Search

Member Pipeline - Fax Alerts - Special Edition - June 27, 2001

Click Here
to see previous Fax Alerts

June 27, 2001

CALL FOR COMMENTS ON PROPOSED METAL PRODUCTS AND MACHINERY EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
Please Forward and Coordinate Comments With Your Pretreatment Coordinator Comments due to EPA by July 2

AMSA is providing comments on July 2, 2001 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery (MP&M) Point Source Category (66 Fed. Reg. 424, Jan. 3, 2001). AMSA has numerous concerns with EPA's proposal as outlined below. The full text of AMSA's comments can be viewed at http://www.amsa-cleanwater.org/temp/6-25-01mpandmreport.pdf.   It is imperative that EPA also receive comments by July 2, 2001 from numerous member agencies to underscore the nationwide concern with this rule. A draft letter for you to customize and submit your own agency's comments by the July 2 deadline can be downloaded electronically on the AMSA web site at http://www.amsa-cleanwater.org. More detailed instructions for commenting are included in this Alert. Your agency's submission is critical!

Background
EPA originally planned to regulate the MP&M category in two phases. Phase I, proposed in May 1995, sought to regulate only a small section of the MP&M community. At the conclusion of the phase I comment period, EPA decided to consolidate its efforts into a single regulatory proposal covering all sectors of the MP&M industry. Accordingly, the January 2001 proposal combines phase I and II, breaks the MP&M industry category into subcategories; and establishes low flow cutoffs or exclusions for certain subcategories (1 million gallons per year (MGY) cutoff for indirect dischargers in the General Metals subcategory and 2 MGY cutoff for indirect dischargers in the Oily Waste subcategory). For those facilities exceeding the low flow cutoffs, the proposed rule will significantly lower the categorical standards for current electroplating (Part 413) and metal finishing (Part 433) facilities and create thousands of new significant industrial users.


AMSA Questions EPA Cited Benefits to POTWs
EPA asserts that the January 2001 proposed rules would yield significant benefits for publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs), including:

AMSA is most concerned that EPA has underestimated the administrative burden resulting from rule implementation, and that the Agency has failed to consider many critical implementation factors.


Finding EPA POTW Survey Problematic, AMSA Conducts Own Survey
In 1996 EPA surveyed 150 POTWs with MP&M facilities in their service areas as part of its data gathering efforts for the proposal. AMSA found, however, that EPA's survey was extremely general, and that the data obtained from the survey was in many cases misinterpreted or misapplied.

Accordingly, AMSA secured the URS Corporation to re-survey the 1996 150 POTWs on which EPA based the proposal to obtain information necessary to delineate "real-world" POTW burdens and benefits associated with the proposed rules. With this new data, AMSA is able to demonstrate in our comments that the proposed MP&M rule is based on a faulty economic analysis and that the actual potential for additional pollutant reductions does not justify further regulation of the MP&M sector.

During three of EPA's four field hearings on the proposal earlier this year, AMSA members from Hampton Roads Sanitation District, VA, Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority, TX, and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, IL voiced their concerns with the rule. In their testimony, AMSA's members highlighted EPA's gross overestimate of the environmental benefit [cyanide loading, electroplater, metal finisher discharge practices, inhibition problems at POTWs, metals problems with land application of biosolids] and gross underestimate of POTW implementation costs. A copy of the testimonies can be found at: http://www.amsa-cleanwater.org/private/reg_outreach.cfm.

AMSA used the field hearing data, URS's investigation of the original survey data and our own AMSA survey to develop our comments on the proposed MP&M rules.


Highlights of AMSA Comments on Proposed MP&M Rules

1.  The following provides a brief synopsis of AMSA's points of concern and comments on the proposed MP&M regulations. The full text of AMSA's comments can be viewed at http://www.amsa-cleanwater.org/temp/6-25-01mpandmreport.pdf.

2.  EPA modeled projected inhibition benefits to POTWs instead of using real POTW influent data.

3. EPA claims MP&M pollutants impair the quality of POTW biosolids and reduce land application.

4. EPA significantly underestimated the administrative cost to POTWs of implementing the MP&M rule by making several inappropriate assumptions, including:

5. EPA used the 50 POTW and the Domestic Sewage Studies as data sources to calculated effluent guidelines, cost, biosolids inhibition, and baseline loading for pound equivalents (PEs) and other calculations.

6. EPA did not give sufficient credit for the effectiveness of local limits.


Your Comments Needed!
Because of the tremendous impact of this rule may have, it is imperative that POTWs make their voices heard. Attached is a fax back form, draft comment letter, and a copy of AMSA's comments. The comment document is still being polished. Although a few numbers may change, the message of the document will be the same. We encourage your agency to take the following steps:

We thank you for your time and effort on this important issue. If you have any questions, please contact Chris Hornback at AMSA 202/833-9106 or chornback@amsa-cleanwater.org.

 

Attachments: