# Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Metal Products and Machinery > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-8885 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** May 30, 1995 - **Citation:** 60 FR 28210 ## Text 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 technolo [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-8885. Public record. Not legal advice.