```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51042-51060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17032]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OW-2004-0032; FRL-7959-8]
RIN 2040-AE76

Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2006 Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of preliminary 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan; 
request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA establishes national 
technology-based regulations known as effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards to reduce pollutant discharges from categories 
of industry discharging directly to waters of the United States or 
discharging indirectly through Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). 
The CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b) require EPA to 
annually review these effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. 
Today's notice first presents EPA's 2005 review of its existing 
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. It also presents EPA's 
evaluation of categories of indirect dischargers without pretreatment 
standards to identify potential new categories for pretreatment 
standards. CWA section 304(m) requires EPA to biennially publish an 
effluent guidelines program plan and provide for public notice and 
comment on such plan. Therefore, this notice also presents the 
preliminary 2006 effluent guidelines program plan. Included in the 
preliminary 2006 plan is a solicitation for comments and data on 
industry categories that may be discharging non-trivial amounts of 
toxic or non-conventional pollutants and are not currently subject to 
any effluent guidelines. Finally, this notice provides a second 
opportunity for public notice and comment on the draft Strategy for 
National Clean Water Industrial Regulations (``draft Strategy''), see 
67 FR 71165 (November 29, 2002).

DATES: If you wish to comment on any portion of this notice, EPA must 
receive your comments by October 28, 2005. EPA will conduct a public 
meeting on 20 September 2005, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Eastern Standard 
Time. For information on the location of the public meeting, see 
ADDRESSES section.

ADDRESSES: Identify your comments, data and information relating to the 
Agency's draft Strategy; by Docket ID No. OW-2002-0020. Identify all 
other comments, data and information relating to this notice by Docket 
ID No. OW-2004-0032. Submit your comments, data and information by one 
of the following methods:
    A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    B. Agency Website: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's 
electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method 
for receiving comments, data, and information. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    C. E-mail: [email protected].
    D. Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 
4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention 
Docket ID No. OW-2004-0032. For comments, data, and information on the 
draft Strategy, use Docket ID No. OW-2002-0020.
    E. Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID 
No. OW-2004-0032. Use Docket ID No. OW-2002-0020 for comments, data, 
and information on the draft Strategy. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments, data, and information to Docket 
ID No. OW-2004-0032. For comments, data, and information on the draft 
Strategy, use Docket ID No. OW-2002-0020. EPA's policy is that all 
comments, data, and information received will be included in the public 
docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided, 
unless the material includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, 
or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 
protected. The EPA EDOCKET and the federal regulations.gov websites are 
``anonymous access'' systems, 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 EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31, 
2002 (67 FR 38102). For additional instructions on obtaining access to 
comments, go to section I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. 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

[[Page 51043]]

form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, 
EPA West, Room B102, 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 Federal 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.
    Public Meeting: EPA will hold an informational public meeting for 
interested stakeholders in the EPA East Building, Room 1153 (also known 
as the ``Great Room'' or the ``Map Room''), 1201 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC. For more information on the details and location 
of the public meeting, see section I.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-
1014 or [email protected], or Ms. Jan Matuszko at (202) 566-1035 
or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Is This Document Organized?

    The outline of today's notice follows:

I. General Information
II. Legal Authority
III. What is the Purpose of Today's Federal Register Notice?
IV. Background
V. EPA's 2005 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 
and 307(b)
VI. EPA's 2006 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 
and 307(b)
VII. EPA's Evaluation of Categories of Indirect Dischargers Without 
Categorical Pretreatment Standards to Identify Potential New 
Categories for Pretreatment Standards
VIII. The Preliminary 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan Under 
Section 304(m)
IX. Request for Comment and Information

I. General Information

A. Regulated Entities

    Today's notice does not contain regulatory requirements. Rather, 
today's notice describes: (1) The Agency's 2005 annual review of 
existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards 
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 
307(b); (2) EPA's review of indirect dischargers without categorical 
pretreatment standards to identify potential new categories for 
pretreatment standards under CWA sections 304(g) and 307(b); and (3) 
the preliminary 2006 effluent guidelines program plan under CWA section 
304(m) (``Plan''). EPA anticipates completing the final 2006 Plan by 
August 2006. As required by CWA section 304(m), the final Plan will: 
(1) Present a schedule for EPA's annual review of existing effluent 
guidelines under CWA section 304(b) and a schedule for any effluent 
guidelines revisions; and (2) identify industries for which EPA has not 
promulgated effluent guidelines but may decide to do so through 
rulemaking and a schedule for these rulemakings.

B. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information?

1. Docket
    EPA has established an official public docket for the Agency's 2005 
and 2006 annual reviews of existing effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards under CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 
307(b), and the 2006 Plan under CWA section 304(m) under Docket ID No. 
OW-2004-0032. EPA has established an official public docket for the 
Agency's draft Strategy under Docket ID No. OW-2002-0020. The official 
public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this 
action, any public comments received, and other information related to 
this action. Although a part of the official docket, Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute is not included in the materials available to the 
public. The official public docket is the collection of materials that 
is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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.
2. Electronic Access
    You may access this Federal Register document electronically 
through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at 
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public 
docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment 
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the 
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents 
in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not 
all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still 
access any of the publicly available docket materials through the 
docket facility identified in section I.B.1. Once in the system, select 
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

C. What Are the Public Meeting Details for the Preliminary Plan?

    A public meeting to review the preliminary 2006 Plan will be held 
in Washington, DC (see the DATES and ADDRESSES sections for the date 
and location of the public meeting). The meeting is open to the public, 
and limited seating for the public is available on a first-come, first-
served basis. For security reasons, we request that you bring photo 
identification with you to the meeting. Also, it will expedite the 
process of entering the building if you contact Ms. Cassandra Holmes at 
least three business days prior to the meeting with your name, phone 
number, and any affiliation. Ms. Holmes can be reached via e-mail at 
[email protected]. Please use ``304(m) Public Meeting Attendee'' 
in the e-mail subject line. Ms. Holmes can also be reached by telephone 
at (202) 566-1000.
    EPA will not distribute meeting materials in advance of the public 
meeting; all materials will be distributed at the meeting. The purpose 
of the public meeting is to: (1) Present the Agency's 2005 annual 
review of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards under 
CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 307(b), and 304(g); (2) present the 
Agency's evaluation of categories of indirect dischargers without 
categorical pretreatment standards to identify potential new categories 
for pretreatment standards under CWA section 307(b); (3) present the 
preliminary 2006 Plan under CWA section 304(m); (4) review the industry 
sectors identified for further investigation; and (5) identify 
information collection activities and analyses EPA anticipates 
completing for the Agency's 2006 review of effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards and the final Plan. EPA will not provide a 
transcript of the meeting but will record the meeting minutes for the 
docket supporting this action. Individuals wishing to comment on the 
Agency's review and the preliminary Plan would need to submit written 
comments as described in section I.C. in order for EPA to consider 
their comments in the next annual review and final Plan.

[[Page 51044]]

    If you need special accommodations at this meeting, including 
wheelchair access or special audio-visual support needs, you should 
contact Ms. Holmes at least seven days prior to the meeting so that we 
can make appropriate arrangements. For those unable to attend the 
meeting, a copy of the presentation and meeting materials will be 
posted on the EPA Dockets website at: http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ and 
EPA's Effluent Guidelines Planning web site at: http://www.epa.gov/guide/plan.html.
    Please note that parking is very limited in downtown Washington, 
and we recommend you use public transit. The EPA Headquarters complex 
is located near the Federal Triangle Metro station. Upon exiting the 
Metro station, walk east to 12th Street. On 12th Street, walk south to 
Constitution Avenue. At the corner, turn right onto Constitution Avenue 
and proceed to the entrance at the EPA East Building, 1201 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

II. Legal Authority

    Today's notice is published under the authority of the CWA, 33 
U.S.C. 1251, et seq., and in particular sections 301(d), 304(b), 
304(g), 304(m), 306, and 307(b), 33 U.S.C. 1311(d), 1314(b), 1314(g), 
1314(m), 1316, and 1317.

III. What Is the Purpose of Today's Federal Register Notice?

    Today's notice presents EPA's 2005 review of its existing effluent 
guidelines and pretreatment standards. It also presents EPA's 
evaluation of indirect dischargers without categorical pretreatment 
standards to identify potential new categories for pretreatment 
standards. CWA section 304(m) requires EPA to biennially publish an 
effluent guidelines program plan and provide for public notice and 
comment on such plan. Therefore, this notice also presents the 
preliminary 2006 effluent guidelines program plan. Included in the 
preliminary 2006 plan is a solicitation for comments and data on 
industry categories that may be discharging non-trivial amounts of 
toxic or non-conventional pollutants and are not currently subject to 
effluent guidelines. Finally, this notice provides a second opportunity 
for public notice and comment on the draft Strategy for National Clean 
Water Industrial Regulations (``draft Strategy''), see 67 FR 71165 
(November 29, 2002).

IV. Background

A. What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?

    The CWA directs EPA to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards that reflect pollutant reductions that can be achieved by 
categories or subcategories of industrial point sources using specific 
technologies. See CWA sections 301(b)(2), 304(b), 306, 307(b), and 
307(c). For point sources that introduce pollutants directly into the 
waters of the United States (direct dischargers), the effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards promulgated by EPA are implemented 
through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permits. See CWA sections 301(a), 301(b), and 402. For sources that 
discharge to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) (indirect 
dischargers), EPA promulgates pretreatment standards that apply 
directly to those sources and are enforced by POTWs and State and 
Federal authorities. See CWA sections 307(b) and (c).
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--CWA 
Sections 301(b)(1)(A) & 304(b)(1)
    EPA defines Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available 
(BPT) effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and non-
conventional pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as 
conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), 
total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional 
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The 
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional 
pollutant on July 30, 1979. See 44 FR 44501 (July 30, 1979). EPA has 
identified 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic pollutants, 
of which 126 specific substances have been designated priority toxic 
pollutants. See Appendix A to part 423. All other pollutants are 
considered to be non-conventional.
    In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first 
considers the total cost of applying the control technology in relation 
to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age 
of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed, and any 
required process changes, engineering aspects of the control 
technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy 
requirements), and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems 
appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA 
establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best 
performances of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, 
processes, or other common characteristics. Where existing performance 
is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than 
currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency determines 
that the technology can be practically applied.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--CWA Sections 
301(b)(2)(E) & 304(b)(4)
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent 
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with Best 
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for discharges from 
existing industrial point sources. In addition to considering the other 
factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B) to establish BCT limitations, 
EPA also considers a two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA 
explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in 
1986. See 51 FR 24974 (July 9, 1986).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--CWA 
Sections 301(b)(2)(A) & 304(b)(2)
    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) & 
(F). The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of 
achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities 
involved, the process employed, potential process changes, non-water 
quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements, and other 
such factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA 
section 304(b)(2)(B). The technology must also be economically 
achievable. See CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). The Agency retains 
considerable discretion in assigning the weight accorded to these 
factors. BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable 
through changes in a facility's processes and operations. Where 
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher 
level of performance than is currently being achieved within a 
particular subcategory based on technology transferred from a different 
subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process changes or 
internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry 
practice.

[[Page 51045]]

4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--CWA Section 306
    New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reflect effluent reductions 
that are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control 
technology. New sources have the opportunity to install the best and 
most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment 
technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent 
controls attainable through the application of the best available 
demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, 
non-conventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA 
is directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the 
effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and 
energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--CWA Section 
307(b)
    Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) are designed to 
prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, 
or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly-owned 
treatment works (POTWs), including sludge disposal methods at POTWs. 
Pretreatment standards for existing sources are technology-based and 
are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
    The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework 
for the implementation of national pretreatment standards, are found at 
40 CFR part 403.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--CWA Section 307(c)
    Like PSES, Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) are 
designed to prevent the discharges of pollutants that pass through, 
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of 
POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as NSPS. New indirect 
dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate into their facilities 
the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the 
same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

B. What Are EPA's Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections 
301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 304(m), and 307(b)?

1. EPA's Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections 301(d), 304(b), 
and 304(m)--Direct Dischargers
    Section 304(b) requires EPA to review its existing effluent 
guidelines for direct dischargers each year and to revise such 
regulations ``if appropriate.'' Section 304(m) supplements the core 
requirement of section 304(b) by requiring EPA to publish a plan every 
two years announcing its schedule for performing this annual review and 
its schedule for rulemaking for any effluent guideline selected for 
possible revision as a result of that annual review. Section 304(m) 
also requires the plan to 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 NSPS under section 306. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(B); S. 
Rep. No. 50, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985); WQA87 Leg. Hist. 31. 
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, with final action on such 
rulemaking required not later than three years after the industrial 
category is identified in a final Plan. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(C). 
EPA is required to publish its preliminary Plan for public comment 
prior to taking final action on the plan. See CWA section 304(m)(2).
    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 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)(2) and 304(b)(4), respectively. For nearly three 
decades, EPA has implemented sections 301 and 304 through the 
promulgation of effluent limitations guidelines, resulting in 
regulations for 56 industrial categories. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & 
Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 113 (1977). Consequently, as part of its annual 
review of effluent limitations guidelines under section 304(b), EPA is 
also reviewing the effluent limitations they contain, thereby 
fulfilling its obligations under section 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 review existing pretreatment 
standards ``from time to time,'' section 304(g) requires an annual 
review. Therefore, EPA meets its 304(g) and 307(b) review requirements 
by reviewing all industrial categories subject to existing categorical 
pretreatment standards on an annual basis to identify potential 
candidates for revision.
    Section 307(b)(1) also requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for pollutants not susceptible to treatment by POTWs or that 
would interfere with the operation of POTWs, although it does not 
provide a timing requirement for the promulgation of such new 
pretreatment standards. EPA, in its discretion, periodically evaluates 
indirect dischargers not subject to categorical pretreatment standards 
to identify potential candidates for new pretreatment standards. The 
CWA does not require EPA to publish its review of pretreatment 
standards or identification of potential new categories, although EPA 
is exercising its discretion to do so in this notice.
    EPA intends to repeat this publication schedule for future 
pretreatment standards reviews (e.g., EPA will publish the 2006 annual 
pretreatment standards review in the notice containing the Agency's 
2006 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and the final 2006 
Plan). EPA intends that these coincident reviews will provide 
meaningful insight into EPA's effluent guidelines and pretreatment 
standards program decision-making. Additionally, EPA hopes to most 
efficiently serve the public with these coincident reviews whereby this 
single notice and future notices serve as the ``one-stop shop'' source 
of information for the Agency's current and future effluent guidelines 
and pretreatment standards program reviews.

V. EPA's 2005 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 
307(b)

A. What Process Did EPA Use to Review Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Section 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 
307(b)?

1. Background
    In its 2005 annual review, EPA reviewed all industrial categories 
subject to existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment 
standards,

[[Page 51046]]

representing a total of 56 point source categories and over 450 
subcategories. EPA thereby met its obligations to annually review both 
existing effluent limitations guidelines for direct dischargers under 
CWA sections 301(d) and 304(b) and existing pretreatment standards for 
indirect dischargers under CWA sections 304(g) and 307(b).
    EPA's annual review of existing effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards represents a considerable effort by the Agency 
to consider the hazards to human health or the environment from 
industrial point source category discharges. The 2005 annual reviews, 
which themselves build on reviews from previous years, also reflect a 
lengthy outreach effort to involve stakeholders in the review process. 
In performing its 2005 annual review, EPA considered all information 
and data submitted to EPA as part of its outreach activities. EPA 
reviewed all industrial sectors and will conduct more focused detailed 
reviews for a select number of industrial sectors. EPA will complete 
these detailed reviews prior to publication of the final 2006 Plan.
    As discussed in more detail below, EPA uses pollutant loadings 
information and technological, economic, and other information in 
evaluating whether it would be appropriate to revise its promulgated 
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. EPA also examines the 
processes and operations of each category subject to promulgated 
effluent guidelines to decide whether it might be appropriate to 
address (through additional subcategories) other industrial activities 
that are similar in terms of type of operations performed, pollutants 
and wastewaters generated, and available pollution prevention and 
treatment options. Because issues associated with such additional 
subcategories very often are interwoven with the structure and 
requirements of the existing regulation, EPA believes that 
incorporating its review of these potential subcategories into its 
annual review of the larger categories with which they likely belong is 
the most efficient way to fulfill its statutory obligations under 
sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b). This is especially 
important in view of the large number of existing categories and 
potential additional subcategories that EPA must review annually.
    One example where EPA established effluent guidelines for an 
additional subcategory under an existing category is the agricultural 
refilling establishments subcategory (Subpart E) that EPA added to the 
Pesticide Chemicals point source category (40 CFR part 455). See 61 FR 
57518 (November 6, 1996). The BPT limitations in Part 455 did not cover 
refilling establishments and their industrial operations (e.g., 
refilling of minibulks) because these industrial operations did not 
begin until well after the limitations were first promulgated. EPA 
considered refilling establishments to be a subcategory of the 
Pesticide Chemicals point source category because of similar types of 
industrial operations performed, wastewaters generated, and available 
pollution prevention and treatment options.
    EPA's annual reviews also focus on identifying pollutants that are 
not regulated by an existing effluent guideline or pretreatment 
standard for a point source category but that comprise a significant 
portion of the estimated toxic discharges (as measured by toxic-
weighted pound equivalents (TWPE)) for that category. EPA believes that 
it is reasonable to consider new pollutants for regulation in the 
course of reviewing and revising existing effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards. EPA has several reasons for this. First, a 
newly identified pollutant might be adequately addressed through 
existing regulations or through the additional control of already 
regulated pollutants in an existing set of effluent guidelines or 
pretreatment standards. In some cases, revising existing limitations 
for one set of pollutants will address hazards associated with a newly 
identified pollutant, thus obviating the need for EPA to promulgate 
specific limitations for that pollutant. Second, EPA believes it is 
necessary to understand the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of 
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards in controlling 
newly identified pollutants before EPA can identify potential 
technology-based control options for these pollutants. For example, EPA 
revised effluent limitations for the bleached papergrade kraft and soda 
and papergrade sulfite subcategories within the Pulp, Paper, and 
Paperboard point source category (40 CFR part 430) to add BAT 
limitations for dioxin, which was not measurable when EPA first 
promulgated these effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. See 
63 FR 18504 (April 15, 1998).
    In general, treatment technologies address multiple pollutants and 
it is important to consider their effects holistically in order to 
develop limitations that are both environmentally protective and 
economically achievable. In short, EPA believes that the 
appropriateness of creating an additional subcategory or addressing a 
newly identified pollutant is best considered in the context of 
revising an existing set of effluent guidelines. Accordingly, EPA 
performed these analyses as part of its annual review of existing 
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards.
2. What factors does EPA consider in its annual review of effluent 
guidelines and pretreatment standards under sections 301(d), 304(b), 
304(g), and 307(b)?
    Section 304(b) and 304(g) direct EPA to revise existing effluent 
guidelines ``if appropriate.'' In the draft Strategy for National Clean 
Water Industrial Regulations (``draft Strategy''), see 67 FR 71165 
(November 29, 2002), EPA identified four major factors that the Agency 
would aim to examine, in the course of its annual review, to determine 
whether it would be appropriate to revise an existing set of effluent 
guidelines or pretreatment standards for direct and indirect 
dischargers.
    The first factor EPA considers is the amount and toxicity of the 
pollutants in an industrial category's discharge and the extent to 
which these pollutants pose a hazard to human health or the 
environment. This enables the Agency to set priorities for rulemaking 
in order to achieve the greatest environmental and health benefits. 
EPA's assessment of hazard also enables the Agency to indirectly assess 
the effectiveness of the pollution control technologies and processes 
currently in use by an industrial category, based on the amount and 
toxicity of its dischargers. This also helps the Agency assess the 
extent to which additional regulation may contribute reasonable further 
progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all 
pollutants, as specified in section 301(b)(2)(A). The second factor 
identifies and evaluates the cost and performance of an applicable and 
demonstrated technology, process change, or pollution prevention 
alternative that can effectively reduce the pollutants remaining in the 
industrial category's wastewater and, consequently, substantially 
reduce the hazard to human health or the environment associated with 
these pollutant discharges. Cost is a factor specifically identified in 
section 304(b) for consideration in establishing BPT, BAT, and BCT. The 
third factor evaluates the affordability or economic achievability of 
the technology, process change, or pollution prevention measures 
identified using the second factor. If the financial condition of the 
industry indicates that it would experience significant difficulties in 
implementing the new technology, process change, or pollution 
prevention

[[Page 51047]]

measures, EPA might conclude that Agency resources would be more 
effectively spent developing more efficient, less costly approaches to 
reducing pollutant loadings that would better satisfy applicable 
statutory requirements.
    The fourth factor addresses implementation and efficiency 
considerations and recommendations from stakeholders. Here, 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. For example, in the 1990s, industry requested in 
comments on the Offshore and Coastal Oil and Gas Extraction (40 CFR 
part 435) effluent guidelines rulemakings that EPA revise these 
effluent guidelines because they inhibited the use of a new pollution 
prevention technology (synthetic-based drilling fluids). EPA agreed 
that revisions to these effluent guidelines were appropriate for 
promoting synthetic-based drilling fluids as a pollution prevention 
technology and promulgated revisions to the Oil and Gas Extraction 
point source category. See 66 FR 6850 (Jan. 22, 2001). This factor 
might also prompt EPA, during an annual review, to decide against 
identifying an existing set of effluent guidelines or pretreatment 
standards for revision where the pollutant source is already 
efficiently and effectively controlled by other regulatory or non-
regulatory programs.
    EPA intends to finalize the draft Strategy in connection with the 
final 2006 Plan. EPA first solicited public comments in the November 
29, 2002, Federal Register notice (67 FR 71165) announcing the 
availability of the draft Strategy. EPA received 22 public comments on 
the draft Strategy and these are included in Docket ID No. OW-2002-
0020. EPA again solicits public comment on the draft Strategy. 
Commenters should follow the instructions for submitting comments on 
the draft Strategy listed in DATES and ADDRESSES sections in this 
notice. In particular, commenters should send their comments, data, and 
information on the draft Strategy to the Agency using Docket ID No. OW-
2002-0020.
3. How did EPA's 2004 annual review influence its 2005 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 more 
detailed scrutiny in subsequent years. During its 2004 annual review, 
which concluded in September 2004, EPA completed detailed studies for 
two industrial categories: Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic 
Fibers (OCPSF) (Part 414); and Petroleum Refining (Part 419). In 
addition, EPA identified nine other priority industrial categories as 
candidates for detailed study in future reviews based on the toxic 
discharges reported to TRI and PCS. EPA summarized its findings in the 
``Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program 
Plan,'' EPA-821-R-04-014, August 2004. EPA's 2004 annual review, 
including stakeholder comments received as of that date, is discussed 
in the comment response document in the record supporting that action. 
See Docket OW-2003-0074, Document No. OW-2003-0074-1345.
    EPA used the findings, data and comments from the 2004 annual 
review to inform its 2005 annual review. For example, in its 2005 
review, EPA gathered more data for industrial categories identified for 
future study in the 2004 annual review, and began a detailed study of 
two of these categories (i.e., Steam Electric Power Generation and 
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Manufacturing). Although the OCPSF and 
Petroleum Refining categories again ranked high in terms of TWPE 
discharged, EPA did not conduct a new detailed study of these 
categories, as EPA's 2004 detailed study of these categories had 
revealed that effluent guidelines revisions were not warranted at that 
time. In 2005, EPA confirmed that its findings in the 2004 annual 
review, which used TRI and PCS data from year 2000, were still 
applicable based on the 2002 TRI and PCS data used in the 2005 annual 
review.
    During the 2003 and 2004 reviews, EPA developed methodologies for 
screening level analysis of discharge data in TRI and PCS as well as 
for detailed review of prioritized categories. The 2005 review built on 
the previous reviews by continuing to use the screening level 
methodology, incorporating some refinements to assigning discharges to 
categories and updating toxic weighting factors used to estimate 
potential hazards of toxic pollutant discharges.
4. What actions did EPA take in performing its 2005 annual reviews of 
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards?
a. Screening-Level Review
    The first component of EPA's 2005 annual review consisted of a 
screening-level review of all industrial categories subject to existing 
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards. As a starting point for 
this review, EPA examined screening-level data from its 2004 annual 
reviews. In its 2004 annual reviews, EPA focused its efforts on 
collecting and analyzing data to identify industrial categories whose 
pollutant discharges potentially pose the greatest hazard to human 
health or the environment because of their toxicity (i.e., highest 
estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges). In particular, EPA 
ranked point source categories according to their discharges of toxic 
and non-conventional pollutants (reported in units of toxic-weighted 
pound equivalent or TWPE), based primarily on data from the Toxics 
Release Inventory (TRI) and the Permit Compliance System (PCS). EPA 
calculated the TWPE using pollutant-specific toxic weighting factors 
(TWFs). Where data are available, these TWFs reflect both aquatic life 
and human health effects. For each facility that reports to TRI and 
PCS, EPA multiplies the pounds of discharged pollutants by pollutant-
specific TWFs. This calculation results in an estimate of the 
discharged toxic-weighted pound equivalents (TWPE) which EPA then uses 
to assess the hazard posed by these toxic and non-conventional 
pollutant discharges to human health or the environment. EPA repeated 
this process for the 2005 annual reviews using the most recent data 
(2002). EPA also considered implementation and efficiency issues raised 
by EPA Regions and stakeholders. The full description of EPA's 
methodology for the 2005 screening-level review is presented in the 
Docket accompanying this notice (see OW-2004-0032-0017).
    EPA is continuously investigating and solicits comment on how to 
improve its analyses. EPA made a few such improvements to the 
screening-level review methodology from the 2004 to the 2005 annual 
review. EPA updated the TWFs and its estimate of average POTW pollutant 
removal efficiencies for a number of pollutants. Prior to publication 
of the final 2006 Plan, EPA will start the process for conducting a 
peer review of its development and use of TWFs. EPA also included 
pollutant loadings from potential new subcategories in their respective 
parent

[[Page 51048]]

industrial category totals (e.g., the pollutant loadings from petroleum 
bulk stations and terminals (SIC 5171) were included in the pollutant 
loadings for the Petroleum Refining point source category (40 CFR part 
419)).
    EPA also combined the estimated discharges of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants calculated from the TRI and PCS databases to 
estimate the total TWPE for each category. In the 2003 and 2004 annual 
reviews, EPA separately evaluated the TWPE estimates from the TRI and 
PCS databases. EPA finds that combining the TWPE estimates from the TRI 
and PCS databases into a single TWPE number offers a clearer 
perspective of the industries with the most toxic pollution. Different 
pollutants may dominate the TRI and PCS TWPE estimates for an 
industrial category due to the differences in pollutant reporting 
requirements between the TRI and PCS databases. The single TWPE number 
for each category highlights those industries with the most toxic 
discharge data in both TRI and PCS. Although this approach could have 
theoretically led to double-counting, EPA's review of the data 
indicates that because the two databases focus on different pollutants, 
double-counting was minimal and did not affect the ranking of the top 
ranked industrial categories (see OW-2004-0032-0016 and 0017). EPA 
specifically solicits comment on these revisions to its screening-level 
review methodology.
    EPA also developed and used a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) 
to document the type and quality of data needed to make the decisions 
in this annual review and to describe the methods for collecting and 
assessing those data (see OW-2004-0032-0050). EPA used the following 
document to develop the QAPP for this annual review: ``EPA Requirements 
for QA Project Plans (QA/R-5), EPA-240-B01-003.'' Using the QAPP as a 
guide, EPA performed extensive quality assurance checks on the data 
used to develop estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges (i.e., 
verifying data reported to TRI and the PCS) to determine if 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, corrected TRI and PCS data for facilities EPA identified in 
its screening-level review as the significant dischargers of toxic and 
non-conventional pollution.
    Based on this methodology, EPA was able to prioritize its review of 
industries that offered the greatest potential for reducing hazard to 
human health and the environment. EPA assigned those categories with 
the lowest estimates of toxic weighted pollutant discharges a lower 
priority for revision (i.e., industrial categories marked ``3'' in the 
``Findings'' column in Table V-1).
    In order to further focus its inquiry during the 2005 annual 
review, EPA did not prioritize for additional review categories for 
which effluent guidelines had been recently promulgated or revised, or 
for which effluent guidelines rulemaking was currently underway (i.e, 
industrial categories marked ``1'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table 
V-1). For example, EPA excluded from additional review facilities that 
are associated with the Vinyl Chloride and Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing 
rulemaking currently underway, subtracting the pollutant discharges 
from these facilities in its 2005 hazard assessment of the OCPSF and 
Inorganic Chemicals point source categories to which they belong. 
Additionally, EPA applied less scrutiny to industrial categories for 
which EPA had promulgated effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards 
within the past 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, which 
could be up to five years after the effluent guidelines or pretreatment 
standards are promulgated). Because there are 56 point source 
categories (including over 450 subcategories) with existing effluent 
guidelines and pretreatment standards that must be reviewed annually, 
EPA believes it is important to prioritize its review so as to focus on 
industries where changes to the existing effluent guidelines or 
pretreatment standards are most likely to be needed. In general, 
industries for which new or revised effluent guidelines or pretreatment 
standards have recently been promulgated are less likely to warrant 
such changes. However, in cases where EPA becomes aware of the growth 
of a new segment within a category for which EPA has recently revised 
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards, or where new concerns 
are identified for previously unevaluated pollutants discharged by 
facilities within the industrial category, EPA would apply more 
scrutiny to the category in a subsequent review. EPA identified no such 
instance during the 2005 annual review.
    EPA identified thirteen industrial sectors in its 2005 annual 
review where the estimated toxic-weighted pollutant discharges appeared 
unclear and more data were needed to determine their magnitude (i.e., 
industrial categories marked ``(4)'' or ``(5)'' in the ``Findings'' 
column in Table V-1). For these industries, EPA intends to collect 
additional information for the next annual review.
    As part of its 2005 annual review, EPA also considered the number 
of facilities responsible for the majority of the estimated toxic-
weighted pollutant discharges associated with an industrial activity. 
Where only a few facilities in a category accounted for the vast 
majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges, EPA did not prioritize 
the category for additional review (i.e, categories marked ``(2)'' in 
the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1). EPA believes that revision of 
individual permits may be more effective at addressing the toxic-
weighted pollutant discharges than a national effluent guidelines 
rulemaking because requirements can be better tailored to these few 
facilities, and because individual permitting actions may take 
considerably less time than a national rulemaking. The Docket 
accompanying this notice lists facilities that account for the vast 
majority of the estimated toxic-weighted pollutant discharges for 
particular categories (see OW-2004-0032-0017). For these facilities, 
EPA will consider identifying pollutant control and pollution 
prevention technologies that will assist permit writers in developing 
facility-specific, technology-based effluent limitations on a best 
professional judgment (BPJ) basis. In future annual reviews, EPA also 
intends to re-evaluate each category based on the information available 
at the time in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the BPJ permit-
based support.
    EPA received comments urging the Agency, as part of its annual 
review, to encourage and recognize voluntary efforts by industry to 
reduce pollutant discharges, especially when the voluntary efforts have 
been widely adopted within an industry and the associated pollutant 
reductions have been significant. EPA agrees that industrial categories 
demonstrating significant progress through voluntary efforts to reduce 
hazard to human health or the environment associated with their 
effluent discharges would be a comparatively lower priority for 
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards revision, particularly 
where such reductions are achieved by a significant majority of 
individual facilities in the industry. Although during this annual 
review EPA could not complete a systematic review of voluntary 
pollutant loading reductions, EPA's review did

[[Page 51049]]

account for the effects of successful voluntary programs through taking 
into consideration any significant reductions in pollutant discharges 
reflected in discharge monitoring and TRI data, as well as any data 
provided directly by commenters, that EPA used to assess the toxic-
weighted pollutant discharges.
    EPA directly assessed the availability of technology for some--but 
not all--industrial categories (see OW-2004-0032-0016 and 0017). As was 
the case in the 2004 annual review, EPA was unable to gather the data 
needed to perform a comprehensive screening-level analysis of the 
availability of treatment or process technologies to reduce toxic 
pollutant wastewater discharges beyond the performance of technologies 
already in place for all of the 56 existing industrial categories. 
However, EPA believes that its analysis of hazard can also serve as a 
proxy for assessing the effectiveness of existing technologies in terms 
of the amount and significance of the pollutants discharged.
    Similarly, EPA could not identify a suitable screening-level tool 
for comprehensively evaluating the affordability of treatment or 
process technologies because the universe of facilities is too broad 
and complex. EPA could not find a reasonable way to prioritize the 
industrial categories based on a broad economic profile. In the past, 
EPA has gathered information regarding technologies and economic 
considerations 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, 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--even for only a few subcategories--can consume 
considerable time and resources. EPA does not think it appropriate to 
conduct this level of analysis prior to identifying an industrial 
category for possible regulation. Consequently, EPA is working to 
develop more streamlined screening-level tools for assessing 
technological and economic achievability as part of future annual 
reviews under section 301(d), 304(b), and 307(b). EPA solicits comment 
on how to best identify and use screening-level tools for assessing 
technological and economic achievability on an industry-specific basis 
as part of future annual reviews.
    In summary, EPA focused its 2005 screening-level review on 
industrial categories whose pollutant discharges potentially pose the 
greatest hazards to human health or the environment because of their 
toxicity. EPA also considered efficiency and implementation issues 
raised by stakeholders. By using this multi-layered screening approach, 
the Agency concentrated its resources on those point source categories 
with the highest estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges 
(based on best available data), while assigning a lower priority to 
categories that the Agency believes are not good candidates for 
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards revision at this time.
b. Detailed Review of Certain Industries
    For a number of the industries that appeared to offer the greatest 
potential for reducing hazard to human health or the environment, EPA 
gathered and analyzed additional data on pollutant discharges, economic 
factors, and technology issues during its 2005 annual review. EPA 
examined: (1) Wastewater characteristics and pollutant sources; (2) the 
pollutants driving the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges; (3) 
treatment technology and pollution prevention information; (4) the 
geographic distribution of facilities in the industry; (5) any 
pollutant discharge trends within the industry; and (6) any relevant 
economic factors.
    EPA relied on many different sources of data including: (1) 1997 
and 2002 U.S. Economic Census; (2) TRI and PCS data; (3) contacts with 
reporting facilities to verify reported releases and facility 
categorization; (4) contacts with regulatory authorities (states and 
EPA regions) to understand how category facilities are permitted; (5) 
NPDES permits and their supporting fact sheets; (6) EPA effluent 
guidelines technical development documents; (7) relevant EPA 
preliminary data summaries or study reports; (8) technical literature 
on pollutant sources and control technologies; (9) information provided 
by industry including industry conducted survey and sampling data; and 
(10) stakeholder comments (see OW-2004-0032-0016, 0017, and 0020).
    During its 2005 annual review, EPA started detailed studies for the 
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Part 430) and Steam Electric Power 
Generation (Part 423) point source categories because they represent 
the two industrial point source categories with the largest combined 
TWPE based on EPA's ranking approach. EPA plans to complete these 
detailed studies in its 2006 annual review, prior to publication of the 
final 2006 Plan. An expected outcome of these detailed studies will be 
the determination of whether it would be appropriate to identify these 
industrial categories for possible effluent guidelines revision in the 
2006 final Plan. The current status of these two detailed studies is 
presented in section V.B.
c. Preliminary Review of Effluent Guidelines for Certain Industrial 
Categories
    In addition to identifying two categories for detailed studies (see 
section V.B.2) during the 2005 screening level review, EPA identified 
11 additional categories with potentially high TWPE discharge estimates 
(i.e., industrial point source categories with existing effluent 
guidelines identified with ``(5)'' in the column entitled ``Findings'' 
in Table V-1). EPA will continue to collect and analyze hazard and 
technology-based information on these eleven industrial categories but 
will assign a higher priority to investigating the Pulp, Paper, and 
Paperboard and Steam Electric Power Generation industrial categories. 
The docket accompanying this notice presents a summary of EPA's 
findings on these eleven industrial categories (see OW-2004-0032-0016).
d. Public Comments on the 2004 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. To that end, EPA established a 
docket for its 2005 annual review with the publication of the final 
2004 Plan to provide the public with an opportunity to provide 
additional information to assist the Agency in its annual review. EPA's 
Regional Offices and stakeholders identified other industrial point 
source categories as potential candidates for revision of effluent 
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards based on potential 
opportunities to improve implementation of these regulations or because 
of their pollutant discharges (see OW-2004-0032-0020). See section 
V.B.3. EPA hopes that public review of the 2005 annual review and the 
preliminary Plan in this notice, as well as public review of future 
annual reviews and Plans, will elicit additional information and 
suggestions for improving the Effluent Guidelines Program.

[[Page 51050]]

B. What Were EPA's Findings From Its Annual Review for 2005?

1. Screening-Level Review
    The findings of the 2005 annual review are presented in Table V-1. 
This table uses the following codes to describe the Agency's findings 
with respect to each existing industrial category.
    (1) Effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for this 
industrial category were recently revised or reviewed through an 
effluent guidelines rulemaking or a rulemaking is currently underway.
    (2) National effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards are not 
the best tools for establishing technology-based effluent limitations 
for this industrial category because most of the toxic and non-
conventional pollutant discharges are from one or a few facilities in 
this industrial category. EPA will consider assisting permitting 
authorities in identifying pollutant control and pollution prevention 
technologies for the development of technology-based effluent 
limitations by best professional judgment (BPJ) on a facility-specific 
basis.
    (3) Not identified as a hazard priority based on data available at 
this time.
    (4) Incomplete data available for full analysis. EPA intends to 
complete a detailed study of this industry for the final 2006 Plan. See 
section V.B.2.
    (5) Incomplete data available for full analysis. EPA intends to 
complete a preliminary category review of this industry for the final 
2006 Plan. See section V.A.4.c.

 Table V-1.--Findings From the 2005 Annual Review of Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Promulgated
                                Under Section 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Industry category (listed
               No.                         alphabetically)            40 CFR Part         Findings [dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................  Aluminum Forming................             467  (3)
2...............................  Asbestos Manufacturing..........             427  (3)
3...............................  Battery Manufacturing...........             461  (3)
4...............................  Canned and Preserved Fruits and              407  (3)
                                   Vegetable Processing.
5...............................  Canned and Preserved Seafood                 408  (3)
                                   Processing.
6...............................  Carbon Black Manufacturing......             458  (3)
7...............................  Cement Manufacturing............             411  (3)
8...............................  Centralized Waste Treatment.....             437  (1)
9...............................  Coal Mining.....................             434  (1) and (3)
10..............................  Coil Coating....................             465  (3)
11..............................  Concentrated Animal Feeding                  412  (1)
                                   Operations (CAFO).
12..............................  Concentrated Aquatic Animal                  451  (1)
                                   Production.
13..............................  Copper Forming..................             468  (3)
14..............................  Dairy Products Processing.......             405  (3)
15..............................  Electrical and Electronic                    469  (3)
                                   Components.
16..............................  Electroplating..................             413  (1)
17..............................  Explosives Manufacturing........             457  (3)
18..............................  Ferroalloy Manufacturing........             424  (3)
19..............................  Fertilizer Manufacturing........             418  (5)
20..............................  Glass Manufacturing.............             426  (3)
21..............................  Grain Mills.....................             406  (3)
22..............................  Gum and Wood Chemicals..........             454  (3)
23..............................  Hospitals.......................             460  (3)
24..............................  Ink Formulating.................             447  (3)
25..............................  Inorganic Chemicals.............             415  (1) and (5)
26..............................  Iron and Steel Manufacturing....             420  (1)
27..............................  Landfills.......................             445  (1)
28..............................  Leather Tanning and Finishing...             425  (3)
29..............................  Meat and Poultry Products.......             432  (1)
30..............................  Metal Finishing.................             433  (1)
31..............................  Metal Molding and Casting.......             464  (3)
32..............................  Metal Products and Machinery....             438  (1)
33..............................  Mineral Mining and Processing...             436  (3)
34..............................  Nonferrous Metals Forming and                471  (3)
                                   Metal Powders.
35..............................  Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing.             421  (5)
36..............................  Oil and Gas Extraction..........             435  (1) and (2)
37..............................  Ore Mining and Dressing.........             440  (5)
38..............................  Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and             414  (1) and (5)
                                   Synthetic Fibers.
39..............................  Paint Formulating...............             446  (3)
40..............................  Paving and Roofing Materials                 443  (3)
                                   (Tars and Asphalt).
41..............................  Pesticide Chemicals.............             455  (5)
42..............................  Petroleum Refining..............             419  (5)
43..............................  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing....             439  (1)
44..............................  Phosphate Manufacturing.........             422  (3)
45..............................  Photographic....................             459  (3)
46..............................  Plastic Molding and Forming.....             463  (5)
47..............................  Porcelain Enameling.............             466  (5)
48..............................  Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard.....             430  (2) and (4)
49..............................  Rubber Manufacturing............             428  (5)
50..............................  Soaps and Detergents                         417  (3)
                                   Manufacturing.
51..............................  Steam Electric Power Generation.             423  (4)
52..............................  Sugar Processing................             409  (3)
53..............................  Textile Mills...................             410  (5)
54..............................  Timber Products Processing......             429  (3)

[[Page 51051]]

 
55..............................  Transportation Equipment                     442  (1)
                                   Cleaning.
56..............................  Waste Combustors................             444  (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] Note: The descriptions of the ``Findings'' codes are presented immediately prior to this table.

2. Detailed Studies
    As a result of its 2005 screening-level review, EPA is conducting 
detailed studies of two industrial point source categories with 
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards: Pulp, Paper, 
and Paperboard (Part 430) and Steam Electric Power Generation (Part 
423). During detailed study of these categories, EPA will first verify 
that the pollutant discharges reported to TRI and PCS for 2002 
accurately reflect the current discharges of the industry. EPA will 
also perform an in-depth analysis of the reported pollutant discharges, 
technology innovation and process changes in these industrial 
categories, as well as an analysis of technology cost and 
affordability. Additionally, EPA will consider whether there are 
industrial sectors 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. The purpose of the detailed study is to determine 
whether, in the final 2006 Plan, EPA should identify one or both of 
these industrial categories for possible revision of their existing 
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards.
    Based on the information available to EPA at this time, EPA is not 
proposing such identification. However, EPA will determine whether it 
is appropriate to identify these categories for possible revision of 
their effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards based on the 
results of its 2006 annual review and the two detailed studies, which 
it intends to conclude prior to publishing the final 2006 Plan. EPA 
requests comment and supporting data on whether it should identify 
either or both of these industrial categories for possible rulemakings 
in the final 2006 Plan.
a. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Part 430)
    EPA began a detailed study of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard point 
source category in the 2005 annual review because it ranked highest in 
terms of toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges among the 
industrial point source categories investigated in the screening-level 
analyses. The most recent changes to effluent guidelines for this point 
source category, known as part of the ``Cluster Rules,'' were new 
limits for facilities in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda 
(Subpart B) and Papergrade Sulfite (Subpart E) subcategories (April 15, 
1998; 63 FR 18504). EPA promulgated new limits for dioxin, furan, 
chloroform, chlorinated phenolic compounds, and adsorbable organic 
halides (AOX). In the 2005 annual review, EPA reviewed effluent 
discharge data for all 78 bleached papergrade kraft and sulfite mills--
the ``Phase I'' mills. EPA also reviewed effluent discharges for 
pulping mills, secondary (recycled) fiber mills, and paper and 
paperboard mills in eight subcategories (Subparts C and F through L)--
the ``Phase II'' mills. EPA reviewed data from PCS for 171 Phase II 
mills and data for 169 Phase II mills that reported to TRI.
    EPA did not review effluent discharge data for the four dissolving 
kraft and dissolving sulfite mills (Subparts A and D)--``Phase III'' 
mills. As discussed in the 2004 annual review, EPA believes that 
because of the small number of facilities, effluent guidelines 
rulemaking is not appropriate at this time for these subcategories. 
Instead of an effluent guidelines rulemaking EPA will provide site-
specific permit support to state permit writers as they develop NPDES 
permits for the four facilities in these two subcategories. These NPDES 
permits will include effluent limitations that reflect a determination 
of BAT based on BPJ, or, if necessary, more stringent limitations to 
ensure compliance with state water quality standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not include these four Phase III mills in the detailed study for 
this industry.
    Phase I and Phase II mills reported discharges of ``dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds'' to TRI in 2002 which resulted in an effluent 
discharge estimate of 2.81 million TWPE (66.4 grams of various dioxin 
congeners). Phase I mills in PCS in 2002 also showed discharges of the 
most toxic forms of dioxin (i.e., 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF) which 
resulted in an effluent discharge estimate of 1.37 million TWPE (0.9 
grams of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF). EPA notes that one mill 
accounted for more than 99 percent of the PCS dioxin discharges for 
this industrial category in 2002. This mill changed its operations 
after 2002 and has not reported dioxin releases since 2002 (see OW-
2004-0032-0021). EPA also notes that with or without the PCS TWPE from 
this one mill, this category ranks higher than any other category in 
terms of the estimated combined TRI and PCS TWPE discharged to U.S. 
waters. In its detailed study of this industrial category EPA will 
further verify pollutant discharge data and assess the impact of these 
mill changes and the corresponding 2003 and 2004 pollutant discharges 
reported by the mill to TRI and PCS. In the past, EPA has sometimes 
found that apparently high dioxin discharges reported to TRI may result 
from facilities using annual discharge volumes multiplied by one half 
the dioxin analytic method detection limit for their TRI dioxin release 
estimates when dioxin sampling data were ``non-detect.'' In general, 
EPA would expect to have a stronger record basis, with positive 
detections of toxic pollutants, before it identified an industry for a 
rulemaking. Other toxic pollutant discharges for Phase I and II mills 
that resulted in additional TWPE discharge estimates include: 
polycyclic aromatic compounds; metals (e.g., manganese, lead, zinc, 
mercury); and nitrate.
    Key issues the Agency will address in the detailed study include 
whether Phase I and II mills are currently generating and discharging 
dioxin; and whether PCS contains dioxin discharge data for the Phase II 
mills. EPA will also investigate the source and magnitude of the other 
toxic pollutants and non-conventional pollutants reported as discharged 
by these mills, and whether there are any new technologies or process 
changes for wastewater volume or pollutant reduction that might 
appropriately serve as the basis for revised effluent guidelines. See 
section IX.A. Based on this detailed study, EPA will determine whether 
or not to identify this industrial category for possible revisions to 
its effluents guidelines.

[[Page 51052]]

    EPA has already made considerable progress in investigating 
pollutant discharges in this category and has solicited and received 
assistance from a trade association for this industrial category, the 
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), and from the National 
Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), an independent, non-
profit research institute that focuses on environmental topics of 
interest to the forest products industry. EPA held a meeting with AF&PA 
and NCASI and member companies and the meeting minutes are included in 
the docket (see OW-2004-0032-0048). AF&PA members provided EPA with 48 
NPDES permits for Phase I mills (representing 62% of the Phase I mills 
in the industry). AF&PA also provided written documentation and data on 
the details of TRI release estimates and PCS errors (see OW-2004-0032-
0022). Prior to completing its 2005 annual review, EPA did not have 
time to fully evaluate the large amount of data submitted by AF&PA, 
NCASI, and their member companies in the context of the 2003 and 2004 
pollutant discharges reported to TRI and PCS. EPA intends to complete 
this evaluation in its 2006 annual review. EPA will also continue to 
work with AF&PA, NCASI, and other stakeholders to better understand the 
current pollutant discharges by this category.
b. Steam Electric Power Generation (Part 423)
    EPA began a detailed study of the Steam Electric Power Generation 
point source category in the 2005 annual review because it ranked 
second highest in terms of toxic and non-conventional toxic weighted 
pollutant discharges among the industrial point source categories 
investigated in the screening-level analyses. Effluent guidelines for 
direct dischargers were first promulgated for this category in 1974 (39 
FR 36186). In 1977, EPA promulgated pretreatment standards for indirect 
dischargers (42 FR15690). In 1982, EPA made significant revisions to 
these effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards (47 FR 52290). The 
current effluent guidelines are applicable to discharges from steam 
electric generating units that are primarily engaged in generating 
electricity for distribution and sale and that use fossil-type or 
nuclear fuels. EPA's screening-level analysis during the 2005 annual 
review was based primarily on information reported to TRI, PCS, and the 
Energy Information Administration (EIA) for the year 2002. EPA also 
obtained and reviewed additional information to supplement that data. 
These data include industry-compiled data on the likely source and 
magnitude of the reported toxic dischargers (see OW-2004-0032-0023). 
Pollutants significantly influencing this category's hazard ranking 
include arsenic, boron, metals (including mercury), and chlorine.
    In this detailed study, EPA plans to better quantify pollutant 
discharges in wastewater discharged by steam electric facilities. See 
section IX.A. EPA will also investigate whether there are any new 
technologies or process changes for wastewater volume or pollutant 
reduction that might appropriately serve as the basis for revised 
effluent guidelines. Additionally, EPA will investigate whether the 
recently revised analytic method for mercury better quantifies the 
sources and amounts of mercury in discharged wastewater from facilities 
in this category (see October 29, 2002; 67 FR 65876 and OW-2004-0032-
0024).
    Additionally, during its review of this industrial category, EPA 
received comments that it should consider amending the applicability of 
these effluent guidelines to include combined-cycle facilities, refuse-
derived fuel facilities, and industrial non-utilities. Combined-cycle 
technology utilizes waste heat created by the powering of one generator 
to drive a second generator, which significantly increases the amount 
of electricity generated by the same amount of fuel. Refuse-derived 
fuel facilities generate electricity from the combustion of unprocessed 
or minimally processed refuse. Industrial non-utilities have steam 
electric plants co-located with other manufacturing or commercial 
facilities. These power plants are most prevalent at chemical, paper, 
and petroleum refining facilities and are not currently regulated by 
Part 423. EPA is investigating the similarities and differences between 
combined-cycle, refuse-derived fuel facilities, and industrial non-
utilities and facilities in the Steam Electric Power Generation point 
source category in terms of plant operation, water use, and potential 
pollutants in the wastewaters. EPA specifically solicits comment and 
data on whether EPA should consider combined-cycle facilities and 
refuse-derived fuel facilities as potential new subcategories in the 
Steam Electric Power Generation point source category.
    EPA has already made considerable progress in investigating 
pollutant discharges in this category and has solicited and received 
assistance from a trade association for this industrial category, the 
Utility Water Action Group (UWAG). EPA held several meetings with UWAG 
and its member companies and the meeting minutes are included in the 
docket (see OW-2004-0032-0025). UWAG provided EPA with industry-
collected data related to the source and magnitude of pollutant 
discharges from facilities in this category (see OW-2004-0032-0026). In 
the 2006 annual review, EPA will continue to work with UWAG and other 
stakeholders to better understand the current pollutant discharges in 
this category.
3. Other Category Reviews Prompted by Stakeholder Outreach
    Following the publication of the 2004 Plan, EPA's Regional Offices 
and stakeholders identified other industrial point source categories as 
potential candidates for effluent guideline revision based on potential 
opportunities to improve efficient implementation of the national water 
quality program or because of the categories' pollutant discharges (see 
OW-2004-0032-0020 for a listing of these comments).
a. Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) Effluent 
Guidelines
    Congress has directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 
prepare an annual report to Congress on the costs and benefits of 
Federal regulations. See 68 FR 64375 (February 20, 2004). In the 2004 
draft report to Congress, OMB also solicited public comment for 
``nominations of promising regulatory reforms relevant to the 
manufacturing sector, particularly those relevant to the welfare of 
small and medium-sized enterprises.'' In particular, OMB requested 
suggestions on ``specific reforms to rules, guidance documents or 
paperwork requirements that would improve manufacturing regulation by 
reducing unnecessary costs, increasing effectiveness, enhancing 
competitiveness, reducing uncertainty and increasing flexibility.'' See 
``Draft Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 
Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 
Entities,'' http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/draft_2004_cbreport.pdf.
    In response to this solicitation two commenters suggested revisions 
to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) 
effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 414). The commenters suggest that 
OCPSF facilities are discouraged by existing OCPSF effluent guidelines 
from installing water re-use and reduction technologies and pollution 
prevention practices and are penalized by more stringent limits because 
NPDES permit

[[Page 51053]]

writers recalculate lower mass-based permit limits based on the reduced 
wastewater flow rates when re-issuing NPDES permits. The commenters 
suggest that OCPSF facilities should be able to retain mass limits of 
the original stringency, established prior to wastewater flow 
reduction, when process wastewater flows are reduced for purposes of 
water conservation. The commenters also stated that if process 
wastewater flows are decreased for other reasons, the mass-based limits 
should continue to be adjusted pursuant to the current rule.
    As part of the Agency's commitments in the President's 
Manufacturing Initiative, EPA began an evaluation of options for 
promoting water conservation through the use of mass-based limits as 
part of its 2005 annual review of existing effluent guidelines. See the 
OMB report to Congress titled, ``Regulatory Reform of the U.S. 
Manufacturing Sector,'' Page 30, March 9, 2005. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/regpol-reports_congress.html. EPA 
strongly supports water conservation and encourages all sectors, 
including municipal, industrial, and agricultural, to achieve efficient 
water use. EPA does not intend for its regulations to present a barrier 
to efficient water use in any industrial sector.
    EPA proposed, and is currently considering finalizing, greater 
flexibility for control authorities to convert concentration-based 
pretreatment standards to flow-normalized mass-based permit limits for 
indirect dischargers where necessary to facilitate adoption of water 
conservation technologies, provided there is no increase in the 
discharge of pollutants to the environment. See 64 FR 39563 (July 22, 
1999). EPA requests comment on whether it should consider a rulemaking 
or other ways that would extend greater flexibility to permitting 
authorities to retain mass-based limits based on current wastewater 
flows for direct discharges where necessary to facilitate the 
prospective adoption of water conservation technologies. EPA is 
particularly interested in specific, detailed examples of situations 
where the adoption of water conservation technologies and practices 
have or have not made the achievement of new flow-normalized mass-based 
permit limits based on the reduced wastewater flow more difficult. See 
section IX.G.
b. Stakeholder Identified Industries
    With the publication of the final 2004 Plan, EPA solicited public 
comment to inform its 2005 annual review of existing effluent 
guidelines and pretreatment standards. In addition to the comments 
identified in the previous section, EPA received five comments on how 
to conduct its annual review and which industries and pollutants should 
be the focus of this review (see OW-2004-0032-0020). These comments are 
located in the docket. EPA considered relevant information from these 
comments in its 2005 annual review.
    In particular, industry stakeholders commented that EPA should 
revise the analytical methods in the Oil and Gas Extraction point 
source category (40 CFR Part 435, Subpart A) to eliminate the current 
differences between the synthetic-based drilling fluids (SBF) 
analytical methods used in the EPA Region 4 and 6 general permits 
regulating offshore oil and gas facilities in the Eastern and Western 
Gulf of Mexico (see OW-2004-0032-0051). Industry stakeholders also 
supplied additional data and suggested that EPA change the sediment 
toxicity analytical methods to account for analytical method 
variability (see OW-2004-0032-0007). See section IX.H.

VI. EPA's 2006 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 
307(b)

    As discussed in section V and further in section VIII, EPA is 
coordinating its annual review of existing effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards under CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 307(b) and 
304(g) with the publication of a preliminary and biennial Plan under 
section 304(m). Public comments received on EPA's prior reviews and 
Plans helped the Agency to prioritize its analysis of existing effluent 
guidelines and pretreatment standards during the 2005 review. The 
information gathered during the 2005 annual review, including the 
identification of data gaps in the analysis of certain existing 
industry categories, in turn, provides a starting point for EPA's 2006 
annual review. See Table V-1 above. In 2006, EPA intends to conduct a 
screening-level analysis of all 56 industry categories and compare the 
results against those from previous years. EPA will also conduct more 
detailed analyses of those industries that rank high in terms of toxic 
and non-conventional discharges among all point source categories. EPA 
specifically invites comment and data on the 56 point source 
categories.

VII. EPA's Evaluation of Categories of Indirect Dischargers Without 
Categorical Pretreatment Standards To Identify Potential New Categories 
for Pretreatment Standards

    As noted in 40 CFR 403.2, the three principal objectives of the 
National Pretreatment Program are to: (1) Prevent the wide-scale 
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) 
that will interfere with POTW operations, including use or disposal of 
municipal sludge; (2) prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs 
which will pass through the treatment works or will otherwise be 
incompatible with the treatment works; and (3) improve opportunities to 
recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters and sludges. 
See Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program, EPA-833-B-98-
002, February 1999.
    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. POTWs 
that are required to implement approved programs, and those that have 
experienced interference or pass through, are required to develop local 
limits to implement the general pretreatment standards. There are 
approximately 1,500 POTWs with approved pretreatment programs and 
13,500 small POTWs that are not required to develop and implement 
pretreatment programs.
    In addition, EPA establishes technology-based national regulations, 
termed ``categorical pretreatment standards,'' for categories of 
industry discharging to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 
pollutants that may pass through, interfere with or are otherwise 
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. In this review, EPA evaluated various indirect discharging 
industries without categorical pretreatment standards to determine 
whether their discharges were causing pass through or interference, in 
order to determine whether categorical pretreatment standards may be 
necessary for these industrial categories.
    Stakeholder comments and pollutant discharge information have 
helped EPA to identify industrial sectors for this review. In 
particular, EPA has looked

[[Page 51054]]

more closely at sectors that are comprised entirely or nearly entirely 
of indirect dischargers, and is grouping them into the following seven 
industrial categories: Food Service Establishments; Industrial 
Laundries; Photoprocessing; Printing and Publishing; Independent and 
Stand Alone Laboratories; Industrial Container and Drum Cleaning; and 
Health Services Industry. EPA is including within the Health Services 
Industry the following activities: Independent and Stand Alone Medical 
and Dental Laboratories, Offices and Clinics of Doctors of Medicine, 
Offices and Clinics of Dentists, Nursing and Personal Care Facilities, 
Veterinary Care Services, and Hospitals and Clinics. EPA solicits 
comment on that grouping (see OW-2004-0032-0038). For all seven of 
these industrial sectors EPA evaluated (1) the ``Pass Through 
Potential'' of toxic pollutants and non-conventional pollutants through 
POTW operations; and (2) the ``Interference Potential'' of industrial 
indirect discharges with POTW operations. EPA also received, reviewed, 
and summarized suggestions from commenters on options for improving 
various categorical pretreatment standards (see OW-2004-0032-0020).

A. EPA's Evaluation of ``Pass Through Potential'' of Toxic and Non-
Conventional Pollutants Through POTW Operations

    For these seven industrial sectors, EPA evaluated the ``pass 
through potential'' of toxic pollutants and non-conventional pollutants 
through POTW operations. Historically, for most effluent guidelines 
rulemakings, EPA determines the ``pass through potential'' by comparing 
the percentage of the pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs 
achieving secondary treatment with the percentage of the pollutant 
removed by wastewater treatment options that EPA is evaluating as the 
bases for categorical pretreatment standards (January 28, 1981; 46 FR 
9408). For these seven industry sectors, however, EPA was unable to 
gather the data needed for a comprehensive analysis of the availability 
and performance (e.g., percentage of the pollutants removed) of 
treatment or process technologies that might reduce toxic pollutant 
discharges beyond that of technologies already in place at these 
facilities. Instead, EPA evaluated the ``pass through potential'' as 
measured by the total annual TWPE discharged by the industrial sector 
and the average TWPE discharge among facilities that discharge to 
POTWs.
    EPA based this two part evaluation in part on EPA's prior decision 
not to promulgate national categorical pretreatment standards for an 
industrial category (i.e., Industrial Laundries). See August 18, 1999 
(64 FR 45071). 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 August 18, 1999 (64 FR 45077). EPA solicits comment on this 
two part evaluation for determining the ``pass through potential'' for 
industrial categories comprised entirely or nearly entirely of indirect 
dischargers.
    EPA's 2005 review of these seven industrial sectors used pollutant 
discharge information from TRI, PCS, and other publicly available data 
to estimate the total annual TWPE discharged per facility. EPA's use of 
PCS data was limited as nearly all of the PCS discharge monitoring data 
is from direct dischargers. Consequently, EPA transferred pollutant 
discharges from direct dischargers to indirect dischargers in some of 
the seven industrial sectors when other data were not available. Based 
on these estimated toxic pollutant discharges, EPA's review suggests 
that there is a low pass through potential for four of the seven 
industrial sectors and that categorical pretreatment standards for 
these four industrial sectors are not warranted at this time. These 
four industrial sectors are: Food Service Establishments; Industrial 
Laundries; Photoprocessing; and Printing and Publishing. EPA is 
currently evaluating the pass through potential for the Industrial 
Container and Drum Cleaning industry using data from its recent study 
of this industrial sector, ``Preliminary Data Summary: Industrial 
Container and Drum Cleaning Industry,'' EPA-821-R-02-011, June 2002. 
EPA also did not have enough information to determine whether there was 
pass through potential for the remaining two industrial sectors: 
Independent and Stand Alone Laboratories and Health Services 
Industries. EPA will continue to evaluate the pass through potential 
for these three industrial sectors and conducted detailed studies if 
warranted for the 2007/2008 planning cycle. A summary of EPA's analyses 
supporting this review are located in the docket (see OW-2004-0032-
0017). EPA solicits comment on whether these or other industrial 
activities discharge pollutants that might pass through POTWs and into 
surface waters.

B. EPA's Evaluation of ``Interference Potential'' of Industrial 
Indirect Discharges

    For each of these seven industrial sectors EPA evaluated the 
``interference potential'' of indirect industrial discharges. The term 
``interference'' means a discharge which, alone or in conjunction with 
a discharge or discharges from other sources, both (1) inhibits or 
disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge 
processes, use or disposal; and (2) therefore is a cause of a violation 
of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in 
the magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of 
sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with applicable regulations 
or permits. See 40 CFR 403.3(i). To determine the ``interference 
potential,'' 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 (e.g., oil and grease discharges causing blockages in the POTW 
collection system), the POTW treatment system (e.g., high ammonia mass 
discharges inhibiting 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).
    EPA relied on readily available information from the literature and 
stakeholders to evaluate the severity, duration, and frequency of 
interference incidents caused by industrial indirect discharges. As 
part of its evaluation, EPA reviewed data from its recent report to 
Congress on one type of interference incidents, blockages in the POTW 
collection system leading to combine sewer overflows (CSOs) and 
sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). See Impacts and Controls of CSOs and 
SSOs, EPA 833-R-04-001, August 2004. With respect to Food Service 
Establishments, EPA noted that ``grease from restaurants, homes, and 
industrial sources is the most common cause (47%) of reported 
blockages. Grease is problematic because it solidifies, reduces 
conveyance capacity, and

[[Page 51055]]

blocks flow.'' Other major sources of blockages are grit, rock, and 
other debris (27%), roots (22%), and roots and grease (4%).
    EPA's review of current information indicates that there is no 
interference potential from the seven industrial sectors that would 
warrant the development of categorical pretreatment standards. 
Information collected from control authorities and stakeholders 
indicate that a growing number of control authorities are using their 
existing authority (under general pretreatment standards in Part 403) 
to set more stringent permit limits or to enforce existing permit 
limits and local ordinances to reduce interferences with POTW 
operations (e.g., blockages from fats, oils, and greases).
    EPA did receive comments from stakeholders during its review that 
even with current authority provided in the general pretreatment 
regulations, some POTWs have difficulty controlling interference from 
some categories of indirect industrial dischargers (see OW-2004-0032-
0020). EPA notes, however, that to a large extent, interference 
problems tend to be a local, rather than a national, problem. 
Pollutants which interfere with the operation of one POTW may not 
adversely affect the operation of another. These differences are 
attributable to several factors including the varying sensitivities of 
different POTWs and the constituent composition of wastewater collected 
and treated by the POTW (January 28, 1981; 46 FR 9406).
    EPA notes that local pretreatment programs already have the 
necessary tools to control interference problems with existing 
authority provided by the general pretreatment standards (40 CFR Part 
403). Under the provisions of Sec.  403.5(c)(1) & (2), in defined 
circumstances, a POTW must establish specific local limits to prevent 
interference. ``[A] POTW must develop specific limits for Industrial 
Users to guard against interference with the operation of the municipal 
treatment works.'' 46 FR 9406 (January 28, 1981). Consequently, 
pretreatment programs should correct interference incidents with 
enforcement and oversight activities. The interference incidents 
identified by commenters do not necessarily indicate the need for 
additional categorical pretreatment standards, but they may indicate 
the need for additional oversight and enforcement. EPA solicits comment 
on whether there are industrial sectors discharging pollutants that 
cause interference issues that cannot be adequately controlled through 
the general pretreatment standards.

VIII. The Preliminary 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan Under 
Section 304(m)

    In accordance with CWA section 304(m)(2), EPA is publishing this 
preliminary Plan for public comment prior to publication of the final 
Plan. EPA expects to finalize this Plan by August 2006. EPA will 
carefully consider all public comments and information. Commenters 
should see the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this notice for 
instructions on how to submit comments to EPA on this preliminary Plan. 
EPA will respond to all these public comments and include these 
responses in the docket supporting the final Plan.

A. EPA's Schedule for Annual Review and Revision of Existing Effluent 
Guidelines Under Section 304(b)

1. Schedule for 2005 and 2006 Annual Reviews Under Section 304(b)
    As noted in section IV.B, CWA section 304(m)(1)(A) requires EPA to 
publish a Plan every two years that establishes a schedule for the 
annual review and revision, in accordance with section 304(b), of the 
effluent guidelines that EPA has promulgated under that section. 
Today's preliminary Plan announces EPA's schedule for performing its 
section 304(b) reviews. The schedule is as follows: To coordinate its 
annual review of existing effluent guidelines under section 304(b) with 
its publication of the preliminary and final Plans under CWA section 
304(m). In other words, in odd-numbered years, EPA intends to complete 
its annual review upon publication of the preliminary Plan that EPA 
must publish for public review and comment under CWA section 304(m)(2). 
In even-numbered years, EPA intends to complete its annual review upon 
the publication of the final Plan. EPA's 2005 annual review is the 
review cycle ending upon the publication of this preliminary 2006 Plan 
and the 2006 annual review is the review cycle ending upon publication 
of the final 2006 Plan.
    EPA is coordinating its annual reviews under section 304(b) with 
publication of Plans under section 304(m) for several reasons. First, 
the annual review is inextricably linked to the planning effort, 
because the results of each annual review can inform the content of the 
preliminary and final Plans, e.g., by calling to EPA's attention point 
source categories for which EPA has not promulgated effluent 
guidelines. Second, even though not required to do so under either 
section 304(b) or section 304(m), EPA believes that the public interest 
is served by periodically presenting to the public a description of 
each annual review (including the review process employed) and the 
results of the review. Doing so at the same time EPA publishes 
preliminary and final plans makes both processes more transparent. 
Third, by requiring EPA to review all existing effluent guidelines each 
year, Congress appears to have intended that each successive review 
would build upon the results of earlier reviews. Therefore, by 
describing the 2005 annual review along with the preliminary 2006 Plan, 
EPA hopes to gather and receive data and information that will inform 
its review for 2006 and final 2006 Plan.
2. Schedule for Possible Revision of Effluent Guidelines Promulgated 
Under Section 304(b)
    EPA is currently conducting rulemakings to potentially revise 
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for the 
following categories: Vinyl Chloride and Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing, 
Iron and Steel Manufacturing, and Concentrated Animal Feeding 
Operations. For a summary of the status of the current effluent 
guidelines rulemakings and a list of completed effluent guidelines 
rulemakings conducted by EPA since 1992, see the Docket accompanying 
this notice (see OW-2004-0032-0042). EPA solicits comment on these 
proposed schedules.
    As previously identified in Table V-1, EPA does not have sufficient 
information to identify any additional effluent guidelines for 
potential revision at this time. Because there are 56 point source 
categories (including over 450 subcategories) with existing effluent 
guidelines that must be reviewed annually, EPA believes it is important 
to prioritize its review so as to focus especially on industries where 
changes to the existing effluent guidelines are most likely to be 
needed. Consequently, EPA has identified thirteen industrial categories 
whose pollutant discharges warrant further study at this time. (i.e., 
highest estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges).
    In particular, as a result of its 2005 annual review, EPA 
identified two of these thirteen industrial point source categories 
with existing effluent guidelines for detailed study in its 2006 annual 
review: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Part 430) and Steam Electric Power 
Generation (Part 423). During detailed study of these categories, EPA 
will verify the pollutant discharges identified in the 2005 annual 
reviews and perform an in-depth analysis of pollutant discharges,

[[Page 51056]]

technology innovation and process changes in these industrial 
categories, as well as an analysis of technology cost and 
affordability. EPA will also consider whether new subcategories or 
revisions to the applicability of these effluent guidelines are needed 
for either of these categories. The purpose of the detailed studies is 
to determine whether, in the final 2006 Plan, EPA should identify one 
or both of these industrial categories for possible revision of their 
existing effluent guidelines. Based on the information available to EPA 
at this time, EPA is not proposing such an identification. However, EPA 
will determine whether it is appropriate to identify these categories 
for revision based on public comments and the results of its 2006 
annual review, which it intends to conclude prior to publishing the 
final 2006 Plan. EPA requests comment and supporting data on whether it 
should identify either or both of these industrial categories for 
possible effluent guidelines rulemakings in the final 2006 Plan.
    EPA emphasizes that identification of one or both sets of effluent 
guidelines for possible revision in the final 2006 Plan would not 
constitute a final decision to revise the guideline or guidelines. EPA 
would make any such effluent guidelines revisions--supported by an 
administrative record following an opportunity for public comment--only 
in connection with a formal rulemaking process pursuant to a schedule 
announced in the final 2006 Plan.

B. Identification of Point Source Categories Under CWA Section 
304(m)(1)(B)

    The final Plan must also 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 final Plan 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). Applying the 
criteria in section VIII.B.1, EPA is not at this time proposing to 
identify any potential new categories for effluent guidelines 
rulemaking. Consequently, EPA is not proposing in this preliminary Plan 
to schedule an effluent guidelines rulemaking for any potential new 
industrial category. EPA is, however, reviewing the pollutant 
discharges from facilities in one industrial sector, Tobacco Products 
(SIC 21), to determine whether to identify this sector as a potential 
new category in the final 2006 Plan. See section VIII.B.2. EPA is also 
currently conducting rulemakings to establish effluent guidelines for 
two potential new categories identified in the final 2004 Plan: Airport 
Deicing Operations and Drinking Water Supply and Treatment.
1. Process for Identifying Industrial Categories for Which EPA Has Not 
Promulgated Effluent Guidelines
    EPA primarily used data from TRI and PCS to identify industrial 
categories not currently subject to effluent guidelines. As discussed 
in the docket, facilities with data in TRI and PCS are identified by a 
four-digit SIC code. EPA performs a crosswalk between the TRI and PCS 
data, identified with a the four digit SIC code, and the 56 point 
source categories with effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards to 
determine if a four-digit SIC code is correctly regulated, or if it 
belongs as a potential new subcategory of a currently regulated 
category (see OW-2004-0032-0017). EPA then assessed whether these 
industrial sectors not currently regulated by effluent guidelines meet 
the criteria specified in section 304(m)(1)(B), as discussed below.
    First, this analysis applies only to industrial categories for 
which EPA has not promulgated effluent guidelines, not to unregulated 
subcategories or pollutants within a currently regulated industrial 
category. The distinction between a category (reflecting an industry as 
a whole) and a subcategory (reflecting differences among segments of 
the industry) has long been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. See, 
e.g., Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. NRDC, 470 U.S. 116, 130, 132 n.24 (1985). 
Thus, EPA's first decision criterion asks whether an industrial 
operation or activity in question is properly characterized--in a broad 
sense--as an industry ``category'' or more narrowly as a segment of 
some broader industrial category (i.e., a subcategory). If EPA 
determines that an industrial operation is properly characterized as a 
new subcategory of an existing category, rather than a new category, 
then EPA reviews that new subcategory in the context of conducting its 
annual review of existing effluent guidelines under sections 301(d) and 
304(b).
    The second criterion EPA considers when implementing section 
304(m)(1)(B) also derives from the plain text of that section. By its 
terms, CWA section 304(m)(1)(B) applies only to industrial categories 
to which effluent guidelines under section 304(b)(2) or section 306 
would apply, if promulgated. Therefore, for purposes of section 
304(m)(1)(B), EPA would not identify in the biennial Plan any 
industrial categories composed exclusively or almost exclusively of 
indirect discharging facilities regulated under section 307 or 
categories for which other CWA controls take precedence over effluent 
guidelines, e.g., POTWs regulated under CWA section 301(b)(1)(B) or 
municipal storm water runoff regulated under CWA section 402(p)(3)(B).
    Third, the analysis under CWA section 304(m)(1)(B) applies only to 
industrial categories of sources that may be discharging non-trivial 
amounts of toxic or non-conventional pollutants to waters of the United 
States. EPA did not consider, under this analysis, industrial 
activities where conventional pollutants, rather than toxic or non-
conventional pollutants, are the pollutants of concern. In addition, 
even when toxic and non-conventional pollutants might be present in an 
industrial category's discharge, the analysis under 304(m)(1)(B) does 
not apply when those discharges occur in trivial amounts. EPA does not 
believe that it is necessary, nor was it Congressional intent, to 
develop national effluent guidelines for categories of sources that are 
likely to pose an insignificant hazard to human health or the 
environment due to their trivial discharges. See Senate Report Number 
50, 99th Congress, 1st Session (1985); WQA87 Legislative History 31. 
This decision criterion leads EPA to focus on those remaining 
industrial categories where, based on currently available information, 
new effluent guidelines have the potential to address a non-trivial 
hazard to human health or the environment associated with toxic or non-
conventional pollutants.
    Priority-setting is intrinsic to any planning exercise, and EPA 
believes that Congress intended for EPA to focus on categories 
discharging ``non-trivial'' amounts of toxic or non-conventional 
pollutants as a way of setting priorities to achieve the greatest 
environmental results. Because section 304(m)(1)(C) requires that EPA 
complete an effluent guidelines rulemaking within three years of 
identifying an industrial category in a 304(m) plan, it is important 
that EPA have the discretion to prioritize its identification of new 
industrial categories so that it can use available resources 
effectively, and identify in each successive Plan those industrial 
categories where an effluent guideline is an appropriate tool to 
address non-trivial discharges of toxic or non-conventional pollutants. 
This

[[Page 51057]]

interpretation is supported by the fact that section 304(m) imposes an 
on-going planning requirement, with new final Plans due every two years 
and draft Plans published for public comment in between. The CWA 
specifically contemplated that effluent guidelines would not be the 
only solution to all water quality problems.
    EPA interprets section 304(m), including its requirement that EPA 
identify in a plan any industrial categories for which it might 
promulgate effluent guidelines, as a mechanism designed to promote 
regular and transparent priority-setting on the part of the Agency. A 
plan, ultimately, is a statement of choices and priorities. See Norton 
v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, et al., 124 S. Ct. 2373, 2383 
(2004). Identifying an industrial activity for possible effluent 
guideline rulemaking reflects EPA's view, at the time the plan is 
issued, that a national categorical regulation may be an appropriate 
tool to accomplish the desired environmental results. Similarly, 
announcing a schedule reflects EPA's assignment of priorities, taking 
into account all of 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 EPA to publish its plan, 
Congress assured that EPA's priority-setting processes would be 
available for public viewing. By requiring EPA to solicit comments on 
preliminary plans, Congress assured that interested members of the 
public could contribute ideas and express policy preferences. Finally, 
by requiring publication of plans every two years, Congress assured 
that EPA would regularly re-evaluate its past policy choices and 
priorities (including whether to identify an industrial 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. Considering the full scope of the mandates 
and authorities established by the CWA, of which effluent guidelines 
are only a part, EPA needs the discretion to promulgate new effluent 
guidelines in a phased, orderly manner. Otherwise, EPA might find 
itself commencing an effluent guidelines rulemaking when none is 
actually needed for the protection of human health or the environment. 
By crafting section 304(m) as a planning mechanism, Congress has given 
EPA that discretion.
2. Discharges From Tobacco Products Facilities
    Public comments on the preliminary 2004 Plan suggested that EPA 
consider developing effluent guidelines for the tobacco products 
industrial sector due to the potential of facilities in this industrial 
sector to discharge nontrivial amounts of nonconventional and toxic 
pollutants. In particular, commenters expressed concern over the 
quantity of toxics and carcinogens that may be discharged in wastewater 
associated with the manufacture of cigarettes. At the time of 
publication of the final 2004 Plan, EPA was unable to make a 
determination, based on readily available information, as to whether 
toxic and nonconventional discharges associated with tobacco products 
facilities are trivial or nontrivial. In order to better respond to 
these comments and determine whether to identify the tobacco products 
industrial sector as a potential new point source category, EPA is 
conducting a detailed study of the pollutant discharges for this 
industrial sector.
    This industrial sector is divided into the following four industry 
groups: (1) SIC code 2111 (Cigarettes)--establishments primarily 
engaged in manufacturing cigarettes from tobacco or other materials; 
(2) SIC code 2121 (Cigars)--establishments primarily engaged in 
manufacturing cigars; (3) SIC code 2131 (Chewing and Smoking Tobacco 
and Snuff)--establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing chewing 
and smoking tobacco and snuff; and (4) SIC code 2141 (Tobacco Stemming 
and Redrying)--establishments primarily engaged in the stemming and 
redrying of tobacco or in manufacturing reconstituted tobacco. Based on 
information in the 2002 Economic Census, EPA estimates there are 114 
tobacco products facilities in the United States, nine of which are 
direct dischargers and currently have NPDES permits. EPA's review of 
TRI and PCS data indicates that there is very little information about 
the facilities in this sector. Consequently, EPA is conducting a 
detailed review of this industrial sector. EPA plans to complete this 
detailed review prior to publication of the final 2006 Plan in order to 
determine whether to identify this industry sector as a potential new 
industrial point source category. Key issues EPA will address in its 
detailed study include the source and magnitude of the toxic and non-
conventional pollutants discharged directly to waters of the U.S. and 
whether indirect discharges of these pollutants present any pass 
through or interference issues for POTW operations.
    EPA has already made considerable progress in investigating 
pollutant discharges in this category and has solicited and received 
assistance from the companies who represent 90% of the U.S. market. EPA 
held several meetings with these tobacco products companies since 
publication of the 2004 Plan and the meeting minutes are included in 
the docket (see OW-2004-0032-0043 and 0044). These companies have 
provided extensive information on processes, pollutant discharges and 
existing permits. Based on information collected to date, EPA believes 
that primary processing at cigarette manufacturers and their related 
reconstituted tobacco operations is the main source of discharged 
wastewater pollution in this industrial sector. EPA conducted site 
visits at six tobacco product facilities, four cigarette manufacturing 
facilities and two dedicated reconstituted tobacco facilities. In 
addition to collecting information on processes and wastewater 
generation, EPA also collected grab samples of wastewater during these 
site visits. EPA collected these wastewater samples to: (1) Further 
characterize wastewater generated and/or discharged at these 
facilities; and (2) evaluate treatment effectiveness, as applicable. 
EPA expects to place non-CBI information and data regarding these site 
visits and sampling episodes in the public record (EPA Docket No. OW-
2004-0032) by December 2005. As these data will be available after the 
close of the public comment period (see DATES section), EPA will accept 
public comment on these data for 30 days after these data become 
available in the docket. Members of the public who would like notice of 
when this data is available should contact EPA (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section). EPA also plans to work with State NPDES 
permit writers and pretreatment control authorities to obtain existing 
permits and to identify any issues or concerns with wastewaters from 
this industrial sector.

C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, [58 Federal Register 51735 (October 4, 
1993)] the Agency must determine whether a ``regulatory action'' is 
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the 
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines the term 
``regulatory action'' to include any substantive action by an agency 
(normally published in the Federal

[[Page 51058]]

Register) that is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule 
or regulation. While EPA does not normally publish plans and priority-
setting documents such as this preliminary 2006 Plan in the Federal 
Register, EPA is required by statute to do so here. The Order also 
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.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within 
the meaning of the Executive Order. Consequently, EPA did not submitted 
this notice to OMB for its review under Executive Order 12866.

IX. Request for Comment and Information

    EPA invites and encourages public participation in the development 
of the effluent guidelines annual reviews and the biennial Plans. The 
Agency asks that comments address deficiencies in the docket of this 
preliminary Plan and that commenters provide supporting data for 
suggested revisions or corrections where possible.

A. Detailed Studies

    EPA requests information on the industries for which it is 
conducting detailed studies: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Part 430); 
Steam Electric Power Generation (Part 423); and Tobacco Products (SIC 
21). As discussed above, the Agency has identified two of these 
categories through its annual hazard screening review process (Pulp, 
Paper, and Paperboard and Steam Electric Power Generation) and the 
third through public comment (Tobacco Products). EPA hopes to gather 
the following information.
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Part 430)
    In order to evaluate the implementation of the Cluster Rules, EPA 
reviewed pipe and outfall descriptions contained in PCS for bleached 
papergrade kraft and papergrade sulfite mills (Phase I mills). EPA 
identified these pipes and outfalls as bleach plant effluent, final 
effluent, or other type of monitoring location. EPA requests that 
operators of these Phase I mills verify EPA's identification of their 
PCS monitoring locations. See OW-2004-0032-0046, Appendix A.
    EPA reviewed the information provided by AF&PA and its member 
companies regarding the measurement techniques used to calculate TRI-
reported toxic discharges at 19 individual Phase I mills. EPA requests 
additional details of methods used to estimate releases of toxic 
pollutant discharges reported to TRI, in particular those methods used 
by Phase II mills (mills without bleached papergrade kraft or 
papergrade sulfite operations).
    Some permits require in-process monitoring (bleach plant effluent 
monitoring) but the permitting authority (state) does not include in-
process monitoring results in PCS. EPA requests that operators of 
bleached papergrade kraft or papergrade sulfite mills provide results 
of their permit-required (or other) bleach plant effluent monitoring, 
where these monitoring results are missing from PCS.
    EPA requests information about non-bleaching sources of toxic 
wastewater pollutants, such as pollutants derived from combustion-
related activities, spent pulping liquor from unbleached kraft mills, 
and papermachine additives and coatings.
    EPA requests examples (case studies) of mill process changes 
implemented in response to the cluster rules, including the wastewater 
pollution reduction benefits of installing BAT and using BMPs for the 
control of spent pulping liquor losses.
Steam Electric Power Generation (Part 423)
    EPA is investigating various types of wastewater discharges by 
steam electric utility and non-utility facilities including: Cooling 
water, ash-handling wastes, coal pile drainage, water treatment wastes, 
boiler blowdown, wet air pollution control device wastes, maintenance 
cleaning wastes, and miscellaneous waste streams. EPA solicits 
information on these and any other wastewaters that may be discharged 
by steam electric utility and non-utility facilities. In particular, 
EPA solicits information on the pollution prevention, management, and 
treatment for these wastewaters (e.g., how many facilities discharge 
coal pile runoff to ash ponds for further treatment) and the typical 
wastewater volumes and pollutant concentrations for wastewater 
discharges (e.g., what are typical wastewater volumes and pollutant 
concentrations of arsenic, beryllium, lead, mercury, and selenium in 
ash-handling wastewaters).
    EPA solicits information on any new technologies or process changes 
for flow or pollutant reduction that might appropriately serve as the 
basis for revised effluent guidelines. In particular, EPA solicits 
comment on whether facilities are implementing pollution prevention, 
best management practices, or other operational changes (e.g., flow 
reduction technology) to reduce wastewater pollutant discharges. For 
each practice or technology EPA solicits information on which of these 
are more readily adopted by new facilities rather than existing 
facilities. EPA also solicits comment as to whether any other 
regulatory programs or voluntary programs have had or may have any 
effect on the mass of pollutants discharged by existing steam electric 
facilities to surface waters and POTWs.
    EPA notes that process additives in use in the steam electric power 
generation category have changed over time. Starting in the early 
1990s, some power plants began converting from the use of chlorinated 
compounds to brominated compounds. However, many of these plants report 
only total residual oxidant (TRO) as part of their NPDES permit 
requirements. EPA solicits information on the amount and type of 
brominated compounds discharged from this industry.
    EPA also solicits comment regarding electric power generation 
facilities that use prime movers other than steam turbines (e.g., gas 
turbines). Specifically, EPA solicits comments on: (1) The wastewater 
volumes and pollutant concentrations of these discharges; (2) the 
similarities and differences of the discharge characteristics as 
compared to steam electric facilities regulated by Part 423; (3) 
current pollution prevention and treatment options for these discharges 
and estimates of which pollution prevention and treatment options are 
most widely used in this industry sector; and (4) whether EPA should 
amend the applicability of the existing steam electric power generation 
effluent guidelines to regulate these discharges.
    Similarly, EPA is also soliciting information related to these four 
questions in order to better evaluate the discharges from: (1) The non-
utility electric power generation sector and non-conventional renewable 
and other fuel sources sector (e.g., facilities using wood, wood 
wastes, non-wood wastes,

[[Page 51059]]

refuse, geothermal and solar as the energy sources to fuel steam 
turbines); and (2) facilities using combined-cycle, combustion turbine, 
and integrated gasification combined-cycle technology.
Tobacco Products (SIC 21)
    EPA solicits information and data on the number and identity of 
tobacco products processing facilities that discharge to surface waters 
and POTWs. EPA solicits information and data on the volume and 
characteristics of tobacco products processing discharges to surface 
waters and POTWs. EPA solicits information and data on the fate and 
affects of nicotine discharges to waters of the U.S. EPA solicits 
information and data on the treatment effectiveness of POTWs in 
removing nicotine from tobacco products processing wastewaters.
    Based on information collected to date, EPA believes non-cigarette 
related tobacco products processing (such as the manufacture of cigars, 
smokeless tobacco products, and tobacco stemming and redrying) generate 
and discharge little or no wastewater (in terms of volumes and toxic 
and/or non-conventional pollutant mass) to waters of the U.S. EPA 
solicits data to support or refute this assertion.

B. EPA Requests Information on the Industries Recommended for a 
Preliminary Category Review

    EPA requests information on the industries for which there are 
incomplete data available for analysis (i.e., industrial point source 
categories with existing effluent guidelines identified with ``(5)'' in 
the column entitled ``Findings'' in Table V-1). EPA will need to 
collect more information for the next biennial plan. Specifically, EPA 
hopes to gather the following information:
     What toxic pollutants are discharged from these industries 
in non-trivial amounts on an industry and per-facility basis?
     What raw material(s) or process(es) are the sources of 
these pollutants?
     What technologies or management practices are available 
(technically and economically) to control or prevent the generation 
and/or release of these pollutants.

C. 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 preliminary 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 OW-2004-0032-0017).

D. 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).

E. Identification of New Industrial Categories

    EPA solicits comment on the methodology for grouping industrial 
sectors currently not subject to effluent guidelines or pretreatment 
standards for review and prioritization, and the factors and measures 
EPA should consider for determining whether to identify such industries 
for a rulemaking. EPA solicits comment on other data sources and 
approaches EPA can use to identify industrial sectors currently not 
subject to effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for review and 
prioritization.

F. 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. EPA 
also solicits comment on these proposed schedules for current effluent 
guidelines rulemakings (see OW-2004-0032-0042).

G. EPA Solicits Comment on Implementation Issues Related to the Use of 
Flow Normalized Mass-Based Permit Limits and Their Potential Impact on 
the Adoption of Water Conservation Technologies

    EPA solicits comment on the suggested revisions to the OCPSF 
effluent guidelines raised by commenters. See section V.B.3.a. In 
particular, EPA requests comment on the likely advantages and 
disadvantages of the commenters' suggestion (i.e., allowing NPDES 
permittees to keep flow-normalized mass-based permit limits established 
at the beginning of the prior permit term before possible water re-use 
and reduction technologies and pollution prevention practices may have 
been implemented). EPA requests data to evaluate the costs, benefits, 
and impacts of water conservation practices advocated by commenters. 
EPA also solicits comment on whether the commenters' suggestion could 
have a broader application to other industrial categories with flow-
normalized mass-based NPDES permit limits.
    In particular, EPA requests paired influent and effluent regulated 
pollutant concentration and flow data where available, before and after 
implementation of the increased water conservation technologies and 
practices, to determine wastewater treatment performance (i.e., percent 
pollutant removals) and the discharged effluent pollutant 
concentrations for OCPSF (and other) facilities that they believe may 
or may not have adversely impacted their ability to achieve existing 
effluent guidelines. EPA also solicits other data on these water re-use 
and reduction technologies and pollution prevention practices which may 
include:
     The main reasons why these technologies and practices were 
adopted, and whether these technologies and practices are transferrable 
to other facilities.
     Detailed process flow diagrams including wastewater flows 
from each industrial unit operation; typical pollutant concentration 
wastewater data from each industrial unit operation; descriptions of 
the water conservation technologies and practices employed at each of 
these industrial unit operations; and data and descriptions on whether 
these water conservation technologies and practices reduce the amount 
of wastewater volume or the mass of wastewater pollutants resulting 
from an industrial unit operation or both.
     Detailed descriptions of the wastewater treatment and the 
annual costs of operating wastewater treatment to maintain compliance 
with the effluent guidelines. Detailed descriptions of the capital and 
annual costs associated with implementing water conservation 
technologies and practices and any cost savings resulting from water 
conservation technologies and practices.
    Additionally, EPA solicits estimates of the amount of increased 
water conservation and the number of facilities that would adopt more 
advanced water conservation technologies and practices as a sole result 
of: (1) Implementing the commenters' suggestion; or (2) other factors 
(e.g., limitations on water source availability, potential costs 
savings). EPA would be particularly interested in specific, detailed 
examples of situations where the adoption of water

[[Page 51060]]

conservation technologies and practices have or have not made the 
achievement of new flow-normalized mass-based permit limits based on 
the reduced wastewater flow more difficult for both direct and indirect 
dischargers. EPA solicits comment on how and when NPDES permit writers 
are calculating flow-normalized mass-based permit limits when 
facilities reduce their wastewater flow. EPA solicits comment on 
whether the commenters' suggestion is more or less relevant to certain 
industries, treatment technologies, or pollutants. If EPA were to 
address the commenters' suggestion, should any rule or guidance changes 
be limited to one or a few industries (e.g., OCPSF) or more broadly 
applicable. EPA solicits comment on whether there are differences 
between direct and indirect dischargers that might suggest that 
different approaches are warranted.
    Comments and data provided to EPA will be evaluated in the context 
of the CWA factors required for consideration of effluent guidelines. 
Were EPA to make any effluent guidelines revisions, they would need to 
be supported by an administrative record following an opportunity for 
public comment based on available data.

H. EPA Solicits Comment on Implementation Issues Related to the 
Analytical Methods for Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids (SBF) in the Oil 
and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 435)

    EPA solicits comment on the suggested revisions to the Oil and Gas 
Extraction effluent guidelines (40 CFR Part 435) raised by commenters. 
See section V.B.3.b. In particular, EPA solicits comment on whether EPA 
should propose a rulemaking to replace the synthetic-based drilling 
fluids (SBF) analytic methods in the Oil and Gas Extraction effluent 
guidelines with the SBF analytical methods from the EPA Region 6 
general permit for the ``Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of 
Mexico,'' NPDES Permit No: GMG290000 (see OW-2004-0032-0047). EPA also 
solicits comment on the number, geographic distribution, and types of 
wells (e.g., oil or gas extraction, exploration or development, 
deepwater or shallow water, likely bottom depth of well) with down-hole 
temperatures above the practical limitations of ester-based drilling 
fluids (i.e., above 350 [deg]F). EPA also solicits comment on whether 
drilling fluid additives (e.g., emulsifiers) can address the effects of 
high temperatures on ester-based drilling fluids. Finally, EPA solicits 
comments on whether the issues raised by commenters are more 
appropriately addressed through improved standardization of the SBF 
analytical methods in order to reduce variability rather than the 
commenter's suggested revisions to the effluent guidelines.

I. EPA Solicits Comment on the Draft Strategy

    In connection with the final 2006 Plan, EPA intends to finalize the 
draft Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations (``draft 
Strategy''). See 67 FR 71165 (November 29, 2002). EPA again solicits 
public comment on the draft Strategy. This will allow time for EPA to 
better refine the Strategy as it performs future effluent guidelines 
reviews. In particular, EPA requests comments on its proposed use of 
the four factors described in the draft Strategy (see section V.A.2) 
and invites the public to identify other or different factors for EPA's 
consideration.
    The Agency is also interested to receive comments on whether each 
of these four factors should be ranked, and if so, whether different 
weights should be applied to each. EPA also requests suggestions as to 
the information the Agency should use to prioritize industrial 
categories that pass both the primary and secondary screening reviews 
described in the draft Strategy.

J. 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 EPA evaluated: Food Service Establishments; Industrial 
Laundries; Photoprocessing; Printing and Publishing; Independent and 
Stand Alone Laboratories; Industrial Container and Drum Cleaning; and 
Health Services Industry. EPA solicits comment on the grouping of six 
industrial sectors into the Health Services Industry grouping (see OW-
2004-0032-0038). 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.

    Dated: August 19, 2005.
Michael Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 05-17032 Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```