### 512212014 FaclE

... 1Register,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,0_26,2011)

[Federal RegisterVolume 76, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2011)] [Notices] [Pages 66286-66304] From the Federal Register Onlinevia the Government PrintingOffice [www gpO gOY] [FR Doc No: 2011-27742]



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-QW-2Q08-0517; FRL-9483-4] RIN 2Q40-AF06

Notice of Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines ProgramPlan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice presents the final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan("final 2010 Plan"), which, as requiredunder 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 andprovides a schedule for such rulemakings. CWA section 304(m) requires EPA to bienniallypublish such a plan after public notice and comment. The Agencypublished the preliminary 2010 Plan on December 28, 2009 (74 FR 68599) and solicitedcomments 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 shouldbe initiated, EPA has decided to develop effluent guidelines and standards for the discharge ofwastewater from the CoalbedMethane Extraction (CBM) industry and will developpretreatments requirements for discharges ofmercury from the Dental industry, and for the discharges ofwastewater 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 onEPA's 2011 reviews pursuant to the authority of CWA sections 304(b), 304(g), 30l(d) and 307(b).

DATES: Submit comments on or before November 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on the final 2010 Plan, identifiedby Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517, by one of the following methods: (1) http·Uwww regulations gov

. Followthe on-line instructions for submitting comments. (2) E-mail: ow Pocket@epa gOY, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW2008-0517. (3) Mail: Water Docket, Environmental ProtectionAgency, Mailcode: 4203M,
[[Page 66287]]

1200 PennsylvaniaAve., 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 ConstitutionAve., 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 shouldbe 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 thepublic 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 informationwhose disclosure is restrictedby statute (see below for instructions on submitting CBI). Do not submit information that you consider tobe CBI

or otherwise protectedthrough regulations.gov or e-mail. The federal reg1llatjops gOY 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 directlyto EPA without going through reglliations gov, your e-mail


### hUp:llwAw.gpo.g**O\Ifds)8l~IFR-2011-1**

### Cl-26'htrrI12011-277 42.htm 

## 1m

### 512212014 FaclE

... 1Register,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

### 0_26,2011)
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket andmade available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in thebody of your comment, andwith 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, andbe free of any defects orviruses.
Submitting Confidential Business Information

Do not submit confidential business information (CBI) to EPA through http"l/www regu]Atipns gpy or e-mail. Any CBI you wish to submit shouldbe sent via a trackablephysical method, such as Federal Express or UnitedParcel Service, to Mr. M. Ahmar Siddiqui, Document Control Officer, Engineering andAnalysis Division (4303T), Room 62315 EPA West, U.S. EPA, 1200 PennsylvaniaAve, NW., Washington, DC 20460. A CBI package shouldbe double-wrapped, so that the CBI is in one package, which is itself inside anotherpackage. Clearlymark 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 electronicallywithin 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. Informationmarked as CBI will notbe disclosed except in accordance withprocedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the index at http'I/www regu]at;pns gpy

. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restrictedby statute. Certain othermaterial, such

as copyrightedmaterial, is not placed on the Internet andwill be publicly available only inhard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http'/Iwww regulatipns gpy or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 ConstitutionAve., 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; CoalbedMethane Point Source Category: Detailed Study Report, EPA-820-R-lO-022, DCN 09999; Draft Guidance Document: BestManagement Practices for Unused Pharmaceuticals at Health Care Facilities, August 26, 2010, EPA82l-R-10-006. OreMining and DressingCategory preliminary Study, EPA820-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, identifiedbyDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824, by one of the methods described above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. WilliamF. Swietlik at (202) 566- 1129 or swietlikwilliam@epa gpv

.
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(9), 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 ExistingEffluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304{g), 

### hUp:llwAw.gpo.g**O\Ifds)8l~IFR-2011-1**

### Cl-26'htrrI12011-277 42.htm

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)

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 nwnber)• 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.

[[Page 66288]]

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 CHA, 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. CNA 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**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm**

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)
that discharge topublicly owned treatment works (POTWs), termed indirect dischargers, EPA promulgates pretreatment standards that apply to those sources and are enforcedby the POTWs and State and Federal authorities. See CWA sections 307(b) and (e). 1. Best Practicable Control Technology CurrentlyAvailable (BPT)--CWA Sections 301(b) (1) (A) & 304(b) (1) EPA defines Best Practicable Control Technology CurrentlyAvailable (BPT) effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and nonconventional 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 definedby 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 ofpollutants as toxic pollutants, ofwhich 126 specific substances have been designatedprioritytoxic pollutants. See Appendix Atopart 423. All other pollutants are consideredto 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 reductionbenefits. The Agency also considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed, and any requiredprocess changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (includingenergy requirements), and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA section 304{b)(I)(B). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations basedon the average of the best performances of facilities within the industry ofvarious ages, sizes, processes, or other common characteristics. Where existingperformance 

### is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than currently inplace 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 requiredEPA to identifyeffluent reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for discharges from existing industrial point sources. In addition to considering the other factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B) to establish BCT limitations, EPA also considers a two part "cost-reasonableness" test. EPA explained its methodology for the development ofBCT limitations in 1986. See 51 FR 24974 (July 9, 1986). 3. Best Available TechnologyEconomicallyAchievable (BAT)--CWA Sections 301(b)(2)(A) & 304(b)(2)(B) For toxicpollutants and non-conventional pollutants, EPA promulgates effluent guidelines basedon the BestAvailable Technology EconomicallyAchievable (BAT). See CWA section 301(b) (2)(A), (C), (D) and (F). The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achievingBAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, theprocess employed, potential process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts, includingenergy requirements, and other such factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(2)(B). The technology must alsobe economically achievable. See CWA section 30l(b)(2)(A). The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight accorded to these factors. BAT limitations may be basedon effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations. Where existingperformance 

### is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher level ofperformance than 

### is currentlybeing achievedwithin a particular subcategorybased on technology transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT maybe basedupon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not cornmon industry practice. 4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--CWA Section 306 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reflect effluent reductions that are achievable basedon thebest available demonstrated control technology. New sources have the opportunityto install thebest and most efficient productionprocesses andwastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most
[[Page 66289]

### 1
stringent controls attainable through the application of the best available demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, non-conventional, and prioritypollutants). In establishingNSPS, EPA 

### is directedto 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 ofpollutants that pass through, interfere with,**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm**

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)

or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly owned
treatment works (POTWel, 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 nonconventional 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. Rist. 31 (indicating that section 304(m) (1)(B) applies to "non-trivial discharges."). Finally, under section 304(m), the plan must present a schedule for promulgating effluent guidelines for industrial categories for which it has not already established such guidelines, providing for final action on such rulemaking not later than three years after the industrial category is identified in a final Plan. 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 requiredby 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 determinedby 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,**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm**

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011) 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 existingeffluent guidelines and the preliminary 2012 plan). EPA intends that these contemporaneous reviews will provide meaningful insight into EPA's effluent guidelines andpretreatment standards program decision-making. Additionally, byproviding a single notice for these and future reviews, EPA hopes toprovide 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 didEPA 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,

[[Page 66290]

### 1

(2) Potential pollutionprevention and control technology options, (3) Category growth and economic considerations of technology options, and (4) Implementation and efficiency considerations of revising existing effluent guidelines orpublishingnew 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 classifiedas major orminor, depending on size and nature of the discharges. Amajor industrial discharger is a facility scoring over 

### SO points basedon rating criteria. Minor industrial discharges are facilities that score below the criteria score of 

### SO on the rating scale. 2. What analyses didEPA perform for its 2009 and 2010 annual reviews of existingeffluent guidelines and pretreatment standards?

a. Screening-Level Review The first component ofEPA's 2010 annual review consistedof a screening-level review of all industrial categories subject to existing effluent guidelines orpretreatment standards. EPA focused its efforts

on collectingand 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 IntegratedCompliance Information System--National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) data to estimate the mass ofpollutant discharges from industrial facilities. Because pollutant toxicities are different, EPA convertedthe toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges that are reported in a mass unit (pounds) into a measure of relative toxicity--a toxic-weightedpound equivalent or TWPE. EPA calculated the TWPE for eachpollutant dischargedby multiplying thepollutant specific toxic weighting factor (TWF) and the

mass of the pollutant discharge. Where data are available, these TWFs reflect both aquatic life andhuman health effects. EPA ranked point

source categories according to their discharges of toxic and nonconventional pollutants (reported inunits of TWPE) to assess the significance of these toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges to human health or the environment. EPA conductedthis process for the 2010 annual reviews using the most recent TRI, PCS and ICIS-NPDES data (200S)

. Based on this methodology, EPA prioritized for potential revision industrial categories that offeredthe greatest potential for reducing hazard to human health and the environment. EPA assignedthose categories with the lowest estimates of toxic-weightedpollutant discharges a lower priority for revision (i.e., industrial categories marked "(3)" in the "Findings" column in TableV-I in sectionV.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 hadbeen recentlypromulgated

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 ifEPA established,**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1C1-_12011-27742.htm**

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011) revised, or reviewed in a rulemaking context the category's effluent guidelines afterAugust 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 tobe fully reflected inpollutant loading data and TRI reports (in largepart because effluent limitations guidelines are often incorporated into NPDES permits onlyupon re-issuance of thosepermits, which CQuidbe up to five years after the effluent guidelines orpretreatment standards

arepromulgated). 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-I in sectionV.B.4 of this notice. Because there are 57 point source categories (includingover 450 subcategories) with existingeffluent 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 orpretreatment standards have recentlybeenpromulgated are less likely to warrant such changes. As part of the 2010 annual review, EPA also consideredthe number of facilities responsible for the majority of the estimatedtoxicweightedpollutant discharges associated with an industrial activity. EPA applied a lowerpriority for potential revision to industrial categories where only a few facilities in a category accounted for the vast majority of toxic-weightedpollutant discharges (i.e., categories marked "(2)" in the "Findings" column in TableV-I in sectionV.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 canbebetter tailored to these few facilities andmay 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 estimatedtoxic-weightedpollutant discharges for a particular category (see DCN 07320). For these facilities, EPA will consider identifyingpollutant control andpollution prevention technologies that will assist permit writers in developing facilityspecific technology-based effluent limitations on a bestprofessional judgment (BPJ) basis. In future annual reviews, EPA also intends to reevaluate each categorybased on the information available at the time in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the BPJpermit-based support. EPA also applied a lower priorityto categories without sufficient data to determine whether revision wouldbe appropriate. For any industrial categories marked "(5)" in the "Findings" column in Table V-I in sectionV.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 reportedpollutant discharges and number of facilities that represent the majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. For industrial categories marked "(4)" in the

.'Findings" column in TableV-I in sectionV.B.4 of this notice, EPA had sufficient information on the toxic-weightedpollutant discharges to continue or complete a detailed study of these industrial categories. For industrial categories marked "(6)" in the "Findings" column in TableV-I in sectionV.B.4 of this notice, EPA is identifying this industry for a revised effluent guidelines rulemaking.
[[Page 66291]]

Next, EPA consideredthe 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

orprocess technologies to reduce pollutant wastewater discharges beyond theperformance of the technologies upon which existing effluent guidelines and standards were developed. At present 46 states and one U.S. territory are authorizedto administer the CWA NPDES program. Under the CWA, permitting authorities must include water-qualitybased effluent limits where the technology-based effluent limits are not sufficient tomeet applicable water quality standards. Therefore, dischargers may have already installed technologies that reduce pollutant discharges to a level belowthe original technology-based requirements in order to meet such water-qualitybasedeffluent limitations. Analyzingthe significance of the remainingpollutant discharges is**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm** 

## 7m

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)

most useful for assessing the potential effectiveness of additional technologies because such an analysis focuses on the amount and significance ofpollutant discharges that would actuallybe removed through new, technology-based nationally-applicable regulations for 

### these categories. Where potential pollutant discharge reductions are not significant, there are likely few effective technology options for

a technology-based rule. Once EPA determinedwhich industries have the potential for significant additional pollutant removals, EPA further examinedthe availabilityof technologies for certain industries. For example, EPA identified technologies tominimize pollutant discharges from coalbedmethane extraction facilities (see CoalbedMethane Point Source Category: Detailed StudyReport, EPA-820-R-lO-022, DCN 09999). EPA also consideredwhether there was a way to develop a suitable tool for comprehensively evaluating the availability and affordability of treatment orprocess 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 gatheredinformation 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 whichEPA has commenced rulemaking. Such information-gathering is subject to the requirements of the Paperwork ReductionAct (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 existingpollutant discharges to identify the categories with the largest toxic-weighted discharges. Fromthis smaller list of categories, EPA evaluates the possibility of effective technologies and selects certain industries for further examination (e.g., Preliminary CategoryReviews, Detailed Studies). Additionally, when EPA becomes aware of the growth of a new industrial activitywithin an existing category or where new concerns
are identified for previously unevaluatedpollutants dischargedby 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 orpretreatment standards that shouldbe includedwith these existing categories, either as part of existing subcategories or as potential new subcategories. These industries are sometimes suggestedby commenters during thepublic comment period ormay come to EPA's attention in other ways. EPA also continuedto use the quality assurance projectplan (QAPP) developed for the 2009 annual review to document the type and quality of data needed tomake the decisions in this 2010 annual review and to describe the methods for collecting and assessing those data (see EPA820-R-10-021). EPA performedquality assurance checks on the dataused to develop estimates of toxic-weightedpollutant 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 ICISNPDES data for facilities that EPA had identified in its screeninglevel 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 hazardto human health and the environment. This enabledEPA to concentrate its resources on conductingmore in-depth reviews of the higher priority categories. b. Further Review of PrioritizedCategories EPA conducts a preliminary categoryreview when it lacks sufficient data to determine whether a regulatory revision wouldbe appropriate and for which EPA is performing a further assessment ofpollutant discharges before starting a detailed study. These assessments provide

an additional level of quality assurance on the reportedpollutant discharges and number of facilities that represent themajority of toxic-weightedpollutant discharges. In conducting a preliminary category review, EPA uses the same types of data sources used for the detailed studies or effluent guidelines developmentbut in less depth. As part of thepreliminary category reviews, EPA may evaluate technologies that could achieve better control ofpollutant 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 onhazard, availability and cost of technology options, and other factors in order to determine if it wouldbe appropriate to identify the category for**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm**

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011) 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 DeN 07320)

. 3. How did EPA's 2009 annual review influence its 2010 annual review of 

### point source categories withexisting effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards? In view of the annual nature of its reviews of existingeffluent guidelines andpretreatment standards, EPA believes that each annual review can and should influence succeedingannual reviews, e.g., by indicating data gaps, identifying newpollutants 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 existingeffluent guidelines andpretreatment standards for two industrial categories: Oil 

### and Gas Extraction category (Part 435) for the purpose of assessing whether to revise the limits to include coalbedmethane
[[Page 66292]

### 1

extraction as a new subcategory, and Hospitals (Part 460) which is part of the Health Care Industrydetailed studyon themanagement of unused pharmaceuticals. In addition, EPA conducted a preliminary study of the OreMining 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 andupdating toxic weighting factors. EPA publishedthe findings from its 2009 annual review with its preliminary 2010 Plan (December 28, 2009, 74 FRN 68599), making the pollutant discharge and industryprofile data available for public comment. DocketNo. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517. 4. How didEPA consider public comments in its 2010 annual review? EPA's annual reviewprocess considers informationprovidedby stakeholders regarding the need for new or revised effluent limitations guidelines andpretreatment standards. Public comments receivedon EPA's prior reviews and Plans helped theAgencyprioritize its analysis of existingeffluent guidelines andpretreatment standards during the 2010 review. Public comments, depending on the number, the issues, the data and information submittedandthe recommendations made therein,

can influence the annual review. In accordance with CWA section 304{m)(2), EPA publishedthe 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 theAgency's responses (see DCN 07368). The Agency received 51 sets of comments on thepreliminary 2010 Plans. Commenting organizations representing industry includedthe American Petroleum Institute, American Health CareAssociation, Independent PetroleumAssociation ofAmerica, National Association of CleanWaterAgencies, American Dental Association, AmericanWaterWorks Association, and theNational MiningAssociation. 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 ofhydraulic 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, BayArea Pollution Prevention Group and AlbanyMedical College). Comments were distributedamong the following subject areas, in order of abundance:

--CoalbedMethane and Shale Gas Extraction (40 comments) --Health Care Industry--(unusedpharmaceuticals) (35 comments) --Ore Mining and Dressing (2 comments) --SteamElectric Power Generation (2 comments) --Effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) and Planprocess in general (2 comments) --Dental Amalgam (1 comment) --Other (2 comments)

For coalbedmethane, there were seven comments that also expressed

concernwith the practice of shale gas extraction; 13 comments requesting that EPA examine shale gas extraction in 

### the coalbedmethane**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm**

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)
detailed study; seven requests to not add shale gas extraction to the coalbedmethane study; six commenters who suggestedthat EPA should do

a coalbedmethane ELG rule; and seven commenters who suggested that EPA not do a rule. For the Health Care industry, inparticular the management of unusedpharmaceuticals, EPA received three comments supporting the detailed study; three comments suggestingEPA work more closelywith 

### the u.s. DrugEnforcementAgency (DEA); four comments that explained EPA shouldworkwith the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) andhealth insurance companies to encourage unusedpharmaceutical returns and a coordinatedmessage about such; twelve comments indicatingEPA should developBMPs, disposal guidance, 

### flyers and other disposal information; three comments supporting take-backprograms; six 

### comments that suggested current disposal practices are barriers to return/reuse; and four comments indicating that pharmaceutical flushing shouldbe controlledby sewage treatment authorities. For the Ore Mining 

### and Dressing categorythere were two comments that statedEPA shouldnot develop a new ELG. For the SteamElectric Power Generation industry, which is 

### currentlyundergoing a revised

### ELG as a result of last year's Plan, there was one comment that supportedEPA's selection of the steam electric industry for rulemaking, and one commenter thatbelievedEPA made several errors in its detailed study final report. One commenter askedEPA to select the dental industry for an ELG rulemaking, arguing that the industry is 

### responsible for half of the national mercury loadings to PubliclyOwned Treatment Works (POTWs), and the ongoing activities 

### under the Dental Amalgam control MOU are insufficient. Amore detailed summarytable of the comments canbe found in the 2010 TSD, EPA-820-R-10-021 (DeN 07320). EPA carefully considered all public comments and information submittedin developing the final 2010 Plan. Acomment response document is 

### also available at (DeN 07368)

.
B. What were EPA's findings from its 2010 annual review 

### for categories subject to existing effluent guidelines andpretreatment standards?

1. Screening-Level Review In its 

### 2010 screening level review, 

### EPA consideredhazard, and the other factors described in 

### sectionV.A.2. above, inprioritizing 

### effluent guidelines for potential revision. 

### See Table V-l 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, EPA820-R-10-021, DCN 07320). Of the categories subject onlyto the screening level review in 

### 2010, EPA is 

### not identifying 

### any for effluent guidelines rulemaking at this time, 

### basedon the factors described in sectionV.A above and in light of the effluent guidelines rulemakings inprogress. EPA carefully examined the industrial categories currently regulatedby existing effluent guidelines 

### that cumulatively comprise 95% of the reportedhazard (reported in 

### units of toxic-weightedpound equivalent or TWPE). The TSD for the preliminary 

### 2010 Planpresents a summary of EPA's review 

### of these 21 industrial categories (see DeN 07320)

. EPA identified 

### one categorywhere additional data are required

### to evaluate toxic-weightedpollutant discharges. EPA will initiate 

### a preliminary category review 

### for the cellulosicproducts
[[Page 66293]

### 1

segment of the Plastics Molding and Forming (part 463) industrial category. AlthoughEPA identifiedonlyone industrial category for preliminary 

### category review 

### in the 2010 annual review, 

### EPA also identified

### that estimatedtoxic-weightedpollutant 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); andWaste Combustors (part 444). See Section IX of this notice for the requestedpublic comments. Based onnew data submittedwith public comment and screening-level data collectedas part of the 2011 annual review, 

### EPA intends to re-evaluate the categorytoxic-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 coalbedmethane industryand its 

### wastewater discharges. Coalbedmethane extraction is 

### considered a subcategoryof the Oil 

### and**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm** 

### 10127

### 5/2212014 Federal

### Register,Volume76Issue

### 207(Wednesday,0_26,

### 2011)
Gas Extraction Point Source Category, although it is not currently subject to the effluent guidelines promulgated for this category. Since 2006, the coalbedmethane 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 coalbedmethane extraction as well as for shale gas extraction, another subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category. Unlike coalbedmethane extraction, however, shale gas extraction is now subject to effluent guidelines for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, although there are currentlyno applicable categorical pretreatment standards for shale gas extraction. Coalbedmethane-produced water discharges can impact receiving surface waters and soils. Saline discharges from coalbedmethane operations can adversely affect aquatic life. The large volume ofwater discharged can also cause streambank erosion and salt deposition, creating hardpan soil. Long-term impacts include sodiumbuildup, reduction ofplant diversity, mobilization of salts and other elements, and alteration of surface and subsurface hydrology. Overview of Operations: Methane gas is naturally created during the geologicprocess of convertingplantmaterial to coal (coalification). To extract the methane, coalbedmethane operators drill wells into coal seams andpump out groundwater. Removing the ground water from the formation is necessary to produce coalbedmethane, as the water removal reduces the pressure and allows the methane to release from the coal toproduce flowing natural gas. In 2008, 252 coalbedmethane operators managed approximately 55,500 coalbedmethane wells in the U.S. in 13 distinct regions, calledbasins. ProducedWater The ground water that has beenpumped out of the well, called "producedwater," like most ground water found deepbelowthe 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 quantifythe amount ofpollutants in coalbedmethane producedwaters, EPA reliedon measuring total dissolved solids (TDS) and electrical conductivity (EC), which arebulk parameters for quantifying the total amount of dissolved solids in a wastewater. A single coalbedmethane well can discharge thousands of gallons of produced waterper day, andmay discharge produced water for anywhere from 5 to 15 years. Coalbedmethane wells have a distinctive production history characterizedby an early stagewhen large amounts ofwater are producedto reduce reservoir pressure which in turn encourages release of gas; a stable stage when quantities ofproduced gas increase as the quantities ofproducedwater decrease; and a late stage when the amount of gas produced declines and waterproduction remains low. The quantity and quality ofproduced water varies frombasin to basin, within a particularbasin, from coal seamto coal seam, and over the lifetime of a coalbedmethane well. For example, coalbedmethane 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 Producedwater Coalbedmethane operators need to dispose of thousands of gallons ofproduced waterper day for each coalbedmethane well. Operators can employ a range of options for treatment and management of this wastewater. preliminaryestimates based on survey datapredict that approximately 47 billion gallons of producedwater arepumped 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 BlackWarrior Basin inAlabama andMississippi (11% of total coalbedmethane surface discharges), the Powder River Basin in Wyoming andMontana (72% of total coalbedmethane 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, coalbedmethane operators are, for the most part, able to prevent discharging their produced waterby discharging the water to land (where there may be other impacts to the soil or vegetation), re-injecting the produced waterback into the ground, or using the water in one ofmany beneficial use options (e.g., stockwatering, irrigation). Treatment of ProducedWaters 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 coalbedmethane basins throughout the country and gathered information on potential treatment**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm** 

### 11127

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011) technologies for coalbedmethane-producedwater discharges. EPA also conducted widespread outreachwith stakeholders, both in the industry and from the communities adjacent to coalbedmethane basins. EPA conductedmore than 30 sitevisits to locations in six coalbedmethane basins andmet 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

[[Page 66294]1
require evenmore detailed information. EPA developed an industry questionnaire, solicitedpublic comment twice, and in 2009 obtainedOMB approval under the PaperworkReduction Act, to conduct a mandatory survey directed at operators of coalbedmethane projects which consist of a single well or a group of wells operatedby 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 coalbedmethane projects. Questionnaire responses arrived in early 2010 and the data was usedbyEPA to create national estimates ofpollutant discharges across the country from the coalbedmethane industry and to develop an economic profile of the industry. In response to the 2010 preliminary Plan, EPA received 32 comments

on coalbedmethane extraction. Comments from industry sources did not support rulemaking for coalbedmethane, suggesting an effluent guideline was not appropriate due to the variability ofproduced water quality, quantity and available management techniques across the country. Additionally, industry stated that the current regulatory framework of site-specific BPJpermits was adequately addressing pollutant discharges fromproducedwater discharges. The final detailed study report for coalbedmethane is being issued concurrentwith the publication of this FR Notice and is a part of the final 2010 Plan. The study report is available at DCN 09999. Coalbedmethane production represents about 8% of natural gas production in this country, and coalbedmethane extraction is expected to continue for decades. Of the 22 billion gallons ofwater discharged to surfacewater each year some has high total dissolved solids. The detailed study also found that there are readily available technologies to treat this producedwater. As a result of the information gathered in the detailed study, EPA has decided to initiate rulemaking for coalbedmethane extraction, a currentlyunregulated subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category. 3. Results of PreliminaryCategory Reviews

areMining and Dressing (Part 440) As discussed in the 2008 Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, EPA conducted a preliminary study of facilities coveredunder 40 CFR part 440 "areMining and Dressing Point Source Category" to examine why toxic weightedpollutant discharges bythe ore mining industry ranked relatively high compared to other industries in the 2002 through 2008 annual reviews. The purpose of the studywas to identify, collect, and reviewreadily 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 warrantedtobetter control toxic discharges. The preliminary study focused on active oremines coveredunder 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 oremines in the United States. Inactive ore mines were not included as they are not coveredby the effluent guidelines. Approximately 294 oremines currentlyhave 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 oremines have wastewater discharges. The approximately 1,870 placermines, coveredunder 40 CFR part 440 subpart M, were not examined in this studybecause they employ miningpractices andwastewater streams that are fundamentally different frommines coveredunder the other subparts of 40 CFR part 440.The preliminary studyexamined informationpertaining to the two types of wastewater dischargedby oremines: Process wastewater (includingmine drainage) and stormwater. Process wastewater is covered under 40 CFR part 440. Stormwater is not coveredunder 40 CFR part 440 unless it is commingled withprocess wastewater prior to discharge to a surface waterbody. The studywas limitedby incomplete national-level process wastewater discharge data, and the lack of any nationally representative stormwater data for the oremines of interest. EPA did review available oremine-specificprocess wastewater discharge information, available TotalMaximum DailyLoad (TMDL) reports, information for ore mine site stormwater discharges, and an industrial**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm** 

### 12fn

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)

wastewater treatment technology, known as high density sludge recycling, which was identified during the course of the study. Based onEPA's review of toxicpollutant data, EPA found that in 2007, the most recent year for which quality-checked data are available, approximately only two percent of ore mining facilities were responsible for approximately 90 percent of toxic weighted discharges by the oremining industry for toxicpollutants. Given that only a small percentage of active oremines account for the majority of toxic weighted discharges, this canbestbe 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 toxicpollutant data does not suggest that EPA revisit the ELG for oremining and dressing (40 CFR part 440) at this time, the Agency currently remains concerned about many other types of mining-relatedwater quality impairments. EPA has a number of activities that address discharges ofpollutants frommines including interimguidance on Improving EPA Review ofAppalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations Under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental PolicyAct, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order, plans to revise the water quality criteria for selenium, increased attention on compliancewith, and enforcement of, individual permit limits; improved permitting guidance andmore stringent discharge monitoring requirements inpermits. The OreMining Preliminary Study report is being issued concurrent with thepublication of this FR Notice and represents a portion of the final 2010 Plan. The Ore Mining Preliminary Study report (EPA-820-R-I0- 025) is available at DCN 07369. 4. Other Reviews Shale Gas Extraction Overview As discussed in theMarch 2011 "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future," ("Blueprint") the production of domestic natural gas enhances energy security and fuels ournation's economy (DCN 07496). In 2010, U.S. natural gas production reached its highest level inmore than 30 years withmuch 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 expectedto continue. The U.S. Department of Energyprojects 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
[[Page 66295]

### 1

ensure natural gas is developed in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. The "Blueprint" lists several initiatives to support these goals, includingdisclosure of fracturing chemicals, publicmeetings, EPA- and DOE-led research, the establishment of an expert panel to examine fracturing issues, and technical assistance to State regulators. Inparticular, the "Blueprint" directedthe Secretary ofEnergy, in consultationwith the EPA Administrator and Secretary of the Interior, to task the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) with establishinga subcommittee to examine issues related to shale gas production through hydraulic fracturing. The subcommittee is supportedbyDOE, EPA and DOl, and its membership extends beyond SEAB members to include leaders from industry, the environmental community, academia, and states. The subcommittee is working to identifyboth immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of fracturing and to provide consensus recommended advice to the agencies onpractices for shale extraction to

ensure theprotection ofpublic 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 waterpollution. The report also recommends a range of tools for implementing these measures, including regulation, continuous improvement inbest 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 associatedwith hydraulic fracturing. This is part of the Administration's commitment in the "Blueprint" to continue to review existing regulatory structures governingboth onshore and offshore oil and gas development to identifypotential efficiencies in those processes and any crucial gaps that pose safety and environmental risks. EPA will carefullyconsider the SEAB's preliminaryand final recommendations as EPA develops regulatory options. EPA's regulatory**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm** 

### 13127

### 512212014 FaclE

... 1Register,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

### 0_26,2011)
action will complement and benefit bythe initiatives already announced in the President's "Blueprint." Introduction The production of natural gas from shale formations has increased

over thepast few years and the upward trend is expectedto continue. For example, data from the pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection shows that the number of shale gas wells drilled in Pennsylvania increased substantially in the past few years, with more wells drilled andpermits issuedbetween January andApril of 2010, than during all of 2008 (DeN 07474). As the number of shale gas wells 

### intheU.S. increases, sotoo does thevolume of shalegaswastewater 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 PreliminaryEffluent 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 assertedthat a shale gas rulemaking was not needed since existingOil and Gas Effluent Guidelines require zero discharge from shale gas extraction. Although the existing regulations for onshore oil and gas extractionprohibit direct discharges of wastewaters from shale gas extraction, the current regulations do not containpretreatment standards for pollutants associatedwith these discharges. EPA also has data that document pollutants in wastewaters associatedwith shale gas extraction are not treatedby the technologies typicallyused at publiclyand privately owned treatment facilities (DCN 07477 and DCN 07472Al). EPA ultimatelydecided not to expand the Coal BedMethane Study to include shale gas extraction. However, as a result ofpublic comments, EPA began reviewing available data to inform a decision on whether or not a rulemaking to establishpretreatment standards for shale gas extractionwas appropriate. Overview of Shale Gas Operations The term "Shale Gas" is typicallyused to describe natural gas trappedin underground shale deposits. Well operators use theprocess ofhydraulic 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 highpressures 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 tobe fractured, the classes of compounds in the fluids are largely the same. The major components of fracturing fluid are water andproppant (typically sand), used to keep the fractures open after the fracturing has been complete, and chemical additives. EPA has reviewed data presentedby 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 developedjointlyby the GroundWater Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Commission of chemicals used in fracturing fluids voluntarilyprovided by oil and gas companies (bttp'Uw

## ww fracfpcll§ prg). Aportion 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 retainedin the formation will ultimately return to the surface as "flowback" or "producedwater." These wastewaters may contain the chemicals originally found in the fracturing fluids as well as other naturally occurring constituents thatmay be released into the fluid as the rock formations are broken. ProducedWaters From Shale Gas Extraction A shale gas well has two distinctphases of waterproduction 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 "flowbackperiod." 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 andpresentations report thatvolumes ranging from 10- 75% of the injected fracturing fluids are returned during the flowback period. The amount of "flowback" is dependent, inpart, on the geology of the shalebasin (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 Energyprovideddata indicating that "long term" produced water volumes range from 200-1,000 gallons permillion cubic feet of gas 

### hUp:llwAw.gpo.g**O\Ifds)8l~IFR-2011-1**

### Cl-26'htrrI12011-277 42.htm 

### 14127

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)

[[Page 66296]1

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 publishedby 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 (NonDetect--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 (Non-Detect--3,700 ppb), pyridine (Non-Detect--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.**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm** 

### 15127

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)
This practice has increasedover the last couple of years, especially in regions of the countrywhere fresh water is not plentiful.

\1\ In order to prepare shale gas wastewater for re-use, 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.

When injection and re-use are not viable options for shale gas wastewater disposal, operators may dispose of this wastewaterby sending it to POTWs or toprivate centralizedwaste treatment facilities (CWTs). The vastmajority of POTWs employ equalization, bulk solids removal, biological treatment, and disinfection. POTWs are likelyeffective 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 ofmetals \2\; it is believed that much of these pollutants pass through the POTW untreated. Many CWTs, of which 90% discharge to POTWs, are similarlynot designed to treat for high TDS or NORM (DCN 07474).

\2\ Metcalf 

### &Eddy Inc. (2003) Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse McGraw-Hill, New York.

High concentrations of TDS may also leadto 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 wastewaterbyvolume) to reduce pollutant concentrations through dilution toprevent POTW inhibition (DCN 07474). Local Limits for Shale Gas ExtractionWastewater Introductions to POTWs Under the CleanWater Act statutoryand regulatory framework, POTWs must establish requirements for any introduction ofwastewater 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 interferewith the operation of the POTW or the beneficial

use of its sewage sludge). POTWs are subject to the secondarytreatment 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

[[Page 66297]]

basedeffluent 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

concernhere, or that POTWs have water quality-basedeffluent limitations (WQBELs) for suchparameters. possible Impacts of Shale Gas Wastewater Discharges to DrinkingWater Sources andAquatic 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 canbe as high as 400,000 ppm. Available data indicates the levels of TDS in shale gas wastewaters can often exceedrecommended drinking water concentrations \3\ by a factor of 200. Because TDS concentrations in fresh non-brackish drinking water

sources are typically well belowthe recommended drinking water levels, few drinking water treatment facilities have technologies to remove TDS.

\3\ Two published standards regarding TDS include EPA's secondarymaximum contaminant level for TDS of 500 ppm and the U.S. Public Health Service recommendation that TDS in drinking water shouldnot exceed 500 ppm.

Aquatic life toxicity of freshwater contaminatedwithhigh TDS is dependent on the specific ionic composition of the water. In shale gas wastewaters, the largest single contributor to TDS is chlorides. Macroinvertebrates, andmore specifically aquatic insects, have an open circulatory system and are more sensitive topollutants like chloride,**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm** 

### 16127

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)
which at elevatedexposure concentrations, negatively affect their ability tomaintain the right concentration of salts andwater in the body, which involves excretingmetabolic wastes that wouldbe toxic to the organism if 

### allowed to accumulate. Basedon laboratory toxicity data fromEPA's 1988 chloride criteria document andmore recent studies, invertebrate sensitivity to chloride acute effect concentrations ranged from 953 ppm to 13,691ppm 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 exceedthe acute effect concentrationby a factor of over 100 \4\ (DCN 07482A15).

\4\ As discussed, many of the POTWs that accept shale gas wastewaters blend small volumes with traditional POTW wastewaters and reducepollutant concentrations through dilution, so high concentrations in shale gas wastewaters do not necessarily leadto concentrations that exceed aquatic life criteria at the point of discharge.

In addition to the laboratory data, EPA also has data from a 2009 Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protectionviolation report documenting a fishkill attributed to a spill of dilutedproducedwater in Hopewell Township, PA. A sample of the receiving water at the location of the fishkill was analyzed andTDS 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, includingmortalities (DCN 07471).\5\

\5\ While not relatedto shale gas wastewater, negative impacts ofhigh TDS, including fish kills, were documented during 2009 at DunkardCreek located inMonongalia County, Pennsylvania.

Moreover, bromide found in shale gas wastewatermay reactwith disinfectants used at water treatmentplants, creatingpotentially harmful disinfectionbyproducts 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 ithas the potential to improve air quality, increase stability in energyprices, andprovide greater certainty about future energy reserves. Also, natural gas can
serve as a bridge fuel from coal to evenmore efficient energy sources that can further reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Natural gas holds greatpotential for our energy future and for our environment andEPA supports the commitment in the "Blueprint," to responsible development of this important domestic resource and toproactively addressing the concerns that have been raised regardingpotential negative impacts associatedwith hydraulic fracturing of shale formations. We have heard from the public and environmental organizations that they are concerned about the safety ofnatural gas production and the possible impacts that shale gas development couldhave onAmerican 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 askedthat national standards be promulgated, andhave also requested resources to help deal with these possible impacts. We have also heard from industry that shale gas extraction is currently regulatedunder the existing Oil 

### and Gas Effluent Limitation Guidelines andthose regulations are sufficient. What we know is that shale gas extraction generates extremely large volumes ofwastewater that contain considerable pollutant loads. Some of this is 

### being responsibly reinjected into appropriate underground wells; othervolumes of wastewater are likelynotbeing treated effectivelyby existing treatment facilities. Resulting discharges have thepotential to affect bothdrinking water supplies and aquatic life. These concerns and issues will not dissipate as shale gas production is expectedto increase. As a result, EPA has decided to initiate ru1emaking to decide the appropriate level of pretreatment standards for this industry. As noted above, EPA will carefully consider the SEAS'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**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm** 

### 17m

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)
operators on well drilling and fracturing operations, producedwater characteristics, andwastewatermanagement. In addition to the site visits, EPA will reach out to stakeholders and other affectedentities to identify andbetter understand concerns regardingenvironmental impacts associatedwith fracturing wastewater andpotential industry implications of the regulation. Finally, EPA will begin 

### theprocess of developing and seeking approval to distribute a nationally representative survey to collect information on the shale gas industry. This surveywill assist EPA in obtainingnational data on the operations, economics, and wastewater characteristics associatedwith hydraulic fracturing, as well as datapertaining to available treatment technologies for shale gas wastewater. In 2010, Congress directedEPA to "carry out a study on the relationshipbetween hydraulic fracturing and
[[Page 66298]

### 1
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 conductedthrough a transparent, peerreviewedprocess 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 studyplan to the Science AdvisoryBoard for peer review. InMarch andMay 2011, the Science AdvisoryBoard subcommitteemet toprovide peer review of the EPA's draft studyplan. Consistentwith the operatingprocedures of the SAB, an opportunitywas provided for stakeholders andthe public to provide comments for the SAB to take into account during their review. EPA is revising the studyplan in response to the SAB's comments and initial study results are expectedbythe end of 2012. However, certain portions of the workwill be long-termprojects that are not likely to be finished at that time. Additional reports of study findings will be published as the longer-termprojects 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 collectedpursuant to this new rulemaking will be sharedwith the EPA office that is conducting the Congressionally-mandated study. Shouldthe report orEPA's rulemaking survey, in combination with other data gathering andpublic outreach, indicate that POTWs are already adequately treating shale gas wastewater so that it is not causingpass through or interference with POTW operations, including sludgemanagement, EPA is open to adjusting its rulemakingplans accordingly. However, EPA believes thatbeginning rulemaking now, and particularly the data collection necessaryto support such a rule, is

an appropriate step given what we already know about wastewater discharges from the industry. 5. Summary of 2010 Annual ReviewFindings The summary of the findings of the 2010 annual review is presented below in Table V-I (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 categorywere recently revisedthrough 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 thebest tool for this industrial categorybecause most of the toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges are from

one or a few facilities in this industrial category. EPA will consider assistingpermitting authorities in identifyingpollutant control and pollutionprevention technologies for the development of technologybasedeffluent limitations bybestprofessional judgment (BPJ) on a facility-specific basis. (3) Not identifiedas a prioritybasedon 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

orwill continue to review discharges using screening-level data because incomplete data are currentlyavailable to determine whether to conduct a detailed study or identify for possible revision. EPA typicallyperforms a further assessment of the pollutant discharges before starting a detailed studyof the industrial category. This assessmentprovides an additional level of quality assurance on the reportedpollutant discharges and number of facilities that represent themajority of toxic-weightedpollutant discharges. EPA may also**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm** 

### 18127

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)
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-!--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.

1

................. 2

................. Industry category

(listed alphabetically)

Aluminum Forming Asbestos

Manufacturing. 3.

..... ........... Battery Manufacturing. 4.•••••••••••••••• Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetable Processing. 5.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing. 6.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Carbon Black Manufacturing. 7.

..... ........... Cement Manufacturing. 8.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Centralized Waste Treatment. 9................. Coal Mining

..... 10...

.. ........... Coil Coating

.... 11

................ Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)

. 12

................ Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production. 13

................ Construction and Development. 14...

.. ........... Copper Forming

.. 15

................ Dairy Products Processing. 16.

.. . . . . . . . . . . ... Electrical and Electronic Components. 17.

. . . . . . . . . . . . ... Electroplating

.. 18.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explosives Manufacturing. 19...

.. ........... Ferroalloy Manufacturing. 20...

.. ........... Fertilizer Manufacturing. 21...

.. ........... Glass Manufacturing.

[[Page 66299]]

22

................ Grain Mills

..... 23

................ Gum and wood Chemicals. 24

................ Hospitals

....... 25

................ Ink Formulating. 26

................ Inorganic Chemicals [Note 1J. 27

................ Iron and Steel Manufacturing. 28

................ Landfills

....... 29

................ Leather Tanning and Finishing. 30

................ Meat and Poultry Products. 31

................ Metal Finishing. 40 CFR Part**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()._12011-27742.htm** 467 .27

461

'07

'08

.58

411

437

43' 465 412

.51

.50

468 .05

46.

413 .57

.2.

418

.26

'06 '5'

.60 447 415

.20

445 .25

432

433 Findings 

### *

(1) 

### and (3) (3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3) (3) (1)

(1)

(1)

(3) (3)

(3)

(1) (3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3) (3)

(1) (3) (3)

(1)

(5) (3)

(1)

(1)


### 19127

### 5/2212014

32.

. . . . . . . . . . . . ... Metal Molding and Casting. 33...

.. ........... Metal Products andMachinery. 34

................ Mineral Mining and processing. 35...

.. ........... Nonferrous Metals Forming andMetal Powders. 36...

.. ........... Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing. 37...

.. ........... Oil and Gas Extraction. 38

................ Ore Mining and 

### Dressing. 39...

.. ........... Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers [Note 1]. 40...

.. ........... Paint Formulating. 41...

.. ........... Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars andAsphalt). 42.

. . . . . . . . . . . . ... Pesticide Chemicals. 43...

.. ........... Petroleum Refining. 44...

.. ........... Pharmaceutical Manufacturing. 45...

.. ........... Phosphate Manufacturing. 46................ Photographic

.... 47

................ PlasticMolding and Forming. 48...

.. ........... Porcelain Enameling. 49...

.. ........... Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard. 50...

.. ........... Rubber Manufacturing. 51

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing. 52.

. . . . . . . . . . . . ... SteamElectric

53

................ 54

................ 55

................ Power Generating. Sugar processing TextileMills

... Timber Products

Processing. 56

................ Transportation Equipment Cleaning. 57...

.. ........... Waste Combustors 

### FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)

464 (3)

438 (1)

436 (5)

471 (3)

421 (2)

435 (6)

440 (2)

414 (1) and (3)

446 (3)

443 (3)

455 (3)

419 (3)

439 (3)

422 (3)

459 (3) 463 (5)

466 (3)

430 (5)

428 (3)

417 (3)

423 (1)

409 (3) 410 (3) 429 (3)

442 (3)

444 (5)


### * The descriptions of the "Findings" codes are presentedimmediately

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)**"~I** refers to the ongoing effluent guidelines rulemaking for the Chlorinatedand Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH) manufacturing sector, which includes facilities currently regulatedby the OCPSF and Inorganics effluent guidelines. The secondcode ("(3)") indicates that the remainder of the facilities in these two categories does not represent a hazardpriority 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 Dischargedto 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 approvedpretreatmentprograms must develop local limits to**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()._12011-27742.htm**

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207

### (Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011) implement the general pretreatment standards. All other POTWs must develop such local limits where theyhave experienced "pass through"

or "interference" and such a violation is likely to recur. There are approximately 1,500 POTWs with approvedpretreatment programs and 

### 13,500 small POTHs that are not required to develop and implement pretreatment programs. In addition, EPA establishes technology-basednational regulations, termed "categorical pretreatment standards," for categories of 

### industrydischargingpollutants to POTNs thatmaypass 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 suchpretreatment standards for 35 industrial categories. One of the tools traditionally usedbyEPA in evaluatingwhether pollutants "pass through" a POTW, is a comparison of the percentage of a pollutant removedby PQTWs with the percentage of the pollutant removedbydischarging facilities applyingBAT. Pretreatment standards for existing sources are technologybasedand are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines. Inmost cases, EPA has concluded that

a pollutant passes through the POTW when themedianpercentage removed nationwideby representative POTWs (those meeting secondarytreatment requirements) is less than themedianpercentage removedby facilities complyingwithBAT effluent limitations guidelines for thatpollutant. This approach to the definition of "pass through" satisfies two competing objectives set byCongress: (1) That standards for indirect dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers; and (2) that the treatment capability andperformance of PQTWs be recognized and taken into account in
[[Page 66300]]
regulating the discharge ofpollutants from indirect dischargers. The term "interference" means a discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, both: (I) Inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or operations, or its sludgeprocesses, 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 orpermits. See 40 CFR 403.3(k). To determine thepotential for "interference," EPA generallyevaluates 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 comparedtopollutants typically found in domestic wastewaters); (2) concentrations of pollutants discharged in industrial wastewaters thatmight cause interference with the POTW collection system, the POTW treatment system, orbiosolids disposal options; and (3) the potential for variablepollutant loadings to cause interferencewith POTW operations (e.g., batch discharges or slug loadings from industrial facilities interferingwithnormal POTW operations). If EPA determines a categoryof indirect dischargers causes pass through or interference, EPA wouldthen consider the BAT and BPT factors (including "such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate") specifiedin section 304(b) to determine whether to establishpretreatment standards for these activities. Examples of "such other factors" include a consideration of the magnitude of the hazardposedbythe pollutants discharged as measuredby: (1) The total annual TWPE dischargedbythe 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 underpart 403) or voluntarymeasures wouldbetter control the pollutant discharges from this categoryof 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 broaddiscretion topromulgate 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 concernwithpass 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 andpossible human health through drinking water sources. As a result ofpublic comments on the Final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, EPA initiated a studyof unusedpharmaceutical disposal practices**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1C1-_12011-27742.htm** 

### 21m

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)

at health care facilities. The focus of this studywas on disposal to water via sewers. 

### EPA studiedmedical facilities; including, hospitals, hospices, long-termcare facilities, health care clinics, physician offices, andveterinary facilities. A standarddisposal practice at many health care facilities is to flush unusedpharmaceuticals down the toilet or drain. Unusedpharmaceuticals include leftovermedication that is expired, not dispensed, and/or partiallyused, andresidues from delivery devices. During the study, EPA conducted intensive outreach to over 700 stakeholders and evaluated a range ofmanagement practices to reduce the generation of unusedpharmaceuticals and their disposal down the drain. Basedon the information collectedthrough the outreach, EPA has drafted a guidance document, "BestManagement Practices for Unused Pharmaceuticals at Health Care Facilities". The guidance document was made available for a 60 daypublic review and comment as announced in a Federal Register Notice, publishedon 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 orminimize the amount of pharmaceuticals being disposed in water:

--Conduct an inventory ofpharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical waste to quantifythe amount ofmedication the facility is disposing of; --Reducepharmaceutical waste by reviewingpurchasingpractices, use limiteddose or unit dose dispensing, replace pharmaceutical samples with vouchers, and perform on-going inventory control and stock rotation; --Reuse or donate unusedpharmaceuticals when possible; return unused pharmaceuticals to the pharmacy; sendunusedpharmaceuticals to a
reverse distributor for credit andproper 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 nonhazardous 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 consistentwith 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 significantmajority of dentists began utilizing amalgam separators and statedthat 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 theMemorandum of Understandingto Reduce DentalAmalgam 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 andmunicipal wastewater treatment plants (publicly owned treatment works--POTWs) are working toward the goal of reducing discharges ofmercury into sewer collection systems. Many studies have been conductedin an attempt to identify the

sources ofmercury entering these collection systems. According to the 2002 Mercury Source Control and Pollution Prevention Program Final Report prepared for the National Association of CleanWater Agencies (NACWA), dental offices are the largest source ofmercury discharges to POTWs. The American
[[Page 66301]

### 1

DentalAssociation (ADA) estimated in 2003 that up to 50% ofmercury entering POTWs was causedby 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 exclusivelyto POTWs. Mercury in dental wastewater originates from waste particles associatedwith the placement and removal of amalgam fillings. Most dental offices currentlyuse some type ofbasic filtration systemto reduce the amount ofmercury solids passing into the sewer system. However, bestmanagement practices and the installation of amalgam separators, which generallyhave a removal efficiency of 95% or greater, can reduce discharges even further. Arecent study fundedby NACWA (see DCN 04225) concluded that the use of amalgam separators**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm**

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)
results in reductions in POTH influent concentrations and biosolids mercury concentrations. In December, 2008 EPA entered into theMOU withNACWA andADA. The purpose of the MOU was to estimate the number of dental facilities with amalgam separators installed, establish interimgoals 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 voluntarybasis were largely unsuccessful. Additionally, several environmental organizations have urgedEPA to establishpretreatment standards for dental amalgam. The Quicksilver Caucus commented on thepreliminary 2010 Plan requesting that EPA initiate a rulemaking to establishpretreatment standards for discharges of dental amalgam. Given the human health and aquatic-life 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 waterpollutionproblem.

VII. The Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

EPA views the effluent guidelines planningprocess as a mechanism designed to promote regular and transparent priority-setting on the part of the Agency. Aplan is ultimately a statement of choices and priorities. These priorities necessarilyneed to take into account all the other statutorymandates andpolicy initiatives designed to implement the CWA's goals and the funds appropriatedby Congress to execute them. By requiring this planningprocess, culminating in the publication of a plan afterpublic notice and comment, Congress assured that EPA wouldregularly re-evaluate its policy choices and priorities (includingwhether to identifyan activity for effluent guidelines rulemaking) to account for changedcircumstances. Ultimately, however, Congress left the content of theplan 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 ExistingEffluent Guidelines under Section 304(b)

1. Schedule for 2011 and 2012 Annual Reviews Under Section 304(b) As notedin 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 promulgatedunder 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 ofpreliminary and final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans under CWA section 304(m). In otherwords, in odd-numbered years, EPA intends to complete its annual review upon publication of the preliminaryEffluent Guidelines Program Plan that EPA mustpublish for public review and comment under CWA section 304(m)(2). In even-numberedyears, EPA intends to complete its annual review upon the publication of the final Plan. EPA's 2011 annual review is the review cycle endingupon the publication of the preliminary Plan in 2011 and its 2012 annual review is the review cycle endingupon publication of the 2012 final Plan. 2. Schedule for Revision of Effluent Guidelines PromulgatedUnder Section 304(b) Currently, EPA is engaged in effluent limitations guideline (ELG) rulemakings to revise the following existing guidelines: SteamElectric Power Generation--this rulemaking involves the revision of an existingELG for about 1200 power-generating facilities with a particular focus on about 500 coal-firedpowerplants. The decision to revise the current effluent guidelines for this industry

was largelydriven by the high level of toxic-weightedpollutant discharges from coal fired powerplants 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 ChlorinatedHydrocarbons Manufacturing--EPA is currently conducting a rulemaking topotentially revise existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for the following categories: Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) and Inorganic Chemicals (to address discharges fromVinyl 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**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm**

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)
steps for this survey and the rulemaking as itreviews data from a voluntary industrymonitoringprogram. EPA workedwith industry to develop the extensive monitoringprogram 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 explainedin SectionV.B.2, EPA is initiatinga rulemaking for CoalbedMethane Extraction, a currently unregulated subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source 

### Category. Because of concern over high TDS levels in thewastewater for Coalbed, availability of treatment technologies, and the fact that CoalbedMethaneproduction 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 Planmust identify categories of

sources discharging non-trivial amounts of toxic or non-conventional pollutants for which EPA has notpublishedeffluent 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
[[Page 66302]]

must also establish a schedule for the promulgation of effluent guidelines for the categories identifiedunder section 304(m) (1)(B) not later than three years after such identification. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(C). EPA is currentlytaking the following actions on new industry categories: Airport De-icing--This final ELG rulemaking addresses the environmental impact of aircraft and airfielddeicing fluid on the environment at the about 200 airports in this country that conduct deicing operations. This rule is complicatedby the shared responsibility for deicing operations between the airports and the airlines that use them. EPA currentlyplans to issue a final rule for this category in 2011. DrinkingWater Treatment Industry--EPAis not at this time continuing its effluent guidelines rulemaking for the DrinkingWater Treatment industry. In the 2004 Plan, EPA announced that it wouldbegin development of a regulation to control thepollutants discharged from drinking water treatment plants. See 69 FR 53720 (September 2, 2004). Basedon a preliminary study and on public comments, EPA was interested in the potential volume of discharges associated with drinking water facilities. Thepreliminarydata 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 otherpriorities, EPA has suspended work on this rulemaking. The ELG Program is also developing the coolingwater 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 powerplants andmanufacturing facilities which withdraw water for coolingpurposes. Also for the 2010 Plan, EPA is issuingthe detailed study report for the coalbedmethane industry and is issuing the preliminary study report for the OreMining and Dressing industry, and will be taking no further action on this industry at this time. EPA initiateda preliminary study of cellulosemanufacturers in the PlasticMolding 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 onlythose 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 itbelieves that effluent guidelines may be appropriate, taking into account Agencypriorities, 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)**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm** 

### 241'n

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)
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 topublicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that may cause paas-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 rulernaking 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 ofmercury each year to publiclyowned 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 demonstratedthrough voluntarymeans 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 Categorybut not to applicablepretreatment standards. Because of concern overhigh 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 SteamElectric Power Generation: Schedules Airport Deicing: --Final ELG Rule--Fall 2011 SteamElectric Power Generation: --ProposedRule--July 2012 --Final Rule--January 2014

E. New Rulemakings

DentalAmalgam Schedule to Develop the Regulation for DentalAmalgam: --ProposedRule--October 2011 --Final Rule--October 2012 CoalbedMethane Extraction Schedule to Develop the Regulation for CoalbedMethane Extraction: --ProposedRule--2013 Shale Gas Extraction Schedule to Develop the Regulation for Shale Gas Extraction: --ProposedRule--2014

These Agency decisions, announcements and the studies described previously fulfill EPA's obligations to annually reviewboth 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 ExistingEffluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 304(m) and 307(b)

This notice alsoprovides 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 notedin section IV.B, CWA section 304(m)(1)(A) requires EPA to publish a Plan everytwo years that establishes a schedule for the annual review andrevision, in accordance with section 304(b), of the effluent guidelines that EPA has promulgatedunder that

[[Page 66303]

### 1

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 existingeffluent guidelines with its publication of thepreliminary and final Plans under CWA section 304(m). In other words, in oddnumbered years, EPA intends to complete its annual review upon publication of the preliminary Plan that EPA mustpublish for public**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm**

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)
review andcomment 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 planningeffort, 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 whichEPA can schedule rulernaking in the Plan, orbycalling 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 servedby 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 envisionedby 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 

### ifso, 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 shouldprovide 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 dischargedpollutants), 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**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm**

### 5/2212014 FederalRegister,Volume76Issue207(Wednesday,

# 0_26,2011)
withpretreatment standards and local limits but are not typically electronically transmitted to the States or EPA Regions. 

### 6. Data and Information on Discharges of Pollutants FromWaste Combustors EPA solicits data and information on discharges of wastewater from waste combustors. DMR 

### data suggest the consistent discharge ofmetals andpossible discharge ofpesticides fromwaste 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 andpesticide 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 thepollutants generatedby the Shale Gas extraction industry. InparticularEPA is 

### soliciting data and information on the type of pollutants in shale gas wastewaters, including the type and toxicity of additives, thevolumes of flowback and concentrations of thepollutants in the flowback, the fate and transport ofpollutants to ground waters, and data and information on thepass-through ofpollutants at publiclyowned treatment works (POTHs). EPA also solicits documented impacts of thesepollutants on aquatic life andhuman health. 8. Data and Information on Discharges of Nanosilver From Industrial Manufacturing Nanosilver is becoming a more commonlyused substance in industrial materials and commercial products as an active pesticide ingredient. In

some uses, fabric is impregnatedwith
[[Page 66304]

### 1

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 leadto nanosilver discharges. Otherproducts, such as household washingmachines, are beingmanufactured with the washer drum coatedwith nanosilver polymers to kill bacteria during clothes laundering. Sincemany of the nanosilver applications have thepotential to create a source of silver inwastewater discharges from industries using nanosilver in the manufacture ofproducts, or use ofproducts 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 themanufacture, use, and environmental release of silvermaterials, includingnanosilver. EPA is requesting information on the manufacturing of silvermaterials, including:

--Raw silverproducts, such as colloidal nanosilver; --Intermediates such as polymers or fibers embeddedwith silver, nanosilver, or silver compounds; and --Endproducts, such as silver-embeddedtextile andplasticproducts,

or appliances with nanosilver coated surfaces.

Dated: October 20, 2011. Nancy K. Stoner, ActingAssistantAdministrator for Water. [FR Doc. 2011-27742 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P**hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm** 

## zrl'n