carbon adsorption unit according to the analytical data

collected.

Even though, as previously explained, BPT limitations are generally

defined by the average effluent reduction performance of the best

existing treatment systems, here, as was the case with the BPT metal-

bearing wastes limitations, the options being proposed as the basis for

BPT effluent limitations are based upon the treatment performance at a

single facility. EPA concluded that existing performance at the other

facilities is uniformly inadequate because many facilities that will be

subject to the limitations for the Oily Waste Subcategory now commingle

the oily wastewater with other wastes prior to treatment. The Agency

has determined that the practice of mixing waste streams before

treatment results in inadequate removal of the regulated pollutants of

concern for the Oils Subcategory. Oily wastewater contains significant

levels of organic and metals compounds. If the oily wastewater is mixed

with other CWT wastewater, these organic and metals compounds are often

found at non-detectable levels prior to treatment because the oily

wastewater is effectively diluted by the other wastewater to the point

that the compounds are no longer detectible. The treatment system on

which the Options 2 through 4 effluent limitations are based was

designed specifically for the treatment of segregated oily wastewater.

See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to

Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation.

(iii) Subcategory C--Organics Subcategory. The Agency is today

proposing BPT limitations for the Organics Subcategory for 39

pollutants. EPA identified two regulatory options for consideration in

establishing BPT effluent reduction levels for this subcategory of the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. For a more detailed discussion of

the basis for the limitations and technologies selected see the

Technical Development Document.

The two technology options considered for the Organics Subcategory

BPT are:

Option 1--Equalization, Air-Stripping, Biological

Treatment, and Multi-media Filtration. BPT Option 1 effluent

limitations are based on the following treatment system: equalization,

two air-strippers in series equipped with a carbon adsorption unit for

control of air emissions, biological treatment in the form of a

sequential batch reactor (which is operated on a batch basis,) and

finally multi-media filtration units for control of solids.

Option 2--Equalization, Air-Stripping, Biological

Treatment, Multi-Filtration, and Carbon Adsorption. Option 2 is the

same as Option 1 except for the addition of carbon adsorption units.

The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT effluent limitations based on

the Option 1 technology for the Organics Subcategory. The demonstrated

effluent reductions attainable through Option 1 control technology

represent the best practicable performance attainable through the

application of currently available treatment measures. EPA's decision

to propose effluent limitations defined by the removal performance of

the Option 1 treatment systems is based primarily on consideration of

several factors: the effluent reductions attainable, the economic

achievability of the option and non-water quality environmental

benefits. Once again, the age and size of the facilities, processes and

other engineering factors were not considered pertinent to

establishment of BPT limitations for this subcategory.

The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT limitations based on the

removal performance of the Option 1 treatment system for the following

reasons. First, the cost of achieving the pollutant discharge levels

associated with the Option 1 treatment system is reasonable. The

annualized costs for treatment are low.

According to the data collected, the Option 1 treatment system

provides a greater effluent pollutant reduction level than the more

expensive Option 2. Theoretically, Option 2 should provide for the

maximum reduction of pollutants discharged due to the addition of

carbon adsorption units, but specific pollutants of concern increased

across the carbon adsorption unit according to the analytical data

collected. Due to the poor performance of carbon adsorption in EPA's

database for this industry, Option 2 is rejected. The poor performance

may be a result of pH fluctuations in the carbon adsorption unit

resulting in the solubilization of metals. Similar trends have been

found for all of the data collected on carbon adsorption units in this

industry. The EPA is soliciting comments, additional information, and

performance data on carbon adsorption units used within the industry.

The Agency used biological treatment performance data from the

OCPSF regulation to establish direct discharge limitations for

BOD5 and TSS, because the facility from which Option 1 and 2

limitations were derived is an indirect discharger and the treatment

system is not operated to optimize removal of conventional pollutants.

EPA has concluded that the transfer of this data is appropriate given

the absence of adequate treatment technology for these pollutants at

the only otherwise well- operated BPT CWT facility. Given the treatment

of similar wastes at both OCPSF and centralized waste treatment

facilities, use of the data is warranted. Moreover, EPA has every

reason to believe that the same treatment systems will perform

similarly when treating the wastes in this subcategory.

Once again, the selected BPT option is based on the performance of

a single facility. Many facilities that are treating wastes that will

be subject to effluent limitations for the Organic-Bearing Waste

Subcategory also operate other industrial processes that generate much

larger amounts of wastewater than the quantity of off-site generated

organic waste receipts. The off-site generated organic waste receipts

are directly mixed with the wastewater from the other industrial

processes for treatment. Therefore, identifying facilities to sample

for limitations development was difficult because the waste receipts

and treatment unit effectiveness could not be properly characterized

for off-site generated waste. The treatment system for which Options 1

and 2 was based upon was one of the few facilities identified which

treated organic waste receipts separately from other on-site industrial

wastewater.

See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to

Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation. [[Page 5480]]

2. BCT

In today's rule, EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines

and standards equivalent to the BPT guidelines for the conventional

pollutants covered under BPT. In developing BCT limits, EPA considered

whether there are technologies that achieve greater removals of

conventional pollutants than proposed for BPT, and whether those

technologies are cost-reasonable according to the BCT Cost Test. In all

three subcategories, EPA identified no technologies that can achieve

greater removals of conventional pollutants than proposed for BPT that

are also cost-reasonable under the BCT Cost Test, and accordingly EPA

proposes BCT effluent limitations equal to the proposed BPT effluent

limitations guidelines and standards.

EPA may also decide to adopt BPT effluent limitations based on

treatment technologies less stringent than the Regulatory Options that

are the basis for today's proposal. Consequently, EPA has also

evaluated the cost-reasonableness of BCT limits if EPA were to adopt

BPT limitations based on less stringent technologies. For all three

categories, this assessment does not support the adoption of BCT

limitations for conventional pollutants that are more stringent than

BPT limitations based on a reduced level of treatment.

3. BAT

EPA today is proposing BAT effluent limitations for all

subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry based on the

same technologies selected for BPT for each subcategory. The BAT

effluent limitations proposed today would control identified priority

and non-conventional pollutants discharged from facilities.

EPA has not identified any more stringent treatment technology

option which it considered to represent BAT level of control applicable

to facilities in this industry for the metals, oils, and organics

subcategories, EPA identified an add-on treatment technology--carbon

adsorption--that should have further increased removals of pollutants

of concern. However, as explained above, EPA's data show increases

rather than decreases in concentrations of specific pollutants of

concern.

In the case for the Oily Waste Subcategory, EPA is co-proposing two

options for BAT: Options 2 and 3. EPA seeks comment on whether it

should adopt BAT limitations based on Oils Option 3 or Oils Option 4 if

the Agency decides to adopt Option 3 for BPT limitations for this

Subcategory. Both the Options 3 and 4 treatment systems achieve

increasingly greater levels of pollutant removal than Option 2. Both

represent demonstrated technologies currently in use in the industry.

However, the total costs for the industry over Option 2 are high. Given

the statutory injunction for the Agency to develop BAT effluent

limitations that reflect the best control measure economically

achievable, EPA believes BAT limitations which reflect these more

stringent effluent pollutant reduction levels may be appropriate. This

is particularly true if the additional treatment results in significant

reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment and thus

reasonable further progress towards the goal of the Act--elimination of

the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters. The Agency welcomes

comment on this issue.

EPA's data show that the costs of both Option 3 and Option 4 ($8.4

million and $10.0 million, respectively) are significantly greater than

Option 2 ($0.87 million). Nevertheless, the cost of per-pound removals,

$0.38 and $0.44, respectively, are reasonable. In addition, both

Options 3 and 4 are economically achievable because there would be not

change in the industry profitability status as a result of the adoption

of either Option. As stated earlier, the impact of limitations based on

either Option 1, 2, 3, or 4 is a decrease in profitability for one

direct discharger with increased profitability for three others.

However, adoption of BAT limits based on Oil Option 3 would provide

approximately 150,000 pounds of additional removals of pollutants over

Option 2 while BAT limitations based on costlier Option 4 would remove

fewer pollutants. In the circumstances, EPA has preliminarily

determined that is should not adopt Option 4 as the basis for BAT

limits if it decides to base BPT on Option 2.

As with BPT limitations, EPA is proposing to require monitoring for

compliance with the limitations at a point after treatment but prior to

combining the CWT process wastewater with other wastewater. Many

facilities operate other processes and the addition of this wastewater

to CWT wastewater may result in dilution due to the difference in

concentration of waste streams. Also, if a facility discharges non-

contaminated stormwater, the proposed regulation is requiring

monitoring of the CWT discharge prior to the addition of non-

contaminated stormwater.

As with BPT, monitoring for compliance with the regulation for the

Total Cyanide limitation at facilities in the Metals Subcategory which

treat concentrated cyanide-bearing metal waste is after cyanide

pretreatment and prior to metal treatment. This ensures that cyanide

will not interfere with metals treatment.

See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to

Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation.

4. New Source Performance Standards

As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act, new industrial

direct dischargers must comply with standards which reflect the

greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through application of

the best available demonstrated control technologies. Congress

envisioned that new treatment systems could meet tighter controls than

existing sources because of the opportunity to incorporate the most

efficient processes and treatment systems into plant design. Therefore,

Congress directed EPA to consider the best demonstrated process

changes, in-plant controls, operating methods and end-of-pipe treatment

technologies that reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible.

EPA is proposing NSPS that would control the same conventional,

priority, and non-conventional pollutants proposed for control by the

BPT effluent limitations. The technologies used to control pollutants

at existing facilities are fully applicable to new facilities.

Furthermore, EPA has not identified any technologies or combinations of

technologies that are demonstrated for new sources that are different

from those used to establish BPT/BCT/BAT for existing sources.

Therefore, EPA is establishing NSPS subcategories similar to the

subcategories for existing facilities and proposing NSPS limitations

that are identical to those proposed for BPT/BCT/BAT. Again, the Agency

is requesting comments to provide information and data on other

treatment systems that may be pertinent to the development of standards

for this industry.

EPA is specifically considering whether it should adopt NSPS for

the Oil Subcategory which reflect either Option 3 or Option 4 treatment

technologies. EPA does not believe there would be any barriers to entry

in this industry associated with adoption of Option 3 or 4. One

currently operating facility has demonstrated the performance of these

control technologies--EPA is assessing whether or not to adopt NSPS for

the Oil Subcategory that reflects this more stringent level of control.

EPA is soliciting comments on this issue. [[Page 5481]]

See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to

Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources

Indirect dischargers in the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry,

like the direct dischargers, accept for treatment wastes containing

many priority and non-conventional pollutants. As in the case of direct

dischargers, indirect dischargers may be expected to discharge many of

these pollutants to POTWs at significant mass and concentration levels.

EPA estimates that indirect dischargers annually discharge

approximately 85 million pounds of pollutants.

Section 307(b) requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards to

prevent pass-through of pollutants from POTWs to waters of the U.S. or

to prevent pollutants from interfering with the operation of POTWs. EPA

is establishing PSES for this industry to prevent pass-through of the

same pollutants controlled by BAT from POTWs to waters of the U.S.

a. Pass-through analysis. Before proposing pretreatment standards,

the Agency examines whether the pollutants discharged by the industry

pass through a POTW or interfere with the POTW operation or sludge

disposal practices. In determining whether pollutants pass through a

POTW, the Agency compares the percentage of a pollutant removed by

POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant removed by discharging

facilities applying BAT. A pollutant is deemed to pass through the POTW

when the average percentage removed nationwide by well-operated POTWs

(those meeting secondary treatment requirements) is less than the

percentage removed by facilities complying with BAT effluent

limitations guidelines for that pollutant.

This approach to the definition of pass-through satisfies two

competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect

dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers and (2)

that the treatment capability and performance of the POTW be recognized

and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from

indirect dischargers. Rather than compare the mass or concentration of

pollutants discharged by the POTW with the mass or concentration of

pollutants discharged by a BAT facility, EPA compares the percentage of

the pollutants removed by the plant with the POTW removal. EPA takes

this approach because a comparison of mass or concentration of

pollutants in a POTW effluent with pollutants in a BAT facility's

effluent would not take into account the mass of pollutants discharged

to the POTW from non-industrial sources nor the dilution of the

pollutants in the POTW effluent to lower concentrations from the

addition of large amounts of non- industrial wastewater. The volatile

override test is the last step in determining is a pollutant will

``pass-through.'' If a pollutant has a Henry's Law Constant greater

than 2.4 x 10-5 atm-m\3\/mole, or 10-3mg/m\3\/mg/m\3\, it is

determined to ``pass-through'' and will be regulated by PSES regardless

of the percent removal data.

For past effluent guidelines, a study of 50 well-operated POTWs was

used for the pass-through analysis. Because the data collected for

evaluating POTW removals included influent levels of pollutants that

were close to the detection limit, the POTW data were edited to

eliminate influent levels less than 10 times the minimum level and the

corresponding effluent values, except in the cases where none of the

influent concentrations exceeded 10 times the minimum level. In the

latter case, where no influent data exceeded 10 times the minimum

level, the data were edited to eliminate influent values less than 20

g/l and the corresponding effluent values. These editing rules

were used to allow for the possibility that low POTW removal simply

reflected the low influent levels.

EPA then averaged the remaining influent data and also averaged the

remaining effluent data from the 50 POTW database. The percent removals

achieved for each pollutant was determined from these averaged influent

and effluent levels. This percent removal was then compared to the

percent removal for the BAT option treatment technology. Due to the

large number of pollutants applicable for this industry, additional

data from the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database was

used to augment the POTW database for the pollutants for which the 50

POTW Study did not cover. Based on this analysis, 78 of the 87

pollutants regulated under Regulatory Option 1 (the combinations of

Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and 51 of the 87

pollutants regulated under Regulatory Option 2 (the combinations of

Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1) for BAT passed

through POTWs and are proposed for regulation for PSES. The pollutants

determined not to ``pass-through'' are listed in Table V.E-1.

Table V.E-1.--Pollutants That Do Not Pass-through POTWs for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subcategory Pollutant

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metals subcategory................. Barium.

Oils Subcategory--Option 2......... Nickel, Zinc, Tripropyleneglycol

Methyl Ether.

Organics Subcategory............... Phenol, 2-Propanone, Lead,

Pyridine, Zinc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Options considered. The Agency today is proposing to establish

pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) based on the same

technologies as proposed for BPT and BAT for 78 of the 87 priority and

non-conventional pollutants regulated under BAT for Regulatory Option 1

(the combinations of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics

Option 1) and 81 of the 87 priority pollutants regulated under BAT for

Regulatory Option 2 (the combinations of Metals Option 3, Oils Option

3, and Organics Option 1) . These standards would apply to existing

facilities in all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry that discharge wastewater to publicly-owned treatment works

(POTWs). These limitations were developed based on the same

technologies as proposed today for BPT/BAT, as applicable to each of

the affected subcategories. PSES set at these points would prevent

pass-through of pollutants, help control sludge contamination and

reduce air emissions.

EPA estimated the cost and economic impact of installing BPT/BAT

PSES technologies at the indirect discharging facilities. The total

estimated annualized cost in 1993 for all the subcategories is

approximately $22.9 million (if PSES is Oils Option 3) and

approximately $2.78 million (if PSES is Oils Option 2). EPA concluded

the cost of installation of these control technologies, in the case of

metal-bearing and organic-bearing waste streams, is clearly

economically achievable. EPA's assessment shows none of the indirect

discharging facilities in these subcategories go from a profitable to

unprofitable status as a result of the installation of the necessary

technology.

EPA is asking for comment on whether it should adopt Oils Option 3

as PSES for this subcategory, given that annual costs are approximately

ten times greater than Option 2. EPA is particularly interested in

comments on whether Option 3 is economically achievable, given the EPA

economic assessment showing that despite its high [[Page 5482]] cost,

it results only in a slight increase in the number of facilities going

from a profitable to unprofitable status. In the case of Oils Option 2,

four of 31 indirect dischargers would go from a profitable to

unprofitable status and for Option 3, six would experience a change

from a profitable to unprofitable status. Additional information is

provided in the Economic Impact Analysis.

The Agency considered the age, size, processes, other engineering

factors, and non-water quality environmental impacts pertinent to

facilities in developing PSES. The Agency did not identify any basis

for establishing different PSES limitations based on age, size,

processes, or other engineering factors. As previously explained for

BPT, adoption of standards based on the proposed technologies for

metal-bearing wastes and organic-bearing wastes would have important

non-water quality effects. The metals standards should reduce landfill

disposal of metals treatment residuals and the organic waste streams

would reduce volatilization of organic compounds.

c. Monitoring to Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation. See

Section V.F.

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources

Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time it promulgates new

source performance standards (NSPS). New indirect discharging

facilities, like new direct discharging facilities, have the

opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated

technologies, including process changes, in-facility controls, and end-

of-pipe treatment technologies.

As set forth in Section VIII.E.4(a) of this preamble, EPA

determined that a broad range of pollutants discharged by Centralized

Waste Treatment Industry facilities pass-through POTWs. The same

technologies discussed previously for BAT, NSPS, and PSES are available

as the basis for PSNS.

EPA is proposing that pretreatment standards for new sources be set

equal to NSPS for priority and non-conventional pollutants for all

subcategories. The Agency is proposing to establish PSNS for the same

priority and non-conventional pollutants as are being proposed for

NSPS. In addition, given the potential for dilution and the consequent

impracticality of monitoring at the point of discharge, EPA is again

proposing that monitoring to demonstrate compliance with these

standards be required immediately following treatment of the regulated

streams.

EPA considered the cost of the proposed PSNS technology for new

facilities. EPA concluded that such costs are not so great as to

present a barrier to entry, as demonstrated by the fact that currently

operating facilities are using these technologies. Again, EPA is

requesting comment on whether it should adopt PSNS for the Oily Waste

Subcategory that reflects effluent reduction levels achievable through

either Option 3 or Option 4 treatment systems. The Agency considered

energy requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts

and found no basis for any different standards than the selected PSNS.

F. Monitoring To Demonstrate Compliance With the Regulation

The effluent limitations EPA is proposing today apply only to

discharges resulting from treatment of the subcategory wastes and not

to mixtures of subcategory wastes with other wastes or mixtures of

different subcategory wastes. In addition, these effluent limitations

do not apply to discharges from the treatment of subcategory wastes

that are mixed prior to or after treatment with other wastewater

streams prior to discharge. EPA has concluded that it is impractical

and infeasible to set limits for the pollutants proposed to be

regulated in this category at the point of discharge for mixed waste

streams, given the potential for mixing to avoid achievement of the

required effluent reductions.

Thus, many facilities in this industry may operate other processes

which generate wastes requiring treatment and may add these wastes to

CWT wastes before treatment and discharge. This may result in dilution

rather than required treatment of CWT wastes due to the difference in

concentration of waste streams. In addition, if a facility discharges

its non-contaminated stormwater, implementation of this proposal

requires a facility to monitor the CWT discharge prior to the addition

of non-contaminated stormwater. Similarly, for facilities which treat

concentrated cyanide-bearing metal wastes, the limitations for Total

Cyanide are based on cyanide levels that are demonstrated to be

achieved after cyanide pretreatment and prior to metals precipitation.

Separate pretreatment of cyanide in metal-bearing waste streams is

necessary in order to ensure that cyanide will not interfere with

metals treatment. Consequently, EPA has preliminarily determined that

it will require compliance monitoring immediately following treatment

of subcategory waste streams (e.g., metal-bearing, oily, or organic-

bearing, as appropriate) unless the facility can demonstrate that it is

achieving the required effluent reduction associated with separate

treatment of the waste streams in a mixed waste treatment system. (See

further discussion of this issue below at Section VIII.)

G. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and

Limitations for BPT

The proposed effluent limitations and standards in today's notice

are based upon statistical procedures that estimate long-term averages

and variability factors. The following sections describe the

statistical methodology used to develop long-term averages, variability

factors, and limitations for BPT. The limitations for BCT, BAT, NSPS,

PSES, and PSNS are based upon the limitations for BPT for all

pollutants.

The proposed limitations for pollutants for each option, as

presented in today's notice, are provided as daily maximums and

maximums for monthly averages. In most cases, the daily maximum

limitation for a pollutant in an option is the product of the pollutant

long-term average and the group daily variability factor. In most

cases, the maximum for monthly average limitation for a pollutant for

an option is the product of the pollutant long-term average and the

group monthly variability factor. The procedures used to estimate the

pollutant long-term averages and group variability factors are briefly

described below. A more detailed explanation is provided in the

statistical support document.

The long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations were

based upon pollutant concentrations collected from two sources: EPA

sampling episodes and the 1991 Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire. These

data sources are described in Sections IV.B. and IV.D. (Data from the

same facility but from different sources were analyzed as though each

source provided information about a different facility.)

The long-term average for each pollutant was calculated for each

facility by arithmetically averaging the pollutant concentrations. The

pollutant long-term average for an option was the median of the long-

term averages from selected facilities with the BPT technology basis

for the option.

The daily variability factor for each pollutant at each facility is

the ratio of the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of the

daily pollutant concentration values divided by the

[[Page 5483]] expected value, or mean, of the distribution of the daily

values. The monthly variability factor for each pollutant at each

facility is the estimated 95th percentile of the distribution of

monthly averages of the daily concentration values divided by the

expected value of the monthly averages. The number of measurements used

to calculate the monthly averages corresponds to the number of days

that the pollutant is assumed to be monitored during the month. For

example, the volatile organic compounds are expected to be monitored

once a week (which is approximately four times a month); therefore, the

monthly variability factor was based upon the distribution of four-day

averages. Certain pollutants such as BOD5 are expected to be

monitored daily; therefore, the monthly variability factor was based

upon the distribution of 20-day averages (most facilities operate only

on weekdays of which there are approximately 20 in each month). The

assumed monitoring frequency of each pollutant is identified in Table

V.G-1.

Table V.G-1.--Monitoring Frequencies Used To Estimate Monthly

Variability Factors

Assumed Daily Monitoring Frequency

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aluminum Manganese.

Antimony Mercury.

Arsenic Molybdenum.

Barium Nickel.

BOD5 Oil and Grease.

Cadmium Silver.

Chromium Tin.

Cobalt Titanium.

Copper TOC.

Iron Total Cyanide.

Lead TSS.

Magnesium Zinc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assumed Weekly Monitoring Frequency

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hexavalent Chromium Methylene Chloride.

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane m-Xylene.

1,1,1-Trichloroethane n-Decane.

1,1,2-Trichloroethane n-Docosane.

1,1-Dichloroethane n-Dodecane.

1,2,3-Trichloropropane n-Eicosane.

1,2-Dibromoethane n-Hexacosane.

1,2-Dichloroethane n-Hexadecane.

trans-1,2-dichloroethene n-Octadecane.

2,3-Dichloroaniline n-Tetradecane.

2-Propanone o&p-Xylene.

4-chloro-3-methyl phenol o-Cresol.

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone Phenol.

Acetophenone Pyridine.

Benzene p-Cresol.

Benzoic Acid Tetrachloroethene.

Butanone Tetrachloromethane.

Carbon Disulfide Toluene.

Chloroform Trichloroethene.

Diethyl ether Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether.

Hexanoic Acid

Ethylbenzene Vinyl Chloride.

The variability factors for each option were developed for groups

of pollutants in three steps. These steps are described here for the

daily variability factors. Similar steps were used to develop monthly

variability factors. The first step was to develop a daily variability

factor for each pollutant at each facility by fitting a modified delta-

lognormal distribution to the daily pollutant concentration values from

each facility. (For monthly variability factors, the modified delta-

lognormal distribution was fit to the monthly averages.) The second

step was to develop one daily variability factor for each pollutant for

each option by averaging the daily variability factors for the selected

facilities with the technology basis for the option. The third step was

to develop ``group'' daily variability factors for each option. Each

group contained pollutants that were chemically similar. The daily

variability factor for each group was the median of the daily

variability factors obtained in the second step for the pollutants in

the group and option. In some cases, none of the daily variability

factors for the pollutants within a group could be estimated. In some

of these cases, the daily variability factor for the group was

transferred from the other groups in the option that used the same

fraction in the chemical analysis. This transferred group daily

variability factor was the median of the daily variability factors from

the other groups. In the remaining cases where the group daily

variability factors could not be estimated, the group daily variability

factors were transferred from chemically similar pollutants or from

other options within the subcategory. The development of daily and

monthly variability factors is described further in the statistical

support document.

Because EPA is assuming that some pollutants (BOD5, TSS, oil

and grease, metals, total cyanide, and TOC) will be monitored daily,

the 20-day variability factors were based on the distribution of 20-day

averages. If concentrations measured on consecutive days are positively

correlated, then autocorrelation would have an effect on the 20-day

variability factors (long-term averages are not affected by

autocorrelation). However, the centralized waste treatment data used to

calculate the 20-day variability factors were, in most cases, not

consecutive daily measurements. Therefore, at this time, EPA does not

have sufficient data to examine in detail and incorporate (if

statistically significant) any autocorrelation between concentrations

measured on adjacent days. Furthermore, EPA believes that

autocorrelation may not be present in daily measurements from

wastewater from this industry. Unlike other industries, where the

industrial processes are expected to produce the same type of

wastewater from one day to the next, the wastewater from Centralized

Waste Treatment Industry is generated from treating wastes from

different sources and industrial processes. The wastes treated on a

given day will often be different than the waste treated on the

following day. Because of this, autocorrelation would not be expected

to be present in measurements of wastewater from the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry. In Section VIII.B.7, EPA requests additional

wastewater monitoring data. EPA will use these data to further evaluate

autocorrelation in the data for the pollutants that will be monitored

daily.

H. Regulatory Implementation

1. Applicability

The regulation proposed today is just that--a proposed regulation.

While today's proposal represents EPA's best judgment at this time, the

effluent limitations and standards may still change based on additional

information or data submitted by commenters or developed by the Agency.

Consequently, the permit writer should consider the proposed limits in

developing permit limits. Although the information provided in the

Development Document may provide useful information and guidance to

permit writers in determining best professional judgment permit limits,

the permit writer will still need to justify any permit limits based on

the conditions at the individual facility.

2. Upset and Bypass Provisions

A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any

portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional

incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance

with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors

beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations

concerning bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and

(n).

[[Page 5484]]

3. Variances and Modifications

The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations

established pursuant to Section 301 or the pretreatment standards of

Section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the

statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in

a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established

administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the

application of national effluent limitations guidelines and

pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for priority,

conventional and non- conventional pollutants.

a. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances. EPA will develop

effluent limitations or standards different from the otherwise

applicable requirements if an individual existing discharging facility

is fundamentally different with respect to factors considered in

establishing the limitation or standards applicable to the individual

facility. Such a modification is known as a ``fundamentally different

factors'' (FDF) variance.

Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from

BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and non-

conventional pollutants and BCT limitation for conventional pollutants

for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA provided for FDF

modifications from pretreatment standards for existing facilities. FDF

variances for priority pollutants were challenged judicially and

ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court. Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n

v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985).

Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new

Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the

otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical

pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is

fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in

Section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in

establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section

301(n) also defined the conditions under EPA may establish alternative

requirements. Under Section 301(n), an application for approval of FDF

variance must be based solely on 1) information submitted during the

rulemaking raising the factors that are fundamentally different or 2)

information the applicant did not have an opportunity to submit. The

alternate limitation or standard must be no less stringent than

justified by the difference and not result in markedly more adverse

non-water quality environmental impacts than the national limitation or

standard.

EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart D, authorizing the

Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and

standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF

variance requests for existing direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR

125.31(d) identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater,

age and size of a discharger's facility) that may be considered in

determining if a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must

determine whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the

facility in question is fundamentally different from the facilities and

factors considered by the EPA in developing the nationally applicable

effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists four other factors

(e.g., infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a

discharger's ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF

variance. In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for

limitations less stringent than the national limitation may be approved

only if compliance with the national limitations would result in either

(a) a removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost

considered during development of the national limitations, or (b) a

non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements)

fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during

development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an FDF

variance for existing indirect discharger at 40 CFR 403.13. The

conditions for approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment

standards and factors considered are the same as those for direct

dischargers.

The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity

for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the

variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in

imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that

the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's

permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact,

fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in

establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulation

incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).

An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or

PSES.

b. Economic Variances. Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes a

variance from the otherwise applicable BAT effluent guidelines for non-

conventional pollutants due to economic factors. The request for a

variance from effluent limitations developed from BAT guidelines must

normally be filed by the discharger during the public notice period for

the draft permit. Other filing time periods may apply, as specified in

40 CFR 122.21(l)(2). Specific guidance for this type of variance is

available from EPA's Office of Wastewater Management.

c. Water Quality Variances. Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a

variance from BAT effluent guidelines for certain nonconventional

pollutants due to localized environmental factors. These pollutants

include ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols.

d. Permit modifications. Even after EPA (or an authorized State)

has issued a final permit to a direct discharger, the permit may still

be modified under certain conditions. (When a permit modification is

under consideration, however, all other permit conditions remain in

effect.) A permit modification may be triggered in several

circumstances. These could include a regulatory inspection or

information submitted by the permittee that reveals the need for

modification. Any interested person may request modification of a

permit modification be made. There are two classifications of

modifications: major and minor. From a procedural standpoint, they

differ primarily with respect to the public notice requirements. Major

modifications require public notice while minor modifications do not.

Virtually any modifications that results in less stringent conditions

is treated as a major modification, with provisions for public notice

and comment. Conditions that would necessitate a major modification of

a permit are described in 40 CFR 122.62. Minor modifications are

generally non-substantive changes. The conditions for minor

modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.

e. Removal credits. As described previously, many industrial

facilities discharge large quantities of pollutants to POTWs where

their wastewater mix with wastewater from other sources, domestic

sewage from private residences and run-off from various sources prior

to treatment and discharge by the POTW. Industrial discharges

frequently contain pollutants that are generally not removed as

effectively by treatment at the POTWs as by the industries themselves.

The introduction of pollutants to a POTW from industrial discharges

may pose several problems. These include potential interference with

the POTW's operation or pass-through of pollutants [[Page 5485]] if

inadequately treated. As discussed, Congress, in Section 307(b) of the

Act, directed EPA to establish pretreatment standards to prevent these

potential problems. Congress also recognized that, in certain

instances, POTWs could provide some or all of the treatment of an

industrial user's wastewater that would be required pursuant to the

pretreatment standard. Consequently, Congress established a

discretionary program for POTWs to grant ``removal credits'' to their

indirect dischargers. The credit, in the form of a less stringent

pretreatment standard, allows an increased concentration of a pollutant

in the flow from the indirect discharger's facility to the POTW.

Section 307(b) of the CWA establishes a three-part test for

obtaining removal credit authority for a given pollutant. Removal

credits may be authorized only if (1) the POTW ``removes all or any

part of such toxic pollutant,'' (2) the POTW's ultimate discharge would

``not violate that effluent limitation, or standard which would be

applicable to that toxic pollutant if it were discharged'' directly

rather than through a POTW and (3) the POTW's discharge would ``not

prevent sludge use and disposal by such [POTW] in accordance with

Section [405]. . . .'' Section 307(b).

EPA has promulgated removal credit regulations in 40 CFR 403.7. The

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has interpreted

the statute to require EPA to promulgate comprehensive sewage sludge

regulations before any removal credits could be authorized. NRDC v.

EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3rd Cir. 1986) cert. denied. 479 U.S. 1084

(1987). Congress made this explicit in the Water Quality Act of 1987

which provided that EPA could not authorize any removal credits until

it issued the sewage sludge use and disposal regulations required by

Section 405(d)(2)(a)(ii).

Section 405 of the CWA requires EPA to promulgate regulations that

establish standards for sewage sludge when used or disposed for various

purposes. These standards must include sewage sludge management

standards as well as numerical limits for pollutants that may be

present in sewage sludge in concentrations which may adversely affect

public health and the environment. Section 405 requires EPA to develop

these standards in two phases. On November 25, 1992, EPA promulgated

the Round One sewage sludge regulations establishing standards,

including numerical pollutant limits, for the use or disposal of sewage

sludge. 58 FR 9248. EPA established pollutant limits for ten metals

when sewage sludge is applied to land, for three metals when it is

disposed of on a surface disposal site and for seven metals and a total

hydrocarbon operational standard, a surrogate for organic pollutant

emissions, when sewage sludge is incinerated. These requirements are

codified at 40 CFR Part 503.

The Phase One regulations partially fulfilled the Agency's

commitment under the terms of a consent decree that settled a citizens

suit to compel issuance of the sludge regulations. Gearhart, et al. v.

Reilly, Civil No. 89-6266-JO (D. Ore). Under the terms of that decree,

EPA must propose and take final action on the Round Two sewage sludge

regulations by December 15, 2001.

At the same time EPA promulgated the Round One regulations, EPA

also amended its pretreatment regulations to provide that removal

credits would be available for certain pollutants regulated in the

sewage sludge regulations. See 58 FR 9386. The amendments to Part 403

provide that removal credits may be made potentially available for the

following pollutants:

(1) If a POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for beneficial

uses, disposes of it on surface disposal sites or incinerates it,

removal credits may be available, depending on which use or disposal

method is selected (so long as the POTW complies with the requirements

in Part 503). When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits

may be available for ten metals. When sewage sludge is disposed of on a

surface disposal site, removal credits may be available for three

metals. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may be

available for seven metals and for 57 organic pollutants. See 40 CFR

403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A).

(2) In addition, when sewage sludge is used on land or disposed of

on a surface disposal site or incinerated, removal credits may also be

available for additional pollutants so long as the concentration of the

pollutant in sludge does not exceed a concentration level established

in Part 403. When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits may

be available for two additional metals and 14 organic pollutants. When

the sewage sludge is disposed of on a surface disposal site, removal

credits may be available for seven additional metals and 13 organic

pollutants. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may

be available for three other metals. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B).

(3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid

waste landfill that meets the criteria of 40 CFR Part 258 (MSWLF),

removal credits may be available for any pollutant in the POTW's sewage

sludge. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C). Thus, given compliance with the

requirements of EPA's removal credit regulations,\3\ following

promulgation of the pretreatment standards being proposed here, removal

credits may be authorized for any pollutant subject to pretreatment

standards if the applying POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a MSWLF

that meets the requirements of 40 CFR Part 258. If the POTW uses or

disposes of its sewage sludge by land application, surface disposal or

incineration, removal credits may be available for the following metal

pollutants (depending on the method of use or disposal): arsenic,

cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel,

selenium and zinc. Given compliance with Section 403.7, removal credits

may be available for the following organic pollutants (depending on the

method of use or disposal) if the POTW uses or disposes of its sewage

sludge: benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, ethylbenzene,

methylene chloride, toluene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,

1,1,2-trichloroethane and trans-1,2-dichloroethene.

\3\Under Section 403.7, a POTW is authorized to give removal

credits only under certain conditions. These include applying for,

and obtaining, approval from the Regional Administrator (or Director

of a State NPDES program with an approved pretreatment program), a

showing of consistent pollutant removal and an approved pretreatment

program. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(I), (ii) and (iii).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some facilities may be interested in obtaining removal credit

authorization for other pollutants

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