Member Pipeline - Regulatory - Alert (RA 02-12)
To: Members & Affiliates, Pretreatment and Hazardous Waste Committee
From: National Office
Date: June 13, 2002
Subject: EPA PUBLISHES NOTICE OF DATA AVAILABILITY ON THE METAL PRODUCTS AND MACHINERY (MP&M) EFFLUENT GUIDELINES – REQUEST FOR MEMBER COMMENT
Reference: RA 02-12
Printer friendly versionAction Please By:
July 1, 2002
On June 5, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) on the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) Effluent Guidelines (67 Fed. Reg. 38752). The NODA releases for public comment new data collected by the Agency and received from industry groups and POTWs since the guidelines were proposed last year (66 Fed. Reg. 424; January 3, 2001). EPA is evaluating how the new data and comments received may change certain aspects of the MP&M effluent guidelines proposal, including the regulatory options considered, the estimated costs, pollutant load reductions, and financial impacts associated with the regulation. The NODA describes EPA's current thinking on these issues and presents information on how the new data may affect the final limitations and standards.
EPA will consider any comments received by July 22, 2002. AMSA will work
through its Pretreatment and Hazardous Waste Committee to compile comments on
the NODA, and we ask members to provide us with their feedback by July 1,
2002. Please refer to page 2 of this Regulatory Alert for
specific questions to focus on while reviewing the NODA. Comments should be
submitted to Chris Hornback, AMSA at
chornback@amsa-cleanwater.org.
The NODA is available on EPA’s web site at:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2002/June/Day-05/w13808.pdf.
Since EPA published the proposal in January 2001, AMSA has worked to demonstrate that the existing categorical pretreatment standards along with POTW local limits are more than adequate to control discharges from MP&M facilities. As part of our review of EPA’s proposed guidelines, AMSA re-surveyed the 150 POTWs EPA used as the basis for the proposal. AMSA’s survey revealed an under-estimation of the total administrative costs and noted that many of the estimated benefits from the proposed rule, including an improvement in biosolids quality, were overstated. Since filing comments on the proposal, AMSA has met with Agency officials on a number of occasions to further discuss these issues. AMSA’s comments on the January 2001 proposal can be obtained on the Association’s web site at: http://www.amsa-cleanwater.org/private/legreg/outreach/7-2-01mpandm.pdf.
AMSA Seeks Member Input
Based on the AMSA survey and EPA’s revised pollutant removal and
cost figures, AMSA plans to demonstrate that the existing effluent guidelines
along with POTW local limits are more than adequate for controlling discharges
from MP&M facilities. In addition, AMSA will comment on a number of other
options the Agency is considering. In support of our comment efforts, AMSA is
seeking input from its members on several key issues in the NODA.
Specifically, AMSA requests input on the following:
1.
Please indicate your agency’s support for the “no further regulation” option for indirect MP&M dischargers.2.
AMSA requests information on the potential impacts of EPA’s suggested alternative to the MP&M limits that would move all Part 413 facilities to Part 433 (see below for more details). How many Part 413 industrial users does your agency regulate? Would moving these facilities to Part 433 require a significant administrative effort? Will these facilities be able to meet the Part 433 limits (do they have the resources to make the necessary upgrades)? Or, are these facilities already in compliance with the Part 433 limits, and the proposed change will only result in an administrative change?3.
EPA solicits comments on a pollution prevention alternative with an environmental management system (EMS) component for the General Metals Subcategory, an option that was proffered by industry. The current option being considered would require control authorities to determine whether a facility has installed and is operating the equivalent of Best Available Technology (BAT), and to determine whether a facility has forfeited its right to employ the EMS alternative. This “enforceable” EMS-alternative may reduce the burden of switching facilities to the new MP&M limits, but may also place new, unfamiliar burdens on POTWs. Would your agency support the use of an EMS alternative that requires control authority oversight?
If you have any questions on these issues please contact Chris Hornback, AMSA 202/833-9106 or chornback@amsa-cleanwater.org. Given that EPA has only allowed a 45-day comment period, please respond by Monday, July 1, so that we may include your input in AMSA’s comments. We will make AMSA’s comments available to the membership prior to the end of the comment period. AMSA also encourages member agencies to file their own comments on the rule with reference to the AMSA comments. The NODA Analysis below provides a brief overview of the Notice and highlights where EPA solicits comment.
NODA Analysis/EPA’s Comment Requests
After reviewing stakeholder comments, data corrections, and
changes to certain methodologies, EPA’s NODA presents revised cost, pollutant
reduction, and economic impact estimates. Based on these revised estimates, the
NODA solicits comments on a “no further regulation” or “no regulation” option
for every subcategory for which the Agency proposed pretreatment standards. EPA
also solicits comments on rule alternatives such as an “alignment” of the
existing Part 413 facilities with the Part 433 requirements and an EMS
alternative for the General Metals Subcategory. Below is an overview of the NODA
and the areas where EPA is soliciting comment.
No Regulation or No Further Regulation
EPA received numerous comments from stakeholders (industry and
POTWs) indicating that facilities in all subcategories of indirect dischargers
(General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wire Board, Oily Wastes, and
Steel Forming and Finishing) are adequately regulated under the current effluent
limitations guidelines (ELGs) and that local limits can adequately address water
quality concerns. Based on EPA’s revised estimates of costs, pollutant removals,
economic impacts and benefits, EPA is considering an option of no regulation or
no further regulation for indirect dischargers in each of the aforementioned
subcategories for the final rule.
AMSA plans to comment on the no further regulation option by demonstrating that the existing categorical pretreatment standards and POTW local limits are more than adequate to control discharges from MP&M facilities. EPA’s revised estimates for cost, pollutant removal, and benefit clearly support this assertion.
Part 413 to Part 433 Upgrade Option
As a result of a recommendation by the Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel for the proposed rule, EPA is considering regulatory alternatives
which reduce significant economic impacts. The Part 413 to Part 433 upgrade
would align those facilities under the Electroplating ELGs with those under the
Metal Finishing ELGs, rather than promulgating the MP&M limitations and
standards provided in the NODA. This would apply to the General Metals, Metal
Finishing Job Shops, and the Printed Wiring Board subcategories. EPA believes
this option would significantly reduce economic impacts while achieving
environmental improvements over current conditions.
Currently, the only facilities that are still completely covered by the Electroplating ELGs are indirect discharging facilities that were in existence prior to 1982 and have not significantly upgraded their operations. EPA states that most facilities are likely to either be completely covered by the Metal Finishing ELGs, or by a combination of the Metal Finishing and Electroplating ELGs to account for new operations in their permit.
The Part 413 to Part 433 Upgrade Option would essentially set limits for all facilities in the affected subcategories that are currently regulated under Part 413 equivalent to those in the Metal Finishing ELGs (40 CFR Part 433). EPA believes this option may reduce the administrative burden on POTWs by clarifying several points of confusion relating to the Metal Finishing regulations that have required significant review over the past 20 years. EPA also estimates annual reduction in pollutants discharged to POTWs of approximately 35,000 pound-equivalents (PE) (approximately 148 PE-removed/facility-year).
AMSA plans to comment on this alternative based on member agency input, specifically highlighting the potential burden to POTWs for making the change and the possible lack of actual environmental benefits.
Inclusion or Change to the Low-Flow Cutoff
EPA solicits comment on the possible inclusion of a low-flow
cutoff for indirect discharge sites in the Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed
Wiring Board, and Steel Forming & Finishing subcategories, and a change to the
level of the proposed low-flow cutoff for indirect discharge sites in the
General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories. EPA also requests comment on other
possible types of regulatory thresholds that could be used to reduce economic
impacts on these facilities and on the ability of permit writers and control
authorities to implement other thresholds.
For indirectly discharging General Metals facilities, EPA is considering an increase in the one million gallon per year low-flow cutoff to provide relief from significant economic impacts. For the Oily Waste subcategory, EPA is considering whether it should limit the applicability of the standard by increasing the low-flow cutoff (proposed at 2 million gallons per year).
Environmental Management System Alternative for General
Metals
In the preamble to the proposal, EPA solicited comment on
offering a pollution prevention alternative with an environmental management
system (EMS) component to the General Metals Subcategory. An industry group
representing the General Metals subcategory suggested the EMS-based alternative,
which is conditioned on the installation and operation of BAT and implementation
of a list of best management practices, including the development of an EMS.
Under the current proposal, the control authority would be required to determine whether a facility has installed and is operating the equivalent of BAT, and to determine whether a facility has forfeited its right to employ the EMS alternative. In the event the control authority finds a facility ineligible for the alternative, the facility would have up to 6 months to come into compliance with 40 CFR Part 438 BAT or pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) limitations, with the possibility of an extension. EPA is also considering an approach that would add a condition to the facility’s permit requiring the facility to come into compliance with BAT or PSES within 6 months of meeting one or more of the three forfeiture conditions or as otherwise determined by the permitting agency. With this second option, the six month clock for coming into compliance with BAT or PSES begins as soon as the facility meets one of the conditions not when the control authority makes a forfeiture determination.
EPA solicits comment from state and local regulators on their need for formal guidance from the Agency to implement this alternative and on the implementation burden, cost, and enforceability of this alternative. AMSA believes this alternative, as currently drafted, may place an unreasonable resource burden on the control authority to make the forfeiture determination and does not believe that this alternative is a viable regulatory option.