|
 |
|
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Point Source Category
[Federal Register: June 25, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 122)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34685-34746]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25jn98-53]
[[Page 34685]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
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; Proposed Rule
[[Page 34686]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 442
[FRL-6100-6]
RIN 2040-AC23
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Point Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed regulation establishes technology-based effluent
limitations guidelines for the discharge of pollutants into waters of
the United States and into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) by
existing and new facilities that perform transportation equipment
cleaning operations. Transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) facilities
are defined as those facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning
the interior of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail tank cars,
closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers, inland tank
barges, closed-top hopper barges, ocean/sea tankers, and other similar
tanks (excluding drums and intermediate bulk containers) used to
transport materials or cargos that come into direct contact with the
tank or container interior. Facilities which do not engage in cleaning
the interior of tanks are not considered within the scope of this
proposal.
EPA is proposing to subcategorize the TEC Point Source Category
into 11 subcategories based on types of cargos carried and
transportation mode. EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations
for existing facilities and new sources discharging wastewater directly
to surface waters in the following subcategories: Truck/Chemical, Rail/
Chemical, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, Truck/Food, Rail/Food and Barge/
Food Subcategories.
EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment standards for existing
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the
following subcategories: Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical
Subcategories. Additionally, EPA is proposing to establish effluent
limitations for new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
EPA is proposing not to establish effluent limitations or
pretreatment standards for existing or new facilities in the Truck/
Petroleum, Rail/Petroleum, Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper
Subcategories. Also, EPA is proposing not to establish pretreatment
standards for existing or new sources in the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and
Barge/Food Subcategories because the pollutants generated by these
subcategories are amenable to treatment in a Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW).
This proposal would not apply to wastewater discharges from
cleaning operations located at industrial facilities regulated under
other Clean Water Act effluent guidelines, provided that the facility
cleans only tanks containing cargos or commodities generated or used
on-site, or by a facility under the same corporate structure.
The wastewater flows covered by the rule include all contact
washwaters which have come into direct contact with the tank or
container interior including pre-rinse cleaning solutions, chemical
cleaning solutions, and final rinse solutions. Additionally, the rule
covers wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors, equipment
and floor washings, and TEC contaminated wastewater at those facilities
subject to the TEC guidelines and standards. Compliance with this
proposal is estimated to reduce the discharge of priority pollutants by
at least 100,000 pounds per year and result in recreational benefits of
$1.8 million to $6.3 million in 1997 dollars. Additional non use
benefits are projected to range from $ 885,000 to $3.2 million.
Compliance with this proposal is expected to result in a total pretax
compliance cost of $37.5 million annually.
DATES: Comments on the proposal must be received by September 23, 1998.
In addition, EPA will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, August
18, 1998, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments and supporting data on this proposal
to: John Tinger, US EPA, (4303), 401 M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
The public hearing covering the rulemaking will be held at the EPA
headquarters auditorium, Waterside Mall, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC.
Persons wishing to present formal comments at the public hearing should
have a written copy for submittal.
The public record is available for review in the EPA Water Docket,
401 M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The public record for this
rulemaking has been established under docket number W-97-25, and
includes supporting documentation, but does not include any information
claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). The record is
available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. For access to docket materials, please call
(202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information
contact Mr. John Tinger at (202) 260-4992. For additional economic
information contact Mr. George Denning at (202) 260-7374.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities: Entities potentially
regulated by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... Facilities that clean the interiors
of tank trucks, rail tank cars, or
barges that have been used to
transport cargos and that are not
already covered by Clean Water Act
effluent guidelines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in Section III of the proposed rule.
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed for technical information
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Supporting Documentation
The regulations proposed today are supported by several major
documents:
1. ``Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Category'' (EPA-821-B-98-011). Hereafter referred to as the Technical
Development Document, the document
[[Page 34687]]
presents EPA's technical conclusions concerning the proposal. EPA
describes, among other things, the data collection activities in
support of the proposal, the wastewater treatment technology options,
wastewater characterization, and the estimation of costs to the
industry.
2. ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category''
(EPA-821-B-98-012).
3. ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Category'' (EPA-821-B-98-013).
4. ``Statistical Support Document of Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Category'' (EPA-821-B-98-014).
5. ``Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Category'' (EPA-821-B-98-015).
How to Obtain Supporting Documents: All documents are available
from the Office of Water Resource Center, RC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone (202) 260-7786 for the
voice mail publication request. The Technical Development Document can
also be obtained through EPA's Home Page on the Internet, located at
WWW.EPA.GOV/OST/RULES. The preamble and rule can also be obtained at
this site.
Table of Contents
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Section 304(m) Requirements
C. Pollution Prevention Act
III. Scope of the Proposed Regulation
IV. Profile of the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry
A. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Facilities
B. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Processes
C. Regulatory History for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Industry
V. Summary of Data Collection Activities
A. Preliminary Data Summary
B. Development of TECI Site Identification Database
C. Survey Questionnaires
1. 1993 Transportation Equipment Equipment Cleaning Industry
Screener Questionnaire
2. 1994 Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry Detailed
Questionnaire
D. Development of National Population Estimates
E. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling Program
VI. Industry Subcategorization
A. Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization
1. Cleaning Processes
2. Tank Type Cleaned
3. Cargo Type Cleaned
4. Water Use Practices
5. Wastewater Characteristics
6. Facility Age
7. Facility Size
8. Geographical Location
9. Water Pollution Control Technologies
10. Treatment Costs
11. Non-water Quality Impacts
B. Selection of Subcategorization Approach
VII. Wastewater Generation and Characteristics
VIII. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Description of Available Technologies
1. Pollution Prevention Controls
2. Flow Reduction Technologies
3. End-of-Pipe Wastewater Treatment Technologies
B. Technology Options Considered for Basis of Regulation
1. BPT Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Introduction
b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
g. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
2. BCT Technology Options Considered and Selected
3. BAT Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
b. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
c. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
d. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
e. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
f. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
4. NSPS Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Introduction
b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
g. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
5. PSES Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Introduction
b. Pass-Through Analysis
c. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
d. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
e. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
f. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
g. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
h. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
6. PSNS Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Introduction
b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories
g. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
C. Development of Effluent Limitations
IX. Costs and Pollutant Reductions Achieved by Regulatory
Alternatives
A. Methodology for Estimating Costs
B. Methodology for Estimating Pollutant Reductions
X. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Economic Impact Methodology
1. Introduction
2. Methodology Overview
C. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts
1. Number of Facilities Incurring Costs
2. Total Costs and Impacts of the Proposed Rule
a. Introduction
b. Impacts From PSES
c. Impacts From BPT, BCT, and BAT
d. Impacts From PSNS
e. Impacts from NSPS
3. Economic Impacts of Accepted and Rejected Options
4. Small Business Analysis
D. Cost-Benefit Analysis
E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
XI. Water Quality Impacts of Proposed Regulations
A. Characterization of Pollutants
B. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
C. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
D. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
XII. Non-Water Quality Impacts of Proposed Regulations
A. Energy Impacts
B. Air Emission Impacts
C. Solid Waste Impacts
1. Wastewater Treatment Sludge
2. Waste Oil
3. Spent Activated Carbon
4. Spent Organo-Clay
XIII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives
A. Summary of Public Participation
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
C. Executive Order 12866 (OMB Review)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
[[Page 34688]]
XIV. Regulatory Implementation
A. Applicability
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
C. Variances and Modifications
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
2. Permit Modifications
3. Removal Credits
D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and
Monitoring Requirements
E. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
XV. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation
B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
XVI. Guidelines for Comment Submission of Analytical Data
A. Types of Data Requested
B. Analytes Requested
C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This
Notice
I. Legal Authority
These regulations are proposed under the authority of Sections 301,
304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311,
1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters'' (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act
confronts the problem of water pollution on a number of different
fronts. Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions
on the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various
industrial, commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) (Section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or
interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are
designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial
dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition,
POTWs are required to implement local treatment limits applicable to
their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements
(40 CFR 403.5).
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits;
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
In the guidelines for an industry category, EPA defines BPT
effluent limits for conventional, priority,<SUP>1</SUP> 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 statue explicitly restricted BPT
limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water
Act of 1997 withits requirement for point sources to achieve best
available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic
pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority
toxic pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines
continue to include limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section
304(b)(4) of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT
technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources. BCT
is not an additional limitation, but replaces Best Available Technology
(BAT) for control of conventional pollutants. In addition to other
factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (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).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section
304(b)(2) of the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best
existing economically achievable performance of direct discharging
plants in the industrial subcategory or category. The factors
considered in assessing BAT include the cost and economic impact of
achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities
involved, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the control
technology, potential process changes, non-water quality impacts
(including energy requirements), and such factors as the Administrator
deems appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded to these factors. An additional
statutory factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability.
Generally, the achievability is determined on the basis of the total
cost to the industrial subcategory and the overall effect of the rule
on the industry's financial health. BAT limitations may be based upon
effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's
processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing performance is
uniformly inadequate, BAT may be based upon technology transferred from
a different subcategory within an industry or from another industrial
category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls,
even when these technologies are not common industry practice.
[[Page 34689]]
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the
best available demonstrated control technology (BDAT). New facilities
have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production
processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS
should represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction attainable
through the application of the best available demonstrated control
technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and
priority pollutants). In determining the BADT, EPA is directed to take
into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any
non-water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section 307(b)
of the CWA
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). The CWA authorizes
EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass
through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes at POTWs.
Pretreatment standards are technology-based and analogous to BAT
effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found
at 40 CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of
pass-through and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all
non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(b) of the
CWA
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of
pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to
incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
B. Section 304(m) Requirements
Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987,
requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) reviewing and revising
existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (``effluent
guidelines'') and (2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January
2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80) that
established schedules for developing new and revised effluent
guidelines for several industry categories. One of the industries for
which the Agency established a schedule was the Transportation
Equipment Cleaning Industry.
In 1992, EPA entered into a Consent Decree requiring proposal and
final agency action of effluent limitations guidelines and standards
final rule for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry (NRDC v.
Browner D.D.C. 89-2980). In December of 1997, the Court modified the
decree revising the deadlines for proposal to May 15, 1998 and a
deadline of June 15, 2000 for final action.
C. Pollution Prevention Act
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et
seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) ``declares it to be the
national policy of the United States that pollution should be prevented
or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should
be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible;
pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an
environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or release
into the environment should be employed only as a last resort * * *''
(Sec. 6602; 42 U.S.C. 13101 (b)). In short, preventing pollution before
it is created is preferable to trying to manage, treat or dispose of it
after it is created. The PPA directs the Agency to, among other things,
``review regulations of the Agency prior and subsequent to their
proposal to determine their effect on source reduction'' (Sec. 6604; 42
U.S.C. 13103(b)(2)). This effluent guideline was reviewed for its
incorporation of pollution prevention.
According to the PPA, source reduction reduces the generation and
release of hazardous substances, pollutants, wastes, contaminants, or
residuals at the source, usually within a process. The term source
reduction ``include[s] equipment or technology modifications, process
or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products,
substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping,
maintenance, training or inventory control. The term ``source
reduction'' does not include any practice which alters the physical,
chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant through a process or activity
which itself is not integral to or necessary for the production of a
product or the providing of a service.'' 42 U.S.C. 13102(5). In effect,
source reduction means reducing the amount of a pollutant that enters a
waste stream or that is otherwise released into the environment prior
to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or disposal.
EPA has evaluated pollution prevention related activities involving
the management of heels (residual material) in the Transportation
Equipment Cleaning (TEC) Industry. During the data collection phase of
the development of the proposed rule, a number of potential pollution
prevention practices and technology applications were identified.
Discussion of the pollution prevention technologies and practices and
their uses with respect to this proposed rule are contained in Section
VI of this preamble and in the Technical Development Document.
III. Scope of the Proposed Regulation
EPA is today proposing effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges from facilities
engaged in cleaning the interiors of tanks including, but not limited
to: tank trucks; rail tank cars; intermodal tank containers; inland
tank barges; and ocean/sea tankers used to transport commodities that
come into direct contact with the tank or container interior.
Facilities which do not engage in cleaning the interior of tanks are
not considered within the scope of this proposal.
EPA is proposing to subcategorize the TEC point source category
into 11 subcategories based on types of cargos carried and
transportation mode. The subcategories proposed for the TEC point
source category are set forth below. Further details and definitions of
EPA's subcategorization approach are in Section VI of this notice.
<bullet> Subcategory A: Truck/Chemical;
<bullet> Subcategory B: Rail/Chemical;
<bullet> Subcategory C: Barge/Chemical & Petroleum;
<bullet> Subcategory D: Truck/Petroleum;
<bullet> Subcategory E: Rail/Petroleum;
<bullet> Subcategory F: Truck/Food;
<bullet> Subcategory G: Rail/Food;
<bullet> Subcategory H: Barge/Food;
<bullet> Subcategory I: Truck/Hopper;
<bullet> Subcategory J: Rail/Hopper; and
<bullet> Subcategory K: Barge/Hopper.
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations for existing
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater
[[Page 34690]]
directly to surface waters in the following subcategories: Truck/
Chemical, Rail/Chemical, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, Truck/Food, Rail/
Food and Barge/Food.
EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment standards for existing
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the
Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical Subcategories. Additionally, EPA is
proposing to establish effluent limitations for new sources discharging
wastewater to POTWs in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. The
following table presents the regulatory approach proposed in today's
notice.
Table 1.--Subcategories Proposed for Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT or
Subcategory BCT BAT NSPS PSES PSNS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: Truck/Chemical............................................. X X X X X
B: Rail/Chemical.............................................. X X X X X
C: Barge/Chemical & Petroleum................................. X X X ........ X
D: Truck/Petroleum............................................ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
E: Rail/Petroleum............................................. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
F: Truck/Food................................................. X ........ X ........ ........
G: Rail/Food.................................................. X ........ X ........ ........
H: Barge/Food................................................. X ........ X ........ ........
I: Truck/Hopper............................................... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
J: Rail/Hopper................................................ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
K: Barge/Hopper............................................... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The wastewater flows covered by the proposed rule include all
washwaters which have come into direct contact with the tank or
container interior including pre-rinse cleaning solutions, chemical
cleaning solutions, and final rinse solutions. Additionally, the rule
would cover wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors,
equipment and floor washings, and TEC contaminated wastewater at those
facilities subject to the TEC guidelines and standards.
EPA is proposing not to establish effluent limitations or
pretreatment standards for existing or new facilities in the following
subcategories: Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum. Initially, in its
assessment of the industry, EPA analyzed the removals, benefits and
costs of establishing guidelines for the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/
Petroleum Subcategories. EPA has determined that very few pounds of
toxic pollutants are being discharged by existing facilities in the
Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. The pollutant loads
and technology options analyzed for these subcategories are further
discussed in Section VIII of today's notice. The low pollutant loadings
associated with these subcategories are, in part, due to the small
volumes of wastewater discharged by these facilities, which range from
900 to a maximum of 175,000 gallons per year. Based on this analysis,
EPA preliminarily concluded that there is no need to develop nationally
applicable regulations for these subcategories. Rather, direct
dischargers will remain subject to effluent limitations established on
a case by case basis using best professional judgement, and indirect
dischargers may be subject to local pretreatment limits as necessary to
prevent pass-through or interference.
EPA recognizes the limitations of currently available data and the
impact of assumptions on the subsequent conclusions, especially due to
the lack of available data on raw wastewater characteristics on the
Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, as described in
Section VII of this notice. EPA solicits data and comments which may
support or refute the Agency's conclusion that wastewater generated in
the petroleum subcategories does not contain significant toxic
loadings. EPA is also concerned about the difficulty of determining
whether particular cargos fall into the chemical or petroleum
subcategories. As explained below, and in EPA's proposed
subcategorization approach, EPA is soliciting comment on an alternative
subcategorization approach that would combine the petroleum and
chemical subcategories.
EPA realizes that much of the TEC industry is characterized by each
facility accepting and cleaning a wide range of commodities and cargos
which may vary on a daily, seasonal, or yearly basis. EPA raises the
issue that it may be difficult to determine the limits appropriate to a
particular facility due to the changing nature of the cargos being
accepted by a facility. In this notice, EPA has provided definitions of
each subcategory and each type of cargo. EPA believes it has
established definitions that are most applicable to the industry, and
has subsequently modeled wastewater treatment performance and developed
effluent limitations applicable to each subcategory. However, EPA also
acknowledges that there may be some difficulties associated with
implementing this rule as proposed. Specifically, EPA is concerned that
there may be difficulties associated with the determination of whether
a facility is cleaning transportation equipment that contained
``petroleum'' or ``chemical'' commodities. EPA recognizes that there
are many products, especially petrochemical products, being transported
by the industry which may not clearly be defined as a ``chemical'' or a
``petroleum'' product. Additionally, according to the proposed
subcategorization approach, there may be significant overlap of the two
subcategories.
EPA notes from its data collection activities that 92 percent of
not previously regulated facilities classified in the Rail/Chemical
Subcategory also accept commodities characterized as ``petroleum,'' and
that 52 percent of facilities classified in Truck/Chemical Subcategory
also accept commodities characterized as ``petroleum.'' EPA solicits
comment on the difficulty of defining petroleum and chemical products
from a regulatory standpoint.
Because of potential difficulty in defining petroleum and chemical
products, in order to ease implementation of this rule, EPA considered
establishing one set of effluent limitations for each mode of
transportation (e.g., truck, rail, barge) which cleans chemical and/or
petroleum cargos. The rationale for the proposed subcategories is
further discussed in Section VI of this notice. EPA is soliciting
comment on potential applicability issues associated with the proposed
subcategorization, and on the feasibility of establishing one set of
effluent limitations for facilities
[[Page 34691]]
accepting chemical and/or petroleum products.
EPA's assessment of the industry indicates, however, that there is
little overlap of cleaning facilities among transportation modes. EPA's
survey demonstrated that TEC facilities are almost exclusively involved
in cleaning equipment from only one mode of transportation: either
highway, railway, waterway, or ocean-going. The one exception is
intermodal containers. Intermodal containers are completely enclosed
storage vessels which may be loaded onto flat beds for either truck or
rail transport, or onto ship decks for water transport, and are
approximately the same size as tank trucks. EPA found that these
containers are almost exclusively cleaned at facilities which clean
tank trucks. Based on EPA's survey of the industry, intermodals
typically account for one to 10 percent of the tanks cleaned at
individual tank truck facilities, although at one facility intermodals
accounted for up to 94 percent of the tanks cleaned. Therefore, EPA
proposes that wastewater generated from cleaning intermodal tanks be
handled according to the regulations established for the truck
transportation subcategories.
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations for existing and
new facilities discharging directly to surface waters in the following
subcategories: Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food. However, EPA is
proposing not to establish pretreatment standards for facilities
discharging to POTWs in the following subcategories: Truck/Food, Rail/
Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories. EPA is proposing effluent
limitations for the food subcategories to control discharges of
conventional pollutants which may adversely affect waterways when
discharged directly to surface waters. However, because few priority
toxic pollutants were found in food wastewaters and POTWs have the
ability to treat conventional pollutants, EPA concluded that it was
unnecessary to propose pretreatment limits for the food subcategories.
EPA is also proposing not to establish effluent limitations or
pretreatment standards for existing or new facilities in the remaining
subcategories: Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper and Barge/Hopper. Closed-top
hopper trucks, rails, and barges are generally used to transport dry
bulk materials such as coal, grain, and fertilizers. Raw wastewater
generated from cleaning the interiors of hoppers was found to contain
very few priority toxic pollutants at treatable levels. This is likely
due to the fact that the residual materials (heels) from dry bulk goods
are easily removed prior to washing and that relatively little
wastewater is generated from cleaning the interiors of hopper tanks due
to the dry nature of bulk materials transported. This results in low
pollutant loadings present in the wastewater discharges from hopper
tank cleaning. Based on the low pollutant loads associated with
wastewater discharge from the hopper subcategories, the Agency
concluded that it need not establish nationally-applicable effluent
limitations for these subcategories. Rather, direct dischargers will
remain subject to effluent limitations established on a case by case
basis using best professional judgement, and indirect dischargers may
be subject to local pretreatment limits as necessary to prevent pass-
through or interference. EPA solicits comments on the appropriateness
of not regulating hopper facilities. EPA also solicits data on
pollutant levels in wastewater from hopper facilities.
The proposed regulation would not apply to wastewaters generated
from cleaning the interiors of drums or intermediate bulk containers
(IBCs). In 1989, EPA conducted an analysis on the pollutant loadings
associated with the drum reconditioning industry. Drum reconditioning
operations generate wastewater from cleaning the interiors of drums
before the drum is reconditioned, scrapped, or recycled. The
Preliminary Data Summary for the Drum Reconditioning Industry (EPA 440/
1-89/101 September 1989) estimated that there were 450 facilities which
accepted approximately 50 million drums in 1985. These drums contained
approximately 124 million pounds of residue. This study of the industry
concluded that wastewater generated from drum reconditioning operations
did not merit national regulation at that time because of the low
pollutant loads associated with this industry. Since this study was
conducted, the reconditioning industry has grown to include other forms
of transportation containers which were not initially considered in
EPA's study, namely IBCs. IBCs are portable containers with 450 liters
(119 gallons) to 3,000 liters (793 gallons) capacity. In comparison,
drums typically have 208 liters (55 gallons) capacity. Facilities
cleaning IBCs generate wastewater from cleaning the interior of the IBC
prior to re-using the container. Based on data collected in EPA's
questionnaire, there are approximately 173 TEC facilities which accept
IBCs for cleaning. The Association of Container Reconditioners
estimates that there are approximately 600,000 IBCs manufactured each
year. By comparison, they estimate that there are over 40 million drums
manufactured and recycled each year.
Although EPA does not have data on the pollutant loadings
associated with the cleaning of IBCs, EPA has concluded that IBCs are
used by industries as an interchangeable replacement for drums and are
therefore used for the storage and transport of cargos similar to
drums. Because of this, EPA expects that wastewater generated from
cleaning the interiors of IBCs may be similar to the wastewater
generated from cleaning the interiors of drums. For this reason, EPA is
proposing not to regulate wastewater generated from cleaning IBCs. EPA
is soliciting comment and data on the pollutant loads associated with
IBC cleaning wastewater, and on the initial decision not to include IBC
wastewater within the scope of this guideline.
The focus of this proposed rule is on transportation equipment
cleaning facilities that function independently of other industrial
activities that generate wastewater. This proposal would therefore not
apply to wastewater discharges from transportation equipment cleaning
operations located at industrial facilities regulated under other Clean
Water Act effluent guidelines, provided that the facility cleans only
tanks containing cargos or commodities generated or used on-site, or by
a facility under the same corporate structure.
EPA has identified TEC wastewaters at facilities subject to
guidelines which include Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR part 414); Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)
(proposed 40 CFR part 437, 60 FR 5464, January 27,1995); Dairy products
processing point source category (40 CFR part 405); Inorganic chemicals
manufacturing point source category (40 CFR part 415); Petroleum
refining point source category (40 CFR part 415); Industrial Waste
Combusters (proposed 40 CFR part 444, 63 FR 6325, February 6, 1998 );
and Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) (new regulation to be proposed
in 2000). Most such facilities commingle tank cleaning wastewater with
wastewater from other processes for treatment. For example, the Organic
Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR part 414)
effluent guidelines specifically list tank car washing as a covered
process wastewater.
The promulgated and proposed regulations for these industries
typically include on-site washwaters. The general regulatory definition
of process wastewater includes water that comes in contact with raw
materials (40 CFR 401.11(q)), which would include wastewater generated
from cleaning the
[[Page 34692]]
interiors of tanks containing those raw materials. For those facilities
where on-site washwaters are not specifically covered by the applicable
guideline, EPA believes that facilities will commingle and treat
washwaters with other process wastewater because an industrial facility
will clean tanks that have transported commodities similar in nature to
the products produced at that facility. Therefore, the wastewater
generated from cleaning the tank interiors will contain contaminants
similar in treatability to process wastewater at that facility.
Not previously regulated facilities are those facilities whose
major process wastewater streams are not already covered or proposed to
be covered by other Clean Water Act effluent guidelines. In order to
prevent an industrial facility from accepting tank cargos which may
generate wastewater inconsistent with treatment in place at the
facility, EPA proposes that the exclusion for industrial facilities be
allowed only if that facility is cleaning tanks containing materials
which have been generated at, or used by, that facility. This would
prevent an industrial facility that accepts tanks for commercial
cleaning purposes from being excluded from the TEC guideline.
The rule also does not apply to facilities that are commercial
treaters of wastewater that only clean tanks and containers as a part
of the off-loading process of the wastes. The categorical limitations
and standards to be established for the Centralized Waste Treatment
Category and codified at 40 CFR part 429, would specifically cover tank
washings at CWT facilities (60 FR 5464.) EPA currently intends to
repropose CWT limitations and standards in 1998 and take final action
in 1999.
Although EPA believes that it has clearly defined what operations
are intended to be covered by this regulation, EPA expects that there
are some facilities engaged in operations which may be difficult to
define, especially with regard to repair and maintenance. An example of
a facility which would be regulated under the TEC effluent guidelines
would be a site which only engages in the cleaning of the interiors of
railcars after the transportation of chemicals. The site would clearly
be considered an affected facility under the TEC effluent guidelines.
An example of a site engaged in operations which could potentially
overlap with other effluent guidelines and cause confusion for
permitting authorities would be a facility which cleans the interiors
of railcars prior to performing maintenance and rebuilding operations
on the railcar.
EPA is currently developing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) industry. The
MP&M category applies to industrial sites engaged in the manufacturing,
maintaining or rebuilding of finished metal parts, products or
machines. This regulation will apply to process wastewater discharges
from sites performing manufacturing, rebuilding or maintenance on a
metal part, product or machine to be used in one of the following
industrial sectors: Aerospace; Aircraft; Electronic Equipment;
Hardware; Mobile Industrial Equipment; Ordnance; Stationary Industrial
Equipment; Bus and Truck; Household Equipment; Instruments; Motor
Vehicle; Office Machine; Printed Wiring Boards; Job Shops; Precious
Metals; Railroad; and Ships and Boats.
Typical MP&M unit operations which may overlap with TEC operations
include abrasive blasting, acid and alkaline cleaning, chemical
conversion coating, corrosion preventive coating, and associated
rinsing.
There may be instances where facilities which predominately engage
in cleaning operations perform ancillary MP&M operations on the barges,
railcars, or tankers they are cleaning as a part of their TEC
operations. EPA proposes that the process wastestreams from those
ancillary MP&M activities be regulated solely by the TEC effluent
guideline. Likewise, facilities which are predominately engaged in MP&M
operations and clean barges, railcars, or tankers as part of those
activities are proposed to be regulated by the MP&M guideline and are
excluded from this guideline.
EPA is soliciting comment from any industrial site which has the
potential to be covered by TEC and MP&M but is uncertain as to their
appropriate classification. Such facilities may supply information
detailing what operations they are performing, and the volume and
nature of wastewater generated from those operations. The Agency does
recognize that the approach listed above requires the permitting
authority to decide whether a facility is predominately engaged in
either TEC or MP&M operations. The general pretreament regulations do
set forth a procedure by which an industrial user may request that EPA
or the State, as appropriate, provide a written certification as to
whether the industrial user falls within a particular pretreatment
subcategory (40 CFR 403.6) EPA is also soliciting comment from
permitting authorities as to whether the approach outlined above will
result in easier, or more difficult, implementation of the TEC and MP&M
regulations, and on alternative applicability approaches.
EPA also has considered establishing a minimum flow level for
defining the scope of the regulation in order to ensure appropriate
regulatory requirements for small businesses. EPA focused its analysis
on the Truck/Chemical, Rail/Chemical and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategories because of the large population of facilities potentially
affected by this proposal. The Agency's analysis found that 54 small
facilities (about 7.8 percent of all regulated facilities) in the
Truck/Chemical Subcategory have a wastewater flow of 8,000 gallons or
less per day. These 54 small facilities (18.7 percent of the total
facilities in the subcategory) discharge 56,900 toxic pounds or 14
percent of the total discharge for the subcategory at the 8,000 gallons
per day flow level. The Agency notes that the discharge of pollutants
from small facilities constitutes a proportional amount of the
pollutant loadings discharged in the subcategory. The Agency has also
looked at 2,000, 4,000, and 6,000 gallons per day flow levels for this
subcategory, in addition to conducting a similar analysis for the
Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories.
In each case where EPA examined a potential flow cut off, the
pollutant loadings discharged by smaller facilities were proportional
to the loadings discharged by the subcategory as a whole. EPA concluded
that there was no obvious breakpoint that could be used to establish an
exclusion for small facilities that would not also exclude a
proportional amount of pollutants discharged to the nation's waterways.
For comparison, in the MP&M effluent guideline, EPA proposed a flow
exclusion for small facilities. In this case, EPA demonstrated that 80
percent of the total industry loadings were discharged by only 20
percent of the MP&M facilities. EPA concluded that a minimum flow level
was reasonable because excluding 80 percent of the facilities in the
industry only excluded 20 percent of the pollutant loadings. However,
in the case of the TEC industry, EPA has identified no similar
rationale for providing such a low flow exclusion for small facilities.
EPA is therefore not proposing to establish a minimum regulatory flow
level for the TEC point source category.
At the request of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, EPA
also estimated the effects of excluding all small businesses, defined
as those with revenues under $5 million annually.
[[Page 34693]]
This would eliminate an estimated 191 of 692 facilities (28%) from
coverage by the proposed rule, while eliminating 20 to 25 percent of
the baseline toxic loadings. Thus, as with the flow based facility
exclusion discussed above, this option would remove roughly a
proportionate amount of both loadings and facilities from coverage. EPA
is therefore not proposing to establish an exclusion for small
businesses, but is soliciting comment on this option, or on any
alternative approaches that the Agency may use to minimize impacts on
small businesses.
IV. Profile of the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry
A. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Facilities
The TEC industry includes facilities that generate wastewater from
cleaning the interiors of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail
tank cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers,
inland tank barges, closed-top hopper barges, ocean/sea tankers, and
other similar tanks or containers used to transport cargos or
commodities that come into direct contact with the tank or container
interior. Transportation equipment cleaning is performed in order to
prevent cross-contamination between products or commodities being
transported in the tanks, containers, or hoppers, and to prepare
transportation equipment for repair and maintenance activities such as
welding. The cleaning activity is a necessary part of the
transportation process.
Based upon responses to EPA's 1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry (see discussion in Section
V.B of this notice), the Agency estimates that there are approximately
2,405 TEC facilities in the United States. This includes approximately
1,166 previously regulated TEC facilities and 1,239 not previously
regulated TEC facilities. Of the TEC facilities not previously
regulated, EPA estimates that 692 facilities discharge to either a POTW
or to surface waters. The remaining 547 facilities are considered zero
discharging.
TEC facilities are located in at least 37 states and in all 10 EPA
regions. By state, the largest number of facilities are in Illinois. By
EPA region, the largest concentration of facilities is in Region V
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Most TEC
facilities are located in the industrial portions of the United States.
The TEC industry consists of facilities that vary in size from one-
or two-person shops to large corporations that operate many facilities
nationwide. The TEC industry shows a correspondingly wide range of
annual number of tanks cleaned by facilities, from less than 10 tanks
per year to more than 10,000 tanks per year.
Tank cleaning may be performed as a commercial activity or as an
in-house cost of doing business. Additionally, the tanks being cleaned
may be owned by the facilities performing cleaning or may be owned by
their customers. Overall, the TEC industry is characterized by a large
number of facilities that clean relatively few tanks and a small number
of facilities that clean a relatively large number of tanks.
The TEC industry consists of distinct transportation sectors: the
trucking sector, the rail sector, and the barge shipping sector. Each
one of these sectors may have different technical and economic
characteristics. The transportation industry transports a wide variety
of commodities, and TEC facilities therefore clean tanks and containers
with residues (heels) from a broad spectrum of commodities such as
food-grade products, petroleum-based commodities, organic chemicals,
inorganic chemicals, soaps and detergents, latex and resins, hazardous
wastes, and dry bulk commodities. TEC facilities also vary greatly in
the level of wastewater treatment that they currently have in place.
Treatment at existing TEC facilities ranges from no treatment to
advanced tertiary treatment. The majority of TEC facilities discharging
to surface waters currently employ primary treatment such as oil water
separation or gravity separation followed by biological treatment.
Indirect discharging facilities typically employ some form of primary
treatment, such as oil water separation, gravity separation, dissolved
air flotation, or coagulation and flocculation. A relatively small
number of direct and indirect currently facilities currently employ
advanced tertiary treatment such as activated carbon adsorption.
In 1994, approximately 2,440,000 tanks and containers were cleaned
in the U.S by not previously regulated TEC facilities. Of all tanks
cleaned commercially, tank trucks account for approximately 87 percent,
intermediate bulk containers account for three percent, closed-top
hopper trucks account for three percent, intermodal tank containers
account for three percent, and rail tank cars account for two percent.
The remaining tank types each account for less than one percent of all
tanks cleaned. Approximately 52 percent of TEC facilities clean a
variety of cargo types. Approximately 31 percent clean only food grade
products, beverages, and animal and vegetable oils (food grade
facilities), approximately eight percent clean only petroleum and coal
products (petroleum facilities), and approximately two percent clean
only dry bulk cargos.
The majority of TEC facilities discharge their wastewater
indirectly to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW). EPA estimates
that there are 669 indirect discharging TEC facilities. A smaller
number, approximately 23, discharge wastewater directly to surface
waters of the United States.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 547 facilities which are
considered zero or alternative dischargers and do not discharge
wastewater directly to surface waters or indirectly to a POTW. Methods
of zero or alternative discharge in use by the TEC industry include
applying wastewater to land, hauling wastewater off-site to other
treatment works (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment Works (CWT) or
hazardous waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)),
deep well injecting wastewater, sending wastewater to an on-site
evaporation pond or mat, or employing total recycle/reuse of
wastewater.
B. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Processes
Interior cleaning of cargo tanks and containers is conducted for
two primary reasons: to prevent contamination between cargos and to
facilitate internal inspection and repair. An additional purpose of
tank cleaning is to render the tank interior nonexplosive and
nonflammable to provide a safe environment for manual cleaning and for
tank repairs that require ``hot work'' (e.g., welding or cutting).
Although different types of tanks are cleaned in various manners,
the basic cleaning process for each tank is similar. A typical tank
cleaning process is as follows:
<bullet> Identify the cargo last transported in the tank;
<bullet> Determine the next cargo to be transported;
<bullet> Drain the tank heel (residual cargo) and, if necessary,
segregate the heel for off-site disposal;
<bullet> Rinse the tank (pre-rinse);
<bullet> Wash the tank using one or more cleaning methods and
solutions;
<bullet> Rinse the tank; and
<bullet> Dry the tank.
The cleaning facility determines the cargo last transported in the
tank to: (1) Assess the facility's ability to clean the tank
efficiently; (2) determine the appropriate cleaning sequence and
[[Page 34694]]
cleaning solutions; (3) evaluate whether the residue cleaned from the
tank will be compatible with the facility's wastewater treatment
system; and (4) establish an appropriate level of health and safety
protection for the employees who will clean the tank. The next cargo to
be transported in the tank is identified to determine if the available
level of cleaning at the facility is adequate to prevent contamination
of the next cargo. The facility may decide to not clean a tank based on
any of the preceding concerns.
Once a tank has been accepted for cleaning, the facility checks the
volume of heel (residual cargo) in the tank and determines an
appropriate heel disposal method. Any water-soluble heels that are
compatible with the facility's treatment system and the conditions of
the facility's wastewater discharge permit are usually combined with
other wastewater for treatment and discharge at the facility.
Incompatible heels are segregated into drums or tanks for disposal or
re-use by alternative means, which may include re-use onsite, return to
consignee, sale to a reclamation facility, landfilling, or
incineration. The TEC facility may re-use heels such as soaps,
detergents, solvents, acids, or alkalis as tank cleaning solutions or
as neutralizers for future heels and for wastewater treatment.
Cleaning processes vary among facilities depending on available
cleaning equipment, the cargos last transported in the tanks to be
cleaned, and the state of the product last transported in the tank.
Some residuals require only a water rinse (e.g., sugar), while others
require a detergent or strong caustic solution followed by a final
water rinse (e.g., latex or resins). Hardened or caked-on products
sometimes require extended processing time or special cleaning
equipment. Typical cleaning equipment includes low- or high-pressure
spinner nozzles or hand-held wands and nozzles. Spinner nozzles, which
are operated through the main tank hatch, are designed to rotate in an
overlapping spray pattern that cleans the entire interior of the tank.
Operating cycles range from rinse bursts to 20 minutes or longer
caustic washes. Washing with hand-held wands and nozzles achieves the
same result as with high-pressure spinner nozzles, but requires
facility personnel to manually direct the wash solution across the
interior surface of the tank. After cleaning, tanks are usually dried
and inspected.
Section 4.0 of the Technical Development Document contains a more
detailed description of the TEC industry and the unique cleaning
processes used for different types of tanks and cargos.
C. Regulatory History for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Industry
In 1986, EPA published the Domestic Sewage Study ``Report to
Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works'' (EPA-503/SW-86-004, February 1986), which identified
TEC facilities as potentially contributing large amounts of hazardous
wastes to POTWs.
In response to the Domestic Sewage Study, EPA conducted a sampling
program to obtain and analyze wastewater and wastewater treatment
sludge samples at eight TEC facilities. During this program, EPA
sampled one aircraft, three tank truck, two rail tank car, and two tank
barge cleaning facilities. Raw TEC wastewater samples and, where
appropriate, treated effluent and sludge samples were collected at each
facility. In addition, EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
was used to obtain extracts of sludge samples for analysis. The samples
were analyzed for analytes in the 1987 Industrial Technology Division
List of Analytes. This list contains conventional pollutants and EPA's
priority toxic pollutants (excluding fecal coliform bacteria and
asbestos) as well as 285 other organic and inorganic nonconventional
pollutants or pollutant characteristics. These additional pollutants
were derived from other EPA lists, including the Superfund Hazardous
Substance List, RCRA Appendix VIII and Appendix IX, and the list of
analytes proposed to be added to RCRA Appendix VII by the Michigan
Petition (49 FR 49793).
EPA also investigated the size of the TEC industry by identifying
TEC facilities from several sources, including trade publications, Dun
& Bradstreet, EPA's Permit Compliance System, trade associations, state
regulatory agencies, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Using the wastewater
sampling data and industry size data, EPA estimated the total discharge
of pollutants from the TEC industry and performed an environmental
impact analysis.
In 1989, EPA published the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/104, 1989)
which summarized the findings of the 1986-87 study and forms the basis
for EPA's decision to develop effluent guidelines specifically for the
TEC point source category. A description of EPA's data gathering
efforts on the TEC industry since completion of the 1986-1987 study is
provided in Section V below.
V. Summary of Data Collection Activities
EPA collected data necessary to develop effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the TEC point source category from many
sources, including questionnaires and EPA's sampling program. This
section of the preamble summarizes these data-collection activities,
which are further discussed in Section 3.0 of the Technical Development
Document.
A. Preliminary Data Summary
Prior to 1992, EPA conducted two studies of the TEC industry. The
first study was performed during the 1973-1974 period for the
Transportation Industry Point Source Category. Information was obtained
from only a few TEC facilities and was limited to conventional
pollutants. The study was not specific to TEC processes and wastewaters
and did not result in any regulations for the TEC industry. The second
study was performed during the 1986-87 period in response to the
Domestic Sewage Study (DSS), which found that TEC facilities discharged
high levels of conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants in
raw and treated wastewaters. The study focused on characterizing raw
wastewater at eight TEC facilities, and, where appropriate, treated
effluent and sludge samples. The second study also included a
preliminary investigation to determine the size of the TEC industry by
identifying TEC facilities. The resulting TEC wastewater sampling data
and industry size data were used to estimate the total discharge of
priority toxic pollutants from the TEC point source category and to
perform an environmental impacts analysis. The results of the study
were published in the Preliminary Data Summary for the Transportation
Equipment Cleaning Industry in September of 1989 (EPA 44/1-89/104),
which formed the basis for EPA's decision to develop effluent
guidelines specifically for the TEC industry.
B. Development of the TECI Site Identification Database
The first phase of data collection for development of effluent
limitation guidelines for the TEC industry entailed a comprehensive
search to identify facilities that potentially perform TEC operations.
EPA identified all potential segments within the TEC industry and then
attempted to identify all facilities or a statistical sample of all
facilities that potentially perform TEC operations
[[Page 34695]]
within each industry segment. The TEC industry is characterized by
industry segments based on tank type cleaned and business operational
structure. Tank types initially considered within the potential scope
of the TEC industry include tank trucks, closed-top hopper tank trucks,
intermodal tank containers, intermediate bulk containers, rail tank
cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, inland tank barges, closed-top
hopper barges, ocean/sea tankers, and other similar tanks (excluding
drums). Business operational structures include independents, carriers,
shippers, and builders/leasers.
EPA was unaware of any single source or set of sources that
specifically identify facilities that perform TEC operations. Likewise,
there is no single Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code or set
of SIC codes that specifically identify facilities that perform TEC
operations. Therefore, EPA performed an exhaustive search to identify
all available sources listing facilities that potentially perform TEC
operations. These sources included transportation industry directories,
Dun & Bradstreet's Information Services, several Agency databases,
state and local authorities, trade journals, and trade associations.
Some sources specifically identified facilities that perform TEC
operations. Other sources identified potential TEC facilities by one or
more of the following criteria: (1) They own, operate, or maintain
transportation equipment; (2) they own, operate, or maintain equipment
used by the transportation segments applicable to the TEC industry; or
(3) they report under an SIC code that includes facilities that have
the potential to own, operate, or maintain transportation equipment.
Listings of facilities that potentially perform TEC operations were
entered into the TECI Site Identification Database. The database
contains information for 7,940 facilities that represent a total
potential industry population of 30,280 facilities (for some sources,
only a portion (i.e., a statistical sample) of the total available
records were received and entered into the database). This database
formed the basis of EPA's statistical sample frame for subsequent data-
gathering activities.
C. Survey Questionnaires
Industry responses to questionnaires administered by EPA under the
authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act were a major source of
information and data used in developing the proposed TEC industry
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA administered two
questionnaires to the TEC industry--the 1993 screener questionnaire and
the 1994 detailed questionnaire.
1. 1993 Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry Screener
Questionnaire
EPA developed a screener questionnaire to distribute to a
statistical sample of all facilities that potentially perform TEC
operations. The objectives of the questionnaire were to: (1) Identify
facilities that perform TEC operations; (2) evaluate TEC facilities
based on wastewater, economic, and/or operational characteristics; (3)
develop technical and economic profiles of the TEC industry; (4) select
a statistical sample of screener respondents to receive a detailed
questionnaire; and (5) select facilities for EPA's TEC industry
engineering site visit and sampling program.
EPA developed the screener questionnaire for the TEC industry based
on experience with previous screener questionnaires from other point
source categories. The Agency requested site-specific 1992 calendar
year information in the four-page screener questionnaire. Information
requested included facility name, address, contact person, owner,
number of employees, annual revenues, and operational structure (e.g.,
carrier, independent). Also included were questions concerning TEC
operations such as whether the facility performs TEC operations,
generates TEC process wastewater, discharge information (type and daily
volume), number of tank interior cleanings performed by tank type,
percentage of tank interior cleanings performed by cargo type, types of
cleaning processes performed, and treatment technologies or disposal
methods on-site.
The screener questionnaire was sent to a stratified random sample
of 3,240 facilities identified from the TECI Site Identification
Database. The Agency did not mail screener questionnaires to all 7,940
potential tank interior cleaning facilities in the TECI Site
Identification Database; however, the Agency believed that a sample
size of 3,240 would sufficiently represent the variety of technical and
economic characteristics of the TEC industry and meet the objectives of
the screener questionnaire while minimizing the burden to both industry
and government. EPA used facility type (e.g., tank truck cleaning, rail
tank car cleaning, tank barge cleaning, and transfer facilities) and
level of assurance (i.e., the probability that the facility performs
TEC operations) as criteria to select facilities to receive a screener
questionnaire. These criteria were chosen to account for both the
diverse nature of the TEC industry and the varying reliability of the
sources used to develop the TECI Site Identification Database.
Additional detail concerning selection of the statistical sample of
facilities to receive a screener questionnaire is included in Section
V.D of this preamble.
EPA received responses from 730 of these facilities that indicated
that they performed TEC operations and generated TEC wastewater (i.e.,
in scope responses). These facilities represent an estimated TEC
industry population of 2,739 facilities. The distribution of estimated
industry population by industry segment are as follows:
Table 2.--Population Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
total
Industry segment number of
facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barge...................................................... 72
Truck...................................................... 2,432
Rail....................................................... 189
Transfer Stations.......................................... 46
------------
Total................................................ 2,739
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 1994 Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry Detailed
Questionnaire
EPA developed a detailed questionnaire for distribution to a
statistical sample of facilities that perform TEC operations and
generate TEC wastewater. The objectives of the questionnaire were to:
(1) Develop an industry profile; (2) characterize TEC processes,
industry production (i.e., number and type(s) of tanks cleaned), and
water usage and wastewater treatment; (3) perform an industry
subcategorization analysis; (4) develop pollutant loadings and
reductions estimates; (5) develop compliance cost estimates; and (6)
determine the impacts of the rulemaking on the TEC industry.
The Agency developed the detailed questionnaire to collect
information necessary to develop effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the TEC point source category. The detailed questionnaire
included two parts: (1) Part A: Technical Information and (2) Part B:
Financial and Economic Information. Technical information collected was
specific to calendar year 1994. Financial and economic information
collected was specific to calendar years 1992 through 1994. In part A,
EPA requested information necessary to identify the facility and to
determine wastewater discharge locations. It also requested information
necessary to develop an industry profile, characterize TEC processes
and
[[Page 34696]]
production, and perform an industry subcategorization analysis.
Information regarding wastewater generation, wastewater recycle/reuse,
treatment technologies currently in place, the availability of
wastewater stream characterization data and/or treatability data, use
of pollution prevention, and water conservation activities were also
requested. In part B, EPA requested information necessary to identify
the facility and facility's corporate hierarchy, to develop an industry
economic profile, and to assess facility-level, business entity-level,
and corporate parent-level economic impacts associated with TEC
industry effluent guidelines.
The Agency sent the Detailed Questionnaire to a stratified random
sample of 275 facilities that perform TEC operations and generate TEC
wastewater as identified from responses to the TECI screener
questionnaire. The following four variables were considered (although
not necessarily directly selected as basis for sample stratification)
in selecting facilities to receive a detailed questionnaire: tank type,
operational structure, number of employees, and treatment in place.
Each of the potential detailed questionnaire recipients was classified
based on these four variables. Facilities with multiple classifications
were assigned a primary classification. The sampling strategy was
designed to meet two objectives most effectively: (1) to ensure that at
least one facility was sampled from most cells (i.e., combinations of
the four variables listed above), and (2) to ensure the variance around
the national estimates would not be grossly inflated in attempting to
meet the first objective.
EPA received responses from 176 of these facilities that were used
in subsequent analyses. During review of the detailed questionnaire
responses, EPA classified each facility into one of the following
categories:
(1) Direct or Indirect Discharge: TEC facilities that discharge
wastewaters directly to surface waters or indirectly to a POTW that are
not located at industrial facilities covered under existing effluent
guidelines.
(2) Zero or Alternative Discharge: TEC facilities that do not
discharge wastewater to U.S. surface waters or to a POTW, including
facilities that haul TEC wastewater off site to a Centralized Waste
Treatment facility, practice total wastewater recycle/reuse, or land
apply TEC wastewater.
(3) Previously Regulated Facilities: Industrial facilities that are
covered by existing or upcoming effluent guidelines which also generate
transportation equipment cleaning wastewaters. TEC operations are a
very small part of their overall operations. These include facilities
subject to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
Effluent Guidelines, Dairies Effluent Guidelines, Centralized Waste
Treaters Effluent Guidelines, and Metals Products and Machinery
Effluent Guidelines.
Table 3.--National Estimates of TEC Industry Population by Facility Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
number of
Facility type facilities in
total
population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct or Indirect Discharge............................ 692
Zero Discharge.......................................... 547
Previously regulated.................................... 1,166
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--National Estimated TEC Industry Population by Subcategory for
all TEC Facilities Not Previously Regulated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
number of
Subcategory facilities in
total
population <SUP>a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical.......................................... 288
Rail/Chemical........................................... 38
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum.............................. 15
Truck/Food.............................................. 173
Rail/Food............................................... 86
Barge/Food.............................................. 2
Truck/Petroleum......................................... 34
Rail/Petroleum.......................................... 3
Truck/Hopper............................................ 34
Rail/Hopper............................................. 5
Barge/Hopper............................................ 12
---------------
Total............................................... 692
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a Differences occur due to rounding.
As evidenced by the data collection activities undertaken by EPA,
the Agency has attempted to develop accurate population estimates for
each subcategory. The Agency solicits comment and sources of data which
may provide additional information on the population of affected
facilities.
D. Development of National Population Estimates
As discussed previously, EPA distributed screener questionnaires to
a statistical sample of all facilities that potentially perform TEC
operations. EPA then distributed detailed questionnaires to a
statistical sample of facilities that perform TEC operations and
generated TEC wastewater as identified by responses to the screener
questionnaires. This section describes EPA's approach in developing
national population estimates for the TEC industry based on these
statistical samples. Section 3.0 of the Technical Development Document
and the Statistical Support Document contained in the administrative
record for this rule contain additional detail concerning development
of national population estimates.
EPA considered each source used to develop the TEC industry Site
Identification Database to be a statistical ``stratum.'' EPA selected a
simple random sample of facilities from each stratum to receive a
screener questionnaire. Following this approach, each sampled facility
can be used to characterize other facilities within the same stratum.
For example, if a sampled facility falls within stratum ``A'' and the
``weight'' of that stratum is five, the responses received from that
facility represent a total of five facilities in the overall TEC
industry population. Following receipt of the screener questionnaire
responses (to account for non-respondents), EPA determined a weight
associated with each stratum using the following equation:
Stratum Weight = N<INF>h</INF>/n<INF>h</INF>
Where:
N<INF>h</INF> = Total number of facilities in stratum.
n<INF>h</INF> = Number of facilities that responded to the screener
questionnaire.
Note that several screener questionnaire strata with similar
weighting factors were collapsed into a single stratum, and assigned a
conglomerated weighting factor for the entire collapsed stratum, to
reduce the variability of the population estimates.
The approach used to develop TEC industry population estimates
based on the detailed questionnaire responses is similar to that used
for the screener questionnaire, with two differences. One, EPA
developed additional strata to ensure selection of adequate sample
populations within the following four variables: tank type, operational
structure, number of employees, and wastewater treatment in place. Two,
the statistical methodology used to account for non-respondents was
based on facility subcategory rather than stratum.
E. Site Visits and Wastewater Sampling Program
EPA conducted 39 engineering site visits at 38 facilities from 1993
through 1996 to collect information about TEC processes, water use
practices, pollution prevention practices, wastewater treatment
technologies, and waste disposal methods. These facilities were also
visited to evaluate them for potential future sampling. In general, EPA
visited facilities that encompass
[[Page 34697]]
the range of TEC facilities, including tank type cleaned, cargo
cleaned, operational structure, discharge status, and wastewater
treatment in place.
EPA conducted 20 sampling episodes at 18 facilities (two facilities
were sampled twice) from 1994 through 1996. Sampling episodes were
conducted to: (1) Characterize the pollutants in the wastewater being
discharged directly to surface waters and indirectly to POTWs; and (2)
generate pollutant treatment system performance data from facilities
with well-operated wastewater treatment systems. The Agency used the
same general criteria to select facilities for sampling as those used
to select facilities for site visits. Of these sampling episodes, 12
were conducted to obtain untreated TEC process wastewater and treated
final effluent characterization data from facilities representative of
the variety of TEC facilities. Wastewater treatment sludge was also
characterized at two of the 12 facilities to determine whether the
sludge was hazardous. Each of these ``characterization'' sampling
episodes comprised one sampling day.
EPA conducted eight additional sampling episodes to obtain both
untreated TEC process wastewater characterization data and to evaluate
the effectiveness and variability of wastewater treatment units used to
treat TEC wastewater. Of these eight sampling episodes, one was
conducted for one day, two were conducted for three days each, four
were conducted for four days each, and one was conducted for five days.
At several facilities, sampled waste streams included TEC
wastewater commingled with other wastewater sources including exterior
cleaning wastewater, boiler wastewater, and contaminated storm water.
At one facility, boiler condensate was sampled to characterize this
waste stream. Waste stream samples were typically analyzed for volatile
organics, semivolatile organics, organo-halide pesticides, organo-
phosphorus pesticides, phenoxy-acid herbicides, dioxins and furans,
metals, and classical wet chemistry parameters. The analytes typically
found in TEC wastewaters are discussed in Section VII of this preamble
and in the Technical Development Document.
VI. Industry Subcategorization
For today's proposal, EPA considered whether a single set of
effluent limitations and standards should be established for this
industry, or whether different limitations and standards were
appropriate for subcategories within the industry. In reaching its
decision that subcategorization is required, EPA considered various
factors. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA, in developing effluent
limitations, to assess several factors including manufacturing
processes, products, the size and age of the facility, wastewater use,
and wastewater characteristics. The TEC industry, however, is not
typical of many of the other industries regulated under the CWA because
it does not produce a product. Therefore, EPA developed additional
factors that specifically address the characteristics of TEC
operations. Similarly, several factors typically considered for
subcategorization of manufacturing facilities were not considered
applicable to this industry. The factors considered for
subcategorization are listed below:
(1) Cleaning processes (production processes);
(2) Tank type cleaned;
(3) Cargo type cleaned;
(4) Water use practices;
(5) Wastewater characteristics;
(6) Facility age;
(7) Facility size;
(8) Geographical location;
(9) Water pollution control technologies;
(10) Treatment costs; and
(11) Non-water quality impacts.
A. Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization
EPA considered a number of potential subcategorization approaches
for the TEC industry. EPA used information collected during 39
engineering site visits, the 1993 screener questionnaire for the TEC
industry, and the 1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the TEC industry to
develop potential subcategorization approaches. EPA considered eleven
factors in developing its subcategorization scheme for the TEC
industry. A discussion of each is presented below.
1. Cleaning Processes
EPA considered subcategorizing the TEC industry based on the
cleaning process used. Cleaning processes vary among facilities
depending on the type of tank cleaned and the type of cargo last
transported in the tank. Cleaning can be performed using many types of
cleaning equipment including low or high pressure spinner nozzles,
hand-held wands and nozzles, steam cleaning equipment, or manual
cleaning with scouring pads or shovels. Typical cleaning solutions
include detergents, acids, caustics, solvents, or other chemical
cleaning solutions. The cleaning process used depends greatly on the
type of cargo last hauled in the tank. Certain residual material (e.g.,
sugar) only require a water rinse, while other residual materials
(e.g., latexes or resins) require a detergent or strong caustic
solution followed by a final water rinse. The state of the product last
contained in the tank also affects the cleaning process. Hardened or
caked-on products sometime require additional processing time, or may
require manual cleaning. For each type of tank cleaned and cargo
hauled, the selection of cleaning processes among available
alternatives can affect the volume of wastewater generated and the
constituents of that wastewater. Flow restriction and the availability
of less harmful cleaning solutions as methods of pollution prevention
and source control should be considered pollutant control technologies,
rather than a defining production characteristic. EPA has decided that
subcategorizing the TEC industry based on cleaning processes is not an
appropriate means of subcategorization, and considered
subcategorization based on either type of tank cleaned or type of cargo
transported.
2. Tank Type Cleaned
EPA considered subcategorizing the TEC industry based on the type
of tank cleaned. Facilities responding to the TEC industry Detailed
Questionnaire reported cleaning nine primary tank types. The tank types
reported by respondents are: (1) Tank truck; (2) intermediate bulk
container; (3) intermodal tank container; (4) closed-top hopper truck;
(5) rail tank car; (6) ocean/sea tanker; (7) closed-top hopper barge;
(8) closed-top hopper rail car; and (9) inland tank barge. Based on
data obtained in the TEC industry Detailed Questionnaire, approximately
87 percent of all tanks cleaned are tank trucks. Intermediate bulk
containers, intermodal tank containers, and closed-top hopper trucks
each account for three percent of all tanks cleaned. Rail tank cars
comprise two percent and inland tank barges, ocean/sea tankers, closed-
top hopper rail cars, and closed-top hopper barges each comprise less
than one percent of all tanks cleaned. Seventy-four percent of all
facilities responding to the TEC industry Detailed Questionnaire clean
only one primary tank type. An additional 12 percent of facilities
clean both tanks and closed-top hoppers within the same mode of
transport. Only one percent of responding facilities clean tank types
with multiple modes of transport and an additional 13 percent of
responding facilities clean miscellaneous combinations of tank types
within the same mode of transport.
For each type of tank cleaned, the heel volume and availability of
[[Page 34698]]
wastewater flow minimization techniques vary, which may affect
wastewater treatment efficiency.
EPA has preliminarily concluded that subcategorizing the TEC
industry based, in part, on the type of tank cleaned is an appropriate
means of subcategorization due to these differences. Additionally, the
vast majority of facilities clean tanks within the same mode of
transport and are thus easily identified according to the tank type
cleaned.
3. Cargo Type Cleaned
EPA considered subcategorizing the TEC industry based on the cargo
type cleaned. Respondents to the TEC industry Detailed Questionnaire
reporting cleaning tanks which transported 15 general cargo types. The
reported cargo types are listed below:
<bullet> Group A--Food Grade Products, Beverages, and Animal and
Vegetable Oils;
<bullet> Group B--Petroleum and Coal Products;
<bullet> Group C--Latex, Rubber and Resins;
<bullet> Group D--Soaps and Detergents;
<bullet> Group E--Biodegradable Organic Chemicals;
<bullet> Group F--Refractory (Nonbiodegradable) Organic Chemicals;
<bullet> Group
<bullet> G--Inorganic Chemicals;
<bullet> Group H--Agricultural Chemicals and Fertilizers;
<bullet> Group I--Chemical Products;
<bullet> Group J--Hazardous Waste (as defined by RCRA in 40 CFR
Part 261);
<bullet> Group K--Nonhazardous Waste;
<bullet> Group L--Dry Bulk Cargos (i.e., hopper cars); and
<bullet> Group M, N, and O--Other (Not Elsewhere Classified).
Of all responding TEC facilities not previously regulated, 48
percent clean only one cargo type while 52 percent clean a variety of
cargo types. Of the facilities that reported cleaning only one cargo
type, 65 percent reported cleaning food grade products, beverages, and
animal and vegetable oils (Group A), 16 percent reported cleaning
petroleum and coal products (Group B), and 10 percent reported cleaning
``other cargos'' (Groups M, N and O). A review of the data for
facilities that clean two or more cargos suggests that no apparent
trend in cargo types cleaned, but rather a wide variety of combinations
of ``chemical-type'' cargos.
There are several reasons to consider subcategorization based on
type of cargo. Facilities that clean tanks which contained only food
grade products (Group A), petroleum grade products (Group B), or dry
bulk goods (Group L) represent distinct and relatively large segments
of the TEC industry that differ significantly from facilities that
clean tanks containing a wide variety of cargos. The type of cargo
transported and the type of cleaning processes utilized influences
wastewater characteristics. EPA therefore concluded that
subcategorization of the TEC industry based, in part, on cargo type may
be an appropriate means of subcategorization.
EPA was not able to identify any other distinct segments of the TEC
industry among the remaining groups which included Latex, Rubber and
Resins (Group C), Soaps and Detergents (Group D), Biodegradable Organic
Chemicals (Group E), Refractory (Nonbiodegradable) Organic Chemicals
(Group F), Inorganic Chemicals (Group G), Agricultural Chemicals and
Fertilizers (Group H), Chemical Products (Group I), Hazardous Waste
(Group J), Nonhazardous Waste (Group K), and Groups M, N, and O
consisting of cargos not elsewhere classified. EPA concluded that
facilities which do not clean primarily food grade products (Group A),
petroleum grade products (Group B), or dry bulk goods (Group L) are
likely to clean a wide variety of cargos types consisting of various
combination of cargos types products. EPA has therefore created a
subcategory termed ``chemical'' for any facility that cleans a wide
variety of cargos and commodities.
EPA has then defined a ``chemical'' cargo as including Latex,
Rubber and Resins, Soaps and Detergents, Biodegradable Organic
Chemicals, Refractory (Nonbiodegradable) Organic Chemicals, Inorganic
Chemicals, Agricultural Chemicals and Fertilizers, Chemical Products,
Hazardous Waste, Nonhazardous Waste, and any other cargo not elsewhere
classified. In summary, the ``chemical'' classification includes any
cargo or commodity not defined as a food grade product, petroleum grade
product, or dry bulk good. EPA has placed any facility in a Chemical
Subcategory if 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that
facility in an average year contained chemical cargos or commodities.
EPA originally considered developing separate subcategories for
barge chemical and barge petroleum facilities. However, based on raw
wastewater characterization data collected in support of this proposed
rule, EPA concluded that the wastewater characteristics and
treatability of wastewaters generated from barge chemical and barge
petroleum facilities were similar, and thus it was reasonable to
combine these subcategories. As mentioned previously in Section III,
EPA is soliciting comments and data that would address whether the
Truck/Chemical and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories should be combined;
and whether the Rail/Chemical and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories should
also be combined.
As described in Section VII of this notice, Wastewater Use and
Characterization, the data collected from the Truck/Chemical and Truck/
Petroleum Subcategories, and the Rail/Chemical and Rail/Petroleum
Subcategories did not conclusively support combining these
subcategories. However, sampling data obtained from the Centralized
Waste Treatment Industry was used to characterize TEC wastewater for
the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. Therefore, the
Agency is soliciting comment and data on this preliminary conclusion
that the Truck/Chemical and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories; and Rail/
Chemical and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, should not be combined.
Additionally, while the Agency has proposed definitions for
``petroleum'' and ``chemical'' cargos, the Agency realizes that there
may be cargos, especially various ``petrochemical'' cargos, which may
not obviously be categorized as one type or the other. The
determination of whether a facility is accepting ``petroleum'' or
``chemical'' cargos may be critical, due to the fact that the Agency
has not proposed regulation for the petroleum subcategory. The Agency
is concerned that this determination may be difficult and burdensome
for the permitting authority and the affected facility. The Agency
solicits comment from permitting authorities and affected facilities on
the implementation issues surrounding the proposed subcategorization
approach, especially with regard to the chemical and petroleum
subcategories.
In order to address these concerns, the Agency has considered
combining the petroleum and chemical subcategories and establishing one
set of effluent limitations for facilities accepting chemical or
petroleum cargos. EPA solicits comment on this alternative approach.
As part of today's proposal, the Agency calculated pollutant
loadings for each option in each subcategory, as described in section
VIII of this notice. The loadings calculations were used as a parameter
for evaluating technology options in each subcategory. The Agency notes
that a substantial amount of the toxic pounds-equivalent of pollutants
removed in several subcategories are due to the removals of
[[Page 34699]]
a few pesticides found in the raw wastewater at one or two facilities.
Specifically, about 90% of the toxic removals estimated for 288
indirect dischargers in the truck chemical subcategory are accounted
for by 6 pesticides (Azinphos Ethyl, Coumaphos, Disulfoton, EPN, 4,4'-
DDT, and Dieldrin--note that the latter three have been banned for a
number of years); and about 80% of the toxic removals estimated for the
38 indirect dischargers in the rail chemical subcategory are accounted
for by 3 pesticides (Dieldrin, Simazine, and Strobane). Pesticides are
fairly toxic and generally have high toxic weighting factors.
Relatively small removals in terms of loadings can result in
significant reductions in toxic impacts. Because most of the projected
toxic removals for indirect dischargers in the truck and rail chemical
subcategories come from a few pesticides, the Agency solicits comment
on an alternative regulatory approach that would establish separate
subcategories for such facilities which accept tanks containing
pesticide-containing cargos for cleaning.
This approach was discussed at some length by the Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel in its consideration of options that might
provide relief to small businesses, and was specifically endorsed by
SBA. If the Agency were to pursue this approach, it might decide to
establish a set of effluent limitations guidelines for a variety of
pesticides for any facility that accepts, or potentially accepts,
cargos which have transported pesticides. The Agency is concerned,
however, that it may be difficult to define a subcategory for
pesticide-containing cargos, because the exact source of pesticides
found in TEC wastewater samples has often been difficult to establish.
Furthermore, if the Agency were to set limits for pesticides, it would
need to require monitoring for pesticides, which is generally more
expensive than monitoring for the parameters regulated under the
current approach. (Note that although pesticides are among the
pollutants of concern, the Agency is not currently proposing to
establish limits for pesticides; rather the Agency is establishing
limits for other pollutants of concern, which it believes will also
ensure that treatment adequate to control pesticides is adopted.) Thus,
the Agency does not know how many of the estimated 326 indirect
dischargers in the truck chemical and rail chemical subcategories would
actually benefit from such an approach, and how many might incur higher
monitoring costs because they clean some tanks with pesticide residues.
EPA requests comment on this issue. EPA would specifically be
interested to know whether indirect dischargers in these two
subcategories believe such an approach would be workable, and whether
there is a significant number of such facilities that do not handle any
tanks that might contain pesticide residues. For those facilities that
do handle tanks containing pesticide residues, EPA would like to know
what percentage of tanks cleaned might contain such residues. EPA might
use this information to define a subcategory for facilities with more
than a certain percentage of such tanks, in the same way that it is
currently defining the chemical subcategories as including facilities
for which more than 10% of tanks cleaned had chemical cargos.
This approach may also result in the Agency pursuing a less
stringent regulatory technology option for those facilities which do
not accept pesticide containing cargos. The SBAR Panel recommended that
EPA request comment on whether the remaining loadings of non-pesticide
chemicals for indirect dischargers in the truck and rail subcategories
warrant regulation. The Agency is thus soliciting comment on the
loading reduction estimates, cost-effectiveness and benefits to the
environment and POTWs of non-pesticide chemical removals. Note that in
these subcategories in today's notice, EPA is not proposing effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for any pesticide, nor is it
proposing to establish a subcategory for pesticide cargos. Concern has
also been expressed about the representativeness of the samples on
which the pesticide removal estimated are based. Because pesticides are
highly toxic and thus of particular concern, the Agency modified its
screening criteria for including samples in which pesticides were
detected in its loadings and removals analysis. In general, in order to
ensure that detections are representative of the industry and present
at treatable concentrations, contaminants are only included in the
analysis if they show up in samples from at least two facilities at
concentrations of 5 times the minimum detection level or greater, and
are at least 50% removed by the proposed treatment. In contrast, all
pesticides that were detected even once, at any level, were included in
the analysis. Most of the pesticides accounting for the bulk of
estimated toxic removals from indirect dischargers in the truck and
rail chemical subcategories would not have been included in the
analysis under the standard screening criteria, either because they
were detected at only one facility or because they were only detected
at close to the minimum detection level, or both. EPA believes,
however, that the modified screening criteria for pesticides are
appropriate for several reasons. First of all, as already noted,
pesticides are highly toxic and thus of particular concern. Second, a
relatively small amount of sampling data is available for this
industry. In the truck chemical subcategory, for example, only ten
samples of raw wastewater were analyzed, so that even a single detect
represents 10% of samples, which EPA believes is a significant
fraction. Finally, wastes from TEC facilities are highly variable, so
that one might expect that many of the contaminants that are
potentially of concern would only show up in a single sample, and
others might not show up in any samples at all. For these reasons, EPA
believes that its modified screening criteria for pesticides are
appropriate, its loadings and removals analysis is based on the best
available data, and the regulatory limits it has proposed for indirect
dischargers in these subcategories, based partly on this analysis, is
also appropriate. However, the Agency requests comments on this issue,
and any data commenters may be able to provide on the loadings of
pesticides, or any other contaminant, and TEC facilities.
4. Water Use Practices
TEC facilities use water for cleaning and rinsing as well as for a
number of ancillary purposes such as hydrotesting, air pollution
control, and process cooling water. Water use varies based on a number
of factors including type of tank cleaned, type of cleaning solution
utilized, type of cargo last contained in the tank, type of cargo to be
transported, and tank capacity. Facilities which clean predominantly
tank trucks typically use significant volumes of water for exterior
cleaning, whereas facilities which clean rail and barge tanks
frequently do little exterior washing. Facilities which clean rail
tanks frequently use large volumes of water for tank hydrotesting,
whereas tank truck cleaning facilities generate substantially less
hydrotesting wastewater. Based on these variations in water use
practices among different types of facilities, EPA concluded that the
most appropriate method of subcategorization that encompasses water use
practices is subcategorization based on the type of tank cleaned and
type of cargo cleaned at a facility.
5. Wastewater Characteristics
The volumes and pollutant concentrations contained in TEC tank
[[Page 34700]]
interior cleaning wastewater show a large degree of variation among
different types of facilities. Wastewater volumes vary greatly based on
a number of factors including those cited above. Likewise, the
concentration of pollutants present in tank interior cleaning
wastewater can vary depending on the type of cargo last hauled, the
tank size, the cleaning process utilized and the amount of water used
per cleaning operation. Since all of these factors, with the exception
of type of tank cleaned and type of cargo cleaned, have been rejected,
EPA has concluded that the most appropriate method of subcategorization
that encompasses wastewater characteristics is subcategorization based
on the type of tank cleaned and type of cargo cleaned at a facility.
6. Facility Age
EPA evaluated the age of facilities as a possible means of
subcategorization. EPA evaluated the treatment technologies in place as
related to the year in which the facility first conducted TEC
operations. Based on this evaluation, the Agency concluded that there
is little difference in the treatment technologies in use by older
facilities (defined as beginning TEC operations before 1980) as
compared to those of newer facilities (defined as beginning TEC
operations in or after 1980). EPA has tentatively concluded that
subcategorization based on age of facilities is not an appropriate
means of subcategorization.
7. Facility Size
EPA considered subcategorization of the TEC industry on the basis
of facility size. Four parameters were identified as relative measures
of facility size: number of employees, number of tanks cleaned,
wastewater flow and revenue. EPA found that facilities of varying sizes
generate similar wastewaters and use similar treatment technologies
within the proposed subcategorization approach. EPA is not proposing to
subcategorize the industry based on facility size.
8. Geographical Location
EPA evaluated the distribution of TEC facilities based on
geographic location. In general, TEC facilities tend to be located
within the industrialized regions of the country, with relatively high
concentrations in the area between Houston and New Orleans and within
specific urban areas such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and St. Louis. The
major concentrations of rail, truck, and barge cleaning facilities are
along the major thoroughfares by rail, road, and inland waterways,
respectively. There are no apparent trends of geographic distribution
of TEC facilities as related to wastewater characteristics. Based on
these analyses, geographic location is not an appropriate means of
subcategorization.
9. Water Pollution Control Technologies
There are a number of water pollution control technologies in use
in the TEC industry. This variety of technologies results from the wide
range of pollutants present in TEC wastewater. As discussed previously,
the pollutants present in TEC wastewater are based on factors such as
the tank type cleaned and the cargos last contained in the tanks. EPA
did not consider subcategorization of the industry based solely on the
water pollution control technologies in use as a reasonable method of
subcategorization. These control technologies are appropriately
considered in evaluation technology options and determining effluent
limitations.
10. Treatment Costs
Treatment costs are dependent upon facility water pollution control
technologies and facility wastewater flow rates and facility size.
These costs vary with the specific treatment technologies and waste
disposal methods employed, and therefore do not apply uniformly across
a particular segment of the industry. EPA has tentatively determined
that subcategorization of the TEC industry based solely on treatment
costs is not an appropriate means of subcategorization.
11. Non-Water Quality Impacts
Non-water quality impacts of TEC operations include, among others,
impacts from transporting wastes, impacts from disposal of solid
wastes, and impacts due to emissions of volatile organics to the air.
These impacts vary with the specific treatment technologies and waste
disposal methods employed, and therefore do not apply uniformly across
a particular segment of the industry. EPA has concluded that
subcategorization of the TEC industry based on non-water quality
impacts is not an appropriate means of subcategorization.
B. Selection of Subcategorization Approach
Based on its evaluation of above factors, EPA determined that
subcategorization of the TEC industry is necessary and that different
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards should be developed for
subcategories of the industry. EPA concluded that the most appropriate
basis for subcategorization of the industry be based on tank type and
cargo type cleaned.
EPA solicits comment on the appropriateness of this
subcategorization approach. As mentioned previously, EPA believes it
has developed a subcategorization approach which addresses the
complexities inherent in this industry. Of particular concern to the
Agency is the potential difficulty associated with implementing this
rule due to potentially overlapping subcategories. EPA solicits comment
regarding the proposed subcategorization and on other subcategorization
approaches which may be appropriate.
EPA realizes that there may be some overlap between transportation
sectors, although this is not a great concern because 99 percent of the
facilities surveyed cleaned tanks belonging to only one transportation
sector.
EPA also realizes that determining the applicable subcategory of a
facility may be somewhat complex, given that many facilities accept a
wide range of cargos and commodities which may vary on a daily,
monthly, seasonal, or yearly basis.
EPA is proposing that the definition of each subcategory include a
production cutoff. In developing this subcategorization approach, EPA
has attempted to strike a balance between several divergent factors. On
the one hand, EPA's data collection activities indicate that the
wastewater generated from cleaning certain cargos and tank types do not
discharge significant quantities of toxic pollutants. This includes
wastewater generated from cleaning tank trucks, rail tank cars, and
barges containing food cargos; closed top hopper trucks, rail cars, and
barges containing dry bulk goods; and rail tank cars and tank trucks
containing petroleum cargos. On the other hand, EPA has identified
wastewaters that contain toxic pollutants in significant quantities
from tank trucks and rail tank cars which transport chemical cargos,
and barges which transport chemical and petroleum cargos.
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for toxic parameters in the Truck/Chemical,
Rail/Chemical, and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. In its
subcategorization approach, EPA has attempted to establish guidelines
and pretreatment standards for toxic parameters for those facilities
that generate wastewater containing toxic pollutants. However, EPA also
realizes that a facility may generate wastewater from a variety of
cargos which do not all belong to one
[[Page 34701]]
classification of food, petroleum, chemical, or dry bulk goods.
In order to address these concerns, EPA has attempted to classify a
facility into one subcategory by establishing a hierarchy of
applicability as follows: if 10 percent or more of the tanks cleaned on
a yearly basis at a tank truck or rail car facility contain chemical
cargos, then that facility is placed in the Truck/Chemical or Rail/
Chemical Subcategory, and subject to the effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards proposed for the Truck/Chemical or Rail/Chemical
Subcategory. For a barge facility, if 10 percent or more of the tanks
cleaned on a yearly basis contain chemical or petroleum cargos, then
that facility is placed in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
and is subject to the effluent limitations proposed for the Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
If a truck or rail facility does not clean more than 10 percent of
tanks containing chemical cargos, but does clean more than 10 percent
of tanks containing food grade cargos on a yearly basis, then that
facility is placed in the Truck/Food or Rail/Food Subcategory. There
are no effluent limitations proposed for indirect discharging Truck/
Food or Rail/Food facilities, but EPA is proposing effluent limitations
for conventional pollutants for direct discharging Truck/Food and Rail/
Food facilities.
Similarly, if a barge facility does not clean more than 10 percent
of tanks containing chemical and/or petroleum cargos, but does clean
more than 10 percent of tanks containing food grade cargos on a yearly
basis, then that facility is placed in the Barge/Food Subcategory.
There are no effluent limitations proposed for indirect discharging
Barge/Food facilities, but EPA is proposing effluent limitations for
conventional pollutants for direct discharging Barge/Food facilities.
Remaining rail and truck facilities which clean more than 80
percent of tanks containing petroleum cargos on a yearly basis have
been placed in the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories.
Facilities which clean hopper tanks have been placed in the Truck/
Hopper, Rail/Hopper, or Barge/Hopper Subcategories. EPA is not
proposing to regulate wastewater discharged from the Truck/Petroleum
and Rail/Petroleum, and Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper
Subcategories.
EPA is not proposing to regulate toxic parameters for facilities
that clean tanks that have transported only petroleum, food, or dry
bulk cargos, with the exception of barge facilities that clean tanks
containing petroleum cargos.
The Agency believes that this proposed subcategorization approach
would allow a facility in a subcategory which is not subject to
regulation of toxic parameters the flexibility to accept a variety of
cargos without necessarily needing to be re-classified in a different
subcategory, and therefore, be subject to a different set of effluent
limitations. By establishing such a production cutoff, EPA believes
that the toxic characteristics of the wastewater will not vary
considerably from facilities that perform 80 to 100 percent of its
operations within the confines of one subcategory. In this manner, EPA
believes that a facility within one subcategory will be allowed the
flexibility to clean transportation equipment that contained different
types of cargos without discharging substantial quantities of toxic
pollutants. EPA solicits comment on the hierarchy of applicability that
EPA is proposing as the basis for subcategorization.
From the possible combinations of tank types and cargos last
hauled, EPA proposes subcategorization of the TEC industry into 11
subcategories. The tank type classifications include: (1) tank trucks
and intermodal tank containers (2) rail tank cars (3) inland tank
barges and ocean/sea tankers (4) closed-top hopper trucks (5) closed-
top hopper rail cars and (6) closed-top hopper barges. A description of
each of these tank type classifications is presented in Appendix A of
this notice. Containers defined as drums or Intermediate Bulk
Containers (IBCs) are proposed not to be covered by this guideline.
The cargo type classifications used as a basis for
subcategorization include: (1) petroleum; (2) food grade; (3) dry bulk;
and (4) chemical. A description of the cargo type classifications is
provided below.
Petroleum
Petroleum cargos include the products of the fractionation or
straight distillation of crude oil, redistillation of unfinished
petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other refining processes. Petroleum
cargos also include products obtained from the refining or processing
of natural gas and coal. Specific examples of petroleum products
include but are not limited to: asphalt; benzene; coal tar; crude oil;
cutting oil; ethyl benzene; diesel fuel; fuel additives; fuel oils;
gasoline; greases; heavy, medium, and light oils; hydraulic fluids, jet
fuel; kerosene; liquid petroleum gases (LPG) including butane and
propane; lubrication oils; mineral spirits; naphtha; olefin, paraffin,
and other waxes; tall oil; tar; toluene; xylene; and waste oil.
Food Grade
``Food grade'' cargos include edible and non-edible food grade
products such as corn syrup, sugar, juice, soybean oil, beverages, and
animal and vegetable oils.
Dry Bulk
The dry bulk classification includes closed-top hoppers that
transport dry bulk products such as fertilizers, grain, and coal.
Chemical
Chemical cargos are defined to include but are not limited to the
following cargos: latex, rubber, plastics, plasticizers, resins, soaps,
detergents, surfactants, agricultural chemicals and pesticides,
hazardous waste, organic chemicals including: alcohols, aldehydes,
formaldehydes, phenols, peroxides, organic salts, amines, amides, other
nitrogen compounds, other aromatic compounds, aliphatic organic
chemicals, glycols, glycerines, and organic polymers; refractory
organic compounds including: ketones, nitriles, organo-metallic
compounds containing chromium, cadmium, mercury, copper, zinc; and
inorganic chemicals including: aluminum sulfate, ammonia, ammonium
nitrate, ammonium sulfate, and bleach. In the development of this
regulation, EPA has considered any cargo not specifically defined as
food, petroleum, or dry bulk good as a ``chemical'' cargo.
Based on tank type and cargo type classifications described above,
EPA is proposing to subcategorize the TEC industry into the following
11 subcategories. A detailed explanation of each of these subcategories
is provided below:
Subcategory A: Truck/Chemical
Subcategory A would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank trucks
and intermodal tank containers where 10 percent or more of the total
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained chemical
cargos.
Subcategory B: Rail/Chemical
Subcategory B would apply to TEC facilities that clean rail tank
cars where 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that
facility in an average year contained chemical cargos.
Subcategory C: Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory C would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank barges
or
[[Page 34702]]
ocean/sea tankers where 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned
at that facility in an average year contained chemical and/or petroleum
cargos.
Subcategory D: Truck/Petroleum
Subcategory D would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank trucks
and intermodal tank containers where 80 percent or more of the total
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained petroleum
cargos, so long as that facility is not in Subcategory A: Truck/
Chemical or Subcategory F: Truck/Food.
Subcategory E: Rail/Petroleum
Subcategory E would apply to TEC facilities that clean rail tank
cars where 80 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that
facility in an average year contained petroleum cargos, so long as that
facility is not in Subcategoy B: Rail/Chemical or Subcategory G: Rail/
Food.
Subcategory F: Truck/Food
Subcategory F would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank trucks
and intermodal tank containers where 10 percent or more of the total
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained food grade
cargos, so long as that facility does not clean 10 percent or more of
tanks containing chemical cargos. If 10 percent or more of the total
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained chemical
cargos, then that facility is in Subcategoy A: Truck/Chemical.
Subcategory G: Rail/Food
Subcategory G would apply to TEC facilities that clean rail tank
cars where 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that
facility in an average year contained food grade cargos, so long as
that facility does not clean 10 percent or more of tanks containing
chemical cargos. If 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at
that facility in an average year contained chemical cargos, then that
facility is in Subcategoy B: Rail/Chemical.
Subcategory H: Barge/Food
Subcategory H would apply to TEC facilities that clean tank barges
or ocean/sea tankers where 10 percent or more of the total tanks
cleaned at that facility in an average year contained food grade
cargos, so long as that facility does not clean 10 percent or more of
tanks containing chemical cargos. If 10 percent or more of the total
tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained chemical
and/or petroleum cargos, then that facility is in Subcategory C: Barge
Chemical & Petroleum.
Subcategory I: Truck/Hopper
Subcategory I would apply to TEC facilities that clean closed-top
hopper trucks which transport dry bulk commodities.
Subcategory J: Rail/Hopper
Subcategory J would apply to TEC facilities that clean closed-top
hopper rail cars which transport dry bulk commodities.
Subcategory K: Barge/Hopper
Subcategory K would apply to TEC facilities that clean closed-top
hopper barges which transport dry bulk commodities.
VII. Wastewater Generation and Characteristics
Wastewater generated by the industry includes water and steam used
to clean the tank interiors, prerinse solutions, chemical cleaning
solutions, final rinse solutions, tank exterior washing wastewater,
boiler blowdown, tank hydrotesting wastewater, safety equipment
cleaning rinsate, and TEC-contaminated storm water. Of the facilities
that discharge TEC wastewater, the majority (97 percent) discharge
their wastewater to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The
majority of the barge facilities (77 percent) discharge directly to
U.S. surface waters.
Primary sources of pollutants in TEC wastewater include heels and
cleaning solutions. Heel is residual cargo remaining in a tank or
container following unloading, delivery, or discharge of the
transported cargo and is the primary source of pollutants in TEC
wastewater. Water-soluble heels that are compatible with the facility's
wastewater treatment system and the conditions of the facility's
wastewater discharge permit are often combined with other wastewater
for treatment and discharge at the facility. Incompatible heels are
drained and segregated into drums or tanks for disposal or reuse by
alternate means, which may include reuse onsite, return to consignee,
sale to a reclamation facility, land filling, or incineration. However,
even when the heel is drained, residual cargo adheres to the tank or
container interior, and is removed by tank cleaning operations and
ultimately discharged in TEC wastewater.
Pollutants contained in heels are dependent upon the constituents
contained in the cargos transported. Based on responses to the Detailed
Questionnaire, tank truck cleaning facilities reported cleaning at
least 429 unique cargos, rail tank car cleaning facilities reported
cleaning at least 159 unique cargos, and tank barge cleaning facilities
reported cleaning at least 111 unique cargos.
Cleaning solutions are another primary source of pollutants in TEC
wastewater. TEC facilities commonly use the following four types of
chemical cleaning solutions: (1) acid solution; (2) caustic solution;
(3) detergent solution; and (4) presolve solution. Acid solutions
typically comprise hydrofluoric and/or phosphoric acid and water. Acid
solutions are also used as metal brighteners on aluminum and stainless
steel tank exteriors. Caustic solutions typically comprise sodium
hydroxide and water. The most common components of detergent solutions
are sodium metasilicate and phosphate-based surfactants. Some
facilities use off-the-shelf brands of detergent solutions such as
Tide<Register>, Arm & Hammer<Register>, and Pine Power<Register>.
Often, concentrated detergents (``boosters''), such as glycol ethers
and esters, are added to acid and caustic solutions to improve their
effectiveness. Presolve solutions usually consist of diesel fuel,
kerosene, or other petroleum-based solvent. Other miscellaneous
cleaning solutions used by the TEC industry include passivation agents
(oxidation inhibitors), odor controllers such as citrus oils, and
sanitizers.
Some TEC facilities commingle spent cleaning solutions with TEC
wastewater, while other facilities dispose of spent cleaning solutions
off site. However, even when spent cleaning solutions are not
discharged with TEC wastewater, residual cleaning solution adheres to
the tank or container interior and is removed during tank rinses and
ultimately discharged in TEC wastewater.
TEC operations or control technologies that minimize the amount of
heel remaining in the tank prior to starting TEC operations or that
reduce the use or toxicity of chemical cleaning solutions significantly
reduce the pollutant loading in TEC wastewater. EPA estimates, based on
data collected during EPA's sampling program, that facilities
implementing heel and cleaning solution pollution prevention practices
generate one half to an order of magnitude less wastewater pollutant
loadings than facilities that do not implement these practices.
EPA conducted 20 sampling episodes at 18 facilities representative
of the variety of facilities in the TEC industry (2 facilities were
sampled twice). As part of this sampling program, EPA routinely
analyzed wastewater samples for conventional, priority toxic, and
[[Page 34703]]
nonconventional pollutants. Raw wastewater streams sampled typically
comprised TEC wastewater commingled with tank exterior cleaning
wastewater, TEC-contaminated storm water, tank hydrotesting wastewater,
and other wastewater streams. Additional details concerning EPA's
sampling program, including the types of facilities sampled, are
provided in Section V.E.
EPA detected 330 of 478 pollutants analyzed for in TEC wastewaters.
Ninety of the 126 priority toxic pollutants analyzed were detected.
Detected pollutants vary by subcategory and include the conventional
pollutants oil and grease (analyzed as hexane extractable materials
(HEM)), 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD<INF>5</INF>), total
suspended solids (TSS), and pH; certain priority toxic pollutants; and
certain nonconventional pollutants.
In its analysis of the industry, EPA sampled one facility in the
Truck/Petroleum Subcategory. This facility treated only final rinse
wastewater on-site. Initial rinses and other TEC wastewaters were
contract hauled for off-site treatment and were therefore not included
in the sampling performed by EPA. There was no additional data provided
by the industry on raw TEC wastewater characteristics. EPA therefore
reviewed other sources of raw wastewater characterization data in order
to determine whether data could be transferred from other sources to
characterize TEC wastewater for the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum
Subcategories. One facility sampled in support of the Centralized Waste
Treatment effluent guideline accepted only oily wastewater for
treatment. The wastewater consisted of wastewater contaminated with
lube oils and other petroleum products. Additionally, the sources of
oily wastewater which comprised the sampled wastestream closely matched
the types of commodities cleaned by the sampled TEC facility.
Therefore, the sampling data obtained from the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry was used to characterize TEC wastewater for the
Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories in addition to the TEC
sampled facility.
Listed below are pollutants identified in all TEC raw wastewater
characterization samples collected and analyzed by EPA for each
subcategory or subcategory grouping. These pollutants have been found
in raw wastewater but have not necessarily been identified as
pollutants of concern for the industry. See Section 6.0 of the
Technical Development Document for a more comprehensive summary of the
specific pollutants detected and the mean and range of pollutant
concentrations by subcategory.
Truck/Chemical Subcategory
<bullet> Conventional pollutants: BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and
Grease, and pH;
<bullet> Priority toxic pollutants: methylene chloride, copper,
nickel, and zinc; and
<bullet> Nonconventional pollutants: acetone, benzoic acid,
aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese,
molybdenum, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, strontium, sulfur, titanium,
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, adsorbable organic halides (AOX), ammonia
as nitrogen, chemical oxygen demand (COD), chloride, fluoride, nitrate/
nitrite, surfactants (MBAS), total dissolved solids (TDS), total
organic carbon (TOC), total phosphorus, and volatile residue.
Rail/Chemical Subcategory
<bullet> Conventional pollutants: BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and
Grease, and pH;
<bullet> Priority toxic pollutants: toluene, arsenic, chromium,
copper, nickel, zinc, tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and
tetrachlorodibenzofuran.
<bullet> Nonconventional pollutants: n-eicosane, n-octadecane,
aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese,
phosphorus, potassium, silicon, sodium, strontium, sulfur, titanium,
AOX, ammonia as nitrogen, COD, chloride, fluoride, silica-gel hexane
extractable material (SGT-HEM), MBAS, TDS, TOC, total phenols, total
phosphorus, and volatile residue.
Barge/Chemical and Petroleum Subcategory
<bullet> Conventional pollutants: BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and
Grease, and pH;
<bullet> Priority toxic pollutants: benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene,
naphthalene, copper, nickel, zinc, tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and
tetrachlorodibenzofuran.
<bullet> Nonconventional pollutants: acetone, o-+ p-xylene, 2-
methylnaphthalene, n-docosane, n-dodecane, n-eicosane, n-hexadecane, n-
octadecane, n-tetradecane, styrene, malathion, parathion (ethyl),
aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, hexavalent chromium, iron, magnesium,
manganese, potassium, sodium, strontium, sulfur, AOX, ammonia as
nitrogen, COD, chloride, fluoride, nitrate/nitrite, SGT-HEM, MBAS, TOC,
total phenols, total phosphorus, and total sulfide.
Food Grade Subcategories
<bullet> Conventional pollutants: BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, and pH;
<bullet> Priority toxic pollutants: none; and
<bullet> Nonconventional pollutants: aluminum, barium, calcium,
europium, iron, magnesium, manganese, neodymium, niobium, silicon,
sodium, strontium, ammonia as nitrogen, COD, chloride, fluoride, MBAS,
TDS, TOC, total phenols, total phosphorus, total sulfide, and volatile
residue.
Petroleum Subcategories
<bullet> Conventional pollutants: BOD<INF>5</INF>, Oil and Grease,
TSS, and pH;
<bullet> Priority toxic pollutants: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and
zinc; and
<bullet> Nonconventional pollutants: acetone, n-eicosane, n-
octacosane, n-octadecane, n-tetradecane, aluminum, barium, boron,
calcium, holmium, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, phosphorus,
potassium, silicon, sodium, strontium, sulfur, tantalum, ammonia as
nitrogen, COD, chloride, fluoride, TDS, TOC, and total phosphorus.
Hopper Subcategories
<bullet> Conventional pollutants: BOD5, TSS, and pH;
<bullet> Priority toxic pollutants: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, silver, and
zinc; and
<bullet> Nonconventional pollutants: aluminum, calcium, iron,
magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, sulfur, ammonia as nitrogen,
COD, chloride, fluoride, TDS, TOC, and total phosphorus.
VIII. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Description of Available Technologies
There are three major approaches currently used by the TEC industry
to improve effluent quality: (1) cleaning process technology changes
and controls to prevent or reduce the generation of wastewater
pollutants; (2) flow reduction technologies to increase pollutant
concentrations and the efficiency of treatment system pollutant
removal; and (3) end-of-pipe wastewater treatment technologies to
remove pollutants from TEC wastewater prior to discharge. These
approaches and specific available technologies within these approaches
are described in the following subsections.
1. Pollution Prevention Controls
EPA has defined pollution prevention as source reduction and other
practices that reduce or eliminate the formation of pollutants. Source
reduction includes any practices that reduce the amount of any
hazardous substance or pollutant entering any waste stream or otherwise
released into the environment, or any practices that reduce the hazards
to public health and the environment associated with the release of
such
[[Page 34704]]
pollutants. The principal pollution prevention controls applicable to
the TEC industry are the use of dedicated tanks, heel reduction
techniques, and reduction in the amount or toxicity of chemical
cleaning solutions.
a. Use of dedicated tanks. Tanks dedicated to hauling a single
cargo (e.g., gasoline) do not require, or require less frequent, tank
cleaning between loads. Use of dedicated tanks eliminates the
generation of tank cleaning wastewater and associated pollutant
loading.
b. Heel reduction. Heel (residual cargo remaining in tanks
following unloading) is the primary source of pollutants in TEC
wastewater. Heel reduction techniques include the following: (1)
refusal to accept tanks with excess heel; (2) assessment of fees for
excess heel; (3) use of steam in tank interiors to lower the viscosity
of heels for improved draining; (4) manual use of squeegees to move
heel toward valve openings; (5) cold or hot water prerinses to enhance
heel removal; (6) heel recycle or reuse; and (7) heel disposal rather
than commingling and discharging with TEC wastewater.
c. Reduction in the amount and toxicity of chemical cleaning
solutions. Chemical cleaning solutions are the second major source of
pollutants in TEC wastewater. Chemical cleaning solution reduction
techniques include the following: (1) recirculation and reuse of
solutions; (2) use of prerinses to extend cleaning solution
effectiveness; (3) increased use of steam cleaning and other cleaning
processes that do not include chemical cleaning solutions; (4) solution
disposal rather than being commingled and discharged with TEC
wastewater; and (5) substitution with less toxic cleaning solutions.
2. Flow Reduction Technologies
Flow reduction technologies applicable to the TEC industry reduce
the amount of fresh water required for tank cleaning through cleaning
process modifications and/or recycle and reuse of process wastewaters
to TEC or other processes. Flow reduction technologies applicable to
the TEC industry include the use of high-pressure/low-volume cleaning
equipment, TEC water use monitoring, equipment monitoring programs, dry
cleaning, cascading tank cleaning, and wastewater recycle and reuse.
a. High-pressure/low-volume cleaning equipment. High-pressure (up
to 1,000 psi) delivery of water washes, cleaning solutions, and rinses
can clean as efficiently as low-pressure delivery while requiring
significantly less volume of water or cleaning solutions.
b. TEC water use monitoring. Careful monitoring of TEC water use
can ensure that the minimum adequate amount of water is used to clean
tank interiors. Visual inspection may be used to determine an
appropriate duration and amount of water required for cleaning.
Alternatively, cleaning personnel can use predetermined cleaning times
and amounts of water to clean specific tank type and cargo type
combinations based on experience.
c. Equipment monitoring program. Preventative maintenance and
periodic inspection of cleaning equipment such as pumps, hoses,
nozzles, and water and cleaning solution storage tanks can
significantly reduce fresh water requirements by eliminating water
waste.
d. Cleaning without use of water. Cleaning personnel may enter the
tank to shovel or sweep dry-bulk cargos or mop or squeegee liquid
cargos. Mechanical devices are also used to vibrate hoppers to improve
heel removal. Depending on the effectiveness of these dry cleaning
processes, the need for subsequent tank cleaning with water may be
eliminated. At a minimum, these techniques will reduce the amount of
water and cleaning solutions required to clean the tank interior.
e. Cascade tank cleaning. ``Cascade'' tank cleaning processes
involve the use of fresh water for final tank rinses with recycle and
reuse of final rinse wastewater in initial rinses. This technique uses
water at least twice prior to discharge or disposal.
f. Wastewater recycle and reuse. Water recycle and reuse techniques
reduce or eliminate the need for fresh process water. Wastewater
streams most commonly recycled and reused in TEC processes include tank
interior cleaning wastewater, hydrotesting wastewater, uncontaminated
storm water, and non-contact cooling water. These water sources
typically do not require extensive treatment prior to recycle and
reuse. Tank interior cleaning wastewater generated by cleaning tanks
used to transport petroleum products can be recycled and reused in TEC
processes after treatment by oil/water separation and activated carbon
treatment. Wastewater generated by cleaning tanks that last transported
chemical products generally requires more extensive treatment prior to
recycle and reuse in TEC processes.
3. End-of-Pipe Wastewater Treatment Technologies
End-of-pipe wastewater treatment includes physical, chemical, and
biological processes that remove pollutants from TEC wastewater prior
to discharge to a receiving stream or POTW. Typical end-of-pipe
treatment currently used by the TEC industry includes pretreatment and
primary treatment. Facilities that practice extensive water and
wastewater recycle and reuse or that discharge TEC wastewater directly
to surface waters may also operate biological and/or advanced treatment
units. Use of treatment technologies by the TEC industry is presented
as the percentage of direct or indirect discharging facilities that use
the technologies.
a. Oil/water separation. Approximately 36 percent of TEC facilities
use oil/water separation to remove oil and grease. The most common type
of oil/water separator used by TEC facilities is an oil skimmer.
Coalescing and corrugated plate separators are also used.
b. Gravity settling. Gravity settling or sedimentation removes
suspended solids from TEC process wastewater. Approximately 57 percent
of TEC facilities use gravity settling.
c. Equalization. Equalization provides wastewater retention time to
homogenize wastewater to control fluctuations in flow and pollutant
characteristics, reduce the size and cost of subsequent treatment
units, and improve the efficiency of subsequent treatment units.
Approximately 42 percent of TEC facilities use equalization.
d. pH adjustment. Many treatment technologies used by the TEC
industry are sensitive to pH. For example, chemical precipitation
requires a relatively high pH while biological treatment requires a
neutral pH. In addition, pH adjustment may also be required to meet
permit conditions for wastewater discharge. Approximately 44 percent of
TEC facilities use pH adjustment.
e. Grit removal. Grit removal involves the use of a settling
chamber to remove heavy, suspended material from wastewater. This is
typically used at the headworks of a treatment system to remove larger
particles which may damage pumps or treatment equipment. Approximately
four percent of TEC facilities use grit removal.
f. Coagulation/Flocculation. Coagulation involves the addition of a
``coagulant,'' such as an electrolyte or polymer, to destabilize
colloidal and fine suspended matter. Flocculation involves the
agglomeration of destabilized particles into flocs for subsequent
removal by gravity settling in a clarifier. Approximately 24 percent of
TEC facilities use coagulation/flocculation.
[[Page 34705]]
g. Chemical precipitation/separation. Chemical precipitation
removes dissolved pollutants from wastewater. Precipitation agents,
such as polyaluminum chloride, ferric chloride, and lime, work by
reacting with pollutant cations (e.g., metals) and some anions to
convert them into an insoluble form for subsequent removal by gravity
settling in a clarifier. The pH of the wastewater also affects how much
pollutant mass is precipitated, as pollutants precipitate more
efficiently at different pH ranges. Coagulation/flocculation may also
be used to assist particle agglomeration and settling. Approximately
six percent of TEC facilities use chemical precipitation/separation.
h. Clarification. Approximately 23 percent of TEC facilities use
clarification as either a pre- or post-treatment step to remove
settleable solids, free oil and grease, and other floating material.
Primary clarifiers remove settleable solids from raw wastewater or
wastewater treated by coagulation/flocculation; secondary clarification
is used in activated sludge systems to remove biomass. Clarifiers
consist of settling tanks commonly equipped with a sludge scraper
mounted on the floor of the clarifier to rake sludge into a sump for
removal to sludge handling equipment. The bottom of the clarifier may
be sloped to facilitate sludge removal.
i. Filtration. Filtration removes solids from wastewater by passing
the wastewater through a material that retains the solids on or within
itself. A wide variety of filter types are used by the TEC industry
including media filters (e.g., sand, gravel, charcoal), bag filters,
and cartridge filters. Approximately 24 percent of TEC facilities use
filtration technologies.
j. Sludge dewatering. Sludge dewatering reduces sludge volume by
decreasing its water content, thereby substantially reducing sludge
disposal costs. Sludge dewatering technologies used by TEC facilities
include sludge drying beds, filter presses, rotary vacuum filters, and
centrifuges. Approximately 28 percent of TEC facilities use sludge
dewatering.
k. Dissolved air flotation. Dissolved air flotation devices
introduce gas bubbles into wastewater which attach to suspended
particles such as free and dispersed oil and grease, suspended solids,
and some dissolved pollutants, causing them to float. Floating material
is removed from the surface by rakes. Approximately 25 percent of TEC
facilities use dissolved air flotation.
l. Biological oxidation. Biological oxidation involves the
biological conversion of dissolved and colloidal organics into biomass,
gases, and other end products. Activated sludge systems, consisting of
an aeration basin, a secondary clarifier, and a sludge recycle line,
are the most commonly used biological oxidation systems in the TEC
industry. Aerated stabilization basins and anaerobic technologies are
also used. Approximately nine percent of TEC facilities use biological
oxidation.
m. Chemical oxidation. Chemical oxidation involves the addition of
oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide to chemically oxidize toxic
pollutants to form less toxic constituents. Approximately two percent
of TEC facilities use chemical oxidation.
n. Activated carbon adsorption. Activated carbon removes pollutants
from wastewater by physical and chemical forces that bind the
constituents to the carbon surface. In general, pollutants with low
water solubility, high molecular weight, and those containing certain
chemical structures such as aromatic functional groups are most
amenable to treatment by activated carbon adsorption. Less than one
percent of TEC facilities use activated carbon adsorption.
o. Membrane filtration. Membrane filtration uses a pressure-driven,
semipermeable membrane to separate suspended, colloidal, and dissolved
solutes from wastewater. The size of pores in the membrane is selected
based on the type of contaminant to be removed. Types of membrane
filtration technologies used by the TEC industry include
microfiltration, ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis. A relatively
large pore size is used to remove precipitates or suspended materials,
whereas a relatively small pore size is used to remove inorganic salts
or organic molecules. Less than one percent of TEC facilities use
membrane filtration.
B. Technology Options Considered for Basis of Regulation
This section explains how EPA selected the effluent limitations and
standards proposed today for each of the TEC subcategories proposed for
regulation. To determine the technology basis and performance level for
the proposed regulations, EPA developed a database consisting of daily
influent and effluent data collected during EPA's wastewater sampling
program. This database is used to support the BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS,
PSES, and PSNS effluent limitations and standards.
The effluent limitations and pretreatment standards EPA is
proposing to establish today are based on well-designed, well-operated
treatment systems. Below is a summary of the technology bases for the
proposed effluent limitations and pretreatment standards in each
subcategory. When final guidelines are promulgated, a facility is free
to use any combination of wastewater treatment technologies and
pollution prevention strategies at the facility so long as the
numerical discharge limits are achieved.
In developing the regulatory options for proposing limitations and
pretreatment standards for the TEC industry, EPA utilized technology
bases from the wastewater treatment technologies and the pollution
prevention technologies described in Section VIII.A.
EPA incorporated the utilization of two common practices into the
technology options for all subcategories. The first is good heel
removal and management practices which prevent pollutants from entering
waste streams. These practices may reduce wastewater treatment system
capital and annual costs due to reduced wastewater pollutant loadings
and may provide a potential to recover/reuse valuable product. The
majority of TEC facilities currently operate good heel removal and
management practices. Because of the many benefits of these practices,
and a demonstrated trend in the TEC industry to implement these
practices, EPA believes that the TEC industry will have universally
implemented good heel removal and management practices prior to
implementation of TEC effluent guidelines.
The second common element is good water conservation practices
which reduce the amount of wastewater generated. Good water
conservation will improve wastewater treatment performance efficiency,
reduce wastewater treatment system capital and annual costs, and reduce
water usage and sewer fees. EPA considered good water conservation
practices to be represented by the median tank interior cleaning
wastewater volume discharged per tank cleaning (including commingled
non-TEC wastewater streams not easily segregated) for each subcategory.
This volume is referred to as the ``regulatory flow'' for each
subcategory. For the 50 percent of facilities not currently meeting the
regulatory flow, a flow reduction technology was costed. Flow reduction
technologies include operator training, new spinners, and new cleaning
systems.
In assessing the costs and loads for each regulatory option, EPA
considered the treatment in place at each facility potentially affected
by the regulation. In cases where the facility had treatment in place,
that facility was ``given credit''
[[Page 34706]]
for each treatment unit currently in place that was a part of EPA's
proposed treatment option. That facility was then assumed not to incur
additional costs for the installation of that particular unit. Often, a
facility had in place a treatment unit that was similar, but not
identical to, the treatment option proposed. In these cases, EPA
evaluated the existing treatment and gave credit for similar treatment
systems.
The following subsections discuss the regulatory options that were
considered for BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS. The Agency solicits
comment on alternative treatment technologies not considered by EPA
which may attain similar treatment removal efficiencies but that may be
less expensive to install and operate.
1. BPT Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Introduction. EPA today proposes BPT effluent limitations for
the following subcategories for the TEC Point Source Category: Truck/
Chemical, Rail/Chemical, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, and Truck/Food,
Rail/Food, and Barge/Food. The BPT effluent limitations proposed today
would control identified conventional, priority, and non-conventional
pollutants when discharged from TEC facilities. For further discussion
on the basis for the limitations and technologies selected see the
Technical Development Document.
As previously discussed, Section 304(b)(1)(A) of the CWA requires
EPA to identify effluent reductions attainable through the application
of ``best practicable control technology currently available for
classes and categories of point sources.'' The Senate Report for the
1972 amendments to the CWA explained how EPA must establish BPT
effluent reduction levels. Generally, EPA determines BPT effluent
levels based upon the average of the best existing performances by
plants of various sizes, ages, and unit processes within each
industrial category or subcategory. In industrial categories where
present practices are uniformly inadequate, however, EPA may determine
that BPT requires higher levels of control than any currently in place
if the technology to achieve those levels can be practicably applied.
See A Legislative History of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, U.S. Senate Committee of Public Works, Serial No.
93-1, January 1973, p. 1468.
In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost assessment
for BPT limitations. In determining the BPT limits, EPA must consider
the total cost of treatment technologies in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits achieved. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad
discretion to adopt BPT limitations that are achievable with available
technology unless the required additional reductions are ``wholly out
of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal level of
reduction.'' See Legislative History, op. cit. p. 170. Moreover, the
inquiry does not require the Agency to quantify benefits in monetary
terms. See e.g. American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F. 2d
1027 (3rd Cir. 1975).
In balancing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction, EPA
considers the volume and nature of expected discharges after
application of BPT, the general environmental effects of pollutants,
and the cost and economic impacts of the required level of pollution
control. In developing guidelines, the Act does not require or permit
consideration of water quality problems attributable to particular
point sources, or water quality improvements in particular bodies of
water. Therefore, EPA has not considered these factors in developing
the limitations being proposed today. See Weyerhaeuser Company v.
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
EPA identified relatively few direct discharging facilities for
most subcategories in the TEC industry as compared to the number of
indirect discharging facilities. However, the Agency concluded that
direct discharging facilities are similar to indirect discharging
facilities in terms of types of tanks cleaned, types of commodities
cleaned, water use, and wastewater characteristics. With respect to
existing end-of-pipe wastewater treatment in place, direct discharging
facilities typically operate biological treatment in addition to
physical/chemical treatment technologies typically operated by indirect
discharging facilities.
b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory. The Agency's engineering assessment
of BPT consisted of the following options:
<bullet> Option I: Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water
Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation,
Clarification, Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering. Option I
demonstrated treatment efficiency of 57 percent or greater for all
organic pollutants, 57 percent or greater for all metals, and 92
percent or greater for all conventional pollutants present in Truck/
Chemical Subcategory wastewater. All existing Truck/Chemical
Subcategory facilities received credit in EPA's costing model for
equalization, coagulation/clarification, and biological treatment in-
place, sixty-six percent received credit for existing sludge
dewatering, and no facilities received credit for existing oil/water
separation. (Oil/water separation was characterized at an indirect
discharge Truck/Chemical Subcategory facility).
<bullet> Option II: Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water
Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation,
Clarification, Biological Treatment, Activated Carbon Adsorption, and
Sludge Dewatering. Option II is equivalent to Option I with the
addition of activated carbon adsorption for wastewater polishing
following biological treatment. Option II removed 85 percent or greater
of organics, 79 percent or greater of metals and 98 percent or greater
of conventional pollutants present in Truck/Chemical Subcategory
wastewater. All Truck/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit
for existing activated carbon adsorption treatment.
EPA is proposing to establish BPT effluent limitations based on
Option II for the Truck/Chemical Subcategory. Agency data indicate that
a treatment train consisting of physical/chemical treatment for the
removal of metals and toxics, biological treatment for the removal of
decomposable organic material and activated carbon adsorption for
removal of residual organics and toxics represents the average of the
best treatment in the industry. As noted above, all existing direct
discharging facilities in this subcategory currently employ
equalization, coagulation/clarification, biological treatment and
activated adsorption. Although no direct discharging facilities were
given credit in EPA's costing model for a coelescing plate oil/water
separator, this technology is common and demonstrated practice in the
industry to improve the overall efficiency of the treatment system. EPA
has included the use of oil/water separation in its cost estimates to
the industry in order to ensure that the biological system performs
optimally.
EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option II treatment
reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent reductions
attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved.
No basis could be found for identifying different BPT limitations
based on age, size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the
age nor the size of the TEC facility will directly affect the
treatability of the TEC wastewaters. For Truck/Chemical
[[Page 34707]]
facilities, the most pertinent factors for establishing the limitations
are costs of treatment and the level of effluent reductions obtainable.
EPA estimates that implementation of Option II will cost $0.43 per
pound of pollutants removed, and has found that cost to be reasonable.
Finally, EPA also looked at the costs of all options to determine the
economic impact that this proposal would have on the TEC industry. EPA
anticipates that the economic impact, in terms of facility closures and
employment losses, due to the controls established by BPT would be
comparable to that estimated in EPA's assessment for indirect
dischargers, which resulted in no facility closures or employment
losses. EPA therefore projects that implementation of BPT Option II
will result in no facility closures and no employment losses.
Therefore, EPA has concluded that the total costs associated with the
proposed BPT option are achievable and are reasonable as compared to
the removals achieved by this option. Further discussion on the
economic impact analysis can be found in Section X of today's notice.
c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory. The Agency's engineering assessment
of BPT consisted of the following options:
<bullet> Option I: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation,
Equalization, Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering. Option I
removed 64 percent or greater of organic pollutants, 95 percent or
greater of BOD<INF>5</INF>, and 98 percent or greater of oil and
grease. All Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit in
EPA's costing model for existing biological treatment and sludge
dewatering. No Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit for
existing oil/water separation treatment. (Oil/water separation was
characterized at a zero discharge Rail/Chemical Subcategory facility
that recycled/reused 100 percent of TEC wastewater.)
<bullet> Option II: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation,
Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH
Adjustment), Biological Treatment and Sludge Dewatering. Option II is
equivalent to Option I with the addition of Dissolved Air Flotation for
the removal of oil and grease and the organic and metallic compounds
contained in the oily fraction. Option II removed 81 percent or greater
of organic pollutants, 84 percent or greater of metals, 99 percent or
greater of oil and grease, and 92 percent or greater of TSS present in
Rail/Chemical Subcategory wastewater. All Rail/Chemical Subcategory
facilities received credit for existing equalization and pH adjustment.
No Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit for existing
dissolved air flotation. (Dissolved air flotation was characterized at
a zero discharge Rail/Chemical Subcategory facility that recycled/
reused 100 percent of TEC wastewater.)
<bullet> Option III: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation,
Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH
Adjustment), Biological Treatment, Organo-Clay/Activated Carbon
Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering. Option III is equivalent to Option
II with the addition of an organo-clay/activated carbon adsorption
system for wastewater polishing following biological treatment. Option
III removed 84 percent or greater of organic pollutants, and 99 percent
or greater of TSS present in Rail/Chemical Subcategory wastewater. No
Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit in EPA's costing
model for existing organo-clay/activated carbon adsorption treatment.
(Organo-clay/activated carbon adsorption treatment was characterized at
a zero discharge Rail/Chemical Subcategory facility that recycled/
reused 100 percent of TEC wastewater.)
EPA is proposing to set BPT regulations for the Rail/Chemical
Subcategory based on technology Option I. EPA's decision to base BPT
limitations on Option I treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1)
the degree of effluent reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of
the proposed treatment technologies in relation to the effluent
reductions achieved.
No basis could be found for identifying different BPT limitations
based on age, size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the
age nor the size of the TEC facility will directly affect the
treatability of the TEC wastewaters. For Rail/Chemical facilities, the
most pertinent factors for establishing the limitations are costs of
treatment and the level of effluent reductions obtainable.
EPA has selected Option I based on the comparison of the three
options in terms of total costs of achieving the effluent reductions,
pounds of pollutant removals, economic impacts, and general
environmental effects of the reduced pollutant discharges.
EPA estimates that implementation of Option I will cost $103
dollars per pound of pollutants removed. Although this projected cost
per pound appears to be high, EPA has used a very conservative cost
approach to project costs to the industry. The one facility in EPA's
cost model is already projected to meet the proposed effluent
limitations due to the low effluent levels achieved at this facility,
which average 8 mg/l of BOD<INF>5</INF>. However, because EPA's
proposed treatment technology includes oil/water separation, the cost
model has assumed that this facility will incur additional costs to
install this treatment. Additionally, EPA has given no credit to any
facility for current monitoring practices. Therefore, EPA has assumed
that all monitoring requirements will result in an increase in costs to
the industry. In reality, this facility will likely not need to install
additional treatment to meet the proposed limits, and some of the
monitoring costs assumed by EPA will not be an additional cost burden
to the industry.
The technology proposed in Option I represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of biological
treatment and sludge dewatering. Although no direct discharging
facilities were given credit in EPA's costing model for oil/water
separation, this technology is common and demonstrated practice in the
industry to improve the overall efficiency of the wastewater treatment
system. EPA has included the use of oil/water separation in its cost
estimates to the industry in order to ensure that the biological system
performs optimally.
Finally, EPA also looked at the costs of all options to determine
the economic impact that this proposal would have on the TEC industry.
EPA expects the financial and economic profile of the direct
dischargers to be comparable to that of the estimated 38 indirect
dischargers. EPA anticipates that the economic impact, in terms of
facility closures and employment losses, due to the additional controls
at BPT Option II and III levels would be comparable to that estimated
in EPA's assessment for indirect discharges, potentially leading to six
facility closures and the associated loss of over 400 employees. The
annual cost per facility for BPT Option I is projected to be $12,900
less than the technology evaluated for PSES which caused six facility
closures. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the costs of BPT Option I
are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals achieved
by this option. Further discussion on the economic impact analysis can
be found in Section X of today's notice.
d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. The Agency's engineering
assessment of BPT consisted of the following options:
<bullet> Option I: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved
Air Flotation, Filter Press, Biological Treatment, and Sludge
Dewatering. Option I removed 81 percent or greater
[[Page 34708]]
of organic pollutants, 82 percent or greater of metals and 96 percent
or greater of conventional pollutants present in Barge/Chemical &
Petroleum wastewater.
Approximately 79 percent of Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
facilities received credit in EPA's costing model for existing oil/
water separation, 21 percent for dissolved air flotation, 74 percent
for biological treatment and 42 percent for sludge dewatering. Although
at least one Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facility is known to have
filter press treatment in place, no facilities received credit for
filter press treatment in EPA's cost and pollutant removal estimates.
(Filter press treatment was characterized at a direct discharging
facility).
<bullet> Option II: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved
Air Flotation, Filter Press, Biological Treatment, Reverse Osmosis, and
Sludge Dewatering. Option II is equivalent to Option I with the
addition of reverse osmosis for wastewater polishing following
biological treatment. Option II removed 99 percent or greater of
organic pollutants, 88 percent or greater of metals and 99 percent or
greater of conventional pollutants present in Barge/Chemical &
Petroleum wastewater. Although at least one Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
facility is known to have reverse osmosis treatment in place, no
facilities received credit for existing reverse osmosis in EPA's cost
and pollutant removal estimates. (Reverse osmosis treatment was
characterized at a direct discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory facility.)
EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option I treatment
reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent reductions
attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved.
EPA estimates that implementation of Option I will cost $0.35 per
pound of pollutants removed, and has found that cost to be reasonable.
Additionally, the Agency concluded that reverse osmosis is not commonly
used in the industry, and therefore Option II does not represent the
average of the best treatment. Finally, EPA also looked at the costs of
all options to determine the economic impact that this proposal would
have on the TEC industry. EPA's assessment showed that implementation
of BPT is projected to result in no facility closures and no employment
losses. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the total costs associated
with the proposed BPT option are achievable and are reasonable as
compared to the removals achieved by this option. Further discussion on
the economic impact analysis can be found in Section X of today's
notice.
e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories. EPA
considered the following BPT options for these subcategories:
<bullet> Option I--Flow Reduction and Oil/Water Separation.
<bullet> Option II--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation,
Equalization, Biological Treatment and Sludge Dewatering. Option II is
equivalent to Option I with the addition of biological treatment for
biological decomposition of organic constituents. (All facilities have
biological treatment in place.)
Based on screener survey results, EPA estimates that there are 19
direct discharging facilities in the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/
Food Subcategories. However, EPA's survey of the TEC industry did not
initially identify any direct discharging facilities through the
Detailed Questionnaire sample population.
Because all types of facilities in the food subcategories accept
similar types of cargos which generate similar types of wastewater in
terms of treatability and toxicity, EPA has tentatively determined that
the same BPT can be applied to all three (truck, rail and barge) food
subcategories. The wastewater generated by the food subcategories
contains high loadings of biodegradable organics, and few toxic
pollutants. EPA conducted sampling at a direct discharging barge food-
grade facility which EPA believes to be representative of the entire
population.
Based on the data collected by EPA, raw wastewater contained
significant levels of organic material in the raw wastewater,
exhibiting an average BOD\5\ concentration of 3500 mg/l. Therefore, EPA
concluded that some form of biological treatment is necessary to reduce
potential impacts to receiving waters from direct-discharging
facilities and EPA anticipated that all direct discharging facilities
in these subcategories would have some form of biological treatment in
place. All existing facilities which responded to the screener survey
questionnaire indicated that they did, in fact, have a biological
treatment system in place. Therefore, EPA proposes to establish BPT
based on Option II for the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food
Subcategories
EPA projects no additional pollutant removals and no additional
costs to the industry based on EPA's selection of Option II because all
facilities identified by EPA currently have the proposed technology in
place.
f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. EPA did not
develop or evaluate BPT Options for these subcategories for the
following reasons: (1) All direct discharging facilities previously
identified by the Agency are no longer in operation; (2) EPA is not
aware of any new facilities that have recently begun operations; and
(3) EPA currently believes permit writers can more appropriately
control discharges from these facilities, if any, using best
professional judgement.
g. Truck/hopper, Rail/hopper, and Barge/hopper Subcategories. EPA
is not proposing to establish BPT 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 found 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. Therefore, nationally-
applicable regulations are unnecessary at this time and direct
dischargers will remain subject to limitations established on a case by
case basis using best professional judgement.
2. BCT Technology Options Considered and Selected
In July 1986, EPA promulgated a methodology for establishing BCT
effluent limitations. EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT candidate
technologies--those that are technologically feasible--by applying a
two-part cost test: (1) A POTW test; and (2) an industry cost-
effectiveness test.
EPA first calculates the cost per pound of conventional pollutant
removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a BCT
candidate technology and then compares this cost to the cost per pound
of conventional pollutants removed in upgrading POTWs from secondary
treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the POTW
benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars).
In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the
incremental BPT to BCT cost divided by the BPT cost for the industry
must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the cost increase must be less than 29
percent).
In today's proposal, EPA is proposing to establish BCT effluent
limitations guidelines equivalent to the BPT guidelines for the
conventional pollutants for the following subcategories: Truck/
Chemical, Rail/Chemical, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, Truck/Food, Rail/
Food, and Barge/Food. In developing BCT limits, EPA
[[Page 34709]]
considered whether there are technologies that achieve greater removals
of conventional pollutants than proposed for BPT, and whether those
technologies are cost-reasonable according to the BCT Cost Test. In
each subcategory, EPA identified no technologies that can achieve
greater removals of conventional pollutants than proposed for BPT that
are also cost-reasonable under the BCT Cost Test, and accordingly EPA
proposes BCT effluent limitations equal to the proposed BPT effluent
limitations guidelines for all subcategories. The detailed results of
EPA's assessment of candidate technologies, and the results of the cost
test, are presented in the Technical Development Document.
3. BAT Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Truck/Chemical Subcategory. EPA has not identified any more
stringent treatment technology option which it considered to represent
BAT level of control applicable to Truck/Chemical facilities in this
industry, and is therefore proposing that BAT be established equivalent
to BPT for toxic and nonconventional pollutants. Further, EPA
anticipates, based on the economic analysis for indirect dischargers,
that implementing this level of control will result in no facility
closures or employment losses. EPA found this Option to be economically
achievable. Therefore, EPA is establishing BAT for the Truck/Chemical
Subcategory equal to BPT for the priority and non-conventional
pollutants.
b. Rail/Chemical Subcategory. EPA evaluated BPT Options II and III
as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of
control being proposed today. EPA anticipates that the financial and
economic profile of the direct dischargers in this subcategory is
similar to that of the estimated 38 indirect dischargers. EPA
anticipates that the economic impact due to the additional controls at
Option II and III levels would be comparable to that estimated in EPA's
assessment for indirect discharges, potentially leading to six facility
closures and the associated loss of over 400 employees. Although these
options result in improved pollutant reductions, the cost of
implementing the level of control associated with Options II and III
are disproportionately high, making these options no longer
economically achievable for this Subcategory as a whole. Option I is
projected to result in no facility closures and no associated
employment losses. Additionally, Option I was demonstrated to achieve a
high level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to
very low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
Therefore, EPA is establishing BAT for the Rail/Chemical
Subcategory equivalent to BPT for the priority and non-conventional
pollutants.
c. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA evaluated BPT Option
II as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of
control being proposed today. Although BPT Option II results in the
removal of an estimated additional 167 toxic pounds equivalent of
priority and non-conventional pollutants over Option I (a one percent
increase in removals achieved by BPT), no additional water quality
benefits are projected to result. At both Option I and Option II level
of control, EPA predicts that there will remain three water quality
excursions nationally. This excursion is caused by a TEC facility
modeled to discharge treated effluent to a very low flow stream, and is
therefore not projected to be eliminated by either treatment option.
The Agency also concluded that reverse osmosis may not represent
the best available treatment because cost-effective disposal methods
for the concentrate (the wastewater containing the concentrated
pollutants, compared to the permeate) may not be available for all
facilities. Concentrate may account for 10 to 30 percent of the
original wastewater flow, depending on the efficiency of the reverse
osmosis system, and may result in significant disposal costs for large
flow facilities.
Additionally, Option I was demonstrated to achieve a high level of
pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very low levels,
often at or near the analytical minimum level. For these reasons, EPA
has determined that BPT Option I represents the best available
technology. BPT Option I is also economically achievable. Therefore,
EPA is proposing BAT for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
equivalent to BPT for the priority and non-conventional pollutants.
d. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories. EPA has not
identified any more stringent treatment technology option which it
considered to represent BAT level of control applicable to Food
Subcategory facilities in this industry. Based on EPA sampling data,
EPA found that food grade facilities discharge very few pounds of toxic
pollutants. Therefore, EPA is proposing not to establish BAT for the
Food Subcategories.
e. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. EPA did not
develop or evaluate BAT Options for these subcategories for the
following reasons: (1) All direct discharging facilities previously
identified by the Agency are no longer in operation; (2) EPA is not
aware of any new facilities that have recently begun operations; and
(3) EPA currently believes permit writers can more appropriately
control discharges from these facilities, if any, using best
professional judgement.
f. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories. EPA
is not proposing to establish BAT regulations for any of the hopper
subcategories. EPA concluded that hopper facilities discharge very few
pounds of toxic pollutants. EPA estimates that nine hopper facilities
discharge 21 pound equivalents per year to surface waters, or about two
pound equivalents per year per facility. The loadings calculations are
based on EPA sampling data, which found 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. Therefore,
nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary at this time and
direct dischargers will remain subject to limitations established on a
case by case basis using best professional judgement.
4. NSPS Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Introduction. As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act,
new industrial direct dischargers must comply with standards which
reflect the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through
application of the best available demonstrated control technologies.
Congress envisioned that new sources could meet tighter controls than
existing sources because of the opportunity to incorporate the most
efficient processes and treatment systems into plant design. Therefore,
Congress directed EPA, in establishing NSPS, to consider the best
demonstrated process changes, in-plant controls, operating methods and
end-of-pipe treatment technologies that reduce pollution to the maximum
extent feasible.
New direct discharging facilities have the opportunity to
incorporate the best available demonstrated technologies, including
process changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment
technologies. The general approach followed by EPA for developing NSPS
options was to evaluate the best demonstrated processes for control of
priority toxic, nonconventional, and
[[Page 34710]]
conventional pollutants. Specifically, EPA evaluated the technologies
used as the basis for BPT (BCT and BAT are equivalent to BPT). The
Agency considered these options as a starting point when developing
NSPS options because the technologies used to control pollutants at
existing facilities are fully applicable to new facilities.
b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory. EPA has not identified any more
stringent treatment technology option which it considered to represent
NSPS level of control applicable to Truck/Chemical facilities in this
industry. Further, EPA has made a finding of no barrier to entry based
upon the establishment of this level of control for new sources.
Therefore, EPA is proposing that NSPS for the Truck/Chemical
Subcategory be established equivalent to BPT for conventional,
priority, and nonconventional pollutants.
c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory. EPA evaluated BPT Options II and III
as a basis for establishing NSPS more stringent than the BAT level of
control being proposed today. The cost implications anticipated for new
sources are not as severe as those projected for existing sources. By
utilizing good heel removal and management practices which prevent
pollutants from entering waste streams, and good water conservation
practices in the design of new facilities, treatment unit size can be
substantially reduced and treatment efficiencies improved. As a result,
costs of achieving BPT Options II and III can be significantly reduced
by new sources. BPT Options II and III technologies have been
demonstrated at an existing zero discharge rail/chemical facility. EPA
anticipates no barrier to entry for new sources employing these
technologies at lower cost. Furthermore, based on an analysis of
benefits for existing sources, significant environmental differences
would be anticipated between Options I and II and Option III for new
sources. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish new source
performance standards for the Rail/Chemical Subcategory based on BPT
Option III. Option III consists of flow reduction, oil/water
separation, equalization, dissolved air flotation (with flocculation
and pH adjustment), biological treatment, organo-clay/activated carbon
adsorption, and sludge dewatering.
d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA evaluated BPT Option
II as a basis for establishing NSPS more stringent than the BAT level
of control being proposed today. EPA rejected BPT Option II as a basis
for NSPS for the same reasons this additional technology was rejected
for BAT. Even though the cost implications for new sources are not as
severe as those projected for existing sources, the cost and economic
implications of BPT Option II do bear upon the determination that
reverse osmosis technology as inappropriate for consideration as part
of the best available technology for the control of pollutants for this
subcategory.
Reverse osmosis was not considered to be the best available
technology due to the small incremental removals achieved by this
option, the lack of additional water quality benefits potentially
achieved by this option, the potential issue of disposing the liquid
concentrate created by treatment, and the high level of pollutant
control achieved by the proposed BAT option.
Therefore, EPA is proposing that NSPS for the Barge/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory be established equivalent to BPT for
conventional, priority, and nonconventional pollutants.
e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories. EPA has not
identified any more stringent treatment technology option which it
considered to represent NSPS level of control applicable to Food
Subcategory facilities in this industry. Further, EPA has made a
finding of no barrier to entry based upon the establishment of this
level of control for new sources. Therefore, EPA is proposing that NSPS
for the Food Subcategories be established equivalent to BPT for
conventional pollutants.
f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. EPA did not
develop or evaluate BAT Options for these subcategories for the
following reasons: (1) all direct discharging facilities previously
identified by the Agency are no longer in operation; (2) EPA is not
aware of any new facilities that have recently begun operations; and
(3) EPA currently believes permit writers can more appropriately
control discharges from these facilities, if any, using best
professional judgement. EPA is therefore proposing not to establish
NSPS for the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories.
g. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories EPA is
not proposing to establish NSPS regulations for any of the hopper
subcategories. EPA concluded that hopper facilities discharge very few
pounds of toxic pollutants, and contain 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. Therefore,
nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary at this time and
direct dischargers will remain subject to limitations established on a
case by case basis using best professional judgement.
5. PSES Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Introduction. Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to
promulgate pretreatment standards to prevent pass-through of pollutants
from POTWs to waters of the U.S. or to prevent pollutants from
interfering with the operation of POTWs. After a thorough analysis of
indirect discharging facilities in the EPA database, EPA has decided to
propose PSES in several subcategories for the reasons explained in more
detail below.
b. Pass-Through Analysis. Before proposing pretreatment standards,
the Agency examines whether the pollutants discharged by an industry
pass through a POTW or interfere with the POTW . In determining whether
pollutants pass through a POTW, the Agency compares the percentage of a
pollutant removed by POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant removed
by discharging facilities applying BAT. A pollutant is deemed to pass
through the POTW when the average percentage removed nationwide by
representative POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment requirements)
is less than the percentage removed by facilities complying with BAT
effluent limitations guidelines for that pollutant.
This approach to the definition of pass-through satisfies two
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) that wastewater treatment
performance for indirect dischargers be equivalent to that for direct
dischargers and (2) that the treatment capability and performance of
the POTW be recognized and taken into account in regulating the
discharge of pollutants from indirect dischargers. Rather than compare
the mass or concentration of pollutants discharged by the POTW with the
mass or concentration of pollutants discharged by a BAT facility, EPA
compares the percentage of the pollutants removed by the proposed
treatment system with the POTW removal. EPA takes this approach because
a comparison of mass or concentration of pollutants in a POTW effluent
with pollutants in a BAT facility's effluent would not take into
account the mass of pollutants discharged to the POTW from non-
industrial sources nor the dilution of the pollutants in the POTW
effluent to lower concentrations from the addition of large amounts of
non-industrial wastewater.
For past effluent guidelines, a study of 50 representative POTWs
was used for
[[Page 34711]]
the pass-through analysis. Because the data collected for evaluating
POTW removals included influent levels of pollutants that were close to
the detection limit, the POTW data were edited to eliminate low
influent concentration levels. For analytes that included a combination
of high and low influent concentrations, the data was edited to
eliminate all influent values, and corresponding effluent values, less
than 10 times the minimum level. For analytes where no influent
concentrations were greater than 10 times the minimum level, all
influent values less than five times the minimum level and the
corresponding effluent values were eliminated. For analytes where no
influent concentration was greater than five times the minimum level,
the data was edited to eliminate all influent concentrations, and
corresponding effluent values, less than 20 ug/l. These editing rules
were used to allow for the possibility that low POTW removal simply
reflected the low influent levels.
EPA then averaged the remaining influent data and the remaining
effluent data from the 50 POTW database. The percent removals achieved
for each pollutant was determined from these averaged influent and
effluent levels. This percent removal was then compared to the percent
removal for the BAT option treatment technology. Due to the large
number of pollutants applicable for this industry, additional data from
the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database was used to
augment the POTW database for the pollutants for which the 50 POTW
Study did not cover. For a more detailed description of the pass-
through analysis, see the Technical Development Document.
c. Truck/Chemical Subcategory. In the Agency's engineering
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of
wastewaters from the Truck/Chemical Subcategory, EPA considered two
options comprised of technologies currently used by facilities in the
Truck/Chemical Subcategory.
<bullet> Option I--Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water
Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation,
Clarification, and Sludge Dewatering. Option I removed 57 percent or
greater of organic pollutants and 57 percent or greater of metals.
Approximately 56 percent of Truck/Chemical Subcategory facilities
received credit in EPA's costing model for existing equalization, nine
percent for oil/water separation, 27 percent for coagulation/
clarification, and 28 percent for sludge dewatering.
<bullet> Option II--Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water
Separation, Chemical Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation,
Clarification, Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.
Option II is equivalent to Option I with the addition of activated
carbon adsorption for wastewater polishing following clarification.
Option II removed 80 percent or greater of organics and 79 percent of
metals. No Truck/Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit for
existing activated carbon adsorption treatment. (Activated carbon
adsorption treatment was characterized at two indirect discharging
Truck/Chemical Subcategory facilities that were not selected to receive
a detailed questionnaire.)
EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment standards based on
Option II based on the additional removals achieved by this option. EPA
has determined that Option II is economically achievable and results in
no facility closures or projected employment losses. EPA notes that
Option II removes 22,000 pound equivalents more than Option I.
Additionally, the cost per pound equivalent removed is $114, which is
within the range of other effluent guidelines promulgated by EPA.
EPA conducted a pass-through analysis on the pollutants proposed to
be regulated under BPT and BAT for Truck/Chemical facilities 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> and TSS.) Several pollutants were
determined to pass-through a POTW and are therefore proposed for PSES
regulation in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory.
d. Rail/Chemical Subcategory. In the Agency's engineering
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of
wastewaters from the Rail/Chemical Subcategory, EPA considered three
options comprised of technologies currently used by facilities in the
Rail/Chemical Subcategory.
<bullet> Option I--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation.
Approximately 16 percent of Rail/Chemical Subcategory facilities
received credit in EPA's costing model for existing oil/water
separation.
<bullet> Option II--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation,
Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH
Adjustment), and Sludge Dewatering. Approximately 61 percent of Rail/
Chemical Subcategory facilities received credit in EPA's costing model
for existing equalization, 15 percent for dissolved air flotation, 30
percent for pH adjustment, and 17 percent for sludge dewatering.
<bullet> Option III--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation,
Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH
Adjustment), Organo-Clay/Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge
Dewatering. Option III is equivalent to Option II with the addition of
an organo-clay/activated carbon adsorption system for wastewater
polishing following the dissolved air flotation unit. No Rail/Chemical
Subcategory facilities received credit for existing organo-clay/
activated carbon adsorption treatment. (Organo-clay/activated carbon
adsorption treatment was characterized at a zero discharge Rail/
Chemical Subcategory facility that recycled/reused 100 percent of TEC
wastewater.)
Option I removed entrained oil and grease with incidental removal
of 61 percent or greater of organic pollutants, Option II removed 72
percent or greater of organic pollutants and 84 percent of metals, and
Option III removed 84 percent or greater of organic pollutants.
EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment standards for the Rail/
Chemical Subcategory based on Option I. EPA estimates that this option
does not result in any facility closures or employment losses to the
industry. Option II, however, was projected to result in six facility
closures and is not economically achievable.
The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel commented extensively on
the difference in the proposed treatment options for indirect
dischargers in the truck chemical and rail chemical subcategories and
on the related costs and pollutant removals. Based on current data, the
proposed option for the Truck/Chemical Subcategory is estimated to
remove about 49 percent of toxic loading, at an average cost of about
$70,000 per facility, while the proposed option for the Rail/Chemical
Subcategory is estimated to remove about 59 percent of toxic loadings,
at an average cost of $33,000 per facility. The panel recognized that a
direct comparison of the costs and removals between the two types of
facilities may not be appropriate, because facilities in the truck
chemical subcategory may discharge a different mix of pollutants.
Nonetheless, the Panel recommended that EPA give serious consideration
to proposing treatment technology for the truck chemical subcategory
closer to that proposed for the rail chemical subcategory. After
serious consideration of the record, the Agency continues to believe
that it is appropriate to propose the more stringent technology for
[[Page 34712]]
indirect dischargers in the truck chemical subcategory at this time.
Intuitively, it is reasonable to assume that the characteristics
and treatability of raw wastewater generated from the truck and rail
sectors will be similar because similar types of commodities are
generally transported by tank trucks and rail cars. However, wastewater
volumes per tank are much larger for rail cars than for tank trucks
(approximately 605 gallons compared to 2,091 gallons). This difference
in wastewater flow volumes has a direct impact on the costs that must
be incurred to install and maintain wastewater treatment due to the
larger treatment system necessary.
The difference in treatment technology selected for the rail and
truck subcategories is primarily due to the economic characteristics of
the rail facilities as compared to the chemical facilities. EPA's
economic assessment of the industry found that there was a significant
difference in the economic characteristics of the two subcategories.
This resulted in the preliminary conclusion that the Rail/Chemical
facilities were not able to absorb the cost of installing high levels
of treatment without incurring significant economic impacts. The
economic impacts associated with this option is described in Section X
of this notice.
Due to time constraints, the Agency has not had time to conduct an
analysis of the cost and effectiveness of applying flow reduction and
oil/water separation only to indirect dischargers in the truck chemical
subcategory. However, the Agency intends to conduct such an analysis
prior to promulgating the final rule. If it turns out that this
technology is nearly as effective at removing toxic pollutants for
facilities in the truck chemical subcategory as the currently proposed
technology but at considerably lower cost, the Agency will consider
basing the limits in the final rule on the alternate technology, or
some technology closer to it. The Agency requests comment on this
issue, as well as any data relating to the effectiveness of flow
reduction and oil/water separation only for indirect dischargers in the
truck chemical industry.
EPA conducted a pass-through analysis on the pollutants proposed to
be regulated under BPT and BAT for Rail/Chemical facilities to
determine if the Agency should establish pretreatment standards for any
pollutant. (The pass-through analysis is not applicable to conventional
parameters such as BOD5 and TSS.) Several pollutants were determined to
pass-through a POTW and are therefore proposed for PSES regulation in
the Rail/Chemical Subcategory.
e. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. In the Agency's survey
of the industry, EPA identified only one facility discharging to a POTW
in this subcategory. Therefore, EPA does not propose to establish PSES
limitations for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA did,
however, evaluate technologies for PSNS, as described in section
VIII.B.6
f. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories. In the
Agency's engineering assessment of pretreatment of wastewaters for the
Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories, 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 were found at
concentrations that are amenable to treatment at a POTW. As a result,
EPA is proposing not to establish pretreatment standards for any of the
Food Subcategories.
g. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. In the
Agency's engineering assessment of the best available technology for
pretreatment of wastewaters from the Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum
Subcategories, EPA considered two options comprised of technologies
currently used by facilities in these subcategories.
<bullet> Option I--Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water
Separation, and Chemical Precipitation.
<bullet> Option II--Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water
Separation, and Activated Carbon Adsorption Followed by Total
Wastewater Recycle/Reuse. Approximately 47 percent of Truck/Petroleum
Subcategory facilities and 100 percent of Rail/Petroleum Subcategory
facilities received credit in EPA's costing model for existing oil/
water separation. No Truck/Petroleum Subcategory or Rail/Petroleum
Subcategory facilities received credit for existing equalization or
activated carbon adsorption. Total recycle/reuse of TEC wastewater
following treatment using activated carbon is practiced by an estimated
seven petroleum subcategory facilities. (An additional estimated 22
petroleum facilities practice 100 percent recycle/reuse of TEC
wastewater following treatment by technologies different than Option
II.)
Due to the similarity of cargos cleaned at Rail/Petroleum and
Truck/Petroleum facilities, EPA considered wastewater from Truck/
Petroleum facilities to be similar to that from Rail/Petroleum
facilities. In evaluating these subcatogories for potential regulation,
EPA conducted wastewater characterization sampling at one Truck/
Petroleum facility and combined this data with data transferred from
the CWT effluent guideline to evaluate wastewater characteristics for
the subcategory, as described in section VII of this notice.
EPA estimates that there are 38 facilities in the Truck/Petroleum
and Rail/Petroleum subcategories. EPA estimates that these facilities
discharge a total of 28 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 $600,000 annually. The estimated costs to control the
discharge of these small amounts of pound equivalents were not
considered to be reasonable. Based on this analysis, EPA preliminarily
concluded that there is no need to develop nationally applicable
regulations for these subcategories due to the low levels of pollutants
discharged by facilities in this subcategory.
Based on these factors, EPA proposes not to establish pretreatment
standards for the Truck/Petroleum or Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. EPA
recognizes that limited data were collected which characterizes the
pollutants present in wastewater from these facilities. As a result,
the Agency solicits data which can either substantiate or refute its
tentative conclusions regarding raw wastewater from Truck/Petroleum and
Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, and also any data which characterizes
pollutants present in wastewaters from these facilities.
h. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories. In
the Agency's engineering assessment of the best available technology
for pretreatment of wastewaters from the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and
Barge/Hopper Subcategories, EPA considered one option comprised of
technologies currently used by facilities in these subcategories.
<bullet> Option I--Flow Reduction and Gravity Separation. EPA
selected these technologies as Option I because they remove 69 percent
or greater of metals present in Truck/Hopper Subcategory, Rail/Hopper
Subcategory and Barge/Hopper Subcategory wastewaters. Approximately 84
percent of Truck Hopper Subcategory facilities, 100 percent of Rail
Hopper Subcategory facilities, and 100 percent of Barge
[[Page 34713]]
Hopper Subcategory facilities received credit for existing gravity
separation.
EPA conducted wastewater characterization sampling at one Barge/
Hopper facility. The Agency did not conduct sampling at any Rail/Hopper
or Truck/Hopper facilities. The Agency believes that wastewater from
all Hopper facilities are similar because the same types of cargos are
hauled by each of the three segments.
EPA estimates that there are 42 indirect discharging hopper
facilities. EPA estimates that these facilities 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 is not proposing to establish BAT limits for any priority
pollutant in the hopper subcategories. EPA did, however, look at the
levels of pollutants in raw wastewaters and concluded that none were
present at levels that are expected to cause inhibition of the
receiving POTW.
Based on these factors, EPA proposes not to establish pretreatment
standards for the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, or Barge/Hopper
Subcategories. EPA recognizes that limited data were collected which
characterizes the pollutants present in wastewater from these
facilities. As a result, the Agency solicits data which can either
substantiate or refute its tentative conclusions regarding raw
wastewater from hopper facilities, and also any data which
characterizes pollutants present in wastewaters from these facilities.
6. PSNS Technology Options Considered and Selected
a. Introduction. Section 307 of the Act requires EPA to promulgate
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). New indirect discharging
facilities, like new direct discharging facilities, have the
opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated technologies
including: process changes, in-facility controls, and end-of-pipe
treatment technologies.
The general approach followed by EPA for developing PSNS options
was to evaluate the best demonstrated processes for control of priority
toxic and nonconventional pollutants. Specifically, EPA evaluated the
technologies used as the basis for PSES. The Agency considered the PSES
options as a starting point when developing PSNS options because the
technologies used to control pollutants at existing facilities are
fully applicable to new facilities. With respect to good heel removal
and management practices, water conservation, and end-of-pipe
wastewater treatment technologies, EPA has not identified any
technologies or combinations of technologies that are demonstrated for
new sources that are different from those used as the basis for the
PSES options. Therefore, EPA has analyzed the same set of control
technologies in selecting PSNS as were analyzed for PSES.
b. Truck/Chemical Subcategory. In today's rule, EPA proposes to
establish pretreatment standards for new sources in the Truck/Chemical
Subcategory equivalent to the PSES standards. In developing PSNS
limits, EPA considered whether there are technologies that achieve
greater removals than proposed for PSES which would be appropriate for
PSNS. In this subcategory, EPA identified no technology that can
achieve greater removals than PSES. Therefore, EPA is proposing
pretreatment standards for those pollutants which the Agency has
determined to pass through a POTW equal to PSES.
c. Rail/Chemical Subcategory. EPA evaluated PSES Options II and III
as more stringent levels of control that may be appropriate for new
indirect sources. The cost implications anticipated for new sources are
not as severe as those projected for existing sources. By utilizing
good heel removal and management practices which prevent pollutants
from entering waste streams, and good water conservation practices in
the design of new facilities, treatment unit size can be substantially
reduced and treatment efficiencies improved. As a result, costs of
achieving PSES Option II and III can be significantly reduced at new
facilities. All of the technologies considered have been demonstrated
at an existing zero discharge rail/chemical facility. EPA anticipates
no barrier to entry for new sources employing these technologies at
lower cost.
Therefore, EPA is proposing PSNS for those pollutants which the
Agency has determined to pass through a POTW based on PSES Option III.
EPA is soliciting comment on whether or not it is appropriate to
establish PSNS based on a more stringent regulatory control option than
PSES.
d. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. Although the Agency is
not proposing to establish PSES for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory, EPA did evaluate best available technologies for PSNS.
<bullet> Option I--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved
Air Flotation, and In-Line Filter Press. All Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory facilities received credit in EPA's costing model for
existing oil/water separation and dissolved air flotation. No Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facilities received credit for
existing in-line filter press treatment. (In-line filter press
treatment was characterized at a direct discharging Barge/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory facility.)
<bullet> Option II--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved
Air Flotation, In-Line Filter Press, Biological Treatment, and Sludge
Dewatering. Option II is equivalent to Option I with the addition of
biological treatment for biological decomposition of organic
constituents. No Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facilities
received credit for existing biological treatment or sludge dewatering.
(Biological treatment was characterized at two direct discharging
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facilities.)
<bullet> Option III--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation,
Dissolved Air Flotation, In-Line Filter Press, Biological Treatment,
Reverse Osmosis, and Sludge Dewatering. Option III is equivalent to
Option II with the addition of reverse osmosis for wastewater polishing
following biological treatment. No Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory facilities received credit for existing reverse osmosis
treatment. (Reverse osmosis treatment was characterized at a direct
discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facility.)
Option I removed 55 percent or greater of organic pollutants and 61
percent or greater of metals, Option II removed 82 percent or greater
of organic pollutants and 82 percent or greater of metals, and Option
III removed 99 percent or greater of organic pollutants and 89 percent
or greater of metals present in Barge/Chemical & Petroleum wastewater.
EPA is not proposing to establish PSNS based on Option III because
reverse osmosis was not considered to be the best demonstrated
technology due to the small incremental removals achieved by this
option, the lack of additional water quality benefits potentially
achieved by this option, the potential issue of disposing the liquid
concentrate created by treatment, and the high level of pollutant
control achieved by the proposed BAT option.
EPA is proposing to establish PSNS based on Option II because of
the removals achieved through this option.
[[Page 34714]]
The raw wastewater in this subcategory contains significant amounts of
decomposable organic materials. These materials may not be treated as
efficiently as the proposed technology option in a conventional POTW
because a POTW may not be acclimated to this particular wastewater
stream. In this instance, pretreatment based on biological treatment
may be appropriate because the pollutant parameters that pass through,
or which may be present at levels that cause interference, will receive
additional treatment not achieved by the POTW. While EPA considers this
to be the best treatment available that does not impose a significant
barrier to entry, EPA is soliciting comment on the technology selected
as the basis for regulation. Several pollutants were determined to
pass-through a POTW and are therefore proposed for PSNS regulation in
the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
EPA has also considered establishing PSNS based on Option I. EPA
believes that organic loadings in raw wastewater at barge chemical
facilities may be present at levels which are amenable to biological
treatment at POTW. However, EPA may not have sufficient data to support
this assumption because EPA identified only one barge chemical facility
currently discharging to a POTW. EPA solicits comments and data which
would support or refute the assumption that a POTW may accept effluent,
without causing pass-through or interference, treated by Option I that
has not been treated biologically, as is proposed in Option II.
e. Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories. EPA has not
identified any more stringent treatment technology option which it
considered to represent PSNS level of control applicable to Food
Subcategory facilities in this industry. In addition, conventional
pollutants present in the wastewater were found at concentrations that
are amenable to treatment at a POTW. As a result, EPA is proposing not
to establish PSNS for any of the Food Subcategories.
f. Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. Based on the
PSES analysis, EPA preliminarily concluded that there is no need to
develop nationally applicable regulations for these subcategories due
to the low levels of pollutants discharged by facilities in this
subcategory.
EPA proposes not to establish PSNS for the Truck/Petroleum or Rail/
Petroleum Subcategories.
g. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories. Based
on the PSES analysis, EPA preliminarily concluded that there is no need
to develop nationally applicable regulations for these subcategories
due to the low levels of pollutants discharged by facilities in this
subcategory.
EPA proposes not to establish PSNS for the Truck/Hopper, Rail/
Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories.
C. Development of Effluent Limitations
EPA based the proposed 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 subcategory-specific regulatory flows, 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 the above section (Technology Options Considered 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 data base composed of individual measurements on treated effluent
based on EPA sampling 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 subcategory
where the arithmetic mean was used. The pollutant long-term 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
Subcategory, there were not enough data to calculate variability
factors at any level and therefore variability factors were transferred
from similar treatment technologies sampled in the Rail/Chemical
Subcategory.
Limitations were based on actual concentrations of pollutants
measured in wastewaters treated by the proposed
[[Page 34715]]
technologies where such data were available. Actual measured value data
was available for pollutant parameters in all subcategories with the
exception of pollutants regulated for direct dischargers in the Truck/
Chemical and Rail/Chemical Subcategories. Due to the small number of
direct discharging facilities identified by EPA, all of EPA's sampling
was conducted at indirect discharging facilities in these
subcategories. In the case of BPT regulation for conventional,
priority, and non-conventional pollutants, EPA concluded that
establishing limits based on indirect discharging treatment systems was
not appropriate because indirect discharging treatment systems are
generally not operated for optimal control of pollutants which are
amenable to treatment in a POTW. In other words, treatment systems at
indirect discharging facilities generally do not require biological
treatment to control organic pollutants because a POTW will control
these pollutants. Therefore, in establishing limits for direct
discharging facilities, EPA is proposing to establish BPT limitations
based on the treatment performance demonstrated during the sampling of
two direct discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities that
utilized biological treatment systems.
For this industry, EPA is proposing to establish mass-based rather
than concentration based limits. The limits are specified as grams per
tank cleaned. EPA envisions that permit writers would use these limits,
in combination with data on annual number of tanks cleaned and annual
facility wastewater flow, to calculate facility-specific concentration
based limits for wastewater flows leaving the treatment plant, and then
incorporate these limits into the permit. EPA is proposing this
approach because it is concerned that if it proposed concentration
based limits directly, facilities might be able to comply with these
limits be increasing their water usage rather than installing and
properly operating appropriate treatment, thereby diluting rather than
removing pollutants of concern. EPA is soliciting comment on the
appropriateness of this approach and the burden on the permitting and
pretreatment authorities. Based on comments received, EPA may decide to
convert the mass based limits in the proposed regulation to
concentration based limits for the final rule.
The daily maximum limitation is calculated as the product of the
pollutant long-term average concentration, the subcategory-specific
regulatory flow, and the variability factor. The monthly maximum
limitation is also calculated as the product of the pollutant long-term
average, the subcategory-specific regulatory flow, and the variability
factor, but the variability factor is based on the 95 percentile of the
distribution of daily pollutant concentrations instead of the 99th
percentile.
By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the LTA, EPA's
use of variability factors results in standards that are generally well
above the actual LTAs. Thus if a facility operates its treatment system
to meet the relevant LTA, EPA expects the plant to be able to meet the
standards. Variability factors assure that normal fluctuations in a
facility's treatment are accounted for in the limitations.
The proposed limitations, as presented in today's notice, are
provided as daily maximums and monthly averages for conventional
pollutants. Monitoring was assumed to occur four times per month for
conventional pollutants. Monitoring was assumed to occur once per month
for all priority and nonconventional pollutants. This has the result
that the daily maximums and monthly averages for priority and
nonconventional pollutants are the same.
Although the monitoring frequency necessary for a facility to
demonstrate compliance is determined by the local permitting authority,
EPA must assume a monitoring frequency in order to assess costs and to
determine variability of the treatment system.
Monitoring four times per month for conventional and classical
pollutants is proposed to ensure that facility TEC processes and
wastewater treatment systems are consistently and continuously operated
to achieve the associated pollutant long term averages. Monitoring once
per month for toxic pollutants is proposed to provide economic relief
to regulated facilities while ensuring that facility TEC processes and
wastewater treatment systems are designed and operated to control the
discharge of toxic pollutants.
EPA is proposing to establish effluent limitations for existing
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater directly to surface
waters in the following subcategories: Truck/Chemical, Rail/Chemical,
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, Truck/Food, Rail/Food and Barge/Food
Subcategories.
EPA is proposing to establish BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS limitations
for the Truck/Chemical Subcategory. EPA is proposing limitations for
BOD<INF>5</INF> , TSS, Oil and Grease, Chromium, Zinc, COD, Bis (2-
ethylhexyl) pthalate, di-N-octyl phthalate, N-Dodecane, N-Hexadecane,
Styrene, and 1,2-dichlorobenzene. For the Rail/Chemical Subcategory,
EPA is proposing to establish BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS limitations. EPA
is proposing to regulate BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and Grease, COD, N-
Dodecane, N-Hexadecane, N-Tetradecane, Anthracene, Pyrene,
Fluoranthene, and Phenanthrene. For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory, EPA is proposing to establish BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS
limitations. EPA is proposing to regulate BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and
Grease, COD, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Zinc, 1-
Methylphenanthrene, Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate, Di-N-Octyl Phthalate,
N-Decane, N-Docesane, N-Dodecane, N-Eicosane, N-Octadecane, N-
Tetracosane, N-Tetradecane, P-Cymene, and Pyrene.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to establish BPT, BCT, and NSPS
limitations for the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories
for BOD<INF>5</INF>, TSS, Oil and Grease.
The analytical method for Oil and Grease and Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TPH) is currently being revised to allow for the use of
normal hexane in place of freon 113, a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC). Method
1664 (Hexane Extractable Material) will replace the current Oil and
Grease Method 413.1 found in 40 CFR 136. In anticipation of
promulgation of method 1664, data collected by EPA in support of the
TECI effluent guideline utilized method 1664. Therefore, all effluent
limitations proposed for Oil and Grease and TPH in this effluent
guideline are to be measured by Method 1664.
Regulated facilities can meet the proposed limitations through the
use of any combination of physical, chemical or biological treatment,
or implementation of pollution prevention strategies (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.A and VIII.B of this proposed
rule.
EPA based its decision to select specific pollutants to establish
effluent limitations 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
[[Page 34716]]
detected at treatable levels. Due to the inherent variability of TEC
wastewater, EPA does not have sufficient analytical data to establish
effluent limitations for each specific pollutant which may be present
in the industry wastewater on any given day. EPA has therefore
attempted to select several pollutants which have been detected
frequently at sampled facilities, which are a possible indicator 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 treatment system capable of removing a
wide range of pollutants.
EPA determined the regulatory flows to be used in the calculation
of mass based limits from information provided in the Detailed
Questionnaire. EPA analyzed the average wastewater flow generated per
tank on a facility by facility basis by dividing the annual wastewater
volume by the number of tanks cleaned at that facility. The regulatory
flow for each subcategory was then determined by taking the median of
the average flow per tank values of each facility in the subcategory.
Because each facility in the TEC database represents a statistical
population of facilities, EPA used the bootstrap method to account for
the facility survey weights in order to determine the median
subcategory flow. A more detailed explanation of the bootstrap method
and the calculation of regulatory flow can be found in the
``Statistical Support Document of Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Category''.
The pollutants for which limits are proposed include volatile
organics, semi-volatile organics, metals, and classical pollutants. EPA
does not propose to establish effluent limitations for any pesticides
or herbicides for two reasons. One, the cost associated with monitoring
for these parameters is very high; and two, EPA's sampling data that
has shown that the discharge concentrations of pesticides and
herbicides are generally treated by the proposed technology options.
EPA also does not propose to establish effluent limitations for
dioxins/furans, although 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF were detected in
samples collected at several barge and rail facilities. Based on an
evaluation of the sampling data from facilities where dioxins were
detected, EPA has determined that the detection of 2,3,7,8 TCDD and
2,3,7,8-TCDF were isolated, site-specific instances, and as a general
rule dioxins should not be detected in wastewaters from this segment of
the industry. Therefore, effluent limitations for dioxins are not
proposed for inclusion in this regulation.
Although the wastewater treatment systems sampled by EPA to
establish effluent limitations are not designed specifically for metals
control, EPA believes that establishing numeric limitations for metals
based on these technologies is still appropriate. Based on an
evaluation of TECI wastewater characterization and treatment
performance data, EPA has concluded that metals present in TECI
wastewater are predominantly associated with solids as opposed to being
in solution. Since the modeled treatment systems used to establish
effluent limitations are designed for solids removal, EPA believes that
incidental removals of metals will occur, and therefore effluent
limitations for certain metals are justified.
Finally, EPA conducted a pass-through analysis on the pollutants
proposed to be regulated 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> and TSS.) EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for
those pollutants which the Agency has determined to pass through a
POTW.
EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment standards for existing
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the
following subcategories: Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical
Subcategories. Additionally, EPA is proposing to establish pretreatment
standards for new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
Based on the pass-through analysis, EPA is proposing to set PSES
and PSNS standards in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory for Chromium,
Zinc, COD, Bis (2-ethylhexyl) pthalate, di-N-octyl phthalate, N-
Dodecane, N-Hexadecane, Styrene, and 1,2-dichlorobenzene. Based on the
pass-through analysis, EPA is proposing to set PSES and PSNS standards
in the Rail/Chemical Subcategory for SGT-HEM, COD, N-Hexadecane, N-
Tetradecane, and Fluoranthene. Based on the pass-through analysis, EPA
is proposing to set PSNS standards in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory for SGT-HEM, COD, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel,
Zinc, 1-Methylphenanthrene, Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate, Di-N-Octyl
Phthalate, N-Decane, N-Docesane, N-Dodecane, N-Eicosane, N-Octadecane,
N-Tetracosane, N-Tetradecane, P-Cymene, and Pyrene.
EPA solicits comments on the appropriateness of the pollutants
selected for regulation, including the decision to establish effluent
limitations for metals using modeled treatment systems not specifically
designed for metals control. The Agency also solicits data which will
support or refute the ability of TEC facilities to meet the proposed
effluent limitations using the modeled treatment systems.
IX. Costs and Pollutant Reductions Achieved by Regulatory
Alternatives
A. Methodology for Estimating Costs
EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs and pollutant loadings
associated with the effluent limitations and standards proposed today
using data collected through survey responses, site visits, and
sampling episodes. Cost estimates for each regulatory option are
summarized in Section X of today's notice, and in more detail in the
Technical Development Document.
EPA developed industry-wide costs and loads based on 176 facility
responses to the Detailed Questionnaire. The statistical methodology
for this selection is further explained in the Statistical Support
Document. EPA calculated costs and loads for questionnaire recipients
and then modeled the national population by using statistically
calculated survey weights.
EPA evaluated each of the 176 Detailed Questionnaire recipients to
determine if the facility would be subject to the proposed limitations
and standards and would therefore incur costs as a result of the
proposed regulation. Eighty-three facilities were not modeled to incur
costs because:
<bullet> 34 facilities were located at industrial sites subject to
other Clean Water Act final or proposed categorical standards and thus
would not be subject to the limitations and standards under the
proposed approach for this guideline.
<bullet> 49 facilities indicated that they were zero or alternative
dischargers (i.e., did not discharge their TEC generated wastewaters
either directly or indirectly to a surface water).
Each of the 93 Detailed Questionnaire recipients, plus four direct
discharging facilities which did not receive the questionnaire, were
assessed to determine TEC operations, wastewater characteristics, daily
flow rates (process flow rates), operating schedules, tank cleaning
production (i.e., number of tanks cleaned), and wastewater treatment
technologies currently in place at the site.
[[Page 34717]]
Facilities that did not have the proposed technology option already
in-place were projected to incur costs as a result of compliance with
this guideline. A facility which did not have the technology in-place
was costed for installing and maintaining the technology.
A computer cost model based on vendor quotes and validated through
Questionnaire responses was used to estimate compliance costs for each
of the technology options after taking into account treatment in place
and wastewater flow rates for each facility. The computer cost model
was programmed with technology-specific modules which calculated the
costs for various combinations of technologies as required by the
technology options and the facilities' wastewater characteristics. The
model calculated the following costs for each facility:
<bullet> Capital costs for installed technologies.
<bullet> Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for installed
wastewater treatment technologies; including labor, electrical, and
chemical usage costs.
<bullet> Solids handling costs; including capital, O&M, and
disposal.
<bullet> Monitoring costs
Additional cost factors were developed and applied to the capital
costs in order to account for site work, interface piping, general
contracting, engineering, buildings, site improvements, legal/
administrative fees, interest, contingency, and taxes and insurance.
Other direct costs associated with compliance included retrofit costs
associated with integrating the existing on-site treatment with new
equipment and monitoring costs.
The capital costs (equipment, retrofit and permit modification)
were amortized over 16 years and added to the O&M costs (equipment and
monitoring) to calculate the total annual costs incurred by each
facility as a result of complying with this guideline. The costs
associated with each of the 97 facilities in the cost analysis were
then modeled to represent the national population by using
statistically calculated survey weights.
For many low-flow facilities, EPA concluded that contract hauling
wastewater for off-site treatment was the most cost effective option.
Where applicable, EPA calculated costs for hauling wastewater to a
Centralized Waste Treatment facility for treatment in lieu of
installing additional treatment on-site.
All cost models, cost factors, and cost assumptions are presented
in detail in the Technical Development Document. The Agency solicits
comments on the cost models and the assumptions used to project the
cost of compliance to the industry as a result of today's proposed
regulation.
B. Methodology for Estimating Pollutant Reductions
The proposed BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES limitations will control the
discharge of conventional, priority toxic, and nonconventional
pollutants from TEC facilities. The Agency developed estimates of the
post-compliance long-term average (LTA) production normalized mass
loadings of pollutants that would be discharged from TEC facilities
within each subcategory. These estimates were calculated using the
long-term average effluent concentrations of specific pollutants
achieved after implementation of the proposed BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES
technology bases in conjunction with the subcategory-specific
regulatory flow per tank cleaned. Long-term average effluent
concentrations were statistically derived using treatment performance
data collected during EPA's sampling program. Development of these
long-term average effluent concentrations is discussed in more detail
in Section VIII of this preamble and in the Statistical Support
Document. The subcategory-specific regulatory flows were statistically
derived based on facility flow data provided in response to the 1994
TEC industry Detailed Questionnaire. The Statistical Support Document
also discusses development of subcategory-specific regulatory flows.
BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES pollutant reductions were first estimated
on a site-specific basis for affected facilities that responded to the
Detailed Questionnaire and for four additional affected facilities
identified from responses to the Screener Questionnaire. Site-specific
pollutant reductions were calculated as the difference between the
site-specific baseline pollutant loadings (i.e., estimated pollutant
loadings currently discharged) and the site-specific post-compliance
pollutant loadings (i.e., estimated pollutant loadings discharged after
implementation of the regulation). The site-specific pollutant
reductions were then multiplied by statistically derived survey
weighting (scaling) factors and summed to represent pollutant
reductions for the entire TEC industry.
Baseline pollutant loadings (in mass per day) represent the
pollutant loading currently discharged by TEC facilities after
accounting for removal of pollutants in untreated wastewater by
treatment technologies currently in place. To estimate the site-
specific baseline pollutant loadings, EPA estimated the untreated
pollutant loadings generated by TEC facilities based on data collected
during EPA's TEC industry sampling program. For each facility sampled,
data on the facility production (i.e., number of tanks cleaned per
day), cargo types cleaned, TEC wastewater flow rate, operating hours
per day, and operating days per year were collected. These data were
then used in conjunction with the analytical data to calculate average
untreated pollutant loadings per tank cleaned for each TEC industry
subcategory. Although some facilities provided self-monitoring data in
response to the Detailed Questionnaire, these data were not useable for
the following reasons: (1) Respondents provided different types of data
for a nonstandard set of pollutants, (2) the data represented samples
collected at a variety of treatment system influent and effluent
points, (3) the data were provided as an average estimated by the
facility over one or more sampling days, and/or (4) analytical QA/QC
data were not provided.
EPA calculated the site-specific untreated pollutant loadings (in
mass per day) by multiplying the subcategory-specific untreated
pollutant loadings per tank cleaned estimates by the number of tanks
cleaned at each facility. For facilities with production in multiple
subcategories, estimated pollutant loadings from each subcategory were
summed to estimate the site-specific untreated pollutant loadings.
Additionally, for some facilities, loadings of pollutants in incidental
waste streams loadings (such as bilge and ballast water) were estimated
from other EPA program sampling data and other sources. These
incidental stream pollutant loadings were also summed to estimate the
site-specific untreated pollutant loadings.
The site-specific untreated pollutant loadings were converted to
untreated wastewater pollutant concentrations by dividing by the
facility daily wastewater discharge flow rate (including TEC wastewater
and commingled non-TEC wastewater streams not easily segregated)
provided in responses to the Detailed Questionnaire. For each site, the
untreated pollutant wastewater concentrations were then compared to the
long-term average effluent concentrations achieved by the treatment
technologies currently in place (if any). The lower of these
concentrations represents the site-specific baseline effluent
concentration. The site-specific baseline effluent concentrations were
then multiplied by the facility daily wastewater discharge
[[Page 34718]]
flow rate (described above) to determine the site-specific baseline
pollutant loadings.
Post-compliance pollutant loadings (in mass per day) represent the
estimated pollutant loadings that will be discharged after
implementation of the regulation. For each site, the baseline pollutant
effluent concentrations (described above) were compared to the long-
term average effluent concentrations achieved by the technology bases
for BPT, BCT, BAT, or PSES. The lower of these concentrations
represents the site-specific post-compliance effluent concentrations.
The site-specific post-compliance pollutant effluent concentrations
were then multiplied by the facility daily wastewater discharge flow
rate to determine the site-specific post-compliance pollutant loadings.
Finally, pollutant reductions were calculated at each facility as
the difference between the baseline pollutant loadings and the post-
compliance pollutant loadings. The pollutant reductions were then
multiplied by statistically derived survey weights and summed to
represent pollutant reductions for the entire TEC point source
category.
X. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction
This section describes the costs, economic impacts, and benefits
associated with today's proposal. The economic analysis uses the
engineering cost estimates (described in Section IX.A.) to analyze the
economic impacts of various technology options. EPA's economic
assessment is summarized here; details are available in the ``Economic
Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category,''
hereinafter referred to as the EA, which is included in the rulemaking
record. The EA estimates the economic impacts of compliance costs on
facilities, firms, employment, domestic and international markets,
inflation, distribution, environmental justice, and transportation
equipment cleaning customers. EPA also prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), which estimates the impacts of the proposal on small
entities (details in the EA). In addition, a cost-effectiveness
analysis of all technology options for eleven subcategories is
presented in the ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment
Cleaning Point Source Category,'' hereinafter referred to as the CE
document.
B. Economic Impact Methodology
1. Introduction
The TECI is a service industry with modest capital assets in
comparison to manufacturing industries. Many of the businesses in this
industry are single, stand alone facilities in which the facility,
business entity, and firm are the same. There are some multi-facility
firms or business entities that own several tank cleaning facilities; a
small number of firms own a relatively large number of facilities. The
TECI provides a service that is a ``derived demand'' for overall
transportation services. As the demand for transportation services in
general increases, the demand correspondingly increases for
transportation equipment cleaning services.
The EA consists of eight major components: (1) an assessment of the
number of facilities that could be affected by this rule; (2) an
estimate of the annual aggregate cost for these facilities to comply
with the rule using facility-level capital and operating and
maintenance (O&M) costs; (3) an evaluation, using a discounted cash
flow (DCF) model, to analyze compliance cost impacts on each TECI
facility's cash flow (closure analysis); (4) an evaluation, using a
financial model, of compliance costs impacts on the financial health of
facilities in the industry (financial stress analysis); (5) an
evaluation of secondary impacts such as those on employment, markets,
inflation, distribution, environmental justice and transportation
equipment cleaning customers; (6) an assessment of the potential for
impact on new sources (barrier-to-entry); (7) an analysis of the
effects of compliance costs on small entities; and (8) a cost-benefit
analysis.
All costs reported in this notice are expressed in 1997 dollars,
with the exception of cost-effectiveness results, which, by convention,
are reported in 1981 dollars. The primary source of data for the
economic analysis is the ``1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry, Part B--Financial and
Economic Information,'' hereinafter referred to as the Detailed
Questionnaire (the section 308 survey conducted in April 1995; see
Section V.C.). Other sources include the Bureau of the Census, industry
trade journals, preliminary surveys of the industry, and the ``U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Tank and Container Cleaning Screener
Questionnaire.'' All costs were inflated to 1997 dollars using the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
2. Methodology Overview
Central to the EA is the cost annualization model, which uses
facility-specific capital, operating and maintenance (O&M), and
monitoring costs data described in Section IX.A, to determine the total
annualized compliance costs. The total annual costs described in
Section IX.A (and in the Technical Development Document) are an
approximation of the costs of the proposed rule. The refinements to
annualization described below provide a more accurate basis for
estimating financial impacts to each facility. This model uses these
costs and facility specific costs of capital (discount rate), or if not
available, the industry average costs of capital, over a 16-year
analytic time frame to generate the annual cost of compliance for each
technology. EPA chose the 16-year time frame for analysis based on the
depreciable life for equipment of this type, 15 years according
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules, plus approximately one year for
purchasing and installing the equipment. The model generates the
annualized cost for each option for each facility in the survey, which
is then used in the facility impact analyses, discussed below. The
annualized compliance costs for each facility are totaled at the
national level to provide aggregate annualized costs for each
technology option.
For each facility in the transportation equipment cleaning
industry, EPA estimated the present value of baseline cash flow using
three forecasting methods. EPA used three different scenarios to help
address the uncertainty associated with predicting future income
streams. The forecasts are based on the three years of financial data
provided by each facility in the Detailed Questionnaire, assuming no-
real-growth. One forecasting method uses 1994 cash flow as the best
predictor of future cash flow. The second method uses the average of
1992, 1993, and 1994 cash flow as the expected cash flow for each year
over the sixteen year project life. The third method uses the variation
between 1992, 1993, and 1994 cash flow to mimic business cycle
fluctuations in cash flow for the period (see EA, Appendix C for
details on cash flow forecasting methods).
EPA then calculated the present value of the stream of each
facility's post-tax
[[Page 34719]]
compliance costs (including the initial capital purchase and each
year's operating and maintenance costs) over the sixteen year project
life using each of the three forecasting methods. The present value of
compliance costs is adjusted downward by a cost pass through factor
that is calculated from EPA's TECI market model (see the EA, Appendix
B). The market model for the TECI, which quantifies the impact of the
proposed effluent guideline on equilibrium price and quantity in each
TECI subcategory of the proposed rule, shows that the facilities in the
regulated subcategories will be able to pass some portion of the
compliance costs of the proposed rule through to their customers. The
market model calculates the percentage that can be passed through for
each subcategory. The adjusted present value of compliance costs
represents the estimated change in facility cash flow caused by the
proposed regulation.
For each of the subcategories in this industry, the estimated
change in the present value of cash flow is subtracted from the
projected present value of baseline facility cash flow to estimate the
present value of post compliance cash flow. If the present value of
post compliance cash flow is negative under two of the three
forecasting methods, EPA considers the facility likely to close (i.e.,
liquidate) as a result of the regulation.
In the firm financial stress analysis, EPA uses the annualized
costs to estimate changes to the balance sheets and income statements
for each firm. This analysis estimates changes in financial information
of each firm such as earnings, assets, liabilities, and working capital
at the firm level (accounting for multiple facilities, where
applicable). These postcompliance financial figures are used in a
computerized model of financial health on a firm-by-firm basis. The
model uses an equation known as Altman's Z'', which was developed using
empirical data to characterize the financial health of firms,
specifically for service industries such as the TECI. This model
calculates one value, using financial data from the Detailed
Questionnaire, that can be compared to index numbers that define
``good'' financial health, ``indeterminate'' financial health, and
``poor'' financial health. All firms whose Altman's Z'' value changes
such that the firm goes from a ``good'' or ``indeterminate'' baseline
category to a ``poor'' postcompliance category are classified as likely
to have significant difficulties raising the capital needed to comply
with the proposed rule, which can indicate the likelihood of firm
bankruptcy, or loss of financial independence. To complement the Altman
Z'' financial analysis, EPA uses two financial ratios: the current
ratio (compares current assets to current liabilities) and the times
interest earned ratio (compares annual interest obligations to annual
cash flow). In most of the firm analyses, the current ratio and the
time interest earned ratio tend to verify the Altman Z'' results.
In the employment analysis, EPA uses input-output analysis and
market analysis. Using input-output analysis, EPA conducts a national-
level analysis for estimating employment changes (gains and losses)
throughout the U.S. economy in all non-TECI sectors of the economy. In
this analysis, EPA uses both compliance costs and employment losses
driven by facility closures to determine a range of possible gross and
net (losses minus gains) impacts at the national level. Using market
analysis, EPA's estimates market-determined production losses to derive
an estimate of direct, net employment losses in the transportation
equipment cleaning industry alone. Market analysis is undertaken to
determine losses within the transportation equipment cleaning industry
alone; while closure losses can be considered the immediate impact of
the proposed rule on the industry, production-driven losses might be
greater or less than closure losses over time, as equilibrium in the
market is attained. Furthermore, closure losses do not account for the
fact that some portion of production might transfer wholly or in part
to operating pollution control equipment, thus accounting for some
employment gains within the industry.
EPA investigates secondary impacts qualitatively and
quantitatively. These impacts include impacts on international markets,
impacts on substitutes for transportation equipment cleaning services,
impacts on inflation, distributional impacts, and impacts on
environmental justice. EPA also investigates the impact of the rule on
domestic markets. The rule will affect domestic markets to the extent
that zero discharge or excluded facilities have a competitive advantage
over affected facilities.
EPA also looks at impacts on customers. The Agency analyzed the
increase in prices that could be anticipated on a postcompliance basis.
For the long term price equilibrium, the Agency determined the change
in the number of tanks that would be cleaned. The analysis indicates a
very modest decrease in the number of tanks cleaned. In many instances,
this will probably occur as a slight decrease in the frequency of tank
cleanings. In other cases, some customers could decide to buy
``dedicated'' tanks which would need infrequent or no cleaning.
Another key analysis EPA performs is an analysis to determine
impacts on new sources, which is primarily a ``barrier-to-entry''
analysis to determine whether the costs of the PSNS or NSPS would
prevent a new source from entering the market. This analysis looks at
whether new transportation equipment cleaning facilities would be at a
competitive disadvantage compared to existing sources. Market effects
and barrier-to-entry results associated with zero discharge and small
facility exclusion (if any) also are qualitatively investigated.
The EA also includes a cost-benefit analysis. This analysis looks
at the social costs of the regulation measured as the pretax costs of
compliance plus government administrative costs plus the costs of
administering unemployment benefits (if any). Total social costs are
compared to total social benefits in the analysis. See Section XI of
this notice for a discussion of the benefit analysis.
EPA solicits comment on the methodologies described above. In
particular, the Agency requests comment on the assumptions used in the
analyses. Details of the methodologies and assumptions are available in
the EA and the CE documents.
C. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts
1. Number of Facilities Incurring Costs
EPA estimated that there are 1,239 facilities in the TEC industry
not regulated under other effluent guidelines. Of these, 547 facilities
are considered zero or alternative discharging facilities and are not
expected to incur costs to comply with the TEC effluent guideline. EPA
estimates that there are approximately 692 discharging facilities which
may incur costs to comply with this proposal and upon which EPA
conducted its analysis. Not all of these facilities are expected to
incur costs because EPA is proposing not to regulate certain
subcategories. Of the 1,239 facilities, 437 facilities meet the
definition of small businesses. Of the 692 discharging facilities, 184
facilities meet the definition of small businesses. EPA used the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) definition of small for the SIC codes
that cover the TECI to develop a small business definition proposal.
About 40 percent of the TECI facilities
[[Page 34720]]
have an SIC code that uses $5 million in annual revenue as the
criterion for a small business.
2. Total Costs and Impacts of the Proposed Rule
a. Introduction.
The capital investment costs for all facilities total about $66
million. Total annualized costs of the proposed regulation for all
facilities are estimated to be about $23.1 million, which includes
about $5 million of annualized capital costs and $18 million in annual
operation and maintenance costs.
The total annual costs are estimated using the capital investment,
annual operation and maintenance costs, and monitoring costs. Capital
costs are annualized by spreading them over the life of the project
(much like a home mortgage). These annualized capital costs are then
added to the annual operation and maintenance costs and to the
monitoring costs. The result is the total annualized costs for each
technology option.
Table 5 summarizes the total annualized costs for direct and
indirect discharger requirements. Table 6 presents additional detail on
the costs for direct dischargers, and Table 7 presents a similar level
of detail for indirect dischargers.
Table 5.--Costs of Proposed TEC Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posttax
annualized
Rule costs ($1997
thousand)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES.................................................... $21,470
BPT/BAT................................................. 1,630
---------------
Total............................................... 23,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Table 6.--Costs of Implementing BPT, BCT, and BAT
[In thousands of 1997 Posttax dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Subcategory Total capital annualized
investment costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical.......................... $144 $80
Rail/Chemical........................... 122 40
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum.............. 3,400 1,500
Truck/Food.............................. 0 0
Rail/Food............................... 0 0
Barge/Food.............................. 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7.--Costs of Implementing PSES
[In thousands of 1997 Posttax dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Subcategory Total capital annualized
investment costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical.......................... $57,700 $20,200
Rail/Chemical........................... $4,700 $1,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When final guidelines are promulgated, a facility is free to use
any combination of wastewater treatment technologies and pollution
prevention strategies at the facility so long as the numerical
discharge limits are achieved. In some cases, a facility might choose
flow reduction or some combination of capital investment or additional
operation and maintenance expenditures may be required. In its cost
estimates, EPA has assumed that all of the facilities in the Truck/
Chemical and Rail/Chemical Subcategories and most in the Barge/Chemical
& Petroleum Subcategories will need to make capital improvements or
perhaps modify operation and maintenance practices. For the Food
subcategories, all existing facilities which responded to the screener
survey questionnaire indicated that they currently have in place the
technology that the Agency has identified as the basis for limitations.
Therefore, the Agency believes that they will incur no costs to comply.
(See Section VIII.B)
b. Impacts From PSES. EPA estimates that the total compliance costs
for PSES will be approximately $21.5 million per year. These costs
include compliance with PSES for the Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical
Subcategories. Total annual compliance costs for the Truck/Chemical
Subcategory are based on technology Option II; for Rail/Chemical, on
technology Option I.
EPA estimates that the proposed technology options would result in
no facility closures. However, EPA predicts that the proposed PSES may
cause some financial stress on 29 facilities and could affect the
capability of these facilities to raise capital needed to purchase and
install pollution control equipment. All of these facilities are in the
Truck/Chemical Subcategory and most are in-house facilities. This
impact does not mean that these facilities will close; all of these
facilities are economically viable and are thus considered likely to be
of interest to other firms for acquisition and operation. They may also
be successful at improving their financial health and become attractive
to lenders in the future.
Within non-TEC industries, EPA's economic analysis indicates that
some industries that provide materials and equipment to the TEC
industry may experience revenue increases as a result of the proposed
regulation. However, some of these industries could incur revenue
losses. EPA's economic analysis indicates that the proposed regulation
would result in net losses of about 300 to 500 jobs in these industries
(i.e., non-TEC industries). These impacts were estimated using the
input-output methodology. Details of this analysis are available in the
EA.
Within the TEC industry itself, EPA determined that many
financially healthy facilities might actually experience gains in
production (and thus gains in output and employment). Financially
healthy facilities in the local market area might expand to take over
[[Page 34721]]
a portion of production from a facility having financial difficulties.
In addition, some employment gains are anticipated for installation and
operation of wastewater treatment facilities.
EPA determined that most facility financial stress will result in a
maximum change in a community's unemployment rate of no more than 0.5
percent. Because the methodology assumes that all of the community
impacts would occur in one State, the more probable impact is
considerably lower. Thus, the community impact from the transportation
equipment cleaning industry regulation is estimated to be negligible.
EPA solicits comments on whether this approach is overly conservative.
EPA expects the proposed rule to have a minimal impact on
international markets. Domestic markets might initially be slightly
affected by the rule, because tank cleaning facilities will absorb a
portion of the compliance costs and will pass a portion of the costs
through to their customers. For the portion of compliance costs passed
through to cleaning facilities' customers, EPA's market model estimates
that prices will increase from about 2.1 percent to about 5.7 percent.
Output, or the number of tanks cleaned, will decrease from about 0.1
percent to about 1.1 percent. Because tank cleaning is an essential
service and is a very small part of total transportation services
costs, customers may not be as sensitive to tank cleaning prices as
they are to larger cost elements. Customers may accept marginally
higher tank cleaning prices if the whole industry is subject to higher
costs. An individual facility would have difficulty independently
increasing prices in the absence of industry wide price increases.
EPA expects the proposed rule to have minimal impacts on inflation,
insignificant distributional effects, and no major impacts on
environmental justice.
EPA also investigated the likelihood that customers might use
methods other than installing additional on-site wastewater treatment
in order to comply with the proposed regulations. Substitution
possibilities, of operating on-site facilities or purchasing dedicated
tanks, are associated with potential negative impacts on customers that
might deter them from choosing these potential substitutes. On-site
tank cleaning capabilities require capital investment, operation and
maintenance, and monitoring costs. The decision to build an on-site
tank cleaning capability is more likely determined by non-pricing
factors such as environmental liability, tank cleaning quality control,
and internal management controls.
EPA's analysis does not indicate that transportation service
companies (i.e., TEC customers) would likely decide to build a tank
cleaning facility as a result of EPA's proposal. Further, because of
the high initial costs to install equipment on-site ($1.0 million to
$2.0 million for a tank cleaning facility) and the small increase in
price of transportation equipment cleaning services discussed earlier,
on-site transportation equipment cleaning could require years before
any cost savings might be realized. Also, EPA's market model provides a
means for estimating price increases and reductions in quantity
demanded for transportation equipment cleaning services at the higher
price. This analysis shows a very small decrease in the number of tanks
cleaned as a result of the proposed rule, from about 0.1 percent to
about 1.1 percent of baseline production across the subcategories.
Given the disincentives towards substitutes indicated above, EPA does
not expect the proposed rule to cause many customers to substitute on-
site facilities for transportation equipment cleaning services or to
substitute dedicated tanks. The small reduction in production is more
likely to occur from customers delaying cleaning (rather than cleaning
tanks after delivery of every load) or dropping certain services such
as handling toxic wastes heels. This decline in production is
negligible compared to the approximate 10 to 20 percent per year
revenue growth for the industry between 1992 and 1994, according to
data in the Detailed Questionnaire.
c. Impacts From BPT, BCT, BAT. As described in Section VIII.B of
today's notice, EPA is proposing effluent limitations based on BPT,
BCT, and BAT for the Truck/Chemical, Rail/Chemical, and Barge/Chemical
& Petroleum Subcategories. The proposed limitations are the same for
all levels of direct discharge requirements. The summary of costs and
economic impacts is presented here for all levels. For BPT and BCT,
additional information on cost and removal comparisons is presented in
the Technical Development Document.
EPA estimates that the total annual compliance costs for BPT, BCT,
and BAT will be $1.6 million. This estimate includes BPT, BCT, and BAT
costs for the Truck/Chemical, Rail/Chemical, and Barge/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategories. For the Food Subcategories, although EPA is
proposing effluent limitations based on BPT and BCT, EPA projects no
compliance costs because all facilities identified by EPA were
determined to already have the proposed treatment technology in place.
(See Section VIII.B). EPA based its analysis on Option II for the
Truck/Chemical Subcategory, Option I for the Rail/Chemical Subcategory,
and Option I for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA based
its analysis for the Truck Food, Rail Food, and Barge Food
Subcategories on Option II.
As explained in Section X.b.1, EPA used economic and financial data
obtained through the Detailed Questionnaire to evaluate economic
impacts that would occur as a result of compliance with today's
proposal. Certain segments of the TEC industry, especially in the
Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical Subcategories, consist mainly of
facilities discharging to a POTW. Due to the limited number of direct
discharging facilities identified by EPA in these subcategories, EPA
did not obtain detailed economic information from direct discharging
facilities in the Truck/Chemical or Rail/Chemical Subcategories. EPA
is, however, aware of at least three Truck/Chemical facilities and one
Rail/Chemical facility that are discharging wastewater directly to
surface waters.
For the economic analysis in these subcategories, EPA relied on the
economic data collected for the indirect discharging Truck/Chemical
facilities and the indirect discharging Rail/Chemical facilities. EPA
assumed that the economic profile of direct discharging facilities is
similar to that of indirect discharging facilities. EPA believes this
is a reasonable approach because the Agency does not believe there is
any correlation between annual revenue or facility employment and the
method that a facility chooses to discharge its wastewater. Rather, the
decision on whether to discharge wastewater directly or indirectly is
determined by such considerations as cost, proximity to a POTW,
permitting requirements, and wastewater treatment technology options.
EPA therefore assumed that the direct discharging Truck/Chemical
and Rail/Chemical facilities were similar to indirect discharging
facilities in terms of annual revenue, facility employment, and the
number of tanks cleaned. Information on each of these indices was
provided to EPA by the four direct discharging facilities in the
Screener Questionnaire. EPA then identified facilities in the Detailed
Questionnaire database which were similar to each of the direct
dischargers in terms of revenue, employment, and tanks cleaned. EPA
then simulated the
[[Page 34722]]
financial and economic profile for the direct discharging facilities
based on data provided by similar indirect discharging facilities in
the same subcategory. Based on this analysis, EPA determined that
implementation of BPT would result in no facility closures, and thus no
revenue losses or employment losses are expected to occur. The Agency
solicits data and comment on the assumptions used for the economic
achievability analysis for the Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical
Subcategories.
For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA estimated total
annualized compliance costs for the 14 facilities based on responses to
the Detailed Questionnaire. EPA has projected no facility closures,
employment losses or revenue losses for these facilities.
In addition to the costs of the effluent guideline discussed in
this section, the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory may be subject
to incremental costs under new Clean Air Act regulations. For these
facilities, EPA has reviewed the economic analysis prepared for the
1995 Clean Air Act (CAA) regulation (National Emission Standards for
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair, 60 FR 64336). EPA identified only one
Tank Barge and Petroleum facility that overlaps with the facilities
covered by this CAA regulation. In the economic analysis for today's
proposal, EPA includes a sensitivity analysis and assumed that all Tank
Barge and Petroleum facilities that indicate that they perform repair,
painting, or related activities will be subject to the CAA regulation.
EPA's sensitivity analysis of the CAA incremental costs suggests little
or no change in economic impacts for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
facilities. EPA solicits comment on the relevance of CAA costs to
comply with this proposal. EPA also solicits data on the magnitude of
these costs and on the number of facilities affected by today's
proposal which are in ozone non-attainment areas.
d. Impacts From PSNS. As described in Section VIII.B, EPA is
proposing PSNS equivalent to PSES for the Truck/Chemical and Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. For the Rail/Chemical Subcategory,
EPA is proposing PSNS based on a more stringent technology control
option than proposed for PSES. For Truck/Chemical, Option II was
selected, for Rail/Chemical Option III was selected, and for Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum, Option II was selected.
EPA assesses impacts on new indirect sources by determining whether
the proposed rule would result in barrier-to-entry into the market. EPA
has determined that overall impacts from the proposed TECI effluent
guidelines on new sources would not be any more severe than those on
existing sources. Generally, the costs faced by new sources will be the
same as, or less than, those faced by existing sources. It is typically
less expensive to incorporate pollution control equipment into the
design at a new plant than it is to retrofit the same pollution control
equipment in an existing plant; no demolition is required, and space
constraints, which can add to costs if specifically designed equipment
must be ordered, are not an issue in new construction.
For the Truck/Chemical Subcategory, average facility assets are
over $2.8 million. In its economic analysis, EPA determined that the
average facility compliance capital costs for this subcategory would be
$0.2 million. The ratio of average facility compliance capital costs to
average facility assets would be approximately seven percent. EPA
concluded that the capital costs to comply with the standards are
modest in comparison to total facility costs and would not pose a
barrier-to-entry.
For the Rail/Chemical Subcategory, responses to the Detailed
Questionnaire indicate that the average facility assets total about
$6.4 million. For this subcategory, average facility compliance capital
costs total about $0.1 million, or about two percent of average
facility assets. EPA concluded that the average annual incremental
facility costs are low in comparison to average facility assets and
that PSNS would therefore not pose a barrier-to-entry.
EPA also examined whether there would be barrier-to-entry for new
sources. EPA investigated facilities in the Detailed Questionnaire that
indicated they were new or relatively new at the time of the survey.
Over a three year period (1992, 1993, 1994), according to the Detailed
Questionnaire, about 60 facilities began transportation equipment
cleaning operations, although it is not absolutely clear from the data
whether these facilities were actually new dischargers or were existing
dischargers acquired in that year by a different firm. Over the 3-year
period, this amounts to about 20 new sources a year, or about three
percent of the number of existing facilities. EPA believes that new
sources are replacing production from closing facilities that exist in
the market and are also adding modest additional tank cleaning capacity
in the TECI.
EPA concludes that new small facilities will not experience a
barrier-to-entry to the transportation equipment cleaning industry.
e. Impacts From NSPS. As described in Section VIII.B, EPA is
proposing NSPS equivalent to BPT, BCT, and BAT for the Truck/Chemical
and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. For the Rail/Chemical
Subcategory, EPA is proposing NSPS based on a more stringent technology
control option than proposed for existing sources. EPA assesses impacts
on new direct sources by determining whether the proposed rule would
result in barrier-to-entry into the market.
For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, the average
facility assets for a barge chemical cleaning facility are about $2.1
million. The average compliance capital cost for the proposed
regulation for a barge chemical cleaning facility is about $0.2 million
or about 11 percent of average facility assets. This is a relatively
small amount of average capital assets. This percentage is expected to
be lower for new facilities, because they can include pollution control
equipment in the design of new facilities.
In an analysis of the Detailed Questionnaire, EPA determined that
about 20 new tank cleaning businesses were established per year during
1992, 1993, and 1994 timeframe. Although EPA has not determined the
number of new facilities that are direct dischargers, the Agency
assumes that the number of new direct discharging facilities is small.
EPA concludes this, because the number of existing direct dischargers
is small (based on screener data).
Similar to PSNS, EPA concludes that no barrier-to-entry exists for
new direct discharge sources to construct, operate, and maintain these
technologies.
3. Economic Impacts of Accepted and Rejected Options
The options selected as the basis for regulation are associated
with no facility closures; 29 indirect discharge facilities are
projected to experience some financial stress (but not close) and thus
possibly lose their financial independence. A net direct total of no
FTEs would be lost in the transportation equipment cleaning industry
(direct, production-driven losses) with these options, and other
secondary impacts (effects on trade, inflation, and customers) would be
negligible.
As discussed in section VIII, EPA considered several technology
options for each subcategory. A summary of costs and impacts for all
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS options are shown in Table 8.
[[Page 34723]]
Table 8.--Summary of Impacts for Proposed BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posttax
annualized
Subcategory Option costs ($ Facility Financial Employment
1997 closures stress losses
thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical (Direct)............. Option I.............. $78 0 0 0
Option II (Proposed 78 0 0 0
for BPT, BCT, BAT,
NSPS).
Truck/Chemical (Indirect)........... Option I.............. 13,200 0 22 0
Option II (Proposed 20,206 0 29 0
for PSES, PSNS).
Rail/Chemical (Direct).............. Option I (Proposed for 39 0 0 0
BPT, BCT, BAT).
Option II............. 74 0 0 0
Option III (Proposed 89 0 0 0
for NSPS).
Rail/Chemical (Indirect)............ Option I (Proposed for 1,262 0 0 0
PSES).
Option II............. 1,953 6 0 421
Option III (Proposed 2,630 6 0 421
for PSNS).
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum (Direct). Option I (Proposed for 1,508 0 0 0
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS).
Option II............. 1,774 0 0 0
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Option I.............. 122 0 0 0
(Indirect).
Option II (Proposed 187 0 0 0
for PSNS).
Option III............ 215 0 0 0
Truck/Food (Direct)................. Option I..............
Option II (Proposed
for BPT, BCT, BAT,
NSPS).
Truck/Food (Indirect)............... Option I.............. 3,236 0 17 0
Option II............. 8,022 8 17 153
Rail/Food (Direct).................. Option I..............
Option II (Proposed
for BPT, BCT, BAT,
NSPS).
Rail/Food (Indirect)................ Option I.............. 2,098 0 0 0
Option II............. 6,218 0 0 0
Barge/Food (Direct)................. Option I..............
Option II (Proposed
for BPT, BCT, BAT,
NSPS).
Barge/Food (Indirect)............... Option I.............. 19 0 0 0
Option II............. 41 0 0 0
Truck/Hopper (Indirect)............. Option I.............. 334 5 0 38
Rail/Hopper (Indirect).............. Option I.............. 16 0 0 0
Barge/Hopper (Direct)............... Option I.............. 411 0 0 0
Barge/Hopper (Indirect)............. Option I.............. 21 0 0 0
Truck/Petroleum (Indirect).......... Option I.............. 536 0 0 0
Rail/Petroleum (Indirect)........... Option I.............. 87 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Small Business Analysis
EPA estimated that there are 1,239 TEC facilities not regulated by
other CWA effluent guidelines. Of these, 437 facilities meet the
definition of small businesses. There are 692 TEC discharging
facilities which may incur costs to comply with today's proposal. Of
these, 184 facilities meet the definition of ``small'' under the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) definition of $5 million in annual
revenue for many of the SIC codes that cover the TECI. The 184 small
facilities are about 27 percent of the discharging facilities in the
industry. Not all of these facilities will be affected by today's
proposal because EPA is not proposing effluent limitations for all
subcategories.
EPA's small business analysis satisfies the requirements of an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act; see section XIII.B of today's notice) and also
documents the Agency's findings of economic achievability for the small
business segment of the regulated community. The small business
analysis, in its entirety, is in Chapter VI of the EA.
A key aspect of the small business analysis was an attempt to
identify a means to minimize economic impacts for small businesses.
Among the Agency's considerations was an exclusion for small
facilities, where the exclusion could be based on criteria such as the
number of tanks cleaned, gallons of wastewater generated per day,
employment, or annual revenues. EPA evaluated alternative levels for
each of these criteria as potential bases for excluding small
businesses. For each potential exclusion, EPA considered the projected
economic impacts, both in absolute terms and in relative terms (i.e.,
whether the impacts were higher, proportionately, for the small
businesses). The economic impacts that EPA considered for small
facilities include those described in section X.B.2, such as closures,
and other impacts, such as a comparison of compliance cost to annual
revenues. EPA projects no facility closures among small businesses. EPA
projects that 14 small businesses will experience financial stress.
For the preliminary comparison of costs to revenues, EPA relied on
a conservative set of assumptions such as zero cost pass through. EPA
relied on these results to determine whether there might be any
potential need to prepare an IRFA. Subsequently, EPA also compared cost
to revenue using other assumptions from the market model described in
X.B.2. All of these results are presented in the IRFA. Using both sets
of assumptions related to cost pass through, EPA estimates that either
75 or 50 small businesses would incur costs
[[Page 34724]]
exceeding one percent of revenues, and either 64 or 17 small businesses
would incur costs exceeding three percent of revenues.
Small facilities are not concentrated in any one market area and
the competitive advantages, if those facilities were excluded, might be
limited. EPA's analysis shows that there is a very slight increase in
tank cleaning prices as a result of the proposed rule. For example, the
price per tank cleaned in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory would be
expected to increase from $279 per tank cleaned to $295 per tank
cleaned, a 5.7 percent increase. Based on an industry-wide market
analysis that includes zero discharge facilities, with this increase in
tank cleaning prices, the number of tanks cleaned in the Truck/Chemical
Subcategory would decrease from about 770,000 tanks cleaned to about
762,000 tanks cleaned, a 1.1 percent decrease in the number of tanks
cleaned. Because tank cleaning is an essential service and is a very
small component of transportation services, customers do not appear to
be as sensitive to price changes as they would be to a service which is
a larger component of overall transportation services; therefore,
dischargers subject to the proposed rule would be able to compete with
zero discharge facilities. The analysis suggests that an exclusion from
the rule may provide small businesses with a modest comparative cost
and price advantage over facilities subject to the regulation. However,
that comparative cost advantage may be slight; overall price changes
are projected to be modest and small facilities may not have the market
power of larger facilities.
The analysis of potential small business exclusions also includes a
comparison of economic impacts and pollutant loadings; this type of
comparison is especially helpful for identifying regulatory
alternatives that would provide economic relief without removing a
significant portion of the pollutant loading or other benefit of the
rule. This analysis shows that small facilities contribute a
proportional amount of the pollutant loads discharged into surface
waters.
EPA evaluated more than 20 potential small business exclusions, but
has not identified an exclusion consistent with the CWA that minimizes
the economic impacts while still preserving the benefits of the
proposed rule. Hence, no small business exclusion is incorporated into
today's proposal. EPA solicits comments on a small business exclusion
that would minimize the impacts on those small firms for which
projected compliance costs represent a significant share of costs or
net income, or more generally, any regulatory alternative that would
minimize the economic impacts on small businesses.
D. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Table 9 presents a comparison of the costs and benefits of the
proposed transportation equipment cleaning industry regulation. The
proposed options are expected to have a total annual social cost of
$37.5 million in 1997 dollars, which includes a $36.9 million in pretax
compliance costs, $0.6 million in administrative costs, and almost zero
costs for administering unemployment benefits. Annual benefits are
expected to range from $2.7 million to $9.3 million in 1997 dollars,
which includes $1.8 million to $6.2 million for recreational benefits
and $0.9 million to $3.1 million associated with nonuse values
benefits. The derivation of annual benefits is discussed in Section XI.
Table 9.--Summary of the Cost-Benefit Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs and
Category benefits ($
1997 millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Costs........................................ $36.9
Administrative Costs.................................... 0.6
Administrative Costs of Unemployment.................... 0.0-0.006
---------------
Total Social Costs................................ 37.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health Benefits
Recreational Benefits:
Truck/Chemical...................................... 1.6-5.6
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum.......................... 0.2-0.6
Nonuse Benefits......................................... 0.9-3.1
---------------
Total Monetized Benefits.......................... 2.7-9.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of additional use and nonuse benefits associated
with the proposed standards that could not be monetized. The monetized
recreational benefits were estimated only for fishing by recreational
anglers, although there are other categories of recreational and other
use benefits that could not be monetized. Examples of these additional
benefits include: reduced noncancer health effects, enhanced water-
dependent recreation other than fishing, reduced POTW operating and
maintenance costs, and reduced administrative costs at the local level
to develop and defend individually derived local limits for
transportation equipment cleaning facilities. There are also
nonmonetized benefits that are nonuse values, such as benefits to
wildlife, threatened or endangered species, and biodiversity benefits.
Rather than attempt the difficult task of enumerating, quantifying, and
monetizing these nonuse benefits, EPA calculated nonuse benefits as 50
percent of the use value for recreational fishing. This value of 50
percent is a reasonable approximation of the total nonuse value for a
population compared to the total use value for that population. This
approximation should be applied to the total use value for the affected
population; in this case, all of the direct uses of the affected
reaches (including fishing, hiking, and boating). However,
[[Page 34725]]
since this approximation was only applied to recreational fishing
benefits for recreational anglers, it does not take into account non-
use values for non-anglers or for the uses other than fishing by
anglers. Therefore, EPA has estimated only a portion of the nonuse
benefits for the proposed standards.
E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
In addition to the foregoing analyses, EPA has conducted cost-
effectiveness analyses for the multiple options considered for each of
the subcategories in the transportation equipment cleaning industry.
The methodologies, details, and results of these analyses are presented
in the report ``Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment
Cleaning Industry Point Source Category,'' which is included in the
rulemaking record. The CE analysis evaluates the relative efficiency of
technology options in removing toxic pollutants. The costs evaluated
include the pretax direct compliance costs, such as capital
expenditures and O&M costs, which are annualized and compared to
incremental and total pollutant removals.
Cost-effectiveness results are expressed in terms of the
incremental and average costs per ``pound equivalent'' (PE) removed. PE
is a measure that addresses differences in the toxicity of pollutants
removed. Total PEs are derived by taking the number of pounds of a
pollutant removed and multiplying this number by a toxic weighting
factor (TWF). EPA calculates TWFs for priority pollutants and some
additional nonconventional pollutants using ambient water quality
criteria and toxicity values. The TWFs are then standardized by
relating them to a particular pollutant, in this case, copper. PEs are
calculated only for pollutants for which TWFs have been estimated, thus
they do not reflect potential toxicity for some nonconventional
pollutants and any conventional pollutants. EPA calculates incremental
cost-effectiveness as the ratio of the incremental annual costs to the
incremental PE removed under each option, compared to the previous
option. Average cost-effectiveness is calculated for each option as the
ratio of total costs to total PE removed. In the case of pretreatment
standards, EPA does not include pollutant removals if those pollutants
could be removed at the POTW, but only includes the removal of
pollutants that would pass through the POTW. EPA reports annual costs
for all cost-effectiveness analyses in 1981 dollars, to enable limited
comparisons of the cost-effectiveness among regulated industries.
EPA calculated cost-effectiveness ratios for the technology options
for each of the five regulated subcategories. Detailed results are
presented in the CE document. EPA estimates that the incremental cost-
effectiveness of the proposed options for direct dischargers is about
$108 per PE removed; for indirect dischargers, the incremental cost
effectiveness is about $185 per PE removed.
XI. Water Quality Impacts of Proposed Regulations
A. Characterization of Pollutants
EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling the
discharges of toxic pollutants from facilities in three subcategories
of the Transportation Equipment Cleaning industry to surface waters and
POTWs. The detailed assessment can be found in the ``Environmental
Assessment of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category''. EPA's evaluation
was done in a national analysis of direct and indirect discharges.
Discharges of these pollutants into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems
may alter aquatic habitats, adversely affect aquatic biota, and
adversely impact human health through the consumption of contaminated
fish and water. Furthermore, EPA evaluated whether these pollutants
being discharged to POTWs by TEC facilities may interfere with POTW
operations in terms of inhibition of activated sludge or biological
treatment, and evaluated whether they may cause contamination of
sludges, thereby limiting available methods of disposal. Many of these
pollutants have at least one toxic effect (human health carcinogen or
systemic toxicant or aquatic toxicant). In addition, many of these
pollutants bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and persist in the
environment.
The Agency's analysis focused on the effects of toxic pollutants
and did not evaluate the effects of three conventional pollutants and
five nonconventional pollutants including total suspended solids (TSS),
five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD<INF>5</INF> chemical oxygen
demand (COD), oil and grease (measured as hexane extractable material),
total dissolved solids (TDS), total organic carbon (TOC), and total
phenolic compounds. Although the Agency did not monetize the benefits
associated with reductions of these non-toxic parameters, discharges of
these parameters can have adverse effects on human health and the
environment. For example, habitat degradation can result from increased
suspended particulate matter that reduces light penetration, and thus
primary productivity, or from accumulation of sludge particles that
alter benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. Oil and grease,
including animal fats and vegetable oils, can have lethal effects on
fish by coating gill surfaces and causing asphyxia, by depleting oxygen
levels due to excessive biological oxygen demand, or by reducing stream
aeration because of surface film. Oil and grease can also have
detrimental effects on water fowl by destroying the buoyancy and
insulation of their feathers. High COD and BOD<INF>5</INF> levels can
deplete oxygen levels, which can result in mortality or other adverse
effects on fish. High TOC levels may interfere with water quality by
causing taste and odor problems and mortality in fish. The
environmental and human health benefits associated with reducing the
discharge of these parameters are generally associated with wastewater
discharged directly to surface waters. The majority of facilities in
the TEC industry discharge to POTWs, which have the ability to treat
and control many of these parameters before they reach surface waters.
B. Truck/Chemical Subcategory
1. Indirect Dischargers
EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health
impacts of a representative sample of 40 indirect wastewater
dischargers of the 288 facilities in the Truck/Chemical indirect
subcategory to receiving waters at current levels of treatment and at
proposed pretreatment levels. These 40 modeled facilities discharge 80
modeled pollutants in wastewater to 35 POTWs, which then discharge to
35 receiving streams. EPA predicted steady-state in-stream pollutant
concentrations after complete immediate mixing with no loss from the
system, and compared these levels to EPA-published water quality
criteria. For those chemicals for which EPA has not published water
quality criteria, concentrations were compared to documented toxic
effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or estimated toxic concentration).
Nationwide criteria guidance were used as the most representative
value. In addition, the potential benefits to human health were
evaluated by estimating the potential reduction of carcinogenic risk
and systemic effects from consuming contaminated fish and drinking
water. Risks were also estimated for recreational and subsistence
anglers and their families as well as the general
[[Page 34726]]
population. Model results were then extrapolated to the national level.
At the national level, 288 facilities discharge wastewater to 264
POTWs, which then discharge into 264 receiving streams. Current
loadings (in pounds) of the 80 pollutants evaluated for water quality
impacts are reduced 80 percent by the proposed pretreatment regulatory
option. EPA projects that in-stream concentrations of one pollutant
will exceed human health criteria (for both water and organisms) in 14
receiving streams at current discharge levels. The proposed
pretreatment regulatory option eliminates excursions of human health
criteria in all 14 streams. EPA also projects 49 receiving streams with
in-stream concentrations for one pollutant projected to exceed chronic
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels at current discharge
levels. At the proposed pretreatment, 37 of the 49 streams still show
excursions for one pollutant. The remaining 12 streams will no longer
have excursions of either kind under the proposed pretreatment.
Estimates of the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers
as a result of this improvement range from $ 1.6 to 5.7 million
annually (1997 dollars). In addition, the nonuse value (e.g. option,
existence, and bequest value) of the improvement is estimated to range
from $ 0.8 to $2.9 million (1997 dollars).
The excess annual cancer cases at current pollutant loadings are
projected to be much less than 0.5 from the ingestion of contaminated
fish and drinking water by all populations evaluated for both the
results from the representative sample and those extrapolated to the
national level. A monetary value of this benefit to society is,
therefore, not projected. The risk to develop systemic toxicant effects
(non-cancer adverse health effects such as reproductive toxicity) are
projected for 14,173 subsistence anglers in 39 receiving streams for
one pollutant at current discharge levels. The risk to develop systemic
toxicant effects are projected at the proposed pretreatment for 3,492
subsistence anglers fishing in 16 receiving streams for the same
pollutant, reducing the exposed population by 75 percent. Monetary
values for the reduction of systemic toxic effects cannot currently be
estimated.
2. POTWs
EPA also evaluated the potential adverse impacts on POTW operations
(inhibition of microbial activity during biological treatment) and
contamination of sewage sludge at the 35 modeled POTWs that receive
wastewater from the Truck/Chemical Subcategory. Inhibition of POTW
operations (impairment of microbial activity) is estimated by comparing
predicted POTW influent concentrations to available inhibition levels.
Inhibition values were obtained from Guidance Manual for Preventing
Interference at POTWs (U.S. EPA, 1987) and CERCLA Site Discharges to
POTWs: Guidance Manual (U.S. EPA, 1990). Potential contamination of
sewage sludge (concentrations of pollutants above the levels permitted
for land application) was estimated by comparing projected pollutant
concentrations in POTW sewage sludge to available EPA criteria. The
Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40 CFR Part 503)
contain limits on the concentrations of pollutants in sewage sludge
that is used or disposed. For the purpose of this analysis,
contamination is defined as the concentration of a pollutant in sewage
sludge at or above the limits presented in 40 CFR Part 503. Model
results were then extrapolated to the national level, which included
264 POTWs.
EPA evaluated pollutants for potential POTW operation inhibition
and potential sewage sludge contamination. At current discharge levels,
EPA projects no inhibition or sludge contamination problems at any of
the POTWs at current loadings. Therefore, no further analysis of these
types of impacts was performed.
C. Rail/Chemical Subcategory
1. Indirect Dischargers
EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health
of a representative sample of 12 indirect wastewater dischargers of the
38 facilities in the Rail/Chemical Subcategory to receiving waters at
current levels of treatment and at proposed pretreatment levels. These
12 modeled facilities discharge 103 modeled pollutants in wastewater to
11 POTWs, which discharge to 11 receiving streams. EPA predicted
steady-state in-stream pollutant concentrations after complete
immediate mixing with no loss from the system, and compared these
levels to EPA-published water quality criteria. For those chemicals for
which EPA has not published water quality criteria, concentrations were
compared to documented toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or
estimated toxic concentration). Nationwide criteria guidance were used
as the most representative value. In addition, the potential benefits
to human health were evaluated by estimating the potential reduction of
carcinogenic risk and systemic effects from consuming contaminated fish
and drinking water. Risks were also estimated for recreational and
subsistence anglers and their families as well as the general
population. Model results were then extrapolated to the national level.
At the national level, 38 facilities discharge wastewater to 37
POTWs, which then discharge into 37 receiving streams. Current loadings
(in pounds) of the 103 pollutants evaluated for water quality impacts
are reduced 46 percent by the proposed pretreatment regulatory option.
EPA projects that in-stream pollutant concentrations will exceed human
health criteria (for both water and organisms) in 16 receiving streams
at both current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels. Since the
proposed pretreatment is not expected to eliminate all occurrences of
pollutant concentrations in excess of human health criteria at any of
the receiving streams, no increase in value of recreational fishing to
anglers is projected as a result of this pretreatment. EPA projects
eight receiving streams with in-stream concentrations of four
pollutants to exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect
levels at current discharge levels. Proposed pretreatment discharge
levels will reduce projected excursions to three pollutants in six
receiving streams. There are expected to be excursions of acute aquatic
life criteria or toxic effects levels by one pollutant in six receiving
streams. All of these excursions will be eliminated by the proposed
pretreatment option.
The excess annual cancer cases at current pollutant loadings are
projected to be much less than 0.5 from the ingestion of contaminated
fish and drinking water by all populations evaluated for both the
results from the representative sample and those extrapolated to the
national level. Monetary value of this benefit to society is,
therefore, not projected. No systemic toxicant effects (non-cancer
adverse health effects such as reproductive toxicity) are projected for
anglers fishing the receiving streams at current discharge levels.
Therefore, no further analysis of these types of impacts was performed.
2. POTWs
EPA also evaluated the potential adverse impacts on POTW operations
(inhibition of microbial activity during biological treatment) and
contamination of sewage sludge at the 11 modeled POTWs that receive
wastewater from the rail chemical indirect subcategory. Model results
were then extrapolated to the national level, which included 37 POTWs.
[[Page 34727]]
EPA evaluated pollutants for potential POTW operation inhibition
and potential sewage sludge contamination through wastewater modeling.
At current discharge levels, the EPA model projects inhibition problems
at 21 of the POTWs, caused by four pollutants. At the proposed
pretreatment regulatory option, EPA projects continued inhibition
problems at 13 POTWs. Inhibition was prevented at eight POTWs; however,
the EPA is currently unable to monetize these benefits. The Agency
projects sewage sludge contamination at none of the POTWs at current
loadings. Therefore, no further analysis of these types of impacts was
performed.
The POTW inhibition values used in this analysis are not, in
general, regulatory values. EPA based these values upon engineering and
health estimates contained in guidance or guidelines published by EPA
and other sources. EPA used these values to determine whether the
pollutants interfere with POTW operations. The pretreatment standards
proposed today are not based on these values; rather, they are based on
the performance of the selected technology basis for each standard.
However, the values used in this analysis help indicate the potential
benefits for POTW operations that may result from the compliance with
proposed pretreatment discharge levels.
D. Barge/Chemical and Petroleum Subcategory
1. Direct Dischargers
EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health
of a representative sample of six direct wastewater dischargers of the
14 facilities in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory to
receiving waters at current levels of treatment and at proposed
pretreatment levels. These six modeled facilities discharge 60 modeled
pollutants to six receiving streams. EPA predicted steady-state in-
stream pollutant concentrations after complete immediate mixing with no
loss from the system, and compared these levels to EPA-published water
quality criteria. For those chemicals for which EPA has not published
water quality criteria, concentrations were compared to documented
toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or estimated toxic
concentration). Nationwide criteria guidance were used as the most
representative value. In addition, the potential benefits to human
health were evaluated by estimating the potential reduction of
carcinogenic risk and systemic effects from consuming contaminated fish
and drinking water. Risks were also estimated for recreational and
subsistence anglers and their families as well as the general
population. Model results were then extrapolated to the national level.
At the national level, 14 facilities discharge wastewater directly
to 14 receiving streams. Current loadings (in pounds) of the 60
pollutants evaluated for water quality impacts are reduced 95 percent
by the proposed BAT regulatory option. EPA projects that in-stream
concentrations of two pollutants will exceed human health criteria (for
both water and organisms) in six receiving streams at current discharge
levels. The proposed BAT regulatory option eliminates excursions of
human health criteria in three of these streams. Estimates of the
increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers as a result of
this improvement range from $169,000 to $604,000 annually (1997
dollars). In addition, the nonuse value (e.g. option, existence, and
bequest value) of the improvement is estimated to range from $84,500 to
$302,000 (1997 dollars).
The excess annual cancer cases at current pollutant loadings are
projected to be much less than 0.5 from the ingestion of contaminated
fish and drinking water by all populations evaluated for both the
results from the representative sample and those extrapolated to the
national level. A monetary value of this benefit to society is,
therefore, not projected. No systemic toxicant effects (non-cancer
adverse health effects such as reproductive toxicity) are projected for
anglers fishing the 14 receiving streams at current discharge levels.
Therefore, no further analysis of these types of impacts was performed.
2. Indirect Dischargers
EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health
of a single indirect wastewater discharger (there was only one facility
which received the Detailed Questionnaire, although several additional
facilities were identified in the Screen Questionnaire) to receiving
waters at current levels of treatment and at proposed pretreatment
levels. This facility discharges 60 modeled pollutants in wastewater to
a POTW, which discharges to a receiving stream. EPA predicted steady-
state in-stream pollutant concentrations after complete immediate
mixing with no loss from the system, and compared these levels to EPA-
published water quality criteria. For those chemicals for which EPA has
not published water quality criteria, concentrations were compared to
documented toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or estimated
toxic concentration). Nationwide criteria guidance were used as the
most representative value. In addition, the potential benefits to human
health were evaluated by estimating the potential reduction of
carcinogenic risk and systemic effects from consuming contaminated fish
and drinking water. Risks were also estimated for recreational and
subsistence anglers and their families as well as the general
population. Model results were then extrapolated to the national level.
EPA projects that in-stream concentrations of none of the
pollutants will exceed human health criteria (for both water and
organisms) at current discharge levels. EPA also projects that no
receiving streams will show in-stream concentrations exceeding chronic
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels at current discharge
levels. No carcinogenic effects or systemic toxicant effects (non-
cancer adverse health effects such as reproductive toxicity) are
projected for drinking water or ingesting fish taken from the single
receiving stream at current discharge levels. Therefore, no further
analysis of these types of impacts was performed.
3. POTWs
EPA also evaluated the potential adverse impacts on POTW operations
(inhibition of microbial activity during biological treatment) and
contamination of sewage sludge at the one POTW that receives wastewater
from the barge chemical indirect subcategory. Inhibition of POTW
operations (impairment of microbial activity) is estimated by comparing
predicted POTW influent concentrations to available inhibition levels.
Model results were not extrapolated to the national level, which
included only the single POTW.
EPA evaluated pollutants for potential POTW operation inhibition
and potential sewage sludge contamination. At current discharge levels,
EPA projects no inhibition or sludge contamination problems at this
POTW. Therefore, no further analysis of these types of impacts was
performed.
XII. Non-Water Quality Impacts of Proposed Regulations
As required by sections 304(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act, EPA
has considered the non-water quality environmental impacts associated
with the treatment technology options for the transportation equipment
cleaning industry. Non-water quality impacts are impacts of the
proposed rule on the environment that are not directly associated with
wastewater. Non-water
[[Page 34728]]
quality impacts include changes in energy consumption, air emissions,
and solid waste generation of oil and sludge. In addition to these non-
water quality impacts, EPA examined the impacts of the proposed rule on
noise pollution, and water and chemical use. Based on these analyses,
EPA finds the relatively small increase in non-water quality impacts
resulting from the proposed rule to be acceptable.
A. Energy Impacts
Energy impacts resulting from the proposed regulatory options
include energy requirements to operate wastewater treatment equipment
such as aerators, pumps, and mixers. However, flow reduction
technologies (a component of the regulatory options) reduce energy
requirements by reducing the number of operating hours per day and/or
operating days per year for wastewater treatment equipment currently
operated by the TEC industry. For some regulatory options, energy
savings resulting from flow reduction exceed requirements for operation
of additional wastewater treatment equipment, resulting in a net energy
savings for these options.
EPA estimates a net increase in electricity use of approximately 6
million kilowatt hours annually for the TEC industry as a result of the
proposed rule. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the total
U.S. industrial electrical energy purchase in 1990 was approximately
756 billion kilowatt hours. EPA's proposed options would increase U.S.
industrial electrical energy purchase by 0.0008 percent. Therefore, the
Agency concludes that the effluent pollutant reduction benefits from
the proposed technology options exceed the potential adverse effects
from the estimated increase in energy consumption.
B. Air Emission Impacts
TEC facilities generate wastewater containing significant
concentrations of volatile and semivolatile organic pollutants, some of
which are also on the list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in Title
3 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. These waste streams pass
through treatment units open to the atmosphere, which may result in the
volatilization of organic pollutants from the wastewater.
Emissions from TEC facilities also occur when tanks are opened and
cleaned, with cleaning typically performed using hot water or cleaning
solutions. Prior to cleaning, tanks may be opened with vapors vented
through the tank hatch and air vents in a process called gas freeing.
At some facilities, tanks used to transport gases or volatile material
are filled to capacity with water to displace vapors to the atmosphere
or a combustion device. Some facilities also perform open steaming of
tanks.
Other sources of emissions at TEC facilities include heated
cleaning solution storage tanks as well as emissions from TEC
wastewater as it falls onto the cleaning bay floor, flows to floor
drains and collection sumps, and conveys to wastewater treatment.
In order to quantify the impact of the proposed regulation on air
emissions, EPA performed a model analysis to estimate the amount of
organic pollutants emitted to the air. EPA estimates the increase of
air emissions at TEC facilities as a result of the proposed wastewater
treatment technology to be approximately 153,000 kilograms per year of
organic pollutants (volatile and semivolatile organics), which
represents approximately 35 percent of the total organic pollutant
wastewater load. EPA's estimate of air emissions reflects the increase
in emissions at TEC facilities, and does not account for baseline air
emissions that are currently being released to the atmosphere at the
POTW.
EPA's model analysis was performed based on the most stringent
regulatory options considered for each subcategory in order to create a
``worst case scenario'' (i.e., the more treatment technologies used,
the more chance of volatilization of compounds to the air). For some
subcategories, EPA is not proposing the most stringent regulatory
option; therefore, for these subcategories, air emission impacts are
overestimated. In addition, to the extent that facilities currently
operate treatment in place, the results overestimate air emission
impacts from the regulatory options. Additional details concerning
EPA's model analysis to estimate air emission impacts are included in
``Estimated Air Emission Impacts of TEC Industry Regulatory Options''
in the rulemaking record.
Based on the sources of air emissions in the TEC industry and
limited data concerning air pollutant emissions from TEC operations
provided in response to the 1994 Detailed Questionnaire (most
facilities did not provide air pollutant emissions estimates), EPA
estimates that the incremental air emissions resulting from the
proposed regulatory options are a small percentage of air emissions
generated by TEC operations. For these reasons, air emission impacts of
the regulatory options are acceptable.
C. Solid Waste Impacts
Solid waste impacts resulting from the proposed regulatory options
include additional solid wastes generated by wastewater treatment
technologies. These solid wastes include wastewater treatment
residuals, including sludge, waste oil, spent activated carbon, and
spent organo-clay.
Regulations pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), require companies/facilities which generate waste (including
waste generated from the cleaning of the interiors of tanks) to
determine if they generate a hazardous waste (the applicable
regulations are found in 40 CFR part 261). This determination is made
by answering two questions: (1) Is the material a listed hazardous
waste; or (2) is the material hazardous because it exhibits one of the
four hazardous waste characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity or toxicity). If the material is determined to be a
hazardous waste, the waste must be managed according to the regulations
found in 40 CFR parts 262-265, 268, 270, 271 and 124.
1. Wastewater Treatment Sludge
Wastewater treatment sludge is generated in two forms: dewatered
sludge (or filter cake) generated by a filter press and/or wet sludge
generated by treatment units such as oil/water separators, chemical
precipitation/clarification, coagulation/clarification, dissolved air
flotation, and biological treatment. Many facilities that currently
operate wastewater treatment systems do not dewater wastewater
treatment sludge. Storage, transportation, and disposal of greater
volumes of un-dewatered sludge that would be generated after
implementing the TEC industry regulatory options is less cost-effective
than dewatering sludge on site and disposing of the greatly reduced
volume of resulting filter cake. However, in estimating costs for
today's proposal, EPA has included the costs for TEC facilities to
install sludge dewatering equipment to handle increases in sludge
generation. For these reasons, EPA estimates net decreases in the
volume of wet sludge generated by the industry and net increases in the
volume of dry sludge generated by the industry.
EPA estimates that the proposed rule will result in a decrease in
wet sludge generation of approximately 17 million gallons per year,
which represents an estimated 90 percent decrease from current wet
sludge generation. In addition, EPA estimates that the proposed rule
will result in an increase in dewatered sludge generation of
approximately 33 thousand cubic yards per year, which represents an
estimated 170 percent increase from current dewatered sludge
generation.
[[Page 34729]]
Compliance cost estimates for the TEC industry regulatory options are
based on disposal of wastewater treatment sludge in nonhazardous waste
landfills. EPA sampling of sludge using the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test verified the sludge as non-hazardous.
Such landfills are subject to RCRA Subtitle D standards found in 40 CFR
parts 257 or 258.
The Agency concludes that the effluent benefits and the reductions
in wet sludge generation from the proposed technology options exceed
the potential adverse effects from the estimated increase in wastewater
treatment sludge generation.
2. Waste Oil
EPA estimates that compliance with the proposed regulation will
result in an increase in waste oil generation at TEC sites based on
removal of oil from wastewater via oil/water separation. EPA estimates
that this increase in waste oil generation will be approximately 1.5
million gallons per year, which represents an estimated 122 percent
increase from current waste oil generation. EPA assumes, based on
responses to the detailed questionnaire, that waste oil disposal will
be via oil reclamation or fuels blending on or off site. Therefore, the
Agency does not estimate any adverse effects from increased waste oil
generation.
3. Spent Activated Carbon
Spent activated carbon is generated by the following regulatory
options:
<bullet> Truck/Chemical Subcategory--BPT Option II.
<bullet> Truck/Chemical Subcategory--PSES Option II.
<bullet> Rail/Chemical Subcategory--BPT Option III.
<bullet> Rail/Chemical Subcategory--PSES Option III.
<bullet> Truck/Petroleum Subcategory--PSES Option II.
<bullet> Rail/Petroleum Subcategory--PSES Option II.
Treatment of TEC wastewater via these technology options will
generate 8,470 tons annually of spent activated carbon. EPA assumes
that the spent activated carbon will be sent off site for regeneration
rather than disposed of as a waste. Possible air emissions during
regeneration are minimal. Therefore, the Agency does not estimate any
adverse effects from activated carbon treatment technologies.
4. Spent Organo-Clay
Spent organo-clay is generated by the following options:
<bullet> Rail/Chemical Subcategory--BPT Option III.
<bullet> Rail/Chemical Subcategory--PSES Option III.
Treatment of TEC wastewater via these technology options will
generate 118 tons annually of spent organo-clay. EPA assumes that the
spent organo-clay will be disposed as a non-hazardous waste. The Agency
concludes that the effluent benefits from the proposed technology
options exceed any potential adverse effects from the generation and
disposal of spent organo-clay.
XIII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives
A. Summary of Public Participation
During all phases of developing the proposed rule, EPA sought to
maintain communications with the regulated community and other
interested parties. The Agency met with representatives from the
industry, the National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC), the Railway Progress
Institute, and the National Shipyard Association (formerly the American
Waterways Shipyard Conference). In addition, NTTC and the National
Shipyard Association set up the earliest site visits for EPA staff at
TECI facilities. All three trade associations provided comments and
suggestions on the industry screener and detailed questionnaires prior
to distribution to the industry. EPA also attended six NTTC conferences
in between 1994 and 1997 to provide information on the progress of the
rule to the industry, to provide assistance to the industry in
completing the detailed questionnaire, and to obtain information
related to industry trends.
Because most (approximately 95 percent) of the facilities in the
TECI are indirect dischargers, the Agency has made a concerted effort
to consult with State and local entities that will be responsible for
implementing the regulation. EPA has spoken with pretreatment
coordinators from around the nation and discussed the technology
options with these pretreatment coordinators.
In addition, on May 8, 1997, EPA sponsored a public meeting, where
the Agency presented information about the content and the status of
the proposed regulation. The meeting was announced in the Federal
Register, and agendas and meeting materials were distributed at the
meeting. The public meeting also gave interested parties an opportunity
to provide information, data, and ideas on key issues to the Agency.
EPA's intent in conducting the public meeting was to elicit input that
would improve the quality of the proposed regulation. At the public
meeting the Agency clarified that the public meeting would not replace
the notice and comment process, nor would the meeting become a
mechanism for a negotiated rulemaking. While EPA promised to accept
information and data at the meeting and make good faith efforts to
review all information and address all issues discussed at the meeting,
EPA could not commit to fully assessing and incorporating all comments
into the proposal. EPA will assess all comments and data received at
the public meeting prior to promulgation.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), EPA generally is required to conduct an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of the proposed rule
on small entities. Under section 605(b) of the RFA, if the
Administrator certifies that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA is not
required to prepare an IRFA.
Based on its preliminary assessment of the economic impact of
regulatory options being considered for the proposed rule, EPA had
concluded that the proposal might significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, EPA prepared an IRFA pursuant to
section 603(b) of the RFA addressing:
<bullet> The need for, objectives of, and legal basis for the rule;
<bullet> A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the rule would apply;
<bullet> The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities that would be subject to the requirements and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record;
<bullet> An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with
the proposed rule;
<bullet> A description of any significant regulatory alternatives
to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact
of the proposed rule on small entities. Consistent with the stated
objectives of the CWA, the analysis discusses significant alternatives
such as--
[[Page 34730]]
(1) Establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities;
(2) Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
(3) The use of performance rather than design standards; and
(4) An exclusion from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for such small entities.
The IRFA is presented in Chapter VI of the EA and summarized in
Section X.C.4 of this notice. EPA's analysis indicates that no small
businesses would close as a result of the proposed effluent guideline.
Using two sets of assumptions related to the ability of a business to
pass the additional costs to customers, EPA projects that either 75 or
50 small businesses would incur costs exceeding one percent of revenues
and 64 or 17 small businesses would incur costs exceeding three percent
of revenues. Based on the data presented in the IRFA, EPA now believes
that the proposal, if promulgated, may not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Consequently, there
is a possibility, after evaluation of comments and data received in
response to today's proposal, that the Agency may not be required to
prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis.
Nonetheless, EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR)
Panel on July 17, 1997, in compliance with the RFA, as amended by
SBREFA. The Panel was comprised of representatives from three federal
agencies: EPA, the Small Business Administration, and the Office of
Management and Budget. The Panel reviewed materials EPA prepared in
connection with the IRFA, and collected the advice and recommendations
of small entity representatives. For this proposed rule, the small
entity representatives included trade association officials from the
National Tank Truck Carriers, Railway Progress Institute, Short Line
Railroad Association, National Shipyard Association, The Association of
Container Reconditioners and National Oil Recovery Association. The
Panel prepared a report (available in the public docket for this
rulemaking) that summarizes its outreach to small entities and the
comments submitted by the small entity representatives. The Panel's
report also presents their findings on issues related to the elements
of an IRFA and recommendations regarding the rulemaking.
In addition to the activities discussed in XIII.A, EPA and the
other members of the Panel sought to gather small business advice and
recommendations by meeting and consulting with the small entity
representatives listed above. On July 2, 1997, EPA convened a meeting
for the small entity representatives to describe EPA's regulatory
process and alternative technology options for the TEC effluent
guideline. While the Panel was in session, they met with the small
entity representatives, provided more than 200 pages of analysis
results and background information to the small entity representatives,
and carefully reviewed the written comments submitted by the small
entity representatives.
Some of the key issues discussed by the Panel and the small entity
representatives were potential exclusions for small businesses. EPA,
through extensive analysis and documentation for the Panel members and
the small entity representatives, supported this effort to identify
regulatory alternatives that would minimize the economic impacts on
small businesses while preserving the environmental benefits associated
with the treatment technologies. EPA evaluated alternative breakpoints
in four variables (flow, employment, annual revenue, and number of
tanks cleaned) to determine possible exclusions for small entities. For
numerous potential exclusion scenarios, EPA provided comparisons of
financial characteristics, economic impacts, and pollutant loadings.
The Agency also provided background information on the engineering
models, compliance cost calculations, pollutant loadings estimations,
financial models, and economic impact methodologies. Thus, EPA provided
to the Panel and the small entity representatives a thorough
description of the data and techniques, thereby facilitating the
Panel's task to prepare and submit recommendations to EPA's
Administrator.
Throughout this notice the Agency has discussed issues raised by
the Panel and the small entity representatives, and has attempted to
address the recommendations made to EPA's Administrator. Specifically,
as recommended by the Panel, EPA has solicited data and comment on the
following: the population of affected facilities; the cost models and
assumptions; alternative treatment technologies not considered by EPA;
the subcategorization approach, and specifically on an alternative
regulatory approach that would establish a separate subcategory for any
facility which accepts tanks containing pesticide-containing cargos;
the cost-effectiveness of removing non-pesticide chemicals, and
information on the impacts to receiving streams and POTWs by non-
pesticide pollutants; approaches for minimizing the regulatory impacts
for small facilities; pollutant loads associated with IBC cleaning
wastewater; the economic methodologies and assumptions; and the burdens
associated with compliance of the Clean Air Act for barge facilities.
Additionally, as recommended by the Panel, EPA has included a clear
discussion on the following: the monitoring frequency used in
determining limits and associated costs of compliance; a discussion of
the costs, impacts, and the technology options considered for proposal;
and the reasons for the apparent discrepancy in the levels of treatment
technology proposed for the Truck/Chemical Subcategory and the Rail/
Chemical Subcategory. Additionally, EPA has clearly described its
intention for coverage for those facilities potentially affected by
more than one Clean Water Act effluent guideline, and has documented
all cost models, costing assumptions, and cost projections in the
Technical Development Document and the regulatory record.
There are several instances where the Agency has re-evaluated
earlier thinking based on comments received from the Panel and the
small entity representatives. At times, the Panel produced supporting
data which was used to re-evaluate certain aspects of what EPA intended
to propose. For example, after small entity representatives provided
the Agency with additional information on the cleaning of IBCs, the
Agency decided not to include facilities which clean IBCs within the
scope of this proposed rule. In other instances, where the Agency has
received comments from a Panel member or a small entity representative,
but has not received data that would support changing the scope of the
proposal or requirements contained therein, EPA has identified these
areas of concern in today's notice and has solicited comment from the
regulated community, permit writers, POTW operators and other
stakeholders.
C. Executive Order 12866 (OMB Review)
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant
[[Page 34731]]
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action''. As
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in
the public record.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. The total cost of the rule is not
expected to exceed $23 million (1997$) in any given year. Thus, today's
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments and thus this rule is not subject to the requirement of
section 203 of UMRA. EPA recognizes that small governments may own or
operate POTWs that will need to enter into pretreatment agreements with
the indirect dischargers of the TEC industry that would be subject to
this proposed rule. However, the costs of this are expected to be
minimal. Additionally, the additional requirements of today's proposal
are not unique because POTWs must enter into pretreatment agreements
for all significant industrial users and all industrial facilities
regulated under categorical standards of the Clean Water Act.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed transportation equipment cleaning effluent guidelines
and pretreatment standards contain no information collection activities
and, therefore, no information collection request will be submitted to
OMB for review under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (``NTTAA''), the Agency is required to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard
bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, an explanation
of the reasons for not using such standards.
EPA is not proposing any new analytical test methods as part of
today's proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards. The
Agency does not believe that this proposed rule addresses any technical
standards subject to the NTAA. A commenter who disagrees with this
conclusion should indicate how the notice is subject the Act and
identify any potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards.
G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act, Public Law 104-55, requires
most federal agencies to differentiate between and establish separate
classes for (1) animal fats and oils and greases, fish and marine
mammal oils, and oils of vegetable origin and (2) other greases and
oils, including petroleum, when issuing or enforcing any regulation or
establishing any interpretation or guideline relating to the
transportation, storage, discharge, release, emission, or disposal of a
fat, oil or grease.
The Agency believes that vegetable oils and animal fats pose
similar types of threats to the environment as petroleum oils when
spilled to the environment (62 FR 54508, Oct. 20, 1997).
The deleterious environmental effects of spills of petroleum and
non-petroleum oils, including animal fats and vegetable oils, are
produced through physical contact and destruction of food sources (via
smothering or coating) as well as toxic contamination (62 FR 54511).
However, the permitted discharge of TEC process wastewater containing
residual and dilute quantities of petroleum and non-petroleum oils is
significantly different than an uncontrolled spill of pure petroleum or
non-petroleum oil products.
EPA has grouped facilities which clean transportation equipment
that carry vegetable oils or animal fats as cargos into separate
subcategories (food) from those facilities that clean equipment that
had carried petroleum products for the following reasons.
First, food grade and petroleum facilities operate different tank
interior cleaning processes and unique water use practices. Food grade
cleaning processes are typically performed using computer operated and
controlled dedicated stainless steel washing systems which regulate
flow rate, pressure, temperature, and cleaning sequence duration. Final
water rinses
[[Page 34732]]
are performed using fresh rather than recycled water. In contrast,
petroleum facilities comprise approximately 70 percent of all
facilities that practice 100 percent recycle/reuse of TEC process
wastewater to TEC processes. In addition, 43 percent of food grade
facilities use chemical cleaning solutions such as caustic or detergent
as compared to only four percent of petroleum facilities.
Second, food grade and petroleum facilities generate TEC wastewater
with different characteristics. Both petroleum and non-petroleum oils
are comprised of hydrocarbon mixtures. However, petroleum oils contain
alkanes, cycloalkanes, and aromatic hydrocarbons of which many are
included in EPA's list of priority pollutants. In contrast, vegetable
oils and animal fats contain esters of glycerol and fatty acids which
are not included in EPA's list of priority pollutants and are
relatively non-toxic in dilute concentrations. In addition, food grade
facilities generate from 4 to 14 times more wastewater per tank
cleaning on average than petroleum facilities. These differences in
cargo composition, together with differences in cleaning processes and
water use, result in the generation of TEC wastewater which differs
significantly in volume, pollutants generated, and pollutant
concentration.
In spite of the relatively high toxicity of TEC wastewater
generated by petroleum facilities as compared to food grade facilities,
less than one percent of the tanks cleaned in the TECI are petroleum
tanks cleaned by direct dischargers. Additionally, less than one
percent of wastewater generated by the TECI is generated by direct
dischargers cleaning petroleum tanks. Because very few pounds of toxic
pollutants are being discharged by facilities in the Truck/Petroleum
and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, EPA preliminarily concluded that no
nationally applicable limitations should be established for these
subcategories.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that (1) is likely to be ``economically significant'' as defined
under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns environmental health or
safety risk that the Agency has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If a regulatory action meets both
criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' because this is not
an ``economically significant'' regulatory action as defined by E.O.
12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental
health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children.
XIV. Regulatory Implementation
A. Applicability
Today's proposal represents EPA's best judgment at this time as to
the appropriate technology-based effluent limits for the TEC industry.
These effluent limitations and standards, however, may change based on
comments received on this proposal, and subsequent data submitted by
commentors or developed by the Agency. Therefore, while the information
provided in the Technical Development Documents may provide useful
information and guidance to permit writers in determining best
professional judgment permit limits for TEC facilities, the permit
writer will still need to justify any permit limits based on the
conditions at the individual facility.
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations
concerning bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and
(n).
C. Variances and Modifications
The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations
established pursuant to Section 301 or the pretreatment standards of
Section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in
a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established
administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the
application of national effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for priority
toxic, conventional and non-conventional pollutants.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
EPA may develop effluent limitations or standards different from
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual existing
discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors
considered in establishing the limitation or standards applicable to
the individual facility. Such a modification is known as a
``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF) variance.
Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority toxic and non-
conventional pollutants and BCT limitation for conventional pollutants
for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA provided for FDF
modifications from pretreatment standards for existing facilities. FDF
variances for priority toxic pollutants were challenged judicially and
ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court. (Chemical Manufacturers
Ass'n v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new
Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in
Section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section
301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may establish
alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an application for
approval of FDF variance must be based solely on (1) information
submitted during the rulemaking raising the factors that are
fundamentally different or (2) information the applicant did not have
an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard must be
no less stringent than justified by the difference and not result in
markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts than the
national limitation or standard.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125, subpart D, authorizing the
Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and
standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF
variance requests for existing direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR
125.31(d) identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater,
age and size of a discharger's facility) that may be considered in
determining if a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must
determine whether, on the basis of
[[Page 34733]]
one or more of these factors, the facility in question is fundamentally
different from the facilities and factors considered by EPA in
developing the nationally applicable effluent guidelines. The
regulation also lists four other factors (e.g., infeasibility of
installation within the time allowed or a discharger's ability to pay)
that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In addition, under 40
CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for limitations less stringent than the
national limitation may be approved only if compliance with the
national limitations would result in either (a) a removal cost wholly
out of proportion to the removal cost considered during development of
the national limitations, or (b) a non-water quality environmental
impact (including energy requirements) fundamentally more adverse than
the impact considered during development of the national limits. EPA
regulations provide for an FDF variance for existing indirect
dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The conditions for approval of a request
to modify applicable pretreatment standards and factors considered are
the same as those for direct dischargers.
The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact,
fundamentally different from those factors considered by EPA in
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulation
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or
PSNS.
2. Permit Modifications
Even after EPA (or an authorized State) has issued a final permit
to a direct discharger, the permit may still be modified under certain
conditions. (When a permit modification is under consideration,
however, all other permit conditions remain in effect.) A permit
modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could
include a regulatory inspection or information submitted by the
permittee that reveals the need for modification. Any interested person
may request modification of a permit be made. There are two
classifications of modifications: major and minor. From a procedural
standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public notice
requirements. Major modifications require public notice while minor
modifications do not. Virtually any modifications that results in less
stringent conditions is treated as a major modification, with
provisions for public notice and comment. Conditions that would
necessitate a major modification of a permit are described in 40 CFR
122.62. Minor modifications are generally non-substantive changes. The
conditions for minor modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.
3. Removal Credits
The CWA establishes a discretionary program for POTWs to grant
``removal credits'' to their indirect dischargers. This credit in the
form of a less stringent pretreatment standard, allows an increased
concentration of a pollutant in the flow from the indirect discharger's
facility to the POTW (See 40 CFR 403.7). EPA has promulgated removal
credit regulations as part of its pretreatment regulations.
The following discussion provides a description of the existing
removal credit regulations. However, EPA is considering proposing a
rule which would expand the universe of pollutants for which removal
credits may be authorized. Under EPA's existing pretreatment
regulations, the availability of a removal credit for a particular
pollutant is linked to the POTW method of using or disposing of its
sewage sludge. The regulations provide that removal credits are only
available for certain pollutants regulated in EPA's 40 CFR part 503
sewage sludge regulations (58 FR 9386). The pretreatment regulations at
40 CFR part 403 provide that removal credits may be made potentially
available for the following pollutants:
(1) If a POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for
beneficial uses, disposes of it on surface disposal sites or
incinerates it, removal credits may be available, depending on which
use or disposal method is selected (so long as the POTW complies
with the requirements in Part 503). When sewage sludge is applied to
land, removal credits may be available for ten metals. When sewage
sludge is disposed of on a surface disposal site, removal credits
may be available for three metals. When the sewage sludge is
incinerated, removal credits may be available for seven metals and
for 57 organic pollutants (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A)).
(2) In addition, when sewage sludge is used on land or disposed
of on a surface disposal site or incinerated, removal credits may
also be available for additional pollutants so long as the
concentration of the pollutant in sludge does not exceed a
concentration level established in Part 403. When sewage sludge is
applied to land, removal credits may be available for two additional
metals and 14 organic pollutants. When the sewage sludge is disposed
of on a surface disposal site, removal credits may be available for
seven additional metals and 13 organic pollutants. When the sewage
sludge is incinerated, removal credits may be available for three
other metals (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).
(3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal
solid waste landfill (MSWLF) that meets the criteria of 40 CFR Part
258, removal credits may be available for any pollutant in the
POTW's sewage sludge (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)). Thus, given
compliance with the requirements of EPA's removal credit
regulations,<SUP>2</SUP> following promulgation of the pretreatment
standards being proposed today, removal credits may be authorized
for any pollutant subject to pretreatment standards if the applying
POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a MSWLF that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR part 258. If the POTW uses or disposes of its
sewage sludge by land application, surface disposal or incineration,
removal credits may be available for the following metal pollutants
(depending on the method of use or disposal): arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium
and zinc. Given compliance with Section 403.7, removal credits may
be available for the following organic pollutants (depending on the
method of use or disposal) if the POTW uses or disposes of its
sewage sludge: benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane,
ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, toluene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane and trans-1,2-dichloroethene.
\2\ Under Sec. 403.7, a POTW is authorized to give removal
credits only under certain conditions. These include applying for,
and obtaining, approval from the Regional Administrator (or Director
of a State NPDES program with an approved pretreatment program), a
showing of consistent pollutant removal and an approved pretreatment
program. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some facilities may be interested in obtaining removal credit
authorization for other pollutants being considered for regulation in
this rulemaking for which removal credit authorization would not
otherwise be available under part 403. Under Sections 307(b) and 405 of
the CWA, EPA may authorize removal credits only when EPA determines
that, if removal credits are authorized, that the increased discharges
of a pollutant to POTWs resulting from removal credits will not affect
POTW sewage sludge use or disposal adversely. As discussed in the
preamble to amendments to Part 403 regulations (58 FR 9382-9383), EPA
has interpreted these sections to authorize removal credits for a
pollutant only in one of two circumstances. Removal credits may be
authorized for any categorical pollutant (1) for which EPA have
established a numerical pollutant limit in Part 503; or (2) which EPA
has determined will not threaten human health and the environment when
used or disposed in sewage sludge. The pollutants described in
paragraphs (1)-(3) above include all
[[Page 34734]]
those pollutants that EPA either specifically regulated in Part 503 or
evaluated for regulation and determined would not adversely affect
sludge use and disposal.
EPA is considering a proposal amending Part 403 to make removal
credits available for those pollutants that are not now listed in
Appendix G as eligible for removal credits provided a POTW seeking
removal credit authority studies the impact that granting removal
credits would have on the concentration of the pollutant in the POTW's
sewage sludge and establishes that the pollutants will not interfere
with sewage sludge use or disposal. These changes would provide POTWs
and their industrial users with additional opportunities to use removal
credits to efficiently allocate treatment.
The proposal would address the availability of removal credits for
pollutants for which EPA has not developed a Part 503 pollutant limit
or determined through a national study a concentration for the
pollutant in sewage sludge below which public health and the
environment are protected when the sewage sludge is used or disposed.
Because EPA is only considering two additional pollutants for
regulation under Part 503, the proposal would provide a mechanism for
evaluating other pollutants for removal credit purposes. As noted
above, EPA has interpreted the Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA as only
allowing removal credits for a pollutant if EPA had either regulated
the pollutant or established a concentration of the pollutant in sewage
sludge below which public health and the environment are protected when
sewage sludge is used or disposed. The proposal would allow the POTW to
perform the study that would establish that allowable concentration.
The POTW analysis would need to establish that the granting of removal
credits will not increase the level of pollutants in the POTW's sewage
sludge to a level that would fail to protect public health and the
environment from reasonably anticipated adverse effects of the
pollutant.
D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and Monitoring
Requirements
Effluent limitations act as a primary mechanism to control the
discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. These
limitations are applied to individual facilities through NPDES permits
issued by EPA or authorized States under Section 402 of the Act.
The Agency has developed the limitations and standards for this
proposed rule to cover the discharge of pollutants for this industrial
category. In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority may elect
to establish technology-based permit limits for pollutants not covered
by this proposed regulation. In addition, if State water quality
standards or other provisions of State or Federal Law require limits on
pollutants not covered by this regulation (or require more stringent
limits on covered pollutants) the permitting authority must apply those
limitations.
Working in conjunction with the effluent limitations are the
monitoring conditions set out in a NPDES permit. An integral part of
the monitoring conditions is the point at which a facility must monitor
to demonstrate compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can
have a dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility.
Therefore, it may be necessary to require internal monitoring points in
order to ensure compliance. Authority to address internal waste streams
is provided in 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii) and 122.45(h). Permit writers
may establish additional internal monitoring points to the extent
consistent with EPA's regulations.
Another important component of the monitoring requirements
established by the permitting authority is the frequency at which
monitoring is required. In costing the various technology options for
the TEC industry, EPA assumed monthly monitoring for toxic priority and
nonconventional pollutants and weekly monitoring for conventional
pollutants. For this reason, the proposed daily and monthly limitations
for toxic priority and nonconventional pollutants are the same. These
monitoring frequencies may be lower than those generally imposed by
some permitting authorities, but EPA believes these reduced frequencies
are appropriate due to the relative costs of monitoring when compared
to the estimated costs of complying with the proposed limitations. This
issue was also discussed by the Small Business Advocacy Panel. In the
Panel report, EPA indicated its intention to issue guidance to local
permitting authorities recommending that they use the reduced
monitoring frequencies when issuing permits to facilities in this
industry and explaining the rationale for the recommended frequencies.
E. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Section 304(e) of the Act authorizes the Administrator to prescribe
``best management practices'' (BMPs). EPA may develop BMPs that apply
to all industrial sites or to a designated industrial category and may
offer guidance to permit authorities in establishing management
practices required by unique circumstances at a given plant. Dikes,
curbs, and other control measures are being used at some TEC sites to
contain leaks and spills as part of good ``housekeeping'' practices.
However, on a facility-by-facility basis a permit writer may choose to
incorporate BMPs into the permit.
XV. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation
EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking.
The Agency asks that comments address any perceived deficiencies in the
record of this proposal and that suggested revisions or corrections be
supported by data.
The Agency invites all parties to coordinate their data collection
activities with EPA to facilitate mutually beneficial and cost-
effective data submissions. EPA is interested in participating in study
plans, data collection and documentation. Please refer to the ``For
Further Information'' section at the beginning of this preamble for
technical contacts at EPA.
To ensure that EPA can read, understand and therefore properly
respond to comments, the Agency would prefer that commenters cite,
where possible the paragraph(s) or sections in the notice or supporting
documents to which each comment refers. Commenters should use a
separate paragraph for each issue discussed. Please submit an original
and two copies of your comments and enclosures (including references).
Commenters who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
should enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted. Comments and data will also be accepted on
disks in WordPerfect format or ASCII file format.
Comments may also be filed electronically to
``Tinger.John@epamail.epa.gov''. Electronic comments must be submitted
as an ASCII or Wordperfect file avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption. Electronic comments must be identified by
the docket number W-97-25 and may be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. No confidential business information (CBI) should
be sent via e-mail.
B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
EPA has solicited comments and data on many individual topics
throughout this preamble. The Agency incorporates
[[Page 34735]]
each and every such solicitation here, and reiterates its interest in
receiving data and comments on the issues addressed by those
solicitations. In addition, EPA particularly requests comments and data
on the following issues:
1. EPA is soliciting comment and data on the pollutant loads
associated with IBC cleaning wastewater, and on the initial decision
not to include IBC wastewater within the scope of this guideline.
(Refer to Section III)
2. EPA is soliciting comment from any industrial site which has the
potential to be covered by TEC and MP&M but is uncertain as to their
appropriate classification. EPA is also soliciting comment from
permitting authorities as to whether the approach outlined above will
result in easier, or more difficult, implementation of the TEC and MP&M
regulations, and on alternative applicability approaches. (Refer to
Section III)
3. The Agency solicits comment and sources of data which may
provide additional information on the population of affected
facilities. (Refer to Section V)
4. EPA solicits comment on the appropriateness of the proposed
subcategorization approach which addresses the complexities inherent in
this industry, and on other subcategorization approaches which may be
appropriate. (Refer to Sections III and VI)
5. The Agency solicits comment from permitting authorities and
affected facilities on implementation and applicability issues
surrounding the proposed subcategorization approach. (Refer to Sections
III and VI)
6. EPA solicits comment on the difficulty of defining petroleum and
chemical products from a regulatory standpoint. (Refer to Sections III
and VI)
7. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on the preliminary
conclusion that the Truck/Chemical and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories;
and Rail/Chemical and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, should not be
combined. (Refer to Sections III and VI)
8. EPA is soliciting comment and data on an alternative
subcategorization approach that would combine the petroleum and
chemical subcategories. (Refer to Sections III and VI)
9. The Agency solicits comment on an alternative regulatory
approach that would establish a subcategory for any facility which
accepts tanks containing pesticide-containing cargos for cleaning, and
on the cost-effectiveness of removing non-pesticide chemicals, and
information on the impacts to receiving streams and POTWs by these
pollutants. (Refer to Section VI)
10. EPA solicits comment on the hierarchy of applicability that EPA
is proposing as the basis for subcategorization. (Refer to Section VI)
11. The Agency solicits comment on alternative treatment
technologies not considered by EPA which may attain similar treatment
removal efficiencies but that may be less expensive to install and
operate. (Refer to Section VIII.B)
12. The Agency solicits data which can either substantiate or
refute its tentative conclusions regarding raw wastewater from Truck/
Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories, and also any data which
characterizes pollutants present in wastewaters from these facilities.
EPA solicits data and comments which may support or refute the Agency's
conclusion that wastewater generated in the petroleum subcategories
does not contain significant toxic loadings. (Refer to Sections III and
VIII.B)
13. The Agency solicits data which can either substantiate or
refute its tentative conclusions regarding raw wastewater from hopper
facilities, and also any data which characterizes pollutants present in
wastewaters from these facilities. EPA solicits comments on the
appropriateness of not regulating hopper facilities. EPA also solicits
data on pollutant levels in wastewater from hopper facilities. (Refer
to Sections III and VIII.B)
14. The Agency solicits comment on the cost and effectiveness of
flow reduction and oil/water separation as an option for indirect
dischargers in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory.
15. For PSNS in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is
soliciting comment on the technology selected as the basis for
regulation. Specifically, EPA solicits comments and data which would
support or refute the assumption that a POTW may accept effluent,
without causing pass-through or interference, that has not been treated
biologically.(Refer to Section VIII.B)
16. EPA solicits comments on the appropriateness of the pollutants
selected for regulation, including the decision to establish effluent
limitations for metals using modeled treatment systems not specifically
designed for metals control. The Agency also solicits data which will
support or refute the ability of TEC facilities to meet the proposed
effluent limitations using the modeled treatment systems. (Refer to
Section VIII.C)
17. The Agency solicits comments on the cost models and the
assumptions used to project the cost of compliance to the industry as a
result of today's proposed regulation. (Refer to Section IX)
18. EPA solicits comment on the economic methodologies described in
today's proposal. In particular, the Agency requests comment on the
assumptions used in the analyses. (Refer to Section X)
19. The Agency solicits information available that could be useful
to determining an approach for minimizing the regulatory impacts for
small facilities. (Refer to Sections III, X, and XIII.A)
20. EPA solicits comments on changes in the economic/financial
condition of facilities in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
affected by the Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Ship
Building and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) promulgated in 1995. (Refer
to Section X.C)
XVI. Guidelines for Comment Submission of Analytical Data
EPA requests that commentors to today's proposed rule submit
analytical, flow, and production data to supplement data collected by
the Agency during the regulatory development process. To ensure that
commentor data may be effectively evaluated by the Agency, EPA has
developed the following guidelines for submission of data.
A. Types of Data Requested
EPA requests paired influent and effluent treatment data for each
of the technologies identified in the technology options, as well as
any additional technologies applicable to the treatment of TEC waste
waters. This includes end-of-pipe treatment technologies, heel
management practices, and water conservation technologies. Submission
of effluent data only is not sufficient for full analysis; the
corresponding influent data must be provided.
For submissions of paired influent and effluent treatment data, a
minimum of four days of data are required for EPA to assess
variability. Submissions of paired influent and effluent treatment data
should include: a process diagram of the treatment system; treatment
chemical addition rates; sampling point locations; sample collection
dates; influent and effluent flow rates for each treatment unit during
the sampling period; sludge or waste oil generation rates; a brief
discussion of the treatment technology sampled; and a list of unit
operations contributing to the sampled wastestream. EPA requests data
for systems that are treating only process waste water. Systems
treating non-process waste water (e.g., sanitary waste
[[Page 34736]]
water or non-contact cooling water) will not be evaluated by EPA. If
available, information on capital cost, annual (operation and
maintenance) cost, and treatment capacity should be included for each
treatment unit within the system.
B. Analytes Requested
EPA considered for regulation under the TEC category 330 metal,
organic, conventional, and other nonconventional pollutant parameters
detected in TEC process wastewater. Based on analytical data collected
by the Agency, 180 pollutant parameters were identified as TEC
``pollutants of concern''. Complete lists of pollutant parameters
considered for regulation and pollutants of concern (as well as the
criteria used to identify each of these pollutant parameters) are
available in the Technical Development Document for this proposal. The
Agency requests analytical data for any of the pollutants of concern
and for any other pollutant parameters which commentors believe are of
concern in the TEC industry. Commentors should use these methods or
equivalent methods for analyses, and should document the method used
for all data submissions.
C. Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements
Today's proposed regulations were based on analytical data
collected by EPA using rigorous QA/QC checks. These QA/QC checks
include procedures specified in each of the analytical methods, as well
as procedures used for the TEC sampling program in accordance with EPA
sampling and analysis protocols. The Agency requests that submissions
of analytical data include documentation that QA/QC procedures similar
to those listed below were observed.
EPA followed the QA/QC procedures specified in the analytical
methods listed in Table 10. These QA/QC procedures include sample
preservation and the use of method blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike
duplicates, laboratory duplicate samples, and Q standard checks (e.g.,
continuing calibration blanks). EPA requests that sites provide
detection limits for all non-detected pollutants. EPA also requests
that composite samples be collected for all flowing waste water streams
(except for analyses requiring grab samples, such as oil and grease),
sites collect and analyze 10% field duplicate samples to assess
sampling variability, and sites provide data for equipment blanks for
volatile organic pollutants when automatic compositors are used to
collect samples.
Table 10.--EPA Analytical Methods for Use With TEC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter EPA method Sample type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals................................... 1620...................................................................... Composite/Grab.
Volatile Organics........................ 1624C..................................................................... Grab.
Semivolatile Organics.................... 1625C..................................................................... Composite/Grab.
pH....................................... 150.1..................................................................... Composite/Grab.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)............. 160.1..................................................................... Composite/Grab.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)............. 160.2..................................................................... Composite/Grab.
Chloride, Fluoride, and Sulfate.......... 300.0, 325.2 or 325.3, 340.2, and 375.4................................... Composite/Grab.
Cyanide, Total........................... 335.3..................................................................... Grab.
Nitrogen, Ammonia........................ 350.2..................................................................... Composite/Grab.
Phosphorus, Total........................ 365.4..................................................................... Composite/Grab.
Chemical Oxygen Demand................... 410.1 or 410.2............................................................ Composite/Grab.
Hexavalent Chromium...................... 218.4..................................................................... Composite/Grab.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand................ 405.1..................................................................... Composite/Grab.
Total Organic Carbon..................... 415.1..................................................................... Composite/Grab.
Dioxins and Furans....................... 1613A..................................................................... Composite/Grab.
Organo-Halide Pesticides................. 1656...................................................................... Composite/Grab.
Organo-Phosphorus Pesticides............. 1657...................................................................... Composite/Grab.
Phenolics, Total Recoverable............. 420.1 or 420.2............................................................ Composite/Grab.
Phenoxy-Acid Herbicides.................. 1658...................................................................... Composite/Grab.
Oil and Grease and Total Petroleum 1664...................................................................... Grab.
Hydrocarbons (Hexane Extractable
Materials and Silica Gel Treated Hexane
Extractable Materials).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This
Notice
AGENCY--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, as
described in Sec. 304(b)(2) of the CWA.
BCT--The best conventional pollutant control technology, as
described in Sec. 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
BOD<INF>5</INF>--Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand. A measure
of biochemical decomposition of organic matter in a water sample. It
is determined by measuring the dissolved oxygen consumed by
microorganisms to oxidize the organic matter in a water sample under
standard laboratory conditions of five days and 70 deg. C, see
Method 405.1. BOD<INF>5</INF> is not related to the oxygen
requirements in chemical combustion.
BMP--Best Management Practice--Section 304(e) of the CWA gives
the Administrator the authority to publish regulations to control
plant site runoff, spills, or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and
drainage from raw material storage.
BPT--The best practicable control technology currently
available, as described in Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
CARGO--Any chemical, material, or substance transported in a
tank truck, closed-top hopper truck, intermodal tank container, rail
tank car, closed-top hopper rail car, inland tank barge, closed-top
inland hopper barge, ocean/sea tanker, or a similar tank that comes
in direct contact with the chemical, material, or substance. A cargo
may also be referred to as a commodity.
CLOSED-TOP HOPPER BARGE--A self-or non-self-propelled vessel
constructed or adapted primarily to carry dry commodities or cargos
in bulk through inland rivers and waterways, and may occasionally
carry commodities or cargos through oceans and seas when in transit
from one inland waterway to another. Closed-top inland hopper barges
are not designed to carry liquid commodities or cargos and are
typically used to transport corn, wheat, soy beans, oats, soy meal,
animal pellets, and similar commodities or cargos. The commodities
or cargos transported come in direct contact with the hopper
interior. The basic types of tops on closed-top inland hopper barges
are telescoping rolls, steel lift covers, and fiberglass lift
covers.
CLOSED-TOP HOPPER RAIL CAR--A completely enclosed storage vessel
pulled by a locomotive that is used to transport dry bulk
commodities or cargos over railway access lines. Closed-top hopper
rail cars are not designed or contracted to carry liquid commodities
or cargos and are typically used to transport grain, soybeans, soy
meal, soda
[[Page 34737]]
ash, fertilizer, plastic pellets, flour, sugar, and similar
commodities or cargos. The commodities or cargos transported come in
direct contact with the hopper interior. Closed-top hopper rail cars
are typically divided into three compartments, carry the same
commodity or cargo in each compartment, and are generally top loaded
and bottom unloaded. The hatch covers on closed-top hopper rail cars
are typically longitudinal hatch covers or round manhole covers.
CLOSED-TOP HOPPER TRUCK--A motor-driven vehicle with a
completely enclosed storage vessel used to transport dry bulk
commodities or cargos over roads and highways. Closed-top hopper
trucks are not designed or constructed to carry liquid commodities
or cargos and are typically used to transport grain, soybeans, soy
meal, soda ash, fertilizer, plastic pellets, flour, sugar, and
similar commodities or cargos. The commodities or cargos transported
come in direct contact with the hopper interior. Closed-top hopper
trucks are typically divided into three compartments, carry the same
commodity or cargo in each compartment, and are generally top loaded
and bottom unloaded. The hatch covers used on closed-top hopper
trucks are typically longitudinal hatch covers or round manhole
covers. Closed-top hopper trucks are also commonly referred to as
dry bulk hoppers.
COD--Chemical oxygen demand--A bulk parameter that measures the
oxygen-consuming capacity of refractory organic and inorganic matter
present in water or wastewater. COD is expressed as the amount of
oxygen consumed from a chemical oxidant in a specific test, see
Method 410.1.
COMMODITY--Any chemical, material, or substance transported in a
tank truck, closed-top hopper truck, intermediate bulk container,
rail tank car, closed-top hopper rail car, inland tank barge,
closed-top inland hopper barge, ocean/sea tanker, or similar tank
that comes in direct contact with the chemical, material, or
substance. A commodity may also be referred to as a cargo.
CONSIGNEE--Customer or agent to whom commodities or cargos are
delivered.
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS--The pollutants identified in Sec.
304(a)(4) of the CWA and the regulations thereunder (biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD<INF>5</INF>), total suspended solids (TSS), oil
and grease, fecal coliform, and pH).
CWA--CLEAN WATER ACT--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, inter alia,
by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and the Water
Quality Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4).
CWT--Centralized Waste Treaters Effluent Guideline.
DIRECT DISCHARGE--A facility that conveys or may convey
untreated or facility-treated process wastewater or nonprocess
wastewater directly into waters of the United States, such as
rivers, lakes, or oceans. (See United States Surface Waters
definition.)
DISCHARGE--The conveyance of wastewater: (1) to United States
surface waters such as rivers, lakes, and oceans, or (2) to a
publicly-owned, privately-owned, federally-owned, combined, or other
treatment works.
DRUM--A metal or plastic cylindrical container with either an
open-head or a tight-head (also known as bung-type top) used to hold
liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos which are in direct
contact with the container interior. Drums typically range in
capacity from 30 to 55 gallons.
EFFLUENT--Wastewater discharges.
EFFLUENT LIMITATION--Any restriction, including schedules of
compliance, established by a State or the Administrator on
quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical,
biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point
sources into navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or
the ocean. (CWA Sections 301(b) and 304(b).)
FACILITY-SPECIFIC LONG-TERM AVERAGE--Either an arithmetic
average or the expected value of the distribution of daily samples,
depending on the number of total samples and the number of detected
samples for that pollutant at that facility.
FACILITY-SPECIFIC MONTHLY VARIABILITY FACTOR--The ratio of the
estimated 95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly
pollutant concentration values divided by the expected value of the
distribution of monthly values.
FACILITY-SPECIFIC VARIABILITY FACTOR--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 daily values.
FDF--FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FACTOR--Section 301(n) of the Water
Quality Act of 1987. This section authorizes modification of the
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified at 40
CFR 403.13.
FOOD GRADE CARGO--Food grade cargos include edible and non-
edible food products. Specific examples of food grade products
include but are not limited to: alcoholic beverages, animal by-
products, animal fats, animal oils, caramel, caramel coloring,
chocolate, corn syrup and other corn products, dairy products,
dietary supplements, eggs, flavorings, food preservatives, food
products that are not suitable for human consumption, fruit juices,
honey, lard, molasses, non-alcoholic beverages, salt, sugars,
sweeteners, tallow, vegetable oils, vinegar, and water.
FRACTION-LEVEL VARIABILITY FACTOR--The median of group-level
variability factors for the groups within each fraction.
GROUP-LEVEL VARIABILITY FACTOR--The median of all calculable
pollutant variability factors for the pollutants within each group.
HEEL--Any material remaining in a tank or container following
unloading, delivery, or discharge of the transported cargo. Heels
may also be referred to as container residue, residual materials or
residuals.
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL (HEM)--A method-defined parameter
that measures the presence of relatively nonvolatile hydrocarbons,
vegetable oils, animal fats, waxes, soaps, greases, and related
materials that are extractable in the solvent n-hexane. The
analytical method for Oil and Grease is currently being revised to
allow for the use of normal hexane in place of freon 113, a
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC). Method 1664 (Hexane Extractable Material)
will replace the current Oil and Grease Method 413.1 found in 40 CFR
136.
INDIRECT DISCHARGE--A facility that discharges or may discharge
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works.
INLAND TANK BARGE--A self-or non-self-propelled vessel
constructed or adapted primarily to carry commodities or cargos in
bulk in cargo spaces (or tanks) through rivers and inland waterways,
and may occasionally carry commodities or cargos through oceans and
seas when in transit from one inland waterway to another. The
commodities or cargos transported are in direct contact with the
tank interior. There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank
volumes.
INTERMEDIATE BULK CONTAINER (IBC OR TOTE)--A completely enclosed
storage vessel used to hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or
cargos which are in direct contact with the tank interior.
Intermediate bulk containers may be loaded onto flat beds for either
truck or rail transport, or onto ship decks for water transport.
IBCs are portable containers with 450 liters (119 gallons) to 3000
liters (793 gallons) capacity. IBCs are also commonly referred to as
totes or tote bins.
INTERMODAL TANK CONTAINER--A completely enclosed storage vessel
used to hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos which
come in direct contact with the tank interior. Intermodal tank
containers may be loaded onto flat beds for either truck or rail
transport, or onto ship decks for water transport. Containers larger
than 3000 liters capacity are considered intermodal tank containers.
Containers smaller than 3000 liters capacity are considered IBCs.
LTA--LONG-TERM AVERAGE--For purposes of the effluent guidelines,
average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time by a
facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in
developing the limitations and standards in today's proposed
regulation.
MONTHLY AVERAGE LIMITATION--The highest allowable average of
``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of
all ``daily discharges'' measured during the calendar month divided
by the number of ``daily discharges'' measured during the month.
NEW SOURCE--``New source'' is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and
122.29(b).
NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT--Pollutants that are neither
conventional pollutants nor priority toxic pollutants listed at 40
CFR Section 401.
NON-DETECT VALUE--A concentration-based measurement reported
below the sample specific detection limit that can reliably be
measured by the analytical method for the pollutant.
NONPROCESS WASTEWATER--Wastewater that is not generated from
industrial processes or that does not come into contact with process
wastewater. Nonprocess wastewater includes, but is not limited to,
wastewater generated from restrooms, cafeterias, and showers.
[[Page 34738]]
NPDES--The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
authorized under Sec. 402 of the CWA. NPDES requires permits for
discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the
United States.
NSPS--New Source Performance Standards.
OCEAN/SEA TANKER--A self-or non-self-propelled vessel
constructed or adapted to transport commodities or cargos in bulk in
cargo spaces (or tanks) through oceans and seas, where the commodity
or cargo carried comes in direct contact with the tank interior.
There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes.
OCPSF--Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
Manufacturing Effluent Guideline, see 40 CFR part 414.
OFF SITE--``Off site'' means outside the bounds of the facility.
OIL AND GREASE--A method-defined parameter that measures the
presence of relatively nonvolatile hydrocarbons, vegetable oils,
animal fats, waxes, soaps, greases, and related materials that are
extractable in Freon 113 (1,1,2-tricholoro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane).
The analytical method for Oil and Grease and Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TPH) is currently being revised to allow for the use
of normal hexane in place of freon 113, a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC).
Method 1664 (Hexane Extractable Material) will replace the current
Oil and Grease Method 413.1 found in 40 CFR part 136. In
anticipation of promulgation of method 1664, data collected by EPA
in support of the TECI effluent guideline utilized method 1664.
Therefore, all effluent limitations proposed for Oil and Grease and
TPH in this effluent guideline are to be measured by Method 1664.
ON SITE--``On-site'' means within the bounds of the facility.
OUTFALL--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from
which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
PETROLEUM CARGO--Petroleum cargos include the products of the
fractionation or straight distillation of crude oil, redistillation
of unfinished petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other refining
processes. For purposes of this rule, petroleum cargos also include
products obtained from the refining or processing of natural gas and
coal. For purposes of this rule, specific examples of petroleum
products include but are not limited to: asphalt; benzene; coal tar;
crude oil; cutting oil; ethyl benzene; diesel fuel; fuel additives;
fuel oils; gasoline; greases; heavy, medium, and light oils;
hydraulic fluids, jet fuel; kerosene; liquid petroleum gases (LPG)
including butane and propane; lubrication oils; mineral spirits;
naphtha; olefin, paraffin, and other waxes; tall oil; tar; toluene;
xylene; and waste oil.
POLLUTANTS EFFECTIVELY REMOVED--Non-pesticide/herbicide
pollutants that meet the following criteria are considered
effectively removed: detected two or more times in the subcategory
influent, an average subcategory influent concentration greater than
or equal to five times their analytical method detection limit, and
a removal rate of 50 percent or greater by the treatment technology
option. Pesticide/herbicide pollutants that meet the following
criteria are considered effectively removed: detected in the
subcategory influent one or more times at a concentration above the
analytical method detection limit, and a removal rate of greater
than zero by the treatment technology option. All pollutants
effectively removed were used in the environmental assessment and
cost effectiveness analyses.
POTW--Publicly-owned treatment works, as defined at 40 CFR
403.3(o).
PRERINSE--Within a TEC cleaning process, a rinse, typically with
hot or cold water, performed at the beginning of the cleaning
sequence to remove residual material from the tank interior.
PRESOLVE WASH--Use of diesel, kerosene, gasoline, or any other
type of fuel or solvent as a tank interior cleaning solution.
PRETREATMENT STANDARD--A regulation that establishes industrial
wastewater effluent quality required for discharge to a POTW. (CWA
Section 307(b).)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS--The pollutants designated by EPA as
priority in 40 CFR part 423, Appendix A.
PROCESS WASTEWATER--``Process wastewater'' is defined at 40 CFR
122.2.
PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the CWA.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) and (c) of the CWA.
RAIL TANK CAR--A completely enclosed storage vessel pulled by a
locomotive that is used to transport liquid, solid, or gaseous
commodities or cargos over railway access lines. A rail tank car
storage vessel may have one or more storage compartments and the
stored commodities or cargos come in direct contact with the tank
interior. There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes.
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580) of
1976, as amended.
SIC--STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION--A numerical
categorization system used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or
group of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered
by an operating establishment. SIC codes are used to group
establishments by the economic activities in which they are engaged.
SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary,
etc. economic activities.
SILICA GEL TREATED HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL (SGT-HEM)--A
method-defined parameter that measures the presence of mineral oils
that are extractable in the solvent n-hexane and not adsorbed by
silica gel. The analytical method for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(TPH) and Oil and Grease is currently being revised to allow for the
use of normal hexane in place of freon 113, a chlorofluorocarbon
(CFC). Method 1664 (Hexane Extractable Material) will replace the
current Oil and Grease Method 413.1 found in 40 CFR part 136. In
anticipation of promulgation of method 1664, data collected by EPA
in support of the TECI effluent guideline utilized method 1664.
Therefore, all effluent limitations proposed for Oil and Grease and
TPH in this effluent guideline are to be measured by Method 1664.
SOURCE REDUCTION--Any practice which reduces the amount of any
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste
stream or otherwise released into the environment prior to
recycling, treatment, or disposal. Source reduction can include
equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure
modifications, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in
housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control.
TANK--A generic term used to describe any closed container used
to transport commodities or cargos. The commodities or cargos
transported come in direct contact with the container interior,
which is cleaned by TEC facilities. Examples of containers which are
considered tanks include but are not limited to: tank trucks,
closed-top hopper trucks, intermodal tank containers, rail tank
cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, inland tank barges, closed-top
inland hopper barges, ocean/sea tankers, and similar tanks
(excluding drums and intermediate bulk containers). Containers used
to transport pre-packaged materials are not considered tanks, nor
are 55-gallon drums or pails.
TANK TRUCK--A motor-driven vehicle with a completely enclosed
storage vessel used to transport liquid, solid or gaseous materials
over roads and highways. The storage vessel or tank may be
detachable, as with tank trailers, or permanently attached. The
commodities or cargos transported come in direct contact with the
tank interior. A tank truck may have one or more storage
compartments. There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank
volumes. Tank trucks are also commonly referred to as cargo tanks or
tankers.
TEC industry--Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry.
TOTES OR TOTE BINS--A completely enclosed storage vessel used to
hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos which come in
direct contact with the vessel interior. Totes may be loaded onto
flat beds for either truck or rail transport, or onto ship decks for
water transport. There are no maximum or minimum values for tote
volumes, although larger containers are generally considered to be
intermodal tank containers. Totes or tote bins are also referred to
as intermediate bulk containers or IBCs. Fifty-five gallon drums and
pails are not considered totes or tote bins.
TPH--Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. A method-defined parameter
that measures the presence of mineral oils that are extractable in
Freon 113 (1,1,2-tricholoro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane) and not adsorbed
by silica gel. The analytical method for TPH and Oil and Grease is
currently being revised to allow for the use of normal hexane in
place of freon 113, a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC). Method 1664 (Hexane
Extractable Material) will replace the current Oil and Grease Method
413.1 found in 40 CFR 136. In anticipation of promulgation of method
1664, data collected by EPA in support of the TECI effluent
guideline utilized method 1664. Therefore, all effluent limitations
proposed
[[Page 34739]]
for Oil and Grease and TPH in this effluent guideline are to be
measured by Method 1664.
TSS--TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS--A measure of the amount of
particulate matter that is suspended in a water sample. The measure
is obtained by filtering a water sample of known volume. The
particulate material retained on the filter is then dried and
weighed, see Method 160.2.
TWF--Toxic Weighting Factor.
UNITED STATES SURFACE WATERS--Waters including, but not limited
to, oceans and all interstate and intrastate lakes, rivers, streams,
mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet
meadows, playa lakes, and natural ponds.
VARIABILITY FACTOR--The daily variability factor is the ratio of
the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of daily values
divided by the expected value, median or mean, of the distribution
of the daily data. The monthly variability factor is the estimated
95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly averages of the
data divided by the expected value of the monthly averages.
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs)--Any compound of carbon,
excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates
in atmospheric photochemical reactions. See 40 CFR 51.100 for
additional detail and exclusions
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES--The same meaning set forth in 40
CFR 122.2.
ZERO DISCHARGE FACILITY--Facilities that do not discharge
pollutants to waters of the United States or to a POTW. Also
included in this definition are discharge of pollutants by way of
evaporation, deep-well injection, off-site transfer to a treatment
facility, and land application.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 442
Environmental protection, Barge cleaning, Rail tank cleaning, Tank
cleaning, Transportation equipment cleaning, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: May 15, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Accordingly, 40 CFR Part 442 is proposed to be added as follows:
PART 442--TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CLEANING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
General Provisions
Sec.
442.1 Specialized definitions.
442.2 Applicability.
Subpart A--Truck/Chemical Subcategory
442.10 Applicability; description of the Truck/Chemical
Subcategory.
442.11 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT).
442.12 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.13 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
442.14 New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.16 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart B--Rail/Chemical Subcategory
442.20 Applicability; description of the Rail/Chemical Subcategory.
442.21 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT).
442.22 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.23 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
442.24 New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.26 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart C--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
442.30 Applicability; description of the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory.
442.31 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT).
442.32 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.33 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
442.34 New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.35 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.36 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart D--Truck/Food Subcategory
442.40 Applicability; description of the Truck/Food Subcategory.
442.41 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT).
442.42 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.43 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
442.44 New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.45 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.46 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart E--Rail/Food Subcategory
442.50 Applicability; description of the Rail/Food Subcategory.
442.51 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT).
442.52 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.53 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
442.54 New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.55 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.56 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart F--Barge/Food Subcategory
442.60 Applicability; description of the Barge/Food Subcategory.
442.61 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT).
442.62 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.63 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
442.64 New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.65 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.66 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Tables to Part 442
Table 1 to Part 442.--Truck/Chemical Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT, and
NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface
Waters
Table 2 to Part 442.--Truck/Chemical Subcategory: PSES and PSNS
Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to POTWs
[[Page 34740]]
Table 3 to Part 442.--Rail/Chemical Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT, and
NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface
Waters
Table 4 to Part 442.--Rail/Chemical Subcategory: PSES and PSNS
Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to POTWs
Table 5 to Part 442.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: BPT,
BCT, BAT, and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to
Surface Waters
Table 6 to Part 442.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: PSES
and PSNS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to POTWs
Table 7 to Part 442.--Truck/Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS
Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters
Table 8 to Part 442.--Rail/Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS
Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters
Table 9 to Part 442.--Barge/Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS
Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and
1361.
General Provisions
Sec. 442.1 Specialized definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth in 40 CFR 401.11 and
403.3, the following definitions apply to this part:
(a) Chemical cargos are defined to include but are not limited to
the following cargos: latex, rubber, plastics, plasticizers, resins,
soaps, detergents, surfactants, agricultural chemicals and pesticides,
hazardous waste, organic chemicals including: alcohols, aldehydes,
formaldehydes, phenols, peroxides, organic salts, amines, amides, other
nitrogen compounds, other aromatic compounds, aliphatic organic
chemicals, glycols, glycerines, and organic polymers; refractory
organic compounds including: ketones, nitriles, organo-metallic
compounds containing chromium, cadmium, mercury, copper, zinc; and
inorganic chemicals including: aluminum sulfate, ammonia, ammonium
nitrate, ammonium sulfate, and bleach. Cargos which are not considered
to be food-grade, petroleum, or dry bulk goods are considered to be
chemical cargos.
(b) Closed-top hopper is a completely enclosed storage vessel used
to transport dry bulk commodities or cargos. Closed-top hoppers are not
designed or constructed to carry liquid commodities or cargos and are
typically used to transport grain, soybeans, soy meal, soda ash,
fertilizer, plastic pellets, flour, sugar, and similar commodities or
cargos. The commodities or cargos transported come in direct contact
with the hopper interior. Closed-top hoppers include truck, rail, and
barge vessels.
(c) Drums are metal or plastic cylindrical containers with either
an open-head or a tight-head (also known as bung-type top) used to hold
liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos which are in direct
contact with the container interior. Drums typically range in capacity
from 30 to 55 gallons.
(d) Food grade cargos are defined to include edible and non-edible
food products. Specific examples of food grade products include but are
not limited to: alcoholic beverages, animal by-products, animal fats,
animal oils, caramel, caramel coloring, chocolate, corn syrup and other
corn products, dairy products, dietary supplements, eggs, flavorings,
food preservatives, food products that are not suitable for human
consumption, fruit juices, honey, lard, molasses, non-alcoholic
beverages, sweeteners, tallow, vegetable oils, vinegar, and water.
(e) Inland tank barge is a self- or non-self-propelled vessel
constructed or adapted primarily to carry liquid, solid or gaseous
commodities or cargos in bulk in cargo spaces (or tanks) through rivers
and inland waterways, and may occasionally carry commodities or cargos
through oceans and seas when in transit from one inland waterway to
another. The commodities or cargos transported are in direct contact
with the tank interior. There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank
volumes.
(f) Intermediate bulk container (``IBC'' or ``Tote'') is a
completely enclosed storage vessel used to hold liquid, solid, or
gaseous commodities or cargos which are in direct contact with the tank
interior. IBCs may be loaded onto flat beds for either truck or rail
transport, or onto ship decks for water transport. IBCs are portable
containers with 450 liters (119 gallons) to 3000 liters (793 gallons)
capacity. IBCs are also commonly referred to as totes or tote bins.
(g) Intermodal tank container is a completely enclosed storage
vessel used to hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos
which come in direct contact with the tank interior. Intermodal tank
containers may be loaded onto flat beds for either truck or rail
transport, or onto ship decks for water transport. Containers larger
than 3000 liters capacity are considered intermodal tank containers.
Containers smaller than 3000 liters capacity are considered IBCs.
(h) Ocean/sea tanker is a self- or non-self-propelled vessel
constructed or adapted to transport liquid, solid or gaseous
commodities or cargos in bulk in cargo spaces (or tanks) through oceans
and seas, where the commodity or cargo carried comes in direct contact
with the tank interior. There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank
volumes.
(i) Petroleum cargos are defined to include the products of the
fractionation or straight distillation of crude oil, redistillation of
unfinished petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other refining
processes. For purposes of this rule, petroleum cargos also include
products obtained from the refining or processing of natural gas and
coal. For purposes of this rule, specific examples of petroleum
products include but are not limited to: asphalt; benzene; coal tar;
crude oil; cutting oil; ethyl benzene; diesel fuel; fuel additives;
fuel oils; gasoline; greases; heavy, medium, and light oils; hydraulic
fluids, jet fuel; kerosene; liquid petroleum gases (LPG) including
butane and propane; lubrication oils; mineral spirits; naphtha; olefin,
paraffin, and other waxes; tall oil; tar; toluene; xylene; and waste
oil.
(j) Rail tank car is a completely enclosed storage vessel pulled by
a locomotive that is used to transport liquid, solid, or gaseous
commodities or cargos over railway access lines. A rail tank car
storage vessel may have one or more storage compartments and the stored
commodities or cargos come in direct contact with the tank interior.
There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes.
(k) Tank truck is a motor-driven vehicle with a completely enclosed
storage vessel used to transport liquid, solid or gaseous materials
over roads and highways. The storage vessel or tank may be detachable,
as with tank trailers, or permanently attached. The commodities or
cargos transported come in direct contact with the tank interior. A
tank truck may have one or more storage compartments. There are no
maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes. Tank trucks are also
commonly referred to as cargo tanks or tankers.
(l) Transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) process wastewater is
identified to include all wastewaters associated with cleaning the
interiors of tanks including, but not limited to: tank trucks; rail
tank cars; intermodal tank containers; inland tank barges; and ocean/
sea tankers used to transport commodities or cargos that come into
direct contact with the tank or container interior. TEC process
wastewaters include wastewater generated from washing vehicle
exteriors, equipment and floor washings, and TEC contaminated
wasetwater.
[[Page 34741]]
Sec. 442.2 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
the provisions of this part apply to wastewater discharges of
transportation equipment cleaning process wastewater. Facilities that
do not engage in cleaning the interiors of tanks are not subject to the
provisions of this part.
(b) The provisions of this part do not apply to wastewater
discharges from transportation equipment cleaning operations located at
industrial facilities regulated under other Clean Water Act effluent
guidelines, provided that the facility cleans only tanks containing
cargos or commodities generated or used on-site or by a facility under
the same corporate structure.
(c) The provisions of this part do not apply to wastewater
discharges from cleaning the interiors of drums or intermediate bulk
containers.
Subpart A--Truck/Chemical Subcategory
Sec. 442.10 Applicability; description of the Truck/Chemical
Subcategory.
Except as provided in Sec. 442.2, the provisions of this subpart
apply to TEC process wastewater discharged from facilities that clean
tank trucks and intermodal tank containers where 10 percent or more of
the total tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contained
chemical cargos.
Sec. 442.11 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in Table 1 of this part.
Sec. 442.12 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>,
TSS, Oil and Grease and pH listed in Table 1 of this part.
Sec. 442.13 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in Table 1 of this part.
Sec. 442.14 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in Table 1 of this part.
Sec. 442.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the
pretreatment standards listed in Table 2 of this part.
Sec. 442.16 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the pretreatment
standards listed in Table 2 of this part.
Subpart B--Rail/Chemical Subcategory
Sec. 442.20 Applicability; description of the Rail/Chemical
Subcategory.
Except as provided in Sec. 442.2, the provisions of this subpart
apply to TEC wastewater discharged from facilities that clean rail tank
cars where 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that
facility in an average year contained chemical cargos.
Sec. 442.21 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in Table 3 of this part.
Sec. 442.22 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>,
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH listed in Table 3 of this part.
Sec. 442.23 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in Table 3 of this part.
Sec. 442.24 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in Table 3 of this part.
Sec. 442.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the
pretreatment standards listed in Table 4 of this part.
Sec. 442.26 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the pretreatment
standards listed in Table 4 of this part.
Subpart C--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
Sec. 442.30 Applicability; description of the Barge/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory.
Except as provided in Sec. 442.2, the provisions of this subpart
apply to TEC wastewater discharged from facilities that clean tank
barges or ocean/sea tankers where 10 percent or more of the total tanks
cleaned at that facility in an average year contained chemical and/or
petroleum cargos.
Sec. 442.31 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in Table 5 of this part.
Sec. 442.32 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>,
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH listed in Table 5 of this part.
Sec. 442.33 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in Table 5 of this part.
[[Page 34742]]
Sec. 442.34 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in Table 5 of this part.
Sec. 442.35 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements
established for Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities.
Sec. 442.36 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the pretreatment
standards listed in Table 6 of this part.
Subpart D--Truck/Food Subcategory
Sec. 442.40 Applicability; description of the Truck/Food Subcategory.
Except as provided in Sec. 442.2, the provisions of this subpart
apply to TEC wastewater discharged from facilities that clean tank
trucks and intermodal tank containers where 10 percent or more of the
total tanks cleaned at that facility in an average year contain food
grade cargos. The provisions of this part do not apply to those
facilities subject to the provisions established in Sec. 442.10 for the
Truck/Chemical Subcategory.
Sec. 442.41 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in Table 7 of this part.
Sec. 442.42 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>,
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH listed in Table 9 of this part.
Sec. 442.43 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
Sec. 442.44 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>,
TSS, and pH listed in Table 7 of this part.
Sec. 442.45 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements
established for Truck/Food facilities.
Sec. 442.46 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements
established for Truck/Food facilities.
Subpart E--Rail/Food Subcategory
Sec. 442.50 Applicability; description of the Rail/Food Subcategory.
Except as provided in Sec. 442.2, the provisions of this subpart
apply to TEC wastewater discharged from facilities that clean rail tank
cars where 10 percent or more of the total tanks cleaned at that
facility in an average year contain food grade cargos. The provisions
of this part do not apply to those facilities subject to the provisions
established in Sec. 442.20 for the Rail/Chemical Subcategory.
Sec. 442.51 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in Table 8 of this part.
Sec. 442.52 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>,
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH listed in Table 8 of this part.
Sec. 442.53 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
Sec. 442.54 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>,
TSS, and pH listed in Table 8 of this part.
Sec. 442.55 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements
established for Rail/Food facilities.
Sec. 442.56 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements
established for Rail/Food facilities.
Subpart F--Barge/Food Subcategory
Sec. 442.60 Applicability; description of the Barge/Food Subcategory.
Except as provided in Sec. 442.2, the provisions of this subpart
apply to TEC wastewater discharged from facilities that clean barges
and ocean/sea tankers where 10 percent or more of the total tanks
cleaned at that facility in an average year contain food grade cargos.
The provisions of this part do not apply to those facilities subject to
the provisions established in Sec. 442.30 for the Barge/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory.
Sec. 442.61 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in Table 9 of this part.
Sec. 442.62 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>,
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH listed in Table 9 of this part.
[[Page 34743]]
Sec. 442.63 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
Sec. 442.64 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source must achieve the effluent limitations for BOD<INF>5</INF>,
TSS, and pH listed in Table 9 of this part.
Sec. 442.65 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements
established for Barge/Food facilities.
Sec. 442.66 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403. There are no additional pretreatment requirements
established for Barge/Food facilities.
Tables to Part 442
Table 1 to Part 442.--Truck/Chemical Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters
[Grams/tank]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT BCT BAT NSPS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily
Pollutant or pollutant property Daily Monthly Daily Monthly maximum/ Daily Monthly
maximum average maximum average monthly maximum average
average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD<INF>5.................................................. 145 67.6 145 67.6 N/A 145 67.6
TSS................................................... 281 115 281 115 N/A 281 115
Oil and Grease (HEM).................................. 25.3 16.1 25.3 16.1 N/A 25.3 16.1
Chromium.............................................. 0.16 0.16 N/A N/A 0.16 0.16 0.16
Zinc.................................................. 0.09 0.09 N/A N/A 0.09 0.09 0.09
COD................................................... 3760 3760 N/A N/A 3760 3760 3760
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) pthalate........................... 0.12 0.12 N/A N/A 0.12 0.12 0.12
di-N-octyl phthalate.................................. 0.12 0.12 N/A N/A 0.12 0.12 0.12
N-Dodecane............................................ 0.12 0.12 N/A N/A 0.12 0.12 0.12
N-Hexadecane.......................................... 0.12 0.12 N/A N/A 0.12 0.12 0.12
Styrene............................................... 0.20 0.20 N/A N/A 0.20 0.20 0.20
1,2-dichlorobenzene................................... 0.12 0.12 N/A N/A 0.12 0.12 0.12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Part 442.--Truck/Chemical Subcategory: PSES and PSNS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges
to POTWs
[Grams/tank]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES PSNS
-------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant property Daily Monthly Daily Monthly
maximum average maximum average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium................................................ 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Zinc.................................................... 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
COD..................................................... 3760 3760 3760 3760
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) pthalate............................. 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23
di--N-octyl phthalate................................... 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
N-Dodecane.............................................. 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
N-Hexadecane............................................ 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
Styrene................................................. 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
1,2-dichlorobenzene..................................... 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Part 442.--Rail/Chemical Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters
[Grams/tank]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT BCT BAT NSPS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily
Pollutant or pollutant property Daily Monthly Daily Monthly maximum/ Daily Monthly
maximum average maximum average monthly maximum average
average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD<INF>5.................................................... 3,840 1,790 3,840 1,790 N/A 3,840 1,790
TSS..................................................... 338 141 338 141 N/A 338 141
Oil and Grease (HEM).................................... 470 286 470 286 N/A 130 83
COD..................................................... 42,200 42,200 N/A N/A 42,200 42,200 42,200
N-Dodecane.............................................. 0.63 0.63 N/A N/A 0.63 0.43 0.43
N-Hexadecane............................................ 0.43 0.43 N/A N/A 0.43 0.43 0.43
[[Page 34744]]
N-Tetradecane........................................... 0.43 0.43 N/A N/A 0.43 0.43 0.43
Anthracene.............................................. 2.20 2.20 N/A N/A 2.20 2.20 2.20
Pyrene.................................................. 0.68 0.68 N/A N/A 0.68 0.68 0.68
Fluoranthene............................................ 0.74 0.74 N/A N/A 0.74 0.74 0.74
Phenanthrene............................................ 1.96 1.96 N/A N/A 1.96 1.96 1.96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Part 442.--Rail/Chemical Subcategory: PSES and PSNS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to
POTWs
[Grams/tank]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES PSNS
-------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant property Daily Monthly Daily Monthly
maximum average maximum average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (SGT-HEM).................. 942 942 207 207
COD..................................................... 42,200 42,200 42,200 42,200
N-Hexadecane............................................ 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56
N-Tetradecane........................................... 3.98 3.98 0.66 0.66
Fluoranthene............................................ 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 to Part 442.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters
[Grams/tank]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT BCT BAT NSPS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily
Pollutant or pollutant property Daily Monthly Daily Monthly maximum/ Daily Monthly
maximum average maximum average monthly maximum average
average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD<INF>5.................................................... 18,300 8,600 18,300 8,600 N/A 18,300 8,600
TSS..................................................... 9,540 6,090 9,540 6,090 N/A 9,540 6,090
Oil and Grease (HEM).................................... 658 294 658 294 N/A 658 294
COD..................................................... 74,300 74,300 N/A N/A 74,300 74,300 74,300
Cadmium................................................. 0.19 0.19 N/A N/A 0.19 0.19 0.19
Chromium................................................ 1.82 1.82 N/A N/A 1.82 1.82 1.82
Copper.................................................. 2.17 2.17 N/A N/A 2.17 2.17 2.17
Lead.................................................... 1.93 1.93 N/A N/A 1.93 1.93 1.93
Nickel.................................................. 15.3 15.3 N/A N/A 15.3 15.3 15.3
Zinc.................................................... 153 153 N/A N/A 153 153 153
1-Methylphenanthrene.................................... 2.04 2.04 N/A N/A 2.04 2.04 2.04
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate............................ 1.88 1.88 N/A N/A 1.88 1.88 1.88
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate.................................... 2.68 2.68 N/A N/A 2.68 2.68 2.68
N-Decane................................................ 5.96 5.96 N/A N/A 5.96 5.96 5.96
N-Docosane.............................................. 3.02 3.02 N/A N/A 3.02 3.02 3.02
N-Dodecane.............................................. 16.7 16.7 N/A N/A 16.7 16.7 16.7
N-Eicosane.............................................. 6.67 6.67 N/A N/A 6.67 6.67 6.67
N-Octadecane............................................ 7.45 7.45 N/A N/A 7.45 7.45 7.45
N-Tetracosane........................................... 2.19 2.19 N/A N/A 2.19 2.19 2.19
N-Tetradecane........................................... 7.30 7.30 N/A N/A 7.30 7.30 7.30
P-Cymene................................................ 0.29 0.29 N/A N/A 0.29 0.29 0.29
Pyrene.................................................. 1.20 1.20 N/A N/A 1.20 1.20 1.20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34745]]
Table 6 to Part 442.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: PSES and PSNS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for
Discharges to POTWs
[Grams/tank]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES PSNS
-----------------------------------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant property Daily Monthly Daily Monthly
maximum average maximum average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (SGT-HEM).................... N/A N/A 347 347
COD....................................................... N/A N/A 74,300 74,300
Cadmium................................................... N/A N/A 0.51 0.51
Chromium.................................................. N/A N/A 0.61 0.61
Copper.................................................... N/A N/A 79.9 79.9
Lead...................................................... N/A N/A 5.04 5.04
Nickel.................................................... N/A N/A 39.1 39.1
Zinc...................................................... N/A N/A 241 241
1-Methylphenanthrene...................................... N/A N/A 9.70 9.70
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate.............................. N/A N/A 2.05 2.05
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate...................................... N/A N/A 7.69 7.69
N-Decane.................................................. N/A N/A 7.26 7.26
N-Docesane................................................ N/A N/A 3.67 3.67
N-Dodecane................................................ N/A N/A 20.3 20.3
N-Eicosane................................................ N/A N/A 8.13 8.13
N-Octadecane.............................................. N/A N/A 9.07 9.07
N-Tetracosane............................................. N/A N/A 5.51 5.51
N-Tetradecane............................................. N/A N/A 8.90 8.90
P-Cymene.................................................. N/A N/A 2.21 2.21
Pyrene.................................................... N/A N/A 2.94 2.94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 to Part 442.--Truck/Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters
[Grams/tank]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT BCT BAT NSPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily
Pollutant or pollutant property Daily Monthly Daily Monthly maximum/ Daily Monthly
maximum average maximum average monthly maximum average
average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD<INF>5................................................... 166 72.4 166 72.4 N/A 166 72.4
TSS.................................................... 673 256 673 256 N/A 673 256
Oil and Grease (HEM)................................... 60.4 26.3 60.4 26.3 N/A 60.4 26.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8 to Part 442.--Rail/Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters
[Grams/tank]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT BCT BAT NSPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily
Pollutant or pollutant property Daily Monthly Daily Monthly maximum/ Daily Monthly
maximum average maximum average monthly maximum average
average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD<INF>5......................................................... 945 412 945 412 N/A 945 412
TSS.......................................................... 3,830 1,460 3,830 1,460 N/A 3,830 1,460
Oil and Grease (HEM)......................................... 344 150 344 150 N/A 344 150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9 to Part 442.--Barge/Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS Proposed Mass Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters
[Grams/tank]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT BCT BAT NSPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily
Pollutant or pollutant property Daily Monthly Daily Monthly maximum/ Daily Monthly
maximum average maximum average monthly maximum average
average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD<INF>5......................................................... 945 412 945 412 N/A 945 412
TSS.......................................................... 3,830 1,460 3,830 1,460 N/A 3,830 1,460
[[Page 34746]]
Oil and Grease (HEM)......................................... 344 150 344 150 N/A 344 150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 98-13792 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
|
