1 / 34

IPC Expo / EHS Committee Legislative & Regulatory Affairs

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

july
Télécharger la présentation

IPC Expo / EHS Committee Legislative & Regulatory Affairs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

More Related