Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category
Federal RegisterJun 25, 1998
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 442
[FRL-6100-6]
RIN 2040-AC23
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Point Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed regulation establishes technology-based effluent
limitations guidelines for the discharge of pollutants into waters of
the United States and into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) by
existing and new facilities that perform transportation equipment
cleaning operations. Transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) facilities
are defined as those facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning
the interior of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail tank cars,
closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers, inland tank
barges, closed-top hopper barges, ocean/sea tankers, and other similar
tanks (excluding drums and intermediate bulk containers) used to
transport materials or cargos that come into direct contact with the
tank or container interior. Facilities which do not engage in cleaning
the interior of tanks are not considered within the scope of this
proposal.
EPA is proposing to subcategorize the TEC Point Source Category
into 11 subcategories based on types of cargos carried and
transportation mode. EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations
for existing facilities and new sources discharging wastewater directly
to surface waters in the following subcategories: Truck/Chemical, Rail/
Chemical, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, Truck/Food, Rail/Food and Barge/
Food Subcategories.
EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment standards for existing
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the
following subcategories: Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical
Subcategories. Additionally, EPA is proposing to establish effluent
limitations for new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
EPA is proposing not to establish effluent limitations or
pretreatment standards for existing or new facilities in the Truck/
Petroleum, Rail/Petroleum, Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper
Subcategories. Also, EPA is proposing not to establish pretreatment
standards for existing or new sources in the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and
Barge/Food Subcategories because the pollutants generated by these
subcategories are amenable to treatment in a Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW).
This proposal would not apply to wastewater discharges from
cleaning operations located at industrial facilities regulated under
other Clean Water Act effluent guidelines, provided that the facility
cleans only tanks containing cargos or commodities generated or used
on-site, or by a facility under the same corporate structure.
The wastewater flows covered by the rule include all contact
washwaters which have come into direct contact with the tank or
container interior including pre-rinse cleaning solutions, chemical
cleaning solutions, and final rinse solutions. Additionally, the rule
covers wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors, equipment
and floor washings, and TEC contaminated wastewater at those facilities
subject to the TEC guidelines and standards. Compliance with this
proposal is estimated to reduce the discharge of priority pollutants by
at least 100,000 pounds per year and result in recreational benefits of
$1.8 million to $6.3 million in 1997 dollars. Additional non use
benefits are projected to range from $ 885,000 to $3.2 million.
Compliance with this proposal is expected to result in a total pretax
compliance cost of $37.5 million annually.
DATES: Comments on the proposal must be received by September 23, 1998.
In addition, EPA will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, August
18, 1998, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments and supporting data on this proposal
to: John Tinger, US EPA, (4303), 401 M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
The public hearing covering the rulemaking will be held at the EPA
headquarters auditorium, Waterside Mall, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC.
Persons wishing to present formal comments at the public hearing should
have a written copy for submittal.
The public record is available for review in the EPA Water Docket,
401 M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The public record for this
rulemaking has been established under docket number W-97-25, and
includes supporting documentation, but does not include any information
claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). The record is
available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. For access to docket materials, please call
(202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information
contact Mr. John Tinger at (202) 260-4992. For additional economic
information contact Mr. George Denning at (202) 260-7374.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities: Entities potentially
regulated by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... Facilities that clean the interiors
of tank trucks, rail tank cars, or
barges that have been used to
transport cargos and that are not
already covered by Clean Water Act
effluent guidelines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in Section III of the proposed rule.
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed for technical information
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Supporting Documentation
The regulations proposed today are supported by several major
documents:
1. ``Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Category'' (EPA-821-B-98-011). Hereafter referred to as the Technical
Development Document, the document
[[Page 34687]]
presents EPA's technical conclusions concerning the proposal. EPA
describes, among other things, the data collection activities in
support of the proposal, the wastewater treatment technology options,
wastewater characterization, and the estimation of costs to the
industry.
2. ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category''
(EPA-821-B-98-012).
3. ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Category'' (EPA-821-B-98-013).
4. ``Statistical Support Document of Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Category'' (EPA-821-B-98-014).
5. ``Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Category'' (EPA-821-B-98-015).
How to Obtain Supporting Documents: All documents are available
from the Office of Water Resource Center, RC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone (202) 260-7786 for the
voice mail publication request. The Technical Development Document can
also be obtained through EPA's Home Page on the Internet, located at
WWW.EPA.GOV/OST/RULES. The preamble and rule can also be obtained at
this site.
Table of Contents
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Section 304(m) Requirements
C. Pollution Prevention Act
III. Scope of the Proposed Regulation
IV. Profile of the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry
A. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Facilities
B. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Processes
C. Regulatory History for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Industry
V. Summary of Data Collection Activities
A. Preliminary Data Summary
B. Development of TECI Site Identification Database
C. Survey Questionnaires
1. 1993 Transportation Equipment Equipment Cleaning Industry
Screener Questionnaire
2. 1994 Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry Detailed
Questionnaire
D. Development of National Population Estimates
E. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling Program
VI. Industry Subcategorization
A. Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization
1. Cleaning Processes
2. Tank Type Cleaned
3. Cargo Type Cleaned
4. Water Use Practices
5. Wastewater Characteristics
6. Facility Age
7. Facility Size
8. Geographical Location
9. Water Pollution Control Technologies
10. Treatment Costs
11. Non-water Quality Impacts
B. Selection of Subcategorization Approach
VII. Wastewater Generation and Characteristics
VIII. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Description of Available Technologies
1. Pollution Prevention Controls
2. Flow Reduction Technologies
3. End-of-Pipe Wastewater Treatment Technologies
B. Technology Options Considered for Basis of Regulation
1. BPT Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Introduction
b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
g. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
2. BCT Technology Options Considered and Selected
3. BAT Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
b. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
c. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
d. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
e. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
f. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
4. NSPS Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Introduction
b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
g. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
5. PSES Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Introduction
b. Pass-Through Analysis
c. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
d. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
e. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
f. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
g. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
h. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
6. PSNS Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Introduction
b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
g. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
C. Development of Effluent Limitations
IX. Costs and Pollutant Reductions Achieved by Regulatory
Alternatives
A. Methodology for Estimating Costs
B. Methodology for Estimating Pollutant Reductions
X. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Economic Impact Methodology
1. Introduction
2. Methodology Overview
C. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts
1. Number of Facilities Incurring Costs
2. Total Costs and Impacts of the Proposed Rule
a. Introduction
b. Impacts From PSES
c. Impacts From BPT, BCT, and BAT
d. Impacts From PSNS
e. Impacts from NSPS
3. Economic Impacts of Accepted and Rejected Options
4. Small Business Analysis
D. Cost-Benefit Analysis
E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
XI. Water Quality Impacts of Proposed Regulations
A. Characterization of Pollutants
B. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
C. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
D. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
XII. Non-Water Quality Impacts of Proposed Regulations
A. Energy Impacts
B. Air Emission Impacts
C. Solid Waste Impacts
1. Wastewater Treatment Sludge
2. Waste Oil
3. Spent Activated Carbon
4. Spent Organo-Clay
XIII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives
A. Summary of Public Participation
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
C. Executive Order 12866 (OMB Review)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
[[Page 34688]]
XIV. Regulatory Implementation
A. Applicability
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
C. Variances and Modifications
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
2. Permit Modifications
3. Removal Credits
D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and
Monitoring Requirements
E. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
XV. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation
B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
XVI. Guidelines for Comment Submission of Analytical Data
A. Types of Data Requested
B. Analytes Requested
C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This
Notice
I. Legal Authority
These regulations are proposed under the authority of Sections 301,
304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311,
1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters'' (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act
confronts the problem of water pollution on a number of different
fronts. Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions
on the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various
industrial, commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) (Section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or
interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are
designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial
dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition,
POTWs are required to implement local treatment limits applicable to
their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements
(40 CFR 403.5).
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits;
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
In the guidelines for an industry category, EPA defines BPT
effluent limits for conventional, priority,1 and non-
conventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of
factors. EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also
considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes
employed and any required process changes, engineering aspects of the
control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Agency
deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes
BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances
of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or
other common characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the
technology can be practically applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts
emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the
``classical'' pollutants (e.g., TSS pH, BOD5). However,
nothing on the face of the statue explicitly restricted BPT
limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water
Act of 1997 withits requirement for point sources to achieve best
available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic
pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority
toxic pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines
continue to include limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section
304(b)(4) of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT
technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources. BCT
is not an additional limitation, but replaces Best Available Technology
(BAT) for control of conventional pollutants. In addition to other
factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section
304(b)(2) of the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best
existing economically achievable performance of direct discharging
plants in the industrial subcategory or category. The factors
considered in assessing BAT include the cost and economic impact of
achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities
involved, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the control
technology, potential process changes, non-water quality impacts
(including energy requirements), and such factors as the Administrator
deems appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded to these factors. An additional
statutory factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability.
Generally, the achievability is determined on the basis of the total
cost to the industrial subcategory and the overall effect of the rule
on the industry's financial health. BAT limitations may be based upon
effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's
processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing performance is
uniformly inadequate, BAT may be based upon technology transferred from
a different subcategory within an industry or from another industrial
category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls,
even when these technologies are not common industry practice.
[[Page 34689]]
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the
best available demonstrated control technology (BDAT). New facilities
have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production
processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS
should represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction attainable
through the application of the best available demonstrated control
technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and
priority pollutants). In determining the BADT, 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 CWA
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). The CWA authorizes
EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass
through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes at POTWs.
Pretreatment standards are technology-based and analogous to BAT
effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found
at 40 CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of
pass-through and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all
non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(b) of the
CWA
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of
pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to
incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
B. Section 304(m) Requirements
Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987,
requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) reviewing and revising
existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (``effluent
guidelines'') and (2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January
2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80) that
established schedules for developing new and revised effluent
guidelines for several industry categories. One of the industries for
which the Agency established a schedule was the Transportation
Equipment Cleaning Industry.
In 1992, EPA entered into a Consent Decree requiring proposal and
final agency action of effluent limitations guidelines and standards
final rule for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry (NRDC v.
Browner D.D.C. 89-2980). In December of 1997, the Court modified the
decree revising the deadlines for proposal to May 15, 1998 and a
deadline of June 15, 2000 for final action.
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) ``declares it to be the
national policy of the United States that 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 * * *''
(Sec. 6602; 42 U.S.C. 13101 (b)). In short, preventing pollution before
it is created is preferable to trying to manage, treat or dispose of it
after it is created. 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'' (Sec. 6604; 42
U.S.C. 13103(b)(2)). This effluent guideline was reviewed for its
incorporation of pollution prevention.
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 ``include[s] equipment or technology modifications, 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.'' 42 U.S.C. 13102(5). 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.
EPA has evaluated pollution prevention related activities involving
the management of heels (residual material) in the Transportation
Equipment Cleaning (TEC) Industry. During the data collection phase of
the development of the proposed rule, a number of potential pollution
prevention practices and technology applications were identified.
Discussion of the pollution prevention technologies and practices and
their uses with respect to this proposed rule are contained in Section
VI of this preamble and in the Technical Development Document.
III. Scope of the Proposed Regulation
EPA is today proposing effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges from facilities
engaged in cleaning the interiors of tanks including, but not limited
to: tank trucks; rail tank cars; intermodal tank containers; inland
tank barges; and ocean/sea tankers used to transport commodities that
come into direct contact with the tank or container interior.
Facilities which do not engage in cleaning the interior of tanks are
not considered within the scope of this proposal.
EPA is proposing to subcategorize the TEC point source category
into 11 subcategories based on types of cargos carried and
transportation mode. The subcategories proposed for the TEC point
source category are set forth below. Further details and definitions of
EPA's subcategorization approach are in Section VI of this notice.
Subcategory A: Truck/Chemical;
Subcategory B: Rail/Chemical;
Subcategory C: Barge/Chemical & Petroleum;
Subcategory D: Truck/Petroleum;
Subcategory E: Rail/Petroleum;
Subcategory F: Truck/Food;
Subcategory G: Rail/Food;
Subcategory H: Barge/Food;
Subcategory I: Truck/Hopper;
Subcategory J: Rail/Hopper; and
Subcategory K: Barge/Hopper.
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations for existing
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater
[[Page 34690]]
directly to surface waters in the following subcategories: Truck/
Chemical, Rail/Chemical, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, Truck/Food, Rail/
Food and Barge/Food.
EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment standards for existing
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the
Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical Subcategories. Additionally, EPA is
proposing to establish effluent limitations for new sources discharging
wastewater to POTWs in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. The
following table presents the regulatory approach proposed in today's
notice.
Table 1.--Subcategories Proposed for Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT or
Subcategory BCT BAT NSPS PSES PSNS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: Truck/Chemical............................................. X X X X X
B: Rail/Chemical.............................................. X X X X X
C: Barge/Chemical & Petroleum................................. X X X ........ X
D: Truck/Petroleum............................................ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
E: Rail/Petroleum............................................. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
F: Truck/Food................................................. X ........ X ........ ........
G: Rail/Food.................................................. X ........ X ........ ........
H: Barge/Food................................................. X ........ X ........ ........
I: Truck/Hopper............................................... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
J: Rail/Hopper................................................ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
K: Barge/Hopper............................................... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The wastewater flows covered by the proposed rule include all
washwaters which have come into direct contact with the tank or
container interior including pre-rinse cleaning solutions, chemical
cleaning solutions, and final rinse solutions. Additionally, the rule
would cover wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors,
equipment and floor washings, and TEC contaminated wastewater at those
facilities subject to the TEC guidelines and standards.
EPA is proposing not to establish effluent limitations or
pretreatment standards for existing or new facilities in the following
subcategories: Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum. Initially, in its
assessment of the industry, EPA analyzed the removals, benefits and
costs of establishing guidelines for the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/
Petroleum Subcategories. EPA has determined that very few pounds of
toxic pollutants are being discharged by existing facilities in the
Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. The pollutant loads
and technology options analyzed for these subcategories are further
discussed in Section VIII of today's notice. The low pollutant loadings
associated with these subcategories are, in part, due to the small
volumes of wastewater discharged by these facilities, which range from
900 to a maximum of 175,000 gallons per year. Based on this analysis,
EPA preliminarily concluded that there is no need to develop nationally
applicable regulations for these subcategories. Rather, direct
dischargers will remain subject to effluent limitations established on
a case by case basis using best professional judgement, and indirect
dischargers may be subject to local pretreatment limits as necessary to
prevent pass-through or interference.
EPA recognizes the limitations of currently available data and the
impact of assumptions on the subsequent conclusions, especially due to
the lack of available data on raw wastewater characteristics on the
Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, as described in
Section VII of this notice. EPA solicits data and comments which may
support or refute the Agency's conclusion that wastewater generated in
the petroleum subcategories does not contain significant toxic
loadings. EPA is also concerned about the difficulty of determining
whether particular cargos fall into the chemical or petroleum
subcategories. As explained below, and in EPA's proposed
subcategorization approach, EPA is soliciting comment on an alternative
subcategorization approach that would combine the petroleum and
chemical subcategories.
EPA realizes that much of the TEC industry is characterized by each
facility accepting and cleaning a wide range of commodities and cargos
which may vary on a daily, seasonal, or yearly basis. EPA raises the
issue that it may be difficult to determine the limits appropriate to a
particular facility due to the changing nature of the cargos being
accepted by a facility. In this notice, EPA has provided definitions of
each subcategory and each type of cargo. EPA believes it has
established definitions that are most applicable to the industry, and
has subsequently modeled wastewater treatment performance and developed
effluent limitations applicable to each subcategory. However, EPA also
acknowledges that there may be some difficulties associated with
implementing this rule as proposed. Specifically, EPA is concerned that
there may be difficulties associated with the determination of whether
a facility is cleaning transportation equipment that contained
``petroleum'' or ``chemical'' commodities. EPA recognizes that there
are many products, especially petrochemical products, being transported
by the industry which may not clearly be defined as a ``chemical'' or a
``petroleum'' product. Additionally, according to the proposed
subcategorization approach, there may be significant overlap of the two
subcategories.
EPA notes from its data collection activities that 92 percent of
not previously regulated facilities classified in the Rail/Chemical
Subcategory also accept commodities characterized as ``petroleum,'' and
that 52 percent of facilities classified in Truck/Chemical Subcategory
also accept commodities characterized as ``petroleum.'' EPA solicits
comment on the difficulty of defining petroleum and chemical products
from a regulatory standpoint.
Because of potential difficulty in defining petroleum and chemical
products, in order to ease implementation of this rule, EPA considered
establishing one set of effluent limitations for each mode of
transportation (e.g., truck, rail, barge) which cleans chemical and/or
petroleum cargos. The rationale for the proposed subcategories is
further discussed in Section VI of this notice. EPA is soliciting
comment on potential applicability issues associated with the proposed
subcategorization, and on the feasibility of establishing one set of
effluent limitations for facilities
[[Page 34691]]
accepting chemical and/or petroleum products.
EPA's assessment of the industry indicates, however, that there is
little overlap of cleaning facilities among transportation modes. EPA's
survey demonstrated that TEC facilities are almost exclusively involved
in cleaning equipment from only one mode of transportation: either
highway, railway, waterway, or ocean-going. The one exception is
intermodal containers. Intermodal containers are completely enclosed
storage vessels which may be loaded onto flat beds for either truck or
rail transport, or onto ship decks for water transport, and are
approximately the same size as tank trucks. EPA found that these
containers are almost exclusively cleaned at facilities which clean
tank trucks. Based on EPA's survey of the industry, intermodals
typically account for one to 10 percent of the tanks cleaned at
individual tank truck facilities, although at one facility intermodals
accounted for up to 94 percent of the tanks cleaned. Therefore, EPA
proposes that wastewater generated from cleaning intermodal tanks be
handled according to the regulations established for the truck
transportation subcategories.
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations for existing and
new facilities discharging directly to surface waters in the following
subcategories: Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food. However, EPA is
proposing not to establish pretreatment standards for facilities
discharging to POTWs in the following subcategories: Truck/Food, Rail/
Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories. EPA is proposing effluent
limitations for the food subcategories to control discharges of
conventional pollutants which may adversely affect waterways when
discharged directly to surface waters. However, because few priority
toxic pollutants were found in food wastewaters and POTWs have the
ability to treat conventional pollutants, EPA concluded that it was
unnecessary to propose pretreatment limits for the food subcategories.
EPA is also proposing not to establish effluent limitations or
pretreatment standards for existing or new facilities in the remaining
subcategories: Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper and Barge/Hopper. Closed-top
hopper trucks, rails, and barges are generally used to transport dry
bulk materials such as coal, grain, and fertilizers. Raw wastewater
generated from cleaning the interiors of hoppers was found to contain
very few priority toxic pollutants at treatable levels. This is likely
due to the fact that the residual materials (heels) from dry bulk goods
are easily removed prior to washing and that relatively little
wastewater is generated from cleaning the interiors of hopper tanks due
to the dry nature of bulk materials transported. This results in low
pollutant loadings present in the wastewater discharges from hopper
tank cleaning. Based on the low pollutant loads associated with
wastewater discharge from the hopper subcategories, the Agency
concluded that it need not establish nationally-applicable effluent
limitations for these subcategories. Rather, direct dischargers will
remain subject to effluent limitations established on a case by case
basis using best professional judgement, and indirect dischargers may
be subject to local pretreatment limits as necessary to prevent pass-
through or interference. EPA solicits comments on the appropriateness
of not regulating hopper facilities. EPA also solicits data on
pollutant levels in wastewater from hopper facilities.
The proposed regulation would not apply to wastewaters generated
from cleaning the interiors of drums or intermediate bulk containers
(IBCs). In 1989, EPA conducted an analysis on the pollutant loadings
associated with the drum reconditioning industry. Drum reconditioning
operations generate wastewater from cleaning the interiors of drums
before the drum is reconditioned, scrapped, or recycled. The
Preliminary Data Summary for the Drum Reconditioning Industry (EPA 440/
1-89/101 September 1989) estimated that there were 450 facilities which
accepted approximately 50 million drums in 1985. These drums contained
approximately 124 million pounds of residue. This study of the industry
concluded that wastewater generated from drum reconditioning operations
did not merit national regulation at that time because of the low
pollutant loads associated with this industry. Since this study was
conducted, the reconditioning industry has grown to include other forms
of transportation containers which were not initially considered in
EPA's study, namely IBCs. IBCs are portable containers with 450 liters
(119 gallons) to 3,000 liters (793 gallons) capacity. In comparison,
drums typically have 208 liters (55 gallons) capacity. Facilities
cleaning IBCs generate wastewater from cleaning the interior of the IBC
prior to re-using the container. Based on data collected in EPA's
questionnaire, there are approximately 173 TEC facilities which accept
IBCs for cleaning. The Association of Container Reconditioners
estimates that there are approximately 600,000 IBCs manufactured each
year. By comparison, they estimate that there are over 40 million drums
manufactured and recycled each year.
Although EPA does not have data on the pollutant loadings
associated with the cleaning of IBCs, EPA has concluded that IBCs are
used by industries as an interchangeable replacement for drums and are
therefore used for the storage and transport of cargos similar to
drums. Because of this, EPA expects that wastewater generated from
cleaning the interiors of IBCs may be similar to the wastewater
generated from cleaning the interiors of drums. For this reason, EPA is
proposing not to regulate wastewater generated from cleaning IBCs. EPA
is soliciting comment and data on the pollutant loads associated with
IBC cleaning wastewater, and on the initial decision not to include IBC
wastewater within the scope of this guideline.
The focus of this proposed rule is on transportation equipment
cleaning facilities that function independently of other industrial
activities that generate wastewater. This proposal would therefore not
apply to wastewater discharges from transportation equipment cleaning
operations located at industrial facilities regulated under other Clean
Water Act effluent guidelines, provided that the facility cleans only
tanks containing cargos or commodities generated or used on-site, or by
a facility under the same corporate structure.
EPA has identified TEC wastewaters at facilities subject to
guidelines which include Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR part 414); Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)
(proposed 40 CFR part 437, 60 FR 5464, January 27,1995); Dairy products
processing point source category (40 CFR part 405); Inorganic chemicals
manufacturing point source category (40 CFR part 415); Petroleum
refining point source category (40 CFR part 415); Industrial Waste
Combusters (proposed 40 CFR part 444, 63 FR 6325, February 6, 1998 );
and Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) (new regulation to be proposed
in 2000). Most such facilities commingle tank cleaning wastewater with
wastewater from other processes for treatment. For example, the Organic
Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR part 414)
effluent guidelines specifically list tank car washing as a covered
process wastewater.
The promulgated and proposed regulations for these industries
typically include on-site washwaters. The general regulatory definition
of process wastewater includes water that comes in contact with raw
materials (40 CFR 401.11(q)), which would include wastewater generated
from cleaning the
[[Page 34692]]
interiors of tanks containing those raw materials. For those facilities
where on-site washwaters are not specifically covered by the applicable
guideline, EPA believes that facilities will commingle and treat
washwaters with other process wastewater because an industrial facility
will clean tanks that have transported commodities similar in nature to
the products produced at that facility. Therefore, the wastewater
generated from cleaning the tank interiors will contain contaminants
similar in treatability to process wastewater at that facility.
Not previously regulated facilities are those facilities whose
major process wastewater streams are not already covered or proposed to
be covered by other Clean Water Act effluent guidelines. In order to
prevent an industrial facility from accepting tank cargos which may
generate wastewater inconsistent with treatment in place at the
facility, EPA proposes that the exclusion for industrial facilities be
allowed only if that facility is cleaning tanks containing materials
which have been generated at, or used by, that facility. This would
prevent an industrial facility that accepts tanks for commercial
cleaning purposes from being excluded from the TEC guideline.
The rule also does not apply to facilities that are commercial
treaters of wastewater that only clean tanks and containers as a part
of the off-loading process of the wastes. The categorical limitations
and standards to be established for the Centralized Waste Treatment
Category and codified at 40 CFR part 429, would specifically cover tank
washings at CWT facilities (60 FR 5464.) EPA currently intends to
repropose CWT limitations and standards in 1998 and take final action
in 1999.
Although EPA believes that it has clearly defined what operations
are intended to be covered by this regulation, EPA expects that there
are some facilities engaged in operations which may be difficult to
define, especially with regard to repair and maintenance. An example of
a facility which would be regulated under the TEC effluent guidelines
would be a site which only engages in the cleaning of the interiors of
railcars after the transportation of chemicals. The site would clearly
be considered an affected facility under the TEC effluent guidelines.
An example of a site engaged in operations which could potentially
overlap with other effluent guidelines and cause confusion for
permitting authorities would be a facility which cleans the interiors
of railcars prior to performing maintenance and rebuilding operations
on the railcar.
EPA is currently developing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) industry. The
MP&M category applies to industrial sites engaged in the manufacturing,
maintaining or rebuilding of finished metal parts, products or
machines. This regulation will apply to process wastewater 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; Stationary Industrial
Equipment; Bus and Truck; Household Equipment; Instruments; Motor
Vehicle; Office Machine; Printed Wiring Boards; Job Shops; Precious
Metals; Railroad; and Ships and Boats.
Typical MP&M unit operations which may overlap with TEC operations
include abrasive blasting, acid and alkaline cleaning, chemical
conversion coating, corrosion preventive coating, and associated
rinsing.
There may be instances where facilities which predominately engage
in cleaning operations perform ancillary MP&M operations on the barges,
railcars, or tankers they are cleaning as a part of their TEC
operations. EPA proposes that the process wastestreams from those
ancillary MP&M activities be regulated solely by the TEC effluent
guideline. Likewise, facilities which are predominately engaged in MP&M
operations and clean barges, railcars, or tankers as part of those
activities are proposed to be regulated by the MP&M guideline and are
excluded from this guideline.
EPA is soliciting comment from any industrial site which has the
potential to be covered by TEC and MP&M but is uncertain as to their
appropriate classification. Such facilities may supply information
detailing what operations they are performing, and the volume and
nature of wastewater generated from those operations. The Agency does
recognize that the approach listed above requires the permitting
authority to decide whether a facility is predominately engaged in
either TEC or MP&M operations. The general pretreament regulations do
set forth a procedure by which an industrial user may request that EPA
or the State, as appropriate, provide a written certification as to
whether the industrial user falls within a particular pretreatment
subcategory (40 CFR 403.6) EPA is also soliciting comment from
permitting authorities as to whether the approach outlined above will
result in easier, or more difficult, implementation of the TEC and MP&M
regulations, and on alternative applicability approaches.
EPA also has considered establishing a minimum flow level for
defining the scope of the regulation in order to ensure appropriate
regulatory requirements for small businesses. EPA focused its analysis
on the Truck/Chemical, Rail/Chemical and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategories because of the large population of facilities potentially
affected by this proposal. The Agency's analysis found that 54 small
facilities (about 7.8 percent of all regulated facilities) in the
Truck/Chemical Subcategory have a wastewater flow of 8,000 gallons or
less per day. These 54 small facilities (18.7 percent of the total
facilities in the subcategory) discharge 56,900 toxic pounds or 14
percent of the total discharge for the subcategory at the 8,000 gallons
per day flow level. The Agency notes that the discharge of pollutants
from small facilities constitutes a proportional amount of the
pollutant loadings discharged in the subcategory. The Agency has also
looked at 2,000, 4,000, and 6,000 gallons per day flow levels for this
subcategory, in addition to conducting a similar analysis for the
Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories.
In each case where EPA examined a potential flow cut off, the
pollutant loadings discharged by smaller facilities were proportional
to the loadings discharged by the subcategory as a whole. EPA concluded
that there was no obvious breakpoint that could be used to establish an
exclusion for small facilities that would not also exclude a
proportional amount of pollutants discharged to the nation's waterways.
For comparison, in the MP&M effluent guideline, EPA proposed a flow
exclusion for small facilities. In this case, EPA demonstrated that 80
percent of the total industry loadings were discharged by only 20
percent of the MP&M facilities. EPA concluded that a minimum flow level
was reasonable because excluding 80 percent of the facilities in the
industry only excluded 20 percent of the pollutant loadings. However,
in the case of the TEC industry, EPA has identified no similar
rationale for providing such a low flow exclusion for small facilities.
EPA is therefore not proposing to establish a minimum regulatory flow
level for the TEC point source category.
At the request of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, EPA
also estimated the effects of excluding all small businesses, defined
as those with revenues under $5 million annually.
[[Page 34693]]
This would eliminate an estimated 191 of 692 facilities (28%) from
coverage by the proposed rule, while eliminating 20 to 25 percent of
the baseline toxic loadings. Thus, as with the flow based facility
exclusion discussed above, this option would remove roughly a
proportionate amount of both loadings and facilities from coverage. EPA
is therefore not proposing to establish an exclusion for small
businesses, but is soliciting comment on this option, or on any
alternative approaches that the Agency may use to minimize impacts on
small businesses.
IV. Profile of the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry
A. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Facilities
The TEC industry includes facilities that generate wastewater from
cleaning the interiors of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail
tank cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers,
inland tank barges, closed-top hopper barges, ocean/sea tankers, and
other similar tanks or containers used to transport cargos or
commodities that come into direct contact with the tank or container
interior. Transportation equipment cleaning is performed in order to
prevent cross-contamination between products or commodities being
transported in the tanks, containers, or hoppers, and to prepare
transportation equipment for repair and maintenance activities such as
welding. The cleaning activity is a necessary part of the
transportation process.
Based upon responses to EPA's 1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry (see discussion in Section
V.B of this notice), the Agency estimates that there are approximately
2,405 TEC facilities in the United States. This includes approximately
1,166 previously regulated TEC facilities and 1,239 not previously
regulated TEC facilities. Of the TEC facilities not previously
regulated, EPA estimates that 692 facilities discharge to either a POTW
or to surface waters. The remaining 547 facilities are considered zero
discharging.
TEC facilities are located in at least 37 states and in all 10 EPA
regions. By state, the largest number of facilities are in Illinois. By
EPA region, the largest concentration of facilities is in Region V
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Most TEC
facilities are located in the industrial portions of the United States.
The TEC industry consists of facilities that vary in size from one-
or two-person shops to large corporations that operate many facilities
nationwide. The TEC industry shows a correspondingly wide range of
annual number of tanks cleaned by facilities, from less than 10 tanks
per year to more than 10,000 tanks per year.
Tank cleaning may be performed as a commercial activity or as an
in-house cost of doing business. Additionally, the tanks being cleaned
may be owned by the facilities performing cleaning or may be owned by
their customers. Overall, the TEC industry is characterized by a large
number of facilities that clean relatively few tanks and a small number
of facilities that clean a relatively large number of tanks.
The TEC industry consists of distinct transportation sectors: the
trucking sector, the rail sector, and the barge shipping sector. Each
one of these sectors may have different technical and economic
characteristics. The transportation industry transports a wide variety
of commodities, and TEC facilities therefore clean tanks and containers
with residues (heels) from a broad spectrum of commodities such as
food-grade products, petroleum-based commodities, organic chemicals,
inorganic chemicals, soaps and detergents, latex and resins, hazardous
wastes, and dry bulk commodities. TEC facilities also vary greatly in
the level of wastewater treatment that they currently have in place.
Treatment at existing TEC facilities ranges from no treatment to
advanced tertiary treatment. The majority of TEC facilities discharging
to surface waters currently employ primary treatment such as oil water
separation or gravity separation followed by biological treatment.
Indirect discharging facilities typically employ some form of primary
treatment, such as oil water separation, gravity separation, dissolved
air flotation, or coagulation and flocculation. A relatively small
number of direct and indirect currently facilities currently employ
advanced tertiary treatment such as activated carbon adsorption.
In 1994, approximately 2,440,000 tanks and containers were cleaned
in the U.S by not previously regulated TEC facilities. Of all tanks
cleaned commercially, tank trucks account for approximately 87 percent,
intermediate bulk containers account for three percent, closed-top
hopper trucks account for three percent, intermodal tank containers
account for three percent, and rail tank cars account for two percent.
The remaining tank types each account for less than one percent of all
tanks cleaned. Approximately 52 percent of TEC facilities clean a
variety of cargo types. Approximately 31 percent clean only food grade
products, beverages, and animal and vegetable oils (food grade
facilities), approximately eight percent clean only petroleum and coal
products (petroleum facilities), and approximately two percent clean
only dry bulk cargos.
The majority of TEC facilities discharge their wastewater
indirectly to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW). EPA estimates
that there are 669 indirect discharging TEC facilities. A smaller
number, approximately 23, discharge wastewater directly to surface
waters of the United States.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 547 facilities which are
considered zero or alternative dischargers and do not discharge
wastewater directly to surface waters or indirectly to a POTW. Methods
of zero or alternative discharge in use by the TEC industry include
applying wastewater to land, hauling wastewater off-site to other
treatment works (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment Works (CWT) or
hazardous waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)),
deep well injecting wastewater, sending wastewater to an on-site
evaporation pond or mat, or employing total recycle/reuse of
wastewater.
B. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Processes
Interior cleaning of cargo tanks and containers is conducted for
two primary reasons: to prevent contamination between cargos and to
facilitate internal inspection and repair. An additional purpose of
tank cleaning is to render the tank interior nonexplosive and
nonflammable to provide a safe environment for manual cleaning and for
tank repairs that require ``hot work'' (e.g., welding or cutting).
Although different types of tanks are cleaned in various manners,
the basic cleaning process for each tank is similar. A typical tank
cleaning process is as follows:
Identify the cargo last transported in the tank;
Determine the next cargo to be transported;
Drain the tank heel (residual cargo) and, if necessary,
segregate the heel for off-site disposal;
Rinse the tank (pre-rinse);
Wash the tank using one or more cleaning methods and
solutions;
Rinse the tank; and
Dry the tank.
The cleaning facility determines the cargo last transported in the
tank to: (1) Assess the facility's ability to clean the tank
efficiently; (2) determine the appropriate cleaning sequence and
[[Page 34694]]
cleaning solutions; (3) evaluate whether the residue cleaned from the
tank will be compatible with the facility's wastewater treatment
system; and (4) establish an appropriate level of health and safety
protection for the employees who will clean the tank. The next cargo to
be transported in the tank is identified to determine if the available
level of cleaning at the facility is adequate to prevent contamination
of the next cargo. The facility may decide to not clean a tank based on
any of the preceding concerns.
Once a tank has been accepted for cleaning, the facility checks the
volume of heel (residual cargo) in the tank and determines an
appropriate heel disposal method. Any water-soluble heels that are
compatible with the facility's treatment system and the conditions of
the facility's wastewater discharge permit are usually combined with
other wastewater for treatment and discharge at the facility.
Incompatible heels are segregated into drums or tanks for disposal or
re-use by alternative means, which may include re-use onsite, return to
consignee, sale to a reclamation facility, landfilling, or
incineration. The TEC facility may re-use heels such as soaps,
detergents, solvents, acids, or alkalis as tank cleaning solutions or
as neutralizers for future heels and for wastewater treatment.
Cleaning processes vary among facilities depending on available
cleaning equipment, the cargos last transported in the tanks to be
cleaned, and the state of the product last transported in the tank.
Some residuals require only a water rinse (e.g., sugar), while others
require a detergent or strong caustic solution followed by a final
water rinse (e.g., latex or resins). Hardened or caked-on products
sometimes require extended processing time or special cleaning
equipment. Typical cleaning equipment includes low- or high-pressure
spinner nozzles or hand-held wands and nozzles. Spinner nozzles, which
are operated through the main tank hatch, are designed to rotate in an
overlapping spray pattern that cleans the entire interior of the tank.
Operating cycles range from rinse bursts to 20 minutes or longer
caustic washes. Washing with hand-held wands and nozzles achieves the
same result as with high-pressure spinner nozzles, but requires
facility personnel to manually direct the wash solution across the
interior surface of the tank. After cleaning, tanks are usually dried
and inspected.
Section 4.0 of the Technical Development Document contains a more
detailed description of the TEC industry and the unique cleaning
processes used for different types of tanks and cargos.
C. Regulatory History for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Industry
In 1986, EPA published the Domestic Sewage Study ``Report to
Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works'' (EPA-503/SW-86-004, February 1986), which identified
TEC facilities as potentially contributing large amounts of hazardous
wastes to POTWs.
In response to the Domestic Sewage Study, EPA conducted a sampling
program to obtain and analyze wastewater and wastewater treatment
sludge samples at eight TEC facilities. During this program, EPA
sampled one aircraft, three tank truck, two rail tank car, and two tank
barge cleaning facilities. Raw TEC wastewater samples and, where
appropriate, treated effluent and sludge samples were collected at each
facility. In addition, EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
was used to obtain extracts of sludge samples for analysis. The samples
were analyzed for analytes in the 1987 Industrial Technology Division
List of Analytes. This list contains conventional pollutants and EPA's
priority toxic pollutants (excluding fecal coliform bacteria and
asbestos) as well as 285 other organic and inorganic nonconventional
pollutants or pollutant characteristics. These additional pollutants
were derived from other EPA lists, including the Superfund Hazardous
Substance List, RCRA Appendix VIII and Appendix IX, and the list of
analytes proposed to be added to RCRA Appendix VII by the Michigan
Petition (49 FR 49793).
EPA also investigated the size of the TEC industry by identifying
TEC facilities from several sources, including trade publications, Dun
& Bradstreet, EPA's Permit Compliance System, trade associations, state
regulatory agencies, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Using the wastewater
sampling data and industry size data, EPA estimated the total discharge
of pollutants from the TEC industry and performed an environmental
impact analysis.
In 1989, EPA published the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/104, 1989)
which summarized the findings of the 1986-87 study and forms the basis
for EPA's decision to develop effluent guidelines specifically for the
TEC point source category. A description of EPA's data gathering
efforts on the TEC industry since completion of the 1986-1987 study is
provided in Section V below.
V. Summary of Data Collection Activities
EPA collected data necessary to develop effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the TEC point source category from many
sources, including questionnaires and EPA's sampling program. This
section of the preamble summarizes these data-collection activities,
which are further discussed in Section 3.0 of the Technical Development
Document.
A. Preliminary Data Summary
Prior to 1992, EPA conducted two studies of the TEC industry. The
first study was performed during the 1973-1974 period for the
Transportation Industry Point Source Category. Information was obtained
from only a few TEC facilities and was limited to conventional
pollutants. The study was not specific to TEC processes and wastewaters
and did not result in any regulations for the TEC industry. The second
study was performed during the 1986-87 period in response to the
Domestic Sewage Study (DSS), which found that TEC facilities discharged
high levels of conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants in
raw and treated wastewaters. The study focused on characterizing raw
wastewater at eight TEC facilities, and, where appropriate, treated
effluent and sludge samples. The second study also included a
preliminary investigation to determine the size of the TEC industry by
identifying TEC facilities. The resulting TEC wastewater sampling data
and industry size data were used to estimate the total discharge of
priority toxic pollutants from the TEC point source category and to
perform an environmental impacts analysis. The results of the study
were published in the Preliminary Data Summary for the Transportation
Equipment Cleaning Industry in September of 1989 (EPA 44/1-89/104),
which formed the basis for EPA's decision to develop effluent
guidelines specifically for the TEC industry.
B. Development of the TECI Site Identification Database
The first phase of data collection for development of effluent
limitation guidelines for the TEC industry entailed a comprehensive
search to identify facilities that potentially perform TEC operations.
EPA identified all potential segments within the TEC industry and then
attempted to identify all facilities or a statistical sample of all
facilities that potentially perform TEC operations
[[Page 34695]]
within each industry segment. The TEC industry is characterized by
industry segments based on tank type cleaned and business operational
structure. Tank types initially considered within the potential scope
of the TEC industry include tank trucks, closed-top hopper tank trucks,
intermodal tank containers, intermediate bulk containers, rail tank
cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, inland tank barges, closed-top
hopper barges, ocean/sea tankers, and other similar tanks (excluding
drums). Business operational structures include independents, carriers,
shippers, and builders/leasers.
EPA was unaware of any single source or set of sources that
specifically identify facilities that perform TEC operations. Likewise,
there is no single Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code or set
of SIC codes that specifically identify facilities that perform TEC
operations. Therefore, EPA performed an exhaustive search to identify
all available sources listing facilities that potentially perform TEC
operations. These sources included transportation industry directories,
Dun & Bradstreet's Information Services, several Agency databases,
state and local authorities, trade journals, and trade associations.
Some sources specifically identified facilities that perform TEC
operations. Other sources identified potential TEC facilities by one or
more of the following criteria: (1) They own, operate, or maintain
transportation equipment; (2) they own, operate, or maintain equipment
used by the transportation segments applicable to the TEC industry; or
(3) they report under an SIC code that includes facilities that have
the potential to own, operate, or maintain transportation equipment.
Listings of facilities that potentially perform TEC operations were
entered into the TECI Site Identification Database. The database
contains information for 7,940 facilities that represent a total
potential industry population of 30,280 facilities (for some sources,
only a portion (i.e., a statistical sample) of the total available
records were received and entered into the database). This database
formed the basis of EPA's statistical sample frame for subsequent data-
gathering activities.
C. Survey Questionnaires
Industry responses to questionnaires administered by EPA under the
authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act were a major source of
information and data used in developing the proposed TEC industry
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA administered two
questionnaires to the TEC industry--the 1993 screener questionnaire and
the 1994 detailed questionnaire.
1. 1993 Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry Screener
Questionnaire
EPA developed a screener questionnaire to distribute to a
statistical sample of all facilities that potentially perform TEC
operations. The objectives of the questionnaire were to: (1) Identify
facilities that perform TEC operations; (2) evaluate TEC facilities
based on wastewater, economic, and/or operational characteristics; (3)
develop technical and economic profiles of the TEC industry; (4) select
a statistical sample of screener respondents to receive a detailed
questionnaire; and (5) select facilities for EPA's TEC industry
engineering site visit and sampling program.
EPA developed the screener questionnaire for the TEC industry based
on experience with previous screener questionnaires from other point
source categories. The Agency requested site-specific 1992 calendar
year information in the four-page screener questionnaire. Information
requested included facility name, address, contact person, owner,
number of employees, annual revenues, and operational structure (e.g.,
carrier, independent). Also included were questions concerning TEC
operations such as whether the facility performs TEC operations,
generates TEC process wastewater, discharge information (type and daily
volume), number of tank interior cleanings performed by tank type,
percentage of tank interior cleanings performed by cargo type, types of
cleaning processes performed, and treatment technologies or disposal
methods on-site.
The screener questionnaire was sent to a stratified random sample
of 3,240 facilities identified from the TECI Site Identification
Database. The Agency did not mail screener questionnaires to all 7,940
potential tank interior cleaning facilities in the TECI Site
Identification Database; however, the Agency believed that a sample
size of 3,240 would sufficiently represent the variety of technical and
economic characteristics of the TEC industry and meet the objectives of
the screener questionnaire while minimizing the burden to both industry
and government. EPA used facility type (e.g., tank truck cleaning, rail
tank car cleaning, tank barge cleaning, and transfer facilities) and
level of assurance (i.e., the probability that the facility performs
TEC operations) as criteria to select facilities to receive a screener
questionnaire. These criteria were chosen to account for both the
diverse nature of the TEC industry and the varying reliability of the
sources used to develop the TECI Site Identification Database.
Additional detail concerning selection of the statistical sample of
facilities to receive a screener questionnaire is included in Section
V.D of this preamble.
EPA received responses from 730 of these facilities that indicated
that they performed TEC operations and generated TEC wastewater (i.e.,
in scope responses). These facilities represent an estimated TEC
industry population of 2,739 facilities. The distribution of estimated
industry population by industry segment are as follows:
Table 2.--Population Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
total
Industry segment number of
facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barge...................................................... 72
Truck...................................................... 2,432
Rail....................................................... 189
Transfer Stations.......................................... 46
------------
Total................................................ 2,739
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 1994 Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry Detailed
Questionnaire
EPA developed a detailed questionnaire for distribution to a
statistical sample of facilities that perform TEC operations and
generate TEC wastewater. The objectives of the questionnaire were to:
(1) Develop an industry profile; (2) characterize TEC processes,
industry production (i.e., number and type(s) of tanks cleaned), and
water usage and wastewater treatment; (3) perform an industry
subcategorization analysis; (4) develop pollutant loadings and
reductions estimates; (5) develop compliance cost estimates; and (6)
determine the impacts of the rulemaking on the TEC industry.
The Agency developed the detailed questionnaire to collect
information necessary to develop effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the TEC point source category. The detailed questionnaire
included two parts: (1) Part A: Technical Information and (2) Part B:
Financial and Economic Information. Technical information collected was
specific to calendar year 1994. Financial and economic information
collected was specific to calendar years 1992 through 1994. In part A,
EPA requested information necessary to identify the facility and to
determine wastewater discharge locations. It also requested information
necessary to develop an industry profile, characterize TEC processes
and
[[Page 34696]]
production, and perform an industry subcategorization analysis.
Information regarding wastewater generation, wastewater recycle/reuse,
treatment technologies currently in place, the availability of
wastewater stream characterization data and/or treatability data, use
of pollution prevention, and water conservation activities were also
requested. In part B, EPA requested information necessary to identify
the facility and facility's corporate hierarchy, to develop an industry
economic profile, and to assess facility-level, business entity-level,
and corporate parent-level economic impacts associated with TEC
industry effluent guidelines.
The Agency sent the Detailed Questionnaire to a stratified random
sample of 275 facilities that perform TEC operations and generate TEC
wastewater as identified from responses to the TECI screener
questionnaire. The following four variables were considered (although
not necessarily directly selected as basis for sample stratification)
in selecting facilities to receive a detailed questionnaire: tank type,
operational structure, number of employees, and treatment in place.
Each of the potential detailed questionnaire recipients was classified
based on these four variables. Facilities with multiple classifications
were assigned a primary classification. The sampling strategy was
designed to meet two objectives most effectively: (1) to ensure that at
least one facility was sampled from most cells (i.e., combinations of
the four variables listed above), and (2) to ensure the variance around
the national estimates would not be grossly inflated in attempting to
meet the first objective.
EPA received responses from 176 of these facilities that were used
in subsequent analyses. During review of the detailed questionnaire
responses, EPA classified each facility into one of the following
categories:
(1) Direct or Indirect Discharge: TEC facilities that discharge
wastewaters directly to surface waters or indirectly to a POTW that are
not located at industrial facilities covered under existing effluent
guidelines.
(2) Zero or Alternative Discharge: TEC facilities that do not
discharge wastewater to U.S. surface waters or to a POTW, including
facilities that haul TEC wastewater off site to a Centralized Waste
Treatment facility, practice total wastewater recycle/reuse, or land
apply TEC wastewater.
(3) Previously Regulated Facilities: Industrial facilities that are
covered by existing or upcoming effluent guidelines which also generate
transportation equipment cleaning wastewaters. TEC operations are a
very small part of their overall operations. These include facilities
subject to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
Effluent Guidelines, Dairies Effluent Guidelines, Centralized Waste
Treaters Effluent Guidelines, and Metals Products and Machinery
Effluent Guidelines.
Table 3.--National Estimates of TEC Industry Population by Facility Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
number of
Facility type facilities in
total
population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct or Indirect Discharge............................ 692
Zero Discharge.......................................... 547
Previously regulated.................................... 1,166
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--National Estimated TEC Industry Population by Subcategory for
all TEC Facilities Not Previously Regulated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
number of
Subcategory facilities in
total
population a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical.......................................... 288
Rail/Chemical........................................... 38
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum.............................. 15
Truck/Food.............................................. 173
Rail/Food............................................... 86
Barge/Food.............................................. 2
Truck/Petroleum......................................... 34
Rail/Petroleum.......................................... 3
Truck/Hopper............................................ 34
Rail/Hopper............................................. 5
Barge/Hopper............................................ 12
---------------
Total............................................... 692
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Differences occur due to rounding.
As evidenced by the data collection activities undertaken by EPA,
the Agency has attempted to develop accurate population estimates for
each subcategory. The Agency solicits comment and sources of data which
may provide additional information on the population of affected
facilities.
D. Development of National Population Estimates
As discussed previously, EPA distributed screener questionnaires to
a statistical sample of all facilities that potentially perform TEC
operations. EPA then distributed detailed questionnaires to a
statistical sample of facilities that perform TEC operations and
generated TEC wastewater as identified by responses to the screener
questionnaires. This section describes EPA's approach in developing
national population estimates for the TEC industry based on these
statistical samples. Section 3.0 of the Technical Development Document
and the Statistical Support Document contained in the administrative
record for this rule contain additional detail concerning development
of national population estimates.
EPA considered each source used to develop the TEC industry Site
Identification Database to be a statistical ``stratum.'' EPA selected a
simple random sample of facilities from each stratum to receive a
screener questionnaire. Following this approach, each sampled facility
can be used to characterize other facilities within the same stratum.
For example, if a sampled facility falls within stratum ``A'' and the
``weight'' of that stratum is five, the responses received from that
facility represent a total of five facilities in the overall TEC
industry population. Following receipt of the screener questionnaire
responses (to account for non-respondents), EPA determined a weight
associated with each stratum using the following equation:
Stratum Weight = Nh/nh
Where:
Nh = Total number of facilities in stratum.
nh = Number of facilities that responded to the screener
questionnaire.
Note that several screener questionnaire strata with similar
weighting factors were collapsed into a single stratum, and assigned a
conglomerated weighting factor for the entire collapsed stratum, to
reduce the variability of the population estimates.
The approach used to develop TEC industry population estimates
based on the detailed questionnaire responses is similar to that used
for the screener questionnaire, with two differences. One, EPA
developed additional strata to ensure selection of adequate sample
populations within the following four variables: tank type, operational
structure, number of employees, and wastewater treatment in place. Two,
the statistical methodology used to account for non-respondents was
based on facility subcategory rather than stratum.
E. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling Program
EPA conducted 39 engineering site visits at 38 facilities from 1993
through 1996 to collect information about TEC processes, water use
practices, pollution prevention practices, wastewater treatment
technologies, and waste disposal methods. These facilities were also
visited to evaluate them for potential future sampling. In general, EPA
visited facilities that encompass
[[Page 34697]]
the range of TEC facilities, including tank type cleaned, cargo
cleaned, operational structure, discharge status, and wastewater
treatment in place.
EPA conducted 20 sampling episodes at 18 facilities (two facilities
were sampled twice) from 1994 through 1996. Sampling episodes were
conducted to: (1) Characterize the pollutants in the wastewater being
discharged directly to surface waters and indirectly to POTWs; and (2)
generate pollutant treatment system performance data from facilities
with well-operated wastewater treatment systems. The Agency used the
same general criteria to select facilities for sampling as those used
to select facilities for site visits. Of these sampling episodes, 12
were conducted to obtain untreated TEC process wastewater and treated
final effluent characterization data from facilities representative of
the variety of TEC facilities. Wastewater treatment sludge was also
characterized at two of the 12 facilities to determine whether the
sludge was hazardous. Each of these ``characterization'' sampling
episodes comprised one sampling day.
EPA conducted eight additional sampling episodes to obtain both
untreated TEC process wastewater characterization data and to evaluate
the effectiveness and variability of wastewater treatment units used to
treat TEC wastewater. Of these eight sampling episodes, one was
conducted for one day, two were conducted for three days each, four
were conducted for four days each, and one was conducted for five days.
At several facilities, sampled waste streams included TEC
wastewater commingled with other wastewater sources including exterior
cleaning wastewater, boiler wastewater, and contaminated storm water.
At one facility, boiler condensate was sampled to characterize this
waste stream. Waste stream samples were typically analyzed for volatile
organics, semivolatile organics, organo-halide pesticides, organo-
phosphorus pesticides, phenoxy-acid herbicides, dioxins and furans,
metals, and classical wet chemistry parameters. The analytes typically
found in TEC wastewaters are discussed in Section VII of this preamble
and in the Technical Development Document.
VI. Industry Subcategorization
For today's proposal, EPA considered whether a single set of
effluent limitations and standards should be established for this
industry, or whether different limitations and standards were
appropriate for subcategories within the industry. In reaching its
decision that subcategorization is required, EPA considered various
factors. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA, in developing effluent
limitations, to assess several factors including manufacturing
processes, products, the size and age of the facility, wastewater use,
and wastewater characteristics. The TEC industry, however, is not
typical of many of the other industries regulated under the CWA because
it does not produce a product. Therefore, EPA developed additional
factors that specifically address the characteristics of TEC
operations. Similarly, several factors typically considered for
subcategorization of manufacturing facilities were not considered
applicable to this industry. The factors considered for
subcategorization are listed below:
(1) Cleaning processes (production processes);
(2) Tank type cleaned;
(3) Cargo type cleaned;
(4) Water use practices;
(5) Wastewater characteristics;
(6) Facility age;
(7) Facility size;
(8) Geographical location;
(9) Water pollution control technologies;
(10) Treatment costs; and
(11) Non-water quality impacts.
A. Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization
EPA considered a number of potential subcategorization approaches
for the TEC industry. EPA used information collected during 39
engineering site visits, the 1993 screener questionnaire for the TEC
industry, and the 1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the TEC industry to
develop potential subcategorization approaches. EPA considered eleven
factors in developing its subcategorization scheme for the TEC
industry. A discussion of each is presented below.
1. Cleaning Processes
EPA considered subcategorizing the TEC industry based on the
cleaning process used. Cleaning processes vary among facilities
depending on the type of tank cleaned and the type of cargo last
transported in the tank. Cleaning can be performed using many types of
cleaning equipment including low or high pressure spinner nozzles,
hand-held wands and nozzles, steam cleaning equipment, or manual
cleaning with scouring pads or shovels. Typical cleaning solutions
include detergents, acids, caustics, solvents, or other chemical
cleaning solutions. The cleaning process used depends greatly on the
type of cargo last hauled in the tank. Certain residual material (e.g.,
sugar) only require a water rinse, while other residual materials
(e.g., latexes or resins) require a detergent or strong caustic
solution followed by a final water rinse. The state of the product last
contained in the tank also affects the cleaning process. Hardened or
caked-on products sometime require additional processing time, or may
require manual cleaning. For each type of tank cleaned and cargo
hauled, the selection of cleaning processes among available
alternatives can affect the volume of wastewater generated and the
constituents of that wastewater. Flow restriction and the availability
of less harmful cleaning solutions as methods of pollution prevention
and source control should be considered pollutant control technologies,
rather than a defining production characteristic. EPA has decided that
subcategorizing the TEC industry based on cleaning processes is not an
appropriate means of subcategorization, and considered
subcategorization based on either type of tank cleaned or type of cargo
transported.
2. Tank Type Cleaned
EPA considered subcategorizing the TEC industry based on the type
of tank cleaned. Facilities responding to the TEC industry Detailed
Questionnaire reported cleaning nine primary tank types. The tank types
reported by respondents are: (1) Tank truck; (2) intermediate bulk
container; (3) intermodal tank container; (4) closed-top hopper truck;
(5) rail tank car; (6) ocean/sea tanker; (7) closed-top hopper barge;
(8) closed-top hopper rail car; and (9) inland tank barge. Based on
data obtained in the TEC industry Detailed Questionnaire, approximately
87 percent of all tanks cleaned are tank trucks. Intermediate bulk
containers, intermodal tank containers, and closed-top hopper trucks
each account for three percent of all tanks cleaned. Rail tank cars
comprise two percent and inland tank barges, ocean/sea tankers, closed-
top hopper rail cars, and closed-top hopper barges each comprise less
than one percent of all tanks cleaned. Seventy-four percent of all
facilities responding to the TEC industry Detailed Questionnaire clean
only one primary tank type. An additional 12 percent of facilities
clean both tanks and closed-top hoppers within the same mode of
transport. Only one percent of responding facilities clean tank types
with multiple modes of transport and an additional 13 percent of
responding facilities clean miscellaneous combinations of tank types
within the same mode of transport.
For each type of tank cleaned, the heel volume and availability of
[[Page 34698]]
wastewater flow minimization techniques vary, which may affect
wastewater treatment efficiency.
EPA has preliminarily concluded that subcategorizing the TEC
industry based, in part, on the type of tank cleaned is an appropriate
means of subcategorization due to these differences. Additionally, the
vast majority of facilities clean tanks within the same mode of
transport and are thus easily identified according to the tank type
cleaned.
3. Cargo Type Cleaned
EPA considered subcategorizing the TEC industry based on the cargo
type cleaned. Respondents to the TEC industry Detailed Questionnaire
reporting cleaning tanks which transported 15 general cargo types. The
reported cargo types are listed below:
Group A--Food Grade Products, Beverages, and Animal and
Vegetable Oils;
Group B--Petroleum and Coal Products;
Group C--Latex, Rubber and Resins;
Group D--Soaps and Detergents;
Group E--Biodegradable Organic Chemicals;
Group F--Refractory (Nonbiodegradable) Organic Chemicals;
Group
G--Inorganic Chemicals;
Group H--Agricultural Chemicals and Fertilizers;
Group I--Chemical Products;
Group J--Hazardous Waste (as defined by RCRA in 40 CFR
Part 261);
Group K--Nonhazardous Waste;
Group L--Dry Bulk Cargos (i.e., hopper cars); and
Group M, N, and O--Other (Not Elsewhere Classified).
Of all responding TEC facilities not previously regulated, 48
percent clean only one cargo type while 52 percent clean a variety of
cargo types. Of the facilities that reported cleaning only one cargo
type, 65 percent reported cleaning food grade products, beverages, and
animal and vegetable oils (Group A), 16 percent reported cleaning
petroleum and coal products (Group B), and 10 percent reported cleaning
``other cargos'' (Groups M, N and O). A review of the data for
facilities that clean two or more cargos suggests that no apparent
trend in cargo types cleaned, but rather a wide variety of combinations
of ``chemical-type'' cargos.
There are several reasons to consider subcategorization based on
type of cargo. Facilities that clean tanks which contained only food
grade products (Group A), petroleum grade products (Group B), or dry
bulk goods (Group L) represent distinct and relatively large segments
of the TEC industry that differ significantly from facilities that
clean tanks containing a wide variety of cargos. The type of cargo
transported and the type of cleaning processes utilized influences
wastewater characteristics. EPA therefore concluded that
subcategorization of the TEC industry based, in part, on cargo type may
be an appropriate means of subcategorization.
EPA was not able to identify any other distinct segments of the TEC
industry among the remaining groups which included Latex, Rubber and
Resins (Group C), Soaps and Detergents (Group D), Biodegradable Organic
Chemicals (Group E), Refractory (Nonbiodegradable) Organic Chemicals
(Group F), Inorganic Chemicals (Group G), Agricultural Chemicals and
Fertilizers (Group H), Chemical Products (Group I), Hazardous Waste
(Group J), Nonhazardous Waste (Group K), and Groups M, N, and O
consisting of cargos not elsewhere classified. EPA concluded that
facilities which do not clean primarily food grade products (Group A),
petroleum grade products (Group B), or dry bulk goods (Group L) are
likely to clean a wide variety of cargos types consisting of various
combination of cargos types products. EPA has therefore created a
subcategory termed ``chemical'' for any facility that cleans a wide
variety of cargos and commodities.
EPA has then defined a ``chemical'' cargo as including Latex,
Rubber and Resins, Soaps and Detergents, Biodegradable Organic
Chemicals, Refractory (Nonbiodegradable) Organic Chemicals, Inorganic
Chemicals, Agricultural Chemicals and Fertilizers, Chemical Products,
Hazardous Waste, Nonhazardous Waste, and any other cargo not elsewhere
classified. In summary, the ``chemical'' classification includes any
cargo or commodity not defined as a food grade product, petroleum grade
product, or dry bulk good. EPA has placed any facility in a Chemical
Subcategory if 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that
facility in an average year contained chemical cargos or commodities.
EPA originally considered developing separate subcategories for
barge chemical and barge petroleum facilities. However, based on raw
wastewater characterization data collected in support of this proposed
rule, EPA concluded that the wastewater characteristics and
treatability of wastewaters generated from barge chemical and barge
petroleum facilities were similar, and thus it was reasonable to
combine these subcategories. As mentioned previously in Section III,
EPA is soliciting comments and data that would address whether the
Truck/Chemical and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories should be combined;
and whether the Rail/Chemical and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories should
also be combined.
As described in Section VII of this notice, Wastewater Use and
Characterization, the data collected from the Truck/Chemical and Truck/
Petroleum Subcategories, and the Rail/Chemical and Rail/Petroleum
Subcategories did not conclusively support combining these
subcategories. However, sampling data obtained from the Centralized
Waste Treatment Industry was used to characterize TEC wastewater for
the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. Therefore, the
Agency is soliciting comment and data on this preliminary conclusion
that the Truck/Chemical and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories; and Rail/
Chemical and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, should not be combined.
Additionally, while the Agency has proposed definitions for
``petroleum'' and ``chemical'' cargos, the Agency realizes that there
may be cargos, especially various ``petrochemical'' cargos, which may
not obviously be categorized as one type or the other. The
determination of whether a facility is accepting ``petroleum'' or
``chemical'' cargos may be critical, due to the fact that the Agency
has not proposed regulation for the petroleum subcategory. The Agency
is concerned that this determination may be difficult and burdensome
for the permitting authority and the affected facility. The Agency
solicits comment from permitting authorities and affected facilities on
the implementation issues surrounding the proposed subcategorization
approach, especially with regard to the chemical and petroleum
subcategories.
In order to address these concerns, the Agency has considered
combining the petroleum and chemical subcategories and establishing one
set of effluent limitations for facilities accepting chemical or
petroleum cargos. EPA solicits comment on this alternative approach.
As part of today's proposal, the Agency calculated pollutant
loadings for each option in each subcategory, as described in section
VIII of this notice. The loadings calculations were used as a parameter
for evaluating technology options in each subcategory. The Agency notes
that a substantial amount of the toxic pounds-equivalent of pollutants
removed in several subcategories are due to the removals of
[[Page 34699]]
a few pesticides found in the raw wastewater at one or two facilities.
Specifically, about 90% of the toxic removals estimated for 288
indirect dischargers in the truck chemical subcategory are accounted
for by 6 pesticides (Azinphos Ethyl, Coumaphos, Disulfoton, EPN, 4,4'-
DDT, and Dieldrin--note that the latter three have been banned for a
number of years); and about 80% of the toxic removals estimated for the
38 indirect dischargers in the rail chemical subcategory are accounted
for by 3 pesticides (Dieldrin, Simazine, and Strobane). Pesticides are
fairly toxic and generally have high toxic weighting factors.
Relatively small removals in terms of loadings can result in
significant reductions in toxic impacts. Because most of the projected
toxic removals for indirect dischargers in the truck and rail chemical
subcategories come from a few pesticides, the Agency solicits comment
on an alternative regulatory approach that would establish separate
subcategories for such facilities which accept tanks containing
pesticide-containing cargos for cleaning.
This approach was discussed at some length by the Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel in its consideration of options that might
provide relief to small businesses, and was specifically endorsed by
SBA. If the Agency were to pursue this approach, it might decide to
establish a set of effluent limitations guidelines for a variety of
pesticides for any facility that accepts, or potentially accepts,
cargos which have transported pesticides. The Agency is concerned,
however, that it may be difficult to define a subcategory for
pesticide-containing cargos, because the exact source of pesticides
found in TEC wastewater samples has often been difficult to establish.
Furthermore, if the Agency were to set limits for pesticides, it would
need to require monitoring for pesticides, which is generally more
expensive than monitoring for the parameters regulated under the
current approach. (Note that although pesticides are among the
pollutants of concern, the Agency is not currently proposing to
establish limits for pesticides; rather the Agency is establishing
limits for other pollutants of concern, which it believes will also
ensure that treatment adequate to control pesticides is adopted.) Thus,
the Agency does not know how many of the estimated 326 indirect
dischargers in the truck chemical and rail chemical subcategories would
actually benefit from such an approach, and how many might incur higher
monitoring costs because they clean some tanks with pesticide residues.
EPA requests comment on this issue. EPA would specifically be
interested to know whether indirect dischargers in these two
subcategories believe such an approach would be workable, and whether
there is a significant number of such facilities that do not handle any
tanks that might contain pesticide residues. For those facilities that
do handle tanks containing pesticide residues, EPA would like to know
what percentage of tanks cleaned might contain such residues. EPA might
use this information to define a subcategory for facilities with more
than a certain percentage of such tanks, in the same way that it is
currently defining the chemical subcategories as including facilities
for which more than 10% of tanks cleaned had chemical cargos.
This approach may also result in the Agency pursuing a less
stringent regulatory technology option for those facilities which do
not accept pesticide containing cargos. The SBAR Panel recommended that
EPA request comment on whether the remaining loadings of non-pesticide
chemicals for indirect dischargers in the truck and rail subcategories
warrant regulation. The Agency is thus soliciting comment on the
loading reduction estimates, cost-effectiveness and benefits to the
environment and POTWs of non-pesticide chemical removals. Note that in
these subcategories in today's notice, EPA is not proposing effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for any pesticide, nor is it
proposing to establish a subcategory for pesticide cargos. Concern has
also been expressed about the representativeness of the samples on
which the pesticide removal estimated are based. Because pesticides are
highly toxic and thus of particular concern, the Agency modified its
screening criteria for including samples in which pesticides were
detected in its loadings and removals analysis. In general, in order to
ensure that detections are representative of the industry and present
at treatable concentrations, contaminants are only included in the
analysis if they show up in samples from at least two facilities at
concentrations of 5 times the minimum detection level or greater, and
are at least 50% removed by the proposed treatment. In contrast, all
pesticides that were detected even once, at any level, were included in
the analysis. Most of the pesticides accounting for the bulk of
estimated toxic removals from indirect dischargers in the truck and
rail chemical subcategories would not have been included in the
analysis under the standard screening criteria, either because they
were detected at only one facility or because they were only detected
at close to the minimum detection level, or both. EPA believes,
however, that the modified screening criteria for pesticides are
appropriate for several reasons. First of all, as already noted,
pesticides are highly toxic and thus of particular concern. Second, a
relatively small amount of sampling data is available for this
industry. In the truck chemical subcategory, for example, only ten
samples of raw wastewater were analyzed, so that even a single detect
represents 10% of samples, which EPA believes is a significant
fraction. Finally, wastes from TEC facilities are highly variable, so
that one might expect that many of the contaminants that are
potentially of concern would only show up in a single sample, and
others might not show up in any samples at all. For these reasons, EPA
believes that its modified screening criteria for pesticides are
appropriate, its loadings and removals analysis is based on the best
available data, and the regulatory limits it has proposed for indirect
dischargers in these subcategories, based partly on this analysis, is
also appropriate. However, the Agency requests comments on this issue,
and any data commenters may be able to provide on the loadings of
pesticides, or any other contaminant, and TEC facilities.
4. Water Use Practices
TEC facilities use water for cleaning and rinsing as well as for a
number of ancillary purposes such as hydrotesting, air pollution
control, and process cooling water. Water use varies based on a number
of factors including type of tank cleaned, type of cleaning solution
utilized, type of cargo last contained in the tank, type of cargo to be
transported, and tank capacity. Facilities which clean predominantly
tank trucks typically use significant volumes of water for exterior
cleaning, whereas facilities which clean rail and barge tanks
frequently do little exterior washing. Facilities which clean rail
tanks frequently use large volumes of water for tank hydrotesting,
whereas tank truck cleaning facilities generate substantially less
hydrotesting wastewater. Based on these variations in water use
practices among different types of facilities, EPA concluded that the
most appropriate method of subcategorization that encompasses water use
practices is subcategorization based on the type of tank cleaned and
type of cargo cleaned at a facility.
5. Wastewater Characteristics
The volumes and pollutant concentrations contained in TEC tank
[[Page 34700]]
interior cleaning wastewater show a large degree of variation among
different types of facilities. Wastewater volumes vary greatly based on
a number of factors including those cited above. Likewise, the
concentration of pollutants present in tank interior cleaning
wastewater can vary depending on the type of cargo last hauled, the
tank size, the cleaning process utilized and the amount of water used
per cleaning operation. Since all of these factors, with the exception
of type of tank cleaned and type of cargo cleaned, have been rejected,
EPA has concluded that the most appropriate method of subcategorization
that encompasses wastewater characteristics is subcategorization based
on the type of tank cleaned and type of cargo cleaned at a facility.
6. Facility Age
EPA evaluated the age of facilities as a possible means of
subcategorization. EPA evaluated the treatment technologies in place as
related to the year in which the facility first conducted TEC
operations. Based on this evaluation, the Agency concluded that there
is little difference in the treatment technologies in use by older
facilities (defined as beginning TEC operations before 1980) as
compared to those of newer facilities (defined as beginning TEC
operations in or after 1980). EPA has tentatively concluded that
subcategorization based on age of facilities is not an appropriate
means of subcategorization.
7. Facility Size
EPA considered subcategorization of the TEC industry on the basis
of facility size. Four parameters were identified as relative measures
of facility size: number of employees, number of tanks cleaned,
wastewater flow and revenue. EPA found that facilities of varying sizes
generate similar wastewaters and use similar treatment technologies
within the proposed subcategorization approach. EPA is not proposing to
subcategorize the industry based on facility size.
8. Geographical Location
EPA evaluated the distribution of TEC facilities based on
geographic location. In general, TEC facilities tend to be located
within the industrialized regions of the country, with relatively high
concentrations in the area between Houston and New Orleans and within
specific urban areas such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and St. Louis. The
major concentrations of rail, truck, and barge cleaning facilities are
along the major thoroughfares by rail, road, and inland waterways,
respectively. There are no apparent trends of geographic distribution
of TEC facilities as related to wastewater characteristics. Based on
these analyses, geographic location is not an appropriate means of
subcategorization.
9. Water Pollution Control Technologies
There are a number of water pollution control technologies in use
in the TEC industry. This variety of technologies results from the wide
range of pollutants present in TEC wastewater. As discussed previously,
the pollutants present in TEC wastewater are based on factors such as
the tank type cleaned and the cargos last contained in the tanks. EPA
did not consider subcategorization of the industry based solely on the
water pollution control technologies in use as a reasonable method of
subcategorization. These control technologies are appropriately
considered in evaluation technology options and determining effluent
limitations.
10. Treatment Costs
Treatment costs are dependent upon facility water pollution control
technologies and facility wastewater flow rates and facility size.
These costs vary with the specific treatment technologies and waste
disposal methods employed, and therefore do not apply uniformly across
a particular segment of the industry. EPA has tentatively determined
that subcategorization of the TEC industry based solely on treatment
costs is not an appropriate means of subcategorization.
11. Non-Water Quality Impacts
Non-water quality impacts of TEC operations include, among others,
impacts from transporting wastes, impacts from disposal of solid
wastes, and impacts due to emissions of volatile organics to the air.
These impacts vary with the specific treatment technologies and waste
disposal methods employed, and therefore do not apply uniformly across
a particular segment of the industry. EPA has concluded that
subcategorization of the TEC industry based on non-water quality
impacts is not an appropriate means of subcategorization.
B. Selection of Subcategorization Approach
Based on its evaluation of above factors, EPA determined that
subcategorization of the TEC industry is necessary and that different
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards should be developed for
subcategories of the industry. EPA concluded that the most appropriate
basis for subcategorization of the industry be based on tank type and
cargo type cleaned.
EPA solicits comment on the appropriateness of this
subcategorization approach. As mentioned previously, EPA believes it
has developed a subcategorization approach which addresses the
complexities inherent in this industry. Of particular concern to the
Agency is the potential difficulty associated with implementing this
rule due to potentially overlapping subcategories. EPA solicits comment
regarding the proposed subcategorization and on other subcategorization
approaches which may be appropriate.
EPA realizes that there may be some overlap between transportation
sectors, although this is not a great concern because 99 percent of the
facilities surveyed cleaned tanks belonging to only one transportation
sector.
EPA also realizes that determining the applicable subcategory of a
facility may be somewhat complex, given that many facilities accept a
wide range of cargos and commodities which may vary on a daily,
monthly, seasonal, or yearly basis.
EPA is proposing that the definition of each subcategory include a
production cutoff. In developing this subcategorization approach, EPA
has attempted to strike a balance between several divergent factors. On
the one hand, EPA's data collection activities indicate that the
wastewater generated from cleaning certain cargos and tank types do not
discharge significant quantities of toxic pollutants. This includes
wastewater generated from cleaning tank trucks, rail tank cars, and
barges containing food cargos; closed top hopper trucks, rail cars, and
barges containing dry bulk goods; and rail tank cars and tank trucks
containing petroleum cargos. On the other hand, EPA has identified
wastewaters that contain toxic pollutants in significant quantities
from tank trucks and rail tank cars which transport chemical cargos,
and barges which transport chemical and petroleum cargos.
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for toxic parameters in the Truck/Chemical,
Rail/Chemical, and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. In its
subcategorization approach, EPA has attempted to establish guidelines
and pretreatment standards for toxic parameters for those facilities
that generate wastewater containing toxic pollutants. However, EPA also
realizes that a facility may generate wastewater from a variety of
cargos which do not all belong to one
[[Page 34701]]
classification of food, petroleum, chemical, or dry bulk goods.
In order to address these concerns, EPA has attempted to classify a
facility into one subcategory by establishing a hierarchy of
applicability as follows: if 10 percent or more of the tanks cleaned on
a yearly basis at a tank truck or rail car facility contain chemical
cargos, then that facility is placed in the Truck/Chemical or Rail/
Chemical Subcategory, and subject to the effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards proposed for the Truck/Chemical or Rail/Chemical
Subcategory. For a barge facility, if 10 percent or more of the tanks
cleaned on a yearly basis contain chemical or petroleum cargos, then
that facility is placed in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
and is subject to the effluent limitations proposed for the Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
If a truck or rail facility does not clean more than 10 percent of
tanks containing chemical cargos, but does clean more than 10 percent
of tanks containing food grade cargos on a yearly basis, then that
facility is placed in the Truck/Food or Rail/Food Subcategory. There
are no effluent limitations proposed for indirect discharging Truck/
Food or Rail/Food facilities, but EPA is proposing effluent limitations
for conventional pollutants for direct discharging Truck/Food and Rail/
Food facilities.
Similarly, if a barge facility does not clean more than 10 percent
of tanks containing chemical and/or petroleum cargos, but does clean
more than 10 percent of tanks containing food grade cargos on a yearly
basis, then that facility is placed in the Barge/Food Subcategory.
There are no effluent limitations proposed for indirect discharging
Barge/Food facilities, but EPA is proposing effluent limitations for
conventional pollutants for direct discharging Barge/Food facilities.
Remaining rail and truck facilities which clean more than 80
percent of tanks containing petroleum cargos on a yearly basis have
been placed in the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories.
Facilities which clean hopper tanks have been placed in the Truck/
Hopper, Rail/Hopper, or Barge/Hopper Subcategories. EPA is not
proposing to regulate wastewater discharged from the Truck/Petroleum
and Rail/Petroleum, and Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper
Subcategories.
EPA is not proposing to regulate toxic parameters for facilities
that clean tanks that have transported only petroleum, food, or dry
bulk cargos, with the exception of barge facilities that clean tanks
containing petroleum cargos.
The Agency believes that this proposed subcategorization approach
would allow a facility in a subcategory which is not subject to
regulation of toxic parameters the flexibility to accept a variety of
cargos without necessarily needing to be re-classified in a different
subcategory, and therefore, be subject to a different set of effluent
limitations. By establishing such a production cutoff, EPA believes
that the toxic characteristics of the wastewater will not vary
considerably from facilities that perform 80 to 100 percent of its
operations within the confines of one subcategory. In this manner, EPA
believes that a facility within one subcategory will be allowed the
flexibility to clean transportation equipment that contained different
types of cargos without discharging substantial quantities of toxic
pollutants. EPA solicits comment on the hierarchy of applicability that
EPA is proposing as the basis for subcategorization.
From the possible combinations of tank types and cargos last
hauled, EPA proposes subcategorization of the TEC industry into 11
subcategories. The tank type classifications include: (1) tank trucks
and intermodal tank containers (2) rail tank cars (3) inland tank
barges and ocean/sea tankers (4) closed-top hopper trucks (5) closed-
top hopper rail cars and (6) closed-top hopper barges. A description of
each of these tank type classifications is presented in Appendix A of
this notice. Containers defined as drums or Intermediate Bulk
Containers (IBCs) are proposed not to be covered by this guideline.
The cargo type classifications used as a basis for
subcategorization include: (1) petroleum; (2) food grade; (3) dry bulk;
and (4) chemical. A description of the cargo type classifications is
provided below.
Petroleum
Petroleum cargos include the products of the fractionation or
straight distillation of crude oil, redistillation of unfinished
petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other refining processes. Petroleum
cargos also include products obtained from the refining or processing
of natural gas and coal. Specific examples of petroleum products
include but are not limited to: asphalt; benzene; coal tar; crude oil;
cutting oil; ethyl benzene; diesel fuel; fuel additives; fuel oils;
gasoline; greases; heavy, medium, and light oils; hydraulic fluids, jet
fuel; kerosene; liquid petroleum gases (LPG) including butane and
propane; lubrication oils; mineral spirits; naphtha; olefin, paraffin,
and other waxes; tall oil; tar; toluene; xylene; and waste oil.
Food Grade
``Food grade'' cargos include edible and non-edible food grade
products such as corn syrup, sugar, juice, soybean oil, beverages, and
animal and vegetable oils.
Dry Bulk
The dry bulk classification includes closed-top hoppers that
transport dry bulk products such as fertilizers, grain, and coal.
Chemical
Chemical cargos are defined to include but are not limited to the
following cargos: latex, rubber, plastics, plasticizers, resins, soaps,
detergents, surfactants, agricultural chemicals and pesticides,
hazardous waste, organic chemicals including: alcohols, aldehydes,
formaldehydes, phenols, peroxides, organic salts, amines, amides, other
nitrogen compounds, other aromatic compounds, aliphatic organic
chemicals, glycols, glycerines, and organic polymers; refractory
organic compounds including: ketones, nitriles, organo-metallic
compounds containing chromium, cadmium, mercury, copper, zinc; and
inorganic chemicals including: aluminum sulfate, ammonia, ammonium
nitrate, ammonium sulfate, and bleach. In the development of this
regulation, EPA has considered any cargo not specifically defined as
food, petroleum, or dry bulk good as a ``chemical'' cargo.
Based on tank type and cargo type classifications described above,
EPA is proposing to subcategorize the TEC industry into the following
11 subcategories. A detailed explanation of each of these subcategories
is provided below:
Subcategory A: Truck/Chemical
Subcategory A would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank trucks
and intermodal tank containers where 10 percent or more of the total
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained chemical
cargos.
Subcategory B: Rail/Chemical
Subcategory B would apply to TEC facilities that clean rail tank
cars where 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that
facility in an average year contained chemical cargos.
Subcategory C: Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory C would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank barges
or
[[Page 34702]]
ocean/sea tankers where 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned
at that facility in an average year contained chemical and/or petroleum
cargos.
Subcategory D: Truck/Petroleum
Subcategory D would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank trucks
and intermodal tank containers where 80 percent or more of the total
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained petroleum
cargos, so long as that facility is not in Subcategory A: Truck/
Chemical or Subcategory F: Truck/Food.
Subcategory E: Rail/Petroleum
Subcategory E would apply to TEC facilities that clean rail tank
cars where 80 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that
facility in an average year contained petroleum cargos, so long as that
facility is not in Subcategoy B: Rail/Chemical or Subcategory G: Rail/
Food.
Subcategory F: Truck/Food
Subcategory F would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank trucks
and intermodal tank containers where 10 percent or more of the total
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained food grade
cargos, so long as that facility does not clean 10 percent or more of
tanks containing chemical cargos. If 10 percent or more of the total
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained chemical
cargos, then that facility is in Subcategoy A: Truck/Chemical.
Subcategory G: Rail/Food
Subcategory G would apply to TEC facilities that clean rail tank
cars where 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that
facility in an average year contained food grade cargos, so long as
that facility does not clean 10 percent or more of tanks containing
chemical cargos. If 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at
that facility in an average year contained chemical cargos, then that
facility is in Subcategoy B: Rail/Chemical.
Subcategory H: Barge/Food
Subcategory H would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank barges
or ocean/sea tankers where 10 percent or more of the total tanks
cleaned at that facility in an average year contained food grade
cargos, so long as that facility does not clean 10 percent or more of
tanks containing chemical cargos. If 10 percent or more of the total
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained chemical
and/or petroleum cargos, then that facility is in Subcategory C: Barge
Chemical & Petroleum.
Subcategory I: Truck/Hopper
Subcategory I would apply to TEC facilities that clean closed-top
hopper trucks which transport dry bulk commodities.
Subcategory J: Rail/Hopper
Subcategory J would apply to TEC facilities that clean closed-top
hopper rail cars which transport dry bulk commodities.
Subcategory K: Barge/Hopper
Subcategory K would apply to TEC facilities that clean closed-top
hopper barges which transport dry bulk commodities.
VII. Wastewater Generation and Characteristics
Wastewater generated by the industry includes water and steam used
to clean the tank interiors, prerinse solutions, chemical cleaning
solutions, final rinse solutions, tank exterior washing wastewater,
boiler blowdown, tank hydrotesting wastewater, safety equipment
cleaning rinsate, and TEC-contaminated storm water. Of the facilities
that discharge TEC wastewater, the majority (97 percent) discharge
their wastewater to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The
majority of the barge facilities (77 percent) discharge directly to
U.S. surface waters.
Primary sources of pollutants in TEC wastewater include heels and
cleaning solutions. Heel is residual cargo remaining in a tank or
container following unloading, delivery, or discharge of the
transported cargo and is the primary source of pollutants in TEC
wastewater. Water-soluble heels that are compatible with the facility's
wastewater treatment system and the conditions of the facility's
wastewater discharge permit are often combined with other wastewater
for treatment and discharge at the facility. Incompatible heels are
drained and segregated into drums or tanks for disposal or reuse by
alternate means, which may include reuse onsite, return to consignee,
sale to a reclamation facility, land filling, or incineration. However,
even when the heel is drained, residual cargo adheres to the tank or
container interior, and is removed by tank cleaning operations and
ultimately discharged in TEC wastewater.
Pollutants contained in heels are dependent upon the constituents
contained in the cargos transported. Based on responses to the Detailed
Questionnaire, tank truck cleaning facilities reported cleaning at
least 429 unique cargos, rail tank car cleaning facilities reported
cleaning at least 159 unique cargos, and tank barge cleaning facilities
reported cleaning at least 111 unique cargos.
Cleaning solutions are another primary source of pollutants in TEC
wastewater. TEC facilities commonly use the following four types of
chemical cleaning solutions: (1) acid solution; (2) caustic solution;
(3) detergent solution; and (4) presolve solution. Acid solutions
typically comprise hydrofluoric and/or phosphoric acid and water. Acid
solutions are also used as metal brighteners on aluminum and stainless
steel tank exteriors. Caustic solutions typically comprise sodium
hydroxide and water. The most common components of detergent solutions
are sodium metasilicate and phosphate-based surfactants. Some
facilities use off-the-shelf brands of detergent solutions such as
Tide, Arm & Hammer, and Pine Power.
Often, concentrated detergents (``boosters''), such as glycol ethers
and esters, are added to acid and caustic solutions to improve their
effectiveness. Presolve solutions usually consist of diesel fuel,
kerosene, or other petroleum-based solvent. Other miscellaneous
cleaning solutions used by the TEC industry include passivation agents
(oxidation inhibitors), odor controllers such as citrus oils, and
sanitizers.
Some TEC facilities commingle spent cleaning solutions with TEC
wastewater, while other facilities dispose of spent cleaning solutions
off site. However, even when spent cleaning solutions are not
discharged with TEC wastewater, residual cleaning solution adheres to
the tank or container interior and is removed during tank rinses and
ultimately discharged in TEC wastewater.
TEC operations or control technologies that minimize the amount of
heel remaining in the tank prior to starting TEC operations or that
reduce the use or toxicity of chemical cleaning solutions significantly
reduce the pollutant loading in TEC wastewater. EPA estimates, based on
data collected during EPA's sampling program, that facilities
implementing heel and cleaning solution pollution prevention practices
generate one half to an order of magnitude less wastewater pollutant
loadings than facilities that do not implement these practices.
EPA conducted 20 sampling episodes at 18 facilities representative
of the variety of facilities in the TEC industry (2 facilities were
sampled twice). As part of this sampling program, EPA routinely
analyzed wastewater samples for conventional, priority toxic, and
[[Page 34703]]
nonconventional pollutants. Raw wastewater streams sampled typically
comprised TEC wastewater commingled with tank exterior cleaning
wastewater, TEC-contaminated storm water, tank hydrotesting wastewater,
and other wastewater streams. Additional details concerning EPA's
sampling program, including the types of facilities sampled, are
provided in Section V.E.
EPA detected 330 of 478 pollutants analyzed for in TEC wastewaters.
Ninety of the 126 priority toxic pollutants analyzed were detected.
Detected pollutants vary by subcategory and include the conventional
pollutants oil and grease (analyzed as hexane extractable materials
(HEM)), 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total
suspended solids (TSS), and pH; certain priority toxic pollutants; and
certain nonconventional pollutants.
In its analysis of the industry, EPA sampled one facility in the
Truck/Petroleum Subcategory. This facility treated only final rinse
wastewater on-site. Initial rinses and other TEC wastewaters were
contract hauled for off-site treatment and were therefore not included
in the sampling performed by EPA. There was no additional data provided
by the industry on raw TEC wastewater characteristics. EPA therefore
reviewed other sources of raw wastewater characterization data in order
to determine whether data could be transferred from other sources to
characterize TEC wastewater for the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum
Subcategories. One facility sampled in support of the Centralized Waste
Treatment effluent guideline accepted only oily wastewater for
treatment. The wastewater consisted of wastewater contaminated with
lube oils and other petroleum products. Additionally, the sources of
oily wastewater which comprised the sampled wastestream closely matched
the types of commodities cleaned by the sampled TEC facility.
Therefore, the sampling data obtained from the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry was used to characterize TEC wastewater for the
Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories in addition to the TEC
sampled facility.
Listed below are pollutants identified in all TEC raw wastewater
characterization samples collected and analyzed by EPA for each
subcategory or subcategory grouping. These pollutants have been found
in raw wastewater but have not necessarily been identified as
pollutants of concern for the industry. See Section 6.0 of the
Technical Development Document for a more comprehensive summary of the
specific pollutants detected and the mean and range of pollutant
concentrations by subcategory.
Truck/Chemical Subcategory
Conventional pollutants: BOD5, TSS, Oil and
Grease, and pH;
Priority toxic pollutants: methylene chloride, copper,
nickel, and zinc; and
Nonconventional pollutants: acetone, benzoic acid,
aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese,
molybdenum, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, strontium, sulfur, titanium,
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, adsorbable organic halides (AOX), ammonia
as nitrogen, chemical oxygen demand (COD), chloride, fluoride, nitrate/
nitrite, surfactants (MBAS), total dissolved solids (TDS), total
organic carbon (TOC), total phosphorus, and volatile residue.
Rail/Chemical Subcategory
Conventional pollutants: BOD5, TSS, Oil and
Grease, and pH;
Priority toxic pollutants: toluene, arsenic, chromium,
copper, nickel, zinc, tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and
tetrachlorodibenzofuran.
Nonconventional pollutants: n-eicosane, n-octadecane,
aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese,
phosphorus, potassium, silicon, sodium, strontium, sulfur, titanium,
AOX, ammonia as nitrogen, COD, chloride, fluoride, silica-gel hexane
extractable material (SGT-HEM), MBAS, TDS, TOC, total phenols, total
phosphorus, and volatile residue.
Barge/Chemical and Petroleum Subcategory
Conventional pollutants: BOD5, TSS, Oil and
Grease, and pH;
Priority toxic pollutants: benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene,
naphthalene, copper, nickel, zinc, tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and
tetrachlorodibenzofuran.
Nonconventional pollutants: acetone, o-+ p-xylene, 2-
methylnaphthalene, n-docosane, n-dodecane, n-eicosane, n-hexadecane, n-
octadecane, n-tetradecane, styrene, malathion, parathion (ethyl),
aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, hexavalent chromium, iron, magnesium,
manganese, potassium, sodium, strontium, sulfur, AOX, ammonia as
nitrogen, COD, chloride, fluoride, nitrate/nitrite, SGT-HEM, MBAS, TOC,
total phenols, total phosphorus, and total sulfide.
Food Grade Subcategories
Conventional pollutants: BOD5, TSS, and pH;
Priority toxic pollutants: none; and
Nonconventional pollutants: aluminum, barium, calcium,
europium, iron, magnesium, manganese, neodymium, niobium, silicon,
sodium, strontium, ammonia as nitrogen, COD, chloride, fluoride, MBAS,
TDS, TOC, total phenols, total phosphorus, total sulfide, and volatile
residue.
Petroleum Subcategories
Conventional pollutants: BOD5, Oil and Grease,
TSS, and pH;
Priority toxic pollutants: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and
zinc; and
Nonconventional pollutants: acetone, n-eicosane, n-
octacosane, n-octadecane, n-tetradecane, aluminum, barium, boron,
calcium, holmium, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, phosphorus,
potassium, silicon, sodium, strontium, sulfur, tantalum, ammonia as
nitrogen, COD, chloride, fluoride, TDS, TOC, and total phosphorus.
Hopper Subcategories
Conventional pollutants: BOD5, TSS, and pH;
Priority toxic pollutants: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, silver, and
zinc; and
Nonconventional pollutants: aluminum, calcium, iron,
magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, sulfur, ammonia as nitrogen,
COD, chloride, fluoride, TDS, TOC, and total phosphorus.
VIII. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Description of Available Technologies
There are three major approaches currently used by the TEC industry
to improve effluent quality: (1) cleaning process technology changes
and controls to prevent or reduce the generation of wastewater
pollutants; (2) flow reduction technologies to increase pollutant
concentrations and the efficiency of treatment system pollutant
removal; and (3) end-of-pipe wastewater treatment technologies to
remove pollutants from TEC wastewater prior to discharge. These
approaches and specific available technologies within these approaches
are described in the following subsections.
1. Pollution Prevention Controls
EPA has defined pollution prevention as source reduction and other
practices that reduce or eliminate the formation of pollutants. Source
reduction includes any practices that reduce the amount of any
hazardous substance or pollutant entering any waste stream or otherwise
released into the environment, or any practices that reduce the hazards
to public health and the environment associated with the release of
such
[[Page 34704]]
pollutants. The principal pollution prevention controls applicable to
the TEC industry are the use of dedicated tanks, heel reduction
techniques, and reduction in the amount or toxicity of chemical
cleaning solutions.
a. Use of dedicated tanks. Tanks dedicated to hauling a single
cargo (e.g., gasoline) do not require, or require less frequent, tank
cleaning between loads. Use of dedicated tanks eliminates the
generation of tank cleaning wastewater and associated pollutant
loading.
b. Heel reduction. Heel (residual cargo remaining in tanks
following unloading) is the primary source of pollutants in TEC
wastewater. Heel reduction techniques include the following: (1)
refusal to accept tanks with excess heel; (2) assessment of fees for
excess heel; (3) use of steam in tank interiors to lower the viscosity
of heels for improved draining; (4) manual use of squeegees to move
heel toward valve openings; (5) cold or hot water prerinses to enhance
heel removal; (6) heel recycle or reuse; and (7) heel disposal rather
than commingling and discharging with TEC wastewater.
c. Reduction in the amount and toxicity of chemical cleaning
solutions. Chemical cleaning solutions are the second major source of
pollutants in TEC wastewater. Chemical cleaning solution reduction
techniques include the following: (1) recirculation and reuse of
solutions; (2) use of prerinses to extend cleaning solution
effectiveness; (3) increased use of steam cleaning and other cleaning
processes that do not include chemical cleaning solutions; (4) solution
disposal rather than being commingled and discharged with TEC
wastewater; and (5) substitution with less toxic cleaning solutions.
2. Flow Reduction Technologies
Flow reduction technologies applicable to the TEC industry reduce
the amount of fresh water required for tank cleaning through cleaning
process modifications and/or recycle and reuse of process wastewaters
to TEC or other processes. Flow reduction technologies applicable to
the TEC industry include the use of high-pressure/low-volume cleaning
equipment, TEC water use monitoring, equipment monitoring programs, dry
cleaning, cascading tank cleaning, and wastewater recycle and reuse.
a. High-pressure/low-volume cleaning equipment. High-pressure (up
to 1,000 psi) delivery of water washes, cleaning solutions, and rinses
can clean as efficiently as low-pressure delivery while requiring
significantly less volume of water or cleaning solutions.
b. TEC water use monitoring. Careful monitoring of TEC water use
can ensure that the minimum adequate amount of water is used to clean
tank interiors. Visual inspection may be used to determine an
appropriate duration and amount of water required for cleaning.
Alternatively, cleaning personnel can use predetermined cleaning times
and amounts of water to clean specific tank type and cargo type
combinations based on experience.
c. Equipment monitoring program. Preventative maintenance and
periodic inspection of cleaning equipment such as pumps, hoses,
nozzles, and water and cleaning solution storage tanks can
significantly reduce fresh water requirements by eliminating water
waste.
d. Cleaning without use of water. Cleaning personnel may enter the
tank to shovel or sweep dry-bulk cargos or mop or squeegee liquid
cargos. Mechanical devices are also used to vibrate hoppers to improve
heel removal. Depending on the effectiveness of these dry cleaning
processes, the need for subsequent tank cleaning with water may be
eliminated. At a minimum, these techniques will reduce the amount of
water and cleaning solutions required to clean the tank interior.
e. Cascade tank cleaning. ``Cascade'' tank cleaning processes
involve the use of fresh water for final tank rinses with recycle and
reuse of final rinse wastewater in initial rinses. This technique uses
water at least twice prior to discharge or disposal.
f. Wastewater recycle and reuse. Water recycle and reuse techniques
reduce or eliminate the need for fresh process water. Wastewater
streams most commonly recycled and reused in TEC processes include tank
interior cleaning wastewater, hydrotesting wastewater, uncontaminated
storm water, and non-contact cooling water. These water sources
typically do not require extensive treatment prior to recycle and
reuse. Tank interior cleaning wastewater generated by cleaning tanks
used to transport petroleum products can be recycled and reused in TEC
processes after treatment by oil/water separation and activated carbon
treatment. Wastewater generated by cleaning tanks that last transported
chemical products generally requires more extensive treatment prior to
recycle and reuse in TEC processes.
3. End-of-Pipe Wastewater Treatment Technologies
End-of-pipe wastewater treatment includes physical, chemical, and
biological processes that remove pollutants from TEC wastewater prior
to discharge to a receiving stream or POTW. Typical end-of-pipe
treatment currently used by the TEC industry includes pretreatment and
primary treatment. Facilities that practice extensive water and
wastewater recycle and reuse or that discharge TEC wastewater directly
to surface waters may also operate biological and/or advanced treatment
units. Use of treatment technologies by the TEC industry is presented
as the percentage of direct or indirect discharging facilities that use
the technologies.
a. Oil/water separation. Approximately 36 percent of TEC facilities
use oil/water separation to remove oil and grease. The most common type
of oil/water separator used by TEC facilities is an oil skimmer.
Coalescing and corrugated plate separators are also used.
b. Gravity settling. Gravity settling or sedimentation removes
suspended solids from TEC process wastewater. Approximately 57 percent
of TEC facilities use gravity settling.
c. Equalization. Equalization provides wastewater retention time to
homogenize wastewater to control fluctuations in flow and pollutant
characteristics, reduce the size and cost of subsequent treatment
units, and improve the efficiency of subsequent treatment units.
Approximately 42 percent of TEC facilities use equalization.
d. pH adjustment. Many treatment technologies used by the TEC
industry are sensitive to pH. For example, chemical precipitation
requires a relatively high pH while biological treatment requires a
neutral pH. In addition, pH adjustment may also be required to meet
permit conditions for wastewater discharge. Approximately 44 percent of
TEC facilities use pH adjustment.
e. Grit removal. Grit removal involves the use of a settling
chamber to remove heavy, suspended material from wastewater. This is
typically used at the headworks of a treatment system to remove larger
particles which may damage pumps or treatment equipment. Approximately
four percent of TEC facilities use grit removal.
f. Coagulation/Flocculation. Coagulation involves the addition of a
``coagulant,'' such as an electrolyte or polymer, to destabilize
colloidal and fine suspended matter. Flocculation involves the
agglomeration of destabilized particles into flocs for subsequent
removal by gravity settling in a clarifier. Approximately 24 percent of
TEC facilities use coagulation/flocculation.
[[Page 34705]]
g. Chemical precipitation/separation. Chemical precipitation
removes dissolved pollutants from wastewater. Precipitation agents,
such as polyaluminum chloride, ferric chloride, and lime, work by
reacting with pollutant cations (e.g., metals) and some anions to
convert them into an insoluble form for subsequent removal by gravity
settling in a clarifier. The pH of the wastewater also affects how much
pollutant mass is precipitated, as pollutants precipitate more
efficiently at different pH ranges. Coagulation/flocculation may also
be used to assist particle agglomeration and settling. Approximately
six percent of TEC facilities use chemical precipitation/separation.
h. Clarification. Approximately 23 percent of TEC facilities use
clarification as either a pre- or post-treatment step to remove
settleable solids, free oil and grease, and other floating material.
Primary clarifiers remove settleable solids from raw wastewater or
wastewater treated by coagulation/flocculation; secondary clarification
is used in activated sludge systems to remove biomass. Clarifiers
consist of settling tanks commonly equipped with a sludge scraper
mounted on the floor of the clarifier to rake sludge into a sump for
removal to sludge handling equipment. The bottom of the clarifier may
be sloped to facilitate sludge removal.
i. Filtration. Filtration removes solids from wastewater by passing
the wastewater through a material that retains the solids on or within
itself. A wide variety of filter types are used by the TEC industry
including media filters (e.g., sand, gravel, charcoal), bag filters,
and cartridge filters. Approximately 24 percent of TEC facilities use
filtration technologies.
j. Sludge dewatering. Sludge dewatering reduces sludge volume by
decreasing its water content, thereby substantially reducing sludge
disposal costs. Sludge dewatering technologies used by TEC facilities
include sludge drying beds, filter presses, rotary vacuum filters, and
centrifuges. Approximately 28 percent of TEC facilities use sludge
dewatering.
k. Dissolved air flotation. Dissolved air flotation devices
introduce gas bubbles into wastewater which attach to suspended
particles such as free and dispersed oil and grease, suspended solids,
and some dissolved pollutants, causing them to float. Floating material
is removed from the surface by rakes. Approximately 25 percent of TEC
facilities use dissolved air flotation.
l. Biological oxidation. Biological oxidation involves the
biological conversion of dissolved and colloidal organics into biomass,
gases, and other end products. Activated sludge systems, consisting of
an aeration basin, a secondary clarifier, and a sludge recycle line,
are the most commonly used biological oxidation systems in the TEC
industry. Aerated stabilization basins and anaerobic technologies are
also used. Approximately nine percent of TEC facilities use biological
oxidation.
m. Chemical oxidation. Chemical oxidation involves the addition of
oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide to chemically oxidize toxic
pollutants to form less toxic constituents. Approximately two percent
of TEC facilities use chemical oxidation.
n. Activated carbon adsorption. Activated carbon removes pollutants
from wastewater by physical and chemical forces that bind the
constituents to the carbon surface. In general, pollutants with low
water solubility, high molecular weight, and those containing certain
chemical structures such as aromatic functional groups are most
amenable to treatment by activated carbon adsorption. Less than one
percent of TEC facilities use activated carbon adsorption.
o. Membrane filtration. Membrane filtration uses a pressure-driven,
semipermeable membrane to separate suspended, colloidal, and dissolved
solutes from wastewater. The size of pores in the membrane is selected
based on the type of contaminant to be removed. Types of membrane
filtration technologies used by the TEC industry include
microfiltration, ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis. A relatively
large pore size is used to remove precipitates or suspended materials,
whereas a relatively small pore size is used to remove inorganic salts
or organic molecules. Less than one percent of TEC facilities use
membrane filtration.
B. Technology Options Considered for Basis of Regulation
This section explains how EPA selected the effluent limitations and
standards proposed today for each of the TEC subcategories proposed for
regulation. To determine the technology basis and performance level for
the proposed regulations, EPA developed a database consisting of daily
influent and effluent data collected during EPA's wastewater sampling
program. This database is used to support the BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS,
PSES, and PSNS effluent limitations and standards.
The effluent limitations and pretreatment standards EPA is
proposing to establish today are based on well-designed, well-operated
treatment systems. Below is a summary of the technology bases for the
proposed effluent limitations and pretreatment standards in each
subcategory. When final guidelines are promulgated, a facility is free
to use any combination of wastewater treatment technologies and
pollution prevention strategies at the facility so long as the
numerical discharge limits are achieved.
In developing the regulatory options for proposing limitations and
pretreatment standards for the TEC industry, EPA utilized technology
bases from the wastewater treatment technologies and the pollution
prevention technologies described in Section VIII.A.
EPA incorporated the utilization of two common practices into the
technology options for all subcategories. The first is good heel
removal and management practices which prevent pollutants from entering
waste streams. These practices may reduce wastewater treatment system
capital and annual costs due to reduced wastewater pollutant loadings
and may provide a potential to recover/reuse valuable product. The
majority of TEC facilities currently operate good heel removal and
management practices. Because of the many benefits of these practices,
and a demonstrated trend in the TEC industry to implement these
practices, EPA believes that the TEC industry will have universally
implemented good heel removal and management practices prior to
implementation of TEC effluent guidelines.
The second common element is good water conservation practices
which reduce the amount of wastewater generated. Good water
conservation will improve wastewater treatment performance efficiency,
reduce wastewater treatment system capital and annual costs, and reduce
water usage and sewer fees. EPA considered good water conservation
practices to be represented by the median tank interior cleaning
wastewater volume discharged per tank cleaning (including commingled
non-TEC wastewater streams not easily segregated) for each subcategory.
This volume is referred to as the ``regulatory flow'' for each
subcategory. For the 50 percent of facilities not currently meeting the
regulatory flow, a flow reduction technology was costed. Flow reduction
technologies include operator training, new spinners, and new cleaning
systems.
In assessing the costs and loads for each regulatory option, EPA
considered the treatment in place at each facility potentially affected
by the regulation. In cases where the facility had treatment in place,
that facility was ``given credit''
[[Page 34706]]
for each treatment unit currently in place that was a part of EPA's
proposed treatment option. That facility was then assumed not to incur
additional costs for the installation of that particular unit. Often, a
facility had in place a treatment unit that was similar, but not
identical to, the treatment option proposed. In these cases, EPA
evaluated the existing treatment and gave credit for similar treatment
systems.
The following subsections discuss the regulatory options that were
considered for BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS. The Agency solicits
comment on alternative treatment technologies not considered by EPA
which may attain similar treatment removal efficiencies but that may be
less expensive to install and operate.
1. BPT Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Introduction. EPA today proposes BPT effluent limitations for
the following subcategories for the TEC Point Source Category: Truck/
Chemical, Rail/Chemical, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, and Truck/Food,
Rail/Food, and Barge/Food. The BPT effluent limitations proposed today
would control identified conventional, priority, and non-conventional
pollutants when discharged from TEC facilities. For further discussion
on the basis for the limitations and technologies selected see the
Technical Development Document.
As previously discussed, Section 304(b)(1)(A) of the CWA requires
EPA to identify effluent reductions attainable through the application
of ``best practicable control technology currently available for
classes and categories of point sources.'' The Senate Report for the
1972 amendments to the CWA explained how EPA must establish BPT
effluent reduction levels. Generally, EPA determines BPT effluent
levels based upon the average of the best existing performances by
plants of various sizes, ages, and unit processes within each
industrial category or subcategory. In industrial categories where
present practices are uniformly inadequate, however, EPA may determine
that BPT requires higher levels of control than any currently in place
if the technology to achieve those levels can be practicably applied.
See A Legislative History of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, U.S. Senate Committee of Public Works, Serial No.
93-1, January 1973, p. 1468.
In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost assessment
for BPT limitations. In determining the BPT limits, EPA must consider
the total cost of treatment technologies in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits achieved. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad
discretion to adopt BPT limitations that are achievable with available
technology unless the required additional reductions are ``wholly out
of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal level of
reduction.'' See Legislative History, op. cit. p. 170. Moreover, the
inquiry does not require the Agency to quantify benefits in monetary
terms. See e.g. American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F. 2d
1027 (3rd Cir. 1975).
In balancing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction, EPA
considers the volume and nature of expected discharges after
application of BPT, the general environmental effects of pollutants,
and the cost and economic impacts of the required level of pollution
control. In developing guidelines, the Act does not require or permit
consideration of water quality problems attributable to particular
point sources, or water quality improvements in particular bodies of
water. Therefore, EPA has not considered these factors in developing
the limitations being proposed today. See Weyerhaeuser Company v.
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
EPA identified relatively few direct discharging facilities for
most subcategories in the TEC industry as compared to the number of
indirect discharging facilities. However, the Agency concluded that
direct discharging facilities are similar to indirect discharging
facilities in terms of types of tanks cleaned, types of commodities
cleaned, water use, and wastewater characteristics. With respect to
existing end-of-pipe wastewater treatment in place, direct discharging
facilities typically operate biological treatment in addition to
physical/chemical treatment technologies typically operated by indirect
discharging facilities.
b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory. The Agency's engineering assessment
of BPT consisted of the following options:
Option I: Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water
Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation,
Clarification, Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering. Option I
demonstrated treatment efficiency of 57 percent or greater for all
organic pollutants, 57 percent or greater for all metals, and 92
percent or greater for all conventional pollutants present in Truck/
Chemical Subcategory wastewater. All existing Truck/Chemical
Subcategory facilities received credit in EPA's costing model for
equalization, coagulation/clarification, and biological treatment in-
place, sixty-six percent received credit for existing sludge
dewatering, and no facilities received credit for existing oil/water
separation. (Oil/water separation was characterized at an indirect
discharge Truck/Chemical Subcategory facility).
Option II: Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water
Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation,
Clarification, Biological Treatment, Activated Carbon Adsorption, and
Sludge Dewatering. Option II is equivalent to Option I with the
addition of activated carbon adsorption for wastewater polishing
following biological treatment. Option II removed 85 percent or greater
of organics, 79 percent or greater of metals and 98 percent or greater
of conventional pollutants present in Truck/Chemical Subcategory
wastewater. All Truck/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit
for existing activated carbon adsorption treatment.
EPA is proposing to establish BPT effluent limitations based on
Option II for the Truck/Chemical Subcategory. Agency data indicate that
a treatment train consisting of physical/chemical treatment for the
removal of metals and toxics, biological treatment for the removal of
decomposable organic material and activated carbon adsorption for
removal of residual organics and toxics represents the average of the
best treatment in the industry. As noted above, all existing direct
discharging facilities in this subcategory currently employ
equalization, coagulation/clarification, biological treatment and
activated adsorption. Although no direct discharging facilities were
given credit in EPA's costing model for a coelescing plate oil/water
separator, this technology is common and demonstrated practice in the
industry to improve the overall efficiency of the treatment system. EPA
has included the use of oil/water separation in its cost estimates to
the industry in order to ensure that the biological system performs
optimally.
EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option II treatment
reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent reductions
attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved.
No basis could be found for identifying different BPT limitations
based on age, size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the
age nor the size of the TEC facility will directly affect the
treatability of the TEC wastewaters. For Truck/Chemical
[[Page 34707]]
facilities, the most pertinent factors for establishing the limitations
are costs of treatment and the level of effluent reductions obtainable.
EPA estimates that implementation of Option II will cost $0.43 per
pound of pollutants removed, and has found that cost to be reasonable.
Finally, EPA also looked at the costs of all options to determine the
economic impact that this proposal would have on the TEC industry. EPA
anticipates that the economic impact, in terms of facility closures and
employment losses, due to the controls established by BPT would be
comparable to that estimated in EPA's assessment for indirect
dischargers, which resulted in no facility closures or employment
losses. EPA therefore projects that implementation of BPT Option II
will result in no facility closures and no employment losses.
Therefore, EPA has concluded that the total costs associated with the
proposed BPT option are achievable and are reasonable as compared to
the removals achieved by this option. Further discussion on the
economic impact analysis can be found in Section X of today's notice.
c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory. The Agency's engineering assessment
of BPT consisted of the following options:
Option I: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation,
Equalization, Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering. Option I
removed 64 percent or greater of organic pollutants, 95 percent or
greater of BOD5, and 98 percent or greater of oil and
grease. All Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit in
EPA's costing model for existing biological treatment and sludge
dewatering. No Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit for
existing oil/water separation treatment. (Oil/water separation was
characterized at a zero discharge Rail/Chemical Subcategory facility
that recycled/reused 100 percent of TEC wastewater.)
Option II: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation,
Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH
Adjustment), Biological Treatment and Sludge Dewatering. Option II is
equivalent to Option I with the addition of Dissolved Air Flotation for
the removal of oil and grease and the organic and metallic compounds
contained in the oily fraction. Option II removed 81 percent or greater
of organic pollutants, 84 percent or greater of metals, 99 percent or
greater of oil and grease, and 92 percent or greater of TSS present in
Rail/Chemical Subcategory wastewater. All Rail/Chemical Subcategory
facilities received credit for existing equalization and pH adjustment.
No Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit for existing
dissolved air flotation. (Dissolved air flotation was characterized at
a zero discharge Rail/Chemical Subcategory facility that recycled/
reused 100 percent of TEC wastewater.)
Option III: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation,
Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH
Adjustment), Biological Treatment, Organo-Clay/Activated Carbon
Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering. Option III is equivalent to Option
II with the addition of an organo-clay/activated carbon adsorption
system for wastewater polishing following biological treatment. Option
III removed 84 percent or greater of organic pollutants, and 99 percent
or greater of TSS present in Rail/Chemical Subcategory wastewater. No
Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit in EPA's costing
model for existing organo-clay/activated carbon adsorption treatment.
(Organo-clay/activated carbon adsorption treatment was characterized at
a zero discharge Rail/Chemical Subcategory facility that recycled/
reused 100 percent of TEC wastewater.)
EPA is proposing to set BPT regulations for the Rail/Chemical
Subcategory based on technology Option I. EPA's decision to base BPT
limitations on Option I treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1)
the degree of effluent reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of
the proposed treatment technologies in relation to the effluent
reductions achieved.
No basis could be found for identifying different BPT limitations
based on age, size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the
age nor the size of the TEC facility will directly affect the
treatability of the TEC wastewaters. For Rail/Chemical facilities, the
most pertinent factors for establishing the limitations are costs of
treatment and the level of effluent reductions obtainable.
EPA has selected Option I based on the comparison of the three
options in terms of total costs of achieving the effluent reductions,
pounds of pollutant removals, economic impacts, and general
environmental effects of the reduced pollutant discharges.
EPA estimates that implementation of Option I will cost $103
dollars per pound of pollutants removed. Although this projected cost
per pound appears to be high, EPA has used a very conservative cost
approach to project costs to the industry. The one facility in EPA's
cost model is already projected to meet the proposed effluent
limitations due to the low effluent levels achieved at this facility,
which average 8 mg/l of BOD5. However, because EPA's
proposed treatment technology includes oil/water separation, the cost
model has assumed that this facility will incur additional costs to
install this treatment. Additionally, EPA has given no credit to any
facility for current monitoring practices. Therefore, EPA has assumed
that all
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.