[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53432-53445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22930]
[[Page 53431]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 437
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source
Category; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 2003 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 53432]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 437
[FRL-7555-5]
RIN 2040-AD95
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point
Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
amend certain provisions of the wastewater regulations for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category. This regulation
established effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards and
new source performance standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for
the centralized waste treatment industry (CWT). Following promulgation
of the regulations, a number of CWT facilities petitioned EPA to
reconsider the limitations and standards for certain pollutants.
Today's proposal provides a preliminary response to those petitions and
the supporting data submitted by the petitioners. The amendments would
delete certain selenium limitations and standards from the Metals
Treatment and Recovery subcategory, as well as the the Multiple
Wastestreams subcategory. This action also proposes to delete the
barium, molybdenum, antimony, and titanium limitations and standards
from the Oils Treatment and Recovery subcategory, and revise the
Multiple Wastestreams subcategory, to reflect these changes.
Furthermore, this proposal would increase the maximum monthly average
BOD5 limitation for directly discharging facilities subject
to a section of the Multiple Wastestreams subcategory. Finally, several
facilities petitioned EPA to remove the molybdenum limitations from the
Organics Treatment and Recovery subcategory and revise the Multiple
Wastestreams subcategory. Based on EPA's preliminary analysis of the
data received to date, EPA has not yet determined whether it is
appropriate to remove these limitations. Therefore, this notice
requests additional information on the achievability of the molybdenum
limitations in the Organics Treatment and Recovery Subcategory and
explains what data the Agency needs to demonstrate that molybdenum
should not continue to be regulated in this subcategory.
DATES: Comments must be received by October 10, 2003. Persons wishing
to request a public hearing regarding the pretreatment standards must
do so by September 25, 2003. If commenters request a public hearing,
EPA will hold a public hearing on these proposed pretreatment standards
on October 10, 2003 from 10 a.m. to 12 noon, see Section I.F.
ADDRESSES: You can submit comments electronically, by mail, or through
hand delivery/courier. Please mail comments to the Water Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460 or submit them electronically to
http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Send either to the Attention of Docket ID
No. OW-2003-0075. For more information on submitting comments, see
Section I.C. If commenters request a public hearing on the pretreatment
standards, EPA will hold a public hearing in Room 6231-F in the EPA-
West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elwood H. Forsht, EPA Office of Water
by phone at (202)566-1025 or by e-mail at [email protected]. For
information on how to get copies of this document and other related
information see Section I.B.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action include the following
types of facilities that discharge pollutants directly or indirectly to
U.S. waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities NAICS codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... Discharges from stand-alone waste treatment and 56221,
recovery facilities receiving materials from off- 562219
site. These facilities may treat hazardous or non-
hazardous waste, hazardous or non-hazardous
wastewater, and/or used material from off-site, for
disposal, recycling, or recovery.
Certain discharges from waste treatment systems at
facilities primarily engaged in other industrial
operations. Industrial facilities that process
their own, on-site generated, process wastewater
with hazardous or non-hazardous wastes,
wastewaters, and/or used material received from off-
site, in certain circumstances, may be subject to
this rule with respect to a portion of their
discharge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the definitions and applicability criteria in Sec. Sec. 437.1, 437.2,
437.10, 437.20, 437.30, and 437.40 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If you have questions about the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OW-2003-0075. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received, and other information related to this action.
The official public docket is the collection of materials that is
available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-
2426. To view these docket materials, please call ahead to schedule an
appointment. Every user is entitled to copy 266 pages per day before
incurring a charge. The Docket may charge 15 cents a page for each page
over the 266-page limit plus an administrative fee of $25.00.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
[[Page 53433]]
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, ``EPA Dockets.'' You
may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic docket. Although
not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available docket materials through the
docket facility identified in Section I.B.1.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. Please submit with your comments any references cited
in your comments. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not
required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or
information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the
instructions in Section I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit
CBI or information protected by statute.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside
of any disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying
the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To
access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page,
select ``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once
in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OW-
2003-0075. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-0075. In contrast to
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
iii. Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM
that you mail to the mailing address identified in Section I..C.2.
These electronic submissions will be accepted in Word Perfect or ASCII
file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption.
2. By Mail. Send an original and three (3) copies of your comments
and any references cited in your comments to the Water Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-0075.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Water
Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-0075. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation as identified in Section I.B.1.
D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail.
Send information identified as CBI by mail only to the following
address: Office of Science and Technology, Mailcode 4303T, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Elwood Forsht, Docket ID No. OW-2003-
0075.
You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking
any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk
or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
[[Page 53434]]
information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
F. Pretreatment Hearing Information
If commenters request a public hearing on the pretreatment
standards, a hearing will be held on October 10, 2003. During the
pretreatment hearing, the public will have the opportunity to provide
oral comment to EPA. EPA will not address any issues raised during the
hearing at that time but these comments will be recorded and included
in the public record for the rule. Persons wishing to attend or to
present formal comments at the public hearing should contact Mr. Elwood
Forsht before September 25, 2003 and should have a written copy for
submittal at the hearing.
II. Legal Authority
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is promulgating these
regulations under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317,
1318, 1342 and 1361.
III. Overview of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
Centralized Waste Treatment
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,
the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters
except in compliance with the statute. The CWA confronts the problem of
water pollution on a number of different fronts. It relies primarily,
however, 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 achieve
the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires EPA to set nationally-
applicable pretreatment standards that 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 POTWs operations.
Generally, pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that
wastewater from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject
to similar levels of treatment. POTWs must also implement local
pretreatment limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers
to satisfy 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.
On December 22, 2000, EPA promulgated regulations establishing
effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards for new and
existing sources, and new source performance standards for the
Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) Point Source Category (65 FR 81242).
The regulations control the discharges from CWT facilities that
receive waste, wastewater, or used material from off-site. EPA
established limitations and standards for four CWT subcategories. The
first three subcategories cover facilities that treat or recover only
one type of waste, either metal-bearing (Subcategory A--Metals
Treatment and Recovery), oily (Subcategory B--Oils Treatment and
Recovery), or organic (Subcategory C--Organics Treatment and Recovery).
The fourth subcategory, Subcategory D--Multiple Wastestreams, covers
facilities that treat or recover some combination of metal-bearing,
oily, and organic wastes, wastewater, or used material received from
off-site. Using Subcategory D limitations and standards simplifies
implementation of the rule and compliance monitoring for CWT facilities
that treat wastes subject to more than one of the first three
subcategories. These facilities may choose to comply with the
provisions of the multiple wastestreams subcategory D rather than
subcategories A, B, or C. However, they must certify that an equivalent
treatment system is installed and properly designed, maintained, and
operated.
After the Agency published the December 2000 final rule, facilities
in the regulated community conducted compliance monitoring studies and
began to develop compliance strategies for the regulated pollutants.
Based on these efforts, several members of the regulated community and
a trade association submitted new information to the Agency and asked
EPA to revise certain aspects of the final rule. After our own analysis
and review, we determined that EPA should propose several minor
modifications to the current rule.
IV. Amendment To Delete Selenium From the Metals Treatment and Recovery
Subcategory
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the
respective Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT), Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT),
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES), and Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNS) limitations and standards for selenium
from Sec. Sec. 437.11, 437.13, 437.15 and 437.16. Section VI below
describes the revision to the related segments of the Multiple
Wastestreams Subcategory to reflect deletion of selenium from these
sections of the Metals Treatment and Recovery
[[Page 53435]]
Subcategory. In the December 2000 final rule, EPA established, for the
Metals Treatment and Recovery Subcategory, direct discharge limitations
and standards as well as pretreatment standards for selenium and 15
other metal pollutants. The model technology for the BPT, BAT, PSES and
PSNS limitations and standards was primary chemical precipitation,
liquid-solid separation, secondary chemical precipitation,
clarification, and sand filtration. EPA is not proposing to delete the
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for selenium because the
standards are based on a different model treatment system involving the
use of selective metals precipitation
While the data demonstrate that the technology EPA evaluated as the
basis for the BPT, BAT, PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards
removes selenium, they also show that selenium removal was achieved
only in the last stage of the model treatment system--the sand
filtration polishing step. The sand filtration polishing step was
included in the model technology to ensure compliance with total
suspended solids limits (TSS) and not designed to achieve specific
metal removals. While it is true that the removal of solids associated
with sand filtration will include the removal of associated metals,
these metals removals are not achieved at a consistent or predictable
rate. It was not EPA's intention to regulate a metal for which removals
were obtained only during this final, polishing step of an extended
treatment train. EPA is not certain that the identified removals were
not an artifact of the particular data set or that such removals are
consistent and predictable with this technology. While removals were
observed, EPA is not certain that facilities would be able to achieve
the consistent removals required for compliance with a specific
regulatory limit for selenium. Selenium is the only metal pollutant
parameter regulated by the CWT regulation that falls into this
category. The docket includes documents which describe EPA's review of
the selenium data (DCS 47.1 and 47.2).
Although EPA proposes to delete the regulatory limits for selenium
in the selected sections, operation of treatment systems required to
achieve compliance with the 14 other metals limits will ensure some
continued removal of selenium, even if not at a consistent and
predictable rate. EPA estimates that assuming no selenium removals
would decrease EPA's December 22, 2000, estimated metals subcategory
pollutant reductions by 53 lbs/yr or nearly zero percent of the total
estimated reduction of 163 million lbs/yr. Expressed as toxic pound-
equivalents, the decrease as a result of assuming no selenium removals
is 0.014 percent or 59 lb-eq/yr out of the total estimated reduction of
415,383 lb-eq/yr (DCN 47.3).
V. Amendment To Remove Barium, Molybdenum, Antimony, and Titanium From
the Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategory
In the December 2000 final rule, EPA established, for the Oils
Treatment and Recovery Subcategory, direct discharge limitations and
standards for barium, molybdenum, antimony, and titanium as well as 18
other pollutants; and pretreatment standards for barium, molybdenum,
and antimony as well as 11 other pollutants. The model technology that
was the basis for the BPT, BAT, NSPS, and PSNS limitations and
standards was emulsion breaking/gravity separation, secondary gravity
separation and dissolved air flotation (DAF). The PSES model technology
basis was emulsion breaking/gravity separation and DAF.
After publication of the final rule, members of the regulated
community evaluated different engineering strategies for complying with
the promulgated limitations and standards. Several companies and a
trade association submitted new information to EPA demonstrating that
the model technology did not consistently remove certain pollutants
from oils wastestreams in specified circumstances. They concluded and
reported to EPA that the limitations and standards were not technically
achievable, petitioning EPA to delete these pollutants from the
regulated parameters.
Based on the data submitted to the Agency concerning metals removal
and the model technology, EPA reexamined the technology to determine
whether it would achieve consistent and predictable removals of metal
pollutants. As noted above, the model technology consists of emulsion
breaking/gravity separation, secondary gravity separation and DAF.
During the DAF phase of treatment, surface active agents, coagulating
agents, and polyelectrolytes are added to the wastewater and the pH of
the system is adjusted. The effect of the addition of coagulating
agents and pH adjustment is to promote precipitation of metals and
their consequent removal. Different metals are removed more effectively
at different concentrations of coagulating agents and at different pH
levels. EPA examined its data base to identify which of the metals
pollutants were removed consistently and predictably by the treatment
system that was the basis for the final limitations. The result of this
review demonstrated that removals were not consistent and predictable
for the following pollutants: Barium, molybdenum, antimony and
titanium. As a result, EPA proposes to remove the limitations and
standards for barium, molybdenum, antimony and titanium from
Subcategory B and modify the related provisions of Subcategory D to
reflect these changes.
Even though this amendment would delete the limitations and
standards for these four metal pollutants, the control of other metal
pollutants ensures some incidental removals for these parameters. For
direct discharge facilities, limitations for nine other metals remain
in place. For indirect discharge facilities, pretreatment standards for
six other metals remain in place.
A. Barium
EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards for barium
from Sec. Sec. 437.21, 437.23, 437.24, 437.25 and 437.26. Section VI
below describes the methodology used to revise the related segments of
the Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory to reflect deletion of barium
from the Oils Treatment and Recovery subcategory.
EPA received information and data from several companies and a CWT
trade association concerning barium concentrations in different types
of waste receipts treated at CWT facilities. EPA evaluated this
information and concluded that its model technology would not reliably
and consistently remove barium to the limits required in the oils
subcategory. The record includes the additional information provided to
the Agency with the request for changes to the regulation and EPA's
review of that information (DCNs 43.2.49, 43.2.51, 43.2.54, 43.2.60,
44.1.1, 44.2, 44.3, 45.29.1, and 47.7).
The commenters noted that CWT facilities accept a variety of oily
waste receipts that contain barium including used lubricating oils and
greases and oil and gas extraction drilling fluids and brine. The
information and data indicates that barium is usually precipitated as
barium sulfate and that sedimentation rather than dissolved air
flotation would provide more consistent barium removals.
EPA's single-stage DAF model treatment system was designed
primarily to remove suspended solids and dispersed oil and grease from
oily wastewater. The use of treatment chemicals provides an effective
means
[[Page 53436]]
of increasing the efficiencies of DAF treatment systems in removing
suspended solids and may also enhance the removal of metals (DCN 41.2,
pages 8-13 to 15). The operating conditions of the model treatment
technology evaluated for the final regulation included the addition of
treatment chemicals (aluminum sulfate, caustic soda, and polymers). Use
of aluminum sulfate (alum) precipitates barium sulfate which has a
specific gravity 4.5 times heavier than water; the use of polymers
flocculate suspended particles.
Because of the density of barium sulfate and the use of polymers,
large floc formations would tend to sink and smaller floc formations
would tend to float. However, if colloidal suspensions are formed, DAF
would tend to be ineffective. Therefore, removing barium sulfate by DAF
requires a careful balance between forming a large enough floc to be
floated but not too large to sink. In this situation, it appears that
the model DAF technology would not reliably and consistently provide
the pollutant reductions that form the basis for the promulgated
limitations. Thus, EPA proposes to remove the limitations and standards
for barium from Subcategory B and the associated provisions of
Subcategory D. We did not intend to regulate a pollutant in the oils
waste receipts subcategory for which compliance could not be
consistently and predictably achieved with the model DAF treatment
system.
Although EPA proposes to delete the regulatory limits for barium,
operation of treatment systems required to achieve compliance with
other metals limits will ensure some continued removal of barium, even
if not at a consistent and predictable rate. Even if there were no
incidental removals for barium, the estimated pollutant reduction for
this regulation remains relatively unchanged, i.e., the December 22,
2000, estimated oils subcategory pollutant reductions would decrease by
2,115 lbs/yr or 0.22 percent of the total estimated reduction of
941,622 lbs/yr. Expressed as toxic pound-equivalents, the decrease as a
result of assuming no barium removals is less than 0.008 percent or 4
lb-eq/yr out of the total estimated reduction of 52,447 lb-eq/yr (DCN
47.3).
B. Molybdenum, Antimony, and Titanium
EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective
BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitations and standards for molybdenum, antimony,
and titanium from Sec. Sec. 437.21, 437.23, 437.24; and by deleting
the respective PSES and PSNS standards for molybdenum and antimony from
Sec. Sec. 437.25 and 437.26. Section VI below describes the
methodology used to revise the related segments of the Multiple
Wastestreams Subcategory to reflect deletion of molybdenum, antimony,
and titanium from the Oils Treatment and Recovery subcategory.
EPA's single-stage DAF model treatment system was designed
primarily to remove suspended solids and dispersed oil and grease from
oily wastewater. The use of treatment chemicals provides an effective
means of increasing the efficiencies of DAF treatment systems in
removing suspended solids and may also enhance the removal of metals
(DCN 41.2, pages 8-13 to 15). The conditions under which the model
treatment technology operated which EPA evaluated for the final
limitations and standards included the addition of treatment chemicals
(aluminum sulfate, caustic soda, and polymer) with pH adjustments to
relatively strong base levels between 9 to 11. These operating
conditions optimize the removals of the more traditional heavy metals
including chromium, zinc, lead, nickel, copper, and cadmium.
After publication of the December 2000 final rule, the regulated
community evaluated several different engineering strategies for
complying with the limitations and standards. Several companies and a
CWT trade association submitted new information to EPA demonstrating
that the model technology would not consistently remove certain
pollutants from oils wastestreams in specified circumstances. They
concluded and reported to EPA that the antimony, molybdenum, and
titanium limitations and standards were not technically achievable,
petitioning EPA to delete these pollutants as regulated parameters. The
docket includes the additional information provided to the agency and
EPA's review of that information (DCNs 45.12.1, 45.12.2, 45.12.3,
45.12.4, 45.25, 45.25.2, 46.5.1, 46.5.2, 46.5.3, 46.10, 46.11, 46.12,
46.15, 46.21, and 47.5).
Based on the materials submitted to the Agency, EPA reexamined its
model technology and the associated removal data. The new information
and data demonstrate that the oils subcategory model DAF treatment
technology is unable to consistently meet the antimony, molybdenum, and
titanium oils subcategory limitations and standards. Furthermore, the
new data demonstrate that optimum removals of antimony, molybdenum, and
titanium require treatment with high concentrations of iron (ranging
from 1,000 to 5,000 mg/l ) and, for antimony and molybdenum, pH
adjustments to relatively strong acid levels between 4 to 5. Therefore,
to ensure compliance with the antimony, molybdenum, and titanium
limitations and standards, many oily waste facilities would need to add
a second-stage chemical precipitation step operated at a relatively low
pH (between 4 and 5) and/or the addition of large quantities of iron
(1,000 to 5,000 mg/l), and followed by clarification or filtration.
EPA did not intend to regulate a pollutant in the oils waste
receipts subcategory for which compliance could only be obtained with
the addition of uniquely designed chemical precipitation systems to the
model technology. Based on the information and data provided, we
conclude that in many situations CWT facilities subject to Subpart B
would not be able to comply with the antimony, molybdenum, and titanium
limitations and standards through the use of the model DAF technology
alone. Many facilities would need to add chemical precipitation unit
operations uniquely designed for antimony, molybdenum, and titanium
removal. Due to these circumstances, EPA proposes to remove the
limitations and standards for these pollutants from Subcategory B and
revise the associated provisions of Subcategory D.
Although EPA proposes to delete the regulatory limits for antimony,
molybdenum, and titanium, operation of treatment systems required to
achieve compliance with other metals limits will ensure some continued
removal of antimony, molybdenum, and titanium, even if not at
consistent and predictable rates. Even if there were no incidental
removals for antimony, molybdenum, and titanium, the estimated oils
subcategory pollutant reduction for this regulation remains relatively
unchanged, i.e., the December 22, 2000, estimated pollutant reductions
would decrease by 7,828 lbs/yr or 0.83 percent of the total estimated
reduction of 941,622 lbs/yr. Expressed as pollutant pound-equivalents,
the decrease as a result of assuming no antimony, molybdenum, and
titanium removals is about 2.89 percent or 1,518 lb-eq/yr out of the
total estimated reduction of 52,447 lb-eq/yr (DCN 47.3).
VI. Amendment To Revise the Related Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory
Segments
EPA, in the December 2000 final rule, established limitations and
standards for facilities that treat a combination of metal-bearing,
oily or organic wastes, wastewater or used material. Use of
[[Page 53437]]
these Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory limitations and standards
simplifies implementation of the rule and compliance monitoring for CWT
facilities that treat wastes subject to more than one of the other
subcategories. These facilities may elect to comply with the provisions
of the Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory rather than the applicable
individual provisions of the metals, oils, and organics treatment and
recovery subcategories in the circumstances described in 40 CFR 437.40.
EPA developed four sets of limitations for each of the possible
combinations of the three subcategories of wastestreams. These are
mixtures of (1) metal-bearing, oils, and organics waste receipts; (2)
metal-bearing and oils waste receipts; (3) metal-bearing and organics
waste receipts; and (4) oils and organics waste receipts. EPA derived
these limitations and standards by combining pollutant limitations and
standards from each possible combination of subcategories and selecting
the most stringent pollutant values where they overlap. (For each
pollutant, EPA selected the most stringent maximum monthly average
limitations and its corresponding maximum daily limitation.) Today's
proposal would modify the Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory limitations
and standards to account for the removal of selenium from the Metals
Subcategory limitations and standards and the removal of barium,
molybdenum, antimony and titanium from the Oils Treatment and Recovery
Subcategory.
A. Selenium
EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective
BPT, BAT, PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards for selenium from
Sec. Sec. 437.42(b), (c), and (d); 437.44(b), (c), and (d); 437.46(b),
(c), and (d); and 437.47(b), (c), and (d). Because selenium was
regulated in the Metals Treatment and Recovery Subcategory but not in
the Oils or Organics Treatment and Recovery Subcategories, there are no
overlapping limitations for this pollutant. Therefore, the result of
deleting selenium from the BPT, BAT, PSES, and PSNS segments of the
metals subcategory (see Section IV above) would be that selenium
limitations and standards would remain only in the NSPS segment of the
Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory. The selenium NSPS standards are
based on a different model treatment system involving the use of
selective metals precipitation.
B. Barium
EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards for barium
from Sec. Sec. 437.42(b), (c), and (e); 437.44(b), (c), and (e);
437.45(b), (c), and (e); 437.46(b), (c), and (e); and 437.47(b), (c),
and (e). Because barium was regulated in the Oils Treatment and
Recovery Subcategory but not in the Metals or Organics Treatment and
Recovery Subcategories, there are no overlapping limitations for this
pollutant. Therefore, the result of deleting barium from the oils
subcategory (see Section V above) is that there would be no barium
limitations and standards for any segment of the Multiple Wastestreams
Subcategory.
C. Molybdenum
EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards for molybdenum
from Sec. Sec. 437.42(c), 437.44(c), 437.45(c), 437.46(c), and
437.47(c). EPA had originally promulgated molybdenum limitations for
the Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategory and the Organics Treatment
and Recovery Subcategory but not in the Metals Treatment and Recovery
Subcategory. If EPA promulgates this amendment as proposed, there would
be limitations for this pollutant only in the organics subcategory.
Since the organics subcategory molybdenum limitations were more
stringent than those in the oils subcategory, the molybdenum
limitations in the related segments of the multiple wastestreams
subcategory would continue to be based on the organics subcategory
limitations.
D. Antimony
EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective
PSES and PSNS standards for antimony from Sec. Sec. 437.46(e) and
437.47(e), and by revising the respective BPT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS
limitations and standards for antimony in Sec. Sec. 437.42(b), (c),
and (e), 437.45(e), 437.46(b) and (c), and 437.47(b) and (c).
Because antimony was originally regulated for indirect discharges
in the Metals and Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategories but not in
the Organics Treatment and Recovery Subcategory, there would be PSES
and PSNS standards for this pollutant only in the Metals subcategory,
if EPA promulgates the amendments as proposed. The antimony standards
in the related indirect discharge segments of the Multiple Wastestreams
subcategory would therefore be based on the Metals subcategory
limitations.
In the December 2000 rule, EPA regulated antimony for direct
discharges in the Metals, Oils, and Organics Treatment and Recovery
Subcategories. If EPA promulgates this amendment as proposed, there
would be BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitations and standards for this
pollutant only in the Metals and Organics subcategories. Therefore the
BPT, BAT, and NSPS antimony limitations and standards in the related
direct discharge segments of the Multiple Wastestreams subcategory
would be based on the most stringent antimony limitations in the
overlapping Metals and Organics subcategories.
E. Titanium
EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 437 by deleting the respective
BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitations and standards for titanium from
Sec. Sec. 437.42(e), 437.44(e), and 437.45(e), and by revising the
respective BPT limitations for titanium in Sec. Sec. 437.42(b) and
(c). Because titanium was regulated for direct discharges in the Metals
and Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategories but not in the Organics
Treatment and Recovery Subcategory, there would be BPT, BAT, and NSPS
limitations and standards for this pollutant only in the metals
subcategory, if EPA promulgates this amendment as proposed. Therefore
the BPT, BAT, and NSPS titanium limitations and standards in the
related direct discharge segments of the Multiple Wastestreams
subcategory would be based on the titanium limitations and standards in
the Metals subcategory.
VII. Corrections and Edits to 40 CFR 437
EPA proposes to correct a technical error contained in the December
22, 2000, final rule. The Federal Register publication of the final
rule (65 FR 81241) contained an error in Sec. 437.42(d) for the
maximum monthly average BOD5 limitation for direct discharge
facilities subject to the Multiple Wastestreams Subcategory for
combined metals and organics waste receipts. The 3.0 mg/l
BOD5 maximum monthly average limitation is revised to read
53.0 mg/l. This matches the limitation in the final rule signed by the
Administrator on August 28, 2000. The correct 53.0 mg/l BOD5
limitation for this segment is reflected in the August 2000
``Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry--Final,'' (EPA
821-R-00-020)
[[Page 53438]]
as well as the supporting information and analyses in the record.
The ``Authority'' citation is revised to conform with current
guidance from the Federal Register Office.
VIII. Summary of Proposed Actions and Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Summary of Proposed Actions
The Agency is proposing to delete certain limitations and standards
for selenium from the metals subcategory and for antimony, barium,
molybdenum, and titanium from the oils subcategory. The proposal also
reflects these changes in the multiple wastestreams subcategory. We
have concluded that the model technologies that provided the basis for
the limitations and standards do not consistently and predictably
remove these pollutants to the specified levels for compliance.
Nevertheless, operation of treatment systems required to achieve
compliance with other metals limits will ensure some continued removal
of these five metals, even if not at consistent and predictable rates.
Even if there were no incidental removals for these metals, the
estimated pollutant reduction for this regulation remains relatively
unchanged, i.e., the December 22, 2000, estimated pollutant reductions
would decrease by 9,996 lbs/yr or 0.006 percent of the total estimated
reduction of 166,125,128 lbs/yr for the CWT regulation. Expressed as
toxic pound-equivalents, the decrease as a result of assuming no
removals for these metals is 0.32 percent or 1,581 lb-eq/yr out of the
total estimated reduction of 487,644 lb-eq/yr for the CWT regulation
(DCN 47.8).
Even though EPA does not believe that the potential increases in
pollutant discharges related to the proposed amendments result in any
significant environmental effects, we will continue to monitor the
discharges from this industry as part of the biennial Effluent
Guidelines Program Plans required under section 304(m) of the Clean
Water Act.
B. Solicitation of Data and Comments
EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking.
The Agency asks that commenters address whether the record supports
EPA's conclusions that the technology on which it based the final
limitations and standards does not provide consistent and predictable
removals for the pollutants the Agency has proposed to delete from the
regulation. Any suggestions for changes or revisions should be
supported by adequate technical data.
EPA is particularly interested in receiving comment on an issue
raised by the National Oil Recyclers Association (NORA) in its request
for deletion of molybdenum limitations from certain subcategories. NORA
submitted information to the Agency with a request that EPA delete the
molybdenum limitations and standards from the Organics Treatment and
Recovery subcategory and from the related sections of the Multiple
Wastestreams subcategory (DCNs 45.32 and 45.33). They state that many
CWT organics subcategory facilities have molybdenum influent raw waste
concentrations that are too high for effective biological treatment.
Based on our preliminary assessment of this new information and data we
will probably delete the molybdenum limitations from the organics
subcategory. However, we are seeking additional information to augment
the record before finalizing such a change. As a consequence, EPA is
not today proposing to remove the molybdenum limitations and standards
as requested by NORA; however, EPA plans to evaluate closely any
additional information it receives on this subject. When EPA
promulgates the final rule, we will likely delete these limitations and
standards from the organics subcategory and the related sections of the
multiple wastestream subcategory if we receive adequate supporting
documentation. The discussion below describes the kind of information
EPA would need before it could delete the molybdenum limitations and
standards from the CWT organics subcategory.
Commenters should submit information showing that well-designed and
well-operated treatment systems employing the BAT technology used as
the basis for the organics subcategory limitations and standards will
not provide consistent and predictable removals for molybdenum.
The information and data should characterize the influent pollutant
levels (including molybdenum) as well as the effluent levels being
discharged in the treated final effluent resulting from the treatment
of organics waste receipts at facilities with BAT technology for the
organics subcategory. To the extent possible, we want to characterize
organics subcategory treatment prior to commingling with wastewaters
from other subcategories, non-contaminated stormwater, or other sources
of water.
Comments should include sufficient information and data to
determine if the biological treatment system is well-designed and well-
operated during the sampling period(s). To the extent possible, the
information and data should include (1) block diagrams identifying the
influent, intermediate, and final outfall sampling points; holding
tanks and equalization units; each component or stage of the biological
treatment system; and any post biological unit operations; (2) the
hydraulic and pollutant load design bases including hydraulic residence
times in each stage of the biological treatment system; (3) the
operational information and data that demonstrate good operation for
the sampling period(s); (4) relative flows of the influent waste
receipts and equalization characteristics; and (5) analytical and flow
data for each sampling point including, to the extent available, the
design and operation parameters, molybdenum, total suspended solids
(TSS), 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical
oxygen demand (COD), and other regulated and relevant parameters.
Please note what types of samples were collected at each sampling point
(grab or composite) as well as the analytical methods used. If grab
sample data are provided, please document how the grab samples
represent typical wastewater characteristics. The rationale should at
least address the flow and concentration variability of the organics
subcategory waste receipts and any other commingled wastestreams as
well as the residence times and mixing characteristics of any
equalization unit operations.
IX. POTW Pretreatment Program Alternatives in Light of the December 22,
2003 Compliance Deadline
EPA is likely to take final action on today's proposal with only a
short amount of time remaining before the December 22, 2003, deadline
for indirect dischargers to comply with the 2000 pretreatment standards
that are the subject of today's proposal. EPA understands that POTWs
are already preparing pretreatment control mechanisms to implement
those pretreatment standards. In view of the fact that EPA's rulemaking
and the issuance of pretreatment control mechanisms are proceeding on
parallel tracks, EPA recommends that the POTWs consider one of several
approaches to account for the situation. For example, a POTW could
decide to include, in the proposed and, if necessary, final amendments
to its local pretreatment program, alternative sets of limitations that
reflect both the requirements as they exist in unamended form today and
the requirements that would apply if EPA promulgates amendments as
proposed today. The first set of limitations would establish
requirements for each
[[Page 53439]]
pollutant and subcategory as published in the 2000 rule. The second set
of limitations would state that, if prior to December 22, 2003, EPA has
amended part 437 to remove pretreatment standards for selenium, barium,
molybdenum, antimony, and titanium for certain specified subcategories,
then the limitations specified above for those pollutants and
subcategories would not apply.
Alternatively, EPA recommends that the POTWs consider including, in
the proposed and, if necessary, final amendments to its pretreatment
program a provision stating that the limitations for selenium, barium,
molybdenum, antimony, and titanium correspond to those pretreatment
standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes on December
22, 2003. By including a provision like this, the POTW can incorporate
the most recent EPA decisions regarding pretreatment standards for
these pollutants without the need for further administrative
proceeding. The POTW would be free, of course, following promulgation
of any changes to the pretreatment standards to revise its local
pretreatment program specifically to reflect any changes.
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735, (October 4, 1993)], the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant 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.
It has been determined that this proposal is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action would not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.
It would merely delete the limitations for five pollutants from certain
provisions of the current rule and corrects a limitation for another
pollutant that was incorrectly transcribed from the version signed by
the EPA Administrator. Consequently, today's proposed rule does not
establish any new information collection burden on the regulated
community.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact of today's proposed rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined as (1) a small business with
gross revenue under $6 million (based on Small Business Administration
size standards); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that
is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposal
rule removes or revises the limitations and standards for five
pollutants from certain provisions of the current rule and corrects an
error in another provision. These changes reduce the economic impacts
of the regulation on those entities, including small entities, subject
to the limitations and pretreatment standards. The estimated reduction
in the analytical laboratory costs of compliance is about $496,000 (DCN
47.6). The change to the BOD5 limitation will result in no change in
economic burden because this modification merely corrects the
limitation to reflect the BOD5 limitation in the August 28, 2000,
version of the regulation signed by the Administrator.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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
[[Page 53440]]
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 and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. It deletes or revises the limitations
and standards for five pollutants from certain provisions of the CWT
guideline and corrects an inadvertent error in another limitation in
the codified version of the current rule. The effect of these changes
is to reduce the cost of the CWT regulations promulgated earlier. Thus,
today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.
For the same reason, EPA has determined that this proposal contains
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The proposal, if promulgated, would not uniquely
affect small governments because small and large governments are
affected in the same way. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's proposed rule would
amend effluent limitations and pretreatment standards which impose
requirements that apply to facilities when they discharge wastewater or
introduce wastewater to a POTW. It deletes or revises the limitations
and standards for five pollutants from certain provisions of the CWT
guideline and corrects an inadvertent error in another limitation in
the codified version of the current rule. EPA has determined that there
are no CWT facilities owned and/or operated by State or local
governments that would be subject to today's proposed rule. Further,
the proposed rule would only incidentally affect State and local
governments in their capacity as implementers of CWA NPDES permitting
programs and approved pretreatment programs. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications
between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits
comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. It deletes or revises the limitations and
standards for five pollutants from certain provisions of the current
rule and corrects an inadvertent printing error in another section. EPA
has not identified any CWT facilities covered by today's proposed rule
that are owned and/or operated by Indian tribal governments. No Indian
tribes are responsible for implementing the CWA NPDES permitting
program. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In
the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA
specifically solicits comments on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the 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 proposal is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866.
Further, this proposal does not concern an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposal is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C.
272 note), directs EPA 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
[[Page 53441]]
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 437
Environmental protection, Waste treatment and disposal, Water
pollution control.
Dated: September 2, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 437--THE CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
1. The authority citation for part 437 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and
1361.
Sec. 437.11 [Amended]
2. Section 437.11(a) is amended by removing the entry for
``Selenium'' in the BPT Limitations table, under the heading ``Metal
Parameters.''
Sec. 437.13 [Amended]
3. Section 437.13(a) is amended by removing ``selenium,.''
Sec. 437.15 [Amended]
4. Section 437.15(a) is amended by removing ``selenium,.''
Sec. 437.16 [Amended]
5. Section 437.16(a) is amended by removing ``selenium,.''
Sec. 437.21 [Amended]
6. Section 437.21 is amended by removing the following entries in
the BPT Limitations table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
a. Antimony.
b. Barium.
c. Molybdenum.
d. Titanium.
Sec. 437.23 [Amended]
7. Section 437.23 is amended by removing the following entries:
a. ``antimony,.''
b. ``barium,.''
c. ``molybdenum,.''
d. ``titanium,.''
Sec. 437.24 [Amended]
8. Section 437.24 is amended by removing the following entries:
a. ``antimony,.''
b. ``barium,.''
c. ``molybdenum,.''
d. ``titanium,.''
Sec. 437.25 [Amended]
9. Section 437.25 is amended by removing the following entries in
the Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table, under the heading ``Metal
Parameters'':
a. Antimony.
b. Barium.
c. Molybdenum.
Sec. 437.26 [Amended]
10. Section 437.26 is amended by removing the following entries:
a. ``antimony,.''
b. ``barium,.''
c. ``molybdenum,.''
Sec. 437.42 [Amended]
11. Section 437.42 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing the following entries in the BPT
Limitations table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
i. Barium.
ii. Selenium.
b. In paragraph (b)(1) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in
the BPT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 437.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................ 0.249 0.206
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).
* * * * *
c. In paragraph (b)(1) by revising the entry for ``Titanium'' in
the BPT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 437.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
[[Page 53442]]
BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Titanium............................ 0.0947 0.0618
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).
* * * * *
d. In paragraph (c)(1) by removing the following entries in the BPT
Limitations table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
i. Barium.
ii. Molybdenum.
iii. Selenium.
e. In paragraph (c)(1) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in
the BPT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 437.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................ 0.249 0.206
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).
* * * * *
f. In paragraph (c)(1) by revising the entry for ``Titanium'' in
the BPT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 437.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Titanium............................ 0.0947 0.0618
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).
* * * * *
g. Paragraph (d)(1) is amended by:
i. Revising the entry for ``BOD5'' in the BPT
Limitations table under the heading ``Conventional Parameters'' as
follows:
Sec. 437.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
[[Page 53443]]
BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Parameters
-------------------------------------
BOD5................................ 163 53.0
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).
* * * * *
ii. Removing the entry for ``Selenium'' in the BPT Limitations
table under the heading ``Metal Parameters.''
h. Paragraph (e) is amended by removing the following entries in
the BPT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
i. Barium.
ii. Titanium.
i. Paragraph (e) is amended by revising the entry for ``Antimony''
in the BPT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 437.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................ 0.928 0.679
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).
* * * * *
Sec. 437.44 [Amended]
12. Section 437.44 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing the following entries in the BAT
Limitations table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
i. Barium.
ii. Selenium.
b. In paragraph (c)(1) by removing the following entries in the BAT
Limitations table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
i. Barium.
ii. Molybdenum.
iii. Selenium.
c. In paragraph (d)(1) by removing the entry for ``Selenium'' in
the BAT Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters.''
d. In paragraph (e) by removing the following entries in the BAT
Limitations table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
i. Barium.
ii. Titanium.
Sec. 437.45 [Amended]
13. Section 437.45 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing the entry for ``Barium'' in the
Performance Standards table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters.''
b. In paragraph (c)(1) by removing the following entries in the
Performance Standards table, under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
i. Barium.
ii. Molybdenum.
c. In paragraph (e) by removing the following entries in the
Performance Standards table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'':
i. Barium.
ii. Titanium.
d. In paragraph (e) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in the
Performance Standards table under the heading ``Metal Parameters'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 437.45 New Source Performance Standards.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Performance Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter Maximum daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Antimony............................ 0.928 0.679
[[Page 53444]]
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
* * * * *
Sec. 437.46 [Amended]
14. Section 437.46 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing the following entries in the
Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table, under the heading ``Metal
Parameters'':
i. Barium.
ii. Selenium.
b. In paragraph (b)(1) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in
the Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table under the heading ``Metal
Parameters'' to read as follows:
Sec. 437.46 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter Maximum daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................ 0.249 0.206
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
* * * * *
c. In paragraph (c)(1) by removing the following entries in the
Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table, under the heading ``Metal
Parameters'':
i. Barium.
ii. Molybdenum.
iii. Selenium.
d. In paragraph (c)(1) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in
the Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table under the heading ``Metal
Parameters'' to read as follows:
Sec. 437.46 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter Maximum daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................ 0.249 0.206
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
* * * * *
e. In paragraph (d)(1) by removing the entry for ``Selenium'' in
the Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table under the heading ``Metal
Parameters.''
f. In paragraph (e) by removing the following entries in the
Pretreatment Standards (PSES) table under the heading ``Metal
Parameters'':
i. Antimony.
ii. Barium.
Sec. 437.47 [Amended]
15. Section 437.47 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing the following entries in the
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) table, under the heading ``Metal
Parameters'':
i. Barium.
ii. Selenium.
b. In paragraph (b)(1) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in
the Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) table under the heading ``Metal
Parameters'' to read as follows:
Sec. 437.47 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSNS).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
[[Page 53445]]
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter Maximum daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................ 0.249 0.206
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
* * * * *
c. In paragraph (c)(1) by removing the following entries in the
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) table, under the heading ``Metal
Parameters'':
i. Barium.
ii. Molybdenum.
iii. Selenium.
d. In paragraph (c)(1) by revising the entry for ``Antimony'' in
the Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) table under the heading ``Metal
Parameters'' to read as follows:
Sec. 437.47 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSNS).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter Maximum daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
-------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
-------------------------------------
Antimony............................ 0.249 0.206
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
* * * * *
e. In paragraph (d)(1) by removing the entry for ``Selenium'' in
the Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) table under the heading ``Metal
Parameters.''
f. In paragraph (e) by removing the following entries in the
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) table under the heading ``Metal
Parameters'':
i. Antimony.
ii. Barium.
[FR Doc. 03-22930 Filed 9-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P