IPC Expo / EHS Committee Legislative & Regulatory

Affairs

Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) Effluent Guidelines

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2001

120 day comment period Comments due May 3, 2001 Multi-industry MP&M coalition requesting an

extension May be granted for specific items only, e.g.

submittal of analytical data Final Rule Publication scheduled for

December 2002 Compliance deadlines set three years from

publication of Final Rule

MP&M Regulatory Documents

• EPA website http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/mpm/rule.html Proposed rule text Development Documents

Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point Source Category [EPA-821-B-00-005]

• Presents EPA’s methodology and technical conclusions

Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Metal Products & Machinery Rule [EPA-821-B-00-008]

• Methodology and results for the economic and environmental impacts analysis

MP&M Regulatory Documents

Development Documents Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Proposed Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point Source Category [EPA-821-B-00-007]

• Analyzes the cost-effectiveness of the NPRM

Statistical Support Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Industry ” [EPA-821-B-00-006]

• Statistical methodology for developing numerical discharge limitations

Proposed Effluent Guidelines for Indirect Discharging PWB Shops

Regulated parameter

Maximum Daily (mg/l)

Maximum monthly avg. (mg/l)

Maximum Daily (mg/l)

Maximum monthly avg. (mg/l)

TSS 60 31 28 18O&G (as HEM) 52 26 15 12

TOC (as indicator) 101 67 101 67

TOP 9 4.3 9 4.3Chromium 0.25 0.14 0.17 0.07

Copper 0.55 0.28 0.01 0.01Cyanide (T) 0.21 0.13 0.21 0.13Cyanide (A) 0.14 0.07 0.14 0.07

Lead 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03Manganese 1.3 0.64 0.29 0.18

Nickel 0.3 0.14 1.9 0.75Sulfide (as S) 31 13 31 13

Tin 0.31 0.14 0.09 0.07Zinc 0.38 0.22 0.08 0.06

Pretreatment standards for existing sources

New source performance standards

Proposed MP&M Effluent Guidelines

• Proposed Limits to be based on “achievable” pollutant removal through precipitation and settling

• Guidelines issued as concentration-based limits Permit writers to use “best-judgment” in use of

mass based limits Association of Metropolitan Sewerage

Agencies (AMSA) views production normalized flow as a nightmare to implement

MP&M Monitoring Options - Organics

• Monitor for Total Organic Parameter Similar to TTO of 40 CFR 433 Adds 14 non-conventional organics

• Indirect dischargers may certify in lieu of monitoring Material is not used or generated on-site Not present above background levels Certifications will need to be based on sampling & other

technical factors.

• Monitor and meet numerical limit for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) as an indicator

• Develop and Certify the Implementation of a management plan for organic chemicals

Proposed Additional Organic Pollutants for Metal Products and Machinery

Total Organics Parameter

Pollutant Parameter CAS Number

1-METHYLFLUORENE 1730376 1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE 832699 2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALYENE 2027170 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 91576 3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE 1576676 ANILINE 62533 BENZOIC ACID 65850 BIPHENYL 92524 CARBON DISULFIDE 75150 DIBENZOFURAN 132649 DIBENZOTHIOPHENE 132650 N-HEXADECANE 544763 N-TETRADECANE 629594 P-CYMENE 99876

MP&M Monitoring Options - Cyanide

• Total Cyanide End-of-pipe monitoring allowed Accounting for dilution required

• Amenable cyanide alternative End-of-pipe monitoring permitted if cyanide

treatment is performed prior to commingling Accounting for dilution required

Errors in Rule Development

• Methodology Statistical method Use of unit operations Data screening techniques

• Estimation of BAT Capabilities

• Economic Considerations

• Pollutant Emissions Estimates

Effluent Limit Development Methodology

• VF is based on the mean of the variance, within a 4-day period at each sampled plant No attempt was made to determine variability

across the industry by determining plant to plant variability 

Sample size not addressed in statistical calculations

• Screening / PWB data disqualified because: Results below minimum analytical confidence

levels Claimed effluent discharges levels were > BAT

MP&M Economic Analysis

• EPA assumes facilities already complying with effluent limits will have no additional monitoring costs Lower limits will force additional monitoring as

facilities operate with reduced safety margins More expensive tests and/or equipment with

lower detection limits will be needed

• EPA assumed that MP&M facilities would be able to recover some of their regulatory costs by raising prices to their customers Economic development document included an

estimate of cost recovery potential for PWBs of 1.3% (EPA has indicated it will reset cost recovery at 0%)

Cyanide

• EPA calculated Cyanide discharge based on average cyanide concentration, paired with no treatment Rule wide (16 industries) cyanide baseline

assumptions, did not include any PWB data According to EPA’s Phase II Survey Data, 4/38 PWB

shops treat cyanide

• Cyanide use in PWB manufacturing is typically limited

• Most shops have a stagnant rinses and/or recovery systems to collect gold from dragout

• Concentrated cyanide solutions are typically shipped offsite for gold recovery

Sulfides

• Sulfide discharges are greatly overestimated

• Analytical method used by EPA (EPA SW 375.4) converts DTC to sulfates

• Should still be addressed in written comments

• Planning to conduct additional sampling next year

• Formal notice of data availability (NODA) with opportunity to comment expected December 2001

Classification of Treatment Chemicals as Pollutants

• EPA recognizes that dithiocarbamates (DTC), sulfides, iron, aluminum, and boron effectively enhance the removal of chelated or complexed metals

• Cost estimates in the MP&M proposal on the use of DTC

• EPA notes that DTC is toxic to aquatic life

• EPA also requests information on alternative chemicals

MP&M Pollutant Removals

• Local POTW limits not accounted for• Inputs not verified

Based on sampling data from three (two in some cases) PWB facilities

Most PWB data was “edited out” All PWB limits except TOP & TOC based

on data and variability factors “borrowed” from other industrial categories

No PWB data was used for cyanide, chromium, copper, lead, zinc, and sulfides

POTW Removal

• EPA underestimates POTW removal capabilities resulting in an overestimation of the benefits of the proposed regulation

• EPA bases its calculation of POTW removal capabilities on, “Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works,” 50-POTW study Published in September 1982 Many of these POTWs were not operated with

secondary treatment requirements now employed at 90% of today’s POTWs

Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)

• Proposed rule will pose and undue burden on POTWs EPA and the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) are concerned about burdening POTWs

• AMSA intends to dispute EPA claims of POTW inhibitions caused by facility discharges

• If your local POTW is unsure about submitting comments, call Guy Aydlett, Dir. of Water Quality for the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (757-460-4220)

IPC EHS Committee Activities

• Encourage Comments to EPA - Oral Testimony and Written

• Investigation of possibilities for coordinated efforts/activities with other affected Industry groups

• Analysis of methodology and data

• Collection of reliable PWB Industry data to counter EPA estimates

• Exploration of opportunities to work cooperatively with EPA

•

MP&M Public Meetings/Hearings

• EPA held 4 public meetings Oakland, CA / February 6 Dallas, TX / February 13 Washington, DC / February 22 Chicago, IL / March 8

• 30 IPC Members provided testimony

• EPA presented a summary of the rule applicability, requirements, development, compliance costs, and pollution reductions

MP&M Coalition / Cooperative Efforts

• Working closely with SBA

• Contracted same economist as the Metal Finishers

• Attending General Metals Coalition meetings

Strategy to Address MP&M

• EPA can select a no-regulation option if the rule is cost ineffective (historically around $155 per lb-equivalent

• Key Tasks Identify model & methodology errors Demonstrate lower pollution removals Demonstrate higher costs

• BMPs as an alternative “off-ramp” for EPA

Data & Methodology Analysis

• EPA surveyed 72 facilities / 63 Facilities Received Weighting Factors

• Matching Facilities with their Masked Site ID Numbers

• Matching Facilities with their Weighting Factor

• Identify sites with highest contributions to EPA Pollution reductions and lowest $/lb-eq.

Data & Methodology Analysis

• Compare EPA est. baseline loads & reductions with facility survey page 14A & 44A submissions

• Identify potential errors in unit operations & EPA credit for treatment

FLOW DISTRIBUTION

According to EPA, there are 610 direct discharging plants; 536 plants >1 MGY; 246 > 2 MGY; 193 > 3 MGY and 141 > 6.25 MGY

Flows Number of Plants Flow No. per Class > 0 MGY 610 0-1 MGY 74 > 1 MGY 536 1-2 MGY 290 > 2 MGY 246 2-3 MGY 53 > 3 MGY 193 3-6.25 MGY 52

> 6.25 MGY 141 >6.25 MGY 141

SUM 610

Weight Factors # / Wgt. Factor EPA Provided Avg. Flow Estimated Group258.5 1 Data for: MGY Flow (MGY)41.6 1 3 0.5 37.0

18.153 8 3 1.5 435.014.86 1 5 2.5 132.54.017 3 15 4.625 240.53.334 53 37 65 9165.0

67 63 10010

Site #

Sub- cate gory

Baseline Flow

Option Flow

Baseline Annual-

ized Cost

Option Annual-

ized Cost

Site Specific Baseline

Loads (lb-eq)

Site Specific Option Loads

Removed (lb-eq)

$/Lb-Eq. (J/L)

190 PWB 127040898 109957555 175,182 2,147,156 145,988.18 43,805.83 49.02686 PWB 116004338 92635184 624,829 1,181,519 111,772.22 30,141.12 39.20621 PWB 60140664 50602381 0 957,345 61,048.44 19,218.22 49.81454 PWB 75809950 50006458 0 850,906 54,854.11 18,932.59 44.94364 PWB 46159495 33481578 331,721 705,391 55,355.38 15,893.99 44.38331 PWB 25444241 17098880 200,605 322,842 17,910.65 14,681.91 21.99434 PWB 56231098 46739823 1,118,772 880,826 37,473.57 7,871.28 111.90735 PWB 10509371 6111368 88,259 296,482 23,423.73 7,519.08 39.43243 PWB 57924798 50939594 571,512 538,493 31,771.63 7,399.67 72.77375 PWB 44856389 39812118 187,945 769,768 27,421.55 6,558.96 117.36507 PWB 42321551 36422666 629,969 428,660 19,335.56 3,964.39 108.13846 PWB 63688118 48822413 1,059,843 178,811 17,793.89 3,776.38 47.35715 PWB 87873620 67135644 767,352 318,718 23,740.79 3,647.16 87.39406 PWB 35423427 28347863 0 912,625 12,909.02 3,181.93 286.81335 PWB 35408200 28610777 0 973,483 10,240.90 2,782.80 349.82696 PWB 7859194 5319740 0 268,695 8,602.38 2,648.74 101.44384 PWB 7376220 6306875 0 288,977 7,761.70 2,403.75 120.22750 PWB 9938329 9088753 291,732 313,929 7,978.64 1,992.01 157.59562 PWB 6789417 5739397 154,997 406,194 5,435.81 1,919.93 211.5779 PWB 15331103 7584916 283,039 111,092 5,960.89 1,895.07 58.62

693 PWB 4822700 2501915 0 207,954 6,248.71 1,704.99 121.97

Site Disch. Dest.

Masked Site

NumberPoll. Code

Weight Ind.

Site-Specific Baseline Flow

Site-Specific Option Flow

National Estimate

(Weighted) Baseline

Loads (lb-eq)

National Estimate

(Weighted) Option Loads

Removed (lb-eq)

% est. load

removed by metal

type

Baseline Lbs (lbs/TF) Avg. mg/l

I 846 SN 18.153 63,688,118 48,822,413 66,956 38,680 8% 223,186 331.37I 735 SN 18.153 10,509,371 6,111,368 53,610 31,078 6% 178,699 1607.88I 686 SN 3.344 116,004,338 92,635,184 48,152 27,874 6% 160,507 710.25I 647 SN 258.5 2,432,299 1,024,160 264,644 153,447 31% 882,147 2408.36I 621 SN 3.344 60,140,664 50,602,381 50,521 29,273 6% 168,404 1437.39I 454 SN 3.344 75,809,950 50,006,458 55,410 32,109 7% 184,699 1250.63I 364 SN 3.344 46,159,495 33,481,578 22,142 12,823 3% 73,806 820.77D 331 SN 3.344 25,444,241 17,098,880 23,870 23,850 5% 79,567 1605.23I 243 SN 3.344 57,924,798 50,939,594 9,846 5,681 2% 8,951 79.32I 190 SN 3.344 127,040,898 109,957,555 97,445 56,454 11% 324,815 1312.45I 434 SN 3.344 56,231,098 46,739,823 2,552 1,453 1% 2,320 21.18I 79 SN 18.153 15,331,103 7,584,916 24,585 14,235 3% 81,949 505.45

656,716,373 515,004,309 719,732 426,955 87% 2,369,050

Site Disch. Dest.

Masked Site

NumberPoll. Code

Weight Ind.

Site-Specific Baseline Flow

Site-Specific Option Flow

National Estimate

(Weighted) Baseline

Loads (lb-eq)

National Estimate

(Weighted) Option Loads

Removed (lb-eq)

% est. load

removed by metal

type

Baseline Lbs (lbs/TF) Avg. mg/l

I 846 NI 18.153 63,688,118 48,822,413 1,315 541 1% 11,957 17.75I 735 NI 18.153 10,509,371 6,111,368 5,177 2,504 6% 47,065 423.48I 686 NI 3.344 116,004,338 92,635,184 6,240 2,996 7% 56,728 251.02I 647 NI 258.5 2,432,299 1,024,160 1,011 462 1% 9,191 25.09I 621 NI 3.344 60,140,664 50,602,381 3,500 1,681 4% 31,816 271.56I 454 NI 3.344 75,809,950 50,006,458 11,093 5,368 13% 100,848 682.86I 364 NI 3.344 46,159,495 33,481,578 3,961 1,911 5% 36,013 400.48D 331 NI 3.344 25,444,241 17,098,880 1,948 1,932 5% 17,710 357.28I 243 NI 3.344 57,924,798 50,939,594 250 102 0% 227 2.01I 190 NI 3.344 127,040,898 109,957,555 6,965 3,342 8% 63,320 255.85I 434 NI 3.344 56,231,098 46,739,823 847 394 0% 770 7.03I 79 NI 18.153 15,331,103 7,584,916 267 114 0% 2,423 14.95

656,716,373 515,004,309 42,575 21,348 51% 378,068

Site Disch. Dest.

Masked Site

NumberPoll. Code

Weight Ind.

Site-Specific Baseline Flow

Site-Specific Option Flow

National Estimate

(Weighted) Baseline

Loads (lb-eq)

National Estimate

(Weighted) Option Loads

Removed (lb-eq)

% est. load

removed by metal

type

Baseline Lbs (lbs/TF) Avg. mg/l

I 846 CU 18.153 63,688,118 48,822,413 33,575 5,129 4% 53,293 79.13I 735 CU 18.153 10,509,371 6,111,368 57,732 9,104 8% 91,638 824.53I 686 CU 3.344 116,004,338 92,635,184 71,024 11,160 9% 112,736 498.86I 647 CU 258.5 2,432,299 1,024,160 115,300 18,165 15% 224,146 611.94I 621 CU 3.344 60,140,664 50,602,381 40,224 6,322 5% 63,848 544.97I 454 CU 3.344 75,809,950 50,006,458 32,468 5,097 4% 51,536 348.96I 364 CU 3.344 46,159,495 33,481,578 28,029 4,406 4% 44,490 494.76D 331 CU 3.344 25,444,241 17,098,880 13,523 13,437 11% 21,466 433.05I 243 CU 3.344 57,924,798 50,939,594 16,504 2,574 1% 15,004 132.96I 190 CU 3.344 127,040,898 109,957,555 86,526 13,598 11% 137,344 554.95I 434 CU 3.344 56,231,098 46,739,823 10,768 1,670 1% 9,789 89.36I 79 CU 18.153 15,331,103 7,584,916 11,581 1,803 2% 18,383 113.39

656,716,373 515,004,309 517,254 92,466 78% 843,671

Site Disch. Dest.

Masked Site

NumberPoll. Code

Weight Ind.

Site-Specific Baseline Flow

Site-Specific Option Flow

National Estimate

(Weighted) Baseline

Loads (lb-eq)

National Estimate

(Weighted) Option Loads

Removed (lb-eq)

% est. load

removed by metal

type

Baseline Lbs (lbs/TF) Avg. mg/l

I 846 CN 18.153 63,688,118 48,822,413 1,125 120 0% 1,023 1.52I 735 CN 18.153 10,509,371 6,111,368 159,373 47,089 18% 144,884 1303.63I 686 CN 3.344 116,004,338 92,635,184 167,786 49,523 19% 152,533 674.96I 647 CN 258.5 2,432,299 1,024,160 763 162 0% 693 1.89I 621 CN 3.344 60,140,664 50,602,381 38,746 11,413 4% 35,223 300.65I 454 CN 3.344 75,809,950 50,006,458 8,559 2,490 1% 7,781 52.69I 364 CN 3.344 46,159,495 33,481,578 96,270 28,430 11% 87,518 973.25D 331 CN 3.344 25,444,241 17,098,880 1,542 1,487 1% 1,402 28.28I 243 CN 3.344 57,924,798 50,939,594 54,146 15,965 6% 49,224 436.21I 190 CN 3.344 127,040,898 109,957,555 159,590 47,087 18% 145,082 586.22I 434 CN 3.344 56,231,098 46,739,823 54,314 16,018 6% 49,376 450.75I 79 CN 18.153 15,331,103 7,584,916 236 37 0% 215 1.33

656,716,373 515,004,309 742,450 219,821 86% 674,955

IPC MP&M Survey

• Distributed 5-page Survey on March 14

• 61 surveys returned to date

• Use data to verify/counter EPA PE reductions and cost estimates

• Need to confirm production data

Comparison

• EPA file (66 sites) shows non-weighted PE reductions of 224,820 lb-eq average 3,406 lb-eq/site median of 845 lb-eq/site cost benefit of $103/lb-eq

• MP&M survey responses (36 sites) show reductions of 6,319 lb-eq average 175.5 lb-eq/site median 24 lb-eq/site cost benefit estimate of ~$ 2,006/lb-eq

note: includes only sites that were matched / doesn’t include sulfides

IPC/EPA Opportunities

• March 13 Meeting between EPA & IPC EMS Classification Economics Request Comment Deadline Extension Definition of BAT Selection of Model Sampling Facilities Use of DMR Data

• IPC Expo Forum

EPA Lowers TRI Threshold for Lead

• TRI Lead Rule Signed by EPA on January 8th

• Establishes new reporting threshold of 100 lbs for lead

• Rule applies to July 2002 report for calendar year 2001 Reporting is retroactive to January 1, 2001

• Rule currently under a 60 day stay due to the Bush administrations 60 day “freeze” on new regulations Expires on April 16th; Rule will become final