comcom
NEW EPA PRETREATMENT RULE THREATENS ANODIZING INDUSTRY
Dear Member,
On May 30, the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) pub-
lished proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment
Standards, and New Source Performance Standards; Metal Products
and Machinery (40 CFR Part 438). In addition to substantially
lowering allowable discharge limits for traditional regulated
pollutants such as Chromium, Copper, Nickel, and Zinc; it also
for the first time attempts to limit discharge of aluminum and
iron.
As an anodizer you will be required to comply with these
standards. There is a temporary exclusion from the rules for
existing indirect discharging job shops. This exclusion is
expected to be removed when Phase 2 of these rules is issued in
1997. Once finalized, it will be next to impossible to change
these effluent guidelines. The anodizing industry must act now to
avoid adoption of these severe limits. For comparison purposes,
the following chart provides a listing of current and proposed
changes on EPA's categorical Pretreatment Standards.
Comparison of EPA Categorical Pretreatment Standards:
All numbers except pH are in ppm (mg/L)
Element PART 413 PART 433 PART 438 (Proposed)
Daily Avg Daily Avg Daily Avg
Aluminum Not regulated Not regulated 1.4 1.0
Cadmium 1.2 0.7 0.69 0.26 0.7 0.3
Chromium 7.0 4.0 2.77 1.71 0.3 0.2
Copper 4.5 2.7 3.38 2.07 1.3 0.6
Iron Not regulated Not regulated 2.4 1.3
Lead 0.6 0.4 0.69 0.43 Not regulated
Nickel 4.1 2.6 3.98 2.38 1.1 0.5
Silver 0.43 0.24
Zinc 4.2 2.6 2.61 1.48 0.8 0.4
Cyanide 1.9 1.0 1.20 0.65 0.03 0.02
Oil&Grease; 35 17
TSS 73 36
pH (6-9)
TTO 2.13
In order to comply, most anodizers will be required to
invest thousands if not millions of dollars in new equipment to
treat waste water prior to discharge. In addition, operating
costs for this equipment will add substantially to overall costs.
For those companies who already have pretreatment equipment,
these new limits may be unattainable.
The EPA is soliciting comments and data from industry groups
affected by these changes, as well as environmental groups and
state and local governments that may be affected. The environmen-
tal groups are well financed and organized. Indeed, the reason
EPA undertook to issue these new regulations was a consent decree
that arose out of litigation against EPA by the Natural Resources
Defense Council. The metal finishing sub-committee of the Common
Sense Initiative is stacked with government and environmental
representatives. Our side is not being heard. In fact, EPA has
said that only one anodizer was included in its study for this
rule.
The Aluminum Anodizers Council has determined to take strong
action. The AAC Board of Directors on June 9 appointed a special
task group to address this issue. On June 13, the Board retained
the firm of Kilpatrick & Cody, a Washington, D.C. law firm expe-
rienced in these matters, to seek withdrawal of the rule or
severe modification to its contents. The response to EPA must be
completed by August 28. Time is short.
The AAC needs your immediate help in two ways. First, you
will be receiving a questionnaire next week asking for data on
your operations. Getting substantial and accurate data into the
record is essential if we expect EPA to change its direction.
Second, each AAC firm and supplier member is being asked to
commit to a contribution of $2000 to fund this effort. Larger
firms are being asked to consider contributing substantially
more. AAC requires committments totaling $60000 if it is to pro-
ceed. This money will go predominately to Kilpatrick & Cody to
gather data and organize the legal and technical arguments that
will be needed. Non-U.S. members of AAC are being asked to con-
tribute US $500 to this effort. This effort will not go forward
unless we receive committments for the necessary funds by June
23. The Staff at AAC has been authorized to negotiate extended
payment terms for those firms that need more time to pay this
amount.
For some companies this may seem a large amount. Yet com-
pared to the cost of the extensive waste treatment that will be
needed, this is not very much at all. The cost simply to
transport and landfill the sludge produced from even a small
operation producing 10000 gal of wastewater a day approaches
$2000 per month. Full costs of equipment, labor, and waste dis-
posal for a 10000 gal per day facility are estimated at $7000 per
month. Some of the most serious concerns have been voiced by
those companies that already have treatment facilities. They know
how costly it will be to reach these unrealistic numbers.
Enclosed is a committment form to return to the Council. It
is important we receive a response from each member. We will also
be soliciting moneys from anodizers who are not AAC members.
Everyone will be asked to contribute something, but AAC must take
the lead. Our industry is at a regulatory crossroads. For once,
we have a chance to influence rules before they become final.
Given a strong showing on our part, we have an excellent chance
of forcing withdrawal or substantial change to this proposed
rule. Lacking the proper will or resources on our part, these
rules will become final, and we will live with them for many
years to come.
The issue is quite detailed and complex. If you have any
questions on its merits and contents, I'd be pleased to provide a
copy of the proposed rule as released in the May 30 Federal Reg-
ister. Members of the AAC task force are also available to answer
questions.
Please return the committment form as soon as possible. We
cannot proceed without your help. If you decide not to be a part
of this effort, please so indicate.
We're working hard to make these pages the place you come to for
all your finishing needs. Please e-mail your suggestions to:
Ted Mooney, P.E.
<mooney@finishing.com>
