# Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-13792 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** June 25, 1998 - **Citation:** 63 FR 34686 ## 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 prima [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-13792. Public record. Not legal advice.