July 2, 2001
Mr. Michael Ebner
Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)
U.S. EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Docket Number W-99-23
Re: Comments on EPA’s Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) Point Source Category; Proposed Rule (66 FR 423 January 3, 2001).
IPC – The Association Connecting Electronics Industries, would like to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the opportunity to submit these comments on the proposed MP&M effluent limitations guidelines (66 FR 423).
IPC represents nearly 2,800 member companies involved in the manufacture, assembly and use of printed wiring boards (PWBs) and printed wiring assemblies (PWAs).
If implemented, the proposed rule would have a drastic impact on almost every PWB establishment throughout the country. We believe that the cost of the proposed rule has been drastically underestimated, while overestimating its environmental benefit. The EPA’s proposed MP&M effluent limitations guidelines are seriously flawed and must be re-evaluated.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and look forward to continuing to work with the EPA to develop cost-effective regulations that protect our nation’s environment.
Sincerely,
Fern Abrams
Director of Environmental Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... ES-
I.Introduction
II.The Uniqueness of PWB Manufacturing Processes Requires A Unique MP&M Subcategory for Appropriate Regulation
A.Use of Copper Metal
B.Wastewater with Metal Combinations
C.Chelated Metals
D.Use of Organics Allied with Metals
E.Conveyorized Processing
F.Limited and Controlled Cyanide Usage
G.No Real Difference Between Captive and Merchant Facilities
H.PWB Assembly Facilities
III.The Proposed Limits Are Not Achievable
A.General Description of Waste Water Treatment in A Printed Wiring Board Facility
1)Common Subsystems of PWB Waste Treatment
2)Optional PWB Waste Treatment Subsystems
B.Standards for Existing Sources
1)The Proposed Limits Can’t Be Met with BAT Technology
2)Technological Limitations of Proposed BAT
a.Limits of Solubility
b.Actual Limits of Precipitation
c.Technological Limitations of Cyanide Destruction
3)Much of the Data Used to Develop the Proposed Limits was Inappropriately Applied to the PWB Industry
a.Most of the PWB Data from EPA Sampling was “Edited Out”
b.Data from Unrelated General Metals, Oily Wastes, and Metal Finishing Job Shops Was Inappropriately Used to Develop Limits for the PWB Industry
c.Data from General Metals Sampling Episode Reports is Flawed
d.Use of Iron by Other Sectors Acts as a Co-Precipitant – Lowering Achievable Effluent Levels
e.The Use of Confidential Business Information to Set Effluent Guidelines
f.EPA Inappropriately Selected Limits for Different Metals From Different Facilities
4)The Statistical Methodologies Used to Develop the Limits are Arbitrary and Capricious
a.Data Grouping
b.Median LTA
c.Discharge Monitoring Report Data
d.Modified Delta Lognormal Distribution
e.Sample Size
5)EPA has Inappropriately Proposed Limits for Treatment Chemicals
6)Facilities Used to Develop the Proposed Limits Are Unable to Meet the Proposed Limits
C.New Source Performance Standards
1)EPA Made Methodological Flaws in Developing the New Source Performance Standards
2)EPA Failed to Assess the Capabilities of the NSPS Technology as it Applies to Facilities with Large Flows
3)EPA Has Paradoxically Proposed NSPS Limits that are Higher than those for Existing Sources
IV.EPA Has Greatly Overestimated the Pollution Removed by This Rule
A.EPA Has Failed to Properly Account for the Control from Existing ELGs
B.EPA’s Unit Operation Model is a Flawed Approach for Such a Diverse Population
1)It is Inappropriate for EPA to Use Unit Operations Data from Non-PWB Facilities for the Purpose of Modeling PWB Effluent
2)Metals Concentrations From Non-PWB Facilities Were Inappropriately Used for the Purpose of Modeling PWB Effluent
3)EPA Inappropriately Applied Cyanide Data From Non-PWB Operations to PWB Facilities
4)EPA’s Unit Operations Approach Fails to Account for Inherent Variation in PWB Processes
5)EPA Has Inappropriately Transferred Unit Operations Data
C.EPA’s Method of Assigning Weights to Surveyed Facilities May Have Misrepresented Industry Discharges
D.EPA Has Assumed Baseline Pollution That Would Mean Many PWBs Fail to Meet Existing Standards
E.EPA’s Estimate of PWB Baseline Pound Equivalents and Pound Equivalents Removed by the Rule Contains Significant Errors
1)Sulfide Testing
2)EPA Has Overestimated the Baseline PEs Removed by the Rule Through Mischaracterization of Unit Operations Samples
3)EPA Has Manufactured False Cyanide Baseline Loadings
4)EPA Has Failed to Properly Credit Existing Treatment in Place
5)EPA Has Failed to Properly Assess the Toxicity of Copper in PWB Effluent
F.EPA Baseline Loads Are Absurdly High
1)Calculated PEs from 34 Non-CBI EPA Phase II Surveys Are Vastly Lower Than Those Calculated by EPA’s Unit Operations Model
2)Baseline Load Calculations Based on IPC Member Surveys Are Significantly Lower than Predicted by EPA’s Model
3)EPA Mistakenly Interpreted its Survey Information to Indicate the Existence of PWB Facilities That Are Not Currently Regulated
G.EPA Has Failed to Accurately Assess the Pollutants Removed by POTWs
H.EPA Has Failed to Properly Account for Local Limits and Their Resulting Control
I.EPA Has Failed to Provide Adequate Information to Permit a Thorough Public Review of the Proposed Rule
1)EPA Should Provide Separate Analysis for the PWB Industry
2)The Docket for the Proposed Rule is Incomplete and Inadequate
3)EPA Should Correct Docket Deficiencies with a Notice of Data Availability
V.Economic Effect of the Proposed Rule
A.EPA Has Underestimated the Cost of Complying with the Proposed Rule
1)EPA Has Underestimated the Cost of Complying with the Proposed Limits for Existing Sources
a.Capital Equipment
b.Many Facilities do not Have Adequate Space to Install Equipment Needed to Meet the Proposed Limits
c.EPA has Underestimated the Cost of Electricity
d.EPA has Underestimated the Cost of Counter-Current Cascade Rinsing
e.EPA Has Incorrectly Assumed There Will be No Increase in Monitoring Costs
f.EPA Has Failed to Include Additional Costs Associated with Compliance with the Proposed Rule
2)EPA has Underestimated the Cost of Complying with the NSPS
B.EPA Underestimates Closures
1)EPA Has Significantly Underestimated the Cost of Compliance
2)The EEBA Incorrectly Assumes Very Significant Cost Pass-Through
a.The EEBA Provides No Basis for the Cost Pass-Through Assumption for the PWB Sector
b.The Methodology for EPA’s Econometric Analysis is Flawed
c.Cost Pass-Through of Near Zero is a More Appropriate Assumption for the PWB Sector
3)The EEBA Overstates Cash Flow By Incorrectly Assuming Vulnerable Facilities Will Benefit Fully from Tax Shields
4)The EEBA Fails to Consider Critical Cash Outflows for Equipment Replacement, Modernization or Debt Repayment
a.The PWB Sector Faces Significant Capital Investment Needs
b.Failure to Address Investment Needs Can Result in a Facility Becoming Non-Competitive
5)Aspects of The NPV Test May Have Been Performed Incorrectly
6)Failure of Both Closure Tests Should Not Be Required to Be Counted as a Closure
7)The ATCF Test Clearly Understates Closures And Should Be Corrected
8)The EEBA’s Financial Stress Tests Indicate More Than a “Moderate” Impact
9)The EEBA’s Financial Stress Tests Were Not Performed Correctly
10)The EEBA Does Not Adequately Document Or Employ The Financial Stress Tests
11)A “Common Sense” Approach Suggests That the Proposed Regulation Will Cause Many More Closures than the EEBA Estimates
12)The EEBA’s Data Sample & Extrapolation Are Likely Unrepresentative
13)The EEBA’s Baseline Closures Might Be Regulatory Closures
14)The New Source Standards May Be A Significant Barrier To Entry
15)Small Businesses Are Especially Vulnerable In Economic Downturns
C.Additional Information is Needed to Comment on the EEBA
1)The EEBA Provides Much Less Information and Documentation Than Normal
2)The EEBA and the Docket Do Not Provide All of the Information Needed for Public Comment
3)Summary of Suggested Data and Sensitivity Analyses Regarding Economic Impacts
VI.Other Issues
A.EPA has Failed to Assess Production Normalized Effluents
B.EPA Proposes Regulations Based on DTC for Chelate Breaking, Yet Admits Concerns About DTCs Toxic Effects
C.Total Organic Carbon is Not an Appropriate Indicator for PWBs
VII.Cost Benefit Analysis
A.According to EPA the Social Costs of the Proposed Rule Exceed the Social Benefits
B.For the PWB Subcategory , the Cost of the Proposed Rule is Very High for the Pollution that is removed
VIII.Conclusions
Appendix AIPC Survey
Appendix BSolder Flux Basics
Appendix CWelding
Appendix DLocal Limits
Appendix EReview of the Economic Analysis of EPA’s Proposed Metal Products and Machinery Rule for the Printed Wiring Board Sector, Environomics, Inc., 2001
Comments of the IPC on EPA’s MP&M Effluent Limitations GuidelinesPage 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- Introduction
IPC – The Association Connecting Electronics Industries, represents nearly 2,800 member companies that manufacture printed wiring boards (PWBs) and attach electronic components to bare PWBs to produce “printed wiring assemblies” (PWAs). The industry employs more than 400,000 people and exceeds $44 billion in sales.
Although IPC is commenting specifically on the proposed Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs)[1] for PWBs, many of our methodology concerns apply equally to the General Metals category, which would regulate the assembly of PWAs.
Ninety percent of IPC members that manufacture PWBs are small businesses. The typical IPC member has 100 employees and has a profit margin of less than four percent. The PWB industry is vital to the United States high tech industry and the security of this country. PWB manufacturers are under extreme pressure from Asian, particularly Chinese, competition.
EPA has lost sight of the need for the MP&M ELGs. The original purpose of the MP&M regulation was to establish effluent limits for metal processing facilities not covered by existing ELGs. EPA’s proposed rule, however, focuses on significantly lowering limits for industries already covered under existing ELGs, while excluding virtually all of the facilities with which EPA was originally concerned.
- The Uniqueness of the PWB Manufacturing Processes Requires A Unique MP&M Subcategory for Appropriate Regulation
- Characteristics of PWB Wastewater
As acknowledged by EPA in the proposed rule, “Printed wiring board facilities perform unique operations including applying, developing and stripping of photo-resist, lead/tin soldering, and wave soldering.”
PWB wastewater is different from other MP&M industries for the following reasons:
- The use of copper, lead, tin, nickel, iron, gold, and aluminum are significantly different.
- PWB facilities are much more likely to use three or more metal types. Treatment of mixed metal streams is far more difficult than treatment of single metal streams.
- Cyanide use is limited to the plating and stripping of gold, which is not discharged due to the value of the gold content.
- PWB plating baths rely upon strong chelating and complexing agents
- PWB wastewater contains a mixture of metals and organics.
- PWB wastewater contains unique organic solutions that form a tacky precipitate that cannot be efficiently removed with conventional filtration.
- Subcategory Issues
Given the different metal profiles of wastewater streams, and the complexity of treating such streams, it is completely inappropriate to use data from the General Metals, Oily Waste, or Metal Finishing Job shops for the purpose of estimating baseline pollution or setting ELGs for the PWB industry.
No real difference in effluents is observed based upon ownership of the product. PWB job shops and non-job shop PWBs should be combined in the same subcategory and be subject to the same technology based limits.
The operations of PWA facilities are distinctly different from those performed by PWB facilities. PWA facilities do not make PWBs, but instead purchase them as a key input to the assembly process. The PWA industry should not be regulated under the PWB subcategory.
- The Proposed Limits Are Not Achievable
- The Proposed Limits can not Be Met with BAT Technology
The limits proposed by EPA can not be met with the Best Achievable Technology (BAT) identified by the proposed rule. The proposed rule relies on the same wastewater treatment technology as the existing Electroplating and Metal Finishing Point Source Categories ELGs. EPA has not provided information regarding any new technology that would explain the extreme change in wastewater treatment performance. A review of discharge monitoring data (DMR), conducted by an EPA contractor, indicates that none of the facilities on which the proposed limits are based can consistently meet them.
EPA has failed to consider the physical limitations beyond which hydroxide precipitation can not reduce metals concentrations in wastewater. Single state treatment of mixed metal streams must compromise among the optimal treatment pH for each single metal, further reducing precipitation.
In regards to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), EPA has not demonstrated that microfiltration systems are effective for facilities with large discharge flows.
1) Much of the Data Used to Develop the Proposed Limits was Inappropriately Applied to the PWB Industry
The cyanide, chromium, copper, lead, sulfide, tin, and zinc limits proposed for existing PWB facilities are all based on data collected from totally unrelated industries with completely different wastewater characteristics; while for the NSPS EPA inappropriately relied upon transferred chromium, manganese, nickel, zinc, cyanide, sulfide, total suspended solids, and oil and grease data. The transfer of data was necessary because of an excessively small sample size and the inappropriate deletion of PWB data, most often due to erroneous comparisons to existing 40 CFR 433 Standards.
EPA also failed to recognize batch treatment as a valid treatment method. Batch treatment of concentrated metal streams is a critical component in an effective PWB wastewater treatment plant, typically removing from 67% to 90% of the total metals removed in a PWB wastewater treatment system.
When PWB data was used, EPA erroneously applied effluent data from isolated precipitation/clarification systems, which do not represent the entire wastewater treatment system in a PWB facility as most of the metals are removed by processes other than precipitation/clarification. Final effluent samples should have been taken in order to characterize the capabilities of these systems.
The EPA’s model should be adjusted to match the operations of real BAT PWB facilities and PWB data should be used to set the effluent guidelines for PWB manufacturers.
2) The Statistical Methodologies Used to Develop the Limits are Arbitrary and Capricious
The statistical methodology used to set effluent limits has a far greater effect on the resultant limits than the Sampling Episode Report (SER) data. Small changes in limit setting methodology appear to have a significant effect on the resultant limits.
We have the following additional concerns regarding EPA’s statistical methodology:
- EPA has not adequately justified the use of the median LTA instead of the mean LTA for the setting of effluent guidelines.
- EPA’s sampling over a sequential five-day period fails to measure the real variability in PWB wastewater effluents.
- EPA’s methodology has the effect of further reducing inadequately measured variability.
- EPA should utilize real world DMR data to assess true variability.
Without justifying the reasons for selecting a particular statistical methodology, EPA’s selection of the methodology used in this rulemaking could be viewed as arbitrary and capricious.
3) EPA has Inappropriately Proposed Limits for Treatment Chemicals
Because the most effective chemical reducing agents used in the PWB industry are sulfides, carbamates, or boron based, the proposed MP&M discharge limits on residuals from these reducing agents will inhibit the PWB industry’s ability to comply with metal discharge limits.
- EPA Has Greatly Overestimated the Pollution Removed by This Rule
EPA has significantly overestimated the amount of pollution removal, measured in toxic pound-equivalents (PEs), attributable to the proposed rule.
- EPA’s Unit Operations Model Is Severely Flawed
The EPA unit operations model is flawed for the following reasons:
- Models are normally effective only when working with uniform predictable processes and only when inputting highly reliable data, neither of which is true in this case.
- EPA has committed significant errors by using unit operations data that averages results from all MP&M industries. Even in the same unit operation (as defined by EPA), processes in the PWB industry are quite different from those in other industries.
- In the case of cyanide, EPA has failed to account for the significant difference in the way cyanide is used by the PWB industry, as compared to other MP&M industries. By borrowing cyanide data from other industries, EPA has fabricated an environmental benefit that doesn’t exist.
- PWB manufacturers typically discharge nontoxic organically complexed copper. EPA should re-examine the toxicity factor used to calculate copper PEs removed by the proposed rule.
- EPA has failed to conduct adequate quality assurance/quality control of its unit operations concentrations database, resulting in miscalculation of facility pollutant loading. EPA should reconfirm that all of its unit operations data have been properly classified.
- EPA’s over-simplification of the assignment of facility weighting factors has resulted in national estimates that are not representative of the PWB industry. EPA should reexamine its weighting factors to determine if a more accurate estimate can be developed through the use of additional weighting categories.
- EPA has inappropriately transferred unit operations data from welding rinse operations to solder flux cleaning and solder fusing operations. To do so demonstrates EPA's lack of understanding of the PWB manufacturing process.
- Basic cross-checks of the EPA model, conducted using effluent data from EPA’s Phase II Survey, indicate that EPA has assumed baseline effluent levels that would mean over 95% of PWBs are exceeding existing effluent standards for copper, lead and cyanide. Clearly this cannot be the case; there must be a flaw in the baseline loads predicted by the unit operations model.
- Calculation of PEs to be removed by the rule, based on the difference between the proposed limits and actual facility effluents, as reported in EPA’s Phase II Surveys, yielded a median removal of 8.37 PEs per facility. Average per site annual removal is just 24.12 PEs, clearly falling well below EPA's threshold for the need to impose new effluent limits. Similar results were obtained using data from an IPC member survey.
- EPA Mistakenly Interpreted its Survey Information to Indicate the Existence of PWB Facilities That Are Not Currently Regulated
IPC does not know of any PWB facilities that are not regulated under existing ELGs contained in Parts 413 and 433 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).