Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Metal Products and Machinery

SUMMARY: This proposed regulation establishes technology-based limits

for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States and

into publicly owned treatment works by existing and new facilities that

manufacture, maintain or rebuild finished metal parts, products or

machines.

This proposed regulation will reduce the discharge of toxic

pollutants from Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) facilities by

almost a million pounds per year, thereby reducing violations of water

quality standards (which were established to protect aquatic life and/

or human health) in water bodies across the country. This proposed

regulation will also reduce the metals content of municipal sludge,

thereby allowing approximately 184 additional POTWs to land apply

another 439,000 dry metric tons of sewage sludge rather than

incinerating or landfilling the sludge.

As a result of consultations with numerous stakeholders, the

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

but also on those raised by environmental groups, by state and local

governments who will be implementing these regulations, and by industry

representatives who will be affected by them. As indicated elsewhere

throughout this proposal, the Agency welcomes comment on all options,

issues, and proposed decisions and encourages commentors to submit

additional data during the comment period (See Section XIX of this

preamble). The Agency plans to have additional discussions with

interested parties during the comment period to help ensure that the

Agency has the views of such parties and the best possible data upon

which to base decisions for the final rule. EPA's final rule may be

based upon any technologies, rationale or approaches that are a logical

outgrowth of this proposal, including any options discussed in this or

subsequent documents.

DATES: Comments on the proposal must be received by August 28, 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 public hearing and the workshop will be held on June

28, 1995. Persons wishing to present formal comments at the public

hearing should have a written copy for submittal.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in writing, and if possible on a 3.5 inch

disk in Word Perfect 5.1 format to: Mr. Steven Geil, Engineering &

Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460.

The public hearing and the workshop will be held starting at 9 a.m.

at the Hall of States, room 333, 444 North Capital Street, Washington,

DC 20001.

The public record for this rulemaking is available for review at

the EPA's Water Docket; 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; call

between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time for an appointment.

The EPA public information regulation (40 CFR part 2) provides that a

reasonable fee may be charged for copying. For access to Docket

materials, call (202) 260-3027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information,

contact Mr. Steven Geil at (202) 260-9817. Additional economic

information may be obtained by contacting Dr. Lynne G. Tudor at (202)

260-5834. Background documents supporting the proposed regulations are

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

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

Code RC-4100, US EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

This preamble describes the scope, purpose, legal authority and

background of this rule, the technical and economic bases, and the

methodology used by the Agency to develop these effluent limitations

guidelines and standards.

Abbreviations, acronyms, and other terms used in the Supplementary

Information Section are defined in Appendix A to this notice.

Background Documents

The regulation proposed today is supported by the major documents

listed below. (1) EPA's technical conclusions concerning the

regulations are detailed in the ``Development Document for Proposed

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products

and Machinery Phase I Point Source Category,'' hereafter referred to as

the Technical Development Document (EPA 821-R-95-021). (2) The Agency's

economic and regulatory flexibility analyses are found in the

``Economic Impact of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards For The Metal Products And Machinery Industry Phase I,''

hereafter referred to as the Economic Impact Analysis (EPA 821-5-95-

022). (3) The industry profile is described in the ``Industry Profile

Of The Metal Products And Machinery Industry Phase I,'' (EPA 821-R-95-

024). (4) The regulatory impact analysis (including the Agency's

assessment of environmental benefits) is detailed in the ``Regulatory

Impact Assessment of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Industry Phase I,''

hereafter referred to as the Regulatory Impact Assessment (EPA 821-R-

95-023). (5) An analysis of the incremental costs and pollutant

removals is presented in ``Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products

and Machinery Phase I Point Source Category,'' (EPA 821-R-95-025). (6)

The statistical support for today's proposal is found in reports on the

information screener survey (called the Mini Data Collection

Portfolio), the detailed questionnaire (call the Data Collection

Portfolio), and the calculation of limits.

Outline: This preamble is organized according to the following

outline:

I. Legal Authority

II. Background

A. Statutory Requirements of Regulation

1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)

2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

7. Best Management Practices (BMP)

B. Litigation History

C. Pollution Prevention Act

D. Common Sense Initiative

E. Consultation (Executive Order 12875)

F. Prior Regulation for Metals Industries

G. Scope of Today's Proposed Rule

III. Summary of Proposed Regulations

A. BPT

B. BCT

C. BAT

D. NSPS

E. PSES

F. PSNS [[Page 28211]]

IV. Overview of the Industry

A. Industry Description

B. Estimation of Number of Metal Products & Machinery Phase I Sites

C. Source Reduction Review Project

V. Data Gathering Efforts

A. Existing Databases

B. Survey Questionnaire

C. Waste water Sampling and Site Visits

D. EPA Bench Scale Treatability Studies (Terpene Study)

VI. Industry Subcategorization

VII. Water Use and Waste water Characteristics

A. Waste water Sources and Characteristics

B. Pollution Prevention, Recycle, Reuse and Water Conservation

Practices

VIII. Approach for Estimating Costs and Pollution Reductions Achieved

by Waste water Control Technology

IX. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available

A. Need for BPT Regulation

B. BPT Technology Options and Selection

C. Calculation of BPT Limitations

D. Applicability of BPT

E. BPT Pollutant Removals, Costs, and Economic Impacts

X. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology

A. July 9, 1986 BCT Methodology

B. BCT Options Identified

XI. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable

A. Need for BAT Regulation

B. BAT Technology Options and Selection

C. Calculation of BAT Limitations

D. Applicability of BAT

E. BAT Pollutant Removals, Costs, and Economic Impacts

XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources

A. Need for Pretreatment Standards

B. PSES Technology Options and Selection

C. Calculation of PSES

D. Applicability of PSES Limitations

E. Removal Credits

F. Compliance Date

G. PSES Pollutant Removals, Costs and Economic Impacts

XIII. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment

Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

XIV. Economic Considerations

A. Introduction

B. Overview of the Facilities Subject to Regulation

C. Overview of Options Considered for Proposal and Selection of the

Proposed Options

D. Economic Impact Methodology

E. Estimated Facility Economic Impacts

F. Labor Requirements and Possible Employment Benefits of Regulatory

Compliance

G. Community Impacts

H. Impacts on Firms Owning Metal Products & Machinery Facilities

I. Foreign Trade Impacts

J. Impacts on NSPS and PSNS

K. Regulation Flexibility Analysis

L. Cost Effectiveness Analysis

XV. Executive Order 12866

A. Introduction

B. Benefits Associated with the Proposed Effluent Guidelines

C. Costs to Society

D. Benefit-Cost Comparison

XVI. Water Quality and Other Environmental Benefits of Proposed Rule

for the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) Industry

XVII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

A. Air Pollution

B. Solid Waste

C. Energy Requirements

XVIII. Regulatory Implementation

A. Upset and Bypass Provisions

B. Variances and Modifications

1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances

2. Economic Variances

3. Water Quality Variances

4. Permit Modifications

C. Relationship to NPDES Permits and Monitoring Requirements

D. Best Management Practice

XIX. Solicitation of Data and Comments

XX. Guidelines for Comment Submission of Analytical Data

A. Types of Data Requested

B. Analytes Requested

C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements

XXI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Appendix A Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other Terms Used in This Notice

I. Legal Authority

This regulation is being proposed under the authorities 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; and under authority of

the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.,

Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990.

II. Background

A. Statutory Requirements of Regulation

The objective of the Clean Water Act (``Act'') is to ``restore and

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the

Nation's waters,'' (section 101(a)). To assist in achieving this

objective, EPA is to issue effluent limitations guidelines,

pretreatment standards, and new source performance standards for

industrial dischargers.

These guidelines and standards are summarized briefly below:

1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)

(Section 304(b)(1) of the Act)

BPT effluent limitations guidelines are generally based on the

average of the best existing performance by plants of various sizes,

ages, and unit processes within the category or subcategory for control

of pollutants.

In establishing BPT effluent limitations guidelines, EPA considers

the total cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the

effluent reduction benefits, the age of equipment and facilities

involved, the processes employed, process changes required, engineering

aspects of the control technologies, non-water quality environmental

impacts (including energy requirements) and other factors as the EPA

Administrator deems appropriate (section 304(b)(1)(B) of the Act). The

Agency considers the category or subcategory-wide cost of applying the

technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. Where

existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred

from a different subcategory or category.

2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) (Section

304(b)(2) of the Act)

In general, BAT effluent limitations represent the best existing

economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial

subcategory or category. The Act establishes BAT as the principal

national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic pollutants

and nonconventional pollutants to navigable waters. The factors

considered in assessing BAT include the age of equipment and facilities

involved, the process employed, potential process changes, and non-

water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements)

(section 304(b)(2)(B)). The Agency retains considerable discretion in

assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. As with BPT, where

existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may be transferred

from a different subcategory or category. BAT may include process

changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not

common industry practice.

3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) (Section

304(b)(4) of the Act)

The 1977 Amendments to the Act established BCT for discharges of

conventional pollutants from existing industrial point sources. Section

304(a)(4) designated the following as conventional pollutants:

Biochemical oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD), 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 [[Page 28212]] additional conventional pollutant on July

30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).

BCT replaces BAT for the control of conventional pollutants for

certain facilities. In addition to other factors specified in section

304(b)(4)(B), the Act requires that BCT limitations be established in

light of a two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA's current

methodology for the general development of BCT limitations was issued

in 1986 (51 FR 24974; July 9, 1986).

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

NSPS are based on the best available demonstrated treatment

technology. New plants have the opportunity to install the best and

most efficient production processes and waste water treatment

technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent

numerical values attainable through the application of the best

available control technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional,

nonconventional, and toxic pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is

directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent

reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy

requirements.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) (Section 307(b)

of the Act)

PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass

through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the

operation of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The Act requires

pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass through POTWs or

interfere with POTWs' treatment processes or sludge disposal methods.

The Act requires industry to achieve PSES within three years of

promulgation. Pretreatment standards are technology-based and analogous

to the BAT effluent limitations guidelines. For the purpose of

determining whether to promulgate national category-wide pretreatment

standards, EPA generally determines that there is pass-through of a

pollutant and thus a need for categorical standards if the nation-wide

average percent removal of a pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs

achieving secondary treatment is less than the percent removed by the

BAT model treatment system.

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 does not use the percent removal comparison test

described above. See 52 FR 1586 (January 14, 1987.)

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

Act)

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, like the new direct

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.

7. Best Management Practices (BMP)

The Agency is not proposing BMPs for MP&M. However, we are

soliciting comment on whether BMPs could be promulgated in lieu of

numeric limitations for low discharge volume sites. EPA has defined

BMPs broadly (40 CFR 122.2) and is considering whether numeric

limitations are infeasible for such sites because of the administrative

burdens imposed on permitting authorities to develop, implement, and

monitor necessary permits. BMP's could also cause pretreatment

permitting to be more efficient and less costly for both control

authorities and dischargers. The use of BMP's instead of flow

monitoring associated with mass-based limits could result in greater

efficiencies and cost savings for both control authorities and

discharges. Properly implemented, BMP's could provide environmental

protection equivalent to mass-based limits at a lower cost. Since some

Control Authorities pass their costs along to industrial users in the

form of service fees, cost savings to Control Authorities could be

passed along to industrial users. BMPs could include any of the in-

process pollution prevention or flow reduction technologies discussed

in the MP&M public record and pollution prevention bibliography section

of the Technical Development Document.

B. Litigation History

Section 304(m) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(m)), added by the Water

Quality Act of 1987, requires EPA to establish schedules for (i)

reviewing and revising existing effluent limitations guidelines and

standards (``effluent guidelines''), and (ii) promulgating new effluent

guidelines. On January 2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines

Plan (55 FR 80), in which schedules were established for developing new

and revised effluent guidelines for several industry categories. One of

the industries for which the Agency established a schedule was the

Machinery Manufacturing and Rebuilding Category (the name was changed

to Metal Products and Machinery in 1992).

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and Public Citizen,

Inc. challenged the Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed in U.S.

District Court for the District of Columbia (NRDC et al v. Reilly, Civ.

No. 89-2980). The plaintiffs charged that EPA's plan did not meet the

requirements of section 304(m). A Consent Decree in this litigation was

entered by the Court on January 31, 1992. The terms of the Consent

Decree are reflected in the Effluent Guidelines Plan published on

September 8, 1992 (57 FR 41000). This plan requires, among other

things, that EPA propose effluent guidelines for the Metal Products and

Machinery (MP&M) category by November, 1994 and take final action on

these effluent guidelines by May, 1996. The most recent Effluent

Guidelines Plan was published on August 26, 1994 (59 FR 44235). EPA

filed a motion with the court on September 28, 1994, requesting an

extension of time until March 31, 1995, for the EPA Administrator to

sign the proposed regulation and a subsequent four month extension for

signature of the final regulation in September 1996.

C. Pollution Prevention Act

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et

seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) makes pollution prevention the

national policy of the United States. The PPA identifies an

environmental management hierarchy in which pollution ``should be

prevented or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be

prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner,

whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled

should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible;

and disposal or release into the environment should be employed only as

a last resort * * *'' (42 U.S.C. 13103). In short, preventing pollution

before it is created is preferable to trying to manage, treat or

dispose of it after it is created. According to the PPA, source

reduction reduces the generation and release of hazardous substances,

pollutants, wastes, contaminants or residuals at the source, usually

within a process. The term source reduction ``* * * includes equipment

or technology modifications, [[Page 28213]] process or procedure

modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of

raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training,

or inventory control. The term `source reduction' does not include any

practice which alters the physical, chemical, or biological

characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or

contaminant through a process or activity which itself is not integral

to or necessary for the production of a product or the providing of a

service.'' In effect, source reduction means reducing the amount of a

pollutant that enters a waste stream or that is otherwise released into

the environment prior to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or

disposal.

The PPA directs the Agency to, among other things, ``* * * review

regulations of the Agency prior and subsequent to their proposal to

determine their effect on source reduction'' (42 U.S.C. 13103). This

directive led the Agency to implement a pilot project called the Source

Reduction Review Project that would facilitate the integration of

source reduction in the Agency's regulations, including the technology

based effluent guidelines and standards.

(see Section IV. B. for a more complete discussion of the Source

Reduction Review Project.) The MP&M Phase I category effluent guideline

was included in the Source Reduction Review Project.

D. Common Sense Initiative

On October 17, 1994, the Administrator established the Common Sense

Initiative (CSI) Council in accordance with Federal Advisory Committee

Act (U.S.C. App. 2, Section 9(c)) requirements. One of the goals of the

CSI is to develop recommendations for optimal multi-media approaches to

address environmental problems associated with six industrial sectors

including Metal Plating and Finishing, Electronics and Computers, Auto

Assembly, and Iron and Steel Manufacturing. The current Clean Water Act

MP&M rulemaking studies, which were initiated in 1989, overlap to

varying degrees these six CSI pilot industrial sectors.

The following are the six elements of the CSI program, as stated in

the ``Advisory Committee Charter.''

1. Regulation. Review existing regulations for opportunities to

get better environmental results at less cost. Improve new rules

through increased coordination.

2. Pollution Prevention. Actively promote pollution prevention

as the standard business practice and a central ethic of

environmental protection.

3. Recordkeeping and Reporting. Make it easier to provide, use,

and publicly disseminate relevant pollution and environmental

information.

4. Compliance and Enforcement. Find innovative ways to assist

companies that seek to comply and exceed legal requirements while

consistently enforcing the law for those that do not achieve

compliance.

5. Permitting. Improve permitting so that it works more

efficiently, encourages innovation, and creates more opportunities

for public participation.

6. Environmental Technology. Give Industry the incentives and

flexibility to develop innovative technologies that meet and exceed

environmental standards while cutting costs.

In addition, it is the intent of the Agency to work with the CSI's

sector teams and further integrate their consensus recommendations

applicable to the MP&M Phase I proposal as they are developed. Even

though the MP&M Phase I data collection and analysis efforts were

completed before the CSI program was announced, many aspects of the CSI

objectives are reflected in the MP&M proposal. As part of the

development of this proposal, EPA took advantage of several

opportunities to gain the involvement of various stakeholders. For

example, a public meeting was held in March of 1994 to present the

technology options under consideration by the Agency. We have addressed

industry trade associations, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage

Authorities, pretreatment coordinators from the Regions, States, and

municipalities, and the Effluent Guidelines Task Force, and we have met

with environmental interest group representatives. We have used

comments and concerns raised at these meetings to frame solicitations

for data and comment on aspects of this regulation ranging from

pollution prevention to implementation issues. The MP&M Phase I

proposal was based in part on pollution prevention for the largest

dischargers, and the technical documents that support the proposal

provide guidance on pollution prevention techniques applicable to this

industry for use by all facilities. This proposal is performance-based

and does not stipulate the use of specific control or treatment

technologies. Industry retains the flexibility to develop or select

innovative technologies that meet or exceed the performance-based

standards proposed today. EPA considered cost effectiveness as part of

the overall MP&M Phase I effluent guideline development process. The

MP&M Phase II effluent guideline development process will further

support the CSI.

E. Consultation (Executive Order 12875)

Executive Order 12875, ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership'' requires Federal Agencies to consider the impacts of

unfunded mandates on state, local, or tribal governments. Agencies,

such as the EPA, that can impose unfunded mandates on state, local, or

tribal governments are required by Executive Order 12875 to ensure that

the Federal government either allocates the funds necessary for

compliance or involves the affected agencies in the regulatory

development process. The proposed MP&M Phase I regulation establishes

effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards that will

directly impact the state and local waste water permitting process. The

primary impact of the proposed MP&M Phase I regulation on state and

local regulatory agencies will be that an increased number of permits

will have to be issued. The cost associated with writing additional

permits for direct dischargers based on national guidelines may be

partially offset by a decrease in the expenses associated with writing

individual permits based on local conditions or best professional

judgment (BPJ). In general, EPA believes that the cost of individual

permits for direct dischargers may be reduced by the MP&M Phase I rule,

because fewer resources are required to issue effluent-guideline-based

permits than to issue BPJ-based permits.

The proposed MP&M Phase I effluent guidelines will be implemented

as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

and pretreatment permitting processes. An estimated 1,895 direct and

8,706 indirect discharging facilities will require permits under the

proposed MP&M Phase I regulation. Although existing effluent guidelines

such as metal finishing (40 CFR 433) and electroplating (40 CFR 413)

cover some of these facilities (approximately 2,000), EPA expects a

substantial net increase in the number of permits state and local

regulatory agencies are required to write. The economic impact on

industry associated with the additional permits is not expected to

adversely affect industries that dominate local economies in a manner

that would significantly alter state or local government revenues.

The administrative burden created by the proposed MP&M Phase I

effluent guidelines may be partially offset by anticipated savings in

the costs associated with writing individual permits. Currently, many

permits are written based on BPJ criteria. The development of such

permits is often [[Page 28214]] contentious and can require a

significant investment in resources. The proposed MP&M Phase I

guidelines are expected to require fewer resources to develop permits

than those based on BPJ, since MP&M Phase I includes specific effluent

guidelines and pretreatment standards. EPA solicits comments on the

administrative burden associated with permits based on BPJ, permits

based on effluent guidelines, and the relationship between the two.

The MP&M Phase I regulatory development process was closely

coordinated with the public, industry groups, and other interested

parties. MP&M regulation development summaries were presented at

technical symposia and two public outreach meetings. In addition,

comments regarding several implementation issues are included in

today's notice (See Section XIX). Based on public comments, concerns

will be addressed and, if applicable, incorporated into the final MP&M

regulation.

EPA plans to continue the data collection and public outreach

programs for MP&M Phase I. Consultation with other governmental

activities will also be initiated early in MP&M Phase II regulation

development to allow continued, effective compliance with E.O. 12875

requirements.

F. Prior Regulation for Metals Industries

EPA has established effluent guidelines regulations for thirteen

industries which may perform operations that are sometimes found in

MP&M Phase I facilities. These effluent guidelines are:

Electroplating (40 CFR Part 413);

Iron & Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420);

Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421);

Ferroalloy Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 424);

Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433);

Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 461);

Metal Molding & Casting (40 CFR Part 464);

Coil Coating (40 CFR Part 465);

Porcelain Enameling (40 CFR Part 466);

Aluminum Forming (40 CFR Part 467);

Copper Forming (40 CFR Part 468);

Electrical & Electronic Components (40 CFR Part 469); and

Nonferrous Metals Forming & Metal Powders (40 CFR Part 471).

These existing effluent guidelines generally apply to the production of

semi-finished products, while the MP&M Phase I category applies to

finished metal parts, products, and machines. EPA recognizes that unit

operations performed in industries covered by the existing effluent

guidelines generate waste water similar to unit operations performed at

MP&M Phase I sites. A discussion of how these guidelines are integrated

with the regulations proposed today is continued in the following

section.

G. Scope of Today's Proposed Rule

The MP&M Phase I category applies to industrial sites engaged in

the manufacturing, maintaining or rebuilding of finished metal parts,

products or machines. Today's proposed effluent guideline (MP&M Phase

I) applies to process waste water discharges from sites performing

manufacturing, rebuilding or maintenance on a metal part, product or

machine to be used in one of the following industrial sectors:

Aerospace;

Aircraft;

Electronic Equipment;

Hardware;

Mobile Industrial Equipment;

Ordnance; and

Stationary Industrial Equipment.

MP&M Phase II will be proposed and promulgated approximately three

years after the MP&M Phase I schedule. EPA currently intends to cover

the following eight industrial sectors in MP&M Phase II:

Bus and Truck;

Household Equipment;

Instruments;

Motor Vehicle;

Office Machine;

Precious and Nonprecious Metals;

Railroad; and

Ships and Boats.

EPA has identified these fifteen industrial sectors in the MP&M

category; these sectors manufacture, maintain and rebuild products

under more than 200 different SIC codes. In order to make the

regulation more manageable, EPA has divided it into the two phases

discussed above; lists of typical products manufactured within the two

MP&M phases are included as appendices to the proposed regulation.

Although EPA believes that it has clearly defined what the fifteen

sectors are and how they have been divided into two phases for the

purposes of regulation, EPA expects that some products will clearly fit

within certain industry sectors while others will be more difficult to

define. Some examples of how the proposed MP&M Phase I regulation would

apply are provided below for clarification.

An example of a clear fit would be a site which manufactures

aircraft engines. The site would be considered to be within the

aircraft industrial sector of MP&M. Since aircraft is an MP&M Phase I

industry, the aircraft engine manufacturer would be covered by MP&M

Phase I.

Another example of a clear fit would be a site which manufactures

school buses. The site would be considered to be within the bus and

truck industrial sector of MP&M. Since bus and truck is an MP&M Phase

II industry, the school bus manufacturer would be covered by MP&M Phase

II.

An example of a site which produces products which would fall under

more than one MP&M Phase I industry would be a site which manufacturers

farm tractors and farm conveyors. The site would be considered to be

within the mobile industrial equipment and the stationary industrial

equipment sectors. Since both mobile industrial equipment and

stationary industrial equipment are MP&M Phase I industries, the farm

tractor and farm conveyor manufacturer would be covered by MP&M Phase

I. Although MP&M Phase I covers seven industrial categories, the

proposed rule is not subcategorized by industrial sector (See Section

VI). Instead, all seven MP&M Phase I industries are grouped together

under one MP&M Phase I category.

An example of a site that produces products within an MP&M Phase I

industry and an MP&M Phase II industry would be a site which

manufactures hand tools and household cooking equipment. The site would

be considered to be within the hardware and household equipment

sectors. Since hardware is an MP&M Phase I industry and household

equipment is an MP&M Phase II industry, the site has operations in both

MP&M phases. As discussed further below, EPA proposes to apply the MP&M

Phase I rule to sites with operations in both MP&M Phase I and MP&M

Phase II. As a result, all of the site's operations (including those

performed to manufacture the cooking equipment) would be covered under

MP&M Phase I. The coverage of sites that might be assigned to either

Phase I or II is discussed further below.

An example of a site which manufactures products which could be

difficult to assign to a specific MP&M industrial sector would be a car

door handle manufacturing site. If a car door handle were considered a

piece of hardware, then the site would fit under MP&M Phase I (hardware

industrial sector). If, on the other hand, the door handle were

considered a motor vehicle part, then the site would fit under MP&M

Phase II (motor vehicle industrial sector). In cases where

[[Page 28215]] products could be viewed under different industrial

sectors, EPA proposes that the industrial sector(s) which most

accurately matches the market into which the product is sold be

assigned. In addition, if a metal part has a specific use in one of the

fifteen MP&M industrial sectors, then the sector in which it is

intended to be used is the industrial sector that should be assigned to

that site. In this example, the car door handle has no other uses than

operating the door of a car, and this site would be considered a motor

vehicle site (MP&M Phase II).

Another example of a site which produces products which could be

difficult to assign to a specific MP&M industrial sector would be a

site which manufactures pistons for use in internal combustion engines,

stationary generators, automotive engines, aircraft engines, truck

engines, etc. Since the pistons are used in a wide variety of

industrial applications and are not produced for use in a specific MP&M

industry, the piston manufacture should be considered to be making a

fabricated metal product and be covered under MP&M Phase I (hardware).

EPA is soliciting comment from any industrial site which has the

potential to be covered by MP&M but is uncertain as to their

appropriate industrial sector and phase (MP&M Phase I or MP&M Phase II)

classification. These sites are requested to supply information about

what operations they are performing, what products they are

manufacturing, and to what industries they are selling their products.

As discussed above, some MP&M sites will have operations in both

MP&M Phase I and Phase II industries. EPA proposes to apply the MP&M

Phase I regulation to combined waste water discharges when a site is

manufacturing, rebuilding or maintaining finished metal products in

both Phase I and Phase II sectors.

For example, a site manufacturing aircraft components and

discharging process waste water in the process is included in the

aircraft sector and thus its waste water discharges would be regulated

by MP&M Phase I effluent guidelines. Another site which manufactures

components that are used in aircraft and ships and generates waste

water in the process which is combined and discharged would also be

regulated by the MP&M Phase I effluent guidelines for the combined

discharge. This proposal should alleviate burdens on the permit writers

and allow the site to achieve compliance more cost effectively, since

they will have to comply with one set of limits.

EPA's data collection and analysis of MP&M sites included MP&M

Phase I and Phase II overlap sites and processing of both Phase I and

II parts at these sites. Many of these sites use the same equipment to

manufacture, maintain, and rebuild goods for both Phase I and Phase II

sectors, making it impossible to separate the two phases, and in many

cases impossible to distinguish among the sectors, for these sites.

Typical MP&M unit operations include any one or more of the

following: abrasive blasting, abrasive jet machining, acid treatment,

adhesive bonding, alkaline treatment, anodizing, assembly, barrel

finishing, brazing, burnishing, calibration, chemical conversion

coating, chemical machining, corrosion preventive coating, disassembly,

electrical discharge machining, electrochemical machining, electrolytic

cleaning, electroplating, electron beam machining, electropolishing,

floor cleaning, grinding, heat treating, hot-dip coating, impact

deformation, laminating, laser beam machining, machining, metal

spraying, painting, plating, plasma arc machining, polishing, pressure

deformation, rinsing, salt bath descaling, soldering, solvent

degreasing, sputtering, stripping, testing, thermal cutting, thermal

infusion, ultrasonic machining, vacuum metalizing, welding and numerous

sub-operations within those listed above. In addition to waste water

that is generated from these operations, these operations also

frequently have associated rinses and water-discharging air pollution

control devices which are also included under the scope of today's

proposed regulation.

Waste water from noncontact, nondestructive testing is also

included under the scope of today's proposed regulation. A common

source of ``testing'' waste water is photographic waste from

nondestructive X-ray examination of parts.

Many MP&M sites will also have operations covered by one of the

existing metal processing effluent guidelines listed above in Section

II.D. In general, with the exception of the metal finishing

regulations, the existing effluent guideline will continue to apply to

those operations judged to be covered by it. MP&M will provide the

basis for establishing permit limitations for the unit operations which

at present are not covered, covered by the metal finishing effluent

guidelines regulation, or covered by best professional judgment. EPA is

proposing to require that the MP&M Phase I effluent guidelines

regulation replace the metal finishing regulation for sites with

operations in an MP&M Phase I industrial sector. Both MP&M and metal

finishing apply to the same types of unit operations. EPA has included

the metal finishing sites in its data collection and study of the MP&M

industry and has estimated the costs and impacts on these sites to

comply with the proposed MP&M regulation. EPA anticipates that today's

proposed limitations will impose more stringent requirements on waste

water discharges from MP&M/metal finishing sites without undue economic

impacts (see Section XIV), and therefore is proposing that MP&M replace

metal finishing regulations for sites satisfying the MP&M Phase I

criteria. Today's proposal does not apply to surface finishing job

shops and independent circuit board manufacturers as defined in this

regulation; they will continue to be covered by 40 CFR Part 413 and 40

CFR Part 433.

``Surface finishing job shops'' defined in the proposed MP&M

regulation are identical to ``job shops'' defined in the metal

finishing category (40 CFR 433). Indirectly discharging job shops which

were considered existing for the metal finishing category (existing

prior to August 31, 1982) and independent printed circuit board

manufacturers will continue to be covered by the electroplating

category (40 CFR 413). Indirectly discharging jobs shops which were

considered new sources for the metal finishing category and directly

discharging job shops will continue to be covered by the metal

finishing category.

III. Summary of Proposed Regulations

A. BPT

EPA is proposing to establish concentration-based BPT limitations

which reflect the best practicable technology performance. EPA proposes

to require permit writers to convert the concentration-based

limitations into mass-based limitations based on MP&M flow guidance in

the MP&M Phase I Technical Development Document. This document provides

guidance to permit writers on identifying sites with pollution

prevention and water conservation technologies equivalent to those

listed above (e.g., electrodialysis, reverse osmosis). EPA recognizes

that there are many different pollution prevention and water

conservation technologies that may achieve the same performance as

those listed above; therefore, the Agency has provided permit writers

guidance on assessing these technologies.

EPA recommends that, for sites with pollution prevention and water

[[Page 28216]] conservation technologies in place that are equivalent

to those included as the basis for BPT, permit writers use historical

flow as a basis for converting the concentration-based limitations to

mass-based. For sites without these types of technologies in place, EPA

recommends that permit writers do not use historical flow, but use

other tools listed in the development document (e.g., measuring

production through unit operations, measuring the concentration of

total dissolved solids (TDS) in rinse waters) to convert the

concentration-based limitations to mass-based. This approach encourages

sites to implement good water use practices and investigate and install

pollution prevention and water conservation technologies. By

recommending use of historical flow only when sites have pollution

prevention and water conservation technologies in place, EPA expects

that permits based on BPT will reflect pollution prevention and water

conservation technologies. If mass-based limitations have not been

developed as required, the source shall achieve discharges not

exceeding the concentration limitations listed in the regulation.

The technology basis for BPT is end-of-pipe treatment using

chemical precipitation and sedimentation (commonly referred to as lime

and settle technology), used in conjunction with flow reduction and

pollution prevention technologies. EPA has also included the following

as a basis for BPT limits: oil-water separation through chemical

emulsion breaking and either skimming or coalescing; cyanide

destruction through alkaline chlorination; chemical reduction of

hexavalent chromium; chemical reduction of chelated metals; and

contract hauling of organic solvent-bearing waste waters. The

technology basis of BPT is to apply these preliminary treatment

technologies when necessary based on waste water characteristics.

The following in-process pollution prevention and water

conservation technologies were included as a basis for BPT:

--Flow reduction using flow restrictors, conductivity meters, and/or

timed rinses, for all flowing rinses, plus countercurrent cascade

rinsing for all flowing rinses;

--Flow reduction using bath maintenance for all other process water-

discharging operations;

--Centrifugation and 100 percent recycling of painting water curtains;

--Centrifugation and pasteurization to extend the life of water-soluble

machining coolants, reducing discharge volume by 80 percent; and

--In-process metals recovery with ion exchange followed by electrolytic

recovery of the cation regenerants for selected electroplating rinses.

This includes first stage drag-out rinsing with electrolytic metal

recovery.

The discharge limitations included in today's proposal are based on

the technology discussed above. However, it is important to note that

these technologies are not mandated under effluent guidelines and

pretreatment standards. Sites which would be covered by this proposed

rule would be required to meet the discharge limitations but would not

be required to use the technology basis discussed above.

B. BCT

EPA is proposing to establish BCT limitations equivalent to BPT

limitations.

C. BAT

EPA is proposing to establish BAT limitations equivalent to BPT

limitations.

D. NSPS

EPA is proposing to establish NSPS equivalent to BAT limitations.

E. PSES

EPA is proposing to establish PSES equivalent to BAT limitations.

Facilities with an annual discharge volume less than 1,000,000 gallons

are proposed to be exempt from PSES. For a site operating 250 days per

year, 1,000,000 gallons per year translates into an average discharge

flow rate of 4,000 gallons per day.

F. PSNS

EPA is proposing to establish PSNS equivalent to BAT.

IV. Overview of the Industry

A. Industry Description

As discussed above, the MP&M Phase I Category covers sites that

generate waste water while manufacturing, maintaining or rebuilding

finished metal parts, metal products, and machinery EPA within 7

industrial sectors. See the discussion under Section II.G. of this

notice for the scope of today's proposed rule.

MP&M sites perform a wide variety of process unit operations on

metal parts. For a given MP&M site, the specific unit operations

performed and the sequence of operations depend on many factors,

including the activity (i.e., manufacturing, rebuilding, or

maintenance), industrial sector, and type of product processed. MP&M

sites that repair, rebuild, or maintain products often perform

preliminary operations that may not be performed at manufacturing

facilities (e.g., disassembly, cleaning, or degreasing to remove dirt

and oil accumulated during use of the product). Sites that manufacture

products required to meet very strict performance specifications (e.g.,

aerospace or electronic components) often perform unit operations such

as gold electroplating or magnetic flux testing that may not be

performed when manufacturing other products.

EPA identified 47 unit operations as typical operations performed

at MP&M Phase I sites. The following general types of unit operations

are included in Phase I of the MP&M Category:

Metal shaping operations;

Surface preparation operations;

Metal deposition operations;

Organic deposition operations;

Surface finishing operations; and

Assembly operations.

Metal shaping operations (e.g., machining, grinding, impact and

pressure deformation) are mechanical operations that alter the form of

raw materials into intermediate and final product forms. Surface

preparation operations (e.g., alkaline treatment, barrel finishing and

etching) are chemical and mechanical operations that remove unwanted

materials from or alter the chemical or physical properties of the

surface prior to subsequent MP&M operations. Metal deposition

operations (e.g., electroplating, metal spraying) apply a metal coating

to the part surface by chemical or physical means. Organic deposition

operations (e.g., painting, corrosion preventive coating) apply an

organic material to the part by chemical or physical means. Metal and

organic deposition operations may be performed for reasons such as

protecting the surface from wear or corrosion, altering the electrical

properties of the surface, or altering the appearance of the surface.

Surface finishing operations (e.g., chromate conversion coating,

anodizing, sealing) protect and seal the surface of the treated part

from wear or corrosion by chemical means. Assembly operations (e.g.,

welding, soldering, testing, assembly) are performed to complete the

manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance process.

Revenues at Phase I MP&M sites range from less than $10,000 to more

than $50 million (in 1989 dollars) annually. Phase I MP&M sites range

in size from less than 10 employees and waste water discharge flows of

less than 100 gallons per year to sites with tens of thousands of

employees and waste water discharge [[Page 28217]] flows exceeding 100

million gallons per year. Table 1 presents information on the waste

water discharge flow ranges for Phase I MP&M sites based on responses

to EPA's survey (See Section V.B. below).

Table 1.--Estimated Distribution of Sites by Baseline Range of Flow

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

Estimated Estimated

total flow total load

Estimated in range in range Estimated Estimated Estimated

Flow range (gal/yr/site) number of (millions (millions percent of percent of percent of

sites of gal/ of lbs/ total sites total flow total load

year) year)

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

0-10,000.......................... 3,216 4.6 3.5 30 EPA/EAD databases from development of effluent guidelines for

other metals industries;

The Office of Research and Development (ORD) Risk Reduction

Engineering Laboratory (RREL) treatability database;

The Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment

Works (50 POTW Study) database;

The Domestic Sewage Study; and

The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database.

These data sources and their uses for the development of the MP&M Phase

I effluent guidelines are discussed below.

EPA has promulgated effluent guidelines for 13 metals industries

(See Section II.F. above). In developing these effluent guidelines, EPA

collected waste water samples to characterize the unit operations and

treatment systems at sites in these industries. Many of the sampled

unit operations and treatment systems are operated at MP&M sites;

therefore, EPA evaluated these data for transfer to the MP&M effluent

guidelines development effort.

For the MP&M Phase I pollutant loading and waste water

characterization efforts, EPA reviewed the data collected for unit

operations performed at both MP&M sites and at sites in other metals

industries. EPA reviewed the Technical Development Documents (TDDs),

sampling episode reports (SERs), and supporting record materials for

the other metals industries to identify available data. EPA transferred

data for unit operations that met the following two criteria:

The unit operation was performed at MP&M Phase I sites; and

EPA had not collected data for the unit operation from MP&M

sites.

EPA keypunched the data into a database, which was combined with the

data collected from the MP&M sampling program.

For the MP&M technology effectiveness assessment effort, EPA

reviewed data collected to characterize treatment systems sampled for

the development of effluent guidelines for [[Page 28219]] other metals

industries. For several previous effluent guidelines, EPA used

treatment data from metals industries to develop the Combined Metals

Data Base (CMDB), which served as the basis for developing limits for

these industries. EPA also developed a separate database used as the

basis for limits for the Metal Finishing category. EPA used the CMDB

and Metal Finishing data as a guide in identifying well-designed and

well-operated MP&M treatment systems. EPA did not use these data in

developing the MP&M technology effectiveness concentrations, since

sufficient data were collected from MP&M Phase I sites to develop

technology effectiveness concentrations.

EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) developed the Risk

Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) treatability database to

provide data on the removal and destruction of chemicals in various

types of media, including water, soil, debris, sludge, and sediment.

This database contains treatability data from publicly owned treatment

works (POTWs) for various pollutants. This database includes physical

and chemical data for each pollutant, the types of treatment used to

treat the specific pollutants, the type of waste water treated, the

size of the POTW, and the treatment concentrations achieved. EPA used

this database to assess removal by POTWs of MP&M pollutants of concern.

In September, 1982, EPA published the Fate of Priority Pollutants

in Publicly Owned Treatment Works (EPA 440/1-82/303), referred to as

the 50 POTW Study. The purpose of this study was to generate, compile,

and report data on the occurrence and fate of the 129 priority

pollutants in 50 POTWs. The report presents all of the data collected,

the results of preliminary evaluations of these data, and the results

of calculations to determine:

The quantity of priority pollutants in the influent to POTWs;

The quantity of priority pollutants discharged from the POTWs;

The quantity of priority pollutants in the effluent from

intermediate process streams; and

The quantity of priority pollutants in the POTW sludge

streams.

EPA used the data from this study to assess removal by POTWs of MP&M

pollutants of concern.

In February, 1986, EPA issued The Report to Congress on the

Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (EPA

530-SW-86-004), referred to as the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS). This

report, which was based in part on the 50 POTW Study, revealed a

significant number of sites discharging pollutants to POTWs which are a

threat to the treatment capability of the POTW. These pollutants were

not regulated by national effluent regulations. Some of the major areas

identified were in the metals industries areas, particularly an area

called ``equipment manufacturing and assembly.'' This category included

sites which manufacture such products as office machines, household

appliances, scientific equipment, and industrial machine tools and

equipment. The DSS estimated that the ``equipment manufacturing and

assembly'' category discharges 7,715 metric tons per year of priority

hazardous organic pollutants which are presently unregulated. Data on

priority hazardous metals discharges were unavailable for this

category. Further review of the DSS revealed other categories which

were related to metals industries, namely the motor vehicle category,

which includes servicing of new and used cars and engine and parts

rebuilding; and the transportation services category, which includes

railroad operations, truck service and repair, and aircraft servicing

and repair. EPA used the information in the DSS in development of the

Preliminary Data Summary (PDS) for the MP&M category.

The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database contains specific toxic

chemical release and transfer information from manufacturing facilities

throughout the United States. This database was established under the

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA),

which Congress passed to promote planning for chemical emergencies and

to provide information to the public about the presence and release of

toxic and hazardous chemicals. Each year, manufacturing facilities

meeting certain activity thresholds must report the estimated releases

and transfers of listed toxic chemicals to EPA and to the state or

tribal entity in whose jurisdiction the facility is located. The TRI

list includes more than 300 chemicals in 20 chemical categories.

EPA considered use of the TRI database for development of the MP&M

effluent guidelines. However, EPA did not use TRI data on waste water

discharges from MP&M sites because sufficient data were not available

for effluent guidelines development. For example, in development of the

MP&M effluent guidelines, production data were used that could be

linked directly to pollutant loadings. This information was used to

normalize pollutant loadings to production. The linked production and

pollutant loadings data are not available in the TRI database. EPA also

did not use the data on waste water discharges because many MP&M Phase

I sites do not meet the reporting thresholds for the TRI database.

B. Survey Questionnaires

EPA surveyed the metal products and machinery industry through two

survey instruments pursuant to Section 308 of the Act. The first survey

was titled ``1989 Machinery Manufacturing and Rebuilding Mini Data

Collection Portfolio'' (OMB No. 2040-0148) or MDCP. The MDCP was sent

to a random sample of 8,342 MP&M facilities, stratified within sector

by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. Facilities were

classified by SIC code strata based on Dun & Bradstreet data. The

sample size determination for each strata was based on the use of a

coefficient of variation (CV) minimization procedure. The basic goal of

the CV procedure was to minimize the number of facilities needed for

the survey, subject to the condition that the separate strata variances

would not be too large. The CV minimization procedure is described in

the ``Data Base Summary Report for the Metal Products and Machinery

Mini Data Collection Portfolio.'' A name and address list of sites was

purchased from Dun & Bradstreet. This list included more than twice the

number of sites specified by the CV procedure (for a total of

approximately 22,110 sites). Within each SIC code, Dun & Bradstreet

randomly selected the requested number of sites from the Dun &

Bradstreet data base.

EPA reviewed the Sites listed for each SIC code and deleted sites

from the mailing list for the following three reasons: (1) Sites had

SIC codes which were inconsistent with company names, (2) sites were

corporate headquarters, or (3) sites had insufficient mailing

addresses. After this review, EPA randomly selected sites to receive

the MDCP.

The purpose of the MDCP was to characterize the industry, help in

the selection of sites to receive a more detailed questionnaire, and to

estimate the number of MP&M sites in the country. To characterize sites

engaged in MP&M activities, the MDCP requested the following site-

specific information:

Name and address;

Contact person;

Parent company;

Industrial sectors in which the site manufactures, rebuilds or

maintains machines or metal components;

SIC codes corresponding to products at the

site; [[Page 28220]]

Number of employees;

Annual revenues;

Unit operations performed at the site;

Process water use and waste water discharge for each unit

operation performed at the site; and

Base metals on which each unit operation is preformed.

EPA sent the MDCP to randomly selected MP&M Phase I sites engaged

in manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance operations. The MDCP was

also sent to selected MP&M Phase II manufacturing sites to characterize

the interfaces between MP&M phases. The MDCP was not sent to sites with

SIC codes indicating that the sites were engaged in MP&M Phase II

rebuilding or maintenance operations.

The MDCP survey estimated that approximately 80,000 sites were

engaged in Phase I sector activities. The majority of these sites were

engaged only in Phase I sectors, since the majority of the MDCPs were

sent to sites within Phase I sectors. The remainder of the sites were

phase overlapped sites (engaged in industrial sectors in both Phase I

and II) or Phase II only sites. Some of the smaller sites could have

been misclassified as to their industrial sector based on the results

of the MDCP, because the sites did not know their SIC code. Uncertainty

as to SIC code is one of the reasons that EPA is not proposing to

define the MP&M Phase I applicability in terms of SIC codes. Less than

half of all engaged sites were estimated to be water users, and less

than one-fourth were estimated to be water dischargers. Sites with

operations in both Phase I and II (``overlap sites'') were more likely

to use water than sites engaged only in Phase I activities (50% vs.

35%). This may be partly because overlap sites were on average larger

with respect to number of employees and revenues than sites engaged in

Phase I activities only. In general, larger sites were more likely to

use water than smaller sites. Nonconfidential information from the

MDCPs is included in the MP&M public record.

The second questionnaire, entitled ``1989 Machinery Manufacturing

and Rebuilding Data Collection Portfolio (DCP)'' (OMB No. 2040-0148),

was designed to collect detailed technical and financial information

from water-using MP&M sites. Eight hundred ninety-six questionnaires

were mailed in January 1991. Because a number of questionnaires were

returned undelivered, an additional 124 questionnaires were mailed in

January and February 1991, for a total of 1,020. EPA assumed that the

undelivered DCP questionnaires represented sites that had gone out of

business since the MDCP survey.

The DCP was divided into six parts:

General information;

Process information;

Water supply;

Waste water treatment and discharge;

Process and hazardous wastes; and

Financial and economic information.

The general information was requested to identify the site, to

characterize the site by certain parameters (including number of

employees, age, and location), and to confirm that the site was engaged

in MP&M activities.

The process information requested included details on products,

production levels, unit operations, activity, water use for unit

operations, waste water discharge from unit operations, miscellaneous

waste water sources, pollution prevention or water conservation

practices, and air pollution control for unit operations.

The water supply section requested the site to specify the source

of water, average intake flow, average intake operating hours, and the

percentage of water used for MP&M operations.

EPA requested detailed information on the waste water treatment

systems used and the discharge volumes (including residuals), including

a block diagram of the waste water treatment system; self-sampling

monitoring data; and capital and operating cost data (including

treatment chemical usage).

The fifth section of the questionnaire requested detailed

information on the types, amounts and composition of solid/hazardous

wastes generated during production to evaluate the types and amounts of

pollutants currently discharged, the amount of pollutants that are

contract-hauled off-site, and the cost of hauling pollutants.

The sixth section requested information on the site's finances and

corporate structure.

EPA selected sites to receive the DCP based on the responses

obtained by the MDCP and other factors. Three population groups formed

the basis of the survey of this industry.

1. Water-discharging Phase I and overlap MDCP sites;

2. Water-using Phase I and overlap MDCP sites that do not discharge

process water; and

3. Key water-discharging MP&M Phase I and overlap sites that did

not receive the MDCP (discussed further below).

EPA sent DCP's to all 860 Phase I and overlap water-discharging

MDCP sites to characterize the potential variations in unit operations

performed and water use practices among sites in the MP&M industry.

In addition, a random sample of 50 MDCP recipients that use but do

not discharge process water was selected by EPA to receive the DCP in

order to provide information on potential zero-discharge unit

operations. EPA selected these sites to obtain information on water-use

practices from sites that use but do not discharge process water, and

to determine if ``zero-discharge'' practices employed at those sites

may be used at other MP&M sites. An additional 24 MDCP recipients that

use but do not discharge process water were selected by EPA. These

sites were selected to provide information on specific unit operations

expected at each site.

Eighty-six sites that did not receive the MDCP were selected by EPA

to receive the DCP. These sites represent key MP&M companies that were

not selected as DCP recipients based on the MDCP responses. EPA's

intent in selecting these sites was to characterize leading companies

in the MP&M category. The key companies were identified from the Dun &

Bradstreet company listings, the Thomas Register, and MP&M site visits.

These key companies reported annual revenues of $50 million or more or

were recognized by the EPA to be leading companies in their particular

sector. Each company was contacted to identify sites within the company

that were engaged in MP&M activities and used process water to perform

MP&M unit operations. The one or two sites believed to perform the most

water-using MP&M unit operations from each key company were selected to

receive the DCP. Non-confidential information contained in the DCPs are

included in the public record.

C. Waste Water Sampling and Site Visits

EPA visited 98 MP&M sites between 1986 and 1993 to collect

information about MP&M unit operations, water use practices, pollution

prevention and treatment technologies and waste disposal methods, and

to evaluate sites for potential inclusion in the MP&M sampling program.

In general, EPA selected sites for visits to encompass the range of

sectors, unit operations, in-process source reduction and recycling

practices, and treatment operations within the MP&M industry. EPA's

site visits encompassed sites in both Phase I and II but focused

primarily on Phase I sites. EPA also performed site visits at military

installations, government owned and operated sites, and government

owned contractor operated sites. In addition, EPA visited four job shop

electroplating sites that performed [[Page 28221]] in-process source

reduction and recycling technologies.

EPA selected sites from information contained in the MDCPs and

DCPs, and also through contacts with EPA regional personnel, state

environmental agency personnel, local pretreatment coordinators, and

pollution prevention and technical assistance providers. These

personnel helped EPA identify MP&M sites believed to be operating in-

process source reduction and recycling technologies or end-of-pipe

waste water treatment technologies.

To ensure that EPA selected sites that encompassed the range of

sectors and unit operations within the MP&M industry, the Agency used

the following general criteria as part of the basis for selecting sites

for visits:

1. The site performed MP&M unit operations in an industrial

sector in which sites had not previously been visited.

2. The site performed MP&M unit operations that had not been

observed during previous site visits.

3. The site had water use practices that were believed to be

representative of the site's industrial sector.

4. The site operated in-process source reduction, recycling, or

end-of-pipe treatment technologies considered in the development of

the MP&M technology options.

EPA visited sites of various sizes, with waste water flows ranging

from less than 200 gallons/day to more than 1,000,000 gallons/day.

EPA collected detailed information from the sites visited such as

unit operations performed and the types of metals processed through

these operations, purpose of the unit operation and any waste water

associated with it, and in-process source reduction and water

conservation practices as well as whether these source reduction

practices caused any cross-media impacts. Also collected during the

site visits were information on the end-of-pipe treatment technologies

and, if the facility was a candidate for sampling, the logistics of

collecting samples. All nonconfidential information collected during

site visits are included in the public record.

The Agency conducted waste water sampling at 27 sites between 1986

and 1993. EPA sampled at least two sites in each of the seven MP&M

Phase I sectors, as well as several sites in Phase II sectors. EPA also

sampled waste water at one job shop electroplating site to characterize

surface treatment operations and end-of-pipe treatment systems that

were comparable to MP&M unit operation and treatment systems. EPA

selected sites for sampling for reasons such as the following:

The site performed MP&M unit operations that had not been

sampled at other sites;

The site processed metals through MP&M unit operations for

which the metal/unit operation combination had not been sampled at

other sites;

The site performed in-process source reduction recycling,

or end-of-pipe treatment technologies that were considered for

technology option development; or

The site performed unit operations in a sector in which

samples had not previously been collected.

EPA sampled sites with waste water flows ranging from less than 200

gallons/day to greater than 600,000 gallons/day.

During sampling, EPA collected samples of both raw (untreated)

waste water and treated waste water, frequently across individual unit

treatment operations, to characterize the performance of the entire

treatment system. In addition, EPA gathered flow data corresponding to

each sample, and design and operating parameters for source reduction,

recycling and treatment technologies. EPA also collected samples of

unit operations to determine pollutant loadings at the unit operation

level as well as flow and production data corresponding to each sample.

All data collected during the sampling episodes are included in the

sampling reports which are in the rulemaking record.

D. EPA Bench Scale Treatability Studies (Terpene Study)

Terpenes are a broad classification of 10, 15, 20 or 30 carbon-atom

compounds and derivatives produced from citrus fruits, wood turpentine,

and wood pulp byproducts. Increasingly, these compounds are being used

in industrial cleaning formulations designed for printed circuit board

defluxing and metal degreasing operations. The popularity of these

terpene-based cleaners is based primarily on their ability to replace

the usage of suspected ozone-depleting chemicals such as 1,1,1-

trichloroethane and 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (e.g., CFC-

113).

In general, the use of terpene-based cleaners in these applications

is considered environmentally preferable to chlorinated solvents.

However, studies conducted by EPA's Office of Toxic Substances (OTS)

indicate that substitution of chlorinated solvents with terpene-based

cleaners will result in increased discharges of these chemicals to

waste water from these industrial operations. The OTS studies also

identified potential aquatic toxicity concerns associated with several

specific terpene compounds. These concerns, combined with the fact that

most industrial facilities engaged in printed circuit board defluxing

and metal cleaning operations discharge their waste water into public

sewers, created the need to better understand the fate of terpene

compounds in a typical municipal waste water treatment system.

EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) conducted a

study to quantify the fate of specific terpene compounds in the

activated sludge waste water treatment process. The study was conducted

using pilot-scale equipment at EPA's Test and Evaluation (T&E) Facility

in Cincinnati, Ohio. The specific goal of the research was to establish

the percentage of the terpene mass entering a typical activated sludge

process that is (1) biodegraded, (2) partitioned to waste sludge, (3)

volatilized to air, and/or (4) passed through the treatment process

unchanged.

This study on the fate of specific terpene compounds in the

activated sludge waste water treatment process produced the following

conclusions:

The primary fate of d-limonene and terpinolene in a typical

municipal waste water treatment process (primary clarifier/activated

sludge) is biodegradation followed by sorption onto primary

clarifier solids and volatilization.

The activated sludge process typically produces d-limonene

and terpinolene effluent concentrations below 10 g/L,

corresponding to influent concentrations as high as 10,000

g/L.

EPA's terpene study was conducted to determine the treatability of

terpene in municipal waste water treatment systems. The results of the

study indicate that the primary removal mechanism for the terpenes

studied in the activated sludge process is biodegradation. EPA studied

terpenes because they represent one broad class of compounds in use as

replacements for ozone depleting chlorinated solvents. A wide variety

of non-terpene compounds are also being used as solvent substitutes,

but these compounds were not examined in this study.

VI. Industry Subcategorization

EPA is not proposing to subcategorize the MP&M Phase I category.

EPA considered a number of potential subcategorization schemes as

described below, but concluded that no basis exists for creating

subcategories and the only way to establish a categorical regulation

that could be implemented to ensure the most effective treatment and

removal of waste water pollutants was [[Page 28222]] to not

subcategorize this industrial category.

The subcategorization factors considered were based on

subcategorization factors required by the Clean Water Act, as well as

factors that have been used as a basis for subcategorization in other

metals industry regulations. These factors include:

unit operation;

activity;

raw materials;

products;

size of site;

location;

age;

economic impacts;

total energy requirements;

air pollution control methods; and

solid waste generation and disposal.

EPA considered subcategorizing the MP&M Phase I category by unit

operation. EPA identified 47 unit operations, subsets of which are

typically performed at MP&M sites. These unit operations can use

differing amounts of water, generate different pollutant loadings, and

can be performed in different combinations; however, the resulting

waste waters exhibit general characteristics that allow the waste

waters to be treated by the technologies on which this proposed rule is

based (See Section IX.). Subcategorization by unit operation is

technically feasible, but would result in approximately 47

subcategories with facilities operating under numerous subcategories.

This would result in a very complex and unmanageable regulatory

structure. The waste water characteristics for a given unit operation

are expected to be similar across the other subcategorization factors

listed above. As a result, EPA is not proposing to subcategorize by

unit operation.

EPA also considered subcategorizing this industry by activity;

i.e., manufacturing, rebuilding, and maintenance. Manufacturing is

defined as the series of unit operations necessary to produce metal

products, generally performed in a production environment. Rebuilding

is defined as the series of unit operations necessary to disassemble

used metal products into components, replace one or more components or

subassemblies or restore them to original function, and reassemble the

metal product. Rebuilding is generally performed in a production

environment. Maintenance is defined as the series of unit operations,

on original or replacement components, required to keep metal products

in operating condition. Maintenance is generally performed in a non-

production environment.

Based on the results of the DCP survey, the estimated percentages

of water discharging Phase I sites performing each activity are listed

below:

Percent

Manufacturing only............................................ 71

Rebuilding only............................................... 1

Maintenance only.............................................. 8

Manufacturing and rebuilding.................................. 13

Manufacturing and maintenance................................. 2

Rebuilding and maintenance.................................... 2

Manufacturing, rebuilding & maintenance....................... 3

With the exception of the initial cleaning steps for rebuilding and

maintenance (discussed below), waste water characteristics do not vary

across activity. Results of analyses of the DCP database indicate that

the production-normalized flow (volume of waste water discharged per

unit of production) for each unit operation does not depend on the

activity. Additionally, for sites performing multiple activities, the

same unit operations are often used for multiple activities (e.g., a

machining process may be used to both manufacture and rebuild parts).

Information collected during site visits at MP&M Phase I sites supports

these conclusions.

The initial cleaning steps associated with rebuilding and

maintenance may have unique waste water characteristics because of the

presence of oil, grease, and grime not present in cleaning during

manufacturing. These pollutants are present in waste waters generated

by other operations at manufacturing, rebuilding, and maintenance sites

(e.g., machining and grinding), and a technology used to remove these

pollutants (oil-water separation) is included in the technology options

considered for MP&M Phase I. Based on analytical data collected at

rebuilding sites, the waste waters from initial cleaning require

additional preliminary treatment capacity for oil-water separation, but

do not impact the overall treatability of waste water from rebuilding

sites. The impact of the oil and grime in the initial cleaning steps

was accounted for in the development of compliance cost estimates and

pollutant loading estimates. Because the initial cleaning steps do not

impact waste water treatability, sites performing these cleaning steps

can achieve the same effluent concentrations as sites that don't

perform these steps.

Subcategorization by raw material may be appropriate when sites

process similar types of raw materials, and these raw materials dictate

a site's overall waste water characteristics. Raw materials at MP&M

sites consist of base metals processed (e.g., bar stock, sheet stock,

ingots, formed parts) and applied materials (e.g., paint, corrosion

preventive coatings, metal applied during electroplating, electroless

plating, and metal spraying).

Data from the DCP database and site visits indicate that the waste

water discharge rates from unit operations are not dependent on the

base metal processed or material applied. The base metal or material

applied affects the site's waste water characteristics; however, EPA

accounted for this in calculating technology effectiveness

concentrations and pollutant loading estimates.

Based on the DCP results it is estimated that more than half of the

MP&M Phase I sites process more than one type of base metal or metal

applied. The estimated percentages of sites by the number of metal

types processed are as follows:

Percent

Zero metal types.............................................. Primary Line of Business: Facilities were assigned to MP&M

sectors according to the sector in which they earned most of their

revenues. The financial condition and performance of facilities across

sectors did not vary in a statistically significant way.

Customer Type: Responding facilities indicated the

percentage of revenues they earned from three customer types,

government, domestic non-government and foreign customers. When

facilities were grouped according to their dependence on each of these

customer types, statistical analyses found no significant differences

in the financial condition or performance of the various groups.

MP&M Activity: Responding facilities indicated the

percentage of revenues they earned from each of three categories of

activities (manufacturing, repairing and rebuilding). Facility

financial performance and condition did not vary systematically with

variations in dependence on the three categories of activities.

Revenue Size: Facilities subcategorized by revenue size

did not differ in financial condition or performance in a statistically

significant way.

Appendix D of the Industry Profile of the Metal Products and

Machinery Industry Phase I documents the methodology and findings in

detail. This document is in the MP&M public record. Based on these

analyses, EPA found no reasonable economic basis for subcategorizing

MP&M facilities.

EPA is directed by the Clean Water Act to consider geographic

location as a potential factor in subcategorizing an industrial

category. The MP&M sites are generally located all over the country,

however, almost two-thirds are located east of the Mississippi, with

pockets of sites in Texas and California. EPA generally found that the

sites located in California had installed more water conservation

equipment and were generally more sensitive to water consumption

concerns than the sites located in the rest of the country. EPA expects

this is due to the nearly decade long drought suffered by California

[[Page 28224]] during the 1980's, as well as local regulations that are

often stricter than other areas of the country. However, EPA did not

find this limited water conservation a sufficient basis for

subcategorization.

Other factors that EPA is directed to consider by the Clean Water

Act include total energy requirements, non-water quality

considerations, and age of facilities. Energy requirements vary widely

throughout the MP&M Phase I category; however, EPA did not

subcategorize by this factor because the energy requirements are not

directly related to waste water characteristics. Energy costs resulting

from this regulation were accounted for in the economic impact

assessment for this regulation. Non-water quality considerations

include solid waste and air pollution generation. EPA did not

subcategorize by these factors because solid waste and air pollution

characteristics and generation rates depend on the raw materials

processed and unit operations performed at MP&M sites, and are not

directly related to waste water characteristics. The non-water quality

impacts and costs of solid waste and air pollution control associated

with this regulation were considered in the economic analysis and

regulatory impact analysis for this regulation.

EPA did not subcategorize by age of facility because site age does

not account for differences in raw waste water characteristics. The

percentage of sites by the decade in which they were built is listed

below. This information is based on the DCP respondents that reported

the date in which their facility was built:

Percent

Before 1920................................................... 4

1920 through 1929............................................. 3

1930 through 1939............................................. 2

1940 through 1949............................................. 8

1950 through 1959............................................. 8

1960 through 1969............................................. 13

1970 through 1979............................................. 40

1980 through 1989............................................. 21

1990*......................................................... 1

* The DCP was mailed on January 2, 1991.

The majority of the sites have been built since 1960. The DCP

respondents reported a wide range of ages; however, based on

information in the DCPs and from site visits, MP&M Phase I sites

continually modernize to remain competitive. For example, several sites

visited that were built before 1960 had recently installed either new

electroplating lines with in-process pollution control technologies or

in-process pollution control technologies on existing electroplating

lines. Another site which was initially built before 1940 had recently

installed a new heat treating process. This type of modernization is

typical in the MP&M Phase I industry. Modernization of production

processes and pollution control equipment produces similar wastes among

all sites of various ages that are performing similar types of

operations; therefore, site age does not account for differences in the

raw waste water characteristics and was not selected as a basis for

subcategorization.

VII. Water Use and Waste Water Characteristics

A. Waste Water Sources and Characteristics

The unit operations included in the MP&M category can be classified

by water use practices into those that typically use process water and

discharge process waste water, unit operations that typically either do

not use process water or use process water but do not discharge waste

water, and miscellaneous operations reported in DCP responses by fewer

than five MP&M sites.

Process waste water includes any water that, during manufacturing

or processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the

production or use of any raw materials, intermediate products, finished

products, by-products, or waste products. Process waste water includes

waste water from wet air pollution control devices. Non-contact cooling

water is not considered a process waste water. Non-aqueous wastes used

as processing liquids, such as spent solvents or quench oil, are also

not considered process waste waters.

As discussed below, waste waters from the operations that use

process water have different characteristics depending on the unit

operation from which they are derived. First, oil-bearing waste waters

are typically metal shaping coolants and lubricants, surface

preparation solutions used to remove oil and dirt from components, and

associated rinses. Some examples of oil-bearing waste waters are:

machining and grinding coolants and lubricants; pressure and impact

deformation lubricants; dye penetrant and magnetic flux testing; and

alkaline cleaning solutions and rinses used to remove oil and dirt.

These waste waters typically require preliminary treatment to remove

oil. Chemical emulsion breaking followed by oil skimming is typically

used for this treatment. Membrane separation technologies are also used

for oil removal.

Second, hexavalent chromium-bearing waste water typically consists

of concentrated surface preparation or metal deposition solutions,

sealants, and associated rinses. Some examples of hexavalent chromium-

bearing waste waters are: chromic acid treatment solutions and rinses;

chromate conversion coating solutions and rinses; and chromium

electroplating solutions and rinses. These waste waters typically

require preliminary treatment to reduce the hexavalent chromium to

trivalent chromium for subsequent chemical precipitation and settling.

Sodium metabisulfite is typically used for this reduction.

Third, process waste waters that contain cyanide are typically

generated by surface preparation or metal deposition solutions and

their associated rinses. Two examples of cyanide-bearing waste waters

are: cyanide-bearing alkaline treatment solutions and rinses (typically

used as a surface treatment step prior to electroplating with cyanide

solutions) and cyanide-bearing electroplating solutions and rinses.

These waste waters typically require preliminary treatment to destroy

cyanide and facilitate subsequent chemical precipitation and settling.

Sodium hypochlorite is typically used for this treatment.

Fourth, process waste waters that contain complexed metals are

typically concentrated surface preparation or metal deposition

solutions and their associated rinses. Complexed metal-bearing waste

waters are usually generated at MP&M sites by electroless plating

operations and their rinses. These waste waters require preliminary

treatment to break the complexes for subsequent chemical precipitation

and settling.

Finally, virtually all of the MP&M process waste waters contain

some metallic pollutants. The most concentrated metal bearing waste

waters include metal shaping solutions, surface preparation solutions,

metal deposition solutions, and surface finishing solutions. Chemical

precipitation (usually with either lime or sodium hydroxide) and

settling is typically used for metals removal. Coagulants and

flocculants may be added to assist chemical precipitation and settling.

B. Pollution Prevention, Recycle, Reuse and Water Conservation

Practices

The data gathered to support this rule indicate that a number of

pollution prevention and water conservation practices exist in the MP&M

industries. Some of these pollution prevention, recycling, and water

conservation practices were determined to be broadly applicable to the

MP&M category, and [[Page 28225]] these were included in the technology

options (see Section III.A.).

A large number of additional pollution prevention practices were

site specific and could not be used as the basis for a national

standard. However, EPA considers it important to make this site

specific pollution prevention information available for possible use by

MP&M sites. Therefore, the Technical Development Document contains a

bibliography of the pollution prevention practices identified during

the development of this rule. EPA's proposed flow guidance also

discusses the applicability of the more prevalent pollution practices

identified in this category.

VIII. Approach for Estimating Costs and Pollution Reductions

Achieved by Waste Water Control Technology

EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs and pollutant loadings

using model sites based on DCP respondents and a computerized design

and cost model for the MP&M technology options. Industry-wide costs and

pollutant loadings were estimated for three technology options based on

technologies designed for 396 model sites. Statistically calculated

weights were used to scale those results to the estimated 10,601 MP&M

Phase I sites nationwide which are expected to incur costs under the

regulation.

The 396 model sites were a subset of the 860 sites which indicated

that they were water dischargers on their MDCP survey response. Six

hundred seventy five of these sites returned the subsequent DCP and

their responses were entered into the DCP database. Of these 675 sites

in the DCP database, 396 were chosen to be model sites for the

following reasons:

The site generated revenue from a Phase I sector, as

determined from the economic section of the DCP (for some sites, an

economic sector was not identified; therefore, the sector identified in

the technical section of the DCP was used); and

The site supplied sufficient economic and technical data

to estimate compliance costs and pollutant loadings of the MP&M

technology options.

Each of the 396 sites selected was assessed to determine the unit

operations, waste water characteristics and treatment technologies

currently in place at the sites.

Based on the information provided by the sites in their DCP

responses, follow-up letters, and phone calls, each waste water stream

was classified by the type of unit operation (e.g., machining,

electroplating, acid treatment, etc.) and base metal type (e.g., steel,

aluminum, zinc, etc.). The following additional DCP data were used to

characterize process waste water streams: waste water discharge flow

rate, production rate, operating schedule, and discharge destination.

Many of the 396 sites provided these data for all waste water streams

generated on site. For sites that did not provide complete data, the

missing data were either estimated based on technical considerations

specific to the site, or were statistically imputed. The concentration

of each pollutant in each waste water stream was modelled from field

sampling of waste water discharges from the unit operation/metal type

combinations at other MP&M sites. DCP responses were used to identify

the following information about end-of-pipe technologies in place at

MP&M sites: the types of treatment units in place; the unit operations

discharging process waste water to each treatment unit; and the

operating schedule of each treatment unit.

A computerized design and cost model was developed to estimate

compliance costs and pollutant loadings for the MP&M technology

options, taking into account each site's level of treatment in place.

The model was programmed with technology-specific modules which

calculated the costs for various combinations of technologies as

required by the technology options and the model site waste water

stream characteristics. Design and cost data were based on MP&M site

data, literature data, and vendor data.

Technology-specific cost modules were developed for the in-process

pollution prevention and water use reduction technologies and end-of-

pipe treatment technologies discussed in Section IX below. The model

provided the following types of information for each technology

designed for a model site:

Capital costs;

Operating and maintenance costs;

Electricity used and associated cost;

Sludge generation and associated disposal costs;

Waste oil generation and associated disposal costs;

Water use reduction and associated cost credit;

Metal reclaimed and associated cost credit;

Chemical usage reduction and associated cost credit;

Effluent flow rate; and

Effluent pollutant concentrations.

If contract hauling of waste water for off-site treatment and

disposal was less costly than on-site treatment, EPA estimated costs

assuming the model site would contract haul the waste water. EPA made

this assessment on a technology-specific basis.

After estimation of capital and operating and maintenance costs,

the total capital investment (TCI), total annualized cost (TAC), and

monitoring costs were calculated. Sites that reported being regulated

by categorical limitations and standards were assumed to currently

incur some monitoring cost.

IX. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available

A. Need for BPT Regulation

The MP&M Phase I regulation is estimated to potentially apply to

10,601 facilities nationwide. Although there are a number of metal

processing categorical effluent guidelines that also apply to some

operations performed at MP&M sites, these other effluent guidelines

only affect approximately 2,000 MP&M Phase I sites. Thus, a large

number of MP&M Phase I facilities do not have any effluent limitations

guidelines. EPA estimates that 1,895 MP&M sites that are direct

dischargers currently discharge substantial quantities of pollutants

into the surface waters of the United States, including 18 million

pounds per year of oil and grease, 2.6 million pounds per year of total

suspended solids, 0.56 million pounds per year of priority pollutants,

and 0.6 million pounds per year of nonconventional metal pollutants.

EPA estimates that the proposed BPT limitations will reduce these

quantities to 150,000 pounds per year of oil and grease, 360,000 pounds

per year of total suspended solids, 40,000 pounds per year of priority

metal pollutants, and 130,000 pounds per year of nonconventional metal

pollutants.

B. BPT Technology Options and Selection

EPA considered three regulatory options on which to base BPT

limitations.

1. Option 1: Lime and Settle Treatment. Option 1 consists of

preliminary treatment for specific pollutants and end-of-pipe treatment

with chemical precipitation (usually accomplished by raising the pH

with an alkaline chemical such as lime or caustic to produce insoluble

metal hydroxides) followed by clarification. This treatment, which is

also commonly referred to as lime and settle treatment, has been widely

used throughout the metals industry and is well documented to be

effective for removing metal pollutants. As with a number of previously

promulgated regulations, EPA has established BPT on the basis

[[Page 28226]] that all process waste waters, except solvent bearing

waste waters, will be treated through lime and settle end-of-pipe

treatment.

All of the regulatory options considered for the MP&M category are

based on a commingled treatment of process waste waters through lime

and settle with preliminary treatment when needed for specific waste

streams. Preliminary treatment is performed to remove oil and grease

through emulsion breaking and oil skimming; to destroy cyanide using

sodium hypochlorite; to reduce hexavalent chromium to the trivalent

form of chromium which can subsequently be precipitated as chromium

hydroxide; or to break metal complexes by chemical reduction. EPA has

also included the contract hauling of any waste waters associated with

organic solvent degreasing as part of the Option 1 technology.

Through sampling episodes and site visits, EPA has determined that

some waste waters, usually alkaline cleaning waste waters and water-

based metal working fluids (e.g., machining and grinding coolants,

deformation lubricants), may contain significant amounts of oil and

grease. These waste waters require preliminary treatment to remove oil

and grease and organic pollutants. Chemical emulsion breaking followed

by either skimming or coalescing is an effective technology for

removing these pollutants.

EPA has identified MP&M waste waters that may contain significant

amounts of cyanide, such as plating and cleaning waste waters. These

waste waters require preliminary treatment to destroy the cyanide. This

is typically performed using alkaline chlorination with sodium

hypochlorite or chlorine gas. EPA has also identified hexavalent

chromium-bearing waste waters, usually generated by anodizing,

conversion coating, acid treatment, and electroplating operations and

rinses. These waste waters require chemical reduction of the hexavalent

chromium to trivalent chromium. Sodium metabisulfite or gaseous sulphur

dioxide are typically used as reducing agents. Several surface

treatment waste waters typically contain significant amounts of

chelated metals. These chelated metals require chemical reduction to

break down the chelated metals prior to lime and settle. Sodium

borohydride, hydrazine, and sodium hydrosulfite can be used as reducing

agents. These preliminary treatment technologies are more effective and

less costly on segregated waste waters, prior to adding waste waters

that do not contain the pollutants being treated with the preliminary

treatment technologies. Thus, EPA includes these preliminary treatment

steps whenever it refers to lime and settle treatment.

2. Option 2: In-process Flow Control, Pollution Prevention, and

Lime and Settle Treatment. Option 2 builds on Option 1 by adding in-

process pollution prevention, recycling, and water conservation methods

which allow for recovery and reuse of materials. Techniques or

technologies, such as centrifugation or skimming for metal working

fluids, or ion exchange for electroplating rinses, can save money for

companies by allowing materials to be used over a longer period before

they need to be disposed. These techniques and technologies also can be

used to recover metal or metal treatment solutions. Using these

techniques along with water conservation also leads to the generation

of less pollution and results in more effective treatment of the waste

water that is generated. As has been demonstrated by numerous

industrial treatment systems, the treatment of metal bearing waste

waters is relatively independent of influent concentration. For

example, the well-operated lime and settle treatment system can achieve

the same effluent concentration with an influent stream of 1,000

gallons per minute (gpm) and 10 parts per million (ppm) as it can

achieve with an influent stream which is 500 gpm and 20 ppm. In fact,

within a broad range of influent concentrations, the more highly

concentrated waste water influent, when treated down to the technology

effectiveness concentrations of a lime and settle treatment system,

results in better pollutant removals and less mass of pollutant in the

discharge. In addition, the cost of a treatment system is largely

dependent on the size, which in turn is largely dependent on flow. As a

result, the lower the flow of water to the treatment system the less

costly the system. Option 2 in-process technologies include:

Flow reduction using flow restrictors, conductivity

meters, and/or timed rinses, for all flowing rinses, plus

countercurrent cascade rinsing for all flowing rinses;

Flow reduction using bath maintenance for all other

process water-discharging operations;

Centrifugation and 100 percent recycling of painting

water curtains;

Centrifugation and pasteurization to extend the life of

water-soluble machining coolants reducing discharge volume by 80%;

and

In-process metals recovery using ion exchange followed

by electrolytic recovery of the cation regenerant for selected

electroplating rinses. This includes first-stage drag-out rinsing

with electrolytic metal recovery.

The flow reduction practices included in Option 2 are widely used by

MP&M sites and are also included as part of the regulatory basis for a

number of effluent guidelines regulations in the metals industry.

3. Option 3: Advanced End-of-Pipe Treatment. Option 3 includes all

of the Option 2 technologies plus advanced end-of-pipe treatment.

Advanced end-of-pipe treatment could be either reverse osmosis or ion

exchange to remove suspended and dissolved solids yielding a treated

waste water that can be partially recycled as process water. This

technology is not widely used but has been demonstrated by some MP&M

sites, particularly in instances where the water supply is contaminated

and requires clean-up before it can be used. For the purposes of

modelling the cost of compliance and resulting pollutant removals,

Option 3 technology is expected to achieve a sufficiently clean treated

waste water such that 90 percent of the treated waste water can be

recycled back to the facility to be reused in the processing area.

Selected Option. EPA proposes to establish BPT effluent limitations

guidelines based on Option 2 technologies. Lime and settle treatment

used in conjunction with flow reduction and pollution prevention

technologies represents the best technology widely practiced by MP&M

sites. EPA proposes to require permit writers to convert the

concentration-based effluent limitations guidelines into mass-based

permit limitations based on MP&M flow guidance from the Technical

Development Document. This document provides guidance to permit writers

on identifying sites with pollution prevention and water conservation

technologies equivalent to those included in Option 2 (e.g.,

electrodialysis, reverse osmosis). EPA recognizes that there are many

different pollution prevention and water conservation technologies that

may achieve the same performance as those included in Option 2;

therefore, the Agency has provided permit writers guidance on assessing

these technologies.

EPA recommends that, for sites with pollution prevention and water

conservation technologies in place that are equivalent to those

included as the basis for BPT, permit writers use historical flow as a

basis for converting the concentration-based limitations to mass-based.

For sites without these types of technologies in place, EPA recommends

that permit writers do not use historical flow, but use other tools

listed in the Technical Development Document (e.g., measuring

production [[Page 28227]] through unit operations, measuring the

concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) in rinse waters) to

convert the concentration-based limitations to mass-based. This

approach encourages sites to implement good water use practices and

investigate and install pollution prevention and water conservation

technologies. By recommending use of historical flow only when sites

have pollution prevention and water conservation technologies in place,

EPA expects that permits based on BPT will reflect pollution prevention

and water conservation technologies. If mass-based limitations have not

been developed as required, the source shall achieve discharges not

exceeding the concentration limitations listed in the regulation.

EPA did not select Option 1 as it does not reflect the average of

the best technology performance in the industry. EPA did not select

Option 3 technology as the basis for BPT because the costs do not

justify the removals achieved.

C. Calculation of BPT Limitations

EPA visited 98 sites and sampled waste waters from 27 MP&M Phase I

sites. In addition to sampling to characterize the process waste

waters, EPA sampled 23 lime and settle treatment systems. EPA reviewed

the treatment data gathered and identified data considered appropriate

for calculating BPT limitations for the MP&M Phase I industry. EPA

identified data from well-designed and well-operated treatment systems

and focused on data for specific pollutants processed and treated on

site. The data editing procedures used for this assessment consisted of

four major steps:

1. Assessment of the performance of the entire treatment system;

2. Identification of process upsets during sampling that impacted

the treatment effectiveness of the system;

3. Identification of pollutants not present in the raw waste water

at sufficient concentrations to evaluate treatment effectiveness; and

4. Identification of treatment chemicals used in the treatment

system.

The evaluation criteria used for each of these steps are described

below. Data that failed one or more of the evaluation criteria were

excluded from calculation of the BPT limitations.

1. Assessment of Treatment System Performance. EPA assessed the

performance of the entire treatment system during sampling. Data for

systems identified as not being well-designed or well-operated were

excluded from use in calculating BPT limitations. EPA first identified

the metals processed on site, as well as if the site performed unit

operations likely to generate oil and grease and cyanide. EPA focused

on these pollutants because the treatment trains used as a basis for

the limitations are designed to treat and remove these pollutants. EPA

then performed the following technical analyses of the treatment

systems:

--Based on the pollutants processed or treated on site, EPA excluded

data from systems that were not operated at the proper pH for

removal of the pollutants.

--EPA excluded data from lime and settle systems that did not have

solids removal indicative of effective treatment. In general, EPA

identified as having poor solids removal systems that did not

achieve 90% removal of total suspended solids (TSS) and had effluent

TSS concentrations greater than 50 milligrams per liter. Site-

specific exceptions were made to this rule depending on influent

concentrations of TSS.

--EPA excluded data from lime and settle systems at which the

concentration of most of the metals present in the influent stream

did not decrease, indicating poor treatment.

2. Identification of Process Upsets Occurring During Sampling. EPA

reviewed the sampling episode reports for each of the sampled sites,

and identified any process upsets that resulted in poor treatment

during one or more days of the sampling episode. EPA excluded the data

affected by the process upsets.

3. Identification of Pollutants Not Present in the Raw Waste water

at Sufficient Concentrations to Evaluate Removal. EPA excluded data for

pollutants that were not detected in the treatment influent streams at

a site, or were detected at concentrations less than 0.1 milligram per

liter. EPA also excluded data for pollutants that were not processed on

site. EPA reviewed the water use practices for the sampled sites and

excluded data from sites that may have been diluting the raw waste

water and reducing the concentration of pollutants processed on site.

Because the MP&M Phase I effluent guidelines include water conservation

practices and pollution prevention technologies, EPA reviewed the data

to ensure that the BPT limitations were based on sites that had these

practices and technologies in place.

4. Identification of Waste water Treatment Chemicals. EPA

identified treatment chemicals used in each of the sampled treatment

systems to determine if the removal of the metals used as treatment

chemicals were consistent with removal of other metals on site,

indicating a well-designed and well-operated system. If a metal was

used as a treatment chemical, and the site treated the metal to a

concentration consistent with other metals removed on site, the metal

was included in calculation of the BPT limitations. If the metal was

used as a treatment chemical and was not removed to a concentration

consistent with other metals removed on site, the treatment chemical

was excluded from calculation of the limitations. The data remaining

after these data editing procedures were used to calculate the BPT

limitations.

A detailed description of the statistical methodology used for the

calculation of limitations is described in the Technical Development

Document. A summary of the methodology follows.

The calculation of the BPT daily maximum limitations for pollutants

was performed by the following steps. The arithmetic long-term mean

concentration was calculated for each facility representing BPT

treatment technology, and the median of the means was determined. A

modified delta-lognormal distribution was fit to daily concentration

data from each facility that had enough detected concentration values

for parameter estimation. This is the same distributional model used by

EPA in the final rulemakings for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and

Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) and Pesticides Manufacturing categories and

the proposed rulemaking for the Pulp and Paper category. Variability

factors were then computed for each facility distribution, and the

average variability factor was determined. Finally, the daily maximum

limitation was calculated by multiplying the median long-term mean by

the average variability factor. The monthly maximum limitation was

calculated similarly except that the variability factor corresponding

to the 95th percentile of the distribution of monthly averages was used

instead of the 99th percentile of daily concentration measurements.

The daily variability factor is a statistical entity defined as the

ratio of the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of daily

values divided by the expected value, or mean, of the distribution.

Similarly, the monthly variability factor is defined as the estimated

95th percentile of the distribution of four-day averages divided by the

expected value of the monthly averages.

The modified delta-lognormal distribution models the data as a

mixture of non-detect observations and measured values. This

distribution was selected because the data for most analytes consisted

of a mixture of measured values and non-detects. The modified delta-

lognormal distribution assumes that all non-detects have a

[[Page 28228]] value equal to the detection limit and that the detected

values follow a lognormal distribution.

Table 2 presents the proposed daily and monthly limitations. In

Table 2, the term ``T'', as in ``cyanide(T)'', shall mean total. The

values calculated by the above procedures were rounded off to the next

highest tenths place for metals, to the next highest hundredths place

for cyanide, and to the next highest unit place for TSS and oil and

grease.

EPA identified 24 metal types processed at MP&M Phase I sites.

Because EPA did not have sufficient data to set limits for all of these

metal types, EPA is regulating aluminum and iron as indicator metals

for removal of non-regulated metals that may be processed at MP&M

sites. Aluminum is most effectively removed in lime and settle systems

at a pH between 7.5 and 8 standard units, while iron is most

effectively removed at a pH of approximately 10.5 standard units. Most

metals that may be present in MP&M waste waters are effectively removed

in this pH range. Therefore, removal of aluminum and iron will indicate

effective removal of other metal types. Although iron and aluminum can

be used as water treatment chemicals, EPA believes that regulation of

these pollutants will control discharges of non-regulated metals that

are processed at MP&M sites.

EPA is proposing a pH range limit in order to assure that the pH of

the waste water is within the neutral range.

EPA is also proposing to use oil and grease as an indicator for

monitoring for organic pollutants that have the potential to be present

in MP&M waste waters. EPA is using oil and grease as an indicator since

most of the organic pollutants detected in MP&M waste waters during the

MP&M sampling program are more soluble in oil than in water, and as

such would partition to the oil layer. Thus, removal of oil and grease

will result in significant removal of these pollutants. Data for oil-

water separation systems collected during the MP&M sampling program

show removals between 63 and 90 percent for organic pollutants across

the oil-water separation systems. These data support the conclusion

that the organic pollutants will partition to the oil layer. In

addition, most of the organic pollutants detected in MP&M waste waters

are insoluble in water, further supporting that these pollutants will

partition to the oil layer.

EPA considered establishing limitations for Total Toxic Organics

(TTO), which would reflect the sum of concentrations achieved for

several specific organic pollutants identified during the MP&M sampling

program. However, because of the diversity in the types of cleaners,

coolants, paints, etc., used in the MP&M industry, as well as the

current industry trends in identifying substitutes for organic solvent

degreasing, EPA did not have sufficient analytical data to identify and

regulate all organic pollutants in use at MP&M sites. Therefore, EPA

rejected TTO as an approach to controlling organic pollutant

discharges. EPA believes that use of oil and grease as an indicator

will provide regulatory control of organic pollutants while allowing

the flexibility to control organic pollutants that are used by MP&M

sites but not identified during the MP&M sampling program.

EPA also considered establishing limitations for lead, since lead

is known to have several adverse human health effects. Although lead

was analyzed for in nearly all samples collected during the development

of the MP&M Phase I rule, lead was rarely found at treatable

concentrations in the influent to the treatment systems sampled. As

discussed above, treatable concentration was defined as 0.1 milligram

per liter in the raw waste water prior to treatment. The majority of

lead data were non-detects or detects at very low concentrations. Since

lead was rarely found at treatable concentrations in the raw waste

water, prior to treatment, EPA decided not to propose a limit for lead.

EPA is soliciting additional data and comments on the possibility of

setting a limit for lead in the final rule (see Section XIX).

Table 2.--Proposed Effluent Concentration Limitations

[Milligrams per liter (mg/l)]

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

Monthly

Maximum average

Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any 1 shall not

day exceed

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

Aluminum (T).................................... 1.4 1.0

Cadmium(T)...................................... 0.7 0.3

Chromium(T)..................................... 0.3 0.2

Copper(T)....................................... 1.3 0.6

Iron(T)......................................... 2.4 1.3

Nickel(T)....................................... 1.1 0.5

Zinc(T)......................................... 0.8 0.4

Cyanide(T)...................................... 0.03 0.02

Oil & Grease.................................... 35 17

TSS............................................. 73 36

pH.............................................. (\1\) (\1\)

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

\1\ Within 6.0 to 9.0.

D. Applicability of BPT

The Agency is proposing BPT limitations guidelines for the MP&M

Phase I category to apply to all MP&M process waste waters that are

generated by sites performing manufacturing, rebuilding or maintenance

of metal parts, products, or machinery in one of the seven industrial

sectors (i.e., aerospace, aircraft, electronic equipment, hardware,

mobile industrial equipment, ordnance and stationary industrial

equipment).

E. BPT Pollutant Removals, Costs, and Economic Impacts

EPA estimates that the proposed BPT limitations will remove

annually an estimated 20 million pounds of conventional pollutants (TSS

and oil and grease), 1 million pounds of metals and cyanide, and 67,000

pounds of organic pollutants. BPT is estimated to require a capital

expenditure of $63 million (in 1994$), which will require an annualized

cost of $18 million. In addition, as a result of this regulation, EPA

estimates that 18 sites may close with an accompanying job loss of 158

full time employees (FTEs). EPA estimates that compliance activities

may generate annual labor requirements which could more than offset

these job losses. EPA believes that the effluent reduction benefits

achieved by this proposed BPT justify the costs and that all statutory

factors have been satisfied. (See further discussion of costs and

benefits below).

X. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology

A. July 9, 1986 BCT Methodology

The BCT methodology, promulgated in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses

the Agency's consideration of costs in establishing BCT effluent

limitations guidelines. EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT

candidate technologies (those that are technologically feasible) by

applying a two-part cost test:

(1) The POTW test; and

(2) The industry cost-effectiveness test.

In the POTW test, EPA calculates the cost per pound of conventional

pollutant removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a

BCT candidate technology and then compares this cost to the cost per

pound of conventional pollutant removed in upgrading POTWs from

secondary treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the

POTW benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars).

In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the

incremental BPT to BCT cost divided by the BPT cost for the industry

must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the cost increase must be less than 29

percent). [[Page 28229]]

B. BCT Options Identified

For today's proposed rule, EPA considered whether or not to

establish BCT effluent limitation guidelines for MP&M sites that would

attain incremental levels of effluent reduction beyond BPT for TSS. The

only technology option identified to attain further TSS reduction is

the addition of multimedia filtration to existing BPT systems.

EPA applied the BCT cost test to use of multimedia filtration

technology as a means to reduce TSS loadings. The MP&M sites were split

into three flow categories: low flow (generally less than 10,000

gallons per year (gpy)); medium flow (between 10,000 gpy and 1,000,000

gpy); and high flow (greater than 1,000,000 gpy). For each of these

three flow categories, a representative site was chosen for which EPA

had estimated the costs of installing the Option 2 technologies

discussed under BPT (See Section IX.B. above). The Agency evaluated the

costs of installing a polishing multimedia filter to remove an

estimated additional 45 percent of the TSS discharged after lime and

settle treatment. This estimated removal reflects the reduced TSS

concentrations seen when filters are used in the MP&M industry. The

cost per pound of the high flow case was $28/lb of TSS (in 1976

dollars), the cost per pound removed of the medium flow case was $131/

lb and the cost of the low flow case was $813/lb of TSS (in 1976

dollars). All of these cases individually as well as combined exceed

the $0.25/lb (in 1976 dollars) POTW cost test value. Because these

costs exceed the POTW benchmark, the first part of the cost test fails;

therefore, the second part of the test was unnecessary. It was

therefore determined that multi-media filtration does not pass the cost

test for BCT regulations development. In light of the above, BCT

limitations for MP&M are proposed to be set equal to BPT limitations.

Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish BCT limitations on the

basis of Option 2 technology, equivalent to BPT.

XI. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable

A. Need for BAT Regulation

The need for BAT regulation is the same as the need for BPT

regulation (see Section IX.A.).

B. BAT Technology Options and Selection

The factors considered in establishing the best available

technology economically achievable (BAT) level of control include: the

age of process equipment and facilities, the processes employed,

process changes, the engineering aspects of applying various types of

control techniques, the costs of applying the control technology,

economic impacts imposed by the regulation, non-water quality

environmental impacts such as energy requirements, air pollution and

solid waste generation, and other such factors as the Administrator

deems appropriate (sec

tion 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act). In general, the BAT technology level

represents the best existing economically achievable performance among

plants with shared characteristics. In making the determination about

economic achievability, the Agency takes into consideration factors

such as plant closures and product line closures. Where existing waste

water treatment performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT technology may

be transferred from a different subcategory or industrial category. BAT

may also include process changes or internal plant controls which are

not common industry practice.

EPA is today proposing BAT effluent limitations guidelines for all

parameters listed in Table 2 except TSS and pH. Oil and grease is an

indicator for 2-methylnaphthalene, 2-propanone, N-octadecane, and N-

tetradecane.

The three regulatory options which EPA considered for BAT are

identical to the three options discussed under BPT. Like BPT, EPA is

proposing BAT on the basis of Option 2. This technology represents the

best available technology economically achievable. Option 1 was

rejected because it does not include the pollution prevention and water

conservation technologies which are widely demonstrated at MP&M sites.

Option 3 was rejected because the costs do not justify the removals

achieved.

EPA did not include the application of filters, discussed under

BCT, as a BAT option. Data collected during sampling at MP&M facilities

demonstrated no additional removals of many metal pollutants resulting

from the use of filters as compared to concentrations of the same

metals after the lime and settle treatment included in Option 2. Thus,

although filtration is demonstrated to be effective in achieving

additional removals of suspended solids, and as such was considered for

the basis of BCT, multimedia or sand filtration does not reflect the

best available technology performance for priority and nonconventional

pollutants.

C. Calculation of BAT Limitations

The calculation of the BAT limitations were performed by using the

same methodology used for calculating BPT limitations (see Section

IX.C.)

D. Applicability of BAT

The applicability of BAT is the same as that for BPT.

E. BAT Pollutant Removals, Costs, and Economic Impacts

The pollutant removals for BAT are the same as those for BPT except

that BAT does not cover TSS (see Section IX.E.). The estimated cost of

BAT is the same as BPT (see Section IX.E.). The economic impacts of BAT

are the same as BPT (see Section IX.E.). EPA believes that the effluent

reduction benefits achieved by this proposed BAT justify the costs and

that all statutory factors have been satisfied. (See further discussion

of costs and benefits below.)

XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources

A. Need for Pretreatment Standards

Indirect dischargers in the MP&M Phase I category, like the direct

dischargers, use raw materials that contain many priority pollutant and

nonconventional metal pollutants. As in the case of direct dischargers,

they may be expected to discharge many of these pollutants to POTWs at

significant mass or concentration levels, or both. EPA estimates that

indirect dischargers annually discharge approximately 12 million pounds

of priority and nonconventional metals, and 2.4 million pounds of

priority and nonconventional organic pollutants.

EPA determines which pollutants to regulate in PSES on the basis of

whether or not they pass through, interfere with, or are incompatible

with the operation of POTWs (including interference with sludge

practices). The Agency evaluates pollutant pass through by comparing

the pollutant percentage removed by well operated POTWs achieving

secondary treatment with the percentage removed by BAT technology

applied by direct dischargers. A pollutant is deemed to pass through

POTWs when the average percentage removed nationwide by well-operated

POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment requirement) is less than the

percentage removed by directly discharging MP&M sites applying BAT for

that pollutant.

To evaluate the need for PSES, EPA followed the procedures

established by the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers

(OCPSF) regulation to determine the degree to which well-operated POTWs

are capable of removing pollutants. Prior to promulgation of the OCPSF

effluent guidelines, EPA conducted a study of [[Page 28230]] well-

operated POTWs that use secondary (biological) treatment (the ``50-POTW

Study''). The 50-POTW study determined the extent to which priority

pollutants are removed by POTWs. The principal means by which the

Agency evaluated pollutant pass-through was to compare the pollutant

percentage removed by POTWs with the percentage removed to comply with

BAT limitations.

Because some of the data collected for evaluating POTW removals

included influent levels of priority pollutants that were close to the

detection limit, the POTW data were edited to eliminate influent values

less than 10 times the nominal method detection limit (MDL) and the

corresponding effluent values, except in cases where none of the

influent concentrations exceeded 10 times the MDL. In the latter case,

where there were no influent data exceeding 10 times the MDL, the data

were edited to eliminate influent values less than twice the MDL and

the corresponding effluent values. These editing rules were used to

allow for the possibility that low POTW removals simply reflected the

low influent levels.

EPA then averaged the remaining influent data and also averaged the

remaining effluent data for the POTWs. The percent removal achieved for

each priority pollutant was determined from these averaged influent and

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

removal achieved by BAT treatment technology. Based on this analysis,

EPA determined that four nonconventional organic pollutants, seven

priority metal pollutants, five nonconventional metal pollutants,

cyanide, and chemical oxygen demand pass through POTWs. POTW removals

for ten of the nonconventional organic pollutants were calculated using

a data base developed by EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory

(RREL) and data transferred from other pollutants based on physical

similarities (e.g., straight-chained hydrocarbons, ketones, etc.).

B. PSES Technology Options and Selection

Indirect discharging MP&M sites generate waste waters with similar

pollutant characteristics to direct discharging facilities. Hence, the

same treatment technologies discussed previously for BPT and BAT are

considered applicable to PSES. However, as described below, the

application of the technology options has resulted in the addition of a

new option that applies to indirect dischargers.

EPA is today proposing PSES for all parameters listed in Table 2

except TSS and pH. EPA is proposing PSES for oil and grease as an

indicator for monitoring for organic pollutants which have the

potential to be present.

The Agency considered the following five options in developing PSES

for MP&M Phase I.

1. Option 1: Lime and Settle Treatment. This option is equivalent

to BPT Option 1.

2. Option 1a: Tiered PSES for ``Low'' Flow and ``Large'' Flow

Sites. This option would establish a tiered PSES requirement depending

on the annual discharge volume at a given MP&M site. For ``low'' flow

sites, sites with a discharge volume of less than 1,000,000 gallons per

year (gpy), PSES would require that sites comply with concentration

standards based on Option 1. For a site operating 250 days per year,

1,000,000 gallons per year translates into an average discharge flow

rate of 4,000 gallons per day. For ``large'' flow sites, sites with a

discharge volume of 1,000,000 gpy or greater, PSES would require that

mass-based standards be imposed based on Option 2 (i.e. the conversion

of Option 1 concentration-based standards using an appropriate flow

which reflects good pollution prevention and water conservation

practices such as those included in BPT Option 2). The flow basis would

be determined by the Control Authority using site-specific factors and

flow guidance (see the Technical Development Document for a detailed

presentation of flow guidance aimed at water conservation and good

housekeeping practices). If mass-based limitations have not been

developed as required, the source would have to achieve discharges not

exceeding the concentration limitations listed in the regulation. The

technology basis for PSES for large flow sites is the same as BPT

Option 2.

3. Option 2a: In-process Flow Reduction and Pollution Prevention

and Lime and Settle Treatment for ``Large'' Flow sites. This option

would require that mass-based standards be imposed based on Option 2

for sites with a discharge volume of 1,000,000 gpy or greater. Sites

with a discharge volume of less than 1,000,000 gpy would not be subject

to PSES requirements. For a site operating 250 days per year, 1,000,000

gallons per year translates into an average discharge flow rate of

4,000 gallons per day.

In order to fully implement the mass-based permits, it is important

for Control Authorities to issue permits in a timely manner.

Dischargers are reminded of their responsibilities under the General

Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403) to provide, among other things,

Baseline Monitoring Reports. The Agency expects Control Authorities to

place a priority on issuing needed mass-based permits, and those

permits should be issued within a year after the Baseline Monitoring

Report deadline. Control Authorities that do not meet these permitting

timelines may not be in compliance with their pretreatment programs

under 40 CFR 123.45.

4. Option 2: In-Process Flow Reduction & Pollution Prevention and

Lime and Settle Treatment. This option is equivalent to BPT Option 2.

5. Option 3: Advanced End-of-Pipe Treatment. This option is

equivalent to BPT Option 3.

Selected Option: EPA is proposing Option 2a technologies as the

basis for the proposed PSES for MP&M Phase I. Option 2a is economically

achievable (see Section XIV) and greatly reduces pollutants discharged

into the environment. Compared to Option 2, which would require that

all MP&M indirect dischargers be controlled by mass standards, Option

2a achieves significant pollutant reduction without imposing undue

administrative burden on the Control Authorities. Whereas Option 2

would require an estimated 8,706 facilities to have permits or similar

control mechanisms written incorporating the proposed standards into a

mass-based permit, Option 2a reduces this burden, requiring only an

estimated 1,998 facilities to have mass-based permits, the rest of the

facilities would not be subject to PSES requirements. EPA believes this

approach would allow Control Authorities to focus their efforts on the

facilities discharging the vast majority of the pollutants, rather than

dissipating their limited resources on sites contributing much less to

the overall problem. An indication of relative pollutant loadings by

size of facility is provided in Table 26 below. The low flow sites

could also be expected to reduce their discharges of pollutants, but

they would do so by meeting local limits. EPA has consulted with

representatives from EPA Regions, States and Municipalities, the

majority of whom favor this approach to regulating the MP&M industry.

C. Calculation of PSES

The proposed pretreatment standards for existing sources in the

MP&M Phase I category are presented in today's proposed rule. The

pretreatment standards are shown for cyanide and priority and

nonconventional metal pollutants. [[Page 28231]]

An oil and grease standard is proposed as an indicator for specific

organic pollutants. The specific organic pollutants for which oil and

grease is an indicator are 2-methylnaphthalene, 2-propanone, N-

octadecane, and N-tetradecane. EPA identified these pollutants in MP&M

waste water and determined that these pollutants will pass through a

POTW. These pollutants are more likely to partition to the oily phase

than the water phase, thus EPA believes that the treatment and removal

of oil and grease in waste water will also result in significant

removals of these pollutants. EPA's sampling results show higher

percent removals are achieved through oil and grease treatment (BAT

technology) than at a well-operated secondary POTW. EPA considered and

rejected establishing a pretreatment standard for Total Toxic Organics

(TTO) which would reflect the sum of concentrations achieved for

several organic pollutants. The reason EPA rejected TTO as an approach

to controlling organic pollutant discharges is that EPA knows that the

industry is in the midst of a significant shift in the solvents it is

using. Accordingly, EPA has no reason to believe that regulation of the

specific list of organics identified as of today would reflect the

organics that will be present in waste water when this regulation is

promulgated. EPA is planning to continue to study the sources and

concentrations of organic pollutants in MP&M waste water, particularly

as sites switch from ozone-depleting solvents to aqueous-based

cleaners. Accordingly, EPA may propose a different approach to

controlling organic pollutant discharges for both Phase I and Phase II

in conjunction with the MP&M Phase II rulemaking.

As with BAT proposed standards, the pretreatment standards are

expressed in terms of concentration-based standards. As described

above, EPA is proposing that MP&M sites be required to comply with a

mass-based permit if their annual discharge volume equals or exceeds

1,000,000 gallons. The proposed PSES would require dischargers to meet

``maximum for any one day'' and ``maximum monthly average'' standards.

The proposed PSES limitations for cyanide, priority and nonconventional

metal pollutants, and oil and grease are identical to those limits

established for these pollutants under proposed BAT Option 2.

Considering the large number of indirect dischargers which have the

potential to be covered by this proposed regulation, an important issue

to the affected industry and to permit writers is the potentially

enormous administrative burden. Therefore, in developing this proposal,

EPA has looked for means of reducing the administrative burden,

reducing monitoring requirements, and reducing reporting requirements.

The proposed exemption of existing indirect discharges discharging less

than one million gallons per year is one means by which EPA is

proposing to reduce the administrative burden.

D. Applicability of PSES Limitations

The Agency is proposing PSES under the MP&M Phase I category to

apply to all MP&M process waste waters that are generated by sites

performing manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance of metal parts,

products, or machinery in one of the seven industrial sectors (i.e.,

aerospace, aircraft, electronic equipment, hardware, mobile industrial

equipment, ordnance and stationary industrial equipment). The Combined

Wastestream Formula will apply to sites which have operations covered

by MP&M Phase I, existing effluent guidelines, or not covered by

existing regulations.

E. Removal Credits

As described previously, many industrial facilities discharge large

quantities of pollutants to POTWs where their wastes mix with waste

water from other sources, domestic wastes from private residences and

run-off from various sources prior to treatment and discharge by the

POTW. Industrial discharges frequently contain pollutants that are

generally not removed as effectively by waste water treatment at the

POTWs as by the industries themselves.

The introduction of pollutants to a POTW from industrial discharges

poses several problems. These include potential interference with the

POTW's operation or pass-through of pollutants if inadequately treated.

As discussed, Congress, in section 307(b) of the Act, directed EPA to

establish pretreatment standards to prevent these potential problems.

Congress also recognized that, in certain instances, POTWs could

provide some or all of the treatment of an industrial user's

wastestream that would be required pursuant to the pretreatment

standard. Consequently, Congress established a discretionary program

for POTWs to grant ``removal credits'' to their indirect dischargers.

The credit, in the form of a less stringent pretreatment standard,

allows an increased amount of pollutants to flow from the indirect

discharger's facility to the POTW.

Section 307(b) of the CWA establishes a three-part test for

obtaining removal credit authority for a given pollutant. Removal

credits may be authorized only if (1) The POTW ``removes all or any

part of such toxic pollutant,'' (2) the POTW's ultimate discharge would

``not violate that effluent limitation, or standard which would be

applicable to that toxic pollutant if it were discharged'' directly

rather than through a POTW and (3) the POTW's discharge would ``not

prevent sludge use and disposal by such [POTW] in accordance with

section [405]. * * *'' Section 307(b).

EPA has promulgated removal credit regulations in 40 CFR part

403.7. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has

interpreted the statute to require EPA to promulgate comprehensive

sewage sludge regulations before any removal credits could be

authorized. NRDC v. EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3rd Cir. 1986) cert.

denied. 479 U.S. 1084 (1987). Congress made this explicit in the Water

Quality Act of 1987 which provided that EPA could not authorize any

removal credits until it issued the sewage sludge use and disposal

regulations required by section 405(d)(2)(a)(ii).

Section 405 of the CWA requires EPA to promulgate regulations which

establish standards for sewage sludge when used or disposed for various

purposes. These standards must include sewage sludge management

standards as well as numerical limits for pollutants which may be

present in sewage sludge in concentrations which may adversely affect

public health and the environment. Section 405 requires EPA to develop

these standards in two phases. On February 19, 1993, EPA promulgated

the Round One sewage sludge regulations establishing standards,

including numerical pollutant limits, for the use and disposal of

sewage sludge. 58 FR 9248. EPA established pollutant limits for ten

metals when sewage sludge is applied to land, for three metals when it

is disposed of at surface disposal sites and for seven metals and total

hydrocarbons, a surrogate for organic pollutant emissions, when sewage

sludge is incinerated. These requirements are codified at 40 CFR part

503.

The Phase One regulations partially fulfilled the Agency's

commitment under the terms of a consent decree that settled a citizens

suit to compel issuance of the sludge regulations. Gearhart, et al. v.

Reilly, Civil No. 89-6266-JO (D.Ore). Under the terms of that decree,

EPA must propose and take final action on Round Two sewage sludge

regulations by December 15, 2001. [[Page 28232]]

At the same time EPA promulgated the Round One regulations, EPA

also amended its pretreatment regulations to provide that removal

credits would be available for certain pollutants regulated in the

sewage sludge regulations. See 58 FR at 9386. The amendments to part

403 provide that removal credits may be made potentially available for

the following pollutants:

(1) If a POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for beneficial

uses, disposes of it on surface disposal sites or incinerates it,

removal credits may be available, depending on which use or disposal

method is selected (so long as the POTW complies with the requirements

in part 503). When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits

may be available for ten metals. When sewage sludge is disposed of on a

surface disposal site, removal credits may be available for three

metals. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may be

available for seven metals and for 57 organic pollutants. See 40 CFR

403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A).

(2) In addition, when sewage sludge is used on land or disposed of

on a surface disposal site or incinerated, removal credits may also be

available for additional pollutants so long as the concentration of the

pollutant in sludge does not exceed a concentration level established

in part 403. When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits may

be available for two additional metals and 14 organic pollutants. When

the sewage sludge is disposed of on a surface disposal site, removal

credits may be available for seven additional metals and 13 organic

pollutants. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may

be available for three other metals. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B).

(3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid

waste landfill that meets the criteria of 40 CFR part 258 (MSWLF),

removal credits may be available for any pollutant in sewage sludge.

See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C).

Thus, given compliance with the requirements of EPA's removal

credit regulations,1 following promulgation of the pretreatment

standards being proposed here, removal credits may be authorized for

any pollutant subject to pretreatment standards if the applying POTW

disposes of its sewage sludge in a MSWLF that meets the requirements of

40 CFR part 258. If the POTW uses or disposes of its sewage sludge by

land application, surface disposal or incineration, removal credits may

be available for the following metal pollutants (depending on the

method of use or disposal): arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron,

lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel and zinc. Given compliance with

section 403.7, removal credits may be available for the following

organic pollutants (depending on the method of use or disposal) if the

POTW uses or disposes of its sewage sludge: benzene, 1,1-

dichloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride,

toluene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-

trichloroethane and trans-1,2-dichloroethene.

\1\ Under Section 403.7, a POTW is authorized to give removal

credits only under certain conditions. These include applying for,

and obtaining, approval from the Regional Administrator (or Director

of a State NPDES program with an approved pretreatment program), a

showing of consistent pollutant removal and an approved pretreatment

program. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3) (i), (ii), and (iii).

Some facilities may be interested in obtaining removal credit

authorization for other pollutants being considered for regulation in

this rulemaking for which removal credit authorization would not

otherwise be available under part 403. As discussed in the sewage

sludge regulations (58 FR 9382-83), EPA has concluded that removal

credits should not be authorized for pollutants other than the

pollutants specifically regulated by the final part 503 regulation. The

Agency has determined that the CWA, as amended, removal credit

eligibility is limited to those pollutants regulated specifically in

Part 503 and to pollutants that the Agency determines do not threaten

human health and the environment when used or disposed of in sewage

sludge. When read together, sections 307(b) and 405 permit removal

credits only when it can be determined that the increased

concentrations or amounts allowed by the removal credit will not affect

sewage sludge use or disposal adversely. EPA determined that a

categorical pretreatment standard pollutant is eligible for removal

credits only when EPA has either established a specific numerical limit

for that pollutant or has evaluated it and concluded that it does not

threaten public health or the environment. 58 FR 9382-83.

Consequently, in the case of a pollutant for which EPA did not

perform a risk analysis in developing the Phase One sewage sludge

regulations, removal credit for pollutants will only be available when

the Agency determines either a safe level for the pollutant in sewage

sludge or that regulation of the pollutant is unnecessary to protect

public health and the environment from the reasonably anticipated

adverse effects of such a pollutant.2 Therefore, any person

seeking to add additional categorical pollutants to the list for which

removal credits are now available would need to submit information to

the Agency to support such a determination. The basis for such a

determination may include information showing the absence of risks for

the pollutant (generally established through an environmental pathway

risk assessment such as EPA used for Phase One) or data establishing

the pollutant's presence in sewage sludge at low levels relative to

risk levels or both. Parties, however, may submit whatever information

they conclude is sufficient to establish either the absence of any

potential for harm from the presence of the pollutant in sewage sludge

or data demonstrating a ``safe'' level for the pollutant in sludge.

Following submission of such a demonstration, EPA will review the data

and determine whether or not it should propose to amend the list of

pollutants for which removal credits would be available.

\2\ In the Round One sewage sludge regulation, EPA concluded, on

the basis of risk assessments, that certain pollutants (see Appendix

G to Part 403) did not pose an unreasonable risk to human health and

the environment and did not require the establishment of sewage

sludge pollutant limits. As discussed above, so long as the

concentration of these pollutant in sewage sludge are lower than a

prescribed level, removal credits are authorized for such

pollutants.

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

EPA has already begun the process of evaluating a number of

pollutants for adverse potential to human health and the environment

when present in sewage sludge. In May, 1993, pursuant to the terms of

the consent decree in the Gearhart case, the Agency notified the United

States District Court for the District of Oregon that, based on the

information then available at that time, it intended to propose 31

pollutants for regulation in Round Two sewage sludge regulations. These

are acetic acid (2, 4, -dichlorophenoxy), aluminum, antimony, asbestos,

barium, beryllium, boron, butanone (2-), carbon disulfide, cresol (p-),

cyanides (soluble salts and complexes), dioxins/dibenzofurans (all

monochloro to octochloro congeners), endsulfan-II, fluoride, manganese,

methylene chloride, nitrate, nitrite, pentachloronitrobenzene, phenol,

phthalate (bis-2-ethylhexyl), polychlorinated biphenyls (co-planar),

propanone (2-), silver, thallium, tin, titanium, toluene,

trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2, 4, 5-), trichlorphenoxypropionic acid

([2- (2, 4, 5-)], and vanadium.

The Round Two regulations are not scheduled for proposal until

December, 1999 and promulgation in December 2001. However, given the

necessary [[Page 28233]] factual showing, as detailed above, EPA could

conclude before the contemplated proposal and promulgation dates that

regulation of some of these pollutants is not necessary. In those

circumstances, EPA could propose that removal credits should be

authorized for such pollutants before promulgation of the Round Two

sewage sludge regulations. However, because of the Agency's commitment

to promulgation of effluent limitations and guidelines under the

consent decree with NRDC, it may not be possible to complete review of

removal credit authorization requests by the time EPA must promulgate

these guidelines and standards.

EPA's proposal to establish pretreatment standards for oil and

grease as an indicator for organic pollutants means that oil and grease

is not subject to removal credits.

F. Compliance Date

EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance

with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance

with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites. In

addition, Control Authorities will need the time to develop the mass-

permits for their industrial users with annual discharge volumes

greater than 1,000,000 gallons.

G. PSES Pollutant Removals, Costs and Economic Impacts

EPA estimates that the proposed PSES regulation will result in the

removal of 14 million pounds per year of pollutants including 9.1

million pounds of priority and nonconventional metal pollutants and 2.1

million pounds of priority and nonconventional organic pollutants and

cyanide. PSES is estimated to result in capital costs of approximately

$ 351 million and annualized costs of $ 142 million (in 1994 dollars).

EPA projects that 7 sites may be closed as a result of PSES, and job

losses will affect 540 full-time employees (FTEs). However, EPA

estimates that compliance activities may generate annual labor

requirements which could more than offset these job losses.

XIII. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment

Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

Section 307(c) of the Act calls for EPA to promulgate pretreatment

standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time that it promulgates

new source performance standards (NSPS). New facilities have the

opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated technologies

including process changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment

technologies.

The same technologies discussed previously for BAT and PSES are

available as the basis for NSPS and PSNS. Option 2 was the selected

option for BAT and for large flow PSES, and the only higher technology

option identified by EPA was Option 3. Option 3 includes advanced end-

of-pipe treatment with significant reuse of process water. Since new

sites have the potential to install pollution prevention and pollution

control technologies more cost effectively then existing sources,

Option 3 was considered for NSPS and PSNS. However, EPA did not select

Option 3 technology as the basis for NSPS and PSNS because the costs do

not justify the removals achieved. Therefore, EPA is proposing NSPS and

PSNS for MP&M Phase I are based on the proposed Option 2 BAT

technologies identified above. All NSPS and PSNS limits are expected to

be mass-based. If mass-based limitations have not been developed as

required, the source shall achieve discharges not exceeding the

concentration limitations listed in the regulation.

XIV. Economic Considerations

A. Introduction

EPA's economic impact assessment is set forth in the report titled

``Economic Impact Analysis Of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines

And Standards For The Metal Products And Machinery Industry, Phase I''

(hereinafter ``EIA''). This report estimates the expected economic

effect of compliance with the proposed regulatory options in terms of

facility closures and associated losses in employment. Firm-level

impacts, local community impacts, international trade effects, labor

requirements of compliance, and effects on new Metal Products and

Machinery Industry (MP&M) facilities are also presented in this report.

A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis detailing the small business impacts

for this industry is also included in the EIA. In addition, EPA

conducted an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the regulatory

options. The report, ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Performance for the Metal

Products and Machinery Industry, Phase I'' is included in the record of

this rule-making. EPA also prepared a background analysis of the

economic conditions in the MP&M industry, ``Industry Profile Of the

Metal Products and Machinery Industry, Phase I.'' The following

discussion summarizes material from the Economic Impact Analysis, Cost-

Effectiveness Analysis, and Industry Profile reports. The reader is

referred to these reports for the full details of these analyses.

Analysis of the economic impacts of effluent guidelines for the

MP&M industry relies heavily on the responses to the questionnaire

distributed to MP&M facilities by EPA under the authority of Section

308 of the Clean Water Act (the DCP). As discussed above, EPA sent the

questionnaire, requesting both technical and economic information, to

1,020 MP&M industry facilities (See Section V.A.2 for details). After

detailed data cleaning and validation activities, the responses for 396

facilities, representing 10,601 water-discharging facilities in the

MP&M industry population, were used in the industry impact analysis.

EPA analyzed the economic impacts of the regulatory options applicable

to MP&M Phase I facilities on the basis of data for the 396 sample

facilities. The impacts assessed for these sample facilities were

extrapolated to the level of the MP&M industry population using

facility sample weights that are based on the sample design for the

Section 308 survey. Unless otherwise indicated, the remainder of this

discussion reports the estimated economic impacts for the MP&M industry

population.

B. Overview of the Facilities Potentially Subject to Regulation

From secondary source data (Department of Commerce), EPA estimates

that approximately 90,000 establishments or facilities participated in

the MP&M Phase I business sectors as of 1987. Thus, the estimated

10,601 water-discharging facilities (from Section 308 Survey data) that

would potentially be affected by this regulation represent about 11

percent of the total facilities in the MP&M Phase I business sectors.

Of the 10,601 water-discharging facilities, EPA estimates that 8,706

facilities are indirect dischargers (i.e., they discharge effluent to a

POTW) and would thus be subject to Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources (PSES). The remaining 1,895 facilities are estimated to be

direct dischargers (i.e., they discharge effluent directly to a

waterway under a NPDES permit) and will thus be subject to Best

Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) and Best Practicable

Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) requirements as herein

proposed.

The MP&M facilities that are expected to be subject to this

regulation contribute significantly to the U.S. economy. Table 3,

below, summarizes important economic data for the estimated 10,601

water-discharging facilities that are potentially subject to regulation

and on which the economic [[Page 28234]] impact analysis for this

regulation is based.

Table 3.--Summary Data for 1989 for Facilities Subject to Regulation in MP&M Phase I Sectors Estimated Revenue,

Value Added and Payroll in Millions of 1989 Dollars

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

Sector Facilities Employment Revenue Value added Payroll

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

Hardware........................ 4,197 379,000 44,327 9,463 5,845

Aircraft........................ 856 552,000 96,715 24,858 15,148

Electronic Equipment............ 1,280 700,000 155,101 80,502 12,503

Stationary Industrial Equipment. 2,769 419,000 52,918 12,815 6,306

Ordnance........................ 190 131,000 21,666 7,059 4,006

Aerospace....................... 545 580,000 54,430 19,454 9,660

Mobile Industrial Equipment..... 764 275,000 65,914 14,101 8,151

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

All Phase I Sectors......... 10,601 3,036,000 491,071 168,252 61,620

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

Total U.S. Manufacturing.... .............. 19,492,000 2,793,000 1,308,000 533,000

Phase I Facilities as a Percent

of Total U.S. Manufacturing.... .............. 15.58% 17.58% 12.86% 11.56%

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

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Section 308 Survey Data, 1989, and Statistical Abstract of the

United States, 1992, Department of Commerce.

These data show that the 10,601 facilities potentially subject to

regulation employed over 3,000,000 persons in 1989 or approximately 16

percent of the total U.S. manufacturing employment of 19.5 million in

1989.3 Total revenues for the 10,601 facilities are estimated at

$491 billion or about 18 percent of the total shipments for U.S.

manufacturing in 1989 of $2,793 billion. A more meaningful measure of

the value of production activity in these facilities is provided by

value added,4 which is estimated to amount to about $168 billion

or approximately 13 percent of the total value added of $1,308 billion

for U.S. manufacturing in 1989. The estimated payroll for the 10,601

facilities is about $62 billion or approximately 12 percent of the

total of $533 billion for U.S. manufacturing in 1989.

\3\ Although the MP&M Phase I sectors include non-manufacturing

activities and employment, nearly 95 percent of the revenue received

by facilities affected by the regulation is estimated to be derived

from manufacturing activities. Thus, the comparison of employment

and other economic values with totals for the U.S. manufacturing

sector provides a relevant basis for understanding the economic

significance of the industries and facilities expected to incur

costs

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