IPC Expo / EHS Committee Legislative & Regulatory Affairs

1. IPC Expo / EHS Committee Legislative & Regulatory Affairs

2. 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

3. 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

4. MP&M Regulatory Documents • DevelopmentDocuments • 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

5. Proposed Effluent Guidelines for Indirect Discharging PWB Shops

6. 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

7. 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

8. Proposed Additional Organic Pollutants for Metal Products and MachineryTotal Organics Parameter

9. 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

10. Errors in Rule Development • Methodology • Statistical method • Use of unit operations • Data screening techniques • Estimation of BAT Capabilities • Economic Considerations • Pollutant Emissions Estimates

11. 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

12. 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%)

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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

21. MP&M Coalition / Cooperative Efforts • Working closely with SBA • Contracted same economist as the Metal Finishers • Attending General Metals Coalition meetings

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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