[Federal Register: August 14, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 157)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49665-49706]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14au00-21]
[[Page 49665]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 442
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point
Source Category; Final Rule
[[Page 49666]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 442
[FRL--6720-6]
RIN 2040-AB98
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Point Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes technology-based effluent
limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, and
pretreatment standards for the discharge of pollutants into waters of
the United States and into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) by
existing and new facilities that perform transportation equipment
cleaning operations. Transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) facilities
are defined as those facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning
the interior of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail tank cars,
closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers, tank barges,
closed-top hopper barges, and ocean/sea tankers used to transport
materials or cargos that come into direct contact with the tank or
container interior. Facilities which do not engage in cleaning the
interior of tanks are not considered within the scope of this rule.
EPA is subcategorizing the TEC Point Source Category into the
following four subparts based on types of cargos carried and
transportation mode: Subpart A--Tank Trucks and Intermodal Tank
Containers Transporting Chemical & Petroleum Cargos; Subpart B--Rail
Tank Cars Transporting Chemical & Petroleum Cargos; Subpart C--Tank
Barges and Ocean/Sea Tankers Transporting Chemical & Petroleum Cargos;
Subpart D--Tanks Transporting Food Grade Cargos.
For all four subparts, EPA is establishing effluent limitations
guidelines for existing facilities and new sources discharging
wastewater directly to surface waters. EPA is establishing pretreatment
standards for existing facilities and new sources discharging
wastewater to POTWs in all subparts except for Subpart D, applicable to
Food Grade Cargos. EPA is not establishing effluent limitations
guidelines or pretreatment standards for facilities that generate
wastewater from cleaning the interior of hopper cars.
The TEC limitations do not apply to wastewaters associated with
tank cleanings performed in conjunction with other industrial,
commercial, or POTW operations so long as the facility cleans only
tanks and containers that have contained raw materials, by-products,
and finished products that are associated with the facility's on-site
processes.
The wastewater flows covered by this rule include all washwaters
which have come into direct contact with the tank or container interior
including pre-rinse cleaning solutions, chemical cleaning solutions,
and final rinse solutions. Additionally, the rule covers wastewater
generated from washing vehicle exteriors, equipment and floor washings,
and TEC contaminated stormwater at those facilities subject to the TEC
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Compliance with this
rule is estimated to reduce the annual discharge of priority pollutants
by at least 60,000 pounds per year and result in annual benefits
ranging from $1.5 million to $5.5 million. The total annualized
compliance cost of the rule is projected to be $16.1 million (pre-tax).DATES: This regulation shall become effective September 13, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The public record is available for review in the EPA Water
Docket, 401 M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The public record for
this rulemaking has been established under docket number W-97-25, and
includes supporting documentation, but does not include any information
claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). The record is
available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. For access to docket materials, please call
(202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information
contact Mr. John Tinger at (202) 260-4992 or send E-mail to:
tinger.john@epa.gov. For additional economic information contact Mr.
George Denning at (202) 260-7374 or send E-mail to:
denning.george@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities: Entities potentially regulated by this action
include:------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated Examples of
Category entities common SIC codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................... Facilities that SIC 7699, SIC
generate wastewater 4741, SIC 4491.
from cleaning the
interior of tank
trucks, rail tank
cars, intermodal tank
containers, tank
barges, or ocean/sea
tankers used to
transport materials
or cargos that come
into direct contact
with tank or
container interior,
except where such
tank cleanings are
performed in
conjunction with
other industrial,
commercial, or POTW
operations..
------------------------------------------------------------------------ This 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, should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in Sec. 442.1 of the rule language. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed for technical information in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Judicial Review
In accordance with 40 CFR Part 23.2, this rule will be considered
promulgated for purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on
August 28, 2000. Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act,
judicial review of this regulation can be obtained only by filing a
petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals within 120
days after the regulation is considered promulgated for purposes of
judicial review. Under section 509 (b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, the
requirements in this regulation may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Compliance Dates
The compliance date for Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Standards (PSES) is as soon as possible, but no later than August 14,
2003. Deadlines for compliance with Best Practicable
[[Page 49667]]
Control Technology Currently Available (BPT), Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), and Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT) are established in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The compliance dates for
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources (PSNS) are the dates the new source commences discharging.
Supporting Documentation
The regulations promulgated today are supported by several major
documents:
1. ``Final Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category'' (EPA
821-R-00-0012). Hereafter referred to as the Technical Development
Document, the document presents EPA's technical conclusions concerning
the rule. EPA describes, among other things, the data-collection
activities in support of the regulation, the wastewater treatment
technology options, wastewater characterization, and the estimated
costs to the industry.
2. ``Final Economic Analysis of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category'' (EPA
821-R-00-0013).
3. ``Final Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Category'' (EPA 821-R-00-0014).How To Obtain Supporting Documents
All documents are available from the National Service Center for
Environmental Publications, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419,
(800) 490-9198. The Technical Development Document and previous
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Federal Register Notices can also be
obtained on the Internet, located at WWW.EPA.GOV/OST/GUIDE. This
website also links to an electronic version of today's notice.
Table of Contents
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Profile of the Industry
C. Proposed Rule
D. Notice of Availability
III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
A. Concentration-Based Limitations
B. Modification to Subcategorization Approach
C. Low Flow Exclusion
D. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates
E. Overlap With Other Guidelines
F. Modification to Pollutants Selected For Regulation
G. Technology Options
IV. Applicability of Final Regulation
V. Technology Options Selected for Basis of Regulation
A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
D. Food Subcategory
E. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
VI. Development of Effluent Limitations
A. Selection of Pollutant Parameters for Final Regulation
B. Calculation of Effluent Limitations
VII. Costs and Pollutant Reductions of Final Regulation
A. Changes to Cost Analysis Since Proposal
B. Compliance Costs
C. Changes to Pollutant Reduction Analysis Since Proposal
D. Pollutant Reductions
VIII. Economic Impacts of Final Regulation
A. Changes to Economic Analysis Since Proposal
B. Impacts Analysis
C. Small Business Analysis
D. Market Analysis
E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
F. Cost-Benefit Analysis
IX. Water Quality Impacts of Final Regulation
A. Changes to Benefits Analysis Since Proposal
B. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
C. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
D. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
E. Food Subcategory
X. Non-Water Quality Impacts of Final Regulation
A. Energy Impacts
B. Air Emission Impacts
C. Solid Waste Impacts
XI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
J. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting Children's Health
XII. Regulatory Implementation
A. Implementation of Limitations and Standards
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
C. Variances and Modifications
D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits &
Monitoring Requirements
E. Analytical Methods
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This
NoticeI. Legal Authority
EPA is promulgating these regulations 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. 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) (Sections 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or
interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are
designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial
dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition,
POTWs are required to implement local treatment limits applicable to
their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements
(40 CFR 403.5).
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits;
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
In the guidelines for an industry category, EPA defines BPT
effluent[[Page 49668]]
limits for conventional, toxic,1 and non-conventional pollutants. In
specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers
the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age of the equipment
and facilities, the processes employed and any required process
changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such
other factors as the Agency deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)).
Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the
average of the best performances of facilities within the industry of
various ages, sizes, processes or other common characteristics. Where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may require higher
levels of control than currently in place in an industrial category if
the Agency determines that the technology can be practically applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts
emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the
``classical'' pollutants (e.g., TSS, pH, BOD<INF>5</INF>). However,
nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted BPT
limitation 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
toxic pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines
continue to include limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section
304(b)(2) of the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best
existing economically achievable performance of direct discharging
plants in the industrial subcategory or category. The factors
considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent
reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the processes
employed, engineering aspects of the control technology, potential
process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts (including
energy requirements), and such factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning
the weight to be accorded to these factors. An additional statutory
factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally,
the achievability is determined on the basis of the total cost to the
industrial subcategory and the overall effect of the rule on the
industry's financial health. BAT limitations may be based upon effluent
reductions attainable through changes in a facility's processes and
operations. As with BPT, where existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, BAT may be based upon technology transferred from a
different subcategory within an industry or from another industrial
category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls,
even when these technologies are not common industry practice.
3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section
304(b)(4) of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT
technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources. BCT
is not an additional limitation, but replaces Best Available Technology
(BAT) for control of conventional pollutants. In addition to other
factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD<INF>5</INF>), 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).
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 greatest degree of effluent reduction attainable through
the application of the best available demonstrated control technology
for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, non-conventional, 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 (POTWs). 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 implementing categorical pretreatment standards, are found at 40
CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass through
that addresses localized rather than national instances of pass through
and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all non-domestic
dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(b) of the
CWA
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of
pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to
incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.B. Profile of the Industry
The TEC industry includes facilities that generate wastewater from
cleaning the interiors of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail
tank cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers,
tank barges, closed-top hopper barges, and ocean/sea tankers used to
transport cargos or commodities that come into direct contact with the
tank or container interior. Transportation equipment cleaning is
performed to prevent cross-contamination between products or
commodities being transported in the tanks, containers, or hoppers, and
to prepare transportation equipment for repair and maintenance
activities, such as welding. The cleaning activity is a necessary part
of the transportation process.
Based upon responses to EPA's 1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry (see discussion in Section
V.B of the proposal (63 FR 34686)), the Agency estimates that there are
approximately 2,405 facilities in the United States that perform TEC
activities. This includes approximately[[Page 49669]]
1,166 facilities that perform tank cleaning operations on site, but
which are excluded from this rule because of their association with
other industrial, commercial, or POTW operations. There are 1,239 TEC
facilities not associated with other industrial, commercial, or POTW
operations. Of these facilities, EPA estimates that 692 facilities
discharge to either a POTW or to surface waters. The remaining 547
facilities are considered zero dischargers.
The TEC industry consists of distinct transportation sectors: the
trucking sector, the rail sector, and the barge shipping sector. Each
one of these sectors has different technical and economic
characteristics. The transportation industry transports a wide variety
of commodities, and TEC facilities therefore clean tanks and containers
with residues (i.e., heels) from a broad spectrum of commodities, such
as food-grade products, petroleum-based commodities, organic chemicals,
inorganic chemicals, soaps and detergents, latex and resins, hazardous
wastes, and dry bulk commodities.
TEC facilities vary greatly in the level of wastewater treatment
that they currently have in place. Treatment at existing TEC facilities
ranges from no treatment to tertiary treatment. The majority of TEC
facilities discharging to surface waters currently employ primary
treatment, such as oil/water separation or gravity separation, followed
by biological treatment. Indirect discharging facilities typically
employ some form of primary treatment, such as oil/water separation,
gravity separation, dissolved air flotation, or coagulation and
flocculation. A relatively small number of direct and indirect
facilities currently employ tertiary treatment, such as activated
carbon adsorption.C. Proposed Rule
On June 25, 1998 (63 FR 34685), EPA published proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for the discharge of
pollutants into waters of the United States and into POTWs by existing
and new facilities that perform transportation equipment cleaning
operations.
EPA received comments on many aspects of the proposal. The majority
of comments related to the use of mass-based rather than concentration-
based limits; the subcategorization approach; the technology options
used as the basis for setting effluent limitations; the selection of
pollutants proposed for regulation; the costs associated with the
regulation; the cost effectiveness of the regulation; the lack of a low
flow exclusion from the regulation; and the applicability of the rule.
EPA evaluated all of these issues based on additional information
collected by EPA or received during the comment period following the
proposal. EPA then discussed the results of most of these evaluations
in a Notice of Availability discussed below.D. Notice of Availability
On July 20, 1999 (64 FR 38863), EPA published a Notice of
Availability (NOA) in which the Agency presented a summary of new data
collected by EPA or received in comments on the proposed rule. EPA
discussed the major issues raised during the proposal comment period
and presented several alternative approaches to address these issues.
EPA solicited comment on these approaches and on the new data and
analyses conducted in response to comments.
III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
This section describes the most significant changes to the rule
since proposal. The majority of these changes have been in response to
comments on the proposal. All of these changes were discussed in the
Notice of Availability.
A. Concentration-Based Limitations
EPA proposed mass-based limitations. In the proposal and NOA, EPA
discussed a change to the format of the rule that would establish
concentration-based rather than mass-based limits. EPA received many
comments on the proposal and on the NOA from regulatory authorities,
industry stakeholders, and POTWs strongly supporting the concentration-
based format of the rule. EPA received only one comment on the proposal
supporting mass-based limits. In the NOA, EPA presented concentration-
based limitations and explained its rationale for the change. Comments
on the NOA were unanimously supportive of concentration-based limits.
The final limitations and standards being promulgated today are
concentration-based.
B. Modification to Subcategorization Approach
EPA proposed separate subcategories for the Truck/Chemical, Truck/
Petroleum, Rail/Chemical, and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. In the
proposal and NOA, EPA discussed combining the Truck/Chemical
Subcategory and Truck/Petroleum Subcategory into the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory, and combining the Rail/Chemical Subcategory and
Rail/Petroleum Subcategory into the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory. In the NOA, EPA presented the preliminary conclusion for
making this change, and presented the costs, loadings, and economic
impacts that would result if this change were made.
The majority of the commenters on the NOA, including regulatory
authorities, industry stakeholders, and POTWs, supported combining
these subcategories. EPA received only one comment supporting separate
subcategories. EPA concluded that the proposed definitions of the
chemical and petroleum subcategories did not adequately define the
difference between chemical and petroleum commodities. For the final
regulation, EPA has combined the proposed chemical and petroleum
subcategories in both the truck and rail segments of the industry.
Additionally, EPA has combined the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and
Barge/Food Subcategories into one subcategory, the Food Subcategory.
For the proposed rule, subcategorization by transportation mode was
necessary because the truck, rail, and barge facilities had different
regulatory flows per tank cleaned, which resulted in different mass-
based limits for each subcategory. Subcategorization of the Food
Subcategory by transportation mode for the final regulation is
unnecessary because the limits are all based on the same BPT
technology, and the final concentration-based limits are identical for
all TEC facilities cleaning food grade cargos.C. Low Flow Exclusion
In the proposal, EPA considered establishing a minimum flow level
for defining the scope of the regulation but did not propose a low-flow
exclusion. EPA conducted an analysis to determine an appropriate flow
exclusion level based on the economic impacts of low flow facilities,
the economic impacts on small businesses, and the relative efficiency
of treatment technologies for low flow facilities, in terms of pounds
of pollutants removed.
Based on comments on the proposal, EPA re-evaluated a low-flow
exclusion based on 100,000 gallons per year of TEC process wastewater
and presented the results in the NOA. EPA presented the costs,
loadings, and economic impacts that would result if this exclusion was
adopted. EPA's analyses demonstrated that 26 low flow facilities
generated much less than one percent of the baseline loadings to the
industry. EPA received numerous comments which supported the adoption
of a low flow exclusion due to the low amounts of toxics generated by
these facilities.[[Page 49670]]
EPA also received comments supporting establishing a low flow
exclusion at 200,000 gallons of TEC process wastewater per year. In the
NOA, EPA noted that one model facility (representing nine facilities)
excluded at proposal would be added to the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory and would therefore be subject to the TEC limitations. EPA
noted that an exclusion set at 200,000 gallons per year would exclude
this model facility from the regulation. Consequently, EPA evaluated
establishing the cutoff at 200,000 gallons per year. Establishing a low
flow cutoff at 200,000 gallons per year would exclude an additional
nine facilities in the combined Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
which discharge a combined total of 680 pound equivalents. This equates
to 3.1 percent of facilities discharging 2.3 percent of the loadings in
the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA determined that the
facilities discharging between 100,000 to 200,000 gallons per year
contribute a proportional amount of toxic loadings to the industry.
Additionally, EPA found that if the low flow exclusion was raised from
100,000 to 200,000 gallons per year, there would be no decrease in the
number of facilities projected to close or experience financial stress.
For the final regulation, EPA is excluding facilities that
discharge less than 100,000 gallons per year of TEC process wastewater.
Facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year will remain
subject to limitations and standards established on a case-by-case
basis using Best Professional Judgement by the permitting authority.D. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates
In the NOA, EPA discussed a revision to the methodology for
calculating pesticide and herbicide loadings. This revision was in
response to a comment claiming that EPA overestimated pollutant
reductions by using calculations based on a small number of data points
detected at levels close to the pesticide/herbicide quantification
levels. Specifically, EPA revised the proposed methodology by using the
same editing criteria for pesticide/herbicide pollutants as were used
for all other parameters. EPA made this change to the editing criteria
which resulted in excluding parameters that were not detected in at
least two samples and with average concentrations greater than five
times the detection limit. The revised loadings were presented in the
NOA.
EPA continued to receive comment from the industry that EPA had
misidentified several pesticides and herbicides that were contributing
to the calculation of toxic pound equivalent removals in the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. Based on an extensive analysis of the
pesticide data collected in support of the regulation, the EPA must
concur that the laboratory analysis does not conclusively support the
presence of several pesticides that were believed to be present in the
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory wastewater. Therefore, the
Agency has labeled the analytical results for EPN and disulfoton as
``questionable'' and has subsequently removed these pesticides from the
cost effectiveness analysis and benefits analysis. This approach has
resulted in a significant decrease in toxic pound equivalent removals
when compared to the approach used at proposal.
However, EPA believes that pesticides and herbicides are present in
TEC wastewater. As evidenced by responses to the Detailed
Questionnaire, only 5% of tank truck facilities prohibit the cleaning
of tank trucks that have contained pesticides and herbicides, meaning
that 95% of tank truck facilities may potentially clean a cargo that
has contained pesticides or herbicides. As documented by comments
submitted by the industry, site visit reports, and a recent trade
association journal article, the TEC industry is a service industry
that cleans out tank trucks as needed by customers. EPA has identified
over 3,000 cargo types that are cleaned at tank truck facilities, and
these cargos have been documented to include pesticide and herbicides.E. Overlap With Other Guidelines
EPA proposed language for excluding certain commercial and
industrial facilities from the TEC guideline. Many commenters believed
that this language was too restrictive and that the TEC rule, as
proposed, would encompass many industrial facilities that EPA did not
intend to cover. In the NOA, EPA described several situations where it
concurred with commenters that the proposed language was overly
restrictive. These included industrial or manufacturing facilities that
clean a small number of tank cars on site but that are not covered by
an existing Clean Water Act categorical effluent guideline. EPA
presented revised regulatory language for excluding certain industrial
and commercial facilities which the Agency believed addressed the
concerns raised by commenters and more clearly defined the exclusion.
The majority of commenters supported the revised language, and no
commenter opposed the language. Therefore, EPA has adopted language
similar to that presented in the NOA for the final regulation. The
final rule does not apply to wastewaters associated with tank cleanings
performed in conjunction with other industrial, commercial, or POTW
operations so long as the facility cleans only tanks and containers
that have contained raw materials, by-products, and finished products
that are associated with the facility's on-site processes.
EPA also received comments requesting that EPA specifically exclude
TEC wastewaters generated by POTWs that clean out garbage trucks,
biosolid waste haulers, tankers that contained landfill leachate, and
street cleaning trucks. EPA does not believe that wastewater generated
from cleaning garbage trucks, biosolids trucks, landfill leachate
tankers, or street cleaning trucks meets EPA's definition of cleaning a
tank that has contained a chemical, petroleum, or food grade product.
However, in order to address the concern that POTWs would unnecessarily
be subject to the TEC rule, EPA has added language in the final
applicability section which states that wastewater cleaning operations
performed at POTWs (in addition to other commercial and industrial
operations) are not subject to the TEC guidelines. Additionally, EPA
has adopted a low flow exclusion of 100,000 gallons per year to exclude
from this rule those facilities which may perform a minimal amount of
tank cleaning activities (see Section III.C).
In the proposal, EPA stated that facilities that are predominantly
engaged in Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) operations and clean
ocean/sea tankers, tank barges, rail tank cars, or tank trucks as part
of those activities would likely be included in the upcoming MP&M
regulations and, thus, are excluded from the TEC guideline. EPA
received numerous comments asking EPA to more clearly define what is
meant by ``predominantly engaged.'' In the NOA, EPA attempted to
address these concerns by clarifying the distinction between MP&M
wastewaters and TEC wastewaters based on the purpose of cleaning. All
commenters supported the revised language presented in the NOA as
addressing their concerns. Therefore, EPA is adopting the following
language for the final regulation: ``Wastewater generated from cleaning
tank interiors for purposes of shipping products (i.e., cleaned for
purposes other than maintenance and repair) is considered[[Page 49671]]
TEC process wastewater. Wastewater generated from cleaning tank
interiors for the purposes of maintenance and repair on the tank is not
considered TEC process wastewater.'' It is possible that some
facilities, or wastewater generated from some unit operations at these
facilities, will be subject to the Metals Products & Machinery (MP&M)
effluent guideline currently being developed by EPA. Facilities that
clean tank interiors solely for the purposes of repair and maintenance
would not be regulated under the TEC guideline.
Wastewater generated from cleaning tank interiors for purposes of
shipping products (i.e., cleaned for purposes other than maintenance
and repair) is considered TEC process wastewater and is subject to the
TEC guideline. It is possible that a facility may be subject to both
the TEC regulations and the MP&M regulations. If a facility generates
wastewater from MP&M activities which is subject to the MP&M guideline
and also discharges wastewater from cleaning tanks for purposes other
than repair and maintenance of those tanks, then that facility may be
subject to both guidelines.F. Modification to Pollutants Selected for Regulation
EPA proposed limitations for a number of conventional, priority,
and non-conventional pollutants. Many commenters requested that EPA
establish oil and grease (measured as Hexane Extractable Material
(HEM)) and non-polar oil and grease (measured as Silica-gel Treated
Hexane Extractable Material (SGT-HEM)) as indicator pollutants for a
number of other pollutants proposed to be regulated. In the NOA, EPA
presented its evaluation for establishing indicator pollutants, and
concluded that oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar oil and grease (SGT-
HEM) could serve as indicator pollutants for the straight chain
hydrocarbons proposed to be regulated. Comments on the NOA generally
supported this conclusion. For the final regulation, EPA has
established limits for oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar material
(SGT-HEM) as indicator pollutants. EPA has therefore not established
limits for any straight chain hydrocarbon, but has established limits
for polyaromatic hydrocarbons for certain subcategories.
Furthermore, as described in Section VI. of this notice, EPA has
decided to promulgate effluent limitations and pretreatment standards
for mercury in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and in the
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA has also eliminated zinc as
regulated pollutant in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and
has decided to eliminate COD as a regulated pollutant in all
subcategories.G. Technology Options
EPA presented revised costs and loads in the NOA for the technology
options considered for the proposal. The costs and loads were revised
due to a number of changes, which were discussed in the NOA. In
summary, EPA revised the cost model; reduced the monitoring costs;
revised the list of pollutants effectively removed; combined the Truck/
Chemical and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories; combined the Rail/Chemical
and Rail/ Petroleum Subcategories; and adopted a low flow exclusion.
EPA also discussed in the NOA several options it was considering in
lieu of the proposed options for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum and
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories, including the associated
costs, loads, economic impacts, and environmental benefits. Based on
the revised analysis, EPA is selecting Option I instead of Option II
for PSES and PSNS in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. For
the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is selecting Option II
for BPT, BAT, BCT and NSPS. EPA had proposed Option I for BPT, BAT, and
BCT and Option III for NSPS. For indirect dischargers in the Rail/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is selecting Option II for both
PSES and PSNS instead of Option I for PSES and Option III for PSNS.
Additionally, EPA has decided to establish PSES based on Option II for
the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory in order to prevent pass
through or interference at a POTW.
EPA has eliminated flow reduction from the technology options for
all subcategories because it is promulgating concentration-based rather
than mass-based limitations. Note, however, that EPA has retained flow
reduction as a cost-effective compliance strategy for several
subcategories.
Sections VII, VIII, and IX of this notice present the final costs,
pollutant reductions, economic impacts, and water quality impacts for
EPA's selected options. The technology options are described in Section
V of this notice. A description of the wastewater treatment technology
components of the options can be found in Section VIII of the proposal
and in the Technical Development Document.IV. Applicability of Final Regulation
EPA is establishing effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges from facilities
engaged in cleaning the interiors of tanks including tank trucks, rail
tank cars, intermodal tank containers, tank barges, and ocean/sea
tankers used to transport commodities that come into direct contact
with the tank or container interior. Facilities which do not engage in
cleaning the interior of tanks are not considered within the scope of
this rule.
The wastewater flows covered by the rule include all washwaters
that come into direct contact with the tank or container interior
including pre-rinse cleaning solutions, chemical cleaning solutions,
and final rinse solutions. Additionally, the rule would cover
wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors, equipment and
floor washings, and TEC contaminated wastewater only at those
facilities subject to the TEC guidelines and standards.
EPA evaluated the following subcategorization approach for the
final regulation: Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory; Rail/Chemical
& Petroleum Subcategory; Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory; Food
Subcategory; Truck/Hopper Subcategory; Rail/Hopper Subcategory; and
Barge/Hopper Subcategory. Table 1 presents the final regulatory
approach. Table 1.--Regulatory Approach for the TEC Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT and
Subcategory BCT BAT NSPS PSES PSNS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum......................................... X X X X X
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum.......................................... X X X X X
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum......................................... X X X X X
Food............................................................... X ....... X ....... .......
Truck/Hopper....................................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......[[Page 49672]]
Rail/Hopper........................................................ ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Barge/Hopper....................................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is establishing effluent limitations guidelines for existing
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater directly to surface
waters in the following subcategories: Truck/Chemical & Petroleum,
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, and Food
Subcategory. EPA is establishing pretreatment standards for existing
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum, Rail/Chemical & Petroleum, and Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories.
For the Food Subcategory, EPA is establishing effluent limitations
guidelines for existing and new facilities discharging directly to
surface waters. These limitations and standards are established to
control discharges of conventional pollutants which may adversely
affect waterways when discharged directly to surface waters. Few
priority pollutants were found in food wastewaters; thus, EPA has
chosen to not establish BAT limitations for the Food Subcategory.
Because POTWs have the ability to treat conventional pollutants, EPA
concluded that it was unnecessary to establish pretreatment standards
for the Food Subcategory. Comments received on the proposal
predominantly supported EPA's regulatory approach for the Food
Subcategory.
EPA is not establishing effluent limitations guidelines or
standards for the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper
Subcategories. Closed-top hopper trucks, rail cars, and barges are used
to transport dry bulk materials such as coal, grain, and fertilizers.
Raw wastewater generated from cleaning the interiors of hoppers was
found to contain very few priority pollutants at treatable levels. This
is likely due to the fact that the residual materials (heels) from dry
bulk goods are easily removed prior to washing, and that relatively
little wastewater is generated from cleaning the interiors of hopper
tanks due to the dry nature of bulk materials transported. These facts
result in low pollutant loadings being present in the wastewater
discharges from hopper tank cleaning. Based on the low pollutant
loadings associated with wastewater discharge from the hopper
subcategories, the Agency concluded that it is not necessary to
establish nationally-applicable effluent limitations for these
subcategories. Rather, direct dischargers will remain subject to
effluent limitations established on a case-by-case basis using Best
Professional Judgement, and indirect dischargers may be subject to
local pretreatment limits as necessary to prevent pass through or
interference. EPA received comments supporting this conclusion.
EPA received comments on the proposal requesting that EPA include
wastewater from cleaning the interiors of intermediate bulk containers
(IBCs) within the scope of this regulation. The commenter believed that
IBCs generate a significant amount of loadings in the industry;
therefore, excluding IBCs would give an economic advantage to
facilities that clean only IBCs because these facilities would not be
covered by the TEC regulation. In response to these comments, EPA
collected additional data on IBC cleaning performed by the TEC industry
and then conducted an economic analysis on the impact of IBC cleaning
on the tank truck industry. This information and analysis were
presented in the NOA. Based on the analysis presented in Section VII of
the NOA, EPA concluded that wastewater generated from IBC cleaning
should not be included in the scope of this guideline. As discussed in
the NOA, EPA will continue to evaluate the Industrial Container and
Drum Cleaning Industry as a potential candidate for future regulation.
TEC process wastewater includes all wastewaters associated with
cleaning the interiors of tanks including: tank trucks; rail tank cars;
intermodal tank containers; tank barges; and ocean/sea tankers used to
transport commodities or cargos that come into direct contact with the
tank or container interior. At those facilities subject to the TEC
guidelines and standards, TEC process wastewaters also include
wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors, equipment and
floor washings, and TEC-contaminated stormwater. TEC process wastewater
is defined to include only wastewater generated from a regulated TEC
subcategory. Therefore, TEC process wastewater does not include
wastewater generated from the hopper facilities, or from food grade
facilities discharging to a POTW.
EPA is adopting a low flow exclusion for this regulation. A
facility that discharges less than 100,000 gallons per year of TEC
process wastewater is not subject to the TEC guidelines. EPA is
adopting this exclusion due to the very low pollutant loadings
associated with facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per
year.
Facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year of TEC
process wastewater will remain subject to limitations and standards
established on a case-by-case basis using Best Professional Judgement
by the permitting authority.V. Technology Options Selected for Basis of Regulation
All of the treatment technologies considered for the final
regulations were discussed in the proposal. In the NOA, EPA presented
the costs, loads, and impacts for one option in the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory that were not presented in the proposal. This
option, consisting of equalization and oil/water separation only, was a
component of other options in the proposal but had not been evaluated
separately as a regulatory option.
The following sections summarize the technology options that EPA
considered for each subcategory. The costs, loads, economic impacts,
and environmental benefits for the selected options are also presented.
All results presented in this notice are expressed in 1998 dollars.A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory
EPA evaluated the following treatment options for the final
regulation:Option I: Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical Oxidation,
Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, Biological Treatment, and
Sludge Dewatering.
Option II: Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical Oxidation,
Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, Biological Treatment,
[[Page 49673]]
Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.
EPA proposed to establish BPT limits based on Option II, and to
establish BCT, BAT, and NSPS equivalent to BPT. In the proposal, EPA
stated that all three model facilities have equalization, coagulation/
clarification, biological treatment, and activated carbon in place. Two
of the three facilities in the cost model have sufficient treatment in
place; therefore, costs for additional monitoring only are attributed
to these facilities. The third facility was costed for flow reduction,
sludge dewatering, and monitoring. Flow reduction and sludge dewatering
generates net cost savings for the facility's entire treatment train.
In addition, these net cost savings are larger than the monitoring
costs incurred by the other two facilities.
EPA determined that Option II is economically achievable because it
will result in a net cost savings to the industry, and will not cause
any facility closures, revenue impacts, or employment impacts. EPA did
not identify any more stringent treatment technology option which it
considers to represent NSPS level of control.
EPA did not consider any changes to the option selected for this
subcategory in the NOA. EPA did not receive any comments specific to
option selection for direct discharging facilities in this subcategory
in the proposal or the NOA. EPA has therefore established BPT, BCT,
BAT, and NSPS based on Option II.
2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
EPA evaluated the following treatment options for the final
regulation:Option A: Equalization and Oil/Water Separation.
Option I: Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical Oxidation,
Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, and Sludge Dewatering.
Option II: Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical Oxidation,
Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, Activated Carbon
Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.
In response to comments received, EPA has also considered a
pollution prevention approach as a compliance option, as discussed
below.
EPA proposed to establish PSES and PSNS at Option II. In the NOA,
EPA presented revised costs, loads and impacts for each option, and
stated that Options I and A were also being considered for PSES and
PSNS. EPA is today promulgating a pollution prevention compliance
option for this subcategory as well as promulgating a traditional
compliance option (i.e. a set of numeric pretreatment standards) based
on Option I.
EPA received comments on the proposed technology options from the
affected industry and from other stakeholders. Several commenters
expressed concern that Option II, which includes activated carbon
adsorption, was an excessive and costly level of treatment for indirect
dischargers in the tank cleaning industry. Commenters also expressed
concern that Option A level of control may be inadequate to control
tank cleaning wastewater discharges. Several commenters were concerned
with the discrepancy of treatment options proposed for the truck and
rail segments of the industry.
EPA also received technical comment questioning the presence of
specific pesticides in raw tank truck cleaning wastewater, and the
pollutant removals associated with these pesticides for the various
options.
EPA also received comments from stakeholders that encouraged EPA to
explore the use of pollution prevention plans as an alternative to
extensive treatment. Generally, EPA seeks to encourage practices that
reduce pollutant generation or minimize the extent to which they enter
treatment systems because of the substantial opportunities for reducing
both treatment costs and the total pollutant load to the environment.
Specifically, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C.
13101 et seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) ``declares it to be
the national policy of the United States that pollution should be
prevented or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be
prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner,
whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled
should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible;
and disposal or release into the environment should be employed only as
a last resort * * *''.
As described in Section VIII.A of the proposal, EPA identified and
evaluated a number of pollution prevention controls applicable to the
industry, including the use of dedicated tanks, heel (residual cargo
remaining in tanks following unloading) minimization, water
conservation practices, and reduction in the toxicity and amount of
chemical cleaning solutions. These controls were also described in more
detail in Chapter 8 of the proposed Technical Development Document. EPA
identified these controls as voluntary practices that many facilities
in the industry were already incorporating. POTWs have also required
such practices as part of their local pretreatment requirements. For
example, some POTWs have required that facilities segregate specific
wastewaters such as cleaning solutions or pesticide residues, or have
prohibited the discharge of wastewaters associated with acid
brighteners.
EPA believes that pollution prevention and effective pollutant
management is an appropriate and effective way of reducing pollutant
discharges from this subcategory. Further, the Agency believes that
providing a pollution prevention compliance option may be less costly
than the technology options considered for regulation. Therefore EPA is
providing both a pollution prevention option based on development and
implementation of a Pollutant Management Plan (PMP) and a set of
numeric limits allows facility owners and operators to choose the less
expensive compliance alternative. Based on its economic analysis of
technology Option I, EPA believes that PSES and PSNS based on a choice
between effective pollution prevention and limits based on Option I is
economically achievable for this subcategory. For the portion of the
industry that already has extensive treatment in place, it may be more
cost effective to comply with the numeric limits. Conversely, for those
facilities already utilizing good pollution prevention practices and/or
operating in accordance with a PMP, it may be more cost effective to
use the pollution prevention compliance alternative.
Nationally applicable pretreatment standards are designed to
prevent pass through or interference with a POTW. The legislative
history of the 1972 Act indicates that pretreatment standards are to be
technology-based and analogous to the BAT effluent limitations
guidelines for removal of toxic pollutants. EPA conducted a pass
through analysis for the pollutants of concern. EPA determined that
several pollutants would pass through a POTW. The results of this
analysis are presented in Section VI. of this notice. Today's rule
includes numeric limits for several of these pollutants for facilities
which choose not to use the pollution prevention compliance option.
Without considering a pollution prevention compliance option,
Option A has a post-tax annualized cost of $5.2 million ($8.1 million
pre-tax) for 286 facilities. Option I's cost is $9.2 million ($14.4
million pre-tax), and Option II's cost is $20.9 million ($32.9 million
pre-[[Page 49674]]
tax). Costs for any of the options in combination with a pollution
prevention compliance option would likely be lower.
For the final regulation, EPA projects that there will be no
closures or employment impacts for any option (even without a Pollution
prevention compliance option) when a positive cost pass through
assumption is made. When zero cost pass through is assumed, EPA's
economic analysis indicates that 14 facilities may experience financial
stress at Option I, and that 22 facilities may experience financial
stress at Option II. At Option I, none of the 14 facilities
experiencing financial stress are small businesses; at Option II, 7 of
the 22 facilities experiencing financial stress are small businesses.
In addition to the financial stress analysis, EPA also evaluated
revenue impacts at small businesses. EPA projects that the compliance
cost would not be greater than three percent of revenue for any small
businesses at Option I, but would exceed that percentage for 14 small
business at Option II under the positive cost pass through assumption.
For the zero cost pass through assumption, 14 small businesses are
projected to exceed revenue impacts of three percent at Option A; 29
small businesses at Option I; and 36 small businesses at Option II.
Option A is projected to result in no monetized benefits. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option I will result in significantly
higher benefits than Option A, ranging from $1.5 million to $5.2
million annually. However, EPA estimates that Option II would not
result in any significant additional monetized benefits incremental to
Option I.
EPA also examined the projected pollutant removals and cost
effectiveness of each option. In assessing removals of toxic
pollutants, EPA estimates actual reductions that would be achieved by
the treatment option under consideration, adjusts these to account for
removals that occur at the POTW anyway, and then converts the actual
pounds removed to toxic pound equivalents using a standardized set of
toxic weighting factors. For Option A, EPA projects total removals for
this subcategory of 1,500 toxic pound equivalents. For Option I, EPA
projects total removals for this subcategory of 11,700 toxic pound
equivalents. For Option II, EPA projects total removals for this
subcategory of 20,900 toxic pound equivalents.
Section X of the preamble for the proposed rule describes EPA's
cost effectiveness analysis. EPA uses cost effectiveness to evaluate
the relative efficiency of each option in removing toxic pollutants.
The cost effectiveness of Option A is estimated to be $3,200/PE. The
average cost effectiveness of Option I is estimated to be $740/PE , and
the incremental cost effectiveness over Option A is estimated to be
$370/PE . The average cost effectiveness of Option II is estimated to
be $940/PE , and the incremental cost effectiveness over Option I is
estimated to be $1,200/PE .
EPA notes that these cost-effectiveness estimates do not include
any credit for reductions of a number of pesticides, herbicides, or
other toxic agents that may be present in TEC wastewater at some
facilities but that were not found at the time of EPA's sampling.
According to the detailed questionnaire responses, EPA notes that over
3,000 types of cargos are being cleaned at tank truck facilities.
However, absent better estimates, EPA based its analysis on those toxic
substances that were confirmed present by its sampling protocols. Based
on the number presented above, EPA was concerned that the cost
effectiveness estimates were high and the toxic removal estimates were
low when compared to those calculated for many of the primary
manufacturing industries for which EPA has promulgated pretreatment
standards.
As the Agency evaluated whether or not to establish pretreatment
standards for this subcategory, and at what technology option, EPA
compared its information on this subcategory to that for the Industrial
Laundries point source category (64 FR 45072), which EPA ultimately
decided not to regulate at the national level.
First, EPA found that the estimated pollutants were similarly low
for both industries. However, in contrast to the Industrial Laundries
decision, the TEC record identifies a wide range of pollutants of
concern to POTWs, and identified problems (past and recent) with TEC
facilities that have included interference and pass through, upsets due
to slug loads, not meeting local limits, and sludge contamination.
These problems have generally been addressed by the application of
appropriate local limits. Pretreatment authorities submitting comments
on the proposal generally supported regulation of this industry.
Already, 44% of the industry has been required to install technology
equivalent to Option I, and 86% of the industry has been required to
install technology equivalent to Option A.
Second, for industrial laundries, EPA estimated a reduction of 32
PE per facility at an average cost of $84,000 ($1998 post-tax) for the
preferred option among the technology options. EPA estimates that under
the preferred option for this TEC subcategory (Option I), a reduction
of 40 PE per facility would be achieved at an average cost of $30,000
($1998 post-tax).
Third, in terms of the cost effectiveness analysis, the
economically achievable options for both industries had costs per PE
that are high. However, the CE for laundries (at $2,360/PE) was
significantly higher than the CE for this subcategory of the TEC
industry (at $740/PE).
Finally, in terms of economic impacts, EPA determined that the
preferred option was economically achievable in both cases. However,
EPA also noted that 44 laundry facilities were projected to close under
the preferred option, and no firms were projected to experience stress.
No facility closures are projected under the preferred option for this
TEC subcategory, and no facilities were projected to experience
financial stress if they are able to pass some costs through to
customers. If the facilities were unable to pass costs through to
customers, 14 facilities are projected to occur financial stress.
EPA also notes that the cost-benefit analysis for the preferred
treatment option for the industrial laundries industry indicated that
the rule, if published, would have annual pre-tax costs of $131.2
million (1993$) and annual monetized benefits of $0.07-$0.35 million
(1993$). The Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory has an annual pre-
tax cost of $14.4 million and annualized monetized benefits of $1.5-
$5.2 million (1998$) annually.
In summary, EPA has determined that in some respects, this
subcategory is similar to the industrial laundries industry that EPA
decided not to regulate (e.g. small pollutant removals) but in other
respects it is significantly different (e.g. greater potential for POTW
interference and less significant economic impacts).
While EPA believes that pretreatment standards are appropriate for
the TEC industry, EPA acknowledges that costs for some facilities may
be high relative to removals. For the 14% of facilities with no
treatment in place, EPA estimated that the average cost per facility
could be as high as $100,000 per year on a pre-tax basis, and would
remove 67 PE per facility per year. The Agency also does not want to
establish an inflexible regulation that may not be able to offer the
most environmentally responsible yet cost effective solution to a
particular wastestream at a individual TEC facility. In light of this,
and considering the wide variety of tanker cargos accepted for
cleaning, EPA recognizes that one of the most[[Page 49675]]
successful means of reducing the discharge of pollutants in wastewater
may be pollution prevention and source reduction.
EPA evaluated potential regulatory structures for pollution
prevention practices and concluded that the Agency should promulgate a
regulatory option that would reduce the pollutant loadings being
discharged and also prevent pass through and interference, but that may
allow more opportunities for pollution prevention than nationally
applicable numeric pretreatment standards. In evaluating a pollution
prevention alternative, EPA considered a number of factors that
included public comments received, industry support, costs, and
environmental benefits. EPA believes that the pass through and
interference of pollutants of concern to EPA and to the pretreatment
authorities can be appropriately controlled through effective pollution
prevention and pollutant management tailored to the circumstances of
the individual facility through a Pollutant Management Plan. EPA
believes these pollutants can also be controlled through compliance
with the numeric limits based on technology Option I. EPA is thus
offering both options for compliance with PSES and PSNS.
EPA has had discussions with industry stakeholders and the U.S.
Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy and EPA believes that
it has sufficient support from stakeholders to proceed with this dual
approach, and that this approach will provide effective pollutant
reductions that prevent pass through, interference, and sludge
contamination at the POTWs.
EPA has chosen to establish a pollution prevention compliance
option, as well as tradition PSES and PSNS limits based on Option I.
EPA does not believe that the lower cost Option A removed enough toxics
to justify its selection as the basis for pretreatment standards.
Additionally, EPA agrees with comments received from pretreatment
authorities, including the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies (AMSA), that oil/water separation alone is not effective for
achieving appropriate reductions of the pollutants which may be
discharged by TEC facilities. AMSA also indicated its support for
effective pollution prevention practices as an alternative to numeric
limits for these facilities.
Although Option II removed significantly more pound equivalents
than Option I, Option II does not achieve significant incremental
reductions for any regulated pollutant and is not projected to result
in any increased monetized benefits. Also, EPA notes that Option II has
the potential to cause more economic impacts than Option I. EPA does
not believe that the considerable cost increase for Option II
incremental to Option I is justified. Therefore, EPA decided that
limits based on Option II are not appropriate for this subcategory.
EPA believes that a dual approach which offers facilities a choice
between Pollution prevention and compliance with numeric limits based
on Option I is economically achievable and will significantly reduce
pollutant loadings. Option I does not result in any projected closures,
even with a zero cost pass through assumption. Although 14 facilities
are projected to incur financial stress under this assumption, this is
a relatively small percentage of the subcategory population (two
percent of the industry) and none of these facilities are small
businesses. Under the assumption of some cost pass through to
customers, no facilities are projected to experience financial stress.
Additionally, EPA believes that it has responded to many commenters'
concerns by requiring similar levels of control for the truck and rail
subcategories and by providing the pollution prevention compliance
option for both subcategories and by omitting granular activated
carbon, a potentially costly treatment addition, from the selected PSES
and PSNS treatment option for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory. Also, EPA has made a finding of no barrier to entry
associated with Option I level of control for new sources (discussed in
Section VIII). Therefore, EPA is establishing PSES and PSNS based on a
dual approach involving a pollution prevention compliance option and
traditional limits based on Option I technologies.
The Agency believes that the implementation of a Pollutant
Management Plan that ensures that heels, chemicals, and mixtures that
are incompatible with POTW systems are not discharged to POTWs, and
ensures appropriate handling of such materials (by recycle, reuse,
effective pretreatment, or off-site treatment or disposal) would
provide comparable effluent reductions. Wastewaters resulting from heel
removals, prerinse solutions, and cleaning solutions normally contain
the highest concentrations of pollutants in TEC wastewater. Some
facilities will find it less costly to implement pollution prevention
and pollutant management controls, while others will find it less
costly to meet numeric limits. As a regulatory compliance alternative,
facility owners and operators would be given the flexibility to choose
the less expensive compliance alternative, i.e. either meeting the
specific numeric pretreatment standards, or by implementing a Pollutant
Management Plan.
The management plan would require facilities to implement
procedures for identifying cargos, the cleaning of which is likely to
result in discharges of pollutants that would be incompatible with
treatment at the POTW. This would include cargos containing pesticides,
herbicides, and other toxic compounds that are not effectively treated
by biological treatment. The plan would also require facilities to
fully drain heels from such cargos, segregate those heels from other
wastewaters, and handle them in an appropriate manner. Appropriate
handling of heels could include return of the heel to the customer,
off-site treatment or disposal, or pretreatment that has been
demonstrated to result in sufficient reductions to prevent pass through
or interference. The plan would likewise require facilities to prerinse
or presteam such cargos as appropriate, segregate the prerinse/presteam
wastewaters from other wastewaters as appropriate and handle in an
appropriate manner to ensure that they do not cause or contribute to a
discharge that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW.
Appropriate handling of prerinse/presteam wastewaters could include
recycle/reuse, off-site treatment or disposal, or pretreatment that has
been demonstrated to result in sufficient reductions to prevent pass
through or interference.
In addition, the plan would require that all spent cleaning
solutions be segregated as appropriate and handled in an appropriate
manner to ensure that they do not cause or contribute to a discharge
that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW. Spent cleaning
solutions include interior caustic washes, interior presolve washes,
interior detergent washes, interior acid washes, and exterior acid
brightener washes. Appropriate handling of spent cleaning solutions
could include regeneration of the solutions, off-site treatment or
disposal, or pretreatment that has been demonstrated to result in
sufficient reductions to prevent pass through or interference.
The plan would also require the appropriate recycling or reuse of
cleaning agents; the minimization of toxic cleaning agent use; and the
maintenance of appropriate records on heel management, prerinse/
presteam management, cleaning agent management, operator training, and[[Page 49676]]
proper operation and maintenance of any pretreatment systems.
The plans would also provide information on the volumes, content,
and chemical characteristics of cleaning agents used in cleaning or
brightening operations.
EPA has identified these pollution prevention practices through its
data collection efforts in support of this rulemaking, and EPA believes
that it has developed the most appropriate combination of Pollution
prevention practices that provides maximum flexibility while ensuring
significant pollutant reductions.B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
1. BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
EPA evaluated three treatment options for the final regulation:Option I: Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Biological Treatment, and
Sludge Dewatering.
Option II: Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation
(with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), Biological Treatment and Sludge
Dewatering.
Option III: Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation
(with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), Biological Treatment, Organo-
Clay/Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.
EPA proposed Option I for BPT, and proposed to establish BCT and
BAT equivalent to BPT. EPA proposed Option III for NSPS. EPA did not
receive any comments following the proposal or the NOA specific to
establishing limits for direct discharging facilities in this
subcategory.
All regulated toxic parameters were treated to the same level at
Options I, II, and III. As discussed in Section VI, EPA did not have
sampling data for direct dischargers in this subcategory because EPA
only identified one direct discharger and it does not have the
treatment technology used as the basis for BPT. EPA has therefore
relied on technology transfer from the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory to establish limits for conventionals, and data from
indirect dischargers in the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory to
establish limits for toxic pollutants. Although EPA believes that the
treatment in place at the one rail direct discharging facility
(consisting of oil/water separation, equalization, pH adjustment,
biological treatment, and a filter press) is sufficient to meet the
limitations, EPA has decided to establish BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS based
on Option II, which includes dissolved air flotation (DAF). EPA
believes that this is the most appropriate technology because the
dataset used to transfer limits (from both the rail indirect facilities
and the barge direct facilities) includes DAF treatment. Therefore, EPA
has included the additional costs of DAF treatment for the one direct
discharging rail facility, even though this has not changed the
limitations presented in the NOA.
As discussed in Section VIII.B.1.c of the proposal, EPA evaluated
the costs, loads, and impacts of the one model direct discharging
facility. EPA estimates that the cost of implementing Option I, for
monitoring only, is about $4,900 annually on a post-tax basis ($7,600
pre-tax). EPA's estimate of costs for Option II is $40,800 annually on
a post-tax basis ($59,000 pre-tax), and for Option III is $60,600
annually on a post-tax basis ($89,000 pre-tax). EPA projects that this
facility would not close or experience revenue impacts, employment
impacts, or financial stress at Option I or Option II level of control.
EPA's economic analysis indicates that Option III would have higher
costs for the existing facility used as the basis for today's
regulation. The single direct discharge facility used for analysis
would not close under Option III, but this facility would have
annualized costs that exceed three percent of annual revenue. The
results of the annualized costs to sales analysis shows a high impact
that should be avoided if possible since these additional costs would
not provide incremental pollutant removals in comparison to Option II.
In addition, the incremental economic impacts projected at Option
III may create a barrier to entry for new sources. Therefore, EPA does
not believe that there are additional removals or benefits to be
obtained by establishing NSPS at a more stringent level of control, and
EPA decided to establish NSPS equivalent to BPT, BCT, and BAT.
2. PSES and PSNS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
EPA considered three options for the final regulation:Option I--Oil/Water Separation.
Option II--Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation
(with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), and Sludge Dewatering.
Option III--Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation
(with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), Organo-Clay/Activated Carbon
Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.
EPA proposed Option I for PSES and Option III for PSNS. As
discussed in Section VIII.B.5.d of the proposal, the economic impacts
to the industry played a large role in EPA's selection of Option I for
pretreatment standards. EPA noted that its preliminary conclusion was
that Option II was projected to result in six facility closures and was
not considered to be economically achievable.
EPA received several comments on the pollutant control technologies
proposed for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA received
comments from several entities, including AMSA, who argued that oil/
water separation alone is not sufficient pretreatment for the
pollutants in Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory wastewaters.
Additionally, many commenters have expressed concern about the
discrepancy in treatment technology proposed for the rail and truck
facilities. Several commenters argued that the wastewater
characteristics are similar for truck and rail facilities, and that the
treatment options should therefore be similar for facilities which
potentially compete with each other.
EPA has determined that a Pollutant Management Plan is an
appropriate compliance alternative to the numerical pretreatment
standards also being promulgated in today's rule for the rail/chemical
and petroleum subcategory. As explained elsewhere in today's notice,
the Agency believes this Pollutant Management Plan alternative is
consistent with the CWA and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990; is
comparable to the numerical standards in terms of pollutant removal and
costs incurred by facilities; is economically achievable; and will
allow an appropriate level of flexibility to facility owners and
operators on how to best achieve a reduction in pollutants being
discharged to the POTW. The full discussion of the Agency's reasoning
is set forth in section V.A of today's notice.
In the proposal, EPA also noted this discrepancy, and noted that
there were many similarities between the truck and rail subcategory
wastewaters, and that the most significant reason for proposing
dissimilar technology options in the truck and rail subcategories was
due to economic considerations. EPA's analysis showed that several rail
facilities were unable to incur the costs of a more stringent
regulatory option without sustaining significant economic impacts.
However, all of the financially[[Page 49677]]
stressed rail facilities will now qualify for the low flow exclusion
(see Section III.C of this notice). Additionally, as discussed in
Section VI, EPA has reduced monitoring costs by establishing indicator
parameters. Removing low flow facilities and some monitoring costs from
EPA's analysis has affected the total costs, loads, and economic
impacts of the technology options for this subcategory.
For the final regulation, EPA estimates that Option I will have an
annualized cost of $589,000 post-tax ($897,000 pre-tax), Option II will
cost $1.0 million post-tax ($1.5 million pre-tax), and Option III will
cost $1.6 million post-tax ($2.5 million pre-tax). EPA projects that
Option I and Option II will both result in monetized benefits of
$54,000 to $285,000 annually, and that Option III would result in
benefits of $1.0 to $3.9 million annually.
EPA conducted a pass through analysis for the pollutants selected
for regulation under BAT. EPA determined that several pollutants would
pass through a POTW. The results of this analysis are presented in
Section VI. of this notice.
For Options I, II, and III, EPA anticipates no closures, revenue
impacts, or employment impacts at even the most conservative assumption
of no cost pass through. Additionally, EPA does not anticipate any
facilities will experience financial stress at Options I, II, or III.
EPA also considers the cost effectiveness to evaluate the relative
efficiency of each option in removing toxic pollutants. Option I is
projected to remove 6,600 pound equivalents, Option II will remove
7,300 pound equivalents, and Option III will remove 7,800 pound
equivalents.
EPA has decided to establish PSES and PSNS based on Option II.
Although Option III is projected to remove more pound equivalents and
also result in higher monetized benefits then Option II, Option III was
not demonstrated to achieve significant reductions incremental to
Option II for any regulated pollutant. The increase in monetized
benefits in Option II was due to the removal of several pesticides not
proposed for regulation. EPA has discussed its rationale for not
establishing limitations for pesticides in Section VI. Therefore, EPA
does not believe that the higher costs for Option III justify its
selection for pretreatment standards for new sources.
As noted in the NOA, the cost of Option II is 70 percent higher
than the costs for Option I, and the corresponding increase in pound
equivalents removed is approximately 10 percent. Comparatively, the
cost of Option III is 65 percent higher than the costs for Option II,
and the corresponding increase in pound equivalents removed is
approximately six percent. While this results in a relatively high
incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for both Options II and III, EPA
has decided to establish PSES based on Option II for the reasons
discussed above. Option II, which is analogous to Option I in the
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, achieves a significant
reduction in toxic loadings and results in no closures, financial
stress, or revenue impacts. Additionally, EPA has modified the proposal
to decrease costs for the industry, and the final costs for Option II
are roughly equivalent to the costs estimated for Option I at proposal.
EPA has therefore decided to establish PSES and PSNS based on Option
II.C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory
EPA considered two options for the final regulation:Option I: Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter Press,
Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering.
Option II: Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter Press,
Biological Treatment, Reverse Osmosis, and Sludge Dewatering.
EPA proposed Option I for BPT, and proposed to establish BCT, BAT
and NSPS equivalent to BPT. EPA estimates the annualized costs for
Option I at $89,500 annually post-tax ($146,300 pre-tax) and Option II
at $345,700 annually post-tax ($540,900 pre-tax). EPA estimates that
both Option I and Option II remove 19,300 pounds of BOD<INF>5</INF> and
TSS. Based on the treatment technologies in place at the model
facilities, coupled with the biological treatment system upgrades
estimated by EPA to achieve Option I performance levels, EPA predicts
that Option II would not result in any additional removal of toxic
pollutants because most pollutants are already treated to very low
levels, often approaching or below non-detect levels. EPA did not
receive any support for establishing BPT, BCT, BAT, or NSPS at Option
II.
EPA has therefore decided to establish BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS
based on Option I.
2. PSES and PSNS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory EPA considered three options for the final regulation:
Option I--Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, and Filter
Press.
Option II--Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter Press,
Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering.
Option III--Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter
Press, Biological Treatment, Reverse Osmosis, and Sludge Dewatering.
EPA proposed Option II for PSNS. EPA did not propose PSES for the
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory because EPA identified only one
facility discharging to a POTW. However, since the proposal, EPA has
identified four facilities which previously discharged directly to
surface waters and have since either switched or plan to switch
discharge status. EPA noted this change in discharge status for these
four barge facilities in the NOA, and EPA now estimates that there are
five facilities in EPA's model which discharge wastewater to a POTW.
EPA evaluated the treatment in place and levels of control
currently achieved by the model indirect discharging Barge/Chemical &
Petroleum facilities. EPA was able to evaluate effluent discharge
concentrations of BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, and oil and grease from each of
these model facilities (EPA did not have the data to evaluate the
discharge concentrations of other parameters). Based on the discharge
concentrations of these conventional pollutants, EPA believes that all
model indirect discharging facilities are meeting the levels of control
that would be established under PSES, and that the effluent
concentrations of other pollutants of interest would also be similarly
controlled.
Therefore, EPA estimates that the cost of implementing PSES
standards equivalent to PSNS would be solely for increased monitoring
costs, totaling approximately $67,000 (pre-tax) annually. EPA believes
that all indirectly discharging facilities have sufficient treatment in
place to meet standards that would be established under PSES. EPA
predicts that there would be no incremental removals or benefits
associated with establishing PSES standards. EPA has not received any
comments that disagreed with the Agency's assessment that existing
facilities would meet the standards.
EPA evaluated the pass through of pollutants regulated under BAT.
As was[[Page 49678]]
discussed at proposal for establishment of NSPS, and in the NOA for
SGT-HEM, EPA found that a number of pollutants would in fact pass
through a POTW based on BAT treatment. Due to the pass through of a
number of pollutants, and due to the number of facilities that have
switched discharge status since proposal, EPA concluded that it should
establish PSES and PSNS based on Option II. EPA believes that PSES is
necessary in order to establish similar levels of control for direct
and indirect dischargers, and especially to establish similar levels of
control for those facilities which may decide to switch discharge
status.
As noted under NSPS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory,
EPA believes that Option III, consisting of reverse osmosis treatment,
would not result in a significant reduction of toxic pollutants,
because most pollutants are already treated to low levels based on
Option II level of control. Option II was demonstrated to treat many
regulated pollutants to effluent levels approaching the detection
limit. EPA has therefore decided to establish PSES and PSNS based on
Option II.D. Food Subcategory
EPA proposed to establish separate subcategories for the Truck/
Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food subcategories due to the differences in
the amount of water generated per cleaning by truck, rail, and barge
facilities. The different volumes of wastewater were used to establish
distinct mass-based limits in each of the subcategories. However, EPA
is establishing concentration-based instead of mass-based limits,
making further subcategorization of food facilities by transportation
mode unnecessary.
1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Food Subcategory
EPA considered the following options for the final regulation:Option I--Oil/Water Separation.
Option II--Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Biological Treatment,
and Sludge Dewatering.
Based on screener survey results, EPA estimates that there are 19
direct discharging facilities in the Food Subcategory.
EPA proposed Option II for BPT, BCT, and NSPS. In the proposal, EPA
stated that no additional pollutant removals and no additional costs to
the industry were projected because all facilities identified by EPA
currently have the proposed technology in place. EPA has not received
any comment objecting to the assumptions or conclusions contained in
the proposal. EPA therefore continues to believe that all food grade
facilities currently have the proposed treatment technology in place,
and that Option II represents the average of the best treatment. EPA
has decided to establish BPT at Option II, and to establish BCT and
NSPS equivalent to BPT. Based on the analysis of existing facilities,
EPA concluded that there would be no barrier to entry for new sources
based on Option II. Additionally, EPA did not identify any treatment
technology for the Food Subcategory that would achieve significant
pollutant removals or would establish effluent limitations
significantly more stringent than those being established under BPT.
EPA is not establishing BAT because EPA did not identify toxic or non-
conventional pollutants at levels sufficient to merit regulation.
2. PSES and PSNS for the Food Subcategory
In the Agency's engineering assessment of pretreatment of
wastewaters for the Food Subcategory, EPA considered the types and
concentrations of pollutants found in raw wastewaters in this
subcategory. As expected, food grade facilities did not discharge
significant quantities of toxic pollutants to POTWs. In addition,
conventional pollutants present in the wastewater are amenable to
treatment at a POTW. As a result, EPA did not propose to establish
pretreatment standards for any of the food subcategories. Comments
received on the proposal predominantly supported EPA's regulatory
approach for the Food Subcategory. Therefore, EPA is not establishing
PSES or PSNS for the Food Subcategory in the final regulation.E. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and
Barge/Hopper Subcategories.
EPA did not propose to establish BPT, BAT, BCT, or NSPS regulations
for any of the hopper subcategories. EPA concluded that hopper
facilities discharge very few pounds of conventional or toxic
pollutants. This is based on EPA sampling data, which showed very few
priority toxic pollutants at treatable levels in raw wastewater.
Additionally, very little wastewater is generated from cleaning the
interiors of hopper tanks due to the dry nature of bulk materials
transported. EPA estimates that nine hopper facilities discharge 21
pound equivalents per year to surface waters, or about two pound
equivalents per year per facility. Comments on the proposal generally
supported EPA's conclusion on the hopper subcategories. Therefore, EPA
concluded that nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary and
hopper facilities will remain subject to limitations established on a
case-by-case basis using Best Professional Judgement.
2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper
Subcategories
EPA also did not propose to establish PSES or PSNS for any of the
hopper subcategories. EPA estimates that there are 42 indirect
discharging hopper facilities which discharge a total of 3.5 pound
equivalents to the nation's waterways, or less than one pound-
equivalent per facility. Additionally, EPA estimates that the total
cost to the industry to implement PSES would be greater than $350,000
annually. The estimated costs to control the discharge of these small
amounts of pound equivalents were not considered to be reasonable. EPA
also evaluated the levels of pollutants in raw wastewaters and
concluded that none were present at levels that are expected to cause
inhibition to the receiving POTW.
Therefore, EPA concluded that nationally-applicable regulations are
unnecessary and hopper facilities will remain subject to local
pretreatment limits as necessary to prevent pass through or
interference.VI. Development of Effluent Limitations
A. Selection of Pollutant Parameters for Final Regulation
EPA based its decision to select specific pollutants for regulation
on a rigorous evaluation of available sampling data. This evaluation
included factors such as the concentration and frequency of detection
of the pollutants in the industry raw wastewater, the relative toxicity
of pollutants as defined by their toxic weighting factors, the
treatability of the pollutants in the modeled treatment systems, and
the potential of the pollutants to pass through or interfere with POTW
operations. Particular attention has been given to priority pollutants
which have been detected at treatable levels. EPA has attempted to
select several pollutants which have been frequently detected at
sampled facilities, which are possible indicators of the presence of
similar pollutants, and whose control through some combination of
physical, chemical, and biological treatment will be indicative of a
well-operated
[[Page 49679]]
treatment system capable of removing a wide range of pollutants.
EPA proposed to establish limits for a list of pollutants that
included classical pollutants, semivolatile organics, and metals. EPA
solicited and received numerous comments from stakeholders on the
pollutants selected for regulation in each subcategory. In the NOA, EPA
presented several changes being considered based on the comments
received.
EPA did not propose to establish effluent limitations for any
pesticide, herbicide, dioxin, or furan. These pollutants were not found
in concentrations high enough to merit regulation, the cost associated
with monitoring for these parameters is very high, and EPA's sampling
data have shown that the discharge concentrations of pesticides,
herbicides, dioxins, and furans are generally treated by the proposed
technology options. In the case of dioxins and furans, the most highly
toxic congeners were treated to nondetect values based on oil/water
separation and coagulation/clarification. In its evaluation of
treatment technologies, EPA compared the TEC treatment data to known
characteristics of dioxins and furans, and to the correlation of TSS
and oil & grease removals. Dioxins and furans are lipophilic and
hydrophobic and are most often associated with suspended particulates
and/or oils in wastewater matrices. Treatment technologies for dioxins
and furans vary depending on the characteristics of the matrix. If
wastes such as oils and greases are present, dioxins will tend to bind
with the oil and can be effectively removed by treatments such as
dissolved air flotation. If oils are not present, dioxins will tend to
bind with particulates and can be effectively removed by treatments
such as clarification and filtration.
The removal efficiencies for dioxins and furans across oil/water
separation and coagulation/clarification ranged from 65-97 percent,
(they would be 100 percent if the effluent nondetect value were set at
zero), and paralleled the removal efficiencies of oil & grease and/or
TSS.
In summary, EPA decided not to establish limitations for dioxin or
furan congeners for several reasons: (1) the congeners found in TEC
wastewater are not priority pollutants and were found at very low
levels in raw wastewater, (2) the selected technology options were
demonstrated to treat dioxin and furans to nondetect levels (due to
control of TSS and oil and grease), and (3) dioxin and furan monitoring
is very expensive (monitoring alone would increase the cost per
facility by approximately $12,000 per year, compared to the average per
facility cost of the regulation of approximately $30,000 per year).
Several commenters disagreed with the Agency's conclusion and
thought that EPA should establish limitations for these parameters due
to their toxicity. However, most comments received by EPA supported
EPA's conclusion not to regulate these parameters due to the high costs
associated with monitoring and due to the fact that these pollutants
are generally treated by the technologies identified in this rule. EPA
has decided not to establish limitations for pesticides, herbicides,
dioxins, or furans in the final regulation. However, NDPES permits for
any individual TEC facility must include certain other pollutants in
given circumstances. For example, permits must include limitations that
are necessary to ensure compliance with water quality standards and
State requirements. See 40 CFR 122.44(d). Moreover, TEC industry
permittees must submit with their permit application detailed
monitoring information on an extensive list of pollutants. See 40 CFR
122.21(g)(7). Their permits must include technology-based limits for
any toxic pollutant which the permit writer determines is or may be
discharged at a level greater than the level which can be achieved by
treatment requirements appropriate to the permittee. The permit writer
would establish case-by-case limits for such pollutants. See 40 CFR
Part 125.3 (c)(3).
EPA proposed to establish limitations for chemical oxygen demand
(COD). EPA received numerous comments opposed to the Agency's
preliminary decision to regulate COD and, based on these comments, EPA
has decided to eliminate COD as a regulated pollutant. The majority of
comments received were from POTW operators who did not want EPA to
establish pretreatment standards for COD. The commenters believed that
COD pollutant loads generated from tank cleaning facilities were easily
treated biologically in a POTW. EPA has agreed with commenters that the
levels of COD generated from tank cleaning facilities are adequately
treated in a POTW and, thus, will not pass through or interfere with
its operation. Additionally, EPA believes COD would be adequately
controlled through the regulation of other conventional pollutants,
including BOD and oil and grease for direct dischargers. EPA did not
receive any comments in opposition to this change, and EPA has not
included limits for COD in the final regulation. Permit writers and
local authorities should carefully examine the concentration and/or
treatability of COD in TEC wastewater to determine if local limits are
necessary.
EPA received comments from pretreatment authorities that EPA should
regulate pollutants identified in TEC wastewater that may pass through
the POTW or which may accumulate in the POTW sludge. The commenter
specifically identified copper, lead, and mercury as pollutants of
concern to the POTW. The commenter was especially concerned that
mercury was identified in the proposal as a constituent of raw TEC
wastewater and was identified as a pollutant of concern for the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory, but was not proposed for regulation in either subcategory.
In response to these comments, EPA reevaluated the frequency of
detection, the level of concentrations found in raw wastewater, and the
pass through analysis for each of the regulated subcategories for the
pollutants copper, lead, and mercury.
In the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, neither copper, lead,
nor mercury was detected at significant concentrations in raw
wastewater to merit national regulation.
In the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, lead was detected at
very low concentrations and EPA determined that lead did not merit
national regulation. However, copper was detected in 10 out of 10
samples, with an average concentration of 1,100 <greek-m>g/L, and a
maximum concentration of 9,200 <greek-m>g/L. Due to the frequency of
detects, relatively high raw wastewater concentrations, and toxicity of
copper, EPA has promulgated effluent limitations for copper. EPA
conducted a pass through analysis, and determined that copper does pass
through a POTW. Therefore, EPA has established pretreatment standards
for copper. Mercury was detected 8 out of 10 times, with an average
concentration of 1.8 <greek-m>g/L and a maximum concentration of 5.0
<greek-m>g/L. Mercury was also determined to pass through a POTW. Due
to the high toxicity of mercury, the high frequency of detects,
relatively high raw wastewater concentrations, and pass through
analysis, EPA has promulgated effluent limitations and pretreatment
standards for mercury in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
In the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, mercury was detected
three out of six times, with an average concentration of 5.4
<greek-m>g/L and a maximum concentration of 81 <greek-m>g/L. Although
the detection frequency was only 50%, the raw wastewater concentrations
reached high enough[[Page 49680]]
levels to be of concern, especially for a pollutant as toxic as
mercury. Mercury was also determined to pass through a POTW. Therefore,
EPA has decided to promulgate effluent limitations and pretreatment
standards for mercury in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
Additionally, both lead and copper were detected at significant
concentrations in raw wastewater to merit regulation and were
determined to pass through a POTW. Due to the toxicity, frequency of
detects, and relatively high raw wastewater concentrations of lead and
copper, EPA has promulgated effluent limitations and pretreatment
standards for lead and copper.
EPA did not propose to regulate mercury in either the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory or the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory. However, mercury was identified as a pollutant of concern
in each of these subcategories and EPA developed long term averages and
variability factors for mercury at the time of proposal, which were
included in the proposed statistical support document (EPA-832-B-98-
014). In calculating limits for the final regulation, EPA has used the
same methodology as descibed in Section VIII of the proposal and as
finalized in Section VI of this notice. Based on comments, EPA has
concluded that it should establish effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards for mercury.
EPA also received comments from pretreatment authorities and
stakeholders on EPA's decision to establish limits for parameters such
as zinc and chromium which are found in potable water supply systems,
and which may be found at levels higher than the proposed limitations.
The commenters questioned if the presence of these parameters in TEC
wastewaters was the result of cleaning cargos, or the result of source
water contamination. The commenter noted that maximum contaminant
levels for zinc and chromium in drinking water are 5 mg/L and 0.1 mg/l,
respectively, and that the proposed limitations were low in comparison
to drinking water standards. In response, EPA evaluated sampling data
from TEC wastewater and source water from the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
Based on a data review of the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory, EPA concluded that one of the highest concentrations of
zinc found in truck/chemical process water was actually from source
water supplied from a domestic water distribution system. Furthermore,
all of the levels of zinc found in truck/chemical process water were
within the range of concentrations that the commenter describes as
being present in drinking water (i.e. less than 5 mg/l.) Therefore, EPA
has concluded that zinc is not a pollutant of concern for this
subcategory because the zinc levels present in dischargers from Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facilities may be due to source water
contamination rather than a direct result of cleaning tanks. Therefore,
EPA has decided not to promulgate effluent limitations or pretreatment
standards for zinc in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
However, the average raw wastewater concentration of chromium in raw
wastewater was 2.4 mg/L, and the maximum concentration was 18.6 mg/L.
The levels of chromium in the source water at these facilities was much
lower than raw wastewater concentrations, and were all less than 0.01
mg/L. Therefore, EPA concluded that chromium is a pollutant of interest
in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. However, based on the
discussion in Section VI.A of this notice, EPA is not promulgating
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for chromium. However,
with respect to the comment that the chromium limits are too low, EPA
has recalculated the limits based on additional self monitoring data
received from industry after publication of the NOA. The industry data
represents the effluent levels attainable at a facility over a much
longer time period that was represented by EPA's original data set.
Because this data more accurately accounts for the variability present
in tank cleaning wastewater, the limits have become less stringent.
In the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, the average raw
wastewater concentration of zinc was 19 mg/L, and the maximum
concentration found was 78.5 mg/L. The highest level of zinc in source
water at barge facilities was 0.114 mg/L. Additionally, all source
water concentrations of chromium were non-detect. Therefore, EPA
concluded that the levels of zinc and chromium present in barge process
water were the result of barge cleaning operations, and not due to
source water contamination. EPA concluded that, due to the high levels
present in raw wastewater, that zinc and chromium are pollutants of
interest. EPA has decided to retain the effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards for zinc and chromium in the Barge/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory.
EPA received numerous comments from POTWs, industry trade
associations, and affected facilities suggesting that EPA use oil and
grease (measured as HEM) and total petroleum hydrocarbons as indicator
pollutants for straight chain hydrocarbons proposed for regulation. As
descibed in the NOA, EPA has revised the name of ``total petroleum
hydrocarbons'' in Method 1664 to ``non-polar material'' to indicate
that the new test method is different from previous versions. (64 FR
26315 May 14, 1999). Non-polar materials are measured by Silica-gel
Treated n-Hexane Extractable Material (SGT-HEM). Oil and Grease
continues to be synonymous with the Method 1664 for n-Hexane
Extractable Material (HEM). EPA proposed to regulate oil and grease
(HEM) for direct discharging facilities, and non-polar oil and grease
(SGT-HEM) for indirect discharging facilities. As discussed in Section
XIII.G of the proposal, EPA recognizes that HEM analysis can include
edible oils (such as animal fats and vegetable oils) in addition to
petroleum-based oils, which are the primary constituents measured by
the SGT-HEM analysis. As discussed in Section VIII.B of the NOA, EPA
has deemed non-polar material (SGT-HEM) to pass through a POTW due to
the prevalence of petroleum-based compounds.
Many commenters argued that straight chain hydrocarbons are
components of oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar material (SGT-HEM),
and that their regulation as individual pollutants would be redundant
and would impose additional, unnecessary costs on the industry. These
straight chain hydrocarbons include n-Hexadecane, n-Hexacosane, n-
Decane, n-Docosane, n-Dodecane, n-Eicosane, n-Octacosane, n-Octadecane,
n-Tetracosane, n-Tetradecane, and n-Triacontane. EPA does not
necessarily agree that regulation of such individual pollutants is
redundant but has considered the comment and performed the evaluation
described below.
EPA reviewed the treatment effectiveness data collected in support
of this regulation, and found that the treatment effectiveness of these
parameters is related to the treatment effectiveness of HEM and SGT-
HEM. This is consistent with the chemical characteristics of HEM and
SGT-HEM, which by definition include the straight chain hydrocarbons as
constituents. In cases where oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar
material (SGT-HEM) were effectively controlled, all of the pollutants
listed above were treated to very low levels, such as in PSES/PSNS
Option II in the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, which consists
of oil/water separation and dissolved air flotation. This system
achieved substantial removals of HEM and SGT-[[Page 49681]]
HEM, along with the straight chain hydrocarbons listed above. Treatment
effectiveness in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
demonstrated similar results.
Additionally, EPA reviewed data from a characterization study of
the HEM and SGT-HEM test methods conducted for the Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards for the Industrial
Laundries Point Source Category (63 FR 71054 December 23, 1998). This
study was performed to characterize the individual constituents
measured by method 1664 (HEM and SGT-HEM); the study is available for
review in Section 16 of the regulatory record for the Industrial
Laundries Effluent Guideline. The laundries data demonstrate that the
HEM and SGT-HEM test methods provide a general indication of the
presence of the straight chain hydrocarbons listed above in wastewater
samples.
EPA proposed effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for
chromium in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory based on EPA
sampling data from one BAT facility. to develop long term averages. At
the time of the NOA (July 20, 1999) EPA continued to propose effluent
limitations and pretreatment standards for chromium based on the
proposal methodology.
However, during the comment period on the NOA, the industry
submitted additional self-monitoring data from the wastewater treatment
plant that EPA had sampled, and from which EPA had developed the
proposed limits. The data submitted by the facility demonstrated that
it would actually exceed the proposed limitations on numerous
occasions. Although a significant number of effluent monitoring
chromium concentrations were similar to the concentrations observed by
EPA during its sampling episode, a few data points were significantly
higher than the values observed by EPA.
The facility only provided EPA copies of its DMRs and associated
laboratory analyses, and did not provide any information on raw
wastewater concentrations, treatment system operation, or lists of
cleaning operations that were performed during the time of the self-
monitoring sampling. Therefore, EPA cannot evaluate the effectiveness
of treatment on those days with high chromium effluent concentrations.
However, based on its knowledge of the industry, EPA hypothesizes that
the high concentrations of chromium in the effluent are the result of
the facility performing exterior acid washes on those days. Exterior
acid washing is a common service that tank truck facilities provide to
their customers to brighten and remove the tarnish from the chrome
parts of a tank truck. This service leaches chromium from the external
truck parts.
On the days that EPA sampled the facility, it did not perform acid
brightener washes. Therefore EPA's sampling data did not include high
concentrations of chromium. EPA believes that its chromium data is not
representative of the practices that may be performed by tank truck
facilities, and that the chromium limits based on EPA's sampling data
may not be achievable for facilities that are performing acid washes
for their customers.
However, because the facility provided no data about its raw
wastewater concentrations, treatment effectiveness, or treatment unit
operations on the days it reported self-monitoring data, EPA does not
believe that it would be appropriate to establish long term averages
based on the industry supplied self monitoring data. EPA is unable to
evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment system.
Therefore, EPA has decided not to promulgate the effluent
limitations and pretreatment standards for chromium in the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and leave the establishment of any
chromium limitations and standards to the BPJ of the permit writer.
As described in detail in Section X of this notice, EPA has spent a
considerable amount of effort in developing an alternative pollution
prevention option in lieu of national pretreatment standards for the
industry. Specific to the concern of chromium in tank truck washwater,
and realizing the potential for pollution prevention practices in lieu
of national numeric standards, EPA has included in the P2 practices the
segregation of exterior acid brighteners from other wastewaters, and
has specified that these wastewaters must be handled in an appropriate
manner to ensure that they do not cause or contribute to a discharge
that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW. While EPA is not
promulgating this pollution prevention alternative for chromium for
facilities that decided to meet the numeric limitations, EPA believes
that the control authority may wish to incorporate pollution prevention
in lieu of BPJ numeric limitations for chromium. EPA has received
comments from a POTW that currently employs such a pollution prevention
practice in order to prevent high levels of chrome from being
discharged to its system.
Due to concerns about its own data, insufficient documentation of
the industry's self monitoring data, inadequate time for additional
field sampling and public notice of any sampling efforts, and the
opportunities for appropriate pollution prevention practices, EPA is
not establishing limitations or pretreatment standards for chromium and
the control authority may establish BPJ chromium standards, or require
chromium pollution prevention practices, based on an evaluation of site
specific factors.
For direct discharging facilities, EPA is establishing limitations
for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory for BOD<INF>5</INF>,
TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), Copper, Mercury, and pH. For the Rail/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is establishing limitations for
BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), Fluoranthene, Phenanthrene,
and pH. For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is
establishing limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and Grease
(HEM), Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Zinc, and pH.
Additionally, EPA is establishing limits for the Food Subcategory for
BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), and pH.
Finally, EPA conducted a pass-through analysis on the pollutants
selected for regulation under BPT and BAT to determine if the Agency
should establish pretreatment standards for any pollutant. (The pass-
through analysis is not applicable to conventional parameters such as
BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, and Oil and Grease (HEM). EPA is establishing
pretreatment standards for those pollutants which the Agency has
determined to pass through a POTW. In addition, as discussed in the
NOA, EPA has concluded that non-polar material (SGT-HEM) does pass
through a POTW in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum, Rail/Chemical &
Petroleum, and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. EPA did not
receive any comments on this pass through determination, and EPA has
retained its conclusion for the final regulation.
Based on the pass-through analysis, EPA is establishing PSES and
PSNS in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory for non-polar
material (SGT-HEM), Copper and Mercury. EPA is establishing PSES and
PSNS in the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory for non-polar
material (SGT-HEM), Fluoranthene, and Phenanthrene. Finally, EPA is
establishing PSES and PSNS in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory for non-polar material (SGT-HEM), Cadmium, Chromium,
Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, and Zinc.
Regulated facilities can meet the final limitations through the use
of any[[Page 49682]]
combination of physical, chemical, or biological treatment, or
implementation of pollution prevention strategies (e.g., good heel
removal and water conservation). Additional information on the
development of effluent limitations and the technology options
considered for regulation is included in Section VIII of the proposed
rule, Section V of this notice and the Technical Development Document.
B. Calculation of Effluent Limitations
1. Changes in Methodology Since Proposal
The data and methodology used to calculate effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards are located in Section 21 of the regulatory
record. The data and methodology are the same as proposed with several
exceptions.
One, EPA has calculated concentration-based instead of mass-based
limits. EPA received many comments on the proposal criticizing EPA for
proposing mass-based standards. EPA described these comments in the NOA
and described an alternative methodology which would establish
concentration-based limits. EPA received almost unanimous comment in
support of concentration-based limits and has adopted concentration-
based limits for the final regulation.
Two, EPA has used data provided by industry to calculate final
effluent limitations. EPA used data from two additional Barge/Chemical
& Petroleum facilities for the calculation of BOD<INF>5</INF> and TSS
limits, as discussed in Section II of the NOA. EPA has received no
comment on the use of this additional data, and EPA has continued to
use these data for developing the final BOD<INF>5</INF> and TSS
limitations. EPA has used additional data from one Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory facility for the calculation of variability
factors for copper, and mercury. The data provided consisted of self
monitoring data for a facility that was sampled by EPA and used to
calculate proposed effluent limitations. EPA had already determined
this site to represent BAT treatment. EPA has used this additional
self-monitoring data to determine variability factors because it
represents treatment performance over a much longer time period (4
years) than was demonstrated from EPA sampling data. The complete
dataset, including lab reports and certified monitoring reports, can be
found in Section 15.2.2 of the regulatory record.
Third, EPA has used the pollutant-specific variability factor where
available, and then calculated group and fraction-level variability
factors by taking a median of all pollutants effectively removed in a
chemical class, rather than using the median of only those pollutants
selected for regulation in a chemical class. EPA believes this revised
methodology is appropriate because the Agency believes that all
pollutants in a chemical class will behave similarly, regardless of
whether or not it is selected for regulation. This change was also
presented in the NOA, and EPA did not receive any comment on this
revised methodology. EPA has adopted this methodology for the final
regulation.
Fourth, EPA has used technology transfer to establish PSES
standards for non-polar material (SGT-HEM) in the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory. EPA proposed pretreatment standards for SGT-HEM
in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory based on the data from two Truck/
Chemical facilities. However, EPA feels that the SGT-HEM standards
developed for this subcategory may not be achievable, because the raw
wastewater concentrations at these two facilities were 65 mg/L and 61
mg/L, whereas the average raw wastewater concentration for the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum subcategory was measured to be 150 mg/L. EPA is
aware that some facilities in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory may be generating wastewater with significantly higher
concentrations of oil and grease than EPA considered in the proposed
limitations. Therefore, EPA transferred standards for SGT-HEM from
similar treatment technologies operated in the Rail/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory. As mentioned previously, this system consisted
of oil/water separation followed by dissolved air flotation (DAF) and
achieved 98 percent removal of HEM for wastewater that had an influent
concentration of 1,994 mg/L. For SGT-HEM, the system achieved a 97
percent removal for wastewater that had an average influent
concentration of 206 mg/L. EPA believes that technology transfer of
SGT-HEM establishes limitations that are achievable for all facilities
in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. As discussed in Section
III.F and VI.A, EPA is establishing HEM (for direct dischargers) and
SGT-HEM (for indirect dischargers) as indicator pollutants for several
other constituents in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
As in the proposal, EPA has continued to use technology transfer to
establish BPT limits for conventional pollutants BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS,
and oil and grease (HEM) in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum and Rail/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. EPA does not have sampling data
from a facility operating BPT biological treatment in either the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum or Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories.
Therefore, EPA has transferred effluent limitations for
BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, and oil and grease (HEM) from a biological system
in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, as was described in
Section II of the NOA.
2. Methodology for Final Limitations
EPA based the effluent limitations and standards in today's notice
on widely-recognized statistical procedures for calculating long-term
averages and variability factors. The following presents a summary of
the statistical methodology used in the calculation of effluent
limitations.
Effluent limitations for each subcategory are based on a
combination of long-term average effluent values and variability
factors that account for variation in day-to-day treatment performance
within a treatment plant. The long-term averages are average effluent
concentrations that have been achieved by well-operated treatment
systems using the processes described in Section V (Technology Options
Selected for Basis of Regulation). The variability factors are values
that represent the ratio of a large value that would be expected to
occur only rarely to the long-term average. The purpose of the
variability factor is to allow for normal variation in effluent
concentrations. A facility that designs and operates its treatment
system to achieve a long-term average on a consistent basis should be
able to comply with the daily and monthly limitations in the course of
normal operations.
The variability factors and long-term averages were developed from
a database composed of individual measurements on treated effluent
based on EPA sampling data and from industry supplied data. EPA
sampling data reflects the performance of a system over a three to five
day period, although not necessarily over consecutive days.
The long-term average concentration of a pollutant for a treatment
system was calculated based on either an arithmetic mean or the
expected value of the distribution of the samples, depending on the
number of total samples and the number of detected samples for that
pollutant at that facility. A delta-lognormal distributional assumption
was used for all subcategories except the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory where the arithmetic mean was used. The pollutant long-term[[Page 49683]]
average concentration for a treatment technology was the median of the
long-term averages from the sampled treatment systems within the
subcategory using the proposed treatment technology.
EPA calculated variability factors by fitting a statistical
distribution to the sampling data. The distribution was based on an
assumption that the furthest excursion from the long-term average (LTA)
that a well operated plant using the proposed technology option could
be expected to make on a daily basis was a point below which 99 percent
of the data for that facility falls, under the assumed distribution.
The daily variability factor for each pollutant at each facility is the
ratio of the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of the daily
pollutant concentration values divided by the expected value of the
distribution of the daily values. The pollutant variability factor for
a treatment technology was the mean of the pollutant variability
factors from the facilities with that technology.
There were several instances where variability factors could not be
calculated directly from the TEC database because there were not at
least two effluent values measured above the minimum detection level
for a specific pollutant. In these cases, the sample size of the data
is too small to allow distributional assumptions to be made. Therefore,
in order to assume a variability factor for a pollutant, the Agency
transferred variability factors from other pollutants that exhibit
similar treatability characteristics within the treatment system.
In order to do this, pollutants were grouped on the basis of their
chemical structure and published data on relative treatability. The
median pollutant variability factor for all pollutants within a group
at that sampling episode was used to create a group-level variability
factor. When group-level variability factors were not able to be
calculated, groups that were similar were collected into analytical
method fractions and the median group-level variability factor was
calculated to create a fraction-level variability factor. Group-level
variability factors were used when available, and fraction-level
variability factors were used if group-level variability factors could
not be calculated. For the sampling episodes in the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory, there were not enough data to calculate
variability factors at any level from EPA sampling data and