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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-47

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** January 27, 1995
- **Citation:** 60 FR 5464

## Text

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 pol

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-47. Public record. Not legal advice.