[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51042-51060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17032]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OW-2004-0032; FRL-7959-8]
RIN 2040-AE76
Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2006 Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of preliminary 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan;
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA establishes national
technology-based regulations known as effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards to reduce pollutant discharges from categories
of industry discharging directly to waters of the United States or
discharging indirectly through Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).
The CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b) require EPA to
annually review these effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards.
Today's notice first presents EPA's 2005 review of its existing
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. It also presents EPA's
evaluation of categories of indirect dischargers without pretreatment
standards to identify potential new categories for pretreatment
standards. CWA section 304(m) requires EPA to biennially publish an
effluent guidelines program plan and provide for public notice and
comment on such plan. Therefore, this notice also presents the
preliminary 2006 effluent guidelines program plan. Included in the
preliminary 2006 plan is a solicitation for comments and data on
industry categories that may be discharging non-trivial amounts of
toxic or non-conventional pollutants and are not currently subject to
any effluent guidelines. Finally, this notice provides a second
opportunity for public notice and comment on the draft Strategy for
National Clean Water Industrial Regulations (``draft Strategy''), see
67 FR 71165 (November 29, 2002).
DATES: If you wish to comment on any portion of this notice, EPA must
receive your comments by October 28, 2005. EPA will conduct a public
meeting on 20 September 2005, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time. For information on the location of the public meeting, see
ADDRESSES section.
ADDRESSES: Identify your comments, data and information relating to the
Agency's draft Strategy; by Docket ID No. OW-2002-0020. Identify all
other comments, data and information relating to this notice by Docket
ID No. OW-2004-0032. Submit your comments, data and information by one
of the following methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
B. Agency Website: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's
electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments, data, and information. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
C. E-mail: [email protected].
D. Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. OW-2004-0032. For comments, data, and information on the
draft Strategy, use Docket ID No. OW-2002-0020.
E. Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
No. OW-2004-0032. Use Docket ID No. OW-2002-0020 for comments, data,
and information on the draft Strategy. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments, data, and information to Docket
ID No. OW-2004-0032. For comments, data, and information on the draft
Strategy, use Docket ID No. OW-2002-0020. EPA's policy is that all
comments, data, and information received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided,
unless the material includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through EDOCKET, regulations.gov,
or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected. The EPA EDOCKET and the federal regulations.gov websites are
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31,
2002 (67 FR 38102). For additional instructions on obtaining access to
comments, go to section I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
[[Page 51043]]
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water
Docket is (202) 566-2426.
Public Meeting: EPA will hold an informational public meeting for
interested stakeholders in the EPA East Building, Room 1153 (also known
as the ``Great Room'' or the ``Map Room''), 1201 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC. For more information on the details and location
of the public meeting, see section I.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-
1014 or [email protected], or Ms. Jan Matuszko at (202) 566-1035
or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
How Is This Document Organized?
The outline of today's notice follows:
I. General Information
II. Legal Authority
III. What is the Purpose of Today's Federal Register Notice?
IV. Background
V. EPA's 2005 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g),
and 307(b)
VI. EPA's 2006 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g),
and 307(b)
VII. EPA's Evaluation of Categories of Indirect Dischargers Without
Categorical Pretreatment Standards to Identify Potential New
Categories for Pretreatment Standards
VIII. The Preliminary 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan Under
Section 304(m)
IX. Request for Comment and Information
I. General Information
A. Regulated Entities
Today's notice does not contain regulatory requirements. Rather,
today's notice describes: (1) The Agency's 2005 annual review of
existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and
307(b); (2) EPA's review of indirect dischargers without categorical
pretreatment standards to identify potential new categories for
pretreatment standards under CWA sections 304(g) and 307(b); and (3)
the preliminary 2006 effluent guidelines program plan under CWA section
304(m) (``Plan''). EPA anticipates completing the final 2006 Plan by
August 2006. As required by CWA section 304(m), the final Plan will:
(1) Present a schedule for EPA's annual review of existing effluent
guidelines under CWA section 304(b) and a schedule for any effluent
guidelines revisions; and (2) identify industries for which EPA has not
promulgated effluent guidelines but may decide to do so through
rulemaking and a schedule for these rulemakings.
B. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information?
1. Docket
EPA has established an official public docket for the Agency's 2005
and 2006 annual reviews of existing effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards under CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and
307(b), and the 2006 Plan under CWA section 304(m) under Docket ID No.
OW-2004-0032. EPA has established an official public docket for the
Agency's draft Strategy under Docket ID No. OW-2002-0020. The official
public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this
action, any public comments received, and other information related to
this action. Although a part of the official docket, Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute is not included in the materials available to the
public. The official public docket is the collection of materials that
is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-
2426.
2. Electronic Access
You may access this Federal Register document electronically
through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public
docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not
all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available docket materials through the
docket facility identified in section I.B.1. Once in the system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
C. What Are the Public Meeting Details for the Preliminary Plan?
A public meeting to review the preliminary 2006 Plan will be held
in Washington, DC (see the DATES and ADDRESSES sections for the date
and location of the public meeting). The meeting is open to the public,
and limited seating for the public is available on a first-come, first-
served basis. For security reasons, we request that you bring photo
identification with you to the meeting. Also, it will expedite the
process of entering the building if you contact Ms. Cassandra Holmes at
least three business days prior to the meeting with your name, phone
number, and any affiliation. Ms. Holmes can be reached via e-mail at
[email protected]. Please use ``304(m) Public Meeting Attendee''
in the e-mail subject line. Ms. Holmes can also be reached by telephone
at (202) 566-1000.
EPA will not distribute meeting materials in advance of the public
meeting; all materials will be distributed at the meeting. The purpose
of the public meeting is to: (1) Present the Agency's 2005 annual
review of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards under
CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 307(b), and 304(g); (2) present the
Agency's evaluation of categories of indirect dischargers without
categorical pretreatment standards to identify potential new categories
for pretreatment standards under CWA section 307(b); (3) present the
preliminary 2006 Plan under CWA section 304(m); (4) review the industry
sectors identified for further investigation; and (5) identify
information collection activities and analyses EPA anticipates
completing for the Agency's 2006 review of effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards and the final Plan. EPA will not provide a
transcript of the meeting but will record the meeting minutes for the
docket supporting this action. Individuals wishing to comment on the
Agency's review and the preliminary Plan would need to submit written
comments as described in section I.C. in order for EPA to consider
their comments in the next annual review and final Plan.
[[Page 51044]]
If you need special accommodations at this meeting, including
wheelchair access or special audio-visual support needs, you should
contact Ms. Holmes at least seven days prior to the meeting so that we
can make appropriate arrangements. For those unable to attend the
meeting, a copy of the presentation and meeting materials will be
posted on the EPA Dockets website at: http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ and
EPA's Effluent Guidelines Planning web site at: http://www.epa.gov/guide/plan.html.
Please note that parking is very limited in downtown Washington,
and we recommend you use public transit. The EPA Headquarters complex
is located near the Federal Triangle Metro station. Upon exiting the
Metro station, walk east to 12th Street. On 12th Street, walk south to
Constitution Avenue. At the corner, turn right onto Constitution Avenue
and proceed to the entrance at the EPA East Building, 1201 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
II. Legal Authority
Today's notice is published under the authority of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. 1251, et seq., and in particular sections 301(d), 304(b),
304(g), 304(m), 306, and 307(b), 33 U.S.C. 1311(d), 1314(b), 1314(g),
1314(m), 1316, and 1317.
III. What Is the Purpose of Today's Federal Register Notice?
Today's notice presents EPA's 2005 review of its existing effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards. It also presents EPA's
evaluation of indirect dischargers without categorical pretreatment
standards to identify potential new categories for pretreatment
standards. CWA section 304(m) requires EPA to biennially publish an
effluent guidelines program plan and provide for public notice and
comment on such plan. Therefore, this notice also presents the
preliminary 2006 effluent guidelines program plan. Included in the
preliminary 2006 plan is a solicitation for comments and data on
industry categories that may be discharging non-trivial amounts of
toxic or non-conventional pollutants and are not currently subject to
effluent guidelines. Finally, this notice provides a second opportunity
for public notice and comment on the draft Strategy for National Clean
Water Industrial Regulations (``draft Strategy''), see 67 FR 71165
(November 29, 2002).
IV. Background
A. What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?
The CWA directs EPA to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines
and standards that reflect pollutant reductions that can be achieved by
categories or subcategories of industrial point sources using specific
technologies. See CWA sections 301(b)(2), 304(b), 306, 307(b), and
307(c). For point sources that introduce pollutants directly into the
waters of the United States (direct dischargers), the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards promulgated by EPA are implemented
through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits. See CWA sections 301(a), 301(b), and 402. For sources that
discharge to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) (indirect
dischargers), EPA promulgates pretreatment standards that apply
directly to those sources and are enforced by POTWs and State and
Federal authorities. See CWA sections 307(b) and (c).
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--CWA
Sections 301(b)(1)(A) & 304(b)(1)
EPA defines Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT) effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and non-
conventional pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as
conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional
pollutant on July 30, 1979. See 44 FR 44501 (July 30, 1979). EPA has
identified 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic pollutants,
of which 126 specific substances have been designated priority toxic
pollutants. See Appendix A to part 423. All other pollutants are
considered to be non-conventional.
In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first
considers the total cost of applying the control technology in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age
of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed, and any
required process changes, engineering aspects of the control
technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements), and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems
appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA
establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best
performances of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes,
processes, or other common characteristics. Where existing performance
is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than
currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency determines
that the technology can be practically applied.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--CWA Sections
301(b)(2)(E) & 304(b)(4)
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with Best
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for discharges from
existing industrial point sources. In addition to considering the other
factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B) to establish BCT limitations,
EPA also considers a two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA
explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in
1986. See 51 FR 24974 (July 9, 1986).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--CWA
Sections 301(b)(2)(A) & 304(b)(2)
For toxic pollutants and non-conventional pollutants, EPA
promulgates effluent guidelines based on the Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT). See CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D) &
(F). The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of
achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities
involved, the process employed, potential process changes, non-water
quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements, and other
such factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA
section 304(b)(2)(B). The technology must also be economically
achievable. See CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). The Agency retains
considerable discretion in assigning the weight accorded to these
factors. BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable
through changes in a facility's processes and operations. Where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher
level of performance than is currently being achieved within a
particular subcategory based on technology transferred from a different
subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process changes or
internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry
practice.
[[Page 51045]]
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--CWA Section 306
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reflect effluent reductions
that are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control
technology. New sources have the opportunity to install the best and
most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment
technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent
controls attainable through the application of the best available
demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional,
non-conventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA
is directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the
effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and
energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--CWA Section
307(b)
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) are designed to
prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with,
or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly-owned
treatment works (POTWs), including sludge disposal methods at POTWs.
Pretreatment standards for existing sources are technology-based and
are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of national pretreatment standards, are found at
40 CFR part 403.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--CWA Section 307(c)
Like PSES, Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) are
designed to prevent the discharges of pollutants that pass through,
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of
POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as NSPS. New indirect
dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate into their facilities
the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the
same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
B. What Are EPA's Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections
301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 304(m), and 307(b)?
1. EPA's Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections 301(d), 304(b),
and 304(m)--Direct Dischargers
Section 304(b) requires EPA to review its existing effluent
guidelines for direct dischargers each year and to revise such
regulations ``if appropriate.'' Section 304(m) supplements the core
requirement of section 304(b) by requiring EPA to publish a plan every
two years announcing its schedule for performing this annual review and
its schedule for rulemaking for any effluent guideline selected for
possible revision as a result of that annual review. Section 304(m)
also requires the plan to identify categories of sources discharging
non-trivial amounts of toxic or non-conventional pollutants for which
EPA has not published effluent limitations guidelines under section
304(b)(2) or NSPS under section 306. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(B); S.
Rep. No. 50, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985); WQA87 Leg. Hist. 31.
Finally, under section 304(m), the plan must present a schedule for
promulgating effluent guidelines for industrial categories for which it
has not already established such guidelines, with final action on such
rulemaking required not later than three years after the industrial
category is identified in a final Plan. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(C).
EPA is required to publish its preliminary Plan for public comment
prior to taking final action on the plan. See CWA section 304(m)(2).
In addition, CWA section 301(d) requires EPA to review every five
years the effluent limitations required by CWA section 301(b)(2) and to
revise them if appropriate pursuant to the procedures specified in that
section. Section 301(b)(2), in turn, requires point sources to achieve
effluent limitations reflecting the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (for toxic pollutants and non-
conventional pollutants) and the best conventional pollutant control
technology (for conventional pollutants), as determined by EPA under
sections 304(b)(2) and 304(b)(4), respectively. For nearly three
decades, EPA has implemented sections 301 and 304 through the
promulgation of effluent limitations guidelines, resulting in
regulations for 56 industrial categories. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 113 (1977). Consequently, as part of its annual
review of effluent limitations guidelines under section 304(b), EPA is
also reviewing the effluent limitations they contain, thereby
fulfilling its obligations under section 301(d) and 304(b)
simultaneously.
2. EPA's Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections 304(g) and
307(b)--Indirect Dischargers
Section 307(b) requires EPA to revise its pretreatment standards
for indirect dischargers ``from time to time, as control technology,
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives change.'' See CWA
section 307(b)(2). Section 304(g) requires EPA to annually review these
pretreatment standards and revise them ``if appropriate.''Although
section 307(b) only requires EPA to review existing pretreatment
standards ``from time to time,'' section 304(g) requires an annual
review. Therefore, EPA meets its 304(g) and 307(b) review requirements
by reviewing all industrial categories subject to existing categorical
pretreatment standards on an annual basis to identify potential
candidates for revision.
Section 307(b)(1) also requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for pollutants not susceptible to treatment by POTWs or that
would interfere with the operation of POTWs, although it does not
provide a timing requirement for the promulgation of such new
pretreatment standards. EPA, in its discretion, periodically evaluates
indirect dischargers not subject to categorical pretreatment standards
to identify potential candidates for new pretreatment standards. The
CWA does not require EPA to publish its review of pretreatment
standards or identification of potential new categories, although EPA
is exercising its discretion to do so in this notice.
EPA intends to repeat this publication schedule for future
pretreatment standards reviews (e.g., EPA will publish the 2006 annual
pretreatment standards review in the notice containing the Agency's
2006 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and the final 2006
Plan). EPA intends that these coincident reviews will provide
meaningful insight into EPA's effluent guidelines and pretreatment
standards program decision-making. Additionally, EPA hopes to most
efficiently serve the public with these coincident reviews whereby this
single notice and future notices serve as the ``one-stop shop'' source
of information for the Agency's current and future effluent guidelines
and pretreatment standards program reviews.
V. EPA's 2005 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and
307(b)
A. What Process Did EPA Use to Review Existing Effluent Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Section 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and
307(b)?
1. Background
In its 2005 annual review, EPA reviewed all industrial categories
subject to existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
standards,
[[Page 51046]]
representing a total of 56 point source categories and over 450
subcategories. EPA thereby met its obligations to annually review both
existing effluent limitations guidelines for direct dischargers under
CWA sections 301(d) and 304(b) and existing pretreatment standards for
indirect dischargers under CWA sections 304(g) and 307(b).
EPA's annual review of existing effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards represents a considerable effort by the Agency
to consider the hazards to human health or the environment from
industrial point source category discharges. The 2005 annual reviews,
which themselves build on reviews from previous years, also reflect a
lengthy outreach effort to involve stakeholders in the review process.
In performing its 2005 annual review, EPA considered all information
and data submitted to EPA as part of its outreach activities. EPA
reviewed all industrial sectors and will conduct more focused detailed
reviews for a select number of industrial sectors. EPA will complete
these detailed reviews prior to publication of the final 2006 Plan.
As discussed in more detail below, EPA uses pollutant loadings
information and technological, economic, and other information in
evaluating whether it would be appropriate to revise its promulgated
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. EPA also examines the
processes and operations of each category subject to promulgated
effluent guidelines to decide whether it might be appropriate to
address (through additional subcategories) other industrial activities
that are similar in terms of type of operations performed, pollutants
and wastewaters generated, and available pollution prevention and
treatment options. Because issues associated with such additional
subcategories very often are interwoven with the structure and
requirements of the existing regulation, EPA believes that
incorporating its review of these potential subcategories into its
annual review of the larger categories with which they likely belong is
the most efficient way to fulfill its statutory obligations under
sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b). This is especially
important in view of the large number of existing categories and
potential additional subcategories that EPA must review annually.
One example where EPA established effluent guidelines for an
additional subcategory under an existing category is the agricultural
refilling establishments subcategory (Subpart E) that EPA added to the
Pesticide Chemicals point source category (40 CFR part 455). See 61 FR
57518 (November 6, 1996). The BPT limitations in Part 455 did not cover
refilling establishments and their industrial operations (e.g.,
refilling of minibulks) because these industrial operations did not
begin until well after the limitations were first promulgated. EPA
considered refilling establishments to be a subcategory of the
Pesticide Chemicals point source category because of similar types of
industrial operations performed, wastewaters generated, and available
pollution prevention and treatment options.
EPA's annual reviews also focus on identifying pollutants that are
not regulated by an existing effluent guideline or pretreatment
standard for a point source category but that comprise a significant
portion of the estimated toxic discharges (as measured by toxic-
weighted pound equivalents (TWPE)) for that category. EPA believes that
it is reasonable to consider new pollutants for regulation in the
course of reviewing and revising existing effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards. EPA has several reasons for this. First, a
newly identified pollutant might be adequately addressed through
existing regulations or through the additional control of already
regulated pollutants in an existing set of effluent guidelines or
pretreatment standards. In some cases, revising existing limitations
for one set of pollutants will address hazards associated with a newly
identified pollutant, thus obviating the need for EPA to promulgate
specific limitations for that pollutant. Second, EPA believes it is
necessary to understand the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards in controlling
newly identified pollutants before EPA can identify potential
technology-based control options for these pollutants. For example, EPA
revised effluent limitations for the bleached papergrade kraft and soda
and papergrade sulfite subcategories within the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard point source category (40 CFR part 430) to add BAT
limitations for dioxin, which was not measurable when EPA first
promulgated these effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. See
63 FR 18504 (April 15, 1998).
In general, treatment technologies address multiple pollutants and
it is important to consider their effects holistically in order to
develop limitations that are both environmentally protective and
economically achievable. In short, EPA believes that the
appropriateness of creating an additional subcategory or addressing a
newly identified pollutant is best considered in the context of
revising an existing set of effluent guidelines. Accordingly, EPA
performed these analyses as part of its annual review of existing
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards.
2. What factors does EPA consider in its annual review of effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards under sections 301(d), 304(b),
304(g), and 307(b)?
Section 304(b) and 304(g) direct EPA to revise existing effluent
guidelines ``if appropriate.'' In the draft Strategy for National Clean
Water Industrial Regulations (``draft Strategy''), see 67 FR 71165
(November 29, 2002), EPA identified four major factors that the Agency
would aim to examine, in the course of its annual review, to determine
whether it would be appropriate to revise an existing set of effluent
guidelines or pretreatment standards for direct and indirect
dischargers.
The first factor EPA considers is the amount and toxicity of the
pollutants in an industrial category's discharge and the extent to
which these pollutants pose a hazard to human health or the
environment. This enables the Agency to set priorities for rulemaking
in order to achieve the greatest environmental and health benefits.
EPA's assessment of hazard also enables the Agency to indirectly assess
the effectiveness of the pollution control technologies and processes
currently in use by an industrial category, based on the amount and
toxicity of its dischargers. This also helps the Agency assess the
extent to which additional regulation may contribute reasonable further
progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants, as specified in section 301(b)(2)(A). The second factor
identifies and evaluates the cost and performance of an applicable and
demonstrated technology, process change, or pollution prevention
alternative that can effectively reduce the pollutants remaining in the
industrial category's wastewater and, consequently, substantially
reduce the hazard to human health or the environment associated with
these pollutant discharges. Cost is a factor specifically identified in
section 304(b) for consideration in establishing BPT, BAT, and BCT. The
third factor evaluates the affordability or economic achievability of
the technology, process change, or pollution prevention measures
identified using the second factor. If the financial condition of the
industry indicates that it would experience significant difficulties in
implementing the new technology, process change, or pollution
prevention
[[Page 51047]]
measures, EPA might conclude that Agency resources would be more
effectively spent developing more efficient, less costly approaches to
reducing pollutant loadings that would better satisfy applicable
statutory requirements.
The fourth factor addresses implementation and efficiency
considerations and recommendations from stakeholders. Here, EPA
considers opportunities to eliminate inefficiencies or impediments to
pollution prevention or technological innovation, or opportunities to
promote innovative approaches such as water quality trading, including
within-plant trading. For example, in the 1990s, industry requested in
comments on the Offshore and Coastal Oil and Gas Extraction (40 CFR
part 435) effluent guidelines rulemakings that EPA revise these
effluent guidelines because they inhibited the use of a new pollution
prevention technology (synthetic-based drilling fluids). EPA agreed
that revisions to these effluent guidelines were appropriate for
promoting synthetic-based drilling fluids as a pollution prevention
technology and promulgated revisions to the Oil and Gas Extraction
point source category. See 66 FR 6850 (Jan. 22, 2001). This factor
might also prompt EPA, during an annual review, to decide against
identifying an existing set of effluent guidelines or pretreatment
standards for revision where the pollutant source is already
efficiently and effectively controlled by other regulatory or non-
regulatory programs.
EPA intends to finalize the draft Strategy in connection with the
final 2006 Plan. EPA first solicited public comments in the November
29, 2002, Federal Register notice (67 FR 71165) announcing the
availability of the draft Strategy. EPA received 22 public comments on
the draft Strategy and these are included in Docket ID No. OW-2002-
0020. EPA again solicits public comment on the draft Strategy.
Commenters should follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the draft Strategy listed in DATES and ADDRESSES sections in this
notice. In particular, commenters should send their comments, data, and
information on the draft Strategy to the Agency using Docket ID No. OW-
2002-0020.
3. How did EPA's 2004 annual review influence its 2005 annual review of
point source categories with existing effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards?
In view of the annual nature of its reviews of existing effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards, EPA believes that each annual
review can and should influence succeeding annual reviews, e.g., by
indicating data gaps, identifying new pollutants or pollution reduction
technologies, or otherwise highlighting industrial categories for more
detailed scrutiny in subsequent years. During its 2004 annual review,
which concluded in September 2004, EPA completed detailed studies for
two industrial categories: Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) (Part 414); and Petroleum Refining (Part 419). In
addition, EPA identified nine other priority industrial categories as
candidates for detailed study in future reviews based on the toxic
discharges reported to TRI and PCS. EPA summarized its findings in the
``Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program
Plan,'' EPA-821-R-04-014, August 2004. EPA's 2004 annual review,
including stakeholder comments received as of that date, is discussed
in the comment response document in the record supporting that action.
See Docket OW-2003-0074, Document No. OW-2003-0074-1345.
EPA used the findings, data and comments from the 2004 annual
review to inform its 2005 annual review. For example, in its 2005
review, EPA gathered more data for industrial categories identified for
future study in the 2004 annual review, and began a detailed study of
two of these categories (i.e., Steam Electric Power Generation and
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Manufacturing). Although the OCPSF and
Petroleum Refining categories again ranked high in terms of TWPE
discharged, EPA did not conduct a new detailed study of these
categories, as EPA's 2004 detailed study of these categories had
revealed that effluent guidelines revisions were not warranted at that
time. In 2005, EPA confirmed that its findings in the 2004 annual
review, which used TRI and PCS data from year 2000, were still
applicable based on the 2002 TRI and PCS data used in the 2005 annual
review.
During the 2003 and 2004 reviews, EPA developed methodologies for
screening level analysis of discharge data in TRI and PCS as well as
for detailed review of prioritized categories. The 2005 review built on
the previous reviews by continuing to use the screening level
methodology, incorporating some refinements to assigning discharges to
categories and updating toxic weighting factors used to estimate
potential hazards of toxic pollutant discharges.
4. What actions did EPA take in performing its 2005 annual reviews of
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards?
a. Screening-Level Review
The first component of EPA's 2005 annual review consisted of a
screening-level review of all industrial categories subject to existing
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards. As a starting point for
this review, EPA examined screening-level data from its 2004 annual
reviews. In its 2004 annual reviews, EPA focused its efforts on
collecting and analyzing data to identify industrial categories whose
pollutant discharges potentially pose the greatest hazard to human
health or the environment because of their toxicity (i.e., highest
estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges). In particular, EPA
ranked point source categories according to their discharges of toxic
and non-conventional pollutants (reported in units of toxic-weighted
pound equivalent or TWPE), based primarily on data from the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) and the Permit Compliance System (PCS). EPA
calculated the TWPE using pollutant-specific toxic weighting factors
(TWFs). Where data are available, these TWFs reflect both aquatic life
and human health effects. For each facility that reports to TRI and
PCS, EPA multiplies the pounds of discharged pollutants by pollutant-
specific TWFs. This calculation results in an estimate of the
discharged toxic-weighted pound equivalents (TWPE) which EPA then uses
to assess the hazard posed by these toxic and non-conventional
pollutant discharges to human health or the environment. EPA repeated
this process for the 2005 annual reviews using the most recent data
(2002). EPA also considered implementation and efficiency issues raised
by EPA Regions and stakeholders. The full description of EPA's
methodology for the 2005 screening-level review is presented in the
Docket accompanying this notice (see OW-2004-0032-0017).
EPA is continuously investigating and solicits comment on how to
improve its analyses. EPA made a few such improvements to the
screening-level review methodology from the 2004 to the 2005 annual
review. EPA updated the TWFs and its estimate of average POTW pollutant
removal efficiencies for a number of pollutants. Prior to publication
of the final 2006 Plan, EPA will start the process for conducting a
peer review of its development and use of TWFs. EPA also included
pollutant loadings from potential new subcategories in their respective
parent
[[Page 51048]]
industrial category totals (e.g., the pollutant loadings from petroleum
bulk stations and terminals (SIC 5171) were included in the pollutant
loadings for the Petroleum Refining point source category (40 CFR part
419)).
EPA also combined the estimated discharges of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants calculated from the TRI and PCS databases to
estimate the total TWPE for each category. In the 2003 and 2004 annual
reviews, EPA separately evaluated the TWPE estimates from the TRI and
PCS databases. EPA finds that combining the TWPE estimates from the TRI
and PCS databases into a single TWPE number offers a clearer
perspective of the industries with the most toxic pollution. Different
pollutants may dominate the TRI and PCS TWPE estimates for an
industrial category due to the differences in pollutant reporting
requirements between the TRI and PCS databases. The single TWPE number
for each category highlights those industries with the most toxic
discharge data in both TRI and PCS. Although this approach could have
theoretically led to double-counting, EPA's review of the data
indicates that because the two databases focus on different pollutants,
double-counting was minimal and did not affect the ranking of the top
ranked industrial categories (see OW-2004-0032-0016 and 0017). EPA
specifically solicits comment on these revisions to its screening-level
review methodology.
EPA also developed and used a quality assurance project plan (QAPP)
to document the type and quality of data needed to make the decisions
in this annual review and to describe the methods for collecting and
assessing those data (see OW-2004-0032-0050). EPA used the following
document to develop the QAPP for this annual review: ``EPA Requirements
for QA Project Plans (QA/R-5), EPA-240-B01-003.'' Using the QAPP as a
guide, EPA performed extensive quality assurance checks on the data
used to develop estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges (i.e.,
verifying data reported to TRI and the PCS) to determine if any of the
pollutant discharge estimates relied on incorrect or suspect data. For
example, EPA contacted facilities and permit writers to confirm and, as
necessary, corrected TRI and PCS data for facilities EPA identified in
its screening-level review as the significant dischargers of toxic and
non-conventional pollution.
Based on this methodology, EPA was able to prioritize its review of
industries that offered the greatest potential for reducing hazard to
human health and the environment. EPA assigned those categories with
the lowest estimates of toxic weighted pollutant discharges a lower
priority for revision (i.e., industrial categories marked ``3'' in the
``Findings'' column in Table V-1).
In order to further focus its inquiry during the 2005 annual
review, EPA did not prioritize for additional review categories for
which effluent guidelines had been recently promulgated or revised, or
for which effluent guidelines rulemaking was currently underway (i.e,
industrial categories marked ``1'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table
V-1). For example, EPA excluded from additional review facilities that
are associated with the Vinyl Chloride and Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing
rulemaking currently underway, subtracting the pollutant discharges
from these facilities in its 2005 hazard assessment of the OCPSF and
Inorganic Chemicals point source categories to which they belong.
Additionally, EPA applied less scrutiny to industrial categories for
which EPA had promulgated effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards
within the past seven years. EPA chose seven years because this is the
time it customarily takes for the effects of effluent guidelines or
pretreatment standards to be fully reflected in pollutant loading data
and TRI reports (in large part because effluent limitations guidelines
are often incorporated into NPDES permits only upon re-issuance, which
could be up to five years after the effluent guidelines or pretreatment
standards are promulgated). Because there are 56 point source
categories (including over 450 subcategories) with existing effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards that must be reviewed annually,
EPA believes it is important to prioritize its review so as to focus on
industries where changes to the existing effluent guidelines or
pretreatment standards are most likely to be needed. In general,
industries for which new or revised effluent guidelines or pretreatment
standards have recently been promulgated are less likely to warrant
such changes. However, in cases where EPA becomes aware of the growth
of a new segment within a category for which EPA has recently revised
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards, or where new concerns
are identified for previously unevaluated pollutants discharged by
facilities within the industrial category, EPA would apply more
scrutiny to the category in a subsequent review. EPA identified no such
instance during the 2005 annual review.
EPA identified thirteen industrial sectors in its 2005 annual
review where the estimated toxic-weighted pollutant discharges appeared
unclear and more data were needed to determine their magnitude (i.e.,
industrial categories marked ``(4)'' or ``(5)'' in the ``Findings''
column in Table V-1). For these industries, EPA intends to collect
additional information for the next annual review.
As part of its 2005 annual review, EPA also considered the number
of facilities responsible for the majority of the estimated toxic-
weighted pollutant discharges associated with an industrial activity.
Where only a few facilities in a category accounted for the vast
majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges, EPA did not prioritize
the category for additional review (i.e, categories marked ``(2)'' in
the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1). EPA believes that revision of
individual permits may be more effective at addressing the toxic-
weighted pollutant discharges than a national effluent guidelines
rulemaking because requirements can be better tailored to these few
facilities, and because individual permitting actions may take
considerably less time than a national rulemaking. The Docket
accompanying this notice lists facilities that account for the vast
majority of the estimated toxic-weighted pollutant discharges for
particular categories (see OW-2004-0032-0017). For these facilities,
EPA will consider identifying pollutant control and pollution
prevention technologies that will assist permit writers in developing
facility-specific, technology-based effluent limitations on a best
professional judgment (BPJ) basis. In future annual reviews, EPA also
intends to re-evaluate each category based on the information available
at the time in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the BPJ permit-
based support.
EPA received comments urging the Agency, as part of its annual
review, to encourage and recognize voluntary efforts by industry to
reduce pollutant discharges, especially when the voluntary efforts have
been widely adopted within an industry and the associated pollutant
reductions have been significant. EPA agrees that industrial categories
demonstrating significant progress through voluntary efforts to reduce
hazard to human health or the environment associated with their
effluent discharges would be a comparatively lower priority for
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards revision, particularly
where such reductions are achieved by a significant majority of
individual facilities in the industry. Although during this annual
review EPA could not complete a systematic review of voluntary
pollutant loading reductions, EPA's review did
[[Page 51049]]
account for the effects of successful voluntary programs through taking
into consideration any significant reductions in pollutant discharges
reflected in discharge monitoring and TRI data, as well as any data
provided directly by commenters, that EPA used to assess the toxic-
weighted pollutant discharges.
EPA directly assessed the availability of technology for some--but
not all--industrial categories (see OW-2004-0032-0016 and 0017). As was
the case in the 2004 annual review, EPA was unable to gather the data
needed to perform a comprehensive screening-level analysis of the
availability of treatment or process technologies to reduce toxic
pollutant wastewater discharges beyond the performance of technologies
already in place for all of the 56 existing industrial categories.
However, EPA believes that its analysis of hazard can also serve as a
proxy for assessing the effectiveness of existing technologies in terms
of the amount and significance of the pollutants discharged.
Similarly, EPA could not identify a suitable screening-level tool
for comprehensively evaluating the affordability of treatment or
process technologies because the universe of facilities is too broad
and complex. EPA could not find a reasonable way to prioritize the
industrial categories based on a broad economic profile. In the past,
EPA has gathered information regarding technologies and economic
considerations through detailed questionnaires distributed to hundreds
of facilities within a category or subcategory for which EPA has
commenced rulemaking. Such information-gathering is subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 33 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
The information acquired in this way is valuable to EPA in its
rulemaking efforts, but the process of gathering, validating and
analyzing the data--even for only a few subcategories--can consume
considerable time and resources. EPA does not think it appropriate to
conduct this level of analysis prior to identifying an industrial
category for possible regulation. Consequently, EPA is working to
develop more streamlined screening-level tools for assessing
technological and economic achievability as part of future annual
reviews under section 301(d), 304(b), and 307(b). EPA solicits comment
on how to best identify and use screening-level tools for assessing
technological and economic achievability on an industry-specific basis
as part of future annual reviews.
In summary, EPA focused its 2005 screening-level review on
industrial categories whose pollutant discharges potentially pose the
greatest hazards to human health or the environment because of their
toxicity. EPA also considered efficiency and implementation issues
raised by stakeholders. By using this multi-layered screening approach,
the Agency concentrated its resources on those point source categories
with the highest estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges
(based on best available data), while assigning a lower priority to
categories that the Agency believes are not good candidates for
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards revision at this time.
b. Detailed Review of Certain Industries
For a number of the industries that appeared to offer the greatest
potential for reducing hazard to human health or the environment, EPA
gathered and analyzed additional data on pollutant discharges, economic
factors, and technology issues during its 2005 annual review. EPA
examined: (1) Wastewater characteristics and pollutant sources; (2) the
pollutants driving the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges; (3)
treatment technology and pollution prevention information; (4) the
geographic distribution of facilities in the industry; (5) any
pollutant discharge trends within the industry; and (6) any relevant
economic factors.
EPA relied on many different sources of data including: (1) 1997
and 2002 U.S. Economic Census; (2) TRI and PCS data; (3) contacts with
reporting facilities to verify reported releases and facility
categorization; (4) contacts with regulatory authorities (states and
EPA regions) to understand how category facilities are permitted; (5)
NPDES permits and their supporting fact sheets; (6) EPA effluent
guidelines technical development documents; (7) relevant EPA
preliminary data summaries or study reports; (8) technical literature
on pollutant sources and control technologies; (9) information provided
by industry including industry conducted survey and sampling data; and
(10) stakeholder comments (see OW-2004-0032-0016, 0017, and 0020).
During its 2005 annual review, EPA started detailed studies for the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Part 430) and Steam Electric Power
Generation (Part 423) point source categories because they represent
the two industrial point source categories with the largest combined
TWPE based on EPA's ranking approach. EPA plans to complete these
detailed studies in its 2006 annual review, prior to publication of the
final 2006 Plan. An expected outcome of these detailed studies will be
the determination of whether it would be appropriate to identify these
industrial categories for possible effluent guidelines revision in the
2006 final Plan. The current status of these two detailed studies is
presented in section V.B.
c. Preliminary Review of Effluent Guidelines for Certain Industrial
Categories
In addition to identifying two categories for detailed studies (see
section V.B.2) during the 2005 screening level review, EPA identified
11 additional categories with potentially high TWPE discharge estimates
(i.e., industrial point source categories with existing effluent
guidelines identified with ``(5)'' in the column entitled ``Findings''
in Table V-1). EPA will continue to collect and analyze hazard and
technology-based information on these eleven industrial categories but
will assign a higher priority to investigating the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard and Steam Electric Power Generation industrial categories.
The docket accompanying this notice presents a summary of EPA's
findings on these eleven industrial categories (see OW-2004-0032-0016).
d. Public Comments on the 2004 Annual Review
EPA's annual review process considers information provided by
stakeholders regarding the need for new or revised effluent limitations
guidelines and pretreatment standards. To that end, EPA established a
docket for its 2005 annual review with the publication of the final
2004 Plan to provide the public with an opportunity to provide
additional information to assist the Agency in its annual review. EPA's
Regional Offices and stakeholders identified other industrial point
source categories as potential candidates for revision of effluent
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards based on potential
opportunities to improve implementation of these regulations or because
of their pollutant discharges (see OW-2004-0032-0020). See section
V.B.3. EPA hopes that public review of the 2005 annual review and the
preliminary Plan in this notice, as well as public review of future
annual reviews and Plans, will elicit additional information and
suggestions for improving the Effluent Guidelines Program.
[[Page 51050]]
B. What Were EPA's Findings From Its Annual Review for 2005?
1. Screening-Level Review
The findings of the 2005 annual review are presented in Table V-1.
This table uses the following codes to describe the Agency's findings
with respect to each existing industrial category.
(1) Effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for this
industrial category were recently revised or reviewed through an
effluent guidelines rulemaking or a rulemaking is currently underway.
(2) National effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards are not
the best tools for establishing technology-based effluent limitations
for this industrial category because most of the toxic and non-
conventional pollutant discharges are from one or a few facilities in
this industrial category. EPA will consider assisting permitting
authorities in identifying pollutant control and pollution prevention
technologies for the development of technology-based effluent
limitations by best professional judgment (BPJ) on a facility-specific
basis.
(3) Not identified as a hazard priority based on data available at
this time.
(4) Incomplete data available for full analysis. EPA intends to
complete a detailed study of this industry for the final 2006 Plan. See
section V.B.2.
(5) Incomplete data available for full analysis. EPA intends to
complete a preliminary category review of this industry for the final
2006 Plan. See section V.A.4.c.
Table V-1.--Findings From the 2005 Annual Review of Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Promulgated
Under Section 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry category (listed
No. alphabetically) 40 CFR Part Findings [dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... Aluminum Forming................ 467 (3)
2............................... Asbestos Manufacturing.......... 427 (3)
3............................... Battery Manufacturing........... 461 (3)
4............................... Canned and Preserved Fruits and 407 (3)
Vegetable Processing.
5............................... Canned and Preserved Seafood 408 (3)
Processing.
6............................... Carbon Black Manufacturing...... 458 (3)
7............................... Cement Manufacturing............ 411 (3)
8............................... Centralized Waste Treatment..... 437 (1)
9............................... Coal Mining..................... 434 (1) and (3)
10.............................. Coil Coating.................... 465 (3)
11.............................. Concentrated Animal Feeding 412 (1)
Operations (CAFO).
12.............................. Concentrated Aquatic Animal 451 (1)
Production.
13.............................. Copper Forming.................. 468 (3)
14.............................. Dairy Products Processing....... 405 (3)
15.............................. Electrical and Electronic 469 (3)
Components.
16.............................. Electroplating.................. 413 (1)
17.............................. Explosives Manufacturing........ 457 (3)
18.............................. Ferroalloy Manufacturing........ 424 (3)
19.............................. Fertilizer Manufacturing........ 418 (5)
20.............................. Glass Manufacturing............. 426 (3)
21.............................. Grain Mills..................... 406 (3)
22.............................. Gum and Wood Chemicals.......... 454 (3)
23.............................. Hospitals....................... 460 (3)
24.............................. Ink Formulating................. 447 (3)
25.............................. Inorganic Chemicals............. 415 (1) and (5)
26.............................. Iron and Steel Manufacturing.... 420 (1)
27.............................. Landfills....................... 445 (1)
28.............................. Leather Tanning and Finishing... 425 (3)
29.............................. Meat and Poultry Products....... 432 (1)
30.............................. Metal Finishing................. 433 (1)
31.............................. Metal Molding and Casting....... 464 (3)
32.............................. Metal Products and Machinery.... 438 (1)
33.............................. Mineral Mining and Processing... 436 (3)
34.............................. Nonferrous Metals Forming and 471 (3)
Metal Powders.
35.............................. Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing. 421 (5)
36.............................. Oil and Gas Extraction.......... 435 (1) and (2)
37.............................. Ore Mining and Dressing......... 440 (5)
38.............................. Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and 414 (1) and (5)
Synthetic Fibers.
39.............................. Paint Formulating............... 446 (3)
40.............................. Paving and Roofing Materials 443 (3)
(Tars and Asphalt).
41.............................. Pesticide Chemicals............. 455 (5)
42.............................. Petroleum Refining.............. 419 (5)
43.............................. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing.... 439 (1)
44.............................. Phosphate Manufacturing......... 422 (3)
45.............................. Photographic.................... 459 (3)
46.............................. Plastic Molding and Forming..... 463 (5)
47.............................. Porcelain Enameling............. 466 (5)
48.............................. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard..... 430 (2) and (4)
49.............................. Rubber Manufacturing............ 428 (5)
50.............................. Soaps and Detergents 417 (3)
Manufacturing.
51.............................. Steam Electric Power Generation. 423 (4)
52.............................. Sugar Processing................ 409 (3)
53.............................. Textile Mills................... 410 (5)
54.............................. Timber Products Processing...... 429 (3)
[[Page 51051]]
55.............................. Transportation Equipment 442 (1)
Cleaning.
56.............................. Waste Combustors................ 444 (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] Note: The descriptions of the ``Findings'' codes are presented immediately prior to this table.
2. Detailed Studies
As a result of its 2005 screening-level review, EPA is conducting
detailed studies of two industrial point source categories with
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards: Pulp, Paper,
and Paperboard (Part 430) and Steam Electric Power Generation (Part
423). During detailed study of these categories, EPA will first verify
that the pollutant discharges reported to TRI and PCS for 2002
accurately reflect the current discharges of the industry. EPA will
also perform an in-depth analysis of the reported pollutant discharges,
technology innovation and process changes in these industrial
categories, as well as an analysis of technology cost and
affordability. Additionally, EPA will consider whether there are
industrial sectors not currently subject to effluent guidelines or
pretreatment standards that should be included with these existing
categories, either as part of existing subcategories or as potential
new subcategories. The purpose of the detailed study is to determine
whether, in the final 2006 Plan, EPA should identify one or both of
these industrial categories for possible revision of their existing
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards.
Based on the information available to EPA at this time, EPA is not
proposing such identification. However, EPA will determine whether it
is appropriate to identify these categories for possible revision of
their effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards based on the
results of its 2006 annual review and the two detailed studies, which
it intends to conclude prior to publishing the final 2006 Plan. EPA
requests comment and supporting data on whether it should identify
either or both of these industrial categories for possible rulemakings
in the final 2006 Plan.
a. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Part 430)
EPA began a detailed study of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard point
source category in the 2005 annual review because it ranked highest in
terms of toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges among the
industrial point source categories investigated in the screening-level
analyses. The most recent changes to effluent guidelines for this point
source category, known as part of the ``Cluster Rules,'' were new
limits for facilities in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
(Subpart B) and Papergrade Sulfite (Subpart E) subcategories (April 15,
1998; 63 FR 18504). EPA promulgated new limits for dioxin, furan,
chloroform, chlorinated phenolic compounds, and adsorbable organic
halides (AOX). In the 2005 annual review, EPA reviewed effluent
discharge data for all 78 bleached papergrade kraft and sulfite mills--
the ``Phase I'' mills. EPA also reviewed effluent discharges for
pulping mills, secondary (recycled) fiber mills, and paper and
paperboard mills in eight subcategories (Subparts C and F through L)--
the ``Phase II'' mills. EPA reviewed data from PCS for 171 Phase II
mills and data for 169 Phase II mills that reported to TRI.
EPA did not review effluent discharge data for the four dissolving
kraft and dissolving sulfite mills (Subparts A and D)--``Phase III''
mills. As discussed in the 2004 annual review, EPA believes that
because of the small number of facilities, effluent guidelines
rulemaking is not appropriate at this time for these subcategories.
Instead of an effluent guidelines rulemaking EPA will provide site-
specific permit support to state permit writers as they develop NPDES
permits for the four facilities in these two subcategories. These NPDES
permits will include effluent limitations that reflect a determination
of BAT based on BPJ, or, if necessary, more stringent limitations to
ensure compliance with state water quality standards. Therefore, EPA
did not include these four Phase III mills in the detailed study for
this industry.
Phase I and Phase II mills reported discharges of ``dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds'' to TRI in 2002 which resulted in an effluent
discharge estimate of 2.81 million TWPE (66.4 grams of various dioxin
congeners). Phase I mills in PCS in 2002 also showed discharges of the
most toxic forms of dioxin (i.e., 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF) which
resulted in an effluent discharge estimate of 1.37 million TWPE (0.9
grams of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF). EPA notes that one mill
accounted for more than 99 percent of the PCS dioxin discharges for
this industrial category in 2002. This mill changed its operations
after 2002 and has not reported dioxin releases since 2002 (see OW-
2004-0032-0021). EPA also notes that with or without the PCS TWPE from
this one mill, this category ranks higher than any other category in
terms of the estimated combined TRI and PCS TWPE discharged to U.S.
waters. In its detailed study of this industrial category EPA will
further verify pollutant discharge data and assess the impact of these
mill changes and the corresponding 2003 and 2004 pollutant discharges
reported by the mill to TRI and PCS. In the past, EPA has sometimes
found that apparently high dioxin discharges reported to TRI may result
from facilities using annual discharge volumes multiplied by one half
the dioxin analytic method detection limit for their TRI dioxin release
estimates when dioxin sampling data were ``non-detect.'' In general,
EPA would expect to have a stronger record basis, with positive
detections of toxic pollutants, before it identified an industry for a
rulemaking. Other toxic pollutant discharges for Phase I and II mills
that resulted in additional TWPE discharge estimates include:
polycyclic aromatic compounds; metals (e.g., manganese, lead, zinc,
mercury); and nitrate.
Key issues the Agency will address in the detailed study include
whether Phase I and II mills are currently generating and discharging
dioxin; and whether PCS contains dioxin discharge data for the Phase II
mills. EPA will also investigate the source and magnitude of the other
toxic pollutants and non-conventional pollutants reported as discharged
by these mills, and whether there are any new technologies or process
changes for wastewater volume or pollutant reduction that might
appropriately serve as the basis for revised effluent guidelines. See
section IX.A. Based on this detailed study, EPA will determine whether
or not to identify this industrial category for possible revisions to
its effluents guidelines.
[[Page 51052]]
EPA has already made considerable progress in investigating
pollutant discharges in this category and has solicited and received
assistance from a trade association for this industrial category, the
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), and from the National
Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), an independent, non-
profit research institute that focuses on environmental topics of
interest to the forest products industry. EPA held a meeting with AF&PA
and NCASI and member companies and the meeting minutes are included in
the docket (see OW-2004-0032-0048). AF&PA members provided EPA with 48
NPDES permits for Phase I mills (representing 62% of the Phase I mills
in the industry). AF&PA also provided written documentation and data on
the details of TRI release estimates and PCS errors (see OW-2004-0032-
0022). Prior to completing its 2005 annual review, EPA did not have
time to fully evaluate the large amount of data submitted by AF&PA,
NCASI, and their member companies in the context of the 2003 and 2004
pollutant discharges reported to TRI and PCS. EPA intends to complete
this evaluation in its 2006 annual review. EPA will also continue to
work with AF&PA, NCASI, and other stakeholders to better understand the
current pollutant discharges by this category.
b. Steam Electric Power Generation (Part 423)
EPA began a detailed study of the Steam Electric Power Generation
point source category in the 2005 annual review because it ranked
second highest in terms of toxic and non-conventional toxic weighted
pollutant discharges among the industrial point source categories
investigated in the screening-level analyses. Effluent guidelines for
direct dischargers were first promulgated for this category in 1974 (39
FR 36186). In 1977, EPA promulgated pretreatment standards for indirect
dischargers (42 FR15690). In 1982, EPA made significant revisions to
these effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards (47 FR 52290). The
current effluent guidelines are applicable to discharges from steam
electric generating units that are primarily engaged in generating
electricity for distribution and sale and that use fossil-type or
nuclear fuels. EPA's screening-level analysis during the 2005 annual
review was based primarily on information reported to TRI, PCS, and the
Energy Information Administration (EIA) for the year 2002. EPA also
obtained and reviewed additional information to supplement that data.
These data include industry-compiled data on the likely source and
magnitude of the reported toxic dischargers (see OW-2004-0032-0023).
Pollutants significantly influencing this category's hazard ranking
include arsenic, boron, metals (including mercury), and chlorine.
In this detailed study, EPA plans to better quantify pollutant
discharges in wastewater discharged by steam electric facilities. See
section IX.A. EPA will also investigate whether there are any new
technologies or process changes for wastewater volume or pollutant
reduction that might appropriately serve as the basis for revised
effluent guidelines. Additionally, EPA will investigate whether the
recently revised analytic method for mercury better quantifies the
sources and amounts of mercury in discharged wastewater from facilities
in this category (see October 29, 2002; 67 FR 65876 and OW-2004-0032-
0024).
Additionally, during its review of this industrial category, EPA
received comments that it should consider amending the applicability of
these effluent guidelines to include combined-cycle facilities, refuse-
derived fuel facilities, and industrial non-utilities. Combined-cycle
technology utilizes waste heat created by the powering of one generator
to drive a second generator, which significantly increases the amount
of electricity generated by the same amount of fuel. Refuse-derived
fuel facilities generate electricity from the combustion of unprocessed
or minimally processed refuse. Industrial non-utilities have steam
electric plants co-located with other manufacturing or commercial
facilities. These power plants are most prevalent at chemical, paper,
and petroleum refining facilities and are not currently regulated by
Part 423. EPA is investigating the similarities and differences between
combined-cycle, refuse-derived fuel facilities, and industrial non-
utilities and facilities in the Steam Electric Power Generation point
source category in terms of plant operation, water use, and potential
pollutants in the wastewaters. EPA specifically solicits comment and
data on whether EPA should consider combined-cycle facilities and
refuse-derived fuel facilities as potential new subcategories in the
Steam Electric Power Generation point source category.
EPA has already made considerable progress in investigating
pollutant discharges in this category and has solicited and received
assistance from a trade association for this industrial category, the
Utility Water Action Group (UWAG). EPA held several meetings with UWAG
and its member companies and the meeting minutes are included in the
docket (see OW-2004-0032-0025). UWAG provided EPA with industry-
collected data related to the source and magnitude of pollutant
discharges from facilities in this category (see OW-2004-0032-0026). In
the 2006 annual review, EPA will continue to work with UWAG and other
stakeholders to better understand the current pollutant discharges in
this category.
3. Other Category Reviews Prompted by Stakeholder Outreach
Following the publication of the 2004 Plan, EPA's Regional Offices
and stakeholders identified other industrial point source categories as
potential candidates for effluent guideline revision based on potential
opportunities to improve efficient implementation of the national water
quality program or because of the categories' pollutant discharges (see
OW-2004-0032-0020 for a listing of these comments).
a. Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) Effluent
Guidelines
Congress has directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
prepare an annual report to Congress on the costs and benefits of
Federal regulations. See 68 FR 64375 (February 20, 2004). In the 2004
draft report to Congress, OMB also solicited public comment for
``nominations of promising regulatory reforms relevant to the
manufacturing sector, particularly those relevant to the welfare of
small and medium-sized enterprises.'' In particular, OMB requested
suggestions on ``specific reforms to rules, guidance documents or
paperwork requirements that would improve manufacturing regulation by
reducing unnecessary costs, increasing effectiveness, enhancing
competitiveness, reducing uncertainty and increasing flexibility.'' See
``Draft Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal
Entities,'' http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/draft_2004_cbreport.pdf.
In response to this solicitation two commenters suggested revisions
to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)
effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 414). The commenters suggest that
OCPSF facilities are discouraged by existing OCPSF effluent guidelines
from installing water re-use and reduction technologies and pollution
prevention practices and are penalized by more stringent limits because
NPDES permit
[[Page 51053]]
writers recalculate lower mass-based permit limits based on the reduced
wastewater flow rates when re-issuing NPDES permits. The commenters
suggest that OCPSF facilities should be able to retain mass limits of
the original stringency, established prior to wastewater flow
reduction, when process wastewater flows are reduced for purposes of
water conservation. The commenters also stated that if process
wastewater flows are decreased for other reasons, the mass-based limits
should continue to be adjusted pursuant to the current rule.
As part of the Agency's commitments in the President's
Manufacturing Initiative, EPA began an evaluation of options for
promoting water conservation through the use of mass-based limits as
part of its 2005 annual review of existing effluent guidelines. See the
OMB report to Congress titled, ``Regulatory Reform of the U.S.
Manufacturing Sector,'' Page 30, March 9, 2005. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/regpol-reports_congress.html. EPA
strongly supports water conservation and encourages all sectors,
including municipal, industrial, and agricultural, to achieve efficient
water use. EPA does not intend for its regulations to present a barrier
to efficient water use in any industrial sector.
EPA proposed, and is currently considering finalizing, greater
flexibility for control authorities to convert concentration-based
pretreatment standards to flow-normalized mass-based permit limits for
indirect dischargers where necessary to facilitate adoption of water
conservation technologies, provided there is no increase in the
discharge of pollutants to the environment. See 64 FR 39563 (July 22,
1999). EPA requests comment on whether it should consider a rulemaking
or other ways that would extend greater flexibility to permitting
authorities to retain mass-based limits based on current wastewater
flows for direct discharges where necessary to facilitate the
prospective adoption of water conservation technologies. EPA is
particularly interested in specific, detailed examples of situations
where the adoption of water conservation technologies and practices
have or have not made the achievement of new flow-normalized mass-based
permit limits based on the reduced wastewater flow more difficult. See
section IX.G.
b. Stakeholder Identified Industries
With the publication of the final 2004 Plan, EPA solicited public
comment to inform its 2005 annual review of existing effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards. In addition to the comments
identified in the previous section, EPA received five comments on how
to conduct its annual review and which industries and pollutants should
be the focus of this review (see OW-2004-0032-0020). These comments are
located in the docket. EPA considered relevant information from these
comments in its 2005 annual review.
In particular, industry stakeholders commented that EPA should
revise the analytical methods in the Oil and Gas Extraction point
source category (40 CFR Part 435, Subpart A) to eliminate the current
differences between the synthetic-based drilling fluids (SBF)
analytical methods used in the EPA Region 4 and 6 general permits
regulating offshore oil and gas facilities in the Eastern and Western
Gulf of Mexico (see OW-2004-0032-0051). Industry stakeholders also
supplied additional data and suggested that EPA change the sediment
toxicity analytical methods to account for analytical method
variability (see OW-2004-0032-0007). See section IX.H.
VI. EPA's 2006 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and
307(b)
As discussed in section V and further in section VIII, EPA is
coordinating its annual review of existing effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards under CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 307(b) and
304(g) with the publication of a preliminary and biennial Plan under
section 304(m). Public comments received on EPA's prior reviews and
Plans helped the Agency to prioritize its analysis of existing effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards during the 2005 review. The
information gathered during the 2005 annual review, including the
identification of data gaps in the analysis of certain existing
industry categories, in turn, provides a starting point for EPA's 2006
annual review. See Table V-1 above. In 2006, EPA intends to conduct a
screening-level analysis of all 56 industry categories and compare the
results against those from previous years. EPA will also conduct more
detailed analyses of those industries that rank high in terms of toxic
and non-conventional discharges among all point source categories. EPA
specifically invites comment and data on the 56 point source
categories.
VII. EPA's Evaluation of Categories of Indirect Dischargers Without
Categorical Pretreatment Standards To Identify Potential New Categories
for Pretreatment Standards
As noted in 40 CFR 403.2, the three principal objectives of the
National Pretreatment Program are to: (1) Prevent the wide-scale
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
that will interfere with POTW operations, including use or disposal of
municipal sludge; (2) prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs
which will pass through the treatment works or will otherwise be
incompatible with the treatment works; and (3) improve opportunities to
recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters and sludges.
See Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, EPA-833-B-98-
002, February 1999.
All indirect dischargers are subject to general pretreatment
standards (40 CFR part 403), including a prohibition on discharges
causing ``pass through'' or ``interference.'' See 40 CFR 403.5. POTWs
that are required to implement approved programs, and those that have
experienced interference or pass through, are required to develop local
limits to implement the general pretreatment standards. There are
approximately 1,500 POTWs with approved pretreatment programs and
13,500 small POTWs that are not required to develop and implement
pretreatment programs.
In addition, EPA establishes technology-based national regulations,
termed ``categorical pretreatment standards,'' for categories of
industry discharging to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
pollutants that may pass through, interfere with or are otherwise
incompatible with POTW operations. CWA section 307(b). Generally,
categorical pretreatment standards are designed such that wastewaters
from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar
levels of treatment.
EPA has promulgated such pretreatment standards for 35 industrial
categories. In this review, EPA evaluated various indirect discharging
industries without categorical pretreatment standards to determine
whether their discharges were causing pass through or interference, in
order to determine whether categorical pretreatment standards may be
necessary for these industrial categories.
Stakeholder comments and pollutant discharge information have
helped EPA to identify industrial sectors for this review. In
particular, EPA has looked
[[Page 51054]]
more closely at sectors that are comprised entirely or nearly entirely
of indirect dischargers, and is grouping them into the following seven
industrial categories: Food Service Establishments; Industrial
Laundries; Photoprocessing; Printing and Publishing; Independent and
Stand Alone Laboratories; Industrial Container and Drum Cleaning; and
Health Services Industry. EPA is including within the Health Services
Industry the following activities: Independent and Stand Alone Medical
and Dental Laboratories, Offices and Clinics of Doctors of Medicine,
Offices and Clinics of Dentists, Nursing and Personal Care Facilities,
Veterinary Care Services, and Hospitals and Clinics. EPA solicits
comment on that grouping (see OW-2004-0032-0038). For all seven of
these industrial sectors EPA evaluated (1) the ``Pass Through
Potential'' of toxic pollutants and non-conventional pollutants through
POTW operations; and (2) the ``Interference Potential'' of industrial
indirect discharges with POTW operations. EPA also received, reviewed,
and summarized suggestions from commenters on options for improving
various categorical pretreatment standards (see OW-2004-0032-0020).
A. EPA's Evaluation of ``Pass Through Potential'' of Toxic and Non-
Conventional Pollutants Through POTW Operations
For these seven industrial sectors, EPA evaluated the ``pass
through potential'' of toxic pollutants and non-conventional pollutants
through POTW operations. Historically, for most effluent guidelines
rulemakings, EPA determines the ``pass through potential'' by comparing
the percentage of the pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs
achieving secondary treatment with the percentage of the pollutant
removed by wastewater treatment options that EPA is evaluating as the
bases for categorical pretreatment standards (January 28, 1981; 46 FR
9408). For these seven industry sectors, however, EPA was unable to
gather the data needed for a comprehensive analysis of the availability
and performance (e.g., percentage of the pollutants removed) of
treatment or process technologies that might reduce toxic pollutant
discharges beyond that of technologies already in place at these
facilities. Instead, EPA evaluated the ``pass through potential'' as
measured by the total annual TWPE discharged by the industrial sector
and the average TWPE discharge among facilities that discharge to
POTWs.
EPA based this two part evaluation in part on EPA's prior decision
not to promulgate national categorical pretreatment standards for an
industrial category (i.e., Industrial Laundries). See August 18, 1999
(64 FR 45071). EPA noted in this 1999 final action that, ``While EPA
has broad discretion to promulgate such [national categorical
pretreatment] standards, EPA retains discretion not to do so where the
total pounds removed do not warrant national regulation and there is
not a significant concern with pass through and interference at the
POTW.'' See August 18, 1999 (64 FR 45077). EPA solicits comment on this
two part evaluation for determining the ``pass through potential'' for
industrial categories comprised entirely or nearly entirely of indirect
dischargers.
EPA's 2005 review of these seven industrial sectors used pollutant
discharge information from TRI, PCS, and other publicly available data
to estimate the total annual TWPE discharged per facility. EPA's use of
PCS data was limited as nearly all of the PCS discharge monitoring data
is from direct dischargers. Consequently, EPA transferred pollutant
discharges from direct dischargers to indirect dischargers in some of
the seven industrial sectors when other data were not available. Based
on these estimated toxic pollutant discharges, EPA's review suggests
that there is a low pass through potential for four of the seven
industrial sectors and that categorical pretreatment standards for
these four industrial sectors are not warranted at this time. These
four industrial sectors are: Food Service Establishments; Industrial
Laundries; Photoprocessing; and Printing and Publishing. EPA is
currently evaluating the pass through potential for the Industrial
Container and Drum Cleaning industry using data from its recent study
of this industrial sector, ``Preliminary Data Summary: Industrial
Container and Drum Cleaning Industry,'' EPA-821-R-02-011, June 2002.
EPA also did not have enough information to determine whether there was
pass through potential for the remaining two industrial sectors:
Independent and Stand Alone Laboratories and Health Services
Industries. EPA will continue to evaluate the pass through potential
for these three industrial sectors and conducted detailed studies if
warranted for the 2007/2008 planning cycle. A summary of EPA's analyses
supporting this review are located in the docket (see OW-2004-0032-
0017). EPA solicits comment on whether these or other industrial
activities discharge pollutants that might pass through POTWs and into
surface waters.
B. EPA's Evaluation of ``Interference Potential'' of Industrial
Indirect Discharges
For each of these seven industrial sectors EPA evaluated the
``interference potential'' of indirect industrial discharges. The term
``interference'' means a discharge which, alone or in conjunction with
a discharge or discharges from other sources, both (1) inhibits or
disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge
processes, use or disposal; and (2) therefore is a cause of a violation
of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in
the magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of
sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with applicable regulations
or permits. See 40 CFR 403.3(i). To determine the ``interference
potential,'' EPA generally evaluates the industrial indirect discharges
in terms of: (1) The compatibility of industrial wastewaters and
domestic wastewaters (e.g., type of pollutants discharged in industrial
wastewaters compared to pollutants typically found in domestic
wastewaters); (2) concentrations of pollutants discharged in industrial
wastewaters that might cause interference with the POTW collection
system (e.g., oil and grease discharges causing blockages in the POTW
collection system), the POTW treatment system (e.g., high ammonia mass
discharges inhibiting the POTW treatment system) or biosolids disposal
options; and (3) the potential for variable pollutant loadings to cause
interference with POTW operations (e.g., batch discharges or slug
loadings from industrial facilities interfering with normal POTW
operations).
EPA relied on readily available information from the literature and
stakeholders to evaluate the severity, duration, and frequency of
interference incidents caused by industrial indirect discharges. As
part of its evaluation, EPA reviewed data from its recent report to
Congress on one type of interference incidents, blockages in the POTW
collection system leading to combine sewer overflows (CSOs) and
sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). See Impacts and Controls of CSOs and
SSOs, EPA 833-R-04-001, August 2004. With respect to Food Service
Establishments, EPA noted that ``grease from restaurants, homes, and
industrial sources is the most common cause (47%) of reported
blockages. Grease is problematic because it solidifies, reduces
conveyance capacity, and
[[Page 51055]]
blocks flow.'' Other major sources of blockages are grit, rock, and
other debris (27%), roots (22%), and roots and grease (4%).
EPA's review of current information indicates that there is no
interference potential from the seven industrial sectors that would
warrant the development of categorical pretreatment standards.
Information collected from control authorities and stakeholders
indicate that a growing number of control authorities are using their
existing authority (under general pretreatment standards in Part 403)
to set more stringent permit limits or to enforce existing permit
limits and local ordinances to reduce interferences with POTW
operations (e.g., blockages from fats, oils, and greases).
EPA did receive comments from stakeholders during its review that
even with current authority provided in the general pretreatment
regulations, some POTWs have difficulty controlling interference from
some categories of indirect industrial dischargers (see OW-2004-0032-
0020). EPA notes, however, that to a large extent, interference
problems tend to be a local, rather than a national, problem.
Pollutants which interfere with the operation of one POTW may not
adversely affect the operation of another. These differences are
attributable to several factors including the varying sensitivities of
different POTWs and the constituent composition of wastewater collected
and treated by the POTW (January 28, 1981; 46 FR 9406).
EPA notes that local pretreatment programs already have the
necessary tools to control interference problems with existing
authority provided by the general pretreatment standards (40 CFR Part
403). Under the provisions of Sec. 403.5(c)(1) & (2), in defined
circumstances, a POTW must establish specific local limits to prevent
interference. ``[A] POTW must develop specific limits for Industrial
Users to guard against interference with the operation of the municipal
treatment works.'' 46 FR 9406 (January 28, 1981). Consequently,
pretreatment programs should correct interference incidents with
enforcement and oversight activities. The interference incidents
identified by commenters do not necessarily indicate the need for
additional categorical pretreatment standards, but they may indicate
the need for additional oversight and enforcement. EPA solicits comment
on whether there are industrial sectors discharging pollutants that
cause interference issues that cannot be adequately controlled through
the general pretreatment standards.
VIII. The Preliminary 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan Under
Section 304(m)
In accordance with CWA section 304(m)(2), EPA is publishing this
preliminary Plan for public comment prior to publication of the final
Plan. EPA expects to finalize this Plan by August 2006. EPA will
carefully consider all public comments and information. Commenters
should see the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this notice for
instructions on how to submit comments to EPA on this preliminary Plan.
EPA will respond to all these public comments and include these
responses in the docket supporting the final Plan.
A. EPA's Schedule for Annual Review and Revision of Existing Effluent
Guidelines Under Section 304(b)
1. Schedule for 2005 and 2006 Annual Reviews Under Section 304(b)
As noted in section IV.B, CWA section 304(m)(1)(A) requires EPA to
publish a Plan every two years that establishes a schedule for the
annual review and revision, in accordance with section 304(b), of the
effluent guidelines that EPA has promulgated under that section.
Today's preliminary Plan announces EPA's schedule for performing its
section 304(b) reviews. The schedule is as follows: To coordinate its
annual review of existing effluent guidelines under section 304(b) with
its publication of the preliminary and final Plans under CWA section
304(m). In other words, in odd-numbered years, EPA intends to complete
its annual review upon publication of the preliminary Plan that EPA
must publish for public review and comment under CWA section 304(m)(2).
In even-numbered years, EPA intends to complete its annual review upon
the publication of the final Plan. EPA's 2005 annual review is the
review cycle ending upon the publication of this preliminary 2006 Plan
and the 2006 annual review is the review cycle ending upon publication
of the final 2006 Plan.
EPA is coordinating its annual reviews under section 304(b) with
publication of Plans under section 304(m) for several reasons. First,
the annual review is inextricably linked to the planning effort,
because the results of each annual review can inform the content of the
preliminary and final Plans, e.g., by calling to EPA's attention point
source categories for which EPA has not promulgated effluent
guidelines. Second, even though not required to do so under either
section 304(b) or section 304(m), EPA believes that the public interest
is served by periodically presenting to the public a description of
each annual review (including the review process employed) and the
results of the review. Doing so at the same time EPA publishes
preliminary and final plans makes both processes more transparent.
Third, by requiring EPA to review all existing effluent guidelines each
year, Congress appears to have intended that each successive review
would build upon the results of earlier reviews. Therefore, by
describing the 2005 annual review along with the preliminary 2006 Plan,
EPA hopes to gather and receive data and information that will inform
its review for 2006 and final 2006 Plan.
2. Schedule for Possible Revision of Effluent Guidelines Promulgated
Under Section 304(b)
EPA is currently conducting rulemakings to potentially revise
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for the
following categories: Vinyl Chloride and Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing,
Iron and Steel Manufacturing, and Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations. For a summary of the status of the current effluent
guidelines rulemakings and a list of completed effluent guidelines
rulemakings conducted by EPA since 1992, see the Docket accompanying
this notice (see OW-2004-0032-0042). EPA solicits comment on these
proposed schedules.
As previously identified in Table V-1, EPA does not have sufficient
information to identify any additional effluent guidelines for
potential revision at this time. Because there are 56 point source
categories (including over 450 subcategories) with existing effluent
guidelines that must be reviewed annually, EPA believes it is important
to prioritize its review so as to focus especially on industries where
changes to the existing effluent guidelines are most likely to be
needed. Consequently, EPA has identified thirteen industrial categories
whose pollutant discharges warrant further study at this time. (i.e.,
highest estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges).
In particular, as a result of its 2005 annual review, EPA
identified two of these thirteen industrial point source categories
with existing effluent guidelines for detailed study in its 2006 annual
review: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Part 430) and Steam Electric Power
Generation (Part 423). During detailed study of these categories, EPA
will verify the pollutant discharges identified in the 2005 annual
reviews and perform an in-depth analysis of pollutant discharges,
[[Page 51056]]
technology innovation and process changes in these industrial
categories, as well as an analysis of technology cost and
affordability. EPA will also consider whether new subcategories or
revisions to the applicability of these effluent guidelines are needed
for either of these categories. The purpose of the detailed studies is
to determine whether, in the final 2006 Plan, EPA should identify one
or both of these industrial categories for possible revision of their
existing effluent guidelines. Based on the information available to EPA
at this time, EPA is not proposing such an identification. However, EPA
will determine whether it is appropriate to identify these categories
for revision based on public comments and the results of its 2006
annual review, which it intends to conclude prior to publishing the
final 2006 Plan. EPA requests comment and supporting data on whether it
should identify either or both of these industrial categories for
possible effluent guidelines rulemakings in the final 2006 Plan.
EPA emphasizes that identification of one or both sets of effluent
guidelines for possible revision in the final 2006 Plan would not
constitute a final decision to revise the guideline or guidelines. EPA
would make any such effluent guidelines revisions--supported by an
administrative record following an opportunity for public comment--only
in connection with a formal rulemaking process pursuant to a schedule
announced in the final 2006 Plan.
B. Identification of Point Source Categories Under CWA Section
304(m)(1)(B)
The final Plan must also identify categories of sources discharging
non-trivial amounts of toxic or non-conventional pollutants for which
EPA has not published effluent limitations guidelines under section
304(b)(2) or new source performance standards (NSPS) under section 306.
See CWA section 304(m)(1)(B). The final Plan must also establish a
schedule for the promulgation of effluent guidelines for the categories
identified under section 304(m)(1)(B) not later than three years after
such identification. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(C). Applying the
criteria in section VIII.B.1, EPA is not at this time proposing to
identify any potential new categories for effluent guidelines
rulemaking. Consequently, EPA is not proposing in this preliminary Plan
to schedule an effluent guidelines rulemaking for any potential new
industrial category. EPA is, however, reviewing the pollutant
discharges from facilities in one industrial sector, Tobacco Products
(SIC 21), to determine whether to identify this sector as a potential
new category in the final 2006 Plan. See section VIII.B.2. EPA is also
currently conducting rulemakings to establish effluent guidelines for
two potential new categories identified in the final 2004 Plan: Airport
Deicing Operations and Drinking Water Supply and Treatment.
1. Process for Identifying Industrial Categories for Which EPA Has Not
Promulgated Effluent Guidelines
EPA primarily used data from TRI and PCS to identify industrial
categories not currently subject to effluent guidelines. As discussed
in the docket, facilities with data in TRI and PCS are identified by a
four-digit SIC code. EPA performs a crosswalk between the TRI and PCS
data, identified with a the four digit SIC code, and the 56 point
source categories with effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards to
determine if a four-digit SIC code is correctly regulated, or if it
belongs as a potential new subcategory of a currently regulated
category (see OW-2004-0032-0017). EPA then assessed whether these
industrial sectors not currently regulated by effluent guidelines meet
the criteria specified in section 304(m)(1)(B), as discussed below.
First, this analysis applies only to industrial categories for
which EPA has not promulgated effluent guidelines, not to unregulated
subcategories or pollutants within a currently regulated industrial
category. The distinction between a category (reflecting an industry as
a whole) and a subcategory (reflecting differences among segments of
the industry) has long been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. See,
e.g., Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. NRDC, 470 U.S. 116, 130, 132 n.24 (1985).
Thus, EPA's first decision criterion asks whether an industrial
operation or activity in question is properly characterized--in a broad
sense--as an industry ``category'' or more narrowly as a segment of
some broader industrial category (i.e., a subcategory). If EPA
determines that an industrial operation is properly characterized as a
new subcategory of an existing category, rather than a new category,
then EPA reviews that new subcategory in the context of conducting its
annual review of existing effluent guidelines under sections 301(d) and
304(b).
The second criterion EPA considers when implementing section
304(m)(1)(B) also derives from the plain text of that section. By its
terms, CWA section 304(m)(1)(B) applies only to industrial categories
to which effluent guidelines under section 304(b)(2) or section 306
would apply, if promulgated. Therefore, for purposes of section
304(m)(1)(B), EPA would not identify in the biennial Plan any
industrial categories composed exclusively or almost exclusively of
indirect discharging facilities regulated under section 307 or
categories for which other CWA controls take precedence over effluent
guidelines, e.g., POTWs regulated under CWA section 301(b)(1)(B) or
municipal storm water runoff regulated under CWA section 402(p)(3)(B).
Third, the analysis under CWA section 304(m)(1)(B) applies only to
industrial categories of sources that may be discharging non-trivial
amounts of toxic or non-conventional pollutants to waters of the United
States. EPA did not consider, under this analysis, industrial
activities where conventional pollutants, rather than toxic or non-
conventional pollutants, are the pollutants of concern. In addition,
even when toxic and non-conventional pollutants might be present in an
industrial category's discharge, the analysis under 304(m)(1)(B) does
not apply when those discharges occur in trivial amounts. EPA does not
believe that it is necessary, nor was it Congressional intent, to
develop national effluent guidelines for categories of sources that are
likely to pose an insignificant hazard to human health or the
environment due to their trivial discharges. See Senate Report Number
50, 99th Congress, 1st Session (1985); WQA87 Legislative History 31.
This decision criterion leads EPA to focus on those remaining
industrial categories where, based on currently available information,
new effluent guidelines have the potential to address a non-trivial
hazard to human health or the environment associated with toxic or non-
conventional pollutants.
Priority-setting is intrinsic to any planning exercise, and EPA
believes that Congress intended for EPA to focus on categories
discharging ``non-trivial'' amounts of toxic or non-conventional
pollutants as a way of setting priorities to achieve the greatest
environmental results. Because section 304(m)(1)(C) requires that EPA
complete an effluent guidelines rulemaking within three years of
identifying an industrial category in a 304(m) plan, it is important
that EPA have the discretion to prioritize its identification of new
industrial categories so that it can use available resources
effectively, and identify in each successive Plan those industrial
categories where an effluent guideline is an appropriate tool to
address non-trivial discharges of toxic or non-conventional pollutants.
This
[[Page 51057]]
interpretation is supported by the fact that section 304(m) imposes an
on-going planning requirement, with new final Plans due every two years
and draft Plans published for public comment in between. The CWA
specifically contemplated that effluent guidelines would not be the
only solution to all water quality problems.
EPA interprets section 304(m), including its requirement that EPA
identify in a plan any industrial categories for which it might
promulgate effluent guidelines, as a mechanism designed to promote
regular and transparent priority-setting on the part of the Agency. A
plan, ultimately, is a statement of choices and priorities. See Norton
v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, et al., 124 S. Ct. 2373, 2383
(2004). Identifying an industrial activity for possible effluent
guideline rulemaking reflects EPA's view, at the time the plan is
issued, that a national categorical regulation may be an appropriate
tool to accomplish the desired environmental results. Similarly,
announcing a schedule reflects EPA's assignment of priorities, taking
into account all of the other statutory mandates and policy initiatives
designed to implement the CWA's goals and the funds appropriated by
Congress to execute them. By requiring EPA to publish its plan,
Congress assured that EPA's priority-setting processes would be
available for public viewing. By requiring EPA to solicit comments on
preliminary plans, Congress assured that interested members of the
public could contribute ideas and express policy preferences. Finally,
by requiring publication of plans every two years, Congress assured
that EPA would regularly re-evaluate its past policy choices and
priorities (including whether to identify an industrial activity for
effluent guidelines rulemaking) to account for changed circumstances.
Ultimately, however, Congress left the content of the plan to EPA's
discretion--befitting the role that effluent guidelines play in the
overall structure of the CWA and their relationship to other tools for
addressing water pollution. Considering the full scope of the mandates
and authorities established by the CWA, of which effluent guidelines
are only a part, EPA needs the discretion to promulgate new effluent
guidelines in a phased, orderly manner. Otherwise, EPA might find
itself commencing an effluent guidelines rulemaking when none is
actually needed for the protection of human health or the environment.
By crafting section 304(m) as a planning mechanism, Congress has given
EPA that discretion.
2. Discharges From Tobacco Products Facilities
Public comments on the preliminary 2004 Plan suggested that EPA
consider developing effluent guidelines for the tobacco products
industrial sector due to the potential of facilities in this industrial
sector to discharge nontrivial amounts of nonconventional and toxic
pollutants. In particular, commenters expressed concern over the
quantity of toxics and carcinogens that may be discharged in wastewater
associated with the manufacture of cigarettes. At the time of
publication of the final 2004 Plan, EPA was unable to make a
determination, based on readily available information, as to whether
toxic and nonconventional discharges associated with tobacco products
facilities are trivial or nontrivial. In order to better respond to
these comments and determine whether to identify the tobacco products
industrial sector as a potential new point source category, EPA is
conducting a detailed study of the pollutant discharges for this
industrial sector.
This industrial sector is divided into the following four industry
groups: (1) SIC code 2111 (Cigarettes)--establishments primarily
engaged in manufacturing cigarettes from tobacco or other materials;
(2) SIC code 2121 (Cigars)--establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing cigars; (3) SIC code 2131 (Chewing and Smoking Tobacco
and Snuff)--establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing chewing
and smoking tobacco and snuff; and (4) SIC code 2141 (Tobacco Stemming
and Redrying)--establishments primarily engaged in the stemming and
redrying of tobacco or in manufacturing reconstituted tobacco. Based on
information in the 2002 Economic Census, EPA estimates there are 114
tobacco products facilities in the United States, nine of which are
direct dischargers and currently have NPDES permits. EPA's review of
TRI and PCS data indicates that there is very little information about
the facilities in this sector. Consequently, EPA is conducting a
detailed review of this industrial sector. EPA plans to complete this
detailed review prior to publication of the final 2006 Plan in order to
determine whether to identify this industry sector as a potential new
industrial point source category. Key issues EPA will address in its
detailed study include the source and magnitude of the toxic and non-
conventional pollutants discharged directly to waters of the U.S. and
whether indirect discharges of these pollutants present any pass
through or interference issues for POTW operations.
EPA has already made considerable progress in investigating
pollutant discharges in this category and has solicited and received
assistance from the companies who represent 90% of the U.S. market. EPA
held several meetings with these tobacco products companies since
publication of the 2004 Plan and the meeting minutes are included in
the docket (see OW-2004-0032-0043 and 0044). These companies have
provided extensive information on processes, pollutant discharges and
existing permits. Based on information collected to date, EPA believes
that primary processing at cigarette manufacturers and their related
reconstituted tobacco operations is the main source of discharged
wastewater pollution in this industrial sector. EPA conducted site
visits at six tobacco product facilities, four cigarette manufacturing
facilities and two dedicated reconstituted tobacco facilities. In
addition to collecting information on processes and wastewater
generation, EPA also collected grab samples of wastewater during these
site visits. EPA collected these wastewater samples to: (1) Further
characterize wastewater generated and/or discharged at these
facilities; and (2) evaluate treatment effectiveness, as applicable.
EPA expects to place non-CBI information and data regarding these site
visits and sampling episodes in the public record (EPA Docket No. OW-
2004-0032) by December 2005. As these data will be available after the
close of the public comment period (see DATES section), EPA will accept
public comment on these data for 30 days after these data become
available in the docket. Members of the public who would like notice of
when this data is available should contact EPA (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section). EPA also plans to work with State NPDES
permit writers and pretreatment control authorities to obtain existing
permits and to identify any issues or concerns with wastewaters from
this industrial sector.
C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, [58 Federal Register 51735 (October 4,
1993)] the Agency must determine whether a ``regulatory action'' is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines the term
``regulatory action'' to include any substantive action by an agency
(normally published in the Federal
[[Page 51058]]
Register) that is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule
or regulation. While EPA does not normally publish plans and priority-
setting documents such as this preliminary 2006 Plan in the Federal
Register, EPA is required by statute to do so here. The Order also
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. Consequently, EPA did not submitted
this notice to OMB for its review under Executive Order 12866.
IX. Request for Comment and Information
EPA invites and encourages public participation in the development
of the effluent guidelines annual reviews and the biennial Plans. The
Agency asks that comments address deficiencies in the docket of this
preliminary Plan and that commenters provide supporting data for
suggested revisions or corrections where possible.
A. Detailed Studies
EPA requests information on the industries for which it is
conducting detailed studies: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Part 430);
Steam Electric Power Generation (Part 423); and Tobacco Products (SIC
21). As discussed above, the Agency has identified two of these
categories through its annual hazard screening review process (Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard and Steam Electric Power Generation) and the
third through public comment (Tobacco Products). EPA hopes to gather
the following information.
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Part 430)
In order to evaluate the implementation of the Cluster Rules, EPA
reviewed pipe and outfall descriptions contained in PCS for bleached
papergrade kraft and papergrade sulfite mills (Phase I mills). EPA
identified these pipes and outfalls as bleach plant effluent, final
effluent, or other type of monitoring location. EPA requests that
operators of these Phase I mills verify EPA's identification of their
PCS monitoring locations. See OW-2004-0032-0046, Appendix A.
EPA reviewed the information provided by AF&PA and its member
companies regarding the measurement techniques used to calculate TRI-
reported toxic discharges at 19 individual Phase I mills. EPA requests
additional details of methods used to estimate releases of toxic
pollutant discharges reported to TRI, in particular those methods used
by Phase II mills (mills without bleached papergrade kraft or
papergrade sulfite operations).
Some permits require in-process monitoring (bleach plant effluent
monitoring) but the permitting authority (state) does not include in-
process monitoring results in PCS. EPA requests that operators of
bleached papergrade kraft or papergrade sulfite mills provide results
of their permit-required (or other) bleach plant effluent monitoring,
where these monitoring results are missing from PCS.
EPA requests information about non-bleaching sources of toxic
wastewater pollutants, such as pollutants derived from combustion-
related activities, spent pulping liquor from unbleached kraft mills,
and papermachine additives and coatings.
EPA requests examples (case studies) of mill process changes
implemented in response to the cluster rules, including the wastewater
pollution reduction benefits of installing BAT and using BMPs for the
control of spent pulping liquor losses.
Steam Electric Power Generation (Part 423)
EPA is investigating various types of wastewater discharges by
steam electric utility and non-utility facilities including: Cooling
water, ash-handling wastes, coal pile drainage, water treatment wastes,
boiler blowdown, wet air pollution control device wastes, maintenance
cleaning wastes, and miscellaneous waste streams. EPA solicits
information on these and any other wastewaters that may be discharged
by steam electric utility and non-utility facilities. In particular,
EPA solicits information on the pollution prevention, management, and
treatment for these wastewaters (e.g., how many facilities discharge
coal pile runoff to ash ponds for further treatment) and the typical
wastewater volumes and pollutant concentrations for wastewater
discharges (e.g., what are typical wastewater volumes and pollutant
concentrations of arsenic, beryllium, lead, mercury, and selenium in
ash-handling wastewaters).
EPA solicits information on any new technologies or process changes
for flow or pollutant reduction that might appropriately serve as the
basis for revised effluent guidelines. In particular, EPA solicits
comment on whether facilities are implementing pollution prevention,
best management practices, or other operational changes (e.g., flow
reduction technology) to reduce wastewater pollutant discharges. For
each practice or technology EPA solicits information on which of these
are more readily adopted by new facilities rather than existing
facilities. EPA also solicits comment as to whether any other
regulatory programs or voluntary programs have had or may have any
effect on the mass of pollutants discharged by existing steam electric
facilities to surface waters and POTWs.
EPA notes that process additives in use in the steam electric power
generation category have changed over time. Starting in the early
1990s, some power plants began converting from the use of chlorinated
compounds to brominated compounds. However, many of these plants report
only total residual oxidant (TRO) as part of their NPDES permit
requirements. EPA solicits information on the amount and type of
brominated compounds discharged from this industry.
EPA also solicits comment regarding electric power generation
facilities that use prime movers other than steam turbines (e.g., gas
turbines). Specifically, EPA solicits comments on: (1) The wastewater
volumes and pollutant concentrations of these discharges; (2) the
similarities and differences of the discharge characteristics as
compared to steam electric facilities regulated by Part 423; (3)
current pollution prevention and treatment options for these discharges
and estimates of which pollution prevention and treatment options are
most widely used in this industry sector; and (4) whether EPA should
amend the applicability of the existing steam electric power generation
effluent guidelines to regulate these discharges.
Similarly, EPA is also soliciting information related to these four
questions in order to better evaluate the discharges from: (1) The non-
utility electric power generation sector and non-conventional renewable
and other fuel sources sector (e.g., facilities using wood, wood
wastes, non-wood wastes,
[[Page 51059]]
refuse, geothermal and solar as the energy sources to fuel steam
turbines); and (2) facilities using combined-cycle, combustion turbine,
and integrated gasification combined-cycle technology.
Tobacco Products (SIC 21)
EPA solicits information and data on the number and identity of
tobacco products processing facilities that discharge to surface waters
and POTWs. EPA solicits information and data on the volume and
characteristics of tobacco products processing discharges to surface
waters and POTWs. EPA solicits information and data on the fate and
affects of nicotine discharges to waters of the U.S. EPA solicits
information and data on the treatment effectiveness of POTWs in
removing nicotine from tobacco products processing wastewaters.
Based on information collected to date, EPA believes non-cigarette
related tobacco products processing (such as the manufacture of cigars,
smokeless tobacco products, and tobacco stemming and redrying) generate
and discharge little or no wastewater (in terms of volumes and toxic
and/or non-conventional pollutant mass) to waters of the U.S. EPA
solicits data to support or refute this assertion.
B. EPA Requests Information on the Industries Recommended for a
Preliminary Category Review
EPA requests information on the industries for which there are
incomplete data available for analysis (i.e., industrial point source
categories with existing effluent guidelines identified with ``(5)'' in
the column entitled ``Findings'' in Table V-1). EPA will need to
collect more information for the next biennial plan. Specifically, EPA
hopes to gather the following information:
What toxic pollutants are discharged from these industries
in non-trivial amounts on an industry and per-facility basis?
What raw material(s) or process(es) are the sources of
these pollutants?
What technologies or management practices are available
(technically and economically) to control or prevent the generation
and/or release of these pollutants.
C. Data Sources and Methodologies
EPA solicits comments on whether EPA used the correct evaluation
factors, criteria, and data sources in conducting its annual review and
developing this preliminary Plan. EPA also solicits comment on other
data sources EPA can use in its annual reviews and biennial planning
process. Please see the docket for a more detailed discussion of EPA's
analysis supporting the reviews in this notice (see OW-2004-0032-0017).
D. BPJ Permit-Based Support
EPA solicits comments on whether, and if so how, the Agency should
provide EPA Regions and States with permit-based support instead of
revising effluent guidelines (e.g., when the vast majority of the
hazard is associated with one or a few facilities).
E. Identification of New Industrial Categories
EPA solicits comment on the methodology for grouping industrial
sectors currently not subject to effluent guidelines or pretreatment
standards for review and prioritization, and the factors and measures
EPA should consider for determining whether to identify such industries
for a rulemaking. EPA solicits comment on other data sources and
approaches EPA can use to identify industrial sectors currently not
subject to effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for review and
prioritization.
F. Implementation Issues Related to Existing Effluent Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards
As a factor in its decision-making, EPA considers opportunities to
eliminate inefficiencies or impediments to pollution prevention or
technological innovation, or opportunities to promote innovative
approaches such as water quality trading, including within-plant
trading. Consequently, EPA solicits comment on implementation issues
related to existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. EPA
also solicits comment on these proposed schedules for current effluent
guidelines rulemakings (see OW-2004-0032-0042).
G. EPA Solicits Comment on Implementation Issues Related to the Use of
Flow Normalized Mass-Based Permit Limits and Their Potential Impact on
the Adoption of Water Conservation Technologies
EPA solicits comment on the suggested revisions to the OCPSF
effluent guidelines raised by commenters. See section V.B.3.a. In
particular, EPA requests comment on the likely advantages and
disadvantages of the commenters' suggestion (i.e., allowing NPDES
permittees to keep flow-normalized mass-based permit limits established
at the beginning of the prior permit term before possible water re-use
and reduction technologies and pollution prevention practices may have
been implemented). EPA requests data to evaluate the costs, benefits,
and impacts of water conservation practices advocated by commenters.
EPA also solicits comment on whether the commenters' suggestion could
have a broader application to other industrial categories with flow-
normalized mass-based NPDES permit limits.
In particular, EPA requests paired influent and effluent regulated
pollutant concentration and flow data where available, before and after
implementation of the increased water conservation technologies and
practices, to determine wastewater treatment performance (i.e., percent
pollutant removals) and the discharged effluent pollutant
concentrations for OCPSF (and other) facilities that they believe may
or may not have adversely impacted their ability to achieve existing
effluent guidelines. EPA also solicits other data on these water re-use
and reduction technologies and pollution prevention practices which may
include:
The main reasons why these technologies and practices were
adopted, and whether these technologies and practices are transferrable
to other facilities.
Detailed process flow diagrams including wastewater flows
from each industrial unit operation; typical pollutant concentration
wastewater data from each industrial unit operation; descriptions of
the water conservation technologies and practices employed at each of
these industrial unit operations; and data and descriptions on whether
these water conservation technologies and practices reduce the amount
of wastewater volume or the mass of wastewater pollutants resulting
from an industrial unit operation or both.
Detailed descriptions of the wastewater treatment and the
annual costs of operating wastewater treatment to maintain compliance
with the effluent guidelines. Detailed descriptions of the capital and
annual costs associated with implementing water conservation
technologies and practices and any cost savings resulting from water
conservation technologies and practices.
Additionally, EPA solicits estimates of the amount of increased
water conservation and the number of facilities that would adopt more
advanced water conservation technologies and practices as a sole result
of: (1) Implementing the commenters' suggestion; or (2) other factors
(e.g., limitations on water source availability, potential costs
savings). EPA would be particularly interested in specific, detailed
examples of situations where the adoption of water
[[Page 51060]]
conservation technologies and practices have or have not made the
achievement of new flow-normalized mass-based permit limits based on
the reduced wastewater flow more difficult for both direct and indirect
dischargers. EPA solicits comment on how and when NPDES permit writers
are calculating flow-normalized mass-based permit limits when
facilities reduce their wastewater flow. EPA solicits comment on
whether the commenters' suggestion is more or less relevant to certain
industries, treatment technologies, or pollutants. If EPA were to
address the commenters' suggestion, should any rule or guidance changes
be limited to one or a few industries (e.g., OCPSF) or more broadly
applicable. EPA solicits comment on whether there are differences
between direct and indirect dischargers that might suggest that
different approaches are warranted.
Comments and data provided to EPA will be evaluated in the context
of the CWA factors required for consideration of effluent guidelines.
Were EPA to make any effluent guidelines revisions, they would need to
be supported by an administrative record following an opportunity for
public comment based on available data.
H. EPA Solicits Comment on Implementation Issues Related to the
Analytical Methods for Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids (SBF) in the Oil
and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 435)
EPA solicits comment on the suggested revisions to the Oil and Gas
Extraction effluent guidelines (40 CFR Part 435) raised by commenters.
See section V.B.3.b. In particular, EPA solicits comment on whether EPA
should propose a rulemaking to replace the synthetic-based drilling
fluids (SBF) analytic methods in the Oil and Gas Extraction effluent
guidelines with the SBF analytical methods from the EPA Region 6
general permit for the ``Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of
Mexico,'' NPDES Permit No: GMG290000 (see OW-2004-0032-0047). EPA also
solicits comment on the number, geographic distribution, and types of
wells (e.g., oil or gas extraction, exploration or development,
deepwater or shallow water, likely bottom depth of well) with down-hole
temperatures above the practical limitations of ester-based drilling
fluids (i.e., above 350 [deg]F). EPA also solicits comment on whether
drilling fluid additives (e.g., emulsifiers) can address the effects of
high temperatures on ester-based drilling fluids. Finally, EPA solicits
comments on whether the issues raised by commenters are more
appropriately addressed through improved standardization of the SBF
analytical methods in order to reduce variability rather than the
commenter's suggested revisions to the effluent guidelines.
I. EPA Solicits Comment on the Draft Strategy
In connection with the final 2006 Plan, EPA intends to finalize the
draft Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations (``draft
Strategy''). See 67 FR 71165 (November 29, 2002). EPA again solicits
public comment on the draft Strategy. This will allow time for EPA to
better refine the Strategy as it performs future effluent guidelines
reviews. In particular, EPA requests comments on its proposed use of
the four factors described in the draft Strategy (see section V.A.2)
and invites the public to identify other or different factors for EPA's
consideration.
The Agency is also interested to receive comments on whether each
of these four factors should be ranked, and if so, whether different
weights should be applied to each. EPA also requests suggestions as to
the information the Agency should use to prioritize industrial
categories that pass both the primary and secondary screening reviews
described in the draft Strategy.
J. EPA's Evaluation of Categories of Indirect Dischargers Without
Categorical Pretreatment Standards To Identify Potential New Categories
for Pretreatment Standards
EPA solicits comments on its evaluation of categories of indirect
dischargers without categorical pretreatment standards. Specifically,
EPA solicits wastewater characterization data (e.g., wastewater
volumes, concentrations of discharged pollutants), current examples of
pollution prevention, treatment technologies, and local limits for all
industries EPA evaluated: Food Service Establishments; Industrial
Laundries; Photoprocessing; Printing and Publishing; Independent and
Stand Alone Laboratories; Industrial Container and Drum Cleaning; and
Health Services Industry. EPA solicits comment on the grouping of six
industrial sectors into the Health Services Industry grouping (see OW-
2004-0032-0038). EPA also solicits comment on whether there are
industrial sectors discharging pollutants that cause interference
issues that cannot be adequately controlled through the general
pretreatment standards.
Dated: August 19, 2005.
Michael Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 05-17032 Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P