DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
(INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
1000 NAVY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350-1000

JUNE 22 2000

 

Mr. Michael Ebner
Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460

Re: Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, And New Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source Category; Proposed Rule; 66 FR 424 (3 January 2001), Docket No. W-99-23.

Dear Mr. Ebner:

Enclosed are comments on the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) Point Source Category proposed rule (66 FR 424, 3 January 2001) prepared by the Department of Defense (DoD) Clean Water Act Services Steering Committee (CWASSC). The DoD CWASSC represents the Departments of the Navy, Air Force, and Army, as well as several other Defense components. In general, DoD supports EPA's efforts outlined in the proposed rule to regulate a complex source category. However, we are concerned that the proposed rule needs to further address issues on applicability, accurate cost estimates, and equitable low flow exemptions.

DoD's main concern in determining applicability of the proposed rule is that additional detail should be provided for a potentially regulated facility to determine if the proposed rule applies to a source. We recommend that the rule be revised to: 1) Provide more comprehensive definitions of the 18 industrial sectors; 2) remove the "miscellaneous metal products" industrial sector from the rule; 3) identify each subcategory as being either a metal-bearing or oil-bearing waste in the rule; 4) expand the definitions of the General Metals and Oily Waste subcategories unit operations; and 5) rename the "general metals" subcategory to "captive metal finishers" subcategory.

We are also concerned that although EPA received information from 44 Federal facilities, there was no consideration of Federal facilities cost information in EPA's cost benefit analysis. DoD's internal cost estimate for just determining if a medium size mixed-use facility qualifies for the low flow exemption shows that the cost is significant and warrants consideration.

Another major concern is the absence of a low flow exemption to facilities discharging to all Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage (TWTDSs). DoD urges EPA to allow these facilities to qualify for the same low flow exemption as indirect discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) are already provided in the rule. In addition, low flow exemptions should be self-implementing and require permitting authority approval of proposed exempt low flows at mixed-use facilities. Without low flow exemptions, affected DoD facilities would need to either provide: 1) Extensive treatment at numerous individual maintenance operations that discharge small intermittent flows; or 2) treatment for combined flows from the entire installation, which might then be subject to the combined waste stream formula. Both would result in capital costs for installation and operation and monitoring at each of these sites significantly above any benefits. In addition, DoD believes that EPA should be consistent with the existing pretreatment program, which allows for effluent guideline requirements to be self-implementing.

Finally, we also recommend that EPA incorporate the following measures into the final rule: 1) Increase the low flow exemptions threshold by an additional 1 million gallons per year each; 2) expand and clarify factors for determining industrial site boundaries at mixed-use facilities; 3) reassess microfiltration and ultrafiltration technology suitability as acceptable treatment for oily wastes; 4) clarify whether non-contact wastewaters are regulated under the rule; 5) identify regulated and unregulated vehicle washing wastestreams; and 6) allow dischargers to determine monitoring options or management plans and the use of existing programs in lieu of an organic chemical management plan.

We would be happy to discuss our comments further or to address any questions. My point of contact is Ms. Kathy Ellis at (703) 602-2568 or email ellis.kathy@hq.navy.mil.

 
Paul J. Yaroschak
Director, Environmental Compliance and
Restoration Policy

Copy to:
ODUSD(ES)/EQ-CM
OAGC(I&E)
CNO N45
DAIM-ED-C
SAF/MIQ
HQMC-LFL
DLA-CAA

Department of Defense (DoD)
CLEAN WATER ACT SERVICES STEERING COMMITTEE

Comments on the 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) Point Source Category; Proposed Rule

66 FR 424 (3 January 2001)

Table of Contents

1. Proposed Rule Needs Further Clarification

1.a. Industrial Sectors Affected Need to be Better Defined
1.b. Eliminate Miscellaneous Metal Products as a Regulated Industrial Sector
1.c. Identify Each Subcategory as Being Either a Metal-Bearing or Oil-Bearing Waste in the Rule
1.d. Unit Operations Under the General Metals and Oily Wastes Subcategories Need to be Better Defined
1.e. Rename "General Metals" Subcategory to "Captive Metal Finishers" Subcategory

2. DoD Cost Information Should be Considered in EPA's Cost Benefit Analysis

3. Applicability of Low Flow Exemption

3.a. Apply Low Flow Exemption to Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage (TWTDS)
3.b. Low Flow Exemptions at Mixed-Use Facilities Should be Self-Implementing

4. Increase Low Flow Exemptions Threshold for General and Oily Waste Subcategories

5. Expand and Clarify Factors for Determining Industrial Site Boundaries at Mixed-Use Facilities

6. Reassess Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration Technology Suitability as Acceptable Treatment for Oily Wastes

7. Clarify Whether Non-Contact Wastewaters are Regulated Under the MP&M Rule

8. Identify Regulated and Unregulated Vehicle Washing Wastestreams

9. Discharger Should Determine Monitoring Options or Management Plans

10. Allow the Use of Existing Programs in Lieu of Organic Chemicals Management Plan

Attachment A - Metal Products & Machinery Applicability Decision Tree (A Wastestream Analysis)

 

Department of Defense (DoD)
CLEAN WATER ACT SERVICES STEERING COMMITTEE

Comments on the
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M)
Point Source Category; Proposed Rule

66 FR 424 (3 January 2001)

1. Proposed Rule Needs Further Clarification

The rule as written is confusing. Industrial sectors affected by the rule are not well defined, and unit operations within the industrial sectors are not described in the rule. In general, the rule is a departure from existing effluent guidelines, where specific unit operations and their associated discharges are described and regulated. In contrast, this rule attempts to regulate all wastewaters generated during the production or repair of a particular industrial sector product or part. This approach results in a very broad range of operations and wastewaters potentially subject to regulation.

The rule is confusing as currently structured because the subcategories do not align with the 18 MP&M industrial sectors. In addition, the preamble speaks to two basic types of wastes, metal-bearing wastes and oil-bearing wastes, but these two waste groups are not reflected in the rule itself. As written, one could interpret the rule to regulate a single industrial sector source under multiple MP&M subcategories.

Below are specific areas where the rule is unclear, and warrants clarification.

1.a. Industrial Sectors Affected Need to be Better Defined

Comment: The 18 industrial sectors cited in the rule are not well defined. Each of the 18 industrial sectors are defined only generically as titles; for example, "Instruments" and "Hardware."

Discussion: Section 438.1, General Applicability, applies "to process wastewater discharges…engaged in manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance of metal parts, products or machines for use in the MP&M industrial sectors listed in this section" [emphasis added]. Aside from the Appendix A list of "typical products" produced in each sector, the rule does not contain specific descriptions of the 18 industrial sectors, nor does it contain a list of unit operations that are typically found in these 18 industrial sectors, and thereby regulated by this rule. This differs from most effluent guidelines, where production process descriptions, versus products produced, are included in a rule to clarify which process wastestreams are subject to regulation. Page 439-442 of the preamble explains that this generic approach was selected by EPA because unit operations are not unique to the individual industrial sectors but instead are common among the 18 sectors. In addition, the preamble states that citing specific unit processes for each industrial category would complicate implementation of the effluent requirements in permits.

While DoD understands the reasons for EPA's reluctance to cite unit processes for each of the 18 industrial sectors, the 18 generic sector titles in the rule as written are too broad to allow dischargers to determine if their operations and associated wastewaters are regulated. Applicability of the rule is particularly important to DoD installations because DoD installations are mixed-use facilities. Unlike a manufacturing facility with one operation, DoD installations typically have multiple processes spread out over a large contiguous area (i.e.: a base). The vast majority of MP&M sources on DoD installations are related to maintenance activities. Individual maintenance activities are typically small sources by themselves, and are usually not co-located with other maintenance or manufacturing/rebuild operations. Determining which of these individual sources have regulated discharges will be extremely difficult if the 18 industrial sectors are not more clearly defined.

Recommendation: At a minimum, provide clarification in the General Applicability Section for the 18 industrial sectors to include a list of unit processes, operations and wastewater sources which are subject to regulation under the rule and which apply to all 18 of the sectors. Alternately, provide clarification in the General Applicability Section for the 18 industrial sectors to include a list of unit processes, operations and wastewater sources which are subject to regulation under each sector.

References:

a. 40 CFR 438.1

b. Preamble, Section VI.A, Industry Subcategorization, Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization, pages 439-442.

1.b. Eliminate Miscellaneous Metal Products as a Regulated Industrial Sector

Comment: Miscellaneous Metal Products is not a recognizable industrial sector. EPA should eliminate this "catch all" industrial sector and focus on known industrial sectors and discharges.

Discussion: The Miscellaneous Metals Products industrial sector is a concern to us because without clear definition: 1) EPA could not have properly determined the impact and cost of this sector; and 2) the extent of what is regulated is infinite and therefore, would be burdensome and difficult to implement. It appears EPA left this sector intentionally vague in order to regulate any discharge that does not fall neatly into the other 17 sectors. The impact of the Miscellaneous Metals Products industrial sector can not be properly evaluated if the sector is not clearly defined and supported with appropriate data. EPA should eliminate this "catch all" industrial sector and focus on known industrial discharges.

Recommendation: Eliminate "Miscellaneous Metal Products" as an industrial sector.

Reference: 40 CFR 438.1, page 540

1.c. Identify Each Subcategory as Being Either a Metal-Bearing or Oil-Bearing Waste in the Rule

Comment: The rule should include under the General Applicability section a description of the two groups of wastes that are regulated in the rule: metal-bearing wastes and oil-bearing wastes. This description should also include which of the subcategories fall under each of these two groups.

Discussion: The preamble, beginning at page 440, provides an overview that includes division of the eighteen subcategories into two basic groups: metal-bearing wastes, and oil-bearing wastes. We believe this logical categorization should also be represented within the rule itself under the General Applicability section of the rule. A decision tree as an appendix to the rule would be useful to help clarify the breakdown of the subcategories. Attachment A is a suggested decision tree for EPA's consideration. Such a description will help clarify the rule and assist dischargers in determining which of the eight subcategories they are regulated under.

Recommendation: Include under the General Applicability section a description of the two groups of wastes that are regulated in the rule: Metal-Bearing Wastes and Oil-Bearing Wastes. This description should also include which of the subcategories fall under each of these two groups. Also, DoD recommends EPA provide a decision tree as an appendix to the rule, to clarify applicability of the rule subcategories.

Reference: Preamble, Section VI.A, Industry Subcategorization, Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization, page 440.

1.d. Unit Operations Under the General Metals and Oily Wastes Subcategories Need to be Better Defined

Comment: The unit operations regulated under the General Metals subcategory and the Oily Wastes subcategory need to be included as part of the rule. Without this list, it is difficult for a potentially regulated discharger to determine whether the rule applies to its facility.

Discussion: As noted in the preceding comments, the lack of unit operation information in the rule makes it extremely difficult for potential dischargers to determine if the rule applies to their operations. This is especially true for the General Metals subcategory and the Oily Wastes subcategory because these two categories are not aligned with any specific industrial sectors. During review of the draft rule, all DoD reviewers had great difficulty discerning the differences between the operations targeted for these two subcategories. Only review of the MP&M development document provided the information necessary to make a determination for many DoD operations. The development document contained useful information for determining the applicability for the General Metals subcategory, but was much less informative for the Oily Wastes subcategory.

Recommendation: Provide a list of unit operations regulated under the General Metals subcategory and the Oily Wastes subcategory.

References:

a. Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point Source Category (EPA #: 821-B-00-005)

b. 40 Part 438.61, page 553

1.e. Rename "General Metals" Subcategory to "Captive Metal Finishers" Subcategory

Comment: The use of the term "General Metals" is confusing, and does not lend clarification between unit operations subject to the rule and those that are not subject to the rule.

Discussion: Page 442 of the preamble provides a general description of the General Metals subcategory, and includes the statement, "General Metals facilities likely perform manufacturing or heavy rebuild of metal products, parts or machines. Facilities that perform metal finishing or electroplating operations on-site and do not meet the definition of a job shop, would fit in the applicability of the General Metals subcategory." After reviewing the development document, it appears that this subcategory is primarily intended to include "captive" metal finishing shops; in other words, all of the metal finishers who are not otherwise regulated by an effluent guideline (or in some cases already are), but who own greater than 50% of the parts for which they do metal finishing. "Captive Metal Finishers" as the subcategory name would provide a clearer explanation of which facilities belong in this subcategory.

Recommendation: Change "General Metals" to "Captive Metal Finishers."

References:

a. Preamble Part VI.C.1 Industry Subcategorization, General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory, General Metals, page 442.

b. 40 CFR 438.11d

2. DoD Cost Information Should be Considered in EPA's Cost Benefit Analysis

Comment: EPA did not include the impact of this rulemaking on federal facilities. As the costs associated with compliance may be significant for federal facilities, this oversight may skew the cost benefit analysis.

Discussion: In Section V.B.4.of the preamble, EPA states that data from 44 surveys submitted by federal facilities were not included in national estimates. The reason given for excluding the data is that the facilities were not chosen at random by the EPA. If random sampling was a criterion for data applicability, EPA should have distributed the cost data survey randomly to federal facilities.

Regardless, cost data from DoD installations should be considered because the rule as written will impact the majority of our installations. Per the rule, DoD installations are mixed-use facilities. As mixed-use facilities, DoD installations are more like a small town than the typical manufacturing facility regulated under this rule. Whereas a manufacturing facility may only have one regulated process, a medium-sized DoD installation may have upwards of fifty or more small potentially regulated operations spread out over the installation. Most DoD operations subject to the rule are maintenance rather than manufacturing operations, and the majority will fall under the Oily Waste Subcategory. As mixed-use facilities, even if many of these operations are excluded from the rule under the low flow exemption, determining if the low flow exemption applies will require expenditure of dollars and manpower. Each source will have to be identified, and the volume of process wastewater generated will have to be determined, typically through installation of flow devices. Additionally, periodic re-evaluations for these sources will be required to ensure conditions have not changed and the low flow exemption still applies. While most private sector maintenance facilities that qualify for the low flow exemption are so small they may never even know they were potentially regulated under MP&M, DoD installations will likely be required to prove and document every exemption granted.

Since most DoD maintenance operations are scattered around an installation, and since most of these maintenance waste stream flows are intermittent and co-located with non-MP&M process flows, documenting the flow from each will be a massive effort. To prove an installation or group of operations at our mixed use facilities fall below the low flow threshold, flow meters will have to be installed, and maintenance shop workers will have to be trained to identify and log MP&M discharge occurrence. The installation wastewater compliance manager will have to ensure this data is collected, managed and reported in a manner that verifies the applicability of the exemption. The administrative costs needed just to document the low flow exemption are staggering. For an average naval station, the Navy estimates the cost of implementation to be approximately $122,000. The initial cost of implementing the low flow exemption portion of this rule alone could approach $5 million for the Navy; this does not include any costs for doing the same at smaller installations, nor does it include costs associated with complying with the rule at larger installations. In addition to the initial implementation cost, annual operating expenditures are also estimated to increase by $1.3 million, or $33,347 per year per facility. A similar estimate for the Air Force shows that it will cost about $8 to $15 million per large facility to implement the proposed requirements. These costs are not insignificant, and should be included by EPA in their cost analysis.

If EPA has not used federal facility data, including DoD data, in the development of national estimates, they have grossly underestimated the costs to implement this rule. All valid data should be used to determine national estimates, and if EPA does not believe the federal facility data to be valid, they should endeavor to get that data. Ignoring this data skews the cost results and fails to account for the true cost of implementing the rule.

Recommendation: Redo the national estimates to include data for federal facilities, including DoD installations, previously provided. If the existing survey data do not meet EPA criteria for acceptability, EPA should gather acceptable data rather than exclude the cost impacts to federal facilities.

Reference: Preamble section V.B.4, Federal Facilities Survey, pg. 438

3. Applicability of Low Flow Exemption

The low flow exemption should be expanded to cover discharges to Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage (TWTDSs). In addition, the determination of how the low flow exemption will be applied to MP&M sources at mixed-use facilities should be self-implementing (i.e.: made by the discharger.) Below are comments specifically addressing these two issues.

3.a. Apply Low Flow Exemption to all Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage (TWTDS)

Comment: Facilities discharging to all TWTDSs should be allowed to claim the low flow exemption applicable to indirect dischargers to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).

Discussion: Military installations have schools, churches, houses, and office buildings as well as industrial sites located on their property. Industrial activities that occur on a DoD installation are often operationally unrelated to one another, and commonly are spread around the installation amongst non-industrial facilities. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA acknowledges that many DoD installations are like small towns rather than industrial facilities, and proposed the mixed-use facility definition. This definition allows facilities discharging to a POTW to apply the low flow exemption to individual discharge sources, or to groups of related discharge sources, rather than the entire installation. Without this exemption, DoD installations would be left with two alternatives: 1) to provide extensive treatment at numerous individual maintenance operations that discharge small intermittent flows or 2) to provide treatment for the combined flows from the entire installation, which might then be subject to the combined wastestream formula. The flows from each of these individual locations are not significant, and the costs of installation, operation and monitoring at each of these sites will be significantly above the benefits. As these small flows are adequately addressed by local limits, we agree with EPA's inclusion of the mixed-use facility definition in this rule.

Many DoD facilities treat their sanitary wastewater at DoD-owned or privately-owned TWTDS rather than discharge to a POTW. In some circumstances, activities discharging to non-POTW TWTDSs will be subject to direct discharge effluent limitations. The low flow exemption provided in the rule will not be afforded to industrial discharges to TWTDSs that are subject to the effluent limitations.

The impact of this rule on DoD facilities discharging to TWTDS will be substantial. This rule will require these mixed-use facilities to identify and apply treatment at every location where MP&M process water may be discharged to the sanitary sewer. Failure to meet direct discharge standards at every discharge point into the sewer will result in application of the limits at the discharge from the TWTDS. It will be impractical to meet these limits because these minor flows will be mixed with sewage, which also contains levels of the same pollutants, and because the limits may be reduced by application of the combined wastestream formula. Identifying the location of every intermittent source of maintenance-generated process water on an installation will be a monumental task. Maintenance of metal products is pervasive in DoD, but few of these operations produce significant volumes of wastewater. Without the protection of some form of low flow exemption for DoD installations discharging to TWTDSs, DoD facilities will not be able to comply with this rule.

Recommendations:

a. In the proposed rule, change the final sentence in paragraph 438.1(h) to read:

"The control authority, or in the case of a Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage, the Approval Authority, must determine which wastewater discharges can be considered separate for this purpose."

b. Amend section 438.10 to create a paragraph c to read:

"Facilities introducing process wastewater into a Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage at a rate that does not exceed 1 million gallons per year are not subject to sections 438.12, 438.13, 438.14, or 438.16."

c. Amend section 438.60 to create a paragraph c to read:

"Facilities introducing process wastewater into a Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage at a rate that does not exceed 2 million gallons per year are not subject to sections 438.62, 438.63, 438.64, or 438.66."

d. Amend the preamble of the rule to clearly state that EPA intends to provide the low flow exclusion to discharges to TWTDSs as well as POTWs.

Reference: 40 CFR 438.10 and 438.60.

3.b. Low Flow Exemptions at Mixed-Use Facilities Should be Self-Implementing

Comment: For mixed-use facilities, application of the pretreatment low flow exemptions in the rule (General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories) should not be at the discretion of the control authority (i.e.: the POTW), but should be self-implementing.

Discussion: Part 438.1(h) of the rule stipulates that for mixed-use facilities the control authority, not the discharger, is responsible for determining whether the low flow exemptions for the General Metals and the Oily Wastes subcategories can be applied at individual sources/locations on the mixed-use facility. This stipulation is problematic for both the discharger and the control authority (i.e.: the POTW). Effluent guideline requirements under the pretreatment program are self-implementing. Responsibility for determining applicability of a guideline rests with the discharger who must self-report this status to the POTW and begin compliance monitoring.

This inconsistency will cause confusion on the part of the discharger and the POTW at the onset of the rule. How will the POTW know what the flows from MP&M sources are unless the multi-use facility notifies them that they may be subject to the guideline, and enumerates the source flows? When does the multi-use facility begin the 90-day compliance monitoring required under the general pretreatment regulations, before or after being notified by the POTW that flows do not meet the exemption? In order to be consistent with the self-implementing nature of the pretreatment program, the rule should be changed to make multi-use facilities responsible for determining when and where the low flow exemptions apply. If there is later disagreement on this determination between the mixed-use facility and the POTW, the POTW already has authority to pull such a facility under the MP&M umbrella by exercising local limits.

Recommendation: Modify the proposed regulation to clarify that industrial site determinations and flow determinations shall be made by the discharger and subject to review and verification by the control authority. The following is suggested language for Part 438.1(h):

"When this part is applied to wastewater discharges generated at different industrial sites…..within a mixed-use facility, the mixed-use facility control authority may consider these discharges to be separate for the purposes of applying the applicable low flow exemption to a pretreatment standard. The control authority must determine which wastewater discharges can be considered separate for this purpose."

Reference: 40 CFR 438.1(h)

4. Increase Low Flow Exemptions Threshold for General and Oily Waste Subcategories

Comment: The low flow exemptions for the General Metals and Oily Waste Subcategories should be increased.

Discussion: EPA requested comments on whether the low flow exemption for the General Metals Subcategory should be raised above 1 million gallons per year (MGY), and whether the low flow exemption for the Oily Waste Subcategory should be raised above 2 MGY. Increasing low flow exemptions will decrease the administrative burden on POTWs and the permitted community by decreasing the number of facilities subject to regulation. It will also decrease the overall cost to facilities by reducing the level of documentation required to ensure that facilities are under the flow threshold. Due to the intermittent nature of maintenance operations and the inherent difficulty in isolating and measuring their flows, estimates and professional judgment will most likely be the methods used by small dischargers to seek flow exemptions. By raising the flow threshold, POTWs will have greater confidence when accepting these estimates and exempting small dischargers because most flows will fall well below this threshold.

Minor discharge sources are adequately covered by local limits; raising the threshold will ensure that resources are spent on treating significant discharges rather than documenting flows from minor ones.

Recommendation: EPA should raise the low flow exemption for the General Metals subcategory to 2 MGY, and raise the low flow exemption for the Oily Waste Subcategory to 3 MGY.

References:

a. Preamble, Section 12(d)(2), Pretreatment Standards for existing sources, General Metals Subcategory, pg. 465

b. Preamble, Section 13(38), Solicitation of Comments, Flow Cut Off Level for Oily Waste Subcategory, pg. 536

5. Expand and Clarify Factors for Determining Industrial Site Boundaries at Mixed-Use Facilities

Comment: The factors used to determine industrial site boundaries at mixed-use facilities need to be expanded and clarified to include common control of discharging operations, and feasibility of combining waste flows.

Discussion: The rule does not specify factors that should be used to determine where discharges can be considered separate for purposes of applying the low flow exemption at a mixed-use facility (see Part 438.1(h)). The preamble, however, does provide two factors (66 FR 434). These two factors are: (1) degree of proximity between industrial operations; and, (2) practical application of the requirements for applicable MP&M subcategories. Additional clarifying factors that DoD believes should be included are:

(1) Common control of individual process discharges. For example, does responsibility for a group of discharges come under the direct common control of one entity? Common control for military installations typically means the same command or unit provides: a) the funding; b) the manpower; c) management of the operation; and, d) a single point of contact who is the responsible person for the operation.

(2) Feasibility of combining waste streams. For example, are the waste streams located such that combining them prior to entry into the sanitary wastewater collection system is practical from both a treatment and a cost standpoint?

Recommendation: Provide an additional section in the regulation, which clarifies that determination of industrial site boundaries for mixed-use facilities shall includes the two factors identified by EPA in the preamble: degree of proximity between industrial operations and practical application of the requirements for applicable MP&M subcategories. In addition, the rule should also include as decision factors: common control and feasibility of combining waste streams.

Reference: 40 CFR 438.1(h)

6. Reassess Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration Technology Suitability as Acceptable Treatment for Oily Wastes

Comment: Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration are not necessarily cost-effective best available technologies for removal of oily contaminants from wastewater.

Discussion: Navy experience with microfiltration and ultrafiltration treatment systems suggests that the treatment of oily waste streams with these technologies is problematic due to problems with clogging of filters. The resulting material and labor costs for filter replacement, as well as the operational labor costs needed to keep these systems running, severely compromise the cost-effectiveness of these technologies. Several other technologies are recognized for removing oils from metal-bearing wastewaters. These include the following:

(1) coalescing centrifugal separators in which high speed gravitational forces separate solids/oils from water,

(2) diffused macro air flotation that aids in emulsified oil separation,

(3) automatic oil skimming that automatically removes free oils & grease and captures them in storage container, and

(4) inclined tube coalescing separator that settles solids, coalesces and floats oils.

Recommendation: EPA should reevaluate its selection of microfiltration and ultrafiltration as the best available technology for oily wastewaters. This reevaluation should focus on determining the suitability of this technology for treatment of oily wastes, and reassess the costs associated with frequent filter replacement due to clogging. EPA should consider alternatives such as coalescing centrifugal separators, diffused macro air flotation, automatic oil skimming, and inclined tube coalescing separators.

References:

a. Page 471 NSPS for General Metals

b. Preamble, page 448, discussion of options (3) and (4)

c. 40 CFR 438.12

7. Clarify Whether Non-Contact Wastewaters are Regulated Under the MP&M Rule

Comment: It is unclear how non-contact, non-destructive testing wastewaters will be regulated under this rule, and whether regulation of these wastes under this rule overlaps requirements under 40 CFR 459, the Photographic Point Sources Category.

Discussion: Section 438.2 (e) defines process wastewater as "wastewater as defined in 40 CFR parts 122 and 401, and includes wastewater from non-contact, non-destructive testing (e.g. photographic wastewater from non-destructive X-ray examination of parts) performed at facilities subject to this part and includes wastewater from air pollution control devices." However, the unit operation, testing, is identified in the rule as oil-bearing wastewater and is covered under the Oily Waste Subcategory. This subcategorization does not seem appropriate for this waste stream because rather than containing oils, it contains silver. DoD believes these unit processes are more appropriately covered under 40 CFR 459, the Photographic Point Source Category. EPA has not sufficiently demonstrated that this unit process warrants regulation given that EPA chose not to regulate indirect dischargers under 40 CFR 459.

Recommendation: EPA should clarify how non-destructive testing wastewaters will be regulated under this rule.

Reference: 40 CFR 438.2(e)

8. Identify Regulated and Unregulated Vehicle Washing Wastestreams

Comment: EPA should further distinguish between regulated and unregulated vehicle washing.

Discussion: DoD agrees that cosmetic washing of vehicles should not be covered under this rule. However, subsequent interpretation of the proposed rule's wording may lead to regulation of "cosmetic" washing because all vehicle washing to some degree also serves a preventive maintenance function.

Recommendation: Reword 438.1(f) to read, "Wastewater discharges resulting from the washing of cars, aircraft or other vehicles are subject to this part only when performed as a preparatory an integral step to one or more successive the manufacturing, rebuilding or maintenance operations. Routine washing of cars, aircraft, and other vehicles performed only for removal of dirt, debris, and salt buildup is not covered under this rule."

References:

a. Preamble, Section III, Scope of Proposal, pg. 434

b. 40 CFR 438.1(f)

9. Discharger Should Determine Monitoring Options or Management Plans

Comment: The selection of monitoring options for subcategories with limitations for Total Organics Parameters (TOPs) or Total Organic Carbon (TOC) (as indicator) should be at the discretion of the discharger, not the permitting authority or POTW.

Discussion: In the preamble, EPA solicited comments on the three alternatives that are being proposed for reducing the burden associated with monitoring for organic pollutants. While DoD supports including this flexibility in the rule, we believe the selection of the method used should not require approval by the approval authority (see comment 3.a. on pretreatment discharges to TWTDS), control authority or permitting authority.

The preamble implies that the facility may choose the method for organics monitoring (page 530, EPA Question #4); however, the wording in the rule indicates that selection of a monitoring option is subject to agreement by the control authority or permitting authority. Section 438.17(d) provides typical language: "Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for organic chemicals as specified in Section 438.4(a)."

For indirect dischargers to POTWs, monitoring requirements under the general pretreatment provisions are self-implementing; therefore, the discharger should not need permission from the POTW to choose how it will monitor for organics. Responsibility for compliance monitoring lies with the discharger, who must begin this monitoring within 180 days of rule promulgation (see 40 CFR 403.12 (b) and (d)). If final approval of the monitoring option lies with the POTW, this may create a time crunch for facilities that choose the organics management plan option.

For indirect dischargers to TWTDS that have established pretreatment programs equivalent to those governing POTWs , monitoring requirements are specified by the approval authority. This situation also must be considered.

Preparing a draft management plan within 180 days of rule promulgation will be difficult for DoD installations due to their size and complexity. If a facility has to wait for approval from the POTW to even select the organic chemicals management plan option, the facility will have even less time available to comply with the 180 day timeframe. DoD believes that the selection of the organics monitoring option should be left to the discharger, who would simply inform the approval authority, control authority or permitting authority, as applicable, of their choice. This ensures that dischargers will receive the monitoring flexibility that EPA seeks to provide.

Recommendation: All sections (see Ref. (c) below) of the rule which reference the organic pollutant monitoring should be changed to read, "Facilities must choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for organic chemicals as specified in Section 438.4. Facilities must notify the approval authority, control authority or permitting authority of the decision."

References:

a. Preamble Part XXIII Solicitation of Comments, page 530, EPA Question #4

b. 40 CFR 403.12(b) and (d)

c. 40 CFR parts 438.12(c), 438.14(c), 438.15(c), 438.16(d), 438.17(d), 438.22(c), 438.24(c), 438.25(c), 438.26(d), 438.27(d), 438.42(c), 438.44(c), 438.45(c), 438.46(d), 438.47(d), 438.52(c), 438.54(c), 438.55(c), 438.56(d), 438.57(d), 438.62(b), 438.64(b), 438.65(b), 438.66(b), 438.67(b).

10. Allow the Use of Existing Programs in Lieu of Organic Chemicals Management Plan

Comment: Permitting authorities should accept existing spill prevention, pollution prevention, and chemical use minimization efforts as meeting the requirements of the "management plan for organic chemicals."

Discussion: Many facilities have programs and plans in place, which contain substantially the same elements specified in the "management plan for organic chemicals." They include pollution prevention plans, spill prevention plans, authorized chemical use lists, waste minimization and management plans, and Best Management Practices contained in NPDES permits. DoD believes requiring the development of a stand-alone document duplicates existing programs and adds to the administrative burden of facilities. Instead of a stand-alone plan, EPA should emphasize use of a documented management program for organic chemicals, and should clarify that existing programs may be a part of this documented management program. The rule could require the permittee to submit a certification to the permitting authority to serve as documentation of the management program.

Recommendations:

a. Change paragraph 438.4(a)(3) to read, "Develop and certify the implementation of a documented management program for organic chemicals." Change all other references to the "management plan" to read "management program."

b. In paragraph 438.4(b), indicate that in developing the "documented management program for organic chemicals" the facility may incorporate or modify existing plans in use at the facility that collectively satisfy the requirements of paragraph 438.4 (b).

Reference: 40 CFR 438.4(a)(3)

Attachment A - Metal Products & Machinery Applicability Decision Tree (A Wastestream Analysis)

click here to view chart

  Table 1: MP&M Industrial Sectors
1. Aerospace
2. Aircraft
3. Bus and Truck
4. Electronic Equipment 
5. Hardware
6. Household equipment
7. Instruments
8. Job Shops
9. Mobile Industrial Equipment
10. Motor Vehicle
11. Office Machine
12. Ordnance
13. Precious Metals and Jewelry
14. Printed Wiring Boards
15. Railroad
16. Ships and Boats
17. Stationary Industrial Equipment
18. Miscellaneous Metal Products4

___________________

1Mixed-use facilities are covered under the MP&M rule. Mixed-use facility means any privately-owned or state, local, or federal government -owned facility which contains both industrial and commercial/administrative buildings (such as military bases or airports) at which one or more industrial sites conduct operations (including at least one that discharges wastewater subject to the MP&M Category, Part 438) within the facility's boundaries.

2Facilities other than those reasonably included in the 18 MP&M industrial sectors, are not subject to the rule when discharges from the maintenance or repair of metal parts or machines at the facility are performed only as ancillary activities.

3Wastewater discharges from electroplating during semiconductor final wafer assembly ARE subject to the MP&M rule.

4Comment 1.b. would delete this industrial sector.

 

Attachment A (Con't) - Metal Product & Machinery Applicability Decision Tree (A Wastestream Analysis)

click here to view chart

 

_______________________

1High metal content wastestream(s) are usually generated from unit operations such as electroplating, conversion coating, chemical etching and milling, and anodizing.

2High oil and grease content wastestream(s) are usually generated from unit operations such as machining, grinding, aqueous degreasing, and impact or pressure deformation.

3To be classified as a metal finishing job shop, a facility must meet the following criteria: 1)discharge wastewater from either one or more of electroplating, electroless plating, anodizing, coating (chromating, phosphating, passivation, and coloring), chemical etching and milling, or printed circuit board manufacture operqation; and 2) owns 50 percent or less (based on metal surface area processed per year) of the materials undergoing metal finishing within the boundaries of a facility.