512212014 FaclE ... 1 Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2011)] 

[Notices] 

[Pages 66286-66304] 

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [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 Program Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice presents the final 2010 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan("final 2010 Plan"), which, as required under the Clean 

water Act (CWA), identifies any new or existing industrial dischargers, 

both those discharging directly to surface waters and those discharging 

to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), selected for effluent 

guidelines rulemaking and provides a schedule for such rulemakings. CWA 

section 304(m) requires EPA to biennially publish such a plan after 

public notice and comment. The Agency published the preliminary 2010 

Plan on December 28, 2009 (74 FR 68599) and solicited comments from the 

public for 60 days. 

After considering rulemakings already in development, the 2010 

reviews, the preliminary Plan and public comments and input to 

determine what, if any, new rulemakings should be initiated, EPA has 

decided to develop effluent guidelines and standards for the discharge 

of wastewater from the Coalbed Methane Extraction (CBM) industry and 

will develop pretreatments requirements for discharges of mercury from 

the Dental industry, and for the discharges of wastewater from the 

Shale Gas Extraction (SGE) industry. 

EPA is also issuing the detailed study report for the Coalbed 

Methane Extraction and the preliminary study report of the Ore Mining 

and Dressing industry. 

This notice also solicits public comments on EPA's 2011 reviews 

pursuant to the authority of CWA sections 304(b), 304(g), 30l(d) and 

307 (b). 

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on the final 2010 Plan, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517, by one of the following methods: 

(1) http·Uwww regulations gov . Follow the 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 Protection Agency, Mailcode: 

4203M, 

[[Page 66287]] 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517. Please include a total of 3 copies. 

(4) Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., washington, DC, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-Ow-2008-0517. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be 

made. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-

0517. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute (see below for instructions on 

submitting CBI). Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The federal 

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 

directly to EPA without going through reglliations gov, your e-mail 

hUp:llwAw.g po.g O\Ifds)8l~IFR-2011-1 Cl-26'htrrI12011-277 42.htm 1m 
512212014 FaclE ... 1 Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact information in the body of your 

comment, and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 

your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 

files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 

Submitting Confidential Business Information 

Do not submit confidential business information (CBI) to EPA 

through http"l/www regu] Ati pns gpy or e-mail. Any CBI you wish to 

submit should be sent via a trackable physical method, such as Federal 

Express or United Parcel Service, to Mr. M. Ahmar Siddiqui, Document 

Control Officer, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T), Room 62315 

EPA West, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460. A 

CBI package should be double-wrapped, so that the CBI is in one 

package, which is itself inside another package. Clearly mark the part 

or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information 

on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk 

or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or 

CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 

one complete copy of the material that includes information claimed as 

CBI, a copy of the material that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance 

with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the index at 

http' 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 restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 

as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either electronically at http'/Iwww regulatipns gpy or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA 

Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 

telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. 

Key documents providing additional information about EPA's annual 

reviews and the final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan include the 

following: 

Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan, EPA-820-R-10-021, DCN 07320; 

Coalbed Methane Point Source Category: Detailed Study 

Report, EPA-820-R-lO-022, DCN 09999; 

Draft Guidance Document: Best Management Practices for 

Unused Pharmaceuticals at Health Care Facilities, August 26, 2010, EPA82l-R-10-006. 

Ore Mining and Dressing Category 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, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824, by one of the 

methods described above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William F. Swietlik at (202) 566-

1129 or swietlik willi am@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 Existing Effluent Guidelines and 

Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304{g), 

hUp:llwAw.g po.g O\Ifds)8l~IFR-2011-1 Cl-26'htrrI12011-277 42.htm 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (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 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

that discharge to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), termed 

indirect dischargers, EPA promulgates pretreatment standards that apply 

to those sources and are enforced by the POTWs and State and Federal 

authorities. See CWA sections 307(b) and (e). 

1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--CWA 

Sections 301 (b) (1) (A) & 304 (b) (1) 

EPA defines Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available 

(BPT) effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and 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 defined by the Administrator as conventional. The 

Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional 

pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501). EPA has identified 65 

pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic pollutants, of which 126 

specific substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants. See 

Appendix A to part 423. All other pollutants are considered to be nonconventional. 

In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first 

considers the total cost of applying the control technology in relation 

to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age 

of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed, and any 

required process changes, engineering aspects of the control 

technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy 

requirements), and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems 

appropriate. See CWA section 304{b) (I) (B). Traditionally, EPA 

establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best 

performances of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, 

processes, or other common characteristics. Where existing performance 

is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than 

currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency determines 

that the technology can be practically applied. 

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--CWA Sections 

301 (b) (2) (E) & 304 (b) (4) 

The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent 

reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with Best 

Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for discharges from 

existing industrial point sources. In addition to considering the other 

factors specified in section 304 (b) (4) (B) to establish BCT limitations, 

EPA also considers a two part "cost-reasonableness" test. EPA 

explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in 

1986. See 51 FR 24974 (July 9, 1986). 

3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--CWA 

Sections 301 (b) (2) (A) & 304 (b) (2) (B) 

For toxic pollutants and non-conventional pollutants, EPA 

promulgates effluent guidelines based on the Best Available Technology 

Economically Achievable (BAT). See CWA section 301 (b) (2) (A), (C), (D) 

and (F). The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of 

achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities 

involved, the process employed, potential process changes, non-water 

quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements, and other 

such factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA 

section 304(b) (2) (B). The technology must also be economically 

achievable. See CWA section 30l(b) (2) (A). The Agency retains 

considerable discretion in assigning the weight accorded to these 

factors. BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable 

through changes in a facility's processes and operations. Where 

existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher 

level of performance than is currently being achieved within a 

particular subcategory based on technology transferred from a different 

subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process changes or 

internal controls, even when these technologies are not cornmon industry 

practice. 

4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--CWA Section 306 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reflect effluent reductions 

that are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control 

technology. New sources have the opportunity to install the best and 

most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment 

technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most 

[[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 priority pollutants). In 

establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost 

of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality 

environmental impacts and energy requirements. 

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--CWA Section 

307{b) 

Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) are designed to 

prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (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 required by CWA section 301(b) (2) and to 

revise them if appropriate pursuant to the procedures specified in that 

section. Section 301(b) (2), in turn, requires point sources to achieve 

effluent limitations reflecting the application of the best practicable 

control technology (all pollutants), best available technology 

economically achievable (for toxic pollutants and non-conventional 

pollutants) and the best conventional pollutant control technology (for 

conventional pollutants), as determined by EPA under sections 

304(b) (1), 304(b) (2) and 304(b) (4), respectively. For over three 

decades, EPA has implemented sections 301 and 304 through the 

promulgation of effluent limitations guidelines, resulting in 

regulations for 57 industrial categories. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & 

Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 113 (1977). Consequently, as part of its annual 

review of effluent limitations guidelines under section 304(b), EPA is 

also reviewing the effluent limitations they contain, thereby 

fulfilling its obligations under sections 301(d) and 304(b) 

simultaneously. 

2. EPA's Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections 304(g) and 

307(b)--Indirect Dischargers 

Section 307(b) requires EPA to revise its pretreatment standards 

for indirect dischargers "from time to time, as control technology, 

processes, operating methods, or other alternatives change." See CWA 

section 307(b) (2). Section 304(g) requires EPA to annually review these 

pretreatment standards and revise them "if appropriate." Although 

section 307(b) only requires EPA to revise existing pretreatment 

standards "from time to time," section 304(g) requires an annual 

review. Therefore, EPA meets its 304(g) and 307(b) requirements by 

reviewing all industrial categories subject to existing categorical 

pretreatment standards on an annual basis to identify potential 

candidates for revision. 

Section 307(b) (1) also requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment 

standards for pollutants not susceptible to treatment by POTWs or that 

would interfere with the operation of POTWs, although it does not 

provide a timing requirement for the identification of new industries 

for pretreatment standards. EPA, in its discretion, periodically 

evaluates indirect dischargers not subject to categorical pretreatment 

standards to identify potential candidates for new pretreatment 

standards. The CWA does not require EPA to publish its review of 

pretreatment standards or identification of potential new categories, 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (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 existing effluent guidelines and the preliminary 

2012 plan). EPA intends that these contemporaneous reviews will provide 

meaningful insight into EPA's effluent guidelines and pretreatment 

standards program decision-making. Additionally, by providing a single 

notice for these and future reviews, EPA hopes to provide a 

consolidated source of information for the Agency's current and future 

effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards program reviews. 

V. EPA's 2010 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 

Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 

304(m), and 307(b) 

A. What process did EPA use to review existing effluent guidelines and 

pretreatment standards under CWA Section 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 

304(m), and 307(b)? 

1. Overview 

In its 2010 annual review, EPA reviewed all industrial categories 

subject to existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment 

standards, representing a total of 57 point source categories and over 

450 subcategories. Generally, EPA uses four factors in a phased 

approach to review existing effluent limitations guidelines and 

pretreatment standards: 

(1) Pollutants discharged in an industrial category'S effluent, 

[[Page 66290] 1 

(2) Potential pollution prevention and control technology options, 

(3) Category growth and economic considerations of technology 

options, and 

(4) Implementation and efficiency considerations of revising 

existing effluent guidelines or publishing new effluent guidelines (see 

December 21, 2006; 71 FR 76666) . 

In the 2010 annual review EPA incorporated, for the first time, 

discharge data from approximately 15,000 "minor" industrial 

dischargers. Point sources are generally classified as major or minor, 

depending on size and nature of the discharges. A major industrial 

discharger is a facility scoring over SO points based on rating 

criteria. Minor industrial discharges are facilities that score below 

the criteria score of SO on the rating scale. 

2. What analyses did EPA perform for its 2009 and 2010 annual reviews 

of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards? 

a. Screening-Level Review 

The first component of EPA's 2010 annual review consisted of a 

screening-level review of all industrial categories subject to existing 

effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards. EPA focused its efforts 

on collecting and analyzing data to identify industrial categories 

whose pollutant discharges potentially are the most significant. EPA 

used Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), Permit Compliance System (PCS) and 

Integrated Compliance Information System--National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) data to estimate the mass of pollutant 

discharges from industrial facilities. Because pollutant toxicities are 

different, EPA converted the toxic and non-conventional pollutant 

discharges that are reported in a mass unit (pounds) into a measure of 

relative toxicity--a toxic-weighted pound equivalent or TWPE. 

EPA calculated the TWPE for each pollutant discharged by 

multiplying the pollutant specific toxic weighting factor (TWF) and the 

mass of the pollutant discharge. Where data are available, these TWFs 

reflect both aquatic life and human health effects. EPA ranked point 

source categories according to their discharges of toxic and nonconventional pollutants (reported in units of TWPE) to assess the 

significance of these toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges 

to human health or the environment. EPA conducted this process for the 

2010 annual reviews using the most recent TRI, PCS and ICIS-NPDES data 

(200S) . 

Based on this methodology, EPA prioritized for potential revision 

industrial categories that offered the greatest potential for reducing 

hazard to human health and the environment. EPA assigned those 

categories with the lowest estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant 

discharges a lower priority for revision (i.e., industrial categories 

marked "(3)" in the "Findings" column in Table V-I in section V.B.4 

of this notice). 

In order to further focus its inquiry during the 2010 annual 

review, EPA assigned a lower priority for potential revision to 

categories for which effluent guidelines had been recently promulgated 

or revised, or for which effluent guidelines rulemaking was currently 

underway. EPA removed an industrial point source category from further 

consideration during the current review cycle if EPA established, 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1C1-_12011-27742.htm 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

revised, or reviewed in a rulemaking context the category's effluent 

guidelines after August 2003 (i.e., the last seven years). EPA chose 

seven years because this is the time it customarily takes for the 

effects of effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards to be fully 

reflected in pollutant loading data and TRI reports (in large part 

because effluent limitations guidelines are often incorporated into 

NPDES permits only upon re-issuance of those permits, which CQuid be up 

to five years after the effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards 

are promulgated). EPA also removed an industrial point source category 

from further consideration during the current review cycle if EPA 

recently completed a preliminary study or a detailed study and 

determined that no further action is necessary at this time. These 

categories are marked "(1)" in the "Findings" column in Table V-I 

in section V.B.4 of this notice. 

Because there are 57 point source categories (including over 450 

subcategories) with existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment 

standards that must be reviewed annually, EPA believes it is important 

to prioritize its review so as to focus on industries where changes to 

the existing effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards are most 

likely to result in further pollutant discharge reduction. In general, 

industries for which effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards have 

recently been promulgated are less likely to warrant such changes. 

As part of the 2010 annual review, EPA also considered the number 

of facilities responsible for the majority of the estimated toxicweighted pollutant discharges associated with an industrial activity. 

EPA applied a lower priority for potential revision to industrial 

categories where only a few facilities in a category accounted for the 

vast majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges (i.e., categories 

marked "(2)" in the "Findings" column in Table V-I in section V.B.4 

of this notice). EPA believes that revision of individual permits for 

such facilities may be more effective than a revised national 

rulemaking. Individual permit requirements can be better tailored to 

these few facilities and may take considerably less time and resources 

to establish than revising the national effluent guidelines. The Docket 

accompanying this notice lists facilities that account for the vast 

majority of the estimated toxic-weighted pollutant discharges for a 

particular category (see DCN 07320). For these facilities, EPA will 

consider identifying pollutant control and pollution prevention 

technologies that will assist permit writers in developing facilityspecific technology-based effluent limitations on a best professional 

judgment (BPJ) basis. In future annual reviews, EPA also intends to reevaluate each category based on the information available at the time 

in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the BPJ permit-based support. 

EPA also applied a lower priority to categories without sufficient 

data to determine whether revision would be appropriate. For any 

industrial categories marked "(5)" in the "Findings" column in 

Table V-I in section V.B.4 of this notice, EPA lacks sufficient 

information at this time on the magnitude of the toxic-weighted 

pollutant discharges. EPA will continue reviewing available data on the 

discharges and will seek additional information on the discharges from 

these categories in the next annual review in order to determine 

whether a detailed study is warranted. See the appropriate section in 

the TSD for the final 2010 Plan (see DCN 07320) for EPA's data needs 

for these industrial categories. This assessment provides an additional 

level of quality assurance on the reported pollutant discharges and 

number of facilities that represent the majority of toxic-weighted 

pollutant discharges. 

For industrial categories marked "(4)" in the . 'Findings" column 

in Table V-I in section V.B.4 of this notice, EPA had sufficient 

information on the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges to continue or 

complete a detailed study of these industrial categories. 

For industrial categories marked "(6)" in the "Findings" column 

in Table V-I in section V.B.4 of this notice, EPA is identifying this 

industry for a revised effluent guidelines rulemaking. 

[[Page 66291]] 

Next, EPA considered the availability of technologies to reduce 

pollutant discharges. EPA does not have, for all of the 57 existing 

industrial categories, information about the availability of treatment 

or process technologies to reduce pollutant wastewater discharges 

beyond the performance of the technologies upon which existing effluent 

guidelines and standards were developed. At present 46 states and one 

U.S. territory are authorized to administer the CWA NPDES program. 

Under the CWA, permitting authorities must include water-quality based 

effluent limits where the technology-based effluent limits are not 

sufficient to meet applicable water quality standards. Therefore, 

dischargers may have already installed technologies that reduce 

pollutant discharges to a level below the original technology-based 

requirements in order to meet such water-quality based effluent 

limitations. 

Analyzing the significance of the remaining pollutant discharges is 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 7m 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

most useful for assessing the potential effectiveness of additional 

technologies because such an analysis focuses on the amount and 

significance of pollutant discharges that would actually be removed 

through new, technology-based nationally-applicable regulations for 

these categories. Where potential pollutant discharge reductions are 

not significant, there are likely few effective technology options for 

a technology-based rule. Once EPA determined which industries have the 

potential for significant additional pollutant removals, EPA further 

examined the availability of technologies for certain industries. For 

example, EPA identified technologies to minimize pollutant discharges 

from coalbed methane extraction facilities (see Coalbed Methane Point 

Source Category: Detailed Study Report, EPA-820-R-lO-022, DCN 09999). 

EPA also considered whether there was a way to develop a suitable 

tool for comprehensively evaluating the availability and affordability 

of treatment or process technologies, but determined that there is not, 

because the universe of facilities is too broad and complex. EPA could 

not find a reasonable way to prioritize the industrial categories based 

on readily available engineering and economic data. In the past, EPA 

has gathered information regarding technologies and economic 

achievability for one industrial category at a time through detailed 

questionnaires distributed to hundreds of facilities within a category 

or subcategory for which EPA has commenced rulemaking. Such 

information-gathering is subject to the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 33 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information acquired 

in this way is valuable to EPA in its rulemaking efforts, but the 

process of gathering, validating and analyzing the data can consume 

considerable time and resources. EPA does not think it is appropriate 

or feasible to conduct this level of analysis for all point source 

categories in conducting an annual review. Rather, EPA uses its 

analyses of existing pollutant discharges to identify the categories 

with the largest toxic-weighted discharges. From this smaller list of 

categories, EPA evaluates the possibility of effective technologies and 

selects certain industries for further examination (e.g., Preliminary 

Category Reviews, Detailed Studies). 

Additionally, when EPA becomes aware of the growth of a new 

industrial activity within an existing category or where new concerns 

are identified for previously unevaluated pollutants discharged by 

facilities within an industrial category, EPA applies more scrutiny to 

the category in a subsequent review. 

EPA also considers whether there are industrial activities not 

currently subject to effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards that 

should be included with these existing categories, either as part of 

existing subcategories or as potential new subcategories. These 

industries are sometimes suggested by commenters during the public 

comment period or may come to EPA's attention in other ways. 

EPA also continued to use the quality assurance project plan (QAPP) 

developed for the 2009 annual review to document the type and quality 

of data needed to make the decisions in this 2010 annual review and to 

describe the methods for collecting and assessing those data (see EPA820-R-10-021). EPA performed quality assurance checks on the data used 

to develop estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges (i.e., 

verifying 2008 discharge data reported to TRI, PCS and ICIS-NPDES) to 

determine whether any of the pollutant discharge estimates relied on 

incorrect or suspect data. For example, EPA contacted facilities and 

permit writers to confirm and, as necessary, correct TRI, PCS or 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 hazard to human health and the environment. This 

enabled EPA to concentrate its resources on conducting more in-depth 

reviews of the higher priority categories. 

b. Further Review of Prioritized Categories 

EPA conducts a preliminary category review when it lacks sufficient 

data to determine whether a regulatory revision would be appropriate 

and for which EPA is performing a further assessment of pollutant 

discharges before starting a detailed study. These assessments provide 

an additional level of quality assurance on the reported pollutant 

discharges and number of facilities that represent the majority of 

toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. 

In conducting a preliminary category review, EPA uses the same 

types of data sources used for the detailed studies or effluent 

guidelines development but in less depth. As part of the preliminary 

category reviews, EPA may evaluate technologies that could achieve 

better control of pollutant discharges. EPA might also conduct surveys 

or collect data from additional sources. The full description of EPA's 

methodology for the 2010 annual review is presented in the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) for the final 2010 Plan (see DCN 07320). 

c. Detailed Studies 

EPA conducts detailed studies to obtain information on hazard, 

availability and cost of technology options, and other factors in order 

to determine if it would be appropriate to identify the category for 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (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 with existing effluent guidelines and 

pretreatment standards? 

In view of the annual nature of its reviews of existing effluent 

guidelines and pretreatment standards, EPA believes that each annual 

review can and should influence succeeding annual reviews, e.g., by 

indicating data gaps, identifying new pollutants or pollution reduction 

technologies, or otherwise highlighting industrial categories for 

additional scrutiny in subsequent years. 

During its 2009 annual review, which concluded the end of December 

2009, EPA continued detailed studies of the existing effluent 

guidelines and pretreatment standards for two industrial categories: 

Oil and Gas Extraction category (Part 435) for the purpose of assessing 

whether to revise the limits to include coalbed methane 

[[Page 66292] 1 

extraction as a new subcategory, and Hospitals (Part 460) which is part 

of the Health Care Industry detailed study on the management of unused 

pharmaceuticals. In addition, EPA conducted a preliminary study of the 

Ore Mining and Dressing category (part 440) during 2009. EPA used the 

findings, data and comments on the 2009 annual review to inform its 

2010 annual review and the final 2010 Plan. The 2010 review also built 

on the previous reviews by incorporating some refinements to assigning 

discharges to categories and updating toxic weighting factors. 

EPA published the findings from its 2009 annual review with its 

preliminary 2010 Plan (December 28, 2009, 74 FRN 68599), making the 

pollutant discharge and industry profile data available for public 

comment. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517. 

4. How did EPA consider public comments in its 2010 annual review? 

EPA's annual review process considers information provided by 

stakeholders regarding the need for new or revised effluent limitations 

guidelines and pretreatment standards. Public comments received on 

EPA's prior reviews and Plans helped the Agency prioritize its analysis 

of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards during the 

2010 review. Public comments, depending on the number, the issues, the 

data and information submitted and the recommendations made therein, 

can influence the annual review. 

In accordance with CWA section 304{m) (2), EPA published the 

preliminary 2010 Plan for public comment prior to this publication of 

the final 2010 Plan. See December 28, 2009 (74 FRN 68599). The Docket 

accompanying this notice includes a complete set of all of the comments 

submitted, as well as the Agency's responses (see DCN 07368). The 

Agency received 51 sets of comments on the preliminary 2010 Plans. 

Commenting organizations representing industry included the 

American Petroleum Institute, American Health Care Association, 

Independent Petroleum Association of America, National Association of 

Clean Water Agencies, American Dental Association, American Water Works 

Association, and the National Mining Association. 

Six environmental groups commented, including the Northern Plains 

Resources Council, Earth Justice, Environmental Integrity Project and 

the Powder River Basin Council. 

Eight states, or state representing organizations, also commented, 

including the states of WY, MT, NY, WI, OR, FL, ID and the Quicksilver 

Caucus. 

EPA received comments from 22 private individuals, all addressing 

the issue of the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing used in 

shale gas extraction. Most of these individuals were from NY and PA, 

and their comments reflected concerns about shale gas extraction in the 

Marcellus Shale formation. 

EPA also received comments from one Tribal Nation (the Northern 

Cheyenne) and four local organizations (Tompkins County Senior Citizen 

Council, St. Paul MetroCouncil, Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group and 

Albany Medical College). 

Comments were distributed among the following subject areas, in 

order of abundance: 

--Coalbed Methane and Shale Gas Extraction (40 comments) 

--Health Care Industry--(unused pharmaceuticals) (35 comments) 

--Ore Mining and Dressing (2 comments) 

--Steam Electric Power Generation (2 comments) 

--Effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) and Plan process in general (2 

comments) 

--Dental Amalgam (1 comment) 

--Other (2 comments) 

For coalbed methane, there were seven comments that also expressed 

concern with the practice of shale gas extraction; 13 comments 

requesting that EPA examine shale gas extraction in the coalbed methane 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

detailed study; seven requests to not add shale gas extraction to the 

coalbed methane study; six commenters who suggested that EPA should do 

a coalbed methane ELG rule; and seven commenters who suggested that EPA 

not do a rule. 

For the Health Care industry, in particular the management of 

unused pharmaceuticals, EPA received three comments supporting the 

detailed study; three comments suggesting EPA work more closely with 

the u.s. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA); four comments that explained 

EPA should work with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and health 

insurance companies to encourage unused pharmaceutical returns and a 

coordinated message about such; twelve comments indicating EPA should 

develop BMPs, disposal guidance, flyers and other disposal information; 

three comments supporting take-back programs; six comments that 

suggested current disposal practices are barriers to return/reuse; and 

four comments indicating that pharmaceutical flushing should be 

controlled by sewage treatment authorities. 

For the Ore Mining and Dressing category there were two comments 

that stated EPA should not develop a new ELG. 

For the Steam Electric Power Generation industry, which is 

currently undergoing a revised ELG as a result of last year's Plan, 

there was one comment that supported EPA's selection of the steam 

electric industry for rulemaking, and one commenter that believed EPA 

made several errors in its detailed study final report. 

One commenter asked EPA to select the dental industry for an ELG 

rulemaking, arguing that the industry is responsible for half of the 

national mercury loadings to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), 

and the ongoing activities under the Dental Amalgam control MOU are 

insufficient. 

A more detailed summary table of the comments can be found in the 

2010 TSD, EPA-820-R-10-021 (DeN 07320). EPA carefully considered all 

public comments and information submitted in developing the final 2010 

Plan. A comment 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 and pretreatment standards? 

1. Screening-Level Review 

In its 2010 screening level review, EPA considered hazard, and the 

other factors described in section V.A.2. above, in prioritizing 

effluent guidelines for potential revision. See Table V-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 only to the 

screening level review in 2010, EPA is not identifying any for effluent 

guidelines rulemaking at this time, based on the factors described in 

section V.A above and in light of the effluent guidelines rulemakings 

in progress. 

EPA carefully examined the industrial categories currently 

regulated by existing effluent guidelines that cumulatively comprise 

95% of the reported hazard (reported in units of toxic-weighted pound 

equivalent or TWPE). The TSD for the preliminary 2010 Plan presents a 

summary of EPA's review of these 21 industrial categories (see DeN 

07320) . 

EPA identified one category where additional data are required to 

evaluate toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA will initiate a 

preliminary category review for the cellulosic products 

[[Page 66293] 1 

segment of the Plastics Molding and Forming (part 463) industrial 

category. 

Although EPA identified only one industrial category for 

preliminary category review in the 2010 annual review, EPA also 

identified that estimated toxic-weighted pollutant discharges of lead 

from the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (part 430) industrial category 

need further investigation. EPA intends to continue reviewing the Pulp, 

Paper and Paperboard industry during the 2011 annual review. 

EPA identified the need for additional data review as part of the 

2011 annual review for three industrial categories. See the appropriate 

section in the TSD for the final 2010 Plan, EPA-820-R-10-021, (see DCN 

07320) for a detailed discussion of EPA's findings for these industrial 

categories: Mineral Mining and Processing (part 436); Landfills (Part 

445); and Waste Combustors (part 444). See Section IX of this notice 

for the requested public comments. Based on new data submitted with 

public comment and screening-level data collected as part of the 2011 

annual review, EPA intends to re-evaluate the category toxic-weighted 

pollutant discharges. 

2. Results of Detailed Studies 

Oil and Gas Extraction (part 435) 

As a result of prior 304(m) planning, EPA initiated a detailed 

study of the coalbed methane industry and its wastewater discharges. 

Coalbed methane extraction is considered a subcategory of the Oil and 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 10127 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 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 coalbed methane industry has expanded. In addition, EPA 

received comments in 2005, 2008, and again during the 2010 review from 

citizens and environmental advocacy groups requesting development of a 

regulation for coalbed methane extraction as well as for shale gas 

extraction, another subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point 

Source Category. Unlike coalbed methane extraction, however, shale gas 

extraction is now subject to effluent guidelines for the Oil and Gas 

Extraction Point Source Category, although there are currently no 

applicable categorical pretreatment standards for shale gas extraction. 

Coalbed methane-produced water discharges can impact receiving 

surface waters and soils. Saline discharges from coalbed methane 

operations can adversely affect aquatic life. The large volume of water 

discharged can also cause stream bank erosion and salt deposition, 

creating hardpan soil. Long-term impacts include sodium buildup, 

reduction of plant diversity, mobilization of salts and other elements, 

and alteration of surface and subsurface hydrology. 

Overview of Operations: 

Methane gas is naturally created during the geologic process of 

converting plant material to coal (coalification). To extract the 

methane, coalbed methane operators drill wells into coal seams and pump 

out ground water. Removing the ground water from the formation is 

necessary to produce coalbed methane, as the water removal reduces the 

pressure and allows the methane to release from the coal to produce 

flowing natural gas. In 2008, 252 coalbed methane operators managed 

approximately 55,500 coalbed methane wells in the U.S. in 13 distinct 

regions, called basins. 

Produced Water 

The ground water that has been pumped out of the well, called 

"produced water," like most ground water found deep below the surface 

of the earth, has high salinity and can include pollutants such as 

chloride, sodium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, barium, 

magnesium, ammonia, and arsenic. To quantify the amount of pollutants 

in coalbed methane produced waters, EPA relied on measuring total 

dissolved solids (TDS) and electrical conductivity (EC), which are bulk 

parameters for quantifying the total amount of dissolved solids in a 

wastewater. 

A single coalbed methane well can discharge thousands of gallons of 

produced water per day, and may discharge produced water for anywhere 

from 5 to 15 years. Coalbed methane wells have a distinctive production 

history characterized by an early stage when large amounts of water are 

produced to reduce reservoir pressure which in turn encourages release 

of gas; a stable stage when quantities of produced gas increase as the 

quantities of produced water decrease; and a late stage when the amount 

of gas produced declines and water production remains low. 

The quantity and quality of produced water varies from basin to 

basin, within a particular basin, from coal seam to coal seam, and over 

the lifetime of a coalbed methane well. For example, coalbed methane 

produced water volumes range from 1,000 gallons per day per well in the 

San Juan Basin to 17,000 gallons per day per well in the Powder River 

Basin. 

Management of Produced water 

Coalbed methane operators need to dispose of thousands of gallons 

of produced water per day for each coalbed methane well. Operators can 

employ a range of options for treatment and management of this 

wastewater. 

preliminary estimates based on survey data predict that 

approximately 47 billion gallons of produced water are pumped annually 

from coal seams across the country. Approximately 45% of those produced 

waters are directly discharged to waters of the U.S., for a total 

national discharge of 22 billion gallons per year. 

Surface water discharge is most prevalent in three U.S. coalbed 

methane basins: The Black Warrior Basin in Alabama and Mississippi (11% 

of total coalbed methane surface discharges), the Powder River Basin in 

Wyoming and Montana (72% of total coalbed methane surface discharges), 

and the Raton Basin in Colorado and New Mexico (11% of total coalbed 

methane surface discharges). Many of these discharges are largely 

untreated. Surface discharge occurs rarely, if at all, in the other 

major commercial basins. 

In the other commercial basins in the U.S, coalbed methane 

operators are, for the most part, able to prevent discharging their 

produced water by discharging the water to land (where there may be 

other impacts to the soil or vegetation), re-injecting the produced 

water back into the ground, or using the water in one of many 

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

Treatment of Produced Waters 

Available technology options for adequately removing pollutants 

from produced water include ion exchange and reverse osmosis. 

Summary of Outreach 

In 2007 EPA conducted several site visits to coalbed methane basins 

throughout the country and gathered information on potential treatment 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 11127 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

technologies for coalbed methane-produced water discharges. EPA also 

conducted widespread outreach with stakeholders, both in the industry 

and from the communities adjacent to coalbed methane basins. EPA 

conducted more than 30 site visits to locations in six coalbed methane 

basins and met with over 300 different stakeholders. EPA also conducted 

13 meetings and teleconferences with over 150 stakeholders. In addition 

to the extensive information collection through site visits and 

outreach, EPA acknowledged that an informed decision about rulemaking 

would 

[[Page 66294] 1 

require even more detailed information. EPA developed an industry 

questionnaire, solicited public comment twice, and in 2009 obtained OMB 

approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, to conduct a mandatory 

survey directed at operators of coalbed methane projects which consist 

of a single well or a group of wells operated by the same company. The 

questionnaire collected technical and economic data in a two-part 

survey, a screener and a detailed survey, on the operations and 

operators of coalbed methane projects. Questionnaire responses arrived 

in early 2010 and the data was used by EPA to create national estimates 

of pollutant discharges across the country from the coalbed methane 

industry and to develop an economic profile of the industry. 

In response to the 2010 preliminary Plan, EPA received 32 comments 

on coalbed methane extraction. Comments from industry sources did not 

support rulemaking for coalbed methane, suggesting an effluent 

guideline was not appropriate due to the variability of produced water 

quality, quantity and available management techniques across the 

country. Additionally, industry stated that the current regulatory 

framework of site-specific BPJ permits was adequately addressing 

pollutant discharges from produced water discharges. 

The final detailed study report for coalbed methane is being issued 

concurrent with the publication of this FR Notice and is a part of the 

final 2010 Plan. The study report is available at DCN 09999. 

Coalbed methane production represents about 8% of natural gas 

production in this country, and coalbed methane extraction is expected 

to continue for decades. Of the 22 billion gallons of water discharged 

to surface water each year some has high total dissolved solids. The 

detailed study also found that there are readily available technologies 

to treat this produced water. As a result of the information gathered 

in the detailed study, EPA has decided to initiate rulemaking for 

coalbed methane extraction, a currently unregulated subcategory of the 

Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category. 

3. Results of Preliminary Category Reviews 

are Mining and Dressing (Part 440) 

As discussed in the 2008 Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, 

EPA conducted a preliminary study of facilities covered under 40 CFR 

part 440 "are Mining and Dressing Point Source Category" to examine 

why toxic weighted pollutant discharges by the ore mining industry 

ranked relatively high compared to other industries in the 2002 through 

2008 annual reviews. The purpose of the study was to identify, collect, 

and review readily available existing data and information on toxic 

pollutants in wastewater discharges to determine whether additional 

analysis or revision of 40 CFR part 440 might be warranted to better 

control toxic discharges. 

The preliminary study focused on active ore mines covered under 40 

CFR part 440 subpart J: "Copper, Lead, zinc, Gold, Silver, and 

Molybdenum Ores." These types of mines comprise approximately 76 

percent (263) of the approximately 345 ore mines in the United States. 

Inactive ore mines were not included as they are not covered by the 

effluent guidelines. 

Approximately 294 ore mines currently have National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permits. 

There is a difference between the total number of ore mines and the 

number with NPDES permits because not all ore mines have wastewater 

discharges. The approximately 1,870 placer mines, covered under 40 CFR 

part 440 subpart M, were not examined in this study because they employ 

mining practices and wastewater streams that are fundamentally 

different from mines covered under the other subparts of 40 CFR part 

440. 

The preliminary study examined information pertaining to the two 

types of wastewater discharged by ore mines: Process wastewater 

(including mine drainage) and stormwater. Process wastewater is covered 

under 40 CFR part 440. Stormwater is not covered under 40 CFR part 440 

unless it is commingled with process wastewater prior to discharge to a 

surface waterbody. 

The study was limited by incomplete national-level process 

wastewater discharge data, and the lack of any nationally 

representative stormwater data for the ore mines of interest. EPA did 

review available ore mine-specific process wastewater discharge 

information, available Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) reports, 

information for ore mine site stormwater discharges, and an industrial 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 12fn 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

wastewater treatment technology, known as high density sludge 

recycling, which was identified during the course of the study. 

Based on EPA's review of toxic pollutant data, EPA found that in 

2007, the most recent year for which 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 ore mining industry for toxic pollutants. 

Given that only a small percentage of active ore mines account for 

the majority of toxic weighted discharges, this can best be addressed 

through permitting, compliance, and enforcement activities for the 

specific ore mining sources, rather than by revision of 40 CFR part 

440. 

While the available toxic pollutant data does not suggest that EPA 

revisit the ELG for ore mining and dressing (40 CFR part 440) at this 

time, the Agency currently remains concerned about many other types of 

mining-related water quality impairments. EPA has a number of 

activities that address discharges of pollutants from mines including 

interim guidance on Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal 

Mining Operations Under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental 

Policy Act, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order, plans to 

revise the water quality criteria for selenium, increased attention on 

compliance with, and enforcement of, individual permit limits; improved 

permitting guidance and more stringent discharge monitoring 

requirements in permits. 

The Ore Mining Preliminary Study report is being issued concurrent 

with the publication of this FR Notice and represents a portion of the 

final 2010 Plan. The Ore Mining Preliminary Study report (EPA-820-R-I0-

025) is available at DCN 07369. 

4. Other Reviews 

Shale Gas Extraction 

Overview 

As discussed in the March 2011 "Blueprint for a Secure Energy 

Future," ("Blueprint") the production of domestic natural gas 

enhances energy security and fuels our nation's economy (DCN 07496). In 

2010, U.S. natural gas production reached its highest level in more 

than 30 years with much of the increase resulting from the production 

of natural gas from shale formations. This is due to recent advances in 

horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing that have made extraction 

of natural gas from shale formations more technically and economically 

feasible. The increase is expected to continue. The U.S. Department of 

Energy projects shale gas production as a percentage of the U.S. 

natural gas production will increase over the next 25 years from the 

current level of 14% to an estimated 45%. 

As indicated in the "Blueprint," the Administration is taking 

several steps to 

[[Page 66295] 1 

ensure natural gas is developed in a safe and environmentally 

responsible manner. The "Blueprint" lists several initiatives to 

support these goals, including disclosure of fracturing chemicals, 

public meetings, EPA- and DOE-led research, the establishment of an 

expert panel to examine fracturing issues, and technical assistance to 

State regulators. In particular, the "Blueprint" directed the 

Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the EPA Administrator and 

Secretary of the Interior, to task the Secretary of Energy Advisory 

Board (SEAB) with establishing a subcommittee to examine issues related 

to shale gas production through hydraulic fracturing. The subcommittee 

is supported by DOE, EPA and DOl, and its membership extends beyond 

SEAB members to include leaders from industry, the environmental 

community, academia, and states. The subcommittee is working to 

identify both immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety 

and environmental performance of fracturing and to provide consensus 

recommended advice to the agencies on practices for shale extraction to 

ensure the protection of public health and the environment. On August 

11, 2011, the Subcommittee submitted a 90-day report with its 

preliminary recommendations (DCN 07504). The report recommends measures 

to increase public disclosure and transparency and address concerns 

about air and water pollution. The report also recommends a range of 

tools for implementing these measures, including regulation, continuous 

improvement in best practices by industry, and ongoing research and 

development. 

Today's decision to initiate rulemaking is consistent with these 

initiatives in that it addresses potential environmental impacts 

associated with hydraulic fracturing. This is part of the 

Administration's commitment in the "Blueprint" to continue to review 

existing regulatory structures governing both onshore and offshore oil 

and gas development to identify potential efficiencies in those 

processes and any crucial gaps that pose safety and environmental 

risks. 

EPA will carefully consider the SEAB's preliminary and final 

recommendations as EPA develops regulatory options. EPA's regulatory 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 13127 
512212014 FaclE ... 1 Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

action will complement and benefit by the initiatives already announced 

in the President's "Blueprint." 

Introduction 

The production of natural gas from shale formations has increased 

over the past few years and the upward trend is expected to continue. 

For example, data from the pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection shows that the number of shale gas wells drilled in 

Pennsylvania increased substantially in the past few years, with more 

wells drilled and permits issued between January and April of 2010, 

than during all of 2008 (DeN 07474). As the number of shale gas wells 

in the U.S. increases, so too does the volume of shale gas wastewater 

that requires disposal. Wastewater associated with shale gas extraction 

can contain high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), fracturing 

fluid additives, metals, and naturally occurring radioactive materials 

(NORM) . 

EPA requested comments in the 2010 Preliminary Effluent Guidelines 

Plan on whether to include shale gas extraction as part of the Coal Bed 

Methane Detailed Study. Many of the comments on this topic expressed 

general concern about drinking water contamination and water quality 

impacts from shale gas extraction. 

Industry commenters asserted that a shale gas rulemaking was not 

needed since existing Oil and Gas Effluent Guidelines require zero 

discharge from shale gas extraction. Although the existing regulations 

for onshore oil and gas extraction prohibit direct discharges of 

wastewaters from shale gas extraction, the current regulations do not 

contain pretreatment standards for pollutants associated with these 

discharges. EPA also has data that document pollutants in wastewaters 

associated with shale gas extraction are not treated by the 

technologies typically used at publicly and privately owned treatment 

facilities (DCN 07477 and DCN 07472Al). 

EPA ultimately decided not to expand the Coal Bed Methane Study to 

include shale gas extraction. However, as a result of public comments, 

EPA began reviewing available data to inform a decision on whether or 

not a rulemaking to establish pretreatment standards for shale gas 

extraction was appropriate. 

Overview of Shale Gas Operations 

The term "Shale Gas" is typically used to describe natural gas 

trapped in underground shale deposits. Well operators use the process 

of hydraulic fracturing to extract this gas. Hydraulic fracturing is a 

method of extracting natural gas from highly impermeable rock 

formations by injecting large amounts of fracturing fluids (typically 3 

to 5 million gallons) at high pressures to create a network of 

fissures, typically 250 feet in length (with occasional fractures as 

long as 1,000 feet), in the rock formations and provide the natural gas 

a pathway to travel to the well for extraction. 

While the composition of the fracturing fluids varies from region 

to region, and is specific to the formation to be fractured, the 

classes of compounds in the fluids are largely the same. The major 

components of fracturing fluid are water and proppant (typically sand), 

used to keep the fractures open after the fracturing has been complete, 

and chemical additives. EPA has reviewed data presented by industry 

sources including Chesapeake Energy, Talisman Energy, the Gas 

Technology Institute (GTI) and Halliburton, regarding the different 

classes of compounds in fracturing fluids, such as biocides, friction 

reducers, surfactants, scale and corrosion inhibiters and acids. 

Additionally, EPA has reviewed a registry developed jointly by the 

Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas 

Commission of chemicals used in fracturing fluids voluntarily provided 

by oil and gas companies (bttp'Uwww fracfpcll§ prg). 

A portion of the injected fracturing fluid will remain in the 

fractures. The precise amount of fluid retention is uncertain and 

depends on the geologic formation. The fluids not retained in the 

formation will ultimately return to the surface as "flowback" or 

"produced water." These wastewaters may contain the chemicals 

originally found in the fracturing fluids as well as other naturally 

occurring constituents that may be released into the fluid as the rock 

formations are broken. 

Produced Waters From Shale Gas Extraction 

A shale gas well has two distinct phases of water production from 

the formation. The first phase typically occurs during the first 30 

days following the fracturing process (DCN 07482A10 and DCN 07482A23), 

also known as the "flowback period." During this time a portion of 

the injected fracturing fluid will return to the surface. 

There are varying reports on the actual volume of flowback; 

multiple studies and presentations report that volumes ranging from 10-

75% of the injected fracturing fluids are returned during the flowback 

period. The amount of "flowback" is dependent, in part, on the 

geology of the shale basin (DCN 07477). 

After this initial surge of flowback passes, produced water will 

continue to come to the surface for the life of the well. Chesapeake 

Energy provided data indicating that "long term" produced water 

volumes range from 200-1,000 gallons per million cubic feet of gas 

hUp:llwAw.g po.g O\Ifds)8l~IFR-2011-1 Cl-26'htrrI12011-277 42.htm 14127 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (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 published by the Department of 

Energy (DCN 07476 and DCN 07474) and industry flowback analysis made 

available by Chesapeake Energy, Talisman Energy, Devon Energy, Superior 

Well Services, and GTI. 

Total dissolved solids is the most reported pollutant. Data on TDS 

concentrations are widely available due to the potential negative 

impact of high concentrations of TDS on the ability to re-use the shale 

gas wastewater. Elevated TDS levels may also impact the effectiveness 

of the additives in the fracturing fluids (DCN 07482A03). 

High concentrations of TDS are common in shale gas wastewater 

across the country, although the levels may vary from basin to basin. 

TDS concentrations of 100,000 ppm are typical and can be as high as 

400,000 ppm (DCN 07476). For comparison, sea water contains 

approximately 35,000 ppm TDS. The main component ion of TDS in shale 

gas wastewater appears to be chloride, which accounts for approximately 

60% of the TDS found in shale gas wastewater. Chloride has been 

measured in shale gas wastewater water at levels of 8,800--153,000 ppm. 

Other components may include barium (21--13,900 ppm), strontium (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 out falls (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 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

This practice has increased over the last couple of years, especially 

in regions of the country where 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 wastewater by 

sending it to POTWs or to private centralized waste treatment 

facilities (CWTs). The vast majority of POTWs employ equalization, bulk 

solids removal, biological treatment, and disinfection. POTWs are 

likely effective in treating only some of the pollutants in shale gas 

wastewater, such as the conventional and organic pollutants. These 

treatment technologies are not designed to treat high levels of TDS, 

NORM, or high levels of metals \2\; it is believed that much of these 

pollutants pass through the POTW untreated. Many CWTs, of which 90% 

discharge to POTWs, are similarly not designed to treat for high TDS or 

NORM (DCN 07474). 

\2\ Metcalf & Eddy Inc. (2003) Wastewater Engineering: Treatment 

and Reuse McGraw-Hill, New York. 

High concentrations of TDS may also lead to inhibition or 

disruptions of POTW treatment efficiency. However, most POTWs that 

accept shale gas wastewaters blend small volumes with traditional POTW 

wastewaters (1% shale gas wastewater by volume) to reduce pollutant 

concentrations through dilution to prevent POTW inhibition (DCN 07474). 

Local Limits for Shale Gas Extraction Wastewater Introductions to POTWs 

Under the Clean Water Act statutory and regulatory framework, POTWs 

must establish requirements for any introduction of wastewater to the 

POTW or its collection system if it either would cause "pass through" 

or "interference" (e.g., cause the POTW to violate its permits 

limits, or interfere with the operation of the POTW or the beneficial 

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

effluent limitations at 40 CFR part 133, which do not address the 

parameters of concern in shale gas extraction wastewater (e.g., TDS, 

chloride, radionuclides, etc). If a water quality 

[[Page 66297]] 

based effluent limit for these parameters is not included in the POTW 

permit, and if there is no evidence of interference, or sewage sludge 

contamination, the POTW may not have a basis to develop appropriate 

local limits. Independent of CWA requirements, POTWs can establish 

local limits under their sewer use ordinances for any parameters they 

determine could cause problems at the POTW. Currently, however, it is 

uncommon that POTWs have established local limits for the parameters of 

concern here, or that POTWs have water quality-based effluent 

limitations (WQBELs) for such parameters. possible Impacts of Shale Gas 

Wastewater Discharges to Drinking Water Sources and Aquatic Life. 

TDS has been shown to have negative impacts on aquatic life and 

drinking water. The level at which these impacts may occur is far less 

than the level of TDS typically found in shale gas wastewater. As 

described above, the average concentration of TDS in shale gas 

wastewaters is typically 100,000 ppm and can be as high as 400,000 ppm. 

Available data indicates the levels of TDS in shale gas wastewaters can 

often exceed recommended drinking water concentrations \3\ by a factor 

of 200. Because TDS concentrations in fresh non-brackish drinking water 

sources are typically well below the recommended drinking water levels, 

few drinking water treatment facilities have technologies to remove 

TDS. 

\3\ Two published standards regarding TDS include EPA's 

secondary maximum contaminant level for TDS of 500 ppm and the U.S. 

Public Health Service recommendation that TDS in drinking water 

should not exceed 500 ppm. 

Aquatic life toxicity of freshwater contaminated with high TDS is 

dependent on the specific ionic composition of the water. In shale gas 

wastewaters, the largest single contributor to TDS is chlorides. 

Macroinvertebrates, and more specifically aquatic insects, have an open 

circulatory system and are more sensitive to pollutants like chloride, 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 16127 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

which at elevated exposure concentrations, negatively affect their 

ability to maintain the right concentration of salts and water in the 

body, which involves excreting metabolic wastes that would be toxic to 

the organism if allowed to accumulate. Based on laboratory toxicity 

data from EPA's 1988 chloride criteria document and more recent 

studies, invertebrate sensitivity to chloride acute effect 

concentrations ranged from 953 ppm to 13,691 ppm and chronic effect 

concentrations ranged from 489 ppm to 556 ppm. Aquatic vertebrates such 

as fish and frogs are less sensitive to chloride with acute effect 

concentrations ranging from 3,959 ppm to 14,500 ppm and chronic effect 

concentrations of 646 ppm to 955 ppm (DCN 07483). Available data on 

maximum chloride concentrations in shale gas wastewaters exceed the 

acute effect concentration by a factor of over 100 \4\ (DCN 07482A15). 

\4\ As discussed, many of the POTWs that accept shale gas 

wastewaters blend small volumes with traditional POTW wastewaters 

and reduce pollutant concentrations through dilution, so high 

concentrations in shale gas wastewaters do not necessarily lead to 

concentrations that exceed aquatic life criteria at the point of 

discharge. 

In addition to the laboratory data, EPA also has data from a 2009 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection violation report 

documenting a fishkill attributed to a spill of diluted produced water 

in Hopewell Township, PA. A sample of the receiving water at the 

location of the fishkill was analyzed and TDS was measured as high as 

7,000 ppm. The report documents the effects of the TDS on aquatic 

species such as fish and salamanders and frogs, including mortalities 

(DCN 07471). \5\ 

\5\ While not related to shale gas wastewater, negative impacts 

of high TDS, including fish kills, were documented during 2009 at 

Dunkard Creek located in Monongalia County, Pennsylvania. 

Moreover, bromide found in shale gas wastewater may react with 

disinfectants used at water treatment plants, creating potentially 

harmful disinfection byproducts such as trihalomethane. Bromide, linked 

to shale gas wastewater, has been recorded in POTW effluents in 

concentrations as high as 1,100 ppm (DCN 07472 and DCN 07481A02). 

Conclusion: 

Natural gas can increase our domestic energy options, thus, 

reducing dependence on non-U.S. sources, and it has the potential to 

improve air quality, increase stability in energy prices, and provide 

greater certainty about future energy reserves. Also, natural gas can 

serve as a bridge fuel from coal to even more efficient energy sources 

that can further reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Natural gas holds 

great potential for our energy future and for our environment and EPA 

supports the commitment in the "Blueprint," to responsible 

development of this important domestic resource and to proactively 

addressing the concerns that have been raised regarding potential 

negative impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing of shale 

formations. 

We have heard from the public and environmental organizations that 

they are concerned about the safety of natural gas production and the 

possible impacts that shale gas development could have on American 

communities. Some states have allowed development; others have put a 

hold on any development, cautious about the environmental impacts of 

shale gas production. Some states have asked that national standards be 

promulgated, and have also requested resources to help deal with these 

possible impacts. We have also heard from industry that shale gas 

extraction is currently regulated under the existing Oil and Gas 

Effluent Limitation Guidelines and those regulations are sufficient. 

What we know is that shale gas extraction generates extremely large 

volumes of wastewater that contain considerable pollutant loads. Some 

of this is being responsibly reinjected into appropriate underground 

wells; other volumes of wastewater are likely not being treated 

effectively by existing treatment facilities. Resulting discharges have 

the potential to affect both drinking water supplies and aquatic life. 

These concerns and issues will not dissipate as shale gas production is 

expected to increase. As a result, EPA has decided to initiate 

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 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

operators on well drilling and fracturing operations, produced water 

characteristics, and wastewater management. In addition to the site 

visits, EPA will reach out to stakeholders and other affected entities 

to identify and better understand concerns regarding environmental 

impacts associated with fracturing wastewater and potential industry 

implications of the regulation. Finally, EPA will begin the process of 

developing and seeking approval to distribute a nationally 

representative survey to collect information on the shale gas industry. 

This survey will assist EPA in obtaining national data on the 

operations, economics, and wastewater characteristics associated with 

hydraulic fracturing, as well as data pertaining to available treatment 

technologies for shale gas wastewater. 

In 2010, Congress directed EPA to "carry out a study on the 

relationship between hydraulic fracturing and 

[[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 conducted through a transparent, peerreviewed process that will ensure the validity and accuracy of the 

data." In accordance with this direction from Congress, EPA conducted 

extensive stakeholder outreach to solicit advice regarding the design 

of the study. In February 2011, EPA submitted a draft study plan to the 

Science Advisory Board for peer review. In March and May 2011, the 

Science Advisory Board subcommittee met to provide peer review of the 

EPA's draft study plan. Consistent with the operating procedures of the 

SAB, an opportunity was provided for stakeholders and the public to 

provide comments for the SAB to take into account during their review. 

EPA is revising the study plan in response to the SAB's comments and 

initial study results are expected by the end of 2012. However, certain 

portions of the work will be long-term projects that are not likely to 

be finished at that time. Additional reports of study findings will be 

published as the longer-term projects progress. While the primary focus 

of this study is on impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water 

resources, including surface water impacts, EPA will carefully review 

and consider any relevant information that is collected to support this 

study. Likewise, any data collected pursuant to this new rulemaking 

will be shared with the EPA office that is conducting the 

Congressionally-mandated study. 

Should the report or EPA's rulemaking survey, in combination with 

other data gathering and public outreach, indicate that POTWs are 

already adequately treating shale gas wastewater so that it is not 

causing pass through or interference with POTW operations, including 

sludge management, EPA is open to adjusting its rulemaking plans 

accordingly. However, EPA believes that beginning rulemaking now, and 

particularly the data collection necessary to support such a rule, is 

an appropriate step given what we already know about wastewater 

discharges from the industry. 

5. Summary of 2010 Annual Review Findings 

The summary of the findings of the 2010 annual review is presented 

below in Table V-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 category were recently revised through an effluent 

guidelines rulemaking, or a rulemaking is currently underway. Or EPA 

recently completed a preliminary study or a detailed study, and no 

further action is necessary at this time. 

(2) Revising the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment 

standards is not the best tool for this industrial category because 

most of the toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges are from 

one or a few facilities in this industrial category. EPA will consider 

assisting permitting authorities in identifying pollutant control and 

pollution prevention technologies for the development of technologybased effluent limitations by best professional judgment (BPJ) on a 

facility-specific basis. 

(3) Not identified as a priority based on data available at this 

time (e.g., not among industries that cumulatively comprise 95% of 

discharges as measured in units of TWPE). 

(4) EPA intends to start or continue a detailed study of this 

industry in its 2011 annual review to determine whether to identify the 

category for effluent guidelines rulemaking. 

(5) EPA is continuing or initiating a preliminary category review 

or will continue to review discharges using screening-level data 

because incomplete data are currently available to determine whether to 

conduct a detailed study or identify for possible revision. EPA 

typically performs a further assessment of the pollutant discharges 

before starting a detailed study of the industrial category. This 

assessment provides an additional level of quality assurance on the 

reported pollutant discharges and number of facilities that represent 

the majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA may also 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 18127 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (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 

and Machinery. 

34 ................ Mineral Mining 

and processing. 

35... .. .. ... .. .... Nonferrous 

Metals Forming 

and Metal 

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 

and Asphalt). 

42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Pesticide 

Chemicals. 

43... .. .. ... .. .... Petroleum 

Refining. 

44... .. .. ... .. .... Pharmaceutical 

Manufacturing. 

45... .. .. ... .. .... Phosphate 

Manufacturing. 

46................ Photographic .... 

47 ................ Plastic Molding 

and Forming. 

48... .. .. ... .. .... Porcelain 

Enameling. 

49... .. .. ... .. .... Pulp, Paper, and 

Paperboard. 

50... .. .. ... .. .... Rubber 

Manufacturing. 

51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Soaps and 

Detergents 

Manufacturing. 

52. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Steam Electric 

53 ............... . 

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

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

Power 

Generating. 

Sugar processing 

Textile Mills ... 

Timber Products 

Processing. 

56 ................ Transportation 

Equipment 

Cleaning. 

57... .. .. ... .. .... Waste Combustors 

Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (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 presented immediately 

prior to this table. 

Note 1: Two codes (" (1)" and "(3) ") are used for this category as 

both codes are applicable to this category and do not overlap. The 

first code (" (1) "~I refers to the ongoing effluent guidelines 

rulemaking for the Chlorinated and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH) 

manufacturing sector, which includes facilities currently regulated by 

the OCPSF and Inorganics effluent guidelines. The second code 

("(3) ") indicates that the remainder of the facilities in these two 

categories does not represent a hazard priority at this time. 

VI. EPA's 2010 Evaluation of Categories of Indirect Dischargers Without 

Categorical Pretreatment Standards To Identify Potential New Categories 

for Pretreatment Standards 

A. EPA's Evaluation of Pass Through and Interference of Toxic and NonConventional Pollutants Discharged to POTWs 

All indirect dischargers are subject to general pretreatment 

standards (40 CFR part 403), including a prohibition on discharges 

causing "pass through" or "interference" (See 40 CFR 403.5). All 

POTWs with approved pretreatment programs must develop local limits to 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()._12011-27742.htm 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

implement the general pretreatment standards. All other POTWs must 

develop such local limits where they have experienced "pass through" 

or "interference" and such a violation is likely to recur. There are 

approximately 1,500 POTWs with approved pretreatment programs and 

13,500 small POTHs that are not required to develop and implement 

pretreatment programs. 

In addition, EPA establishes technology-based national regulations, 

termed "categorical pretreatment standards," for categories of 

industry discharging pollutants to POTNs that may pass through, 

interfere with or otherwise be incompatible with POTW operations (CWA 

section 307(b)). Generally, categorical pretreatment standards are 

designed such that wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial 

dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. EPA has 

promulgated such pretreatment standards for 35 industrial categories. 

One of the tools traditionally used by EPA in evaluating whether 

pollutants "pass through" a POTW, is a comparison of the percentage 

of a pollutant removed by PQTWs with the percentage of the pollutant 

removed by discharging facilities applying BAT. Pretreatment standards 

for existing sources are technology based and are analogous to BAT 

effluent limitations guidelines. In most cases, EPA has concluded that 

a pollutant passes through the POTW when the median percentage removed 

nationwide by representative POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment 

requirements) is less than the median percentage removed by facilities 

complying with BAT effluent limitations guidelines for that pollutant. 

This approach to the definition of "pass through" satisfies two 

competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect 

dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers; and (2) 

that the treatment capability and performance of PQTWs be recognized 

and taken into account in 

[[Page 66300]] 

regulating the discharge of pollutants from indirect dischargers. 

The term "interference" means a discharge which, alone or in 

conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, both: 

(I) Inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or 

operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal; and (2) therefore 

is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit 

(including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation) or 

of the prevention of sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with 

applicable regulations or permits. See 40 CFR 403.3(k). To determine 

the potential for "interference," EPA generally evaluates the 

industrial indirect discharges in terms of: (1) The compatibility of 

industrial wastewaters and domestic wastewaters (e.g., type of 

pollutants discharged in industrial wastewaters compared to pollutants 

typically found in domestic wastewaters); (2) concentrations of 

pollutants discharged in industrial wastewaters that might cause 

interference with the POTW collection system, the POTW treatment 

system, or biosolids disposal options; and (3) the potential for 

variable pollutant loadings to cause interference with POTW operations 

(e.g., batch discharges or slug loadings from industrial facilities 

interfering with normal POTW operations). 

If EPA determines a category of indirect dischargers causes pass 

through or interference, EPA would then consider the BAT and BPT 

factors (including "such other factors as the Administrator deems 

appropriate") specified in section 304(b) to determine whether to 

establish pretreatment standards for these activities. Examples of 

"such other factors" include a consideration of the magnitude of the 

hazard posed by the pollutants discharged as measured by: (1) The total 

annual TWPE discharged by the industrial sector; and (2) the average 

TWPE discharged among facilities that discharge to POTWs. Additionally, 

EPA would consider whether other regulatory tools (e.g., use of local 

limits under part 403) or voluntary measures would better control the 

pollutant discharges from this category of indirect dischargers. For 

example, EPA relied on a similar evaluation of "pass through 

potential" in its prior decision not to promulgate national 

categorical pretreatment standards for the Industrial Laundries 

industry. See 64 FR 45071 (August 18, 1999). EPA noted in this 1999 

final action that, "While EPA has broad discretion to promulgate such 

[national categorical pretreatment] standards, EPA retains discretion 

not to do so where the total pounds removed do not warrant national 

regulation and there is not a significant concern with pass through and 

interference at the POTW.' , See 64 FR 45077 (August 18, 1999). 

B. Hospitals (Part 460) (Health Care Industry Detailed Study of the 

Management of Unused Pharmaceuticals) 

Pharmaceutical chemicals have been detected in our nation's 

waterways, leading to concerns that these compounds may affect aquatic 

life and possible human health through drinking water sources. As a 

result of public comments on the Final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program 

Plan, EPA initiated a study of unused pharmaceutical disposal practices 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1C1-_12011-27742.htm 21m 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

at health care facilities. The focus of this study was on disposal to 

water via sewers. EPA studied medical facilities; including, hospitals, 

hospices, long-term care facilities, health care clinics, physician 

offices, and veterinary facilities. A standard disposal practice at 

many health care facilities is to flush unused pharmaceuticals down the 

toilet or drain. 

Unused pharmaceuticals include leftover medication that is expired, 

not dispensed, and/or partially used, and residues from delivery 

devices. During the study, EPA conducted intensive outreach to over 700 

stakeholders and evaluated a range of management practices to reduce 

the generation of unused pharmaceuticals and their disposal down the 

drain. Based on the information collected through the outreach, EPA has 

drafted a guidance document, "Best Management Practices for Unused 

Pharmaceuticals at Health Care Facilities". The guidance document was 

made available for a 60 day public review and comment as announced in a 

Federal Register Notice, published on September 8, 2010. The draft 

guidance document was posted on the Agency's Web site. 

In summary, the guidance recommends the following practices to 

prevent or minimize the amount of pharmaceuticals being disposed in 

water: 

--Conduct an inventory of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical waste to 

quantify the amount of medication the facility is disposing of; 

--Reduce pharmaceutical waste by reviewing purchasing practices, use 

limited dose or unit dose dispensing, replace pharmaceutical samples 

with vouchers, and perform on-going inventory control and stock 

rotation; 

--Reuse or donate unused pharmaceuticals when possible; return unused 

pharmaceuticals to the pharmacy; send unused pharmaceuticals to a 

reverse distributor for credit and proper disposal in accordance with 

the facility's state environmental regulations; properly identify and 

manage hazardous pharmaceutical wastes in accordance with federal and 

state regulations; use EPA recommended practices to dispose of 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 

consistent with other Federal laws and policies. 

C. Dental Amalgam 

In the 2008 final Plan, EPA decided it would not initiate an 

effluent limitation guideline rulemaking for discharges of dental 

amalgam from dentists' offices. However, at that time EPA indicated it 

would examine whether a significant majority of dentists began 

utilizing amalgam separators and stated that after such examination, 

EPA may re-evaluate its decision not to initiate an effluent guidelines 

rulemaking for this sector. 

After assessing the progress made under the Memorandum of 

Understanding to Reduce Dental Amalgam Discharges (MOU), and other 

factors, EPA announced, in September 2010, it will initiate a 

rulemaking to control mercury associated with dental amalgam discharges 

to sewer systems from dental offices. 

Background 

Across the United States, many States and municipal wastewater 

treatment plants (publicly owned treatment works--POTWs) are working 

toward the goal of reducing discharges of mercury into sewer collection 

systems. Many studies have been conducted in an attempt to identify the 

sources of mercury entering these collection systems. According to the 

2002 Mercury Source Control and Pollution Prevention Program Final 

Report prepared for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

(NACWA), dental offices are the largest source of mercury discharges to 

POTWs. The American 

[[Page 66301] 1 

Dental Association (ADA) estimated in 2003 that up to 50% of mercury 

entering POTWs was caused by dental offices (see DCN 04698). 

EPA estimates there are approximately 160,000 dentists working in 

120,000 dental offices that use or remove amalgam in the United 

States--almost all of which discharge their wastewater exclusively to 

POTWs. Mercury in dental wastewater originates from waste particles 

associated with the placement and removal of amalgam fillings. Most 

dental offices currently use some type of basic filtration system to 

reduce the amount of mercury solids passing into the sewer system. 

However, best management practices and the installation of amalgam 

separators, which generally have a removal efficiency of 95% or 

greater, can reduce discharges even further. A recent study funded by 

NACWA (see DCN 04225) concluded that the use of amalgam separators 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

results in reductions in POTH influent concentrations and biosolids 

mercury concentrations. 

In December, 2008 EPA entered into the MOU with NACWA and ADA. The 

purpose of the MOU was to estimate the number of dental facilities with 

amalgam separators installed, establish interim goals for increases in 

the number of separators voluntarily installed, and conduct outreach to 

dentists. 

EPA learned from several states that their efforts to increase the 

number of amalgam separator installations on a voluntary basis were 

largely unsuccessful. Additionally, several environmental organizations 

have urged EPA to establish pretreatment standards for dental amalgam. 

The Quicksilver Caucus commented on the preliminary 2010 Plan 

requesting that EPA initiate a rulemaking to establish pretreatment 

standards for discharges of dental amalgam. 

Given the human health and 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 water pollution problem. 

VII. The Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 

EPA views the effluent guidelines planning process as a mechanism 

designed to promote regular and transparent priority-setting on the 

part of the Agency. A plan is ultimately a statement of choices and 

priorities. These priorities necessarily need to take into account all 

the other statutory mandates and policy initiatives designed to 

implement the CWA's goals and the funds appropriated by Congress to 

execute them. 

By requiring this planning process, culminating in the publication 

of a plan after public notice and comment, Congress assured that EPA 

would regularly re-evaluate its policy choices and priorities 

(including whether to identify an activity for effluent guidelines 

rulemaking) to account for changed circumstances. Ultimately, however, 

Congress left the content of the plan to EPA's discretion--befitting 

the role that effluent guidelines play in the overall structure of the 

CWA and their relationship to other tools for addressing water 

pollution. 

A. EPA's Schedule for Annual Review and Revision of Existing Effluent 

Guidelines under Section 304(b) 

1. Schedule for 2011 and 2012 Annual Reviews Under Section 304(b) 

As noted in section IV.B, CWA section 304(m) (1) (A) requires EPA to 

publish a biennial plan that establishes a schedule for the annual 

review and revision, in accordance with section 304(b), of the effluent 

guidelines that EPA has promulgated under that section. Today's plan 

announces EPA's schedule for performing its section 304(b) reviews for 

2011 and 2012. The schedule is to coordinate its annual review of 

existing effluent guidelines under section 304(b) with its publication 

of preliminary and final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans under CWA 

section 304(m). In other words, in odd-numbered years, EPA intends to 

complete its annual review upon publication of the preliminary Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan that EPA must publish for public review and 

comment under CWA section 304(m) (2). In even-numbered years, EPA 

intends to complete its annual review upon the publication of the final 

Plan. EPA's 2011 annual review is the review cycle ending upon the 

publication of the preliminary Plan in 2011 and its 2012 annual review 

is the review cycle ending upon publication of the 2012 final Plan. 

2. Schedule for Revision of Effluent Guidelines Promulgated Under 

Section 304(b) 

Currently, EPA is engaged in effluent limitations guideline (ELG) 

rulemakings to revise the following existing guidelines: 

Steam Electric Power Generation--this rulemaking involves the 

revision of an existing ELG for about 1200 power-generating facilities 

with a particular focus on about 500 coal-fired power plants. The 

decision to revise the current effluent guidelines for this industry 

was largely driven by the high level of toxic-weighted pollutant 

discharges from coal fired power plants and the expectation that these 

discharges will increase significantly in the next few years as new air 

pollution controls are installed. EPA is under a consent decree 

obligation to issue a final rule for this industry in 2014. 

Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Manufacturing--EPA 

is currently conducting a rulemaking to potentially revise existing 

effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for the following 

categories: Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) 

and Inorganic Chemicals (to address discharges from Vinyl Chloride and 

Chlor-Alkali facilities identified for effluent guidelines rulemaking 

in the final 2004 Plan, now termed the "Chlorine and Chlorinated 

Hydrocarbon (CCH) manufacturing" rulemaking). EPA previously indicated 

it would conduct an industry survey for this effluent guidelines 

rulemaking (April 18, 2006; 71 FR 19887). EPA is considering its next 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

steps for this survey and the rulemaking as it reviews data from a 

voluntary industry monitoring program. EPA worked with industry to 

develop the extensive monitoring program to better understand the 

category's dioxin discharges. 

In addition, EPA is today announcing initiation of an effluent 

limitations guideline (ELG) rulemaking to revise the following existing 

guidelines: 

Oil and Gas Extraction--As explained in Section V.B.2, EPA 

is initiating a rulemaking for Coalbed Methane Extraction, a currently 

unregulated subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source 

Category. Because of concern over high TDS levels in the wastewater for 

Coalbed, availability of treatment technologies, and the fact that 

Coalbed Methane production will continue to grow, EPA believes the 

initiation of a rulemaking to address direct discharges to surface 

waters and discharges to POTWs is appropriate. 

B. Identification of Point Source Categories Under CWA Section 

304 (m) (1) (B) 

The Effluent Guidelines Program Plan must identify categories of 

sources discharging non-trivial amounts of toxic or non-conventional 

pollutants for which EPA has not published effluent limitations 

guidelines under section 304(b) (2) or new source performance standards 

NSPS) under section 306. See CWA section 304(m) (1) (B). The Plan 

[[Page 66302]] 

must also establish a schedule for the promulgation of effluent 

guidelines for the categories identified under section 304 (m) (1) (B) not 

later than three years after such identification. See CWA section 

304(m) (1) (C). EPA is currently taking the following actions on new 

industry categories: 

Airport De-icing--This final ELG rulemaking addresses the 

environmental impact of aircraft and airfield deicing fluid on the 

environment at the about 200 airports in this country that conduct 

deicing operations. This rule is complicated by the shared 

responsibility for deicing operations between the airports and the 

airlines that use them. EPA currently plans to issue a final rule for 

this category in 2011. 

Drinking Water Treatment Industry--EPA is not at this time 

continuing its effluent guidelines rulemaking for the Drinking Water 

Treatment industry. In the 2004 Plan, EPA announced that it would begin 

development of a regulation to control the pollutants discharged from 

drinking water treatment plants. See 69 FR 53720 (September 2, 2004). 

Based on a preliminary study and on public comments, EPA was interested 

in the potential volume of discharges associated with drinking water 

facilities. The preliminary data were not conclusive, and the Agency 

proceeded with additional study and analysis of treatability, including 

an industry survey. After considering extensive information about the 

industry, its treatment residuals, wastewater treatment options, and 

discharge characteristics, and after considering other priorities, EPA 

has suspended work on this rulemaking. 

The ELG Program is also developing the cooling water intake 

existing facility rule--Under section 316(b) of the CWA, EPA plans to 

issue a final rule in 2012 addressing the withdrawal of trillions of 

aquatic organisms from waters of the U.S. by about 1260 power plants 

and manufacturing facilities which withdraw water for cooling purposes. 

Also for the 2010 Plan, EPA is issuing the detailed study report 

for the coalbed methane industry and is issuing the preliminary study 

report for the Ore Mining and Dressing industry, and will be taking no 

further action on this industry at this time. EPA initiated a 

preliminary study of cellulose manufacturers in the Plastic Molding and 

Forming category (part 463) due, in part, to high carbon disulfide 

discharges which were revealed during the 2010 review. 

Finally, EPA interprets section 304 (m) (1) (B) to give EPA the 

discretion to identify in the Plan only those potential new categories 

for which an effluent guidelines rulemaking may be an appropriate tool 

for controlling discharges. Therefore, EPA does not identify in the 

Plan all potential new categories discharging toxic and nonconventional pollutants. Rather, EPA identifies only those potential 

new categories for which it believes that effluent guidelines may be 

appropriate, taking into account Agency priorities, resources and the 

full range of other CWA tools available for addressing industrial 

discharges. In this Plan, EPA is not identifying for rulemaking any new 

categories discharging toxic and non-conventional pollutants. 

EPA is continuously investigating and solicits comment on how to 

improve its analyses (see section IX. Request for Comment and 

Information for the 2011 Annual Reviews). 

C. Identification of Guidelines for Pretreatment of Pollutants under 

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

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 241'n 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (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 to publicly 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 of mercury each year to 

publicly owned treatment works. In addition, EPA has not seen 

significant increases in the installation of amalgam separators under 

current voluntary efforts. Consequently, EPA has decided to initiate 

rulemaking which will reduce mercury discharges from dental facilities 

more completely, and in a more predictable timeframe than has been 

demonstrated through voluntary means alone. 

EPA also is initiating rulemaking for shale gas extraction, another 

subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, which 

is now subject to effluent guidelines under this Category but not to 

applicable pretreatment standards. Because of concern over high TDS 

levels in the wastewater for shale gas extraction, availability of 

treatment technologies, and the fact that shale gas extraction 

production will continue to grow, EPA believes the initiation of a 

rulemaking to address discharges to POTWs is appropriate. 

D. Current Rulemakings 

Airport Deicing and Steam Electric Power Generation: 

Schedules 

Airport Deicing: 

--Final ELG Rule--Fall 2011 

Steam Electric Power Generation: 

--Proposed Rule--July 2012 

--Final Rule--January 2014 

E. New Rulemakings 

Dental Amalgam 

Schedule to Develop the Regulation for Dental Amalgam: 

--Proposed Rule--October 2011 

--Final Rule--October 2012 

Coalbed Methane Extraction 

Schedule to Develop the Regulation for Coalbed Methane Extraction: 

--Proposed Rule--2013 

Shale Gas Extraction 

Schedule to Develop the Regulation for Shale Gas Extraction: 

--Proposed Rule--2014 

These Agency decisions, announcements and the studies described 

previously fulfill EPA's obligations to annually review both existing 

effluent limitations guidelines for direct dischargers and existing 

pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers under CWA sections 

304(b) and (g), as well as other review requirements under CWA section 

301(d) and 307(b). 

VIII. EPA's 2011 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 

Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 

304(m) and 307(b) 

This notice also provides EPA's preliminary thoughts concerning its 

2011 annual reviews under CWA sections 304(b) and 304(g) as well as its 

reviews under 301(d) and 307(b) and solicits comments, data and 

information to assist EPA in performing these reviews. 

A. Schedule for the 2011 Annual Reviews Under Section 304(b) 

As noted in section IV.B, CWA section 304(m) (1) (A) requires EPA to 

publish a Plan every two years that establishes a schedule for the 

annual review and revision, in accordance with section 304(b), of the 

effluent guidelines that EPA has promulgated under that 

[[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 existing effluent guidelines with its publication of the preliminary 

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 must publish for public 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

review and comment under CWA section 304(m) (2). In even-numbered years, 

EPA intends to complete its annual review upon the publication of the 

final Plan. EPA's 2010 annual review is the review cycle ending upon 

the publication of this final 2010 Plan. 

EPA is coordinating its annual reviews with publication of Plans 

under section 304(m) for several reasons. First, the annual review is 

inextricably linked to the planning effort, because the results of each 

annual review can inform the content of the preliminary and final 

Plans, e.g., by identifying candidates for effluent guidelines revision 

for which EPA can schedule rulernaking in the Plan, or by calling to 

EPA's attention point source categories for which EPA has not 

promulgated effluent guidelines. Second, even though not required to do 

so under either section 304{b) or section 304(m), EPA believes that the 

public interest is served by periodically presenting to the public a 

description of each annual review (including the review process 

employed) and the results of the review. Doing so at the same time EPA 

publishes preliminary and final plans makes both processes more 

transparent. Third, by requiring EPA to regularly review all existing 

effluent guidelines, Congress appears to have intended that each 

successive review would build upon the results of earlier reviews. 

Therefore, by describing the 2010 annual review along with the final 

2010 final Plan, EPA hopes to gather and receive data and information 

that will inform its reviews for 2011 and 2012 and the final 2012 Plan. 

IX. Request for Comment and Information for the 2011 Annual Reviews 

A. EPA Requests Information on 

1. Data Sources and Methodologies 

EPA solicits comments on whether EPA used the correct evaluation 

factors, criteria, and data sources in conducting its annual review and 

developing this final Plan. EPA also solicits comment on other data 

sources EPA can use in its annual reviews and biennial planning 

process. Please see the docket for a more detailed discussion of EPA's 

analysis supporting the reviews in this notice (see DCN 07320). 

EPA is also soliciting comments on ways to enhance its Plan 

analysis. In particular: Are there new or additional factors that 

should be brought to bear for screening existing industries for 

revisions to their current guidelines? Are there approaches that could 

be used to better identify new industries that currently do not have 

guidelines that should? EPA is interested in receiving comment on all 

aspects of its current methodology. 

2. Climate Change and Water Efficiency 

EPA solicits comments, and data and information on whether the 

actions described under this Plan will have effects on water 

conservation or on climate change. In particular, will certain 

technologies or actions help to conserve water, and thereby energy and 

thus reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, or will the actions 

envisioned by this plan waste water and/or energy resources. Likewise, 

will the actions and potential industry changes contemplated by this 

Plan result in greater emission of green house gases, or are there 

opportunities for industry to reduce green house gas emissions. 

3. BPJ Permit-Based Support 

EPA solicits comments on whether, and if so, how the Agency should 

provide EPA Regions and States with permit-based support instead of 

revising effluent guidelines (e.g., when the vast majority of the 

hazard is associated with one or a few facilities). EPA solicits 

comment on categories for which the Agency should provide permit-based 

support. 

4. Implementation Issues Related to Existing Effluent Guidelines and 

Pretreatment Standards 

As a factor in its decision-making, EPA considers opportunities to 

eliminate inefficiencies or impediments to pollution prevention or 

technological innovation, or opportunities to promote innovative 

approaches such as water quality trading, including within-plant 

trading. Consequently, EPA solicits comment on implementation issues 

related to existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. 

5. EPA's Evaluation of Categories of Indirect Dischargers Without 

Categorical Pretreatment Standards To Identify Potential New Categories 

for Pretreatment Standards 

EPA solicits comments on its evaluation of categories of indirect 

dischargers without categorical pretreatment standards. Specifically, 

EPA solicits wastewater characterization data (e.g., wastewater 

volumes, concentrations of discharged pollutants), current examples of 

pollution prevention, treatment technologies, and local limits for all 

industries without pretreatment standards. EPA also solicits comment on 

whether there are industrial sectors discharging pollutants that cause 

interference issues that cannot be adequately controlled through the 

general pretreatment standards. Finally, EPA solicits comment on how 

better to access and aggregate discharge data reported to local 

pretreatment programs. Currently, pollutant discharge data are 

collected by the local pretreatment program to demonstrate compliance 

hUp:liYMw.gpo.gO\lfds)6l~IFR-2011-1()'_12011-27742.htm 
5/2212014 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 207 (Wednesday, 0_ 26, 2011) 

with pretreatment standards and local limits but are not typically 

electronically transmitted to the States or EPA Regions. 

6. Data and Information on Discharges of Pollutants From Waste 

Combustors 

EPA solicits data and information on discharges of wastewater from 

waste combustors. DMR data suggest the consistent discharge of metals 

and possible discharge of pesticides from waste combustors. EPA's 

analysis for the 2010 ELG Final Plan shows that pesticides are 

discharged at concentrations below limits of detection. EPA is 

requesting information on waste combustors metals and pesticide 

discharges, to determine if they are present at concentrations below 

treatable levels. 

7. Data and Information on Discharges of Pollutants From Shale Gas 

Extraction 

EPA solicits data and information on the pollutants generated by 

the Shale Gas extraction industry. In particular EPA is soliciting data 

and information on the type of pollutants in shale gas wastewaters, 

including the type and toxicity of additives, the volumes of flowback 

and concentrations of the pollutants in the flowback, the fate and 

transport of pollutants to ground waters, and data and information on 

the pass-through of pollutants at publicly owned treatment works 

(POTHs). EPA also solicits documented impacts of these pollutants on 

aquatic life and human health. 

8. Data and Information on Discharges of Nanosilver From Industrial 

Manufacturing 

Nanosilver is becoming a more commonly used substance in industrial 

materials and commercial products as an active pesticide ingredient. In 

some uses, fabric is impregnated with 

[[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 lead to nanosilver 

discharges. Other products, such as household washing machines, are 

being manufactured with the washer drum coated with nanosilver polymers 

to kill bacteria during clothes laundering. Since many of the 

nanosilver applications have the potential to create a source of silver 

in wastewater discharges from industries using nanosilver in the 

manufacture of products, or use of products containing nanosilver, EPA 

is interested in gathering as much information as possible on the fate, 

transport and effects of nanosilver on the aquatic environment and 

human health. 

EPA is soliciting data and information on the manufacture, use, and 

environmental release of silver materials, including nanosilver. EPA is 

requesting information on the manufacturing of silver materials, 

including: 

--Raw silver products, such as colloidal nanosilver; 

--Intermediates such as polymers or fibers embedded with silver, 

nanosilver, or silver compounds; and 

--End products, such as silver-embedded textile and plastic products, 

or appliances with nanosilver coated surfaces. 

Dated: October 20, 2011. 

Nancy K. Stoner, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Water. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

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