1
MEMORANDUM
From:
Mindy
Gampel
and
Michael
Hessling
EPA,
Office
of
Policy,
Economics
and
Innovation
(
OPEI)

To:
Public
Record
for
the
Final
Rule:
Streamlining
the
General
Pretreatment
Regulations
for
Existing
and
New
Sources
of
Pollution
EPA
Docket
Number
OW­
2002­
0007
(
www.
epa.
gov/
edockets/)

Date:
June
6,
2005
Re:
EPA's
Documented
Rationales
for
Establishing
Concentration­
Based
Pretreatment
Standards
This
memorandum
presents
the
Agency's
documented
rationales
for
establishing
concentration­
based
pretreatment
standards
instead
of
production­
based
or
flow­
based
mass
limits.
This
evaluation
is
drawn
from
preambles
and
development
documents
dating
back
to
1973,
as
well
as
conversations
with
EPA
staff
involved
in
the
development
of
effluent
guidelines.
This
listing
presents
most
of
the
effluent
guidelines
with
concentration­
based
pretreatment
standards.

Based
on
an
assessment
of
nineteen
effluent
guidelines
with
concentration
standards,
EPA's
decision
to
establish
concentration­
based
standards
for
certain
categories
or
subcategories
falls
into
six
groups:

1.
POTWs
and/
or
the
affected
industry
submitted
comments
favoring
concentration­
based
standards,
because
they
are
easier
to
implement.

2.
Due
to
the
complexity
and
variation
among
facilities
to
be
covered
by
categorical
standards,
EPA
did
not
have
enough
data,
could
not
adequately
measure
production,
or
could
not
find
a
consistent
production
normalizing
relationship
in
order
to
establish
mass
limits
on
a
nationwide
basis.

3.
Because
the
industry
covered
by
the
categorical
standards
does
not
make
a
product
and
existing
best
professional
judgment­
based
permits
were
concentration­
based,
EPA
chose
concentration
standards
over
mass.

4.
For
concentration­
based
oil
and
grease
standards,
EPA
based
its
decision
on
a
literature
review
which
indicated
at
what
concentration
oil
and
grease
can
interfere
with
a
POTW's
operations.

5.
EPA
could
not
identify
any
additional
water
reduction
technologies
at
the
time
of
promulgation
which
would
necessitate
setting
mass­
based
limits.
2
6.
Concerns
with
dilution
could
be
addressed
through
in­
plant
monitoring
or
a
dilution
prohibition.

Below
is
a
brief
description
of
the
history
of
each
effluent
guideline
reviewed
and
direct
quotes
from
published
preambles
and
supporting
documents
that
are
relevant
to
the
issue
of
why
the
Agency
set
concentration­
based
pretreatment
standards.
Although
Part
413
establishes
alternative
mass
based
limits
and
Part
438
does
not
establish
pretreatment
standards,
the
preambles
for
both
provide
useful
information
about
metal
finishing
operations
which
are
covered
by
concentration­
only
standards
in
Part
433.
Therefore,
they
are
included
in
this
memorandum.
Finally,
some
of
the
effluent
guidelines
presented
in
this
memorandum
also
contain
productionnormalized
mass­
based
standards
as
alternatives
to
concentration­
based
standards.
Within
the
terms
and
conditions
set
forth
in
each
set
of
effluent
guidelines,
permit
writers
can
use
either
production­
normalized
mass­
based
standards
or
concentration­
based
standards
when
setting
permit
limits.

1.
40
CFR
413
­
Electroplating
EPA
promulgated
Best
Practicable
Control
Technology
(
BPT),
Best
Available
Technology
Economically
Achievable
(
BAT),
and
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
for
the
Electroplating
Category
in
1974
and
promulgated
Pretreatment
Standards
for
Existing
Sources
(
PSES)
and
Pretreatment
Standards
for
New
Sources
(
PSNS)
in
1975.
In
1976,
EPA
suspended
the
BPT
standards,
revoked
the
BAT,
NSPS,
PSES
and
PSNS
for
one
subcategory
and
withdrew
its
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
for
the
Category.
In
1977,
EPA
issued
an
interim
final
rule
for
PSES­
only
covering
seven
subcategories,
but
suspended
them
on
May
14,
1979.
On
February
14,
1978,
EPA
proposed
PSES
for
seven
categories
that
expanded
the
number
of
parameters
regulated
under
the
1977
interim
final
rule.

The
original
regulations
were
production­
based
limits.
In
the
March
28,
1974,
final
rule
preamble,
EPA
discusses
some
of
the
comments
received
regarding
the
decision
to
use
mass
limits
for
direct
dischargers
and
new
indirect
dischargers.
"
While
it
may
be
difficult
or
inconvenient
for
some
platers
to
determine
their
production
in
terms
of
square
meters
plated,
it
is
not
impossible....
The
effluent
limitations
applicable
to
a
particular
discharger
may
be
determined
by
multiplying
the
effluent
limitations
in
paragraph
(
a)
of
§
413.12
for
existing
sources
by
the
production
expressed
in
sq
m
or
sq
ft.
The
product
of
this
calculation
has
dimensions
of
mg
or
lb.
An
effluent
factor
of
200
liters
per
sq
m
(
5
gallons
per
sq
ft)
is
the
water
use
for
rinsing
typical
of
plants
in
the
electroplating
industry.
Individual
dischargers
may
decide
that
further
water
conservation
is
necessary
or
desirable
to
meet
effluent
limitations
based
on
the
best
practicable
control
technology
currently
available."
39
FR
11510.
In
order
to
provide
additional
flexibility
to
facilities
in
measuring
compliance,
the
regulation
allowed
a
discharger
to
"
establish
a
correlation
between
area
plated
and
another
parameter,
such
as
ampere­
hours
used
in
plating."
(
See
§
§
413.12,
413.15,
413.16).

In
the
July
12,
1977,
preamble
to
the
interim
final
rule
for
existing
pretreatment
sources,
EPA
chose
to
establish
concentration­
based
standards
rather
than
mass.
"
The
limitations
3
specified
in
this
regulation
are
expressed
in
terms
of
concentration
although
optional
mass­
based
limitations
may
be
developed
later
which
will
allow
local
enforcement
authorities
to
choose
between
the
two.
The
Agency
has
decided
to
use
concentration
limits
in
this
regulation
because
of
the
ease
of
enforcing
such
limits
and
because
of
the
need
to
implement
the
pretreatment
program
as
quickly
as
possible.
However,
dilution
may
be
a
problem
in
some
instances.
Where
dilution
is
encountered
and
is
of
concern,
local
authorities
should
consider
the
need
for
prohibitions
on
dilution,
inspection
of
pretreatment
and
industrial
facilities
and
enforcement
of
mass
limitations."
42
FR
35839.
Following
a
petition
requesting
EPA
to
reconsider
certain
standards,
EPA
suspended
the
interim
rule
on
May
14,
1979.

EPA
proposed
revised
PSES
on
February
14,
1978.
In
the
preamble,
EPA
solicited
comment
on
several
aspects
of
the
rule
including
the
decision
to
set
concentration­
based
standards.
"
These
proposed
pretreatment
standards
are
concentration
standards
except
for
pH.
The
proposed
regulations
prohibit
dilution
as
a
means
of
complying
with
these
regulations.
The
Agency
solicits
comments
on
the
practicality
of
enforcing
this
prohibition,
particularly
in
the
context
of
local
pretreatment
enforcement
programs.
In
addition
there
is
a
danger
that
concentration­
based
standards
will
penalize
those
firms
that
conserve
water.
A
water
conserving
firm
while
discharging
lower
absolute
amounts
of
a
given
pollutant
could
violate
concentrationbased
limitations
that
are
achieved
by
a
similar
firm
that
uses
more
water.
Therefore,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
solicits
comments
in
the
extent
to
which
these
concentrationbased
standards
penalize
firms
who
have
better
than
average
water
usage."
43
FR
6563.

Although
not
proposed,
in
the
final
rule,
EPA
provided
for
alternative
mass­
based
standards.
"
Alternative
mass­
based
standards
which
are
equivalent
to
the
concentration­
based
standards
are
also
set
forth
in
this
regulation.
These
optional
standards
may
replace
the
concentration
standards
where
mutually
agreed
to
by
the
discharger
and
the
publicly
owned
treatment
works."
44
FR
52591.
In
responding
to
comments
from
some
who
said
that
concentration­
based
standards
penalize
facilities
employing
water
conservation
or
reuse
techniques
and
other
commenters
who
said
that
concentration­
based
standards
do
not
penalize
such
facilities,
EPA
stated:
"
The
Agency
recognizes
that
concentration­
based
standards
do
not
encourage
water
conservation
or
reuse
techniques.
However,
such
standards
do
not
necessarily
penalize
conservation.
This
regulation
includes
optional
mass­
based
standards
as
well
as
concentration­
based
standards."
Id.
at
52604.
One
commenter
said
that
companies
conserving
water
should
be
given
higher
allowable
concentration
based
limits.
EPA's
response:
"
Use
of
mass­
based
limitations
may
have
the
effect
of
allowing
water­
conserving
indirect
dischargers
to
discharge
higher
concentrations
of
pollution
than
allowed
by
the
concentration
based
standards.
However,
if
the
resulting
allowable
concentrations
should
cause
an
adverse
impact
on
the
POTW,
stricter
standards
may
be
imposed
by
the
local
control
authority."
Id.
at
52609
2.
40
CFR
415
­
Inorganic
Chemicals
EPA
first
promulgated
BPT,
BAT,
NSPS,
and
PSNS
for
the
Inorganic
Chemicals
Category
in
1974,
promulgated
PSES
in
1977,
and
subsequently
amended
the
regulations
in
1982
and
1984.
Of
the
48
subcategories
in
this
Category,
only
6
contain
concentration­
only
standards;
4
the
remainder
either
provide
alternate
mass
limits,
zero
discharge
requirements,
or
no
pretreatment
standards.

In
1980,
EPA
proposed
amendments
to
certain
subcategories
of
the
Inorganic
Chemicals
Category.
Of
those
pretreatment
standards
which
were
concentration­
based
only
and
where
EPA
was
revising
the
standards
to
be
more
stringent
than
the
existing
1977
standards,
the
Agency
also
established
alternative
mass
limits.
"
Effluent
limitations
for
PSES
and
PSNS
are
expressed
as
allowable
concentrations
in
milligrams
per
liter
(
mg/
l).
For
POTW's
wishing
to
impose
mass
limitations,
the
proposed
regulations
provide
alternative
mass
limitations."
45
FR
49453;
(
July
24,
1980).

The
1984
Phase
II
final
rule
provides
some
indication
for
why
EPA
established
concentration­
only
standards
for
certain
subcategories.
"
The
zinc
chloride
model
plant
used
for
the
proposed
regulations
has
a
unit
flow
of
13.5
m3/
kkg.
However,
recent
data
indicate
that
unit
flow
may
vary
considerably
depending
upon
the
product
produced
(
liquid
or
solid).
Because
this
is
determined
by
the
market
and
cannot
be
predicted,
we
are
promulgating
guidelines
and
standards
on
a
concentration
basis
only.
Permit
writers
may
convert
the
concentration­
based
limit
to
a
mass­
based
limit
based
on
the
flow
at
individual
facilities."
49
FR
33407
(
August
22,
1984,
Page
33407]).
EPA
also
states
that
"
The
Agency
is
promulgating
PSES
(
and
PSNS)
limitations
based
on
concentrations
(
mg/
l)
rather
than
mass­
based
limitations,
because
the
flow
in
the
industry
is
low
and
the
Agency
could
not
identify
any
flow
reduction
technology
for
this
industry.
Therefore,
the
imposition
of
mass­
based
PSES
would
result
in
no
significant
reduction
benefits.
Under
these
circumstances,
since
it
is
easier
for
POTWs
to
enforce
pretreatment
standards
based
on
concentrations
of
pollutants
rather
than
mass­
based
limitations,
we
are
promulgating
concentration
based
pretreatment
standards."
Id.
at
33409.

3.
40
CFR
418
­
Fertilizer
Manufacturing
EPA
first
promulgated
BPT,
BAT,
NSPS,
and
PSNS
for
five
subcategories
in
the
Fertilizer
Manufacturing
Point
Source
Category
on
April
8,
1974,
and
added
two
additional
subcategories
in
1975.
EPA
proposed
PSES,
but
did
not
finalize
them.
The
standards
in
this
Category
are
a
mixture
of
zero
discharge,
production­
based
mass
limits,
and
concentration­
based
limits
which
were
sometimes
different
between
proposal
and
final
and
between
initial
promulgation
and
subsequent
amendments.
For
example,
Subpart
C
(
Urea
Subcategory)
was
initially
promulgated
as
production­
based
mass
limits
and
later
amended
to
be
concentrationbased
Very
little
information
exists
that
explains
EPA's
rationale
for
selecting
concentration
versus
mass
for
certain
subcategories,
but
the
following
quote
provides
some
information.

In
the
responses
to
comment
portion
of
the
April,
1974,
preamble
to
the
final
rule
establishing
five
subcategories
EPA
notes
the
following:
"
It
was
suggested
that
concentration
(
mg/
l)
should
be
used
instead
of
production­
based
limitations.
Expressing
effluent
limitations
in
mass
units
related
to
production
(
kg
of
pollutant
per
kkg
of
product)
rather
than
in
concentrations
insures
that
limitations
are
not
met
by
the
simple
expedient
of
diluting
the
waste
stream.
Limitations
for
the
phosphate
subcategory
were
given
in
concentration
units
because
discharges
5
are
related
solely
to
rainfall
not
production."
39
FR
12835.

4.
40
CFR
419
­
Petroleum
Refining
EPA
first
promulgated
BPT,
BAT,
NSPS
and
PSNS
for
the
Petroleum
Refining
Point
Source
Category
on
May
9,
1974.
On
the
same
day,
EPA
proposed
PSES
equivalent
to
the
final
BPT
limits,
which
established
production­
based
limits
for
multiple
parameters.

On
March
23,
1977,
EPA
issued
an
interim
final
rule
which
substantially
modified
the
1974
proposal.
In
the
1977
preamble,
EPA
discusses
its
decision
to
set
concentration­
based
standards
for
indirect
dischargers:
"
In
the
course
of
establishing
a
subcategorization
scheme
for
the
indirect
discharging
segment
of
the
industry,
it
was
determined
upon
analysis
of
location,
age,
economic,
status,
size,
wastewater
characteristics,
and
manufacturing
processes
of
indirect
versus
direct
dischargers,
that
there
are
no
fundamental
differences
that
would
warrant
a
different
method
of
subcategorization
for
the
indirect
discharge
segment
of
the
petroleum
refining
industry.
However,
it
was
further
concluded
that
all
indirect
dischargers
should
be
subject
to
the
same
pretreatment
standards.
This
conclusion
resulted
from
the
fact
that
the
pretreatment
standards
recommended
herein
are
imposed
on
a
concentration
basis,
as
opposed
to
the
mass
basis
utilized
for
direct
dischargers."
42
FR
15686.
EPA
only
established
standards
for
oil
and
grease
and
ammonia.

In
1979,
EPA
proposed
to
replace
the
existing
PSES,
PSNS,
BAT
and
NSPS,
and
establish
BCT
limits.
EPA
proposed
concentration­
based
PSES
and
PSNS
for
oil
and
grease
and
ammonia,
with
total
chromium
limits
applying
only
to
cooling
tower
blowdown.
Alternatively,
the
chromium
limit
could
apply
to
the
entire
refinery
flow
by
multiplying
the
concentration
standard
by
the
ratio
of
the
cooling
tower
blowdown
flow
to
the
total
refinery
flow."
Effluent
limitations
for
PSES
and
PSNS
are
expressed
as
allowable
concentrations
in
milligrams
per
liter
(
mg/
l).
For
POTWs
which
may
wish
to
impose
mass
limitations,
the
proposed
regulations
provide
alternate
equivalent
mass
limitations."
44
FR
75929.
EPA
concluded
that"
In
establishing
existing
PSES,
EPA
found
that
ammonia
and
oil
and
grease
interfere
with
the
operation
of
POTWs
at
levels
which
may
be
discharged
by
indirect
dischargers
in
the
petroleum
refining
industry.
The
pretreatment
standards
are
expressed
as
maximum
daily
concentrations
(
milligrams
per
liter).
Informational
mass
limitations
are
also
provided
for
those
POTWs
which
find
it
necessary
or
desirable
to
limit
total
mass
discharge
of
pollutants."
Id.
at
75936.

On
October
18,
1982,
EPA
finalized
these
pretreatment
standards.
47
FR
46434.
EPA
modified
the
proposed
standards
for
the
final
rule
to
eliminate
the
informational
alternate
mass
limit
for
oil
and
grease.
EPA
also
allowed
facilities
to
comply
with
an
alternative
mass
limit
for
sour
waters."
An
alternative
mass
limitation
for
ammonia
(
N)
is
included
for
those
indirect
dischargers
whose
discharge
to
the
POTW
consists
solely
of
"
sour"
water.
Sour
waters
generally
result
from
water
brought
into
direct
contact
with
a
hydrocarbon
stream,
and
contain
sulfides,
ammonia
and
phenols.
The
Agency
developed
an
alternative
mass
limitation
for
ammonia
in
response
to
public
comments
received
on
the
proposed
regulation.
Several
commenters
indicated
that,
when
the
refinery
discharge
to
the
POTW
consists
solely
of
sour
waters,
the
achievement
of
6
the
100
mg/
l
ammonia
concentration
limitation
is
often
not
possible.
This
is
because
the
steam
stripping
technology,
the
basis
for
the
limitations,
cannot
consistently
reduce
ammonia
in
sour
water
streams
to
the
100
mg/
l
level.
Thus,
an
equivalent
mass
limitation
for
ammonia
was
developed
by
the
Agency."
47
FR
46439;
(
October
18,
1982).
The
final
rule
deleted
control
of
chromium
pollution
in
PSES
(
Id.
at
46439)
but
did
retain
chromium
PSNS
and
the
requirement
to
convert
the
concentration­
based
PSNS
to
a
mass­
based
permit
limit
using
the
facility's
cooling
tower
discharge
flow.
Id.
at
46440.

5.
40
CFR
423
­
Steam
Electric
Power
Generating
EPA
first
promulgated
BPT,
BAT,
NSPS
and
PSNS
for
the
Steam
Electric
Power
Generating
Point
Source
Category
on
March
4,
1974
(
39
FR
36186),
and
promulgated
PSES
on
March
23,
1977
(
72
FR
15690).
EPA
proposed
revisions
to
BAT,
NSPS,
PSES
and
PSNS
on
October
14,
1980
(
45
FR
68326),
and
promulgated
these
revisions
on
November
19,
1982
(
47
FR
52290).
In
the
1977
final
rule,
EPA
established
a
metal
cleaning
waste
water
PSES
containing
a
flow­
normalized,
mass­
based
limitation
for
total
copper.
This
limitation
was
based
upon
a
maximum
concentration
of
1.0
mg/
l.
The
PSES
also
contained
a
flow­
normalized,
mass­
based
limit
for
oil
and
grease
based
upon
a
maximum
concentration
of
100
mg/
l
and
a
prohibition
on
the
discharge
of
PCBs.

The
1980
proposal
contained
first
time
coverage
of
copper
for
the
metal
cleaning
waste
water
PSNS
and,
for
the
metal
cleaning
waste
water
PSES,
copper
was
changed
from
a
flownormalized
mass­
based
maximum
limit
to
a
concentration­
based
daily
maximum
limit.
The
1982
final
regulations
clarify
that
the
copper
PSES
applies
to
chemical,
not
non­
chemical,
metal
cleaning
waste
waters.
The
1982
regulations
also
establish
and
PSNS
contain
a
daily
maximum
concentration­
based
daily
maximum
limits
for
total
chromium
and
total
zinc,
and
requirements
that
the
126
priority
pollutants
may
not
be
present
in
detectible
amounts.
As
noted
in
the
preamble
of
the1982
final
rule
for
direct
dischargers,
"
The
existing
and
proposed
regulations
specify
that
permits
were
to
be
based
on
mass
limits
to
be
calculated
by
multiplying
flow
by
concentration.
The
final
rule
allows
the
permitting
authority
to
establish
either
concentration
or
mass
limits
for
any
effluent
limitation
or
standard,
based
on
the
concentrations
specified
in
the
regulations."
(
47
FR
52293;
(
November
19,
1982).)
Although
neither
the
proposal
nor
final
rule
preamble
explains
why
the
pretreatment
standards
were
changed
to
concentration
with
no
alternative
mass
limit,
it
is
likely
that
POTW
commenters
indicated
that
they
preferred
concentration­
based
standards,
which
are
easier
to
implement.

"
One
commenter
requested
that
EPA
interpret
or
amend
the
regulations
to
allow
concentration­
based
limitations
to
be
established
in
permits
instead
of
mass
limitations
and
based
upon
concentration
and
flow.
Highly
variable
nature
of
waste
stream
flows
in
electric
power
generating
facilities
makes
it
very
difficult
to
select
an
appropriate
flow
upon
which
to
base
a
mass
based
limitation."

EPA's
response:
"...
we
agree
that
the
use
of
mass
based
limits
in
all
circumstances
is
undesirable.
The
potentially
large
variations
in
flow
makes
it
difficult
in
some
cases
to
choose
a
7
representative
flow.
Incorrect
selection
of
a
representative
flow
may
result
in
limits
that
are
either
too
stringent
or
too
lenient.
Accordingly,
we
have
decided
to
give
the
permit
writer
the
authority
to
incorporate
either
concentration
based
limits
or
mass
based
limits
into
the
permit.
Case­
bycase
determinations
may
be
made,
depending
on
the
characteristics
of
the
particular
facility....
The
Agency
plans
to
prepare
guidance
for
permit
writers
to
further
clarify
the
instances
in
which
setting
concentration
or
mass­
based
permit
limitations
is
appropriate
for
the
various
fuel
types
(
nuclear,
coal,
etc.)
as
well
as
types
of
waste
streams."
Id.
at
52300.
The
final
rule
requirements
that
allow
the
permitting
authority
to
establish
either
concentration
or
mass­
based
limits
does
not
apply
to
indirect
dischargers.

6.
40
CFR
425
­
Leather
Tanning
EPA
first
promulgated
production­
based
limits
for
BPT,
BAT,
NSPS,
and
PSNS
for
the
Leather
Tanning
Point
Source
Category
on
April
9,
1974.
EPA
established
qualitative
PSES
on
March
23,
1977;
these
standards
were
similar
to
the
general
prohibitions
in
the
current
Part
403.
In
1979,
EPA
proposed
revised
BPT
and
NSPS
(
which
had
been
remanded
in
an
earlier
court
decision),
new
BCT
limits,
and
revised
BAT,
PSES
and
PSNS.
Following
promulgation
on
November
23,
1982,
EPA
was
sued
by
industry
groups
and
entered
into
a
settlement
agreement
which
required
the
Agency
to
collect
new
data
and
propose
amendments.
Amendments
were
promulgated
in
March
1988.

Although
EPA
proposed
concentration­
based
pretreatment
standards,
the
Agency
did
not
promulgate
numeric
limits
in
1977
due
to
a
variety
of
factors,
including
a
determination
that
trivalent
chromium
did
not
cause
pass­
through
or
interference.
In
the
discussion
of
comments
in
the
final
rule
preamble,
"
One
commenter
indicated
that
water
conservation
programs
undertaken
by
some
plants
may
warrant
reconsideration
of
the
need
for
pretreatment,
where
the
concentrations
of
pollutants
in
smaller
volumes
of
raw
wastewater
can
increase
significantly."
EPA's
response:
"
The
Agency
has
noted
the
occurrence
of
this
circumstance
for
at
least
one
plant
where
conservation
and
reuse
programs
have
been
a
continuing
part
of
production
procedure
and
management
policy.
While
some
minor
problems
of
POTW
operation
have
occurred
in
this
case,
similar
circumstances
of
national
scope
have
not
occurred.
While
some
increases
in
raw
waste
loads
can
be
anticipated
with
major
conservation
and
reuse
programs,
the
Agency
has
not
identified
the
need
to
alter
the
regulation
or
discourage
such
in­
plant
control
progress
at
this
time.
However,
the
Agency
is
now
engaged
in
a
review
of
the
1983
best
available
technology
economically
achievable
effluent
limitations.
The
effort
may
disclose
information
which
would
warrant
modification
of
this
pretreatment
regulation
at
a
later
date
to
account
for
in­
plant
conservation
and
reuse
programs
designed
to
control
or
eliminate
the
discharge
of
some
pollutants
while
concentrating
the
presence
of
other
pollutants."
42
FR
15702;
(
March
23,
1977).

The
current
PSES
and
PSNS
for
this
Category
are
concentration­
based
standards,
while
production­
based
limits
apply
to
direct
dischargers.
In
the
1979
proposal,
EPA
notes
that
"
Effluence
limitations
for
PSES
and
PSNS
are
expressed
as
allowable
concentrations
in
milligrams
per
liter
(
mg/
l).
For
POTWs
which
may
wish
to
impose
mass
limitations,
the
proposed
regulations
provide
guidance
on
equivalent
mass
limitations."
44
FR
38749.
Additionally,
the
8
proposed
rule
text
provides
for
each
subcategory:
"
In
cases
when
POTWs
find
it
necessary
to
impose
mass
limitations,
the
following
equivalent
mass
limitations
are
provided
as
guidance."
Id.
at
38769.
(
See
§
425.25.)
However,
the
1982
final
rule
does
not
include
this
language
and
the
preamble
does
not
explain
why
it
was
removed.

The
1982
preamble
does
provide
the
following:
"
It
must
be
noted
that
the
Agency
has
promulgated
concentration
based
pretreatment
standards
for
sulfide
and
chromium.
The
amount
of
water
used
at
any
plant
is
not
germane
to
the
achievability
of
these
standards.
Therefore,
indirect
dischargers
will
have
added
flexibility
because
water
use
reduction
is
not
necessary
to
achieve
these
standards.
The
Agency
believes
that
the
cost
of
pretreatment
technology
can
be
minimized
by
first
reducing
to
the
maximum
extent
feasible
the
volume
of
wastewater
to
be
treated.
For
this
reason,
the
Agency
has
utilized
reduced
water
use
ratios
(
see
Section
V
of
the
Development
Document)
achieved
by
existing
sources
only
in
calculating
the
costs
of
PSES."
47
FR
52858;
(
November
23,
1982).

EPA
provided
implementation
guidance
to
POTWs
in
1986
that
provides
water
use
ratios
for
calculating
additional
production­
based
limits.
"
Alternate
production
based
standards
based
on
kilogram
per
thousand
kilograms
of
raw
material
are
available
for
new
and
existing
sources,
and
may
be
used
by
the
POTWs.
These
alternate
production
limits
are
based
upon
the
concentrations
specified
in
the
standards
and
the
median
water
use
ratios
for
existing
sources
and
reduced
water
use
ratios
for
new
sources
contained
in
the
settlement
agreement.
The
pretreatment
standards
for
new
and
existing
sources
are
shown
in
Table
2.3
and
the
suggested
alternate
production
based
standards
are
presented
in
Table
2.4."
"
Guidance
Manual
for
Leather
Tanning
and
Finishing
Pretreatment
Standards,"
September,
1986,
Pages
2­
11.

7.
40
CFR
426
­
Glass
Manufacturing
EPA
promulgated
pretreatment
standards
for
four
subcategories
of
the
Glass
Manufacturing
point
source
category
on
January
16,
1975
(
40
FR
2952).
EPA
promulgated
production
based
standards
for
three
subcategories
(
H,
K,
L)
and
concentration­
based
standards
for
fluoride
in
one
subcategory
(
M
­
Hand
Pressed
and
Blown
Glass).
EPA
was
unable
to
develop
a
production
normalized
flow
for
the
Hand
Pressed
and
Blown
Glass
subcategory.
Consequently,
EPA
was
unable
to
develop
production­
normalized
mass­
based
standards
for
this
industry.
"
No
typical
[
model]
plant
can
be
developed
for
the
hand
pressed
and
blown
manufacturing
subcategory
because
of
the
wide
variation
in
finishing
steps
applied
to
handmade
glass."
(
Development
Document
For
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
And
New
Source
Performance
Standards
For
The
Pressed
And
Blown
Glass,
EPA­
440­
1­
75­
034­
A,
January
1975,
Page
148).

8.
40
CFR
428
­
Rubber
Manufacturing
Categorical
standards
for
the
Rubber
Manufacturing
Point
Source
Category
were
first
promulgated
on
January
10,
1975.
There
are
PSNS
in
seven
of
the
twelve
subcategories.
Although
EPA
proposed
PSES
in
1975,
these
standards
were
not
finalized.
Of
the
seven
subcategories
with
PSNS,
EPA
established
concentration­
based
standards
for
oil
and
grease
in
six
9
subcategories,
set
production­
based
mass
limits
for
metals
in
four
subcategories,
and
productionbased
mass
limits
for
COD
in
one
subcategory.

There
is
very
little
justification
given
for
setting
some
standards
as
mass
and
others
as
concentration.
As
noted
below
in
the
discussion
of
Carbon
Black
Manufacturing,
EPA
established
pretreatment
standards
for
oil
and
grease
based
on
a
literature
review
which
indicated
that
concentrations
of
more
than
100
mg/
l
could
cause
interference
with
a
POTW's
operations.
This
100
mg/
l
standard
has
been
carried
forward
in
several
other
guidelines.
A
reference
to
100
mg/
l
was
found
in
the
January
10,
1975,
proposed
rule
for
PSES:
"
Some
of
the
pollutants
contained
in
the
waste
waters
(
BOD
and
TSS)
are
readily
treated
in
typical
publicly
owned
treatment
works
and
should
not
require
specific
pretreatment.
Oil
and
grease
should
be
limited
to
100
mg/
l
to
reflect
the
capabilities
of
publicly
owned
treatment
systems.
COD,
lead,
zinc,
and
chromium
should
be
pretreated
to
BPTCTCA
limitations."
40
FR
2348.
BPT
limitations
are
production­
based
mass
limits.

9.
40
CFR
429
­
Timber
Products
Processing
Pretreatment
standards
for
existing
sources
in
the
timber
products
processing
point
source
category
were
proposed
April
18,
1974
(
39
FR
13952),
January
16,
1975
(
40
FR
2834),
and
June
2,
1975
(
40
FR
23829).
Final
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
sources
were
promulgated
on
December
9,
1976
(
41
FR
53930).
Concentration­
based
standards
for
control
of
oil
and
grease
(
100
mg/
L)
were
promulgated
to
prevent
POTW
interference.
Other
concentration­
based
standards
for
existing
sources
were
promulgated
for
common
wood
treating
chemicals
(
copper,
chromium,
and
arsenic).
Pretreatment
standards
for
new
sources
were
set
at
zero
discharge.

10.
40
CFR
433
­
Metal
Finishing
On
July
15,
1983,
EPA
promulgated
concentration­
based
categorical
standards
for
the
Metal
Finishing
Point
Source
Category,
and
promulgated
amendments
to
Part
413
Electroplating
Point
Source
Category
to
include
standards
for
total
toxic
organics
(
TTO).
Unlike
Part
413,
the
Part
433
effluent
guideline
does
not
contain
alternate
mass
limits.

In
the
proposal,
EPA
explains
why
the
metal
finishing
limits
are
concentration­
based:
"
These
wastes
occur
in
a
wide
variety
of
combinations,
and
while
the
treatment
may
differ
for
each
type
of
waste,
the
combined
treatment
system
has
components,
i.
e.,
precipitation
and
clarification,
that
are
used
for
all
waste
types
(
except
solvents,
which
are
contract
hauled
or
reclaimed).
After
isolated
treatment
of
hexavalent
chromium,
cyanide,
and
oil
and
grease,
pollutants
in
these
waste
streams
are
further
reduced
through
precipitation­
clarification
system
for
metal­
bearing
wastes.
Because
of
the
interconnecting
nature
of
the
combined
waste
treatment
system,
setting
concentration
limits
on
the
effluent
from
the
combined
system
appropriately
characterizes
the
concentration
limited
capabilities
of
the
technology.
For
these
reasons,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
the
Metal
Finishing
Point
Source
Category
need
not
be
subcategorized
for
regulation.
A
set
of
concentration
based
limitations
can
be
applied
to
all
metal
finishing
process
effluents.
10
"
The
Agency
considered,
but
decided
against
production
based
standards.
With
the
wide
range
of
operations,
product
quality
requirements,
existing
process
configurations,
and
difficulties
in
measuring
production,
no
consistent
production
normalizing
relationship
could
be
found.
Concentration
based
limits,
however,
can
be
consistently
attained
throughout
the
industry."
47
FR
38465
(
August
31,
1982).
EPA
had
identified
45
unit
operations,
and
estimated
that
the
rule
would
apply
to
3,750
plants.

11.
40
CFR
437
­
Centralized
Waste
Treatment
EPA
promulgated
concentration­
based
categorical
standards
for
the
Centralized
Waste
Treatment
Point
Source
Category
on
December
22,
2000.
Centralized
waste
treatment
facilities
do
not
generate
a
"
process
wastewater"
in
the
traditional
sense
of
this
term.
As
a
service
industry,
there
is
no
manufacturing
or
commercial
"
process"
which
is
generating
water.
Because
there
are
no
"
manufacturing
processes"
or
"
products"
for
this
industry,
"
process"
wastewater
for
this
industry
includes
any
wastes
received
for
treatment
("
waste
receipt")
as
well
as
water
which
comes
into
contact
with
the
waste
received
or
waste
processing
area.
Moreover,
the
highly
varied
nature
of
the
wastewater
accepted
for
treatment
prevented
the
development
of
mass­
based
standards.
After
evaluating
data
supporting
the
final
rule,
EPA
concluded
that
there
is
no
basis
in
the
chemistry
of
the
wastewaters
being
treated
which
supported
development
of
productionnormalized
or
flow­
based
mass­
based
standards.
Additionally,
EPA
adopted
concentration­
based
standards
due
to
the
general
preference
of
POTWs
for
concentration
standards,
which
are
easier
to
implement
than
mass­
based
standards.

12.
40
CFR
438
­
Metal
Products
and
Machinery
(
MP&
M)

In
1995,
EPA
proposed
Phase
1
of
the
MP&
M
rulemaking.
Based
on
comments
on
the
proposal
and
further
consideration,
the
Agency
consolidated
Phases
1
and
2
into
a
new
proposal
published
on
January
3,
2001.
The
new
Part
438
was
designed
to
replace
Parts
413
and
433
and
cover
many
facilities
not
previously
regulated
by
an
effluent
guideline.
Although
EPA
ultimately
did
not
regulate
indirect
dischargers
under
MP&
M,
given
the
rule's
initial
relationship
to
Parts
413
and
433,
relevant
sections
of
the
2001
proposal
are
included
in
this
document.

In
the
2001
preamble,
EPA
addresses
some
of
the
comments
received
on
the
1995
proposal,
including
comments
related
to
mass­
based
and
concentration­
based
limits.
"
EPA
also
received
many
comments
on
the
issue
of
mass­
based
versus
concentration­
based
limits.
In
the
1995
proposal,
EPA
proposed
concentration­
based
limits
with
the
requirement
that
control
authorities
(
e.
g.,
POTWs)
implement
them
as
mass­
based
limits.
EPA
notes
that
under
the
NPDES
permit
program,
the
Agency
already
requires
permit
writers
to
implement
effluent
limitations
guidelines
as
mass­
based
limits
whenever
feasible
(
40
CFR
122.45(
f)).
EPA
proposed
requiring
this
conversion
to
mass­
based
limits
because
the
Agency
believed
that
it
was
necessary
to
ensure
the
use
of
water
conservation
and
pollution
prevention
practices
similar
to
those
that
were
part
of
EPA's
selected
option
(
60
FR
28230).
EPA
expected
permit
writers
and
control
authorities
to
use
historical
flow
as
a
basis
for
the
conversion
to
mass­
based
limits
for
facilities
that
demonstrated
good
water
conservation
practices.
However,
for
facilities
that
did
not
have
11
good
water
conservation
in
place,
EPA
provided
detailed
guidance
to
permit
writers
and
control
authorities
in
the
Technical
Development
Document
(
TDD)
for
the
1995
proposal.
The
TDD
included
information
on
a
full
range
of
water
use
levels
(
in
gallons/
sq.
ft.)
for
a
large
variety
of
MP&
M
operations
as
well
as
guidance
on
how
permit
writers
and
control
authorities
could
determine
if
a
facility
was
using
good
water
conservation
practices.

"
EPA
received
comments
on
the
administrative
burden
on
POTWs
associated
with
implementation
of
mass­
based
limits.
The
commenters
stated
that
the
burden
was
largely
due
to
the
fact
that
most
MP&
M
facilities
do
not
collect
production
information
on
a
wastestream­
bywastestream
basis.
POTWs
have
continued
to
voice
these
concerns
at
recent
public
stakeholder
meetings.
To
address
this
issue,
EPA
collected
additional
MP&
M
unit
operation­
specific
information
on
pollution
prevention
practices,
water
use,
and
wastewater
generation
in
the
data
collection
efforts
that
followed
the
Phase
I
proposal.

"
In
today's
proposal,
EPA
is
again
proposing
concentration­
based
limits
(
for
all
but
one
subcategory
)
and
is
providing
detailed
information
on
water
use
levels
for
specific
unit
operations
in
the
Technical
Development
Document.
However,
the
Agency
is
no
longer
proposing
to
require
control
authorities
(
e.
g.,
POTWs)
or
permit
writers
to
decide
when
it
is
most
appropriate
to
implement
mass­
based
limits.
EPA
believes
that
this
approach
will
reduce
implementation
burden
on
POTWs
and
will
result
in
increased
use
of
water
conservation
practices
at
the
facilities
where
POTWs
and
permit
writers
think
it
is
most
needed.
EPA
believes
that
MP&
M
facilities
that
use
the
best
pollution
prevention
and
water
conservation
practices
may
request
that
the
control
authority
or
permit
writer
use
mass­
based
limits
in
their
permits
or
other
control
mechanisms."
66
FR
432
(
January
3,
2001).

For
those
subcategories
for
which
EPA
proposed
concentration­
based
pretreatment
standards,
the
following
rule
language
was
included:
"
The
control
authority
has
the
option
of
imposing
mass­
based
standards
in
place
of
the
concentration­
based
standards.
To
convert
to
mass­
based
standards,
multiply
each
parameter's
concentration­
based
standard
times
the
average
daily
flow
of
the
process
wastewater
discharged
by
the
source
into
the
POTW."
(
See
proposed
requirements
at
§
§
438.15,
.17,
.25,
.27,
.45,
.47,
.65,
.67;
starting
at
Page
542).

13.
40
CFR
439
­
Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing
November
17,
1976,
EPA
first
promulgated
interim
BPT
standards
for
the
Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing
Point
Source
Category
based
on
percent
removals.
On
October
27,
1983,
EPA
promulgated
PSES
and
PSNS
cyanide
limits
for
Subparts
A­
D,
as
well
as
revisions
to
the
1976
BPT
standards,
and
BAT
and
BCT.
Effluent
guidelines
for
this
point
source
were
later
amended
in
September
1998.

In
the
summary
of
responses
to
comments
in
the
1983
final
rule
preamble,
EPA
discusses
concentration
limits:
"
Effluent
limitations
guidelines
can
be
in
the
form
of
percent
reduction,
concentration,
or
production­
based
mass
limitations.
Limitations
can
be
based
solely
on
the
performance
of
applicable
treatment
technologies.
However,
when
the
available
production
data
12
for
an
industrial
category
or
subcategory
can
be
correlated
with
pollutant
discharges,
EPA
can
develop
mass
limitations
based
on
both
treatment
technology
performance
and
production.
This
latter
approach,
however,
is
not
appropriate
for
the
pharmaceutical
manufacturing
point
source
category
because
of
the
large
number
of
different
products
involved,
the
constantly
changing
nature
of
the
product
mix,
and
the
lack
of
an
established
correlation
between
pollutant
discharge
and
production.
The
development
of
percent
reduction
limitations
requires
that
influent
as
well
as
effluent
data
descriptive
of
treatment
technology
performance
be
available
whereas
concentration
limitations
require
only
that
effluent
data
be
available.
Oftentimes,
influent
data
relating
to
treatment
system
performance
is
either
not
available
or
is
considerably
less
extensive
and
descriptive
than
the
effluent
data.
Both
of
these
considerations
influenced
the
Agency's
decision
to
propose
concentration­
based
limitations
for
the
pharmaceutical
industry."
48
FR
49818
(
October
27,
1983).

In
discussing
the
technology
options
in
the
1995
proposal,
EPA
expressed
concerns
about
dilution.
60
FR
21592
(
May
2,
1995).
Rather
than
proposing
mass
limits,
the
Agency
proposed
to
address
dilution
through
establishing
in­
plant
points
of
regulation.
"
Like
the
proposed
BAT
limitations,
the
proposed
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
dischargers
are
only
marginally
above
the
minimum
levels
established
for
these
pollutants.
Similarly,
EPA
is
concerned
that
dilution
with
process
and
non­
process
wastewater
might
cause
the
pollutants
to
be
undetectable
by
current
analytical
methods.
Under
EPA
regulations,
however,
indirect
dischargers
are
prohibited
from
substituting
dilution
for
treatment,
except
where
dilution
is
expressly
authorized
by
an
applicable
pretreatment
standard.
See
40
CFR
403.6(
d).
This
prohibition
theoretically
could
be
enforced
by
POTWs
through
the
establishment
of
local
limitations
at
in­
plant
locations
on
a
pollutant­
by­
pollutant,
case­
by­
case
basis
in
the
same
way
that
a
permit
writer
could
do
so
for
direct
dischargers.
By
establishing
in­
plant
monitoring
requirements,
the
POTW,
like
the
permit
writer,
would
be
able
to
determine
whether
compliance
is
being
achieved
by
dilution
or
by
treatment.
The
difference,
however,
is
this
pollutant­
by­
pollutant,
case­
by­
case
solution
to
the
detection
and
dilution
problems
may
impose
a
financial
and
technical
burden
on
POTWs.
There
are
six
times
as
many
indirect
dischargers
as
direct
dischargers,
and
unlike
state
and
EPA
permit
writers,
POTWs
commonly
lack
the
on­
site
technical
expertise
to
establish
and
justify
in­
plant
monitoring
requirements
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Even
when
such
expertise
exists,
EPA
is
concerned
that
the
accompanying
burden
and
expense
would
be
significant.
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
establish
in­
plant
points
of
regulation
on
a
nationwide
level."
Id.
at
21623.

At
the
same
time
EPA
was
proposing
the
revisions
to
the
pharmaceutical
effluent
guideline,
the
Agency
was
also
developing
the
pharmaceutical
NESHAP,
which
affected
EPA's
revisions
of
the
pharmaceutical
effluent
guideline.
"....
Like
the
HON,
the
pharmaceuticals
NESHAP
will
probably
authorize
percent
reduction
standards,
effluent
concentration
limitations
and
mass
removal
requirements
as
options
for
measuring
compliance.
EPA
considered
proposing
percent
reduction
limitations
and
standards
in
this
water
rulemaking,
but
for
the
following
reasons
has
determined
that
such
limitations
and
standards
would
not
adequately
control
the
discharge
of
wastewater
pollutants
of
concern,
particularly
volatile
pollutants.
First,
in
EPA's
view,
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
based
on
percent
reduction
do
not
reflect
the
performance
of
the
best
available
technology
in
removing
wastewater
pollutants
for
the
pharmaceutical
13
manufacturing
industry.
EPA's
analysis
of
actual
performance
data
shows
that
the
proposed
concentration­
based
effluent
limitations
and
standards
can
be
met,
regardless
of
variations
in
the
influent
concentrations
of
the
target
volatile
compounds,
using
well­
designed
and
well­
operated
technology.
Second,
percent
reduction
effluent
limitations,
as
previously
promulgated
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
for
this
industry,
may
discourage
source
reduction
programs
(
programs
whose
goal
is
to
reduce
raw
waste
loadings
of
volatiles)
because
plants
with
high
raw
waste
loadings
of
volatiles
can
more
easily
comply
with
percent
reduction
regulations
than
plants
with
moderate
or
low
volatile
loadings.
Finally,
the
percent
reduction
approach
for
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
imposes
special
burdens
on
permit
writers
and
facilities.
The
percent
reduction
approach
would
require
the
gathering
and
evaluation
of
long­
term
raw
waste
data
from
each
facility
in
order
to
develop
plant­
specific
limitations
on
individual
pollutants,
and
to
demonstrate
continuing
compliance
with
the
limitations."
(
60
FR
21633).
EPA
promulgated
concentrationbased
pretreatment
standards
for
this
industry
on
September
21,
1998
(
63
FR
50388).

14.
40
CFR
442
­
Transportation
Equipment
Cleaning
EPA
promulgated
categorical
standards
for
the
Transportation
Equipment
Cleaning
Point
Source
Category
on
August
14,
2000.
In
the
proposal,
EPA
identifies
a
number
of
available
flow
reduction
technologies
that
can
be
used
by
this
industry
and
included
wastewater
flow
reduction
as
a
component
of
the
treatment
options.

As
its
basis
for
proposing
mass­
based
standards,
EPA
states:
"
For
this
industry,
EPA
is
proposing
to
establish
mass­
based
rather
than
concentration
based
limits.
The
limits
are
specified
as
grams
per
tank
cleaned.
EPA
envisions
that
permit
writers
would
use
these
limits,
in
combination
with
data
on
annual
number
of
tanks
cleaned
and
annual
facility
wastewater
flow,
to
calculate
facility­
specific
concentration
based
limits
for
wastewater
flows
leaving
the
treatment
plant,
and
then
incorporate
these
limits
into
the
permit.
EPA
is
proposing
this
approach
because
it
is
concerned
that
if
it
proposed
concentration
based
limits
directly,
facilities
might
be
able
to
comply
with
these
limits
by
increasing
their
water
usage
rather
than
installing
and
properly
operating
appropriate
treatment,
thereby
diluting
rather
than
removing
pollutants
of
concern.
EPA
is
soliciting
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
this
approach
and
the
burden
on
the
permitting
and
pretreatment
authorities.
Based
on
comments
received,
EPA
may
decide
to
convert
the
mass
based
limits
in
the
proposed
regulation
to
concentration
based
limits
for
the
final
rule."
(
63
FR
34715;
(
June
25,
1998).

In
the
subsequent
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
64
FR
38863;
July
20,
1999),
EPA
discusses
comments
received
on
the
proposed
mass
limits.
"
EPA
proposed
to
establish
mass­
based
rather
than
concentration­
based
limits
for
the
TEC
industry,
specified
as
grams
of
pollutant
per
tank
cleaned.
Numerous
stakeholders
have
identified
potential
difficulties
with
implementing
mass­
based
limits
as
proposed.
In
proposing
mass­
based
limits,
the
Agency
envisioned
that
the
allowable
discharge
by
a
facility
would
be
based
on
the
average
number
of
tanks
cleaned
at
that
facility
on
an
annual
basis.
One
of
the
main
difficulties
with
this
approach
is
the
high
variability
in
the
number
of
tanks
cleaned
by
a
facility.
The
nature
of
a
service
industry
is
such
that
a
tank
cleaning
facility
has
little
control
over
the
number
of
tanks
which
are
brought
in
14
to
be
cleaned
on
a
daily,
monthly,
or
yearly
basis.
It
is
similarly
difficult
to
predict
the
number
of
tanks
that
a
facility
will
clean
in
an
upcoming
year.
The
Agency
agrees
with
commenters
that
this
variation
may
make
it
difficult
to
develop
appropriate
mass­
based
limits
for
a
facility.

"
Additionally,
the
Agency
agrees
with
stakeholders
who
have
stated
that
the
amount
of
wastewater
necessary
to
clean
a
tank
is
dependent
on
several
factors
which
may
make
it
difficult
for
a
permitting
authority
to
develop
appropriate
mass
based
limits.
These
factors
may
not
have
been
fully
accounted
for
in
the
Agency's
calculation
of
the
regulatory
flow
per
tank
which
was
used
to
establish
mass­
based
limits.
For
example,
the
amount
of
water
necessary
to
clean
a
tank
depends
on
the
cargos
accepted
(
products
such
as
molasses
and
tar
will
require
more
water),
the
type
of
tanks
cleaned
(
a
tank
with
an
interior
frame
will
require
more
water
to
clean),
and
the
condition
of
the
tank
(
some
barges
are
only
cleaned
every
few
years
and
may
have
accumulated
significant
amounts
of
residue
which
would
require
greater
volumes
of
water
to
clean).
Because
of
the
variation
in
the
water
volumes
which
may
be
necessary
to
clean
a
tank,
EPA
agrees
that
the
regulatory
flow
per
tank
developed
in
the
proposal
may
not
be
appropriate
for
some
facilities.
This
in
turn
could
lead
to
inappropriate
calculations
of
mass­
based
limits,
since
mass­
based
limits
are
calculated
on
the
basis
of
flow.

"
Based
on
these
comments
and
due
to
the
potential
difficulties
of
implementing
mass­
based
limits,
EPA
will
consider
promulgating
concentration­
based
limits
for
the
final
regulation.
Because
of
this
possibility,
EPA
has
presented
revised
effluent
limitations,
pretreatment
standards
and
new
source
performance
standards
as
concentration­
based
standards
for
all
subcategories
in
tables
at
the
end
of
this
notice.

"
Although
EPA
will
consider
promulgating
concentration­
based
limits,
EPA
believes
that
there
would
remain
an
economic
incentive
for
facilities
to
use
as
little
water
as
possible
in
their
cleaning
operations.
In
the
cost
model
developed
for
the
proposal,
for
example,
EPA
has
assessed
the
cost
to
install
water
conservation
measures
as
well
as
various
end­
of­
pipe
wastewater
treatment
technologies.
EPA
has
determined
that
the
compliance
cost
to
the
industry
is
generally
less
when
water
conservation
measures
are
employed.
EPA
has
therefore
continued
to
cost
wastewater
flow
reduction
as
a
component
of
treatment
options
in
the
truck
and
rail
subcategories,
even
though
it
may
decide
to
promulgate
concentration­
based
limits."
Id.
at
38864.

Finally,
in
the
preamble
for
the
August
14,
2000,
final
rule,
EPA
discusses
the
decision
to
promulgate
concentration­
based
standards.
"
EPA
proposed
mass­
based
limitations.
In
the
proposal
and
NOA,
EPA
discussed
a
change
to
the
format
of
the
rule
that
would
establish
concentration­
based
rather
than
mass­
based
limits.
EPA
received
many
comments
on
the
proposal
and
on
the
NOA
from
regulatory
authorities,
industry
stakeholders,
and
POTWs
strongly
supporting
the
concentration­
based
format
of
the
rule.
EPA
received
only
one
comment
on
the
proposal
supporting
mass­
based
limits.
In
the
NOA,
EPA
presented
concentration­
based
limitations
and
explained
its
rationale
for
the
change.
Comments
on
the
NOA
were
unanimously
supportive
of
concentration­
based
limits.
The
final
limitations
and
standards
being
promulgated
today
are
concentration­
based."
65
FR
49669.
15
EPA
also
discusses
the
change
in
technology
bases
for
the
subcategories:
"
EPA
has
eliminated
flow
reduction
from
the
technology
options
for
all
subcategories
because
it
is
promulgating
concentration­
based
rather
than
mass­
based
limitations.
Note,
however,
that
EPA
has
retained
flow
reduction
as
a
cost­
effective
compliance
strategy
for
several
subcategories."
Id.
at
49671.

15.
40
CFR
443
­
Paving
and
Roofing
Materials
Pretreatment
standards
for
new
sources
in
four
subcategories
in
the
Paving
and
Roofing
Materials
Point
Source
Category
were
first
proposed
on
January
10,
1975
(
40
FR
2352)
and
promulgated
on
July
24,
1975
(
40
FR
31189).
EPA
stated
that
the
PSNS
is
complementary
to
the
general
pretreatment
standards
to
prevent
interference
of
POTW
operations
or
pass­
through
of
pollutants
through
POTW
operations.
40
FR
2352.

EPA
promulgated
PSNS
in
four
subcategories
on
the
parameter
`
oil
and
grease'
at
100
mg/
l.
The
type
of
limits
and
standards
for
direct
dischargers
differ
by
the
four
subcategories
and
are
either
concentration­
based
(
Subpart
A
­
Asphalt
Emulsion);
zero
discharge
(
Subpart
B
­
Asphalt
Concrete);
or
production­
based
mass
limits
(
Subpart
C
­
Asphalt
Roofing;
Subpart
D
­
Linoleum
and
Printed
Asphalt
Felt).
The
parameter
`
oil
and
grease'
is
only
controlled
in
Subpart
A
through
concentration­
based
limitations
and
standards
(
i.
e.,
kg/
m3).
EPA
proposed
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
sources
in
four
subcategories
in
this
point
source
category
(
oil
and
grease
standards
of
100
mg/
l)
on
July
24,
1975
(
40
FR
31196).
EPA
never
finalized
these
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
sources.

No
rationale
could
be
found
in
the
proposal
or
final
preambles
for
why
EPA
selected
a
concentration
basis
for
the
proposed
PSES
and
the
promulgated
PSNS
for
the
parameter
`
oil
and
grease.'
Conversations
with
staff
who
worked
in
the
Division
at
the
time
these
standards
were
proposed
and
promulgated
indicate
that
the
standards
were
set
at
the
performance
of
an
oil
water
separator
at
the
time
of
proposal
and
promulgation.

16.
40
CFR
444
­
Commercial
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors
Subcategory
of
the
Waste
Combustors
Point
Source
Category
EPA
promulgated
concentration­
based
pretreatment
standards
for
the
Commercial
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors
(
CHWC)
Subcategory
on
January
27,
2000.
The
preamble
to
the
February
6,
1998,
proposed
rule
discusses
EPA's
decision
to
establish
concentration­
based
standards
for
both
direct
and
indirect
dischargers,
which
also
have
the
same
technology
basis:
"
EPA
is
requesting
comments
on
the
decision
to
use
concentration
limitations
as
opposed
to
production­
based
limitations.
EPA
based
the
decision
on
the
fact
that
Industrial
Waste
Combustors
do
not
make
a
product.
However,
the
limitations
could
potentially
be
based
upon
how
much
waste
is
burned
rather
than
product
generation.
EPA
sees
the
concentration
limitations
as
a
potential
problem
in
that
facilities
could
generate
more
process
water
to
comply
with
the
limitations
rather
than
treating
the
process
water
sufficiently.
For
example,
a
facility
could
increase
the
volume
of
scrubber
water
by
decreasing
the
amount
of
scrubber
water
that
is
recycled
16
for
reuse.
EPA
is
requesting
comments
on
this
issue."
63
FR
6417
(
February
6,
1998).

In
response
to
public
comments
EPA
stated,
"
EPA
concluded
that
production­
based
(
mass­
based)
limits
were
not
appropriate
for
the
CHWC
Industry
for
several
reasons.
First,
EPA
could
not
identify
any
consistent
relationship
between
the
quantity
of
waste
burned
and
the
quantity
of
scrubber
and
other
CHWC
wastewater
generated.
This
reflects,
in
a
large
degree,
the
fact
that
each
CHWC
facility
uses
different
types
of
air
pollution
control
equipment,
in
different
combinations,
to
control
their
emissions.
Different
types
of
air
pollution
control
equipment
develop
very
different
amounts
of
wastewater.
The
most
extreme
example
would
be
a
wet
scrubbing
versus
a
dry
scrubbing
system,
where
a
dry
scrubbing
system
would
generate
no
wastewater
at
all.
See
Table
3­
9
of
the
TDD
for
a
list
of
the
different
types
of
air
pollution
control
used
in
the
CHWC
Industry.
Second,
this
reflects,
in
part,
the
fact
that
those
CHWC
facilities
with
wet
air
pollution
control
recycle
their
scrubber
water
in
greatly
varying
rates
(
with
a
periodic
blow­
down
of
the
water
for
treatment
and
discharge.)"

17.
40
CFR
458
­
Carbon
Black
Manufacturing
EPA
promulgated
categorical
standards
for
Carbon
Black
Manufacturing
on
January
9,
1978.
For
direct
discharges,
EPA
established
zero
discharge
limits.
For
indirect
dischargers,
EPA
established
100
mg/
l
oil
and
grease
PSNS,
but
no
limits
for
PSES.
The
development
document
for
the
final
rule
states:
"
Subcategories
A­
D
should
have
no
process
waste
water
discharges.
No
carbon
black
plant
is
known
to
discharge
process
waste
water
to
a
POTW.
If
a
facility,
as
a
result
of
this
rule,
determines
that
a
discharge
should
be
made
to
a
POTW
rather
than
recycling
the
water
to
quench
systems
some
pretreatment
would
be
required.
This
pretreatment
would
be
of
a
type
to
prevent
excessive
oil
and
grease
discharges.
It
has
been
shown
in
literature
the
oil
and
grease
levels
of
100
mg/
l
from
petroleum,
mineral
or
unknown
origin
could
interfere
with
the
normal
operations
of
a
POTW.
For
this
reason
a
pretreatment
level
of
100
mg/
l
oil
and
grease
for
new
sources
is
recommended."
Development
Document
for
Final
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
New
Source
Performance
Standards
for
the
Carbon
Black
Manufacturing
Point
Source
Category,"
1976,
pg.
83).

18.
40
CFR
466
­
Porcelain
Enameling
EPA
proposed
production­
normalized
mass­
based
pretreatment
standards
for
this
industrial
category
on
January
27,
1981;
(
46
FR
8860).
EPA
promulgated
concentration­
based
and
production­
normalized
mass­
based
standards
in
the
November
24,
1982,
final
rule
to
help
ease
the
implementation
of
the
pretreatment
standards
for
existing
sources.
"
The
Agency
recognizes
that
concentration
based
standards
may
be
more
easily
implemented
and
in
this
specific
case
resulting
additional
pollutant
discharges
will
not
be
substantial."
47
FR
53177
(
November
24,
1982.
Control
authorities
have
the
discretion
to
choose
which
set
of
standards
they
wish
to
use.

EPA
did,
however,
set
production­
normalized
mass­
based
pretreatment
standards
for
new
sources.
"
Although
mass­
based
standards
may
be
somewhat
more
difficult
for
a
POTW
to
17
enforce,
mass­
based
standards
are
necessary
for
PSNS
to
ensure
that
the
considerable
effluentreduction
benefits
of
flow
reduction
techniques
are
obtained.
Overall
flow
and
pollution
reduction
of
about
90
percent
can
be
achieved
by
countercascade
rinsing,
and
countercascade
rinsing
is
not
excessively
costly
in
new
plants."
Id.
at
53178).

19.
40
CFR
469
­
Electrical
and
Electronic
Components
EPA
promulgated
concentration­
based
PSES
and
PSNS
for
Electrical
and
Electronic
Components
(
Phase
I)
on
April
8,
1983,
for
Total
Toxic
Organics
(
TTO)
and
arsenic,
and
promulgated
concentration­
based
PSES
and
PSNS
for
Phase
II
on
December
14,
1983.
Note
that
for
TTO,
indirect
dischargers
may
request
that
no
monitoring
be
required,
and
instead
submit
a
solvent
management
plan
as
well
as
a
certification
statement
as
part
of
their
periodic
compliance
reports.

In
the
Phase
I
proposal,
EPA
provides
a
rationale
for
establishing
concentration­
based
standards
for
direct
dischargers,
which
also
informs
the
decision
for
indirect
dischargers.
"
The
BPT,
BAT,
and
BCT
limitations
and
NSPS
in
this
regulation
will
be
applied
to
individual
plants
through
NPDES
permits
issued
by
EPA
or
approved
State
agencies
under
Section
402
of
the
Act.
Under
the
proposed
regulation
for
the
Electrical
and
Electronic
Components
Category,
all
limitations
are
concentration
based.
National
mass
based
limitations
are
not
provided
because
the
Agency
has
determined
that
a
fundamental
relationship
between
production
and
pollutant
loadings
does
not
exist
in
either
subcategory.
See
40
CFR
122.63(
f).
Permitting
authorities
can
derive
mass
based
limitations
by
multiplying
the
concentration
limit
by
the
undiluted
discharge
flow."
47
FR
37056
(
August
24,
1982).

In
the
Phase
II
proposed
rule
covering
Cathode
Ray
Tubes
and
Luminescent
Materials
subcategories,
the
Agency
discusses
this
industry's
water
use
and
rationale
for
establishing
concentration­
based
limits.
"
Because
of
the
high
cost
of
DI
[
deionized]
water,
the
industry
practice
is
to
reuse/
recycle
and
conserve
water
to
whatever
extent
is
practical.
Therefore,
further
waste
water
flow
reduction
by
increased
water
conservation
and
recycle
does
not
appear
practicable.
The
plant­
to­
plant
variability
of
the
degree
of
water
reuse
and
recycle
is
a
function
of
general
product
quality
requirements
and,
to
a
lesser
extent,
of
site
specific
water
supply
factors.
This
made
it
infeasible
to
derive
a
correlation
between
water
flow
and
production.
An
effort
was
even
made
to
establish
a
relationship
between
DI
water
produced
and
plant
production
level.
This
absence
of
a
relationship
between
production
and
waste
water
flow
precluded
the
use
of
mass
based
limits.
That
is
why
this
proposal
would
set
concentration­
based
limits."
48
FR
10015(
March
9,
1983).

On
Page
11019
of
the
Phase
II
proposed
rule,
in
the
discussion
of
the
relationship
to
NPDES
permits
and
general
BCT
treatment,
the
Agency
states:
"
As
discussed
in
section
VII­
B,
national
mass
based
limitations
are
not
provided
because
the
Agency
has
determined
that
a
fundamental
relationship
between
production
and
pollutant
loadings
cannot
be
broadly
established
for
either
subcategory.
See
40
CFR
122.63(
f).
Permitting
authorities
can
derive
mass
based
limitations
by
multiplying
the
concentration
limit
by
the
undiluted
discharge
flow.
The
Effluent
18
Guidelines
Division
can
assist
the
permitting
authorities
in
making
this
determination,
especially
with
respect
to
the
validity
of
the
flow
levels
presented
by
a
permittee
as
representative
of
their
plant."

The
preamble
to
the
Phase
II
final
rule
continues
this
discussion
and
notes
that
one
reason
for
not
setting
mass
limits
was
the
Agency's
inability
to
set
them
on
a
nationwide
basis:
"
EPA
attempts,
when
possible,
to
set
production­
based
effluent
limitations
which
will
tend
to
reduce
water
usage.
In
the
case
of
the
CRT
and
Luminescent
Material
Subcategories,
the
Agency
is
not
establishing
production­
based
limitations
and
standards.
We
believe
that
available
data
do
not
support
the
establishment
of
such
limitations
and
standards
on
a
nation­
wide
basis
and
the
existing
economic
incentives
already
minimize
wastewater
discharge
flows.
The
water
used
in
the
production
of
CRTs
is
deionized
(
DI)
water
produced
by
using
an
ion
exchange
process.
Because
of
the
higher
costs
associated
with
deionized
water,
the
industry
practice
is
to
reuse
and
conserve
water
to
whatever
extent
practical.
Therefore,
further
wastewater
flow
reduction
by
increased
water
conservation
does
not
appear
practicable.
Morever,
the
Agency
was
unable
to
determine
a
nationally
applicable
relation
between
production
and
wastewater
discharge.
This
is
because
the
degree
to
which
plants
practice
water
reuse
and
conservation
depends
on
product
quality
requirements
and,
to
a
lesser
extent,
site­
specific
water
supply
factors."
48
FR
55693
(
December
14,
1983).
