Tuesday,

May 13, 2003 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 438 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source Category; Final Rule VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25686 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 438 [ FRL   7453   6]

RIN 2040   AB79 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source Category AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is publishing final regulations establishing Clean Water Act ( CWA) technology based effluent limitations guidelines for the metal products and machinery ( MP& M) point source category. The metal products and machinery point source category includes facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain metal products, parts, or machines. EPA is promulgating limitations and standards only for facilities that directly discharge wastewaters from oily operations in the Oily Wastes subcategory. EPA expects compliance with this regulation to reduce the discharge of conventional pollutants by approximately 500,000 pounds per year. EPA estimates the annual cost of the rule will be $ 13.8 million ( pre tax $ 2001). EPA estimates that the annual benefits of the rule to be approximately $ 1.5 million ($ 2001). DATES: This regulation shall become effective June 12, 2003. ADDRESSES: The administrative record is available for inspection and copying at the Water Docket, located at the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC) in the basement of the EPA West Building, Room B   102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The rule and key supporting materials are also electronically available via EPA Dockets ( Edocket) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ under Edocket number OW   2002   0033 or at http:// www. epa. gov/ guide/ mpm/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning today's final rule, contact Mr. Carey A. Johnston at ( 202) 566   1014 or Ms. Shari Z. Barash at ( 202) 566   0996. For economic information contact Mr. James Covington at ( 202) 566   1034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Entities Are Potentially Regulated by This Final Rule?

Entities potentially regulated by this action include facilities that directly discharge wastewaters from oily operations and include the following types:

Category Examples of regulated entities Industry ........................................ Facilities that discharge wastewater from oily operations and manufacture, maintain, or rebuild metal parts, products or machines used in the following sectors: Aerospace, Aircraft, Bus & Truck, Electronic Equipment Hardware, Household Equipment, Instruments, Mobile Industrial Equipment, Motor Vehicles, Office Machines, Ordnance, Precious Metals and Jewelry, Railroad, Ships and Boats, Stationary Industrial Equipment and Miscellaneous Metal Products. Government ................................. State and local government facilities that discharge wastewater from oily operations and manufacture, maintain or rebuild metal parts, products or machines in one of the sectors previously listed ( e. g., a town that operates its own bus, truck, and/ or snow removal equipment maintenance facility). Federal facilities that discharge wastewater from oily operations and manufacture, maintain, or rebuild metal parts, products or machines.

Note: The term `` oily operations'' is defined at 40 CFR 438.2( f) and appendix B of part 438. Note: See Appendix A of the TDD for a list of example NAICS and SIC codes that may apply to facilities regulated by MP& M.

EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but rather it 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 listed at 40 CFR 438.1 and 438.10 of today's rule. If you still have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult one of the persons listed for technical information in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID. No. OW   2002   0033. 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) in the basement of 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. For access to the docket materials, please call ahead to schedule an appointment. A reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. 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 view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility previously identified. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number ( OW   2002   0033). Major supporting documents are also available in hard copy from the National Service Center for Environmental Publications ( NSCEP), U. S. EPA/ NSCEP, PO Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA 45242   2419, ( 800) 490   9198, http:// www. epa. gov/ ncepihom/. You can obtain electronic copies of this preamble and rule as well as major supporting documents at EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ and http:// www. epa. gov/ guide/ mpm. The two major documents supporting the final regulations are:   `` Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point Source Category'' [ EPA   821   B   03   001] referred to in the preamble as the Technical Development Document ( TDD): This document presents the technical information that formed the basis for EPA's decisions in today's final rule. The TDD describes, among other things, the data collection activities, the wastewater treatment VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25687 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations technology options considered by the Agency as the basis for effluent limitations guidelines and standards, the pollutants found in MP& M wastewaters, and the estimation of pollutant removals associated with certain pollutant control options.   `` Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis of the Final Metal Products & Machinery Rule'' [ EPA   821   B   03   002] referred to in the preamble as the Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis ( EEBA): This document presents the methodology employed to assess economic impacts and environmental impacts and benefits of the final rule and the results of the analysis.

What Process Governs Judicial Review for Today's Final Rule? In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, today's rule is considered promulgated for the purposes of judicial review as of 1 p. m. Eastern Daylight Time, May 27, 2003. Under section 509( b)( 1) of the Clean Water Act ( CWA), judicial review of today's effluent limitations guidelines and standards may be obtained by filing a petition in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for review within 120 days from the date of promulgation of these guidelines and standards. Under section 509( b)( 2) of the CWA, the requirements of this regulation may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

What Are the Compliance Dates for Today's Final Rule? Existing direct dischargers must comply with today's limitations based on the best practicable control technology currently available ( BPT) and the best conventional pollutant control technology ( BCT) as soon as their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits include such limitations. New direct discharging sources must comply with applicable new source performance standards ( NSPS) on the date the new sources begin discharging. For purposes of NSPS, a source is a new source if it commences construction after June 12, 2003.

How Does EPA Protect Confidential Business Information ( CBI)? EPA notes that certain information and data in the record supporting the final rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore, EPA has not included these materials in the record that is available to the public in the Water Docket. Further, the Agency has withheld from disclosure some data not claimed as CBI because release of this information could indirectly reveal information claimed to be confidential. To support the rulemaking while preserving confidentiality claims, EPA is presenting in the public record certain information in aggregated form or, alternatively, is masking facility identities or employing other strategies. This approach assures that the information in the public record explains the basis for today's final rule without compromising CBI claims.

How Is This Preamble Organized? The following outline is for the preamble to the final rule. It is written in plain language designed to help the reader understand the information in the final rule. This preamble contains a short summary of what was proposed, the key comments that the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) received on the proposed rule, and the principal bases for EPA's decisions.

I. Legal Authority II. Legislative Background A. Clean Water Act B. Pollution Prevention Act C. Section 304( m) Requirements III. Metal Products & Machinery Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking History A. 1995 and 2001 Proposed Regulations B. June 2002 Notice of Data Availability IV. Summary of Significant Decisions A. Decisions Regarding the Content of the Regulation B. Decisions Regarding Methodology V. Scope/ Applicability of the Final Regulation A. General Overview and Wastewaters Covered B. Subcategorization VI. The Final Regulation A. General Metals Subcategory B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory C. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory D. Non Chromium Anodizing Subcategory E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory F. Oily Wastes Subcategory G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory VII. Pollutant Reduction and Compliance Cost Estimates A. Pollutant Reductions B. Regulatory Costs VIII. Economic Analyses A. Introduction and Overview B. Economic Costs of Technology Options by Subcategory C. Facility Level Economic Impacts of the Final Rule by Subcategory D. Firm Level Impacts E. Impacts on Government Owned Facilities F. Community Level Impacts G. Foreign Trade Impacts H. Administrative Costs I. Social Costs J. Cost and Removal Comparison Analysis K. Cost Effectiveness Analysis IX. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits A. Introduction and Overview B. Reduced Human Health Risk C. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Uses D. Effect on POTW Operations E. Summary of Benefits F. National Cost Benefit Comparison G. Ohio Case Study X. Non Water Quality Environmental Impacts A. Air Pollution B. Solid Waste C. Energy Requirements XI. Regulatory Implementation A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards for Direct Dischargers B. Upset and Bypass Provisions C. Variances and Modifications XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health & Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act Appendix A To The Preamble: Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other Terms Used in Today's Final Rule I. Legal Authority The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is promulgating these regulations under the authority of sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361 and under authority of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 ( PPA), 42 U. S. C. 13101 et seq., Public Law 101   508, November 5, 1990.

II. Legislative Background A. Clean Water Act Congress adopted the Clean Water Act ( CWA) to `` restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters'' ( section 101( a), 33 U. S. C. 1251( a)). To achieve this goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act confronts the problem of water pollution on a number of different fronts. Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions on the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial, commercial, and public sources of wastewater.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25688 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 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 that restrict pollutant discharges from facilities that discharge wastewater through sewers flowing to publiclyowned 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 pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible 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 develop and enforce local pretreatment limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements ( see 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 regulations, EPA defines BPT effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and non conventional pollutants. Section 304( a)( 4) designates the following as conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand ( BOD5), total suspended solids ( TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and grease ( O& G) as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 ( see 44 FR 44501). EPA has identified 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic pollutants, of which 126 specific substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants ( see Appendix A to part 403, reprinted after 40 CFR 423.17). All other pollutants are considered to be nonconventional In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers the total cost of applying the control technology 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 EPA Administrator 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, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology can be practically applied.

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 for discharges from existing industrial point sources. In addition to the 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 ( see 51 FR 24974).

3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable ( BAT)   Section 304( b)( 2) of the CWA In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best available economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential process changes, and nonwater quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved within a particular subcategory based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry practice.

4. New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS)   Section 306 of the CWA NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control technology. New sources have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent controls attainable through the application of the best available demonstrated control technology for all pollutants ( i. e., conventional, nonconventional and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources ( PSES)   Section 307( b) of the CWA PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs), including sludge disposal methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards for existing sources are technology based and are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines. The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for the implementation of national pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR 403.

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources ( PSNS)   Section 307( c) 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. Pollution Prevention Act The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 ( PPA) ( 42 U. S. C. 13101 et seq., Public Law 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 VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25689 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 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)). EPA reviewed this effluent guideline 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. In these final regulations, EPA supports pollution prevention technology by including pollution prevention in its technology basis for today's limitations and new source performance standards. This includes water conservation and re use of lubricants and solvents.

C. 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; and ( 2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January 2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan ( see 55 FR 80), in which schedules were established for developing new and revised effluent guidelines for several industry categories, including the metal products and machinery industry. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Public Citizen, Inc., challenged the Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ( NRDC et al., v. Browner, Civ. No. 89   2980). On January 31, 1992, the Court entered a consent decree ( the `` 304( m) Decree''), which establishes schedules for, among other things, EPA's proposal and promulgation of effluent guidelines for a number of point source categories. The consent decree, as amended, requires EPA to take final action on the Metal Products and Machinery effluent guidelines by February 14, 2003.

III. Metal Products & Machinery Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking History A. 1995 and 2001 Proposed Regulations On May 30, 1995, EPA published a proposal entitled, `` Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Metal Products and Machinery'' ( see 60 FR 28210). Throughout today's preamble, EPA refers to this 1995 proposal as the `` Phase I'' or the `` 1995'' proposal for the Metal Products and Machinery industry. To make the regulation more manageable, EPA initially divided the industry into two phases based on industrial sectors. The Phase I proposal included the following industry sectors: Aerospace; Aircraft; Electronic Equipment; Hardware; Mobile Industrial Equipment; Ordnance; and Stationary Industrial Equipment. At that time, EPA planned to propose a rule for the Phase II sectors approximately three years after the MP& M Phase I proposal. Phase II sectors included: Bus & Truck, Household Equipment, Instruments, Job Shops, Motor Vehicles, Office Machines, Precious Metals and Jewelry, Printed Wiring Boards, Railroad, Ships and Boats, and Miscellaneous Metal Products. EPA received over 350 public comments on the Phase I proposal. One area where commentors from all stakeholder groups ( i. e., industry, environmental groups, regulators) were in agreement was that EPA should not divide the industry into two separate regulations. Commentors raised concerns regarding the regulation of similar facilities with different compliance schedules and potentially different limitations solely based on whether they were in a Phase I or Phase II MP& M industrial sector. Furthermore, many facilities performed work in multiple sectors. In such cases, permit writers and control authorities ( e. g., POTWs) would need to decide which MP& M rule ( Phase I or II) applied to a facility. EPA's responses to comments can be found in section 20.3 of the docket for the rule. Based on these comments, EPA published a new proposal on January 3, 2001 ( see 66 FR 424) which completely replaced the 1995 proposal. Throughout this preamble, EPA refers to this proposal as the `` 2001'' proposal for the Metal Products and Machinery industry. In that notice, EPA proposed to establish new limitations and standards for approximately 10,000 facilities in the 18 industrial sectors ( without any designation of `` Phase I'' or `` Phase II''). EPA also divided the industry into eight regulatory subcategories: General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, Non Chromium Anodizing, Steel Forming & Finishing, Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Docks ( see 66 FR 439 for a discussion on the development of EPA's proposed subcategorization scheme). EPA found two basic types of waste streams in the industry: ( 1) Wastewater with high metals content ( metalbearing and ( 2) wastewater with low concentration of metals, and high oil and grease content ( oil bearing). When looking at facilities generating metalbearing wastewater ( with or without oilbearing wastewater), EPA identified five groups of facilities that could potentially be subcategorized by dominant product, raw materials used, and/ or nature of the waste generated ( i. e., General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, Non Chromium Anodizing, and Steel Forming & Finishing). When evaluating facilities with only oil bearing wastewater for potential further subcategorization, EPA identified two types of facilities ( i. e., Railroad Line Maintenance and Shipbuilding Dry Docks) that were different from the other facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory based on size, location, and dominant product or activity. This subcategorization scheme allowed EPA to more accurately assess various technology options in terms of compliance costs, pollutant reductions, benefits, and economic impacts. EPA proposed new limitations and standards for direct dischargers in all eight MP& M subcategories and proposed pretreatment standards for all indirect dischargers in three subcategories ( i. e., Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming & Finishing); pretreatment standards for facilities above a certain wastewater flow volume in two subcategories ( i. e., General Metals and Oily Wastes); and no national pretreatment standards for facilities in three subcategories ( i. e., Non Chromium VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25690 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations Anodizing, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Docks). EPA received over 1500 comment letters on the 2001 proposal. EPA's responses to the comments can be found in section 20.3 of the rulemaking.

B. June 2002 Notice of Data Availability On June 5, 2002, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability ( NODA) at 67 FR 38752. In the NODA, EPA discussed major issues raised in comments on the 2001 proposal; suggested revisions to the technical and economic methodologies used to estimate compliance costs, pollutant loadings, and economic and environmental impacts; presented the results of these suggested methodology changes and incorporation of new ( or revised) data; and summarized the Agency's thinking on how these results could affect the Agency's final decisions. The NODA also included a discussion of possible alternative options for certain subcategories based on comments, including an Environmental Management System ( EMS) alternative in lieu of part 438 limitations and standards, and a discussion of `` upgrading'' facilities currently regulated under the Electroplating regulations ( 40 CFR part 413) to meet the Metal Finishing regulations ( 40 CFR part 433) ( see 67 FR 38797). Finally, the NODA included preliminary revised effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for all eight proposed subcategories. EPA received over 300 comment letters on the NODA. EPA's responses to the comments can be found in section 20.3 of the docket for the rule.

IV. Summary of Significant Decisions As the previous discussion of the development of this regulation explains, EPA proposed regulating discharges associated with a number of different operations in the MP& M industry. Thus, EPA proposed regulations that would have established new limitations and standards for approximately 10,000 facilities in 18 industrial sectors that EPA subcategorized in eight subcategories. Following its consideration of comments submitted to EPA as well as intensive scrutiny of the data used to develop the proposal, EPA has determined that it should only finalize regulations for the Oily Wastes subcategory. These regulations would affect approximately 2,400 facilities. The following material explains EPA's decisions underlying today's regulation. It discusses significant issues considered by EPA or raised by commentors on the May 1995 and January 2001 proposed rules and June 2002 NODA, and how EPA has resolved these issues in today's final rule.

A. Decisions Regarding the Content of the Regulation The following discussion describes how EPA has subcategorized this industry in developing limitations and standards, and EPA's decisions about whether to subject particular subcategories to limitations and standards. It also identifies the pollution control technology EPA used as the basis for establishing limitations and standards. Next, this section discusses the applicability of the rule to iron and steel operations and to `` oily operations.'' The section also looks at the regulated pollutants and describes EPA decisions concerning the use of a `` pollution prevention'' alternative for complying with the final rule.

1. Subcategorization Structure The CWA requires EPA, in developing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards that reflect the best available technology economically achievable to consider a number of different factors. Among others, these include the age of the equipment and facilities in the category, manufacturing processes employed, types of treatment technology to reduce effluent discharges, and the cost of effluent reductions ( section 304( b)( 2)( b) of the CWA, 33 U. S. C. 1314( b)( 2)( B)). The statute also authorizes EPA to take into account other factors that the Administrator deems appropriate. One way in which the Agency has taken some of these factors into account is by breaking down categories of industries into separate classes of similar characteristics. This recognizes the major differences among companies within an industry that may reflect, for example, different manufacturing processes or wastewater characteristics. One result of subdividing an industry by subcategories is to safeguard against overzealous regulatory standards, increase the confidence that the regulations are practicable, and diminish the need to address variations between facilities through a variance process ( Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011, 1053 ( D. C. Cir. 1978)). As discussed in section III. A of today's final rule, in 2001 EPA proposed to divide the MP& M industry into eight regulatory subcategories based on the manufacturing, maintenance or rebuilding operations performed at a facility ( called `` unit operations'' in this preamble): General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, Non Chromium Anodizing, Steel Forming & Finishing, Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Docks. Based on comments submitted on the proposed rule and NODA, EPA has refined today's final subcategorization structure for the analyses performed to support today's final rule. For the purposes of analyzing issues in developing the final rule, EPA retained the eight subcategory structure, but altered the placement of some operations within certain subcategories. For example, the subcategorization approach that EPA has used for analyses supporting today's final rule incorporates printed wiring board job shops in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory ( as opposed to the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory, as proposed) and places printed wiring assembly facilities in the General Metals subcategory ( see 67 FR 38756). As discussed in the NODA, EPA also considered an additional subcategory for facilities that primarily perform zinc electroplating (`` zinc platers''). Depending on whether or not these facilities operate as a captive or a job shop, EPA had proposed to include them as part of the General Metals or Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategories, respectively. The NODA explained that EPA was also considering: ( 1) Creating a separate subcategory for zinc platers; ( 2) segmenting zinc platers within the General Metals and Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategories for zinc platers; or ( 3) retaining the proposed subcategory structure and establishing numerical limitations and standards for zinc that would be achievable by zinc platers ( see 67 FR 38756). Commentors on the NODA supported retaining the proposed subcategories as long as the record demonstrated that zinc platers could achieve the zinc numerical limitations and standards. They raised concerns that creating a separate subcategory or segment to address the limitations for one pollutant would be confusing and difficult to implement. EPA did not create a separate subcategory or segment for zinc platers in evaluating the data for the final rule. These zinc platers remain subject to parts 413 and/ or 433. Also, as discussed in the NODA, EPA considered establishing the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory for wastewater discharges resulting from: ( 1) Steel forming and finishing operations ( e. g., cold forming on steel wire, rod, bar, pipe, and tube); and ( 2) continuous electroplating of flat steel products ( e. g., strip, sheet, and plate). EPA re examined its database for facilities that perform continuous steel electroplating, and found that, contrary to its initial finding, continuous electroplaters do not perform operations similar to other facilities in this VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25691 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations subcategory ( i. e., steel forming and finishing facilities performing cold forming on steel wire, rod, bar, pipe, and tube). Thus, EPA included continuous electroplaters performing electroplating and coating operations in the General Metals subcategory for analyses supporting today's final rule. Finally, as explained in section IV. B, based on comments and revisions to analytical databases, the Agency reevaluated its technical and economic analyses for the final rule. EPA performed its re evaluation of all proposed subcategories. As a result of this assessment, EPA decided to only establish effluent guidelines for the Oily Wastes subcategory.

2. Summary of Regulatory Decisions The analyses for today's final rule incorporate database changes, additional data, and methodological changes as discussed in the NODA and in section IV. B of today's preamble. Based on EPA's analyses for today's final rule, EPA is establishing limitations and standards for one of the subcategories listed in the January 2001 proposed rule. For others, EPA has concluded that national limitations and standards are not warranted. In addition, EPA is not establishing pretreatment standards for existing or new sources for any of the subcategories in today's rule. Some of today's limitations and standards are based on the technology options that formed the basis for the proposal while others are based on modified technology options. Table IV   1 Summarizes EPA's decisions for each subcategory considered for today's final rule and each regulatory level. Each of these decisions is further detailed in section VI of today's final rule.

TABLE IV   1.   SUMMARY OF FINAL REGULATORY DECISIONS Subcategory considered Final regulation Section of today's final rule Discharger status ( regulatory level) Selected technology option General Metals ........................................... Direct Dischargers ( BPT/ BCT/ BAT/ NSPS) No new or revised limitations or standards established. VI. A. 1   4 Indirect Dischargers ( PSES/ PSNS) .......... No new or revised standards established VI. A. 5   6 Metal Finishing Job Shop .......................... Direct Dischargers ( BPT/ BCT/ BAT/ NSPS) No revised limitations or standards established VI. B. 1   2 Indirect Dischargers ( PSES/ PSNS) .......... No revised standards established ............. VI. B. 3   4 Printed Wiring Board .................................. Direct Dischargers ( BPT/ BCT/ BAT/ NSPS) No revised limitations or standards established VI. C. 1   2 Indirect Dischargers ( PSES/ PSNS) .......... No revised standards established ............. VI. C. 3   4 Non Chromium Anodizing .......................... Direct Dischargers ( BPT/ BCT/ BAT/ NSPS) No revised limitations or standards established VI. D. 1   2 Indirect Dischargers ( PSES/ PSNS) .......... No revised standards established ............. VI. D. 3 Steel Forming & Finishing ......................... Direct Dischargers ( BPT/ BCT/ BAT/ NSPS) No revised limitations or standards established VI. E. 1   2 Indirect Dischargers ( PSES/ PSNS) .......... No revised standards established ............. VI. E. 3   4 Oily Wastes ................................................ Direct Dischargers ( BPT/ BCT/ NSPS) ....... Pollution Prevention + Chemical Emulsion Breaking + Oil Water Separation ( Option 6). VI. F. 1   4 Indirect Dischargers ( PSES/ PSNS) .......... No standards established ......................... VI. F. 5   6 Railroad Line Maintenance ........................ Direct Dischargers ( BPT/ BCT/ BAT/ NSPS) No limitations or standards established .... VI. G. 1   4 Indirect Dischargers ( PSES/ PSNS) .......... No standards established ......................... VI. G. 5 Shipbuilding Dry Dock ............................... Direct Dischargers ( BPT/ BCT/ BAT/ NSPS) No limitations or standards established .... VI. H. 1 Indirect Dischargers ( PSES/ PSNS) .......... No standards established ......................... VI. H. 2 3. Summary of Significant Applicability Decisions a. Applicability of MP& M to Certain Iron and Steel Operations EPA received comment regarding the inclusion of certain operations now subject to the Iron & Steel effluent guidelines ( 40 CFR part 420) within the proposed MP& M effluent guidelines. In the proposed MP& M rule, EPA refers to facilities with these operations as the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory. Specifically, EPA proposed to move operations that produce finished products such as bars, wire, pipe and tubes, nails, chain link fencing, and steel rope into the MP& M rule ( as the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory) from stand alone facilities, as well as from facilities that also have other operations that are currently regulated by the Iron & Steel effluent guidelines ( i. e., facilities that are making steel and producing wire and wire products and are subject to both ELGs through the combined wastestream formula). Commentors stated that these operations and resulting wastewaters are comparable to those at facilities subject to the Iron and Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines and that these discharges should remain subject to part 420 rather than today's rule. In addition, commentors stated that part 420 adequately protects the environment from discharges associated with these activities. Based on its analyses for this final rule, EPA has determined that limitations and standards for the proposed Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory based on MP& M Option 2 technology are not economically achievable. Therefore, today's final rule does not establish a Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory and accompanying limitations and standards. Thus, wastewaters generated by these operations remain subject to the Iron & Steel Manufacturing effluent limitations guidelines and standards ( 40 CFR part 420). Also, as discussed in section IV. A. 1, EPA included continuous electroplaters in the General Metals subcategory for analyses supporting today's final rule.

b. Applicability to Certain Oily Operations Today's final rule revises the proposed definition of `` oily operations'' by including additional operations ( see 67 FR 38765). EPA is incorporating into the definition of `` oily operations'' the following unit operations and any associated rinses:   Abrasive blasting;   Adhesive bonding;   Alkaline treatment without cyanide;   Assembly/ disassembly;

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25692 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations   Burnishing;   Calibration;   Electrical discharge machining;   Iron phosphate conversion coating;   Painting spray or brush ( including water curtains);   Polishing;   Thermal cutting;   Tumbling/ barrel finishing/ mass finishing/ vibratory finishing;   Washing ( finished products);   Welding; and   Wet air pollution control for organic constituents EPA notes that this revision to the oily operations definition has the effect of moving 1,550 facilities from the General Metals subcategory to the Oily Wastes subcategory. See section V. B for the complete list of oily operations subject to regulation in today's final rule. In addition, as discussed in the NODA, EPA is removing `` laundering'' from the definition of oily operations ( see 67 FR 38766). EPA does not consider wastewater discharges from laundering ( e. g., uniforms) at MP& M facilities to be process wastewater under the MP& M final rule. The inclusion of laundering in the proposed definition of oily operations was an oversight which the Agency has now corrected for the final rule. At proposal, EPA excluded bilge water ( or any other wastewater) from ships that are afloat from the scope of the rule; however, bilge water was inadvertently included in the oily operations definition in the NODA ( see 67 FR 38765). Today's final rule corrects this and removes bilge water from the definition of oily operations. Because EPA is not promulgating limitations and standards for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory, EPA also does not consider bilge water from ships in a dry dock or similar structure ( e. g., graving docks, building ways, marine railways and lift barges) a MP& M process wastewater.

c. Applicability to Certain Metal Drum Reconditioning and Cleaning Operations At proposal EPA considered whether it should include wastewater generated from unit operations performed by drum reconditioners/ cleaners to prepare metal drums for resale, reuse, or disposal in this rulemaking. These operations include chaining, caustic washing, acid cleaning, acid etching, impact deformation, leak testing, corrosion inhibition, shot blasting, and painting. In EPA's `` Preliminary Data Summary for Industrial Container and Drum Cleaning Industry'' ( EPA   821   R   02   011), EPA did not identify any metal drum reconditioning or cleaning facilities that discharge directly to surface waters. The Agency estimates that the drum reconditioning facilities are either indirect or zero or alternative dischargers. EPA solicited comment on whether these facilities would be more appropriately covered under the MP& M rule or under a new industrial category of effluent guidelines for drum reconditioners ( see 66 FR 434). Commentors stated that these operations should not be subject to MP& M because drum reconditioning/ cleaning wastewaters are more variable than MP& M wastewaters. EPA reviewed its database on drum reconditioning operations and wastewater characteristics. EPA found that its database is insufficient to evaluate the technical and economic achievability of the options considered for today's final rule. Therefore, EPA is not including drum reconditioning and cleaning operations as within the scope of this final rule.

4. Environmental Management Systems and the Pollution Prevention Alternative In the proposed rule, EPA discussed the use of a compliance alternative ( i. e., the Pollution Prevention Alternative) for indirect dischargers in the Metal Finishing Job Shop ( MFJS) subcategory ( see 66 FR 511). The Pollution Prevention ( P2) Alternative would act as a voluntary incentive for MFJS indirect dischargers that agreed to perform specific best management/ pollution prevention practices. These MFJS indirect dischargers would be allowed to meet the pretreatment standards of part 433 in lieu of meeting the more stringent pretreatment standards of the proposed MP& M rule. Because EPA is not promulgating pretreatment standards that are more stringent than those in part 433 or part 413 for those facilities covered by part 413 pretreatment standards, EPA is not promulgating today the use of a compliance alternative for metal finishing job shops. EPA notes that many metal finishing jobs shops are currently employing best management/ pollution prevention practices similar to those described in the proposal as part of the National Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program. As discussed in the NODA ( see 67 FR 38798), EPA also considered an industry suggested alternative for the General Metals subcategory based on the use of an Environmental Management System ( EMS) to mitigate economic impacts associated with today's rule. Similar in concept to the Pollution Prevention Alternative previously discussed, the EMS compliance alternative would act as a voluntary incentive for facilities that implemented an EMS which would include specific monitoring, controls, and recordkeeping. These facilities would be allowed to meet the limitations and standards of part 433 in lieu of meeting the more stringent limitations and standards of the proposed MP& M rule. EPA received several comments on the EMS compliance alternative. Some commentors were in favor of the EMS compliance alternative and stated that: ( 1) The EMS compliance alternative is an innovative tool for continually enhancing environmental regulation; ( 2) an EMS does not replace the need for regulatory enforcement, but can be used as a tool to enhance a facility's environmental performance; and ( 3) requiring ISO 14001 adds another level of compliance assurance due to independent third party auditing. Other commentors were not in favor of this EMS compliance alternative and stated that: ( 1) The administrative and enforcement burden for pretreatment control authorities would be excessive as it could result in protracted discussions regarding the adequacy of the EMS; and ( 2) the EMS compliance alternative is overly restrictive and does not allow for variability found among MP& M industries and the POTWs to which they discharge. In particular, commentors noted that requiring ISO 14001 certification is extremely expensive and would have the effect of rendering this option untenable for any small business and many larger businesses as well. EPA encourages the wide spread use of EMSs across a range of organizations and settings, with particular emphasis on adoption of EMSs to achieve improved environmental performance and compliance, pollution prevention through source reduction, and continual improvement ( see EPA Position Statement on Environmental Management Systems, May 15, 2002, DCN 17848, section 24.4). However, EPA is not promulgating an EMS based compliance alternative for facilities in the General Metals subcategory as EPA is not promulgating limitations and standards for the General Metals subcategory ( see section VI. A).

B. Decisions Regarding Methodology Sections 11 and 12 of the TDD provide detailed description of the methodologies used to develop compliance cost estimates and pollutant reductions for this final MP& M regulation. In addition, the EEBA for the final rule provides a detailed description of the economic impacts VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25693 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations and environmental benefits analyses and methodologies. This section of today's final rule summarizes the changes to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model and the changes in the economic impacts and benefits analyses methodologies. This section also discusses EPA's decisions regarding selection of facilities with `` BAT'' treatment technologies.

1. Changes to the EPA Cost & Loadings Methodology for MP& M Options a. General Methodology Changes Based on comments to the proposed rule and considerations discussed in the NODA ( see 67 FR 38756), EPA made significant changes to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model used to estimate compliance costs and pollutant reductions at the national level for the technology options considered for today's final rule. EPA included all of the changes identified in the NODA ( e. g., review of survey discharge status and reviewed additional industrysupplied data) into the analyses for the final rule. EPA also stated in the NODA that we would also examine other potential changes in response to comments after publication of the NODA but before the final rule ( see DCN 17804, section 16.0). This section provides additional information on EPA's final analyses with respect to these potential changes and any changes identified by NODA comments.

b. Assignment of Treatment in Place ( TIP) Credit EPA developed a computerized Cost & Loadings Model to estimate compliance costs and pollutant loadings for the various technology options. EPA estimates the baseline pollutant loadings ( i. e., pollutant loading prior to compliance with the MP& M regulations) from model facilities based on actual TIP at those facilities as determined by the site's response to EPA's questionnaire. EPA calculates the pollutant loads removed by the technology option under consideration as the difference between the pollutant loadings estimated for the option and the pollutant loadings estimated for the baseline conditions. In general, commentors stated that EPA failed to extend proper TIP credit to facilities in the MP& M survey questionnaire database and overestimated pollutant discharge loadings. Based on comments received on the proposal and NODA, EPA has reevaluated its assignment of TIP credit used for estimating baseline pollutant loadings for the final rule and has concluded that additional technologies are equivalent ( or better than) the BAT technology options in the proposal and the NODA. In the NODA, EPA assumed that endof pipe ion exchange would achieve cyanide removals equivalent to alkaline chlorination, a proposed BAT technology basis. Therefore, EPA set cyanide treatment credit for process lines with ion exchange as equivalent to alkaline chlorination. Commentors requested that EPA also provide credit for in process ion exchange for cyanide removal and for metals removal. EPA reviewed the information supporting these comments and concluded that ion exchange, whether in process or end ofpipe would provide pollutant reductions that are equivalent to the corresponding BAT technology option. Therefore, for the analyses supporting the final rule, EPA provided TIP credit for all streams receiving end of pipe or in process ion exchange treatment for cyanide and metals. EPA also reviewed its NODA assumptions regarding TIP credit for gravity thickening and filter presses. In the NODA, EPA assumed that facilities with sludge thickening or a filter press had both components in place. Upon closer review of the survey questionnaires, EPA finds that facilities may pump their sludge directly from a clarifier to a filter press without using a sludge thickening step. Consequently, EPA no longer assumes all facilities using filter presses also operate gravity thickeners. EPA notes that it is equating `` sludge thickening tanks'' and `` sludge dryers'' with gravity thickening. For facilities indicating only gravity thickening or filter press, EPA has estimated costs associated with the addition of the necessary equipment. At proposal EPA did not assume that facilities that indicated some form of oily wastewater treatment ( e. g., oilwater separator) would be performing chemical emulsion breaking ( and receive TIP credit for chemical emulsion breaking) prior to oil water separation if they have emulsified oils. For the final rule analyses, EPA reviewed all questionnaires to ensure that the same TIP assignments were given to Phase I and Phase II questionnaire facilities. Based on this review, EPA is assuming for the final rule that facilities that indicated some form of oily wastewater treatment ( e. g., oil water separator) are performing chemical emulsion breaking prior to oil water separation if they have emulsified oils. c. Pollutant Loadings Baseline for MP& M Options for Metal Bearing Wastewater Subcategories EPA received many comments on its estimation of baseline pollutant loadings and reductions for the various options. For treated streams, EPA estimated zero pollutant removals for pollutants that are already present in low concentrations ( i. e., are present at a concentration below the technology option long term average ( LTA). For untreated streams, EPA estimated baseline loadings and pollutant removals based on unit operation pollutant concentrations, and did not adjust for local or Federal regulatory limits on the facility. Many commentors were concerned that EPA's use of unit operation specific average concentrations to model the concentration of untreated wastewater streams would overestimate current pollutant loadings at facilities, particularly those currently regulated by parts 413 or 433 and at facilities that do not treat their wastewaters due to low initial concentrations. In the NODA, EPA presented information on corrections and other revisions made to the costs and pollutant loadings model, and solicited comment on a sensitivity analysis which assumed at baseline that all MP& M facilities currently regulated by existing effluent guidelines ( i. e., 40 CFR parts 413 and 433) are not discharging pollutant concentrations above their applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards ( see 67 FR 38762). For the final rule, EPA implemented two strategies to estimate baseline loadings and removals more accurately for untreated, low concentration streams at model facilities. First, EPA evaluated discharge monitoring report ( DMR) data available for direct discharger model facilities. If all pollutant concentrations measured, as indicated from the DMR data, were below the technology option limits, EPA estimated zero pollutant removals for the model facility. Second, EPA considered regulatory limits on the model facility. EPA assumed the pollutant concentrations discharged from each stream at sites regulated under part 433 were at least meeting the monthly average limits set by part 433. Table IV   2 summarizes the new method and how EPA estimated baseline pollutant concentrations for its pollutant reduction estimates associated with the final rule MP& M technology options.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25694 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations TABLE IV   2.   CURRENT POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS USED TO ESTIMATE POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MP& M TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS 433 regulated parameters 433 unregulated parameters Treated Wastewater Streams ............................. LTAs from part 433 .......................................... LTAs from Technology Option 2 of Today's rule. Untreated Wastewater Streams Regulated by 413 or 433. Monthly Average Limitations from part 433 ..... Concentrations from Subcategory Specific Unit Operations Data. Untreated Wastewater Not Regulated by 413 or 433. Concentrations from Subcategory Specific Unit Operations Data. Concentrations from Subcategory Specific Unit Operations Data.

Note: See Section VI and Section 9 of the TDD for further discussion of Technology Option 2. Note: EPA assigns Option 2 LTAs to all wastewater streams for all pollutant to model facilities TIP equal to or greater than BAT treatment For the final rule, EPA assumed that facilities currently treating their wastewater discharges ( regardless of their regulatory status) operate their wastewater treatment systems to achieve the long term average concentrations of the part 433 regulations. Furthermore, in the case of pollutants of concern not regulated in part 433, EPA made the conservative assumption that facilities with wastewater treatment operate their wastewater treatment systems to achieve the long term average concentrations for such pollutants from MP& M Option 2 ( see section VI and section 9 of the TDD for further discussion of Technology Option 2). For untreated streams at facilities currently regulated by parts 413 or 433 for the parameters regulated by part 433, EPA assumed for its evaluations for the final rule that facilities achieve the monthly average limitation of part 433. As discussed in the NODA, EPA concluded it is appropriate to use the monthly average limitation, as opposed to the long term average concentration, for streams that are not being treated or for parameters that are not being targeted for treatment. Finally, for untreated streams ( regardless of regulatory status) for the parameters not regulated by part 433, and for regulated parameters for untreated streams at facilities not subject to parts 413 or 433, EPA has assumed the baseline concentrations are equivalent to the raw waste load using subcategory specific unit operations data. For all direct discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory, EPA has assumed the facilities achieve permit limits for non conventional pollutants Chemical Oxygen Demand ( COD), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ( TKN), and Ammonia as Nitrogen ( NH3 N). EPA received several comments that the Agency overestimated concentrations of COD. While this parameter is not regulated by Parts 413 or 433, comments stated that it is typically regulated in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits. Additionally, EPA notes that COD removals had a significant impact on the cost and removal comparison ratio ($/ lbremoved for the General Metals subcategory. While these parameters are also not regulated by Parts 413 or 433, limits for these parameters are found in EPA's Permit Compliance System ( PCS). To reduce overestimation of pollutant removals for COD, TKN, and NH3 N, EPA did not allow the pollutant concentrations discharged from the facility to exceed permit limits. EPA modeled the limits based on data from EPA's Permit Compliance System ( PCS) for these types of facilities. Because EPA could not determine which sites in PCS were MP& M sites, for the purposes of this analysis, EPA calculated the average permit limit concentrations for process wastewater discharged from each facility in the 3000 series of SIC codes. Based on these data, EPA set the maximum concentration for the commingled MP& M wastewater discharged from each model site at 175, 35.67, and 19.3 milligrams per liter ( mg/ L) for COD, TKN, and NH3 N, respectively ( see DCN 17846, section 24.7).

d. Unit Operations Data EPA used unit operations data from the questionnaires, sampling episodes, and commentors data, to estimate baseline pollutant loading for some untreated wastewaters at certain facilities. As described in section IV. B. 1, and as discussed in the NODA ( see 67 FR 38756), in response to proposal commentors, EPA changed its proposal methodology to account for subcategoryspecific differences in pollutant concentrations for the same unit operations. EPA received additional comments on the unit operations data from commentors on the NODA. In particular, comments on the NODA focused on three specific areas: ( 1) Requests to subdivide the `` testing'' unit operation to better reflect various types of testing wastewaters; ( 2) requests to remove additional `` outliers'' from the data set used to estimate the average pollutant concentrations for certain unit operation; and ( 3) requests to reevaluate the ratio of pollutant concentrations in unit operation baths and the corresponding rinse. For direct dischargers, EPA also compared the baseline pollutant loadings from the pollutant loading model to available Discharge Monitoring Report ( DMR) data ( see section IV. B. 2. b). For the proposed rule, EPA combined testing unit operations from wastewater sampling of hydraulic testing, hydrostatic testing, dye penetrant testing, and alpha case detection into a single pollutant concentration set for the `` testing'' unit operation ( UP   42). Commentors explained that EPA should not group all testing operations together because these operations produce nonsimilar wastewaters. For example, commentors noted that dye penetrant testing produces wastewater with high pollutant concentrations while hydrostatic testing produces wastewater with low pollutant concentrations, but very large flows. For today's final rule, EPA reevaluated its data sets. EPA has concluded that it should divide the testing unit operations into subcategoryspecific unit operations. Furthermore, EPA found no clear indication that facilities continue to perform alpha case detection. Consequently, EPA's final database included separate, subcategory specific data for two testing operations: Hydrostatic and dye penetrant. EPA reviewed each survey questionnaire and made a case by case determination of which of the two types of testing is being performed at a site ( if any). See section 12 of the TDD for more information. EPA has also addressed commentors concerns regarding the ratio of pollutant concentrations in unit operation baths ( e. g., electroplating baths) and their corresponding rinses. EPA has reviewed all bath rinse pairs and ensured for the final analysis that the data used do not include any cases where a rinse is more concentrated than its bath.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25695 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations e. Site Specific Data Revisions for Survey Facilities EPA revised its questionnaire database to reflect detailed comments provided about specific facilities in EPA's questionnaire database. EPA uses information about facilities in the questionnaire database to estimate various costs and benefits ( e. g., compliance costs, pollutant reductions, economic impacts, non water quality environmental impacts). For example, in some cases facilities that did not provide flow or production data for certain wastestreams at the time they submitted their questionnaire provided such information in their comments on the proposal or NODA. In other cases, facilities provided updated information about their: ( 1) Unit operations ( e. g., whether they currently have these UPs); ( 2) regulatory status ( e. g., whether they were currently covered by parts 413 or 433 regulations); ( 3) wastewater discharge status ( i. e., direct, indirect, or zero discharger); and ( 4) wastewater treatment technology. As noted in section 3 of the TDD, EPA conducted several surveys, with the two major surveys occurring in 1990 and 1996. For proposal and NODA analyses EPA used both 1990 and 1996 as reference years to estimate costs and benefits associated with the various regulatory options. These two survey efforts provided information about the MP& M industry at two different times ( i. e., 1990 and 1996). Commentors suggested that EPA rely on more recent information and gave specific comments updating information concerning some facilities surveyed in the Phase I survey effort. EPA is using the later survey year, 1996, as the base year for the questionnaire database to more accurately reflect current conditions in the MP& M industry. EPA incorporated information about specific facilities from commentors into the questionnaire database when the information reflected facility conditions at or prior to 1996. EPA did not incorporate information from commentors into its questionnaire database when the information reflected facility conditions post 1996. When commentors provided post 1996 information, EPA did, however, use this information for a sensitivity analysis for all subcategories where it is promulgating limitations or new source standards to assess recent trends in the industry. See DCN 17843, section 24.6.2, of the record for results and discussion of this sensitivity analysis.

f. Site Discharge Destination EPA solicited comment in the NODA on its methodology for categorizing a facility as either a direct discharger ( to surface water), an indirect discharger ( to a POTW), or a zero or alternative discharger ( no wastewater is discharged) based on its questionnaire database. Facilities that are zero or alternative dischargers do not incur costs to comply with the regulation. For the January 2001 proposal and NODA, EPA identified direct dischargers as facilities that discharge any MP& M process wastewater to surface waters and calculated compliance costs and pollutant loadings and reductions for all MP& M process wastewaters as direct discharges. Commentors said that EPA should alter its methodology to allow facilities multiple discharge destinations rather than only assign a facility to a single category or discharge destination ( i. e., allow facilities with some streams discharging to a POTW and other streams to surface waters). Commentors also noted that EPA had misclassified some indirect dischargers as direct dischargers and provided examples. EPA agrees with commentors that its methodology should address facilities with multiple wastewater discharge destinations. Consequently, EPA revised its methodology for the final rule to allow facilities that have multiple discharge destinations to be `` split.'' For the purposes of estimating compliance costs and pollutant reductions, `` splitting'' a site means that EPA runs only those process wastewater streams that are discharged to the POTW through the EPA Cost & Loadings Model for indirect dischargers and runs only those process wastewater ( not stormwater) streams that are discharged directly to surface waters through the model for direct dischargers. In addition to those facilities identified by commentors, EPA reviewed survey questionnaires for all facilities with multiple discharge destinations to determine if they should be designated as direct, indirect, or split ( see DCN 17825, section 24.6.2). In addition, in response to the comments that EPA incorrectly classified some facilities as direct dischargers, EPA also reviewed survey questionnaires for all facilities it had previously designated as direct to confirm their discharge status ( see DCN 17826, section 24.6.2). This review altered the discharge status of a number of facilities ( see section 11 of the final TDD for additional discussion of EPA's review). EPA's databases for the final rule reflects these changes. EPA also reviewed all direct discharges to ensure that EPA did not consider stormwater as a MP& M process wastewater in its analysis of compliance costs and pollutant loadings.

g. Monitoring Costs EPA revised its monitoring cost estimate for today's final rule to reflect the final list of regulated pollutants and monitoring frequencies. For example, as discussed in section IV. B of the NODA ( see 67 FR 38767) and section 7 of the TDD, EPA is not regulating total sulfide, molybdenum, manganese, tin, or toxic organics. See section 11 of the TDD for today's final rule for a detailed discussion of EPA's monitoring cost estimates for each subcategory.

2. Methodology for Determining Cost & Loadings for the 433 Upgrade Options In the NODA, EPA also discussed alternative options, `` 413 to 433 Upgrade Option'' and `` All to 433 Upgrade Option,'' and an associated simplified cost and loadings analysis for these upgrade options. EPA provided estimates of compliance costs, pollutant reductions, economic impacts and costeffectiveness based on this simplified analysis. For today's final rule, EPA revised its upgrade option methodology and performed a more detailed analysis of compliance costs and pollutant reductions, incorporating many of the comments received on the NODA as previously discussed.

a. Determining Regulatory Status EPA reviewed the regulatory status for each survey questionnaire ( i. e., to confirm whether a given facility was currently regulated by part 413, part 433, both, or neither). Based on the applicability section of part 413 and 433 ( see 40 CFR 413.01 and 433.11( c) and ( d)), EPA concluded that currently all surveyed facilities included in the database for the proposed Metal Finishing Job Shop and Printed Wiring Board subcategories are regulated by part 413 and/ or part 433. EPA first used the date operations began at the facility ( as reported in the survey questionnaire) to identify the appropriate regulation. EPA assumed a facility was subject to part 433 if it began operations after 1982 because part 413 only applies to indirect discharging facilities operating before 1982. Next, EPA reviewed effluent discharge data from the remaining facilities to determine if the facility was discharging MP& M process wastewater. Finally, for facilities for which EPA does not have effluent discharge data, EPA called the site or its control authority to determine the regulatory status.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25696 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations b. Revised Methodology for Estimating Pollutant Loadings and Reductions: Upgrade Options EPA developed a methodology to estimate the baseline pollutant loadings at facilities that would be affected by the upgrade: ( 1) facilities currently regulated by 413 only; and ( 2) facilities regulated by local limits or general pretreatment standards only ( i. e., `` local limits'' facilities). EPA also performed a sensitivity analyses on facilities regulated by both parts 413 and 433. Facilities `` regulated by local limits and general pretreatment standards only'' also include facilities regulated by other effluent guidelines except parts 413 or 433. EPA notes that facilities currently regulated by only part 433 would not be affected by the upgrade and EPA did not project pollutant removals or compliance costs for them. EPA's pollutant loadings methodology also distinguishes between `` small'' and `` large'' platers currently regulated by part 413. Part 413 defines small platers as facilities discharging less than 10,000 gallons/ day of process wastewater. When the part 413 regulations were promulgated, EPA made provisions to accommodate the economic condition of `` small'' platers by reducing the numbers of regulated metals and allowing an alternative requirements for cyanide, as amenable to alkaline chlorination instead of total cyanide. Consequently, EPA adjusted its pollutant loadings methodology for the upgrade options to account for the additional parameters that small platers would need to treat ( see section 9 of the final TDD for details on EPA's methodology for small platers). For treated streams at affected facilities, EPA revised methodology assumes the facilities operate their wastewater treatment systems to achieve the LTAs from part 413. This is consistent with EPA's guidance that facilities use LTAs ( rather than limitations or standards) as a `` target'' to design their treatment systems. For untreated streams at affected facilities, EPA used the 4 day average limit for part 413. As discussed in the NODA, EPA concludes this is appropriate because these facilities are complying with existing standards at the end ofpipe In estimating toxic pollutant reductions for the upgrade options, EPA compared the baseline loadings for affected facilities to the resulting loadings if these affected facilities treated their wastewater to achieve the long term average concentrations ( for existing sources) for part 433. For facilities in the General Metals subcategory that are not regulated by either part 413 or part 433 ( i. e., `` local limits facilities''), EPA altered its NODA methodology to incorporate actual local limits data and to include analysis of other pollutant parameters ( e. g., COD). Although EPA could not obtain actual local limits for all facilities, EPA gathered local limits data from 213 POTWs in 7 EPA Regions to develop national median local limit values. See DCN 17844, section 24.7, of the record for a listing of the data and the median value for each parameter. EPA used half the national median local limit values to approximate long term average concentrations for all treated streams. EPA used the national median for all parameters regulated by part 413 in untreated streams. EPA applied the raw waste load based on the subcategoryspecific unit operations data for all other parameters in untreated streams. EPA then estimated the pollutant loading reductions as described in the previous paragraph. In the NODA, EPA considered two different upgrade options for indirect dischargers in the General Metals, Printed Wiring Boards, and Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategories. The first option upgrades all facilities regulated by part 413 ( including both large and small platers) to meet part 433 standards. The second option upgrades only large platers regulated by part 413 and facilities not regulated by parts 413 or 433 ( regulated by local limits) to meet part 433 standards. EPA rejected these upgrade options for existing indirect dischargers as: ( 1) Greater than 10% of existing indirect dischargers not covered by part 433 are projected to close at the upgrade option; or ( 2) the incremental compliance costs of the upgrade options were too great in terms of toxic removals ( cost effectiveness values ( in 1981$) in excess of $ 420/ PE). See section VI for further discussion on these upgrade options for the General Metals, Printed Wiring Boards, and Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategories. For direct dischargers, EPA also compared the baseline pollutant loadings from the pollutant loading model to available Discharge Monitoring Report ( DMR) data reflecting the measured values for the permitted parameters. EPA obtained DMR data for eighteen surveyed direct discharging facilities in EPA's questionnaire database for the General Metals subcategory. The MP& M model approach utilizing the revised baseline method used for the final rule, calculates lower baseline loadings for twelve of these eighteen direct discharging facilities than the loadings reported in DMR data ( see DCN 17851, section 24.7). Based on this analysis, EPA has concluded that the MP& M model approach utilizing the revised baseline method used for the final rule does not excessively over or underestimate baseline pollutant loadings and EPA's use of this model approach for today's final rule is a reasonable and appropriate basis for today's regulatory determinations.

c. TIP Changes for Upgrade In evaluating the upgrade options analyzed for the final rule, EPA also provided TIP credit for hydroxide precipitation and clarification treatments for metal bearing facilities that use dissolved air flotation ( DAF) for metals removal ( e. g., settling). However, EPA notes that TIP credit for hydroxide precipitation and clarification credit to metal bearing facilities using DAF for metals removal was not provided in evaluating options to achieve the more stringent proposed MP& M limits. EPA is concerned that DAF alone would not achieve the long term average concentrations associated with the limitations and standards considered for the subcategories discharging metalbearing wastewaters. Therefore, EPA included costs associated with installing hydroxide precipitation and clarification at these facilities for the final rule.

d. Revised Compliance Cost Estimates for Upgrade Analyses Based on comments to the NODA and subsequent discussions with industry representatives, EPA revised its analysis for estimating the cost of compliance for upgrading facilities to meet the part 433 existing source limitations and standards. Section 11 of the final TDD describes EPA's final methodology in detail. In addition to the costs included in the NODA analysis, EPA's final methodology also includes costs to:   Increase the size of the treatment train ( e. g., holding tanks, clarifier, gravity thickening, filter press) to treat additional wastewater ( which had pollutant concentrations below the part 413 standards but not low enough to meet the option limits without treatment);   Increase the amount of treatment chemicals to account for treating additional wastewaters and more stringent LTAs;   Increase sludge handling and disposal costs due to the treatment of additional streams as well as the more stringent long term averages in part 433;   Install and operate additional automated controls such as ORP meters and pH meters;   Provide additional operator training; and VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25697 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations   Increase analytical monitoring costs for small platers to monitor for the additional pollutants covered by part 433.

3. Revisions to Economic & Benefits Methodologies For the final rule, EPA incorporated several important revisions to the economic impact and benefits methodologies from the NODA. Section V of the NODA provides a detailed discussion of all changes incorporated in the economic impact and benefits analyses after publication of the proposed MP& M rule ( see 67 FR 38752). In addition, based on NODA comments the Agency further refined the moderate impact analysis. As previously discussed, the Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis ( EEBA) for the final rule provides a complete discussion of economic impact and benefits methodologies used in the final rule analyses.

a. Revisions Incorporated in the Economic Impact Methodology From the NODA The major changes to the economic impact analyses incorporated from the NODA include: ( 1) Use of sector specific thresholds for the moderate impact analysis tests ( redefined in part c of this section); ( 2) use of a single test, based on net present value, to assess the potential for closures ( this test excludes consideration of liquidation values for all MP& M facilities, including the 219 facilities that reported them in their response to the MP& M survey); and ( 3) use of estimated baseline capital outlays in the calculation of cash flow for the net present value test. Other changes to the economic impact methodology include: ( 1) Use of revised cost passthrough coefficients; ( 2) use of sectorspecific price indices in updating survey data; ( 3) adjusting labor costs for facilities that report abnormally high labor costs; and ( 4) limiting postcompliance tax shields to no greater than reported baseline taxes.

b. Using Multiple Years of Data To Estimate Sector Specific Moderate Impact Threshold Values As part of its facility impact analysis, the Agency assesses whether facilities may incur moderate financial impacts   financial stress short of closure   from regulatory compliance. To assess the occurrence of moderate impacts, the Agency analyzes the change in two financial measures   ( 1) Pre Tax Return on Assets ( PTRA); and ( 2) Interest Coverage Ratio ( ICR)   against threshold values ( e. g., after tax compliance costs as a percentage of annual revenues) indicating weak, but still viable, financial performance. At proposal, EPA used single threshold values of the financial measures for all MP& M sectors. Commentors argued that EPA used thresholds without providing any supporting information regarding their predictive value, the threshold values chosen, or their applicability. EPA finds that using threshold values that vary by industry better reflects the differences in business risks and operating circumstances by industry, and will provide more robust analysis of moderate impacts. In response to comments, EPA revised this approach for the NODA to use threshold values that varied by MP& M sector. For the NODA, EPA also considered using an alternative financial measure   Pre Tax Operating Margin   instead of PTRA for the moderate impact analysis. Since the NODA, EPA continued to review its moderate impact analysis methodology, and for the final rule analysis, decided to retain the financial impact measures used at proposal: PTRA and ICR. Pre tax return on assets provides stronger insight into operating financial performance and is a better indicator of a business' ability to attract capital and remain viable than operating margin. However, in contrast to the NODA, EPA decided to use multiple years of data for developing the threshold values for the final rule. Using multiple years of data increases the number of observations on which the moderate impact thresholds are based and reduces the likelihood that threshold values will reflect anomalous conditions that could arise from using only a single year of data. EPA calculated the thresholds using income and financial structure information by 4 digit SIC code from the Risk Management Association ( RMA) Annual Statement Studies for eight years from 1994 to 2001. The RMA data set provides quartile values derived from statements of commercial bank borrowers and loan applicants for firms having less than $ 250 million in total assets. EPA used the lowest 25 percentile values, by industry, from the RMA data set as the basis for the moderate impact thresholds. The RMA data set captures a limited industry segment, because the data set likely omits firms with too weak financial performance to seek bank loans and also omits firms that use the public securities markets or other non bank sources to obtain capital. However, it is difficult to know what kind of bias, if any, is introduced into the analysis by these limitations. On balance, because EPA used impact thresholds based on the 25th percentile of values reported for borrowers and loan applicants, EPA estimates that the basis for the moderate impact thresholds is conservative   i. e., we are more likely to err in finding that a business is in moderate financial stress than in finding that a facility is not in moderate financial stress. EPA notes that RMA did not provide data for all 4 digit SIC codes associated with an MP& M sector. Therefore, for sectors with missing data for some 4 digit SIC codes, EPA calculated the weighted average of threshold values based only on those 4 digit SIC codes for which data were provided. This treatment assumes that the financial characteristics of the omitted SIC code segments are the same as the weighted average of SIC code segments that were included in the analysis for a given MP& M sector. See Chapter 5 of the EEBA for the final rule for a detailed discussion of the analysis of moderate impacts.

c. Revisions Incorporated in the Benefits Methodology from the NODA Major revisions to the benefits methodology incorporated from the NODA include: ( 1) Changes to the human health methodology; ( 2) use of a weight of evidence approach in evaluating national benefit estimates; and ( 3) use of revised models in the Ohio case study analysis. EPA also uses revised data on characteristics of POTWs receiving discharges from the sample MP& M facilities, as discussed in the NODA. Two revisions to the human health benefits methodology incorporated from the NODA include: ( 1) Use of revised assumptions and updated model parameters in the analysis of neurological effects from lead exposure in preschool children; and ( 2) use of a revised drinking water intake database for estimating human health effects from consumption of contaminated drinking water. The Agency did not incorporate cancer effects from exposure to lead in the final rule analysis because these effects appeared negligible. The use of the weight of evidence approach for estimating national benefits is one of the most important revisions to the benefits methodology incorporated from the NODA. As discussed in the NODA, EPA traditionally estimates national level costs and benefits by extrapolating analytic results from sample facilities to the national level using sample facility survey weights. These sample facility weights are based on sample facility characteristics only and do not account for characteristics of water bodies receiving discharges from the sample MP& M facilities or for the size of the VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25698 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations population residing in the vicinity of the sample MP& M facilities. These additional variables, however, are likely to affect the occurrence and size of benefits associated with reduced discharges from MP& M facilities. Omission of benefit related characteristics in designing the original sample frame may lead to conditional bias in benefit estimates. To validate the general conclusions that EPA draws from its main analysis based on the traditional benefit estimation method, EPA also estimated national level benefits for the final rule using two alternative extrapolation methods. Detailed discussion of the alternative extrapolation methods can be found in the NODA ( see 67 FR 38752), section IX. E and F of this preamble, and in the EEBA for the final rule. As discussed in the NODA, EPA submitted its case study analysis of recreational benefits for an official peer review. The peer review was favorable and concluded that EPA had done a competent job. Peer reviewers, however, provided several suggestions for further improvements in the analysis. The Agency made most of the recommended changes to the Ohio model, as discussed in the NODA ( see 67 FR 38752). This revised model is used in the analysis supporting today's final rule. However, EPA did not include multiple day trips in the benefit estimates from improvements in recreational opportunities due to reduced MP& M discharges, as it was suggested by the peer reviewers. The Ohio case study focuses on single day trips because data for single day trips are more complete and because the majority of recreational trips are single day trips. Thus, EPA estimated changes in per trip values from improved water quality for single day trips only. The Agency decided not to approximate welfare gain to participants in multi day recreational trips based on the singleday trip values because multi day recreational trips are likely to differ from single day trips for a number of reasons: overnight trips may include multiple purposes and destinations; the individual chooses not only to take a trip and the trip's destination, but the length of the trip; and the length of stay has costs that are not connected to travel costs. The Agency acknowledges that excluding multiple day trips from this analysis is likely to result in understatement of benefits from water quality improvements. Detailed discussion of the Ohio case study can be found in the EEBA for the final rule. EPA did not incorporate changes to the recreational benefits methodology used in the national level analysis from the NODA. In estimating benefits from improved boating and wildlife viewing opportunities for the final rule, EPA considers only individuals taking single day trips due to insufficient data on per multi day trip benefits from water quality improvements. Both individuals taking single day trips and those who take multiple day trips to local water bodies were considered in the NODA analysis of recreational benefits. Similarly to the Ohio case study, excluding multiple day trips from the national analysis is likely to result in understatement of recreational benefits from water quality improvements.

d. POTW Administrative Cost and POTW Benefits Analyses EPA received several comments to the proposal on the use of EPA's 1997 POTW survey in the analysis of POTW administrative costs and benefits from improved quality of sewage sludge. Commentors stated that EPA overestimated pollutant loadings, economic benefits, and environmental benefits associated with improved sludge quality. Commentors also stated that EPA underestimated the administrative costs associated with implementing the rule. They provided new information on POTW characteristics which EPA used to revise assumptions and its analysis of POTW administrative costs and benefits for the final rule. Specifically, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies ( AMSA) provided EPA with comments on the proposed MP& M rule and supplemented these comments with a spreadsheet database. The database contains data from an AMSA formulated survey and covers responses from 176 POTWs, representing 66 pretreatment programs. The AMSA survey was conducted to verify data from EPA's survey of POTWs, and therefore, included similar, although fewer, variables compared to EPA's survey. EPA used some of the data provided in AMSA's survey to revise its own analyses of POTW administrative costs of the proposed MP& M rule. Elements of the administrative cost analysis include: ( 1) The estimated number of indirect dischargers; and ( 2) the unit costs of certain permitting activities, including permit implementation, sampling, and sample analysis. EPA found that although AMSA estimates of the number of indirect dischargers and the unit costs of permitting activities are consistent with the EPA's estimates used for the proposed rule analysis, their estimate neglected to take into account that not all MP& M indirect discharging facilities would have been required to meet the proposed standards. DCN 37500, section 25.4.1, provides comparisons between AMSA's and EPA's estimates. EPA added to its analysis using the AMSA data include: ( 1) Screening costs for POTWs that do not currently operate under a pretreatment program; and ( 2) oversight costs associated with implementing various regulatory options. The revised methodology for POTW administrative costs analysis is presented in EEBA Appendix F. EPA also used the AMSA data to revise the POTW benefits methodology. Elements of the POTW benefits analysis EPA verified using the AMSA survey include: ( 1) Percentage of metal loadings contributed by MP& M facilities; and ( 2) the number of MP& M facilities served by POTWs. AMSA also provided additional information on the number of POTWs ( and percentage of total annual dry metric tons of POTW biosolids) currently meeting metals limitations in the `` Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge,'' ( 40 CFR part 503), and reasons why POTWs may choose to not land apply biosolids. These nationally applicable standards set the general requirements, management practices, operational standards and monitoring and reporting requirements for the final use and disposal of biosolids. AMSA's survey data includes the following reasons for not land applying qualifying biosolids: ( 1) Land was not available for application of sewage biosolids; ( 2) other biosolids use/ disposal practices were less expensive than land application; ( 3) pathogen/ vector reduction requirements could not be met at an acceptable cost; and ( 4) local regulations or opposition to land application. EPA revised the POTW benefits methodology according to the results of the joint analysis of the EPA and AMSA surveys. The revised methodology for POTW benefits analyses is presented in EEBA Chapter 16.

4. Determining POTW Percent Removal Estimates As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA solicited comment on potential changes to the methodology for estimating the pollutant reduction ( i. e., percent removal) used in EPA's pass through analysis for identifying pollutants requiring pretreatment standards ( see 66 FR 476). For today's final rule, EPA has not changed the POTW pass through analysis because EPA is not promulgating any new pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25699 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations V. Scope/ Applicability of the Final Regulation A. General Overview and Wastewaters Covered As previously explained, today's final rule only applies to directly discharged wastewaters generated from oily operations at existing or new industrial facilities ( including Federal, State and local government facilities). These facilities are engaged in manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance of metal parts, products or machines to be used in one of the following industrial sectors:   Aerospace;   Aircraft;   Bus and Truck;   Electronic Equipment;   Hardware;   Household Equipment;   Instruments;   Miscellaneous Metal Products;   Mobile Industrial Equipment;   Motor Vehicle;   Office Machine;   Ordnance;   Precious Metals and Jewelry;   Railroad;   Ships and Boats; and   Stationary Industrial Equipment. EPA identified sixteen industrial sectors as comprising the MP& M category. These sectors manufacture, maintain and rebuild metal products under more than 200 different SIC codes ( see the TDD for a listing of typical SIC codes and NAICs codes). EPA is not revising limitations and standards for three proposed industrial sectors ( e. g., Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming & Finishing). Facilities in any one of the sixteen industrial sectors in the MP& M category are subject to this rule only if they directly discharge process wastewaters resulting from one or more of the following oily operations: Abrasive blasting; adhesive bonding; alkaline cleaning for oil removal; alkaline treatment without cyanide; aqueous degreasing; assembly/ disassembly; burnishing; calibration; corrosion preventive coating ( as specified at 40 CFR 438.2( c) and appendix B of part 438); electrical discharge machining; floor cleaning ( in process area); grinding; heat treating; impact deformation; iron phosphate conversion coating; machining; painting spray or brush ( including water curtains); polishing; pressure deformation; solvent degreasing; steam cleaning; testing ( e. g., hydrostatic, dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic flux); thermal cutting; tumbling/ barrel finishing/ mass finishing/ vibratory finishing; washing ( finished products); welding; wet air pollution control for organic constituents; and numerous suboperations within those listed in this paragraph. In addition, process wastewater also results from associated rinses that remove materials that the preceding processes deposit on the surface of the workpiece. These oily operations are defined in section 4 of the TDD and appendix B of today's final rule. In addition, today's final rule does not apply to direct discharges of wastewaters that are otherwise covered by other effluent limitations guidelines. As was the case at proposal, EPA defines process wastewater for the final rule to include wastewater discharges from the following activities: ( 1) Wastewater from air pollution control devices; and ( 2) washing vehicles only when it is a preparatory step prior to performing an oily operation ( e. g., prior to disassembly to perform engine maintenance or rebuilding). EPA has adopted this approach for the final rule due to the potential of these unit operations to produce significant quantities of pollutants in wastewaters ( see 66 FR 433 to 434). Not subject to this final rule are nonprocess wastewater discharges which include the following: Sanitary wastewater, non contact cooling wastewater, laundering wastewater, and non contact storm water. In addition, non process wastewater also includes wastewater discharges from nonindustrial sources such as residential housing, schools, churches, recreational parks, shopping centers, and wastewater discharges from gas stations, utility plants, and hospitals. In addition to non process wastewater, the final rule does not apply to wastewater generated from: ( 1) Gravure cylinder and metallic platemaking conducted within or for printing and publishing facilities; ( 2) bilge water on ships afloat; ( 3) electroplating type operations during semiconductor wafer manufacturing or wafer fabrication processes occurring in a `` clean room'' environment; ( 4) the washing of cars, aircraft or other vehicles when it is performed only for aesthetic/ cosmetic purposes; ( 5) MP& M operations at gasoline stations ( SIC code 5541) or vehicle rental facilities ( SIC code 7514 or 7519); or ( 6) unit operations performed by drum reconditioners/ refurbishers to prepare metal drums for reuse. The final rule does not include these non process wastewaters within the scope of the rule for the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule ( see 66 FR 433). EPA received no comments on the proposal or NODA that have caused the Agency to change its mind about the approach it proposed and has now adopted. EPA is also not promulgating limitations and standards for facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory. Today's final rule does not cover wastewater generated on board ships and boats when they are afloat ( that is, not in dry docks or similar structures), flooding water, and dry dock ballast water ( see 66 FR 445). For U. S. military ships, EPA is in the process of establishing standards to regulate discharges of wastewater generated on board these ships when they are in U. S. waters and are afloat under the Uniform National Discharge Standards ( UNDS) pursuant to section 312( n) of the CWA ( see 64 FR 25125, May 10, 1999). Finally, today's rule does not apply to maintenance or repair of metal parts, products, or machines that takes place only as ancillary activities at facilities not included in the sixteen MP& M industrial sectors. EPA estimates that these ancillary repair and maintenance activities would typically discharge de minimis quantities of process wastewater. For example, wastewater discharges from repair of metal parts at oil and gas extraction facilities are not subject to today's final rule. The Agency finds that permit writers will establish limits using best professional judgment ( BPJ) to regulate wastewater discharges from ancillary waste streams for direct dischargers ( see 66 FR 433). EPA has not received any information during the rulemaking that would contradict this conclusion.

B. Subcategorization For today's final rule, EPA is subcategorizing the MP& M point source category based on the unit operations described in more detail in section 4 of the TDD, and is establishing limitations and standards for direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory ( subpart A). The Oily Wastes subcategory applies to wastewaters generated from `` oily operations'' that are not otherwise covered by other effluent limitations guidelines. EPA has previously defined `` oily operations'' in section V. A and at 40 CFR 438.2( f) and appendix B of today's final rule. Facilities engaged in the manufacture, overhaul or heavy maintenance of railroad engines, cars, car wheel trucks, or similar parts or machines (`` railroad overhaul or heavy maintenance facilities'') typically perform different unit operations than railroad line maintenance facilities. Railroad line maintenance facilities only perform one or more of the following unit operations including; Assembly/ disassembly, floor VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25700 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations cleaning, maintenance machining ( wheel truing), touch up painting, and washing. Railroad overhaul or heavy maintenance facilities typically perform the following unit operations: Assembly/ disassembly, floor cleaning, maintenance machining ( wheel truing), touch up painting, washing, abrasive blasting, alkaline cleaning, aqueous degreasing, corrosion preventive coating, electrical discharge machining, grinding, heat treating, impact deformation, painting, plasma arc machining, polishing, pressure deformation, soldering/ brazing, stripping ( paint), testing, thermal cutting, and welding. Wastewater discharges from railroad line maintenance facilities ( as defined at 40 CFR 438.2( h)) are not subject to today's final rule. Wastewater discharges from railroad overhaul or heavy maintenance facilities ( as defined at 40 CFR 438.2( i)) may be covered by subpart A of this part, the Metal Finishing Point Source Category ( 40 CFR part 433), or by other effluent limitations guidelines, as applicable.

VI. The Final Regulation This section describes, by subcategory, the option( s) considered and selected for today's final rule. For each subcategory, EPA provides a discussion, as applicable, for the regulatory levels that EPA considered for regulation ( i. e., BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS). For a detailed discussion of all technology options considered in the development of today's final rule, see the proposal ( see 66 FR 447), the NODA ( see 67 FR 38797) or section 9 of the TDD for today's final rule. Based on the record of information supporting the final MP& M rule, EPA has determined that the selected technology for the Oily Wastes subcategory is technically available. EPA used the appropriate technologies for developing today's limitations for existing direct dischargers ( BPT and BCT) in one MP& M subcategory listed in the January 2001 proposal ( Oily Wastes). EPA has also determined that each technology it selected as the basis for the final limitations or standards has effluent reductions commensurate with compliance costs and is economically achievable for the applicable subcategory. EPA also considered the age, size, processes, and other engineering factors pertinent to facilities in the scope of the final regulation for the purpose of evaluating the technology options. None of these factors provides a basis for selecting different technologies from those EPA has selected as its technology options for today's rule ( see section 6 of the TDD for the final rule for further discussion of EPA's analyses of these factors). EPA considered the use of a low flow cutoff as the principal means for reducing economic impacts on small businesses and administrative burden for control authorities associated with certain treatment technologies it considered. EPA did not identify any regulatory scheme incorporating a lowflow cutoff for direct dischargers that would assist EPA in meeting these objectives. EPA notes that all direct dischargers require a NPDES discharge permit regardless of wastewater discharge flow volume. The new source performance standards ( NSPS) EPA is today establishing represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through the best available technology. In selecting its technology basis for today's new source standards ( NSPS) for the Oily Wastes subcategory being promulgated today, EPA considered all of the factors specified in CWA section 306, including the cost of achieving effluent reductions. EPA used the appropriate technology option for developing today's standards for new direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory. The new source technology basis for the Oily Wastes subcategory is equivalent to the technology bases upon which EPA is setting BPT and BCT ( see Chapter 9 of the EEBA). EPA has thoroughly reviewed the costs of such technologies and has concluded that such costs do not present a barrier to entry. The Agency also considered energy requirements and other nonwater quality environmental impacts for the new source technology basis and found no basis for any different standards from those selected for NSPS. Therefore, EPA concluded that the NSPS technology basis chosen for the Oily Wastes subcategory constitute the best available demonstrated control technology. For a discussion on the compliance date for new sources, see section XI of today's final rule. EPA decided not to establish limitations for existing sources for seven subcategories listed in the January 2001 proposal ( General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Boards, Non Chromium Anodizers, Steel Forming & Finishing, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Dock). EPA also decided not to establish standards for new sources for the same seven subcategories. Finally, EPA decided not to establish standards for new and existing indirect dischargers ( PSES and PSNS) for all eight subcategories listed in the January 2001 proposal. EPA's bases for not promulgating revised limitations and standards for these subcategories are explained in the following sections.

A. General Metals Subcategory EPA is not revising or establishing any limitations or standards for facilities that would have been subject to this subcategory. Such facilities will continue to be regulated by the General Pretreatment Standards ( part 403), local limits, permit limits, and parts 413 and/ or 433, as applicable.

1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available ( BPT) EPA proposed to establish BPT limitations for existing direct dischargers in the General Metals subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. EPA evaluated the cost of achieving effluent reductions, pollutant reductions, and the economic achievability of compliance with BPT limitations based on the Option 2 technology and the level of the pollutant reductions resulting from compliance with such limitations. EPA has decided not to establish BPT limitations for existing direct dischargers in the proposed General Metals subcategory. The 2001 proposal also contains detailed discussions on why EPA rejected BPT limitations based on other BPT technology options ( see 66 FR 452). The information in the record for today's final rule provides no basis for EPA to change this conclusion. EPA proposed Option 2 as a basis for establishing BPT limitations for the General Metals subcategory. Option 2 technology includes the following: ( 1) In process flow control and pollution prevention; ( 2) segregation of wastewater streams; ( 3) preliminary treatment steps as necessary ( including oils removal using chemical emulsion breaking and oil water separation, alkaline chlorination for cyanide destruction, reduction of hexavalent chromium, and chelation breaking); ( 4) chemical precipitation using sodium hydroxide; ( 5) sedimentation using a clarifier; and ( 6) sludge removal ( i. e., gravity thickening and filter press). See section 9 of the TDD for today's final rule for additional technical details on the Option 2 technology. Those facilities potentially regulated in the General Metals subcategory include facilities that are currently subject to effluent limitations guideline regulation under part 433 as well as facilities not currently subject to national regulation. Approximately 263 of the 266 existing General Metals direct dischargers ( estimated from survey weights for 31 surveyed facilities) are currently covered by the Metal VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25701 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations Finishing effluent guidelines at part 433. The remaining three facilities ( estimated from a survey weight for one surveyed facility) are currently directly discharging metal bearing wastewaters ( e. g., salt bath descaling, UP   37) but are not covered by existing Metal Finishing effluent guidelines. EPA's review of discharge monitoring data and unit operations for this surveyed non 433 General Metals facility ( with a survey weight of approximately three) indicates that this facility is already achieving part 433 limitations because this facility has discharges that closely mirror those required by part 433. The facilities that are currently subject to part 433 regulations and those facilities achieving part 433 discharge levels, in most cases, have already installed effective pollution control technology that includes many of the components of the Option 2 technology. Approximately 30 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory currently employ chemical precipitation followed by a clarifier. Further, EPA estimates that compliance with BPT limitations based on the Option 2 technology would result in no closures of the existing direct dischargers in the General Metals subcategory. EPA also notes that the adoption of this level of control would also represent a further reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by facilities in this subcategory. For facilities in the General Metals subcategory at Option 2, EPA estimates an annual compliance cost of $ 23.7 million ( 2001$). Using the method described in Table IV   2 to estimate baseline pollutant loadings, EPA estimates Option 2 pollutant removals of 417,477 pounds of conventional pollutants and 33,716 pounds of priority metal and organic pollutants from current discharges into the Nation's waters. Evaluated under its traditional yardstick, EPA calculated that the effluent reductions are achieved at a cost of $ 18.1/ pound pollutant removed ( 2001$) for the General Metals subcategory at Option 2. To estimate all pounds of pollutant removed by Option 2 technology for direct dischargers in the General Metals subcategory, EPA used the method described in Table IV   2 to estimate baseline pollutant loadings, and the sum of Chemical Oxygen Demand ( COD) pounds removed plus the sum of all metals pounds removed to measure the pollutant removal as compared to compliance costs. EPA used the combination of COD pounds removed plus the sum of all metals pounds removed to avoid any significant double counting of pollutants. As previously stated, EPA received many comments on its estimation of baseline pollutant loadings and reductions for the various options presented in the January 2001 proposal. In response to these comments, EPA solicited comment in the June 2002 NODA on alternative methods to estimate baseline pollutant loadings. Commentors on the NODA were generally supportive of EPA's alternative methods to estimate baseline pollutant loadings. In particular, commentors noted that more accurate estimates of baseline pollutant loadings could be achieved by using DMR data. In response to these NODA comments, EPA combined the alternative methods in the NODA into the EPA Cost & Loadings Model for the final rule ( see Table IV   2). EPA also received comment on the parameter or parameters it should use for estimating total pounds removed by the selected technology option. EPA selected the sum of COD and all metals pounds removed for the final rule to compare effluent reductions and compliance costs. This approach avoided any significant double counting of pollutants and also provided a reasonable estimate of total pounds removed by Option 2 for the General Metals subcategory. As more fully described in the TDD, Option 2 technology segregates wastewaters into at least five different waste streams, each of which have one or two treatment steps. For example, segregated oily wastewaters have two treatment steps under Option 2 technology as they are first treated by chemical emulsion breaking/ oil water separation and then by chemical precipitation and sedimentation. These segregated wastestreams can be loosely grouped together as either oily wastewaters or metal bearing wastewaters. EPA use of COD pounds removed for Option 2 technology generally represents the removal of pollutants from the segregated oily wastewaters. EPA use of total metals pounds removed for Option 2 technology generally represents the removal of pollutants from the segregated metal bearing wastewaters. EPA also considered alternative parameters for calculating total pounds removed by Option 2 for the comparison of effluent reductions and compliance costs for the General Metals subcategory. In particular, EPA calculated a ratio of less than $ 14/ pound pollutant removed ( 2001$) for the General Metals subcategory at Option 2 when EPA used the highest set of pollutants removed per facility with no significant double counting of pollutants ( i. e., highest per facility pollutant removals of: ( 1) COD plus total metals; ( 2) oil and grease ( as HEM) plus total metals; or ( 3) oil and grease ( as HEM) plus TSS). EPA used the highest per facility pollutant removals as a confirmation of its primary method for calculating baseline pollutant loadings ( see Table IV   2) and Option 2 for General Metals subcategory. Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, EPA has decided not to adopt BPT limitations based on Option 2 technology. A number of factors supports EPA's conclusion that BPT limitations based on Option 2 technology do not represent effluent reduction levels attainable by the best practicable technology currently available. As previously noted, a substantial number of facilities that would be subject to limitations as General Metals facilities are already regulated by BPT/ BAT part 433 limitations and other facilities are de facto part 433 facilities if characterized by their discharges. Thus, establishing BPT limitations for a new General Metals subcategory would effectively revise existing BPT/ BAT limitations with respect to those facilities. In the circumstances presented here where EPA, for a significant portion of an industry, is revising existing BPT/ BAT limitations, further review of the character and cost of the effluent reductions achieved by Option 2 is warranted in deciding what is BPT technology. Such an examination shows that, while the Option 2 technology would remove additional pollutants at costs in the middle of the range EPA has traditionally determined are reasonable, the costs of the additional removals of toxic pollutants are substantially greater. EPA has now determined that, in the circumstances of this rulemaking, where a substantial portion of a subcategory is already subject to effluent limitations guidelines that achieve significant removal, it should not promulgate BPT limitations under consideration here because the limitations would achieve additional toxic removals at a cost ($ 1,000/ PE in 1981$) substantially greater than that EPA has typically imposed for BAT technology in other industries ( generally less than $ 200/ PE in 1981$). EPA also considered transferring limitations from existing Metal Finishing effluent guidelines ( 40 CFR part 433) to the General Metals subcategory. The technology basis for part 433 includes the following: ( 1)

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 49 May 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13MYR2. SGM 13MYR2 25702 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations Segregation of wastewater streams; ( 2) preliminary treatment steps as necessary ( including oils removal using chemical emulsion breaking and oil water separation, alkaline chlorination for cyanide destruction, reduction of hexavalent chromium, and chelation breaking); ( 3) chemical precipitation using sodium hydroxide; ( 4) sedimentation using a clarifier; and ( 5) sludge removal ( i. e., gravity thickening and filter press). See section 9 of the TDD for today's final rule for additional technical details on the part 433 technology basis. Approximately 99% of the existing direct dischargers in the General Metals subcategory are currently covered by existing Metal Finishing effluent guidelines. The remaining 1% ( an estimated three facilities nationwide based on the survey weight associated with one surveyed facility) are currently permitted to discharge metal bearing wastewaters but are not covered by existing Metal Finishing effluent guidelines. EPA's review of discharge monitoring data and unit operations for this surveyed non 433 General Metals facility ( with a survey weight of approximately three) indicates that this facility is subject to permit limitations established on a BPJ basis that are equivalent or more stringent than part 433 limitations. Transferring limitations from existing Metal Finishing effluent guidelines would likely result in no additional pollutant load reductions. Therefore, based on the lack of additional pollutant removals that are estimated, EPA is not promulgating BPT limitations transferred from existing Metal Finishing effluent limitations guidelines for the General Metals subcategory. EPA is not revising or establishing BPT limitations for any facilities in this subcategory. Direct dischargers in the General Metals subcategory will remain regulated by permit limits and part 433, as applicable.

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology ( BCT) In deciding whether to adopt more stringent limitations for BCT than BPT, EPA considers whether there are technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than adopted for BPT, and whether those technologies are cost reasonable under the standards established by the CWA. EPA generally refers to the decision criteria as the `` BCT cost test.'' For a more detailed description of the BCT cost test and details of EPA's analysis, see Chapter 4 of the EEBA. As EPA is not establishing any BPT limitations for the General Metals subcategory, EPA did not evaluate any technologies for the final rule that can achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants. Consequently, EPA is not establishing BCT limitations for the General Metals subcategory.

3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable ( BAT) EPA proposed to establish BAT limitations for existing direct dischargers in the General Metals subcategory based on the Option 2 technology. As previously noted, EPA has decided not to establish BPT limitations based on Option 2 technology. The same reasons support not establishing BAT limitations based on the same technology. EPA evaluated the cost of effluent reductions, pollutant reductions, and the economic achievability of compliance with BAT limitations based on the Option 2 technology. Based on the revisions and corrections to the EPA Cost & Loadings Model discussed in the NODA and in section IV. B. 1 of today's final rule, EPA determined that the costs of Option 2 are disproportionate to the toxic pollutant reductions ( measured in pound equivalents ( PE)). The cost of achieving the effluent reduction ( in 1981$) for Option 2 for direct dischargers in the General Metals subcategory is over $ 1,000/ PE removed ( see the EEBA and DCN 37900, section 26.0, for a discussion of the costeffectiveness analysis). The costs associated with this technology are, as previously noted, substantially greater than the level EPA has traditionally determined are associated with available toxic pollutant control technology. EPA has determined that Option 2 technology is not the best available technology economically achievable for existing direct dischargers in the General Metals subcategory. EPA is not revising or establishing BAT limitations for this subcategory based Option 2 technology. EPA also considered transferring BAT limitations from existing Metal Finishing effluent guidelines ( 40 CFR 433.14) to the General Metals subcategory. EPA's reviewed existing General Metals facilities and found that all are currently achieving part 433 BAT limitations. Transferring BAT limitations from existing Metal Finishing effluent guidelines would likely result in no additional pollutant load reductions and minimal incremental compliance costs ( see section VI. A. 1). Therefore, based on the lack of additional pollutant removals that are estimated, EPA is not promulgating BAT limitations transferred from existing Metal Finishing effluent limitations guidelines for the General Metals subcategory. EPA is not revising or establishing BAT limitations for any facilities in this subcategory. Direct dischargers in the General Metals subcategory will remain regulated by permit limits and part 433, as applicable.