Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: October 17, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 201)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64215-64269]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17oc02-11]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 420
[FRL-7206-7]
RIN 2040-AC90

Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point
Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule represents the culmination of the Agency's
effort to revise Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for wastewater discharges from the iron and steel
manufacturing industry. The final regulation revises technology-based
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for certain wastewater
discharges associated with metallurgical cokemaking, sintering, and
ironmaking operations; and codifies new effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for direct reduced ironmaking, briquetting, and forging.
EPA is also revising the regulations for the steelmaking subcategory,
to provide an allowance for existing basic oxygen furnaces operating
semi-wet air pollution control systems; and to establish technology-
based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for electric arc
furnaces operating semi-wet pollution control systems. EPA is
eliminating rule references to the following obsolete operations:
beehive cokemaking in the cokemaking subcategory, ferromanganese blast
furnaces in the ironmaking subcategory, and open hearth furnace
operations in the steelmaking subcategory. EPA is not revising effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the remaining subcategories
within this industrial category: vacuum degassing, continuous casting,
hot forming, salt bath descaling, acid pickling, cold forming, alkaline
cleaning and hot coating. Nor is EPA codifying a new subcategorization
scheme and associated definitions to support the new subcategorization
for this industrial category.
EPA expects compliance with this regulation to reduce the discharge
of conventional pollutants by at least 351,000 pounds per year and
toxic and non-conventional pollutants by at least 1,018,000 pounds per
year. EPA estimates the annual cost of the rule will be $12.0 million
(pre-tax $2001). EPA estimates that the annual benefits of the rule
will range from $1.4 million to $7.3 million ($2001).

DATES: This regulation shall become effective November 18, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The public record for this rulemaking has been established
under docket number W-00-25 II and will be located in the Water Docket,
East Tower Basement, room #57, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC
20460 until August 15, 2002. After August 27, 2002 the public record
will be located at EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B135,
Washington, DC 20460. The record is available for inspection from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. For
access to the docket materials before August 15, call (202) 260-3027 to
schedule an appointment. After August 27, call (202) 566-2426. You may
have to pay a reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
today's final rule, contact Mr. George Jett at (202) 566-1070, or Ms.
Yu-ting Guilaran at (202) 566-1072. For economic information contact
Mr. William Anderson at (202) 566-1008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action include facilities of
the following types that discharge pollutants to waters of the U.S.:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities Primary SIC and NAICS codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Discharges from facilities engaged in SIC 3312, 3316; NAICS 3311, 3312.
metallurgical cokemaking, sintering,
ironmaking, steelmaking, direct
reduced ironmaking, briquetting, and
forging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria listed
in Sec. 420.01 and the applicability criteria in Sec. 420.10
(metallurgical cokemaking), Sec. 420.40 (steelmaking), and Sec.
420.130 (other operations) of today's rule and applicability criteria
in Sec. 420.20 (sintering), Sec. 420.30 (ironmaking), Sec. 420.50
(vacuum degassing), Sec. 420.60 (continuous casting), Sec. 420.70
(hot forming), Sec. 420.80 (salt bath descaling), Sec. 420.90 (acid
pickling), Sec. 420.100 (cold forming), Sec. 420.110 (alkaline
cleaning), and Sec. 420.120 (hot coating) of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. The table lists the types of entities that EPA is
now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. If you still
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity (after consulting relevant subsections), consult one
of the persons listed for technical information in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Judicial Review

In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, today's rule is promulgated for the
purposes of judicial review as of 1 pm Eastern Daylight Time on October
31, 2002. Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
judicial review of today's effluent limitations guidelines and
standards is available in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals by
filing a petition for review within 120 days from the date of
promulgation of these guidelines and standards. Under Section 509(b)(2)
of the CWA the requirements of this regulation may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.

Compliance Dates

Existing direct dischargers must comply with limitations based on
the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT), the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT), and the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT) as soon as their
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) permits include
such limitations. Existing indirect dischargers subject to today's
regulations must comply with the pretreatment standards for existing
sources no later than October 17, 2005. New direct and indirect
discharging sources must comply with applicable guidelines and
standards on the date the new sources begin discharging. For purposes
of new source performance standards (NSPS) and pretreatment standards
for new sources (PSNS), a source is a new source if it commenced
construction after November 18, 2002.

[[Page 64217]]

Supporting Documentation

The final regulations are supported by three major documents:
1. ``Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source
Category'' (EPA-821-R-02-004), referred to in the preamble as the
Technical Development Document (TDD). This TDD presents the technical
information that formed the basis for EPA's decisions concerning the
final rule. In it, EPA describes, among other things, the data
collection activities, the wastewater treatment technology options
considered, the pollutants found in the iron and steel manufacturing
wastewaters, and the estimation of costs to the industry to comply with
the final limitations and standards.
2. ``Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category''
(EPA-821-R-02-006) referred to in this preamble as the Economic
Analysis (EA). The EA estimates the economic and financial costs of
compliance with the final regulation on individual process lines,
facilities and companies.
3. ``Environmental Assessment of the Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point
Source Category'' (EPA-821-R-02-005) referred to as the Environmental
Assessment in this preamble.

How To Obtain Supporting Documents

Supporting documents are available on the internet at www.epa.gov/
ost/ironsteel and before August 15, 2002 from the Office of Water
Resource Center, MC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460; telephone (202) 260-7786 for publication requests. After August
18, 2002, the Office of Water Resources will be located at 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number
will be 202-566-1729.

Protection of Confidential Business Information (CBI)

EPA notes that certain information and data in the record
supporting the final rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore, are
not included in the record that is available to the public in the Water
Docket. Further, the Agency has withheld from disclosure some data not
claimed as CBI because release of this information could indirectly
reveal information claimed to be confidential. To support the
rulemaking while preserving confidentiality claims, EPA is presenting
in the public record certain information in aggregated form or,
alternatively, is masking facility identities or employing other
strategies. This approach assures that the information in the public
record explains the basis for today's final rule without compromising
CBI claims.

Organization of This Document

I. Legal Authority
II. Legislative Background
A. Clean Water Act
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT)-Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section
304(b)(4) of the CWA
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--
Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the
CWA
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section
307(b) of the CWA
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(c)
of the CWA
B. Section 304(m) Requirements
III. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Industry Effluent Guideline
Rulemaking History
A. 1982 Rule and 1984 Amendments
B. Preliminary Study
C. October 31, 2000 Proposed Regulation
D. February 2001 Notice of Data Availability
E. April 4, 2001 Notice
IV. Current Economic Condition of the Industry
V. Summary of Significant Decisions
A. Decisions Regarding the Content of the Regulations
1. New or Revised Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
2. Subcategorization Structure
3. Phenol Pass Through Analysis for Cokemaking
4. Regulation of Phenols (4AAP)
5. Retention of the Central Treatment Provision
6. Production Basis for Calculating Permit Limits
7. Applicability of Part 420 to Electroplating and Certain
Finishing Operations
8. Ammonia-N Standard Waiver for Indirect Discharging
Cokemaking, Ironmaking, and Sintering Operations
9. Nitrates in Acid Pickling Wastewater
B. Decisions Regarding Methodology
1. Economic Analysis Methodology
2. Selection of Facilities with Model Treatment and Evaluation
of Available Data Sets in Establishing Long Term Averages
3. Reassessment of Production-Normalized Flows (PNFs)
4. Changes in Methodology for Determining the Baseline Loadings
and Average Baseline Concentrations
5. Determination of POTW Percent Removal Estimates
VI. Scope/Applicability of the Regulation
VII. Industry Description
VIII. The Final Regulation
A. Cokemaking Subcategory
1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
B. Sintering Subcategory
1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)/Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
3. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
4. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
5. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
C. Ironmaking Subcategory
D. Steelmaking Subcategory
E. Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
F. Continuous Casting Subcategory
G. Hot Forming Subcategory
H. Salt Bath Descaling Subcategory
I. Acid Pickling Subcategory
J. Cold Forming Subcategory
K. Alkaline Cleaning Subcategory
L. Hot Coating Subcategory
M. Other Operations Subcategory
1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources (PSES/
PSNS)
IX. Pollutant Reduction and Compliance Cost Estimates
A. Pollutant Reductions
1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
2. Priority and Non-conventional Pollutant Reductions
B. Regulatory Costs
1. Cokemaking Subcategory
2. Sintering Subcategory
3. Steelmaking Subcategory
4. Other Operations Subcategory
X. Economic Analyses
A. Introduction and Overview
B. Economic Description of the Iron and Steel Industry
C. Economic Impact Methodology
1. Introduction
2. Methodology Overview
D. Economic Costs and Impacts of Technology Options by
Subcategory
1. Cokemaking
2. Sintering
3. Ironmaking
4. Integrated Steelmaking
5. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming
6. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
7. Steel Finishing
8. Other Operations

[[Page 64218]]

E. Facility Level Economic Impacts of the Regulatory Options
F. Firm Level Impacts
G. Community Impacts
H. Foreign Trade Impacts
I. Small Business Analysis
J. Cost-Benefit Analysis
K. Cost-Reasonableness Analysis
L. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
1. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2. Non-recovery Cokemaking
3. Other Operations
XI. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits
A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk
B. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human Health Hazard
C. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity
D. Effect on POTW Operations
E. Other Benefits Not Quantified
F. Summary of Benefits
XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Air Pollution
B. Solid Waste
C. Energy Requirements
XIII. Regulatory Implementation
A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards
1. Introduction
2. Compliance Dates
3. Applicability
4. Production Basis for Calculation of Permit Limitations
5. Water Bubble
6. Compliance with Limitations and Standards
7. Internal Monitoring Requirements and Compliance with ML
Limitations for Sintering Subcategory
8. Implementation for Iron and Steel Facilities Subject to
Multiple Effluent Limitations Guidelines or Pretreatment Standards
9. Revisions Affecting Certain Steelmaking Operations
10. Non-process Wastewater and Storm Water in the Immediate
Process Area
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
C. Variances and Modifications
1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variances
2. Water Quality Variances
3. Permit Modifications
XIV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders and Agency
Initiatives
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
I. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects
J. Congressional Review Act

I. Legal Authority

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is promulgating these
regulations under the authority of sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308,
402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317,
1318, 1342, and 1361.

II. Legislative Background

A. Clean Water Act

Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters'' (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act
confronts the problem of water pollution on a number of different
fronts. Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions
on the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various
industrial, commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards that
restrict pollutant discharges for facilities that discharge wastewater
through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs)
(Section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers which pass through, interfere
with, or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations. Generally,
pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that wastewater from
direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar
levels of treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to develop and
enforce local pretreatment limits applicable to their industrial
indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements (40 CFR 403.5).
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits;
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
In the regulations, EPA defines BPT effluent limits for
conventional, toxic, and non-conventional pollutants. Section 304(a)(4)
designates the following as conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and
any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional.
The Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional
conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501). EPA has
identified 126 pollutants as priority toxic pollutants. See Appendix A
to Part 403 (reprinted after 40 CFR 423.17). All other pollutants are
considered to be non-conventional.
In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first
considers the total cost of applying the control technology in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age
of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any
required process changes, engineering aspects of the control
technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements), and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems
appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT
effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of
facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or
other common characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than currently in
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the
technology can be practically applied.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section
304(b)(4) of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT for
discharges from existing industrial point sources. In addition to the
other factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that
EPA establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).

[[Page 64219]]

3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section
304(b)(2) of the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best
available economically achievable performance of plants in the
industrial subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing
BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including
energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. BAT limitations may
be based on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a
facility's processes and operations. Where existing performance is
uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher level of performance
than is currently being achieved within a particular subcategory based
on technology transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT
may be based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these
technologies are not common industry practice.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the
best available demonstrated control technology. New sources have the
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes
and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should
represent the most stringent controls attainable through the
application of the best available demonstrated control technology for
all pollutants (i.e., conventional, non-conventional, and priority
pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into
consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-
water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section 307(b)
of the CWA
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs), including sludge
disposal methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards for existing sources
are technology-based and are analogous to BAT effluent limitations
guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of national pretreatment standards, are found at
40 CFR part 403.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(c) of the
CWA
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of
pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to
incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

B. Section 304(m) Requirements

Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987,
requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) reviewing and revising
existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (``effluent
guidelines''); and (2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January
2, 1990, EPA published its first Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80),
which established schedules for developing new and revised effluent
guidelines for several industry categories.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen,
Inc. filed suit against the Agency, alleging violation of Section
304(m) and other statutory authorities requiring promulgation of
effluent guidelines (NRDC, et al. v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980
(D.D.C.)). Plaintiffs and EPA settled the litigation by means of a
consent decree entered on January 31, 1992. The consent decree, which
has been modified several times, established a schedule by which EPA is
to propose and take final action for eleven point source categories
identified by name in the decree and for eight other point source
categories to be selected by EPA. After completing a preliminary study
(EPA 821-R95-037, September 1995) as required by the decree, EPA
selected the iron and steel industry as the subject for a revised rule.
Under the decree, as modified, the Administrator was required to sign a
proposed rule for the iron and steel industry no later than October 31,
2000, and must take final action no later than April 30, 2002.

III. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Industry Effluent Guideline
Rulemaking History

A. 1982 Rule and 1984 Amendments

EPA promulgated effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, 40 CFR part 420
in May 1982 (47 FR 23258). This rule established BPT, BCT, and BAT
effluent limitations that apply to wastewater discharges to waters of
the U.S. from existing iron and steel facilities and NSPS limits that
apply to wastewater discharges to waters of the U.S. from new iron and
steel facilities. It also established pretreatment standards that apply
to wastewater discharges to POTWs from existing and new iron and steel
facilities (PSES and PSNS).
The 1982 rule was based on an approach that mirrored the sequential
process steps through a typical mill. EPA concluded that it was
reasonable to establish a subcategorization structure based on the type
of manufacturing operation employed. This resulted in twelve
subcategories.
The American Iron and Steel Institute, certain members of the iron
and steel industry, and NRDC filed petitions to review the 1982
regulation. On February 4, 1983, the parties in the consolidated
lawsuit entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement that resolved
all issues raised by the petitioners. In accordance with the settlement
agreement, EPA modified and clarified certain parts of the Iron and
Steel rule and published additional preamble language regarding the
rule. The Iron and Steel rule was amended on May 17, 1984 (49 FR
21024). The major changes included in the amendment are discussed in
the preamble to the 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 81964-82083) and in
Chapter 2 of the Technical Development Document for today's final rule.
The 1982 regulation, as amended in 1984, can be found on line at:
www.epa.gov/ost/ironsteel/reg.html.

B. Preliminary Study

The Clean Water Act requires EPA to review effluent limitations
guidelines and standards periodically to determine whether it is
appropriate to revise them. Furthermore, under the consent decree
discussed in Section II.B, EPA is also required to undertake rulemaking
with respect to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards on a
set schedule and was required to complete a study of the iron and steel
industry. Accordingly, EPA developed and published the ``Preliminary
Study of the Iron and Steel Category'' (EPA 821-R-95-037) in September
1995.
In the preliminary study, EPA assessed the status of the iron and
steel industry with respect to the regulation promulgated in 1982 and
amended in 1984; identified better performing facilities that use
conventional and innovative in-process pollution

[[Page 64220]]

prevention and end-of-pipe technologies; estimated possible effluent
reduction benefits if the industry were upgraded to the level of better
performing facilities; discussed regulatory and implementation issues
associated with the current regulation; and identified possible
solutions to those issues. This study concluded that the industry has
changed substantially in production technology and pollution control
since the 1982 regulations were promulgated. Pollutant loadings had
decreased due to advances in treatment system operations and improved
wastewater treatment processes. In addition, the study also found that
many pollution prevention opportunities exist in the areas of increased
process water recycle and reuse, the cascade of process wastewaters
from one operation to another, residuals management, and non-discharge
disposal methods. At the time of the study, many better-performing
mills were discharging wastewater loadings far below the current
standards; however, not all of the industry had improved wastewater
treatment or implemented proactive pollution prevention practices. As a
result of the study, EPA initiated this rulemaking to reassess the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Point Source Category. The Preliminary Study can be found
on line at www.epa.gov/OST/ironsteel/pstudy.html.

C. October 31, 2000 Proposed Regulation

On October 31, 2000, the EPA Administrator signed proposed
revisions to technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for wastewater discharges from new and existing iron and
steel facilities. The proposed rule was published in the Federal
Register on December 27, 2000 (65 FR 81964). EPA proposed to alter the
applicability and scope of the existing rule by adding electroplating
operations and by including direct iron reduction, briquetting, and
forging operations. In addition, EPA proposed excluding from the iron
and steel guideline in Part 420 some wiring, cold forming, and hot dip
coating operations. In a proposed rule for the Metal Products and
Machinery (MP&M) industrial category published on January 3, 2001 (66
FR 424), EPA proposed to address these operations under Part 438.
The Agency proposed to revise the subcategorization scheme to
create seven subcategories of iron and steel facilities based on co-
treatment of compatible waste streams. This would have replaced the
present structure of 12 subcategories. The proposed subcategorization
approach would have reflected the way treatment systems are run in the
iron and steel industry. EPA proposed the following seven
subcategories:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A Cokemaking By-product.
Subcategory.
Non-recovery.
Subpart B Ironmaking Blast Furnace.
Subcategory.
Sintering.
Subpart C Steelmaking
Subcategory
Subpart D Integrated and Stand Carbon and Alloy.
Alone Hot Forming Mills
Subcategory.
Stainless.
Subpart E Non-integrated Carbon and Alloy.
Steelmaking and Hot Forming
Operations Subcategory.
Stainless.
Subpart F Steel Finishing Carbon and Alloy.
Subcategory.
Stainless.
Subpart G Other Operations..... Direct-Reduced Ironmaking.
Forging.
Briquetting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For most of the subcategories, except for cokemaking, finishing,
and the newly added subcategory for other operations, the Agency
proposed limits based on improved performance and operation of the same
technologies that were the basis for the limits and standards
promulgated in 1982 and amended in 1984. Consequently, the proposed
limitations were more stringent than the limitations promulgated in
1982. For the cokemaking subcategory, EPA proposed BAT limits based on
a technology option that was essentially the same as the 1982
technology basis but included an additional treatment step--alkaline
chlorination. For finishing, EPA proposed limits based on the 1982
technology basis with the addition of counter-current rinsing and acid
purification.
For many of the proposed subcategories, wastewater flow reduction
steps, in concert with better performance of the blowdown treatment
systems, provided the primary basis for the proposal limits and
standards. The subcategorization scheme and technology bases for the
proposed limits and standards are summarized below:

Proposed Subcategories, Options, and Technical Components
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory (segment) Regulatory level Option proposed Summary of technical basis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A. Cokemaking:
(By-Product Recovery)............. BAT/NSPS................................ BAT-3.................................. Tar removal, equalization,
free and fixed ammonia
stripping, temperature
control, equalization,
single-stage biological
treatment with
nitrification, alkaline
chlorination, and sludge
dewatering.
PSES/PSNS............................... PSES-3................................. Tar removal, equalization,
free and fixed ammonia
stripping, temperature
control, equalization, and
single-stage biological
treatment with
nitrification.

[[Page 64221]]

Co-proposed PSES........................ PSES-1................................. Tar removal, equalization,
and free and fixed ammonia
stripping.
(Non-Recovery).................... BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS...................... Zero discharge......................... No wastewater generated.
Subpart B. Ironmaking:
(Blast Furnaces and Sintering).... BAT/NSPS................................ BAT-1.................................. Solids removal, high-rate
recycle, metals
precipitation, alkaline
chlorination, and mixed-
media filtration of
blowdown, and sludge
dewatering.
PSES/PSNS............................... PSES-1................................. Solids removal, high-rate
recycle and metals
precipitation of blowdown
and sludge dewatering.
Subpart C. Integrated Steelmaking..... BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS...................... BAT-1.................................. Solids removal, high-rate
recycle, metals
precipitation of blowdown,
cooling towers for process
wastewaters from vacuum
degassing or continuous
casting operations, and
sludge dewatering.
Subpart D. Integrated and Stand Alone
Hot Forming:
(Carbon & Alloy Steel)............ BAT/NSPS................................ BAT-1.................................. Scale pit with oil skimming,
roughing clarifier, cooling
tower, high rate recycle,
mixed-media filtration of
blowdown, and sludge
dewatering.
PSES/PSNS............................... N/A.................................... No proposed modification from
existing PSES/PSNS.
(Stainless Steel)................. BAT/NSPS................................ BAT-1.................................. Scale pit with oil skimming,
roughing clarifier, cooling
tower, high rate recycle,
mixed-media filtration of
blowdown, and sludge
dewatering.
PSES/PSNS............................... N/A.................................... No proposed modification from
existing PSES/PSNS.
Subpart E. Non-Integrated Steelmaking
and Hot Forming:
(Carbon & Alloy Steel)............ BAT..................................... BAT-1.................................. Solids removal, cooling
tower, high rate recycle,
mixed-media filtration of
blowdown or of recycled
flow, and sludge dewatering.
PSES.................................... N/A.................................... No proposed modification from
existing PSES.
NSPS/PSNS............................... Zero discharge......................... Water re-use, evaporation, or
contract hauling.
(Stainless Steel)................. BAT/PSES................................ BAT-1.................................. Solids removal, cooling
tower, high rate recycle,
mixed-media filtration of
blowdown or of recycled
flow, and sludge dewatering.
NSPS/PSNS............................... Zero discharge......................... Water re-use, evaporation, or
contract hauling.
Subpart F. Steel Finishing:
(Carbon & Alloy Steel)............ BAT/NSPS/PSNS........................... BAT-1.................................. Recycle of fume scrubber
water, diversion tank, oil
removal, hexavalent chrome
reduction (where
applicable), equalization,
metals precipitation,
sedimentation, sludge
dewatering, and counter-
current rinses.
PSES.................................... N/A.................................... No proposed modification from
existing PSES.
(Stainless Steel)................. BAT/NSPS/PSNS........................... BAT-1.................................. Recycle of fume scrubber
water, diversion tank, oil
removal, hexavalent chrome
reduction (where
applicable), equalization,
metals precipitation,
sedimentation, sludge
dewatering, counter-current
rinses, and acid
purification.
PSES.................................... NA..................................... No proposed modification from
existing PSES.
Subpart G. Other Operations:
(Direct Reduced Ironmaking)....... BPT/BCT/NSPS............................ BPT-1.................................. Solids removal, clarifier,
high-rate recycle,
filtration of blowdown, and
sludge dewatering.
BAT/PSES/PSNS........................... Reserved............................... No new facilities expected.
(Forging)......................... BPT/BCT/NSPS............................ BPT-1.................................. High rate recycle, and oil/
water separator for
blowdown.
BAT/PSES/PSNS........................... Reserved............................... No new facilities expected.
(Briquetting)..................... BPT/BCT/BAT/............................

[[Page 64222]]

NSPS/ PSES/PSNS......................... zero discharge......................... No wastewater generated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed regulation is on line at: www.epa.gov/ost/ironsteel/
notices.html.

D. February 2001 Notice of Data Availability

On February 14, 2001, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) at 66 FR 10253. This notice provided additional discussion and
clarification on some of the issues raised in the proposal. For
example, the notice discussed EPA's new finding that phenol does not
pass through POTWs, and indicated that EPA was rethinking its proposal
to establish a nation-wide limit on ammonia from steel finishing
operations.
EPA also noticed changes to certain portions of the proposed
regulation and accompanying preamble to eliminate inconsistencies.
Finally, it corrected potentially confusing typographical errors and
extended the proposal's comment period from February 26, 2001 to March
26, 2001. The complete details of the February NODA are located on line
at: www.epa.gov/ost/ironsteel/reg.html.

E. April 4, 2001 Notice

On April 4, 2001, EPA published a notice (66 FR 17842) reopening
the comment period to April 25, 2001.

IV. Current Economic Condition of the Industry

The financial situation of the domestic iron and steel industry
changed dramatically between 1997 and 2001 due to factors including the
Asian financial crisis, slow economic growth in Eastern Europe, the
continued strength of the dollar versus other currencies, a period of
increased prices for natural gas and electricity, and a sharp drop in
domestic demand as the U.S. economy slowed. The following analysis of
economic conditions occurring after the 1995-1997 time frame is based
upon publicly available sources such as trade journal reports,
Securities and Exchange Commission filings, and trade case filings with
the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade
Commission.
The relatively high value of the dollar compared to the currencies
of many steel exporting nations has led to a sharp increase in import
penetration in the domestic steel market. The U.S. is, and has been,
the world's largest steel importer (and a net importer for at least the
last two decades); indeed, the U.S. was nearly the only viable steel
market to which other countries such as South Korea, Russia and Ukraine
could export during 1998. U.S. imports of steel mill products jumped by
10.4 million tons from 31.1 million tons to 41.5 million ton, a 25
percent increase, from 1997 to 1998. The previous record level of
imports had been established in 1997. The high levels of imports
persisted in 1999 and 2000, with 35.7 million tons and 38.0 million
tons, respectively. The sustained high level of steel imports has been
associated with a substantial drop in the market value of steel
products. The prevailing prices for commodities such as hot rolled
sheet, cold rolled sheet, and many other products have fallen by 20 to
40 percent since 1996.
Substantial increases in energy prices, including natural gas and
electricity, during the last few years have also affected domestic
producers. Natural gas is used extensively in reheat and annealing
furnaces, coke oven underfiring and blast furnace injection, as well as
in direct reduced iron production. Electricity is necessary throughout
the steel production process, with electric arc furnaces, of course,
being particularly dependent on electricity costs and availability.
Finally, in the last year, the domestic market for steel has declined
as domestic industrial production in the United States has fallen.
Industries, such as automotive and major appliances, that use
significant amounts of steel have been particularly impacted.
The coke industry is comprised of two types of producers:
Integrated and merchant. Integrated producers typically supply furnace
coke for their own blast furnace facilities. Merchant producers may
produce and sell furnace coke (used in blast furnaces), foundry coke
(used in foundries to make iron castings) and other industrial coke.
Both integrated and merchant producers of furnace coke have been
affected by the trends described regarding iron and steel production.
Foundry coke producers have been affected by falling automotive
production, the largest consumer sector for iron castings. Foundry coke
has also been affected by sharply increasing imports from China.
As a result of the increased imports, declining demand, and falling
prices, the financial health of the domestic iron and steel industry
experienced a precipitous decline after 1997. Based upon publicly
available sources, at least twenty companies, that could be subject to
the iron and steel effluent guidelines, have filed for bankruptcy since
1997. The companies are Bethlehem Steel, LTV Steel, National Steel,
Republic Technologies, Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel, Geneva Steel, Gulf
States Steel, Acme Metals, Laclede Steel, Qualitech Steel, Northwestern
Steel and Wire, Erie Forge and Steel, CSC Ltd., Heartland Steel, GS
Industries, Trico Steel, Freedom Forge, J&L Structural Steel, Empire
Specialty Steel and Riverview Steel. In aggregate, these companies
represent more than a third of domestic steelmaking capacity. Of the
bankrupt firms, Empire Specialty, Acme Steel, Laclede Steel, Qualitech
Steel, Gulf States Steel, Northwestern Steel and Wire, CSC Ltd., and
LTV Steel have ceased steelmaking operations, affecting over 15,000
employees.
The industry filed numerous countervailing duty and anti-dumping
cases over the 1998-2001 period with the U.S. Department of Commerce
and U.S. International Trade Commission (hereafter ``ITC''), charging
various countries (for example, Japan, Russia, China, and Brazil) with
unfair trade practices concerning carbon steel products, stainless
steel products, and foundry coke. The ITC ruled in favor of the U.S.
industry in many cases (for example, hot rolled carbon sheet and carbon
plate), meaning that it determined that the domestic industry was
materially injured or threatened with material injury by the unfairly
traded imports.
More significantly, on June 22, 2001, the Office of the United
States Trade Representative requested the initiation of an
investigation by the ITC of certain steel imports under the section 201
of the Trade Act of 1974. A later request from the Senate Finance
Committee was consolidated under the same investigation. Investigations
under this law may be requested when increased imports of a product
from all countries are alleged to be a substantial cause of serious
injury, or threat of serious injury, to a U.S. industry. The
investigation does not require the finding of an unfair trade practice.
The investigation is composed of two phases, the injury phase and, if
an

[[Page 64223]]

affirmative injury determination is made, the remedy phase. In the
remedy phase, the ITC recommends a remedy to the President, who decides
what relief, if any, will be imposed. The remedy may consist of
tariffs, quantitative restrictions, orderly marketing agreements, and
trade adjustment assistance. In addition, the ITC may recommend that
the President initiate international negotiations to address the
underlying cause of the increase in imports or that he implement any
other action authorized under the law that is likely to facilitate
positive adjustment to import competition.
On October 22, 2001, the ITC affirmatively determined that 12
products (or product categories) are being imported into the U.S. in
such increased quantities that they are a substantial cause of serious
injury or threat of serious injury to the U.S. industry. On an
additional four products (or product categories), the ITC was evenly
divided, meaning these products will continue to be included in the
investigation. The imported products covered by the investigation
accounted in year 2000 for 27 million tons of steel valued at $10.7
billion. The products include carbon steel slabs, plate, hot rolled
sheet, cold rolled sheet, coated sheet, tin mill products, hot rolled
bar and light structural shapes, cold finished bar, rebar, welded tube,
stainless bar, stainless rod, tool steel, and stainless wire.
The next phase of the investigation is the remedy phase. The ITC
voted on a remedy recommendation on December 7, 2001, and forwarded its
findings and remedy recommendations to the President on December 20,
2001. The ITC recommended a four-year program of tariffs and tariff-
rate quotas, with additional ad valorem duties of up to 20 percent in
the first year and declining thereafter.
The President announced his decision on March 5, 2002, to impose
temporary safeguards on key steel products to provide relief to those
parts of the U.S. steel industry that have been most damaged by import
surges. The level of relief varies by product with tariffs of 30
percent imposed on imports of plate, hot-rolled sheet, cold-rolled
sheet, coated sheet, tin mill products, hot-rolled bar, and cold-
finished bar and tariffs of 15 percent imposed on imports of rebar,
stainless steel bar, and stainless steel rod. Imports of slab are
subject to tariff rate quotas. Tariff rate quotas are two-part tariffs,
with imports up to the quota subject to a lower duty and imports above
the quota level subject to a higher duty. In the case of slab, the in-
quota volume is set at 5.4 million tons and the out-of-quota (i.e.,
above the quota level) tariff of 30 percent. The level of relief
described reflects the initial safeguard measures, with periodic
reductions throughout the three year duration of the measures. Canada
and Mexico were excluded from the quota and tariff measures on all
products. Developing countries that export only small quantities of
steel to the U.S. were also excluded from the quota and tariff
measures.

V. Summary of Significant Decisions

A. Decisions Regarding the Content of the Regulations

1. New or Revised Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
EPA has decided to revise effluent limitations guidelines and
standards only for current Subpart A (cokemaking), Subpart B
(sintering), Subpart C (ironmaking), and Subpart D (steelmaking), and
to promulgate new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for new
Subpart M (other operations). Also, as a result of EPA's technical and
economic review, EPA is promulgating revised BAT limitations, NSPS and
pretreatment standards for the cokemaking by-product recovery segment
based on technologies that are different than those proposed.
Specifically, EPA is promulgating effluent limits based primarily on
ammonia still and biological treatment with nitrification for direct
dischargers and pretreatment standards based primarily on ammonia still
treatment for indirect dischargers. At proposal, EPA had designated the
technology option as BAT-1, NSPS-1, PSES-1 and PSNS-1. Section VIII.A
explains why the Agency is promulgating limitations and standards based
on different model technologies than EPA proposed for the cokemaking
subcategory.
For the sintering subcategory, EPA is revising the current
regulation to add limitations and standards for one additional
pollutant, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF), while keeping the
rest of the limits unchanged. The technology basis for new TCDF
limitations and standards for the sintering subcategory remains
unchanged from the proposal and is the same as the technology basis for
the 1982 regulations except for the addition of mixed-media filtration.
EPA is also establishing limitations of no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants for new and existing direct dischargers and new
and existing indirect dischargers for sintering operations with dry air
pollution control systems.
As described in Section V.A.8, ammonia-N pretreatment standards do
not apply to cokemaking, ironmaking, and sintering facilities
discharging to POTWs with nitrification capability.
For the steelmaking subcategory, EPA is revising BPT, BCT, BAT, and
PSES limitations for the semi-wet basic oxygen furnace (BOF) operations
to allow discharge of process wastewater, when merited by safety
considerations. As explained in the 2001 Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) at 66 FR 10253, EPA is allowing discharge of process wastewater
because certain safety concerns currently preclude some sites from
balancing the water applied for BOF gas conditioning with evaporative
losses to achieve zero discharge. Also in the steelmaking subcategory,
for the semi-wet EAF operations, EPA is establishing limitations of no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants for new direct dischargers
and existing and new indirect dischargers, making these limitations
equivalent to the previously promulgated BPT, BCT, and BAT limitations
applicable to semi-wet electric arc furnace (EAF) operations. EPA
received no comments on this proposed change, and identified none of
the safety or production concerns discussed for semi-wet BOF
operations.
The technology bases for the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for direct reduced iron segment and the briquetting segment
of the new subpart M (other operations) are unchanged from proposal. In
the case of the forging segment of the new subpart M, the technology
basis at proposal was incorrectly described as high rate recycle and
oil/water separation. The technology basis should have been described
as high rate recycle, oil/water separation, and mixed-media filtration.
Section VIII discusses the technology bases for each of these
subcategories in more detail.
2. Subcategorization Structure
In 2000, EPA proposed a subcategorization structure that was
significantly different from the structure in the 1982 iron and steel
rule (see 65 FR 81974-81975). Unlike the 1982 rule, EPA proposed to
consolidate operations such as salt bath descaling, acid pickling, and
other finishing operations into a single ``Finishing Subcategory.''
Similarly, the Agency proposed to consolidate sintering and ironmaking
into a single ``Ironmaking Subcategory.'' The following table presents
a comparison of the 1982 subcategorization scheme and the one EPA
proposed in 2000:

[[Page 64224]]

Table V.A.1.--Subcategory Comparison of 1982 and the Proposed
Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategories promulgated in Subcategories proposed in 2000
1982
-----------------------------
A. Cokemaking............... A. Cokemaking.......
B. Sintering................ B. Ironmaking.......
C. Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking.............. C. Integrated D. Non-Integrated
Steelmaking. Steelmaking and Hot
Forming.
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming.............. E. Integrated and D. Non-Integrated
Stand Alone Hot Steelmaking and Hot
Forming. Forming.
H. Salt Bath Descaling...... F. Steel Finishing..
I. Acid Pickling
J. Cold Forming
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
G. Other Operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Agency proposed a new subcategorization scheme to reflect not
only the modern state of the industry, in terms of both process and
wastewater management, but also the experience that the Agency and
other regulatory entities have gained from implementing the 1982 iron
and steel effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA also
expected that the revised subcategorization scheme would simplify the
regulatory structure and reflect co-treatment of compatible
wastewaters, which is currently practiced by the industry. As a result,
many of the proposed subcategories would have included various
operations that are regulated under different segments or subcategories
in the 1982 rule. EPA also proposed a number of specialized definitions
to support the subcategorization scheme.
In addition to the subcategory structure, EPA proposed segmentation
changes in the proposed cokemaking, integrated and stand alone hot
forming, non-integrated and stand alone hot forming, finishing, and the
integrated steelmaking subcategories. First, EPA proposed to combine
two 1982 segments in the cokemaking subcategory, ``Iron and Steel'' and
``Merchant,'' into a single ``By-Product Recovery'' segment because
differences in wastewater flow rates observed in the 1982 rulemaking
are no longer apparent within the current population of by-product coke
plants. In addition to combining all by-product cokemaking operations
into one segment, the Agency also proposed a new ``Non-Recovery''
segment to accommodate the two non-recovery coke plants. Second, for
the proposed integrated steelmaking and hot forming subcategory, the
non-integrated steelmaking and hot forming subcategory, and the steel
finishing subcategory, EPA proposed segmenting based on whether
facilities primarily make stainless or carbon/alloy steels. Finally,
EPA also proposed to eliminate from the rule references to the
following obsolete operations: beehive cokemaking in the cokemaking
subcategory, ferromanganese blast furnaces in the ironmaking
subcategory, and open hearth furnace operations in the steelmaking
subcategory.
While EPA did not receive any comments specific to the proposed
subcategorization scheme, the Agency did receive a number of comments
on the change in segmentation for the cokemaking subcategory. The
commenters opposed EPA's proposal to drop the segmentation on the basis
of ``iron and steel'' and ``merchant'' coke plants; however, the
commenters agreed with EPA's assessment that production process and
wastewaters from merchant coke plants are similar to those from the
integrated ``iron and steel'' facilities. The Agency also evaluated
potential economic differences between ``merchant'' and ``iron and
steel'' facilities, but did not find substantial differences in
profitability or other factors which might affect economic
acheivability, although some difference in facility size was observed.
Some commenters also expressed confusion regarding the segmentation of
stainless and carbon/alloy steels. No comments were received on
eliminating provisions for beehive cokemaking, ferromanganese blast
furnaces, or open hearth furnace operations.
As explained in Section V.B, based on comments, the Agency re-
evaluated the economic conditions and technology bases of the proposed
rule. The Agency decided to promulgate new or revised limits for only
five subcategories: cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, steelmaking, and
other operations. Due to the small number of subcategories affected by
today's rule, the Agency has decided to retain the 1982 subcategory
structure with the addition of an ``other operations'' subcategory. As
a result, the final rule covers the following 13 subcategories:

Subcategory A: Cokemaking (includes by-product and non-recovery
operations)
Subcategory B: Sintering,
Subcategory C: Ironmaking,
Subcategory D: Steelmaking (includes basic oxygen furnace and electric
arc furnace operations)
Subcategory E: Vacuum degassing,
Subcategory F: Continuous casting,
Subcategory G: Hot forming,
Subcategory H: Salt bath descaling,
Subcategory I: Acid pickling,
Subcategory J: Cold forming,
Subcategory K: Alkaline cleaning,
Subcategory L: Hot coating, and
Subcategory M: Other operations (includes forging, direct-reduced
ironmaking, and briquetting).
For the cokemaking subcategory, today's rule combines the ``Iron
and Steel'' and ``Merchant'' segments into a newly-created ``By-
product'' cokemaking segment for most regulatory purposes, although EPA
is retaining the ``Iron and Steel'' and ``Merchant'' segments for
purposes of reflecting the existing BPT limitations. EPA concluded that
this was appropriate because the production processes, wastewater
characteristics, and wastewater flow rates from all by-product recovery
cokemaking operations, including merchant facilities, are similar.
EPA is also eliminating the segment in BAT for by-product coke
plants with physical chemical treatment systems. EPA has determined
that technology basis for BAT limitations promulgated in today's rule
are technically and economically achievable for all direct discharging
by-product coke plants.
EPA is also creating a new cokemaking segment for non-recovery

[[Page 64225]]

operations and a new sintering segment for dry air pollution control
systems for the reasons stated in the proposal. Because the promulgated
rule makes no change to the hot forming, vacuum degassing, casting, or
various finishing operations, the segmentation for these operations in
the 1982 rule remains applicable. Finally, in today's rule, EPA is
eliminating segments for the following obsolete operations: beehive
cokemaking, ferromanganese blast furnaces, and open hearth furnaces.
3. Phenol Pass-Through Analysis for Cokemaking
Generally, EPA establishes pretreatment standards for pollutants
regulated under BAT that pass through POTWs to waters of the U.S. or
interfere with POTW operations or sludge disposal practices. In
conducting its pass-through analysis, the Agency generally compares the
median percentage of a pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs
performing secondary treatment to the median percentage of a pollutant
removed by BAT treatment. When the median percentage removed nationwide
by well-operated POTWs is less than the median percentage removed by
direct dischargers complying with the BAT effluent limits, EPA
typically determines that the pollutant passes through.
The February 14, 2001 iron and steel notice explained that EPA
planned to use an alternate procedure to determine whether or not the
BAT pollutant phenol would pass through for wastewater from cokemaking
operations. See 66 FR 10257. This notice explained that EPA planned to
determine pass-through for phenol for the cokemaking subcategory using
a methodology previously developed for phenol in the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) guideline. Under this
methodology, EPA determined in the OCPSF rule that phenol did not pass
through because phenol is highly biodegradable and is treated by POTWs
to the same non-detect levels (10 parts per billion (ppb) or 10 [mu]g/
L) that the OCPSF direct dischargers achieve. Additionally, like the
OCPSF direct dischargers, the cokemaking direct dischargers receive
significantly higher influent phenol concentrations than the POTWs,
with the result that the direct dischargers showed higher removals than
the performance at the POTWs. Therefore, EPA reasoned that application
of the traditional approach to these facts would reflect the
significant differences in influent concentrations rather than a real
difference in the POTWs' ability to treat phenols. As a result, EPA
selected this alternate methodology because the traditional pass-
through methodology failed to account for special circumstances
presented by phenol in cokemaking wastewater.
The notice explained that, using this alternate methodology, phenol
did not pass through in connection with cokemaking operations. The
notice further explained that a supplemental analysis using more recent
data from a well-operated POTW performing secondary treatment on
process cokemaking wastewater supports this determination.
EPA did not receive any comments on the alternate methodology and
continues to believe that this alternate methodology is appropriate for
determining pass through for phenolic compounds for cokemaking
operations. Consequently, for this final rule, EPA has determined, with
respect to by-product cokemaking, that phenolic compounds do not pass
through. Accordingly, EPA has not established any pretreatment
standards for phenols (4AAP) for that segment.
4. Regulation of Phenols (4AAP)
EPA regulated the non-conventional bulk parameter phenol (measured
as 4 amino-antipyrene (4AAP)) in 1982 for cokemaking, sintering, and
blast furnace ironmaking. In 2000, EPA proposed regulation of the
compound phenol (as measured with a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer
(GC-MS)) instead of the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), because, in
general, it believes that, in effluent limitations guidelines,
targeting specific pollutants is often more appropriate than regulating
a parameter that measures a variety of pollutants. For reasons
presented in comments, EPA has decided to continue to regulate phenol
(measured as 4AAP) and is not making the change as proposed.
EPA received one comment supporting the proposed approach on the
grounds that it would give a much more reliable measure of the actual
amount of phenol in the discharge. However, several other commenters
disagreed with EPA's proposal. These comments raised three principal
objections. First, they expressed concern that changing the regulated
parameter from 4AAP to phenol would increase costs for both sampling
and analyses, with no environmental benefit. Based on a survey of three
labs and assuming two sample events per week, costs at one location
would likely increase by over $25,000 per year. Second, the comments
asserted that the proposed changes could present unintended adverse
environmental effects. One commenter reported that its facility runs
several operational samples for phenols (4AAP) as part of the daily
routine, which allows it to identify and respond to potential upset
conditions. The time required to run the GC-MS analytical method for
phenol and the instrumentation required, the commenter said, would
discourage onsite monitoring for wastewater treatment process control
purposes. Finally, commenters noted that, because phenol is a priority
pollutant, it is not eligible for CWA Section 301(g) waivers. These
waivers allow facilities to request a variance from effluent
limitations for nonconventional bulk pollutants such as phenols (4AAP)
based upon cost and economic impact considerations, provided that the
facilities comply with all local water quality-based effluent
limitations. See Section XIII.C for more information regarding 301(g)
waivers. Commenters stated that by regulating phenol instead of the
bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), EPA would eliminate the option of
obtaining such a waiver. Commenters further stated that because many
iron and steel facilities are currently regulated under a 301(g) waiver
for phenols (4AAP), this would substantially increase the costs of the
proposed rule, and that EPA did not account for these costs at the time
of its proposal.
EPA reviewed its record on this issue. The data show that there are
two primary phenolic compounds present in iron and steel wastewater:
phenol, and 2,4-dimethylphenol. Furthermore, the data show that by
controlling the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), both of these compounds
are effectively controlled. Therefore, while EPA agrees with the
comment that regulating phenol would provide a more reliable measure of
the actual amount of phenol, EPA does not believe that this degree of
precision is necessary in view of the other considerations identified
in comments. EPA agrees that compliance monitoring costs are greater
for phenol than for the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP), and EPA does not
want to discourage routine monitoring that allows a mill to identify
and respond quickly to potential upset conditions. Also, in light of
the current financial conditions of the industry, EPA wants to ensure
that iron and steel facilities continue to have the option of the
301(g) waiver. EPA has been unable to find anything in its database to
suggest that regulating the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP) instead of
the compound phenol would negatively impact the environment.
Consequently, after careful review of comments received and its
database,

[[Page 64226]]

EPA had concluded that it is appropriate to continue to regulate the
bulk parameter phenols (4AAP) rather than phenol.
5. Retention of the Central Treatment Provision
Under the applicability Section of the 1982 iron and steel
regulation, 40 CFR 420.01(b), EPA identified 21 plants that were
temporarily excluded from the provisions of Part 420 because of
economic considerations. This exclusion would not be granted unless the
owner or operator of the facility requested the Agency to consider
establishing alternative effluent limitations and provided the Agency
with certain information consistent with 40 CFR 420.01(b)(2) on or
before July 26, 1982. See 47 FR 23285 (May 27, 1982). At the time of
the 2000 proposal, EPA believed that none of the facilities currently
had permits based on the central treatment provision and proposed to
remove it from Part 420.
The Agency did not receive any comments supporting the removal of
the central treatment provision. Rather, commenters asked EPA to expand
the provision. Commenters requested this expansion because they were
concerned that the costs of the proposed rule would be too high if the
limits and standards were made more stringent. Commenters stated that
economic conditions were similar to those in 1982 and that the central
treatment provision should remain a viable compliance option in Part
420.
EPA disagrees with commenters that it should expand the central
treatment provision. Because of the prevailing economic situation in
the iron and steel industry, technological reasons in some
subcategories, and performance issues in others, EPA has decided to go
forward with new or revised regulations for only five subcategories
(cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, steelmaking, and a subcategory for
other operations). The five subcategories affected by the final rule
have minimal impact on the 21 eligible mills. With the substantially
reduced projected economic burden on the industry, the Agency does not
believe that expanding Sec. 420.01(b)(2) is necessary.
EPA also reviewed its database in determining whether it should
remove the central treatment provision as proposed. EPA confirmed that
very few of the twenty-one facilities applied for the central treatment
waiver provision. However, contrary to its belief at the time of the
proposal, EPA found that, of those that did apply, at least one mill
currently has a permit based on the central treatment provision for one
parameter (zinc). Because EPA has decided to leave the ironmaking
subcategory unchanged from the 1982 regulation, this facility is likely
to continue to need the central waste treatment provision available in
Sec. 420.01(b). This particular company is projected to need to spend
at least two times the model costs to come into compliance with the
current Part 420 requirements for this one parameter, and would likely
remain eligible for the central treatment waiver provision. One
additional facility may also have a current permit based on the central
treatment provision.
Based upon EPA's review, today's final rule leaves the central
treatment provision (Sec. 420.01(b)(2)) unchanged from the 1982
regulation. This allows any mill whose permit is based on this
provision to continue to use it, but does not extend the provision to
any additional mills.
6. Production Basis for Calculating Permit Limits
The limitations and standards promulgated today are expressed in
terms of mass (e.g., lbs/day or kg/day). This means that NPDES permit
limitations derived from today's rule similarly must be expressed in
terms of mass. See 40 CFR 122.45(f). These requirements are for direct
discharging facilities. Similar requirements exist for indirect
discharging facilities and are found in 40 CFR 403.6(c)(3). In order to
convert effluent limitations guidelines and standards expressed as
pounds/thousand pounds to a monthly average or daily maximum permit
limit, the permitting authority would use a production rate with units
of thousand pounds/day. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 420.04,
122.45(b)(2), and 403.6(c)(3) require that NPDES permit and
pretreatment limits be based on a ``reasonable measure of actual
production,'' but do not define the term. In its 2000 proposal, EPA
solicited comment on whether to codify a definition of that term in
part 420 for the iron and steel category. After considering the
comments and reviewing the rulemaking record, EPA has decided not to
codify a definition of ``reasonable measure of actual production.''
a. Background
As explained above, the current iron and steel regulation does not
define what constitutes a ``reasonable measure of actual production,''
although it offers the following examples: ``production during the high
month of the previous year, or the monthly average for the highest of
the previous five years.'' See 40 CFR 420.04.
EPA believes that some NPDES permitting and pretreatment control
authorities have identified production rates that do not reflect a
``reasonable measure of actual production'' specified at
122.45(b)(2)(I), 403.6(c)(3), and 420.04. In some cases, maximum
production rates for similar process units discharging to one treatment
system were determined from different years or months, which may
provide an unrealistically high measure of actual production. In EPA's
view, this would occur if the different process units could not
reasonably produce at these high rates simultaneously.
In addition, industry stakeholders have also noted that permitting
and pretreatment control authorities interpret the reasonable measure
of actual production inconsistently. Accordingly, iron and steel
industry stakeholders requested that EPA publish a consistent policy on
how to implement this requirement. Industry stakeholders have indicated
that (1) in order to promote consistency, EPA should codify the method
used to determine appropriate production rates for calculating
allowable mass loadings, so that the permit writers can all use the
same basis; and (2) EPA should use a high production basis, such as
maximum monthly production over the previous five year period or
maximum design production, in order to ensure that a facility will not
be out of compliance during periods of high production.
b. 2000 Proposal
Because the ``reasonable measure of actual production'' concept is
inconsistently applied, EPA proposed in 2000 to include in its final
iron and steel rulemaking specific direction on making this
determination. EPA solicited comment on four alternative approaches to
implement the ``reasonable measure of actual production.'' See 65 FR at
82029-82031. Each alternative excluded, from the calculation of
operating rates, production from unit operations that do not generate
or discharge process wastewater. EPA proposed the following four
alternative definitions of reasonable measure of actual production: (a)
include production only from units that can operate simultaneously; (b)
apply multi-tiered permit limits with different limits for different
rates of production as defined in Chapter 5 of U.S. EPA NPDES Permit
Writers Manual, EPA 833-B-96-003; (c) use the average daily production
from the highest production year during the previous five years; and

[[Page 64227]]

(d) use one of the methods for monthly average limits but use
concentration limits for daily maximum limits.
Each alternative had its supporters and detractors in comments.
Several commenters preferred alternative A, but incorrectly described
the alternative as the high month of production over the past five
years. No commenters provided data that showed they would be unable to
meet the proposed limits and standards under any of the four
alternatives.
c. Final Rule
At this time, EPA has decided not to revise section 420.04 in any
respect. EPA has also decided not to codify a definition for the term
``reasonable measure of actual production'' applicable to part 420. The
Agency has thoroughly evaluated all comments supporting other
interpretations and is not convinced that departing from past practices
is justified here. Consequently, EPA concludes that continuing to allow
flexibility to permitting and pretreatment control authorities to apply
site-specific factors in determining a reasonable measure of production
is appropriate.
7. Applicability of Part 420 to Electroplating and Certain Finishing
Operations
At the time of the proposed rulemaking, the Agency determined that
certain facilities subject to the 1982 iron and steel rule operated
processes that more closely resemble those in facilities to be covered
by the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) rule than those found in
iron and steel facilities. So that these facilities might be addressed
under a regulation that best fits them, EPA proposed to move these
types of facilities into the MP&M category, which would be regulated
under the part 438 effluent limitations guidelines and standards, when
finalized. Specifically, EPA proposed to move the following operations
from iron and steel to MP&M: surface finishing or cold forming of steel
bar, rod, wire, pipe or tube; batch electroplating on steel; continuous
electroplating or hot dip coating of long steel products (e.g.wire,
rod, bar); batch hot dip coating of steel; and steel wire drawing.
These operations produce finished products such as bars, wire, pipe and
tubes, nails, chain link fencing, and steel rope.
EPA received several comments regarding the proposed transfer. The
commenters did not support such transfer for two main reasons. First,
the stand alone wire companies commented that they would be at a
competitive disadvantage because they believe certain non-integrated
facilities that also produce and sell wire and wire products would
continue to be regulated under part 420 alone. EPA disagrees with the
commenters on this issue because, like stand alone wire facilities, the
wire operations of the non-integrated steelmaking facilities would be
subject to the MP&M category, as regulated under the part 438 effluent
limitations guidelines and standards. EPA expects that the discharge
permits for these non-integrated facilities would be based on a
combined waste stream formula approach.
Additionally, the commenters also claimed that the transferred
operations are similar to various operations in the proposed iron and
steel finishing subcategory. Furthermore, the commenters also felt that
EPA has not demonstrated any significant differences in the wastewater
characteristics between the proposed to be transferred operations and
the proposed iron and steel finishing operations. Since proposal, EPA
revisited the record of the iron and steel finishing operations (all
operations with available influent data) and compared the associated
wastewater characteristics to those from the wire facilities that were
sampled under the MP&M rulemaking effort. EPA confirmed that the
wastewater characteristics from the operations EPA proposed to transfer
indeed resemble more closely those from the MP&M operations than those
from the iron and steel finishing operations. For instance, the average
lead and zinc concentrations from the wire facilities are one to three
orders of magnitude higher than those from the iron and steel finishing
facilities. On the other hand, the concentrations for these pollutants
are within the range of pollutant concentrations found in similar MP&M
operations.
Furthermore, most of the unit operations present in the facilities
EPA proposed to transfer are the same as those found in the MP&M
facilities, while only around 30% of these operations are found in the
iron and steel finishing facilities. Lastly, EPA performed a comparison
of flow rates between the facilities EPA proposed to transfer and the
proposed finishing subcategory. The average flow rate from the proposed
finishing subcategory is approximately half billion gallons per year,
while the average flow rate from the facilities EPA proposed to
transfer is less than 30 million gallons per year. EPA also notes that
the average flow rate from the general metals subcategory of the MP&M
rule is of the same order of magnitude as that from the facilities EPA
proposed to transfer. As a result of the above evaluations, EPA
preliminarily concluded that the operations EPA proposed to transfer
are more appropriately regulated in part 438, the MP&M effluent
limitations guidelines and standards.
EPA also proposed moving certain electroplating operations
currently subject to the Metal Finishing Part 433 effluent limitations
guidelines and standards into the revised part 420. Commenters strongly
opposed the incorporation of the continuous electroplating of flat
steel products (e.g., sheet, strip, plate) into part 420, indicating
the preference for electroplating operations of all types to be
considered as a whole (e.g., under the part 433 regulations or
eventually the MP&M regulations). For the reasons stated in the
comments, EPA agrees. Therefore, EPA is not including wastewater
discharges from continuous electroplating of flat steel products in
part 420.
For the reasons set forth above, EPA believes that the following
operations would be most appropriately regulated as MP&M facilities:
surface finishing or cold forming of steel bar, rod, wire, pipe or
tube; batch electroplating on steel; continuous electroplating or hot
dip coating of long steel products (e.g.wire, rod, bar); batch hot dip
coating of steel; and steel wire drawing. However, EPA will not decide
whether to establish an MP&M category in part 438 until December 2002.
Therefore, it would be premature in today's final rule to change the
applicability of the existing iron and steel rule to exclude the
operations and EPA has not done so. If EPA finalizes limitations and
standards for subcategories of the MP&M regulation (which would
encompass these operations), EPA will also amend the applicability
section of the iron and steel rulemaking to reflect this change. Until
then, these operations continue to be regulated under part 420,
respectively.
8. Ammonia-N Standard Waiver for Indirect Discharging Cokemaking,
Ironmaking, and Sintering Operations
In today's final rule, EPA is setting or retaining pretreatment
standards for ammonia for the cokemaking and sintering subcategories
because of the high loads of ammonia in wastewaters from those
subcategories to POTWs that do not have nitrification capability.
However, EPA is aware that some POTWs treating iron and steel
wastewaters from these subcategories have nitrification capability.
Consequently, in 2000, EPA proposed to waive the ammonia-N pretreatment
standard for the ironmaking (including

[[Page 64228]]

sintering) subcategory if the receiving POTW's operations included
effective operation of a nitrification system.
EPA received several compelling comments supporting this proposal,
and encouraging EPA to extend this mechanism to the cokemaking
subcategory also. No commenters opposed this mechanism.
Upon a final review of its record, EPA continues to believe this
waiver is appropriate and agrees with commenters that it should apply
to the cokemaking, sintering, and ironmaking subcategories. EPA
concludes this waiver will be equally protective of the environment and
lead to potential cost savings for some iron and steel facilities.
Thus, ammonia-N pretreatment standards do not apply to cokemaking,
ironmaking, and sintering facilities discharging to POTWs with
nitrification capability. As a further point of clarification, EPA is
defining nitrification capability as described in the following
paragraph.
POTWs with nitrification capability oxidize ammonium salts to
nitrites (via Nitrosomas bacteria) and then further oxidize nitrites to
nitrates via Nitrobacter bacteria to achieve greater removals of
ammonia than POTWs without nitrification. Nitrification can be
accomplished in either a single or two-stage activated sludge system.
In addition, POTWs that have wetlands which are developed and
maintained for the express purpose of removing ammonia with a marsh/
pond configuration are also examples of having nitrification
capability. Indicators of nitrification capability are: (1) biological
monitoring for ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and nitrite oxidizing
bacteria (NOB) to determine if the nitrification is occurring, and (2)
analysis of the nitrogen balance to determine if nitrifying bacteria
reduce the amount of ammonia and increase the amount of nitrite and
nitrate.
9. Nitrates in Acid Pickling Wastewater
In today's final rule, EPA is not establishing nitrate limits for
acid pickling operations. The model BAT technology for stainless steel
finishing operations includes acid purification units for recovery and
reuse of spent nitric and nitric/hydrofluoric acid pickling solutions.
This technology comprises removal of dissolved metals (e.g., iron,
chromium, nickel) from a side stream of the strong acid pickling
solution and return of the purified acid to the acid pickling bath.
This essentially extends the life of the pickling acids, thereby
reducing the consumption of virgin nitric acid. A reject stream
containing dilute acid and the dissolved metals is periodically sent to
wastewater treatment.
Commenters provided information to the Agency on the efficiency and
performance of acid purification technology, which indicated EPA had
substantially overestimated the capability of acid purification units
in the proposed rule. No information on potential alternative pollution
control equipment was provided in response to the solicitation for cost
and performance data. The Agency was also unable to acquire sufficient
information on alterative pollution control technologies to provide a
best available technology basis for the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards.
EPA is aware of a potential problem associated with nitrate
discharge from one stainless steel finishing operation with combination
(hydrofluoric and nitric) acid pickling. It may be that similar
problems are associated with discharges coming from similar operations
in other parts of the country. Nitrates, when consumed in drinking
water, can be associated with health problems in humans, particularly
infants. EPA expects this problem to be addressed through BAT
limitations established on a site-specific best professional judgment
basis or through water quality-based effluent limitations. For further
discussion of the possible technological alternatives for nitrate
control in site-specific circumstances, please see Chapter 8 of the
TDD.

B. Decisions Regarding Methodology

1. Economic Analysis Methodology
This section presents several important adjustments made to the
methodology since proposal. A more detailed discussion of EPA's
methodology for analyzing the economic achievability of the candidate
BAT options is presented in Section X.C of this preamble and in the EA.
In response to the challenges represented by the significant
industry downturn described in Section IV, EPA made two revisions to
the economic analysis methodology it employed at proposal. In the case
of forecasting future industry cash flows, the Agency added two
additional forecast methods to the three used in the proposal. Two of
the models used at proposal explicitly address the sharp downturn in
the industry after 1997 but differ in reflecting the strength and
duration of recovery and subsequent downturns. That is, both address
the cyclicality seen in the iron and steel industry, but with differing
magnitudes and timing. The third forecasting method used at proposal is
a three-year average (1995 to 1997) to provide an upper-bound analysis.
For this final rule, EPA employed two additional forecast methods to
reflect to the maximum extent possible the effect of the industry
downturn. The fourth forecasting method is a six-year average covering
1995 to 2000, with the years 1998 through 2000 scaled by industry level
performance. The fifth forecasting method uses only the year 2000 as a
lower-bound analysis.
The second revision to the economic methodology since proposal is
modification of the scoring test to evaluate potential economic
impacts. EPA calculates the baseline status of a site as the present
value of forecasted earnings. With five forecasting methods, there are
five ways to evaluate each site. If, using a particular forecast
method, a site's baseline status is negative (negative present value of
forecasted earnings), EPA assigned a score of ``1'' for that
forecasting method. A single site, then, may have a score ranging from
zero to five (with five indicating negative present value of forecasted
earnings under all five forecasts). Similar to the methodology at
proposal, EPA considers any sites with negative present value of
forecasted earnings in the majority of cases (in this case, a score of
``3'' or higher) to be a baseline closure.
Then for all sites considered viable in the baseline, EPA
calculates the post-regulatory status of a site as the present value of
forecasted earnings minus the after-tax present value of regulatory
costs. With five forecasting methods, there are five ways to evaluate
each site. If, using a particular forecast method, a site's post-
regulatory status is negative (after-tax present value of regulatory
costs exceeds present value of forecasted earnings), EPA assigned a
score of ``1'' for that forecasting method. A single site, then, may
have a score ranging from zero to five (with five indicating that the
after-tax present value of regulatory costs exceeds present value of
forecasted earnings under all five forecasts). In an effort to reflect
the significant industry downturn, the Agency has chosen to reflect any
incremental change in the score from the baseline condition to the
post-regulatory condition due to regulatory compliance costs as a
potential closure.
One additional item of note was incorporated into the economic
analysis of the rule since proposal. Two proposed rules being
undertaken by the Agency's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
may impact iron and steel facilities potentially subject to the current
rule: Coke Ovens: Pushing,

[[Page 64229]]

Quenching & Battery Stacks (66 FR 35325) and Integrated Iron and Steel
(66 FR 36835). As a result, the final economic analysis incorporates in
the economic condition of each potentially affected facility and firm
the potential regulatory costs projected for the aforementioned
proposed rules. This approach is consistent with existing Agency and
OMB guidance on conducting economic analysis. Further, the other
potential rulemakings represent expenditures which are projected to
occur during the analytical and compliance time horizon and the costs
must be reflected to insure the Agency does not underestimate adverse
economic impacts.
2. Selection of Facilities With Model Treatment and Evaluation of
Available Data Sets in Establishing Long Term Averages
EPA uses long term averages (LTAs), which represent the pollutant
concentrations achievable, and production normalized flows (PNFs),
which reflect volumes of wastewater generated, by model facilities in
order to calculate the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in
today's rule. See the TDD for more details. EPA received a number of
comments on the ability of existing facilities to achieve both the LTAs
and the PNFs. This section explains the procedure EPA used to select
the BAT facilities upon which it based its LTAs and its updated data
editing procedures for LTA and variability calculations. For a
discussion of PNFs, see Section V.B.3 and Chapter 13 of the TDD.
First, EPA evaluated each data set to determine what technology or
series of technologies the data represented. In this manner, EPA
eliminated many data sets because they did not represent a technology
basis considered during development of this rule. In a few instances,
EPA included data from facilities that employ technologies in addition
to the technology bases being considered. In these cases, EPA had data
from intermediate sampling points representing the model technologies;
in other words, the data EPA employed reflect only the application of
technologies under consideration. Next, EPA reviewed the remaining data
sets to ensure that each facility was effectively operating its
technologies. For example, EPA eliminated facilities that experienced
repeated operating problems with their treatment systems or have
discharge points located after addition of significant amounts (i.e.,
greater than 10 percent by volume) of non-process water.
For the data sets that remained, EPA performed a detailed review of
the data and all supporting documentation accompanying the data. This
includes both EPA sampling data and industry-supplied data (often
referred to as industry self monitoring data (ISMD)). EPA performed
this review to ensure that the data were obtained during a treatment
system's normal operating conditions and to ensure that the data
accurately reflect the performance expected by the BAT treatment
systems. Thus, EPA excluded data that were collected while a facility
was experiencing exceptional incidents or upsets.
After determining the data sets to be included to calculate LTAs
and variability for each technology option under consideration for the
final rule, EPA applied further data editing criteria on a pollutant-
by-pollutant basis. For facilities where EPA possessed paired influent
and effluent data, it performed a long-term average test. The test
looks at the influent concentrations to ensure a pollutant is present
at sufficient concentration to evaluate treatment effectiveness. If a
pollutant failed the test (i.e., was not present at a treatable
concentration), EPA excluded the data for that pollutant from its LTA
and variability calculations. In this manner, EPA would ensure that its
limitations resulted from treatment and not simply the absence of that
pollutant in the wastestream. In many cases, however, industry supplied
EPA with effluent data, but not the corresponding influent data. In
these cases, EPA used the effluent data without performing a long-term
average test. EPA decided to use these data for two reasons. First, EPA
wanted to include as much data as possible in its calculations. Second,
the vast majority of pollutants for which industry supplied self-
monitoring data are pollutants regulated in the existing iron and steel
regulation; EPA has already established the presence of the regulated
pollutants in treatable levels in iron and steel wastestreams.
Therefore, EPA is confident that these effluent data represent
effective treatment and not the absence of the pollutant in the
wastestream.
Lastly, in some cases, EPA also had information that the technology
at a particular facility, while effective overall, was ineffective for
individual pollutants. In these instances, EPA excluded the data from
that facility for that particular pollutant only.
The Agency then used the remaining data from the facilities with
the model technology basis to calculate the LTA, the associated daily
and monthly variability factors, and the limitations. Chapter 14 of the
Technical Development Document provides more detailed information on
EPA's data editing criteria and the long-term average test. In
addition, the final rulemaking record contains supporting documentation
on all data exclusions.
3. Reassessment of Production-Normalized Flows (PNFs)
EPA performed a comprehensive review of the data sets used and
analyses performed to determine the model PNFs. EPA's revised analyses
are described in Section 13 of the TDD, with additional documentation
provided in the rulemaking record. The purpose of the review was to
identify and correct any errors in the data sets and to ensure that the
resulting model PNFs are technically achievable for all facilities in
each subcategory and segment. EPA's revised PNF analyses considered age
of equipment and facilities, type of process employed, products
produced (incorporates product quality needs), geographic location,
non-water quality impacts (including air pollution regulations and
energy), compliance costs, storm water considerations, and seasonal
variation. EPA also considered combinations of these factors and
evaluated the pollutant control upgrades considered for each facility
to ensure the model PNFs and LTAs are technically feasible for all
facilities in each subcategory and segment. In addition, EPA considered
whether any individual facilities achieve the model PNFs and LTAs
simultaneously, but did not include this factor as a requirement in
determining the model LTAs and PNFs.
For two subcategories, ironmaking and steel finishing, EPA's
subsequent analyses concluded that the model PNFs were not technically
achievable for all facilities, and this was one factor in EPA's
decision to retain the existing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for these subcategories as discussed in Sections VIII.C and
VIII.H. EPA also made minor adjustments to the model PNFs for some
other subcategories and segments.
4. Changes in Methodology for Determining the Baseline Loadings and
Average Baseline Concentrations
An important factor in calculating current or baseline pollutant
loadings for a facility is the concentration of each pollutant in a
facility's discharge. When possible, EPA determined these pollutant
concentrations based on information reported by that facility. However,
EPA does not have this information for every pollutant at every iron
and steel facility. In these

[[Page 64230]]

instances, EPA needed to develop a methodology to estimate these
concentrations. Consequently, for each subcategory under consideration,
where site-specific data are available EPA calculated the site-specific
baseline concentrations for each pollutant before averaging the site-
specific values across the subcategory to obtain the subcategory-
specific average baseline concentrations. These values were then
applied to facilities and/or pollutants for which EPA lacked specific
data. For some subcategories, EPA estimated baseline concentrations for
different technologies, while for others it developed a single set of
concentration estimates. At the time of the proposal, EPA eliminated
data from facilities that were used in its LTA calculations (i.e.,
``BAT facilities''). After a review following the proposal, EPA
realized that this procedure assumed that all facilities for which EPA
did not have specific pollutant loading calculations were performing at
a level less than BAT. EPA's database does not support this conclusion.
Consequently, for the final rule, EPA has included all data, including
that representing ``BAT facilities,'' in its average pollutant baseline
calculations.
In addition, for the proposal, EPA estimated baseline pollutant
concentrations for indirect and direct dischargers separately. After a
review of its record, EPA recognized that, except for conventional
pollutants, effluent pollutant concentrations are largely dependent on
the treatment technology used rather than a facility's discharge
status. This is not the case for conventional pollutants, however,
because most indirect dischargers are not required to control or
optimize their treatment systems for the removal of conventional
pollutants because they are treated by the receiving POTW.
Consequently, for the final rule, except for conventional pollutants,
EPA has not distinguished between direct and indirect discharging
facilities in estimating baseline pollutant concentrations. Chapter 11
in the TDD contains additional information on EPA's pollutant loadings
and average baseline concentration calculations.
5. Determination of POTW Percent Removal Estimates
In its analyses at the time of the proposal, EPA used its
traditional approach to determine POTW performance (percent removal).
POTW performance is a critical component of the pass-through
methodology EPA uses to identify pollutants to be regulated for PSES
and PSNS. In addition, the proposal discussed that EPA was considering
revising its traditional methodology for determining POTW performance.
Specifically, it discussed and requested comment on possible revisions
to the methodology EPA uses to calculate POTW percent removals using
data from the ``Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publically Owned
Treatment Works'' (EPA 440/1-82/303, September 1982), commonly referred
to as the ``50-POTW Study.'' See 65 FR 82012-82013.
EPA received only one comment on the methodology changes. As these
changes would affect a wide range of industries, EPA had hoped to
engage a much broader audience. Consequently, for this final rule, EPA
continues to use its traditional approach. EPA also performed its
analyses using the revised methodology. EPA found that its conclusions
would be the same using either methodology.
As a further point of clarification, EPA also noticed the possible
revisions in its POTW performance methodology in its proposed Metal
Products and Machinery (MP&M) effluent guidelines and standards (66 FR
424). EPA is currently re-visiting this issue for that rulemaking.

VI. Scope/Applicability of the Regulation

The universe of facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 420
includes facilities engaged in iron and steel making operations using
blast furnaces, basic oxygen furnaces (BOFs), or electric arc furnaces
(EAFs). Part 420 also applies to metallurgical cokemaking facilities
and stand-alone facilities engaged in hot forming and/or finishing of
steel. In a change from the 1982 regulations, today's rule also applies
to facilities engaged in other related operations such as direct iron
reduction, forging, and iron briquetting. On the other hand, today's
rule no longer applies to obsolete operations such as beehive
cokemaking, ferromanganese blast furnaces and open hearth furnaces.
A detailed discussion of iron and steel wastewaters is provided in
Chapter 7 of the TDD. In summary, all wastewater discharged to a
receiving stream or introduced to a publicly owned treatment works from
a facility that is within the scope of one of the subparts is subject
to the provisions of part 420. See 40 CFR 420.01(a).

VII. Industry Description

EPA estimates there are 254 facilities owned by 115 companies in
the iron and steel industry. The iron and steel facilities are located
throughout the U.S. with a high concentration of integrated steelmaking
and cokemaking facilities in the midwest and northeast. The smaller
stand-alone forming and finishing facilities are generally located near
larger steel manufacturing sites.
EPA has identified general processes typically found at iron and
steel facilities. The following is a brief description of these key
manufacturing processes.

Cokemaking

This process turns carbon in raw coal into metallurgical coke,
which is subsequently used in the ironmaking process. There are two
types of cokemaking operations: By-product and non-recovery. In by-
product coke plants, metallurgical coke is produced by distilling coal
in refractory-lined, slot-type ovens at high temperatures in the
absence of air. In non-recovery coke plants, coal is made into coke in
negative pressure, higher temperature coke ovens.
In by-product coke operations, the moisture and volatile components
generated from the coal distillation process are collected and
processed to recover by-products, such as crude coal tars, light crude
oil, etc. Another type of cokemaking process is performed in non-
recovery plants. These facilities use higher temperature ovens which
destroy volatile organics, and they do not recover any by-products.
Furthermore, their negative pressure coke ovens also ensure no leakage
of air and smoke to the atmosphere.
In by-product coke plants, wastewater such as waste ammonia liquor
is generated from moisture contained in the coal charge to the coke
ovens, and some wastewater is generated from the by-product recovery
operations. The non-recovery coke plants, on the other hand, do not
generate any process wastewater.

Sintering

Sinter plants upgrade the iron content of ores and recover iron
from a mixture of wastewater treatment sludges, mill scale from
integrated steel mills, and fine coke particles (also known as coke
breeze) from cokemaking operations. In sinter plants, the iron source
mixture is combined with limestone and charged to a furnace. Sinter of
suitable size and weight is formed for charging to the blast furnace.
Wastewaters are generated from wet air pollution control devices on the
wind box and discharge ends of the sinter furnace. No process
wastewater is generated from dry air pollution control systems.

Ironmaking

In ironmaking, blast furnaces are used to produce molten iron,
which makes

[[Page 64231]]

up about two-thirds of the charge to basic oxygen steelmaking furnaces.
The raw materials charged to the top of the blast furnace include coke,
limestone, refined iron ores, and sinter. Preheated air is blown into
the bottom of the furnace and exits the furnace top as blast furnace
gas in enclosed piping. The off-gas is cleaned and cooled in a
combination of dry dust catchers and high-energy venturi scrubbers.
Direct contact water used in the gas coolers and high-energy scrubbers
comprises nearly all of the wastewater from ironmaking blast furnace
operations.

Steelmaking

Steelmaking in the United States is conducted either in basic
oxygen furnaces (BOFs) or electric arc furnaces (EAFs). BOFs are
typically used for high tonnage production of carbon steels at
integrated mills, while EAFs are used to produce carbon steels and low
tonnage alloy and specialty steels at non-integrated mills.
Integrated steel mills use BOFs to refine a metallic charge
consisting of approximately two-thirds molten iron and one-third steel
scrap. Off-gases from the furnace are controlled by one of three wet
air pollution control methods: Semi-wet, wet-open, and wet-suppressed.
Wastewaters are generated from the wet air pollution control devices.
On the other hand, non-integrated mills use EAFs to melt and refine a
metallic charge of scrap steel. In addition, most mills operate EAFs
with dry air cleaning systems, which produce no process wastewater
discharges. There are a small number of wet and semi-wet systems.

Vacuum Degassing/Ladle Metallurgy

Vacuum degassing is a batch process where molten steel is subjected
to a vacuum for composition control, temperature control, deoxidation,
degassing, decarburization, and the removal of impurities from the
steel. Oxygen and hydrogen are the principal gases removed from the
steel. In most degassing systems, the vacuum is provided by barometric
condensers; thus, direct contact between the gases and the barometric
water occurs.
Likewise, ladle metallurgy is also a batch process where molten
steel is refined in addition to, or in place of, vacuum degassing.
These operations include argon bubbling, argon-oxygen decarburization
(AOD), electroslag remelting (ESR), and lance injection. These
additional refining operations do not generate any process water.

Casting

This process continuously casts the molten steel into semi-finished
shapes after the vacuum degassing and/or ladle metallurgy processes.
The continuous casting machine includes a receiving vessel for molten
steel, water-cooled molds, secondary cooling water sprays, containment
rolls, oxygen-acetylene torches for cutoff, and a runout table.
Wastewater is generated by a direct contact water system used for spray
cooling and for flume flushing to transport scale from below the caster
runout table. The other main casting operation type is ingot casting,
in which molten steel is poured into ingot molds.

Hot Forming

In this process, ingots, blooms, billets, slabs, or rounds are
heated to rolling temperatures so that the products will form under
mechanical pressure into semi-finished shapes for further hot or cold
rolling or as finished shapes. Process water is used for scale
breaking, flume flushing, and direct contact cooling.

Salt Bath Descaling

Oxidizing and reducing molten salt baths are used to remove heavy
scale from specialty and high-alloy steels. Process wastewaters
originate from quenching and rinsing operations conducted after
processing in the molten salt baths. Electrolytic sodium sulfate
descaling is performed on stainless steels for essentially the same
purposes as salt bath descaling.

Acid Pickling

Solutions of various acids are used to remove oxide scale from the
surfaces of semi-finished products prior to further processing by cold
rolling, cold drawing, and subsequent cleaning and coating operations.
Process wastewaters include spent pickling acids, rinse waters, and
pickling line fume scrubber water.

Cold Forming

Cold forming is conducted on hot rolled and pickled steels at
ambient temperatures to impart desired mechanical and surface
properties in the steel. Process wastewater characteristics result from
using synthetic or animal-fat based rolling solutions, many of which
are proprietary.

Hot Coating

This process immerses pre-cleaned steel into baths of molten metal.
Hot coating is typically used to improve resistance to corrosion, and
for some products, to improve appearance and ability to hold paint.
Wastewaters result principally from cleaning operations prior to the
molten bath.

Direct-Reduced Ironmaking (DRI)

This process produces relatively pure iron by reducing iron ore in
a furnace below the melting point of the iron produced. DRI is used as
a substitute for scrap steel in non-integrated steelmaking process to
minimize contaminant levels in the melted steel and to allow economic
steel production when market prices for scrap are high. Process
wastewaters are generated from air pollution control devices.

Briquetting

This process of agglomeration forms materials into discrete shapes
of sufficient size, strength, and weight so that the material can serve
as feed for subsequent processes. Briquetting does not generate process
wastewater.

Forging

This is a hot forming operation in which a metal piece is shaped by
hammering or by processing in a hydraulic press. Process wastewaters
are generated from direct contact cooling water.
The data collected for this rulemaking indicate that, in the past
25 years, much of the steel manufacturing industry has shifted from
generally larger, older integrated facilities to newer, smaller non-
integrated facilities. In addition, there is a substantial trend toward
the establishment of specialized, stand-alone finishing facilities that
process semi-finished sheet, strip, bars, and rods obtained from
integrated or non-integrated facilities.
Of the 254 iron and steel manufacturing facilities, approximately
133 discharge directly to surface waters of the U.S., 70 discharge
indirectly to POTWs, and 56 facilities achieve zero discharge (either
because they do not generate process wastewater or because they dispose
of their process wastewater through underground injection or other
methods not directly involving waters of the United States). Some
facilities may discharge both directly to surface waters of the U.S.
and to POTWs. In 1997, process wastewater discharges ranged from less
than 200 gallons per day for a stand-alone finisher to more than 50
million gallons per day for a larger integrated facility.

VIII. The Final Regulation

For a detailed discussion of all technology options considered in
the development of today's final rule, see the proposal (65 FR at
81982-82096) and Chapter 9 of the TDD.

[[Page 64232]]

Based on the record before it, EPA has determined that each model
technology EPA has chosen as a basis for today's revised BAT and PSES
limitations is technically available. EPA has also determined that each
is economically achievable for the segment to which it applies.
Further, EPA has determined, for the reasons set forth in this section,
that none of the chosen technologies has unacceptable adverse non-water
quality environmental impacts. Finally, EPA has determined that each
chosen technology achieves greater pollutant removals than any other
economically achievable technology considered by EPA and, for that
reason, also represents the best technology among those considered for
the particular segment. EPA also considered the age, size, processes,
and other engineering factors pertinent to facilities in the proposed
segments for the purpose of evaluating the technology options. None of
these factors provides a basis for selecting different technologies
than those EPA has selected as its model BAT and PSES technologies for
today's rule.
In selecting its NSPS technologies for the segments and
subcategories being revised today, EPA considered all of the factors
specified in CWA Section 306, including the cost of achieving effluent
reductions. The NSPS technologies for these segments are presently
being employed at facilities in each segment of these subcategories.
Therefore, EPA has concluded that such costs do not present a barrier
to entry. The Agency also considered energy requirements and other non-
water quality environmental impacts for the NSPS options and concluded
that these impacts are acceptable. EPA therefore concluded that the
NSPS technology bases chosen for these segments constitute the best
available demonstrated control technology for those segments. (These
findings also apply to the PSNS for these segments.)
EPA is making no changes to the BPT and BCT limitations previously
promulgated for part 420, except for revisions to BPT and BCT
limitations for semi-wet BOF operations and the deletion of limitations
for obsolete operations (beehive cokemaking in the cokemaking
subcategory, ferromanganese blast furnaces in the ironmaking
subcategory, and open hearth furnace operations in the steelmaking
subcategory). Similarly, EPA is retaining, by cross reference to title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1, 2001, the
NSPS promulgated in 1982 in Subparts A and B for new sources that
commenced discharge after November 19, 2012 but before November 18,
2002, provided that the new source was constructed to meet those new
standards. EPA is also retaining by cross reference, the pretreatment
standards for new sources previously promulgated for Subparts A and B
for facilities constructed between November 19, 2012 and November 18,
2002, except that EPA is rescinding the pretreatment standards for
phenols for Subpart A because EPA has determined in this rulemaking
that phenol (measured as 4AAP) does not pass through with respect to
the cokemaking subcategory.
This implements the provisions of CWA Section 306(d), which
provides that new sources may not be regulated to achieve more
stringent technology-based limitations (e.g., revised BAT) for
pollutants regulated by NSPS for approximately ten years following
completion of construction. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1)
specify the precise duration of this grace period. Thereafter, the
discharger is subject to any more stringent applicable BPT/BCT/BAT
limitations. This means that facilities currently subject to the 1982
NSPS or PSNS remain subject to those standards during a ten-year period
beginning on the date of completion of the new source or during the
period of depreciation or amortization of such facility, whichever
period ends first. After such time, the BAT and PSES limitations
promulgated today apply to those dischargers for toxic and
nonconventional pollutants. For direct dischargers, limitations on
conventional pollutants will be based on the formerly promulgated BPT/
BCT limitations corresponding to the BPT/BCT segment applicable to the
discharger or on the 1982 NSPS for conventional pollutants, whichever
is more stringent.

A. Cokemaking Subcategory

EPA is promulgating limits and standards for two segments within
the cokemaking subcategory: by-products recovery cokemaking, and non-
recovery cokemaking. EPA is also removing the beehive cokemaking
segment from the cokemaking subcategory because the beehive process of
cokemaking is obsolete and has not been used in the United States for
over 25 years.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
EPA is not revising any existing BPT limitations for the by-
products recovery segment of this subcategory (which in the 1982
regulation was divided between ``iron and steel'' and ``merchant'' coke
plants). EPA did not propose such revisions, but did solicit comment on
the issue in the notice. EPA received no comment on the issue, so EPA
is not revising the existing BPT limitations.
EPA is establishing BPT limitations for the non-recovery segment of
the cokemaking subcategory. These limitations are: no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.1 of the TDD for more
information about what constitutes process wastewater for this segment.
Because non-recovery cokemaking operations do not generate any process
wastewater, the Agency concludes that non-recovery cokemaking operation
itself represents the best practicable technology currently available
and that no discharge of process wastewater pollutants is a reasonable
BPT limitation. For the same reason, the Agency concludes that there
are no costs associated with achieving this limitation, and expects
that no additional pollutant removals attributable to this segment will
occur.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
In deciding whether to adopt different BCT limits, EPA considered
whether there are technologies that achieve greater removals of
conventional pollutants than adopted for BPT, and whether those
technologies are cost-reasonable under the standards established by the
CWA, and implemented through regulation. EPA generally refers to the
decision criteria as the ``BCT cost test.'' EPA is not revising any
existing BCT limitations for the by-products recovery segment of this
subcategory (which in the 1982 regulation was divided between ``iron
and steel'' and ``merchant'' coke plants) because there are no
technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants
than the technology basis for the current BPT and pass the BCT cost
test.
For the non-recovery segment of this subcategory, EPA identified no
technologies that can achieve greater removals of conventional
pollutants than those that are the basis for BPT (i.e., the non-
recovery cokemaking operations resulting in no discharge) and,
therefore, it cannot perform the BCT cost test. Accordingly, EPA is
adopting BCT effluent limitations equal to the BPT effluent limitations
for the non-recovery segment of this subcategory.
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
EPA is establishing BAT limits for both the by-products recovery
and for the non-recovery segments of the cokemaking subcategory.
a. By-products recovery segment.

[[Page 64233]]

For this segment, EPA is today establishing BAT limits for five
pollutants: ammonia-N, benzo(a)pyrene, cyanide, naphthalene, and
phenols (4AAP). EPA is eliminating the 1982 BAT limitations for benzene
because control of naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene should ensure
adequate removal of benzene. EPA is promulgating revised BAT
limitations for phenols (4AAP), rather than establishing BAT
limitations for phenol (GC/MS), as described in Section V.A.4. In
addition, in a change from proposal, EPA is not promulgating BAT
limitations for this segment for thiocyanate, mercury, or selenium
because information in the record shows that the technology basis for
this segment would not result in consistent removal of these
pollutants, and EPA has identified no other available and economically
achievable technology that will do so. Therefore, at this time, these
pollutants are not amenable to categorical regulations. Also, EPA is
not promulgating BAT limitations for this segment for total recoverable
chlorine (TRC). EPA had proposed to regulate this parameter because TRC
monitoring can ensure correct operation of alkaline chlorination
systems. However, alkaline chlorination is not a component of the
technology basis for the limits of this segment; therefore, limitations
on TRC are no longer necessary to reflect the application of the model
technology.
The technology basis for these BAT limits is cokemaking option
BAT1: oil and tar removal, equalization, fixed and free ammonia
stripping, heat exchanger, equalization tank, biological treatment with
nitrification followed by secondary clarification, and sludge
dewatering. (In the proposal, EPA described the heat exchanger
component of this treatment train as temperature control. Similarly,
EPA had described today's biological treatment component as single-
stage biological treatment with nitrification followed by secondary
clarification. In each instance, only the names are different; these
technologies at proposal and final are substantially identical.)
The BAT technology chosen for this rule is a different technology
from the technology for this segment proposed in 2000. In 2000, the
proposed technology basis for the BAT limits was BAT3, and consisted of
the BAT1 technology plus breakpoint chlorination (EPA erroneously
referred to this technology component as alkaline chlorination in the
proposal) prior to biological treatment with nitrification. (Prior to
proposal, EPA had also considered two other technology options--BAT2
and BAT4--but rejected them for reasons set forth in the proposal
preamble at 65 FR at 82016-82017.) EPA has rejected BAT3 because it is
not economically achievable. EPA projects that two closures and 500 job
losses would result.
The Agency has now concluded that the BAT1 treatment system
represents the best available technology economically achievable for
this segment of this subcategory. There are several reasons supporting
this conclusion. First, the BAT1 technology is readily available to all
cokemaking facilities. Approximately 75% of the facilities in this
segment currently use it. Second, the BAT1 technology will ensure a
high level of removal of all cokemaking pollutants of concern. Well-
operated free and fixed ammonia stills will remove gross amounts of
ammonia-N, cyanide, and many organic pollutants while biological
treatment with nitrification followed by secondary clarification will
remove more ammonia-N, phenols (4AAP), and other organic constituents
of the wastewater to low levels. Third, adoption of this level of
control would represent a significant reduction in conventional,
nonconventional, and toxic pollutants discharged into the environment
by facilities in this subcategory. Even though 75% of the facilities
currently employ this technology, EPA predicts significant removals
attributable to this rule because today's limitations reflect
substantial improvements in how these technology components are
designed and operated. Finally, EPA has evaluated the economic impacts
associated with this technology and found it to be economically
achievable.
b. Non-recovery cokemaking.
EPA is adopting BAT limitations for the non-recovery segment of the
cokemaking subcategory based on the same technologies selected as the
basis for BPT for this segment. These limitations are: no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.1 of the TDD for more
information about what constitutes process wastewater for this segment.
EPA identified no technologies that can achieve greater removals of
toxic and non-conventional pollutants than those that are the basis for
BPT (i.e., the non-recovery cokemaking operations resulting in no
discharge.) EPA has also determined that this basis is economically
achievable, because no facilities currently discharge process
wastewater pollutants. Therefore, EPA is promulgating BAT limitations
equal to BPT.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
a. By-products recovery segment.
For the by-products recovery segment of the cokemaking subcategory,
EPA is promulgating NSPS that would control the same conventional,
priority, and non-conventional pollutants controlled at the BPT, BCT,
and BAT levels. The technology basis for NSPS for this segment is BAT1:
oil and tar removal, equalization, fixed and free ammonia stripping,
heat exchanger, equalization tank, biological treatment with
nitrification followed by secondary clarification, and sludge
dewatering. The technologies available to control pollutants at
existing facilities are also available to new facilities. EPA rejected
BAT3 as a basis for NSPS because it determined that the costs
associated with this technology were not reasonable. EPA considers BAT1
as the ``best'' demonstrated technology for new sources in the by-
product segment of the subcategory. EPA concluded that the chosen
technology does not present a barrier to entry because 75% of existing
facilities currently employ the technology. The Agency considered
energy requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts
and found no basis for any different standards than the selected NSPS.
Therefore, EPA is promulgating NSPS for the by-products recovery
cokemaking segment that are identical to BAT for toxic and non-
conventional pollutants, while also promulgating TSS, oil and grease
(measured as HEM), and pH limitations, using the same technology basis.
b. Non-recovery segment.
EPA is promulgating NSPS limitations for the non-recovery segment
of the cokemaking subcategory based on the same technologies selected
as the basis for BPT for this segment. These limitations are: no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.1 of the
TDD for more information about what constitutes process wastewater for
this segment. Because non-recovery cokemaking operations do not
generate any process wastewater, EPA has determined that the technology
basis for today's NSPS does not present a barrier to entry, and that
there will be no additional energy requirements or non-water quality
environmental impacts.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
a. By-products recovery segment.
Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through potential, EPA is
promulgating PSES for three pollutants: ammonia-N, cyanide, and
naphthalene. EPA has determined that each of these pollutants would
pass through. EPA had proposed to establish PSES for this segment for
thiocyanate, selenium, and phenol. The

[[Page 64234]]

Agency is not promulgating PSES limits for thiocyanate or selenium for
the reasons discussed in connection with BAT. EPA is not establishing
PSES for phenol in this segment because, upon re-evaluating the data,
EPA concluded that phenolic compounds in cokemaking wastewaters do not
pass through. For additional discussion on phenol, see 66 FR 10257 and
Section V.A.3.
For naphthalene, EPA has selected 100 [mu]g/L and 83.1 [mu]g/L as
the concentration-based values used for today's production-normalized
daily maximum standard and monthly average standard, respectively. EPA
has determined that well-operated facilities should be capable of
operating well below these levels based on the data EPA obtained from
mills employing the model technology. When naphthalene was detected,
all samples were at or below 33 [mu]g/L. However, naphthalene was not
detected in all samples. This is because of analytical difficulties
caused by interferences from high levels of phenol in the samples.
Although the laboratory overcame the interferences in the five samples
for one episode and succeeded in achieving values close to the minimum
level of 10 [mu]g/L specified in the analytical method, for the other
EPA sampling episode, it could not do so for two samples. Rather, in
order to overcome the interferences, the laboratory diluted two of the
five samples for analysis; this resulted in a sample-specific minimum
level of 100 [mu]g/L for each diluted sample. While there was no
evidence of any chromatographic peaks for naphthalene in the
chromatograms associated with the two diluted samples, the best that
EPA can say with a high degree of confidence is that the naphthalene
concentrations were between zero (i.e., not present) and 100 [mu]g/L
for these two samples. In order to demonstrate compliance with the
naphthalene standard, a sample would have to be analyzed with a sample-
specific minimum level of at or below the standard. Because EPA could
not overcome the phenol interferences without diluting the two samples,
EPA cannot say with confidence that naphthalene samples can be analyzed
with a sample-specific minimum level of less than 100 [mu]g/L in every
case. For this reason, EPA has determined that 100 [mu]g/L should be
the concentration-basis of today's daily maximum standard. EPA also has
determined that the concentration-based monthly average standard could
be less than 100 [mu]g/L, because EPA assumes that the facilities will
monitor for naphthalene more than once a month. (In fact, EPA has
assumed that facilities will monitor four times a month and has
accounted for those costs in this rule.) EPA expects that laboratories
will usually be able to measure at levels lower than 100 [mu]g/L,
because most of the data supporting the standards demonstrated that
laboratories could overcome interferences in the samples. Thus, it has
established a value at 83.1 [mu]g/L as the concentration-basis for the
monthly average standard. Section 14 of the TDD describes the
derivation of the concentration-based monthly average standard from the
daily maximum standard. See Section 4 of the TDD for a discussion of
reducing interferences.
EPA recognizes that today's value of 100 [mu]g/L for the daily
maximum standard for naphthalene is considerably less than the
concentration-basis for the proposed standard of 2030 [mu]g/L. Upon
review of the proposed standards, EPA determined that some data should
be excluded for various reasons (see DCN IS10816 in section 14.10 of
the record) including data that were in excess of the facility's permit
and therefore would be inappropriate to use in developing national
standards.
EPA is promulgating PSES for by-products recovery cokemaking based
on option PSES1: tar/oil removal, equalization, free and fixed ammonia
stripping. This is one of two options EPA co-proposed in 2000. The
other co-proposed option, PSES3, consisted of PSES1 plus an
equalization tank, biological treatment with nitrification followed by
secondary clarification, and sludge dewatering. Option PSES3 is
identical to option BAT1 that serves as the basis for the BAT
limitations adopted today. While PSES3/BAT1 would achieve greater
removals than PSES1, EPA has rejected it as the basis for PSES because
it is not economically achievable. EPA estimated that costs associated
with PSES3 would cause an adverse economic impact on two facilities,
resulting in closures and/or job losses. Because there are only eight
indirectly discharging by-products recovery cokemaking facilities in
the nation, EPA determined that this predicted closure--representing
25% of the related universe--was significant in this case. See Section
X for more detail on the economic analysis.
Today, the Agency concludes that PSES1 represents the most
appropriate basis for pretreatment standards for the following reasons.
First, option PSES1, in combination with treatment occurring at the
receiving POTWs, will substantially reduce the levels of all cokemaking
pollutants of concern. Well-operated free and fixed ammonia stills will
remove gross amounts of ammonia-N, cyanide, and some organic pollutants
such as the volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, while the
activated sludge biological treatment at the POTWs will remove
additional ammonia-N, cyanide, naphthalene, and the other organic
constituents of the wastewater to low levels. Second, EPA has
considered the compliance costs associated with this option and
determined they are economically achievable.
In today's action, EPA is also establishing a mechanism by which
by-product cokemaking facilities discharging to POTWs with
nitrification capability would not be subject to the pretreatment
standard for ammonia-N. This is because EPA has determined that
ammonia-N does not pass through such POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for more
details.
b. Non-recovery segment.
Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through and EPA's recognition
that no process wastewater is generated in connection with non-recovery
cokemaking, EPA is today promulgating PSES limitations for the non-
recovery segment of the cokemaking subcategory based on the same
technologies selected as the basis for BPT/BAT for this segment. These
standards are: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants. There are
no incremental costs associated with compliance, and therefore, no
economic impacts. Consequently, EPA has determined the technologies are
economically achievable.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
a. By-products Recovery Segment.
EPA is today establishing pretreatment standards for new sources
for four pollutants: Ammonia-N, cyanide, naphthalene, and
benzo(a)pyrene. The technology basis for these standards is PSES3. EPA
considered the cost of PSES3 technology for new facilities in this
segment. EPA concluded that such costs are not so great as to
constitute a barrier to entry, as demonstrated by the fact that three
of the eight currently operating indirect discharging facilities are
using these technologies. The Agency considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental impacts and found no basis for
any different standards than the selected PSNS.
In today's action, EPA is also establishing a mechanism by which
by-product cokemaking facilities discharging to POTWs with
nitrification capability would not be subject to the

[[Page 64235]]

pretreatment standard for ammonia-N. This is because EPA has determined
that ammonia-N does not pass through such POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for
more details.
b. Non-recovery segment.
Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through and EPA's recognition
that no process wastewater is generated in connection with non-recovery
cokemaking, EPA is today promulgating PSNS for the non-recovery segment
of the cokemaking subcategory based on the same technologies selected
as the basis for PSES for this segment. These standards are: No
discharge of process wastewater pollutants. Because non-recovery
cokemaking operations do not generate any process wastewater, EPA has
determined that the technology basis for today's PSNS does not present
a barrier to entry, and that there will be no additional energy
requirements or non-water quality environmental impacts.

B. Sintering Subcategory

Today, EPA is promulgating an effluent limitations guideline and
standard for one parameter, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, for sintering operations with
wet air pollution control systems in this subcategory, establishing a
mechanism by which sintering facilities discharging to POTWs with
nitrification capability would not be subject to the pretreatment
standard for ammonia-N, and otherwise leaving unchanged existing limits
and standards for all other parameters. This is a change from what was
proposed in October 2000.
In October 2000, EPA proposed combining the sintering and
ironmaking subcategories from the 1982 regulation into a single
subcategory to be known as ironmaking, with a single treatment
technology basis. EPA proposed these changes because survey responses
indicated that facilities with both operations on site tended to
commingle their wastewaters before treatment. EPA also judged at that
time that because wastewater characteristics of the two subcategories
were similar, further subcategorization was unnecessary. The
subcategory, however, was divided into ``blast furnace'' and ``sinter''
segments to take into account differences in the production-normalized
flow rates used to develop the proposed effluent limitations guidelines
and standards. With the exception of cooling towers, which apply to
blast furnace operations only, EPA considered the same technologies for
both segments. The basis for the proposed ironmaking limits and
standards for the sintering segment with wet air pollution control
system was: Solids removal with high-rate recycle and metals
precipitation, alkaline chlorination, and mixed-media filtration of
blowdown wastewater. This was known as Ironmaking BAT1. At the time,
EPA determined that the option was technically and economically
achievable.
In addition, EPA had proposed to regulate phenol instead of the
group parameter phenol (measured at 4AAP). EPA had also proposed to add
2,3,7,8-TCDF to the list of regulated parameters for sintering
operations with wet air pollution control systems and for blast furnace
segment where the wastewater is co-treated with sintering wastewater.
Finally, EPA had proposed that sintering facilities would need to meet
the proposed total residual chlorine (TRC) limitation only if they
employ chlorination in their wastewater treatment.
EPA revisited its proposal for several reasons. First, commenters
noted that, by regulating the compound phenol instead of the bulk
parameter phenols (4AAP), facilities would not be able to qualify for
the CWA Section 301(g) variances that are currently an important part
of their compliance strategy. See Section V.A.4 for further details
about this issue. Second, the increased rate of recycle is the
principal difference between the proposed BAT1 technology basis and the
1982 technology basis, and commenters raised achievability concerns
with the increased recycle rates. For these reasons, EPA has determined
that BAT1 as proposed (with the increased rate of high rate recycle) is
not the best achievable technology for sintering operations. Nor is it
the best available demonstrated technology for these operations. EPA
has also concluded that it is unnecessary to combine the two 1982
subcategories into a single subcategory as proposed, because today's
rule is not changing the 1982 limits and standards except as noted
below. EPA is therefore leaving unchanged all limitations and standards
currently in effect for the sintering subcategory.
EPA is creating two new segments for the sintering subcategory. The
segment, sintering operations with wet air pollution control, is a
recodification of what were formerly subcategory-wide limitations. The
second segment, sintering operations with dry air pollution control, is
new. It applies to sinter operations that do not generate process
wastewater. However, as proposed, EPA is promulgating a new limitation
for 2,3,7,8-TCDF for sintering operations with wet air pollution
control systems segment in the sintering subcategory. The technology
basis for this segment reflects the 1982 technology basis of the
existing limitations with the addition of mixed-media filtration.
2,3,7,8-TCDF is one of a number of extremely toxic congeners of the
dioxin/furan family of compounds. During four EPA sampling episodes,
several of these congeners were found in both the raw and treated
wastewater from sinter plants operating wet air pollution control
technologies. EPA chose to use 2,3,7,8-TCDF as an indicator parameter
for the whole family of dioxin/furan congeners for several reasons.
First, 2,3,7,8-TCDF is the most toxic of the congeners found in treated
sintering wastewater. Second, 2,3,7,8-TCDF was the most prevalent of
the dioxin/furan congeners in these wastewaters. Finally, 2,3,7,8-TCDF
is chemically similar to the other dioxin/furan congeners and its
removal will similarly indicate removal of the other congeners.
The TCDF limit is expressed as ``<ML,'' which means less than the
minimum level. The ``ML'' is an abbreviation for the minimum level
identified in Sec. 420.21(c) of today's rule for the analytical
methods that EPA used to determine the level of pollution reduction
achievable through the use of BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS model
technologies for 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
EPA intends for facilities subject to the ML limitation to have
2,3,7,8-TCDF discharges with concentration less than the minimum level
of the analytical method specified today in 40 CFR 420.21(c). Method
1613 provides precise definitions of the ML for 2,3,7,8-TCDF. EPA
expects that future analytical method will be more sensitive than
today's methods, and the minimum level will have a value that is less
than identified today in Sec. 420.21(c). However, the analytical
method (and the minimum level) specified in Sec. 420.21(c) was used to
chemically analyze the wastewaters from facilities in subpart B. EPA
used the data from the chemical analysis to determine that today's ML
limitation was technically and economically achievable. EPA is unable
to determine, based on the data from the chemical analysis, whether
more stringent limitation (that is, limitation with value or associated
with minimum level less than the minimum level published today in Sec.
420.21) would be technically and economically achievable. To determine
whether the technologies are capable of achieving more stringent
limitations, EPA would need to evaluate data from chemical analysis
using these future more sensitive methods. Those data obviously are not
available today. Until further revision of today's limitations and

[[Page 64236]]

standards for subpart B, the limitation for 2,3,7,8-TCDF will continue
to be associated with the minimum level specified today in Section
Sec. 420.21(c).
1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)/Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
a. Sintering operations with wet air pollution control.
EPA is leaving unchanged BPT limitations currently in effect for
the sintering subcategory, now codified in the new segment for
sintering operations with wet air pollution control systems.
b. Sintering operations with dry air pollution control.
EPA is establishing BPT/BCT limitations for the sintering
operations with dry air pollution control segment of the sintering
subcategory. These limitations are: no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.2 of the TDD for more information about
what constitutes process wastewater for this segment. Because sintering
operations with dry air pollution control do not generate any process
wastewater, the Agency concludes that sintering operation with dry air
pollution control itself represents the best practicable technology
currently available and that no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants is a reasonable BPT/BCT limitation. For the same reason, the
Agency concludes that there are no costs associated with achieving this
limitation, and expects that no additional pollutant removals
attributable to this segment will occur.
2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
a. Sintering operations with wet air pollution control.
The technology basis for the 2,3,7,8-TCDF limitation is mixed-media
filtration in addition to the 1982 technology basis. Although none of
the sampled facilities has this technology in place (at or prior to the
compliance monitoring point), EPA concludes that this technology will
result in the removal of this congener, and thus all the dioxin/furan
congeners, below the method detection limit, because dioxins and furans
are hydrophobic compounds, meaning they tend to adhere to solids
present in a solution. Thus removal of the solids, which is
accomplished by mixed-media filtration, will result in removal of the
dioxins/furans adhering to them as well. Furthermore, EPA has data from
two sampling episodes at sinter plants demonstrating that filtration of
wastewater samples containing dioxins and furans at treatable levels
will reduce their concentrations to non-detectable levels. This is true
even for raw wastewater that has undergone no other treatment.
EPA has determined that the costs of implementing mixed-media
filtration, including the costs of compliance monitoring, are
economically achievable because EPA predicts no adverse economic
impacts. See Section X. Therefore, EPA has determined that mixed-media
filtration in addition to the 1982 technology basis is the best
available technology economically achievable for the removal of
2,3,7,8-TCDF.
Survey responses indicate that it is common practice for facilities
to combine their sintering wastewater with other iron and steel
wastewaters prior to discharge to the receiving waterbodies. This
combination results in dilution of dioxin and furan concentrations to
levels below the detection limit specified in the analytical method.
Because EPA wants to ensure that dioxin and furan congeners have been
removed from the wastewater and not simply diluted (to ensure that the
limitations reflect the actual reductions that can be achieved using
the BAT technology), EPA is requiring all facilities to monitor for
2,3,7,8-TCDF at a point prior to co-mingling with any non-sintering or
non-blast furnace operations. See 40 CFR 420.29. The only exception to
this rule is that facilities may co-mingle ancillary non-blast furnace
wastewater (comprising 5% of total flow or less) with their sintering
wastewater. See Chapter 16.8.3 of the TDD.
EPA analyzed requiring facilities to monitor for 2,3,7,8-TCDF prior
to combination with any other waste streams including blast furnace
wastewater. Three of the five sintering wastewater treatment systems
have blast furnace wastewater recycle systems that are joined with
them. EPA determined that facilities would more likely shut down their
sintering operations rather than incur the cost of separating the two
systems. EPA determined that this economic impact is not reasonable in
light of the fact that removal efficiencies are not significantly
improved by separating the two wastewater streams, and thus is
specifying that facilities with combined blast furnace and sintering
wastewater recycling systems may monitor for 2,3,7,8-TCDF after these
two waste streams are combined, but before co-mingling with any non-
sintering or non blast-furnace operations. See 40 CFR 420.29. The only
exception to this rule is that facilities may co-mingle ancillary non-
blast furnace wastewater (comprising 5% of total flow or less) with
their sintering wastewater. See Chapter 16.8.3 of the TDD.
EPA is also promulgating, as proposed, a provision that sintering
facilities need not meet the current total residual chlorine (TRC)
limitations if they do not employ chlorination in the wastewater
treatment technology.
b. Sintering operations with dry air pollution control.
EPA is adopting BAT limitations for the sintering operations with
dry air pollution control segment of the sintering subcategory based on
the same technologies selected as the basis for BPT for this segment.
These limitations are: no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
See Chapter 7.1.2 of the TDD for more information about what
constitutes process wastewater for this segment. EPA identified no
technologies that can achieve greater removals of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants than those that are the basis for BPT (i.e.,
the sintering operations with dry air pollution control resulting in no
discharge.) EPA has also determined that this basis is economically
achievable, because no facilities currently discharge process
wastewater pollutants. Therefore, EPA is promulgating BAT limitations
equal to BPT.
3. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
a. Sintering operations with wet air pollution control.
For sintering operation with wet air pollution control system in
the sintering subcategory, EPA is promulgating a new source performance
standard for 2,3,7,8-TCDF based on: clarification, high-rate recycle,
metals precipitation, alkaline chlorination (if treated with blast
furnace wastewaters) and mixed-media filtration. This technology basis
is the same that exists for the 1982 regulation, with the addition of
mixed-media filtration. EPA is leaving unchanged all other NSPS for the
sintering subcategory. The mixed-media filtration technology used to
control 2,3,7,8-TCDF at existing facilities is fully applicable to new
facilities. Furthermore, EPA did not identify any technically feasible
options that provide greater environmental protection. In addition, EPA
determines the technology basis does not constitute a barrier to entry
because the technology basis was economically achievable for existing
sources, and new sources would face lower costs due to absence of
retrofit costs. See Chapter 10 for the discussion in the TDD. The
Agency considered energy requirements and other non-water quality
environmental impacts and found no basis for any different standards
than the selected

[[Page 64237]]

NSPS. Therefore, EPA is promulgating NSPS for TCDF for the sintering
subcategory that is identical to the TCDF limitation being promulgated
as BAT. In addition, for the reasons set forth in Section VIII.B.2.a,
EPA is requiring facilities to monitor for compliance with the TCDF
standard at a point prior to co-mingling with any non-sintering or non-
blast furnace operations. See 40 CFR 420.29. The only exception to this
rule is that facilities may co-mingle ancillary non-blast furnace
wastewater (comprising 5% of total flow or less) with their sintering
wastewater. See Chapter 16.8.3 of the TDD.
b. Sintering operations with dry air pollution control.
EPA is promulgating NSPS limitations for the sintering operations
with dry air pollution control segment of the sintering subcategory
based on the same technologies selected as the basis for BPT for this
segment. These limitations are: no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. See Chapter 7.1.2 of the TDD for more information about
what constitutes process wastewater for this segment. Because sintering
operations with dry air pollution control do not generate any process
wastewater, EPA has determined that the technology basis for today's
NSPS does not present a barrier to entry, and that there will be no
additional energy requirements or non-water quality environmental
impacts.
4. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
a. Sintering operations with wet air pollution control.
Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through potential, 2,3,7,8-TCDF
will pass through, and thus EPA is a promulgating PSES standard for
2,3,7,8-TCDF equal to the BAT effluent limitation for the sintering
operation with wet air pollution control system in the sintering
subcategory. Similar to direct dischargers, EPA concludes that indirect
discharging sintering operations must monitor at a point prior to co-
mingling with any non-sintering or non-blast furnace operations. See 40
CFR 420.29. The only exception to this rule is that facilities may co-
mingle ancillary non-blast furnace wastewater (comprising 5% of total
flow or less) with their sintering wastewater. See Chapter 16.8.3 of
the TDD. To EPA's knowledge, there are no existing indirect dischargers
of sintering wastewater.
In today's action, EPA is also establishing a mechanism by which
sintering facilities discharging to POTWs with nitrification capability
would not be subject to the pretreatment standard for ammonia-N. This
is because EPA has determined that ammonia-N does not pass through such
POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for more details.
b. Sintering operations with dry air pollution control.
Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through and EPA's recognition
that no process wastewater is generated in connection with sintering
operations with dry air pollution control, EPA is today promulgating
PSES limitations for the sintering operations with dry air pollution
control segment of the sintering subcategory based on the same
technologies selected as the basis for BPT for this segment. These
standards are: no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. There are
no incremental costs associated with compliance, and therefore, no
economic impacts. Consequently, EPA has determined the technologies are
economically achievable.
5. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
a. Sintering operations with wet air pollution control.
Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through potential, 2,3,7,8-TCDF
will pass through, and thus EPA is promulgating a PSNS standard for
2,3,7,8-TCDF equal to PSES for the sintering subcategory. EPA
considered the cost of the PSES technology for new facilities in this
segment. In addition, EPA determines the technology basis does not
constitute a barrier to entry because the technology basis was
economically achievable for existing sources, and new sources would
face lower costs due to absence of retrofit costs. The Agency
considered energy requirements and other non-water quality
environmental impacts and found no basis for any different standard
than the selected PSNS. In addition, for the reasons set forth, EPA is
requiring facilities to monitor for compliance with the TCDF standard
at a point prior to co-mingling with any non-sintering or non-blast
furnace operations. See 40 CFR 420.29. The only exception to this rule
is that facilities may co-mingle ancillary non-blast furnace wastewater
(comprising 5% of total flow or less) with their sintering wastewater.
See Chapter 16.8.3 of the TDD.
In today's action, EPA is also establishing a mechanism by which
sintering facilities discharging to POTWs with nitrification capability
would not be subject to the pretreatment standard for ammonia-N. This
is because EPA has determined that ammonia-N does not pass through such
POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for more details.
b. Sintering operations with dry air pollution control.
Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through and EPA's recognition
that no process wastewater is generated in connection with sintering
operations with dry air pollution control, EPA is today promulgating
PSNS for the sintering operations with dry air pollution control
segment of the sintering subcategory based on the same technologies
selected as the basis for PSES for this segment. These standards are:
no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. Because sintering
operations with dry air pollution control do not generate any process
wastewater, EPA has determined that the technology basis for today's
PSNS does not present a barrier to entry, and that there will be no
additional energy requirements or non-water quality environmental
impacts.

C. Ironmaking Subcategory

EPA is leaving unchanged all limitations currently in effect for
this subcategory, except to delete the limitations for the obsolete
ferromanganese blast furnaces and to establish a mechanism by which
ironmaking facilities discharging to POTWs with nitrification
capability would not be subject to the pretreatment standard for
ammonia-N. EPA had proposed revised effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for this subcategory, which included both sintering and blast
furnace ironmaking operations, under BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. The
proposed technology basis for the BAT and NSPS limits was solids
removal, high-rate recycle, metals precipitation, alkaline
chlorination, and mixed-media filtration of blowdown wastewater. This
was known as Ironmaking option BAT1. The proposed technology basis for
the PSES and PSNS standards was the same as BAT1, but without alkaline
chlorination and mixed-media filtration. This was known as Ironmaking
option PSES1.
EPA revisited these decisions for two reasons. First, commenters
noted that, by regulating the compound phenol instead of the bulk
parameter phenols (4AAP), facilities would not be able to qualify for
the CWA Section 301(g) variances that are currently an important part
of their compliance strategy, and that EPA had not taken this into
account when performing its cost analysis. Accordingly, EPA has decided
to continue to regulate the bulk parameter phenols (4AAP). See Section
V.A.4 for further details about this issue.

[[Page 64238]]

Second, increased performance of high-rate recycle system is the major
difference between the proposed BAT1 technology basis and the 1982
technology basis. Commenters using pulverized coal injection in their
blast furnaces pointed out that they had learned through experience
that recycle of ironmaking wastewater at the high rate described in the
proposal leads to a buildup of chlorides in the recycle system and the
wet scrubber, which can cause extensive corrosion damage in the piping,
premature equipment failure, and lengthy production interruptions.
Other commenters not using pulverized coal injection also provided
information on operational problems associated with elevated dissolved
solids levels in the recycle system at recycle rates higher than
described in the proposal. Therefore, EPA has determined that BAT1 and
PSES1 are not the best available technologies for existing blast
furnace ironmaking operations or the best available demonstrated
technologies for new blast furnace ironmaking operations. EPA has also
concluded that, because the proposed limits and standards for the
ironmaking subcategory are not being promulgated, it is not necessary
to combine the two 1982 subcategories (sintering and ironmaking) into a
single subcategory as proposed.
EPA had proposed limits and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF for the
ironmaking subcategory, but it was to apply only to facilities that
combined their blast furnace and sintering wastewater. 2,3,7,8-TCDF was
not found in the blast furnace wastewater. By preserving the 1982
subcategorization scheme and promulgating limits and standards for the
compound in the sintering subcategory, EPA has addressed this issue,
and is therefore not promulgating limits and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF
for the ironmaking subcategory.
In today's action, EPA is also establishing a mechanism by which
ironmaking facilities discharging to POTWs with nitrification
capability would not be subject to the pretreatment standard for
ammonia-N. This is because EPA has determined that ammonia-N does not
pass through such POTWs. See Section V.A.8 for more details.

D. Steelmaking Subcategory

EPA proposed a revised subcategorization scheme (see Section III.C)
which recognized the differences between integrated and non-integrated
steelmaking facilities. Under the proposed scheme, wastewaters from
basic oxygen furnace operations were included with wastewaters from
vacuum degassing operations and continuous casting operations to make
up the ``Integrated Steelmaking'' subcategory. Hot forming operations
that took place either at integrated mills or were not associated
directly with steelmaking operations were to be covered by the
``Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming'' subcategory. Wastewaters
from electric arc furnaces were included with wastewaters from vacuum
degassing operations, continuous casting operations and hot forming
operations to make up the ``Non-integrated and Stand Alone Hot
Forming'' subcategory. The purpose of this revised subcategorization
scheme was to recognize typical wastewater combination and treatment
practices at existing steel mills.
The proposed revised subcategorization scheme also distinguished
between those facilities making primarily carbon and alloy steels from
those making primarily stainless steels. This differentiation was
proposed for ``Non-integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming,''
``Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming,'' and ``Finishing''
subcategories.
For reasons discussed below, however, EPA is not promulgating new
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for any of the proposed
revised subcategories. Therefore, EPA is not adopting the proposed
subcategorization scheme. Changing the subcategorization scheme only
made sense when EPA believed it would promulgate new limits and
standards for the new subcategories.
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
``Integrated Steelmaking'' subcategory had as its technology basis:
Solids removal, cooling tower, high-rate recycle, and metals
precipitation. This technology option applied to all new and existing
direct and indirect discharging facilities (BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS) and was
known as integrated steelmaking Option BAT1. EPA is not promulgating
effluent limitations and standards based on this technology because it
determined that it was not economically achievable. The proposed option
when considered together with options for other subcategories resulted
in a significant economic impact that EPA determined is unreasonable.
See Section X.E for more details.
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
``Non-integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming'' subcategory had as its
technology basis: Solids removal, sludge dewatering, cooling tower,
high-rate recycle, and mixed-media filtration. This technology option
would have applied to all existing direct and indirect discharging
facilities (BAT/PSES) and was known as non-integrated steelmaking and
hot forming Option BAT1. After considering comments objecting to EPA's
methodology at proposal of estimating costs and loadings, EPA performed
a new costing and loadings analyses. See TDD Chapters 10 and 11.
Judging from the installation costs and the pollutant reductions
associated with these treatment technologies, EPA concluded that the
technology simply was not the best available to achieve pollutant
removals (EPA estimated that the technology could remove approximately
230 pound-equivalents per year at an estimated cost of $2,069 per lb-eq
for direct discharging stainless segment, and 3,891 pound-equivalents
per year at an estimated cost of $941 per lb-eq in the direct
discharging carbon and alloy segment, and 78 pound-equivalents per year
at an estimated cost of $1,970 per lb-eq for the indirect discharging
stainless segment).
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for new
sources in the ``Non-integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming''
subcategory (NSPS/PSNS) were: No discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. EPA has not adopted these limits and standards because,
after further reviewing the rulemaking record, EPA determined that
these guidelines and standards were not appropriate because it is not
always possible, or even desirable, for non-integrated steelmaking
facilities to design and operate their manufacturing processes to
achieve zero discharge. The Agency has identified technical barriers to
achieving zero discharge via evaporative uses such as electrode spray
cooling and slag quenching, particularly for hot forming wastewater.
EPA is promulgating revised BPT, BAT, BCT, and PSES limitations and
standards for one segment of the steelmaking subcategory--basic oxygen
furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control, and is establishing NSPS,
PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards for another segment of the
steelmaking subcategory--electric arc furnaces with semi-wet air
pollution control. This is consistent with what was appeared in the
proposal (65 FR 81980) and the February 14, 2001 document (66 FR 10253-
10254), although rather than establishing a specific limitation, EPA
has allowed the permit authority or pretreatment control authority to
determine limitations based on best professional judgment, when safety
considerations warrant. The Agency

[[Page 64239]]

believes best professional judgment will allow the permit authority or
pretreatment control authority to reflect the site-specific nature of
the discharge. EPA is doing this because, although the 1982 regulation
requires basic oxygen furnace semi-wet air pollution control to achieve
zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants, currently not all of
the sites are able to achieve this discharge status because of safety
and operational considerations. The Agency recognizes the benefit of
using excess water in basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution
control systems in cases where safety considerations are present. The
Agency justifies the increased allowance in this case because of the
employee safety and manufacturing considerations (reduced production
equipment damage and lost production). EPA estimates that the industry
will incur no costs due to this change. EPA could identify no potential
adverse environmental impacts associated with the potential discharge.
In the case of electric arc furnaces with semi-wet air pollution
control, the Agency is promulgating NSPS, PSES, and PSNS limitations
and standards of zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants. The
1982 regulation previously established BPT, BCT, and BAT limitations of
zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants for electric arc
furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control. (EPA is modifying the
BPT, BAT, and BCT portions of this segment only to eliminate references
in the title to basic oxygen furnace steelmaking-semiwet). EPA
identified no discharges from electric arc furnaces with semi-wet air
pollution control and received no comments regarding the establishment
of zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants for this segment.
EPA estimates that the industry will incur no costs due to this change
since all known facilities are currently achieving compliance with zero
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.

E. Vacuum Degassing Subcategory

EPA is leaving unchanged all limitations currently in effect for
this subcategory. See discussion in Section VII.D.

F. Continuous Casting Subcategory

EPA is leaving unchanged all limitations currently in effect for
this subcategory. See discussion in Section VIII.D.

G. Hot Forming Subcategory

EPA is leaving unchanged all limitations currently in effect for
this subcategory. The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the ``Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming''
subcategory had as its technical basis: Scale pit with oil skimming,
roughing clarifier, cooling tower with high-rate recycle, and mixed-
media filtration of blowdown. This applied to all new and existing
direct discharging facilities (BAT/NSPS) and was known as integrated
and stand alone hot forming Option BAT1A.
EPA has not adopted limits and standards based on this technology
because it determined that it was not economically achievable, based on
the results presented in Section X.E. EPA has determined that the
impact is unacceptable in view of the precarious financial situation of
the proposed subcategory as a whole. Moreover, many facilities are
already at or below discharge levels of the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards, and EPA has no reason to believe
that facilities will reverse this trend and increase pollutant
discharges above the 1997 levels in EPA's record database.
EPA had proposed a second BAT option, known as BAT1B, for the
Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming subcategory in order to attempt
to ameliorate the predicted economic impacts of BAT1A. Under this
option, the proposed BAT limits would not apply until 2007. EPA
explained at the time of proposal that EPA would select this option
only if it concluded that five years would be sufficient time to allow
the subcategory as a whole to raise the capital necessary to implement
the model BAT in a way to ensure its economic achievability. However,
EPA cannot reach that conclusion on this record, especially in view of
the current financial condition of the industry. Therefore, EPA has not
selected option BAT1B.
EPA did not propose standards for indirect discharging facilities
because EPA's analysis of the effect of the technology option projected
pollutant removals per facility that were too small to justify the
projected costs.

H. Salt Bath Descaling Subcategory

EPA is leaving unchanged all limitations currently in effect for
this subcategory. EPA proposed a revised subcategorization scheme in
which salt bath descaling, acid pickling, cold forming, alkaline
cleaning, and hot coating operations would be combined into a new
subcategory called ``Finishing.'' The purpose of this proposed
subcategorization scheme was to recognize the tendency of facilities to
combine and co-treat wastewaters from these operations. As mentioned in
Section VIII.D, another feature of the proposed subcategorization
scheme was to consider separately finishing facilities making primarily
carbon and alloy steels and those making primarily stainless steels.
For reasons discussed below, however, EPA is not promulgating new
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for any of the proposed
revised subcategories. Therefore EPA is not adopting the proposed
subcategorization scheme. Changing the subcategorization scheme only
made sense when EPA believed it would promulgate new limits and
standards for the new subcategories.
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
carbon and alloy segment of the finishing subcategory had the following
technology basis: Recycle of fume scrubber water, diversion tank, oil
removal, equalization, hexavalent chromium reduction (where
applicable), metals precipitation, sedimentation, sludge dewatering,
and counter-current rinses. This technology option applied to all new
and existing direct discharging facilities, as well as new indirect
discharging facilities (BAT/NSPS/PSNS) and was known as carbon & alloy
finishing Option BAT-1. EPA did not propose standards for existing
indirect discharging facilities because the projected pollutant
removals per facility associated with the technology option were too
small to justify the projected costs.
EPA is not revising effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the finishing subcategory because the flow reductions that were an
integral part of the technology interfered with product quality, thus
indicating that the technology was not the best technology available
for these finishing operations. Moreover, after considering comments
objecting to EPA's methodology at proposal of estimating costs, EPA
performed a new cost analysis. See TDD Chapter 10. Judging from the
retrofit costs and the costs associated with necessary production
shutdown during installation of new treatment technologies, EPA
concluded that the technology simply was not the best available to
achieve pollutant removals.
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
stainless segment of the finishing subcategory had the following
technology basis: Counter-current rinses, recycle of fume scrubber
water, acid purification units, diversion tank, oil removal,
equalization, hexavalent chromium reduction (where applicable),
multiple-stage pH control for metals precipitation, sedimentation, and
sludge dewatering. This technology option would have applied to all new
and

[[Page 64240]]

existing direct discharging facilities, as well as new indirect
discharging facilities (BAT/NSPS/PSNS) and was known as stainless
finishing Option BAT-1. EPA did not propose standards for existing
stainless indirect discharging facilities because projected pollutant
removals per facility associated with the technology option were simply
too small per facility. See 65 FR 82025. EPA did not promulgate
limitations for the stainless finishing subcategory for the same
reasons listed for the carbon and alloy finishing segment, with one
addition. Commenters with experience operating acid purification units
stated that they experienced neither the level of pollutant removal nor
the cost savings EPA had envisioned in the analysis supporting the
proposal. The recognition of this fact had an adverse impact both on
the effluent reduction benefit and the projected cost of this
technology option. For further discussion, see Section V.A.9 and
Chapter 10 of the TDD.

I. Acid Pickling Subcategory

EPA is leaving unchanged all limitations and standards currently in
effect for this subcategory. See discussion under Section VIII.H.

J. Cold Forming Subcategory

EPA is leaving unchanged all limitations and standards currently in
effect for this subcategory. See discussion under Section VIII.H.

K. Alkaline Cleaning Subcategory

EPA is leaving unchanged all limitations and standards currently in
effect for this subcategory. See discussion under Section VIII.H.

L. Hot Coating Subcategory

EPA is leaving unchanged all limitations and standards currently in
effect for this subcategory. See discussion under Section VIII.H.

M. Other Operations Subcategory

The other operations subcategory is comprised of three segments:
Direct reduced ironmaking (DRI), forging, and briquetting. The options
described in this section for the direct reduced ironmaking and
briquetting segments are exactly as they appeared in the October 2000
proposal. In the case of the forging segment, the technology basis at
proposal was incorrectly described as high rate recycle and oil/water
separation. The technology basis should have been described as high
rate recycle, oil/water separation, and mixed-media filtration. EPA
received no significant comments on its regulatory approach for this
subcategory.
For the briquetting segment, EPA is establishing BPT, BCT, BAT,
PSES, PSNS, and NSPS. These limitations and standards are: no discharge
of process wastewater pollutants. EPA established these limitations
because briquetting operations do not generate any process wastewater.
For this reason, the Agency concludes that there are no costs
associated with these limitations and standards. Furthermore, EPA
projects no additional pollutant removals attributable to this segment.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
a. DRI segment.
EPA is promulgating BPT limitations for TSS and pH for the DRI
segment of the Other Operations subcategory. The technology basis for
this limitation is: solids removal, clarifier, high-rate recycle, and
filtration of blowdown wastewater. This technology option was known as
DRI Option BPT1 in the proposal. The Agency has determined that this
treatment system represents the best practicable technology currently
available and should be the basis for the BPT limitations for the
following reasons. First, this technology option is one that is readily
applicable to all facilities in this segment. Second, the adoption of
this level of control would represent a significant reduction in
pollutants discharged into the environment by facilities in this
subcategory. (EPA is not able to disclose the estimated amount of
pollutant reduction because data aggregation and other masking
techniques are insufficient to protect information claimed as
confidential business information.) Third, the Agency assessed the
total cost of water pollution controls likely to be incurred for this
option in relation to the effluent reduction benefits and has
determined these costs were reasonable.
b. Forging segment.
EPA is promulgating BPT limitations for oil & grease, TSS, and pH
for the forging segment of the other operations subcategory. The
technology basis for these limitations are: high-rate recycling, oil/
water separation, and mixed-media filtration. The Agency has concluded
that this treatment system represents the best practicable technology
currently available and should be the basis for the BPT limitation for
the following reasons. First, this technology option is one that is
readily applicable to all facilities in this segment. Second, the
Agency assessed the total cost of water pollution controls likely to be
incurred for this option in relation to the effluent reduction benefits
(pollutant removals of approximately 400 lbs.) and determined these
costs were reasonable.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
DRI and Forging segments.
EPA is adopting BCT limitations for TSS for the DRI segment and oil
and grease and TSS for forging segment of the other operations
subcategory based on the same technologies selected as the basis for
BPT for these segments. EPA identified no technologies that can achieve
greater removals of conventional pollutants than those that are the
basis for BPT that are also cost-reasonable under the BCT Cost Test.
Accordingly, EPA is adopting BCT effluent limitations equal to BPT for
the DRI and forging segments of the other operations subcategory.
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
DRI and Forging segments.
EPA did not identify significant levels of priority or non-
conventional pollutants in wastewater from DRI or forging operations.
Therefore, EPA is not promulgating BAT for these segments.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
DRI and Forging segments.
The technology basis for NSPS for the DRI segment is: solids
removal, clarifier, high-rate recycle, and filtration of blowdown
wastewater, and the technology basis for NSPS for the forging segment
is high-rate recycle, oil/water separation and mixed-media filtration.
In both cases, these are the same as the BPT technology basis. EPA did
not identify any technically feasible options that provide greater
environmental protection. In addition, EPA concluded these technology
options do not present a barrier to entry because all facilities
currently employ the technologies (although minor adjustment of flow
control may be necessary for some DRI operations). The Agency
considered energy requirements and other non-water quality
environmental impacts and found no basis for any different standards
than the selected NSPS. Therefore, EPA is adopting NSPS limitations for
the DRI and forging segments of the Other Operations subcategory based
on the same technologies selected as the basis for BPT for these
segments.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources (PSES/PSNS)
DRI and Forging segments.

[[Page 64241]]

EPA identified only conventional pollutants in DRI and forging
wastewaters at treatable levels. These pollutants do not pass through
when discharged to POTWs from facilities within this subcategory.
Therefore, EPA is not promulgating pretreatment standards for these
segments.

IX. Pollutant Reduction and Compliance Cost Estimates

A. Pollutant Reductions

Presented below for the Cokemaking, Sintering, and Other Operations
subcategories are the pollutant reductions obtainable through the
application of the model technologies that form the basis of the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today. This
section summarizes these estimated reductions. Chapter 11 of the TDD
includes the estimated pollutant reductions for options considered but
not promulgated, and discusses the methodology in detail.
1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
The Agency estimates that this regulation will reduce discharges of
BOD5, TSS and oil and grease by approximately 351,000 pounds per year.
2. Priority and Non-conventional Pollutant Reductions
a. Direct Discharge Facilities (BPT/BAT).
The estimated reductions in priority and non-conventional
pollutants directly discharged in treated final effluent resulting from
implementation of the model BPT/BCT/BAT technologies are listed in
Table IX.A.1. The Agency estimates that today's BPT/BCT/BAT standards
will reduce direct discharges of priority and non-conventional
pollutants by approximately 754,000 pounds per year. The Agency only
estimated the reduction in 2,3,7,8-TCDF discharge in the Sintering
subcategory, thus the removal when measured in pounds per year is
negligible.

Table IX.A.1.--Reduction in Direct Discharge of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants After Implementation of
BPT/BAT Regulations Promulgated Today
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-priority
Priority metal metal and Total metal
Subcategory and organics organic and organic
compounds lbs/ compounds lbs/ compounds lbs/
year year year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cokemaking...................................................... 30,164 718,136 748,300
Sintering....................................................... 0 0 0
Other Operations................................................ 0 5,684 5,684
-----------------
Total Removals for all Subcategories........................ 30,164 723,820 753,984
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. PSES Effluent Discharges from POTWs.
Table IX.A.2 lists, by subcategory, the estimated reductions in
priority and non-conventional pollutants discharged from POTWs
following implementation of the model PSES technologies. The Agency
estimates that today's PSES regulations will reduce indirect facility
discharge to POTWs by 264,000 pounds per year. These figures are
adjusted for pollutant removals expected from POTWs, and thus reflect
reductions in discharges to the receiving waters. Estimated reductions
in pollutants discharged indirectly to surface waters are provided on a
subcategory basis in Chapter 11 of the Technical Development Document.
The Agency did not identify any priority or non-conventional pollutants
at treatable concentrations is the wastewater of the Other Operations
subcategory.

Table IX.A.2.--Reduction in Discharges from POTWs of Priority and Non-conventional Pollutants After
Implementation of PSES Regulations Promulgated Today
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-priority
Priority metal metal and Total metal
Subcategory and organics organic and organic
compounds lbs/ compounds lbs/ compounds lbs/
year year year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cokemaking...................................................... 4,388 259,776 264,164
Sintering....................................................... 0 0 0
Other Operations................................................ 0 0 0
-----------------
Total Removals for All Subcategories........................ 4,388 259,776 264,164
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Costs

The Agency estimated the cost for iron and steel facilities to
achieve each of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards
promulgated today, as well as the costs for facilities to achieve the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards considered but not
promulgated. Chapter 10 of the Final TDD provides detailed information
on the methodologies, including cost curves and basis, used to estimate
these costs. In addition, the TDD contains cost estimates for each
option, segment and subcategory considered for today's final rule,
including those which EPA has decided not to promulgate. All cost
estimates in this section are expressed in terms of 1997 dollars, which
corresponds with the base year of the engineering analysis. The cost
components reported in this section represent estimates of the
investment cost of purchasing and installing equipment, the annual
operating and maintenance costs associated with that equipment, land
costs associated with equipment, and additional costs for discharge
monitoring. The capital costs, pre-tax total annualized costs, and
post-

[[Page 64242]]

tax total annualized costs for these subcategories are presented in
Section X in terms of 2001 dollars.
1. Cokemaking Subcategory
a. By-products Recovery Segment.
Table IX.B.1 shows the costs EPA estimated for existing direct and
indirect discharging by-products recovery cokemaking facilities to
comply with the BAT limitations or PSES standards promulgated today.

Table IX.B.1.--Estimated Costs for By-Product Recovery Cokemaking Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Total capital Annual O&M
Discharge status facilities and land costs costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct.......................................................... 12 $26,039,400 $4,593,800
Indirect........................................................ 8 6,138,600 1,462,600
-----------------
Total....................................................... 20 32,178,000 6,056,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Non-recovery Segment.
EPA is promulgating limitations and standards for this segment
expressed as no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. The Agency
has determined that implementation of BPT, BCT, BAT, or PSES
limitations and standards by facilities in this segment will not result
in any incremental compliance costs because all facilities are
currently achieving them.
2. Sintering Subcategory
Table IX.B.2 shows the costs EPA estimated for direct discharging
sintering facilities to comply with the BAT limitation for 2,3,7,8-TCDF
promulgated today. Note that even though EPA has promulgated PSES for
this subcategory EPA is not aware of any sintering facilities currently
discharging to a POTW and has therefore not included any compliance
costs.

Table IX.B.2.--Estimated Costs for Sintering Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Total capital Annual O&M
Discharge status facilities and land costs costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct....................................................... 5 $11,046,100 $1,304,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Steelmaking Subcategory
EPA has determined that the industry will incur no costs due to the
alternate limitations and standards based on best professional judgment
applicable to basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution
control. Likewise, EPA has determined that there will not be any
compliance costs incurred by facilities with electric arc furnaces with
semi-wet air pollution control to comply with today's rule.
4. Other Operations Subcategory
Table IX.B.3 shows the costs estimated for direct discharging
forging facilities to comply with the BPT limitations promulgated
today. The estimated costs for direct discharging DRI facilities are
not presented because there are only two direct dischargers in this
segment and data aggregation or other masking techniques are
insufficient to avoid disclosure of information claimed as confidential
business information. Also, because EPA is not promulgating PSES or
PSNS limits for the DRI and forging segments, indirect dischargers in
this subcategory will not incur costs as a result of this regulation.
For the briquetting segment, because all facilities in this segment are
currently meeting the promulgated limitations and standards for BPT,
BCT, BAT, PSES, PSNS, and NSPS of no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants, there are no incremental compliance costs associated with
this limit.

Table IX.B.3.--EPA Estimated Costs for Forging Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Total capital Annual O&M
Segment facilities and land costs costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forging...................................................... 8 $120,200 $20,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction and Overview

This section describes the estimated capital investment and
annualized costs of compliance with the final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated today for the iron and steel
industry and the potential impacts of these compliance costs on the
industry. This section also presents the estimated costs and projected
impacts for technology options EPA considered but rejected for all of
the subcategories. EPA's economic assessment is presented in detail in
the report titled ``Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations and
Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category''
(hereafter, ``EA'') and in the rulemaking record. The EA estimates the
economic effect of compliance costs on subcategory operations at a site
where feasible, the combined cost for all subcategory operations at a
site for selected cost combinations, aggregate costs for all sites
owned by each company, impacts on employment and output, domestic and
international markets, and environmental justice issues. EPA conducted
a small business analysis, which estimates effects on small entities,
and a cost-effectiveness analysis of all evaluated options.

B. Economic Description of the Iron and Steel Industry

The United States is the third largest steel producer in the world
with 12 percent of the market, an annual output of between 100 and 115
million tons per year, and around 150,000 employees.

[[Page 64243]]

Major markets for steel are service centers and the automotive and
construction industries. Together these three markets account for 61
percent of steel shipments. The remaining 40 percent is dispersed over
a wide range of products and activities, such as agricultural,
industrial and electrical machinery, oil and gas, containers, and
appliances.
The iron and steel rulemaking includes sites within the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 324199 (coke
ovens, part of ``all other petroleum and coal product manufacturing''),
331111 (iron and steel mills), 331210 (steel pipes and tubes), and
331221 (cold finishing of steel shapes). The iron and steel and
proposed metal products and machinery effluent guideline rulemakings
both may have sites in the last two NAICS codes.
The iron and steel effluent guideline as proposed would have
applied to approximately 254 iron and steel sites. Of these sites, EPA
was able to analyze approximately 211 for post-regulatory compliance
impacts at the site level. For the remaining 43 sites, thirteen did not
report data at the site level, fourteen could not be analyzed because
they were jointly owned sites, foreign owned sites, or newly
constructed sites, and sixteen were in poor financial condition prior
to the regulation and are treated as closures under the prevailing
baseline conditions. Of the 254 iron and steel sites, approximately 60
sites are owned by small business entities.
The 254 sites are owned by 115 companies, as estimated by the EPA
survey. The global nature of the industry is illustrated by the fact
that eighteen companies have foreign ownership. Twelve other companies
are joint entities with at least one U.S. company partner. Excluding
joint entities and foreign ownership, the database contains 85 U.S.
companies, more than half of which are privately owned. Responses to
the EPA survey are the only sources of financial information for these
privately-held firms.
The EPA survey collected financial data for the 1995-1997 time
period (the most recent data available at the time of the survey). This
three-year time frame marked a high point in the business cycle. The
high point in the business cycle allowed companies to replenish
retained earnings, retire debt and take other steps to reflect this
prosperity in their financial statements. Even so, an initial analysis
of the pre-regulatory condition of the 115 companies in the EPA survey
indicated that 27 of them would be considered ``financially
distressed'' either because they are start-up companies and joint
ventures or because they are established firms which still showed
losses. For discussion of the changes in industry financial conditions
in the period between 1997 and 2001, see Section IV.

C. Economic Impact Methodology

1. Introduction
This section (and, in more detail, the EA and the accompanying
administrative record) evaluates several measures of economic impacts
that result from the estimated compliance costs associated with each
technically feasible BAT and PSES option. The analysis in the EA
consists of eight major components: (1) An assessment of the number of
facilities that could be affected by this rule; (2) an estimate of the
annualized aggregate costs for these facilities to comply with the rule
using site-level capital, one-time non-capital, and annual operating
and maintenance (O&M) costs; (3 and 4) two separate site-level closure
analyses to evaluate the impact of compliance costs for operations in
individual subcategories (where possible) at the site and for the
combined cost of the options for all subcategories at the site; (5) an
evaluation of the corporate financial distress that the companies in
the industry would be likely to incur as a result of combined
compliance costs for all sites owned by the company; (6) an evaluation
of secondary impacts such as those on employment and economic output;
(7) an analysis of the effects of compliance costs on small entities;
and (8) a cost-benefit analysis pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
All costs are reported in this section of the preamble in 2001
dollars, with the exception of cost-effectiveness results, which, by
convention, are reported in 1981 dollars. The primary sources of data
for the economic analysis are the Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel
Industry Data (Section 308 Survey) and data provided by industry during
the public comment period. Other sources include government data from
the Bureau of Census and industry trade journals.
2. Methodology Overview
The starting point for the economic analysis is the cost
annualization model, which uses site-specific cost data and other
inputs to determine the annualized capital, one-time non-capital, and
O&M costs of improved pollution control. This model uses these costs
along with the company-specific real cost of capital (discount rate)
and the corporate tax rate over a 16-year analytical time frame to
generate the annual cost of compliance for each option EPA considered.
EPA based the 16-year time frame for analysis on the depreciable life
for equipment of this type--15 years according to Internal Revenue
(IRS) rules, with an estimated actual life of 25 years--plus a mid-year
convention for putting the new equipment in operation (for example, six
months between purchase, installation, and operation). The model
generates the present value and annualized post-tax cost for each
option for each site in the survey, which are then used in the
subcategory, site, and company analyses, described below. The Agency
adopts an assumption of zero ``cost pass-through'' of compliance costs
for this industry, which is consistent with the facts of significant
import competition and declining product prices.
In the subcategory analysis, EPA models the economic impacts of
regulatory costs from individual subcategories on a site. The site
analysis evaluates the combined costs on the profitability of the site.
In both, the model compares the present value of forecasted cash flow
over 16 years with the present value of the regulatory option over the
same 16-year period. If the present value of regulatory costs exceeds
that of the projected cash flow, it does not make financial sense to
upgrade the site. That is, if the present value of projected cash flow
is positive before, but negative after, the incurrence of regulatory
costs, the site is presumed to close.
EPA developed five forecasting models for the iron and steel
industry. None of these methods assumes any growth in real terms and
all are calculated in terms of constant 1997 dollars. This conservative
assumption precludes sites from growing their way out of financial
difficulties imposed by the regulation. Site-specific data are only
available for 1995-1997. The period from 1998 to 2001 is the rulemaking
period and when the forecasting methods begin. Because promulgation
occurs in 2002, this is taken as the first year of implementation and
the beginning of the 16-year period over which to consider the
regulatory impact on projected earnings. The first two methods
explicitly address the sharp downturn in the industry after 1997 but
differ in predicting the strength and duration of recovery and
subsequent downturns. That is, both address the cyclicality seen in the
iron and steel industry, but reflect differing magnitudes and timing.
The third forecasting method is a three-year average (1995 to 1997) to
provide an

[[Page 64244]]

upper-bound analysis. The fourth forecasting method is a six year
average covering 1995 to 2000, with the years 1998 through 2000 scaled
by industry level performance. The fifth forecasting method uses only
the year 2000 as a lower-bound analysis. The fourth and fifth
forecasting methods were added after proposal to reflect to the maximum
extent possible the effect of the industry downturn.
EPA calculates the post-regulatory status of a site as the present
value of forecasted earnings minus the after-tax present value of
regulatory costs. With five forecasting methods, there are five ways to
evaluate each site. If a site's post-regulatory status is negative
(after-tax present value of regulatory costs exceed present value of
forecasted earnings), EPA assigned a score of ``1'' for that
forecasting method. EPA then tallied, for each site, the score it
received for each forecasting method. A site, then, may have a score
ranging from zero to five (with five indicating after-tax present value
of regulatory costs exceed present value of forecasted earnings under
all five forecasts). In an effort to reflect the significant industry
downturn, the Agency has chosen to reflect any incremental change in
the score from the baseline condition to the post-regulatory condition
due to regulatory compliance costs as a closure.
EPA could not perform an economic analysis of a number of sites at
the subcategory and site levels, even though annualized costs were
calculated: where the site is a cost center; where it is a captive site
that exists primarily to produce products transferred to other sites
under the same corporate ownership; where components for the analysis
are not recorded on the site's books, only those of the company; or
where the site's cash flow is negative and therefore sufficient by
itself to project a negative present value for earnings. For these
sites, the analysis defaults to the company level. Consistent with OMB
guidance, EPA estimated post-compliance closures due solely to the
effect of the rule. Direct impacts, such as loss in employment,
revenues, production and (possibly) exports are calculated from
projected closures.
EPA evaluated many methods to estimate corporate financial distress
reported in the economic literature of the last ten years and chose the
``Altman's Z''' model. This well-known and well-tested model was
developed to analyze the financial health of both private and public
manufacturing firms. It is based on empirical data and creates a
weighted average of financial ratios, thus avoiding the difficulty of
interpreting multiple ratios with differing implications for financial
health. The single index, Z', is compared against ranges developed by
Altman to indicate ``good,'' ``indeterminate,'' and ``distressed''
financial conditions. EPA examined 1997 financial data (the most recent
collected in the survey) to estimate the pre-regulatory conditions. EPA
then aggregated costs for all sites belonging to that company. EPA
recalculated Z' after incorporating the effects of the pollution
control compliance costs into the income statement and balance sheet
for the company. EPA classified as impacted all companies whose
``Altman's Z' '' score changes such that the company goes from a
``good'' or ``indeterminate'' baseline category to a ``distressed''
post-compliance category. Such companies may have significant
difficulties raising the capital needed to comply with the options
under consideration, which can indicate the likelihood of bankruptcy,
loss of financial independence, or shedding of assets.
EPA uses input-output analyses to determine the effects of the
regulation using national-level employment and output multipliers.
Input-output multipliers allow EPA to estimate the effect of a loss in
output in the iron and steel industry on the U.S. economy as a whole.
Every projected closure has direct impacts in lost employment and
output. These direct losses also have repercussions throughout the rest
of the economy. The input-output multipliers allow EPA to calculate the
national losses in output and employment based on the direct impacts.
EPA also determines the impacts on regional-level employment. The
increase in metropolitan statistical area (MSA) unemployment level, or
county, if non-metropolitan, is calculated for each MSA or county in
which there is at least one projected closure.

D. Economic Costs and Impacts of Technology Options by Subcategory

In this section, EPA presents the capital costs and post-tax total
annualized costs for each technically achievable option EPA considered
in each subcategory. As discussed in Section X.C.2, the cost
annualization model derives total post-tax annualized costs from site-
specific capital costs, one-time non-capital costs, and operating and
maintenance costs; however, only capital costs are reported here to
simplify the presentation. For a detailed presentation of all costing
information, see Chapter 10 of the TDD. As noted in Section X.B,
sixteen facilities are projected to close under baseline conditions and
are not included further in the economic analysis. For this reason, the
costs and removals presented in Section X will differ from the results
reported in the engineering analysis in Chapter 10 of the TDD.
The Agency evaluates the first stage of the impact analysis by
projecting the impacts associated with the regulatory costs for a
single subcategory (or segment) at a site. For example, a site may have
cokemaking, sintering, and other operations, but the post-compliance
cash flow analysis only reflects the regulatory costs associated with a
single subcategory. This stage of the analysis serves as a screening
mechanism for potentially significant impacts for facilities which may
be impacted by options in multiple subcategories. Alternatively, for
any facility with operations only in a single subcategory such as a
stand alone coke plant, this stage represents the complete facility
level analysis. Unfortunately, for a number of subcategories related to
integrated steelmaking operations, the first stage of the analysis
could not be constructed due to interdependent cost estimates. For
integrated steel facilities with operations in ironmaking, integrated
steelmaking, integrated and standalone hot forming, and steel
finishing, particularly those which make extensive use of co-treatment
of compatible wastewaters and central treatment, the cost estimates for
one subcategory depend upon the selected technology option for related
subcategories. As a result, the subcategory impact results for
ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, and integrated and standalone hot
forming will not be presented below, but rather will be presented on an
aggregated basis in the facility analysis in Section X.E. In the case
of steel finishing, a large number of facilities, in addition to the
integrated steel facilities discussed previously, are in the scope of
the subcategory and the subcategory impact results are presented, but
the results do understate the potential economic impact to the
integrated steel facilities.
1. Cokemaking
a. By-product Cokemaking
i. BAT
The regulatory compliance costs associated with BAT 1 are not
projected to result in any postcompliance closures, while the
regulatory compliance costs associated with BAT 3 are projected to
result in two postcompliance closures, with potential job losses of 500
FTEs. Because there are

[[Page 64245]]

a total of only twelve directly discharging by-product cokemaking
facilities, the projected closures represent seventeen percent of the
potentially regulated population. Given the significant additional
pollutant removals attainable through application of BAT1 and the
general economic state of the industry, EPA does not believe that it is
reasonable to impose the economic impacts associated with BAT 3. For
this reason, the Agency has determined that option BAT 3 is not
economically achievable for existing sources, but that option BAT 1 is
economically achievable.

Table X.D.1.--BAT Costs and Impacts for By-Product Cokemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
Option Capital cost annualized Impacts Closures/Job Losses
($2001M) cost ($2001M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.............. .............. .........................................
BAT 1................................ 26.3 6.6 0/0
BAT 3................................ 59.2 10.5 2/500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. PSES
The regulatory compliance costs associated with PSES option 1 are
not projected to result in any postcompliance closures. The regulatory
compliance costs associated with PSES option 3 are projected to result
in two postcompliance closures, with potential job losses of between
500 and 750 FTEs. Because there are a total of only eight indirectly
discharging by-product cokemaking facilities, the projected closures
represent 25 percent of the potentially regulated population. In view
of the fact that these facilities are presently subject to pretreatment
standards in Part 420, the significant additional pollutant removals
attainable through application of PSES1, and the general state of the
industry, EPA does not believe that it is reasonable to impose the
economic impacts associated with PSES3. For these reasons, the Agency
has determined that option PSES3 is not economically achievable for
existing sources, but that option PSES1 is economically achievable.

Table X.D.2.--PSES Options, Costs, and Impacts for By-Product Cokemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
Option Capital cost annualized Impacts Closures/Job Losses
($2001M) cost ($2001M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.............. .............. .........................................
PSES 1............................... 6.7 2.0 0/0
PSES 3............................... 25.5 6.6 2/ 500-750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. NSPS and PSNS
The technology options EPA considered for NSPS are identical to
those it considered for existing dischargers. Engineering analysis
indicates that the cost of installing pollution control systems during
new construction is less than the cost of retrofitting existing
facilities. Because EPA projects the compliance costs for new sources
are less than existing sources and because limited or no impacts are
projected for existing sources, then no impacts are expected for new
sources and no barrier to entry is anticipated.
The technology option EPA considered for PSNS is equivalent to PSES
3, which is more stringent rather the promulgated option PSES 1. PSES 3
was rejected for existing sources as not economically achievable due to
projected facility closures. However, engineering analysis indicates
that the cost of installing pollution control systems during new
construction is less than the cost of retrofitting existing facilities,
so EPA projects the compliance costs for new sources are less than
existing sources and no impacts are projected and no barrier to entry
can result.
b. Non-recovery Cokemaking
i. BPT, BAT and PSES
The technology option for BPT, BAT and PSES is no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants. No incremental compliance costs are
associated with these options as all existing sources are currently
meeting the no discharge requirement. Because there are no incremental
compliance costs, there are no impacts resulting from the BPT, BAT and
PSES options.
ii. NSPS and PSNS
The technology option EPA considered for new sources are identical
to those it considered for existing dischargers. No incremental
compliance costs are associated with the no discharge option, just as
in the case of existing sources, because the non-recovery method of
producing coke generates no process wastewater. As no compliance costs
are expected, no barrier to entry can result.
2. Sintering
a. Sintering Operations with Wet Air Pollution Control
i. BAT and PSES
The regulatory compliance costs associated with the regulation of
2,3,7,8-TCDF under the BAT option and the PSES option are not projected
to result in any postcompliance closures. To the Agency's knowledge,
there are no current indirect dischargers of sintering wastewater.

[[Page 64246]]

Table X.D.3.--BAT Costs and Impacts for Sintering Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
Capital cost annualized cost Impacts Closures/Job Losses
($2001M) ($2001M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
............... ............... ........................................
BAT................................. 12.0 1.9 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. NSPS and PSNS
The technology options EPA considered for new sources are identical
to those it considered for existing dischargers. Engineering analysis
indicates that the cost of installing pollution control systems during
new construction is less than the cost of retrofitting existing
facilities. Because EPA projected the costs for new sources are less
than existing sources and because limited or no impacts are projected
for existing sources, then no impacts are expected for new sources and
no barrier to entry can result.
b. Sintering Operations With Dry Air Pollution Control
i. BPT, BAT and PSES
The technology option for BPT, BAT and PSES is no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants. No incremental compliance costs are
associated with these options as all existing sources are currently
meeting the no discharge requirement. Because there are no incremental
compliance costs, there are no impacts resulting from the BPT, BAT and
PSES options.
ii. NSPS and PSNS
The technology option EPA considered for new sources are identical
to those it considered for existing dischargers. No incremental
compliance costs are associated with the no discharge option, just as
in the case of existing sources, because the non-recovery method of
producing coke generates no process wastewater. As no compliance costs
are expected, no barrier to entry can result.
3. Ironmaking
a. BAT and PSES
The regulatory compliance costs associated with the proposed BAT
option and the PSES option are presented below. The Agency does not
present costs for indirect dischargers separately, because there is
only one indirect discharger in this subcategory and data aggregation
or other masking techniques are insufficient to avoid disclosure of
information claimed as confidential business information.
Unfortunately, for a number of subcategories related to integrated
steelmaking operations, this stage of the analysis could not be
constructed due to interdependent cost estimates. For integrated steel
facilities with operations in ironmaking, integrated steelmaking,
integrated and stand alone hot forming, and steel finishing,
particularly those which make extensive use of co-treatment of
compatible wastewaters and central treatment, the cost estimates for
one subcategory depend upon the selected technology option for related
subcategories. As a result, the subcategory impact results for
ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, and integrated and stand alone hot
forming will not be presented, but rather will be presented on an
aggregated basis in the facility analysis in Section X.E.

Table X.D.4.--BAT and PSES Cost for Ironmaking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax
Capital total
cost annualized
($2001M) cost
($2001M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT AND PSES.................................... 54.4 10.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Integrated Steelmaking
a. BAT and PSES
The regulatory compliance costs associated with the BAT option and
the PSES option are presented below. The Agency does not present costs
for indirect dischargers, because there is only one indirect discharger
in this subcategory and data aggregation or other masking techniques
are insufficient to avoid disclosure of information claimed as
confidential business information.
Unfortunately, for a number of subcategories related to integrated
steelmaking operations, this stage of the analysis could not be
constructed due to interdependent cost estimates. For integrated steel
facilities with operations in ironmaking, integrated steelmaking,
integrated and stand alone hot forming, and steel finishing,
particularly those which make extensive use of co-treatment of
compatible wastewaters and central treatment, the cost estimates for
one subcategory depend upon the selected technology option for related
subcategories. As a result, the subcategory impact results for
ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, and integrated and stand alone hot
forming will not be presented, but rather will be presented on an
aggregated basis in the facility analysis in Section X.E.

Table X.D.5.--BAT and PSES Cost for Integrated Steelmaking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax
Capital total
cost annualized
($2001M) cost
($2001M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT............................................. 46.8 10.4
PSES............................................ .......... ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming
a. Carbon and Alloy
i. BAT
The regulatory compliance costs associated with the BAT option are
presented below. Unfortunately, for a number of subcategories related
to integrated steelmaking operations, this stage of the analysis could
not be constructed due to interdependent cost estimates. For integrated
steel facilities with operations in ironmaking, integrated steelmaking,
integrated and stand alone hot forming, and steel finishing,
particularly those which make extensive use of co-treatment of
compatible wastewaters and central treatment, the cost estimates for
one subcategory depend upon the selected technology option for related
subcategories. As a result, the subcategory impact results for
ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, and integrated and stand alone hot
forming will not be presented, but rather will be presented on an
aggregated basis in the facility analysis in Section X.E.

[[Page 64247]]

Table X.D.6.--BAT Costs for Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming,
Carbon and Alloy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
Capital cost annualized cost
($2001M) ($2001M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT............................... 149.4 27.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
a. Carbon and Alloy
i. BAT
The regulatory compliance costs associated with the BAT option are
not projected to result in any postcompliance closures.

Table X.D.7.--BAT Costs and Impacts for Non-integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
Capital cost annualized cost Impacts Closures/Job Losses
($2001M) ($2001M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................. ................. .....................................
BAT................................ 30.6 5.1 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. NSPS
EPA proposed new source limitations of no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants, but has determined that technological barriers
prevent promulgation of the proposed limitations. See Section VIII.D.
7. Steel Finishing
a. Carbon and Alloy
i. BAT
The regulatory compliance costs associated with the BAT option are
not projected to result in any postcompliance closures.

Table X.D.8.--BAT Costs and Impacts for Steel Finishing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
Capital Cost annualized cost Impacts Closures/Job Losses
($2001M) ($2001M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................. ................. .....................................
BAT................................ 23.1 8.6 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Other Operations
a. Direct Reduced Iron
i. BPT
The regulatory compliance costs associated with the BPT option are
not projected to result in any postcompliance closures. The Agency does
not present costs for direct dischargers, because there are only two
direct dischargers in this segment and data aggregation or other
masking techniques are insufficient to avoid disclosure of information
claimed as confidential business information.

Table X.D.9.--BPT Costs and Impacts Directed Reduced Iron
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
Capital cost annualized cost Impacts Closures/Job Losses
($2001M) ($2001M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................ ................ ......................................
BPT................................. ................ ................ 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Forging
i. BPT
The regulatory compliance costs associated with the BPT option are
not projected to result in any postcompliance closures.

[[Page 64248]]

Table X.D.10.--BPT Costs and Impacts Forging
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
Capital cost annualized cost Impacts Closures/Job Losses
($2001M) ($2001M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................. ................. .....................................
BPT................................ 0.13 0.04 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Briquetting
i. BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES
For the briquetting segment, EPA is establishing BPT of no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants. EPA established these
limitations because briquetting operations do not generate any process
wastewater. For this reason, the Agency concludes that there are no
costs associated with these limitations.

E. Facility Level Economic Impacts of the Regulatory Options

In this section, EPA presents the impacts of capital costs and
post-tax total annualized costs for combinations of technology options
across all subcategories. The Agency evaluates the second stage of the
impact analysis by projecting the impacts associated with the
regulatory costs for all subcategories affected at a facility or site
(the terms are used interchangeably). For example, a fully integrated
facility may have cokemaking, ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, hot
forming and finishing operations, and the postcompliance cash flow
analysis reflects the regulatory costs associated with all affected
operations at the site. This stage of the analysis evaluates the
aggregate regulatory costs and impacts upon each facility which may be
affected in multiple subcategories. The analysis in this section
reflects both those integrated facilities for which subcategory cost
estimates are interdependent (as discussed in Section X.D) and other
facilities which may incur costs in multiple subcategories, but whose
cost estimates are not interdependent.
The incorporation of the aggregate regulatory costs based upon the
technology options in the proposed rule (except for By-product
Cokemaking where BAT 1 is evaluated rather than BAT 3; see Section
XIII.A.3) across all subcategories into the postcompliance cash flow
analysis generates a total of either 2 or 4 facility closures,
depending on whether the By-Product Cokemaking PSES 1 or 3 options are
used (see Section X.D.1 and the EA). The facility closures have
potential job losses of 3750 to 4000 FTEs. The aggregated effect of
those impacts is not economically achievable. Therefore, EPA is not
promulgating revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
each subcategory as proposed. Rather, EPA is revising effluent
limitations guidelines and standards where the limits are technically
and economically achievable.
For this purpose, the Agency has also analyzed a reduced set of
regulatory options consisting of By-Product Cokemaking BAT 1 and PSES 1
and Sintering BAT (see description in Section VIII.B), in addition to
BPT for Direct Reduced Iron and Forging. Additional limitations and
standards for basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution
control, electric arc furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control,
sintering with dry air pollution control, non-recovery cokemaking, and
briquetting are projected to incur no compliance costs. No facilities
are projected to close as a result of the compliance costs of the
reduced set of regulatory options. The Agency determines that the
chosen set of model technologies are economically achievable for the
affected subcategories.

F. Firm Level Impacts

In this section, the Agency evaluates the economic impacts of the
regulatory options to the firms that own the affected facilities. EPA
evaluates the third stage of the impact analysis by incorporating the
regulatory costs borne by each facility into the financial status of
the firm that owns the facility or multiple facilities. For example, if
a company owns an integrated facility, a stand alone coke facility, and
a stand alone finishing facility, the aggregate regulatory costs are
added to the baseline or precompliance financial conditions of the firm
as reflected by the firm income statement and balance sheet. The Agency
then calculates the postcompliance Altman Z'-score and checks for
changes in financial status from good or indeterminate to distressed,
with any such changes considered to be impacts.
The Agency evaluated the set of options identified in Section X.E
(By-Product Cokemaking BAT 1 and PSES 1 and Sintering BAT (see
description in Section VIII.B), in addition to BPT for Direct Reduced
Iron and Forging) and found them to be economically achievable at the
facility level. Additional limitations and standards for basic oxygen
furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control, electric arc furnaces
with semi-wet air pollution control, sintering with dry air pollution
control, non-recovery cokemaking, and briquetting are projected to
incur no compliance costs. This set of options does not cause any firm
level impacts as measured by the postcompliance Altman Z' score.
Accordingly, the Agency determines that each selected model technology
in itself and when considered collectively with the technologies across
the relevant subcategories is economically achievable.

G. Community Impacts

The Agency evaluates community impacts by examining the potential
increase in county unemployment. The Agency assumes all employees of
the affected facilities reside in the county (if the county is not part
of a larger metropolitan area) or metropolitan area in which the
facilities are located. As no facility closures are projected as a
result of the estimated compliance costs, no measurable impacts on
county unemployment are expected.

H. Foreign Trade Impacts

The Agency evaluates the potential for foreign trade impacts by
application of the market model. The aggregate regulatory compliance
costs are incorporated to estimate the postcompliance impacts on
foreign trade. The analysis indicates less than 0.1 percent increase in
imports and less than 0.1 percent decrease in exports.

I. Small Business Analysis

Based upon information provided in the Collection of 1997 Iron and
Steel Industry Data (Section 308 Survey), the Agency was able to
reasonably determine the appropriate NAICS classification for each
firm. EPA applied the relevant Small Business Administration (SBA) size
standard for each NAICS to determine whether each firm was to be
considered a small entity. The NAICS classifications observed were
predominantly NAICS 324199

[[Page 64249]]

(coke ovens, part of ``all other petroleum and coal product
manufacturing'') and NAICS 331111 (iron and steel mills). The relevant
size standards varied from 500 to 1500 employees; they also included a
few revenue-based standards. EPA identified an estimated 35 small
entities that may be affected by the proposed rule among the estimated
115 total companies potentially affected by the proposed set of
options. Given the chosen set of final options, EPA identified an
estimated five small entities that may be affected by the final rule
among the estimated 22 total companies. EPA has fully evaluated the
economic achievability of the final rule to affected small entities.
The economic achievability analysis was conducted using a discounted
cash flow approach for facility analysis and the Altman Z' test for the
firm analysis (for a full discussion, see Section X.C.). EPA projects
that no small entities will incur an impact such as facility closure/
firm failure. Further, for small entities, EPA examined the cost to
revenue ratio to identify any other potential impacts of the rule upon
small entities. EPA has determined that none of the five small entities
will experience an impact of 1% or greater ratio of costs to revenue.

J. Cost-Benefit Analysis

The Agency estimates the total monetized social costs of the final
rule to be $12.0 million ($2001) and the total monetized social
benefits to range between $1.4 million and $7.3 million ($2001). The
total annualized costs for each subcategory ($2001, pre-tax) are
presented in Table X.L.1. The final rule as promulgated includes costs
for By-Product Cokemaking BAT 1 and PSES 1 and Sintering BAT 1, in
addition to BPT for Direct Reduced Iron and Forging. Additional
limitations and standards for basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air
pollution control, electric arc furnaces with semi-wet air pollution
control, sintering with dry air pollution control, non-recovery
cokemaking, and briquetting are projected to incur no compliance costs.
The total monetized benefits are presented in Table XI.F.1

K. Cost-Reasonableness Analysis

The Agency is promulgating BPT limitations for the Non-recovery
Cokemaking segment of the Cokemaking Subcategory and the Direct Reduced
Iron, Briquetting, and Forging segments of the Other Operations
Subcategory. CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost-reasonableness
assessment for BPT limitations. In determining BPT limitations, EPA
must consider the total cost of treatment technologies in relation to
the effluent reduction benefits achieved by such technology. This
inquiry does not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt BPT limitations
that are achievable with available technology unless the required
additional reductions are wholly out of proportion to the costs of
achieving such marginal reduction.
The cost-reasonableness ratio is average cost per pound of
pollutant removed by a BPT regulatory option. The cost component is
measured as pre-tax total annualized costs ($2001). In this case, the
pollutants removed are conventional pollutants. The Agency evaluated a
technology option for the Non-recovery Cokemaking segment which is
based on no discharge of process wastewater pollutants and is estimated
to have no associated incremental regulatory compliance costs. For the
Direct Reduced Iron segment, the evaluated BPT option 1 has a cost-
reasonableness ratio of $3. For the Forging segment, the evaluated BPT
option 1 removes approximately 3500 pounds of conventional pollutants
with a cost-reasonableness ratio of $9. The Agency evaluated a
technology option for the Briquetting Segment which is based on no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants and is estimated to have no
associated incremental regulatory compliance costs. EPA considers the
cost-reasonableness ratio to be acceptable and the selected option to
be cost-reasonable in all four segments.

L. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

This section provides the cost-effectiveness analysis of the BAT
and PSES regulatory options by subcategory. The cost-effectiveness
analysis compares the total annualized cost incurred for a regulatory
option to the corresponding effectiveness of that option in reducing
the discharge of pollutants.
Cost-effectiveness calculations are used during the development of
effluent limitations guidelines and standards to compare the efficiency
of one regulatory option in removing pollutants to another regulatory
option. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the incremental annual cost of
a pollution control option in an industry subcategory per incremental
pollutant removal. The increments are considered relative to another
option or to a benchmark, such as existing treatment. In cost-
effectiveness analysis, pollutant removals are measured in toxicity
normalized units called ``pound-equivalents.'' The cost-effectiveness
value, therefore, represents the unit cost of removing an additional
pound-equivalent (lb.-eq.) of pollutants. In general, the lower the
cost-effectiveness value, the more cost-efficient the regulation will
be in removing pollutants, taking into account their toxicity. While
not required by the Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness analysis is a
useful tool for evaluating regulatory options for the removal of toxic
pollutants. Cost-effectiveness analysis does not take into account the
removal of conventional pollutants (e.g., oil and grease, biochemical
oxygen demand, and total suspended solids).
For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the estimated pound-
equivalents of pollutants removed were calculated by multiplying the
number of pounds of each pollutant removed by the toxic weighting
factor for each pollutant. The more toxic the pollutant, the higher
will be the pollutant's toxic weighting factor; accordingly, the use of
pound-equivalents gives correspondingly more weight to pollutants with
higher toxicity. Thus, for a given expenditure and pounds of pollutants
removed, the cost per pound-equivalent removed would be lower when more
highly toxic pollutants are removed than if pollutants of lesser
toxicity are removed. Annual costs for all cost-effectiveness analyses
are reported in 1981 dollars so that comparisons of cost-effectiveness
may be made with regulations for other industries that were issued at
different times.
1. Cost Effectiveness Analysis
The table below presents the pre-tax total annualized costs,
removals (in lb-equivalents), and the incremental cost effectiveness
for each technically feasible regulatory option. In cases where the
technology has been found not to be feasible, the term ``NA'' appears
in Table X.L.1 for removals and incremental cost-effectiveness.

[[Page 64250]]

Table X.L.1.--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretax total Incremental cost
Subcategory and segment Option annualized cost Removals (lb-eq) effectiveness
($2001M) (1981$/lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By-Product Cokemaking......... BAT 1 7.1 185,441 $21
By-Product Cokemaking......... PSES 1 2.1 26,251 45
By-Product Cokemaking......... PSES 3 7.7 77,783 61
Ironmaking.................... BAT1 and PSES1 13.7 NA NA
Sintering..................... BAT 1 2.8 14,515 107
Integrated Steelmaking........ BAT 1 14.0 94,494 83
Integrated and Stand Alone Hot BAT 1 36.7 247,280 83
Forming, Carbon & Alloy.
Nonintegrated Steelmaking and BAT 1 6.6 3,891 941
Hot Forming, Carbon & Alloy.
Nonintegrated Steelmaking and BAT 1 0.9 230 2,069
Hot Forming, Stainless.
Nonintegrated Steelmaking and PSES 1 0.3 78 1,970
Hot Forming, Stainless.
Steel Finishing, Carbon & BAT 1 11.1 NA NA
Alloy.
Steel Finishing, Stainless.... BAT 1 5.4 NA NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Non-recovery Cokemaking
The Agency has selected a technology option for the Non-recovery
Cokemaking Segment which is based on no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants for BPT, BAT and PSES and is estimated to have no associated
regulatory compliance costs. This is because all existing non-recovery
cokemaking facilities achieve the no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants limitation. As a result, a cost-effectiveness analysis
cannot be constructed for this segment.
3. Other Operations
The Agency evaluated technology options for Direct Reduced
Ironmaking and Forging segments only for the control of conventional
pollutants at BPT (see Section X.K). The Agency evaluated a technology
option for the Briquetting Segment which is based on no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants and is estimated to have no associated
incremental regulatory compliance costs. As a result, a cost-
effectiveness analysis cannot be constructed for these segments.

XI. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits

EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling the
discharges of 50 priority and nonconventional pollutants from iron and
steel facilities to surface waters and POTWs in national analyses of
direct and indirect discharges. EPA identified more than 50 pollutants
of concern in iron and steel effluents at treatable levels, but EPA
presently has only published recommended ambient water quality criteria
(AWQC) or toxicity profiles for 50 of those pollutants. Discharges of
these pollutants into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter
aquatic habitats, adversely affect aquatic biota, and adversely impact
human health through the consumption of contaminated fish and drinking
water.
Furthermore, these pollutants may also interfere with POTW
operations in terms of inhibition of activated sludge or biological
treatment and contamination of sewage sludges, thereby limiting the
methods of disposal for sewage sludge and the POTW's costs (though, as
noted below, there is no evidence of this for this sector). Most of
these pollutants have at least one known toxic effect (human health
carcinogen and/or systemic toxicant or aquatic toxicant). In addition,
many of these pollutants bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and persist
in the environment.
The Agency did not evaluate the effects of conventional pollutants
discharged from iron and steel mills on aquatic life and human health
because of a lack of numeric AWQC for those parameters. EPA did not
evaluate the effects of conventional pollutants on POTWs because POTWs
are designed to treat these pollutants. However, the discharge of a
conventional pollutant such as total suspended solids (TSS) or oil &
grease can have adverse effects on aquatic life and the environment.
For example, habitat degradation can result from increased suspended
particulate matter that reduces light penetration, and thus primary
productivity, or from accumulation of suspended particles that alter
benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats.
Oil and grease may have toxic effects on aquatic organisms (i.e.,
fish, crustacea, larvae and eggs, gastropods, bivalves, invertebrates,
and flora). The marine larvae and benthic invertebrates appear to be
the most intolerant of oil and grease, particularly the water-soluble
compounds, at concentrations ranging from 0.1 ppm to 25 ppm and 1 ppm
to 6,100 ppm, respectively. However, because oil and grease is not a
definitive chemical category, but instead includes many organic
compounds with varying physical, chemical, and toxicological
properties, it is difficult for EPA to establish a numerical criterion
which would be applicable to all types of oil and grease. For this
reason, EPA does not model the effects of oil and grease on the
environment.
Of a total of 254 iron and steel facilities potentially affected by
the rule, EPA presents here the analysis results for 22 of the
facilities affected by this final rule. The facilities modelled are the
discharging facilities in the cokemaking and sintering subcategories.
In the case of the other operations subcategory, no pollutants other
than conventional pollutants were identified as pollutants of concern
and the Agency did not undertake environmental modelling. Of the 22
facilities, fifteen are direct wastewater dischargers that discharge up
to 50 pollutants to thirteen receiving streams and eight are indirect
wastewater dischargers discharging up to 26 pollutants through POTWs to
seven receiving streams. One facility discharges both directly and
indirectly.
To estimate some of the benefits from the improvements in water
quality expected to result from this rule, EPA modeled in-stream
concentrations for the pollutants and then compared these
concentrations to aquatic life and human health AWQC guidance documents
published by EPA or to toxic effect levels. States often consult these
water quality criteria guidance documents when adopting water quality
criteria as part of their water quality standards. However, because
those State-adopted criteria may vary, for this analysis, EPA used the
nationwide criteria guidance as the representative values for the
particular pollutants. EPA also modeled the effects of iron and steel
discharges on seven POTWs which receive discharges from the eight iron
and steel indirect discharging facilities.

[[Page 64251]]

Because the affected iron and steel facilities may discharge in
multiple waste subcategories, and some waterbody reaches receive
discharges from more than one iron and steel facility, EPA chose to
perform the environmental assessment analyses on a reach-by-reach
basis. The reach-by-reach basis has the advantage over a subcategory-
specific basis in that it more accurately predicts the overall effects
of the rule on the environment.
In addition, EPA reviewed the CWA Section 303(d) lists of impaired
waterbodies developed by States in 1998 and noted that at least 3
waterbodies, identified with industrial point sources as a potential
source of impairment, receive direct discharges from iron and steel
facilities as well as other sources. Eight additional waterbodies that
receive direct discharges are also identified as impaired. However, the
States did not identify the potential sources of impairment. EPA also
identified 10 waterbodies with fishing advisories that receive direct
discharges from iron and steel facilities as well as other sources.
EPA expects a variety of human health, environmental, and economic
benefits to result from reductions in effluent loadings (see the
Environmental Assessment). In particular, the benefits assessment
addresses the following benefit categories: (a) Human health benefits
due to reductions in excess cancer cases; (b) human health benefits due
to reductions in noncarcinogenic hazard (systemic); (c) ecological and
recreational benefits due to improved water quality with respect to
toxic pollutants; and (d) benefits to POTWs from reductions in
interference, pass through, and biosolid contamination, and elimination
of some of the efforts associated with establishing local pretreatment
limits.

A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk

EPA expects that reduced loadings to surface waters associated with
the final rule would reduce excess cancer cases by approximately 0.50
per year with estimated monetized benefits of $1.3 to $6.9 million
($2001). These estimated benefits are attributable to reducing the
cancer risks associated with consuming contaminated fish tissue. EPA
developed these benefit estimates by applying an existing estimate of
the value of a statistical life to the estimated number of excess
cancer cases avoided. The estimated range of the value of a statistical
life used in this analysis is $2.6 million to $13.7 million ($2001).
EPA's Science Advisory Board recently recommended that the values of a
statistical life be adjusted downward using a discount factor to
account for latency in cases (such as cancer) where there is a lag
between exposure and mortality. This was not done in the current
analysis because EPA needs more information to estimate latency periods
associated with cancers caused by iron and steel pollutants. For
example, EPA based the risk assessments for several pollutants on data
from animal bioassays; these data are not sufficiently reliable to
estimate a latency period for humans.

B. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human Health Hazard

Exposure to toxic substances poses risk of systemic and other
effects to humans, including effects on the circulatory, respiratory or
digestive systems and neurological and developmental effects. This
final rule is expected to decrease human exposure (through consumption
of contaminated fish tissues) to such pollutants. However, EPA does not
claim a reduction in noncarcinogenic human health risk since the
instream concentrations at both baseline and treatment option are below
the threshold of noncarcinogenic human health risk.

C. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity

EPA expects this final rule to generate environmental benefits by
improving water quality. There is a wide range of benefits associated
with the maintenance and improvement of water quality. These benefits
include use values (e.g., recreational fishing), ecological values
(e.g., preservation of habitat), and passive use (intrinsic) values.
For example, water pollution might affect the quality of the fish and
wildlife habitat provided by water resources, thus affecting the
species using these resources. This in turn might affect the quality
and value of recreational experiences of users, such as anglers fishing
in the affected streams. EPA considers the value of the recreational
fishing benefits and intrinsic benefits resulting from this final rule,
but does not evaluate the other types of ecological and environmental
benefits (e.g., increased assimilative capacity of the receiving
stream, protection of terrestrial wildlife and birds that consume
aquatic organisms, and improvements to other recreational activities,
such as swimming, boating, water skiing, and wildlife observation) due
to data limitations.
Modeled end-of-pipe pollutant loadings of the 22 facilities are
estimated to decline by approximately 22 percent. The analysis
comparing modeled instream pollutant concentration to AWQC estimates
that current discharge loadings result in excursions at fifteen streams
receiving the discharge from iron and steel facilities. The final rule
would reduce the number of receiving streams with excursions to
fourteen.
EPA estimates that the annual monetized recreational benefits to
anglers associated with the expected changes in water quality range
from $82,000 to $290,000 ($2001). EPA evaluates these recreational
benefits by applying a model that considers the increase in value of a
``contaminant-free fishery'' to recreational anglers resulting from the
elimination of all pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC at one of
the fifteen receiving streams. EPA estimated the monetized value of
impaired recreational fishing opportunity by first calculating the
baseline value of the receiving stream using a value per person day of
recreational fishing, and the number of person-days fished on the
receiving stream. EPA then calculated the value of improving water
quality in this fishery, based on the increase in value to anglers of
achieving contaminant-free fishing.
In addition, EPA estimates that the annual monetized intrinsic
benefits to the general public, as a result of the same improvements in
water quality, range from at least $41,000 to $145,000 ($2001). These
intrinsic benefits are estimated as half of the recreational benefits
and may be under or overestimated.

D. Effect on POTW Operations

EPA considers two potential sources of benefits to POTWs from this
final regulation: (1) reductions in the likelihood of interference,
pass through, and biosolid contamination problems; and (2) reductions
in costs potentially incurred by POTWs in analyzing toxic pollutants
and determining whether to, and the appropriate level at which to, set
local limits.
EPA has concluded from its analysis that under current conditions,
POTW operations (interference) and biosolid quality are not
significantly affected by discharges from any of the eight modeled iron
and steel mills. EPA, therefore, projects no potential economic
benefits from reduced biosolid disposal costs. This will also be true
once facilities come into compliance with today's regulation.

E. Other Benefits Not Quantified

The benefit analyses focus mainly on identified compounds with
quantifiable toxic or carcinogenic effects. This

[[Page 64252]]

potentially leads to an underestimation of benefits, because some
pollutant characterizations are not considered. Forexample, the
analyses do not include the benefits associated with incidental removal
of the particulate load (measured as TSS), or the oxygen demand
(measured as BOD₅ and COD) of the effluents. TSS loads can
degrade ecological habitat by reducing light penetration and primary
productivity, and from accumulation of solid particles that alter
benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. BOD₅ and COD
loads can deplete oxygen levels, which can produce mortality or other
adverse effects in fish, as well as reduce biological diversity.

F. Summary of Benefits

EPA estimates that the annual monetized benefits, at the national
level, resulting from this final rule range from $1.4 million to $7.3
million ($2001). Table XI.F.1 summarizes these benefits, by category.
The range reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the effects of this
final rule and in placing a dollar value on these effects. As indicated
in Table XI.F.1, these monetized benefits ranges do not reflect some
benefit categories, including improved ecological conditions from
improvements in water quality, improvements to recreational activities
(other than fishing), and reduced discharges of conventional
pollutants. Therefore, the reported benefit estimate may understate the
total benefits of this final rule.

Table XI.F.1--Potential Economic Benefits (National Level)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of 2001 dollars per
Benefit category year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Cancer Risk..................... 1.3-6.9
Reduced Noncarcinogenic Hazard.......... Unquantified
Improved Ecological Conditions.......... Unquantified
Improved Recreational Value............. 0.08-0.29
Improved Intrinsic Value................ 0.04-0.15

-------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits............ 1.4-7.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act require EPA to consider non-
water quality environmental impacts associated with effluent
limitations guidelines and standards. In accordance with these
requirements, EPA has considered the potential impact of today's
technical options on air emissions, solid waste generation, and energy
consumption. While it is difficult to balance environmental impacts
across all media and energy use, the Agency has determined that the
impacts identified below are acceptable in light of the benefits
associated with compliance with the final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards.

A. Air Pollution

Various subcategories within the iron and steel industry generate
process waters that contain significant concentrations of organic and
inorganic compounds, some of which are listed as Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAPs) in Title III of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of
1990. The Agency has developed National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) under section 112 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) that address air emissions of HAPs for certain manufacturing
operations. Subcategories within the iron and steel industry where
NESHAPs are applicable include cokemaking (58 FR 57898, October 1993)
and steel finishing with chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing
(60 FR 4948, January 1995).
For the cokemaking subcategory, maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards were proposed by EPA on July 3, 2001 (66 FR
35326) for pushing, quenching, and battery stacks at cokemaking plants.
These regulations are currently scheduled for promulgation in December
2002. Like effluent guidelines, MACT standards are technology based.
The CAA sets maximum control requirements on which MACT can be based
for new and existing sources. By-products recovery operations in the
cokemaking subcategory remove the majority of HAPs through processes
that collect tar, heavy and light oils, ammonium sulfate and elemental
sulfur. Ammonia removal by steam stripping could generate a potential
air quality issue if uncontrolled; however, ammonia stripping
operations at cokemaking facilities capture vapors and convert ammonia
to either an inorganic salt or anhydrous ammonia, or destroy the
ammonia.
Biological treatment of cokemaking wastewater can potentially emit
hazardous air pollutants if significant concentrations of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) are present. To estimate the maximum annual
air emissions from biological treatment, EPA multiplied the individual
concentrations of all VOCs in cokemaking wastewater entering the
biological treatment system by the maximum design flow and the
operational period reported in the U.S. EPA Collection of 1997 Iron and
Steel Industry Data. EPA determined the concentrations of the
individual VOCs entering the biological treatment systems from the
sampling episode data. Assuming all the VOCs entering the biological
treatment systems are emitted to the atmosphere (no biological
degradation), the maximum VOC emission rate would be approximately
1,800 pounds per year for all facilities. EPA believes that this is an
overestimate, because VOCs can be degraded through biological
treatment. EPA concludes that, even if this likely overestimate of VOC
emission rate were accurate, this would be an acceptable rate of
emissions that would not have a significant impact on the environment.
See TDD, Chapter 15.
For the subcategories for which EPA is not revising effluent
limitations guidelines and standards today, EPA does not project any
change in air emissions. For the mills without cokemaking operations
that are affected by revisions to part 420 (sintering, steelmaking,
forging, direct reduced iron (DRI) manufacturing, and briquetting), EPA
anticipates that facilities that employ the model technologies will
experience no increase in air emissions. As such, no adverse air
impacts are expected to occur as a result of the revised regulations.

[[Page 64253]]

B. Solid Waste

Solid waste, including hazardous and nonhazardous sludge and waste
oil, will be generated from a number of the model treatment
technologies used to develop today's effluent limitations guidelines
and standards. These solids will need to be disposed of and may be
subject to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions if they are
characteristically hazardous. Solid wastes include sludge from
biological treatment systems, clarification systems, gravity
separation, mixed-media filtration, and oil/water separation systems.
EPA accounted for the associated costs related to on-site recovery and
off-site treatment and disposal of the solid wastes generated due to
the implementation of the various technology options. These costs were
included in the economic evaluation for the part 420 regulation.
Biological nitrification included in the technology basis for
cokemaking by-product segment will produce a biological treatment
sludge that facilities would need to dispose. EPA estimates that
approximately 190 tons (dry wt.) per year of additional biological
treatment sludge will be generated by the cokemaking subcategory as a
result of today's rule. These non-hazardous biological treatment sludge
can be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill, recycled to the coke ovens
for incineration, or land applied.
Additional solids captured by roughing clarifiers and sand or
mixed-media filters for sintering and forging operations will account
for less than an additional 0.08 percent of the solids currently being
collected.
Data provided in the industry surveys indicate the total annual
sludge and scale production from all iron and steel facilities to be
3,522,500 tons/year (dry weight). Solids removal equipment associated
with the promulgated options for this rule is expected to generate less
than 277 tons per year of additional dry wastewater treatment sludge.
Consequently, EPA has concluded no adverse solid waste impacts are
expected to occur as a result of today's regulation.

C. Energy Requirements

EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation will result in a
net increase in energy consumption at iron and steel facilities. The
maximum estimated increased energy use by listed subcategories is
presented in Table XII.1. The costs associated with these energy
requirements are included in EPA's estimated operating costs for
compliance with today's rule. The projected increase in energy
consumption is primarily due to the incorporation of components such as
pumps, mixers, blowers, and fans.

Table XII.1--Additional Energy Requirements by Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
required
Subcategory (million
kilowatt
hours/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cokemaking \1\............................................ 17
Sintering \2\............................................. 4
Other Operations \3\...................................... 0.01
-------------
Total................................................... 21.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BAT-1 and PSES-1
\2\ BAT-1 and PSES-1
\3\ Other operations include DRI, briquetting, and forging

Approximately 3,100,000 million kilowatt hours of electric power
were generated in the United States in 1997 (Energy Information
Administration, Electric Power Annual 1998 Volume 1, Table A1). Total
additional energy needs for all cokemaking, sintering, DRI,
briquetting, and forging facilities to comply with this rule correspond
to less than 0.001 percent of the national energy demand. The increase
in energy demand due to the implementation of this rule will in turn
cause an air emission impact from the electric power generation
facilities. The increase in air emissions is expected to be
proportional to the increase in energy requirements. Consequently, EPA
has concluded no adverse energy impacts are expected to occur as a
result of today's regulation.

XIII. Regulatory Implementation

A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards

1. Introduction
Effluent limitations and pretreatment standards act as a primary
mechanism to control the discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States. These limitations and standards are applied to
individual facilities through NPDES permits issued by the EPA or
authorized States under Section 402 of the Act and through local
pretreatment programs under Section 307 of the Act.
In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority or local POTW may
elect to establish technology-based permit limits or local limits for
pollutants not covered by this regulation. In addition, if State water
quality standards or other provisions of State or Federal law require
limits on pollutants not covered by this regulation (or require more
stringent limits or standards on covered pollutants to achieve
compliance), the permitting authority must apply those limitations or
standards. See CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C).
2. Compliance Dates
New and reissued Federal and State NPDES permits to direct
dischargers must include the effluent limitations promulgated today.
The permits must require immediate compliance with such limitations. If
the permitting authority wishes to provide a compliance schedule, it
must do so through an enforcement mechanism. Existing indirect
dischargers must comply with today's pretreatment standards no later
than October 17, 2005. New direct and indirect discharging sources must
comply with applicable limitations and standards on the date the new
sources begin operations. New direct and indirect sources are those
that began construction of iron and steel operations affected by
today's rule after November 18, 2002. See 65 FR at 82027.
3. Applicability
In Section VI, EPA provided detailed information on the
applicability of this rule to various operations. Permit writers and
pretreatment authorities should closely examine all iron and steel
operations to determine if they are subject to the provisions of this
rule. Also see 40 CFR 420.01.
4. Production Basis for Calculation of Permit Limitations
The NPDES permit regulations at Sec. 122.45(f) require that NPDES
permit effluent limitations be specified as mass effluent limitations
(e.g., lbs/day or kg/day), except under certain enumerated
circumstances that do not apply here. In order to convert the final
effluent limitations expressed as pounds/thousand pounds to a monthly
average or daily maximum permit limit, the permitting authority would
use a production rate with units of thousand pounds/day. The current
part 420 and Sec. 122.45(b)(2) NPDES permit regulations require that
pretreatment requirements and NPDES permit limits, respectively, be
based on a ``* * * reasonable measure of actual production.''
The 1982 iron and steel regulation at 40 CFR 420.04 sets out the
basis for calculating mass-based pretreatment requirements and requires
that they be based on a reasonable measure of actual production. That
regulation provides the following examples of what may constitute a
reasonable measure of actual production: the monthly average for the
highest of the previous five years, or the high month of the previous
year. Similar provisions exist in the

[[Page 64254]]

national pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403.6(c)(3) for deriving
mass-based pretreatment requirements. Specifically, 40 CFR 403.6(c)(3)
states that the same production of flow figure shall be used in
calculating limitations based on pretreatment standards. These values
are converted to a daily basis (e.g., tons/day) for purposes of
calculating mass-based pretreatment requirements. EPA is making no
revision to 420.04.
5. Water Bubble
The ``water bubble'' is a regulatory flexibility mechanism
described in the current regulation at 40 CFR 420.03 to allow for
trading of identical pollutants at any single steel facility with
multiple compliance points. The bubble has been used at some facilities
to realize cost savings and/or to facilitate compliance. The
restrictions on use of the water bubble are described in the proposal
preamble. See 65 FR at 82031-32.
While at present NPDES permits for only nine facilities have
alternative effluent limitations derived from the water bubble, there
may be increased interest in the water bubble with the promulgation of
today's rule. EPA proposed some changes to the water bubble, but
invited comment on all aspects of the provision. These changes EPA
proposed and EPA's rationale are discussed at 65 FR at 82031-32. EPA
received some comments opposing some of the proposed revisions
(generally industry commenters were supportive of expansions of the
water bubble and environmental group commenters were supportive of
restrictions on the water bubble). EPA also received comments urging
the elimination of the provision codified in the 1984 amendment to part
420 that required a minimum net reduction of the amount of the
pollutant otherwise authorized by the regulation. Under this provision,
the amount of the pollutant discharges authorized by the bubble must be
10% to 15% less than the discharges otherwise authorized by the rule
without the bubble. These comments argued that the water bubble should
be used, first and foremost, as a tool to achieve the pollutant
reductions required by the guideline at the least cost.
After considering the public comments, EPA makes the following
changes to the water bubble:

--Allow trades for cokemaking operations but only if the cokemaking
alternative limitations are more stringent than the limitations in
Subpart A. See 40 CFR 420.03(f)(1).
--Allow trades for new Subpart M operations. See 40 CFR 420.03(a) and
(e).
--Allow trades involving cold rolling operations. See 40 CFR 420.03(a).
--Allow trades for new, as well as existing, sources. See 40 CFR
420.03(a).
--Eliminate the minimum net reduction provision (formerly codified at
40 CFR 420.03(b)).
--Prohibit trades of oil and grease. See 40 CFR 420.03(c).
--Prohibit trades of 2,3,7,8-TCDF in sintering operations. See 40 CFR
420.03(f)(2).

The first change reflects EPA's concern about co-occurring
contaminants in cokemaking wastewater (e.g., benzo(a)anthracene,
chrysene, fluoranthene for cokemaking). Allowing a relaxation of the
limits for cokemaking wastewater could allow undetected increases in
discharges of these co-occurring contaminants that would not
necessarily be offset by tighter limits on the regulated pollutants in
another waste stream. As was the case in the 1982 regulation, EPA is
promulgating effluent limitations for certain ``indicator'' pollutants,
including phenols (4AAP), naphthalene, and benzo(a)pyrene for
cokemaking. The data available to EPA generally show that control of
the selected ``indicator'' pollutants will result in comparable control
of other toxic pollutants found in cokemaking wastewaters but not
specifically limited. A trade of phenols (4AAP) enacted between
cokemaking and ironmaking wastewaters would not be environmentally
protective if the increased limitation for phenols (4AAP) occurred in
the cokemaking wastewater, due to the co-occuring contaminants. EPA
also notes that trades involving cokemaking operations were previously
precluded, so this change is an expansion in the water bubble.
EPA is allowing trades involving cold rolling operations which were
previously precluded. In the 1982 rulemaking, tetrachloroethlylene was
a pollutant of concern in cold rolling wastewaters, thus leading to the
preclusion of trades. However, this is not the case today, based on
information in the Agency's rulemaking record and Chapter 7 of the TDD.
EPA likewise is allowing trades involving Subcategory M operations,
since no toxic pollutants were identified as pollutants of concern.
EPA is eliminating the requirement that all alternative effluent
limitations based on the water bubble must achieve a minimum net
reduction (depending on the pollutant) of at least 10-15% of the
discharges that would otherwise have been allowable under the
regulation. EPA is eliminating the requirement in order to allow the
water bubble provision to be used as a tool to achieve the pollutant
reductions required by Part 420 at the least cost. This new flexibility
is especially important in view of the economic condition of the
industry at this time. EPA notes that nothing in the regulation
prevents the permitting authority from imposing minimum net reductions
on a case-by-case basis when appropriate. EPA also notes that the water
bubble still retains the provision that a discharger cannot qualify for
alternative effluent limitations if the application of such alternative
effluent limitations would cause or contribute to an exceedance of any
applicable water quality standards.
EPA is prohibiting trades involving oil and grease because of
differences in the types of oil and grease used among the I&S
operations. Finishing operations tend to use and discharge synthetic
and animal fats and oils used to lubricate metal materials, the hot-end
operations tend to discharge petroleum-based oil and grease used to
lubricate machinery, and cokemaking operations tend to discharge oil
and grease containing polynuclear aromatics generated by the combustion
of coal. EPA is similarly prohibiting trades involving 2,3,7,8-TCDF due
to the internal monitoring requirements and the associated ML
limitation.
EPA concludes that these changes will give added compliance
flexibility to facilities that choose to take advantage of the water
bubble provision, while still providing for a high level of
environmental protection.
6. Compliance With Limitations and Standards
The same basic procedures apply to the calculation of all effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for this industry, regardless of
whether the technology is BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, PSNS, or NSPS. For
simplicity, the following discussion refers only to effluent
limitations guidelines; however, the discussion also applies to
pretreatment and new source standards.
a. Definitions
The limitations for pollutants for each option, as presented in
today's notice, are provided as maximum daily discharge limitations and
maximum monthly average discharge limitations. Definitions provided in
40 CFR 122.2 state that the ``maximum daily discharge limitation'' is
the ``highest allowable ``daily discharge'' `` and the `` maximum
average for monthly discharge limitation'' is the ``highest allowable
average of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, calculated as
the sum

[[Page 64255]]

of all ``daily discharges'' measured during a calendar month divided by
the number of ``daily discharges'' measured during that month.'' Daily
discharge is defined as the ``discharge of a pollutant'' measured
during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents
the calendar day for purposes of sampling.''
b. Percentile Basis for Limits, Not Compliance
EPA promulgates limitations that facilities are capable of
complying with at all times by properly operating and maintaining their
processes and treatment technologies. EPA established these limitations
on the basis of percentiles estimated using data from facilities with
well-operated and controlled processes and treatment systems. However,
because EPA uses a percentile basis, the issue of exceedances (i.e.,
values that exceed the limitations) or excursions is often raised in
public comments on limitations. For example, comments often suggest
that EPA include a provision that allows a facility to be considered in
compliance with permit limitations if its discharge exceeds the
specified monthly average limitations one month out of 20 and the daily
average limitations one day out of 100. As explained in Section 14.6 of
the TDD, these limitations were never intended to have the rigid
probabilistic interpretation implied by such comments. The following
discussion provides a brief overview of EPA's position on this issue.
EPA expects that all facilities subject to the limitations will
design and operate their treatment systems to achieve the long-term
average performance level on a consistent basis because facilities with
well-designed and operated model technologies have demonstrated that
this can be done. Facilities that are designed and operated to achieve
the long-term average effluent levels used in developing the
limitations should be capable of compliance with the limitations at all
times, because the limitations incorporate an allowance for variability
in effluent levels about the long-term average. The allowance for
variability is based on control of treatment variability demonstrated
in normal operations.
EPA recognizes that, as a result of modifications to 40 CFR part
420, some dischargers may need to improve treatment systems, process
controls, and/or treatment system operations in order to consistently
meet effluent limitations based on revised effluent limitations
guidelines and standards. EPA believes that this consequence is
consistent with the Clean Water Act statutory framework, which requires
that discharge limitations reflect the best available technology.
c. Requirements of Laboratory Analysis
The permittee is responsible for communicating the requirements of
the analysis to the laboratory, including the sensitivity required to
meet the regulatory limits associated with each analyte of interest. In
turn, the laboratory is responsible for employing the appropriate set
of method options and a calibration range in which the concentration of
the lowest non-zero standard represents a sample concentration lower
than the regulatory limit for each analyte. For example, EPA Methods
420.1 and 420.2 provide several options for sample preparation and
analysis, including a preliminary distillation designed to remove
interferences and a chloroform extraction procedure (Method 420.1)
designed to improve the sensitivity of the method. Both methods also
provide information on the concentrations of the calibration standards
that may be prepared for a given set of procedural options. Each of
these methods contains at least one set of options that will provide
sufficient sensitivity to meet the effluent guideline limitations for
phenols (4AAP). Thus, it is the responsibility of the permittee to
convey to the laboratory the required sensitivity to comply with the
limitations. (See Sierra Club v. Union Oil, 813 F.2d 1480, page 1492
(9th Cir. 1987).) For organic compounds, such as 2,3,7,8-TCDF,
naphthalene, and benzo(a)pyrene, it may be necessary for laboratories
to overcome interferences using procedures such as those suggested in
Guidance on the Evaluation, Resolution, and Documentation of Analytical
Problems Associated with Compliance Monitoring (EPA 821-B-93-001).
7. Internal Monitoring Requirements and Compliance With ML Limitations
for Sintering Subcategory
Working in conjunction with the effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards are the monitoring conditions set out in the
NPDES or POTW discharge permit. An integral part of monitoring
conditions is the point at which a facility must demonstrate
compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can have a
dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility. In some
cases, EPA determines that internal monitoring points are necessary to
afford the environmental protection projected from a rule, and to
reflect the reductions achievable by application of the best available
technology. Authority to address internal waste streams is provided in
40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii), 122.45(h), and 40 CFR 403.6(e)(2) and (4).
Permit writers or local pretreatment control authorities may establish
additional internal monitoring points to the extent consistent with
EPA's regulations.
As explained in Section VIII.B, iron and steel dischargers subject
to the sintering subcategory must demonstrate compliance with the
effluent limitations and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF at the point after
treatment of sinter plant wastewater separately or in combination with
blast furnace wastewater, but prior to mixing with process wastewaters
from processes other than sintering and ironmaking, non-process
wastewaters and non-contact cooling water in an amount greater than 5
percent by volume of the sintering process wastewaters. See 40 CFR
420.29.
In today's rulemaking for the sintering subcategory, EPA is
establishing limitation and standard for 2,3,7,8-TCDF that is expressed
as less than the Minimum Level (``<ML''). See 40 CFR 420.23, 420.24,
420.25, 420.26. Henceforth, this discussion refers to the ``ML''
limitation. The ``ML'' is an abbreviation for the Minimum Level
identified today in Sec. 420.21(c) for the analytical method that EPA
used to determine the level of pollution reduction achievable for
2,3,7,8-TCDF through the use of BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS technologies
for subpart B. EPA intends for mills subject to ML limitations to have
pollutant discharges with concentrations less than the Minimum Level of
the analytical method specified today in Sec. 420.21(c).
Often, laboratories report values less than minimum levels to be
``not detected'' or ``<ML.'' In some cases, however, the laboratories
report these values as if the values were quantified. For example, a
laboratory might report a measurement that is 4 parts per quadrillion
(ppq). Such reported values might occur in two situations. In the first
situation, the laboratory could have used EPA Method 1613B (which is
the method specified in Sec. 420.21(c)), but referred to the
measurement as ``detected'' although it was less than the Minimum
Level. The second situation could occur in the future as the analytical
methods become more sensitive than the method specified in Sec.
420.21(c). Using such future methods could conceivably allow
laboratories to reliably measure values less than today's minimum level
of 10 ppq. Such measurements resulting from either situation would be
considered to demonstrate compliance with the ML limitations, because
these

[[Page 64256]]

measurements are less than the method ML of 10 ppq specified in Sec.
420.21(c).
When monitoring for compliance with this final rule, a sample-
specific Minimum Level greater than the method Minimum Level of 10 ppq
will not demonstrate compliance with the ML limitation for 2,3,7,8-
TCDF. Such sample-specific Minimum Levels may result from sample volume
shortages, breakage or other problems in the laboratory, or from
failure to properly remove analytical interferences from the sample.
EPA believes that all of these situations can be avoided by careful
adherence to sample collection and laboratory analysis procedures.
Table XIII.A.1 provides some examples demonstrating compliance with
the ML limitation for 2,3,7,8-TCDF.

Table XIII.A.1.--Examples Demonstrating Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is concentration reported as 2,3,7,8-TCDF value
``detected'' or ``non-detected'' reported by laboratory Does the sample Explanation for compliance
in the sample? (ML is 10 ppq) demonstrate compliance? determination:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detected 4 ppq Yes 4 ppq is less than the ML
of 10 ppq specified in
Sec. 420.21(c).
Detected 10 ppq No Compliance is demonstrated
only with measurements
less than the ML of 10 ppq
specified in Sec.
420.21(c).
Non-detected <5 ppq Yes <5 ppq is less than the ML
of 10 ppq specified in
Sec. 420.21(c).
Non-detected <10 ppq Yes Compliance is demonstrated
for all values less than
the ML specified in Sec.
420.21(c).
Non-detected <11 ppq No The sample-specific ML must
be less than the ML of 10
ppq specified in Sec.
420.21(c).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA did not establish monthly average limitations and standards for
2,3,7,8-TCDF because the daily maximum limitations and standards for
these pollutants are expressed as less than the Minimum Level (<ML).
The purpose of a monthly average limitations is to require continuous
dischargers to provide better control, on a monthly basis, than
required by the daily maximum limitation. However, for these
pollutants, today's analytical methods cannot measure below the minimum
level of 10 ppq associated with the daily maximum limitation. Thus,
even if a permitting or pretreatment authority requires more frequent
monitoring for these pollutants than once a month, monthly average
limitations would still be expressed as <ML.
8. Implementation for Iron and Steel Facilities Subject to Multiple
Effluent Limitations Guidelines or Pretreatment Standards
For determination of permit limits where multiple categories apply,
the effluent guidelines are applied using a flow-weighted combination
of the appropriate limitation for each category (i.e., ``the building
block approach''). Where a facility treats an iron and steel
wastestream together with process wastewater from other non-iron and
steel industrial operations, the effluent guidelines would be applied
by using a flow-weighted combination of the BPT/BAT limitations for the
iron and steel facility and the other non-iron and steel industrial
operation to derive the appropriate limitations. Similarly, for
indirect dischargers, under these circumstances, the pretreatment
standards would be applied using the ``combined wastestream formula''
as defined in 40 CFR 403.6(e).
9. Revisions Affecting Certain Steelmaking Operations
Until today's rule, the BPT, BCT, and BAT limitations for the
``basic oxygen furnace steelmaking `` semi-wet'' segment of the
steelmaking subcategory (Subpart D) specified no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable waters. For reasons discussed in
Section VIII.D, EPA is revising those limitations to provide an
alternate limitation to the ``no discharge'' requirement, based on best
professional judgment of the permitting authority or the pretreatment
control authority. The new limitations are less stringent than the
limitations they replace.
EPA's NPDES permitting regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(l) require
that, when an NPDES permit is renewed or reissued, the new limitations
must be at least as stringent as the limitations in the previous permit
unless the circumstances on which the previous permit was based have
materially and substantially changed since the time the permit was
issued and would constitute cause for permit modification or revocation
and reissuance under 40 CFR 122.62. The regulations at 40 CFR 122.62
authorize the permitting authority to modify an NPDES permit during its
term when (a) the permit condition requested to be modified is based on
a promulgated effluent limitation guideline; (b) EPA has revised the
effluent limitation guideline upon which the permit condition was
based; and (c) the permittee requests the modification in accordance
with 40 CFR 124.5 within 90 days after the Federal Register notice of
the action on which the modification request is based. See 40 CFR
122.62(a)(3).
In today's rule, EPA is revising effluent limitations guidelines
that provide the legal basis for certain limitations in permits issued
to facilities in the steelmaking subcategory. These revisions would
constitute cause for modification of the corresponding permit
conditions under 40 CFR 122.62(a)(3). Therefore, direct dischargers to
which these revisions apply are not subject to the requirement in 40
CFR 122.44(l) that limitations in reissued permit for those parameters
or operations be as stringent as the limitations in the previous
permit. This means that when an NPDES permit is reissued for an
operation affected by the revisions discussed above, the permitting
authority may impose new limitations that reflect the new less
stringent requirements of today's rule.
EPA is also eliminating limitations and standards for benzene for
the by-product cokemaking segment of the cokemaking subcategory. That
change is not subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 122.44(l) because the
revision is based on EPA's judgment that limitations on other
parameters should ensure removal of benzene at levels specified by the
original benzene limitations. See Section VIII.A.3.a.
10. Non-Process Wastewater and Storm Water in the Immediate Process
Area
EPA has provided a definition of non-process wastewaters at Sec.
420.02(r). When developing NPDES and pretreatment limitations, permit
writers and pretreatment control authorities are

[[Page 64257]]

authorized to use their best professional judgment to include increased
mass discharge allowances to account for certain non-process
wastewaters when they are appropriately cotreated with process
wastewaters using best professional judgement. Non-process wastewaters
may include utility wastewaters (for example, water treatment
residuals, boiler blowdown, and air pollution control wastewaters from
heat recovery equipment); treated or untreated wastewaters from
groundwater remediation systems; dewatering water for building
foundations; and other wastewater streams not associated with a
production process. When considering such non-process wastewaters,
permit writers and pretreatment control authorities should determine
whether they contain process wastewater pollutants, or whether they
would simply be dilution flows. For example, wastewater from coke plant
groundwater remediation systems would be expected to contain coke plant
wastewater pollutants, whereas building foundation dewatering water
would be expected to be relatively clean. In the former case, the
permit writer or pretreatment control authority may include additional
mass discharges based on the average groundwater remediation flow and
the concentrations used by EPA to develop the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards in developing the mass limits. In the latter
case, no increase in mass discharges may be appropriate.
EPA has provided a definition of storm water in the immediate
process area at Sec. 420.02(t). EPA has included provisions in the
regulation for permit writers and pretreatment control authorities to
provide for additional mass discharge allowances for process area storm
water, when they deem appropriate. With advances in storm water
pollution prevention and spill prevention and control, collecting and
treating limited amounts of process area storm water with process
wastewaters is the most practicable and effective means of limiting
discharges of contaminated storm water. This is particularly the case
for by-product recovery coke plants, where contaminated storm water is
typically collected from the following operations: tar decanters,
ammonia liquor storage, crude tar storage, crude light oil recovery
(benzol plant), crude light oil storage, ammonia recovery, ammonium
sulfate recovery, and others. Storm water collected from these areas
often contains oil & grease and some of the nonconventional and toxic
pollutants associated with the by-product recovery processes (e.g.,
ammonia, cyanide, phenolic compounds, and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons). As a result, many coke plants commonly collect storm
water from these areas and pump it to the process wastewater
equalization tank for treatment with process wastewaters. Because the
levels of contaminants and dissolved salts in the collected storm water
are relatively low compared to those found in process wastewaters,
facilities can also temporarily use storm water in lieu of
uncontaminated water to optimize of biological treatment systems. EPA
has provided guidance on process area storm water at by-product
recovery coke plants in Section 17 of the Final TDD and will provide
additional guidance in a separate guidance document.
For other iron and steel processes, EPA believes it is prudent to
collect storm water from the area within outdoor wastewater treatment
facilities, particularly where wastewater treatment sludges are
dewatered and handled at blast furnaces, sinter plants, steelmaking
operations, hot forming mills (scale and oil removal as well as
wastewater treatment), and steel finishing wastewater treatment plants.
EPA does not advocate unrestricted collection and treatment of
process area storm water with process waters, either at by-product
recovery coke plants or at facilities in other subcategories. For
example, by-product recovery and non-recovery coke plants should use
conventional storm water control measures to handle coal and coke pile
runoff, storm water from the battery areas, and storm water collected
away from the by-products recovery areas. Other examples of storm water
that would be either impracticable or uneconomic to treat in process
wastewater treatment facilities include building roof storm drainage
from hot forming and steel finishing mills and storm drainage from raw
material storage areas and plant roadways.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations
concerning bypasses and upsets for direct dischargers are set forth at
40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16
and 403.17.

C. Variances and Modifications

Upon the promulgation of these regulations, all new and reissued
Federal and State NPDES permits issued to direct dischargers in the
iron and steel industry must include the effluent limitations. In
addition, the indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment
standards for existing sources codified today by November 18, 2002.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variances
The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations
established pursuant to Section 301 or the pretreatment standards of
Section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in
a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established
administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the
application of national effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for priority,
conventional, and non-conventional pollutants.
EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual existing
discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors
considered in establishing the limitations or standards applicable to
the individual facility. Such a modification is known as a
``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF) variance.
Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and non-
conventional pollutants, and BCT limitations for conventional
pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA
provided for FDF modifications from pretreatment standards for existing
facilities. FDF variances for priority pollutants were challenged
judicially and ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court (Chemical
Manufacturers Ass'n v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new
Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or national effluent
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in
Section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standards.

[[Page 64258]]

Section 301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may
establish alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an
application for approval of FDF variance must be based solely on (1)
information submitted during the rulemaking raising the factors that
are fundamentally different, or (2) information the applicant did not
have an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard
must be no less stringent than justified by the difference, and not
result in markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts
than the national limitation or standard.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125 subpart D, authorizing the EPA
Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and
standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF
variance requests for existing direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR
125.31(d) identifies six factors (for example, volume of process
wastewater, age, and size of a discharger's facility) that may be
considered in determining if a facility is fundamentally different. The
Agency must determine whether, on the basis of one or more of these
factors, the facility in question is fundamentally different from the
facilities and factors considered by the EPA in developing the
nationally applicable effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists
four other factors (for example, infeasibility of installation within
the time allowed or a discharger's ability to pay) that may not provide
a basis for an FDF variance. In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), a
request for limitations less stringent than the national limitation may
be approved only if compliance with the national limitations would
result in either (a) a removal cost wholly out of proportion to the
removal cost considered during development of the national limitations,
or (b) a non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements) fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered
during development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for
an FDF variance for existing indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The
conditions for approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment
standards and factors considered are the same as those for direct
dischargers.
The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact,
fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulations
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or
PSNS.
2. Water Quality Variances
Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent
guidelines for certain non-conventional pollutants due to localized
environmental factors so long as the discharge does not violate any
water quality-based effluent limitations. These pollutants include
ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and phenols (4AAP). Dischargers subject
to new or revised BAT limitations promulgated today for those
pollutants may be eligible for a section 301(g) variance. Please note
that section 301(g)(4)(c) requires the filing of section 301(g)
variance applications pertaining to the new or revised limits not later
than July 14, 2003. Existing section 301(g) variances for limitations
not being revised today are not affected by today's action.
3. Permit Modifications
Even after EPA (or an authorized State) has issued a final permit
to a direct discharger, the permit may still be modified under certain
conditions. (When a permit modification is under consideration,
however, all other permit conditions remain in effect.) A permit
modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could
include a regulatory inspection or information submitted by the
permittee that reveals the need for modification. There are two
classifications of modifications: major and minor. From a procedural
standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public notice
requirements. Major modifications require public notice while minor
modifications do not. Virtually any modification that results in less
stringent conditions is treated as a major modification, with
provisions for public notice and comment. Conditions that would
necessitate a major modification of a permit are described in 40 CFR
122.62. Minor modifications are generally non-substantive changes. The
conditions for minor modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.

XIV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency Initiatives

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' As
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in
the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business based on
full time employees (FTEs) or annual revenues established by SBA; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-

[[Page 64259]]

profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No small
governments are regulated by this action. EPA identified an estimated
five small companies (owning five facilities) out of the 22 companies
that may be affected by the final rule. For small entities, EPA
examined the cost to revenue ratio to identify the impacts of the
today's rule on small entities. EPA has determined that none of the
five small entities will experience an impact of 1% or greater ratio of
costs to revenue. Further, EPA has fully evaluated the economic impact
of the final rule to affected small entities. The economic
achievability analysis was conducted using a discounted cash flow
approach for facility analysis and the Altman Z' test for the firm
analysis (for a full discussion, see Section X.C.). EPA projects that
no small entities will incur a significant impact such as facility
closure or firm failure.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
Section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed,
under Section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan
must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. EPA has estimated total annualized costs of the
final rule as $12.0 million ($2001). Thus, today's rule is not subject
to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. No small governments are subject to this rule. The final
rule, at most, imposes only minimal administrative requirements on
small local governments that are administering approved pretreatment
programs. The final rule does not uniquely affect small governments
because small and large governments are affected in the same way. Thus,
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of Section 203 of the
UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
There are no new information collection reporting requirements for
facilities that comply with the limits in any of the subcategories.
However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously
approved the information collection requirements and burden contained
in the regulation under ``National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)/Compliance Assessment/Certification Information'' ICR
(EPA ICR No.1427.05; OMB Control No. 2040-0110) and in the ``National
Pretreatment Program (40 CFR part 403)'' ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.081; OMB
Control No. 2040-0009) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Copies of the ICR documents may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, by
mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, or by email at
farmer.sandy@epa.gov. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at
http://www.epa.gov/icr. Include the ICR and/or OMB number in any
correspondence.
Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended
by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), (Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
Today's rule does not establish any technical standards. Thus,
NTTAA does not apply to this rule. It should be noted, however, that
dischargers complying with this rule may need to use previously
approved technical standards to analyze for some or all of the
following pollutants: benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene, phenols (4AAP), TSS,
Oil and Grease (HEM), total cyanide, ammonia as Nitrogen, 2,3,7,8-TCDF,
and pH. Consensus

[[Page 64260]]

standards have already been promulgated in tables at 40 CFR 136.3 for
measurement of all of the analytes.

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

The Executive Order ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is neither
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.
Further, it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk
that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on
children.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. EPA determined no facilities in the scope of the
final rule are owned by Indian tribes nor are any facilities located in
tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule only directly affects
the private sector. It establishes effluent limitations for iron and
steel facilities. The rule does not apply directly to States and
localities and will only affect State and local governments when they
are administering CWA permitting programs. The rule, at most, imposes
minimal administrative costs on States that have an authorized NPDES
program. (These States must incorporate the new limitations and
standards in new and reissued NPDES permits.) Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.

I. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The
maximum estimated additional energy needs associated with today's rule
represents less than 0.001 percent of national energy demand, which is
not considered significant.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States.
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective November 18, 2002.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 420

Environmental protection, Iron, Steel, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.

Dated: April 30, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 420--IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

1. The authority citation for part 420 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: Secs. 301; 304(b), (c), (e), and (g); 306(b) and (c);
307; 308 and 501 of the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972., as amended by the Clean Water Act
of 1977) (the ``Act''); 33 U.S.C. 1311; 1314(b), (c), (e), and (g);
1316(b) and (c); 1317; 1318, 1361; 86 Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92-500; 91
Stat. 1567; Pub. L. 95-217.

General Provisions

2. Section 420.02 is amended by adding paragraphs (r), (s), (t) and
(u) to read as follows:

Sec. 420.02 General definitions.

* * * * *
(r) The term Non-process wastewaters means utility wastewaters (for
example, water treatment residuals, boiler blowdown, and air pollution
control wastewaters from heat recovery equipment); treated or untreated
wastewaters from groundwater remediation systems; dewatering water for
building foundations; and other wastewater streams not associated with
a production process.
(s) The term Nitrification means oxidation of ammonium salts to
nitrites (via Nitrosomas bacteria) and the further oxidation of nitrite
to nitrate via Nitrobacter bacteria. Nitrification can be accomplished
in either:
(1) A single or two-stage activated sludge wastewater treatment
system; or

[[Page 64261]]

(2) Wetlands specifically developed with a marsh/pond configuration
and maintained for the express purpose of removing ammonia-N.
Indicators of nitrification capability are:
(1) Biological monitoring for ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and
nitrite oxidizing bacteria (NOB) to determine if the nitrification is
occurring; and
(2) Analysis of the nitrogen balance to determine if nitrifying
bacteria reduce the amount of ammonia and increase the amount of
nitrite and nitrate.
(t) The term storm water from the immediate process area means
storm water that comes into contact with process equipment located
outdoors, storm water collected in process area and bulk storage tank
secondary containment structures, and storm water from wastewater
treatment systems located outdoors, provided that it has the potential
to become contaminated with process wastewater pollutants for the
particular subcategory. Storm water from building roofs, plant
roadways, and other storm waters that do not have the potential to
become contaminated with process wastewater pollutants are not storm
water from the immediate process area.
(u) The term 2,3,7,8-TCDF means 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran.

3. Revise Sec. 420.03 to read as follows:

Sec. 420.03 Alternative effluent limitations representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best practicable
control technology currently available, best available technology
economically achievable, best available demonstrated control
technology, and best conventional pollutant control technology (the
``water bubble'').

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this
section, any existing or new direct discharging point source subject to
this part may qualify for alternative effluent limitations to those
specified in subparts A through M of this part, representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT), best available technology
economically achievable (BAT), best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT), and best available demonstrated control technology
(NSPS). The alternative effluent limitations for each pollutant are
determined for a combination of outfalls by totaling the mass
limitations allowed under subparts A through M of this part for each
pollutant.
(b) The water bubble may be used to calculate alternative effluent
limitations only for identical pollutants (e.g., lead for lead, not
lead for zinc).
(c) Use of the water bubble to develop alternate effluent
limitations for oil & grease is prohibited.
(d) A discharger cannot qualify for alternative effluent
limitations if the application of such alternative effluent limitations
would cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water
quality standards.
(e) Each outfall from which process wastewaters are discharged must
have specific, fixed effluent limitations for each pollutant limited by
the applicable subparts A through M of this part.
(f) Subcategory-Specific Restrictions:
(1) There shall be no alternate effluent limitations for cokemaking
process wastewater unless the alternative limitations are more
stringent than the limitations in Subpart A of this part; and
(2) There shall be no alternate effluent limitations for 2,3,7,8-
TCDF in sintering process wastewater.

4. Add Sec. 420.07 to General Provision to read as follows:

Sec. 420.07 Effluent limitations guidelines and standards for pH.

(a) The pH level in process wastewaters subject to a subpart within
this part shall be within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.
(b) The pH level shall be monitored at the point of discharge to
the receiving water or at the point at which the wastewater leaves the
wastewater treatment facility operated to treat effluent subject to
that subpart.

5. Add Sec. 420.08 to General Provisions to read as follows:

Sec. 420.08 Non-process wastewater and storm water.

Permit and pretreatment control authorities may provide for
increased loadings for non-process wastewaters defined at Sec. 420.02
and for storm water from the immediate process area in NPDES permits
and pretreatment control mechanisms using best professional judgment,
but only to the extent such non-process wastewaters result in an
increased flow.

Subpart A--Cokemaking Subcategory

6. Section 420.10 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 420.10 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works
resulting from by-product and other cokemaking operations.

7. Section 420.11 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 420.11 Specialized definitions.

(a) For the cokemaking subcategory, the term product means the
production of coke plus coke breeze.
(b) The term by-product cokemaking means operations in which coal
is heated in the absence of air to produce metallurgical coke (furnace
coke and foundry coke), and the recovery of by-products derived from
the gases and liquids that are driven from the coal during cokemaking.
(c) The term cokemaking--non-recovery means cokemaking operations
for production of metallurgical coke (furnace coke and foundry coke)
without recovery of by-products. Does not include co-generation
facilities located at non-recovery coke facilities.
(d) The term coke means a processed form of coal that serves as the
basic fuel for the smelting of iron ore.
(1) The term foundry coke means coke produced for foundry
operations.
(2) The term furnace coke means coke produced for blast furnace
operations
(e) The term merchant coke plant means by-product cokemaking
operations that provide more than fifty percent of the coke produced to
operations, industries, or processes other than ironmaking blast
furnaces associated with steel production.
(f) The term iron and steel coke plant means by-product cokemaking
operations other than those at merchant coke plants.
(g) The term coke oven gas wet desulfurization system means those
systems that remove sulfur and sulfur compounds from coke oven gas and
generate process wastewater.
(h) The term coke breeze means fine coke particles.
(i) The term indirect ammonia recovery system means those systems
that recover ammonium hydroxide as a by-product from coke oven gases
and waste ammonia liquors.
(j) The term iron and steel means those by-product cokemaking
operations other than merchant cokemaking operations.
(k) The term merchant means those by-product cokemaking operations
that provide more than fifty percent of the coke produced to
operations, industries, or processes other than ironmaking blast
furnaces associated with steel production.
(l) The term O&G (as HEM) means total recoverable oil and grease
measured as n-hexane extractable material.
(m) The term wet desulfurization system means those systems that
remove sulfur compounds from coke oven gases and produce a contaminated
process wastewater.

[[Page 64262]]

8. Section 420.12 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec. 420.12 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable
technology currently available (BPT).

* * * * *
(c) Cokemaking--non-recovery. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this segment must
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT): There shall
be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.

9. Section 420.13 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 420.13 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).

Subpart A.--Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N.................................... 0.00293 0.00202
Benzo(a)pyrene............................... 0.0000110 0.00000612
Cyanide...................................... 0.00297 0.00208
Naphthalene.................................. 0.0000111 0.00000616
Phenols (4AAP)............................... 0.0000381 0.0000238
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per thousand lb of product.

(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 13.3 per cent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from coke oven
gas wet desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems
generate process wastewaters.
(2) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product
cokemaking wastewaters.
(3) Increased loadings, not to exceed 44.2 percent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for water used for the optimization of
coke plant biological treatment systems.
(b) Cokemaking--non-recovery. There shall be no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.

10. Section 420.14 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 420.14 New source performance standards (NSPS).

New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) By-product cokemaking.
(1) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after November 19, 2012, and before November 18,
2002, must continue to achieve the standards specified in Sec. 420.14
of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1,
2001, except as provided below. For toxic and nonconventional
pollutants, those standards shall apply until the expiration of the
applicable time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter,
the source must achieve the effluent limitations specified in Sec.
420.13(a).
(2) The following standards apply with respect to each new source
that commences construction after November 18, 2002:

Subpart A.--New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N.................................... 0.00293 0.00202
Benzo(a)pyrene............................... 0.0000110 0.00000612
Cyanide...................................... 0.00297 0.00208
Naphthalene.................................. 0.0000111 0.00000616
O&G (as HEM)................................. 0.00676 0.0037
pH \2\....................................... (\2\) (\2\)
Phenols (4AAP)............................... 0.0000381 0.0000238
TSS.......................................... 0.0343 0.0140
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per thousand lb of product.
\2\ Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

[[Page 64263]]

coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing operations and
coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to the extent such
systems generate process wastewaters and those wastewaters are co-
treated with process wastewaters from by-product cokemaking
wastewaters.
(C) Increased loadings, not to exceed 44.2 percent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for water used for the optimization of
coke plant biological treatment systems.
(b) Cokemaking--non-recovery. There shall be no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
11. Section 420.15 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 420.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

Subpart A.--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N \2\................................ 0.0333 0.0200
Cyanide...................................... 0.00724 0.00506
Naphthalene.................................. 0.0000472 0.0000392
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per thousand lb of product.
\2\ The pretreatment standards for ammonia are not applicable to sources
that discharge to a POTW with nitrification capability (defined at
Sec. 420.02(s)).

(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 13.3 per cent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet coke
oven gas desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems
generate process wastewaters.
(2) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product
cokemaking wastewaters.
(3) Increased loadings, not to exceed 44.2 percent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for water used for the optimization of
coke plant biological treatment systems.
(b) Cokemaking--non-recovery. There shall be no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
12. Section 420.16 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 420.16 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
(a) By-product cokemaking.
(1) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after November 19, 2012 and before November 18,
2002 must continue to achieve the standards specified in Sec. 420.16
of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1,
2001, (except for the standards for phenols 4AAP) for ten years
beginning on the date the source commenced discharge or during the
period of depreciation or amortization of the facility, whichever comes
first, after which the source must achieve the standards specified in
Sec. 420.15(a).
(2) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards
apply with respect to each new source that commences construction after
November 18, 2002:

Subpart A.--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N\2\................................. 0.00293 0.00202
Benzo(a)pyrene............................... 0.0000110 0.00000612
Cyanide...................................... 0.00297 0.00208
Naphthalene.................................. 0.0000111 0.00000616
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per thousand lb of product.
\2\ The pretreatment standards for ammonia are not applicable to sources
that discharge to a POTW with nitrification capability (defined at
Sec. 420.02(s)).

(A) Increased loadings, not to exceed 13.3 percent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from coke oven
gas wet desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems
generate process wastewaters.
(B) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product
cokemaking wastewaters.
(C) Increased loadings, not to exceed 44.2 percent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for water used for the optimization of
coke plant biological treatment systems.
(b) Cokemaking--non-recovery. Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,
the following standards apply with respect to each new source that
commences construction after November 18, 2002:

[[Page 64264]]

There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.

13. Section 420.17 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec. 420.17 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).

* * * * *
(c) Cokemaking--non-recovery. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this segment must
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT): There shall be no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.

14. Section 420.18 is added to Subpart A to read as follows:

Sec. 420.18 Pretreatment standards compliance dates.

Compliance with the pretreatment standards for existing sources set
forth in Sec. 420.15 of this subpart is required not later than
October 17, 2005 whether or not the pretreatment authority issues or
amends a pretreatment permit requiring such compliance. Until that
date, the pretreatment standards for existing sources set forth in
Subpart A of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of
July 1, 2001, shall continue to apply.

Subpart B--Sintering Subcategory

15. Section 420.21 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 420.21 Specialized definitions.

As used in this subpart:
(a) For the sintering subcategory, the term product means sinter
agglomerated from iron-bearing materials.
(b) The term dry air pollution control system means an emission
control system that utilizes filters to remove iron-bearing particles
(fines) from blast furnace or sintering off-gases.
(c) The term minimum level (ML) means the level at which the
analytical system gives recognizable signals and an acceptable
calibration point. For 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran, the minimum
level is 10 pg/L per EPA Method 1613B for water and wastewater samples.
(d) The term pg/L means picograms per liter (ppt = 1.0x10-12 gm/L).
(e) The term sintering means a process for agglomerating iron-
bearing materials into small pellets (sinter) that can be charged to a
blast furnace.
(f) The term wet air pollution control system means an emission
control system that utilizes water to clean process or furnace off-
gases.

16. Section 420.22 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 420.22 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The
following table presents BPT limitations for sintering operations with
wet air pollution control systems:

Subpart B.--Effluent Limitations (BPT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT effluent limitations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutants or pollutant property Average of daily values for 30
Maximum for any 1 day consecutive days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (pounds per 1000 lb) of product
-----------------------------------------
TSS..................................... 0.0751 0.0250
O&G..................................... 0.0150 0.00501
pH...................................... (1) (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system.
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters
of the U.S.

17. Section 420.23 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 420.23 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best available control technology
economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The
following table presents BAT limitations for sintering operations with
wet air pollution control systems:

Subpart B.--Effluent Limitations (BAT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated parameter Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N2.............................. 0.0150 0.00501
Cyanide2................................ 0.00300 0.00150
Lead.................................... 0.000451 0.000150
Phenols (4AAP)2......................... 0.000100 0.0000501
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................ <ML ..................................
TRC3.................................... 0.000250 ..................................

[[Page 64265]]

Zinc.................................... 0.000676 0.000225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Pounds per thousand lb of product.
2 Limits for these parameters apply only when sintering waste water is co-treated with ironmaking wastewater.
3 Applicable only when sintering process wastewater is chlorinated.

(b) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system.
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters
of the U.S.

18. Section 420.24 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 420.24 New source performance standards (NSPS).

New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after November 19, 2012 and before November 18,
2002 must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified in
Sec. 420.24 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as
of July 1, 2001, except that after the expiration of the applicable
time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1), the source must also
achieve the effluent limitations specified in Sec. 420.23 for 2,3,7,8-
TCDF.
(b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source
that commences construction after November 18, 2002.
(1) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The
following table presents NSPS for sintering operations with wet air
pollution control systems:

Subpart B.--New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated parameter Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSS..................................... 0.0200 0.00751
O&G..................................... 0.00501 ..................................
Ammonia-N2.............................. 0.0150 0.00501
Cyanide2................................ 0.00100 0.000501
Phenols (4AAP)2......................... 0.000100 0.0000501
TRC3.................................... 0.000250 ..................................
Lead.................................... 0.000451 0.000150
Zinc.................................... 0.000676 0.000225
pH...................................... (4) (4)
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................ <ML ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Pounds per thousand lb of product.
2 Limits for these parameters apply only when sintering wastewater is co-treated with ironmaking wastewater.
3 Applicable only when sintering process wastewater is chlorinated.
4 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

(2) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system.
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters
of the U.S.

19. Section 420.25 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 420.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
(a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The
following table presents PSES for sintering operations with wet air
pollution control systems:

Subpart B.--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated parameter Maximum daily1 Maximum monthly avg.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N2,3............................ 0.0150 0.00501
Cyanide2................................ 0.00300 0.00150
Phenols (4AAP)2......................... 0.000100 0.0000501
Lead.................................... 0.000451 0.000150
Zinc.................................... 0.000676 0.000225
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................ <ML ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Pounds per thousand lb of product.
2 The pretreatment standards for these parameters apply only when sintering wastewater is co-treated with
ironmaking wastewater.
3 The pretreatment standards for ammonia are not applicable to sources that discharge to a POTW with
nitrification capability (defined at Sec. 420.02(s)).

[[Page 64266]]

(b) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system.
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.

20. Section 420.26 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 420.26 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
(a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system.
(1) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after November 19, 2012 and before November 18,
2002 must continue to achieve the standards specified in Sec. 420.26
of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1,
2001, for ten years beginning on the date the source commenced
discharge or during the period of depreciation or amortization of the
facility, whichever comes first, after which the source must also
achieve the pretreatment standard for 2,3,7,8-TCDF specified in Sec.
420.25.
(2) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards
apply with respect to each new source that commences construction after
November 18, 2002: The following table presents PSNS for sintering
operations with wet air pollution control systems:

Subpart B.--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated parameter Maximum daily \1\ Maximum monthly avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia-N 2,3........................... 0.0150 0.00501
Cyanide \2\............................. 0.00100 0.000501
Phenols (4AAP) \2\...................... 0.000100 0.0000501
Lead.................................... 0.000451 0.000150
Zinc.................................... 0.000676 0.000225
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................ <ML ..................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per thousand pound of product.
\2\ The pretreatment standards for these parameters apply only when sintering wastewater is co-treated with
ironmaking wastewater.
\3\The pretreatment standards for ammonia are not applicable to sources that discharge to a POTW with
nitrification capability (defined at Sec. 420.02(s)).

(b) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system.
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.

21. Section 420.28 is added to Subpart B to read as follows:

Sec. 420.28 Pretreatment standards compliance dates.

Compliance with the pretreatment standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF for
existing sources set forth in Sec. 420.25(a) is required not later
than October 17, 2005 whether or not the pretreatment authority issues
or amends a pretreatment permit requiring such compliance.

22. Section 420.29 is added to Subpart B to read as follows:

Sec. 420.29 Point of compliance monitoring.

(a) Sintering Direct Dischargers. Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(i) and
122.45(h), a direct discharger must demonstrate compliance with the
effluent limitations and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF at the point after
treatment of sinter plant wastewater separately or in combination with
blast furnace wastewater, but prior to mixing with process wastewaters
from processes other than sintering and ironmaking, non-process
wastewaters or non-contact cooling water, if such water(s) are in an
amount greater than 5 percent by volume of the sintering process
wastewaters.
(b) Sintering Indirect Dischargers. An indirect discharger must
demonstrate compliance with the pretreatment standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF
by monitoring at the point after treatment of sinter plant wastewater
separately or in combination with blast furnace wastewater, but prior
to mixing with process wastewaters from processes other than sintering
and ironmaking, non-process wastewaters and non-contact cooling water
in an amount greater than 5 percent by volume of the sintering process
wastewaters.

Subpart C--Ironmaking Subcategory

23. Section 420.31 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 420.31 Specialized definitions.

(a) For ironmaking blast furnaces, the term product means the
amount of molten iron produced.
(b) The term molten iron means iron produced in a blast furnace as
measured at the blast furnace, and may include relatively minor amounts
of blast furnace slag that may be skimmed from the molten iron at the
steelmaking shop or other location remote from the blast furnace.
(c) The term iron blast furnace means all blast furnaces except
ferromanganese blast furnaces.
(d) The term existing indirect dischargers means only those two
iron blast furnace operations with discharges to publicly owned
treatment works prior to May 27, 1982.

Sec. 420.32 [Amended]

24. Section 420.32 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b).

Sec. 420.33 [Amended]

25. Section 420.33 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b).

Sec. 420.34 [Amended]

26. Section 420.34 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b).

27. Section 420.35 is amended by adding a footnote in the table to
paragraph (a) for the entry Ammonia-N and by removing and reserving
paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 420.35 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

* * * * *
(a) Iron blast furnace.

[[Page 64267]]

Subpart C.--Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average of daily
Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for any 1 values for 30
day consecutive days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (pounds per 1000 lb) of
product
-----------------------------------
Ammonia-N\1\...................... 0.00876 0.00292

* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The pretreatment standards for ammonia are not applicable to sources
that discharge to a POTW with nitrification capability (defined at
420.02(s)).

* * * * *

28. Section 420.36 is amended by adding a footnote in the table to
paragraph (a) for the entry Ammonia-N and by removing and reserving
paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 420.36 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

* * * * *
(a) Iron blast furnace.

Subpart C.--Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average of daily
Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for any 1 values for 30
day consecutive days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (pounds per 1000 lb) of
product
-----------------------------------
Ammonia-N\1\...................... 0.00876 0.00292

Subpart D--Steelmaking Subcategory

29. Section 420.40 is revised to read as follows.

Sec. 420.40 Applicability; description of the steelmaking
subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and to
the introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works
resulting from steelmaking operations conducted in basic oxygen and
electric arc furnaces.

Sec. 420.41 [Amended]

30. Section 420.41 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b).

31. Section 420.42 is amended by revising paragraph (a), the
heading of paragraph (c) (the table is unchanged), and adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows.

Sec. 420.42 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).

* * * * *
(a) Electric arc furnace steelmaking--semi-wet. No discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.
* * * * *
(c) Basic oxygen furnace steelmaking--wet open combustion; and
electric arc furnace steelmaking--wet.
* * * * *
(d) Basic oxygen furnace steelmaking--semi-wet.
(1) No discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
(2) If the permittee demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
permitting authority that safety considerations prevent attainment of
these limitations, the permitting authority may establish alternative
limitations on a best professional judgment basis.

32. Section 420.43 is amended by revising paragraph (a), the
heading of paragraph (c) (the table is unchanged), and adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows.

Sec. 420.43 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available control
technology economically achievable (BAT).

33. Section 420.44 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and
removing paragraph (d) to read as follows.

Sec. 420.44 New source performance standards (NSPS).

* * * * *
(a) Basic oxygen furnace steelmaking--semi-wet; and electric arc
furnace steelmaking--semi-wet. No discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
* * * * *

34. Section 420.45 is amended by revising paragraph (a), the
heading to paragraph (c) (the table is unchanged), and adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows.

[[Page 64268]]

Sec. 420.45 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

* * * * *
(a) Electric arc furnace steelmaking--semi-wet. No discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.
* * * * *
(c) Basic oxygen furnace steelmaking--wet open combustion; and
electric arc furnace steelmaking--wet.
* * * * *
(d) Basic oxygen furnace steelmaking--semi-wet.
(1) No discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
(2) If the permittee demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
pretreatment control authority that safety considerations prevent
attainment of these limitations, the pretreatment control authority may
establish alternative limitations on a best professional judgment
basis.

35. Section 420.46 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and
removing paragraph (d) to read as follows.

Sec. 420.46 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

* * * * *
(a) Basic oxygen furnace steelmaking--semi-wet; and electric arc
furnace steelmaking--semi-wet. No discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
* * * * *

36. Section 420.47 is amended by revising the section heading,
paragraph (a), and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows.

Sec. 420.47 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).

(a) Electric arc furnace steelmaking--semi-wet. No discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.
* * * * *
(d) Basic oxygen furnace steelmaking--semi-wet.
(1) No discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters.
(2) If the permittee demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
permitting authority that safety considerations prevent attainment of
these limitations, the permitting authority may establish alternative
limitations on a best professional judgment basis.

37. Section 420.48 is added to Subpart D to read as follows:

Sec. 420.48 Pretreatment standards compliance dates.

Compliance with the pretreatment standards for existing sources set
forth in Sec. 420.45(d) of this subpart is required not later than
October 17, 2005 whether or not the pretreatment authority issues or
amends a pretreatment permit requiring such compliance.

38. Subpart M is added to read as follows:
Subpart M--Other Operations Subcategory
Sec.
420.130 Applicability.
420.131 Subcategory definitions.
420.132 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.133 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.134 New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.135 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
420.136 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
420.137 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutant (BCT).

Subpart M--Other Operations Subcategory

Sec. 420.130 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges to
waters of the U.S. and the introduction of pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works resulting from production of direct-reduced iron
and from briquetting and forging operations.

Sec. 420.131 Specialized definitions.

As used in this subpart:
(a) The term briquetting operations means a hot or cold process
that agglomerates (presses together) iron-bearing materials into small
lumps without melting or fusion. Used as a concentrated iron ore
substitute for scrap in electric furnaces.
(b) The term direct-reduced iron (DRI) means iron produced by
reduction of iron ore (pellets or briquettes) using gaseous (carbon
monoxide-carbon dioxide, hydrogen) or solid reactants.
(c) The term forging means the hot-working of heated steel shapes
(e.g., ingots, blooms, billets, slabs) by hammering or hydraulic
presses, performed at iron and steel mills.
(d) For briquetting operations, the term product means the amount
in tons of briquettes manufactured by hot or cold agglomeration
processes.
(e) For direct reduced iron (DRI), the term product means the
amount of direct reduced iron and any fines that are produced and sold
commercially (as opposed to fines that may be reprocessed on site).
(f) For forging, the term product means the tons of finished steel
forgings produced by hot working steel shapes.
(g) The term O&G (as HEM) means total recoverable oil & grease
measured as n-hexane extractable materials.

Sec. 420.132 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each applicable
segment, the following effluent limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT):
(a) Direct-reduced iron.

Subpart M.--Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant Maximum monthly
daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSS......................................... 0.00998 0.00465
pH.......................................... (\2\) (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per thousand pound of product.
\2\ Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) Forging operations.

Subpart M.--Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&G (as HEM)................................ 0.00746 0.00446
TSS......................................... 0.0123 0.00508
pH.......................................... (\2\) (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per thousand pound of product.
\2\ Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

Sec. 420.133 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).

[[Page 64269]]

(a) Direct-reduced iron. [Reserved]
(b) Forging operations. [Reserved]
(c) Briquetting. There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.

Sec. 420.134 New source performance standards (NSPS).

New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Direct-reduced iron.

Subpart M.--New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSS......................................... 0.00998 0.00465
pH.......................................... (\2\) (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per thousand pound of product.
\2\ Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) Forging operations.

Subpart M.--New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant Maximum monthly
daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&G (as HEM)................................ 0.00746 0.00446
TSS......................................... 0.0123 0.00508
pH.......................................... (\2\) (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per thousand pound of product.
\2\ Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

Sec. 420.135 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
(a) Direct-reduced iron. [Reserved]
(b) Forging operations. [Reserved]
(c) Briquetting. There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to POTWs.

Sec. 420.136 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):
(a) Direct-reduced iron. [Reserved]
(b) Forging operations. [Reserved]
(c) Briquetting. There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to POTWs.

Sec. 420.137 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best control technology for
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.132 for the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).

[FR Doc. 02-11295 Filed 10-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category

Local Navigation