66286 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 

requirements in regard to carbon 

dioxide (CO2) emissions. 

On September 29, 2011, the 

Administrator issued an Administrative 

Order denying the Petition. The Order 

explains the reasons behind EPA’s 

conclusions. 

Dated: October 19, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27725 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9483–2] 

Clean Air Act Operating Permit 

Program; Petition for Objection to 

State Operating Permit for Public 

Service Company of Colorado dba Xcel 

Energy—Cherokee Power Station 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final action. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

that the EPA Administrator has 

responded to a citizen petition asking 

EPA to object to an operating permit 

issued by the Colorado Department of 

Public Health and Environment 

(CDPHE). Specifically, the 

Administrator has denied the April 1, 

2010, Petition, submitted by WildEarth 

Guardians (Petitioner), to object to 

CDPHE’s April 1, 2010, title V permit 

issued to Public Service Company of 

Colorado dba Xcel Energy (Xcel)— 

Cherokee Power Station. 

Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the 

Clean Air Act (Act or CAA), Petitioners 

may seek judicial review of those 

portions of the petition that EPA denied 

in the United States Court of Appeals 

for the appropriate circuit. Any petition 

for review shall be filed within 60 days 

from the date this notice appears in the 

Federal Register, pursuant to section 

307 of the Act. 

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of 

the Final Order, the Petition, and other 

supporting information at the EPA 

Region 8 Office, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the copies of the Final Order, the 

Petition, and other supporting 

information. You may view the hard 

copies Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 

4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If 

you wish to examine these documents, 

you should make an appointment at 

least 24 hours in advance. Additionally, 

the Final Order for Public Service 

Company of Colorado—Cherokee Power 

Station is available electronically at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/title5/ 

petitiondb/petitions/ 

xcel_cherokee_response2011.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Law, Air Program (8P–AR), EPA 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Phone: (303)312– 

7015. E-mail: law.donald@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act 

affords EPA a 45-day period to review 

and object to, as appropriate, a title V 

operating permit proposed by State 

permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) 

of the Act authorizes any person to 

petition the EPA Administrator, within 

60 days after the expiration of this 

review period, to object to a title V 

operating permit if EPA has not done so. 

Petitions must be based only on 

objections to the permit that were raised 

with reasonable specificity during the 

public comment period provided by the 

State, unless the petitioner demonstrates 

that it was impracticable to raise these 

issues during the comment period or the 

grounds for the issues arose after this 

period. EPA received a petition from 

WildEarth Guardians dated April 1, 

2010, requesting that EPA object to the 

issuance of the title V operating permit 

to Public Service Company of Colorado 

for the operation of the Cherokee Power 

Station. The Petition alleges that the 

Permit does not comply with 40 CFR 

part 70 in that it fails to assure 

compliance with: (I) A compliance plan 

for opacity monitoring requirements; 

(II) applicable opacity requirements; (III) 

particulate matter (PM) limits applicable 

to the coal-fired boiler; (IV) CAA section 

112(j) for air toxics; and (V) PSD 

requirements in regard to carbon 

dioxide (CO2) emissions. 

On September 29, 2011, the 

Administrator issued an Administrative 

Order denying the Petition. The Order 

explains the reasons behind EPA’s 

conclusions. 

Dated: October 19, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27734 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0517; FRL–9483–4] 

RIN 2040–AF06 

Notice of Final 2010 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice presents the final 

2010 Effluent Guidelines Program 

Plan(‘‘final 2010 Plan’’), which, as 

required under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA), identifies any new or existing 

industrial dischargers, both those 

discharging directly to surface waters 

and those discharging to publicly 

owned treatment works (POTWs), 

selected for effluent guidelines 

rulemaking and provides a schedule for 

such rulemakings. CWA section 304(m) 

requires EPA to biennially publish such 

a plan after public notice and comment. 

The Agency published the preliminary 

2010 Plan on December 28, 2009 (74 FR 

68599) and solicited comments from the 

public for 60 days. 

After considering rulemakings already 

in development, the 2010 reviews, the 

preliminary Plan and public comments 

and input to determine what, if any, 

new rulemakings should be initiated, 

EPA has decided to develop effluent 

guidelines and standards for the 

discharge of wastewater from the 

Coalbed Methane Extraction (CBM) 

industry and will develop pretreatments 

requirements for discharges of mercury 

from the Dental industry, and for the 

discharges of wastewater from the Shale 

Gas Extraction (SGE) industry. 

EPA is also issuing the detailed study 

report for the Coalbed Methane 

Extraction and the preliminary study 

report of the Ore Mining and Dressing 

industry. 

This notice also solicits public 

comments on EPA’s 2011 reviews 

pursuant to the authority of CWA 

sections 304(b), 304(g), 301(d) and 

307(b). 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

November 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on 

the final 2010 Plan, identified by Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0517, by 

one of the following methods: 

(1) http://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, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 66287 

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 http:// 

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 

(see below for instructions on 

submitting CBI). 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. 

Submitting Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not submit confidential business 

information (CBI) to EPA through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

Any CBI you wish to submit should be 

sent via a trackable physical method, 

such as Federal Express or United 

Parcel Service, to Mr. M. Ahmar 

Siddiqui, Document Control Officer, 

Engineering and Analysis Division 

(4303T), Room 6231S EPA West, U.S. 

EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. A CBI package 

should be double-wrapped, so that the 

CBI is in one package, which is itself 

inside another package. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on 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 copy of the material that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the material that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information marked as 

CBI will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the index at http:// 

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 http:// 

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 2010 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan include the following: 

• Technical Support Document for 

the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program 

Plan, EPA–820–R–10–021, DCN 07320; 

• Coalbed Methane Point Source 

Category: Detailed Study Report, EPA– 

820–R–10–022, DCN 09999; 

• Draft Guidance Document: Best 

Management Practices for Unused 

Pharmaceuticals at Health Care 

Facilities, August 26, 2010, EPA–821– 

R–10–006. 

• Ore Mining and Dressing Category 

Preliminary Study, EPA–820–R–10–025, 

DCN 07369. 

Data and Information for the 2011 

Annual Review 

Submit any data and information you 

have for the 2011 annual reviews, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2010–0824, by one of the methods 

described above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

William F. Swietlik at (202) 566–1129 or 

swietlik.william@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 2010 Annual Review of Existing 

Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment 

Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 

304(b), 304(g), 304(m), and 307(b) 

VI. EPA’s 2010 Evaluation of Categories of 

Indirect Dischargers Without Categorical 

Pretreatment Standards To Identify 

Potential New Categories for 

Pretreatment Standards 

VII. The Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan 

VIII. EPA’s 2011 Annual Review of Existing 

Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment 

Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 

304(b), 304(g), and 307(b) 

IX. Request for Comment and Information 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This notice provides a summary of the 

Agency’s effluent guidelines review and 

planning processes and priorities at this 

time, and does not contain any 

regulatory requirements. This notice 

also provides a summary of the 

Agency’s pretreatment standards 

review. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA for the 2011 

annual review? 

1. 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. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
66288 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

• Follow the special procedures for 

submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). 

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 2010 

review of existing effluent guidelines 

and pretreatment standards under CWA 

sections 301, 304 and 307. 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) and (c). This 

notice presents the final 2010 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan (‘‘final 2010 

Plan’’), which, as required under CWA 

section 304(m), identifies any new or 

existing industrial categories selected 

for effluent guidelines rulemaking, as 

well as the establishment or revision of 

pretreatment standards, and provides a 

schedule for such rulemakings. CWA 

section 304(m) requires EPA to 

biennially publish such a plan after 

public notice and comment. The Agency 

published a preliminary 2010 Plan on 

December 28, 2009 (74 FRN 68599) and 

solicited comment through February 26, 

2010. This notice also provides EPA’s 

preliminary thoughts concerning its 

2011 annual reviews under CWA 

sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 306 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 

publicly owned treatment works 

(POTWs), termed indirect dischargers, 

EPA promulgates pretreatment 

standards that apply to those sources 

and are enforced by the 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 nonconventional. 

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 ‘‘costreasonableness’’ 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 nonconventional pollutants, EPA 

promulgates effluent guidelines based 

on the Best Available Technology 

Economically Achievable (BAT). See 

CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D) and 

(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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 66289 

stringent controls attainable through the 

application of the best available 

demonstrated control technology for all 

pollutants (i.e., conventional, nonconventional, 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 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 ‘‘nontrivial 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. See CWA 

section 304(m)(1)(C); NRDC et al. v. 

EPA, 542 F.3d 1235, 1251 (9th Cir. 

2008). EPA is required to publish its 

preliminary Plan for public comment 

prior to taking final action on the plan. 

See CWA section 304(m)(2). 

In addition, CWA section 301(d) 

requires EPA to review every five years 

the effluent limitations required by 

CWA section 301(b)(2) and to revise 

them if appropriate pursuant to the 

procedures specified in that section. 

Section 301(b)(2), in turn, requires point 

sources to achieve effluent limitations 

reflecting the application of the best 

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 57 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 identification of new industries 

for pretreatment standards. EPA, in its 

discretion, periodically evaluates 

indirect dischargers not subject to 

categorical pretreatment standards to 

identify potential candidates for new 

pretreatment standards. The CWA does 

not require EPA to publish its review of 

pretreatment standards or identification 

of potential new categories, although 

EPA is exercising its discretion to do so 

in this notice. 

EPA intends to repeat this publication 

schedule for future pretreatment 

standards reviews (e.g., EPA will 

publish the 2011 annual pretreatment 

standards review in the notice 

containing the Agency’s 2011 annual 

review of existing effluent guidelines 

and the preliminary 2012 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 2010 Annual Review of 

Existing Effluent Guidelines and 

Pretreatment Standards Under CWA 

Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 304(m), 

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), 304(m), 

and 307(b)? 

1. Overview 

In its 2010 annual review, EPA 

reviewed all industrial categories 

subject to existing effluent limitations 

guidelines and pretreatment standards, 

representing a total of 57 point source 

categories and over 450 subcategories. 

Generally, EPA uses four factors in a 

phased approach to review existing 

effluent limitations guidelines and 

pretreatment standards: 

(1) Pollutants discharged in an 

industrial category’s effluent, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
66290 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 

(2) Potential pollution prevention and 

control technology options, 

(3) Category growth and economic 

considerations of technology options, 

and 

(4) Implementation and efficiency 

considerations of revising existing 

effluent guidelines or publishing new 

effluent guidelines (see December 21, 

2006; 71 FR 76666). 

In the 2010 annual review EPA 

incorporated, for the first time, 

discharge data from approximately 

15,000 ‘‘minor’’ industrial dischargers. 

Point sources are generally classified as 

major or minor, depending on size and 

nature of the discharges. A major 

industrial discharger is a facility scoring 

over 80 points based on rating criteria. 

Minor industrial discharges are facilities 

that score below the criteria score of 80 

on the rating scale. 

2. What analyses did EPA perform for 

its 2009 and 2010 annual reviews of 

existing effluent guidelines and 

pretreatment standards? 

a. Screening-Level Review 

The first component of EPA’s 2010 

annual review consisted of a screeninglevel review of all industrial categories 

subject to existing effluent guidelines or 

pretreatment standards. EPA focused its 

efforts on collecting and analyzing data 

to identify industrial categories whose 

pollutant discharges potentially are the 

most significant. EPA used Toxic 

Release Inventory (TRI), Permit 

Compliance System (PCS) and 

Integrated Compliance Information 

System—National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (ICIS–NPDES) data 

to estimate the mass of pollutant 

discharges from 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—a 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 nonconventional pollutants (reported in 

units of TWPE) to assess the 

significance of these toxic and nonconventional pollutant discharges to 

human health or the environment. EPA 

conducted this process for the 2010 

annual reviews using the most recent 

TRI, PCS and ICIS–NPDES data (2008). 

Based on this methodology, EPA 

prioritized for potential revision 

industrial categories that offered the 

greatest potential for reducing hazard to 

human health and the environment. 

EPA assigned those categories with the 

lowest estimates of toxic-weighted 

pollutant discharges a lower priority for 

revision (i.e., industrial categories 

marked ‘‘(3)’’ in the ‘‘Findings’’ column 

in Table V–1 in section V.B.4 of this 

notice). 

In order to further focus its inquiry 

during the 2010 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. 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 2003 (i.e., the last seven years). 

EPA chose seven years because this is 

the time it customarily takes for the 

effects of effluent guidelines or 

pretreatment standards to be fully 

reflected in pollutant loading data and 

TRI reports (in large part because 

effluent limitations guidelines are often 

incorporated into NPDES permits only 

upon re-issuance of those permits, 

which could be up to five years after the 

effluent guidelines or pretreatment 

standards are promulgated). EPA also 

removed an industrial point source 

category from further consideration 

during the current review cycle if EPA 

recently completed a preliminary study 

or a detailed study and determined that 

no further action is necessary at this 

time. These categories are marked ‘‘(1)’’ 

in the ‘‘Findings’’ column in Table V– 

1 in section V.B.4 of this notice. 

Because there are 57 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. 

As part of the 2010 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. EPA applied a lower priority 

for potential revision to industrial 

categories 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 this notice). EPA 

believes that revision of individual 

permits for such facilities may be more 

effective than a revised national 

rulemaking. Individual permit 

requirements can be better tailored to 

these few facilities and may take 

considerably less time and resources to 

establish than revising the national 

effluent guidelines. The Docket 

accompanying this notice lists facilities 

that account for the vast majority of the 

estimated toxic-weighted pollutant 

discharges for a particular category (see 

DCN 07320). For these facilities, EPA 

will consider identifying pollutant 

control and pollution prevention 

technologies that will assist permit 

writers in developing facility-specific 

technology-based effluent limitations on 

a best professional judgment (BPJ) basis. 

In future annual reviews, EPA also 

intends to re-evaluate each category 

based on the information available at 

the time in order to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the BPJ permit-based 

support. 

EPA also applied a lower priority to 

categories without sufficient data to 

determine whether revision would be 

appropriate. For any industrial 

categories marked ‘‘(5)’’ in the 

‘‘Findings’’ column in Table V–1 in 

section V.B.4 of this notice, EPA lacks 

sufficient information at this time on the 

magnitude of the toxic-weighted 

pollutant discharges. EPA will continue 

reviewing available data on the 

discharges and will seek additional 

information on the discharges from 

these categories in the next annual 

review in order to determine whether a 

detailed study is warranted. See the 

appropriate section in the TSD for the 

final 2010 Plan (see DCN 07320) for 

EPA’s data needs for these industrial 

categories. 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. 

For industrial categories marked ‘‘(4)’’ 

in the ‘‘Findings’’ column in Table V– 

1 in section V.B.4 of this notice, EPA 

had sufficient information on the toxicweighted pollutant discharges to 

continue or complete a detailed study of 

these industrial categories. 

For industrial categories marked ‘‘(6)’’ 

in the ‘‘Findings’’ column in Table V– 

1 in section V.B.4 of this notice, EPA is 

identifying this industry for a revised 

effluent guidelines rulemaking. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 66291 

Next, EPA considered the availability 

of technologies to reduce pollutant 

discharges. EPA does not have, for all of 

the 57 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 technologybased 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. 

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 technologybased 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 coalbed methane 

extraction facilities (see Coalbed 

Methane Point Source Category: 

Detailed Study Report, EPA–820–R–10– 

022, DCN 09999). 

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. 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 toxicweighted discharges. From this smaller 

list of categories, EPA evaluates the 

possibility of effective technologies and 

selects certain industries for further 

examination (e.g., Preliminary Category 

Reviews, Detailed Studies). 

Additionally, 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 applies more 

scrutiny to the category in a subsequent 

review. 

EPA also 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. These 

industries are sometimes suggested by 

commenters during the public comment 

period or may come to EPA’s attention 

in other ways. 

EPA also continued to use the quality 

assurance project plan (QAPP) 

developed for the 2009 annual review to 

document the type and quality of data 

needed to make the decisions in this 

2010 annual review and to describe the 

methods for collecting and assessing 

those data (see EPA–820–R–10–021). 

EPA performed quality assurance 

checks on the data used to develop 

estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant 

discharges (i.e., verifying 2008 discharge 

data reported to TRI, PCS and ICIS– 

NPDES) 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, PCS or ICIS–NPDES data for 

facilities that EPA had identified in its 

screening-level review as the significant 

dischargers. 

In summary, through its screening 

level review, EPA focused on those 

point source categories that appeared to 

have the greatest potential for reducing 

hazard to human health and the 

environment. This enabled EPA to 

concentrate its resources on conducting 

more in-depth reviews of the higher 

priority categories. 

b. Further Review of Prioritized 

Categories 

EPA conducts a preliminary category 

review when it lacks sufficient data to 

determine whether a regulatory revision 

would be appropriate and for which 

EPA is performing a further assessment 

of pollutant discharges before starting a 

detailed study. These assessments 

provide an additional level of quality 

assurance on the reported pollutant 

discharges and number of facilities that 

represent the majority of toxic-weighted 

pollutant discharges. 

In conducting a preliminary category 

review, EPA uses the same types of data 

sources used for the detailed studies or 

effluent guidelines development but in 

less depth. As part of the preliminary 

category reviews, EPA may evaluate 

technologies that could achieve better 

control of pollutant discharges. EPA 

might also conduct surveys or collect 

data from additional sources. The full 

description of EPA’s methodology for 

the 2010 annual review is presented in 

the Technical Support Document (TSD) 

for the final 2010 Plan (see DCN 07320). 

c. Detailed Studies 

EPA conducts detailed studies 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. The full 

description of EPA’s methodology for 

the 2010 review is presented in the 

Technical Support Document (TSD) for 

the final 2010 Plan (see DCN 07320). 

3. How did EPA’s 2009 annual review 

influence its 2010 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 2009 annual review, which 

concluded the end of December 2009, 

EPA continued detailed studies of the 

existing effluent guidelines and 

pretreatment standards for two 

industrial categories: Oil and Gas 

Extraction category (Part 435) for the 

purpose of assessing whether to revise 

the limits to include coalbed methane 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
66292 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 

extraction as a new subcategory, and 

Hospitals (Part 460) which is part of the 

Health Care Industry detailed study on 

the management of unused 

pharmaceuticals. In addition, EPA 

conducted a preliminary study of the 

Ore Mining and Dressing category (part 

440) during 2009. EPA used the 

findings, data and comments on the 

2009 annual review to inform its 2010 

annual review and the final 2010 Plan. 

The 2010 review also built on the 

previous reviews by incorporating some 

refinements to assigning discharges to 

categories and updating toxic weighting 

factors. 

EPA published the findings from its 

2009 annual review with its preliminary 

2010 Plan (December 28, 2009, 74 FRN 

68599), making the pollutant discharge 

and industry profile data available for 

public comment. Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2008–0517. 

4. How did EPA consider public 

comments in its 2010 annual review? 

EPA’s annual review process 

considers information provided by 

stakeholders regarding the need for new 

or revised effluent limitations 

guidelines and pretreatment standards. 

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 2010 review. 

Public comments, depending on the 

number, the issues, the data and 

information submitted and the 

recommendations made therein, can 

influence the annual review. 

In accordance with CWA section 

304(m)(2), EPA published the 

preliminary 2010 Plan for public 

comment prior to this publication of the 

final 2010 Plan. See December 28, 2009 

(74 FRN 68599). The Docket 

accompanying this notice includes a 

complete set of all of the comments 

submitted, as well as the Agency’s 

responses (see DCN 07368). The Agency 

received 51 sets of comments on the 

preliminary 2010 Plans. 

Commenting organizations 

representing industry included the 

American Petroleum Institute, American 

Health Care Association, Independent 

Petroleum Association of America, 

National Association of Clean Water 

Agencies, American Dental Association, 

American Water Works Association, and 

the National Mining Association. 

Six environmental groups 

commented, including the Northern 

Plains Resources Council, Earth Justice, 

Environmental Integrity Project and the 

Powder River Basin Council. 

Eight states, or state representing 

organizations, also commented, 

including the states of WY, MT, NY, WI, 

OR, FL, ID and the Quicksilver Caucus. 

EPA received comments from 22 

private individuals, all addressing the 

issue of the environmental impacts of 

hydraulic fracturing used in shale gas 

extraction. Most of these individuals 

were from NY and PA, and their 

comments reflected concerns about 

shale gas extraction in the Marcellus 

Shale formation. 

EPA also received comments from one 

Tribal Nation (the Northern Cheyenne) 

and four local organizations (Tompkins 

County Senior Citizen Council, St. Paul 

MetroCouncil, Bay Area Pollution 

Prevention Group and Albany Medical 

College). 

Comments were distributed among 

the following subject areas, in order of 

abundance: 

—Coalbed Methane and Shale Gas 

Extraction (40 comments) 

—Health Care Industry—(unused 

pharmaceuticals) (35 comments) 

—Ore Mining and Dressing (2 

comments) 

—Steam Electric Power Generation (2 

comments) 

—Effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) 

and Plan process in general (2 

comments) 

—Dental Amalgam (1 comment) 

—Other (2 comments) 

For coalbed methane, there were 

seven comments that also expressed 

concern with the practice of shale gas 

extraction; 13 comments requesting that 

EPA examine shale gas extraction in the 

coalbed methane detailed study; seven 

requests to not add shale gas extraction 

to the coalbed methane study; six 

commenters who suggested that EPA 

should do a coalbed methane ELG rule; 

and seven commenters who suggested 

that EPA not do a rule. 

For the Health Care industry, in 

particular the management of unused 

pharmaceuticals, EPA received three 

comments supporting the detailed 

study; three comments suggesting EPA 

work more closely with the U.S. Drug 

Enforcement Agency (DEA); four 

comments that explained EPA should 

work with the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) and health 

insurance companies to encourage 

unused pharmaceutical returns and a 

coordinated message about such; twelve 

comments indicating EPA should 

develop BMPs, disposal guidance, flyers 

and other disposal information; three 

comments supporting take-back 

programs; six comments that suggested 

current disposal practices are barriers to 

return/reuse; and four comments 

indicating that pharmaceutical flushing 

should be controlled by sewage 

treatment authorities. 

For the Ore Mining and Dressing 

category there were two comments that 

stated EPA should not develop a new 

ELG. 

For the Steam Electric Power 

Generation industry, which is currently 

undergoing a revised ELG as a result of 

last year’s Plan, there was one comment 

that supported EPA’s selection of the 

steam electric industry for rulemaking, 

and one commenter that believed EPA 

made several errors in its detailed study 

final report. 

One commenter asked EPA to select 

the dental industry for an ELG 

rulemaking, arguing that the industry is 

responsible for half of the national 

mercury loadings to Publicly Owned 

Treatment Works (POTWs), and the 

ongoing activities under the Dental 

Amalgam control MOU are insufficient. 

A more detailed summary table of the 

comments can be found in the 2010 

TSD, EPA–820–R–10–021 (DCN 07320). 

EPA carefully considered all public 

comments and information submitted in 

developing the final 2010 Plan. A 

comment response document is also 

available at (DCN 07368). 

B. What were EPA’s findings from its 

2010 annual review for categories 

subject to existing effluent guidelines 

and pretreatment standards? 

1. Screening-Level Review 

In its 2010 screening level review, 

EPA considered hazard, and the other 

factors described in section V.A.2. 

above, in prioritizing effluent guidelines 

for potential revision. See Table V–1 in 

section V.B.4 of this notice for a 

summary of EPA’s findings with respect 

to each existing category; see also the 

TSD for the final 2010 Plan, EPA–820– 

R–10–021, DCN 07320). Of the 

categories subject only to the screening 

level review in 2010, EPA is not 

identifying any for effluent guidelines 

rulemaking at this time, based on the 

factors described in section V.A above 

and in light of the effluent guidelines 

rulemakings in progress. 

EPA carefully examined the industrial 

categories currently regulated by 

existing effluent guidelines that 

cumulatively comprise 95% of the 

reported hazard (reported in units of 

toxic-weighted pound equivalent or 

TWPE). The TSD for the preliminary 

2010 Plan presents a summary of EPA’s 

review of these 21 industrial categories 

(see DCN 07320). 

EPA identified one category where 

additional data are required to evaluate 

toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. 

EPA will initiate a preliminary category 

review for the cellulosic products 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 66293 

segment of the Plastics Molding and 

Forming (part 463) industrial category. 

Although EPA identified only one 

industrial category for preliminary 

category review in the 2010 annual 

review, EPA also identified that 

estimated toxic-weighted pollutant 

discharges of lead from the Pulp, Paper, 

and Paperboard (part 430) industrial 

category need further investigation. EPA 

intends to continue reviewing the Pulp, 

Paper and Paperboard industry during 

the 2011 annual review. 

EPA identified the need for additional 

data review as part of the 2011 annual 

review for three industrial categories. 

See the appropriate section in the TSD 

for the final 2010 Plan, EPA–820–R–10– 

021, (see DCN 07320) for a detailed 

discussion of EPA’s findings for these 

industrial categories: Mineral Mining 

and Processing (part 436); Landfills 

(Part 445); and Waste Combustors (part 

444). See Section IX of this notice for 

the requested public comments. Based 

on new data submitted with public 

comment and screening-level data 

collected as part of the 2011 annual 

review, EPA intends to re-evaluate the 

category toxic-weighted pollutant 

discharges. 

2. Results of Detailed Studies 

Oil and Gas Extraction (part 435) 

As a result of prior 304(m) planning, 

EPA initiated a detailed study of the 

coalbed methane industry and its 

wastewater discharges. Coalbed 

methane extraction is considered a 

subcategory of the Oil and Gas 

Extraction Point Source Category, 

although it is not currently subject to 

the effluent guidelines promulgated for 

this category. Since 2006, the coalbed 

methane industry has expanded. In 

addition, EPA received comments in 

2005, 2008, and again during the 2010 

review from citizens and environmental 

advocacy groups requesting 

development of a regulation for coalbed 

methane extraction as well as for shale 

gas extraction, another subcategory of 

the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source 

Category. Unlike coalbed methane 

extraction, however, shale gas extraction 

is now subject to effluent guidelines for 

the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source 

Category, although there are currently 

no applicable categorical pretreatment 

standards for shale gas extraction. 

Coalbed methane-produced water 

discharges can impact receiving surface 

waters and soils. Saline discharges from 

coalbed methane operations can 

adversely affect aquatic life. The large 

volume of water discharged can also 

cause stream bank erosion and salt 

deposition, creating hardpan soil. Longterm impacts include sodium buildup, 

reduction of plant diversity, 

mobilization of salts and other elements, 

and alteration of surface and subsurface 

hydrology. 

Overview of Operations: 

Methane gas is naturally created 

during the geologic process of 

converting plant material to coal 

(coalification). To extract the methane, 

coalbed methane operators drill wells 

into coal seams and pump out ground 

water. Removing the ground water from 

the formation is necessary to produce 

coalbed methane, as the water removal 

reduces the pressure and allows the 

methane to release from the coal to 

produce flowing natural gas. In 2008, 

252 coalbed methane operators managed 

approximately 55,500 coalbed methane 

wells in the U.S. in 13 distinct regions, 

called basins. 

Produced Water 

The ground water that has been 

pumped out of the well, called 

‘‘produced water,’’ like most ground 

water found deep below the surface of 

the earth, has high salinity and can 

include pollutants such as chloride, 

sodium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, 

iron, barium, magnesium, ammonia, and 

arsenic. To quantify the amount of 

pollutants in coalbed methane produced 

waters, EPA relied on measuring total 

dissolved solids (TDS) and electrical 

conductivity (EC), which are bulk 

parameters for quantifying the total 

amount of dissolved solids in a 

wastewater. 

A single coalbed methane well can 

discharge thousands of gallons of 

produced water per day, and may 

discharge produced water for anywhere 

from 5 to 15 years. Coalbed methane 

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; 

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. 

The quantity and quality of produced 

water varies from basin to basin, within 

a particular basin, from coal seam to 

coal seam, and over the lifetime of a 

coalbed methane well. For example, 

coalbed methane produced water 

volumes range from 1,000 gallons per 

day per well in the San Juan Basin to 

17,000 gallons per day per well in the 

Powder River Basin. 

Management of Produced Water 

Coalbed methane operators need to 

dispose of thousands of gallons of 

produced water per day for each 

coalbed methane well. Operators can 

employ a range of options for treatment 

and management of this wastewater. 

Preliminary estimates based on survey 

data predict that approximately 47 

billion gallons of produced water are 

pumped annually from coal seams 

across the country. Approximately 45% 

of those produced waters are directly 

discharged to waters of the U.S., for a 

total national discharge of 22 billion 

gallons per year. 

Surface water discharge is most 

prevalent in three U.S. coalbed methane 

basins: The Black Warrior Basin in 

Alabama and Mississippi (11% of total 

coalbed methane surface discharges), 

the Powder River Basin in Wyoming 

and Montana (72% of total coalbed 

methane surface discharges), and the 

Raton Basin in Colorado and New 

Mexico (11% of total coalbed methane 

surface discharges). Many of these 

discharges are largely untreated. Surface 

discharge occurs rarely, if at all, in the 

other major commercial basins. 

In the other commercial basins in the 

U.S, coalbed methane operators are, for 

the most part, able to prevent 

discharging their produced water by 

discharging the water to land (where 

there may be other impacts to the soil 

or vegetation), re-injecting the produced 

water back into the ground, or using the 

water in one of many beneficial use 

options (e.g., stock watering, irrigation). 

Treatment of Produced Waters 

Available technology options for 

adequately removing pollutants from 

produced water include ion exchange 

and reverse osmosis. 

Summary of Outreach 

In 2007 EPA conducted several site 

visits to coalbed methane basins 

throughout the country and gathered 

information on potential treatment 

technologies for coalbed methaneproduced water discharges. EPA also 

conducted widespread outreach with 

stakeholders, both in the industry and 

from the communities adjacent to 

coalbed methane basins. EPA conducted 

more than 30 site visits to locations in 

six coalbed methane basins and met 

with over 300 different stakeholders. 

EPA also conducted 13 meetings and 

teleconferences with over 150 

stakeholders. In addition to the 

extensive information collection 

through site visits and outreach, EPA 

acknowledged that an informed 

decision about rulemaking would 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
66294 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 

require even more detailed information. 

EPA developed an industry 

questionnaire, solicited public comment 

twice, and in 2009 obtained OMB 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, to conduct a mandatory 

survey directed at operators of coalbed 

methane projects which consist of a 

single well or a group of wells operated 

by the same company. The 

questionnaire collected technical and 

economic data in a two-part survey, a 

screener and a detailed survey, on the 

operations and operators of coalbed 

methane projects. Questionnaire 

responses arrived in early 2010 and the 

data was used by EPA to create national 

estimates of pollutant discharges across 

the country from the coalbed methane 

industry and to develop an economic 

profile of the industry. 

In response to the 2010 preliminary 

Plan, EPA received 32 comments on 

coalbed methane extraction. Comments 

from industry sources did not support 

rulemaking for coalbed methane, 

suggesting an effluent guideline was not 

appropriate due to the variability of 

produced water quality, quantity and 

available management techniques across 

the country. Additionally, industry 

stated that the current regulatory 

framework of site-specific BPJ permits 

was adequately addressing pollutant 

discharges from produced water 

discharges. 

The final detailed study report for 

coalbed methane is being issued 

concurrent with the publication of this 

FR Notice and is a part of the final 2010 

Plan. The study report is available at 

DCN 09999. 

Coalbed methane production 

represents about 8% of natural gas 

production in this country, and coalbed 

methane extraction is expected to 

continue for decades. Of the 22 billion 

gallons of water discharged to surface 

water each year some has high total 

dissolved solids. The detailed study also 

found that there are readily available 

technologies to treat this produced 

water. As a result of the information 

gathered in the detailed study, EPA has 

decided to initiate rulemaking for 

coalbed methane extraction, a currently 

unregulated subcategory of the Oil and 

Gas Extraction Point Source Category. 

3. Results of Preliminary Category 

Reviews 

Ore Mining and Dressing (Part 440) 

As discussed in the 2008 Final 

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, EPA 

conducted a preliminary study of 

facilities covered under 40 CFR part 440 

‘‘Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source 

Category’’ to examine why toxic 

weighted pollutant discharges by the ore 

mining industry ranked relatively high 

compared to other industries in the 

2002 through 2008 annual reviews. The 

purpose of the study was to identify, 

collect, and review readily available 

existing data and information on toxic 

pollutants in wastewater discharges to 

determine whether additional analysis 

or revision of 40 CFR part 440 might be 

warranted to better control toxic 

discharges. 

The preliminary study focused on 

active ore mines covered under 40 CFR 

part 440 subpart J: ‘‘Copper, Lead, Zinc, 

Gold, Silver, and Molybdenum Ores.’’ 

These types of mines comprise 

approximately 76 percent (263) of the 

approximately 345 ore mines in the 

United States. Inactive ore mines were 

not included as they are not covered by 

the effluent guidelines. 

Approximately 294 ore mines 

currently have National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

wastewater discharge permits. There is 

a difference between the total number of 

ore mines and the number with NPDES 

permits because not all ore mines have 

wastewater discharges. The 

approximately 1,870 placer mines, 

covered under 40 CFR part 440 subpart 

M, were not examined in this study 

because they employ mining practices 

and wastewater streams that are 

fundamentally different from mines 

covered under the other subparts of 40 

CFR part 440. 

The preliminary study examined 

information pertaining to the two types 

of wastewater discharged by ore mines: 

Process wastewater (including mine 

drainage) and stormwater. Process 

wastewater is covered under 40 CFR 

part 440. Stormwater is not covered 

under 40 CFR part 440 unless it is 

commingled with process wastewater 

prior to discharge to a surface 

waterbody. 

The study was limited by incomplete 

national-level process wastewater 

discharge data, and the lack of any 

nationally representative stormwater 

data for the ore mines of interest. EPA 

did review available ore mine-specific 

process wastewater discharge 

information, available Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) reports, information 

for ore mine site stormwater discharges, 

and an industrial wastewater treatment 

technology, known as high density 

sludge recycling, which was identified 

during the course of the study. 

Based on EPA’s review of toxic 

pollutant data, EPA found that in 2007, 

the most recent year for which qualitychecked data are available, 

approximately only two percent of ore 

mining facilities were responsible for 

approximately 90 percent of toxic 

weighted discharges by the ore mining 

industry for toxic pollutants. 

Given that only a small percentage of 

active ore mines account for the 

majority of toxic weighted discharges, 

this can best be addressed through 

permitting, compliance, and 

enforcement activities for the specific 

ore mining sources, rather than by 

revision of 40 CFR part 440. 

While the available toxic pollutant 

data does not suggest that EPA revisit 

the ELG for ore mining and dressing (40 

CFR part 440) at this time, the Agency 

currently remains concerned about 

many other types of mining-related 

water quality impairments. EPA has a 

number of activities that address 

discharges of pollutants from mines 

including interim guidance on 

Improving EPA Review of Appalachian 

Surface Coal Mining Operations Under 

the Clean Water Act, National 

Environmental Policy Act, and the 

Environmental Justice Executive Order, 

plans to revise the water quality criteria 

for selenium, increased attention on 

compliance with, and enforcement of, 

individual permit limits; improved 

permitting guidance and more stringent 

discharge monitoring requirements in 

permits. 

The Ore Mining Preliminary Study 

report is being issued concurrent with 

the publication of this FR Notice and 

represents a portion of the final 2010 

Plan. The Ore Mining Preliminary Study 

report (EPA–820–R–10–025) is available 

at DCN 07369. 

4. Other Reviews 

Shale Gas Extraction 

Overview 

As discussed in the March 2011 

‘‘Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future,’’ 

(‘‘Blueprint’’) the production of 

domestic natural gas enhances energy 

security and fuels our nation’s economy 

(DCN 07496). In 2010, U.S. natural gas 

production reached its highest level in 

more than 30 years with much of the 

increase resulting from the production 

of natural gas from shale formations. 

This is due to recent advances in 

horizontal drilling and hydraulic 

fracturing that have made extraction of 

natural gas from shale formations more 

technically and economically feasible. 

The increase is expected to continue. 

The U.S. Department of Energy projects 

shale gas production as a percentage of 

the U.S. natural gas production will 

increase over the next 25 years from the 

current level of 14% to an estimated 

45%. 

As indicated in the ‘‘Blueprint,’’ the 

Administration is taking several steps to 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 66295 

ensure natural gas is developed in a safe 

and environmentally responsible 

manner. The ‘‘Blueprint’’ lists several 

initiatives to support these goals, 

including disclosure of fracturing 

chemicals, public meetings, EPA- and 

DOE-led research, the establishment of 

an expert panel to examine fracturing 

issues, and technical assistance to State 

regulators. In particular, the ‘‘Blueprint’’ 

directed the Secretary of Energy, in 

consultation with the EPA 

Administrator and Secretary of the 

Interior, to task the Secretary of Energy 

Advisory Board (SEAB) with 

establishing a subcommittee to examine 

issues related to shale gas production 

through hydraulic fracturing. The 

subcommittee is supported by DOE, 

EPA and DOI, and its membership 

extends beyond SEAB members to 

include leaders from industry, the 

environmental community, academia, 

and states. The subcommittee is 

working to identify both immediate 

steps that can be taken to improve the 

safety and environmental performance 

of fracturing and to provide consensus 

recommended advice to the agencies on 

practices for shale extraction to ensure 

the protection of public health and the 

environment. On August 11, 2011, the 

Subcommittee submitted a 90-day 

report with its preliminary 

recommendations (DCN 07504). The 

report recommends measures to 

increase public disclosure and 

transparency and address concerns 

about air and water pollution. The 

report also recommends a range of tools 

for implementing these measures, 

including regulation, continuous 

improvement in best practices by 

industry, and ongoing research and 

development. 

Today’s decision to initiate 

rulemaking is consistent with these 

initiatives in that it addresses potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

hydraulic fracturing. This is part of the 

Administration’s commitment in the 

‘‘Blueprint’’ to continue to review 

existing regulatory structures governing 

both onshore and offshore oil and gas 

development to identify potential 

efficiencies in those processes and any 

crucial gaps that pose safety and 

environmental risks. 

EPA will carefully consider the 

SEAB’s preliminary and final 

recommendations as EPA develops 

regulatory options. EPA’s regulatory 

action will complement and benefit by 

the initiatives already announced in the 

President’s ‘‘Blueprint.’’ 

Introduction 

The production of natural gas from 

shale formations has increased over the 

past few years and the upward trend is 

expected to continue. For example, data 

from the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection shows that 

the number of shale gas wells drilled in 

Pennsylvania increased substantially in 

the past few years, with more wells 

drilled and permits issued between 

January and April of 2010, than during 

all of 2008 (DCN 07474). As the number 

of shale gas wells in the U.S. increases, 

so too does the volume of shale gas 

wastewater that requires disposal. 

Wastewater associated with shale gas 

extraction can contain high levels of 

total dissolved solids (TDS), fracturing 

fluid additives, metals, and naturally 

occurring radioactive materials (NORM). 

EPA requested comments in the 2010 

Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Plan on 

whether to include shale gas extraction 

as part of the Coal Bed Methane 

Detailed Study. Many of the comments 

on this topic expressed general concern 

about drinking water contamination and 

water quality impacts from shale gas 

extraction. 

Industry commenters asserted that a 

shale gas rulemaking was not needed 

since existing Oil and Gas Effluent 

Guidelines require zero discharge from 

shale gas extraction. Although the 

existing regulations for onshore oil and 

gas extraction prohibit direct discharges 

of wastewaters from shale gas 

extraction, the current regulations do 

not contain pretreatment standards for 

pollutants associated with these 

discharges. EPA also has data that 

document pollutants in wastewaters 

associated with shale gas extraction are 

not treated by the technologies typically 

used at publicly and privately owned 

treatment facilities (DCN 07477 and 

DCN 07472A1). 

EPA ultimately decided not to expand 

the Coal Bed Methane Study to include 

shale gas extraction. However, as a 

result of public comments, EPA began 

reviewing available data to inform a 

decision on whether or not a rulemaking 

to establish pretreatment standards for 

shale gas extraction was appropriate. 

Overview of Shale Gas Operations 

The term ‘‘Shale Gas’’ is typically 

used to describe natural gas trapped in 

underground shale deposits. Well 

operators use the process of hydraulic 

fracturing to extract this gas. Hydraulic 

fracturing is a method of extracting 

natural gas from highly impermeable 

rock formations by injecting large 

amounts of fracturing fluids (typically 3 

to 5 million gallons) at high pressures to 

create a network of fissures, typically 

250 feet in length (with occasional 

fractures as long as 1,000 feet), in the 

rock formations and provide the natural 

gas a pathway to travel to the well for 

extraction. 

While the composition of the 

fracturing fluids varies from region to 

region, and is specific to the formation 

to be fractured, the classes of 

compounds in the fluids are largely the 

same. The major components of 

fracturing fluid are water and proppant 

(typically sand), used to keep the 

fractures open after the fracturing has 

been complete, and chemical additives. 

EPA has reviewed data presented by 

industry sources including Chesapeake 

Energy, Talisman Energy, the Gas 

Technology Institute (GTI) and 

Halliburton, regarding the different 

classes of compounds in fracturing 

fluids, such as biocides, friction 

reducers, surfactants, scale and 

corrosion inhibiters and acids. 

Additionally, EPA has reviewed a 

registry developed jointly by the Ground 

Water Protection Council and the 

Interstate Oil and Gas Commission of 

chemicals used in fracturing fluids 

voluntarily provided by oil and gas 

companies (http://www.fracfocus.org). 

A portion of the injected fracturing 

fluid will remain in the fractures. The 

precise amount of fluid retention is 

uncertain and depends on the geologic 

formation. The fluids not retained in the 

formation will ultimately return to the 

surface as ‘‘flowback’’ or ‘‘produced 

water.’’ These wastewaters may contain 

the chemicals originally found in the 

fracturing fluids as well as other 

naturally occurring constituents that 

may be released into the fluid as the 

rock formations are broken. 

Produced Waters From Shale Gas 

Extraction 

A shale gas well has two distinct 

phases of water production from the 

formation. The first phase typically 

occurs during the first 30 days following 

the fracturing process (DCN 07482A10 

and DCN 07482A23), also known as the 

‘‘flowback period.’’ During this time a 

portion of the injected fracturing fluid 

will return to the surface. 

There are varying reports on the 

actual volume of flowback; multiple 

studies and presentations report that 

volumes ranging from 10–75% of the 

injected fracturing fluids are returned 

during the flowback period. The amount 

of ‘‘flowback’’ is dependent, in part, on 

the geology of the shale basin (DCN 

07477). 

After this initial surge of flowback 

passes, produced water will continue to 

come to the surface for the life of the 

well. Chesapeake Energy provided data 

indicating that ‘‘long term’’ produced 

water volumes range from 200–1,000 

gallons per million cubic feet of gas 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
66296 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 

1 In order to prepare shale gas wastewater for reuse, the produced water is filtered to remove 

suspended solids from wastewater and then 

combined with fresh water and additives to 

formulate fracturing fluid. Typically re-used shale 

gas wastewater makes up only a small percentage 

of water demand for fracturing operations. 

2Metcalf & Eddy Inc. (2003) Wastewater 

Engineering: Treatment and Reuse McGraw-Hill, 

New York. 

produced depending on the basin in 

which the well is located. Currently, the 

Barnett shale formation has the highest 

long term flowback volumes and the 

Marcellus shale formation has the 

lowest. While there is no consensus on 

when the initial ‘‘flowback’’ period 

ends, some operators choose to view all 

water passing from the formation up 

through the wellbore as ‘‘produced 

water’’ regardless of the time period in 

which it occurs. 

Pollutants in Shale Gas Wastewaters 

Produced waters (shale gas 

wastewaters) generally contain elevated 

concentrations of fracturing fluid 

additives, salt content (often expressed 

as total dissolved solids—TDS), 

conventional pollutants, organics, 

metals, and NORM (naturally occurring 

radioactive material). 

EPA has multiple sources of shale gas 

produced water characterization data 

including reports published by the 

Department of Energy (DCN 07476 and 

DCN 07474) and industry flowback 

analysis made available by Chesapeake 

Energy, Talisman Energy, Devon Energy, 

Superior Well Services, and GTI. 

Total dissolved solids is the most 

reported pollutant. Data on TDS 

concentrations are widely available due 

to the potential negative impact of high 

concentrations of TDS on the ability to 

re-use the shale gas wastewater. 

Elevated TDS levels may also impact the 

effectiveness of the additives in the 

fracturing fluids (DCN 07482A03). 

High concentrations of TDS are 

common in shale gas wastewater across 

the country, although the levels may 

vary from basin to basin. TDS 

concentrations of 100,000 ppm are 

typical and can be as high as 400,000 

ppm (DCN 07476). For comparison, sea 

water contains approximately 35,000 

ppm TDS. The main component ion of 

TDS in shale gas wastewater appears to 

be chloride, which accounts for 

approximately 60% of the TDS found in 

shale gas wastewater. Chloride has been 

measured in shale gas wastewater water 

at levels of 8,800—153,000 ppm. Other 

components may include barium (21— 

13,900 ppm), strontium (Non-Detect— 

3,700 ppm), calcium (314—23,500 

ppm), magnesium (135—5,000 ppm) 

and sodium (2,800—65,000 ppm). 

Additionally, the concentrations of TDS 

in produced water from each well tend 

to increase over time (DCN 07482A13, 

DCN 07482A10, DCN 07482A23, and 

DCN 07482A15). 

Organic and inorganic pollutants 

appear to be less frequently sampled in 

comparison to the well documented 

TDS concentrations. EPA has reviewed 

limited data on organic pollutants in 

produced water and found a range of 

pollutant concentrations: phenol (NonDetect—3,700 ppb), pyridine (NonDetect—534 ppb), benzene (1—3,400 

ppb), ethyl benzene (Non-Detect—1,400 

ppb), toluene (Non-Detect—11,400 ppb), 

total xylenes (2—14,500 ppb), and 

glycol (10,000—120,000 ppb). 

Additionally, bromide linked to shale 

gas wastewater has been measured in 

POTW outfalls (1,020—1,100 ppm) 

(DCN 07481A04, DCN 07481A03, DCN 

07479A06, and DCN 07481A02). 

NORM is an acronym for naturally 

occurring radioactive material. The U.S. 

Department of Energy published a 

report in 2009 that includes a 

description of the process by which 

NORM in the rock formations would be 

brought to the surface by hydraulic 

fracturing (DCN 07476). Radium 226, 

which has a half life of over 1,000 years, 

has been found to be present in 

concentrations up to 16,030 pCi/l in the 

Marcellus Shale produced water as 

reported by the New York State 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation in 2009 (DCN 07473). This 

reported radionuclide concentration 

exceeds the drinking water Maximum 

Contaminant Level of 5 pCi/L for 

Radium 226. 

While EPA has some data on the 

additives in fracturing fluid, EPA is not 

aware of any substantial sampling data 

on the presence or absence of these 

additives in shale gas wastewaters. 

Shale Gas Wastewater Disposal and 

Treatment 

Up to 1 million gallons of shale gas 

wastewater may be produced from a 

single well within the first 30 days 

following fracturing. Smaller volumes of 

shale gas wastewater will also be 

produced throughout the life of the 

well. Many well operators transport this 

wastewater to Underground Injection 

Control (UIC) program permitted brine 

injection wells where the wastewater is 

permanently emplaced underground, a 

common practice in the oil and gas 

industry. The ability to inject shale gas 

wastewater varies based on local 

geology and permitting requirements. 

For example, this practice is widely 

used in the Barnett (Texas) formation 

where the state has more than 12,000 

brine disposal wells, and less so in the 

Marcellus formation (PA, WV, OH, NY, 

MD). For comparison purposes, the 

Marcellus formation states presently 

have less than 300 brine disposal wells. 

The state of Pennsylvania, where most 

Marcellus shale drilling occurs, has six 

brine disposal wells. 

Some operators elect to re-use a 

portion of the wastewater to replace 

and/or supplement fresh water in 

formulating fracturing fluid for a future 

well 1. Re-use of shale gas wastewater is, 

in part, dependent on the levels of 

pollutants in the wastewater and the 

proximity of other fracturing sites that 

might re-use the wastewater. This 

practice has increased over the last 

couple of years, especially in regions of 

the country where fresh water is not 

plentiful. 

When injection and re-use are not 

viable options for shale gas wastewater 

disposal, operators may dispose of this 

wastewater by sending it to POTWs or 

to private centralized waste treatment 

facilities (CWTs). The vast majority of 

POTWs employ equalization, bulk 

solids removal, biological treatment, 

and disinfection. POTWs are likely 

effective in treating only some of the 

pollutants in shale gas wastewater, such 

as the conventional and organic 

pollutants. These treatment technologies 

are not designed to treat high levels of 

TDS, NORM, or high levels of metals 2; 

it is believed that much of these 

pollutants pass through the POTW 

untreated. Many CWTs, of which 90% 

discharge to POTWs, are similarly not 

designed to treat for high TDS or NORM 

(DCN 07474). 

High concentrations of TDS may also 

lead to inhibition or disruptions of 

POTW treatment efficiency. However, 

most POTWs that accept shale gas 

wastewaters blend small volumes with 

traditional POTW wastewaters (1% 

shale gas wastewater by volume) to 

reduce pollutant concentrations through 

dilution to prevent POTW inhibition 

(DCN 07474). 

Local Limits for Shale Gas Extraction 

Wastewater Introductions to POTWs 

Under the Clean Water Act statutory 

and regulatory framework, POTWs must 

establish requirements for any 

introduction of wastewater to the POTW 

or its collection system if it either would 

cause ‘‘pass through’’ or ‘‘interference’’ 

(e.g., cause the POTW to violate its 

permits limits, or interfere with the 

operation of the POTW or the beneficial 

use of its sewage sludge). POTWs are 

subject to the secondary treatment 

effluent limitations at 40 CFR part 133, 

which do not address the parameters of 

concern in shale gas extraction 

wastewater (e.g., TDS, chloride, 

radionuclides, etc). If a water quality 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 66297 

3Two published standards regarding TDS include 

EPA’s secondary maximum contaminant level for 

TDS of 500 ppm and the U.S. Public Health Service 

recommendation that TDS in drinking water should 

not exceed 500 ppm. 

4As discussed, many of the POTWs that accept 

shale gas wastewaters blend small volumes with 

traditional POTW wastewaters and reduce pollutant 

concentrations through dilution, so high 

concentrations in shale gas wastewaters do not 

necessarily lead to concentrations that exceed 

aquatic life criteria at the point of discharge. 

5While not related to shale gas wastewater, 

negative impacts of high TDS, including fish kills, 

were documented during 2009 at Dunkard Creek 

located in Monongalia County, Pennsylvania. 

based effluent limit for these parameters 

is not included in the POTW permit, 

and if there is no evidence of 

interference, or sewage sludge 

contamination, the POTW may not have 

a basis to develop appropriate local 

limits. Independent of CWA 

requirements, POTWs can establish 

local limits under their sewer use 

ordinances for any parameters they 

determine could cause problems at the 

POTW. Currently, however, it is 

uncommon that POTWs have 

established local limits for the 

parameters of concern here, or that 

POTWs have water quality-based 

effluent limitations (WQBELs) for such 

parameters. Possible Impacts of Shale 

Gas Wastewater Discharges to Drinking 

Water Sources and Aquatic Life. 

TDS has been shown to have negative 

impacts on aquatic life and drinking 

water. The level at which these impacts 

may occur is far less than the level of 

TDS typically found in shale gas 

wastewater. As described above, the 

average concentration of TDS in shale 

gas wastewaters is typically 100,000 

ppm and can be as high as 400,000 ppm. 

Available data indicates the levels of 

TDS in shale gas wastewaters can often 

exceed recommended drinking water 

concentrations 3 by a factor of 200. 

Because TDS concentrations in fresh 

non-brackish drinking water sources are 

typically well below the recommended 

drinking water levels, few drinking 

water treatment facilities have 

technologies to remove TDS. 

Aquatic life toxicity of freshwater 

contaminated with high TDS is 

dependent on the specific ionic 

composition of the water. In shale gas 

wastewaters, the largest single 

contributor to TDS is chlorides. 

Macroinvertebrates, and more 

specifically aquatic insects, have an 

open circulatory system and are more 

sensitive to pollutants like chloride, 

which at elevated exposure 

concentrations, negatively affect their 

ability to maintain the right 

concentration of salts and water in the 

body, which involves excreting 

metabolic wastes that would be toxic to 

the organism if allowed to accumulate. 

Based on laboratory toxicity data from 

EPA’s 1988 chloride criteria document 

and more recent studies, invertebrate 

sensitivity to chloride acute effect 

concentrations ranged from 953 ppm to 

13,691 ppm and chronic effect 

concentrations ranged from 489 ppm to 

556 ppm. Aquatic vertebrates such as 

fish and frogs are less sensitive to 

chloride with acute effect 

concentrations ranging from 3,959 ppm 

to 14,500 ppm and chronic effect 

concentrations of 646 ppm to 955 ppm 

(DCN 07483). Available data on 

maximum chloride concentrations in 

shale gas wastewaters exceed the acute 

effect concentration by a factor of over 

100 4 (DCN 07482A15). 

In addition to the laboratory data, 

EPA also has data from a 2009 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection violation 

report documenting a fishkill attributed 

to a spill of diluted produced water in 

Hopewell Township, PA. A sample of 

the receiving water at the location of the 

fishkill was analyzed and TDS was 

measured as high as 7,000 ppm. The 

report documents the effects of the TDS 

on aquatic species such as fish and 

salamanders and frogs, including 

mortalities (DCN 07471).5

Moreover, bromide found in shale gas 

wastewater may react with disinfectants 

used at water treatment plants, creating 

potentially harmful disinfection 

byproducts such as trihalomethane. 

Bromide, linked to shale gas 

wastewater, has been recorded in POTW 

effluents in concentrations as high as 

1,100 ppm (DCN 07472 and DCN 

07481A02). 

Conclusion: 

Natural gas can increase our domestic 

energy options, thus, reducing 

dependence on non-U.S. sources, and it 

has the potential to improve air quality, 

increase stability in energy prices, and 

provide greater certainty about future 

energy reserves. Also, natural gas can 

serve as a bridge fuel from coal to even 

more efficient energy sources that can 

further reduce greenhouse-gas 

emissions. Natural gas holds great 

potential for our energy future and for 

our environment and EPA supports the 

commitment in the ‘‘Blueprint,’’ to 

responsible development of this 

important domestic resource and to 

proactively addressing the concerns that 

have been raised regarding potential 

negative impacts associated with 

hydraulic fracturing of shale formations. 

We have heard from the public and 

environmental organizations that they 

are concerned about the safety of natural 

gas production and the possible impacts 

that shale gas development could have 

on American communities. Some states 

have allowed development; others have 

put a hold on any development, 

cautious about the environmental 

impacts of shale gas production. Some 

states have asked that national 

standards be promulgated, and have 

also requested resources to help deal 

with these possible impacts. We have 

also heard from industry that shale gas 

extraction is currently regulated under 

the existing Oil and Gas Effluent 

Limitation Guidelines and those 

regulations are sufficient. What we 

know is that shale gas extraction 

generates extremely large volumes of 

wastewater that contain considerable 

pollutant loads. Some of this is being 

responsibly reinjected into appropriate 

underground wells; other volumes of 

wastewater are likely not being treated 

effectively by existing treatment 

facilities. Resulting discharges have the 

potential to affect both drinking water 

supplies and aquatic life. These 

concerns and issues will not dissipate as 

shale gas production is expected to 

increase. As a result, EPA has decided 

to initiate rulemaking to decide the 

appropriate level of pretreatment 

standards for this industry. As noted 

above, EPA will carefully consider the 

SEAB’s recommendations as EPA 

develops regulatory options. 

As a first step in developing a 

regulation, EPA will conduct extensive 

data gathering, including site visits, 

stakeholder outreach, and development 

of a national survey of the industry. 

More specifically, EPA will visit natural 

gas extraction operations where 

hydraulic fracturing is occurring to 

obtain data directly from the well 

operators on well drilling and fracturing 

operations, produced water 

characteristics, and wastewater 

management. In addition to the site 

visits, EPA will reach out to 

stakeholders and other affected entities 

to identify and better understand 

concerns regarding environmental 

impacts associated with fracturing 

wastewater and potential industry 

implications of the regulation. Finally, 

EPA will begin the process of 

developing and seeking approval to 

distribute a nationally representative 

survey to collect information on the 

shale gas industry. This survey will 

assist EPA in obtaining national data on 

the operations, economics, and 

wastewater characteristics associated 

with hydraulic fracturing, as well as 

data pertaining to available treatment 

technologies for shale gas wastewater. 

In 2010, Congress directed EPA to 

‘‘carry out a study on the relationship 

between hydraulic fracturing and 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
66298 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 

drinking water, using a credible 

approach that relies on the best 

available science, as well as 

independent sources of information. 

The conferees expect the study to be 

conducted through a transparent, peerreviewed process that will ensure the 

validity and accuracy of the data.’’ In 

accordance with this direction from 

Congress, EPA conducted extensive 

stakeholder outreach to solicit advice 

regarding the design of the study. In 

February 2011, EPA submitted a draft 

study plan to the Science Advisory 

Board for peer review. In March and 

May 2011, the Science Advisory Board 

subcommittee met to provide peer 

review of the EPA’s draft study plan. 

Consistent with the operating 

procedures of the SAB, an opportunity 

was provided for stakeholders and the 

public to provide comments for the SAB 

to take into account during their review. 

EPA is revising the study plan in 

response to the SAB’s comments and 

initial study results are expected by the 

end of 2012. However, certain portions 

of the work will be long-term projects 

that are not likely to be finished at that 

time. Additional reports of study 

findings will be published as the longerterm projects progress. While the 

primary focus of this study is on 

impacts of hydraulic fracturing on 

drinking water resources, including 

surface water impacts, EPA will 

carefully review and consider any 

relevant information that is collected to 

support this study. Likewise, any data 

collected pursuant to this new 

rulemaking will be shared with the EPA 

office that is conducting the 

Congressionally-mandated study. 

Should the report or EPA’s 

rulemaking survey, in combination with 

other data gathering and public 

outreach, indicate that POTWs are 

already adequately treating shale gas 

wastewater so that it is not causing pass 

through or interference with POTW 

operations, including sludge 

management, EPA is open to adjusting 

its rulemaking plans accordingly. 

However, EPA believes that beginning 

rulemaking now, and particularly the 

data collection necessary to support 

such a rule, is an appropriate step given 

what we already know about wastewater 

discharges from the industry. 

5. Summary of 2010 Annual Review 

Findings 

The summary of the findings of the 

2010 annual review is presented below 

in Table V–1 (see also the TSD for the 

final 2010 Plan for greater details). 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 through an 

effluent guidelines rulemaking, or a 

rulemaking is currently underway. Or 

EPA recently completed a preliminary 

study or a detailed study, and no further 

action is necessary at this time. 

(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 start or continue a 

detailed study of this industry in its 

2011 annual review to determine 

whether to identify the category for 

effluent guidelines rulemaking. 

(5) EPA is continuing or initiating a 

preliminary category review or will 

continue to review discharges using 

screening-level data because incomplete 

data are currently 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. 

(6) EPA is identifying this industry for 

a revision of an existing effluent 

guideline. 

Note that dental mercury is not 

included in the analysis below, as 

dental facilities do not currently have an 

effluent guideline. 

TABLE V–1—FINDINGS FROM THE 2010 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) 

10 ................. Coil Coating ........................................................................................................................... 465 (3) 

11 ................. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) .............................................................. 412 (1) 

12 ................. Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production ............................................................................. 451 (1) 

13 ................. Construction and Development ............................................................................................. 450 (1) 

14 ................. Copper Forming .................................................................................................................... 468 (3) 

15 ................. Dairy Products Processing .................................................................................................... 405 (3) 

16 ................. Electrical and Electronic Components .................................................................................. 469 (3) 

17 ................. Electroplating ......................................................................................................................... 413 (1) 

18 ................. Explosives Manufacturing ..................................................................................................... 457 (3) 

19 ................. Ferroalloy Manufacturing ...................................................................................................... 424 (3) 

20 ................. Fertilizer Manufacturing ......................................................................................................... 418 (3) 

21 ................. Glass Manufacturing ............................................................................................................. 426 (3) 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 66299 

TABLE V–1—FINDINGS FROM THE 2010 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), AND 307(b)—Continued 

No. Industry category 

(listed alphabetically) 40 CFR Part Findings * 

22 ................. Grain Mills ............................................................................................................................. 406 (3) 

23 ................. Gum and Wood Chemicals ................................................................................................... 454 (3) 

24 ................. Hospitals ................................................................................................................................ 460 (1) 

25 ................. Ink Formulating ..................................................................................................................... 447 (3) 

26 ................. Inorganic Chemicals [Note 1] ............................................................................................... 415 (1) and (3) 

27 ................. Iron and Steel Manufacturing ................................................................................................ 420 (1) 

28 ................. Landfills ................................................................................................................................. 445 (5) 

29 ................. Leather Tanning and Finishing ............................................................................................. 425 (3) 

30 ................. Meat and Poultry Products ................................................................................................... 432 (1) 

31 ................. Metal Finishing ...................................................................................................................... 433 (1) 

32 ................. Metal Molding and Casting ................................................................................................... 464 (3) 

33 ................. Metal Products and Machinery ............................................................................................. 438 (1) 

34 ................. Mineral Mining and Processing ............................................................................................. 436 (5) 

35 ................. Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders .................................................................. 471 (3) 

36 ................. Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing ......................................................................................... 421 (2) 

37 ................. Oil and Gas Extraction .......................................................................................................... 435 (6) 

38 ................. Ore Mining and Dressing ...................................................................................................... 440 (2) 

39 ................. Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers [Note 1] ............................................... 414 (1) and (3) 

40 ................. Paint Formulating .................................................................................................................. 446 (3) 

41 ................. Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt) ................................................................ 443 (3) 

42 ................. Pesticide Chemicals .............................................................................................................. 455 (3) 

43 ................. Petroleum Refining ................................................................................................................ 419 (3) 

44 ................. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing .............................................................................................. 439 (3) 

45 ................. Phosphate Manufacturing ..................................................................................................... 422 (3) 

46 ................. Photographic ......................................................................................................................... 459 (3) 

47 ................. Plastic Molding and Forming ................................................................................................ 463 (5) 

48 ................. Porcelain Enameling ............................................................................................................. 466 (3) 

49 ................. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard ............................................................................................... 430 (5) 

50 ................. Rubber Manufacturing ........................................................................................................... 428 (3) 

51 ................. Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing .................................................................................. 417 (3) 

52 ................. Steam Electric Power Generating ......................................................................................... 423 (1) 

53 ................. Sugar Processing .................................................................................................................. 409 (3) 

54 ................. Textile Mills ........................................................................................................................... 410 (3) 

55 ................. Timber Products Processing ................................................................................................. 429 (3) 

56 ................. Transportation Equipment Cleaning ..................................................................................... 442 (3) 

57 ................. Waste Combustors ................................................................................................................ 444 (5) 

* The descriptions of the ‘‘Findings’’ codes are presented immediately prior to this table. 

Note 1: 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 ongoing effluent guidelines rulemaking for the Chlorinated and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH) manufacturing sector, which 

includes facilities currently regulated by the OCPSF and Inorganics effluent guidelines. The second code (‘‘(3)’’) indicates that the remainder of 

the facilities in these two categories does not represent a hazard priority at this time. 

VI. EPA’s 2010 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 NonConventional Pollutants Discharged to 

POTWs 

All indirect dischargers are subject to 

general pretreatment standards (40 CFR 

part 403), including a prohibition on 

discharges causing ‘‘pass through’’ or 

‘‘interference’’ (See 40 CFR 403.5). 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
66300 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 

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(k). 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 discharged 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 

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). 

B. Hospitals (Part 460) (Health Care 

Industry Detailed Study of the 

Management of Unused 

Pharmaceuticals) 

Pharmaceutical chemicals have been 

detected in our nation’s waterways, 

leading to concerns that these 

compounds may affect aquatic life and 

possible human health through drinking 

water sources. As a result of public 

comments on the Final 2006 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan, EPA initiated 

a study of unused pharmaceutical 

disposal practices at health care 

facilities. The focus of this study was on 

disposal to water via sewers. EPA 

studied medical facilities; including, 

hospitals, hospices, long-term care 

facilities, health care clinics, physician 

offices, and veterinary facilities. A 

standard disposal practice at many 

health care facilities is to flush unused 

pharmaceuticals down the toilet or 

drain. 

Unused pharmaceuticals include 

leftover medication that is expired, not 

dispensed, and/or partially used, and 

residues from delivery devices. During 

the study, EPA conducted intensive 

outreach to over 700 stakeholders and 

evaluated a range of management 

practices to reduce the generation of 

unused pharmaceuticals and their 

disposal down the drain. Based on the 

information collected through the 

outreach, EPA has drafted a guidance 

document, ‘‘Best Management Practices 

for Unused Pharmaceuticals at Health 

Care Facilities’’. The guidance 

document was made available for a 60 

day public review and comment as 

announced in a Federal Register Notice, 

published on September 8, 2010. The 

draft guidance document was posted on 

the Agency’s Web site. 

In summary, the guidance 

recommends the following practices to 

prevent or minimize the amount of 

pharmaceuticals being disposed in 

water: 

—Conduct an inventory of 

pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical 

waste to quantify the amount of 

medication the facility is disposing of; 

—Reduce pharmaceutical waste by 

reviewing purchasing practices, use 

limited dose or unit dose dispensing, 

replace pharmaceutical samples with 

vouchers, and perform on-going 

inventory control and stock rotation; 

—Reuse or donate unused 

pharmaceuticals when possible; 

return unused pharmaceuticals to the 

pharmacy; send unused 

pharmaceuticals to a reverse 

distributor for credit and proper 

disposal in accordance with the 

facility’s state environmental 

regulations; properly identify and 

manage hazardous pharmaceutical 

wastes in accordance with federal and 

state regulations; use EPA 

recommended practices to dispose of 

non-hazardous pharmaceutical waste 

at the facility; 

—Segregate waste for disposal to ensure 

regulations are met; 

—Train staff in proper disposal 

methods. 

EPA received 89 comments on the 

proposed guidance on November 8, 

2010 and is reviewing suggested 

changes to the document and working 

with relevant Federal Agencies to 

ensure any incorporated comments are 

consistent with other Federal laws and 

policies. 

C. Dental Amalgam 

In the 2008 final Plan, EPA decided 

it would not initiate an effluent 

limitation guideline rulemaking for 

discharges of dental amalgam from 

dentists’ offices. However, at that time 

EPA indicated it would examine 

whether a significant majority of 

dentists began utilizing amalgam 

separators and stated that after such 

examination, EPA may re-evaluate its 

decision not to initiate an effluent 

guidelines rulemaking for this sector. 

After assessing the progress made 

under the Memorandum of 

Understanding to Reduce Dental 

Amalgam Discharges (MOU), and other 

factors, EPA announced, in September 

2010, it will initiate a rulemaking to 

control mercury associated with dental 

amalgam discharges to sewer systems 

from dental offices. 

Background 

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 sewer 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 

offices are the largest source of mercury 

discharges to POTWs. The American 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 66301 

Dental Association (ADA) estimated in 

2003 that up to 50% of mercury entering 

POTWs was caused 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% or greater, can 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. 

In December, 2008 EPA entered into 

the MOU with NACWA and ADA. The 

purpose of the MOU was to estimate the 

number of dental facilities with 

amalgam separators installed, establish 

interim goals for increases in the 

number of separators voluntarily 

installed, and conduct outreach to 

dentists. 

EPA learned from several states that 

their efforts to increase the number of 

amalgam separator installations on a 

voluntary basis were largely 

unsuccessful. Additionally, several 

environmental organizations have urged 

EPA to establish pretreatment standards 

for dental amalgam. The Quicksilver 

Caucus commented on the preliminary 

2010 Plan requesting that EPA initiate a 

rulemaking to establish pretreatment 

standards for discharges of dental 

amalgam. 

Given the human health and aquaticlife impacts associated with mercury, 

the level of stakeholder interest, and the 

availability of a technological solution, 

EPA decided to initiate rulemaking to 

develop pretreatment standards for 

dental mercury to more thoroughly and 

expeditiously address this water 

pollution problem. 

VII. The Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan 

EPA views the effluent guidelines 

planning process as a mechanism 

designed to promote regular and 

transparent priority-setting on the part 

of the Agency. A plan is ultimately a 

statement of choices and priorities. 

These priorities necessarily need to take 

into account all the other statutory 

mandates and policy initiatives 

designed to implement the CWA’s goals 

and the funds appropriated by Congress 

to execute them. 

By requiring this planning process, 

culminating in the publication of a plan 

after public notice and comment, 

Congress assured that EPA would 

regularly re-evaluate its policy choices 

and priorities (including whether to 

identify an activity for effluent 

guidelines rulemaking) to account for 

changed circumstances. Ultimately, 

however, Congress left the content of 

the plan to EPA’s discretion—befitting 

the role that effluent guidelines play in 

the overall structure of the CWA and 

their relationship to other tools for 

addressing water pollution. 

A. EPA’s Schedule for Annual Review 

and Revision of Existing Effluent 

Guidelines under Section 304(b) 

1. Schedule for 2011 and 2012 Annual 

Reviews Under Section 304(b) 

As noted in section IV.B, CWA 

section 304(m)(1)(A) requires EPA to 

publish a biennial plan that establishes 

a schedule for the annual review and 

revision, in accordance with section 

304(b), of the effluent guidelines that 

EPA has promulgated under that 

section. Today’s plan announces EPA’s 

schedule for performing its section 

304(b) reviews for 2011 and 2012. The 

schedule is to coordinate its annual 

review of existing effluent guidelines 

under section 304(b) with its 

publication of preliminary and final 

Effluent Guidelines Program 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 

Effluent Guidelines Program 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 2011 

annual review is the review cycle 

ending upon the publication of the 

preliminary Plan in 2011 and its 2012 

annual review is the review cycle 

ending upon publication of the 2012 

final Plan. 

2. Schedule for Revision of Effluent 

Guidelines Promulgated Under Section 

304(b) 

Currently, EPA is engaged in effluent 

limitations guideline (ELG) rulemakings 

to revise the following existing 

guidelines: 

Steam Electric Power Generation— 

this rulemaking involves the revision of 

an existing ELG for about 1200 powergenerating facilities with a particular 

focus on about 500 coal-fired power 

plants. The decision to revise the 

current effluent guidelines for this 

industry was largely driven by the high 

level of toxic-weighted pollutant 

discharges from coal fired power plants 

and the expectation that these 

discharges will increase significantly in 

the next few years as new air pollution 

controls are installed. EPA is under a 

consent decree obligation to issue a final 

rule for this industry in 2014. 

• Chlorine and Chlorinated 

Hydrocarbons Manufacturing—EPA is 

currently conducting a rulemaking to 

potentially revise existing effluent 

guidelines and pretreatment standards 

for the following categories: Organic 

Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 

(OCPSF) and Inorganic Chemicals (to 

address discharges from Vinyl Chloride 

and Chlor-Alkali facilities identified for 

effluent guidelines rulemaking in the 

final 2004 Plan, now termed the 

‘‘Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon 

(CCH) manufacturing’’ rulemaking). 

EPA previously indicated it would 

conduct an industry survey for this 

effluent guidelines rulemaking (April 

18, 2006; 71 FR 19887). EPA is 

considering its next steps for this survey 

and the rulemaking as it reviews data 

from a voluntary industry monitoring 

program. EPA worked with industry to 

develop the extensive monitoring 

program to better understand the 

category’s dioxin discharges. 

In addition, EPA is today announcing 

initiation of an effluent limitations 

guideline (ELG) rulemaking to revise the 

following existing guidelines: 

• Oil and Gas Extraction—As 

explained in Section V.B.2, EPA is 

initiating a rulemaking for Coalbed 

Methane Extraction, a currently 

unregulated subcategory of the Oil and 

Gas Extraction Point Source Category. 

Because of concern over high TDS levels 

in the wastewater for Coalbed, 

availability of treatment technologies, 

and the fact that Coalbed Methane 

production will continue to grow, EPA 

believes the initiation of a rulemaking to 

address direct discharges to surface 

waters and discharges to POTWs is 

appropriate. 

B. Identification of Point Source 

Categories Under CWA Section 

304(m)(1)(B) 

The Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 

must identify categories of sources 

discharging non-trivial amounts of toxic 

or non-conventional pollutants for 

which EPA has not published effluent 

limitations guidelines under section 

304(b)(2) or new source performance 

standards NSPS) under section 306. See 

CWA section 304(m)(1)(B). The Plan 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
66302 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 

must also establish a schedule for the 

promulgation of effluent guidelines for 

the categories identified under section 

304(m)(1)(B) not later than three years 

after such identification. See CWA 

section 304(m)(1)(C). EPA is currently 

taking the following actions on new 

industry categories: 

• Airport De-icing—This final ELG 

rulemaking addresses the environmental 

impact of aircraft and airfield deicing 

fluid on the environment at the about 

200 airports in this country that conduct 

deicing operations. This rule is 

complicated by the shared 

responsibility for deicing operations 

between the airports and the airlines 

that use them. EPA currently plans to 

issue a final rule for this category in 

2011. 

• Drinking Water Treatment 

Industry—EPA is not at this time 

continuing its effluent guidelines 

rulemaking for the Drinking Water 

Treatment industry. 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 a 

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. After considering extensive 

information about the industry, its 

treatment residuals, wastewater 

treatment options, and discharge 

characteristics, and after considering 

other priorities, EPA has suspended 

work on this rulemaking. 

The ELG Program is also developing 

the cooling water intake existing facility 

rule—Under section 316(b) of the CWA, 

EPA plans to issue a final rule in 2012 

addressing the withdrawal of trillions of 

aquatic organisms from waters of the 

U.S. by about 1260 power plants and 

manufacturing facilities which 

withdraw water for cooling purposes. 

Also for the 2010 Plan, EPA is issuing 

the detailed study report for the coalbed 

methane industry and is issuing the 

preliminary study report for the Ore 

Mining and Dressing industry, and will 

be taking no further action on this 

industry at this time. EPA initiated a 

preliminary study of cellulose 

manufacturers in the Plastic Molding 

and Forming category (part 463) due, in 

part, to high carbon disulfide discharges 

which were revealed during the 2010 

review. 

Finally, EPA interprets section 

304(m)(1)(B) to give EPA the discretion 

to identify in the Plan only those 

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 nonconventional 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. In this Plan, EPA 

is not identifying for rulemaking any 

new categories discharging toxic and 

non-conventional pollutants. 

EPA is continuously investigating and 

solicits comment on how to improve its 

analyses (see section IX. Request for 

Comment and Information for the 2011 

Annual Reviews). 

C. Identification of Guidelines for 

Pretreatment of Pollutants under CWA 

Section 304(g)(1) and 307(b)(1) 

EPA has decided to initiate 

rulemaking for two industries to address 

their indirect industrial discharges to 

POTWs. This includes the indirect 

discharge of dental amalgam from 

dental offices and wastewater from 

shale gas extraction to publicly owned 

treatment works (POTWs) that may 

cause pass-through, interfere with, or 

are otherwise incompatible with 

POTWs. 

With regard to dental amalgam 

discharges from dental offices, EPA was 

asked by some states and environmental 

groups to revisit its 2008 decision not to 

initiate rulemaking for this industry. 

Dental amalgam contains mercury, 

which is a concern to human health 

because mercury is a persistent, 

bioaccumulative toxic element. EPA 

estimates that dentists discharge 

approximately 3.7 tons of mercury each 

year to publicly owned treatment works. 

In addition, EPA has not seen 

significant increases in the installation 

of amalgam separators under current 

voluntary efforts. Consequently, EPA 

has decided to initiate rulemaking 

which will reduce mercury discharges 

from dental facilities more completely, 

and in a more predictable timeframe 

than has been demonstrated through 

voluntary means alone. 

EPA also is initiating rulemaking for 

shale gas extraction, another 

subcategory of the Oil and Gas 

Extraction Point Source Category, which 

is now subject to effluent guidelines 

under this Category but not to 

applicable pretreatment standards. 

Because of concern over high TDS levels 

in the wastewater for shale gas 

extraction, availability of treatment 

technologies, and the fact that shale gas 

extraction production will continue to 

grow, EPA believes the initiation of a 

rulemaking to address discharges to 

POTWs is appropriate. 

D. Current Rulemakings 

Airport Deicing and Steam Electric 

Power Generation: 

Schedules 

Airport Deicing: 

—Final ELG Rule—Fall 2011 

Steam Electric Power Generation: 

—Proposed Rule—July 2012 

—Final Rule—January 2014 

E. New Rulemakings 

Dental Amalgam 

Schedule to Develop the Regulation for 

Dental Amalgam: 

—Proposed Rule—October 2011 

—Final Rule—October 2012 

Coalbed Methane Extraction 

Schedule to Develop the Regulation for 

Coalbed Methane Extraction: 

—Proposed Rule—2013 

Shale Gas Extraction 

Schedule to Develop the Regulation for 

Shale Gas Extraction: 

—Proposed Rule—2014 

These Agency decisions, 

announcements and the studies 

described previously fulfill 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). 

VIII. EPA’s 2011 Annual Review of 

Existing Effluent Guidelines and 

Pretreatment Standards Under CWA 

Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 304(m) 

and 307(b) 

This notice also provides EPA’s 

preliminary thoughts concerning its 

2011 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. 

A. Schedule for the 2011 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 66303 

section. This final 2010 Plan announces 

EPA’s schedule for performing its 

section 304(b) reviews in 2011. 

The schedule is as follows: EPA will 

coordinate its annual review of existing 

effluent guidelines 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 2010 

annual review is the review cycle 

ending upon the publication of this final 

2010 Plan. 

EPA is coordinating its annual 

reviews 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 regularly 

review all existing effluent guidelines, 

Congress appears to have intended that 

each successive review would build 

upon the results of earlier reviews. 

Therefore, by describing the 2010 

annual review along with the final 2010 

final Plan, EPA hopes to gather and 

receive data and information that will 

inform its reviews for 2011 and 2012 

and the final 2012 Plan. 

IX. Request for Comment and 

Information for the 2011 Annual 

Reviews 

A. EPA Requests Information on 

1. 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 07320). 

EPA is also soliciting comments on 

ways to enhance its Plan analysis. In 

particular: Are there new or additional 

factors that should be brought to bear for 

screening existing industries for 

revisions to their current guidelines? 

Are there approaches that could be used 

to better identify new industries that 

currently do not have guidelines that 

should? EPA is interested in receiving 

comment on all aspects of its current 

methodology. 

2. Climate Change and Water Efficiency 

EPA solicits comments, and data and 

information on whether the actions 

described under this Plan will have 

effects on water conservation or on 

climate change. In particular, will 

certain technologies or actions help to 

conserve water, and thereby energy and 

thus reduce the consumption of fossil 

fuels, or will the actions envisioned by 

this plan waste water and/or energy 

resources. Likewise, will the actions and 

potential industry changes 

contemplated by this Plan result in 

greater emission of green house gases, or 

are there opportunities for industry to 

reduce green house gas emissions. 

3. 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. 

4. 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. 

5. 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. 

6. Data and Information on Discharges 

of Pollutants From Waste Combustors 

EPA solicits data and information on 

discharges of wastewater from waste 

combustors. DMR data suggest the 

consistent discharge of metals and 

possible discharge of pesticides from 

waste combustors. EPA’s analysis for 

the 2010 ELG Final Plan shows that 

pesticides are discharged at 

concentrations below limits of 

detection. EPA is requesting information 

on waste combustors metals and 

pesticide discharges, to determine if 

they are present at concentrations below 

treatable levels. 

7. Data and Information on Discharges 

of Pollutants From Shale Gas Extraction 

EPA solicits data and information on 

the pollutants generated by the Shale 

Gas extraction industry. In particular 

EPA is soliciting data and information 

on the type of pollutants in shale gas 

wastewaters, including the type and 

toxicity of additives, the volumes of 

flowback and concentrations of the 

pollutants in the flowback, the fate and 

transport of pollutants to ground waters, 

and data and information on the passthrough of pollutants at publicly owned 

treatment works (POTWs). EPA also 

solicits documented impacts of these 

pollutants on aquatic life and human 

health. 

8. Data and Information on Discharges 

of Nanosilver From Industrial 

Manufacturing 

Nanosilver is becoming a more 

commonly used substance in industrial 

materials and commercial products as 

an active pesticide ingredient. In some 

uses, fabric is impregnated with 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
66304 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Notices 

nanosilver as an anti-microbial during 

manufacturing and nanosilver 

discharges may result. In other 

applications, nanosilver is used as a 

preservative in textile products which 

could also lead to nanosilver discharges. 

Other products, such as household 

washing machines, are being 

manufactured with the washer drum 

coated with nanosilver polymers to kill 

bacteria during clothes laundering. 

Since many of the nanosilver 

applications have the potential to create 

a source of silver in wastewater 

discharges from industries using 

nanosilver in the manufacture of 

products, or use of products containing 

nanosilver, EPA is interested in 

gathering as much information as 

possible on the fate, transport and 

effects of nanosilver on the aquatic 

environment and human health. 

EPA is soliciting data and information 

on the manufacture, use, and 

environmental release of silver 

materials, including nanosilver. EPA is 

requesting information on the 

manufacturing of silver materials, 

including: 

—Raw silver products, such as colloidal 

nanosilver; 

—Intermediates such as polymers or 

fibers embedded with silver, 

nanosilver, or silver compounds; and 

—End products, such as silverembedded textile and plastic 

products, or appliances with 

nanosilver coated surfaces. 

Dated: October 20, 2011. 

Nancy K. Stoner, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Water. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27742 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

Notice of Agreements Filed 

The Commission hereby gives notice 

of the filing of the following agreements 

under the Shipping Act of 1984. 

Interested parties may submit comments 

on the agreements to the Secretary, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 

Washington, DC 20573, within ten days 

of the date this notice appears in the 

Federal Register. Copies of the 

agreements are available through the 

Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the 

Office of Agreements at (202) 523–5793 

or tradeanalysis@fmc.gov. 

Agreement No.: 012032–008. 

Title: CMA CGM/MSC/Maersk Line 

North and Central China-U.S. Pacific 

Coast Two-Loop Space Charter, Sailing 

and Cooperative Working Agreement. 

Parties: A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S, CMA 

CGM S.A., and Mediterranean Shipping 

Company S.A. 

Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; 

Cozen O’Connor; 1627 I Street, NW., 

Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20006. 

Synopsis: The Amendment provides 

for a further slot exchange between 

Maersk Line and MSC with 

corresponding changes in the 

Agreement and delays the introduction 

of a service loop. 

Agreement No.: 012142. 

Title: Vessel Sharing Agreement for 

Transpacific Service between Hainan 

P O Shipping Co., Ltd. and T.S. Lines. 

Parties: Hainan P O Shipping Co., Ltd. 

and T.S. Lines Ltd. 

Filing Party: Neal A. Mayer, Esq.; 

Hoppel, Mayer, & Coleman; 1050 

Connecticut Avenue, NW., 10th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20036. 

Synopsis: The agreement authorizes 

the parties to share vessel space in the 

trade between U.S. West Coast ports and 

ports in China and Korea. 

By Order of the Federal Maritime 

Commission. 

Dated: October 21, 2011. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27706 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and 

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies 

The companies listed in this notice 

have applied to the Board for approval, 

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company 

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) 

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 

225), and all other applicable statutes 

and regulations to become a bank 

holding company and/or to acquire the 

assets or the ownership of, control of, or 

the power to vote shares of a bank or 

bank holding company and all of the 

banks and nonbanking companies 

owned by the bank holding company, 

including the companies listed below. 

The applications listed below, as well 

as other related filings required by the 

Board, are available for immediate 

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 

indicated. The application also will be 

available for inspection at the offices of 

the Board of Governors. Interested 

persons may express their views in 

writing on the standards enumerated in 

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the 

proposal also involves the acquisition of 

a nonbanking company, the review also 

includes whether the acquisition of the 

nonbanking company complies with the 

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act 

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise 

noted, nonbanking activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding each of these applications 

must be received at the Reserve Bank 

indicated or the offices of the Board of 

Governors not later than November 21, 

2011. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 

(Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice 

President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309: 

1. Raymond James Financial, Inc., St. 

Petersburg, Florida; to become a bank 

holding company by acquiring 100 

percent of the voting shares of Raymond 

James Bank, FSB, St. Petersburg, 

Florida, to be named Raymond James 

Bank, N.A., upon its conversion to a 

national bank. 

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas 

City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice 

President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas 

City, Missouri 64198–0001: 

1. Bluechip Bancshares, LLC, 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; to become a 

bank holding company by acquiring 100 

percent of the voting shares of Elmore 

City Bancshares, Inc., and First State 

Bank, both in Elmore City, Oklahoma. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System. 

Dated: October 21, 2011. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27675 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT 

INVESTMENT BOARD 

Employee Thrift Advisory Council 

TIME AND DATE: 2 p.m. (EST), November 

15, 2011. 

PLACE: 4th Floor, Conference Room, 

1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC. 

STATUS: Open. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Approval of the minutes of the 

April 18, 2011 meeting. 

2. Report of the Executive Director on 

Thrift Savings Plan status: 

(a) Updated TSP statistics. 

(b) Update on implementation of Roth 

TSP accounts. 

3. Legislation: 

(a) Update on Board Member 

nominations. 

(b) Nonappropriated Fund status. 

(c) 3-year statute of limitations for 

claims against the TSP. 

(d) IRS Levy. 

(e) TSP contributions from terminal 

Annual Leave. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES