Data Availability; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards and New Source Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category

Contents of This Document

I. Purpose of This Notice II. Data Acquired Since the Proposal III. Concentration-Based Limitations IV. Modification to Subcategorization Approach V. Low Flow Exclusion VI. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates VII. Discussion of Applicability Issues A. Coverage of IBCs B. Overlap With Other Guidelines VIII. Modification to Pollutants Selected for Regulation A. Oil and Grease and Non-Polar Material as Indicator Parameters B. Pass Through of SGT-HEM IX. Technology Options A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory 1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory 2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory 1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory 2. PSES and PSNS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory 1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory 2. PSES and PSNS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory D. Food Subcategory BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories X. Presentation of Concentration-Based Limitations

I. Purpose of This Notice

On June 25, 1998 (63 FR 34685), EPA proposed regulations for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category. EPA has received numerous comments and data submissions concerning the proposal. In this document, EPA is making these new data submissions available for comment. Additionally, EPA is providing a discussion of additional analyses performed relating to specific issues raised by commenters. EPA is also presenting a revised approach to several aspects of the proposal which received numerous comments. EPA solicits comment on all revised approaches that EPA will consider for final action.

II. Data Acquired Since the Proposal

Since proposal, EPA has obtained additional data and information from the industry, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and the Agency's continued data collection activities. The Agency has included these data, information, and the preliminary results of EPA's evaluation in sections 15 through 22 of the supporting record of this document, available for review in the Water Docket (see Addresses section). The industry and POTW information and data submittals are related to cost of treatment, pass through of pollutants at POTWs, and site visit reports from several facilities visited since proposal. The specific data, information, and comments provided to EPA are discussed in detail throughout the following sections of this document. The Agency collected treatment performance data from two additional Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities operating BPT/BAT treatment. The data consisted of effluent self monitoring data for conventional pollutants over a one year period from both facilities, and effluent self monitoring data for priority pollutants over a one year period from one facility, totaling approximately 190 effluent data points. The facilities also provided self monitoring data for chemical oxygen demand (COD) at the influent to biological treatment over the same time period. Complete site visit reports, raw data results, and statistical methodology are available for review in sections 17 and 21 of the supporting record of this document. EPA recalculated the BPT concentration-based effluent limitations and new source performance standards for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) based on effluent data from these two facilities.

III. Concentration-Based Limitations

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 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. For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, however, EPA has eliminated costs for flow reduction because of the high variability in wastewater volumes required for barge cleaning. EPA solicits comment on setting concentration-based limitations.

IV. Modification to Subcategorization Approach

In the proposal, the Agency solicited comment on an approach to subcategorization that would combine the chemical and petroleum subcategories. The majority of stakeholders submitting comments supported combining the petroleum and chemical subcategories in order to facilitate implementation of the rule. Stakeholders have identified several specific examples of products and situations where it may be difficult to clearly determine whether a facility would be subject to the chemical or petroleum limitations. EPA agrees that the proposed definition of the petroleum and chemical subcategories are not as clear as the Agency would prefer. One option to address this would be for EPA to clarify the definitions of the petroleum and chemical subcategories, and therefore to clarify the definitions of

``petroleum'' and ``chemical'' cargos. In this instance, EPA would have to make the definitions much more specific to address the numerous applicability issues raised in comments by amending the definition or by specifically listing a significant number of products. EPA believes that this may not be the best approach because it may increase confusion by creating a set of unwieldy definitions which still may not be able to address all potential regulatory circumstances. In addition, many parties requested that EPA simplify the TEC rule so as to create as little ambiguity as possible. Of particular concern to affected parties was that EPA provide unambiguous, straightforward definitions which provide clear direction for implementation. Therefore, EPA does not believe that augmenting the definition of the petroleum and chemical subcategories would be the best option. Due to concerns with implementing the subcategorization approach as proposed and the support for this change by commenters, EPA will consider combining the petroleum and chemical subcategories. EPA believes that this approach may provide the most unambiguous and implementable subcategorization scheme. However, EPA realizes that combining these subcategories would have the consequence of bringing 37 petroleum facilities which the Agency had previously concluded did not merit regulation under coverage of the TEC rule. In the proposal, EPA tentatively decided not to establish limits for the petroleum subcategories due to the low pollutant loadings associated with this segment of the industry. One of the greatest differences in wastewater characteristics between the chemical and petroleum subcategories was the amount of wastewater generated from tank cleaning. Generally, petroleum facilities generate significantly less water than chemical facilities. For example, 288 truck chemical facilities generated 708 million gallons per year of interior cleaning wastewater (average of 2.5 million gallons per facility per year), compared to 34 truck petroleum facilities which generated 2.5 million gallons per year (average of 74,000 gallons per facility per year). For the rail facilities, 38 chemical grade facilities generated 91 million gallons per year (average of 2.4 million gallons per facility per year) compared to three petroleum facilities which generated 2,800 gallons per year (average of 930 gallons per facility per year). The low pollutant loadings associated with the petroleum subcategories can be predominantly attributed to the low wastewater volumes generated from cleaning petroleum products. As discussed in Section V of this notice, EPA is also considering a low flow exclusion of 100,000 gallons per year of regulated TEC process wastewater. As stated above, one reason for not regulating facilities in the petroleum subcategories was due to the low pollutant loads generated by this subcategory. Twenty eight of the 37 facilities in the proposed Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories discharge less than 100,000 gallons of wastewater per year. These facilities also generate much less than 1% of the industry loadings calculated for proposal. Thus, EPA continues to believe that the majority of petroleum facilities do not merit regulation. EPA believes that the approach of excluding facilities on the basis of flow rather than on the basis of cargo would result in a more implementable regulation, and that these changes would be consistent with the rationale and conclusions reached in the proposal. The combined result of the revised subcategorization approach and low flow exclusion is that one model facility (representing nine facilities) excluded at proposal would be added to the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. This model facility was evaluated as a small business in the impacts analysis and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel report and review (section 12, DCN T10301 of the proposed record) and dischargers approximately 200,000 gallons per year of TEC wastewater. This facility does not experience closure as a result of compliance costs in the Truck/ Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. In addition, one model facility (representing 11 facilities) previously regulated in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory would be excluded from the regulation. In the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, two model facilities (representing 8 facilities) previously covered at proposal would be excluded from the regulation if EPA adopts the low flow exclusion. The complete revised costs, loads, and impacts for the subcategories are discussed in section IX of this document. In addition to combining the chemical and petroleum subcategories, EPA will also consider combining the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/ Food Subcategories. In the proposal, subcategorization was necessary because the truck, rail, and barge facilities had different regulatory flows per tank which resulted in different mass-based limits for each subcategory. However, if EPA decides to promulgate concentration-based limits, subcategorization by transportation mode is unnecessary and EPA will likely promulgate one set of limits for all food subcategories. EPA solicits comments on the alternative subcategorization approach that combines the chemical and petroleum subcategories for rail and truck cleaning facilities.

V. Low Flow Exclusion

In the proposal, EPA considered establishing a minimum flow level for defining the scope of the regulation. EPA conducted an analysis of the loads discharged by low flow facilities, but concluded that these facilities discharged proportional loadings and therefore EPA did not propose a low flow exclusion. Several commenters noted that the lowest flow level EPA considered for an exclusion was 2,000 gallons per day. They suggested that the Agency consider a flow exclusion based on a lower level of wastewater generation. The commenters noted that several POTWs have successfully implemented low flow exclusions of 300 to 500 gallons per day. In order to address these comments, EPA conducted an analysis to determine the effect of a low flow exclusion at 100,000 gallons per year of regulated TEC process wastewater. This equates to approximately 400 gallons per day (assuming 250 days of operation), as was suggested by the commenters. EPA believes that an exclusion based on annual flow is more appropriate than daily flow due to the potential daily variation in wastewater generation rates. Based on this analysis, EPA found that 28 of 37 facilities in the proposed Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories would qualify for the low flow exclusion. Additionally, 11 indirect discharging Truck/Chemical facilities and eight indirect discharging Rail/Chemical facilities would qualify for the exclusion. One model direct discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facility (representing three facilities) would be excluded because the majority of wastewater generated at this facility is subject to another categorical standard, and the facility generates a small amount of TEC wastewater incidental to its main business. As discussed in section IV, EPA will consider combining the chemical and petroleum subcategories for the Truck and Rail segments of the industry. EPA therefore analyzed the low flow exclusion in terms of this combined

subcategorization. EPA determined that the loads from the facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year generated much less than 1% of the total loads for the entire truck and rail subcategories. Due to the very low loadings associated with facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year, EPA will consider adopting a low flow exclusion from this regulation for the TEC guideline. Additionally, EPA has received comments from commercial and manufacturing facilities that may clean a small number of tanks which may not clearly qualify for the exclusion of manufacturing facilities. EPA believes that the adoption of a low flow exclusion will have the benefit of providing flexibility to these facilities which may be unsure of their regulatory status under the TEC guideline. EPA envisions that the low flow exclusion would apply to any facility which discharges less than 100,000 gallons per year of regulated TEC process wastewater. Regulated TEC wastewater includes only wastewater generated from a regulated TEC subcategory. Process wastewater includes all wastewaters associated with cleaning the interiors of tanks including, but not limited to: tank trucks; rail tank cars; intermodal tank containers; inland tank barges; and ocean/ sea tankers used to transport commodities or cargos that come into direct contact with the tank or container interior. TEC process wastewaters also include wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors, equipment and floor washings, and TEC-contaminated stormwater. The revised costs and loads discussed in section IX of this document reflect the deletion of model facilities that discharge less than 100,000 gallons per year of regulated TEC process wastewater. Facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year of regulated TEC process wastewater will remain subject to limitations and standards established on a case by case basis using best professional judgement by the permitting authority. EPA requests comment on the low flow exclusion from this regulation of 100,000 gallons per year. EPA additionally requests comment on alternative low flow exclusions between 100,000 and 500,000 gallons per year. EPA notes that an exclusion set at 200,000 gallons per year would exclude the one remaining model facility in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory that EPA did not originally intend to regulate as part of the proposed Truck/Petroleum Subcategory. EPA will analyze the economic and environmental effects of an exclusion set at this flow level and may consider such an exclusion for the final rule.

VI. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates

In the proposal, the Agency calculated pollutant loadings for each regulatory option in each subcategory based on the set of pollutants effectively removed by the treatment technology. These loadings were then used for evaluating the various technology options in each subcategory. In order to determine the list of pollutants effectively removed, EPA used a set of editing criteria to identify pollutants of interest in the subcategory, and to determine which pollutants were effectively treated by the regulatory option. In general, pollutants were only included in the analysis if they were detected in raw wastewater samples from more than one facility, were detected at an average concentration at least five times the minimum level of quantification (ML), and were removed by 50% or more in the proposed treatment option. These criteria were used to ensure that the pollutants were present at treatable concentrations in raw wastewaters, and that the presence of the pollutant was representative of the industry's wastewater, as described in section VIII.C of the proposal. In the proposal, EPA described that it used a modified set of editing criteria for pesticide and herbicide pollutants than was used for the other pollutants. Due to the relative toxicity of some pesticides and herbicides even at low levels, the Agency proposed that any pesticide or herbicide detected in any raw wastewater sample be considered a pollutant of interest. No other editing criteria were used to determine if a pesticide or herbicide was a pollutant of interest for the industry. Many commenters were concerned that the pesticides and herbicides account for a large portion of the toxic loads in the Truck/Chemical and Rail/Chemical Subcategories. Several commenters disagreed with the adoption of modified screening criteria and questioned whether these pesticides and herbicides were actually present in raw wastewaters. Specifically, several of the pesticides and herbicides which contributed a significant portion of the toxic loadings were detected at only one or two facilities, and/or were found at levels only slightly above the ML. Also, commenters noted in several instances that the laboratory results from the primary and secondary columns differed by more than a factor of three, thereby resulting in a ``best obtainable'' qualification of these data. Notably, the detects for coumaphos and azinphos ethyl, which accounted for 74% of the pound equivalent removals in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory Option II, both had this data qualifier. In these instances, commenters argued that the presence of the pesticides and herbicides in the analytical samples may be the result of matrix interference due to the low quantification levels. Consequently, EPA reviewed the data to confirm that the target analytes were appropriately identified and quantified. EPA reviewed laboratory calculations; compared the database, summary hard copy, and raw data results for transcription errors; double checked all QC data; and evaluated the chromatograms and other raw data. EPA concluded that all calculations were correct and no transcription errors were present among the raw data, summary level, and database results. Blank results showed no signs of contamination, and all calibration verification and ongoing precision and recovery results were within acceptable limits. In addition, surrogate standards, which are spiked into each of the field samples, generated acceptable recoveries. An evaluation of the chromatograms for these samples confirmed that azinphos ethyl and coumophos were appropriately identified within the respective retention time windows of both the primary and secondary columns. The results of this analysis, including the chromatograms, are available for review in section 17.2 of the supporting record for this document. In instances where the values obtained from the primary and secondary columns differed, the final result reported in the database and used for all Agency calculations is the lower of the two values. This only affected raw wastewater values because effluent wastewater concentrations were generally found below the quantification level, and were therefore set at the ML. Therefore, EPA has consistently used the lowest of the potential sampling values for determining the raw wastewater concentrations, and has used the highest of the potential sampling values for effluent concentrations. This is a conservative approach that likely results in a low bias in subsequent pollutant reduction estimates. Although the Agency has confirmed the presence of these analytes in wastewater samples, the Agency agrees with commenters that there are concerns about the level of certainty that can be achieved when such low quantification levels are involved. This is a particular concern due to the significant impact that pesticide and

herbicide removals had on the calculation of toxic loadings. Therefore, the Agency is considering applying the same editing criteria to pesticides and herbicides as were established in the proposal for all other pollutants. In this case, EPA would only consider those pollutants detected at more than one wastewater characterization sample and at an average concentration at least five times the ML as a potential pollutant effectively removed. Although EPA has concluded that pollutants such as azinphos ethyl and coumophos are indeed present in TEC wastewaters, EPA also believes that it may be appropriate to utilize the same criteria for pesticide/herbicide pollutants as were used in the proposal for all non-pesticide/herbicide parameters. EPA has therefore re-evaluated its list of pollutants effectively removed for each subcategory, applying the applicable criteria to pesticides and herbicides. Under this approach, several pesticides and herbicides would be deleted from the list of pollutants effectively removed. This would in turn significantly decreased the toxic pound equivalents attributed to raw and treated TEC wastewaters. In section VIII of the proposal, EPA also discussed analytical results for dioxins and furans in raw wastewater for the TEC industry. EPA did not include dioxins and furans in the loadings calculations because EPA assumed that these were isolated, site-specific instances. EPA received several comments disagreeing with the Agency's assumption. In response to this, EPA re-evaluated the presence of dioxins and furans in wastewater based on the standard editing criteria described above. EPA found that several pollutants met the editing criteria to be considered a pollutant effectively removed, and EPA has therefore included several dioxin and furan removals in the loadings calculations. The revised removals of toxic pound equivalents by each technology option are presented in section IX of this document. EPA solicits comment on the revised methodology for calculating pollutant removals.

VII. Discussion of Applicability Issues

A. Coverage of IBCs

In the proposal, EPA indicated that it did not intend to regulate wastewater generated from Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs) for several reasons discussed in the preamble and in the report prepared by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. IBCs were defined in the proposal as portable containers with 450 liters (119 gallons) to 3000 liters (793 gallons) capacity. Although EPA did not have data to calculate the loads associated with IBC cleaning, EPA assumed that the loadings generated from IBC cleaning were not a significant portion of the loadings of the TEC industry. EPA based this assumption on several data comparisons. First, based on responses to the 1994 detailed questionnaire (section 6.3. DCN T09842 of the proposed record), EPA estimated that 84,500 IBCs per year were cleaned by the TEC industry. This accounted for only 3% of the units cleaned at TEC facilities. Second, EPA assumed that wastewater generated from IBCs is similar to that of the drum reconditioning industry. EPA reasoned that IBCs were being used as a replacement for 55 gallon drums, and that the cargos being transported in IBCs were similar to those being transported in drums. Therefore, resulting IBC wastewater would be expected to be similar to that of drum reconditioning wastewater. EPA had conducted The Preliminary Data Summary for the Drum Reconditioning Industry (EPA 440/1-89/101 September 1989), and EPA concluded at that time that the industry did not merit national regulation. Drum reconditioning facilities were therefore not considered within the scope of the TEC guideline, and EPA concluded that IBCs should also be excluded from the scope of this guideline. EPA has received comments which have both agreed and disagreed with the Agency's proposal to exclude IBCs from the scope of the TEC regulation. The most significant comments received on the IBC issue have described the changes in the industry since EPA's data collection efforts. In 1989, the Preliminary Data Summary for the Drum Reconditioning Industry did not collect any data on IBCs because so few IBCs were being used by the industry. By 1994, according to responses to the detailed questionnaire for the TEC industry, over 84,000 IBCs were being cleaned at TEC facilities. Data submitted by commenters have shown that IBC cleanings have increased dramatically in each year since EPA's survey. Based on data provided in comments, EPA now believes that there are up to several million IBCs being cleaning annually. In the preamble, EPA solicited comment on the loads associated with IBC cleaning, and on the assumption that IBC wastewater was similar to drum reconditioning wastewater. Although no commenters provided data on the raw wastewater characteristics of IBC cleaning wastewater, several commenters did provide information on the amount of heel associated with IBCs as compared to that from drums and tank trucks. As several commenters noted, most IBCs are cleaned at facilities which have historically cleaned either drums or tank trucks, and IBC wastewater is therefore commingled with drums or tank truck cleaning wastewater. For this reason, EPA was unable to obtain wastewater sampling data which would be representative of wastewater generated solely from cleaning IBCs. In terms of the amount of heel contained in an IBC, one commenter who supports coverage of IBCs said that IBCs typically contain between 0.5 to two gallons of heel. In comparison, a tank truck typically contains one to two gallons of heel, but may contain up to five to 10 gallons of heel for more viscous products. Another commenter who supports no regulation for IBCs noted that IBCs that have carried hazardous waste must contain less than one gallon of residue to be processed by a reconditioner, less than one inch of heel (typically 1.6 gallons) for more viscous products for containers less than 110 gallons, or less than 0.3% residue for containers greater than 110 gallons (approximately 0.83 gallons for a 275-gallon IBC) to be considered RCRA empty. The 1994 questionnaire for the TEC industry gave similar results, with tank trucks containing 5...................................................................... 61 22 TSS....................................................................... 58 26 Oil and Grease (HEM)...................................................... 36 16 pH........................................................................ Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units Chromium.................................................................. 0.055 N/A Copper.................................................................... 0.14 N/A Zinc...................................................................... 0.037 N/A Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.............................................. 0.032 N/A ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: PSES and PSNS Concentration-Based Limitations for Discharges to POTWs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pollutant or pollutant property [mg/L] Maximum for any one day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-polar Material (SGT-HEM)........................... 26. pH..................................................... Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units. Chromium............................................... 0.055. Copper................................................. 0.143. Zinc................................................... 0.037 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate........................... 0.032. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3--Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS Concentration-Based Limitations for discharges to Surface Waters ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [mg/L] ------------------------------------- Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for any one day Monthly average ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BOD5...................................................................... 61 22 TSS....................................................................... 58 26 Oil and Grease (HEM)...................................................... 36 16 pH........................................................................ Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units Fluoranthene.............................................................. 0.076 N/A Phenanthrene.............................................................. 0.341 N/A ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4.--Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: PSES and PSNS Concentration-Based Limitations for Discharges to POTWs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pollutant or pollutant property [mg/L] Maximum for any one day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-polar Material (SGT-HEM)........................... 26. pH..................................................... Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units. Fluoranthene........................................... 0.076. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS Concentration-Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [mg/L] ------------------------------------- Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for any one day Monthly average ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BOD5...................................................................... 61 22 TSS....................................................................... 58 26 Oil and Grease (HEM)...................................................... 36 16 pH........................................................................ Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units Cadmium................................................................... 0.014 N/A Chromium.................................................................. 0.42 N/A Copper.................................................................... 0.10 N/A Lead...................................................................... 0.11 N/A Nickel.................................................................... 0.58 N/A Zinc8.3................................................................... N/A 1-Methylphenanthrene...................................................... 0.11 N/A Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.............................................. 0.071 N/A ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 6.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: PSNS Concentration-Based Limitations for Discharges to POTWs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pollutant or pollutant property [mg/L] Maximum for any one day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-polar Material (SGT-HEM)........................... 22. pH..................................................... Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units. Cadmium................................................ 0.014. Chromium............................................... 0.42. Copper................................................. 0.10. Lead................................................... 0.11. Nickel................................................. 0.58. Zinc................................................... 8.3. 1-Methylphenanthrene................................... 0.11. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate........................... 0.071. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 7.--Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS Concentration-Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [mg/L] ------------------------------------- Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for any one day Monthly average ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BOD5...................................................................... 56 24 TSS....................................................................... 225 86 Oil and Grease (HEM)...................................................... 20 8.8 pH........................................................................ Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Solicitation of Comments

1. EPA solicits comment on setting concentration-based limitations. (Section III). 2. EPA solicits comments on the alternative subcategorization approach that combines the chemical and petroleum subcategories for rail and truck cleaning facilities. (Section IV). 3. EPA requests comment on the low flow exclusion from the TEC regulation of 100,000 gallons per year and on alternative low flow exclusions in the range of 100,000 to 500,000 gallons per year. (Section V). 4. EPA solicits comment on the revised methodology for calculating pollutant removals. (Section VI). 5. EPA solicits comment on the assumptions, methodology, and

conclusions of the market analysis conducted by EPA on the effect of not including IBCs within the scope of the TEC regulation. EPA solicits any information on the price of IBC cleaning, the volume of wastewater generated from IBCs, the economic importance of IBC cleaning to affected facilities, and the relative market shares of different types of facilities engaged in IBC cleaning. (Section VII.A). 6. EPA solicits comment on the revised applicability language of the rule, including the definition ``MP&M generated wastewaters''. (Section VII.B). 7. EPA solicits comment on the revised costs, benefits, and economic impacts associated with establishing PSES and PSNS at Option I for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. (Section IX.A.2). 8. EPA solicits comment on establishing NSPS equivalent to BAT for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. (Section IX.B.1). 9. EPA solicits comment on establishing PSES and PSNS at Option II, or alternatively at Option I, for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. (Section IX.B.2). 10. EPA solicits comment on the conclusion that all indirect discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities have treatment in place sufficient to prevent pass through or interference at a POTW. (Section IX.C.2). 11. EPA solicits comment on using HEM and SGT-HEM as indicator parameters and on the pass-through of SGT-HEM. (Section VIII.B and VIII.C). 12. EPA solicits comment on the list of analytes being considered for regulation in all subcategories. (Section VIII).

Dated: July 12, 1999. J. Charles Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water. [FR Doc. 99-18478 Filed 7-19-99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P