[Federal Register: September 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 53218-53241]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15se08-63]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771; FRL-8715-4]
RIN 2040-AE89
Notice of Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 53219]]
SUMMARY: 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 Clean Water Act (CWA) sections 301(d),
304(b), 304(g), and 307(b) require EPA to review these effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards. This notice presents EPA's 2008
review of 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 under CWA sections 304(g) and 307(b). This
notice also presents the final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan
(``final 2008 Plan''), which, as required under CWA section 304(m),
identifies any new or existing industrial categories selected for
effluent guidelines rulemaking and provides a schedule for such
rulemaking. CWA section 304(m) requires EPA to biennially publish such
a plan after public notice and comment. The Agency published the
preliminary 2008 Plan on October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61335). This notice
also provides EPA's preliminary thoughts concerning its 2009 annual
reviews under CWA sections 304(b) and 304(g) as well as its reviews
under 301(d) and 307(b) and solicits comments, data and information to
assist EPA in performing these reviews. EPA intends to continue its
detailed studies of the steam electric power generating industry, the
health services industry, and the coalbed methane extraction industry,
which is part of the oil and gas extraction industry. Finally, EPA is
using this notice to solicit public comment to identify industry
sectors and facilities that use water efficiency practices that promote
water efficiency, re-use, and recycling because such practices can be
related to reducing overall pollutant discharges.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, data and information for the 2009
annual review, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517, by one
of the following methods:
(1) www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
(2) E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2008-0517.
(3) Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517. Please include a total of 3 copies.
(4) Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be
made.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-
0517. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The
federal regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
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 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.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the index at
www.regulations.gov. 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 form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
3334, 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 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.
Key documents providing additional information about EPA's annual
reviews and the final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan include the
following:
Technical Support Document for the 2008 Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan, EPA-821-R-08-015, DCN 05515;
Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category:
2007/2008 Detailed Study Report, EPA-821-R-08-011, DCN 05516;
Coal Mining Detailed Study, EPA-821-R-08-012, DCN 05517;
Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Dental Amalgam,
EPA-821-R-08-014, DCN 05518; and
Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Management and
Disposal of Unused Pharmaceuticals (Interim Technical Report), EPA-821-
R-08-013, DCN 05519.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-
1014 or johnston.carey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
How Is This Document Organized?
The outline of this notice follows.
I. General Information
II. Legal Authority
III. What Is the Purpose of This Federal Register Notice?
IV. Background
V. EPA's 2008 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g),
and 307(b)
VI. EPA's 2009 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 Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan Under Section
304(m)
IX. Request for Comment and Information
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
This notice simply provides a statement of the Agency's effluent
guidelines review and planning processes and priorities at this time,
and does not contain any regulatory requirements.
[[Page 53220]]
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA for the 2009
Annual Review?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information
Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Legal Authority
This 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, 307(b), 308, 33 U.S.C. 1311(d), 1314(b), 1314(g), 1314(m),
1316, 1317(b), and 1318.
III. What Is the Purpose of This Federal Register Notice?
This notice presents EPA's 2008 review of existing effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards under CWA sections 301(d),
304(b), 304(g) and 307(b). It also presents EPA's evaluation of
indirect dischargers without categorical pretreatment standards to
identify potential new categories for pretreatment standards under CWA
sections 304(g) and 307(b). This notice also presents the final 2008
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (``final 2008 Plan''), which, as
required under CWA section 304(m), identifies any new or existing
industrial categories selected for effluent guidelines rulemaking and
provides a schedule for such rulemaking. CWA section 304(m) requires
EPA to biennially publish such a plan after public notice and comment.
The Agency published the preliminary 2008 Plan on October 30, 2007 (72
FR 61335). This notice also provides EPA's preliminary thoughts
concerning its 2009 annual reviews under CWA sections 301(d), 304(b),
304(g) and 307(b) and solicits comments, data and information to assist
EPA in performing these reviews.
IV. Background
A. What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?
The CWA directs EPA to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines
and standards (``effluent guidelines'') that reflect pollutant
reductions that can be achieved by categories or subcategories of
industrial point sources using technologies that represent the
appropriate level of control. 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 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 (44 FR 44501). 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)(B)
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)
and
[[Page 53221]]
(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.
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 guidelines selected for
possible revision as a result of that annual review. Section 304(m)
also requires the plan to identify categories of sources discharging
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 (indicating that section
304(m)(1)(B) applies to ``non-trivial discharges.''). 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, providing for final action on such
rulemaking not later than three years after the industrial category is
identified in a final Plan.\1\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA recognizes that one court--the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California--has found that EPA has a duty to
promulgate effluent guidelines within three years for new categories
identified in the Plan. See NRDC et al. v. EPA, 437 F.Supp.2d 1137
(C.D. Ca, 2006). However, EPA continues to believe that the
mandatory duty under section 304(m)(1)(C) is limited to providing a
schedule for taking final action in effluent guidelines rulemaking--
not necessarily promulgating effluent guidelines--within three
years, and has appealed this decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 practicable
control technology (all pollutants), 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)(1), 304(b)(2) and 304(b)(4), respectively. For over 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 sections 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 revise existing pretreatment
standards ``from time to time,'' section 304(g) requires an annual
review. Therefore, EPA meets its 304(g) and 307(b) 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
[[Page 53222]]
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 2009 annual
pretreatment standards review in the notice containing the Agency's
2009 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and the preliminary
2010 plan). EPA intends that these contemporaneous reviews will provide
meaningful insight into EPA's effluent guidelines and pretreatment
standards program decision-making. Additionally, by providing a single
notice for these and future reviews, EPA hopes to provide a
consolidated source of information for the Agency's current and future
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards program reviews.
V. EPA's 2008 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. Overview
In its 2008 annual review, EPA reviewed all industrial categories
subject to existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
standards, representing a total of 56 point source categories and over
450 subcategories. EPA uses four factors in a phased approach to review
existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards:
Pollutants discharged in an industrial category's discharge, current
and potential pollution prevention and control technology options,
category growth and economic considerations of technology options, and
implementation and efficiency considerations of revising existing
effluent guidelines or publishing new effluent guidelines (see December
21, 2006; 71 FR 76666). Examining these factors also helps the Agency
to assess the extent to which additional regulation may contribute
reasonable further progress toward the CWA's objective of restoring and
maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the
nation's waters, consistent with section 101 of the CWA.
EPA used this 2008 review to confirm the Agency's identification of
industrial categories prioritized for further review in the preliminary
2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (October 30, 2007; 72 FR 61335).
EPA also continued work on four detailed studies as part of the 2008
annual review: Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423), Coal Mining
(Part 434), Oil and Gas Extraction (Part 435) (for the purpose of
assessing whether to include coalbed methane extraction as a new
subcategory), and Hospitals (Part 460).\2\ These reviews discharged
EPA's obligations to annually review both existing effluent limitations
guidelines for direct dischargers and existing pretreatment standards
for indirect dischargers under CWA sections 304(b) and (g), as well as
other review requirements under CWA section 301(d) and 307(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on available information, hospitals consist mostly of
indirect dischargers for which EPA has not established pretreatment
standards. As discussed in Section VII.B, EPA is including hospitals
in its review of the Health Services Industry, a potential new
category for pretreatment standards. As part of that process, EPA
will review the existing effluent guidelines for the few direct
dischargers in the category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this review and prior annual reviews, and in light of the
ongoing effluent guidelines rulemakings and detailed studies currently
in progress, EPA is not identifying any existing categories for
effluent guidelines rulemaking at this time, and is thus not
establishing a schedule for further rulemaking at this time. EPA does,
however, intend to continue its more focused detailed reviews in the
2009 and 2010 annual reviews of the effluent guidelines for the
following categories: Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423), Oil
and Gas Extraction category (Part 435) (for the purpose of assessing
whether to revise the limits to include Coalbed Methane extraction as a
new subcategory), and Hospitals (Part 460) (which is part of the Health
Services Industry detailed study). As part of its detailed study of the
Coalbed Methane extraction industry, EPA is seeking approval from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an Information Collection
Request (ICR) to gather data from the industry (July 15, 2008; 73 FR
40575). EPA is also planning to submit a proposed ICR to OMB for the
Health Services Industry; in particular, a study of unused
pharmaceuticals from medical and veterinary facilities. This is a
request for a new collection. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for
review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of
the proposed information collection (August 12, 2008; 73 FR 46903). See
Sections V.B.2 and VII.D.
2. How Did EPA's 2007 Annual Review Influence Its 2008 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
additional scrutiny in subsequent years. During its 2007 annual review,
which concluded in October 2007, EPA started or continued detailed
studies of the existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards
for the four industrial categories mentioned in the previous
discussion: Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423), Coal Mining
(Part 434), Oil and Gas Extraction category (Part 435) (for the purpose
of assessing whether to revise the limits to include Coalbed Methane
extraction as a new subcategory), and Hospitals (Part 460) (which is
part of the Health Services Industry detailed study). In addition, EPA
used its 2007 annual reviews to identify three other industrial
categories as candidates for further study in the 2008 reviews based on
the toxic discharges reported to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and
Permit Compliance System (PCS): Ore Mining and Dressing (Part 440),
Centralized Waste Treatment (Part 437), and Waste Combustors (Part
444). EPA published the findings from its 2007 annual review with its
preliminary 2008 Plan (October 30, 2007; 72 FR 61335), making the
pollutant discharge and industry profile data available for public
comment. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771. EPA used the findings, data
and comments on the 2007 annual review to inform its 2008 annual
review. The 2008 review also built on the previous reviews by
incorporating some refinements to assigning discharges to categories
and updating toxic weighting factors used to estimate the significance
of toxic pollutant discharges. In its 2008 reviews, EPA completed its
Coal Mining detailed study and the dental amalgam management detailed
study for the Health Services Industry. As discussed below, EPA is not
identifying these two industry sectors for an effluent guidelines
rulemaking at this time. EPA does, however, intend to continue its more
focused detailed reviews for the following categories and industry
sectors in the next biennial planning cycle: Steam Electric Power
Generating category, Oil and Gas Extraction
[[Page 53223]]
category (only to assess whether to revise the limits to include
Coalbed Methane extraction as a new subcategory), and unused
pharmaceutical management for the Health Services Industry (which
includes the Hospital category).
3. What Actions Did EPA Take in Performing Its 2008 Annual Reviews of
Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?
a. Screening-Level Review
The first component of EPA's 2008 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 2007 annual
reviews. In its 2007 annual reviews, EPA focused its efforts on
collecting and analyzing data to identify industrial categories whose
pollutant discharges potentially are the most significant. EPA
primarily uses TRI and PCS data to estimate the mass of pollutant
discharges from different industrial facilities. Because pollutant
toxicities are different, EPA converted the toxic and non-conventional
pollutant discharges that are reported in a mass unit (pounds) into a
measure of relative toxicity (toxic-weighted pound equivalent or TWPE).
EPA calculated the TWPE for each pollutant discharged by multiplying
the pollutant specific toxic weighting factor (TWF) and the mass of the
pollutant discharge. Where data are available, these TWFs reflect both
aquatic life and human health effects. EPA ranked point source
categories according to their discharges of toxic and non-conventional
pollutants (reported in units of TWPE) to assess the significance of
these toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges to human health
or the environment. EPA repeated this process for the 2008 annual
reviews using the most recent TRI data (2005).
Next, EPA considered the availability of technologies to reduce
pollutant discharges. EPA does not have, for all of the 56 existing
industrial categories, information about the availability of treatment
or process technologies to reduce pollutant wastewater discharges
beyond the performance of the technologies upon which existing effluent
guidelines and standards were developed. At present 46 states and one
U.S. territory are authorized to administer the CWA NPDES program.
Under the CWA, permitting authorities must include water-quality based
effluent limits where the technology-based effluent limits are not
sufficient to meet applicable water quality standards. Therefore,
dischargers may have already installed technologies that reduce
pollutant discharges to a level below the original technology-based
requirements in order to meet such water-quality based effluent
limitations.
A commenter on the preliminary 2008 Plan argued that EPA should
conduct rulemaking to amend its effluent guidelines even where water
quality-based controls have already controlled pollutant discharges
(see EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0847). EPA disagrees. Analyzing the
significance of the remaining pollutant discharges is most useful for
assessing the potential effectiveness of additional technologies
because such an analysis focuses on the amount and significance of
pollutant discharges that would actually be removed through new,
technology-based nationally-applicable regulations for these
categories. Where potential pollutant discharge reductions are not
significant, there are likely few effective technology options for a
technology-based rule. Once EPA determined which industries have the
potential for significant additional pollutant removals, EPA further
examined the availability of technologies for certain industries. For
example, EPA identified technologies to minimize pollutant discharges
from Steam Electric facilities (see Steam Electric Power Generating
Point Source Category: 2007/2008 Detailed Study Report, EPA-821-R-08-
011, DCN 05516).
EPA also considered whether there was a way to develop a suitable
tool for comprehensively evaluating the availability and affordability
of treatment or process technologies, but determined that there is not,
because the universe of facilities is too broad and complex. EPA could
not find a reasonable way to prioritize the industrial categories based
on readily available engineering and economic data. In the past, EPA
has gathered information regarding technologies and economic
achievability for one industrial category at a time 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 (PRA), 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 can consume
considerable time and resources. To study one industry with this level
of analysis generally takes 3 years at a cost to EPA of 1.5 to 3
million dollars. EPA does not think it is appropriate or feasible to
conduct this level of analysis for all point source categories in
conducting an annual review. Rather, EPA uses its analyses of existing
pollutant discharges to identify the categories with the largest toxic
weighted discharges. From this smaller list of categories, EPA
evaluates the possibility of effective technologies and selects certain
industries for examination (e.g., Preliminary Category Reviews,
Detailed Studies). In these more detailed reviews EPA evaluates
technology options for better control of pollutant discharges and may
conduct surveys or other data collection activities in order to better
inform the decision on whether to initiate an effluent guidelines
rulemaking. EPA solicits comment on how to develop tools for directly
assessing technological and economic achievability in future annual
reviews under section 301(d), 304(b), and 307(b) (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-
0032-2344). The full description of EPA's methodology for the 2008
review is presented in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the
final 2008 Plan (see DCN 05515).
EPA is continuously investigating and solicits comment on how to
improve its analyses. EPA made a few such improvements to the review
methodology from the 2007 to the 2008 annual review. As part of the
2008 review, EPA corrected the PCSLoads2004 and TRIReleases2004
databases, by addressing issues raised in comments (e.g., updating TWFs
and average POTW pollutant removal efficiencies for a number of
pollutants) and collecting additional information from individual
facilities that report to TRI or PCS.
EPA also continued to use the quality assurance project plan (QAPP)
developed for the 2007 annual review to document the type and quality
of data needed to make the decisions in this 2008 annual review and to
describe the methods for collecting and assessing those data (see EPA-
HQ-OW-2006-0771-0208). EPA performed quality assurance checks on the
data used to develop estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges
(i.e., verifying 2005 discharge data reported to TRI) to determine
whether 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, correct TRI data for facilities that EPA
had identified in its screening-level review as the significant
dischargers.
Based on this methodology, EPA assigned those industrial categories
with the lowest estimates of toxic-weighted
[[Page 53224]]
pollutant discharges a lower priority for revision (i.e., industrial
categories marked ``(3)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in
section V.B.4 of today's notice).
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 result in further pollutant discharge reduction. In general,
industries for which effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards have
recently been promulgated are less likely to warrant such changes.
However, when EPA becomes aware of the growth of a new industrial
activity within an existing category or where new concerns are
identified for previously unevaluated pollutants discharged by
facilities within an industrial category, EPA would apply more scrutiny
to the category in a subsequent review. EPA identified no such instance
during the 2008 annual review. In order to further focus its inquiry
during the 2008 annual review, EPA assigned a lower priority for
potential revision to 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 in section V.B.4 of
today's notice). EPA removed an industrial point source category from
further consideration during the current review cycle if EPA
established, revised, or reviewed in a rulemaking context the
category's effluent guidelines after August 2001 (i.e., seven years
prior to August 2008, the expected publication of the final 2008
Effluent Guidelines Program). 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). EPA also applied a lower priority for
potential revision at this time to the Ore Mining and Dressing category
as EPA lacked sufficient data to determine whether revision would be
appropriate (i.e., this category is marked with ``(5)'' in the
``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of today's notice).
EPA lacks sufficient information at this time on the magnitude of the
toxic-weighted pollutant discharges associated with this category. EPA
will seek additional information on the discharges from this category
in the next annual review in order to determine whether a detailed
study is warranted. EPA typically performs a further assessment of the
pollutant discharges before starting a detailed study of an industrial
category. This assessment (``preliminary category review'') provides an
additional level of quality assurance on the reported pollutant
discharges and number of facilities that represent the majority of
toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. See the appropriate section in the
TSD for the final 2008 Plan (see DCN 05515) for EPA's data needs for
these industrial categories.
For industrial categories marked ``(4)'' in the ``Findings'' column
in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of today's notice, EPA had sufficient
information on the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges associated with
these categories to continue a detailed study of these industrial
categories in the 2008 annual review. EPA intends to use the detailed
study to obtain information on hazard, availability and cost of
technology options, and other factors in order to determine if it would
be appropriate to identify the category for possible effluent
guidelines revision. EPA will continue three detailed studies in the
2009 annual review: Steam Electric Power Generating category, Oil and
Gas Extraction category (only to assess whether to revise the limits to
include Coalbed Methane extraction as a new subcategory), and unused
pharmaceutical management for the Health Services Industry (which
includes the Hospital category).
As part of its 2008 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 (i.e., categories
marked ``(2)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4
of today's notice), EPA applied a lower priority for potential
revision. EPA believes that revision of individual permits for such
facilities may be more effective than a revised national effluent
guidelines rulemaking. Individual permit requirements can be better
tailored to these few facilities and may take considerably less time
and resources to establish than a national effluent guidelines
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 DCN 05515). 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. For example, EPA developed
and distributed a 2007 technical document to NPDES permit writers in
order to support the development of effluent limitations for facilities
in the dissolving kraft (Subpart A) and dissolving sulfite (Subpart D)
subcategories of the pulp and paper point source category (40 CFR Part
430) (see EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0774). 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 in previous biennial planning cycles urging
the Agency 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 indirectly account for
the effects of successful voluntary programs because any significant
reductions in pollutant discharges should be reflected in TRI 2005
discharge data, as well as any data provided directly by commenters,
that EPA used to assess the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges.
In summary, EPA's review enables EPA to concentrate its resources
on conducting more in-depth reviews of certain industries, as discussed
below.
b. Further Review of Prioritized Categories
In the publication of the preliminary 2008 Plan, EPA identified
three categories with potentially high TWPE discharge estimates for
further investigation (``preliminary category
[[Page 53225]]
review'') as a result of the 2007 annual review: Ore Mining and
Dressing (Part 440), Centralized Waste Treatment (Part 437), and Waste
Combustors (Part 444) (i.e., EPA identified these categories with
``(5)'' in the column entitled ``Findings'' in Table V-1, Page 61345 of
the preliminary 2008 Plan). EPA reviewed these three categories in its
2008 annual review.
EPA typically performs a further assessment of the pollutant
discharges before starting a detailed study of an industrial category.
In conducting these preliminary category reviews, EPA used the same
types of data sources used for the detailed studies but in less depth.
This assessment provides confirmation of the reported pollutant
discharges and number of facilities that represent the majority of
toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA may also develop a preliminary
list of potential wastewater pollutant control technologies before
conducting a detailed study.
c. Detailed Study of Four Categories
EPA continued detailed studies of four categories: Steam Electric
Power Generating (Part 423), Coal Mining (Part 434), Oil and Gas
Extraction (Part 435) (only to assess whether to include coalbed
methane extraction as a new subcategory), and Hospitals (Part 460)
(which is part of the Health Services Industry detailed study). For
these industries, EPA gathered and analyzed additional data on
pollutant discharges, economic factors, and technology issues. EPA
examined: (1) Wastewater characteristics and pollutant sources; (2) the
pollutants discharged from these sources and the toxic weights
associated with these 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) The
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) monitoring data
included in facility applications for NPDES permit renewals (Form 2C
data); (7) EPA effluent guidelines technical development documents; (8)
relevant EPA preliminary data summaries or study reports; (9) technical
literature on pollutant sources and control technologies; (10)
information provided by industry including industry conducted survey
and sampling data; (11) CWA section 308 data requests and surveys; and
(12) stakeholder comments (see DCN 06109). Additionally, in order to
evaluate available and affordable treatment technology options for the
coalbed methane extraction industry sector, EPA is seeking approval
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to gather data from the industry (July 15,
2008; 73 FR 40757). EPA is also planning to submit a proposed ICR to
OMB for the Health Services Industry; in particular, a study of unused
pharmaceuticals from medical and veterinary facilities. This is a
request for a new collection. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for
review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of
the proposed information collection (August 12, 2008; 73 FR 46903).
d. Public Comments
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 at the time of publication of the final 2006 Plan to provide the
public with an opportunity to submit additional information to assist
the Agency in its 2007 and 2008 annual reviews. These public comments
are in the supporting docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771, www.regulations.gov)
and summarized in the TSD for the final 2008 Plan (see DCN 05515).
B. What Were EPA's Findings From Its 2008 Annual Review for Categories
Subject to Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?
1. Screening-Level Review
In its 2008 screening level review, EPA considered significance of
remaining pollutant discharges and the other factors described in
section A.3.a. above in prioritizing effluent guidelines for potential
revision. See Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of today's notice for a
summary of EPA's findings with respect to each existing category; see
also the TSD for the final 2008 Plan. Out of the categories subject
only to the screening level review in 2008, EPA is not identifying any
for effluent guidelines rulemaking at this time, based on the factors
described in section A.3.a above and in light of the resources EPA is
currently expending in effluent guidelines rulemakings and detailed
studies. Specifically, EPA is engaged in rulemaking relating to the
Construction and Development Point Source Category, the Airport De-
icing Point Source Category; and the Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations Point Source Category.
2. Detailed Studies
In its 2008 annual review, EPA continued detailed studies of four
industrial point source categories with existing effluent guidelines
and pretreatment standards: Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423),
Coal Mining (Part 434), Oil and Gas Extraction (Part 435) (to assess
whether to include coalbed methane extraction as a new subcategory),
and Hospitals (Part 460) (which is part of the Health Services Industry
detailed study). EPA is investigating whether the pollutant discharges
reported to TRI and PCS for 2004 and 2005 accurately reflect the
current discharges of the industry. EPA, through these detailed
studies, analyzes the reported pollutant discharges, technology
innovation, and process changes in these industrial categories.
Additionally, EPA considers whether there are industrial activities 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.
EPA completed the Coal Mining detailed study and the dental amalgam
management detailed study for the Health Services Industry. As
described below in more detail, EPA is not identifying either of these
industries for an effluent guidelines rulemaking in this final 2008
Plan. EPA will continue the other detailed studies (i.e., Steam
Electric Power Generating, Coalbed Methane Extraction, and Health
Services Industry (unused pharmaceutical management)) to determine
whether EPA should identify in the future any of these industries for
possible revision of their existing effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards. Three of these four industries are described
below. EPA's review of hospitals (including dental amalgam and unused
pharmaceuticals) is described in section VII.B (Health Services
Industry detailed study).
a. Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423)
The Steam Electric Power Generating effluent guidelines (40 CFR
423) apply to a subset of the electric power industry, namely those
facilities ``primarily engaged in the generation of electricity for
distribution and sale which results primarily from a process utilizing
fossil-type fuel (coal, oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction
with
[[Page 53226]]
a thermal cycle employing the steam water system as the thermodynamic
medium.'' See 40 CFR 423.10. EPA's most recent revisions to the
effluent guidelines and standards for this category were promulgated in
1982 (see 47 FR 52290; November 19, 1982).
EPA has focused efforts for the 2007/2008 Detailed Study for the
Steam Electric Power Generating point source category on certain
discharges from coal-fired power plants. The study sought to: (1)
characterize the mass and concentrations of pollutants in wastewater
discharges from coal-fired steam electric facilities; and (2) identify
the pollutants that comprise a significant portion of the category's
TWPE discharge estimate and the corresponding industrial operation.
EPA's previous annual reviews have indicated that the toxic-weighted
loadings for this category are predominantly driven by the metals
present in wastewater discharges, and that the waste streams
contributing the majority of these metals are associated with ash
handling and wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems (see EPA-HQ-OW-
2004-0032-2781). Other potential sources of metals include coal pile
runoff, metal/chemical cleaning wastes, coal washing, and certain low
volume wastes. EPA is continuing to collect data for the detailed study
through facility inspections, wastewater sampling, a data request that
was sent to a limited number of companies, and various secondary data
sources (see Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category:
2007/2008 Detailed Study Report, EPA-821-R-08-011, DCN 05516).
EPA's data collection efforts are primarily focused on coal-fired
power plants, with particular interest in FGD wastewater treatment, the
management of ash sluice water, and water reuse opportunities. EPA's
site visit program gathers information on the types of wastewaters
generated by coal-fired steam electric power plants, as well as the
methods of managing these wastewaters to allow for recycle, reuse, or
discharge. EPA conducted site visits at 16 coal-fired power plants and
is continuing to identify potential site visit candidates to assess FGD
systems using different scrubber designs or sorbents, and facilities
operating or planning to install different types of treatment and water
reuse options.
Between July and October of 2007, EPA conducted five sampling
episodes to characterize untreated wastewaters generated by coal-fired
power plants, including FGD scrubber purge, fly ash sluice, bottom ash
sluice, and combined fly- and bottom ash sluice. EPA also collected
samples to assess the effluent quality from different types of
treatment systems currently in place at these operations. Samples
collected during the five episodes were analyzed for metals and other
pollutants, such as total suspended solids and nitrogen. Site-specific
sampling episode reports are in the docket for the 2008 Plan (EPA-HQ-
OW-2006-0771, www.regulations.gov). These reports discuss the specific
sample points and analytes, the sample collection methods used, the
field quality control (QC) samples collected, and the analytical
results for the wastewater samples.
EPA is continuing to identify potential sampling candidates to
evaluate additional types of FGD wastewater treatment systems,
including advanced biological metals removal processes and chemical
precipitation systems. EPA plans to conduct wastewater sampling at one
or more additional plants in 2008 or early 2009.
EPA also collected facility-specific information using a data
request conducted under authority of CWA section 308 (see EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0771-0417). In May 2007, EPA distributed this data request to nine
companies that operate a number of coal-fired power plants with wet FGD
systems. The data request complements the wastewater sampling effort as
it requested facility-specific information about wastewaters, and
identifies management practices, for facilities not included in EPA's
sampling program. Responses were received in August and October 2007
and characterized operations at 30 coal-fired power plants. EPA
conducted technical reviews of the data received and resolved questions
with the individual companies before entering the information into a
database (see DCNs 05754 and 05755). The data request collected
information on selected wastewater sources, air pollution controls,
wastewater management and treatment practices, water reuse/recycle, and
treatment system capital and operating costs.
The Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) provided EPA with a database
that contains selected NPDES Form 2C data for 86 coal-fired plants
operated by UWAG's member companies, namely those plants that operate
wet FGD systems or wet fly ash sluice systems. The database provides
facility information, data on facility outfalls, process flow diagrams,
wastewater treatment information, and intake and effluent
characteristics. Data are provided for the FGD, ash sluice, and coal
pile runoff wastestreams.
EPA is also in the process of contacting vendors and conducting
literature searches to collect additional information on wastewater
treatment technology options and wastewater reuse opportunities for
particular waste streams. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
is conducting bench- and pilot-scale tests on FGD wastewater treatment
technologies, including chemical precipitation, ion exchange, and
biological metals removal.
EPA intends to continue its detailed review of the Steam Electric
Power Generating point source category in the 2009 and 2010 annual
reviews of effluent guidelines. Wastewater sampling at a facility
operating a treatment system of interest was delayed by nearly one year
due to operational conditions at the plant. In addition, several other
plants recently began operating a new generation of FGD wastewater
treatment technology that may achieve substantially better pollutant
reductions of metals and nutrients than EPA has evaluated to date. EPA
believes it is important to evaluate the performance of these
technologies, as well as the processes being investigated by EPRI,
prior to concluding the detailed study. As noted above, EPA has not yet
completed its wastewater sampling activities. The UWAG Form 2C database
was recently delivered to EPA; however, EPA has not had sufficient time
to fully evaluate this data. The database provides substantial
information on wastewater generation and wastewater management and
treatment practices for a large number of plants. EPA believes it is
important to take additional time to evaluate the Form 2C data, in
concert with EPA's sampling data and the responses to EPA's data
request. EPA also intends to continue investigating water reuse
opportunities to assess the degree to which they may yield pollutant
reductions for discharges of ash sluice and FGD wastewater.
b. Coal Mining (Part 434)
As discussed in the final 2006 Plan and preliminary 2008 Plan, EPA
conducted a detailed study during the 2007 and 2008 annual reviews to
evaluate the merits of comments received from a public interest group
and from states and industry urging revisions to pollutant limitations
in the Coal Mining effluent guidelines (40 CFR Part 434) (see December
21, 2006; 71 FR 76644-76667, and October 30, 2007; 72 FR 61342-61343).
The public interest group, the Environmental Law and Policy Center,
asked EPA to place more stringent controls on Total Dissolved Solids
[[Page 53227]]
(TDS) (e.g., sulfates and chlorides), mercury, cadmium, manganese, and
selenium in coal mining discharges. They referenced a study by EPA
Region 5 on potential adverse impacts of the discharge of sulfates on
aquatic life (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2614 through 2617).
The Interstate Mining Compact Commission, which represents mining
regulatory agencies in 28 states, state mine permitting agencies in
Pennsylvania and Virginia, and a few mining companies, asked EPA to
remove the current manganese limitations. They made the following
requests and assertions: (1) Permittees should be allowed to employ
best management practices as necessary to reduce manganese discharges
based on the water quality of receiving waterbodies; (2) manganese
treatment is unnecessary to protect aquatic life and there are no
widespread toxicity problems from discharges of manganese; (3)
manganese treatment doubles or triples overall treatment costs
resulting in the forfeiture of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act (SMCRA) bonds; (4) EPA should reconsider its rationale for setting
manganese limits to ensure surrogate removal of other metals because
data show that other metals occur only in low concentrations; (5)
manganese treatment sometimes results in environmental harm because
mining operators must add excessive chemicals to meet the discharge
limits; and (6) because manganese limits are overly stringent they
discourage the use of passive treatment technologies which are more
environmentally beneficial than active treatment.
Individual state and industry commenters cited the following
factors in support of their comments: (1) More stringent state-imposed
coal mining reclamation bonding requirements, enacted after the
promulgation of SMCRA, to control water discharges from mines
undergoing reclamation; (2) studies supporting their contention that
manganese is not harmful to aquatic life at levels above the current
effluent limits; and (3) perception that active treatment with chemical
additions may complicate permit compliance and may cause environmental
harm.
EPA initiated the Coal Mining Detailed Study in January 2007. The
study is consistent with the framework presented in the Detailed Study
Plan, a draft of which the Agency placed into the docket (see EPA-HQ-
OW-2004-0032-2312) during the fall of 2006. EPA revised and finalized
the Detailed Study Plan in April 2007 to reflect public comments. The
study evaluated treatment technologies, costs, and pollutant discharge
loads, as well as the effects of manganese and other pollutants on
aquatic life. The study also addressed the question of whether bonds
are being forfeited because of the cost of manganese treatment by
examining bonding and trust fund requirements, past bond forfeiture
rates, future potential bond forfeiture rates, and the issues related
to state assumption of long-term water treatment responsibilities for
mines where the bonds have been forfeited.
As outlined in the Detailed Study Plan, EPA framed study questions
based on public comment, identified data sources to help answer the
study questions, developed a methodology for estimating treatment costs
and discharge loads, and initiated data collection activities with the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, state agencies, and the Office of
Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement within the U.S. Department
of the Interior. In responding to these public comments the study used
Part 434 definitions to describe the industry. In particular, proper
understanding of the following terms is useful in understanding the
following discussion and EPA's response to the public commenters:
The term ``acid or ferruginous mine drainage'' means mine
drainage which, before any treatment, either has a pH of less than 6.0
or a total iron concentration equal to or greater than 10 mg/l (see 40
CFR 434.11(a)).
The term ``active mining area'' means the area, on and
beneath land, used or disturbed in activity related to the extraction,
removal, or recovery of coal from its natural deposits. This term
excludes coal preparation plants, coal preparation plant associated
areas and post-mining areas (see 40 CFR 434.11(b)).
The term ``alkaline mine drainage'' means mine drainage
which, before any treatment, has a pH equal to or greater than 6.0 and
total iron concentration of less than 10 mg/l (see 40 CFR 434.11(c)).
The term ``bond release'' means the time at which the
appropriate regulatory authority returns a reclamation or performance
bond based upon its determination that reclamation work (including, in
the case of underground mines, mine sealing and abandonment procedures)
has been satisfactorily completed (see 40 CFR 434.11(d)).
The term ``post-mining area'' means: (1) A reclamation
area or (2) the underground workings of an underground coal mine after
the extraction, removal, or recovery of coal from its natural deposit
has ceased and prior to bond release (see 40 CFR 434.11(k)).
The term ``reclamation area'' means the surface area of a
coal mine which has been returned to required contour and on which re-
vegetation (specifically, seeding or planting) work has commenced (see
40 CFR 434.11(l)).
The study also notes that EPA has promulgated manganese effluent
guidelines only for a subset of coal mining operations at Part 434: (1)
Active surface and underground mining areas with acid mine drainage
discharges (see Subpart C--Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage); and (2)
post-mining areas with underground acid mine drainage discharges (see
Subpart E--Post Mining Areas). Finally, as part of this study EPA
identified the technology basis from prior Coal Mining effluent
guidelines rulemakings that supported the promulgation of manganese
effluent guidelines (``chemical precipitation and settling'') and
reviewed the current application of this technology.
EPA also reviewed scientific literature and conducted interviews
with state regulatory personnel in order to assess comments concerning
the toxic effects of manganese and whether coal mining discharges of
other pollutants are of concern. EPA's review found that manganese
discharges to surface water may have widely varying effects depending
on water chemistry, and that manganese impacts are not well understood.
Different aquatic species have a wide range of tolerance limits (see
DCN 05517). The toxic effects of manganese are chronic rather than
acute. Manganese may cause long-term population declines through
reduced fertility and survivability. Headwaters areas, where most
Appalachian coal mining has occurred and will continue to occur, are
especially sensitive to manganese toxicity.
EPA clarified States' comments regarding the costs of EPA's coal
mining manganese effluent guidelines. In their initial public comments,
State commenters did not distinguish the costs of manganese removal
among the three phases of coal mining: Active mining areas, post-mining
areas, and post-bond release areas. This is important as EPA's
manganese effluent guidelines only apply to a subset of coal mining
areas. As documented in EPA's meetings and site visits, States
indicated that they are most concerned about the cost of manganese
treatment at surface post-mining areas where bonds cannot be released
because water discharges exceed permit limits (see DCN 05517). States
expressed a concern that operators at such mines may default rather
than renew their bonds as required every five years. States indicated
that reduced manganese
[[Page 53228]]
treatment costs at such mines can decrease the number of potential bond
forfeitures. However, EPA is not able to address this issue through
revisions to the Coal Mining effluent guideline because there are no
manganese effluent guidelines for surface post-mining areas. EPA's
review of State data indicates that these manganese effluent limits are
derived from State manganese water-quality standards or site specific
best professional judgment (BPJ) technology-based effluent limits.
There are manganese effluent guidelines for post-mining areas with
underground acid mine drainage discharges. As discussed below, EPA is
not reopening those existing effluent guidelines applicable to
underground acid mine drainage because the record continues to indicate
that these existing guidelines are appropriate for these discharges.
EPA reviewed the Technical Development Documents supporting the
Coal Mining effluent guidelines and did not identify any discussion
regarding promulgating manganese effluent guidelines to ensure
surrogate removal of other metals (see DCN 06117). EPA's review of
these documents showed that EPA's rationale for requiring manganese
control for a subset of coal mines was to address drinking water
organoleptic effects. Additionally, EPA found no evidence to support
state and industry comments that over-dosages or spills of treatment
chemicals have caused fish kills and other significant stream damage.
EPA reviewed the cost and performance of passive treatment systems
and concluded that they are less expensive than active treatment
systems, but their effectiveness is generally limited to removal of
manganese from alkaline discharges. As noted above, there are no
manganese Coal Mining effluent guidelines for alkaline discharges for
all three phases of coal mining. As for surface post-mining areas,
EPA's review of State data indicates that manganese effluent limits for
alkaline discharges are derived from State manganese water-quality
standards or site specific BPJ technology-based effluent limits.
In conducting its study EPA also reviewed the costs of manganese
treatment, which coal mining companies use to comply with manganese
effluent limits derived from State manganese water-quality standards or
site-specific BPJ technology-based effluent limits. Based on
information received from the States of Pennsylvania and West Virginia,
EPA concluded that only a small percentage of coal mine bond
forfeitures are due to the cost of manganese treatment (see DCN 05517).
Overall, EPA found that there is little potential for future
forfeiture of bonds on SMCRA permits that have been granted during the
past five years or will be granted in the future. EPA's analysis
indicates that forfeitures are largely a legacy of the first decade of
SMCRA implementation during the 1980s and early 1990s. In particular,
SMCRA requires an analysis of Probable Hydrologic Consequence (PHC)
prior to approval of the SMCRA permit approval in order to identify
regional hydrologic impacts associated with the coal mining and
reclamation operation. The PHC is a determination of baseline ground
water and surface water quality and quantity conditions and the impact
the proposed mining will have on these baseline conditions. When
potential adverse impacts are identified (e.g., acid mine drainage
(AMD)) through use of the PHC, appropriate protection, mitigation, and
rehabilitation plans are developed and included in mining and
reclamation permit requirements or if the potential adverse impacts
cannot be sufficiently mitigated the SMCRA permit may be denied. The
ultimate goal of using the PHC in the SMCRA permit review is to prevent
acid mine drainage (AMD) after land reclamation is complete and the
SMCRA bond is released. PHC analytical techniques were not
sophisticated enough during the 1980s to adequately predict AMD and
this lack of accuracy led to inadequate controls on AMD. Science
supporting the PHC analysis has subsequently improved to the point
where the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
anticipates that less than 1 percent of recently SMCRA permitted mines
will develop AMD after reclamation and bond release.
In response to comments from the Environmental Law and Policy
Center, which asked EPA to place more stringent controls on manganese,
TDS, selenium, mercury, and cadmium in coal mining discharges, EPA
conducted a literature review regarding these pollutants in coal mining
discharges. In particular, EPA reviewed recently initiated, long-term
studies of coal mining discharges of TDS, being conducted by EPA Region
3 and Office of Research and Development (see DCN 06110).
EPA is not identifying its existing effluent guidelines for the
Coal Mining point source category (Part 434) for an effluent guidelines
rulemaking at this time. In response to State and industry comments,
EPA's review indicated that manganese removal does double or triple
treatment costs, but for active surface and underground mining areas
with acid mine drainage discharges (regulated by Subpart C) and post-
mining areas with underground acid mine drainage discharges (regulated
by Subpart E) manganese treatment technology is available, economically
achievable, and compliance rates with permit limits derived from the
management effluent guidelines are high (see DCN 05517). In response to
comments from the Environmental Law and Policy Center, EPA did not have
sufficient information at this time to identify this category for an
effluent guidelines rulemaking to regulate these pollutants.
Additionally, commenters did not provide any such data for this annual
review. As with all categories subject to existing effluent guidelines,
EPA will continue to examine the effluent guidelines for this
industrial category in future annual reviews to determine if revision
may be appropriate.
c. Oil and Gas Extraction (Part 435)
EPA identified the coalbed methane (CBM) sector as a candidate for
a detailed study in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (71
FR 76656; December 21, 2006). As part of that announcement EPA made it
clear that it would conduct data collection through an information
collection request (ICR) to support this detailed study. In accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) EPA must seek Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an ICR. EPA also provided
notice of this ICR in the preliminary 2008 Plan (72 FR 61343; October
30, 2007) and in two separate Federal Register notices (January 25,
2008; 73 FR 4556 and July 15, 2008; 73 FR 40757). EPA is conducting
this detailed study and data collection to determine whether it would
be appropriate to initiate an effluent guidelines rulemaking to control
pollutants discharged in coalbed methane (CBM) produced water.
CBM extraction requires removal of large amounts of water from
underground coal seams before CBM can be released. CBM wells have a
distinctive production history characterized by an early stage when
large amounts of water are produced to reduce reservoir pressure which
in turn encourages release of gas. This is followed by a stable stage
when quantities of produced gas increase as the quantities of produced
water decrease; and a late stage when the amount of gas produced
declines and water production remains low (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-
1904). The
[[Page 53229]]
quantity and quality of water that is produced in association with CBM
development varies from basin to basin, within a particular basin, from
coal seam to coal seam, and over the lifetime of a CBM well.
Pollutants often found in these wastewaters include chloride,
sodium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, barium, magnesium,
ammonia, and arsenic. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and electrical
conductivity (EC) are bulk parameters that States typically use for
quantifying and controlling the amount of pollutants in CBM produced
waters.
Controlling the sodicity of the CBM produced waters is equally
important in preventing environmental damage. Sodicity is often
quantified as the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), which is expressed as
the ratio of sodium ions to calcium and magnesium ions. Sodicity is an
important factor in controlling the produced water's suitability for
irrigation as sodic soils are subject to severe structural degradation
and restrict plant performance through poor soil-water and soil-air
relations. All of these dissolved inorganic parameters can potentially
affect environmental impacts as well as potential beneficial uses of
CBM produced water.
Impacts to surface water from discharges of CBM produced waters can
be severe depending upon the quality of the CBM produced waters. These
discharges have variable effects depending on the biology of the
receiving stream. Some waterbodies and watersheds may be able to absorb
the discharged water while others are sensitive to CBM produced water
discharges. For example, large lakes or rivers with sufficient dilution
capacity or marine waters are less sensitive to saline discharges than
smaller receiving water bodies. Discharge of these CBM produced waters
may also cause erosion and in some cases irreversible soil damage from
elevated TDS concentrations and SAR values. This may limit future
agricultural and livestock uses of the water and watershed.
Currently, regulatory controls for CBM produced waters vary from
State to State and permit to permit (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782,
2540). There is very limited permit information (e.g., effluent limits,
restrictions) in PCS and TRI for this industrial sector. Consequently,
EPA is gathering additional information from State NPDES permit
programs and industry on the current regulatory controls across the
different CBM basins.
Coalbed methane (CBM) extraction activities accounted for about 10
percent of the total U.S. natural gas production in 2006 and are
expanding in multiple basins across the U.S. Currently, the Department
of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects CBM
production to remain an important source of domestic natural gas over
the next few decades.
As discussed in section A.1, EPA's review of existing effluent
guidelines considers four factors: pollutants discharged in an
industrial category's effluent, current and potential pollution
prevention and control technology options, category growth and economic
considerations of technology options, and implementation and efficiency
considerations of revising existing effluent guidelines or publishing
new effluent guidelines. EPA will use the CBM ICR to collect technical
and economic information from a wide range of CBM operations to address
these factors in greater detail (e.g., geographical and geologic
differences in the characteristics of CBM produced waters,
environmental data, current regulatory controls, availability and
affordability of treatment technology options). Response to EPA's
questionnaire is mandatory for recipients and EPA will administer the
questionnaire using its authority under Section 308 of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. 1318.
In 2007 and 2008, EPA worked with a range of stakeholders (e.g.,
industry representatives; Federal, State, and Tribal representatives;
public interest groups and landowners; and water treatment experts) to
obtain information on the industry and its CBM produced water
management practices. EPA's outreach started with teleconferences and
then continued with a series of meetings and site visits in the major
CBM basins. In total, EPA contacted over 700 people in eight states
during more than 60 outreach and data collection activities in 2007 and
2008 (e.g., meetings, teleconferences, site visits) (see EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0771-0977 and 1124). EPA also solicited public comment through two
separate Federal Register notices on the draft survey and supporting
statement (January 25, 2008; 73 FR 4556 and July 15, 2008; 73 FR
40757). This outreach helped the development of the ICR as EPA
incorporated data, comments, and suggestions from industry and other
stakeholders into the questionnaire. EPA intends to distribute the two-
phased questionnaire to industry following OMB approval (see Section
5(d) of the ICR's Supporting Statement, Part A, EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-
1119). EPA will process the survey data it collects and plans to
present preliminary results on available and affordable technology
options in the preliminary 2010 Plan.
3. Results of Further Review of Prioritized Categories
During the 2007 annual review, EPA identified three 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, Page 61345 of
the preliminary 2008 Plan). During the 2008 annual review EPA continued
to collect and analyze information on these three industrial
categories: Ore Mining and Dressing (Part 440), Centralized Waste
Treatment (Part 437), and Waste Combustors (Part 444). EPA is not
identifying any of these three categories for an effluent guidelines
rulemaking in this final 2008 Plan (see Sections 6, 8, and 11 of DCN
05515). EPA concluded its preliminary category review of the
Centralized Waste Treatment and Waste Combustors categories in the 2008
annual review and has determined that these categories are no longer
among those industrial categories, currently regulated by existing
effluent guidelines, that cumulatively comprise 95% of the reported
discharges (reported in units of toxic-weighted pound equivalent or
TWPE) (see DCN 05515). Since these two are not among the list of
industry categories that cumulatively comprise 95% of the reported
discharges, EPA has identified these two categories as low priorities
for effluent guideline revisions at this time. EPA will maintain its
preliminary category review for the Ore Mining and Dressing category in
the 2009 annual review (i.e., this category is marked with ``(5)'' in
the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of today's
notice). The docket accompanying this notice presents a summary of
EPA's findings on these three industrial categories (see DCN 05515).
For the Ore Mining and Dressing category (Part 440), EPA lacks
sufficient information at this time on the magnitude of the toxic-
weighted pollutant discharges. EPA will seek additional information on
the discharges from this category in the next annual review in order to
determine whether a detailed study is warranted. EPA typically performs
a further assessment of the pollutant discharges before starting a
detailed study of an industrial category. This assessment provides an
additional level of quality assurance on the reported pollutant
discharges and number of facilities that represent the majority of
toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA may also
[[Page 53230]]
develop a preliminary list of potential wastewater pollutant control
technologies before conducting a detailed study. See the appropriate
section in the TSD for the final 2008 Plan (see DCN 05515) for EPA's
data needs for these industrial categories.
For the Waste Combustors category (Part 444), EPA used information
from TRI and PCS databases, as well as facility contacts, in its
preliminary category review. TRI-reported discharges of pesticides
accounted for the vast majority of the Waste Combustors category's TWPE
identified in the 2008 preliminary plan. EPA contacted six waste
combustor facilities to collect information on pesticides and received
confirmation that pesticides were not detected in combustor
wastewaters. Specifically, EPA determined that the TRI-reported
pesticide releases from waste combustor facilities are generally
estimated using characterization reports from clients and treatment
efficiency data, rather than actual sampling data. Chapter 11 of the
2008 Technical Support Document for this Plan presents more details on
EPA's findings on the Waste Combustors category (see DCN 05515). Based
on this review EPA is not identifying this category for an effluent
guidelines rulemaking at this time.
For the Centralized Waste Treatment category (Part 437), EPA also
used information from TRI and PCS databases, as well as facility
contacts, in its preliminary category review. TRI-reported discharges
of pesticides accounted for the vast majority of the Centralized Waste
Treatment category's TWPE identified in the 2008 preliminary plan. EPA
contacted five Centralized Waste Treatment facilities to collect
information on pesticides and received confirmation that pesticides
were not detected in four of the five facility wastewaters.
Specifically, EPA determined that the TRI-reported pesticide releases
from centralized waste treatment facilities are generally estimated
using characterization reports from clients and treatment efficiency
data, rather than actual sampling data. Only one of the five
Centralized Waste Treatment facilities contacted detected pesticides;
however, the amount reported to TRI was greater than the amount
actually measured. This error will be corrected in future TRI reports
from the facility. Chapter 6 of the 2008 Technical Support Document for
this Plan presents more details on EPA's findings on the Centralized
Waste Treatment Category (see DCN 05515). Based on this review EPA is
not identifying this category for an effluent guidelines rulemaking at
this time.
4. Summary of 2008 Annual Review Findings
EPA reviewed all categories subject to existing effluent guidelines
and pretreatment standards in order to identify appropriate candidates
for revision. Based on this review, and in light of effluent guidelines
rulemakings and detailed studies currently in progress, EPA is not
identifying any existing categories for effluent guidelines rulemaking.
EPA is, however, conducting detailed studies for three existing
categories: Steam Electric Power Generating category, Oil and Gas
Extraction category (only to assess whether to revise the limits to
include Coalbed Methane extraction as a new subcategory), and unused
pharmaceutical management for the Health Services Industry (which
includes the Hospital category).
A summary of the findings of the 2008 annual review is presented
below 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) Revising the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment
standards is not the best tool 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 priority based on data available at this
time (e.g., not among industries that cumulatively comprise 95% of
discharges as measured in units of TWPE).
(4) EPA intends to continue a detailed study of this industry in
its 2009 annual review to determine whether to identify the category
for effluent guidelines rulemaking.
(5) EPA is continuing or initiating a preliminary category review
because incomplete data are available to determine whether to conduct a
detailed study or identify for possible revision. EPA typically
performs a further assessment of the pollutant discharges before
starting a detailed study of the industrial category. This assessment
provides an additional level of quality assurance on the reported
pollutant discharges and number of facilities that represent the
majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA may also develop a
preliminary list of potential wastewater pollutant control technologies
before conducting a detailed study. See the appropriate section in the
TSD (see DCN 05515) for EPA's data needs for industries with this
Finding (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Based on available information, hospitals consist mostly of
indirect dischargers for which EPA has not established pretreatment
standards. As discussed in section VII.D, EPA is including hospitals
in its review of the health Services Industry, a potential new
category for pretreatment standards. As part of that process, EPA
will review the existing effluent guidelines for the few direct
dischargers in the category.
Table V-1--Findings From the 2008 Annual Review of Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Conducted
Under Section 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Industry category (listed alphabetically) 40 CFR part Findings*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................... Aluminum Forming....................................... 467 (3)
2...................... Asbestos Manufacturing................................. 427 (3)
3...................... Battery Manufacturing.................................. 461 (3)
4...................... Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetable Processing... 407 (3)
5...................... Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing................ 408 (3)
6...................... Carbon Black Manufacturing............................. 458 (3)
7...................... Cement Manufacturing................................... 411 (3)
8...................... Centralized Waste Treatment............................ 437 (3)
9...................... Coal Mining............................................ 434 (3)
[[Page 53231]]
10..................... Coil Coating........................................... 465 (3)
11..................... Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO).......... 412 (1)
12..................... Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production................. 451 (1)
13..................... Copper Forming......................................... 468 (3)
14..................... Dairy Products Processing.............................. 405 (3)
15..................... Electrical and Electronic Components................... 469 (3)
16..................... Electroplating......................................... 413 (1)
17..................... Explosives Manufacturing............................... 457 (3)
18..................... Ferroalloy Manufacturing............................... 424 (3)
19..................... Fertilizer Manufacturing............................... 418 (3)
20..................... Glass Manufacturing.................................... 426 (3)
21..................... Grain Mills............................................ 406 (3)
22..................... Gum and Wood Chemicals................................. 454 (3)
23..................... Hospitals \3\.......................................... 460 (4)
24..................... Ink Formulating........................................ 447 (3)
25..................... Inorganic Chemicals[Dagger]............................ 415 (1) and (3)
26..................... Iron and Steel Manufacturing........................... 420 (1)
27..................... Landfills.............................................. 445 (3)
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 Metal Powders............ 471 (3)
35..................... Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing........................ 421 (3)
36..................... Oil and Gas Extraction................................. 435 (4)
37..................... Ore Mining and Dressing................................ 440 (5)
38..................... Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic 414 (1) and (3)
Fibers[Dagger].
39..................... Paint Formulating...................................... 446 (3)
40..................... Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt)........ 443 (3)
41..................... Pesticide Chemicals.................................... 455 (3)
42..................... Petroleum Refining..................................... 419 (3)
43..................... Pharmaceutical Manufacturing........................... 439 (3)
44..................... Phosphate Manufacturing................................ 422 (3)
45..................... Photographic........................................... 459 (3)
46..................... Plastic Molding and Forming............................ 463 (3)
47..................... Porcelain Enameling.................................... 466 (3)
48..................... Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard............................ 430 (3)
49..................... Rubber Manufacturing................................... 428 (3)
50..................... Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing..................... 417 (3)
51..................... Steam Electric Power Generating........................ 423 (4)
52..................... Sugar Processing....................................... 409 (3)
53..................... Textile Mills.......................................... 410 (3)
54..................... Timber Products Processing............................. 429 (3)
55..................... Transportation Equipment Cleaning...................... 442 (3)
56..................... Waste Combustors....................................... 444 (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: The descriptions of the ``Findings'' codes are presented immediately prior to this table.
[Dagger] Note: Two codes (``(1)'' and ``(3)'') are used for this category as both codes are applicable to this
category and do not overlap. The first code (``(1)'') refers to the on-going effluent guidelines rulemaking
for the Chlorinated Hydrocarbon (CCH) manufacturing sector, which includes facilities currently regulated by
the OCSPF and Inorganics effluent guidelines. The second code (``(3)'') indicates that the discharges from the
remaining facilities in these two categories do not represent priorities at this time.
VI. EPA's 2009 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 and periodic reviews of existing effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards under CWA sections 301(d),
304(b), 307(b) and 304(g) with the publication of preliminary Plans and
biennial Plans under section 304(m). Public comments received on EPA's
prior reviews and Plans helped the Agency prioritize its analysis of
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards during the 2008
review. The information gathered during the 2008 annual review,
including the identification of data gaps in the analysis of certain
categories with existing regulations, in turn, provides a starting
point for EPA's 2009 annual review. See Table V-1 above. In 2009, EPA
intends to again conduct a screening-level analysis of all 56
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 the significance of their toxic and non-
conventional discharges among all point source categories.
Additionally, EPA intends to continue its detailed studies of the
following categories: Steam Electric Power Generating category, Oil and
Gas Extraction category (only to assess whether to revise the limits to
include
[[Page 53232]]
Coalbed Methane extraction as a new subcategory), and unused
pharmaceutical management for the Health Services Industry (which
includes the Hospital category). EPA is identifying the Ore Mining and
Dressing category for a preliminary category review in the 2009 annual
review. EPA invites comment and data on the three detailed studies, the
preliminary category review, and all remaining point source categories.
As part of the 2009 annual review EPA is also taking the
opportunity to solicit information on industrial sectors that use water
efficiency practices that promote water efficiency, re-use, or
recycling. EPA is seeking this information to inform its evaluation of
technology options across multiple industrial sectors.
Water efficiency practices can reduce the amount of pollutants
discharged by industrial facilities, especially for those facilities
that have on-site wastewater treatment systems, but also for those
without them. EPA's effluent guidelines rulemakings and reviews have
documented numerous examples of industrial facilities employing water
conservation as a means to meet effluent limitations based on
promulgated effluent guidelines (see documents listed in Section 12.1
of EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2783.1).
In addition, reducing water use will also reduce associated costs
(and energy requirements) for industry. As significant users of water,
industry is becoming aware of the importance of measuring, managing,
and controlling water use. Water scarcity can limit industrial growth
and many industrial sectors have substantially increased water re-use
in the past 15 years, through reclaiming industrial wastewater for non-
potable applications (where reclaimed industrial wastewater is used for
non-potable applications). Moreover, the cost savings of implementing
water re-use and reduction technologies and pollution prevention
practices can be significant, with payback periods often measured
within a few months or years.
In addition, this data solicitation will also help implement EPA's
National Water Program strategy for responding to climate change (see
DCN 06114). The National Water Program is developing a draft strategy
to identify potential impacts of climate change for clean water and
drinking water programs and define actions to respond to these impacts
(see Key Action 5 in DCN 06115). A March 28, 2008, memorandum
signed by the Assistant Administrator for Water requests comments on
the draft strategy (see DCN 06116). Section IX solicits specific
information on industrial sectors and facilities that use model water
efficiency practices that promote water efficiency, re-use, or
recycling.
VII. EPA's Evaluation of Categories of Indirect Dischargers Without
Categorical Pretreatment Standards To Identify Potential New Categories
for Pretreatment Standards
A. EPA's Evaluation of Pass Through and Interference of Toxic and Non-
conventional Pollutants Discharged to POTWs
All indirect dischargers are subject to general pretreatment
standards (40 CFR 403), including a prohibition on discharges causing
``pass through'' or ``interference.'' See 40 CFR 403.5. All POTWs with
approved pretreatment programs must develop local limits to implement
the general pretreatment standards. All other POTWs must develop such
local limits where they have experienced ``pass through'' or
``interference'' and such a violation is likely to recur. 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 pollutants to POTWs that may pass through,
interfere with or otherwise be 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.
One of the tools traditionally used by EPA in evaluating whether
pollutants ``pass through'' a POTW, is a comparison of the percentage
of a pollutant removed by POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant
removed by discharging facilities applying BAT. Pretreatment standards
for existing sources are technology based and are analogous to BAT
effluent limitations guidelines. In most cases, EPA has concluded that
a pollutant passes through the POTW when the median percentage removed
nationwide by representative POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment
requirements) is less than the median percentage removed by facilities
complying with BAT effluent limitations guidelines for that pollutant.
This approach to the definition of ``pass through'' satisfies two
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect
dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers; and (2)
that the treatment capability and performance of POTWs be recognized
and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from
indirect dischargers.
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 potential for ``interference,'' 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, 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).
If EPA determines a category of indirect dischargers causes pass
through or interference, EPA would then consider the BAT and BPT
factors (including ``such other factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate'') specified in section 304(b) to determine whether to
establish pretreatment standards for these activities. Examples of
``such other factors'' include a consideration of the magnitude of the
hazard posed by the pollutants discharged as measured by: (1) The total
annual TWPE discharged by the industrial sector; and (2) the average
TWPE discharge among facilities that discharge to POTWs. Additionally,
EPA would consider whether other regulatory tools (e.g., use of local
limits under Part 403) or voluntary measures would better control the
pollutant discharges from this category of indirect dischargers. For
example, EPA relied on a similar evaluation of ``pass through
potential'' in its prior decision not to promulgate national
categorical
[[Page 53233]]
pretreatment standards for the Industrial Laundries industry. See 64 FR
45071 (August 18, 1999). 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 64 FR 45077 (August 18, 1999).
EPA reviewed TRI 2005 discharge data in order to identify industry
categories without categorical pretreatment standards that are
discharging pollutants to POTWs that may pass through, interfere with
or otherwise be incompatible with POTW operations (see DCN 05515). This
review did not identify any such industrial categories. EPA also
evaluated stakeholder comments and pollutant discharge information in
the previous annual reviews to inform this review.
In particular, commenters on the 2004 and 2006 annual reviews
raised concerns about discharges of pollutants of emerging concern such
as endocrine disruptors from health service facilities and mercury
discharges from dentists and urged EPA to consider establishing
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for such discharges. In
response to these comments, EPA investigated the Health Services
Industry in its 2005 and 2006 annual reviews and found that it did not
have readily available information to make an informed decision on the
potential for ``pass through'' or ``interference.'' Consequently, EPA
identified this industrial category for detailed study in its
preliminary 2006 Plan. EPA also received stakeholder comments on the
issues of dental amalgam and unused pharmaceuticals management for the
Health Services Industry in response to the 2007 annual review.
As discussed below EPA is not identifying dental facilities for an
effluent guidelines rulemaking in this notice. However, EPA is
continuing its study of unused pharmaceutical management for the Health
Services Industry. EPA also solicits comment and data on all industrial
sectors not currently subject to categorical pretreatment standards for
its 2009 review. Finally, EPA solicits comment on methods for
collecting and aggregating pollutant discharge data collected by
pretreatment programs to further inform its future review of industry
categories without categorical pretreatment standards.
B. Health Services Industry
EPA identified the Health Services Industry as a candidate for a
detailed study in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (see
71 FR 76656; December 21, 2006). The Health Services Industry includes
establishments engaged in various aspects of human health (e.g.,
hospitals, hospices, long-term care facilities, dentists) and animal
health (e.g., veterinarians). Health services establishments fall under
SIC major group 80 ``Health Services'' and industry group 074
``Veterinary Services.'' According to the 2002 Census, there are over
475,000 facilities in the Health Services Industry (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-
0032-1615). EPA is including the following sectors within the Health
Services Industry in its detailed study: Offices and Clinics of
Dentists; Doctors and Mental Health Practitioners; Nursing and Personal
Care Facilities (long-term care facilities); Hospitals, Hospices and
Clinics; Medical Laboratories and Diagnostic Centers; and Veterinary
Care Services (see August 29, 2005; 70 FR 51054). As discussed below,
EPA is focusing on two main issues for these sectors within this
industry.
All these sectors require services to be delivered by trained
professionals for the purpose of providing health care and social
assistance for individuals or animals. These entities may be free
standing or part of a hospital or health system and may be privately or
publicly owned. The services can include diagnostic, preventative,
cosmetic, and curative health services.
The vast majority of establishments in the health services
industries are not subject to categorical limitations and standards. In
1976, EPA promulgated 40 CFR 460, which only applies to direct
discharging hospitals. Part 460 did not establish pretreatment
standards for indirect discharging facilities.
In evaluating the health services industries to date, EPA has found
little readily available information from EPA databases. Both PCS and
TRI contain sparse information on health care service establishments.
For 2002, PCS only has data for two facilities that are considered
``major'' sources of pollutants, and only Federal facilities in the
healthcare industry are required to report to TRI.
Based on preliminary information, major pollutants of concern in
discharges from health care service establishments include solvents,
mercury, pharmaceuticals, and biohazards (e.g., items contaminated with
blood) (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0729). The majority of the mercury
originates from the following sources: Amalgam used in dental
facilities and medical equipment, laboratory reagents, and cleaning
supplies used in healthcare facilities (see EPA-HQ-OW 2004 0032 0038
and 2391). EPA found little to no quantitative information on
wastewater discharges of pollutants of emerging concern such as
pharmaceuticals but was able to identify some information on biohazards
(see DCN EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0533).
As described above, the Health Services Industry is expansive and
contains approximately half a million facilities. Because of the size
and diversity of this category and other resource constraints, EPA
decided to focus its detailed study on certain types of dischargers.
EPA selected its focus areas, for the most part, to respond to
stakeholder concerns. The focus areas are:
Dental mercury: EPA focused its evaluation on mercury
discharges from the offices and clinics of dentists due to the
potential hazard and bioaccumulative properties associated with
mercury.
Unused pharmaceuticals: EPA is focusing its evaluation on
the management of unused or leftover pharmaceuticals from health
service facilities due to the growing concern over the discharge of
pharmaceuticals into water and the potential environmental effects.
1. Dental Mercury
The Agency notes that it has an overall interest in mercury
reduction and on July 5, 2006, issued a report titled, ``EPA's Roadmap
for Mercury,'' (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1612). Among other things,
EPA's report highlights mercury sources and describes progress to date
in addressing mercury sources. As part of the 2008 Health Services
Industry detailed study, EPA researched the following questions/topics
for the 2008 final plan as they relate to disposal of mercury into
municipal sewer systems:
What are current industry practices regarding the mercury
disposal? To what extent are each of these practices applied? What
factors drive current practices?
Are there federal, state, or local requirements or
guidance for disposal of mercury? What are these requirements?
How are control authorities currently controlling (or not
controlling) disposal of mercury via wastewater?
To what extent do POTWs report pass through or
interference problems related to mercury discharges?
[[Page 53234]]
What technologies are available: (1) As alternatives to
wastewater disposal; and (2) to control pollutant discharges. Is there
any qualitative or quantitative information on their efficiency?
What Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used as
alternatives to wastewater disposal and/or to control discharges and is
there any qualitative or quantitative information on their efficiency?
Is there any quantitative or qualitative information on
the costs associated with identified technologies and/or BMPs?
Across the United States, many States and municipal wastewater
treatment plants (publicly owned treatment works--POTWs) are working
toward the goal of reducing discharges of mercury into collection
systems. Many studies have been conducted in an attempt to identify the
sources of mercury entering these collection systems. According to the
2002 Mercury Source Control and Pollution Prevention Program Final
Report prepared for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies
(NACWA), dental clinics are the main source of mercury discharges to
POTWs. The American Dental Association (ADA) estimated in 2003 that up
to 50% of mercury entering POTWs was contributed by dental offices (see
DCN 04698).
EPA estimates there are approximately 160,000 dentists working in
120,000 dental offices that use or remove amalgam in the United
States--almost all of which discharge their wastewater exclusively to
POTWs. Mercury in dental wastewater originates from waste particles
associated with the placement and removal of amalgam fillings. Most
dental offices currently use some type of basic filtration system to
reduce the amount of mercury solids passing into the sewer system.
However, best management practices and the installation of amalgam
separators, which generally have a removal efficiency of 95%, have been
shown to reduce discharges even further. A recent study funded by NACWA
(see DCN 04225) concluded that the use of amalgam separators results in
reductions in POTW influent concentrations and biosolids mercury
concentrations. Use of amalgam separators does not always result in
reductions in POTW effluent, however, since most amalgam particles are
removed with biosolids. Mercury that partitions to wastewater sludge
may be incinerated or disposed to a landfill.
States, Regions, and localities have implemented mandatory and
voluntary programs to reduce dental mercury discharges. Specifically,
11 states and at least 19 localities have mandatory pretreatment
programs that require the use of dental mercury amalgam separators (see
DCN 05518). Additionally, at least 20 POTWs have voluntary programs to
reduce mercury discharges from dental offices. Success rates for these
voluntary programs vary greatly, and are usually higher when there is a
mandatory ``second phase'' to the voluntary program. EPA Region 5
published guidance for permitting dental mercury discharges (see EPA-
HQ-OW-2006-0771-0460). The ADA has also adopted and published best
management practices for its members. On October 2, 2007, the ADA
updated its best management practices to include the use of amalgam
separators (see EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0211). The document titled ``Health
Services Industry Detailed Study: Dental Amalgam,'' compiles the
information EPA has collected to date on existing guidance and
requirements for dental mercury (see DCN 05518).
In 2007 and 2008, EPA focused its efforts on collecting and
compiling information on current mercury discharges from dental
offices, best management practices (BMPs), and amalgam separators. For
amalgam separators, EPA looked at the frequency with which they are
currently used; their effectiveness in reducing discharges to POTWs;
and the capital and annual costs associated with their installation and
operation (see DCN 05518). EPA also conducted a POTW pass-through
analysis on mercury for the industry.
EPA received comments from 32 stakeholders on the preliminary 2008
Plan. Most commenters were from pretreatment programs that provided
useful information on their mandatory and voluntary pretreatment
programs that include the use of amalgam separators. EPA used this
information to update its final report on management and best practices
for the control of dental mercury (see DCN 05518). ADA and NACWA
commented that although they do not support development of national
pretreatment standards, they are willing to work with one another and
EPA to increase the use of amalgam separators by dental facilities. EPA
is exploring options with ADA and NACWA to promote the use of amalgam
separators.
In response to mercury water quality and pollution prevention
concerns, there is progress at the State and local level as amalgam
separators and other BMPs are increasingly being mandated by States and
local governments. ADA's recently revised BMPs will likely help in
convincing dentists to install amalgam separators and employ other BMPs
to recover dental amalgam and prevent the discharge of mercury to
POTWs. This will help POTWs reduce the amount of mercury in their
biosolids and the potential for mercury emissions when biosolids are
incinerated. Additionally, due to mercury-free fillings and improved
overall dental health, the use of mercury in dentistry is decreasing in
the U.S. (see DCN 05518).
At this time EPA is not identifying this sector for an effluent
guidelines rulemaking. As previously noted above, industrial categories
demonstrating significant progress through voluntary efforts to reduce
hazard to human health or the environment associated with their
effluent discharges are a 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. As an example, in the final 2006 Plan EPA relied on a
national voluntary partnership program for the industrial laundries
sector as a factor in not identifying the industrial laundries sector
for an effluent guidelines rulemaking (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782,
Section 19.9). In future annual reviews, EPA will continue to examine
the percentage of dentists using amalgam separators and their
effectiveness at recovering dental amalgam and reducing mercury
discharges to POTWs. EPA notes ADA's recent positive step in revising
their BMPs to include the recommendation for dentists to use amalgam
separators. In particular, EPA will examine whether a significant
majority of dentists are utilizing amalgam separators. After such
examination, EPA may re-evaluate its current view not to initiate an
effluent guidelines rulemaking for this sector.
2. Unused Pharmaceuticals
To date, scientists have identified more than 160 pharmaceutical
compounds at discernable concentrations in our nation's rivers, lakes,
and streams (see Section 3 of DCN 05519). To address this issue at the
source, EPA is studying how the drugs are entering our waterways and
what factors contribute to the current situation. Towards this end, EPA
initiated a study on pharmaceutical disposal practices at health care
facilities, such as hospitals, hospices, long-term care facilities, and
veterinary hospitals. Unused pharmaceuticals include dispensed
prescriptions that patients do not use as well as materials that are
beyond their expiration dates. Another potential source of unused
pharmaceuticals is the residuals
[[Page 53235]]
remaining in used and partially used dispensers, containers, and
devices. Many of these dispensers, containers, and devices are bulky
and are likely not disposed to the sewer as they could create blockages
in the sewer; however, some might be sewered (e.g., medical patches).
As a point of clarification, the term ``unused pharmaceuticals'' does
not include excreted pharmaceuticals.
For many years, a standard practice at many health care facilities
was to dispose of unused pharmaceuticals by flushing them down the
toilet or drain. Through this study, EPA seeks to investigate the
following questions:
What are the current industry practices for disposing of
unused pharmaceuticals?
Which pharmaceuticals are being disposed of and at what
quantities?
What are the options for disposing of unused
pharmaceuticals other than down the drain or toilet?
What factors influence disposal decisions?
Do disposal practices differ within industry sectors?
What Best Management Practices (BMPs) could facilities
implement to reduce the generation of unused pharmaceuticals?
What reductions in the quantities of pharmaceuticals
discharged to POTWs would be achieved by implementing BMPs or
alternative disposal methods?
What are the costs of current disposal practices compared
to the costs of implementing BMPs or alternative disposal methods?
In a related effort, EPA also seeks to determine the effectiveness
with which publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) can remove
pharmaceuticals from incoming sewage. Upon completion of the health
services study, EPA hopes to understand what factors contribute to
unused pharmaceutical disposal methods at health service facilities and
which disposal methods represent best practices to minimize
environmental impacts.
To date, EPA has completed an interim study of the health services
industry (see DCN 05519). To gather data for the study, EPA completed
site visits to two hospitals and a pharmaceutical reverse distributor;
investigated secondary data sources such as existing institutional
surveys on disposal practices; and conducted a series of meetings and
teleconferences with other Federal agencies and health care stakeholder
groups.
The study focused on hospitals and long-term care facilities
(LTCFs) because these facilities are likely responsible for the largest
amounts of unused pharmaceuticals being disposed into sewage collection
systems within this industry sector. In 2005, there were about 7,000
hospitals and 35,000 LTCFs in the United States (see DCN 05519).
EPA's four preliminary findings include:
(1) Federal, state, and local laws and regulations often require
special handling of pharmaceutical waste. These laws and regulations
can influence the options hospitals and long-term care facilities have
for disposing of unused pharmaceuticals.
Some federal regulations may inadvertently encourage
disposal of unused pharmaceuticals via the sewer. The Controlled
Substances Act (CSA), enforced by the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA), establishes a closed distribution system for controlled
substances. The CSA prohibits the return of controlled substances from
end-users to any person except, in certain cases, a law-enforcement
agent and CSA registrants. Disposal of controlled substances by CSA
registrants is carefully regulated to ensure that the substance is
destroyed or rendered unrecoverable. One acceptable method of
destruction is witnessed disposal of controlled substances in a drain
or toilet.
Some unused pharmaceuticals are regulated as hazardous
wastes and subject to the nation's hazardous waste disposal
requirements. Pharmaceutical wastes may be hazardous waste (under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)) if they are: (1) the
pharmaceutical or its sole active ingredient is specifically listed in
40 CFR part 261.33(e) or (f) (commonly referred to as the P or U lists,
respectively); and/or (2) the waste exhibits one or more
characteristics of hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or toxicity as defined in 40 CFR parts 261.21-24,
respectively). Common pharmaceutical wastes that are RCRA hazardous
waste when disposed of include epinephrine, nitroglycerin, warfarin,
nicotine, and some chemotherapeutic agents.\4\ Healthcare facilities
must determine if these wastes are RCRA hazardous wastes, and if so,
must comply with all applicable RCRA Subtitle C requirements, including
many special handling and transportation requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Agency clarified its regulation at 40 CFR 261.33,
explaining that epinephrine salts are not included in the
epinephrine P042 listing (since the listing only specifies
epinephrine and not epinephrine salts); the salts, therefore, would
be hazardous only if the waste epinephrine salt exhibited one or
more of the hazardous waste characteristics (see ``Scope of
Hazardous Waste Listing P042 (Epinephrine),'' October 15, 2007, RCRA
Online 14778)''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State regulations vary widely and influence disposal
practices. State regulations of the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals
and controlled substances vary widely (see DCNs 04952 and 04953). Many
state regulations require both hospitals and LTCFs to destroy unused
pharmaceuticals but often do not specify the process of destruction;
however, many states (33 states according to DCN 04953) have
requirements for the types of facility personnel required to conduct
and oversee the destruction. Some states have hazardous waste
regulations that are more stringent than EPA (see DCN 04944). For
example, some wastes are regulated as hazardous under state law but not
RCRA (see Table 4-1 of DCN 05519). State regulations for reuse of
medications vary widely. Many states allow re-use of uncontaminated
pharmaceuticals (excluding controlled substances) that have been in a
controlled environment, such as an automatic dispensing system (see DCN
04952). At least five states strictly prohibit hospitals and LTCFs from
reusing pharmaceuticals entirely. These states include Arizona,
Kentucky, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas. California allows county
health departments to collect unused pharmaceuticals from LTCFs,
wholesalers, and manufacturers and redistribute them for dispensing to
the uninsured poor. Some State Medicare and Medicaid requirements often
deter LTCFs from donating or redistributing their unused medications
(see DCN 05961).
Medicare and Medicaid requirements also influence hospital
disposal practices. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS), the federal agency within the Department of Health and Human
Services, administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Medicare
provides health insurance to elderly and disabled Americans, while
Medicaid provides health insurance for low income Americans, including
long-term care coverage (see DCN 05074). In a March 22, 2006 letter,
CMS provided guidance to State Medicaid programs encouraging states to
require LTCFs to return unused medications to pharmacies and to ensure
Medicaid is repaid for unused treatments when nursing home patients
die, are discharged, or have their prescriptions changed. In addition,
some state Medicaid programs require LTC pharmacies to accept returned
unused pharmaceuticals (excluding controlled substances) from LTCFs.
The LTC pharmacy then credits Medicaid for
[[Page 53236]]
the unused doses. However, LTC pharmacies typically receive little
payment for these return services and have not found them to be cost
effective. For example, when a pharmacy takes back a previously
dispensed medication for disposal, it must pay to have the medication
destroyed, but it is not compensated for this service (see DCN 04952).
Therefore, few LTC pharmacies participate in these programs.
(2) Organization size, ease and access of disposal, and cost are
also factors influencing the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals.
Some facilities use flushing to sewers as a primary means of
disposal since it is both easy and complies with CSA requirements for
destruction. Facilities are most likely to flush pharmaceuticals if
they do not have an on-site pharmacy and/or do not have a pre-existing
contract with a hazardous waste hauler to dispose of the
pharmaceuticals. In the past, public health agencies and health-related
non-government organizations guided the public to destroy unused
medications by flushing them down the toilet. Many LTCFs have adopted
this method for destruction of unused controlled substances. Many LTCFs
have also extended this practice to include flushing all unused
medications--controlled and non controlled substances (see EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0771-0851).
(3) Fewer disposal opportunities exist for long-term care
facilities because they are often not CSA registrants and cannot
generally return pharmaceuticals to the manufacturer or use reverse
distributors.
Hospitals typically have on-site pharmacies. It is common practice
at hospitals to return some unused pharmaceuticals to the hospital
pharmacy and then on to the manufacturer for credit or disposal.
However, this option extends only to those pharmaceuticals for which
the hospital can receive credit and does not include unused
pharmaceuticals that are considered waste (e.g., pharmaceuticals in an
intravenous bag, drug samples brought into the hospital). Also,
hospitals typically do not prescribe medication far in advance or in
large quantities. As a result, the potential for pharmaceuticals to be
wasted is reduced. In addition, hospitals typically have pre-existing
arrangements for disposal of unused pharmaceuticals as hazardous waste
(see EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0851).
(4) Best management practices, if widely implemented, have the
potential to reduce the amount of unused pharmaceuticals entering our
nation's waters from disposal.
Three organizations provide guidance in the form of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to medical facilities on managing pharmaceutical
waste: Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E), Product Stewardship
Institute (PSI), and Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations (JCAHO). The guidelines provided by these organizations
all aim to reduce health and environmental impacts due to current
disposal practices of pharmaceutical waste, as discussed in Section 5.2
of the Interim Technical Report (see DCN 05519). Examples of model BMPs
identified to date include waste minimization and reverse distribution
systems used by hospitals in California, Minnesota, and Washington.
Waste minimization techniques include maintaining inventories of high-
use pharmaceuticals and identifying those that are close to expiring.
Short-dated pharmaceuticals are redistributed to other areas of the
hospitals where they are needed. Also, dispensed pharmaceuticals can go
unused at a hospital or LTCF if the patient has an allergic or adverse
reaction to the medication, no longer requires treatment, refuses
treatment, or the medication expires. Hospitals and LTCFs can reduce
the amount of pharmaceutical waste generated by limiting the amount of
pharmaceuticals dispensed to patients and residents at one time. This
can be accomplished by using unit dose packaging, limited quantity
dispensing, automatic dispensing systems, and standardized medication
dosages, as discussed in Section 5.2 of the Interim Technical Report
(see DCN 05519). Hospitals and LTCFs have the option of hiring reverse
distributors to manage their unused and/or expired medication that the
facility believes could be returned to the manufacturer or wholesaler
for credit. The reverse distributor determines which medications may be
returned to the manufacturer or wholesaler for credit and arranges for
disposal of unused medications that are waste. However, there are CSA
limitations for reverse distributors and controlled substances. In most
cases, reverse distributors cannot handle controlled substances.
EPA is concerned about pharmaceuticals in the environment and is
working on this issue in many different areas. Over the last few years,
EPA has increased its work in a number of areas to better understand
pharmaceuticals. EPA has an overall strategy to address the risks
associated with emerging contaminants. This four-pronged strategy is
aimed at improving science, improving public understanding, identifying
partnership and stewardship opportunities, and taking regulatory action
as appropriate. We are focused on learning more about the occurrence
and health effects of pharmaceuticals in water. In addition, we are
working to better understand what treatment technologies may remove
them from wastewater and drinking water. We are developing analytical
methods to improve detection capabilities. We are conducting national
studies and surveys to help direct our course of action. We are also
partnering with government agencies, stakeholders, and the private
sector, and increasing public awareness about product stewardship and
pollution prevention (see DCN 06111). Additionally, the Agency is
considering amending its hazardous waste regulations to add hazardous
pharmaceutical wastes to the universal waste system to facilitate its
oversight of the disposal of pharmaceutical waste (40 CFR 273) (see RIN
2050-AG39, April 30, 2007; 72 FR 23170). In addition, the inclusion of
hazardous pharmaceutical wastes in the universal waste rule may
encourage health care facilities to manage all their pharmaceutical
wastes as universal wastes, even wastes that are not regulated as
hazardous but which nonetheless pose hazards. Finally, EPA has
identified the issue of pharmaceuticals in wastewater is part of the
Agency's Strategic Plan (2006-2011) to meet its goals of clean and safe
water.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan,'' http://www.epa.gov/
ocfo/plan/plan.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA continues to study the issue of how health care facilities are
managing and disposing of unused pharmaceuticals and POTW treatment
effectiveness in an effort to identify the root cause and potential
solutions to address the issue of pharmaceuticals in our waterways.
Over the coming year, EPA will need to gather more technical and
economic information on unused pharmaceutical management in the Health
Services Industry. To aid its decision-making, EPA intends to submit an
Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for their review and approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 33 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., during the 2009 annual
review. EPA will use this ICR to collect technical and economic
information on unused pharmaceutical management and identify
technologies and BMPs that reduce or eliminate the discharge of unused
pharmaceuticals to POTWs. In designing this industry survey EPA
[[Page 53237]]
expects to work closely with industry representatives from hospitals,
hospices, long-term care facilities, veterinary hospitals and other
affected stakeholders. EPA has published a separate Federal Register
notice for this ICR and solicits comment on the potential scope of this
ICR (see August 12, 2008; 73 FR 46903).
EPA also plans to conduct additional site visits to facilities to
obtain more detailed information on how pharmaceuticals are managed,
tracked, and disposed as well as influences on behavior. In addition,
EPA is considering collecting data from other types of health care
facilities (e.g., medical and dental offices, university and prison
health clinics, and veterinary clinics). EPA is also reviewing studies
on POTW effectiveness. EPA remains concerned about this issue and plans
to expedite completion of this study.
VIII. The Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan Under Section
304(m)
In accordance with CWA section 304(m)(2), EPA published the
preliminary 2008 Plan for public comment prior to this publication of
the final 2008 Plan. See October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61335). The Agency
received 32 comments from a variety of commenters including industry
and industry trade associations, municipalities and sewerage agencies,
environmental groups, and State government agencies. Many of these
public comments are discussed in this notice. The Docket accompanying
this notice includes a complete set of all of the comments submitted,
as well as the Agency's responses (see DCN 06109). EPA carefully
considered all public comments and information submitted to EPA in
developing the final 2008 Plan.
A. EPA's Schedule for Annual Review and Revision of Existing Effluent
Guidelines Under Section 304(b)
1. Schedule for 2007 and 2008 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. This
final 2008 Plan announces EPA's schedule for performing its section
304(b) reviews. The schedule is as follows: EPA will 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 2008 annual review is the
review cycle ending upon the publication of this final 2008 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 identifying candidates for
effluent guidelines revision for which EPA can schedule rulemaking in
the Plan, or 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 2008 annual review along
with the final 2008 Plan, EPA hopes to gather and receive data and
information that will inform its reviews for 2009 and 2010 and the
final 2010 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 three
categories. For the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
(OCPSF) and Inorganic Chemicals categories, the effluent guidelines
rulemaking is focused on discharges from Vinyl Chloride and Chlor-
Alkali facilities. EPA first identified this effluent guidelines
rulemaking in the final 2004 Plan and refers to it as the ``Chlorine
and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon (CCH) manufacturing'' rulemaking. EPA
emphasizes that identification of the rulemaking schedules for these
effluent guidelines does not constitute a final decision to revise the
guidelines. EPA may conclude at the end of the formal rulemaking
process--supported by an administrative record and following an
opportunity for public comment--that effluent guidelines revisions are
not appropriate for these categories. EPA is not scheduling any other
existing effluent guidelines for rulemaking at this time.
B. Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories Under CWA
Section 304(m)(1)(B)
The final Plan must also identify categories of sources discharging
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), providing for final action on such rulemaking not
later than three years after the identification of the category in a
final Plan.\6\ See CWA section 304(m)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA recognizes that one court--the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California--has found that EPA has a duty to
promulgate effluent guidelines within three years for new categories
identified in the Plan. See NRDC et al. v. EPA, 437 F.Supp.2d 1137
(C.D. Ca. 2006). However, an appeal is currently pending before the
Ninth Circuit and EPA continues to believe that the mandatory duty
under section 304(m)(1)(c) is limited to mandating a schedule for
concluding the effluent guidelines rulemaking--not for promulgating
new effluent guidelines--within three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is currently conducting effluent guidelines rulemakings for two
potential new categories (see September 2, 2004; 69 FR 53705). One of
these categories--Airport Deicing Operations--was identified as a
potential new category in the final 2004 Plan. EPA plans to propose
these effluent guidelines for Airport Deicing Operations later this
calendar year. EPA initiated new rulemaking for the other category--
Construction and Development--because it was directed to do so by a
district court order. Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 04-8307, order (C.D. Ca. December
6, 2006). EPA disagrees with the district court's decision and an
appeal is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit; however, in order
to comply with the district court's order EPA is conducting the
rulemaking ordered by the court. The district court order requires EPA
to propose a rule by December 1, 2008 and finalize it by December 1,
2009. EPA expects to meet this court order with the publication of
[[Page 53238]]
the proposed rule for Construction and Development no later than
December 1, 2008 and publication of the final rule one year later.
For the reasons discussed below, EPA is not identifying any
potential new category for effluent guidelines rulemaking. Therefore,
EPA is not scheduling effluent guidelines rulemaking for any category
is this final Plan. In the 2004 Plan, EPA announced that it would begin
development of a regulation to control the pollutants discharged from
drinking water treatment plants. See 69 FR 53720 (September 2, 2004).
Based on preliminary study and on public comments, EPA was interested
in the potential volume of discharges associated with drinking water
facilities. The preliminary data were not conclusive, and the Agency
proceeded with additional study and analysis of treatability, including
an industry survey. The additional analysis included extensive
information about the industry, its treatment residuals, wastewater
treatment options, and discharge characteristics. EPA is evaluating a
range of effluent guidelines priorities, including court-mandated
actions, and plans to make a decision shortly on whether to continue
work on this rulemaking.
In order to identify industries not currently subject to effluent
guidelines, EPA primarily used data from TRI and PCS. Facilities with
data in TRI and PCS are identified by a four-digit SIC code (see DCN
05515). EPA performed a crosswalk between the TRI and PCS data,
identified with 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 currently regulated by existing
effluent guidelines (see DCN 05515). EPA also relied on comments
received on its previous 304(m) plans to identify potential new
categories. 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 (see DCN 06112). EPA notes
that the Ninth Circuit has recently held that the precise number and
kind of categories identified by EPA in its 304(m) planning process is
discretionary with the Administrator. Our Children's Earth v. EPA,
527F.3d 842, 852 (9th Cir. 2008).
The first criterion for identifying industries under section
304(m)(1)(B) is whether they are ``categories of sources'' for which
EPA has not promulgated effluent guidelines. Because this section does
not define the term ``categories,'' EPA interprets this term based on
the use of the term in other sections of the Clean Water Act,
legislative history, and Supreme Court case law, and in light of
longstanding Agency practice. These sources indicate that the term
``categories'' refers to an industry as a whole based on similarity of
product produced or service provided, and is not meant to refer to
specific industrial activities or processes involved in generating the
product or service. EPA therefore identifies in its biennial Plan only
those new industries that it determines are properly considered stand-
alone ``categories'' within the meaning of the Act--not those that are
properly considered potential new subcategories of existing categories
based on similarity of product or service.
EPA's interpretation of the term ``categories'' is consistent with
longstanding Agency practice. Pursuant to CWA section 304(b), which
requires EPA to establish effluent guidelines for ``classes and
categories of point sources,'' EPA has promulgated effluent guidelines
for 56 industrial ``categories.'' Each of these ``categories'' consists
of a broad array of facilities that produce a similar product or
perform a similar service--and is broken down into smaller subsets,
termed ``subcategories,'' that reflect variations in the processes,
treatment technologies, costs and other factors associated with the
production of that product that EPA is required to consider in
establishing effluent guidelines under section 304(b). For example, the
``Pulp, Paper and Paperboard point source category'' (40 CFR part 430)
encompasses a diverse range of industrial facilities involved in the
manufacture of a like product (paper); the facilities range from mills
that produce the raw material (pulp) to facilities that manufacture
end-products such as newsprint or tissue paper. EPA's classification of
this ``industry by major production processes used many of the
statutory factors set forth in CWA Section 304(b), including
manufacturing processes and equipment (e.g., chemical, mechanical, and
secondary fiber pulping; pulp bleaching; paper making); raw materials
(e.g., wood, secondary fiber, non-wood fiber, purchased pulp); products
manufactured (e.g., unbleached pulp, bleached pulp, finished paper
products); and, to a large extent, untreated and treated wastewater
characteristics (e.g., BOD loadings, presence of toxic chlorinated
compounds from pulp bleaching) and process water usage and discharge
rates.'' \7\ Each subcategory reflects differences in the pollutant
discharges and treatment technologies associated with each process.
Similarly, the ``Iron and Steel Manufacturing point source category''
(40 CFR part 420) consists of various subcategories that reflect the
diverse range of processes involved in the manufacture of iron and
steel, ranging from facilities that make the basic fuel used in the
smelting of iron ore (subpart A--Cokemaking) to those that cast the
molten steel into molds to form steel products (subpart F--Continuous
Casting). An example of an industry category based on similarity of
service provided is the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source
Category (40 CFR Part 442), which is subcategorized based on the type
of tank (e.g., rail cars, trucks, barges) or cargo transported by the
tanks cleaned by these facilities, reflecting variations in wastewaters
and treatment technologies associated with each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. EPA, 1997. Supplemental Technical Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Category, Page 5-3, EPA-821-R-97-011, October
1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 comprised exclusively or almost exclusively of
indirect discharging facilities regulated under section 307.
Third, CWA section 304(m)(1)(B) applies only to industrial
categories of sources that discharge toxic or non-conventional
pollutants to waters of the United States. EPA therefore did not
identify in the Plan industrial activities for which 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, section 304(m)(1)(B) does not apply when those discharges
occur in trivial amounts. 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 discharge of toxic or non-conventional
pollutants.
Finally, EPA interprets section 304(m)(1)(B) to give EPA the
discretion to identify in the Plan only those
[[Page 53239]]
potential new categories for which an effluent guidelines rulemaking
may be an appropriate tool for controlling discharges. Therefore, EPA
does not identify in the Plan all potential new categories discharging
toxic and non-conventional pollutants. Rather, EPA identifies only
those potential new categories for which it believes that effluent
guidelines may be appropriate, taking into account Agency priorities,
resources and the full range of other CWA tools available for
addressing industrial discharges.
IX. Request for Comment and Information
A. EPA Requests Information on the Steam Electric Power Generating
Category (Part 423)
EPA solicits public comments on the following areas of interest to
support the Steam Electric Power Generating Detailed Study.
Treatment technologies for wastewaters from wet FGD
systems. EPA solicits information and data regarding the costs and
performance of treatment technologies for wastewater from wet FGD
systems. Treatment technologies of interest include, but are not
limited to, chemical precipitation, biological systems, evaporation/
brine concentration zero liquid discharge, underground injection, and
complete recycle. Both capital and annual operations and maintenance
costs are requested, as well as information on key variables that
determine these costs for any particular facility and how they would
vary as a function of plant electric generating capacity, wastewater
flow rate, pollutant characteristics, or other factors. To help
evaluate efficacy of the treatment technologies, EPA seeks both
influent and effluent data from full scale or pilot applications. Data
submitted should include details on: (1) Date for the sample collection
and analysis; (2) identification of laboratory analytical methods; and
(3) detailed descriptions of the wastewater treatment system and sample
collection points. The description of the treatment system should also
include design and operational information such as flow rate (design
maximum and average flow rates for the influent scrubber purge and
treatment system effluent; typical operating flow rate for the influent
purge and effluent; and actual flow rate corresponding to sampling data
submitted), residence time, chemical additives, and the flow rates for
recirculation flows within the treatment system.
Effect of SCR/SNCR on FGD wastewater characteristics. EPA
solicits data quantifying how the operation of selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) or selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)
NOX emission reduction technologies affects FGD wastewater
characteristics. In particular, EPA solicits concentration and mass
data for metals, ammonia, and other nitrogen compounds. In addition to
data for other metals, EPA solicits information to assess the degree to
which SCR or SNCR operation may increase levels of hexavalent chromium
in the FGD wastewater.
Effects of scrubber additives on FGD wastewater
characteristics and treatability. EPA solicits information on the
effect scrubber additives (e.g., dibasic acid (DBA) or formic acid)
have on the characteristics of FGD wastewater, and how these additives
may positively or negatively affect the treatability of the wastewater.
EPA also solicits information on the reasons operators use these
additives and why one additive may be considered preferentially over
the other (for instance, why an operator would choose to use DBA
instead of formic acid, or vice versa).
Ash pond management. EPA solicits information that would
help identify best management practices for ash ponds. For example, EPA
is aware of information suggesting that managing pyritic wastes in ash
ponds should be avoided because it can contribute to lowering pH of the
ash pond impoundment, potentially liberating metals in ash sediments
and elevating the level of metals released to surface waters. In
addition, introducing certain other wastes such as coal pile runoff can
substantially affect ash pond pH, similarly producing conditions that
favor releasing metals present in ash pond sediments and suspended
particulates. EPA solicits information on best management practices for
minimizing the potential for such wastes to adversely impact ash pond
operation and discharges.
EPA solicits data on pollutant removal performance of ash ponds.
Such data should include influent and effluent concentration, mass and
flow data. EPA solicits such data for total and dissolved metals,
nitrogen compounds (ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrates,
nitrites, and total nitrogen), total dissolved solids, and effluent
toxicity.
EPA also solicits information on seasonal effects on ash pond
discharges, such as those resulting from seasonal turnover. EPA is
particularly interested in the magnitude of the seasonal effects on the
concentration and mass of pollutants discharged.
Finally, EPA solicits information that quantify how ash pond
discharges have been affected by introducing FGD wastewater into ash
ponds that previously did not receive this wastewater.
Environmental assessments/impacts. EPA solicits
information on environmental assessments that have been conducted for
discharges from steam electric power plants. In particular, EPA seeks
information linking the environmental assessments to discharges of
metals (e.g., mercury, arsenic, selenium, boron, and magnesium),
ammonia and other nitrogen compounds, phosphorus, total dissolved
solids, or biocide residuals (e.g., chlorinated or brominated
compounds, or non-oxidizing chemical biocides). EPA also solicits
information on the toxicity of discharges from power plants,
particularly for FGD and ash pond wastewater. EPA also seeks more
general information regarding the potential environmental hazard
associated with discharges of these pollutants from steam electric
power plants.
Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facilities.
EPA solicits comment on the wastewaters that may be generated or
otherwise affected by the coal gasification process. What are the
sources and characteristics of wastewaters generated by coal
gasification and related processes at IGCC plants? How do these
wastewaters compare to those of traditional coal-fired steam electric
processes? What treatment technologies are being used to treat IGCC
wastewaters, and what are the pollutant removal efficiencies of these
systems?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) capture processes. EPA
solicits information describing and characterizing wastewaters that may
be generated at power plants when implementing processes to capture and
dispose of CO2 emissions.
B. EPA Requests Information on the Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector of
the Oil and Gas Extraction Category (Part 435)
EPA is researching the following questions and topics as they
relate to the quantity and toxicity of pollutants discharged and the
environmental impacts of these discharges to support the Oil and Gas
Extraction/Coalbed Methane detailed study.
What is the range of pollutant concentrations in CBM
produced water?
What is the toxicity of these pollutants to human health
and the environment?
[[Page 53240]]
What is the range of pollutant concentrations and what are
the CBM produced water flow rates for the major CBM basins?
What CBM produced water pollutants are typically
controlled through permit limits and what is the range of these permit
limits?
What are the observed and potential impacts of CBM
produced water discharges on aquatic environments and communities,
riparian zones, and other wetlands?
How does the composition of CBM produced water change when
discharged to normally dry draws or ephemeral streams?
To what extent do CBM produced water discharges mobilize
metals, soil nutrients, pesticides and other organic contaminants
present in soil and carry these constituents to surface waters?
What are measures that can mitigate potential impacts to
uses of surface waters that are used for irrigation?
EPA is researching the following questions and topics as they
relate to the potential technology options and beneficial use practices
for this industrial sector.
What are the current industry treatment technologies for
CBM produced water?
What are the potential beneficial use applications of CBM
produced water and what are the corresponding criteria for such uses?
How effectively do these treatment technologies and
beneficial use practices reduce the potential impacts of CBM produced
water discharges?
What is the range of incremental annualized compliance
costs associated with these technologies and practices? How do these
costs differ between existing and new sources?
What is the demonstrated use and economic affordability
(e.g., production losses, firm failures, employment impacts resulting
from production losses and firm failures, impacts on small businesses)
of these technologies across the different CBM basins?
What are the types of non-water quality environmental
impacts (including energy impacts) associated with the current industry
treatment technologies and beneficial use practices for CBM produced
water?
EPA is researching the following questions and topics as they
relate to the expansion of CBM exploration and development and the
affordability of potential technology options for this industrial
sector.
What is the near-term and long-term growth rate for this
industry sector? Which CBM basins are likely to experience the most
growth within the next ten years?
What are the current industry drilling and infrastructure
expansion plans for CBM exploration and development?
What is the predicted range of CBM reserves across the
different basins that would be economically recoverable at different
natural gas prices?
What are the potential impacts on developing CBM reserves
and operator profitability and rates of return on investment of any
increased costs associated with potential industry treatment
technologies and beneficial use practices for CBM produced water
discharges?
What is the difference between potential impacts on
existing sources versus new sources?
What percentage of CBM operators are considered small
entities?
EPA is researching the following questions and topics as they
relate to current regulatory controls.
How do NPDES permit programs regulate CBM produced water
discharges (e.g., individual permits, general permits)?
What is the BPJ basis for existing technology-based
effluent limits for CBM produced water discharges?
To what extent and how do current regulatory controls
ensure the beneficial use of CBM produced water?
What other statutes might affect the ability to discharge,
treat, or beneficially use CBM produced water (e.g., SDWA, RCRA)?
C. EPA Requests Comments and Information on the Following as it Relates
to Unused Pharmaceutical Management for the Health Services Industry
EPA solicits identification of any policies, procedures or
guidelines that govern the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals from
hospitals and hospices; offices of doctors and mental health
practitioners; nursing, long-term care, re-habilitation, and personal
care facilities; medical laboratories and diagnostic service
facilities; and veterinary care facilities.
EPA solicits information on the most likely sub-sectors
within the Health Service sector that would accumulate unused
pharmaceuticals for management and disposal.
When applicable, to what extent are unused pharmaceuticals
disposed according to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)?
EPA solicits comment and data on: (1) The main factors
that drive current disposal practices; and (2) any barriers preventing
the reduction or elimination of unused pharmaceuticals to POTWs and/or
surface waters. In particular, EPA solicits comment on the extent to
which that the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.)
complicates the design of an efficacious solution to drug disposal.
EPA solicits quantitative information or tracking sheets
for the past year on the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals via the
toilet, drain, or sewer.
EPA solicits data on how control authorities are currently
controlling disposal of unused pharmaceuticals via wastewater.
EPA solicits information on any technologies or BMPs that
are available to control, reduce, or eliminate the disposal of unused
pharmaceuticals to POTWs.
EPA solicits qualitative and quantitative data on the
effectiveness and annualized costs of the technologies or BMPs that
health service facilities use to control or eliminate the discharge of
unused pharmaceuticals from their wastewater. EPA is also interested in
obtaining information on the current costs (including labor) associated
with disposal of unused pharmaceuticals via the drain or toilet.
EPA solicits any studies or information on the potential
for unused pharmaceuticals that are disposed of in non-hazardous-waste
landfills to contaminate underground resources of drinking water.
EPA will need to gather more technical and economic information on
unused pharmaceutical management in the Health Services Industry. To
aid its decision-making, EPA intends to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for their review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),
33 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., in the 2009 annual review. EPA will use this
ICR to collect technical and economic information on unused
pharmaceutical management and identify technologies and BMPs that
reduce or eliminate the discharge of unused pharmaceuticals to POTWs.
In designing this industry survey EPA expects to work closely with
industry representatives and other affected stakeholders. EPA has
published a separate Federal Register notice for this ICR and solicits
comment on the potential scope of this ICR (see August 12, 2008; 73 FR
46903).
D. Preliminary Category Reviews for the 2008 Annual Review
EPA requests information on the Ore Mining and Dressing category
for which it is continuing a preliminary category review (i.e.,
industrial point source
[[Page 53241]]
categories with existing effluent guidelines identified with ``(5)'' in
the column entitled ``Findings'' in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of
today's notice). EPA will need to collect more information for the 2009
annual review. Specifically, EPA hopes to gather the following
information:
What toxic pollutants are discharged from this industry 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.
E. 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 final 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 DCN 05515).
F. 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). EPA solicits
comment on categories for which the Agency should provide permit-based
support.
G. 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.
H. 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 without pretreatment standards. 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. Finally, EPA solicits comment on how
better to access and aggregate discharge data reported to local
pretreatment programs. Currently, pollutant discharge data are
collected by the local pretreatment program to demonstrate compliance
with pretreatment standards and local limits but are not typically
electronically transmitted to the States or EPA Regions.
I. Industrial Water Conservation, Reuse and Recycling Technology
Transfer
EPA requests data to evaluate the costs, benefits, and impacts of
industrial water conservation practices. In particular, EPA solicits
the following industrial sector or facility level data on water re-use
and reduction technologies and pollution prevention practices:
The main reasons why these technologies and practices were
adopted (e.g., limitations to source water, increased water purchasing
or treatment costs), and whether these technologies and practices are
transferable to other facilities.
Notice of Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan
Descriptions of the water conservation technologies and
practices employed at industrial unit operations; wastewater flow and
pollutant data; and descriptions of the extent to which these water
conservation technologies and practices reduce the amount of wastewater
volume, 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 facility's effluent limits.
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 will likely adopt
more advanced water conservation technologies and practices over the
next five years as a result of limitations on water source availability
or potential costs savings.
Dated: September 5, 2008.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. E8-21484 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P