51042 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

The CPIP presents an array of 

conceptual long-term port improvement 

scenarios, some of which would involve 

future federal activities were they to be 

advanced to the status of a real project. 

Any future port-improvement projects 

involving federal actions, as defined 

under NEPA, would be required to 

undergo the applicable environmental 

review process. Given the considerable 

time period before the conceptual 

improvements identified in the CPIP 

Plan would become actual proposed 

projects with sponsors, a detailed 

environmental review and analysis, as 

conducted in an EIS, is not warranted at 

this time. As a result, the Federal colead agencies are canceling the EIS 

process. In the short-term, a 

programmatic analysis in the form of an 

Environmental Assessment will be 

prepared to identify what type of 

environmental review could be 

expected of any improvement projects 

that may be proposed. This 

programmatic Environmental 

Assessment will be available for public 

review in Fall 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Grace Musumeci, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, (212) 637–3738; 

Bryce Wisemiller, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, (917) 790–8307; Richard E. 

Backlund, Federal Highway 

Administration, (212) 668–2205. 

Dated: August 4, 2005. 

Kathleen C. Callahan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 05–17125 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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: OW-Docket@epa.gov. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 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 

johnston.carey@epa.gov, or Ms. Jan 

Matuszko at (202) 566–1035 or 

matuszko.jan@epa.gov. 

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 

holmes.cassandra@epa.gov. 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. 

51044 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

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 ‘‘costreasonableness’’ test. EPA explained its 

methodology for the development of 

BCT limitations in 1986. See 51 FR 

24974 (July 9, 1986). 

3. Best Available Technology 

Economically Achievable (BAT)—CWA 

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

For toxic pollutants and nonconventional pollutants, EPA 

promulgates effluent guidelines based 

on the Best Available Technology 

Economically Achievable (BAT). See 

CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D) & (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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 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, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). 

In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to 

take into consideration the cost of 

achieving the effluent reduction and any 

non-water quality environmental 

impacts and energy requirements. 

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing 

Sources (PSES)—CWA Section 307(b) 

Pretreatment Standards for Existing 

Sources (PSES) are designed to prevent 

the discharge of pollutants that pass 

through, interfere with, or are otherwise 

incompatible with the operation of 

publicly-owned treatment works 

(POTWs), including sludge disposal 

methods at POTWs. Pretreatment 

standards for existing sources are 

technology-based and are analogous to 

BAT effluent limitations guidelines. 

The General Pretreatment 

Regulations, which set forth the 

framework for the implementation of 

national pretreatment standards, are 

found at 40 CFR part 403. 

6. Pretreatment Standards for New 

Sources (PSNS)—CWA Section 307(c) 

Like PSES, Pretreatment Standards for 

New Sources (PSNS) are designed to 

prevent the discharges of pollutants that 

pass through, interfere with, or are 

otherwise incompatible with the 

operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be 

issued at the same time as NSPS. New 

indirect dischargers have the 

opportunity to incorporate into their 

facilities the best available 

demonstrated technologies. The Agency 

considers the same factors in 

promulgating PSNS as it considers in 

promulgating NSPS. 

B. What Are EPA’s Review and Planning 

Obligations Under Sections 301(d), 

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

1. EPA’s Review and Planning 

Obligations Under Sections 301(d), 

304(b), and 304(m)—Direct Dischargers 

Section 304(b) requires EPA to review 

its existing effluent guidelines for direct 

dischargers each year and to revise such 

regulations ‘‘if appropriate.’’ Section 

304(m) supplements 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 nontrivial amounts of toxic or nonconventional pollutants for which EPA 

has not published effluent limitations 

guidelines under section 304(b)(2) or 

NSPS under section 306. See CWA 

section 304(m)(1)(B); S. Rep. No. 50, 

99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985); WQA87 

Leg. 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 nonconventional 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, 

51046 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

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 toxicweighted 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 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 nonregulatory 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 screeninglevel 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 pollutantspecific 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 

51048 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

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 nonconventional 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 nonconventional 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 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 screeninglevel 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 screeninglevel 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 multilayered 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. 

51050 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

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) 

No. Industry category 

(listed alphabetically) 40 CFR Part Findings †

1 ........................ Aluminum Forming ..................................................................................................................... 467 (3) 

2 ........................ Asbestos Manufacturing ............................................................................................................. 427 (3) 

3 ........................ Battery Manufacturing ................................................................................................................ 461 (3) 

4 ........................ Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetable Processing ......................................................... 407 (3) 

5 ........................ Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing ............................................................................. 408 (3) 

6 ........................ Carbon Black Manufacturing ...................................................................................................... 458 (3) 

7 ........................ Cement Manufacturing ............................................................................................................... 411 (3) 

8 ........................ Centralized Waste Treatment ..................................................................................................... 437 (1) 

9 ........................ Coal Mining ................................................................................................................................. 434 (1) and (3) 

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

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

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

13 ...................... Copper Forming .......................................................................................................................... 468 (3) 

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

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

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 Metal Powders ....................................................................... 471 (3) 

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 Synthetic Fibers ................................................................... 414 (1) and (5) 

39 ...................... Paint Formulating ....................................................................................................................... 446 (3) 

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

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 Manufacturing ........................................................................................ 417 (3) 

51 ...................... Steam Electric Power Generation .............................................................................................. 423 (4) 

52 ...................... Sugar Processing ....................................................................................................................... 409 (3) 

53 ...................... Textile Mills ................................................................................................................................. 410 (5) 

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

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 51051 

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)—Continued 

No. Industry category 

(listed alphabetically) 40 CFR Part Findings †

55 ...................... Transportation Equipment Cleaning ........................................................................................... 442 (1) 

56 ...................... Waste Combustors ..................................................................................................................... 444 (1) 

† 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 ‘‘nondetect.’’ 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 nonconventional 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. 

51052 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

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 screeninglevel 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 industrycompiled 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 nonutilities. 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 refusederived 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 industrycollected 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 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 massbased 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 massbased 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 flownormalized 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 screeninglevel 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 nonconventional 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 

51054 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

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 NonConventional Pollutants Through POTW 

Operations 

For these seven industrial sectors, 

EPA evaluated the ‘‘pass through 

potential’’ of toxic pollutants and nonconventional 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 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 

§ 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 oddnumbered 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 ChlorAlkali 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, 

51056 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

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 nontrivial amounts of toxic or nonconventional 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 nonconventional 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 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 prioritysetting 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 nonCBI 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 

51058 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

Register) that is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation. While EPA does not 

normally publish plans and prioritysetting 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 TRIreported 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 nonbleaching 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 ashhandling 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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 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 nonconventional 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 nontrivial amounts on an industry and perfacility 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 massbased 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 

51060 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

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 esterbased drilling fluids (i.e., above 350 °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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7961–8] 

Proposed CERCLA Administrative 

Agreement; Circuitron Corporation 

Superfund Site, East Farmingdale, 

Suffolk County, NY 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice; request for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Agency’s May 24, 1995, ‘‘Guidance on 

Agreements with Prospective 

Purchasers of Contaminated Property,’’

notice is hereby given of a proposed 

prospective purchaser agreement 

(‘‘PPA’’) with the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

Suffolk County, New York; the State of 

New York; and an as-of-yet unnamed 

‘‘Auction Purchaser’’ regarding a 0.9- 

acre parcel of real property (the 

‘‘Property’’) included within the 

Circuitron Corporation Superfund Site, 

located at 82 Milbar Boulevard in East 

Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York 

(the ‘‘Site’’). Under the PPA, Suffolk 

County would market the Property at 

auction, with a portion of the proceeds 

to be paid to EPA in reimbursement of 

response costs it incurred at the Site. 

Also under the PPA, the United States 

and the State would covenant not to sue 

or take administrative action against 

Suffolk County and its departments and 

agencies, and the Auction Purchaser, 

under Sections 106 or 107(a) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’). 

EPA also agrees to release the CERCLA 

Section 107(l) lien against the Property, 

and waive any lien or right to perfect 

any lien it may have on the Property 

now and in the future under Section 

107(r) of CERCLA. By publication of this 

Notice, a thirty (30) day period has been 

established in which the Agency will 

accept written comments relating to the 

PPA agreement. The Agency will 

consider all comments received and 

may modify or withdraw its consent to 

the PPA if comments received disclose 

facts or considerations which indicate 

that the agreement is inappropriate, 

improper, or inadequate. The Agency’s 

response to any comments received will 

be available for public inspection at the