Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices 29203

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6103–5]

RIN 2040–AC20

Effluent Guidelines Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed effluent

guidelines plan.

SUMMARY: Today’s document announces

the Agency’s proposed plans for

developing new and revised effluent

guidelines, which regulate industrial

discharges to surface waters and to

publicly owned treatment works. The

document also describes EPA’s

revisions to its regulation development

process, based on recommendations of

the Effluent Guidelines Task Force.

Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act

requires EPA to publish a biennial

Effluent Guidelines Plan. The Agency

requests comment on the proposal and

will publish a final plan following the

close of the comment period.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

writing to: Water Docket Clerk (4101),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460. The public record for this notice

is available for review in the EPA Water

Docket, East Tower Basement, 401 M

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. For

access to Docket materials, call (202)

260–3027 between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. for

an appointment. The EPA public

information regulation (40 CFR part 2)

provides that a reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

Strassler, EPA Engineering and Analysis

Division, telephone 202–260–7150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulated Entities

II. Legal Authority

III. Introduction

A. Purpose of Today’s Document

B. Overview of Today’s Document

IV. Effluent Guidelines Program Background

A. Statutory Framework

B. Components of an Effluent Guideline

Regulation

C. Traditional Approach to Development of

Effluent Guideline Regulations

D. Recent Revisions to the Effluent

Guidelines Planning Process and

Recommendations of the Effluent

Guidelines Task Force

E. NRDC Litigation and Consent Decree

V. Today’s Proposed Effluent Guidelines Plan

A. Effluent Guidelines Currently Under

Development

1. Schedule for Ongoing Rulemaking

2. Rulemaking Projects Started in 1997

a. Oil and Gas Extraction

b. Coal Mining c. Feedlots (Swine and

Poultry Subcategories)

B. Process for Selection of New Effluent

Guideline Regulations

1. New Rulemaking Activities a. Feedlots

(Beef and Dairy Cattle Subcategories) b.

Other Rules

2. Candidates for Effluent Guidelines

Rulemaking Projects

a. Preliminary Studies

b. Previously-Noticed Studies

c. Photographic Processing

d. Chemical Formulating, Packaging and

Repackaging

e. Urban Storm Water

f. Airport Deicing

g. Fish Hatcheries and Farms

3. Future Studies

C. Other Rulemaking Actions

1. Pulp, Paper and Paperboard, Phases 2 &

3

2. Ore Mining and Dressing

VI. Request for Comments

VII. Economic Impact Assessment; Executive

Order 12866

Appendix A—Promulgated Effluent

Guidelines

Appendix B—Current and Future

Rulemaking Projects

Appendix C—Preliminary Studies

I. Regulated Entities

Today’s proposed plan does not

contain regulatory requirements and

does not provide specific definitions for

each industrial category. Entities

potentially affected by decisions

regarding the final plan are listed below.

Category of entity Examples of potentially affected entities

Industry/Commercial ....................... Pulp, Paper and Paperboard; Oil and Gas Extraction; Centralized Waste Treatment; Pharmaceutical Manufacturing; Metal Products and Machinery (including electroplating, metal finishing); Landfills; Industrial

Waste Combustors (Incinerators); Industrial Laundries; Transportation Equipment Cleaning (truck tanks,

railroad tank cars, barge tanks); Iron and Steel Manufacturing; Coal Mining; Petroleum Refining; Textile

Mills; Inorganic Chemicals; Steam Electric Power Generating; Photographic Processing; Chemical Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging; Airports.

Agriculture ....................................... Feedlots (swine, poultry, dairy and beef cattle); Fish Hatcheries and Farms (Aquaculture).

Federal Government ....................... Metal Products and Machinery (including electroplating, metal finishing); Landfills; Airports.

State Government ........................... Metal Products and Machinery (including electroplating, metal finishing); Municipal Separate Storm Sewer

Systems (Urban Storm Water); Landfills; Airports.

Local Government ........................... Metal Products and Machinery (including electroplating, metal finishing); Municipal Separate Storm Sewer

Systems (Urban Storm Water); Landfills; Airports.

To determine whether your facility

would be regulated, you should

carefully examine the applicability

criteria in the appropriate proposed rule

(previously published or forthcoming).

Not all of the categories listed in the

above table have been selected for

rulemaking. Citations for previously

published proposed rules and schedules

for forthcoming proposed rules are

provided in Appendices A and B of

today’s document.

II. Legal Authority

Today’s document is published under

the authority of section 304(m) of the

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1314(m),

which requires EPA to publish a

biennial Effluent Guidelines Plan,

which sets a schedule for review and

revision of existing regulations and

identifies categories of dischargers to be

covered by new regulations.

III. Introduction

A. Purpose of Today’s Document

Today’s document announces the

Agency’s proposed biennial plan

pursuant to section 304(m). EPA invites

the public to comment on the proposed

plan, and following the close of the

comment period the Agency will

publish a final plan.

B. Overview of Today’s Document

The Agency proposes to develop

effluent limitation guidelines and

standards (‘‘effluent guidelines’’) as

follows:

1. Continue development of nine rules

listed in the 1996 Effluent Guidelines

Plan (61 FR 52582, October 7, 1996) and

the 1997 Update (62 FR 8726, February

26, 1997). The categories are: Pulp,

Paper and Paperboard, Phases 2 and 3;

Centralized Waste Treatment;

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing; Metal

Products and Machinery; Landfills;

Industrial Waste Combustors

(Incinerators); Industrial Laundries;
29204 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices

Transportation Equipment Cleaning;

and Iron and Steel Manufacturing.

2. Continue development of 3 rules

started by the Agency in 1997: Oil and

Gas Extraction (Synthetic-Based Drilling

Fluids); Coal Mining (Remining and

Western subcategories); and Feedlots

(Poultry and Swine subcategories).

3. Begin development of revised

effluent guidelines for the Feedlots

category (Beef and Dairy Cattle

subcategories) and two additional

categories (new or revised), by

December 1998.

4. Complete preliminary studies on

Feedlots, Urban Storm Water, and

Airport Deicing.

5. Plan for development of two

additional effluent guidelines, either

new or revised. EPA’s current plan is to

begin development of two rules by

December 1999.

IV. Effluent Guidelines Program

Background

A. Statutory Framework

The Federal Water Pollution Control

Act (FWPCA) of 1972 (Pub. L. 92–500,

Oct. 18, 1972) (the ‘‘Act’’) established a

program to restore and maintain the

integrity of the nation’s waters. To

implement the Act, Congress directed

EPA to issue effluent limitation

guidelines, pretreatment standards, and

new source performance standards for

industrial dischargers. These regulations

were to be based principally on the

degree of effluent reduction attainable

through the application of control

technologies.

The 1977 amendments to the FWPCA,

known as the Clean Water Act

Amendments (Pub. L. 95–217, Dec. 27,

1977) (CWA), added an additional level

of control for conventional pollutants

such as biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS),

and stressed additional control of 65

toxic compounds or classes of

compounds (from which EPA later

developed a list of 126 specific ‘‘priority

pollutants’’). To further strengthen the

toxics control program, section 304(e),

added by the 1977 amendments,

authorized the Administrator to

establish management practices to

control toxic and hazardous pollutants

in plant site runoff, spillage or leaks,

sludge or waste disposal, and drainage

from raw material storage.

The effluent guidelines promulgated

by EPA reflect the several levels of

regulatory stringency specified in the

Act, and they also focus on different

types of pollutants. Section 301(b)(1)(A)

directs the achievement of effluent

limitations requiring application of best

practicable control technology currently

available (BPT). In general, effluent

limitations based on BPT represent the

average of the best treatment technology

performance for an industrial category.

For conventional pollutants listed under

section 304(a)(4), section 301(b)(2)(E)

directs the achievement of effluent

limitations based on the performance of

best conventional pollutant control

technology (BCT). The Act requires that

BCT limitations be established in light

of a two-part ‘‘cost-reasonableness’’ test.

The test, which assesses the relative

costs of conventional pollutant

removals, is described in detail in the

Federal Register notice promulgating

the final BCT rule on July 9, 1986 (51

FR 24974).

Both BPT and BCT regulations apply

only to direct dischargers, i.e., those

facilities that discharge directly into

waters of the United States. In general,

regulations are not developed to control

conventional pollutants discharged by

indirect dischargers because the POTWs

receiving those wastes normally provide

adequate treatment of these types of

pollutants or they can be adequately

controlled through local pretreatment

limits.

For the toxic pollutants listed in

section 307(a), and for nonconventional

pollutants, sections 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D)

and (F) direct the achievement of

effluent limitations requiring

application of best available technology

economically achievable (BAT). Effluent

limitations based on BAT are to

represent at a minimum the best control

technology performance in the

industrial category that is

technologically and economically

achievable.

In addition to limitations for existing

direct dischargers, EPA also establishes

new source performance standards

(NSPS) under section 306 of the Act,

based on the best available

demonstrated control technology,

processes operating methods, or other

alternatives. NSPS apply to new direct

dischargers. Generally the NSPS

limitations are to be as stringent as, or

more stringent than, BAT limitations for

existing sources within the category or

subcategory.

Although the limitations are based on

the performance capability of particular

control technologies, including in some

cases in-process controls, dischargers

may meet their requirements using

whatever combination of control

methods they choose, such as

manufacturing process or equipment

changes, product substitution, and

water re-use and recycling. The

limitations and standards are

implemented in permits issued through

the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) pursuant

to section 402 of the Act for point

sources discharging directly to the

waters of the United States.

Section 402 of the CWA provides for

the issuance of permits to direct

dischargers under NPDES. These

permits, which are required by section

301, are issued either by EPA or by a

State agency approved to administer the

NPDES program. Individual NPDES

permits must incorporate applicable

technology-based limitations contained

in guidelines and standards for the

industrial category in question. Where

EPA has not promulgated applicable

technology-based effluent guidelines for

a category, section 402(a)(1)(B) provides

that the permit must incorporate such

conditions as the Administrator

determines are necessary to carry out

the provisions of the Act. In other

words, the permit writer uses best

professional judgment (BPJ) to establish

technology-based limitations for the

dischargers.

Indirect dischargers are regulated by

the general pretreatment regulations (40

CFR part 403), local discharge limits

developed pursuant to part 403, and

categorical pretreatment standards for

new and existing sources (PSNS and

PSES) covering specific industrial

categories. These categorical standards

under sections 307(b) and (c) apply to

the discharge of pollutants from nondomestic sources which interfere with

or pass through publicly owned

treatment works (POTWs), and are

enforced by POTWs or by State or

Federal authorities. The categorical

pretreatment standards for existing

sources covering specific industries are

generally analogous to the BAT

limitations imposed on direct

dischargers. The standards for new

sources are generally analogous to

NSPS.

To ensure that effluent guidelines

remain current with the state of the

industry and with available control

technologies, section 304(b) of the Act

provides that EPA shall revise the

effluent guidelines at least annually if

appropriate. In addition, section 301(d)

provides that EPA shall review and if

appropriate, revise any effluent

limitation required by section 301(b)(2).

B. Components of an Effluent Guideline

Regulation

The principal components of most

effluent guideline regulations are

numerical wastewater discharge

limitations controlling specified

pollutants for a given category. These

are typically concentration-based limits

(specified in units such as milligrams of

pollutant per liter of water) or
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices 29205

production-based mass limits (specified

in units such as milligrams of pollutant

per unit of production). Numerical

limits also cover parameters such as pH

and temperature.

A guideline is often subcategorized

based on differences in raw materials,

manufacturing processes, characteristics

of the wastewaters, or type of product

manufactured; in some cases, non-water

quality environmental impacts or other

appropriate factors that justify the

imposition of specialized requirements

on the subcategorized facilities are used

as a basis. EPA develops a set of effluent

limitations for each category or

subcategory at each level of control

(BPT, BAT, etc.) that is addressed in the

guideline.

A guideline also may prescribe Best

Management Practices (‘‘BMPs’’) in

addition to or in lieu of numerical

limits. BMPs may include, for example,

requirements addressing the

minimization or prevention of storm

water runoff, plant maintenance

schedules and requirements addressing

the training of plant personnel. The

recently promulgated Pulp, Paper and

Paperboard rule requires mills to

implement BMPs to prevent or

otherwise contain leaks and spills of

spent pulping liquor, soap, and

turpentine and to control intentional

diversions of those materials (40 CFR

430.03, 63 FR 18641, April 15, 1998).

C. Traditional Approach to

Development of Effluent Guideline

Regulations

EPA has accumulated substantial

experience and expertise in the course

of preparing 51 effluent guidelines. This

section of the notice summarizes the

various tasks which the Agency

typically undertakes in an effluent

guideline rulemaking.

Traditionally, EPA begins work on an

effluent guideline rulemaking project by

tentatively defining the scope and

dimensions of the discharger category.

The Agency determines the size of the

category as it has been defined, using all

available sources of information. Given

the diversity of regulatory categories, no

single source suffices to establish size.

At various times, EPA has used one or

more of the following sources: Standard

published sources, information

available through trade associations,

data purchased from the Dun and

Bradstreet, Inc. data base, other publicly

available data bases, U.S. Census Bureau

data, other U.S. Government

information, and any available EPA data

base. If a category is very large and/or

diverse, the Agency will determine

whether it can be broken down into

appropriate categories or subcategories.

If more than one subcategory can be

identified, the Agency may need to

establish priorities for regulation.

EPA works with interested

stakeholders early in the regulation

development process. State and local

regulatory officials familiar with the

category are consulted, and business

associations and citizen groups are also

invited to share information.

Regulatory information about

discharger categories has often been

obtained by EPA through survey

questionnaires, site visits and

wastewater sampling. Survey

questionnaires solicit detailed

information necessary to assess the

statutory rulemaking factors

(particularly technological and

economic achievability of available

controls), water use, production

processes, and wastewater treatment

and disposal practices. A portion of the

Agency’s questionnaires also seek

information necessary to assess the

economic achievability of a prospective

regulation.

Generally, the Agency uses on-site

wastewater sampling and detailed

monitoring data to characterize the

pollutants found in discharges. Site

visits are also used to assess

manufacturing processes, wastewater

generation, pollutant control

technologies, pollution prevention

opportunities (e.g., process changes),

and potential non-water quality impacts

of effluent guidelines (e.g., air

emissions, sludge generation, energy

usage).

In developing a list of pollutants of

concern for a category, EPA initially

will study wastewater samples for a

broad range of pollutants that can be

measured by recognized analytical

methods. Currently over 457 pollutants

or analytes can be measured by these

methods. This includes the subset of

126 pollutants known as ‘‘priority’’

pollutants developed pursuant to CWA

section 307(a). EPA will develop new

analytical methods to cover additional

pollutants as necessary. For example,

the Agency has developed new methods

for use in the Pesticides, Pulp and

Paper, Pharmaceuticals, and Offshore

Oil and Gas effluent guidelines. (EPA

generally proposes any new methods for

public comment concurrently with the

proposed rule.)

Most of the effluent sampling and

analysis that has been conducted

specifically to support effluent

guideline regulations promulgated to

date has been conducted by EPA. On

occasion, however, these activities have

been pursued on a cooperative basis

with discharging facilities. For example,

EPA and numerous pulp and paper

manufacturers participated in

cooperative efforts to sample and

analyze effluent, wastewater treatment

sludge, and pulp from domestic mills

that bleach chemical pulp in their

production processes.

EPA conducts engineering and

statistical analyses of the technical data

to develop control and treatment

options for the pollutants of concern,

and the projected costs for these

options. The Agency considers the

costing information and economic data

gathered from the survey and other

sources in its economic impact analysis,

and then selects one or more of the

options as the basis for a rulemaking

proposal. It also develops assessments

of the environmental impact of the

category’s discharges, and may conduct

a benefit-cost analysis as well.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of

1980, as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA) (Title III of Pub. L. 104–

121, March 29, 1996), requires that EPA

conduct regulatory flexibility analyses

for rules which have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. These analyses

are to assess the impact of the rule on

small entities and consider alternative

ways of reducing those impacts. Section

344 of SBREFA also requires EPA to

organize a ‘‘small business advocacy

review panel’’ for each rule where a

regulatory flexibility analysis is

required.

Prior to publishing a proposed rule,

EPA usually conducts a public meeting

to discuss the Agency’s findings and

describe the general outlines of the rule.

Following publication, a hearing is

conducted during the public comment

period, and supplemental notices of

new data may be published, if

appropriate.

D. Recent Revisions to the Effluent

Guidelines Planning Process and

Recommendations of the Effluent

Guidelines Task Force

EPA has recently revised the Effluent

Guidelines planning process based on

its discussions with the Effluent

Guidelines Task Force, an advisory

committee. The Task Force was

established by EPA in 1992 to

recommend improvements to the

effluent guidelines program. The

committee consists of members

appointed by the Agency from industry,

citizen groups, state and local

government, the academic and scientific

communities, and EPA’s Office of

Research and Development. The Task

Force was created to offer advice to the

EPA Administrator on the long-term

strategy for the effluent guidelines
29206 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices

program, and particularly to provide

recommendations on a process for

expediting the promulgation of effluent

guidelines. It is chartered as a

subcommittee of the National Advisory

Council for Environmental Policy and

Technology (NACEPT), the external

policy advisory board to the

Administrator, pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.

II, sec. 9(c)).

The Task Force has been focusing on

alternative regulatory processes that

would allow EPA to promulgate effluent

guidelines more rapidly and at lower

cost to the government. Several key

aspects of the rulemaking process have

been discussed, including

determination of regulatory scope and

data collection.

The Task Force has suggested that

EPA consider making decisions on the

scope of a regulation early in the

rulemaking process. Task Force

members generally believe that by

focusing on the segment of an industry

that is of greatest concern, EPA can

reduce its data collection and analysis

costs while achieving the majority of

benefits that would be achieved by the

more exhaustive examination currently

given to industrial sectors. Several Task

Force members have suggested that

additional savings could be realized by

limiting the examination of potential

control technologies to one or two welldemonstrated technologies, rather than

pursuing data on a larger range of

technologies employed by good

performers in the industry. Similarly,

several Task Force members have

suggested that by focusing on the known

pollutants of greatest concern rather

than conducting independent testing of

over 400 pollutant parameters, both

time and money could be saved. These

approaches could lead to more focused

regulations that are developed based on

early presumptions regarding the most

effective control technologies and key

pollutant parameters to be controlled.

Key to the success of these

approaches is the early involvement of

a variety of stakeholders with

knowledge of the industry, control

technologies, and environmental

impacts. Potential drawbacks include a

reduced ability to identify pollution

prevention opportunities for all or

segments of the industry, and a reduced

ability to quantify (and monetize) the

full range of benefits that will result

from the regulation. The Task Force

acknowledged that decision-makers

would be expected to accept greater risk

and make decisions on less

comprehensive data if the time and cost

savings are to be realized.

The Task Force also suggested that the

Agency could reduce both the time and

costs for data collection by relying more

on existing data sources and less on

specially-designed questionnaires.

With respect to technical process and

wastewater control data, the Agency

could rely on assessments of the current

baseline by industry, states, and local

municipalities, and supplement those

assessments with independent site and

sampling episodes.

With respect to performance data,

EPA could conduct fewer site visits and

sampling episodes compared to

previous rules and rely more on existing

performance data that meets the

Agency’s quality control criteria. Since

most existing data would be on

conventional pollutants, with less data

on a limited set of nonconventional and

toxic pollutants, this shift to existing

data is also linked with the concept of

focusing on a limited number of

pollutant parameters. Additional

sampling for the effluent guideline

could also be performed by stakeholders

to supplement the Agency’s

independent efforts. For example, EPA

worked with the Association of

Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies

(AMSA) to develop a sampling protocol

which was used by the Hampton Roads

Sanitary District, Virginia Beach, VA., to

independently sample a facility that

falls within the scope of the Metal

Products and Machinery regulation.

Other associations have expressed

interest in conducting their own

sampling episodes based on this

protocol to further supplement the

regulatory record.

With respect to financial and

economic information, there is a subset

of data that is publicly available for

many of the larger, publicly-held

entities. Economic impacts on smaller

and privately-held entities that may be

affected may be more difficult to assess.

This difficulty may be offset by a focus

on larger sources in the original scoping

of the regulatory project.

Each of the three new effluent

guideline projects started in late 1997

respond to the Task Force

recommendations in one or more ways.

• EPA is developing a focused rule

that will establish limitations for the use

of synthetic-based drilling fluids (SBFs)

in the Oil and Gas Extraction category

(40 CFR part 435). Because of the

extensive information collected in the

previous two rulemakings covering the

offshore and coastal subcategories, a

limited amount of data collection

activities are necessary. The Agency has

already acquired data on the

characteristics of SBFs and is

developing other data in cooperation

with the industry and the Departments

of Energy and Interior which will be

useful in supporting an accelerated

regulation development approach.

Identifying appropriate toxicity tests,

consisting of both aqueous and

sediment phase test methods, analytical

methods for use with synthetic rather

than water-based drilling fluids and

technologies for cleaning drill cuttings

are in progress and are expected to give

results that will be used in developing

the proposed rule.

• EPA is developing a focused rule

addressing coal remining operations,

which are not covered by the existing

Coal Mining Category (40 CFR part 434),

and alkaline mining operations in the

west, for which existing regulations

based on sedimentation ponds may not

be environmentally effective. Since

promulgation in 1985, sediment control

technologies have reportedly advanced

in both number and sophistication. For

this regulation, EPA is implementing a

number of the Task Force

recommendations. First, EPA is focusing

on two segments for which controls

have been identified that would result

in environmental improvements.

Second, the Agency has enlisted the

support of the U.S. Office of Surface

Mining and the Interstate Mining

Compact Commission to assemble and

analyze existing information. This

information includes information on the

current state of the industry that will

allow EPA to assess the baseline and

economic status. It also includes

performance data on pollutant controls

that will allow us to assess the

effectiveness of technologies and

management practices. Pollutants of

concern will be determined from among

those pollutants for which performance

data exist.

• The revisions to the Feedlots

category (40 CFR part 412) will also rely

on the Task Force recommendations.

First, the regulation will focus on

specific industry segments, beginning

with pork and poultry operations, and

then looking at beef and dairy cattle

operations. Second, EPA will rely, in

part, on stakeholders for background

information. For example, the Agency is

working with the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) and the major trade

associations to develop models (both

technical and economic) to depict the

current baseline activities, and to assess

costs and impacts of alternative

controls. EPA has received a

‘‘framework’’ document from the Pork

Producers Council which identifies

their recommendations for controls of

wastes generated at their member

facilities. The poultry industry is

embarking on a similar effort. The
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices 29207

environmental community has offered

to provide their recommendations for

regulatory controls for the feedlot

industry as a whole. EPA expects to use

each of these as well as expertise and

research from USDA to evaluate control

options.

These new projects are discussed

further in section V.A.2 of today’s

document.

E. NRDC Litigation and Consent Decree

EPA has developed today’s proposed

Effluent Guidelines Plan pursuant to a

consent decree in NRDC et al v. Browner

(D.D.C. Civ. No. 89–2980, January 31,

1992, as modified). The Decree commits

EPA to schedules for proposing and

taking final action on effluent

guidelines, and also for conducting

preliminary studies. Some of the

categories to be regulated are specified

in the Decree. For the remaining

required rulemakings, EPA retains the

discretion to select guidelines for

development based on Agency

priorities.

EPA will use the results of the

preliminary studies and other

information (such as public comments

and recommendations from state and

local governments) to select industries

for future regulation. The Decree

requires the Agency to study eleven

industries.

The Decree also required EPA to

establish the Effluent Guidelines Task

Force to formulate recommendations for

improvements to the effluent guidelines

program. The Task Force has held

several public meetings and has

submitted recommendations to the EPA

Administrator.

Since 1992, EPA and NRDC have

agreed to several modifications of the

Decree consisting of deadline extensions

for certain rules.

V. Today’s Proposed Effluent

Guidelines Plan

A. Effluent Guidelines Currently Under

Development

1. Schedule for Ongoing Rulemaking

The Agency is currently in the

process of developing new or revised

effluent guidelines for 12 categories.

The categories and actual or Consent

Decree dates for proposal and final

action are set forth in Table 1.

TABLE 1.—EFFLUENT GUIDELINES CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT

Category

Proposal Final action

Consent

decree or

publication

date

Consent

decree

Pulp, Paper and Paperboard, Phases 2 & 3 ............................................................................................... 1 12/17/93 1 2000–2002

Centralized Waste Treatment ...................................................................................................................... 1/27/95 3 8/15/99

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing ..................................................................................................................... 5/2/95 7/98

Metal Products and Machinery .................................................................................................................... 2 5/30/95

10/00

12/02

Industrial Laundries ...................................................................................................................................... 2/17/97 6/99

Landfills ........................................................................................................................................................ 2/6/98 11/99

Industrial Waste Combustors (Incinerators) ................................................................................................ 2/6/98 11/99

Transportation Equipment Cleaning ............................................................................................................ 5/15/98 6/15/00

Oil and Gas Extraction (Synthetic Drilling Fluids) ....................................................................................... 12/98 12/00

Iron and Steel Manufacturing ....................................................................................................................... 3 12/98 3 12/00

Coal Mining .................................................................................................................................................. 12/99 12/01

Feedlots (Poultry and Swine Subcategories) .............................................................................................. 12/99 12/01

1The Pulp, Paper and Paperboard rulemaking is not covered by the January 31, 1992 consent decree and dates reflect projected dates for

final promulgation of the 2 phases. 2 5/30/95 proposal covered Phase 1 MP&M facilities only. Proposal in 10/00 will cover Phase 1 and 2 facilities combined.

3EPA is discussing extensions to consent decree dates with NRDC.

2. Rulemaking Projects Started in 1997

In 1997 EPA began to develop revised

or new standards for portions of three

categories: Oil and Gas Extraction, Coal

Mining, and Feedlots. The rationale for

selection and the tentative scope of

rulemaking coverage are described

below.

a. Oil and Gas Extraction. Oil and Gas

Extraction is covered by existing

effluent guidelines at 40 CFR part 435.

The most recent amendments were

promulgated for the Offshore Category

(58 FR 12454, March 4, 1993) and the

Coastal Subcategory (61 FR 66086,

December 16, 1996). This regulatory

development project will establish

limitations for the use and discharge of

synthetic-based drilling fluids (SBFs)

where discharge of drilling fluids is

permitted. SBFs are used in lieu of oilbased drilling fluids in certain high

performance drilling operations. SBFs

are not adequately addressed by current

effluent limitations for discharge of

drilling fluids which were developed

based on the use of oil and water-based

fluids. Current information suggests that

improvements in synthetic-based

drilling fluids in recent years have

reduced their aquatic toxicity, increased

their biodegradability, and reduced the

volume of drilling fluids and cuttings

wastes generated. Use of synthetic-based

drilling fluids instead of water-based

drilling fluids in the geographic areas

where discharge is allowed will provide

additional environmental protection by

reducing aquatic toxicity of discharges

and reducing the amount of cuttings on

the ocean floor.

EPA intends to issue a proposed rule

by December 1998 and take final action

by December 2000.

b. Coal Mining. Coal Mining activities

are covered by existing effluent

guidelines at 40 CFR part 434. The

existing regulations, however, do not

address remining operations, which

improve effluent quality and quantity

from abandoned mine lands while

reclaiming them, and prevent

disturbance of previously undisturbed

lands. This regulatory project focuses, in

part, on remining operations nationwide

which will expedite permitting and

provide a national standard of

environmental performance for these

activities.

The existing regulations do not

differentiate between alkaline mining

operations in the west and the acidic

mining operations in other geographic

regions. Advances in treatment

technologies and Best Management

Practices pertinent to alkaline coal
29208 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices

mines in the west show promise of

being more protective of water quality

than existing standards. Given concerns

over the ability of existing regulations to

achieve water quality standards

established by Native American tribes,

EPA intends to explore the development

of a new subcategory for alkaline mining

operations in the west.

EPA intends to issue a proposed rule

by December 1999 and take final action

by December 2001.

c. Feedlots (Swine and Poultry

Subcategories). Feedlot operations are

covered by existing effluent guidelines

at 40 CFR part 412. These regulations,

which require the largest confined

animal feeding operations to achieve

zero discharge of wastes to surface

waters except under extreme storm

events, have not been sufficient to

resolve water quality impairment from

feedlot operations. Waste spills and

leaks from storage lagoons, runoff of

wastes from land application, and the

combined effect of allowable waste

discharges from smaller facilities have

led to a range of environmental and

health problems ranging from fish kills

and accelerated eutrophication of

surface waters to contamination of

drinking water and shell fish.

This regulatory project focuses on

swine and poultry operations which

have been identified as substantial

contributors of nutrients in surface

waters that have severe anoxia (low

levels of dissolved oxygen) and problem

algae blooms especially in estuarine

waters.

EPA intends to issue a proposed rule

for the Swine and Poultry Subcategories

by December 1999 and take final action

by December 2001.

B. Process for Selection of New Effluent

Guideline Regulations

Section 304(m) does not specify

criteria that the Agency should use to

select categories for regulation by

effluent guidelines. For the first Effluent

Guidelines Plan, published January 2,

1990 (55 FR 80), EPA listed criteria it

had used to select categories. The 1992

consent decree, while specifying some

of the categories to be regulated, allows

the Agency flexibility in selecting future

categories for regulation, and does not

specify selection criteria. EPA intends to

continue to use selection criteria such as

those listed in previous Effluent

Guidelines Plans. Additionally, in light

of recommendations from the Task

Force, the Agency has considered the

availability of technical data on a

category’s discharges (both within EPA,

at other Federal agencies, and from

States, local governments and industry)

and the potential for developing a rule

on an expedited schedule in

determining which projects are good

candidates for early implementation of

the Effluent Guidelines Task Force

recommendations.

1. New Rulemaking Activities

The 1992 consent decree requires that

EPA begin two rulemaking projects by

December 1998, and begin two

additional projects by December 1999.

EPA plans to begin development of

effluent guidelines for the Beef and

Dairy Cattle subcategories of the

Feedlots category this year. The Agency

will select additional projects at a later

date.

a. Feedlots (Beef and Dairy Cattle

Subcategories). This regulatory project

focuses on dairy and beef cattle

operations which represent a large

segment of the feedlot industry and

have been identified as substantial

contributors of nutrients in surface

waters that have severe anoxia (low

levels of dissolved oxygen) and affect

drinking water sources in the western

and central regions of the United States.

EPA intends to issue a proposed rule

for the Dairy and Beef Cattle

Subcategories by December 2000 and

take final action by December 2002.

b. Other Rules. EPA has not yet

selected additional rulemaking projects.

EPA is not proposing specific industrial

categories for selection in today’s notice.

However, based on the data sources

listed above, the Agency may choose the

next categories from the following list.

A brief discussion of candidate

categories is provided later in this

section.

• Petroleum Refining

• Textile Mills

• Inorganic Chemicals

• Steam Electric Power Generating

• Photographic Processing

• Chemical Formulators and Packagers

• Urban Storm Water

• Airport Deicing

• Fish Hatcheries and Farms

• Other categories identified in public

comments on today’s proposed plan.

2. Candidates for Effluent Guidelines

Rulemaking Projects

Candidate categories for rulemaking

include both categories specifically

studied by EPA and others about which

the Agency has received information on

wastewater and storm water discharges

and adverse environmental impacts.

The public is invited to comment on

these categories, as well as

recommending other categories for

development of new or revised effluent

guidelines.

a. Preliminary Studies. The purpose

of a Preliminary Study is to describe the

nature of pollutant discharges from a

category of facilities, and to provide a

basis for comparison with other

categories for purposes of assigning

priorities for regulation. The results of a

Preliminary Study for a category are

published in a ‘‘Preliminary Data

Summary.’’ The Preliminary Data

Summary presents a synopsis of recent

technical and economic information on

a category of dischargers. The

Preliminary Data Summaries are not

used directly as a basis for rulemaking,

but are used in the Agency’s

determination of which categories most

require preparation of new or revised

effluent guidelines. (They also may be

expanded to become guidance

documents for NPDES permit writers

and POTWs.)

A Preliminary Study typically collects

data on the following:

• The products manufactured and/or

services provided by a category;

• Number, types and geographic

location of facilities;

• Destination of discharges (directly

to surface waters, indirectly to POTWs,

or both);

• Characterization of the wastewater

discharges and identification of

pollutants present in the waste streams

(e.g., mean concentrations of pollutants,

wastewater volumes, mass loadings);

• Sampling and analytical methods

employed to ascertain the presence and

concentration of pollutants in the

wastewater;

• Source reduction, recycling and

pollution control technologies in use

and potentially applicable to the

category;

• Non-water quality environmental

impacts associated with wastewater

treatment in the category (e.g., air

emissions, wastewater treatment

sludges, and other wastes including

hazardous wastes);

• Cost of control technologies in

place and cost estimates for additional

controls;

• Cost-effectiveness of reduction of

toxic and nonconventional pollutants;

• Estimates of water quality impacts

of discharges within the subject

category; and

• Economic assessment (current

financial condition of facilities,

expansion or reduction trends, size

characterization of businesses or other

organizations, impact of estimated

treatment costs on representative

facilities).

The type and level of detail of

information varies among the

Preliminary Data Summaries, depending

on the data available to the Agency

when each document is prepared and

whether the category is covered by an
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices 29209

existing effluent guideline. For example,

some of the Summaries have

comprehensive, primary data on the

number and location of the discharging

facilities while others contain estimates

drawn from secondary data sources.

However, the Summaries represent the

Agency’s best characterization of

industries at the time the summaries are

compiled. As additional data are

acquired, they are factored into the

evaluation process. Consequently, the

Preliminary Data Summaries are also

subject to revision. The Agency has

made the Summaries available to the

public and has received comments on

some of these studies. Comments are

available for review in the record for

today’s proposed Plan.

b. Previously-Noticed Studies. Six of

the completed studies were described in

the 1996 Proposed Plan (61 FR 35048):

Petroleum Refining; Metal Finishing;

Textile Mills; Inorganic Chemicals;

Steam Electric Power Generating; and

Iron and Steel Manufacturing.

c. Photographic Processing. The

Photographic regulations were

promulgated in 1976 for BPT (direct

dischargers) only, at 40 CFR part 459.

Subsequent to promulgation of the BPT

rule, EPA collected some additional

information to support development of

BAT, NSPS and pretreatment standards,

but no additional rules were

promulgated.

EPA completed a Preliminary Data

Summary for the Photographic

Processing Industry in 1996. The study

found that about 100,000 establishments

were listed in 1996 in Dun & Bradstreet

data under the term ‘‘commercial photo

processing.’’ In addition, significant

photo processing also occurs as an

ancillary activity within the health care

profession and at noncommercial

facilities such as schools and police

departments. Combining all types of

facilities, it was estimated that photo

processing operations occur at 350,000

to 500,000 locations in the United

States. However, virtually none of these

photo processing establishments have

discharge permits based on the existing

effluent guidelines because: (a) Most

establishments are indirect dischargers,

and no pretreatment standards were

established; or (b) those that are direct

dischargers do not meet the 1,600

square feet per day processing

requirement for applicability under part

459.

The study estimated the water use in

1994 by the commercial sector

(approximated to represent 44 percent

of total photo processing volume) to be

2,250 million gallons. The major waste

stream constituents of concern (with

values for the commercial sector)

includes sulfates (2.8 million lbs.),

ammonia (3 million lbs.), silver (190

thousand lbs.), thiosulfate, and cyanide.

Several technologies are available and

employed to either treat the

wastestreams, or as common in this

industry, recover the chemicals and

metals in the wastewater for resale or

reuse.

Local POTW limits vary from

municipality to municipality, but are

normally numeric and concentrationbased. Frequently, the only pollutant

monitored in the indirect discharge

permit is silver. Many of the local limits

are based on silver nitrate, a highly

dissociated and toxic compound. While

silver nitrate is used in the production

of photographic film and paper, it is not

a characteristic pollutant of photo

processing wastewaters. Rather, silver in

photo processing wastewaters is

characteristically in the form of silver

thiosulfate complex, which has been

shown to be about 20,000 to 40,000

times less toxic, on a concentration

basis, to acutely exposed fathead

minnows. The local limits may be

overly stringent with regard to

concentration of silver discharged,

while lax on total mass of silver or other

pollutants, due to lack of technical

expertise and resources available at the

local level.

In an effort to provide more technical

expertise to photo processing facilities

and POTWs, AMSA and the Silver

Council, an industry association, have

developed a set of recommended silver

management practices. They are

currently evaluating the effectiveness of

the management practices at a variety of

sites nationwide.

d. Chemical Formulating, Packaging

and Repackaging. EPA completed a

Preliminary Data Summary for the

Chemical Formulating, Packaging and

Repackaging (CFPR) industry in 1996.

The summary describes the size and

demographics of the industry, CFPR

operations and the typical wastewaters

generated, as well as the extent to which

pollution prevention (P2) techniques are

used throughout the industry. In

addition, the study compares the

operations, P2 techniques and economic

viability of the CFPR industry to the

Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and

Repackaging (PFPR) industry. For the

purposes of the study, EPA included the

following sectors in the CFPR industry:

specialty cleaners, polishes, sanitation

preparations, cosmetics, perfumes,

personal products, soaps and detergents,

adhesives and sealants, paints (nonsolvent based), inks (non-solvent based),

and water treatment chemicals (nonpesticide).

There are no existing effluent

guidelines or categorical standards for

the CFPR industry and their discharges

are regulated largely through local

POTW limitations. The facilities are not

subject to general EPA reporting

requirements pertaining to their

production and wastewater generation

and the Agency estimates that there may

be as many as 12,800 facilities based on

Dun and Bradstreet data. Much of the

technical portion of the study discusses

anecdotal information collected through

contacts with POTWs, regional and state

pretreatment coordinators, individual

facilities, and trade associations

representing several sectors of the CFPR

industry. The study also includes

information from EPA’s Adhesives and

Sealants Study (‘‘Summary of Findings:

Water and Waste Management for the

Adhesives and Sealants Manufacturing

Point Source Category,’’ EPA Effluent

Guidelines Division, draft report August

1984), the databases for the final PFPR

effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 455, 61

FR 57518, November 6, 1996), as well as

economic information from the U.S.

Economic Census and the Census

Bureau’s Annual Survey of

Manufactures.

The volume of a CFPR facility

discharge is small—typically 10 million

gallons per year— compared to those

from chemical manufacturing facilities.

CFPR discharges include surfactants

and various organic chemicals. Overall,

POTWs report having experienced very

few treatment system upsets or

pollutant pass-through incidents

associated with their CFPR users. Some

POTWs have reported foaming problems

or high-concentration (‘‘slug’’)

discharges from CFPRs, but these

problems have been corrected though a

variety of methods available in the

general pretreatment program.

e. Urban Storm Water. EPA is

conducting a preliminary study of urban

storm water discharges to explore how

the Effluent Guidelines program can

contribute to the Agency’s efforts in

implementing the national storm water

program requirements under section

402(p) of the Clean Water Act.

Discharges from municipal separate

storm water sewer systems (‘‘MS4’’)

serving a population of 100,000 or more

are subject to NPDES storm water

permitting requirements at 40 CFR

122.21 and 122.26. The Agency recently

published a proposed rule that would

extend NPDES permit requirements to

smaller MS4s in urbanized areas (63 FR

1536, January 9, 1998).

EPA is considering whether

development of effluent guidelines

regulations, or additional technical

information and guidance on
29210 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices

characterizing storm water discharges

and evaluating the efficacy of controls

would be useful to discharging facilities

in complying with permit requirements.

Because the nature of the dischargers

and discharges in urban storm water are

somewhat different from the industrial

discharges usually regulated by effluent

guidelines, the study format will vary

somewhat to accommodate other issues

and concerns. EPA intends that the

study will include a summary of

existing storm water resources on best

management practices (BMPs), a

description of adverse environmental

impacts from storm water discharges, a

summary of available methods for

estimating the relationship between

storm event size and bacteriological

impacts, descriptions of types of

regionally-appropriate storm water

BMPs (both structural and nonstructural) and how to measure their

performance, cost and economic impact

considerations, and a description of

measurable goals that could be used to

evaluate the effectiveness of storm water

management controls. The Agency will

complete a preliminary data summary

by December 1998.

f. Airport Deicing. EPA began the

Airport Deicing study formally in

January 1998, although some site visits

were conducted as early as Summer

1997. Early data-gathering efforts for the

study have been initiated. The Agency

is conducting a literature search on

pollution prevention practices related to

aircraft deicing, including alternative

and innovative deicing practices at

airports in the United States, as well as

in other countries. The Agency is

reviewing previously-collected data as

well as information gathered through

contacts with the trade associations

representing various segments of the

industry, environmental groups,

manufacturers of deicing chemicals and

vendors of deicing-related equipment

and treatment technologies. Also, the

Agency is planning to review airport

storm water monitoring data that is

collected under the Multi-Sector

General Permit requirements.

The Agency will be conducting site

visits to airports of differing sizes and

geographic locations. These visits will

include airports that employ pollution

prevention, on-site recycling or

alternative deicing technologies.

Specifically, the purposes of the site

visits are:

• To gather basic information on a

variety of deicing activities and to

determine what factors affect deicing

operations;

• To determine and evaluate the level

of wastewater treatment for any

collected deicing fluids;

• To gather information to

characterize the raw, untreated effluent

generated from any deicing operations

in terms of pollutant concentrations,

volumes and environmental impacts;

and

• To gather information on new or

innovative pollution prevention

practices.

EPA will examine the effectiveness of

the current storm water permitting

system and the comparative

effectiveness of an effluent guideline

approach for airport deicing activities.

The Agency will also evaluate the status

and trends of de-icing chemical use at

airports, including the costs and costminimization opportunities of deicing

material management, and the

development and use of prevention and

treatment technologies will be

evaluated. Wastewater characterization

sampling visits are expected to be

conducted next winter. The Agency will

complete a preliminary data summary

by December 1999.

g. Fish Hatcheries and Farms. EPA

considered developing effluent

guidelines for fish hatcheries and farms,

also called aquaculture facilities, in

1977. A draft development document

recommended issuance of BPT

limitations, but regulations were not

promulgated. (‘‘Development Document

for Recommended Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards of

Performance for the Fish Hatcheries and

Farms Point Source Category,’’ EPA

Effluent Guidelines Division, draft

February 1977.) Aquaculture operations

include ponds, tanks, raceways (a series

of tanks), netpens, and cages. These

operations generate manure, which can

adversely affect water quality with BOD,

suspended and settleable solids,

nutrients, chemical additives (including

pesticides), water temperature changes,

and pathogens such as streptococcus.

Uneaten fish food can also generate

nutrient discharges.

Potential problems stemming from

aquaculture discharges are described in

a recent report by the Environmental

Defense Fund (‘‘Murky Waters:

Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in

the United States,’’ Environmental

Defense Fund, Washington, DC, 1997).

The report provides an overview of the

aquaculture industry and a description

of water use, pollutants generated, and

environmental impacts. Among the

report’s recommendations is a call for

EPA to promulgate effluent guidelines

for aquaculture operations.

EPA is also aware that reports

developed by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, the Joint Subcommittee on

Aquaculture (a Federal interagency

advisory group), and other organizations

may address waste issues associated

with aquaculture. The Agency invites

submission of such reports and other

data on aquaculture discharges.

3. Future Studies

EPA has nearly completed its Consent

Decree requirements for developing

eleven preliminary studies. However,

the Agency may develop additional

studies from time to time, and several

study topics have been suggested.

Among the categories that EPA may

study are:

• Hospitals

• Ore Mining and Dressing (including

Placer Mining)

• Glass Manufacturing

• Canmaking

• Organic Chemicals, Plastics and

Synthetic Fibers

• Pulp, Paper and Paperboard (topics

not addressed in recent or ongoing

rule projects)

• Wood Chip Mills

• Metal Molding and Casting

(Foundries)

• Generic Effluent Guideline Issues.

EPA invites submission of data and

other comments on these categories and

topics.

C. Other Rulemaking Actions

1. Pulp, Paper and Paperboard, Phases

2 & 3

In the Pulp and Paper effort, EPA

intends to revise existing limitations in

10 of the 12 subcategories in 2 phases.

Phase 2 includes: Unbleached Kraft;

Semi-Chemical; Mechanical Pulp; NonWood Chemical Pulp; Secondary Fiber

Deink; Secondary Fiber Non-Deink; Fine

and Lightweight Papers from Purchased

Pulp; and Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven,

and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp.

Phase 3 includes: Dissolving Kraft and

Dissolving Sulfite. Guidelines and

standards for these 10 subcategories

were proposed as part of the Pulp and

Paper Rule (also known as the ‘‘Cluster

Rule’’) in December of 1993 but final

action was deferred in the Phase I Rule

promulgated April 15, 1998, based on

public comment. The Agency intends to

publish notices of data availability prior

to taking final action on both phases.

2. Ore Mining and Dressing

EPA had proposed to exclude a waste

stream from previously-promulgated

effluent guidelines for the Copper, Lead,

Zinc, Gold, Silver and Molybdenum

Ores Subcategory of the Ore Mining and

Dressing Category (40 CFR part 440,

subpart J). The Agency published a

proposed rule on February 12, 1996 (61

FR 5364). Dewatered tailings generated

by the Alaska-Juneau (A–J) gold mine
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices 29211

project near Juneau, Alaska would have

been affected by this proposal.

On January 14, 1997, Echo Bay Mines

announced that it would terminate its

development plans for the A–J mine

project. EPA has concluded, in light of

the closure of the A–J mine project and

the lack of information about other mine

sites exhibiting similarly extreme

environmental conditions, that it is

unnecessary to continue this

rulemaking. The Agency published a

document withdrawing the proposal on

January 16, 1998 (63 FR 2646).

VI. Request for Comments

EPA invites public comment on its

plans for development of effluent

guidelines and preliminary studies.

Comments will be accepted until July

27, 1998. In particular, the Agency is

interested in data that would facilitate

comparisons of discharger categories

with regard to wastestream

characteristics, treatment practices and

effects on water quality. In addition to

the categories discussed or listed in

today’s notice, EPA will consider

information on other categories in

developing Effluent Guidelines Plans.

VII. Economic Impact Assessment;

Executive Order 12866

Today’s document proposes a plan for

the review and revision of existing

effluent guidelines and for the selection

of priority industries for new

regulations. This document is not a

‘‘rule’’ subject to 5 U.S.C. 553 and does

not establish any requirements;

therefore, no economic impact

assessment has been prepared. EPA will

provide economic impact analyses,

regulatory flexibility analyses or

regulatory impact assessments, as

appropriate, for all of the future effluent

guideline rulemakings developed by the

Agency.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this plan

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

Dated: May 21, 1998.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Water.

Appendix A—Promulgated Effluent

Guidelines

‘‘Promulgation’’ refers to the date of

promulgation of BAT controls unless

otherwise noted. Minor amendments or

corrections are not shown.

Category

40

CFR

part

Promulgation Revised rule (P: Proposal F: Final Action) or Study Completion (S)

Aluminum Forming ............................................................... 467 10/83

Asbestos Manufacturing ....................................................... 427 2/74

Battery Manufacturing .......................................................... 461 3/84

Builder’s Paper and Board Mills 1 ........................................ 431 12/86 (BCT)

Carbon Black Manufacturing ................................................ 458 1/78

Cement Manufacturing ......................................................... 411 8/79 (BCT)

Coal Mining .......................................................................... 434 10/82 P 12/99; F 12/01.

Coil Coating .......................................................................... 465 12/82

Canmaking Subcategory ............................................... ............ 11/83

Copper Forming ................................................................... 468 8/83

Dairy Products Processing ................................................... 405 6/86 (BCT)

Electroplating ........................................................................ 413 1/81 (PSES) P 10/00; F 12/022.

Electrical and Electronic Components ................................. 469 4/83

Explosives Manufacturing .................................................... 457 3/76

Feedlots ................................................................................ 412 2/74 S 1998.

P 12/99; F 12/01 (Swine & Poultry).

P 12/00; F 12/02 (Dairy & Beef

Cattle).

Ferroalloy Manufacturing ...................................................... 424 7/86 (BCT)

Fertilizer Manufacturing ........................................................ 418 8/79 (BCT)

Fruits and Vegetables Processing ....................................... 407 7/86 (BCT)

Glass Manufacturing ............................................................ 426 7/86 (BCT)

Grain Mills ............................................................................ 406 7/86 (BCT)

Gum and Wood Chemicals .................................................. 454 5/76 (BPT)

Hospitals ............................................................................... 460 5/76 (BPT) S 1989.

Ink Formulating ..................................................................... 447 7/75

Inorganic Chemicals ............................................................. 415 6/82 S 1994.

Iron and Steel Manufacturing ............................................... 420 5/82 S 1995; P 12/98 3; F 12/00 3.

Leather Tanning and Finishing ............................................ 425 11/82

Meat Products ...................................................................... 432 7/76 (BCT)

Metal Finishing ..................................................................... 433 7/83 S 1994; P 10/00; F 12/02 2.

Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries) ............................... 464 10/85

Mineral Mining and Processing ............................................ 436 7/77 (BPT)

Nonferrous Metals Forming .................................................. 471 8/85

Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing ........................................ 421 6/84

Oil and Gas Extraction ......................................................... 435 P 12/98; F 12/00 (Synthetic-Based Fluids).
29212 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices

Category

40

CFR

part

Promulgation Revised rule (P: Proposal F: Final Action) or Study Completion (S)

Offshore Subcategory ................................................... ............ 3/93

Coastal Subcategory ..................................................... ............ 12/96

Other Subcategories ..................................................... ............ 11/79 (BPT)

Ore Mining and Dressing ..................................................... 440 12/82

Gold Placer Mining Subcategory .................................. ............ 5/88

Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers .............. 414 11/87

Paint Formulating ................................................................. 446 7/75 S 1989.

Paving and Roofing Materials .............................................. 443 7/75

Pesticide Chemicals ............................................................. 455

Manufacturing ................................................................ ............ 9/93

Formulating, Packaging, Repackaging ......................... ............ 11/96

Petroleum Refining ............................................................... 419 10/82 S 1993.

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing ............................................. 439 10/83 P 5/2/95; F 7/98.

Phosphate Manufacturing .................................................... 422 6/76

Photographic Processing ..................................................... 459 7/76 (BPT) S 1996.

Plastics Molding and Forming .............................................. 463 12/84

Porcelain Enameling ............................................................ 466 11/82

Pulp, Paper and Paperboard ............................................... 430

Subparts B & E (Phase 1 rule) ..................................... ............ 4/98

Other subparts .............................................................. ............ 12/86 (BCT) P 12/93; F 2000–2002 (Phase 2 & 3 rules).

Rubber Manufacturing .......................................................... 428 2/74

Seafood Processing ............................................................. 408 7/86 (BCT)

Soap and Detergent Manufacturing ..................................... 417 4/74

Steam Electric Power Generating ........................................ 423 11/82 S 1995.

Sugar Processing ................................................................. 409 7/86 (BCT)

Textile Mills ........................................................................... 410 9/82 S 1994.

Timber Products Processing ................................................ 429 1/81

1EPA proposed merging part 431 with part 430 in the proposed Pulp, Paper and Paperboard rule on 12/17/93. Part 431 will be deleted.

2The Electroplating and Metal Finishing categories will be modified by the new Metal Products and Machinery rule. See Appendix B for rulemaking dates. 3EPA is discussing extensions to Consent Decree dates with NRDC.

Appendix B—Current and Future

Rulemaking Projects

Category Proposed Final

Pulp, Paper and Paperboard, Phases 2 & 3 .......................................................................................................... 12/17/93 1 2000–2002 1

(58 FR 66078)

Centralized Waste Treatment .................................................................................................................................. 1/27/95 8/99

(60 FR 5464)

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing ................................................................................................................................ 5/2/95 7/98

(60 FR 21592)

Metal Products and Machinery ................................................................................................................................ 5/30/95 2

(60 FR 28209)

(Phase 1 only)

10/00 12/02

Industrial Laundries ................................................................................................................................................. 12/17/97 6/99

(62 FR 66182)

Landfills .................................................................................................................................................................... 2/6/98 11/99

(63 FR 6425)

Industrial Waste Combustors (Incinerators) ............................................................................................................ 2/6/98 11/99

(63 FR 6391)

Transportation Equipment Cleaning ........................................................................................................................ 5/15/98 6/15/00

Oil and Gas Extraction ............................................................................................................................................ 12/98 12/00

Iron and Steel Manufacturing .................................................................................................................................. 12/98 3 12/00 3

Coal Mining .............................................................................................................................................................. 12/99 12/01

Feedlots (Poultry & Swine subcategories) .............................................................................................................. 12/99 12/01

1The Pulp, Paper and Paperboard rulemaking is not covered by the January 31, 1992 consent decree.

2 5/30/95 proposal covered Phase 1 MP&M facilities only. The proposal in 10/00 will cover Phase 1 and 2 facilities combined.

3EPA is discussing extensions to Consent Decree dates with NRDC.

Appendix C—Preliminary Studies

Category Complete

Petroleum Refining ................... 1993

Metal Finishing .......................... 1993

Textile Mills ............................... 1994

Inorganic Chemicals ................. 1994

Category Complete

Steam Electric Power Generating .......................................... 1995

Iron and Steel Manufacturing ... 1995
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices 29213

Category Complete

Photographic Processing .......... 1996

Chemical Formulators and

Packagers ............................. 1996

Feedlots .................................... 1998

Urban Storm Water ................... 1998

Airport Deicing .......................... 1999

[FR Doc. 98–14156 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6103–6]

Notice of Open Meeting of the

Environmental Financial Advisory

Board on August 3–4, 1998

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA) Environmental

Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will

hold an open meeting of the full Board

in San Francisco, California on August

3–4, 1998. The meeting will be held at

the World Trade Center, Ferry Building,

in the Coit Tower Room. The Monday,

August 3 session will run from 9 a.m.

to 5 p.m. and the August 4 session will

begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at

approximately 12:00 p.m.

EFAB is chartered with providing

analysis and advice to the EPA

Administrator on environmental

finance. The purpose of this meeting is

to discuss work products under EFAB’s

current strategic action agenda and to

develop an action agenda to direct the

Board’s activities through 1999.

Environmental financing topics

expected to be discussed include: cost

effective environmental management,

community-based environmental

protection, brownfields redevelopment,

Drinking Water State Revolving funds,

and small business access to capital.

The meeting will be open to the

public, but seating is limited. For

further information, please contact

Alecia Crichlow, U.S. EPA on 202–564–

5188, or Joanne Lynch, U.S. EPA on

202–564–4999.

Dated: May 20, 1998.

Michael W.S. Ryan,

Comptroller.

[FR Doc. 98–14155 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6103–4]

Amendment to Administrative Order

on Consent Pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA), as Amended by the

Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act—Herriman, Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public

comment.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a

proposed amendment to a settlement

under sections 104(a) and 122(a) of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, and Liability Act, as

amended, (CERCLA) concerning the

Herriman Residential Soils Removal

Action Site in Herriman, Utah (Site).

Under the Amended Administrative

Order on Consent (Order) Kennecott

Utah Copper Corporation has agreed to

perform certain response actions related

to a removal action to be performed at

the Site.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before June 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The Order is available for

public inspection at the EPA Superfund

Records Center, 999 18th Street, 5th

Floor, North Tower, Denver, Colorado.

Comments should be addressed to Paul

J. Rogers, Enforcement Specialist,

(8ENF–T), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 999 18 Street, Suite

500, Denver, Colorado, 80202–2405, and

should reference the Herriman

Residential Soils Removal Action Order,

EPA Docket No. CERCLA–VIII–97–08.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

J. Rogers, Enforcement Specialist, at

303/312–6356.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to sections 104(a) and 122(a) of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act, as amended, (CERCLA), EPA and

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation

(Kennecott) entered into an

Administrative Order on Consent

(Order) concerning the Herriman

Residential Soils Removal Action Site in

Herriman, Utah (Site), effective July 9,

1997. This Order has been amended to

provide for Kennecott’s continued

participation in response actions at the

Site. The Amended Order requires

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation to

provide transportation and disposal of

no more than 60,000 cubic yards of lead

and arsenic contaminated soils removed

by EPA generally from the surface to 18

inches in depth and for Kennecott to

provide 45,000 cubic yards of

replacement soils as part of the Phase II

response action. Upon completion of the

action, EPA will convenant not to sue

Kennecott for any failure to perform the

work agreed to in the Order. EPA also

proposes to provide Kennecott with

contribution protection for matters

addressed in this Order to the extent

provided by section 113(f)(2) of

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9613(f)(2). Matters

addressed are defined in the amended

Order as response actions taken or to be

taken by the EPA or any other person (as

that term is defined by section 101(21)

of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(21)) and all

response costs incurred and to be

incurred by the EPA or any other person

(as that term is defined by section

101(21) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(21))

at or in connection with Herriman

Residential Soils Removal. Section

101(21) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(21)

states that the term person means an

individual, firm, corporation,

association, partnership, consortium,

joint venture, commercial entity, United

States Government, State, municipality,

commission, political subdivision of a

State, or any interstate body. For a

period of thirty (30) days from the date

of this publication, the public may

submit comments to EPA relating to the

contribution protection proposed to be

conferred in this Order. A copy of the

Order may be obtained from the

Superfund Records Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 999

18th Street, Suite 500, Denver,

Colorado, 80202–2405, 303/312–6473.

Additional background information

relating to the Order and the Site is also

available for review at the Superfund

Records Center at the address listed

above and at the Riverton Public

Library, 1830 West 12600 South,

Riverton, UT 84065.

Dated: May 1, 1998.

Sharon Kercher ,

Acting Assistant Regional Administrator,

Office of Enforcement, Compliance and

Environmental Justice, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 98–14157 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

May 15, 1998.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden