Notice of Data Availability; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Centralized Waste Treatment Category

SUMMARY: On January 27, 1995, EPA proposed Clean Water Act effluent

limitations and pretreatment standards to reduce the discharge of

pollutants from the centralized waste treatment industry (60 FR 5464).

This document describes new information the Agency has obtained since

the proposal. This document also explains, based on this information,

the Agency's revised estimates of the size and regulatory impacts of

the proposed rulemaking on the proposed oils treatment and recovery

subcategory of the industry. This document presents the preliminary

results of EPA detailed analyses for the subcategory with the inclusion

of the new information and the data developed from it. EPA originally

estimated that there were 35 facilities in this subcategory. EPA now

estimates that there are a total of 275 facilities in the subcategory.

EPA further believes that the majority of the facilities treat dilute

oily wastestreams rather than the concentrated wastestreams that were

described in the proposal.

DATES: Comments on this notice are solicited and will be accepted until

October 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be submitted to Mr. Ed Terry at the

following address: Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), EPA, 401 M

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

The data and analyses being announced today are available for

review in the EPA Water Docket at EPA Headquarters at Waterside Mall,

room M2616, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202)

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

appointment before visiting the Docket. A reasonable fee may be charged

for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information,

contact Mr. Ed Terry at the following address: Engineering and Analysis

Division (4303), EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,

telephone number (202) 260-7128. For information on economic impacts,

contact Ms. Susan Burris at the same address, telephone number (202)

260-5379.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contents of This Document

I. Summary of Proposed Regulation and Purpose of Today's Notice

II. Post-Proposal Data Gathering for the Oily Waste Treatment and

Recovery Subcategory

III. Facility Specific Information

A. Wastewater Discharge Flow Estimates

B. Baseline Treatment Technology

C. Final Treated Effluent Characterization

IV. Revised Description of the Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery

Subcategory

A. Overview

B. Wastewater Flow and Discharge

V. Costs of Technology Options

A. BPT Costs

B. BCT Costs

C. BAT Costs

D. PSES Costs

VI. Pollutant Reductions

A. Conventional Pollutant Reductions

B. Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutant Reductions

1. Direct Dischargers and BAT

2. Indirect Dischargers and PSES

VII. Revised Economic Impacts

A. Overview

B. Data Sources and Assumptions for Revised Economic Analyses

C. Changes to Economic Analysis Methodology Since Proposal

D. Revised Economic Impacts for Oils Option 2 and 3

1. Impacts of Non-hazardous Oily Waste CWT Facilities and

Markets

2. Small Business Impacts

E. Cost-Effectiveness of Option 2 and Option 3

VIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments

A. Introduction and General Solicitation

B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations

1. Estimation of Oils Subcategory Size

2. Waste Receipt Characterization

3. Wastewater Discharge Flow Rates

4. Wastewater Treatment Technologies

5. Characterization of Wastewater Resulting from Various

Treatment Technologies

6. Final Effluent Characterization

7. Fuel Blending

8. RCRA Permits

9. Assumptions for Revised Economic Analyses

I. Summary of Proposed Regulation and Purpose of Today's Notice

On January 27, 1995 (60 FR 5464), EPA proposed regulations to

reduce discharges to navigable waters of toxic, conventional, and

nonconventional pollutants in treated wastewater from facilities

defined in the proposal as ``centralized waste treatment facilities.''

At proposal, these effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment

standards would apply to ``any facility that treats any hazardous or

non-hazardous industrial waste received from off-site by tanker truck,

trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge or other forms of shipment.'' These

facilities include both stand-alone waste treatment and recovery

facilities that treat waste received from off-site as well as those

facilities that treat on-site generated process wastewater with wastes

received from off-site. Based on its review of the data on the types of

waste accepted for treatment or recovery at such facilities, EPA

concluded that different limitations and standards were appropriate for

subcategories within the industry. The Agency preliminarily determined

that three subcategories were appropriate for the centralized waste

treatment (CWT) industry. These subcategories are: metal-bearing waste

treatment and recovery, oily waste treatment and recovery, and organic

waste treatment and recovery.

Today's notice focuses exclusively on the Oily Waste Treatment and

Recovery subcategory, or ``oils subcategory,'' defined in the proposal

as ``facilities that treat, and recover oil from oily waste received

from off-site.'' At the time of proposal, EPA believed that the oils

subcategory was comprised of 35 facilities treating predominantly

concentrated oily wastes. Since proposal, EPA has learned that the data

used to develop the proposal may have mischaracterized this portion of

the CWT industry. EPA learned that there are approximately 240

previously unaccounted for facilities treating oily waste received from

off-site, many of which accept dilute, not concentrated, oil

wastestreams. Today's notice discusses these facilities and describes

how the proposal limitations and standards, if promulgated, would

affect such facilities. EPA is requesting comment on the accuracy of

the information it has developed and its conclusions about the likely

effect of the proposed limits and standards, if promulgated, on these

facilities.

Based on information EPA received during the comment period as well

as material obtained from communication with the industry and the

National Oil Recyclers Association (NORA), EPA has revised its profile

of the oils subcategory of the centralized waste treatment industry to

take account of the newly identified facilities. Using this information

in conjunction with questionnaire responses and sampling data used to

develop the proposal, EPA has recharacterized this subcategory of this

industry. EPA developed individual profiles for each of the newly

identified facilities by modeling current

[[Page 48807]]

wastewater treatment performance and treated effluent discharge flow

rates. Additional information on how EPA modeled these facilities is

provided below. In addition, assuming the same treatment technology

options identified at proposal, EPA has recalculated the projected

costs of the proposed options under consideration, expected pollutant

reductions associated with these options, and the projected economic

impacts.

EPA is today announcing the availability of the new information and

requesting comment on it. EPA is specifically requesting that

individual facilities in the oils subcategory review the data developed

for their facility to ensure that EPA has accurately characterized

their operations. To the extent that actual wastewater treatment data

is available, EPA is also soliciting that information.

As noted, EPA has developed a facility profile for each of the 240

oils subcategory facilities. EPA will use the data to decide what

limitations and standards for the oils subcategory the Agency should

promulgate. EPA tested the assumptions and models it used to generate

the profiles against information already in the CWT rulemaking record

to validate its initial conclusions about the 240 new facilities in the

oils subcategory. In some cases, the results were consistent with that

observed in EPA's available data base. In other cases, the results seem

less certain. Given the use to which this data will be put, calculation

of pollutant reductions and treatment option costs, EPA hopes that

facilities will review the profiles to ensure their accuracy and that

these profiles are representative of actual conditions at individual

facilities.

In order to facilitate this effort, copies of the profiles for each

of the newly identified facilities will be available at the Agency.

Moreover, EPA will mail copies of this notice to each of the facilities

and include the profile for that facility with the notice. This will

provide that facility with an easy means of modifying the profile as

necessary.

In its proposal, EPA proposed limitations and standards for the

oils subcategory based on two treatment systems comprised of various

treatment technologies that the Agency identified. These were emulsion

breaking followed by (1) ultrafiltration and (2) ultrafiltration,

carbon adsorption, and reverse osmosis. These wastewater treatment

schemes were identified based on the data EPA had collected for

facilities treating highly concentrated, hazardous oily wastes. As

explained further below, EPA believes that the newly identified

facilities treat largely non-hazardous, dilute oily wastes. In

addition, EPA has learned that a number of these facilities are using

dissolved air flotation (DAF) systems to treat their wastewater.

Consequently, EPA will be sampling some of these facilities as part of

its assessment of appropriate limitations and standards for the oils

subcategory. EPA is particularly interested in obtaining information on

the use of DAF in treatment of oily wastes and requests any data and

information which commenters may have on this issue. This will be used

in the Agency's reconsideration of the achievable effluent limitations

and pretreatment standards.

II. Post-Proposal Data Gathering for the Oily Waste Treatment and

Recovery Subcategory

Since the January 27, 1995 proposal, EPA has obtained a more

inclusive list of facilities that may fall into the oils subcategory.

EPA gathered and evaluated technical data and economic data from

various sources, including comments to the January 27, 1995 proposal,

facility lists in the 1995 Environmental Information Directory,

membership lists from the National Oil Recyclers Association,

information from EPA Regions, and Dun and Bradstreet. EPA has compiled

a list of an additional 240 facilities that may be included in the oils

subcategory. Some of these facilities began operation after the Waste

Treatment Industry Questionnaire, the primary source of information for

the 1995 proposal was conducted. Others were in operation in 1989, the

base year for the questionnaire, but had not been identified by EPA as

centralized waste treatment facilities. EPA believes that many of the

newly identified facilities were created or altered their oily waste

treatment services in response to provisions of 40 CFR 279, promulgated

on September 10, 1992 (Standards for the Management of Used Oil, which

covers the handling and fate of used oils under the Solid Waste

Disposal Act and CERCLA). For the analyses presented in today's notice,

EPA determined that new facilities created after 1989 should be

included in the data base for development of the regulation because of

the tremendous growth rate of the industry.

EPA is also conducting further sampling in order to better

characterize the incoming waste receipts and type and concentrations of

wastewater constituents resulting from treatment of oily wastes and

wastewaters. EPA is sampling and evaluating the use of additional

treatment technologies including Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) and

plans to re-examine the technology basis and proposed limitations and

treatment standards for the oils subcategory based on the results of

this additional sampling.

III. Facility Specific Information

In developing these effluent limitations guidelines and

pretreatment standards, EPA considers impacts on the entire industry as

well as individual subcategories. Having learned of the additional

facilities treating oily wastes, not previously considered in

development of the proposal, EPA needed to develop information of both

a technical and economic nature for the newly identified facilities and

then incorporate this into the data base used for developing final

limitations and standards. EPA had several options. One method to

obtain the required information would be to send a questionnaire to the

240 facilities. EPA rejected this option since questionnaires are

burdensome for the facilities and time consuming to the EPA to develop,

conduct, and analyze.

The option EPA has recently adopted is to generate data for each of

the additional 240 facilities using modeling assumptions developed from

newly obtained information and the data base for the proposal. EPA has

then taken the data for each of the 240 facilities and used the

information to re-evaluate the proposed limits and standards for the

oils subcategory. The following sections explain how EPA developed this

information.

A. Wastewater Discharge Flow Estimates

In lieu of sending out questionnaires to the newly identified

facilities to collect technical and economic information, EPA used data

from secondary sources to estimate several facility characteristics

such as wastewater discharge flow. For most of the facilities,

information about total facility revenue and employment were available

from public sources (such as Dun and Bradstreet). Using these two

pieces of information, EPA used statistical procedures to match the

newly identified facilities to similar facilities that provided

information about facility operations in 1989 in response to EPA's

``Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire.'' This matching enabled EPA

to estimate the flow of treated wastewater from each of the newly

identified facilities. Where EPA had actual estimates of flow from the

facility or public sources, EPA used the actual values. This

methodology is described in more detail in the record accompanying this

notice.

[[Page 48808]]

B. Baseline Treatment Technology

In developing the 1995 proposal, EPA evaluated the treatment

technologies being used at the 35 facilities that EPA had identified as

belonging to the oils subcategory. EPA determined that the vast

majority of these facilities utilized emulsion breaking with either

acid and/or heat to separate the oil and water fractions. A few

facilities utilized other types of treatment systems in addition to

emulsion breaking, such as Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF). A few

facilities only utilized gravity separation; these facilities only

accepted unstable oil-water emulsions. However, very few facilities

utilized the technologies for the two co-proposed options-- identified

as Option 2 and Option 3 in the 1995 proposal. Under Option 2, the

proposed numerical effluent limitations and standards were based on the

use of ultrafiltration in the wastewater treatment system. Under Option

3, the proposed limitations and standards were based on the use of

carbon adsorption and reverse osmosis in addition to the Option 2

technology.

Based on information from NORA and from other secondary sources,

EPA discovered that the newly identified oils facilities utilize

technologies similar to those identified by questionnaire respondents.

EPA has found little evidence that the newly identified facilities

utilize the technologies associated with the proposed options for

limitations and standards. In modeling and costing technology

improvements necessary for the newly identified facilities to achieve

the effluent limitations and standards for the proposed options, EPA

assumes that none of the facilities have ultrafiltration, carbon

adsorption or reverse osmosis currently in place. Baseline treatment

for these newly identified facilities is assumed to be emulsion

breaking.

C. Final Treated Effluent Characterization

In developing the proposal, establishing the quantities of

pollutants currently being discharged in the final treated effluent

from oils facilities was a difficult task. As a result of EPA's

sampling at a few oils facilities, EPA determined that the wastewater

discharge from these facilities are characterized by as many as 100

pollutant parameters. Unfortunately, very few of the original 35

facilities could provide monitoring data for this wide list of

parameters. Additionally, most of these facilities mixed oily

wastewater with other centralized waste treatment (CWT) wastewaters,

industrial wastewater or stormwater prior to their monitoring point.

This made it extremely difficult to characterize the effluent from oils

treatment only.

As discussed previously, EPA found chemical emulsion breaking to be

baseline treatment for this subcategory. Therefore, current discharge

performance is the concentration of pollutants following chemical

emulsion breaking multiplied by the facility discharge flow. EPA

determined the concentration of pollutants resulting from chemical

emulsion breaking during the sampling program conducted prior to

proposal. This sampling program is discussed in more detail in the

Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines

and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry (EPA 821-R-

95-006, January 1995, NTIS #PB95-187985). EPA is currently conducting

additional sampling at some of the newly identified facilities to

supplement the earlier data and plans to publish the sampling results

for comments before promulgation.

For this notice, EPA estimated current discharge concentrations for

the newly identified facilities in the same manner as that used for the

proposal. Table I summarizes the concentrations of the parameters that

EPA is using to characterize wastewater pollutant concentrations for

each of the newly identified oils facilities.

Table I.--Oils Subcategory Current Wastewater Pollutant Concentrations

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

Pollutant

Pollutant concentration

(mg/L)

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

Conventional:

BOD5................................................... 7,164

Oil and Grease......................................... 29,396

TSS.................................................... 7,209

Metals:

Aluminum............................................... 48.93

Antimony............................................... 1.34

Arsenic................................................ 0.22

Barium................................................. 2.53

Boron.................................................. 239.36

Cadmium................................................ 0.24

Chromium............................................... 2.20

Cobalt................................................. 0.72

Copper................................................. 15.79

Iron................................................... 232.26

Lead................................................... 8.15

Manganese.............................................. 7.39

Molybdenum............................................. 3.05

Nickel................................................. 26.44

Silver................................................. 1.08

Tin.................................................... 2.10

Titanium............................................... 0.38

Zinc................................................... 42.00

Organics:

1,1,1-Trichloroethane.................................. 3.64

2-Butanone............................................. 20.10

2-Propanone............................................ 221.07

4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol................................ 22.31

Benzene................................................ 8.25

Benzoic Acid........................................... 16.81

Ethyl Benzene.......................................... 6.61

Hexanoic Acid.......................................... 5.38

Methylene Chloride..................................... 1.47

m-Xylene............................................... 11.37

n-Decane............................................... 91.78

n-Docosane............................................. 3.03

n-Dodecane............................................. 70.39

n-Eicosane............................................. 42.69

n-Hexacosane........................................... 3.08

n-Hexadecane........................................... 153.22

n-Octadecane........................................... 95.36

n-Tetradecane.......................................... 282.72

o+p-Xylene............................................. 5.19

Phenol................................................. 4.59

Tetrachloroethene...................................... 2.16

Toluene................................................ 33.95

Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether........................ 86.47

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

IV. Revised Description of the Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery

Subcategory

EPA's original description of the oils subcategory was based on

Questionnaire responses for 1989. The following description reflects

the Agency's current, revised thinking on how the oils subcategory

should be characterized.

A. Overview

At the time of proposal, 35 facilities were estimated to be in the

oils subcategory. EPA now believes there are a total of 275 oils

facilities. These facilities accept a variety of wastes, oil, and oily

wastewater for treatment and/or recovery. Types of wastes accepted for

treatment include but are not limited to: lubricants, used petroleum

products, used oils, oil spill clean-up, bilge water, tank cleanout,

off-spec fuels, and underground storage tank remediation waste. Many

facilities pre-treat the oily wastes for contaminants such as water and

then blend the resulting oil residual to form a product--usually fuel.

At the time of proposal, EPA believed that 85 percent of oils

facilities were primarily accepting concentrated, difficult to treat

stable oil-water emulsions. As such, EPA's sampling program prior to

proposal focused on facilities that treated the more concentrated and

difficult to treat stable oil-water emulsions. New information

indicates that the majority of the newly identified facilities are

treating less concentrated wastestreams. At facilities that EPA

recently visited, EPA found

[[Page 48809]]

that many of the wastestreams treated for oil content were fairly

dilute and consisted of less than 10 percent oils. In contrast, at the

time of the proposal, EPA believed that oily wastestreams were more

concentrated and mainly consisted of more than 10 percent oils. While

EPA still believes some facilities are accepting the more concentrated

wastes, the dilute wastestreams increasingly represent the more

significant portion of the incoming wastes.

Further, at proposal, only three of the facilities included in the

data base for this subcategory were identified as solely accepting

wastes classified as non-hazardous under RCRA. The remaining facilities

accepted either hazardous wastes alone or a combination of hazardous

and non-hazardous wastes. In contrast, EPA believes that the vast

majority of the newly identified facilities only accept wastestreams

that would be classified by RCRA as non-hazardous.

Additionally, for the 1995 proposal, EPA decided not to propose

nationally applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards for

fuel blending which was defined as ``the process of mixing organic

waste for the purpose of generating fuel for reuse.'' The 1989

Preliminary Data Summary for the Solvent Recycling Industry (EPA 440/1-

89/102, September 1989, NTIS #PB90-126467), which included fuel

blending operations, stated that 81 percent of the industry achieved

zero discharge of process wastewater primarily through incineration,

fuel blending, and contract hauling. EPA chose to exclude fuel blending

operations from the CWT rulemaking because EPA believed, based on

information obtained in the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire,

that fuel blending was essentially a ``dry'' process and did not

generate any wastewater. The oily waste treatment industry's compliance

with the Standards for the Management of Used Oil (40 CFR 279) seems to

have increased the number of facilities that treat oily wastes for the

purpose of recovering used oils and fuels for use in fuel blends. As

such, EPA believes that the majority of the newly identified facilities

perform fuel blending operations as part of their waste treatment

services. EPA solicits comments on fuel blending operations in general

as well as those in conjunction with waste oil recovery and treatment.

EPA solicits information on the fuel blending process, wastewater

generated as a result of fuel blending operations, and the

applicability of the proposed rule to such operations.

B. Wastewater Flow and Discharge

Table II summarizes the original estimates of wastewater flow and

the revised estimates developed by including the newly identified

facilities for the oils subcategory. At the time of proposal, EPA

estimated that four of the 35 facilities were direct dischargers. The

remainder were indirect dischargers, discharging to Publicly Owned

Treatment Works (POTWs). During EPA's recent data gathering for oils

facilities, however, EPA has not identified any new facilities that are

direct dischargers. Therefore, for the newly identified oils

facilities, EPA assumes that all facilities are indirect dischargers.

EPA now believes that there are four direct dischargers and 271

indirect dischargers.

Table II.--Summary of Wastewater Discharges From Oils Subcategory

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

Original Revised

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

Total Annual Direct Discharge (million gallons).. 64.2 64.2

Total Annual Indirect Discharge (million gallons) 162.5 946.8

Total Annual Discharge (million gallons)......... 226.7 1,011.1

Median Annual Flow (million gallons)............. 2.2 2.1

Average Annual Flow (million gallons)............ 6.5 3.7

Number of Facilities............................. 35 275

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

V. Costs of Technology Options

The Agency has estimated the cost for each of the newly identified

oils facilities to achieve each of the effluent limitations and

standards proposed in the January 27, 1995 Federal Register Notice.

These estimated costs are summarized in this section. The general

methodology used to calculate the costs for the newly identified

facilities was the same as that used for the proposal. A detailed

discussion of this methodology can be found in the Development Document

accompanying the proposal and in the Detailed Costing Document for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry (EPA 821-R-95-002, January 1995,

NTIS #PB95-187001).

All cost estimates in this section are expressed in 1995 dollars.

The cost components reported in this section represent estimates of the

investment cost of purchasing and installing equipment, the annual

operating and maintenance (O & M) costs associated with the equipment,

additional costs for monitoring, land costs, and costs for facilities

to modify existing RCRA permits. Even though EPA has assumed that the

newly-identified facilities accept only non-hazardous wastes, EPA

assumed that all facilities have an existing RCRA permit and that the

proposed technology changes would require permit modifications. EPA

made this assumption because EPA has identified non-hazardous

facilities which have a RCRA permit. EPA recognizes that use of this

assumption will necessarily overstate the costs of treatment for

facilities treating non-hazardous wastes which do not have a RCRA

permit. The land costs and the permitting costs have been included in

the capital costs. The monitoring costs are included in the O & M

costs. Total annualized costs include (1) the costs of capital and land

annualized over 20 years at 7 percent, and (2) the annual O & M costs.

For comparison purposes, the cost estimates calculated for the

original proposal for the oils subcategory have been included in

today's notice. The costs presented in the original proposal were

expressed in 1993 dollars. EPA adjusted the cost estimates from

proposal by applying the McGraw-Hill Company Engineering News Record

Construction Costs Indices for the appropriate years.

A. BPT Costs

The Agency estimated the cost of complying with the proposed

effluent limitations based on the best practicable control technology

currently available (BPT) for both of the proposed options-- Option 2

and Option 3. BPT limitations are expected to apply to the four direct

discharging facilities in this subcategory. BPT costs presented in this

notice including the newly identified facilities are the same as the

costs presented in the original proposal because EPA has assumed that

all of the newly identified facilities are indirect dischargers and

therefore not subject to BPT. The capital expenditures for Option 2 are

estimated to be $1.07 million with annual O&M costs of $0.82 million;

for Option 3, the capital expenditures are estimated to be $4.03

million with annual O&M costs of $8.56 million. To the extent that any

of the newly identified facilities are direct dischargers, they would

incur costs in complying with BPT and these figures would be an

underestimate.

B. BCT Costs

In the 1995 proposal, the Agency estimated that there would be no

incremental cost of compliance for

[[Page 48810]]

limitations based on the best conventional pollutant control technology

(BCT) because the technology is identical to BPT. This is still the

case for any newly identified facilities which are direct dischargers.

C. BAT Costs

In the 1995 proposal, the Agency estimated that there would be no

incremental cost of compliance for limitations based on the best

available technology economically achievable (BAT) because the

technology is identical to BPT. This is still the case for the newly

identified facilities which are direct dischargers.

D. PSES Costs

The Agency estimated the cost for compliance with pretreatment

standards for existing sources (PSES) using the same assumptions and

methodology used to estimate cost of implementing BPT. Table III

summarizes the capital expenditures, annual O&M costs, and total

annualized costs for implementing PSES for the original 35 facilities

as well as the revised estimates including the newly identified oils

facilities. For PSES Option 2, EPA estimates capital expenditures of

$45.72 million, annual O&M costs of $31.38 million, and total

annualized costs of $35.31 million. For PSES Option 3, EPA estimates

capital expenditures of $120.1 million, annual O&M costs of $173.85

million, and total annualized costs of $203.05 million.

Table III.--Cost of Complying With PSES for the Oils Subcategory

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

Original estimates ($ millions) Revised estimates ($ millions)

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

Proposed option Total Total

Number of Capital Annual O&M annualized Number of Capital Annual O&M annualized

facilities costs costs costs facilities costs costs costs

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

Oils--Option 2................................. 31 4.42 2.49 3.12 271 45.72 31.38 35.31

Oils--Option 3................................. 31 13.65 22.58 25.59 271 120.1 173.85 203.05

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

VI. Pollutant Reductions

The Agency estimated the reduction in the mass of pollutants that

would be discharged from the newly identified oils facilities after the

implementation of the regulation proposed in January 1995. The

methodology used to estimate the pollutant reductions in this notice is

the same as that used for the proposal. A detailed discussion of this

methodology can be found in The Development Document for Proposed

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry (EPA 821-R-95-006, January 1995, NTIS #PB95-187985.

A. Conventional Pollutant Reductions

EPA has calculated how much the proposed BPT and BCT limitations

would reduce the total quantity of conventional pollutants that are

discharged by the oils facilities. The information presented in this

notice applies to the oils subcategory only. If a facility could be

classified in more than one subcategory, then only reductions related

to the oils portion have been included in this discussion. The

estimated conventional pollutant reductions due to BPT and BCT

limitations including the newly identified facilities are the same as

the reductions estimated in the original proposal since all of the

newly identified facilities are assumed to be indirect dischargers and

not subject to BPT and BCT limitations. The Agency estimates that the

proposed regulations will reduce BOD5 discharges by approximately

1.9 million pounds per year for Option 2 and by approximately 2.6

million pounds per year for Option 3; TSS discharges by approximately

3.9 million pounds per year for both Options 2 and 3; and oil and

grease discharges by approximately 14.4 million pounds per year for

Option 2 and 15.7 million pounds per year for Option 3.

B. Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutant Reductions

EPA applied the same methodology used to estimate conventional

pollutant reductions attributable to application of BPT/BCT control

technologies to estimate priority and non-conventional pollutant

reductions for each facility for the oils subcategory. Because EPA

proposed BAT limitations equivalent to BPT, there are no additional

pollutant reductions associated with the BAT limitations.

1. Direct Dischargers and BAT

The estimated reductions in pollutants directly discharged in

treated final effluent from the oils subcategory resulting from

implementation of BPT and BAT are summarized in Table IV. For

convenience in reviewing today's notice, this table provides the same

information that was presented in the proposal. EPA does not estimate

that any of the newly identified facilities are direct dischargers. The

Agency estimates that proposed BPT and BAT regulations will reduce

direct facility discharges of priority and non-conventional pollutants

by 0.85 million pounds per year for Option 2 and 0.93 million pounds

per year for Option 3.

Table IV.--Reduction in Direct Discharge of Priority and Non-

Conventional Pollutants for the Oils Subcategory

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

Metal Organic

compounds compounds

Proposed option (pounds/ (pounds/

year) year)

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

Option 2...................................... 294,543 556,627

Option 3...................................... 319,847 610,937

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

2. Indirect Dischargers and PSES

The estimated reductions in pollutants indirectly discharged to

POTWs resulting from implementation of PSES for the oils subcategory

are summarized in Table V. For comparison purposes, the table includes

the pollutant reductions originally estimated at the time of proposal

as well as the estimated pollutant reductions including the newly

identified facilities. The Agency estimates that proposed PSES

regulations including the newly identified facilities will reduce

indirect facility discharges to POTWs by 12.7 million pounds per year

for Option 2 and 13.6 million pounds per year for Option 3.

[[Page 48811]]

Table V. Reduction in Indirect Discharge of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants for the Oils Subcategory

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

Original estimates (pounds/ Revised estimates (pounds/

year) year)

Proposed option ---------------------------------------------------------------

Metal Organic Metal Organic

compounds ompounds compounds compounds

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

Oils--Proposed Option 2......................... 709,834 1,341,439 4,212,333 8,509,688

Oils--Proposed Option 3......................... 771,668 1,474,708 4,667,589 8,932,084

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

VII. Revised Economic Impacts

A. Overview

As explained in Section IV.A, EPA believes that the vast majority

of newly identified facilities only accept RCRA non-hazardous

wastestreams. Although the economic analysis assumes separate markets

for oily waste management services (one for hazardous oily wastes and

one for non-hazardous oily wastes), the following discussion focuses on

the economic impacts for facilities exclusively managing non-hazardous

oily waste.

The Agency has estimated the economic and financial impacts

expected to result from the proposed limitations and standards for all

of the newly identified oils facilities. This analysis includes an

assessment of projected changes in the prices and quantities of oily

waste treatment services, employment, facility profitability, and

impacts on companies owning these facilities (including small business

impacts). Today's notice summarizes the results of these analyses. For

all the analyses, dollar values from other years were adjusted to 1995

values using a cost adjustment factor.

Additional information about the economic analysis, including a

detailed description of the model and method, is available in Economic

Impacts of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry: Revised Impacts of Oils Option 2

and Oils Option 3 (EPA 821-R-95-001, January 1995, NTIS #PB95-187985).

B. Data Sources and Assumptions for Revised Economic Analyses

In developing and running the models for the non-hazardous waste

market, EPA utilized five main sources of data: information obtained

from Dun and Bradstreet, information from the National Oil Recyclers

Association (NORA), information from comments to the 1995 proposal,

information from site visits conducted after the proposal at a limited

number of oils facilities, and information obtained from the Waste

Treatment Industry Questionnaire. The Agency solicits comment on the

representativeness of the data used and the accuracy of the assumptions

made in modeling facility operations for the new facilities.

EPA has assumed that the volume of waste and wastewater received

from off-site for treatment and/or recovery is evenly split between

oily waste from which oil is recovered and oily wastewater which is

treated. For facilities that recover oil, EPA has assumed that 60

percent of the incoming volume is recovered as oil and the remainder is

wastewater. Combining these assumptions, EPA assumed that the total

volume of incoming waste receipts at a facility is 1.25 times the

estimated discharge flow to the POTW. These assumptions were based on

information from NORA, site visits and previous questionnaire

responses.

The Agency estimated operating costs, revenues, and profits at each

facility, based on confidential cost and price data obtained from

commenters, and on each facility's estimated quantity of waste received

from off site. Each facility is assumed to charge $0.35 per gallon to

accept incoming waste receipts from off site, and to sell recovered oil

for $0.12 per gallon. Since no data are available from secondary

sources to enable the Agency to include other revenue or cost at each

facility, the Agency's analysis is limited to costs, revenues, and

profits from oily waste CWT operations only.

Demand for oily waste management services is assumed to be

relatively unresponsive to changes in price. Thus, when the price of

CWT services increases, EPA's analysis assumes that most generators

continue to send their waste to CWTs, and pay a higher price.

C. Changes to Economic Analysis Methodology Since Proposal

The economic analysis of Oils Option 2 and Oils Option 3 includes

impacts on 243 non-hazardous oily waste CWT facilities. This analysis

includes the 240 newly identified oily waste CWTs, plus the three non-

hazardous oils facilities from the pre-proposal analysis.

The Agency believes that the waste managed by the 243 non-hazardous

oily waste management CWTs is fundamentally different from the waste

managed at CWTs also accepting hazardous waste. Thus, facilities

managing non-hazardous oily waste offer services that are not perfect

substitutes for the services offered by facilities managing hazardous

oily waste. In other words, there are two separate markets for the two

types of oily waste CWT services. For this reason, the Agency has

chosen to develop two separate market models: one for hazardous oily

waste CWT services and one for non-hazardous oily waste CWT services.

For both markets, the Agency has assumed that there are six regional

markets, corresponding to the Northeast, Southeast, Upper Midwest,

Lower Midwest, Northwest, and Southwest of the United States. There the

similarities between the models end.

The model used to analyze the economic impacts on hazardous waste

CWTs is described in detail in the proposal and in EPA's Economic

Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and

Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry (EPA 821-R-95-

001, January 1995, NTIS #PB95-106821). A brief description of the

hazardous model follows in order to contrast the model used to analyze

impacts on non-hazardous oily waste CWTs.

The hazardous oily waste CWT model assumed six regional markets in

which a few facilities offered centralized waste treatment services.

Within each region, markets are assumed to be imperfectly competitive:

facilities are aware of their competitors' actions and determine how

much waste to accept at a given market price based on their assumptions

about how their competitors will respond. Perhaps because of a desire

to avoid triggering additional RCRA corrective action requirements by

closing a facility, companies managing hazardous oily waste have tended

to keep unprofitable CWT facilities in operation for extended periods

of time. For this reason, the model does not assume that facilities

[[Page 48812]]

becoming unprofitable due to the proposed rule will close; rather, it

tallies the number of facilities becoming unprofitable (as well as

those becoming more profitable).

Unlike the hazardous waste markets, each of the six regional

markets for non-hazardous oily waste CWT services includes from 15 to

70 facilities offering to supply these services. With so many

facilities, it is not possible for each facility to keep track of all

of its competitors' activities. Neither is it possible for any one

facility to have a significant impact on market price. Thus, the

analysis assumes that the market for non-hazardous oily waste CWT

services is competitive. Rather than making a strategic decision when

faced with new market conditions, non-hazardous oils CWTs determine the

profit-maximizing quantity of waste to treat, given a new market price.

Unlike the hazardous waste oils CWTs, these facilities do not share the

same concerns about RCRA corrective action; they are all estimated to

be profitable at baseline and are assumed to close if unprofitable.

D. Revised Economic Impacts for Oils Options 2 and 3

1. Impacts on Non-Hazardous Oily Waste CWT Facilities and Markets

Facilities complying with Option 2 and Option 3 may need to obtain

land, install capital equipment, and employ more labor and materials.

These compliance activities will increase the cost of treating oily

waste and oily wastewater at CWT facilities. The costs incurred by oily

waste management facilities are described in Section V. In this

section, EPA describes expected facility responses to the increased

costs, and the resulting impacts on the markets for oily waste

management services, industry and facility profitability, and

employment.

Facilities are assumed to respond to changes in their costs and in

the market price for treatment services by selecting the profit-

maximizing quantity of waste to treat. All non-hazardous oily waste CWT

facilities are assumed to incur compliance costs under both Option 2

and Option 3. Overall, the quantity of waste accepted by each facility

declines; market supply falls and market price rises. Facilities become

less profitable and some close. Because they are accepting less waste,

they need fewer employees, and employment declines. Table VI summarizes

the results of this analysis.

Table VI.--Impacts of Oils Option 2 and Option 3 on CWTS Managing Non-

Hazardous Oily Waste

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

Changes from baseline

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

Absolute Percent

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

Market Impacts

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

Option 2:

Market Price ($1995/gallon)..... 0.03 8.5

Quantity Treated (10 \3\ gallons/

year).......................... -20,158 -2.0

Option 3:

Market Price ($1995/gallon)..... 0.12 34.4

Quantity Treated (10\3\ gallons/

year).......................... -71,210 -7.1

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

Industry Impacts

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

Option 2:

Average Change in Operating

Profits ($10\3\)............... -12 -1.0

Facilities Becoming Unprofitable 3 1.2

Change in Employment............ -721 -9.6

Option 3:

Average Change in Operating

Profits ($10\3\)............... -166 -14.5

Facilities Becoming Unprofitable 30 12.3

Change in Employment............ -2,024 -26.9

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

Under Option 2, the price charged to generators of oily waste

increases substantially, and the quantity of oily waste treated

decreases slightly. This relatively large increase in price and

moderate decrease in the quantity of waste treated reflect the fact

that supply and demand curves for oily waste CWT services are both

relatively unresponsive to changes in price. Thus, when the costs of

the facilities increase, they are able to pass most of the increased

cost along to their customers. While the price charged to the

generators for oily waste CWT services is projected to increase

significantly, this does not represent a significant burden to the

average manufacturer, for whom CWT services is a very small share of

total manufacturing costs. Three oily waste CWT facilities, which are

predicted to incur very high compliance costs, are predicted to close

as a result of Option 2. Employment is estimated to decline by more

than 700 employees. Under Option 3, the impacts are considerably

higher. Thirty facilities are projected to close and employment is

projected to decline by more than 2,000 employees, from a base of

approximately 7,530.

2. Small Business Impacts

As was the case for proposal, the Agency has defined small business

according to the Small Business Administration's definition for SIC

code 4953 (Refuse Systems). Small businesses owning CWTs are those

having less than $6 million in annual sales. Of the 243 non-hazardous

oils facilities, the Agency has determined that 99 are owned by small

businesses. Of the remaining facilities, 90 are owned by businesses

that are not small. The Agency has been unable to determine the size of

the companies owning the remaining 54 facilities because no company

ownership data are available from publicly available financial

databases. For this notice, the Agency's analysis of impacts on small

businesses is limited to impacts on the 99 facilities known to be owned

by small companies.

The impacts of the proposed regulation on small businesses are

summarized in Table VII. Total annualized compliance costs for these

facilities average $125,000 per facility under Option 2 and $567,000

per facility under Option 3. Under Option 2, total annualized

compliance costs

[[Page 48813]]

represent 9% of baseline facility revenues for the facilities owned by

small businesses; under Option 3, they are 39 percent. Profits for

small businesses owning oily waste CWT facilities are projected to

decline by 2.0% as a result of Option 2 and by 15.4% as a result of

Option 3. No facilities owned by small businesses are projected to

close as a result of Option 2, but two are projected to close as a

result of Option 3. Employment at facilities owned by small businesses

is projected to decline by 6.7 percent under Option 2 and by nearly 23

percent under Option 3.

Table VII.--Small Business Impacts of the Proposed Regulation

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

Changes from baseline

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

Absolute Percent

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

Option 2:

Average Change in Operating

Profits ($10\3\)............... -20 -2.0

Facility Closures............... 0 0

Change in Employment............ -86 -6.7

TAC as a Share of Baseline

Revenue........................ ................ 8.8

Option 3:

Average Change in Operating

Profits ($10\3\)............... -160 -15.4

Facility Closures............... 2 2.0

Change in Employment............ -293 -22.8

TAC as a Share of Baseline

Revenue........................ ................ 39.9

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

E. Cost-Effectiveness of Option 2 and Option 3

EPA's cost-effectiveness analysis compares the costs of complying

with the control options to their effectiveness in removing pollutants

from surface waters. Cost-effectiveness ratios are expressed as dollars

per pound-equivalent removed, where a ``pound-equivalent'' is a pound

of pollutant weighted by its relative toxicity. The estimated pollutant

reductions (see Section VI) for indirect dischargers are also adjusted

to reflect pollutant removals by the POTW. Total cost-effectiveness is

calculated as the ratio of the total annualized costs to the pound

equivalents removed. Cost-effectiveness can also be presented

incrementally between options, comparing incremental costs to

incremental removals from option to option. To permit comparison with

cost-effectiveness results for effluent limitation guidelines and

standards for other industries, the total annualized costs of Option 2

and Option 3 were converted to 1981 dollar values.

Table VIII details the results of the revised cost-effectiveness

analysis for Option 2 and Option 3. The results reported include costs

and removals for the entire oils subcategory and thus include hazardous

oily waste CWTs as well as the non-hazardous oily waste CWTs. Since no

new direct dischargers have been identified, the cost-effectiveness

results for direct dischargers remain unchanged since proposal. At the

time of proposal, EPA's cost effectiveness results for indirect

discharging oils facilities were lower than the results presented in

Table VIII. Total and incremental cost-effectiveness of Option 2 was

$13.79 per pound-equivalent removed. For option 3, total cost-

effectiveness was $111.37 per pound equivalent removed, and incremental

cost-effectiveness was $6,692.49 per pound equivalent removed.

Table VIII.--Cost Effectiveness of Option 2 and Option 3

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

Total Total cost- Incremental cost-

annualized costs Removals (lb-eq/ effectiveness effectiveness

($1981/yr) yr) ($/lb-eq) ($/lb-eq)

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

Direct Dischargers:

Option 2............................ 628,218 113,500 5.53 5.53

Option 3............................ 6,143,526 119,256 51.52 958.18

Indirect dischargers:

Option 2............................ 22,861,383 950,144 24.06 24.06

Option 3............................ 131,454,856 969,858 135.54 5,508.44

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

VIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments

A. Introduction and General Solicitation

EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking.

The Agency asks that comments address any perceived deficiencies in the

record of this notice and that suggested revisions or corrections be

supported by data. EPA is requesting that individual facilities in the

oils subcategory review the data developed for their facility to ensure

that EPA has accurately characterized their operations.

The Agency invites all parties to coordinate their data collection

activities with EPA to facilitate mutually beneficial and cost-

effective data submissions. EPA is interested in participating in study

plans, data collection and documentation. Please refer to the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION section at the beginning of this notice for

technical contacts at EPA.

All information that you provide to EPA in your comments may be

made public by EPA without further notice to you if not claimed as

Confidential Business Information (CBI). Any information submitted,

other than effluent data, may be claimed as CBI, as described in 40 CFR

Section 2.203 (b):

(b) Method and time of asserting business confidentiality claim.

A business which is submitting information to EPA may assert a

business confidentiality claim covering the information at the time

it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or

other suitable form of notice employing language such as `trade

secret,' `proprietary,' or `company confidential.' Allegedly

[[Page 48814]]

confidential portions of otherwise non-confidential documents should

be clearly identified by the business, and may be submitted

separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If the

business desires confidential treatment only until a certain date or

until the occurrence of a certain event, the notice should so state.

Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed

by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth in

40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. In general, submitted information protected

by a business confidentiality claim may be disclosed to other

employees, officers, or authorized representatives of the United States

concerned with carrying out the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, or

when relevant to any proceeding under these Acts.

B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations

EPA requests comments and data on the following issues:

1. Estimation of Oils Subcategory Size

Based on data gathered from various sources for today's notice, EPA

has revised its estimate of the number of facilities in the oils

subcategory. EPA estimates that there are 275 facilities in the oils

subcategory. A portion of these facilities may have been considered as

part of the Preliminary Data Summary for the Solvent Recycling Industry

rather than part of the Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous

Waste Treatment Industry (EPA 440/1-89/100, September 1989, NTIS #PB90-

126517). EPA solicits general comments on this revised estimate as well

as specific information on the number, name, and location of facilities

within the industry.

2. Waste Receipt Characterization

At the time of proposal, EPA believed that the vast majority of

oils facilities treated concentrated, stable oil-water emulsions. As

such, EPA's sampling program prior to proposal focused on facilities

which accepted these types of wastes. EPA no longer believes that the

majority of wastewater receipts are comprised of concentrated (>10%

oil) wastestreams. EPA requests information on the type of oily waste

(stable, unstable, % water, etc.) accepted for treatment by the oils

subcategory as well as constituents found in the incoming wastes and

wastewaters.

3. Wastewater Discharge Flow Rates

For this notice, EPA estimated the annual discharge flow rate at

each of the newly identified facilities based on publicly available

information on total facility revenue and employment. Additionally, EPA

assumed that all of these facilities discharge to Publicly Owned

Treatment Works (POTWs) rather than to surface waters. EPA solicits

information on the actual annual wastewater discharge flow rate at each

of the oils facilities as well as the destination of the wastewater

discharge.

4. Wastewater Treatment Technologies

EPA assumed that all of the newly-identified oils facilities have

chemical emulsion breaking to treat wastes and wastewaters accepted for

treatment. EPA additionally assumed that none of the newly-identified

facilities utilize any of the technologies that form the basis for the

proposed options. EPA solicits information on these assumptions.

Facilities should provide detailed information on the types of

treatment technologies employed in both their oil recovery and

wastewater treatment operations.

5. Characterization of Wastewater Resulting From Various Treatment

Technologies

EPA has proposed chemical emulsion breaking as the baseline

wastewater treatment technology for this subcategory. In order to

provide a broader picture of the pollutant removal effectiveness, EPA

is seeking additional information on the concentrations of pollutants

in wastewater resulting from treatment by chemical emulsion breaking

and gravity separation. Additionally, as noted previously, EPA will be

sampling at some oils subcategory facilities that use dissolved air

flotation (DAF) to treat oily wastewaters. EPA is particularly

interested in data on the chemical composition of wastewaters resulting

from treatment by DAF. To the extent that actual wastewater treatment

data is available for DAF, EPA is also soliciting that information.

6. Final Effluent Characterization

EPA has very limited data on the level of constituents currently

being discharged in the treated final effluent resulting solely from

the treatment of oily wastes and wastewaters at oils facilities. For

the proposal and today's notice, EPA has assumed that all facilities

have the same constituents and concentrations of constituents in their

discharges. EPA requests discharge monitoring data from facilities

prior to commingling with other centralized waste treatment wastewater,

non-contaminated stormwater, or other sources of wastewater.

7. Fuel Blending

In EPA's 1995 proposal, EPA chose not to propose nationally

applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards for fuel

blending operations defined as ``the process of mixing organic waste

for the purpose of generating fuel for reuse.'' New information

indicates that the majority of the newly identified facilities perform

fuel blending operations as part of their waste treatment services. EPA

solicits comments on fuel blending operations in general as well as

those in conjunction with waste oil recovery and treatment. EPA

solicits information on the fuel blending process, wastewater generated

as a result of fuel blending operations, and the applicability of the

proposed rule to such operations.

8. RCRA Permits

EPA has identified non-hazardous oils facilities which have

obtained or applied for RCRA permits. As such, EPA assumed that all of

the newly identified facilities had the potential to have a RCRA

permit, and EPA included the cost of permit modifications in the

capital component of complying with the proposed options. EPA

recognizes that use of this assumption will necessarily overstate the

costs of treatment for those non-hazardous facilities which do not have

a RCRA permit. EPA solicits comment on why non-hazardous facilities

would obtain a RCRA permit and the extent of RCRA permits in the non-

hazardous portion of this industry.

9. Assumptions for Revised Economic Analysis

EPA used various sources of information to make assumptions used in

modeling the baseline conditions for the newly identified oils

facilities. EPA made assumptions concerning the relationship between

the volume of incoming waste and wastewaters being treated in oil

recovery and wastewater treatment, the percent of oil recovered, the

relationship between incoming waste receipts and final treated effluent

flow rates, the charge to generators for the CWT service, the price of

recovered oil, and the market structure. EPA solicits comments on the

accuracy of the assumptions used.

Dated: September 9, 1996.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 96-23658 Filed 9-13-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P