Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category

SUMMARY: This proposal represents the Agency's second look at Clean

Water Act national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment

standards--first proposed in January 1995--for wastewater discharges

from centralized waste treatment facilities. The proposed regulation

would establish technology-based effluent limitations and pretreatment

standards for wastewater discharges associated with the operation of

new and existing centralized waste treatment facilities which accept

hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes, wastewater, and/or used

material from off-site for treatment and/or materials recovery.

Compliance with this regulation is expected to reduce the discharge

of pollutants by at least 14.3 million pounds per year of conventional

pollutants and 4.1 million pounds per year of toxic and non-

conventional pollutants and cost an estimated $27.8 million ($1997) on

an annual basis. EPA has estimated that the annual benefits of the

proposal would range from $5.3 million to $15.9 million ($1997).

DATES: EPA must receive comments on the proposal by midnight of March

15, 1999. EPA will present an assessment of its 1998 characterization

sampling of non-hazardous oil treatment and recovery facilities, and

conduct a public hearing on pretreatment standards on February 18, 1999

from 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to, Ms. Jan Matuszko, Office of

Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M St.

SW, Washington, DC 20460. Please submit any references cited in your

comments. EPA requests an original and three copies of your comments

and enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-addressed,

stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For

additional information on how to submit electronic comments see

``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, How to Submit Comments.''

EPA will present an assessment of its 1998 characterization

sampling of non-hazardous oil treatment and recovery facilities, and

conduct a public hearing on pretreatment standards in EPA's Auditorium,

Waterside Mall, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC. Persons wishing to

present formal comments at the public hearing should contact Mr.

Timothy Connor before the hearing and should have a written copy for

submittal.

The public record for this proposed rulemaking has been established

under docket number W-98-21 and is located in the Water Docket East

Tower Basement, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. The record is

available for inspection from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays. For access to the docket materials,

call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment. You may have to pay a

reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning

today's proposed rule, contact Ms. Jan Matuszko at (202) 260-9126 or

Mr. Timothy Connor at (202) 260-3164. For economic information contact

Dr. William Wheeler at (202) 260-7905.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action include:

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

Category Examples of regulated entities

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

Industry.............. Discharges from stand-alone waste

treatment and recovery facilities receiving

materials from off-site. These facilities may

treat and/or recover or recycle hazardous or

non-hazardous waste, hazardous or non-hazardous

wastewater, and/or used material from off-site.

Certain discharges from waste treatment

systems at facilities primarily engaged in

other industrial operations. Thus, industrial

facilities which process their own, on-site

generated, process wastewater with hazardous or

non-hazardous wastes, wastewaters, and/or used

material received from off-site, in certain

circumstances, may be subject to this proposal

with respect to a portion of their discharge.

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

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 proposed in Section 437.01 and

detailed further in Section IV of the proposed rule. If you still have

questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular

entity (after consulting Section IV), consult one of the persons listed

for technical information in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

How To Submit Comments

Comments may also be sent via e-mail to

[email protected]. Electronic comments must be identified by

the docket number W-98-21 and must be submitted as an ASCII or

WordPerfect 6.1 file avoiding the use of special characters and any

form of encryption. Electronic comments on this notice may be filed

online at many Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential business

information (CBI) should be sent via e-mail.

Protection of Confidential Business Information

EPA notes that many documents in the record supporting the proposed

rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore, are not included in the

record that is available to the public in the Water Docket. To support

the rulemaking, EPA is presenting certain information in aggregated

form or, alternatively, is masking facility identities in order to

preserve confidentiality claims. Further, the Agency has withheld from

disclosure some data not claimed as CBI because release of this

information could indirectly reveal information claimed to be

confidential.

Some facility-specific data, claimed as CBI, are available to the

company that submitted the information. To ensure

[[Page 2281]]

that all CBI is protected in accordance with EPA regulations, any

requests for company-specific data should be submitted to EPA on

company letterhead and signed by a responsible official authorized to

receive such data. The request must list the specific data requested

and include the following statement, ``I certify that EPA is authorized

to transfer confidential business information submitted by my company,

and that I am authorized to receive it.''

Overview

The preamble describes the definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations

used in this notice; the background documents that support these

proposed regulations; the legal authority of these rules; a summary of

the proposal; background information; and the technical and economic

methodologies used by the Agency to develop these regulations. This

preamble also solicits comment and data on specific areas of interest.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority

II. Legislative Background

A. Clean Water Act

B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree

C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program

III. Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guideline

Rulemaking History

A. January 27, 1995 Proposal

B. September 16, 1996 Notice of Data Availability

IV. Scope/Applicability of the Proposed Regulation

A. General Overview

B. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR (Parts 400 through 471)

C. Pipeline Transfers (Fixed Delivery Systems)

D. Product Stewardship

E. Solids, Soils and Sludges

F. Sanitary Wastes

G. Transporters and/or Transportation Equipment Cleaners

H. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)

I. Silver Recovery Operations from Used Photographic and X-Ray

Materials

J. High Temperature Metals Recovery

K. Landfill Wastewaters

L. Industrial Waste Combustors

M. Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending

N. Re-refining

O. Used Oil Filter Recycling

P. Marine Generated Wastes

Q. Stabilization

R. Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes

S. Small Businesses

T. Hazardous vs. Non-hazardous Wastes

V. Industry Profile

A. Description of the Industry

B. Off-Site Treatment Incentives and Comparable Treatment

VI. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts

A. Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous Waste Treatment

Industry

B. Survey Questionnaires (1991 Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire and Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire)

C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits

D. Analytical Methods

E. Public Comments to the 1995 Proposal and the1996 Notice of

Data Availability

F. Database Sources

G. Summary of Public Participation

H. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

I. Examination of the Effect of Total Dissolved Solids on Metals

Precipitation

VII. Subcategorization

A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of

Subcategorization

B. Proposed Subcategories

C. General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory

D. Mixed Waste Subcategory Consideration

VIII. Wastewater Characterization

A. Wastewater Sources

B. Wastewater Characterization

C. Wastewater Flow and Discharge

IX. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

A. Description of Available Technologies

B. Technology Options Considered and Treatment Systems Selected

for Basis of Regulation

C. Non-regulated Pollutants of Concern

D. Monitoring to Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation

E. Determination of Long Term Averages, Variability Factors, and

Limitations

X. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives

A. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions

Achieved by Treatment Technologies

B. Regulatory Costs

C. Pollutant Reductions

XI. Economic Analyses

A. Introduction

B. Economic Description of the CWT Industry and Baseline

Conditions

C. Economic Impact and Closure Methodology

D. Costs and Economic Impacts of Proposed BPT

E. Results of BCT Cost Test

F. Costs and Economic Impacts of BAT Options

G. Costs and Economic Impacts of Proposed PSES Options

H. Economic Impacts for New Sources

I. Firm Level Impacts

J. Community Impacts

K. Foreign Trade Impacts

L. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

M. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

XII. Water Quality Analyses and Environmental Benefits

A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk

B. Reduced Lead Health Risk

C. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human Health Hazard

D. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity

E. Improved POTW Operations

F. Other Benefits not Quantified

G. Summary of Benefits

XIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

A. Air Pollution

B. Solid Waste

C. Energy Requirements

XIV. Regulatory Implementation

A. Applicability

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

C. Variances and Modifications

D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations and Pretreatment

Standards to Monitoring Requirements

E. Subcategorization Determination

F. Implementation for Facilities in Multiple Subcategories

XV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency

Initiatives

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act

H. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental

Partnerships

I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments

XVI. Solicitation of Data and Comments

A. Introduction and General Solicitation

B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations

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, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.1311,

1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.

II. Legislative 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

[[Page 2282]]

U.S.C. 1317(b) & (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 wastewaters 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, 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,

however, 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 (for example, TSS, pH, BOD5).

However, nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted

BPT limitations to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean

Water Act of 1977 with its 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

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. 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

economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial

subcategory or category. The CWA establishes BAT as a principal

national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic and

nonconventional pollutants. The factors considered in assessing BAT

include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of

equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential

process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including

energy requirements and such other factors as the Administrator deems

appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning

the weight to be accorded these factors. An additional statutory factor

considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally, EPA

determines economic achievability on the basis of total costs to the

industry and the effect of compliance with BAT limitations on overall

industry and subcategory financial conditions. As with BPT, where

existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may require a higher

level of performance than is currently being achieved based on

technology transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT

may be based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these

technologies are not common industry practice.

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. 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 most stringent controls attainable through the

application of the best available control technology for all pollutants

(that is, conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In

establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost

of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality

environmental impacts and energy requirements.

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

of the 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 (POTW). The CWA authorizes

EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass-

through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge disposal

methods 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. These regulations contain a definition of pass-

through that addresses localized rather than national instances of

pass-through and establishes 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.

[[Page 2283]]

B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree

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 centralized waste

treatment industry.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen,

Inc. filed suit against the Agency, alleging violation of Section

304(m) and other statutory authorities requiring promulgation of

effluent guidelines (NRDC et al. v. Browner, Civ. No. 89-2980

(D.D.C.)). Under the terms of a consent decree dated January 31, 1992,

which settled the litigation, EPA agreed, among other things, to

propose effluent guidelines for the ``Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry Category by April 31, 1994 and take final action on these

effluent guidelines by January 31, 1996. On February 4, 1997, the court

approved modifications to the Decree which revised the deadline to

August 1999 for final action. EPA provided notice of these

modifications on February 26, 1997 at 62 FR 8726.

C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program

1. Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)

The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted on November 8, 1984,

largely prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. Once

a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, the statute

provides only two options for legal land disposal: meet the treatment

standard for the waste prior to land disposal, or dispose of the waste

in a land disposal unit that has been found to satisfy the statutory

no-migration-test. A no-migration-unit is one from which there will be

no migration of hazardous constituents for as long as the waste remains

hazardous (RCRA Sections 3004 (d), (e), (g)(5)).

Under section 3004, the treatment standards that EPA develops may

be expressed as either constituent concentration levels or as specific

methods of treatment. The criteria for these standards is that they

must substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially

reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the

waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the

environment are minimized (RCRA Section 3004(m)(1)). For purposes of

the restrictions, the RCRA program defines land disposal to include any

placement of hazardous waste in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste

pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome formation,

salt bed formation, or underground mine or cave. Land disposal

restrictions are published in 40 CFR Part 268.

EPA has used hazardous waste treatability data as the basis for

land disposal restrictions standards. First, EPA has identified Best

Demonstrated Available Treatment Technology (BDAT) for each listed

hazardous waste. BDAT is that treatment technology that EPA finds to be

the most effective for a waste which is also readily available to

generators and treaters. In some cases, EPA has designated, for a

particular waste stream, a treatment technology which has been shown to

successfully treat a similar, but more difficult to treat, waste

stream. This ensured that the land disposal restrictions standards for

a listed waste stream were achievable since they always reflected the

actual treatability of the waste itself or of a more refractory waste.

As part of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR), Universal

Treatment Standards (UTS) were promulgated as part of the RCRA phase

two final rule (July 27,1994). The UTS are a series of concentrations

for wastewaters and non-wastewaters that provide a single treatment

standard for each constituent. Previously, the LDR regulated

constituents according to the identity of the original waste; thus,

several numerical treatment standards might exist for each constituent.

The UTS simplified the standards by having only one treatment standard

for each constituent in any waste residue.

The LDR treatment standards established under RCRA may differ from

the Clean Water Act effluent guidelines proposed here today both in

their format and in the numerical values set for each constituent. The

differences result from the use of different legal criteria for

developing the limits and resulting differences in the technical and

economic criteria and data sets used for establishing the respective

limits.

The difference in format between the LDR and effluent guidelines is

that LDR establishes a single daily limit for each pollutant parameter

whereas the effluent guidelines generally establish monthly and daily

limits. Additionally, the effluent guidelines provide for several types

of discharge, including new vs. existing sources, and indirect vs.

direct discharge.

The differences in numerical limits established under the Clean

Water Act may differ, not only from LDR and UTS, but also from point-

source category to point-source category (for example, Electroplating,

40 CFR Part 413; and Metal Finishing, 40 CFR Part 433). The effluent

guidelines limitations and standards are industry-specific,

subcategory-specific, and technology-based. The numerical limits are

typically based on different data sets that reflect the performance of

specific wastewater management and treatment practices. Differences in

the limits reflect consideration of the CWA statutory factors that the

Administrator is required to evaluate in developing technically and

economically achievable limitations and standards. A consequence of

these differing approaches is that similar waste streams can be

regulated at different levels.

2. Overlap Between LDR Standards and the Centralized Waste Treatment

Industry Effluent Guidelines

EPA's survey for this guideline identified no facilities

discharging wastewater effluent to land disposal units. There is,

consequently, no overlap between the proposed regulations for the CWT

Industry and the Universal Treatment Standards.

III. Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guideline

Rulemaking History

A. January 27, 1995 Proposal

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

reduce discharges to navigable waters of toxic, conventional, and non-

conventional pollutants in treated wastewater from facilities defined

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

proposed, these effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment

standards would have applied to ``any facility that treats any

hazardous or non-hazardous industrial waste received from off-site by

tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge or other forms of

shipment.'' Facilities which received waste from off-site solely via

pipeline were excluded from the proposed rule. Facilities proposed for

regulation included both stand-alone waste treatment and recovery

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

facilities that treat on-site generated process wastewater with wastes

received from off-site.

The Agency proposed limitations and standards for an estimated 85

facilities

[[Page 2284]]

in three subcategories. The subcategories for the centralized waste

treatment (CWT) industry were metal-bearing waste treatment and

recovery, oily waste treatment and recovery, and organic waste

treatment and recovery. EPA based the BPT effluent limitations proposed

in 1995 on the technologies listed in Table III.A-1 below. EPA based

BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS on the same technologies as BPT.

Table III.A-1. Technology Basis for 1995 BPT Effluent Limitations

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

Proposed subpart Name of subcategory Technology basis

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

A..................... Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery........................ Selective Metals

Precipitation,

Pressure

Filtration,

Secondary

Precipitation,

Solid-Liquid

Separation, and

Tertiary

Precipitation.

For Metal-Bearing

Waste Which

Includes

Concentrated

Cyanide Streams:

Pretreatment by

Alkaline

Chlorination at

Elevated Operating

Conditions.

B..................... Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery................................. Emulsion Breaking/

Gravity Separation

and

Ultrafiltration; or

Ultrafiltration,

Carbon Adsorption,

and Reverse

Osmosis.

C..................... Organic Waste Treatment and Recovery.............................. Equalization, Air

Stripping,

Biological

Treatment, and

Multimedia

Filtration.

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

B. September 16, 1996 Notice of Data Availability

Based on comments received on the 1995 proposal and new

information, EPA reexamined its conclusions about the Oily Waste

Treatment and Recovery subcategory, or ``oils subcategory''. (The 1995

proposal had defined facilities in this subcategory as ``facilities

that treat, and/or recover oil from oily waste received from off-

site.'') Subsequently, in September, 1996 EPA noticed the availability

of the new data on this subcategory (61 FR 48800). EPA explained that

it had underestimated the size of the oils subcategory, and that the

data used to develop the original proposal may have mischaracterized

this portion of the CWT industry. EPA had based its original estimates

on the size of this segment of the industry on information obtained

from the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. The basis year

for the questionnaire was 1989. However, many of the new oils

facilities discussed in this notice began operation after 1989. EPA

concluded that many of these facilities may have started up or modified

their existing operations in response to requirements in EPA

regulations, specifically, the provisions of 40 CFR part 279,

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

Oil). These regulations govern the handling of used oils under the

Solid Waste Disposal Act and CERCLA. EPA's 1996 notice discussed the

additional facilities, provided a revised description of the

subcategory, and described how the 1995 proposal limitations and

standards, if promulgated, would have affected such facilities. The

notice, among other items, also solicited comments on the use of

dissolved air flotation in this subcategory.

IV. Scope/Applicability of the Proposed Regulation

Over half of the comments received on the original proposal related

to the applicability of the rule. For more background on the CWT

industry, see Section V. EPA has reviewed these comments and is

proposing a revised scope for this rule. Many of these issues are

discussed in more detail below. EPA solicits comments on each of these

issues as well as any other applicability issues which are not

specifically addressed in today's notice.

A. General Overview

EPA is still proposing limitations and standards for three

subcategories of CWT facilities. However, it would change the scope of

the facilities and wastewater discharges that would be subject to

regulation from that proposed earlier. The universe of facilities which

would be potentially subject to this guideline generally include the

following. First, except where noted otherwise, EPA is proposing to

establish limitations and pretreatment standards for stand-alone waste

treatment and recovery facilities receiving materials from off-site--

classic ``centralized waste treaters.'' These facilities may treat and/

or recover or recycle hazardous or non-hazardous waste, hazardous or

non-hazardous wastewater, and/or used material from off-site. Second,

discharges from waste treatment systems at facilities primarily engaged

in other industrial operations may also fall within the scope of

today's proposal in certain circumstances. Thus, industrial facilities

which process their own, on-site generated, process wastewater with

hazardous or non-hazardous wastes, wastewaters, and/or used material

received from off-site may be subject to this proposal with respect to

a portion of their discharge.

The wastewater flows which EPA is proposing to subject to the

requirements of this rule would include some or all off-site waste

receipts and on-site wastewater generated as a result of CWT

operations. The kinds of on-site wastewater generated at these

facilities would include, for example, solubilization wastewater,

emulsion breaking/gravity separation wastewater, used oil processing

wastewater, treatment equipment washes, transport washes (tanker truck,

drum, and roll-off boxes), laboratory-derived wastewater, air pollution

control wastewater, industrial waste combustor wastewater from on-site

industrial waste combustors, landfill wastewater from on-site

landfills, and contaminated stormwater. A detailed discussion of CWT

wastewaters is provided in Section VIII. In summary, all wastewater

discharges to a receiving stream or the introduction of wastewater to a

publicly owned treatment works from a facility which falls under the

definition of centralized waste treatment facility would be subject to

the provisions of this rule unless specifically excluded as discussed

in the following sections.

B. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR (Parts 400 Through 471)

At the time of the original proposal, EPA defined a centralized

waste treatment facility as any facility which received waste from off-

site for treatment or recovery on a commercial or non-commercial basis.

Non-commercial facilities were defined as facilities that accept off-

site wastes from facilities under the same ownership. EPA received many

comments concerning the applicability of the CWT rule to facilities

that perform waste treatment and/or recovery of off-site generated

wastes, but whose primary business is something other than waste

treatment or recovery. These facilities

[[Page 2285]]

are generally manufacturers who primarily treat wastes generated as a

result of their on-site manufacturing operations, and whose wastewater

discharges are already subject to existing effluent guidelines and

standards. Many of these facilities also accept off-site generated

wastes for treatment. In some instances, these off-site wastes received

at these industrial facilities are generated by a facility under the

same corporate ownership--intracompany transfer--and treated on a non-

commercial basis. In other instances, the off-site waste streams

originate from a company under a different ownership, an intercompany

transfer.

In general, commenters urged that the scope of the guideline should

be limited to facilities whose sole purpose is the treatment of off-

site wastes and wastewater. Reasons provided by commenters for not

including facilities that treat off-site wastes along with their own

on-site wastes within the scope of the guideline include:

The wastes transferred from different locations within a

company (and different companies) for treatment with on-site wastes are

usually generated from the same categorical process as the on-site

generated wastes. Since most of these facilities are already covered by

an existing effluent guideline, coverage of these waste streams is

redundant. Monitoring, record keeping, etc. would be duplicative.

This proposed rule could prevent effective waste

management practices at many manufacturing facilities. Currently, many

companies operate a single, central treatment plant and transport waste

from ``satellite'' facilities to the central treatment facility. This

allows for effective treatment while controlling costs. Additionally,

many facilities transfer a specific waste stream to other company-owned

treatment systems (intracompany) that are designed for the most

efficient treatment of that type of waste stream.

Many of these types of facilities only accept waste

streams which are comparable and compatible with the on-site generated

process waste streams.

These facilities are not primarily in the business of

waste treatment. Only a small percentage of wastes treated are from

off-site.

EPA has not performed the technical analyses that are

necessary to support application of the CWT rule to manufacturing

facilities regulated by existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment

standards.

EPA reexamined the database of facilities which forms the basis of

the CWT rule. EPA's database contains information on 17 manufacturing

facilities which commingle waste generated by on-site manufacturing

activities for treatment with waste generated off-site and one

manufacturing facility which does not commingle waste generated by on-

site manufacturing activities for treatment with waste generated off-

site. Nine of these facilities treat waste on a non-commercial basis

only while nine treat waste on a commercial basis. Of the eighteen

facilities, eight facilities only accept and treat off-site wastes

which are from the same categorical process as the on-site generated

waste streams. Ten of the facilities, however, are clearly accepting

off-site wastes which are not subject to the same categorical standards

as the on-site generated wastewater. The percentage of off-site

wastewaters being commingled for treatment with on-site wastewater

varies from 0.06% to 80%, with the total volumes varying between 87,000

gallons per year to 381 million gallons per year.

The guidelines, as proposed in 1995, would have included all of

these facilities within the scope of this rule. EPA included these

facilities in the 1995 proposed CWT rule to ensure that all wastes

receive adequate treatment--even those shipped between facilities

already subject to existing effluent guidelines and standards. After

reconsidering this issue for the current proposal, however, EPA agrees

that, for off-site wastes which are generated by the same categorical

process as on-site generated wastes, intracompany and intercompany

transfers are a viable and often preferable method to treat waste

streams efficiently at a reduced cost. EPA does not want to discourage

these management practices. EPA is still concerned, however, that, in

circumstances where the off-site generated wastes are not from the same

categorical group as the on-site generated wastes, the effluent

limitations and categorical standards currently in place for one

industry may not ensure adequate treatment for wastes generated in

another industry. It is not duplicative, in such circumstances, to

include within the scope of the CWT guideline, wastewater that results

from the treatment of off-site wastes not subject to the guidelines and

standards applicable to the treatment of wastewater generated on-site.

EPA has included these facilities in all of its economic analyses.

Therefore, based on the Agency's evaluation of the comments

submitted on its earlier proposal and consideration of additional

information, EPA is today proposing to include within the scope of the

CWT rule wastewater received from off-site from facilities in other

industries that also generate on-site wastewater unless one of the

following conditions is met:

For facilities subject to national effluent limitations

guidelines for existing sources, standards of performance for new

sources, or pretreatment standards for new and existing sources

(``categorical standards''), the wastes received from off-site for

treatment would be subject to the same categorical standards as the on-

site generated wastes; or

For facilities not subject to existing categorical

standards, the waste received from off-site is from the same industry

(other than the waste treatment industry) and is of a similar nature to

the waste generated on-site (based on the best professional judgment of

the permit writer).

For purposes of developing its effluent limitations and pretreatment

standards, EPA has included manufacturing facilities which accept off-

site waste for treatment in all of its analyses unless the above

mentioned conditions were met.

EPA contemplates that this approach would be implemented in the

following manner. A facility that is currently subject to either

national effluent limitations or pretreatment standards receives

wastewater from off-site for treatment. The wastewater is commingled

for treatment with wastewater generated on-site. If the off-site

wastewater is subject to the same limitations or standards as the

onsite wastewater (or would be if treated where generated), the CWT

limitations would not apply to the discharge associated with the off-

site wastewater flows. In that case, another guideline or standard

applies. If, however, the off-site wastewater is not subject to the

same national limitations or standards (or if none exist), that portion

of the discharge associated with the off-site flow would be subject to

CWT requirements. (Of course, the portion of the wastewater generated

on-site remains subject to applicable limitations and standards for the

facility. If the off-site and on-site wastewaters were commingled prior

to discharge, the permit writer would use the ``'combined wastestream

formula'' or ``building block approach'' to determine limitations for

the commingled wastestream). Alternatively, EPA is considering an

option under which the permit writers could allow manufacturing

facilities that treat off-site wastes to meet all otherwise-

[[Page 2286]]

applicable categorical limitations and standards for the industries

from which the waste was generated. This approach would also determine

limitations or standards for any commingled on-site and off-site

wastewater using the ``combined waste stream formula'' or ``building

block approach''. Under the approach, however, the permit writer would

apply the categorical limitations from the industries generating the

wastewater, rather than the CWT limitations proposed today to the off-

site portion of the commingled wastestream. The use of the combined

wastestream formula and building block approaches for CWT wastes is

discussed further in Section XIV.F. EPA envisions the second

alternative would be preferable for facilities which only receive

continuous flows of process wastewaters with relatively consistent

pollutant profiles from no more than five customers. The decision to

base limitations in this manner would be at the permit writer's

discretion only. EPA solicits comment on this alternative as well as

the application of the CWT rule to manufacturing facilities in general.

In addition, there are manufacturing facilities that may not

currently be subject to any effluent limitations guidelines or

pretreatment standards. Some of these may accept off-site wastewater

that is commingled for treatment with on-site process wastewater. With

respect to such facilities, EPA contemplates that an approach similar

to that proposed above for categorical industries receiving off-site

wastewater for treatment. Thus, the proposal would be implemented as

follows. Under EPA regulations, the permit writer would develop best

professional judgement BPJ limits (or standards) for the on-site

generated wastewater flows. The portion of the discharge resulting from

the treatment of off-site flows would be subject either to CWT

limitations and standards or to the same BPJ requirements as on-site

flows. CWT limitations would apply if the off-site wastes treated at

the facility were different from those generated on-site.

Alternatively, applying either a building block or combined waste

stream formula approach, on-site wastewater would be subject to

appropriate BPJ limits or standards for the on-site processes

generating the wastewater and the off-site wastewater would be subject

to appropriate limits for the off-site industry generating the

wastewater. The Agency solicits comment on how it should treat such

facilities.

C. Pipeline Transfers (Fixed Delivery Systems)

As previously noted, the scope of EPA's 1995 proposal did not

extend to facilities which received off-site wastes for treatment

solely via an open or enclosed conduit (for example, pipeline,

channels, ditches, trenches, etc.). At that time, EPA had concluded

that facilities which receive all their wastes through a pipeline or

trench (fixed delivery systems) from the original source of waste

generation are receiving continuous flows of process wastewater with

relatively consistent pollutant profiles. As such, EPA concluded that

these wastes differ fundamentally from those received at CWT facilities

it had studied as part of this rulemaking.

The Agency received many comments on the proposal to limit the

applicability of the proposed limits to wastewaters received other than

by pipelines or fixed delivery systems. Many commented that this

approach is arbitrary and that the mode of transportation should not be

the determining factor as to whether or not a facility is included in

the scope of the rule. Commenters asserted that the character of the

waste remains unchanged regardless of whether it is trucked or piped to

another facility for treatment. Many also questioned EPA's conclusion

that piped waste is more consistent in strength and treatability than

typical CWT wastewaters studied for this proposal.

EPA has reevaluated the database for this rule. EPA received

questionnaire responses from four CWT facilities which receive their

waste streams solely via pipeline. EPA also examined the database that

was developed for the organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers

(OCPSF) effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards to gather

additional data on OCPSF facilities which also have CWT operations.

Based on the OCPSF database, 16 additional facilities are treating

wastewater received solely via pipeline from off-site for treatment. A

review of the CWT and OCPSF databases supplemented by telephone calls

to selected facilities reveals that one facility no longer accepts

wastes from off-site, one facility is now operating as a POTW, and 11

facilities only accept off-site wastes that were generated by a

facility within the same category as on-site generated waste. (The

latter facilities, under the criteria explained above, would no longer

be within the scope of the proposed rule because they are already

subject to existing effluent guidelines and standards.) Therefore, EPA

identified 7 facilities which receive off-site wastes solely via

pipeline which may be subject to this rulemaking.

Of these seven facilities, one is a dedicated treatment facility

which is not located at a manufacturing site. The other six pipeline

facilities are located at manufacturing facilities which are already

covered by an existing effluent guideline or standard. All of the

facilities are direct dischargers and all receive waste receipts from

no more than five customers (many receive waste receipts from three or

fewer customers).

Since the 1995 proposal, EPA conducted site visits at two of these

pipeline facilities. Information collected during these site visits

confirmed EPA's original conclusion that wastes received by pipeline

are more consistent in strength and treatability than ``typical'' CWT

wastewaters. These wastewaters are traditional wastewaters from the

applicable industrial category that generally remain constant from day

to day in terms of the concentration and type of pollutant parameters.

Unlike traditional CWT facilities, their customers and wastewater

sources do not change and are limited by the physical and monetary

constraints associated with pipelines.

EPA has also reviewed the discharge permits for each of these

pipeline facilities. EPA found that, in all cases, permit writers had

carefully applied the ``building block approach'' in establishing the

facility's discharge limitations. Therefore, in all cases, the treating

facility was required to treat each of the piped wastewaters to comply

with otherwise applicable effluent guidelines and standards.

Consequently, based on the information it has obtained to date, EPA

continues to believe that (except as discussed below) wastes that are

piped to waste treatment facilities should be excluded from the scope

of the CWT rule and covered by otherwise applicable effluent guidelines

and standards. The Agency has concluded that effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards for CWT facilities should not apply to pipeline

treatment facilities. EPA believes that it is more appropriate for

permit writers to develop limitations for treatment facilities that

receive wastewater by pipeline on an individual basis by applying the

``combined waste stream formula'' or ``building block'' approach. The

one exception to this approach is for facilities which receive waste

via conduit (that is, pipeline, trenches, ditches, etc.) from

facilities that are acting merely as waste collection or consolidation

centers that are not the original source of the waste. These

wastewaters would be subject to the

[[Page 2287]]

CWT rule. EPA has not identified any pipeline facility that is

receiving waste from waste consolidators, but has received public

comment that these facilities exist.

EPA notes that 40 CFR 122.44(m) of the Agency's NPDES permitting

regulations require that an NPDES permit for a private treatment works

must include conditions expressly applicable to any user, as a limited

co-permittee, necessary to ensure compliance with applicable NPDES

requirements. In the case of a pipeline treatment system, this may

require that the permit writer include conditions in a permit issued to

the pipeline treatment system and its users, as co-permittee, if

necessary for the pipeline facility to comply with the applicable

limitations. Alternatively, EPA may need to issue permits both to the

private treatment works and to the users or require the user to file a

permit application.

D. Product Stewardship

Many members of the manufacturing community have adopted ``product

stewardship'' programs as an additional service for their customers to

promote recycling and reuse of products and to reduce the potential for

adverse environmental impacts from chemical products. Many commenters

on the proposal have defined ``product stewardship'' in this way:

``taking back spent, used, or unused products, shipping and storage

containers with product residues, off-specification products and waste

materials from use of products.'' Generally, whenever possible, these

manufacturing plants recover and reuse materials in chemical processes

at their facility. Manufacturing companies that cannot reuse the spent,

used, or unused materials returned to them treat these materials in

their wastewater treatment plant. In industry's view, such materials

are inherently compatible with the treatment system.

EPA received no specific information on these product stewardship

activities in the responses to the 308 Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire. EPA obtained information on this program from comment

responses to the 1995 CWT proposal and in discussions with industry

since the 1995 proposal. As part of their comment to the 1995 proposal,

the Chemical Manufacturer's Association provided results of a survey of

their members on product stewardship activities. Based on these survey

results, the vast majority of materials received under the product

stewardship programs are materials received for product rework. A small

amount is classified as residual recycling and an even smaller amount

is classified as drum take backs. Of the materials received, the vast

majority is reused in the manufacturing process. With few exceptions,

all of the materials (which are not reused in the manufacturing

process) that are treated in the on-site wastewater treatment systems

appear to be from the same categorical group as the on-site

manufactured materials.

EPA has decided to apply the same approach to wastewater generated

from materials that are taken back for recycle or reuse as to

wastewater received from off-site by a manufacturing facility. EPA

applauds the efforts of manufacturing facilities to reduce pollution

and the environmental impacts of their products and does not want to

discourage these practices. In most of the instances stated in the

product stewardship definition, manufacturing facilities are

essentially taking back product which has not been utilized or has not

been chemically altered. In these cases, where the treatment of these

wastes would be subject to same guidelines or pretreatment standards as

the other wastewater generated at the facility, under the approach

discussed above, they would not be subject to CWT requirements (Section

IV.B).

EPA remains concerned, however, that there are circumstances in

which used materials or waste products may not be compatible with the

otherwise existing treatment system. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to

remove all product stewardship activities from the scope of this

rulemaking. Those activities that involve used products or waste

materials that are not subject to effluent guidelines or standards from

the same category as the other on-site generated wastes are subject to

today's proposal. Based on the information provided by manufacturing

facilities, EPA believes that very few product stewardship activities

would be subject to this rule. EPA's approach will not curtail product

stewardship activities, in general, but will ensure that all wastes are

treated effectively. EPA requests comment on this approach.

E. Solids, Soils, and Sludges

EPA did not distinguish in its information gathering efforts

between those waste treatment and recovery facilities treating aqueous

waste and those treating non-aqueous wastes or a combination of both.

Thus, EPA's 308 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and related CWT

Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire (DMQ) asked for information on CWT

operations without regard to the type of waste treated. EPA's sampling

program also included facilities which accepted both aqueous and solid

wastes for treatment. In fact, the facility which formed the technology

basis for the metals subcategory limitations selected at the time of

the original proposal treats both liquid and solid wastes. As such, a

facility that accepts wastes from off-site for treatment and/or

recovery that generates a wastewater is subject to the CWT rule

regardless of whether the wastes are aqueous or non-aqueous. Therefore,

wastewater generated in the treatment of solids received from off-site,

of course, would be subject to the CWT rule.

As a further point of clarification, the main concern in the

treatment or recycling of off-site ``solid wastes'' is that pollutants

contained in the solid waste may be transferred to a process or contact

water resulting in a wastewater that may require treatment. Examples of

such wastewaters include the following:

entrained water directly removed through dewatering

operations (for example, sludge dewatering);

contact water added to wash or leach contaminants from the

waste material;

stormwater that comes in direct contact with waste

material; and

solvent contaminated wastewater removed from scrap metal

recycling.

The treatment or recovery of solids that remain in solid form when

contacted with water and which do not leach any chemicals into the

water are not subject to this rule. Examples of excluded solids

recovery operations are the recycling of aluminum cans, glass and

plastic bottles.

F. Sanitary Wastes

The CWT proposal would regulate facilities which treat, or recover

materials from, off-site industrial wastes and wastewaters. Sanitary

wastes such as chemical toilet wastes and septage are not covered by

the provisions of the proposed CWT rule. EPA would expect that permit

writers would develop BPJ limitations or local limits to establish

site-specific permit requirements for any commercial sanitary waste

treatment facility.

Similarly, sanitary wastes received from off-site and treated at an

industrial facility or a CWT facility are not covered by provisions of

the CWT rule. If these wastes are mixed with industrial wastes, EPA

would expect that, as is the case now with ancillary sanitary waste

flows mixed for treatment at categorical facilities, the permit writer

would establish BPJ, site-specific permit requirements.

[[Page 2288]]

G. Transporters and/or Transportation Equipment Cleaners

Facilities that treat wastewater that results from cleaning tanker

trucks, rail tank cars, or barges may or may not be subject to the

provisions of this rule. Thus, for example, the rule does not apply to

discharges from wastewater treatment at facilities engaged exclusively

in cleaning the interiors of transportation equipment. These facilities

may be subject to the requirements to be established for the

Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC) Point Source Category (these

requirements were proposed at 63 FR 34685 June 25,1998). As proposed,

the TEC regulation only applies to facilities that solely accept tanks

which have been previously emptied or that contain a small amount of

product, called a ``heel'', typically accounting for less than one

percent of the volume of the tank. A facility which accepts a tank

truck, rail tank car, or barge not considered to be empty for cleaning

or treatment is not subject to the Transportation Equipment Cleaning

(TEC) Point Source Category, and may be subject to the provisions

established for this rule.

There are some facilities which are engaged in traditional CWT

activities and also engaged in traditional TEC activities. If the

wastewaters from the two operations are commingled, under the approach

adopted for the TEC proposal, the commingled TEC wastewater flow would

be subject to CWT limits when promulgated. Therefore, a facility

performing transportation equipment cleaning as well as other CWT

services that commingles these wastes is a CWT facility. All of the

wastewater discharges are subject to provisions of this rule. If,

however, a facility is performing both operations and the waste streams

are not commingled (that is, transportation equipment cleaning

wastewater is treated in one system and CWT wastes are treated in a

second, separate system), both the TEC rule and CWT rule apply to the

respective wastewaters.

As a further point of clarification, the CWT proposal would subject

transportation equipment cleaning wastes received from off-site to its

provisions. Transportation equipment cleaning wastes received from off-

site that are treated at CWT facilities along with other off-site

wastes are subject to provisions of this rule.

H. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)

At the time of the original proposal, EPA solicited comment on how

to treat POTWs which receive wastes for treatment by any means of

transportation other than sewers or pipelines. EPA was aware that many

POTWs were receiving waste via tanker trucks, but did not have a good

understanding of how widespread the practice was or what types of

wastes were being transferred in this manner. Based on comments, EPA

now believes that hauling of non-hazardous industrial and commercial

wastes is a widespread practice, particularly among the larger POTWs. A

special discharge survey conducted by the Association of Metropolitan

Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) indicates that 42.5 percent of POTW

respondents accept hauled industrial wastes. Commenters to the original

CWT proposal also noted that many small POTWs located in rural areas

regularly accept trucked wastes. While the acceptance of waste at POTWs

via truck appears to be common practice, commenters also cautioned that

EPA should be concerned that the hauled waste is being accepted with

little or no documentation regarding the source, little or no

monitoring of the shipments when they arrive, and no pretreatment

before mixing with the normal POTW influent.

The large volume of wastes generally trucked to POTWs includes

septage and chemical toilet wastes. These were not evaluated for this

regulation and are not subject to the proposed limits. In addition,

POTWs also receive trucked industrial and commercial wastes. Examples

of these include tank cleaning water, bilge water, restaurant grease

trap wastes, groundwater remediation water, contaminated stormwater

run-off, interceptor wastewaters, and non-hazardous leachate.

The proposed CWT pretreatment regulations would not establish any

requirements that apply directly to local POTWs that receive off-site

wastes. In the case of categorical wastes (subject to pretreatment

standards in 40 CFR parts 400 through 471), the generator of the wastes

must comply with any applicable standards before introducing the waste

to the POTW regardless of whether the wastewater is discharged directly

to the sewer or otherwise hauled to the POTW. Similarly, for non-

categorical wastes, the generator would need to meet any applicable

local limits regardless of the mode of transportation to the POTW. As

such, therefore, the CWT rule as proposed today does not apply to

POTWs. EPA, does, however, want to remind POTWs that they should

document and monitor hauled waste streams to ensure that necessary

pretreatment steps have been performed. EPA pretreatment regulations at

40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(ii) require that POTW pretreatment programs must

require compliance with applicable pretreatment standards.

If, however, a POTW chooses to establish a pretreatment business as

an addition to their operation, they may, in given circumstances, be

subject to provisions of this rule. EPA is aware of a POTW which plans

to open a wastewater treatment system to operate in conjunction with

their POTW operations. This CWT facility at a POTW will accept

categorical wastewaters, treat them, and then discharge them to the

POTW. As such, the CWT operation may be subject to provisions of this

rule. It is not a POTW itself (even if the facility is located at the

same site). In this case, the facility is operating as a CWT facility

and all discharges are subject to provisions of this rule. EPA would

caution POTWs and industrial users that it will carefully examine such

operations to ensure they are legitimate CWT facilities and not simply

waste consolidation centers seeking to avoid meeting categorical

pretreatment standards. EPA further notes that if wastes are piped to

such facilities, under the approach proposed today, such flows would

still be subject to applicable categorical standards and not CWT

limits.

I. Silver Recovery Operations From Used Photographic and X-Ray

Materials

Many commenters to the 1995 CWT proposal expressed concern over the

inclusion in the metals subcategory of CWT operations that recover

metals from used photographic materials and solutions and x-ray

materials and solutions. Commenters were particularly concerned that

they would be unable to meet the limitations established for silver in

the metals subcategory. In general, commenters stated that the scope of

the proposed rule should not include these operations. Reasons provided

include:

The metals subcategory limitations proposed for the CWT

rule are not based on technologies typically used in silver recovery

operations. Silver recovery facilities typically use electrolytic

plating followed by metallic replacement with iron.

The facility used to calculate the BAT silver limitation

is engaged in a variety of recovery operations. This BAT treatment

system does not reflect performance of facilities which solely treat

silver-bearing wastes.

[[Page 2289]]

Existing effluent guidelines should be sufficient. Many

facility discharge permits are based on Part 421, effluent guidelines

for non-ferrous metals manufacturing, Subpart L secondary silver

subcategory. In addition, an effluent guideline also exists for the

industry which is the primary source of the recovered materials--Part

459 photographic point source subcategory.

The Silver Coalition and the Association of Metropolitan

Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) have prepared and issued recommendations on

technology, equipment, and management practices for controlling

discharges from facilities that process photographic materials.

It is not economical or efficient for these waste streams

to be recovered on-site due to their small volume. If this rule were

enacted, many of the CWT facilities processing used photographic

materials would discontinue this operation, and silver recovery

operations would decrease greatly.

Based on information provided by the industry, EPA estimates that

there are 360,000 photographic and image processing facilities which

generate silver bearing wastes. Many of these facilities generate very

small volumes of silver bearing waste which would not be economical or

efficient to recover on site. Thus, there exists a large potential for

facilities to consolidate and treat silver bearing photographic waste

from various sources.

EPA believes that the off-site shipment of silver bearing

photographic waste streams for the purpose of consolidation and

recovery is beneficial, and does not wish to discourage this practice.

EPA encourages the segregation of waste streams as this leads to more

efficient recovery. EPA is aware that some of these consolidated waste

streams are treated at typical CWT facilities and some are treated at

facilities which treat photographic waste streams only. While EPA has

promulgated effluent guidelines for non-ferrous metals manufacturing

and the photographic point source categories (40 CFR part 421, Subpart

L and 40 CFR part 459, respectively), the majority of these centralized

silver recovery facilities are not currently subject to any effluent

guideline.

EPA agrees with proposal commenters that the BAT system selected at

the time of the original proposal does not reflect performance of

facilities which solely treat silver-bearing wastes. The precipitation

processes to recover silver used as the basis for its metal limits

(including silver) is different from that most widely used to recover

silver at facilities that treat only silver bearing wastes--

electrolytic plating followed by metallic replacement. Although the

facility which formed the technology basis for the 1995 proposed BAT

limitations was engaged in recovering silver from photographic waste

streams, EPA does not have information in its database on facilities

which only perform CWT of photographic waste streams.

Consequently, EPA is today proposing not to include electrolytic

plating/metallic replacement silver recovery operations of used

photographic and x-ray materials within the scope of this rule. Based

on the fundamental difference in technology used to recover silver at

facilities devoted exclusively to treatment of photographic and x-ray

wastes, the Agency has decided to defer proposing regulations for these

facilities. Facilities which only perform CWT silver recovery

operations (electrolytic plating followed by metallic replacement)

would not fall within the scope of today's proposal. Permit writers

would use Best Professional Judgement or local limits to establish

site-specific permit requirements. However, off-site wastes which are

treated/recovered at these facilities through any other process and/or

waste generated at these facilities as a result of any other

centralized treatment/recovery process are subject to provisions of

this rule.

J. High Temperature Metals Recovery

During the development of the 1995 proposal, EPA did not include

facilities which perform high temperature metals recovery (HTMR) within

the scope of this rule. EPA is aware of three facilities in the U.S.

which utilize the HTMR process. High temperature metals recovery

facilities generally take solid forms of various metal containing

materials and produce a remelt alloy which is then sold as feed

materials in the production of metals. These facilities utilize heat-

based pyrometallurgical technologies, not the water-based

precipitation/filtration technologies used throughout the CWT industry.

Based on questionnaire responses and industry comments, the HTMR

process does not generate wastewater.

For these reasons, the high temperature metals recovery operations

have been excluded from provisions of the CWT rule. Facilities which

only perform high temperature metals recovery are not subject to this

rule. However, off-site wastes which are treated/recovered at these

facilities through any other process and/or wastes generated at these

facilities as a result of any other CWT treatment/ recovery process are

subject to the provisions of this rule.

As noted, EPA's data show that HTMR operations generate no process

wastewater. Accordingly, EPA is also considering whether this rule,

when promulgated, should include a subcategory for HTMR operations with

a zero discharge requirement. EPA is requesting comment on such an

approach, and specifically seeks any data on facilities that may

produce a process wastewater in their HTMR operations.

K. Landfill Wastewaters

EPA proposed effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for

Landfills, 40 CFR Part 445, on February 6, 1998 (63 FR 6426-6463).

There, EPA explained how it proposed to treat categorical facilities

that mix and treat categorical wastewater with wastewater from on-site

landfills. EPA proposed to subject the mixed wastewater to the

applicable categorical limits and not the proposed landfill limits. In

the CWT industry, there are some facilities which are engaged both in

CWT activities and in operating an on-site landfill(s). EPA is

proposing to treat the mixture of CWT wastewater and landfill

wastewater in the same way considered for the proposed landfill

guideline. Therefore, a facility performing landfill activities as well

as other CWT services that commingles the wastewaters would be a CWT

facility, and all of the wastewater discharges would be subject to the

provisions of this rule when promulgated. If a facility is performing

both operations and the waste streams are not commingled (that is,

landfill wastewaters are treated in one treatment system and CWT

wastewaters are treated in a second, separate, treatment system), the

provisions of the Landfill rule and CWT rule would apply to their

respective wastewaters.

Additionally, under the approach proposed for the Landfills

rulemaking, CWT facilities which are dedicated to landfill wastewaters

only, whether they are located at a landfill site or not, would be

subject to the effluent guidelines limitations and pretreatment

standards for Landfills when promulgated. These dedicated landfill CWT

facilities would not be subject to provisions of the CWT rulemaking.

EPA is not aware of any other facilities that are dedicated to the

treatment of off-site wastes from a single category for which EPA has

proposed or promulgated effluent limitations that do not also perform

on-site operations that generate these same categorical wastewaters.

EPA requests comments on any such facilities.

[[Page 2290]]

As a further point of clarification, landfill wastewaters are not

specifically excluded from provisions of this rule. Landfill

wastewaters that are treated at CWT facilities along with other off-

site waste streams are subject to provisions of this rule. Furthermore,

a landfill that treats its own landfill wastewater and off-site

landfill wastewater would be subject to the proposed Landfill limits

when promulgated in the circumstances described in IV.B above.

L. Industrial Waste Combustors

EPA proposed effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for

Industrial Waste Combustors, 40 CFR Part 444 on February 6, 1998 (63 FR

6392-6423). There, EPA explained how it proposed to treat categorical

facilities that mix and treat categorical wastewater with wastewater

from on-site industrial waste combustors. EPA proposed to subject the

mixed wastewater to the applicable categorical limits and not the

proposed industrial waste combustor limits. In the CWT industry, there

are some facilities which are engaged both in CWT activities and in

operating an on-site industrial waste combustor(s). EPA is proposing to

treat the mixture of CWT wastewater and industrial waste combustor

wastewater in the same way considered for the proposed Industrial Waste

Combustor guideline. Therefore, a facility performing industrial waste

combustion activities as well as other CWT services that commingles the

wastewaters would be a CWT facility, and all of the wastewater

discharges would be subject to the provisions of this rule when

promulgated. If a facility is performing both operations and the waste

streams are not commingled (that is, industrial waste combustion

wastewaters are treated in one treatment system and CWT wastewaters are

treated in a second, separate, treatment system), the provisions of the

Industrial Waste Combustor rule and CWT rule would apply to their

respective wastewaters

As a further point of clarification, industrial waste combustor

wastewaters are not specifically excluded from provisions of this rule.

Industrial waste combustor wastewaters that are treated at CWT

facilities along with other off-site waste streams are subject to

provisions of this rule. Furthermore, an industrial waste combustor

that treats off-site industrial waste combustor wastewater would be

subject to the proposed Industrial Waste Combustor limits when

promulgated in the circumstances described in IV.B above.

M. Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending

The solvent recycling industry was studied by the EPA in the 1980s.

EPA published the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the Solvent Recycling

Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/102) in September 1989 which describes this

industry and the processes utilized. This document defines solvent

recovery as ``the recycling of spent solvents that are not the

byproduct or waste product of a manufacturing process or cleaning

operation located on the same site.'' Spent solvents are generally

recycled in two main operations. Traditional solvent recovery involves

pretreatment of the waste stream (in some cases) and separation of the

solvent mixtures by specially constructed distillation columns.

Wastewater discharges resulting from this process are subject to

effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the organic chemicals

industry (40 CFR part 414). As such, wastewaters resulting from

traditional solvent recovery operations as defined above are not

subject to this effluent guideline.

Fuel blending is the second main operation which falls under the

definition of solvent recovery. Fuel blending is the process of mixing

wastes for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for reuse. At the time of

the 1995 proposal, fuel blending operations were excluded from the CWT

rule since EPA believed the fuel blending process was ``dry'' (that is,

no wastewaters were produced). Based on comments to the original

proposal and the Notice of Data Availability, EPA has concluded that

this is valid and that true fuel blenders do not generate any process

wastewaters and are, therefore, zero dischargers. EPA is concerned,

however, that the term ``fuel blending'' may be loosely applied to any

process where recovered hydrocarbons are combined as a fuel product.

Such operations occur at nearly all used oil and fuel recovery

facilities. Therefore, fuel blending operations as defined above would

be excluded from the CWT rule providing that the operations do not

generate a wastewater. In the event that wastewater is generated at a

fuel blending facility, the facility is most likely performing some

pretreatment operations (usually to remove water). These pretreatment

wastewaters would be subject to this rule.

N. Re-refining

When EPA initially proposed guidelines and standards for CWT

facilities, the regulations would have limited discharges from used oil

reprocessors/reclaimers, but did not specifically include or exclude

discharges from used oil re-refiners. During review of information

received on the proposal and assessment of the information collected,

the Agency, at one point, considered limiting the scope of this

regulation to reprocessors/reclaimers only because it was not clear

whether re-refiners actually generated wastewater. However, further

data gathering efforts have revealed that re-refiners may generate

wastewater and that the principal sources of re-refining wastewaters

are essentially the same as for reprocessors/reclaimers. Consequently,

the re-refining wastewater is included within the scope of this

proposal.

The used oil reclamation and re-refining industry was studied by

EPA in the 1980s. EPA published the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the

Used Oil Reclamation and Re-Refining Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/014) in

September 1989 which describes this industry and the processes

utilized. This document generally characterizes the industry in terms

of the types of equipment used to process the used oil. Minor

processors (reclaimers) generally separate water and solids from the

used oil using simple settling technology, primarily in-line filtering,

and gravity settling with or without heat addition. Major processors

(reclaimers) generally use various combinations of more sophisticated

technology including screen filtration, heated settling,

centrifugation, and light fraction distillation primarily to remove

water. Re-refiners generally use the most sophisticated systems which

include, in addition to the previous technologies, a vacuum

distillation step to separate the oil into different components.

Today's proposal applies to the process wastewater discharges from

used oil re-refining operations. The principal sources of wastewater

include oil-water gravity separation (often accompanied by chemical/

thermal emulsion breaking) and dehydration unit operations (including

light distillation and the first stage of vacuum distillation). EPA

has, to date, identified two re-refining facilities. Data for these

facilities have not yet been included in the economic analysis for the

proposed rule, but will be included in the analysis for the final rule.

O. Used Oil Filter Recycling

EPA did not obtain information on used oil filter recycling through

the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. However, in response to the

September 1996 Notice of Data Availability, EPA received comments from

facilities which recycle used oil

[[Page 2291]]

filters. In addition, EPA also visited several used oil reprocessors

that recycle used oil filters as part of their operations.

Used oil filter recycling processes range from simple crushing and

draining of entrained oil to more involved processes where filters are

shredded and the metal and filter material are separated. In all cases,

the oil is recycled, the crushed filters and separated metal are sent

to smelters, and the separated filter material is recovered as solid

fuel. Also, in all cases observed, the operations generate no process

wastewater. Therefore, based on this characterization, used oil filter

recycling operations would not be subject to the provisions of the CWT

rule as proposed today. EPA is also considering whether this rule, when

promulgated, should include a subcategory for used oil filter recycling

with a zero discharge requirement for such operation. EPA is requesting

comment on such an approach, and the number of facilities engaged in

this activity. EPA specifically seeks data on any such facilities that

may produce a process wastewater in their operations.

P. Marine Generated Wastes

EPA received many comments on the original proposal relating to

marine generated wastes. Since these wastes are often generated while a

ship is at sea and subsequently off-loaded at port for treatment, the

treatment site could arguably be classified as a CWT facility due to

its acceptance of ``off'' site wastes. Commenters, however, claimed

that marine wastes should not be subject to the CWT rule for the

following reasons:

Unlike most CWT waste streams, bilge and/or ballast water

contains dilute concentrations of pollutants and is generally not

toxic; and

Much of the bilge water is generated while the ship is

docked. If only the portion of bilge water contained in the ship upon

docking is subject to regulation, it would be expensive and inefficient

to monitor only that small portion for compliance with the CWT rule.

EPA reexamined its database concerning these wastes as well as

additional data on the characteristics of these types of wastes

provided through comments to the 1995 proposal and collected by EPA

during development of the recently proposed Uniform National Discharge

Standards (UNDS) (63 FR 45298). Based on data provided by industry as

well as data collected during the development of UNDS, EPA has

determined these waste streams may be similar in some cases to the

toxic wastewaters proposed here for regulation. The data on bilge and

ballast water characteristics show that bilge and ballast water can

vary greatly in terms of the number of pollutants present and their

concentration from one ship to another. In most instances, the

pollutants and concentrations are similar to those found in wastes

typical of those proposed for regulation in the oils subcategory. EPA

found that while some shipyards and docking facilities have specialized

treatment centers for bilge and/or ballast wastes, some of these wastes

are being treated at off-site CWT facilities. EPA has concluded that

marine-generated, ``off-site'' wastes should not be included in the

scope of today's proposal except where this waste is not treated and

discharged at the ship service facility receiving the waste.

For purposes of this rule, EPA is defining marine waste as waste

generated as part of the normal maintenance and operation of a ship,

boat, or barge operating on inland, coastal or open waters. Such wastes

may include ballast water, bilge water, and other wastes generated as

part of routine ship operations. EPA has determined that a wastewater

off-loaded from a ship shall be considered as being generated on-site

at the point where it is off-loaded provided that the waste is

generated as part of the routine maintenance and operation of the ship

on which it originated while at sea. The waste will not be considered

an off-site generated waste (and thus subject to CWT requirements) as

long as it is treated and discharged at the ship servicing facility

where it is off-loaded. Therefore, these facilities would not be

considered CWT facilities. If, however, marine generated wastes are

off-loaded and subsequently sent to a CWT facility at a separate

location, these facilities and their waste streams would be subject to

provisions of this rule.

Q. Stabilization

In the original CWT proposal, waste solidification/stabilization

operations were specifically not subject to the CWT rule. The reason

stated for EPA's conclusion was that these operations are ``dry'' and

do not generally produce a wastewater. EPA reexamined its database and

concluded that this assessment remains valid. As such, stabilization/

solidification processes are not subject to the CWT rule as proposed

today. If, however, the stabilization/solidification facility produces

a wastewater from treatment and/or recovery of off-site wastes through

any other operation, those wastewaters would be subject to the CWT

rule. EPA is also considering whether this rule, when promulgated,

should include a subcategory for stabilization operations with a zero

discharge requirement. EPA is requesting comment on such an approach,

and specifically seeks any data on facilities that may produce a

process wastewater in their stabilization operations.

R. Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes

EPA received comments on coverage of grease, sand, and oil

interceptor wastes by the CWT rule during the comment period for the

original proposal and 1996 Notice of Data Availability. Some of these

wastes are from non-industrial sources and some are from industrial

sources. Some are treated at central locations designed to exclusively

treat grease trap/interceptor wastes and some of these wastes are

treated at traditional CWT facilities with traditional CWT wastes.

Throughout the development of this rule, EPA has maintained that

this rule is designed to cover the treatment and/or recovery of off-

site industrial wastes. As such, as proposed today, grease/trap

interceptor wastes do not fall within the scope of the proposal. Grease

trap/interceptor wastes are defined as animal or vegetable fats/oils

from grease traps or interceptors generated by facilities engaged in

food service activities. Such facilities include restaurants,

cafeterias, and caterers. Excluded grease trap/interceptor wastes

should not contain any hazardous chemicals or materials that would

prevent the fats/oils from being recovered and recycled. Wastewater

discharges from the centralized treatment of wastes produced from oil

interceptors, which are designed to collect petroleum-based oils, sand,

etc. from industrial type processes, would be subject to this rule.

S. Small Businesses

During consideration of this proposal, among other alternatives,

EPA looked at whether it should limit the scope of this rule to

facilities above a certain size or flow level because of potential

impacts to small businesses. Given an assessment of potentially

significant effects on small businesses, EPA convened in November 1997

a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel (also referred to as SBAR

Panel, SBREFA panel, or panel) for this rule. After collecting advice

and recommendations from Small Entity Representatives (SERs), the Panel

discussed at length the possible impacts of the rule on small

businesses and various regulatory alternatives that might mitigate

these impacts. For a detailed summary of the panel's

[[Page 2292]]

findings and discussion, see ``Final Report of the SBREFA Small

Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule for

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry,'' January 23, 1998 (available in the public

docket). Among the regulatory alternatives discussed by the panel were

limiting the scope of the rule to various small business or small

facilities, including limiting the scope to not include all indirect

dischargers with flows under 3.5 million gallons per year (MGY), to not

include all indirect dischargers treating non-hazardous water only with

flows under either 3.5 or 7.5 MGY, and to not include all indirect

dischargers owned by companies with less than $6 million in annual

revenue, which is the Small Business Administration cut off for a small

business in this industry. A detailed analysis of the effects of these

possible scope limitations is included in the EA and summarized in

Section XI.L. The panel focused on indirect discharging facilities

because most small companies are indirect dischargers. Based on EPA's

current analyses, limiting the scope of the rule to not include all

indirect dischargers with flows under 3.5 MGY would address over half

of the small businesses potentially covered by the rule, reduce

compliance costs among indirect dischargers by about 22% while reducing

estimated pollutant removals by about 11%, and minimize projected

facility closures and job losses among all of the options considered.

Alternatively, limiting the scope of the rule to not include all

indirect discharging facilities owned by small businesses would

eliminate virtually all small business impacts (only 2 direct

discharging facilities owned by small businesses) and reduce pollutant

removals by about 30%. This option would result in somewhat more

facility closures and job losses than limiting the scope to not include

all indirect dischargers with flows under 3.5 MGY, but the relief

provided would be more directly targeted to small businesses.

Despite considerable effort, the SBREFA panel was not able to reach

consensus on a specific recommendation for providing regulatory relief

to small businesses that would not jeopardize the pollutant removals

and corresponding environmental benefits anticipated to result from the

rule. EPA's primary concern with limiting the scope of the rule is that

the ``lost'' pollutant reductions associated with these scope

limitations are not insignificant, that the analysis represents a

snapshot of a rapidly changing industry, and that any segment might

quickly expand as a result of scope limitations, leading to much

greater discharges within a few years. The panel noted that one way of

addressing this concern would be to put a mass-based limit on receipts

as part of the eligibility requirements for the scope limitation. This

could ensure that significant volumes of highly contaminated wastes

would not be handled by the facilities not included in the scope of the

rule. However, it would also constrain the flexibility of small

businesses benefiting from these scope limitations, and might require

them to give up a significant share of their existing business. Mass-

based limits on receipts, if set at a low level, might require some

small businesses to ``give up'' a significant share of their existing

business. On the other hand, many small businesses might save money if

they can limit their mass discharges and avoid the cost of wastewater

treatment. EPA is also reluctant to provide any type of scope

limitation based on low-flow or the size of the business because of its

concern that many existing plants may not be providing effective

treatment because they are commingling dissimilar waste streams prior

to treatment. This concern is discussed further in Section V.B.

Because of these concerns and others discussed more fully in

Section XI.L, EPA is not proposing to limit the scope of today's

proposal based on either the size of a facility or the volume of

wastewater flows. However, EPA requests comment on this issue. EPA also

requests comment on ways in which it could structure limiting the scope

of the rule to not include small businesses or low-flow facilities that

would address the concerns discussed above.

T. Hazardous vs. Non-hazardous Wastes

Another option discussed by the SBREFA panel was to develop

alternative regulatory requirements for oils subcategory facilities

based on the types of waste receipts treated. This could mean

limitations and standards for oils subcategory facilities that treat

RCRA subtitle C hazardous wastes (either exclusively or in combinations

with non-hazardous wastes) that are different from those that would

apply to oils subcategory facilities that treat only non-hazardous

wastes. Another alternative would be to develop different limitations

and standards for oils facilities with and without RCRA subtitle C

permits. This could also mean not regulating discharges from the

treatment of non-hazardous waste receipts or ``non-RCRA permitted''

facilities. The Panel discussion of this option responded to an SER

comment that non-hazardous flows contain relatively low pollutant

loadings as compared to hazardous flows. The Panel was concerned that

the same guidelines and standards may not be appropriate to flows with

very different characteristics. Other SERs disagreed and argued that

hazardous flows are already heavily regulated while non-hazardous flows

are not (although neither are currently subject to categorical effluent

guidelines or pretreatment standards). In their view, it is, thus,

important that the proposed rule apply equally to both types of flows.

These SERs further argued that establishing different requirements for,

or not including facilities that treat only non-hazardous waste could

create a competitive disadvantage for those facilities that treat both

hazardous and non-hazardous waste.

EPA's database on oils subcategory facilities contains information

that was collected at facilities which treat a mixture of hazardous and

non-hazardous wastes and facilities which treat non-hazardous wastes

only. The majority of the data collected prior to the SBREFA Panel was

collected at facilities which have permits to accept hazardous waste

and treat a portion of RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste with non-

hazardous waste. Some data reflect facilities that do not have a RCRA

permit to treat hazardous waste. Although these data suggest that flows

from non-RCRA permitted facilities may have significantly lower

pollutant loadings, they are inadequate to support the conclusion that

EPA should differentiate between oily facilities on the basis of

whether hazardous or non-hazardous wastes are treated at the facility.

Consequently, EPA has not proposed different regulatory requirements

for facilities based on distinctions between hazardous and non-

hazardous waste or, alternatively, provided different limitations

depending on whether the facility has a RCRA permit.

However, following the SBREFA panel, EPA collected raw wastewater

samples at ten additional facilities that treat only non-hazardous

materials in order to obtain additional information on the pollutant

profiles of the wastes that are treated at these facilities. These

samples have now been analyzed and the results are included in Appendix

B to the technical development document. EPA has not yet had the

opportunity to review the data in detail or to compare these results to

the earlier data it collected. As a result, the Agency at this

[[Page 2293]]

time does not know whether the data would support a determination that

oily waste facilities treating exclusively non-hazardous waste treat a

significantly different waste stream from RCRA subtitle C facilities.

Consequently, EPA at this time has not proposed different regulatory

requirements for oily waste facilities based on whether they treat

hazardous or non-hazardous waste or whether or not they have a RCRA

subtitle C permit.

EPA plans to review this data in detail and will present its

assessment before commencing the public hearing on pretreatment

standards scheduled for February 18, 1999. The assessment will also be

available in the public docket for this rule on that date. Any member

of the public wishing to submit comment on EPA's assessment should

submit comments on that information within 30 days of February 18,

1999. Note that EPA will accept comment on this material only through

March 22, 1999 following the close of the 60 day comment period for the

proposed rule.

V. Industry Profile

EPA is today proposing limitations and standards for three

subcategories of CWT facilities: facilities treating either metal, oil,

or organic wastes and wastewater. This subcategorization scheme is

discussed in Section VII. The following provides a general description

of the CWT industry that would be subject to this proposal if

promulgated.

A. Description of the Industry

The adoption of the increased pollution control measures required

by CWA and RCRA requirements had a number of ancillary effects, one of

which has been the formation and development of a waste treatment

industry. Several factors have contributed to the growth of this

industry: (a) The manner in which manufacturing facilities have

selected to comply with CWA and RCRA requirements; (b) the manner in

which the applicability sections of promulgated CWA effluent guidelines

were developed; and (c) the RCRA 1992 used oil management requirements.

A manufacturing facility's options for managing wastes include on-

site treatment or sending them off-site. Because a large number of

operations (both large and small) have chosen to send their wastes off-

site, specialized facilities have developed whose sole commercial

operation is the handling of wastewater treatment residuals and

industrial process by-products.

The manner in which the applicability sections of many promulgated

effluent guidelines were developed also encouraged the creation of

these central treatment centers. Facilities which send their waste off-

site to CWT facilities are generally considered ``zero or alternative

dischargers'' in the effluent guidelines development program, and are

not directly subject to the categorical standards. Additionally, RCRA

regulations, such as the 1992 used oil management requirements (40 CFR

part 279), significantly influenced the size and service provided by

this industry.

Based upon responses to EPA's data gathering efforts (see

discussion below), the Agency now estimates that there are

approximately 205 CWT facilities in 38 States. The major concentration

of CWT facilities is in EPA Regions 4, 5, and 6 due to the proximity of

the industries generating the wastes undergoing treatment. At the time

of the original proposal, EPA estimated there were 85 CWT facilities in

the United States. EPA, however, greatly underestimated the size of the

proposed oily waste and recovery subcategory. Through additional data

gathering activities (see discussion below), EPA obtained information

on additional oils facilities. Except for facilities that were included

or excluded because of scope changes/clarifications, all of the

facilities which have been added since the original proposal treat and/

or recover oily waste and/or used oil. EPA is aware that facilities in

the metals and organics subcategories have joined and or left the CWT

market also. This is expected in a service industry. Even so, EPA

believes its initial estimate of facilities in the other subcategories

is reasonable and no adjustments, other than those resulting from the

redefined scope of the industry, have been made. EPA notes that its

current estimate may not include the entire universe of CWT facilities,

and again solicits information on the number, name, and location of

facilities within this industry.

CWT facilities do not fall into a single description and are as

varied as the wastes they accept. Some treat wastes from a few

generating facilities while others treat wastes from hundreds of

generators. Some treat only certain types of waste while others accept

many wastes. Some treat non-hazardous wastes exclusively while others

treat hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. Some primarily treat

concentrated wastes while others primarily treat more dilute wastes.

For some, their primary business is the treatment of other company's

wastes while, for others, CWT is ancillary to their main business.

CWT facilities treat hazardous and/or non-hazardous wastes. At the

time of the original proposal, a few of the facilities in the industry

database solely accepted wastes classified as non-hazardous under RCRA.

The remaining facilities accepted either hazardous wastes only or a

combination of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The vast majority of

the newly identified oils facilities only accept non-hazardous

materials. As such, EPA believes the market for CWT of non-hazardous

materials has increased during the 1990s.

CWT facilities service a variety of customers. A CWT facility

generally receives a variety of wastes daily from dozens of customers.

Some customers routinely generate a particular waste stream, and are

either unable to provide effective on-site treatment of that waste

stream or find it cheaper to send the waste stream off-site for

treatment. Some customers utilize CWT facilities because they generate

particular waste streams only sporadically (for example tank removal,

tank cleaning and remediation wastes) and are unable to economically

provide effective on-site treatment of these wastes. Some, including

many which are small businesses, utilize CWT facilities as their

primary source of wastewater treatment.

Before a CWT facility accepts a waste for treatment, the waste

generally undergoes rigorous screening for compatibility with other

wastes being treated at the facility. Waste generators initially

furnish the treatment facility with a sample of the waste stream to be

treated. The sample is analyzed to characterize the level of pollutants

in the sample, and, at some facilities, bench-scale treatability tests

are performed to determine what treatment is necessary to treat the

waste stream effectively. After all analyses and tests are performed,

the treatment facility determines the cost for treating the waste

stream. If the waste generator accepts the cost of treatment, shipments

of the waste stream to the treatment facility will begin. Generally,

for each truck load of waste received for treatment, the treatment

facility collects a sample from the shipment and analyzes the sample to

determine if it is similar to the initial sample tested. If the sample

is similar, the shipment of waste will be treated. If the sample is not

similar, but falls within an allowable range as determined by the

treatment facility, the treatment facility will reevaluate the

estimated cost of treatment for the shipment. Then, the waste generator

decides if the waste will remain at the treatment facility for

treatment. If the sample is not similar, and does not fall within an

allowable

[[Page 2294]]

range, the treatment facility will decline the shipment for treatment.

Many treatment facilities and waste generators complete extensive

amounts of paperwork during the waste acceptance process. Most of the

paperwork is required by Federal, State, and local regulations. The

amount of paperwork necessary for accepting a waste stream may be a

significant component of the cost of operating CWT facilities.

B. Off-Site Treatment Incentives and Comparable Treatment

As noted before, the adoption of the increased pollution control

measures required by the CWA and RCRA regulations were a significant

factor in the formation and development of the CWT industry. Major

contributors to the growth of this industry include the EPA CWA

effluent limitations guidelines program as well as the manner in which

manufacturing facilities have elected to comply with CWA and RCRA

requirements.

The CWA requires the establishment of limitations and standards for

categories of point sources that discharge into surface waters or

introduce pollutants into publicly owned treatment works. At present,

facilities that do not discharge wastewater (or introduce pollutants to

POTWs) may not be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Subchapter N

Parts 400 to 471. Such facilities include manufacturing or service

facilities that generate no process wastewater, facilities that recycle

all contaminated waters, and facilities that use some kind of

alternative disposal technology or practice (for example, deep well

injection, incineration, evaporation, surface impoundment, land

application, and transfer to a CWT facility).

Thus, for example, in implementing CWA and RCRA requirements in the

electroplating industry, many facilities made process modifications to

conserve and recycle process wastewater, to extend the lives of plating

baths, and to minimize the generation of wastewater treatment sludges.

As the volumes of wastewater were reduced, it became economically

attractive to transfer electroplating metal-bearing wastewater to off-

site CWT facilities for treatment or metals recovery rather than to

invest in on-site treatment systems. In the case of the OCPSF industry,

many facilities transferred selected process residuals and small

volumes of process wastewater to off-site CWT facilities. When

estimating the engineering costs for the OCPSF industry to comply with

the OCPSF regulation, the Agency assumed, based on economies of scale,

in the case of facilities with wastewater flows less than 500 gallons

per day, that such plants would use off-site rather than on-site

wastewater treatment.

In the development of existing effluent guidelines EPA considered

incremental costs for facilities that would likely choose hauling

wastes to CWT facilities as a less expensive alternative to compliance

with the effluent guideline by installing and operating control and

treatment technologies on-site. These estimates generally used an

average cost of treatment provided by CWT facilities at that time. EPA

excluded from these estimates facilities that were hauling wastes to

CWT facilities in advance of effluent guidelines for their industry.

The potential economic impact of the incremental controls being

required through today's proposal on customers was evaluated and found

to increase the price from less than half a percent to approximately 25

percent.

The Agency believes that any wastes transferred to an off-site CWT

facility should be treated effectively, in a manner consistent with the

technology-based provisions of the CWA, and that categorical standards

are necessary to ensure that this occurs. In the absence of appropriate

regulations to ensure at least comparable or adequate treatment, the

CWT facility may inadvertently offer an economic incentive for

increasing the pollutant load to the environment. One of the Agency's

primary concerns is the potential for a discharger to reduce its

wastewater pollutant concentrations through dilution rather than

through appropriate treatment. While the Agency has already promulgated

regulations at Sec. 403.6(d) prohibiting dilution in lieu of treatment,

it is concerned that some CWT facilities may be inadvertently engaging

in dilution by combining in a single treatment system dissimilar waste

streams for which different types of treatment would be more

appropriate. Today's proposal is designed to ensure that wastes

transferred to CWT facilities will be treated effectively.

This is illustrated by the information the Agency obtained during

the data gathering activities for the 1995 proposal. EPA visited 27 CWT

facilities in an effort to identify well-designed, well-operated

candidate treatment systems for sampling. Two of the principal criteria

for selecting plants for sampling were whether the plant applied waste

management practices that increased the effectiveness of the treatment

system and whether the treatment system was effective in removing

pollutants. One of the primary reasons why some plants did not satisfy

these criteria was co-dilution of one type of waste with another. For

example, many facilities treated metal-bearing and oily wastes in the

same treatment system and many facilities mixed non-CWT wastewater with

CWT wastewater. Mixing metal-bearing with non-metal-bearing oily

wastewater and mixing CWT with non-CWT wastewater provides a dilution

effect which generally reduces the efficiency of the wastewater

treatment system. Of the 27 plants visited, many were not sampled

because of the problems of assessing CWT treatment efficiencies due to

combining one type of wastewater with another.

Today's proposal would ensure, to the extent possible, that metal-

bearing wastes are treated with metals control technology, that oily

wastes are treated with oils control technology, and that organic

wastes are treated with organics control technology.

In developing today's proposal, EPA identified a wide variation in

the size of CWT facilities and the level of treatment provided by these

facilities. Often, pollutant removals were significantly lower than

would have been required had the wastewaters been treated at the site

where generated. In particular, EPA's survey indicated that some

facilities were employing only the most basic pollution control

equipment and, as a result, achieved low pollutant removals relative to

those which could be achieved through the use of other available

pollutant control technologies. Further, as explained below, EPA found

that most facilities had not installed appropriate technology and/or

were not operating the installed technology effectively.

As discussed previously, during consideration of this proposal, EPA

looked at whether it should limit the scope of national regulation to

facilities above a certain size or flow level because of information

before the Agency suggesting that, in the case of many smaller

facilities, the costs of additional controls would represent a

significant increase in their costs of operation. The Small Business

Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel, convened by EPA for this rulemaking,

discussed this approach extensively. For the reasons explained above,

however, EPA is not proposing to limit the scope of today's proposal

based on either the size of a facility or the volume of wastewater

flows. The effect of such an approach, given the structure of the

industry and treatment levels currently observed at some facilities,

could be to encourage the movement of wastewater to facilities that are

not providing effective treatment. EPA is, however,

[[Page 2295]]

requesting comment on this approach, which is discussed in Section

IV.S. In order to ensure adequate controls for wastewater discharges

from CWT facilities that accept waste and wastewater that would

otherwise be controlled by other guidelines, EPA is proposing that all

members of the CWT industry comply with economically achievable,

national CWT standards.

VI. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts

A. Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry

EPA's initial effort to develop effluent limitations guidelines and

pretreatment standards for the waste treatment industry began in 1986.

The Agency initiated a study which looked at a range of facilities,

including CWT facilities, landfills and industrial waste combustors,

that received hazardous waste from off-site for treatment, recovery, or

disposal. The purpose of the study was to develop information to

characterize the hazardous waste treatment industry, its operations,

and pollutant discharges to the nation's waters. EPA published the

results of its examination of the industry in a report entitled the

``Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry''

in 1989 (EPA 440/1-89/100). In addition, EPA conducted two similar, but

separate studies, of the solvent recycling industry and the used oil

reclamation and re-refining industry during the same time period. In

1989, EPA also published the results of these studies in two reports

entitled the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the Solvent Recycling

Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/102) and the ``Preliminary Data Summary for

Used Oil Reclamation and Re-refining Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/014).

After a thorough analysis of the data presented in the Preliminary

Data Summary, EPA decided it should develop effluent guidelines

regulations for the CWT industry. EPA also decided to develop effluent

guidelines regulations for landfills and industrial waste combustors,

proposing these on February 6, 1998 (63 FR 6426 and 63 FR 6392,

respectively). In addition to CWT facilities, EPA also studied fuel

blending operations and waste solidification/stabilization facilities.

As detailed and defined in the applicability section, EPA has decided

not to propose nationally applicable effluent limitations guidelines

and standards for fuel blending and stabilization operations.

B. Survey Questionnaires (1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire

and Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire)

There are three major sources of information and data used in

developing today's effluent limitations guidelines and standards

proposal. Two of these are industry responses to detailed technical and

economic questionnaires and responses to subsequent follow up

monitoring questionnaires distributed by EPA (the third is discussed in

the subsequent section). In 1991, EPA sent the 1991 Waste Treatment

Industry Questionnaire to 455 facilities that the Agency had identified

as possible CWT facilities. Because there is no specific CWT Industry

Standard Industrial Code (SIC) code, identification of facilities was

difficult. EPA looked to directories of treatment facilities, other

Agency information sources, and even telephone directories to identify

the 455 facilities which received the questionnaires. EPA received

responses from 413 facilities indicating that 89 treated or recovered

material from off-site industrial waste in 1989. The remaining 324

facilities did not treat, or recover, materials from industrial waste

from off-site. Four of the 89 facilities received waste via a pipeline

(fixed delivery system) from the original source of wastewater

generation.

The technical section of the questionnaire specifically requested

information on: (1) the type and quantities of wastes accepted for

treatment; (2) the industrial waste management practices used; (3) the

quantity, treatment, and disposal of wastewater generated during

industrial waste management; (4) available analytical monitoring data

on wastewater treatment; (5) the degree of co-treatment (treatment of

CWT wastewater with wastewater from other industrial operations at the

facility); and (6) the extent of wastewater recycling and/or reuse at

the facility. EPA obtained further information through follow-up

telephone calls and written requests for clarification of questionnaire

responses.

As a follow-up to the initial questionnaire, EPA requested detailed

wastewater monitoring information from twenty in-scope facilities

selected from the questionnaire mailing list. These facilities were

selected based upon their responses. EPA reviewed each facility's

monitoring summary provided in the questionnaire, discharge permit

requirements, off-site waste receipts, and treatment technologies and

practices. Based on responses, EPA determined that these twenty

facilities could provide useful information on technology performance

and pollutant removal.

EPA asked that the twenty selected facilities send effluent

wastewater monitoring data in the form of individual data points rather

than monthly aggregates, generally for the 1990 calendar year. When

appropriate, EPA used this detailed monitoring data to calculate the

variability factors and long-term averages used in determining the

industry effluent limits (See section IX of today's notice). EPA also

requested analytical data for intermediate waste treatment points from

some facilities. In this manner, EPA hoped to obtain information about

pollutant removal across individual treatment units in addition to the

entire treatment train. Finally, EPA asked facilities to submit

information on pollutant concentrations and waste receipt data for a

six week period. EPA collected the waste receipt data to provide

information about the types of wastes treated and the influent waste

characteristics due to the absence of influent wastewater monitoring

data.

C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits

Between 1989 and 1994, EPA visited 27 CWT facilities. The purpose

of these visits was to collect various information about the operation

of CWT facilities and, in most cases, to evaluate each facility as a

potential week-long sampling candidate. The selection of these

facilities was largely based on the types of off-site waste received at

the facility and the types of wastewater treatment operations on-site.

During the site visits, EPA collected information on the facility and

its operations. This included information on the wastes accepted for

treatment and the facility's waste acceptance criteria, the raw

wastewater generated and its sources, the wastewater treatment on-site,

and the location of potential sampling points. Following the original

CWT proposal, EPA conducted site visits at eleven additional

facilities. EPA selected these facilities based on information obtained

through comment responses and contacts with the industry, AMSA, and EPA

Regional staff.

Based on an analysis of information collected during the site

visits, EPA selected 14 facilities to sample in order to characterize

the performance of their treatment systems. EPA sampled ten of the

facilities prior to the original proposal and four facilities after the

1995 proposal. EPA sampled twice at two of the facilities. During each

sampling episode, EPA sampled facility influent and effluent streams.

EPA also collected samples at intermediate points

[[Page 2296]]

throughout the entire waste/wastewater treatment system to assess the

performance of individual treatment units. Generally, EPA conducted the

sampling episodes over a five day period. EPA obtained 24-hour

composite samples for continuous systems and grab samples for batch

systems. Depending on the wastes/wastewaters treated at the site and

the technology employed, EPA analyzed for up to 460 analytes.

Data collected from the influent samples contributed to

characterization of the industry, development of the list of pollutants

of concern, and development of raw wastewater characteristics. EPA used

the data collected from the influent, intermediate, and effluent points

to analyze the efficacy of treatment at the facilities, and to develop

current discharge concentrations, loadings, and the treatment

technology options for the CWT industry. EPA used data collected from

the effluent points to calculate the long-term averages (LTAs) and

limitations for each of the proposed regulatory options.

Additionally, in March and April 1998, EPA conducted site visits at

eleven facilities which treat and/or recover non-hazardous oils wastes,

oily wastewater, or used oil material from off-site. While the

information collected at these facilities was similar to information

collected during previous site visits, these facilities were selected

based solely on waste receipts. That is, they were selected

specifically to investigate the question of whether oily hazardous

waste receipts are different from oily non-hazardous waste receipts and

whether oily wastes at facilities without RCRA hazardous waste permits

are significantly different from oily waste treated by facilities with

RCRA permits. The facilities represent a diverse mix of facility size,

treatment processes, and geographical locations. Also, unlike previous

site visits, EPA collected samples of their waste receipts and effluent

discharged at 10 of these facilities. These samples were one-time grabs

and were analyzed for metals, classicals, and semi-volatile organic

compounds. The analytical results are included in an appendix to the

technical development document, but EPA has not incorporated the

results into the analyses presented today. As discussed in Section

IV.S, EPA plans to use this analytical data for further analyses and

will present its assessment before commencement of the pretreatment

public hearing on February 18, 1999.

1. Metal-bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling

Of the sampling episodes completed from 1989 to 1994, EPA conducted

six at facilities classified in the metals subcategory. EPA re-sampled

at two of these facilities in 1996 following the original proposal.

Both of these facilities had altered their treatment systems somewhat

from the treatment schemes in place at the time of the original

sampling episodes. All of the facilities employed some form of chemical

precipitation as part of their treatment of the metal-bearing waste

streams. Only one of the facilities sampled discharged to a surface

water. The rest are indirect dischargers. The Agency evaluated the

following treatment technologies: primary precipitation, secondary

precipitation, and tertiary precipitation, selective metals

precipitation, gravity separation, multimedia filtration,

clarification, liquid and sludge filtration, and treatment technologies

for cyanide destruction.

2. Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling

Of the sampling episodes completed between 1989 and 1994, EPA

conducted four at facilities which treat oily wastes. During 1995-1996,

the Agency sampled an additional two oily waste facilities. All

performed an initial gravity separation step with or without emulsion

breaking to remove oil from wastewater. At this point, some facilities

commingled the oily wastewaters with other non-oily wastewaters for

additional treatment. At facilities which commingled their waste

streams, data was collected after the emulsion breaking step and prior

to commingling to characterize waste receipts and not for establishing

limitations and standards. None of the sampled oils facilities were

direct discharging facilities. EPA evaluated the following treatment

technologies for this subcategory: gravity separation, emulsion

breaking, ultrafiltration, dissolved air flotation, biological

treatment, reverse osmosis, carbon adsorption, and air stripping. For

the sampling episodes prior to 1995, EPA analyzed samples for oil and

grease using Method 413.1 (total recoverable oil and grease) which uses

freon. Since this method is being phased out, for the sampling episodes

conducted during 1995 and 1996, EPA analyzed the samples for oil and

grease as measured by the newly proposed Method 1664 for Hexane

Extractable Materials (HEM) and Silica Gel Treated Hexane Extractable

Materials (SGT-HEM). EPA believes that oil and grease measurements from

Method 413.1 and HEM measurements from Method 1664 are comparable and

has used the data interchangeably.

3. Organic Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling

EPA had difficulty identifying facilities that could be used to

characterize waste streams and assess treatment technology performance

for the organics subcategory. A large portion of the facilities whose

organic waste treatment operations EPA evaluated had other industrial

operations on-site. For these facilities, CWT waste streams represented

a minor component of the overall flow treated at the facility.

EPA did identify and sample three facilities treating a significant

volume of off-site generated organic waste relative to non-CWT flows.

EPA evaluated the following treatment technologies employed at these

facilities: air stripping, biological treatment in a sequencing batch

reactor, multi-media filtration, carbon adsorption and carbon dioxide

extraction. None of the organic facilities sampled were direct

discharging facilities. EPA has not used data from one of the

facilities in calculating effluent levels achievable with its in-place

technologies because the facility was experiencing operational

difficulties with the treatment system at the time of sampling. In

addition, after reviewing this facility's waste receipts during the

sampling episode, EPA determined that the facility accepted both oil

subcategory and organic subcategory waste streams and commingled them

for treatment. EPA has also not used data from a second facility in

calculating effluent levels achievable with its in-place technologies

for the same reason.

D. Analytical Methods

Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to promulgate

guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants.

These methods allow the analyst to determine the presence and

concentration of pollutants in wastewater, and are used for compliance

monitoring and for filing applications for the NPDES program under 40

CFR 122.21, 122.41, 122.44 and 123.25, and for the implementation of

the pretreatment standards under 40 CFR 403.10 and 403.12. To date, EPA

has promulgated methods for all conventional and toxic pollutants and

for some nonconventional pollutants. EPA has identified five pollutants

pursuant to section 304(a)(4) of the CWA defined as ``conventional

pollutants'' (See 40 CFR 401.16). Table I-B at 40 CFR part 136 lists

the

[[Page 2297]]

analytical methods approved for these pollutants. EPA has listed,

pursuant to section 307(a) of the Act, 65 metals and organic pollutants

and classes of pollutants as ``toxic pollutants'' at 40 CFR 401.15.

From the list of 65 classes of toxic pollutants, EPA identified a list

of 126 ``Priority Pollutants.'' This list of Priority Pollutants is

shown, for example, at 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A. The list includes

non-pesticide organic pollutants, metal pollutants, cyanide, asbestos,

and pesticide pollutants.

Currently approved methods for metals and cyanide are included in

the table of approved inorganic test procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table

I-B. Table I-C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved methods for measurement

of non-pesticide organic pollutants, and Table I-D lists approved

methods for the toxic pesticide pollutants and for other pesticide

pollutants. Dischargers must use the test methods promulgated at 40 CFR

136.3 or incorporated by reference in the tables, when available, to

monitor pollutant discharges from the CWT industry, unless specified

otherwise in Part 437 or by the permitting authority.

Table I-C does not list 11 CWT semi-volatile organic pollutants and

two CWT volatile organic pollutants (2-butanone and 2-propanone).

However, the analyte list for EPA Method 1624 contains both volatile

organic pollutants and the analyte list for EPA Method 1625 contains

four of the semivolatile organic pollutants. EPA promulgated both of

these methods for use in Clean Water Act measurement programs at 40 CFR

part 136, Appendix A. As a part of this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to

allow the use of EPA Method 1624 for the determination of the CWT

volatile organic pollutants and modified versions of EPA Methods 625

and 1625 for the determination of all CWT semivolatile organic

pollutants. The proposed modifications to EPA Methods 625 and 1625 have

been included in the Docket for this rulemaking. The modified versions

of Methods 625 and 1625 will allow the analysis of all CWT semivolatile

organic pollutants by each method. If EPA adopts these proposed

modifications, the following pollutants will be added to their

respective analyte lists.

Additions to EPA Method 1625 and EPA Method 625

Pollutant CASRN

acetophenone................................................ 98-86-2

aniline...................................................... 62-53-3

benzoic acid................................................. 65-85-0

2,3-dichloroaniline.......................................... 608-27-5

o-cresol..................................................... 95-48-7

p-cresol..................................................... 160-44-5

pyridine..................................................... 110-86-1

Additions to EPA Method 625:

Pollutant CASRN

alpha-terpineol.............................................. 98-55-5

carbazole.................................................... 86-74-8

n-decane..................................................... 124-18-5

n-octadecane................................................. 593-45-3

These pollutants were found in CWT industry wastewaters in EPA's

data gathering. The modifications to Methods 625 and 1625 consist of

text, performance data, and preliminary quality control (QC) acceptance

criteria for the additional analytes, if available. This information

will allow a laboratory to practice the methods with the additional

analytes as an integral part. The QC acceptance criteria for the

additional analytes to be added to Method 1625 have been validated in

single-laboratory studies. EPA plans further validation of these method

modifications by use in subsequent data gathering for the final rule,

and plans to promulgate these method modifications for monitoring at 40

CFR part 437 (see 40 CFR 401.13) or at 40 CFR part 136 in the final

rule for this rulemaking.

On March 28, 1997, EPA proposed a means to streamline the method

development and approval process (62 FR 14975) and on October 6, 1997,

EPA published a notice of intent to implement a performance-based

measurement system (PBMS) in all of its programs to the extent feasible

(62 FR 52098). The Agency is currently determining the specific steps

necessary to implement PBMS in all of its regulatory programs, and has

approved a plan for implementation of PBMS in the water programs. Under

PBMS, regulated entities will be able to modify methods without prior

approval and will be able to use new methods without prior EPA

approval, provided they notify the regulatory authority to which the

data will be reported. EPA expects a final rule implementing PBMS in

the water programs by the beginning of calendar year 1999. When the

final rule takes effect, regulated entities in the CWT industry will be

able to select methods for monitoring other than those approved at 40

CFR parts 136 and 437, provided that certain validation requirements

are met. Many of the details were provided at proposal (62 FR 14975)

and will be finalized in the final PBMS rule.

E. Public Comments to the 1995 Proposal and the 1996 Notice of Data

Availability

In addition to data obtained through the Waste Treatment Industry

Questionnaire, DMQ, site visits and sampling episodes, commenters on

the 1995 proposal and the 1996 Notice of Data Availability also

provided data to EPA. In fact, much of EPA's current description and

estimates of the size of the oils subcategory is based on comments to

the 1996 Notice of Data Availability.

As described earlier, following the 1995 proposal, EPA revised its

estimate of the number of facilities in the oils subcategory and its

description of the oils subcategory. Using new information provided by

the industry during the 1995 proposal comment period in conjunction

with questionnaire responses and sampling data used to develop the

proposal, EPA has recharacterized this subcategory of the industry.

This recharacterization reflected new data on the wastes treated by the

subcategory, the technology in-place, and the pollutants discharged. As

part of this recharacterization, EPA developed individual profiles for

each of the newly identified oils facilities by modeling current

wastewater treatment performance and treated-effluent discharge flow

rates. In addition, assuming the same treatment technology options

identified at proposal, EPA recalculated the projected costs of the

proposed options under consideration, expected pollutant reductions

associated with the options, and the projected economic impacts.

EPA presented its recharacterization of the oils subcategory in the

September 1996 Notice of Data Availability (61 FR 48806). At that time,

EPA estimated there were an additional 240 facilities in the oils

subcategory and, as noted above, EPA developed a facility profile for

each of these facilities. EPA presented that information in the 1996

Notice and requested that facilities comment on the validity of the

modeled profiles. In order to facilitate that effort, copies of the

Notice and the individual facility profile were mailed to each of the

newly identified facilities. The facility information sheets summarized

the estimates that EPA developed for operations at a facility. The

facility information sheets provided EPA's estimates on the facility's

following characteristics: treated effluent flow, RCRA permit status,

quantity of oily waste being treated, quantity of oil recovered,

characteristics of the final treated effluent, oily waste technologies

in place, total cost of providing oily

[[Page 2298]]

waste treatment and recovery, total revenues from oily waste treatment

and recovery, total revenues from sale of recovered oil, and total

facility employment.

Of the 240 oils facilities for which NOA profiles were developed,

EPA assessment showed that 20 facilities were closed. Of the remaining

220 facilities, EPA received comments and revised profiles from 100.

Therefore, 120 facilities did not provide comments to the Notice or

revised facility profiles. Of those facilities supplying information,

69 indicated their operations fall within the scope of the oils

subcategory. EPA polled nine of the non-commenting facilities and

determined that almost half of these are within the scope of the

industry. Based on this information, EPA estimates that approximately

half of the non-commenting facilities, or sixty, are within the scope

of the oils subcategory. As to these sixty facilities that did not

comment, EPA does not necessarily have facility-specific information

for them.

EPA has again revised its characterization of the subcategory based

on information provided prior to the 1995 proposal, during the proposal

comment period, and during the Notice comment period. This includes

company-specific information provided by commenters to correct oily

waste facility profiles initially developed by EPA. EPA has used the

revised facility profiles and the earlier information to perform the

technical and economic analyses for the oils subcategory. The final

results of the analyses are adjusted upward to provide estimates of the

total population of oils facilities.

F. Database Sources

In developing the CWT effluent guidelines, EPA also evaluated the

following data sources:

Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment

Works (50 POTW Study) database.

EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)

treatability database.

These data sources and their application to the development of the CWT

effluent guidelines are discussed below.

EPA used the data included in the report entitled ``Fate of

Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (EPA 440/1-82/

303, September 1982), commonly referred to as the ``50-POTW Study'', in

determining those pollutants that would pass through a POTW. This study

presents data on the performance of 50 well-operated POTWs that employ

secondary treatment to remove toxic pollutants. EPA has edited this

database in order to minimize the possibility that low POTW removals

might simply reflect low influent concentrations instead of being a

true measure of treatment effectiveness. The criteria used in revising

the data in the 50-POTW study were the following: (1) detected

pollutants must have at least 3 pairs (influent/effluent) of data

points to be included, (2) average pollutant influent levels less than

10 times the pollutant minimum analytical detection limit were

eliminated, and (3) if none of the average pollutant influent

concentrations exceeded 10 times the minimum analytical detection

limit, then the average influent values less than 20 g/l were

eliminated. EPA then calculated each POTW percent removal for each

pollutant based on its average influent and its average effluent

values. The POTW percent removal used for each pollutant in the pass-

through test is the median value of all the POTW percent removals for

that pollutant. This is discussed in further detail in the technical

development document.

EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)

developed a treatability database (formerly called the Risk Reduction

Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database). This computerized database

provides information, by pollutant, on removals obtained by various

treatment technologies. The database provides the user with the

specific data source, and the industry from which the wastewater was

generated. EPA relied on the NRMRL database in its pass-through

analysis to supplement the treatment information provided in the 50-

POTW study when there was insufficient information on specific

pollutants. For each of the pollutants of concern (POCs) not found in

the 50-POTW database, EPA took data from portions of the NRMRL

database. EPA edited this data so that only treatment technologies

representative of typical POTW secondary treatment operations

(activated sludge, activated sludge with filtration, aerated lagoons)

were used. The files were further edited to include information

pertaining to domestic or industrial wastewater,2 unless

other wastewater data were available. Pilot-scale and full-scale data

were used, while bench-scale data were eliminated. Data from a peer-

reviewed journal or government report were used and lesser quality

references were edited out. From the remaining pollutant removal data,

the average percent removal for each pollutant was calculated.

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

\2\ The NRMRL database breaks wastewaters down into the

following categories: clean water, domestic water, groundwater,

hazardous leachate, industrial wastewater, municipal leachate,

commercial storage and disposal facility liquids, RCRA listed

wastewater, synthetic wastewater, superfund wastewater, spill water,

tap water, and surface water.

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

G. Summary of Public Participation

EPA has strived to encourage the participation of all interested

parties throughout the development of the CWT guidelines and standards.

EPA has met with various industry representatives. These include the

Environmental Technology Council (formerly the Hazardous Waste

Treatment Council), the National Solid Waste Management Association

(NSWMA), the National Oil Recyclers Association (NORA), and the

Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA). EPA has also participated in

industry meetings as well as meetings with individual companies that

may be affected by these regulations. Additionally, EPA has met with

environmental groups including members of the Natural Resources Defense

Council. Finally, EPA has made a concerted effort to consult with EPA

Regional staff, pretreatment coordinators, and state and local entities

that will be responsible for implementing this regulation.

EPA sponsored two public meetings, one prior to the original

proposal on March 8, 1994 and one prior to this recent proposal on July

27, 1997. The purpose of the public meetings was to share information

about the content and status of the proposed regulations. The public

meetings also gave interested parties an opportunity to provide

information, data, and ideas on key issues. Following the 1995

proposal, EPA also held a workshop and public hearing to discuss topics

of interest to stakeholders and to receive oral comments.

H. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), imposes certain duties on

agencies that propose rules that may have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities. These include requirements

to assess the impact on small entities and seek their views. For

example, unless EPA certifies that the proposed rule will not have such

an impact, the statute requires an initial regulatory flexibility

analysis (RFA). Section XI.L summarizes that analysis. The statute also

provides that, where EPA has prepared an initial RFA, EPA must convene

a Small Business Advocacy

[[Page 2299]]

Review Panel for the proposed rule to seek the advice and

recommendations of small entities concerning the proposal. The review

panel for today's proposal was composed of employees from EPA, the

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of

Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration (SBA) (5 U.S.C. Sec. 609(b)).

During development of today's proposal, EPA undertook a preliminary

assessment to determine the economic effect of the options being

considered for proposal on small CWT companies. (The statute defines

small entities, for purposes of RFA analyses, as small businesses,

small not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions. EPA is not aware of any CWT facilities owned by not-for-

profit organizations or small governmental jurisdictions). Based on

this initial evaluation, EPA concluded that, if EPA adopted limitations

and standards based on some of the options being considered for

proposal, the impact on small CWT companies might be significant. This

would be particularly true with respect to CWT facilities that treated

oily waste. Virtually all the small businesses potentially affected by

the proposal would be found in this subcategory. While the absolute

number of small businesses engaged in CWT operations was not large--EPA

currently estimates that 63 small businesses own discharging CWT

facilities--the potential costs for 71 percent of these companies would

exceed one percent of their revenue.

Given that several of the proposed options would have a significant

economic effect on a high percentage of these small businesses, EPA

decided to prepare the analysis that the statute requires for proposals

imposing significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities.

The assessment is discussed below in Section XI.L and in ``Economic

Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for

the CWT Industry.'' The assessment addresses all of the elements that

are required for an initial RFA under section 603(b) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. In addition, pursuant to section 609(b), in May 1997,

EPA decided to convene a panel for this proposed rule to collect the

advice and recommendations of representatives of small CWT businesses

that would be affected by the proposal.

EPA convened the panel on November 6, 1997. The panel members met

among themselves and also with representatives of small CWT businesses.

The panel then prepared a report that summarized its activities. The

report is available in the docket for this proposal (``Final Report of

the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned

Proposed Rule for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry--January 23, 1998''). The report

includes recommended alternatives and findings concerning the following

issues:

the type and number of small entities that would be

subject to the proposal;

record keeping, reporting and other compliance

requirements that the proposal would impose on small entities subject

to the proposal, if promulgated;

identification of relevant Federal rules that may overlap

or conflict with the proposed rule; and

description of significant regulatory alternatives to the

proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of the CWA and

minimize any significant economic impact on small entities.

The panel reviewed a number of alternatives for minimizing impact

on small businesses that are CWT facilities. Among the options

discussed were the following:

(a.) Relief from monitoring requirements. EPA's NPDES and

pretreatment program regulations require monitoring by both direct and

indirect dischargers to demonstrate compliance with discharge

limitations and pretreatment standards. Local permitting authorities,

under these regulations, retain considerable authority in determining

the frequency of monitoring. Because a significant portion of the costs

of complying with CWT limitations and standards is related to

monitoring costs, the panel examined approaches to reduce these costs.

The panel considered two options. The first is the use of an indicator

parameter as a surrogate for regulated organic pollutants. Instead of

being required to monitor for a series of organic pollutants, the

discharger would only need to measure the one indicator parameter. The

second option is for EPA to develop guidance for distribution to

permitting authorities that would recommend a reduced monitoring regime

for small businesses. This second option could also be combined with

the first. The Agency has examined these options further as discussed

below at IX.D.

(b.) Other regulatory relief for oily waste treaters. As previously

noted, the bulk of small CWT businesses are indirectly discharging oily

waste treatment companies. The panel focused its attention on relief

measures for these companies, but could develop no consensus on

recommended relief. Among the measures considered are the following:

The panel considered whether small businesses (those with

less than $6 million in annual revenue) should not be included in the

scope of the proposal or, alternatively, whether a flow cut off should

be used so as to limit the facilities within the scope of the rule. In

Section IV.S, EPA provides its current analyses of the effects of not

including small businesses and of flow cut-offs of 3.5 million gallons

per year (MGY) and 7 MGY on costs, facility closures, and pollutant

loading removals. Neither the panel members nor the small business

representatives could agree on whether such scope limitations would be

appropriate. A more detailed discussion and request for comment on this

issue is included in Section XI.L.

The panel also heard a recommendation that EPA should

propose pretreatment standards for oily waste treaters based on a less

costly treatment option (emulsion breaking and secondary gravity

separation) than dissolved air flotation. This treatment option is

discussed with the other technology options considered for the oils

subcategory as the basis for today's proposal, in Section IX.B.1.b.ii.

Another relief option discussed is development of a

streamlined procedure for obtaining a variance from categorical

pretreatment standards. The CWA authorizes EPA to grant a variance from

categorical pretreatment standards for facilities that, under specific

circumstances, establish that their facility is ``fundamentally

different'' with respect to the factors considered in establishing the

categorical standard. The panel urged EPA to consider developing a

procedure for small businesses to submit group applications for

obtaining such variances to the extent the CWA would authorize adoption

of such an approach. EPA discusses this relief option in Section XIV.C,

Variances and Modifications.

(c.) New source performance standards for metal-bearing waste

treaters. Concern was also expressed during the panel review about the

treatment technology being considered as the basis for EPA's new source

performance standards and pretreatment standards for new sources for

the metals subcategory. EPA's assessment of the cost of the technology

then being considered showed that it was three times as expensive as

the technology forming the basis for limitations and standards for

existing sources and that the incremental pollutant removals of the

more stringent technology were

[[Page 2300]]

small. In the view of some panel members, this might pose a potential

entry barrier for small business. This concern is discussed further,

along with a request for comment, in Section IX.B.4 and XI.H which deal

with option selection for these standards.

Finally, the panel discussed several methodological issues related

to EPA's characterization of baseline pollutant loadings and estimation

of loadings removals associated with various treatment options. These

issues are discussed in more detail in Sections VIII and XI.M and in

Chapter 12 of the technical development document.

Section XV.B discusses the SBREFA panel in more detail and provides

information on what EPA has done to address the panel's

recommendations. EPA notes that the panel was another effective public

outreach tool, and that the small entity representatives provided

valuable insight to the possible effects of the proposal to the CWT

industry--specifically, the small entities.

EPA's consideration of these relief options are discussed in the

appropriate sections of this document.

I. Examination of the Effect of Total Dissolved Solids on Metals

Precipitation

During the comment period for the 1995 proposal, EPA received

comments which asserted that high levels of total dissolved solids

(TDS) in CWT wastewaters may compromise a CWT facility's ability to

meet the proposed metal subcategory limitations. The data indicated

that for some metal-contaminated wastewaters, as TDS levels increased,

the solubility of the metal in wastewater also increased. As such, the

commenters claimed that metal-contaminated wastewaters with high TDS

could not be treated to achieve the proposed limitations.

At the time of the original proposal, EPA had no data on TDS levels

in CWT wastewaters. No facility provided TDS data in their response to

the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire or the Detailed Monitoring

Questionnaire. Additionally, during the sampling episodes prior to the

1995 proposal, EPA did not collect TDS data. As such, EPA lacked the

data to estimate TDS levels in wastewaters at the CWT facility which

formed the technology basis for the 1995 proposed metals subcategory

limitations.

In order to address the comment, EPA (1) collected additional

information on TDS levels in metals subcategory wastewaters; (2)

conducted additional sampling; (3) consulted literature sources; and

(4) conducted bench scale studies.

First, EPA needed to determine the range of TDS levels in CWT

metals subcategory wastewaters. As such, EPA contacted the metals

subcategory Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire respondents to

determine the level of TDS in their wastewaters. Most CWT facilities do

not collect information on the level of TDS in their wastewaters. Those

facilities that provided information indicated that TDS levels in CWT

metals subcategory wastewaters range from 10,000 ppm to 100,000 ppm (1-

10%).

Second, EPA resampled the facility which formed the technology

basis for the 1995 proposed metals subcategory limitations and the

facility that provides the basis for metals subcategory limitations in

this proposal, in part, to determine TDS levels in their wastewaters.

EPA found TDS levels of 17,000 to 81,000 mg/L.

Third, EPA consulted various literature sources to obtain

information about the effect of TDS levels on chemical precipitation.

EPA found no data or information which related directly to TDS effects

on chemical precipitation.

Fourth, EPA conducted a laboratory study designed to determine the

effect of TDS levels on chemical precipitation treatment performance.

In this study, EPA conducted a series of bench-scale experiments on

five metals: arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel and titanium. These

metals were selected because (1) they are commonly found in CWT metals

subcategory wastewaters; (2) their optimal precipitation is carried out

in a range of pH levels; and/or (3) the data provided in the comments

indicated that TDS may have a negative effect on the precipitation of

these metals. The preliminary statistical analyses of the data from

these studies show no consistent relationship among the five metals, pH

levels, TDS concentrations, and chemical precipitation effectiveness

using hydroxide or a combination of hydroxide and sulfide. The study

and the statistical analyses are included in the record. Thus, the

study could not either confirm or refute the concern with high TDS

levels interfering with metals treatment. EPA solicits comments on this

study and EPA's statistical analyses of the results.

EPA has not incorporated an adjustment for TDS levels into the

development of limitations on metals discharges for the following

reason. EPA's data show that effluent levels associated with an option

proposed today for BPT, BAT, and PSES for the metals subcategory are

achievable even at high TDS levels. The facility which forms the

technology basis for Metals Option 4 (see Section IX.B.1.b.i) had high

influent levels of TDS in their wastewaters during EPA's sampling

episode. On an average basis, their TDS levels were the highest EPA

observed in the industry. Consequently, EPA believes the proposed BPT,

BAT, and PSES limitations and standards can be achieved by all metals

subcategory facilities--even those with high levels of TDS. EPA

solicits comment and any data commenters may have bearing on this

issue.

VII. Subcategorization

A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization

For its earlier 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 (see 60 FR 5464,

5474). In reaching its preliminary decision that it should

subcategorize for purposes of developing limitations and standards, EPA

discussed its consideration of various factors.

The CWA requires EPA, in developing effluent limitations guidelines

and pretreatment standards that represent the best available technology

economically achievable for a particular industry category, to consider

a number of different factors. Among others, these include the age of

the equipment and facilities in the category, manufacturing processes

employed, types of treatment technology to reduce effluent discharges,

and the cost of effluent reductions (Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA,

33 U.S.C. Sec. 1314(b)(2)(B)). The statute also authorizes EPA to take

into account other factors that the Agency deems appropriate and

requires that the limitations it promulgates are economically

achievable, which generally involves consideration of both compliance

costs and the overall financial condition of the industry.

One way in which the Agency has taken some of these factors into

account is by breaking down categories of industries into separate

classes of similar characteristics. This recognizes the major

differences among companies within an industry that may reflect, for

example, different manufacturing processes, economies of scale, or

other factors. One result of subdividing an industry by subcategories

is to safeguard against overzealous regulatory standards, increase the

confidence that the regulations are practicable, and diminish the need

to address variations

[[Page 2301]]

between facilities through a variance process (Weyerhaeuser Co. v.

Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).

The CWT industry, as previously explained, is not typical of many

of the other industries regulated under the CWA because it does not

produce a product. Therefore, EPA considered certain factors that

specifically apply to CWT operations in its evaluation of how to

establish appropriate limitations and standards and whether further

subcategorization was warranted. Additionally, EPA did not consider

certain other factors typically appropriate when subcategorizing

manufacturing facilities as relevant when evaluating this industry. The

factors EPA considered here in subcategorizing the CWT industry

include:

Facility age

Facility size

Facility location

Non-water quality impacts

Freatment technologies and costs

RCRA classification

Types of wastes received

Nature of wastewater generated

EPA concluded that certain of these factors did not support further

subcategorization of this industry. The Agency concluded that the age

of a facility is not a basis for subcategorization as many older

facilities have unilaterally improved or modified their treatment

process over time. EPA is also not proposing to use facility size as a

basis for subcategorization, although it is requesting comment in

Section IV.S on whether facility size, as measured by flow, would be an

appropriate basis for not including some facilities in the scope of the

rule. EPA identified three parameters as relative measures of facility

size: number of employees, amount of waste receipts accepted, and

wastewater flow. EPA found that CWT facilities of varying sizes

generate similar wastewaters and use similar treatment technologies,

although the economic impacts of compliance costs may be greater for

small facilities (as defined by parent company revenues). Furthermore,

wastes can be treated to the same level regardless of the facility

size. EPA is also not proposing to use facility location as a basis for

subcategorization. Based on the data collected, no consistent

differences in wastewater treatment technologies or performance exist

between different geographical locations. EPA recognizes, however, that

geographic location may have an effect on the market for CWT services,

the cost charged for these services, and the value of recovered product

which may affect the economic impacts of the rule. These issues are

addressed in the Economic Assessment Document.

While non-water quality characteristics (solid waste and air

emission effects) are of concern to EPA, these characteristics did not

constitute a basis for

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.