[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53218-53241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21484]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771; FRL-8715-4]
RIN 2040-AE89


Notice of Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan.

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

[[Page 53219]]

SUMMARY: 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 Clean Water Act (CWA) sections 301(d), 
304(b), 304(g), and 307(b) require EPA to review these effluent 
guidelines and pretreatment standards. This notice presents EPA's 2008 
review of 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 under CWA sections 304(g) and 307(b). This 
notice also presents the final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 
(``final 2008 Plan''), which, as required under CWA section 304(m), 
identifies any new or existing industrial categories selected for 
effluent guidelines rulemaking and provides a schedule for such 
rulemaking. CWA section 304(m) requires EPA to biennially publish such 
a plan after public notice and comment. The Agency published the 
preliminary 2008 Plan on October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61335). This notice 
also provides EPA's preliminary thoughts concerning its 2009 annual 
reviews under CWA sections 304(b) and 304(g) as well as its reviews 
under 301(d) and 307(b) and solicits comments, data and information to 
assist EPA in performing these reviews. EPA intends to continue its 
detailed studies of the steam electric power generating industry, the 
health services industry, and the coalbed methane extraction industry, 
which is part of the oil and gas extraction industry. Finally, EPA is 
using this notice to solicit public comment to identify industry 
sectors and facilities that use water efficiency practices that promote 
water efficiency, re-use, and recycling because such practices can be 
related to reducing overall pollutant discharges.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, data and information for the 2009 
annual review, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517, by one 
of the following methods:
    (1) www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    (2) E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b647c066f4448404e5f6b4e5b4a054c445d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9fd0c8b2dbf0fcf4faebdffaeffeb1f8f0e9">[email protected]</span></a>, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2008-0517.
    (3) Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 
4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517. Please include a total of 3 copies.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 
Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be 
made.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-
0517. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The 
federal regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the index at 
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is 
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 
at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading 
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket 
is (202) 566-2426.
    Key documents providing additional information about EPA's annual 
reviews and the final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan include the 
following:
    <bullet> Technical Support Document for the 2008 Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan, EPA-821-R-08-015, DCN 05515;
    <bullet> Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: 
2007/2008 Detailed Study Report, EPA-821-R-08-011, DCN 05516;
    <bullet> Coal Mining Detailed Study, EPA-821-R-08-012, DCN 05517;
    <bullet> Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Dental Amalgam, 
EPA-821-R-08-014, DCN 05518; and
    <bullet> Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Management and 
Disposal of Unused Pharmaceuticals (Interim Technical Report), EPA-821-
R-08-013, DCN 05519.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-
1014 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e141116100d0a1110501d1f0c1b073e1b0e1f50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbd1d4d3d5c8cfd4d595d8dac9dec2fbdecbda95dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

How Is This Document Organized?

    The outline of this notice follows.

I. General Information
II. Legal Authority
III. What Is the Purpose of This Federal Register Notice?
IV. Background
V. EPA's 2008 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 
and 307(b)
VI. EPA's 2009 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 Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan Under Section 
304(m)
IX. Request for Comment and Information

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This notice simply provides a statement of the Agency's effluent 
guidelines review and planning processes and priorities at this time, 
and does not contain any regulatory requirements.

[[Page 53220]]

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA for the 2009 
Annual Review?

1. Submitting Confidential Business Information
    Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov 
or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail 
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
    <bullet> Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
    <bullet> Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    <bullet> Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
    <bullet> Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
    <bullet> If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    <bullet> Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    <bullet> Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    <bullet> Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Legal Authority

    This 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, 307(b), 308, 33 U.S.C. 1311(d), 1314(b), 1314(g), 1314(m), 
1316, 1317(b), and 1318.

III. What Is the Purpose of This Federal Register Notice?

    This notice presents EPA's 2008 review of existing effluent 
guidelines and pretreatment standards under CWA sections 301(d), 
304(b), 304(g) and 307(b). It also presents EPA's evaluation of 
indirect dischargers without categorical pretreatment standards to 
identify potential new categories for pretreatment standards under CWA 
sections 304(g) and 307(b). This notice also presents the final 2008 
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (``final 2008 Plan''), which, as 
required under CWA section 304(m), identifies any new or existing 
industrial categories selected for effluent guidelines rulemaking and 
provides a schedule for such rulemaking. CWA section 304(m) requires 
EPA to biennially publish such a plan after public notice and comment. 
The Agency published the preliminary 2008 Plan on October 30, 2007 (72 
FR 61335). This notice also provides EPA's preliminary thoughts 
concerning its 2009 annual reviews under CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 
304(g) and 307(b) and solicits comments, data and information to assist 
EPA in performing these reviews.

IV. Background

A. What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?

    The CWA directs EPA to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards (``effluent guidelines'') that reflect pollutant 
reductions that can be achieved by categories or subcategories of 
industrial point sources using technologies that represent the 
appropriate level of control. See CWA sections 301(b)(2), 304(b), 306, 
307(b), and 307(c). For point sources that introduce pollutants 
directly into the waters of the United States (direct dischargers), the 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated by EPA are 
implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permits. See CWA sections 301(a), 301(b), and 402. For sources 
that discharge to 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 (BOD<INF>5</INF>), 
total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional 
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The 
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional 
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501). EPA has identified 65 
pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic pollutants, of which 126 
specific substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants. See 
Appendix A to part 423. All other pollutants are considered to be non-
conventional.
    In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first 
considers the total cost of applying the control technology in relation 
to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age 
of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed, and any 
required process changes, engineering aspects of the control 
technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy 
requirements), and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems 
appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA 
establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best 
performances of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, 
processes, or other common characteristics. Where existing performance 
is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than 
currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency determines 
that the technology can be practically applied.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--CWA Sections 
301(b)(2)(E) & 304(b)(4)
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent 
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with Best 
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for discharges from 
existing industrial point sources. In addition to considering the other 
factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B) to establish BCT limitations, 
EPA also considers a two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA 
explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in 
1986. See 51 FR 24974 (July 9, 1986).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--CWA 
Sections 301(b)(2)(A) & 304(b)(2)(B)
    For toxic pollutants and non-conventional pollutants, EPA 
promulgates effluent guidelines based on the Best Available Technology 
Economically Achievable (BAT). See CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D) 
and

[[Page 53221]]

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

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

1. EPA's Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections 301(d), 304(b), 
and 304(m)--Direct Dischargers
    Section 304(b) requires EPA to review its existing effluent 
guidelines for direct dischargers each year and to revise such 
regulations ``if appropriate.'' Section 304(m) supplements the core 
requirement of section 304(b) by requiring EPA to publish a plan every 
two years announcing its schedule for performing this annual review and 
its schedule for rulemaking for any effluent guidelines selected for 
possible revision as a result of that annual review. Section 304(m) 
also requires the plan to identify categories of sources discharging 
toxic or non-conventional pollutants for which EPA has not published 
effluent limitations guidelines under section 304(b)(2) or NSPS under 
section 306. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(B); S. Rep. No. 50, 99th Cong., 
1st Sess. (1985); WQA87 Leg. Hist. 31 (indicating that section 
304(m)(1)(B) applies to ``non-trivial discharges.''). Finally, under 
section 304(m), the plan must present a schedule for promulgating 
effluent guidelines for industrial categories for which it has not 
already established such guidelines, providing for final action on such 
rulemaking not later than three years after the industrial category is 
identified in a final Plan.\1\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA recognizes that one court--the U.S. District Court for 
the Central District of California--has found that EPA has a duty to 
promulgate effluent guidelines within three years for new categories 
identified in the Plan. See NRDC et al. v. EPA, 437 F.Supp.2d 1137 
(C.D. Ca, 2006). However, EPA continues to believe that the 
mandatory duty under section 304(m)(1)(C) is limited to providing a 
schedule for taking final action in effluent guidelines rulemaking--
not necessarily promulgating effluent guidelines--within three 
years, and has appealed this decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, CWA section 301(d) requires EPA to review every five 
years the effluent limitations required by CWA section 301(b)(2) and to 
revise them if appropriate pursuant to the procedures specified in that 
section. Section 301(b)(2), in turn, requires point sources to achieve 
effluent limitations reflecting the application of the best practicable 
control technology (all pollutants), best available technology 
economically achievable (for toxic pollutants and non-conventional 
pollutants) and the best conventional pollutant control technology (for 
conventional pollutants), as determined by EPA under sections 
304(b)(1), 304(b)(2) and 304(b)(4), respectively. For over three 
decades, EPA has implemented sections 301 and 304 through the 
promulgation of effluent limitations guidelines, resulting in 
regulations for 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 sections 301(d) and 304(b) 
simultaneously.
2. EPA's Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections 304(g) and 
307(b)--Indirect Dischargers
    Section 307(b) requires EPA to revise its pretreatment standards 
for indirect dischargers ``from time to time, as control technology, 
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives change.'' See CWA 
section 307(b)(2). Section 304(g) requires EPA to annually review these 
pretreatment standards and revise them ``if appropriate.'' Although 
section 307(b) only requires EPA to revise existing pretreatment 
standards ``from time to time,'' section 304(g) requires an annual 
review. Therefore, EPA meets its 304(g) and 307(b) requirements by 
reviewing all industrial categories subject to existing categorical 
pretreatment standards on an annual basis to identify potential 
candidates for revision.
    Section 307(b)(1) also requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for pollutants not susceptible to treatment by POTWs or that 
would interfere with the operation of POTWs, although it does not 
provide a timing requirement for the 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

[[Page 53222]]

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 2009 annual 
pretreatment standards review in the notice containing the Agency's 
2009 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and the preliminary 
2010 plan). EPA intends that these contemporaneous reviews will provide 
meaningful insight into EPA's effluent guidelines and pretreatment 
standards program decision-making. Additionally, by providing a single 
notice for these and future reviews, EPA hopes to provide a 
consolidated source of information for the Agency's current and future 
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards program reviews.

V. EPA's 2008 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. Overview
    In its 2008 annual review, EPA reviewed all industrial categories 
subject to existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment 
standards, representing a total of 56 point source categories and over 
450 subcategories. EPA uses four factors in a phased approach to review 
existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards: 
Pollutants discharged in an industrial category's discharge, current 
and potential pollution prevention and control technology options, 
category growth and economic considerations of technology options, and 
implementation and efficiency considerations of revising existing 
effluent guidelines or publishing new effluent guidelines (see December 
21, 2006; 71 FR 76666). Examining these factors also helps the Agency 
to assess the extent to which additional regulation may contribute 
reasonable further progress toward the CWA's objective of restoring and 
maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the 
nation's waters, consistent with section 101 of the CWA.
    EPA used this 2008 review to confirm the Agency's identification of 
industrial categories prioritized for further review in the preliminary 
2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (October 30, 2007; 72 FR 61335). 
EPA also continued work on four detailed studies as part of the 2008 
annual review: Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423), Coal Mining 
(Part 434), Oil and Gas Extraction (Part 435) (for the purpose of 
assessing whether to include coalbed methane extraction as a new 
subcategory), and Hospitals (Part 460).\2\ These reviews discharged 
EPA's obligations to annually review both existing effluent limitations 
guidelines for direct dischargers and existing pretreatment standards 
for indirect dischargers under CWA sections 304(b) and (g), as well as 
other review requirements under CWA section 301(d) and 307(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Based on available information, hospitals consist mostly of 
indirect dischargers for which EPA has not established pretreatment 
standards. As discussed in Section VII.B, EPA is including hospitals 
in its review of the Health Services Industry, a potential new 
category for pretreatment standards. As part of that process, EPA 
will review the existing effluent guidelines for the few direct 
dischargers in the category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this review and prior annual reviews, and in light of the 
ongoing effluent guidelines rulemakings and detailed studies currently 
in progress, EPA is not identifying any existing categories for 
effluent guidelines rulemaking at this time, and is thus not 
establishing a schedule for further rulemaking at this time. EPA does, 
however, intend to continue its more focused detailed reviews in the 
2009 and 2010 annual reviews of the effluent guidelines for the 
following categories: Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423), Oil 
and Gas Extraction category (Part 435) (for the purpose of assessing 
whether to revise the limits to include Coalbed Methane extraction as a 
new subcategory), and Hospitals (Part 460) (which is part of the Health 
Services Industry detailed study). As part of its detailed study of the 
Coalbed Methane extraction industry, EPA is seeking approval from the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) to gather data from the industry (July 15, 2008; 73 FR 
40575). EPA is also planning to submit a proposed ICR to OMB for the 
Health Services Industry; in particular, a study of unused 
pharmaceuticals from medical and veterinary facilities. This is a 
request for a new collection. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for 
review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of 
the proposed information collection (August 12, 2008; 73 FR 46903). See 
Sections V.B.2 and VII.D.
2. How Did EPA's 2007 Annual Review Influence Its 2008 Annual Review of 
Point Source Categories With Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards?
    In view of the annual nature of its reviews of existing effluent 
guidelines and pretreatment standards, EPA believes that each annual 
review can and should influence succeeding annual reviews, e.g., by 
indicating data gaps, identifying new pollutants or pollution reduction 
technologies, or otherwise highlighting industrial categories for 
additional scrutiny in subsequent years. During its 2007 annual review, 
which concluded in October 2007, EPA started or continued detailed 
studies of the existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards 
for the four industrial categories mentioned in the previous 
discussion: Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423), Coal Mining 
(Part 434), Oil and Gas Extraction category (Part 435) (for the purpose 
of assessing whether to revise the limits to include Coalbed Methane 
extraction as a new subcategory), and Hospitals (Part 460) (which is 
part of the Health Services Industry detailed study). In addition, EPA 
used its 2007 annual reviews to identify three other industrial 
categories as candidates for further study in the 2008 reviews based on 
the toxic discharges reported to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and 
Permit Compliance System (PCS): Ore Mining and Dressing (Part 440), 
Centralized Waste Treatment (Part 437), and Waste Combustors (Part 
444). EPA published the findings from its 2007 annual review with its 
preliminary 2008 Plan (October 30, 2007; 72 FR 61335), making the 
pollutant discharge and industry profile data available for public 
comment. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771. EPA used the findings, data 
and comments on the 2007 annual review to inform its 2008 annual 
review. The 2008 review also built on the previous reviews by 
incorporating some refinements to assigning discharges to categories 
and updating toxic weighting factors used to estimate the significance 
of toxic pollutant discharges. In its 2008 reviews, EPA completed its 
Coal Mining detailed study and the dental amalgam management detailed 
study for the Health Services Industry. As discussed below, EPA is not 
identifying these two industry sectors for an effluent guidelines 
rulemaking at this time. EPA does, however, intend to continue its more 
focused detailed reviews for the following categories and industry 
sectors in the next biennial planning cycle: Steam Electric Power 
Generating category, Oil and Gas Extraction

[[Page 53223]]

category (only to assess whether to revise the limits to include 
Coalbed Methane extraction as a new subcategory), and unused 
pharmaceutical management for the Health Services Industry (which 
includes the Hospital category).
3. What Actions Did EPA Take in Performing Its 2008 Annual Reviews of 
Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?
a. Screening-Level Review
    The first component of EPA's 2008 annual review consisted of a 
screening-level review of all industrial categories subject to existing 
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards. As a starting point for 
this review, EPA examined screening-level data from its 2007 annual 
reviews. In its 2007 annual reviews, EPA focused its efforts on 
collecting and analyzing data to identify industrial categories whose 
pollutant discharges potentially are the most significant. EPA 
primarily uses TRI and PCS data to estimate the mass of pollutant 
discharges from different industrial facilities. Because pollutant 
toxicities are different, EPA converted the toxic and non-conventional 
pollutant discharges that are reported in a mass unit (pounds) into a 
measure of relative toxicity (toxic-weighted pound equivalent or TWPE). 
EPA calculated the TWPE for each pollutant discharged by multiplying 
the pollutant specific toxic weighting factor (TWF) and the mass of the 
pollutant discharge. Where data are available, these TWFs reflect both 
aquatic life and human health effects. EPA ranked point source 
categories according to their discharges of toxic and non-conventional 
pollutants (reported in units of TWPE) to assess the significance of 
these toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges to human health 
or the environment. EPA repeated this process for the 2008 annual 
reviews using the most recent TRI data (2005).
    Next, EPA considered the availability of technologies to reduce 
pollutant discharges. EPA does not have, for all of the 56 existing 
industrial categories, information about the availability of treatment 
or process technologies to reduce pollutant wastewater discharges 
beyond the performance of the technologies upon which existing effluent 
guidelines and standards were developed. At present 46 states and one 
U.S. territory are authorized to administer the CWA NPDES program. 
Under the CWA, permitting authorities must include water-quality based 
effluent limits where the technology-based effluent limits are not 
sufficient to meet applicable water quality standards. Therefore, 
dischargers may have already installed technologies that reduce 
pollutant discharges to a level below the original technology-based 
requirements in order to meet such water-quality based effluent 
limitations.
    A commenter on the preliminary 2008 Plan argued that EPA should 
conduct rulemaking to amend its effluent guidelines even where water 
quality-based controls have already controlled pollutant discharges 
(see EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0847). EPA disagrees. Analyzing the 
significance of the remaining pollutant discharges is most useful for 
assessing the potential effectiveness of additional technologies 
because such an analysis focuses on the amount and significance of 
pollutant discharges that would actually be removed through new, 
technology-based nationally-applicable regulations for these 
categories. Where potential pollutant discharge reductions are not 
significant, there are likely few effective technology options for a 
technology-based rule. Once EPA determined which industries have the 
potential for significant additional pollutant removals, EPA further 
examined the availability of technologies for certain industries. For 
example, EPA identified technologies to minimize pollutant discharges 
from Steam Electric facilities (see Steam Electric Power Generating 
Point Source Category: 2007/2008 Detailed Study Report, EPA-821-R-08-
011, DCN 05516).
    EPA also considered whether there was a way to develop a suitable 
tool for comprehensively evaluating the availability and affordability 
of treatment or process technologies, but determined that there is not, 
because the universe of facilities is too broad and complex. EPA could 
not find a reasonable way to prioritize the industrial categories based 
on readily available engineering and economic data. In the past, EPA 
has gathered information regarding technologies and economic 
achievability for one industrial category at a time through detailed 
questionnaires distributed to hundreds of facilities within a category 
or subcategory for which EPA has commenced rulemaking. Such 
information-gathering is subject to the requirements of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA), 33 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information acquired 
in this way is valuable to EPA in its rulemaking efforts, but the 
process of gathering, validating and analyzing the data can consume 
considerable time and resources. To study one industry with this level 
of analysis generally takes 3 years at a cost to EPA of 1.5 to 3 
million dollars. EPA does not think it is appropriate or feasible to 
conduct this level of analysis for all point source categories in 
conducting an annual review. Rather, EPA uses its analyses of existing 
pollutant discharges to identify the categories with the largest toxic 
weighted discharges. From this smaller list of categories, EPA 
evaluates the possibility of effective technologies and selects certain 
industries for examination (e.g., Preliminary Category Reviews, 
Detailed Studies). In these more detailed reviews EPA evaluates 
technology options for better control of pollutant discharges and may 
conduct surveys or other data collection activities in order to better 
inform the decision on whether to initiate an effluent guidelines 
rulemaking. EPA solicits comment on how to develop tools for directly 
assessing technological and economic achievability in future annual 
reviews under section 301(d), 304(b), and 307(b) (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-
0032-2344). The full description of EPA's methodology for the 2008 
review is presented in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 
final 2008 Plan (see DCN 05515).
    EPA is continuously investigating and solicits comment on how to 
improve its analyses. EPA made a few such improvements to the review 
methodology from the 2007 to the 2008 annual review. As part of the 
2008 review, EPA corrected the PCSLoads2004 and TRIReleases2004 
databases, by addressing issues raised in comments (e.g., updating TWFs 
and average POTW pollutant removal efficiencies for a number of 
pollutants) and collecting additional information from individual 
facilities that report to TRI or PCS.
    EPA also continued to use the quality assurance project plan (QAPP) 
developed for the 2007 annual review to document the type and quality 
of data needed to make the decisions in this 2008 annual review and to 
describe the methods for collecting and assessing those data (see EPA-
HQ-OW-2006-0771-0208). EPA performed quality assurance checks on the 
data used to develop estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges 
(i.e., verifying 2005 discharge data reported to TRI) to determine 
whether any of the pollutant discharge estimates relied on incorrect or 
suspect data. For example, EPA contacted facilities and permit writers 
to confirm and, as necessary, correct TRI data for facilities that EPA 
had identified in its screening-level review as the significant 
dischargers.
    Based on this methodology, EPA assigned those industrial categories 
with the lowest estimates of toxic-weighted

[[Page 53224]]

pollutant discharges a lower priority for revision (i.e., industrial 
categories marked ``(3)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in 
section V.B.4 of today's notice).
    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 result in further pollutant discharge reduction. In general, 
industries for which effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards have 
recently been promulgated are less likely to warrant such changes. 
However, when EPA becomes aware of the growth of a new industrial 
activity within an existing category or where new concerns are 
identified for previously unevaluated pollutants discharged by 
facilities within an industrial category, EPA would apply more scrutiny 
to the category in a subsequent review. EPA identified no such instance 
during the 2008 annual review. In order to further focus its inquiry 
during the 2008 annual review, EPA assigned a lower priority for 
potential revision to categories for which effluent guidelines had been 
recently promulgated or revised, or for which effluent guidelines 
rulemaking was currently underway (i.e., industrial categories marked 
``(1)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of 
today's notice). EPA removed an industrial point source category from 
further consideration during the current review cycle if EPA 
established, revised, or reviewed in a rulemaking context the 
category's effluent guidelines after August 2001 (i.e., seven years 
prior to August 2008, the expected publication of the final 2008 
Effluent Guidelines Program). 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). EPA also applied a lower priority for 
potential revision at this time to the Ore Mining and Dressing category 
as EPA lacked sufficient data to determine whether revision would be 
appropriate (i.e., this category is marked with ``(5)'' in the 
``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of today's notice). 
EPA lacks sufficient information at this time on the magnitude of the 
toxic-weighted pollutant discharges associated with this category. EPA 
will seek additional information on the discharges from this category 
in the next annual review in order to determine whether a detailed 
study is warranted. EPA typically performs a further assessment of the 
pollutant discharges before starting a detailed study of an industrial 
category. This assessment (``preliminary category review'') provides an 
additional level of quality assurance on the reported pollutant 
discharges and number of facilities that represent the majority of 
toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. See the appropriate section in the 
TSD for the final 2008 Plan (see DCN 05515) for EPA's data needs for 
these industrial categories.
    For industrial categories marked ``(4)'' in the ``Findings'' column 
in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of today's notice, EPA had sufficient 
information on the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges associated with 
these categories to continue a detailed study of these industrial 
categories in the 2008 annual review. EPA intends to use the detailed 
study to obtain information on hazard, availability and cost of 
technology options, and other factors in order to determine if it would 
be appropriate to identify the category for possible effluent 
guidelines revision. EPA will continue three detailed studies in the 
2009 annual review: Steam Electric Power Generating category, Oil and 
Gas Extraction category (only to assess whether to revise the limits to 
include Coalbed Methane extraction as a new subcategory), and unused 
pharmaceutical management for the Health Services Industry (which 
includes the Hospital category).
    As part of its 2008 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 (i.e., categories 
marked ``(2)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 
of today's notice), EPA applied a lower priority for potential 
revision. EPA believes that revision of individual permits for such 
facilities may be more effective than a revised national effluent 
guidelines rulemaking. Individual permit requirements can be better 
tailored to these few facilities and may take considerably less time 
and resources to establish than a national effluent guidelines 
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 DCN 05515). 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. For example, EPA developed 
and distributed a 2007 technical document to NPDES permit writers in 
order to support the development of effluent limitations for facilities 
in the dissolving kraft (Subpart A) and dissolving sulfite (Subpart D) 
subcategories of the pulp and paper point source category (40 CFR Part 
430) (see EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0774). 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 in previous biennial planning cycles urging 
the Agency 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 indirectly account for 
the effects of successful voluntary programs because any significant 
reductions in pollutant discharges should be reflected in TRI 2005 
discharge data, as well as any data provided directly by commenters, 
that EPA used to assess the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges.
    In summary, EPA's review enables EPA to concentrate its resources 
on conducting more in-depth reviews of certain industries, as discussed 
below.
b. Further Review of Prioritized Categories
    In the publication of the preliminary 2008 Plan, EPA identified 
three categories with potentially high TWPE discharge estimates for 
further investigation (``preliminary category

[[Page 53225]]

review'') as a result of the 2007 annual review: Ore Mining and 
Dressing (Part 440), Centralized Waste Treatment (Part 437), and Waste 
Combustors (Part 444) (i.e., EPA identified these categories with 
``(5)'' in the column entitled ``Findings'' in Table V-1, Page 61345 of 
the preliminary 2008 Plan). EPA reviewed these three categories in its 
2008 annual review.
    EPA typically performs a further assessment of the pollutant 
discharges before starting a detailed study of an industrial category. 
In conducting these preliminary category reviews, EPA used the same 
types of data sources used for the detailed studies but in less depth. 
This assessment provides confirmation of the reported pollutant 
discharges and number of facilities that represent the majority of 
toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA may also develop a preliminary 
list of potential wastewater pollutant control technologies before 
conducting a detailed study.
c. Detailed Study of Four Categories
    EPA continued detailed studies of four categories: Steam Electric 
Power Generating (Part 423), Coal Mining (Part 434), Oil and Gas 
Extraction (Part 435) (only to assess whether to include coalbed 
methane extraction as a new subcategory), and Hospitals (Part 460) 
(which is part of the Health Services Industry detailed study). For 
these industries, EPA gathered and analyzed additional data on 
pollutant discharges, economic factors, and technology issues. EPA 
examined: (1) Wastewater characteristics and pollutant sources; (2) the 
pollutants discharged from these sources and the toxic weights 
associated with these 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) The 
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) monitoring data 
included in facility applications for NPDES permit renewals (Form 2C 
data); (7) EPA effluent guidelines technical development documents; (8) 
relevant EPA preliminary data summaries or study reports; (9) technical 
literature on pollutant sources and control technologies; (10) 
information provided by industry including industry conducted survey 
and sampling data; (11) CWA section 308 data requests and surveys; and 
(12) stakeholder comments (see DCN 06109). Additionally, in order to 
evaluate available and affordable treatment technology options for the 
coalbed methane extraction industry sector, EPA is seeking approval 
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an Information 
Collection Request (ICR) to gather data from the industry (July 15, 
2008; 73 FR 40757). EPA is also planning to submit a proposed ICR to 
OMB for the Health Services Industry; in particular, a study of unused 
pharmaceuticals from medical and veterinary facilities. This is a 
request for a new collection. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for 
review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of 
the proposed information collection (August 12, 2008; 73 FR 46903).
d. Public Comments
    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 at the time of publication of the final 2006 Plan to provide the 
public with an opportunity to submit additional information to assist 
the Agency in its 2007 and 2008 annual reviews. These public comments 
are in the supporting docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771, www.regulations.gov) 
and summarized in the TSD for the final 2008 Plan (see DCN 05515).

B. What Were EPA's Findings From Its 2008 Annual Review for Categories 
Subject to Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?

1. Screening-Level Review
    In its 2008 screening level review, EPA considered significance of 
remaining pollutant discharges and the other factors described in 
section A.3.a. above in prioritizing effluent guidelines for potential 
revision. See Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of today's notice for a 
summary of EPA's findings with respect to each existing category; see 
also the TSD for the final 2008 Plan. Out of the categories subject 
only to the screening level review in 2008, EPA is not identifying any 
for effluent guidelines rulemaking at this time, based on the factors 
described in section A.3.a above and in light of the resources EPA is 
currently expending in effluent guidelines rulemakings and detailed 
studies. Specifically, EPA is engaged in rulemaking relating to the 
Construction and Development Point Source Category, the Airport De-
icing Point Source Category; and the Concentrated Animal Feeding 
Operations Point Source Category.
2. Detailed Studies
    In its 2008 annual review, EPA continued detailed studies of four 
industrial point source categories with existing effluent guidelines 
and pretreatment standards: Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423), 
Coal Mining (Part 434), Oil and Gas Extraction (Part 435) (to assess 
whether to include coalbed methane extraction as a new subcategory), 
and Hospitals (Part 460) (which is part of the Health Services Industry 
detailed study). EPA is investigating whether the pollutant discharges 
reported to TRI and PCS for 2004 and 2005 accurately reflect the 
current discharges of the industry. EPA, through these detailed 
studies, analyzes the reported pollutant discharges, technology 
innovation, and process changes in these industrial categories. 
Additionally, EPA considers whether there are industrial activities not 
currently subject to effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards that 
should be included with these existing categories, either as part of 
existing subcategories or as potential new subcategories.
    EPA completed the Coal Mining detailed study and the dental amalgam 
management detailed study for the Health Services Industry. As 
described below in more detail, EPA is not identifying either of these 
industries for an effluent guidelines rulemaking in this final 2008 
Plan. EPA will continue the other detailed studies (i.e., Steam 
Electric Power Generating, Coalbed Methane Extraction, and Health 
Services Industry (unused pharmaceutical management)) to determine 
whether EPA should identify in the future any of these industries for 
possible revision of their existing effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards. Three of these four industries are described 
below. EPA's review of hospitals (including dental amalgam and unused 
pharmaceuticals) is described in section VII.B (Health Services 
Industry detailed study).
a. Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423)
    The Steam Electric Power Generating effluent guidelines (40 CFR 
423) apply to a subset of the electric power industry, namely those 
facilities ``primarily engaged in the generation of electricity for 
distribution and sale which results primarily from a process utilizing 
fossil-type fuel (coal, oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction 
with

[[Page 53226]]

a thermal cycle employing the steam water system as the thermodynamic 
medium.'' See 40 CFR 423.10. EPA's most recent revisions to the 
effluent guidelines and standards for this category were promulgated in 
1982 (see 47 FR 52290; November 19, 1982).
    EPA has focused efforts for the 2007/2008 Detailed Study for the 
Steam Electric Power Generating point source category on certain 
discharges from coal-fired power plants. The study sought to: (1) 
characterize the mass and concentrations of pollutants in wastewater 
discharges from coal-fired steam electric facilities; and (2) identify 
the pollutants that comprise a significant portion of the category's 
TWPE discharge estimate and the corresponding industrial operation. 
EPA's previous annual reviews have indicated that the toxic-weighted 
loadings for this category are predominantly driven by the metals 
present in wastewater discharges, and that the waste streams 
contributing the majority of these metals are associated with ash 
handling and wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems (see EPA-HQ-OW-
2004-0032-2781). Other potential sources of metals include coal pile 
runoff, metal/chemical cleaning wastes, coal washing, and certain low 
volume wastes. EPA is continuing to collect data for the detailed study 
through facility inspections, wastewater sampling, a data request that 
was sent to a limited number of companies, and various secondary data 
sources (see Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: 
2007/2008 Detailed Study Report, EPA-821-R-08-011, DCN 05516).
    EPA's data collection efforts are primarily focused on coal-fired 
power plants, with particular interest in FGD wastewater treatment, the 
management of ash sluice water, and water reuse opportunities. EPA's 
site visit program gathers information on the types of wastewaters 
generated by coal-fired steam electric power plants, as well as the 
methods of managing these wastewaters to allow for recycle, reuse, or 
discharge. EPA conducted site visits at 16 coal-fired power plants and 
is continuing to identify potential site visit candidates to assess FGD 
systems using different scrubber designs or sorbents, and facilities 
operating or planning to install different types of treatment and water 
reuse options.
    Between July and October of 2007, EPA conducted five sampling 
episodes to characterize untreated wastewaters generated by coal-fired 
power plants, including FGD scrubber purge, fly ash sluice, bottom ash 
sluice, and combined fly- and bottom ash sluice. EPA also collected 
samples to assess the effluent quality from different types of 
treatment systems currently in place at these operations. Samples 
collected during the five episodes were analyzed for metals and other 
pollutants, such as total suspended solids and nitrogen. Site-specific 
sampling episode reports are in the docket for the 2008 Plan (EPA-HQ-
OW-2006-0771, www.regulations.gov). These reports discuss the specific 
sample points and analytes, the sample collection methods used, the 
field quality control (QC) samples collected, and the analytical 
results for the wastewater samples.
    EPA is continuing to identify potential sampling candidates to 
evaluate additional types of FGD wastewater treatment systems, 
including advanced biological metals removal processes and chemical 
precipitation systems. EPA plans to conduct wastewater sampling at one 
or more additional plants in 2008 or early 2009.
    EPA also collected facility-specific information using a data 
request conducted under authority of CWA section 308 (see EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0771-0417). In May 2007, EPA distributed this data request to nine 
companies that operate a number of coal-fired power plants with wet FGD 
systems. The data request complements the wastewater sampling effort as 
it requested facility-specific information about wastewaters, and 
identifies management practices, for facilities not included in EPA's 
sampling program. Responses were received in August and October 2007 
and characterized operations at 30 coal-fired power plants. EPA 
conducted technical reviews of the data received and resolved questions 
with the individual companies before entering the information into a 
database (see DCNs 05754 and 05755). The data request collected 
information on selected wastewater sources, air pollution controls, 
wastewater management and treatment practices, water reuse/recycle, and 
treatment system capital and operating costs.
    The Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) provided EPA with a database 
that contains selected NPDES Form 2C data for 86 coal-fired plants 
operated by UWAG's member companies, namely those plants that operate 
wet FGD systems or wet fly ash sluice systems. The database provides 
facility information, data on facility outfalls, process flow diagrams, 
wastewater treatment information, and intake and effluent 
characteristics. Data are provided for the FGD, ash sluice, and coal 
pile runoff wastestreams.
    EPA is also in the process of contacting vendors and conducting 
literature searches to collect additional information on wastewater 
treatment technology options and wastewater reuse opportunities for 
particular waste streams. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 
is conducting bench- and pilot-scale tests on FGD wastewater treatment 
technologies, including chemical precipitation, ion exchange, and 
biological metals removal.
    EPA intends to continue its detailed review of the Steam Electric 
Power Generating point source category in the 2009 and 2010 annual 
reviews of effluent guidelines. Wastewater sampling at a facility 
operating a treatment system of interest was delayed by nearly one year 
due to operational conditions at the plant. In addition, several other 
plants recently began operating a new generation of FGD wastewater 
treatment technology that may achieve substantially better pollutant 
reductions of metals and nutrients than EPA has evaluated to date. EPA 
believes it is important to evaluate the performance of these 
technologies, as well as the processes being investigated by EPRI, 
prior to concluding the detailed study. As noted above, EPA has not yet 
completed its wastewater sampling activities. The UWAG Form 2C database 
was recently delivered to EPA; however, EPA has not had sufficient time 
to fully evaluate this data. The database provides substantial 
information on wastewater generation and wastewater management and 
treatment practices for a large number of plants. EPA believes it is 
important to take additional time to evaluate the Form 2C data, in 
concert with EPA's sampling data and the responses to EPA's data 
request. EPA also intends to continue investigating water reuse 
opportunities to assess the degree to which they may yield pollutant 
reductions for discharges of ash sluice and FGD wastewater.
b. Coal Mining (Part 434)
    As discussed in the final 2006 Plan and preliminary 2008 Plan, EPA 
conducted a detailed study during the 2007 and 2008 annual reviews to 
evaluate the merits of comments received from a public interest group 
and from states and industry urging revisions to pollutant limitations 
in the Coal Mining effluent guidelines (40 CFR Part 434) (see December 
21, 2006; 71 FR 76644-76667, and October 30, 2007; 72 FR 61342-61343).
    The public interest group, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, 
asked EPA to place more stringent controls on Total Dissolved Solids

[[Page 53227]]

(TDS) (e.g., sulfates and chlorides), mercury, cadmium, manganese, and 
selenium in coal mining discharges. They referenced a study by EPA 
Region 5 on potential adverse impacts of the discharge of sulfates on 
aquatic life (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2614 through 2617).
    The Interstate Mining Compact Commission, which represents mining 
regulatory agencies in 28 states, state mine permitting agencies in 
Pennsylvania and Virginia, and a few mining companies, asked EPA to 
remove the current manganese limitations. They made the following 
requests and assertions: (1) Permittees should be allowed to employ 
best management practices as necessary to reduce manganese discharges 
based on the water quality of receiving waterbodies; (2) manganese 
treatment is unnecessary to protect aquatic life and there are no 
widespread toxicity problems from discharges of manganese; (3) 
manganese treatment doubles or triples overall treatment costs 
resulting in the forfeiture of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act (SMCRA) bonds; (4) EPA should reconsider its rationale for setting 
manganese limits to ensure surrogate removal of other metals because 
data show that other metals occur only in low concentrations; (5) 
manganese treatment sometimes results in environmental harm because 
mining operators must add excessive chemicals to meet the discharge 
limits; and (6) because manganese limits are overly stringent they 
discourage the use of passive treatment technologies which are more 
environmentally beneficial than active treatment.
    Individual state and industry commenters cited the following 
factors in support of their comments: (1) More stringent state-imposed 
coal mining reclamation bonding requirements, enacted after the 
promulgation of SMCRA, to control water discharges from mines 
undergoing reclamation; (2) studies supporting their contention that 
manganese is not harmful to aquatic life at levels above the current 
effluent limits; and (3) perception that active treatment with chemical 
additions may complicate permit compliance and may cause environmental 
harm.
    EPA initiated the Coal Mining Detailed Study in January 2007. The 
study is consistent with the framework presented in the Detailed Study 
Plan, a draft of which the Agency placed into the docket (see EPA-HQ-
OW-2004-0032-2312) during the fall of 2006. EPA revised and finalized 
the Detailed Study Plan in April 2007 to reflect public comments. The 
study evaluated treatment technologies, costs, and pollutant discharge 
loads, as well as the effects of manganese and other pollutants on 
aquatic life. The study also addressed the question of whether bonds 
are being forfeited because of the cost of manganese treatment by 
examining bonding and trust fund requirements, past bond forfeiture 
rates, future potential bond forfeiture rates, and the issues related 
to state assumption of long-term water treatment responsibilities for 
mines where the bonds have been forfeited.
    As outlined in the Detailed Study Plan, EPA framed study questions 
based on public comment, identified data sources to help answer the 
study questions, developed a methodology for estimating treatment costs 
and discharge loads, and initiated data collection activities with the 
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, state agencies, and the Office of 
Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement within the U.S. Department 
of the Interior. In responding to these public comments the study used 
Part 434 definitions to describe the industry. In particular, proper 
understanding of the following terms is useful in understanding the 
following discussion and EPA's response to the public commenters:
    <bullet> The term ``acid or ferruginous mine drainage'' means mine 
drainage which, before any treatment, either has a pH of less than 6.0 
or a total iron concentration equal to or greater than 10 mg/l (see 40 
CFR 434.11(a)).
    <bullet> The term ``active mining area'' means the area, on and 
beneath land, used or disturbed in activity related to the extraction, 
removal, or recovery of coal from its natural deposits. This term 
excludes coal preparation plants, coal preparation plant associated 
areas and post-mining areas (see 40 CFR 434.11(b)).
    <bullet> The term ``alkaline mine drainage'' means mine drainage 
which, before any treatment, has a pH equal to or greater than 6.0 and 
total iron concentration of less than 10 mg/l (see 40 CFR 434.11(c)).
    <bullet> The term ``bond release'' means the time at which the 
appropriate regulatory authority returns a reclamation or performance 
bond based upon its determination that reclamation work (including, in 
the case of underground mines, mine sealing and abandonment procedures) 
has been satisfactorily completed (see 40 CFR 434.11(d)).
    <bullet> The term ``post-mining area'' means: (1) A reclamation 
area or (2) the underground workings of an underground coal mine after 
the extraction, removal, or recovery of coal from its natural deposit 
has ceased and prior to bond release (see 40 CFR 434.11(k)).
    <bullet> The term ``reclamation area'' means the surface area of a 
coal mine which has been returned to required contour and on which re-
vegetation (specifically, seeding or planting) work has commenced (see 
40 CFR 434.11(l)).
    The study also notes that EPA has promulgated manganese effluent 
guidelines only for a subset of coal mining operations at Part 434: (1) 
Active surface and underground mining areas with acid mine drainage 
discharges (see Subpart C--Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage); and (2) 
post-mining areas with underground acid mine drainage discharges (see 
Subpart E--Post Mining Areas). Finally, as part of this study EPA 
identified the technology basis from prior Coal Mining effluent 
guidelines rulemakings that supported the promulgation of manganese 
effluent guidelines (``chemical precipitation and settling'') and 
reviewed the current application of this technology.
    EPA also reviewed scientific literature and conducted interviews 
with state regulatory personnel in order to assess comments concerning 
the toxic effects of manganese and whether coal mining discharges of 
other pollutants are of concern. EPA's review found that manganese 
discharges to surface water may have widely varying effects depending 
on water chemistry, and that manganese impacts are not well understood. 
Different aquatic species have a wide range of tolerance limits (see 
DCN 05517). The toxic effects of manganese are chronic rather than 
acute. Manganese may cause long-term population declines through 
reduced fertility and survivability. Headwaters areas, where most 
Appalachian coal mining has occurred and will continue to occur, are 
especially sensitive to manganese toxicity.
    EPA clarified States' comments regarding the costs of EPA's coal 
mining manganese effluent guidelines. In their initial public comments, 
State commenters did not distinguish the costs of manganese removal 
among the three phases of coal mining: Active mining areas, post-mining 
areas, and post-bond release areas. This is important as EPA's 
manganese effluent guidelines only apply to a subset of coal mining 
areas. As documented in EPA's meetings and site visits, States 
indicated that they are most concerned about the cost of manganese 
treatment at surface post-mining areas where bonds cannot be released 
because water discharges exceed permit limits (see DCN 05517). States 
expressed a concern that operators at such mines may default rather 
than renew their bonds as required every five years. States indicated 
that reduced manganese

[[Page 53228]]

treatment costs at such mines can decrease the number of potential bond 
forfeitures. However, EPA is not able to address this issue through 
revisions to the Coal Mining effluent guideline because there are no 
manganese effluent guidelines for surface post-mining areas. EPA's 
review of State data indicates that these manganese effluent limits are 
derived from State manganese water-quality standards or site specific 
best professional judgment (BPJ) technology-based effluent limits. 
There are manganese effluent guidelines for post-mining areas with 
underground acid mine drainage discharges. As discussed below, EPA is 
not reopening those existing effluent guidelines applicable to 
underground acid mine drainage because the record continues to indicate 
that these existing guidelines are appropriate for these discharges.
    EPA reviewed the Technical Development Documents supporting the 
Coal Mining effluent guidelines and did not identify any discussion 
regarding promulgating manganese effluent guidelines to ensure 
surrogate removal of other metals (see DCN 06117). EPA's review of 
these documents showed that EPA's rationale for requiring manganese 
control for a subset of coal mines was to address drinking water 
organoleptic effects. Additionally, EPA found no evidence to support 
state and industry comments that over-dosages or spills of treatment 
chemicals have caused fish kills and other significant stream damage.
    EPA reviewed the cost and performance of passive treatment systems 
and concluded that they are less expensive than active treatment 
systems, but their effectiveness is generally limited to removal of 
manganese from alkaline discharges. As noted above, there are no 
manganese Coal Mining effluent guidelines for alkaline discharges for 
all three phases of coal mining. As for surface post-mining areas, 
EPA's review of State data indicates that manganese effluent limits for 
alkaline discharges are derived from State manganese water-quality 
standards or site specific BPJ technology-based effluent limits.
    In conducting its study EPA also reviewed the costs of manganese 
treatment, which coal mining companies use to comply with manganese 
effluent limits derived from State manganese water-quality standards or 
site-specific BPJ technology-based effluent limits. Based on 
information received from the States of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, 
EPA concluded that only a small percentage of coal mine bond 
forfeitures are due to the cost of manganese treatment (see DCN 05517).
    Overall, EPA found that there is little potential for future 
forfeiture of bonds on SMCRA permits that have been granted during the 
past five years or will be granted in the future. EPA's analysis 
indicates that forfeitures are largely a legacy of the first decade of 
SMCRA implementation during the 1980s and early 1990s. In particular, 
SMCRA requires an analysis of Probable Hydrologic Consequence (PHC) 
prior to approval of the SMCRA permit approval in order to identify 
regional hydrologic impacts associated with the coal mining and 
reclamation operation. The PHC is a determination of baseline ground 
water and surface water quality and quantity conditions and the impact 
the proposed mining will have on these baseline conditions. When 
potential adverse impacts are identified (e.g., acid mine drainage 
(AMD)) through use of the PHC, appropriate protection, mitigation, and 
rehabilitation plans are developed and included in mining and 
reclamation permit requirements or if the potential adverse impacts 
cannot be sufficiently mitigated the SMCRA permit may be denied. The 
ultimate goal of using the PHC in the SMCRA permit review is to prevent 
acid mine drainage (AMD) after land reclamation is complete and the 
SMCRA bond is released. PHC analytical techniques were not 
sophisticated enough during the 1980s to adequately predict AMD and 
this lack of accuracy led to inadequate controls on AMD. Science 
supporting the PHC analysis has subsequently improved to the point 
where the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 
anticipates that less than 1 percent of recently SMCRA permitted mines 
will develop AMD after reclamation and bond release.
    In response to comments from the Environmental Law and Policy 
Center, which asked EPA to place more stringent controls on manganese, 
TDS, selenium, mercury, and cadmium in coal mining discharges, EPA 
conducted a literature review regarding these pollutants in coal mining 
discharges. In particular, EPA reviewed recently initiated, long-term 
studies of coal mining discharges of TDS, being conducted by EPA Region 
3 and Office of Research and Development (see DCN 06110).
    EPA is not identifying its existing effluent guidelines for the 
Coal Mining point source category (Part 434) for an effluent guidelines 
rulemaking at this time. In response to State and industry comments, 
EPA's review indicated that manganese removal does double or triple 
treatment costs, but for active surface and underground mining areas 
with acid mine drainage discharges (regulated by Subpart C) and post-
mining areas with underground acid mine drainage discharges (regulated 
by Subpart E) manganese treatment technology is available, economically 
achievable, and compliance rates with permit limits derived from the 
management effluent guidelines are high (see DCN 05517). In response to 
comments from the Environmental Law and Policy Center, EPA did not have 
sufficient information at this time to identify this category for an 
effluent guidelines rulemaking to regulate these pollutants. 
Additionally, commenters did not provide any such data for this annual 
review. As with all categories subject to existing effluent guidelines, 
EPA will continue to examine the effluent guidelines for this 
industrial category in future annual reviews to determine if revision 
may be appropriate.
c. Oil and Gas Extraction (Part 435)
    EPA identified the coalbed methane (CBM) sector as a candidate for 
a detailed study in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (71 
FR 76656; December 21, 2006). As part of that announcement EPA made it 
clear that it would conduct data collection through an information 
collection request (ICR) to support this detailed study. In accordance 
with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) EPA must seek Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an ICR. EPA also provided 
notice of this ICR in the preliminary 2008 Plan (72 FR 61343; October 
30, 2007) and in two separate Federal Register notices (January 25, 
2008; 73 FR 4556 and July 15, 2008; 73 FR 40757). EPA is conducting 
this detailed study and data collection to determine whether it would 
be appropriate to initiate an effluent guidelines rulemaking to control 
pollutants discharged in coalbed methane (CBM) produced water.
    CBM extraction requires removal of large amounts of water from 
underground coal seams before CBM can be released. CBM wells have a 
distinctive production history characterized by an early stage when 
large amounts of water are produced to reduce reservoir pressure which 
in turn encourages release of gas. This is followed by a stable stage 
when quantities of produced gas increase as the quantities of produced 
water decrease; and a late stage when the amount of gas produced 
declines and water production remains low (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-
1904). The

[[Page 53229]]

quantity and quality of water that is produced in association with CBM 
development varies from basin to basin, within a particular basin, from 
coal seam to coal seam, and over the lifetime of a CBM well.
    Pollutants often found in these wastewaters include chloride, 
sodium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, barium, magnesium, 
ammonia, and arsenic. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and electrical 
conductivity (EC) are bulk parameters that States typically use for 
quantifying and controlling the amount of pollutants in CBM produced 
waters.
    Controlling the sodicity of the CBM produced waters is equally 
important in preventing environmental damage. Sodicity is often 
quantified as the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), which is expressed as 
the ratio of sodium ions to calcium and magnesium ions. Sodicity is an 
important factor in controlling the produced water's suitability for 
irrigation as sodic soils are subject to severe structural degradation 
and restrict plant performance through poor soil-water and soil-air 
relations. All of these dissolved inorganic parameters can potentially 
affect environmental impacts as well as potential beneficial uses of 
CBM produced water.
    Impacts to surface water from discharges of CBM produced waters can 
be severe depending upon the quality of the CBM produced waters. These 
discharges have variable effects depending on the biology of the 
receiving stream. Some waterbodies and watersheds may be able to absorb 
the discharged water while others are sensitive to CBM produced water 
discharges. For example, large lakes or rivers with sufficient dilution 
capacity or marine waters are less sensitive to saline discharges than 
smaller receiving water bodies. Discharge of these CBM produced waters 
may also cause erosion and in some cases irreversible soil damage from 
elevated TDS concentrations and SAR values. This may limit future 
agricultural and livestock uses of the water and watershed.
    Currently, regulatory controls for CBM produced waters vary from 
State to State and permit to permit (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782, 
2540). There is very limited permit information (e.g., effluent limits, 
restrictions) in PCS and TRI for this industrial sector. Consequently, 
EPA is gathering additional information from State NPDES permit 
programs and industry on the current regulatory controls across the 
different CBM basins.
    Coalbed methane (CBM) extraction activities accounted for about 10 
percent of the total U.S. natural gas production in 2006 and are 
expanding in multiple basins across the U.S. Currently, the Department 
of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects CBM 
production to remain an important source of domestic natural gas over 
the next few decades.
    As discussed in section A.1, EPA's review of existing effluent 
guidelines considers four factors: pollutants discharged in an 
industrial category's effluent, current and potential pollution 
prevention and control technology options, category growth and economic 
considerations of technology options, and implementation and efficiency 
considerations of revising existing effluent guidelines or publishing 
new effluent guidelines. EPA will use the CBM ICR to collect technical 
and economic information from a wide range of CBM operations to address 
these factors in greater detail (e.g., geographical and geologic 
differences in the characteristics of CBM produced waters, 
environmental data, current regulatory controls, availability and 
affordability of treatment technology options). Response to EPA's 
questionnaire is mandatory for recipients and EPA will administer the 
questionnaire using its authority under Section 308 of the CWA, 33 
U.S.C. 1318.
    In 2007 and 2008, EPA worked with a range of stakeholders (e.g., 
industry representatives; Federal, State, and Tribal representatives; 
public interest groups and landowners; and water treatment experts) to 
obtain information on the industry and its CBM produced water 
management practices. EPA's outreach started with teleconferences and 
then continued with a series of meetings and site visits in the major 
CBM basins. In total, EPA contacted over 700 people in eight states 
during more than 60 outreach and data collection activities in 2007 and 
2008 (e.g., meetings, teleconferences, site visits) (see EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0771-0977 and 1124). EPA also solicited public comment through two 
separate Federal Register notices on the draft survey and supporting 
statement (January 25, 2008; 73 FR 4556 and July 15, 2008; 73 FR 
40757). This outreach helped the development of the ICR as EPA 
incorporated data, comments, and suggestions from industry and other 
stakeholders into the questionnaire. EPA intends to distribute the two-
phased questionnaire to industry following OMB approval (see Section 
5(d) of the ICR's Supporting Statement, Part A, EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-
1119). EPA will process the survey data it collects and plans to 
present preliminary results on available and affordable technology 
options in the preliminary 2010 Plan.
3. Results of Further Review of Prioritized Categories
    During the 2007 annual review, EPA identified three 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, Page 61345 of 
the preliminary 2008 Plan). During the 2008 annual review EPA continued 
to collect and analyze information on these three industrial 
categories: Ore Mining and Dressing (Part 440), Centralized Waste 
Treatment (Part 437), and Waste Combustors (Part 444). EPA is not 
identifying any of these three categories for an effluent guidelines 
rulemaking in this final 2008 Plan (see Sections 6, 8, and 11 of DCN 
05515). EPA concluded its preliminary category review of the 
Centralized Waste Treatment and Waste Combustors categories in the 2008 
annual review and has determined that these categories are no longer 
among those industrial categories, currently regulated by existing 
effluent guidelines, that cumulatively comprise 95% of the reported 
discharges (reported in units of toxic-weighted pound equivalent or 
TWPE) (see DCN 05515). Since these two are not among the list of 
industry categories that cumulatively comprise 95% of the reported 
discharges, EPA has identified these two categories as low priorities 
for effluent guideline revisions at this time. EPA will maintain its 
preliminary category review for the Ore Mining and Dressing category in 
the 2009 annual review (i.e., this category is marked with ``(5)'' in 
the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of today's 
notice). The docket accompanying this notice presents a summary of 
EPA's findings on these three industrial categories (see DCN 05515).
    For the Ore Mining and Dressing category (Part 440), EPA lacks 
sufficient information at this time on the magnitude of the toxic-
weighted pollutant discharges. EPA will seek additional information on 
the discharges from this category in the next annual review in order to 
determine whether a detailed study is warranted. EPA typically performs 
a further assessment of the pollutant discharges before starting a 
detailed study of an industrial category. This assessment provides an 
additional level of quality assurance on the reported pollutant 
discharges and number of facilities that represent the majority of 
toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA may also

[[Page 53230]]

develop a preliminary list of potential wastewater pollutant control 
technologies before conducting a detailed study. See the appropriate 
section in the TSD for the final 2008 Plan (see DCN 05515) for EPA's 
data needs for these industrial categories.
    For the Waste Combustors category (Part 444), EPA used information 
from TRI and PCS databases, as well as facility contacts, in its 
preliminary category review. TRI-reported discharges of pesticides 
accounted for the vast majority of the Waste Combustors category's TWPE 
identified in the 2008 preliminary plan. EPA contacted six waste 
combustor facilities to collect information on pesticides and received 
confirmation that pesticides were not detected in combustor 
wastewaters. Specifically, EPA determined that the TRI-reported 
pesticide releases from waste combustor facilities are generally 
estimated using characterization reports from clients and treatment 
efficiency data, rather than actual sampling data. Chapter 11 of the 
2008 Technical Support Document for this Plan presents more details on 
EPA's findings on the Waste Combustors category (see DCN 05515). Based 
on this review EPA is not identifying this category for an effluent 
guidelines rulemaking at this time.
    For the Centralized Waste Treatment category (Part 437), EPA also 
used information from TRI and PCS databases, as well as facility 
contacts, in its preliminary category review. TRI-reported discharges 
of pesticides accounted for the vast majority of the Centralized Waste 
Treatment category's TWPE identified in the 2008 preliminary plan. EPA 
contacted five Centralized Waste Treatment facilities to collect 
information on pesticides and received confirmation that pesticides 
were not detected in four of the five facility wastewaters. 
Specifically, EPA determined that the TRI-reported pesticide releases 
from centralized waste treatment facilities are generally estimated 
using characterization reports from clients and treatment efficiency 
data, rather than actual sampling data. Only one of the five 
Centralized Waste Treatment facilities contacted detected pesticides; 
however, the amount reported to TRI was greater than the amount 
actually measured. This error will be corrected in future TRI reports 
from the facility. Chapter 6 of the 2008 Technical Support Document for 
this Plan presents more details on EPA's findings on the Centralized 
Waste Treatment Category (see DCN 05515). Based on this review EPA is 
not identifying this category for an effluent guidelines rulemaking at 
this time.
4. Summary of 2008 Annual Review Findings
    EPA reviewed all categories subject to existing effluent guidelines 
and pretreatment standards in order to identify appropriate candidates 
for revision. Based on this review, and in light of effluent guidelines 
rulemakings and detailed studies currently in progress, EPA is not 
identifying any existing categories for effluent guidelines rulemaking. 
EPA is, however, conducting detailed studies for three existing 
categories: Steam Electric Power Generating category, Oil and Gas 
Extraction category (only to assess whether to revise the limits to 
include Coalbed Methane extraction as a new subcategory), and unused 
pharmaceutical management for the Health Services Industry (which 
includes the Hospital category).
    A summary of the findings of the 2008 annual review is presented 
below 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) Revising the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment 
standards is not the best tool for this industrial category because 
most of the toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges are from 
one or a few facilities in this industrial category. EPA will consider 
assisting permitting authorities in identifying pollutant control and 
pollution prevention technologies for the development of technology-
based effluent limitations by best professional judgment (BPJ) on a 
facility-specific basis.
    (3) Not identified as a priority based on data available at this 
time (e.g., not among industries that cumulatively comprise 95% of 
discharges as measured in units of TWPE).
    (4) EPA intends to continue a detailed study of this industry in 
its 2009 annual review to determine whether to identify the category 
for effluent guidelines rulemaking.
    (5) EPA is continuing or initiating a preliminary category review 
because incomplete data are available to determine whether to conduct a 
detailed study or identify for possible revision. EPA typically 
performs a further assessment of the pollutant discharges before 
starting a detailed study of the industrial category. This assessment 
provides an additional level of quality assurance on the reported 
pollutant discharges and number of facilities that represent the 
majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA may also develop a 
preliminary list of potential wastewater pollutant control technologies 
before conducting a detailed study. See the appropriate section in the 
TSD (see DCN 05515) for EPA's data needs for industries with this 
Finding (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Based on available information, hospitals consist mostly of 
indirect dischargers for which EPA has not established pretreatment 
standards. As discussed in section VII.D, EPA is including hospitals 
in its review of the health Services Industry, a potential new 
category for pretreatment standards. As part of that process, EPA 
will review the existing effluent guidelines for the few direct 
dischargers in the category.

   Table V-1--Findings From the 2008 Annual Review of Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Conducted
                                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             (3)
9......................  Coal Mining............................................             434             (3)

[[Page 53231]]

 
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             (3)
20.....................  Glass Manufacturing....................................             426             (3)
21.....................  Grain Mills............................................             406             (3)
22.....................  Gum and Wood Chemicals.................................             454             (3)
23.....................  Hospitals \3\..........................................             460             (4)
24.....................  Ink Formulating........................................             447             (3)
25.....................  Inorganic Chemicals[Dagger]............................             415     (1) and (3)
26.....................  Iron and Steel Manufacturing...........................             420             (1)
27.....................  Landfills..............................................             445             (3)
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             (3)
36.....................  Oil and Gas Extraction.................................             435             (4)
37.....................  Ore Mining and Dressing................................             440             (5)
38.....................  Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic                          414     (1) and (3)
                          Fibers[Dagger].
39.....................  Paint Formulating......................................             446             (3)
40.....................  Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt)........             443             (3)
41.....................  Pesticide Chemicals....................................             455             (3)
42.....................  Petroleum Refining.....................................             419             (3)
43.....................  Pharmaceutical Manufacturing...........................             439             (3)
44.....................  Phosphate Manufacturing................................             422             (3)
45.....................  Photographic...........................................             459             (3)
46.....................  Plastic Molding and Forming............................             463             (3)
47.....................  Porcelain Enameling....................................             466             (3)
48.....................  Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard............................             430             (3)
49.....................  Rubber Manufacturing...................................             428             (3)
50.....................  Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing.....................             417             (3)
51.....................  Steam Electric Power Generating........................             423             (4)
52.....................  Sugar Processing.......................................             409             (3)
53.....................  Textile Mills..........................................             410             (3)
54.....................  Timber Products Processing.............................             429             (3)
55.....................  Transportation Equipment Cleaning......................             442             (3)
56.....................  Waste Combustors.......................................             444             (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: The descriptions of the ``Findings'' codes are presented immediately prior to this table.
[Dagger] Note: Two codes (``(1)'' and ``(3)'') are used for this category as both codes are applicable to this
  category and do not overlap. The first code (``(1)'') refers to the on-going effluent guidelines rulemaking
  for the Chlorinated Hydrocarbon (CCH) manufacturing sector, which includes facilities currently regulated by
  the OCSPF and Inorganics effluent guidelines. The second code (``(3)'') indicates that the discharges from the
  remaining facilities in these two categories do not represent priorities at this time.

VI. EPA's 2009 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 and periodic reviews of existing effluent 
guidelines and pretreatment standards under CWA sections 301(d), 
304(b), 307(b) and 304(g) with the publication of preliminary Plans and 
biennial Plans under section 304(m). Public comments received on EPA's 
prior reviews and Plans helped the Agency prioritize its analysis of 
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards during the 2008 
review. The information gathered during the 2008 annual review, 
including the identification of data gaps in the analysis of certain 
categories with existing regulations, in turn, provides a starting 
point for EPA's 2009 annual review. See Table V-1 above. In 2009, EPA 
intends to again conduct a screening-level analysis of all 56 
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 the significance of their toxic and non-
conventional discharges among all point source categories. 
Additionally, EPA intends to continue its detailed studies of the 
following categories: Steam Electric Power Generating category, Oil and 
Gas Extraction category (only to assess whether to revise the limits to 
include

[[Page 53232]]

Coalbed Methane extraction as a new subcategory), and unused 
pharmaceutical management for the Health Services Industry (which 
includes the Hospital category). EPA is identifying the Ore Mining and 
Dressing category for a preliminary category review in the 2009 annual 
review. EPA invites comment and data on the three detailed studies, the 
preliminary category review, and all remaining point source categories.
    As part of the 2009 annual review EPA is also taking the 
opportunity to solicit information on industrial sectors that use water 
efficiency practices that promote water efficiency, re-use, or 
recycling. EPA is seeking this information to inform its evaluation of 
technology options across multiple industrial sectors.
    Water efficiency practices can reduce the amount of pollutants 
discharged by industrial facilities, especially for those facilities 
that have on-site wastewater treatment systems, but also for those 
without them. EPA's effluent guidelines rulemakings and reviews have 
documented numerous examples of industrial facilities employing water 
conservation as a means to meet effluent limitations based on 
promulgated effluent guidelines (see documents listed in Section 12.1 
of EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2783.1).
    In addition, reducing water use will also reduce associated costs 
(and energy requirements) for industry. As significant users of water, 
industry is becoming aware of the importance of measuring, managing, 
and controlling water use. Water scarcity can limit industrial growth 
and many industrial sectors have substantially increased water re-use 
in the past 15 years, through reclaiming industrial wastewater for non-
potable applications (where reclaimed industrial wastewater is used for 
non-potable applications). Moreover, the cost savings of implementing 
water re-use and reduction technologies and pollution prevention 
practices can be significant, with payback periods often measured 
within a few months or years.
    In addition, this data solicitation will also help implement EPA's 
National Water Program strategy for responding to climate change (see 
DCN 06114). The National Water Program is developing a draft strategy 
to identify potential impacts of climate change for clean water and 
drinking water programs and define actions to respond to these impacts 
(see Key Action <greek-i>5 in DCN 06115). A March 28, 2008, memorandum 
signed by the Assistant Administrator for Water requests comments on 
the draft strategy (see DCN 06116). Section IX solicits specific 
information on industrial sectors and facilities that use model water 
efficiency practices that promote water efficiency, re-use, or 
recycling.

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

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

    All indirect dischargers are subject to general pretreatment 
standards (40 CFR 403), including a prohibition on discharges causing 
``pass through'' or ``interference.'' See 40 CFR 403.5. All POTWs with 
approved pretreatment programs must develop local limits to implement 
the general pretreatment standards. All other POTWs must develop such 
local limits where they have experienced ``pass through'' or 
``interference'' and such a violation is likely to recur. There are 
approximately 1,500 POTWs with approved pretreatment programs and 
13,500 small 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 pollutants to POTWs that may pass through, 
interfere with or otherwise be incompatible with POTW operations. CWA 
section 307(b). Generally, categorical pretreatment standards are 
designed such that wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial 
dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. EPA has 
promulgated such pretreatment standards for 35 industrial categories.
    One of the tools traditionally used by EPA in evaluating whether 
pollutants ``pass through'' a POTW, is a comparison of the percentage 
of a pollutant removed by POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant 
removed by discharging facilities applying BAT. Pretreatment standards 
for existing sources are technology based and are analogous to BAT 
effluent limitations guidelines. In most cases, EPA has concluded that 
a pollutant passes through the POTW when the median percentage removed 
nationwide by representative POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment 
requirements) is less than the median percentage removed by facilities 
complying with BAT effluent limitations guidelines for that pollutant. 
This approach to the definition of ``pass through'' satisfies two 
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect 
dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers; and (2) 
that the treatment capability and performance of POTWs be recognized 
and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from 
indirect dischargers.
    The term ``interference'' means a discharge which, alone or in 
conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, both: 
(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 potential for ``interference,'' EPA generally evaluates the 
industrial indirect discharges in terms of: (1) The compatibility of 
industrial wastewaters and domestic wastewaters (e.g., type of 
pollutants discharged in industrial wastewaters compared to pollutants 
typically found in domestic wastewaters); (2) concentrations of 
pollutants discharged in industrial wastewaters that might cause 
interference with the POTW collection system, the POTW treatment 
system, or biosolids disposal options; and (3) the potential for 
variable pollutant loadings to cause interference with POTW operations 
(e.g., batch discharges or slug loadings from industrial facilities 
interfering with normal POTW operations).
    If EPA determines a category of indirect dischargers causes pass 
through or interference, EPA would then consider the BAT and BPT 
factors (including ``such other factors as the Administrator deems 
appropriate'') specified in section 304(b) to determine whether to 
establish pretreatment standards for these activities. Examples of 
``such other factors'' include a consideration of the magnitude of the 
hazard posed by the pollutants discharged as measured by: (1) The total 
annual TWPE discharged by the industrial sector; and (2) the average 
TWPE discharge among facilities that discharge to POTWs. Additionally, 
EPA would consider whether other regulatory tools (e.g., use of local 
limits under Part 403) or voluntary measures would better control the 
pollutant discharges from this category of indirect dischargers. For 
example, EPA relied on a similar evaluation of ``pass through 
potential'' in its prior decision not to promulgate national 
categorical

[[Page 53233]]

pretreatment standards for the Industrial Laundries industry. See 64 FR 
45071 (August 18, 1999). EPA noted in this 1999 final action that, 
``While EPA has broad discretion to promulgate such [national 
categorical pretreatment] standards, EPA retains discretion not to do 
so where the total pounds removed do not warrant national regulation 
and there is not a significant concern with pass through and 
interference at the POTW.'' See 64 FR 45077 (August 18, 1999).
    EPA reviewed TRI 2005 discharge data in order to identify industry 
categories without categorical pretreatment standards that are 
discharging pollutants to POTWs that may pass through, interfere with 
or otherwise be incompatible with POTW operations (see DCN 05515). This 
review did not identify any such industrial categories. EPA also 
evaluated stakeholder comments and pollutant discharge information in 
the previous annual reviews to inform this review.
    In particular, commenters on the 2004 and 2006 annual reviews 
raised concerns about discharges of pollutants of emerging concern such 
as endocrine disruptors from health service facilities and mercury 
discharges from dentists and urged EPA to consider establishing 
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for such discharges. In 
response to these comments, EPA investigated the Health Services 
Industry in its 2005 and 2006 annual reviews and found that it did not 
have readily available information to make an informed decision on the 
potential for ``pass through'' or ``interference.'' Consequently, EPA 
identified this industrial category for detailed study in its 
preliminary 2006 Plan. EPA also received stakeholder comments on the 
issues of dental amalgam and unused pharmaceuticals management for the 
Health Services Industry in response to the 2007 annual review.
    As discussed below EPA is not identifying dental facilities for an 
effluent guidelines rulemaking in this notice. However, EPA is 
continuing its study of unused pharmaceutical management for the Health 
Services Industry. EPA also solicits comment and data on all industrial 
sectors not currently subject to categorical pretreatment standards for 
its 2009 review. Finally, EPA solicits comment on methods for 
collecting and aggregating pollutant discharge data collected by 
pretreatment programs to further inform its future review of industry 
categories without categorical pretreatment standards.

B. Health Services Industry

    EPA identified the Health Services Industry as a candidate for a 
detailed study in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (see 
71 FR 76656; December 21, 2006). The Health Services Industry includes 
establishments engaged in various aspects of human health (e.g., 
hospitals, hospices, long-term care facilities, dentists) and animal 
health (e.g., veterinarians). Health services establishments fall under 
SIC major group 80 ``Health Services'' and industry group 074 
``Veterinary Services.'' According to the 2002 Census, there are over 
475,000 facilities in the Health Services Industry (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-
0032-1615). EPA is including the following sectors within the Health 
Services Industry in its detailed study: Offices and Clinics of 
Dentists; Doctors and Mental Health Practitioners; Nursing and Personal 
Care Facilities (long-term care facilities); Hospitals, Hospices and 
Clinics; Medical Laboratories and Diagnostic Centers; and Veterinary 
Care Services (see August 29, 2005; 70 FR 51054). As discussed below, 
EPA is focusing on two main issues for these sectors within this 
industry.
    All these sectors require services to be delivered by trained 
professionals for the purpose of providing health care and social 
assistance for individuals or animals. These entities may be free 
standing or part of a hospital or health system and may be privately or 
publicly owned. The services can include diagnostic, preventative, 
cosmetic, and curative health services.
    The vast majority of establishments in the health services 
industries are not subject to categorical limitations and standards. In 
1976, EPA promulgated 40 CFR 460, which only applies to direct 
discharging hospitals. Part 460 did not establish pretreatment 
standards for indirect discharging facilities.
    In evaluating the health services industries to date, EPA has found 
little readily available information from EPA databases. Both PCS and 
TRI contain sparse information on health care service establishments. 
For 2002, PCS only has data for two facilities that are considered 
``major'' sources of pollutants, and only Federal facilities in the 
healthcare industry are required to report to TRI.
    Based on preliminary information, major pollutants of concern in 
discharges from health care service establishments include solvents, 
mercury, pharmaceuticals, and biohazards (e.g., items contaminated with 
blood) (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0729). The majority of the mercury 
originates from the following sources: Amalgam used in dental 
facilities and medical equipment, laboratory reagents, and cleaning 
supplies used in healthcare facilities (see EPA-HQ-OW 2004 0032 0038 
and 2391). EPA found little to no quantitative information on 
wastewater discharges of pollutants of emerging concern such as 
pharmaceuticals but was able to identify some information on biohazards 
(see DCN EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0533).
    As described above, the Health Services Industry is expansive and 
contains approximately half a million facilities. Because of the size 
and diversity of this category and other resource constraints, EPA 
decided to focus its detailed study on certain types of dischargers. 
EPA selected its focus areas, for the most part, to respond to 
stakeholder concerns. The focus areas are:
    <bullet> Dental mercury: EPA focused its evaluation on mercury 
discharges from the offices and clinics of dentists due to the 
potential hazard and bioaccumulative properties associated with 
mercury.
    <bullet> Unused pharmaceuticals: EPA is focusing its evaluation on 
the management of unused or leftover pharmaceuticals from health 
service facilities due to the growing concern over the discharge of 
pharmaceuticals into water and the potential environmental effects.
1. Dental Mercury
    The Agency notes that it has an overall interest in mercury 
reduction and on July 5, 2006, issued a report titled, ``EPA's Roadmap 
for Mercury,'' (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1612). Among other things, 
EPA's report highlights mercury sources and describes progress to date 
in addressing mercury sources. As part of the 2008 Health Services 
Industry detailed study, EPA researched the following questions/topics 
for the 2008 final plan as they relate to disposal of mercury into 
municipal sewer systems:
    <bullet> What are current industry practices regarding the mercury 
disposal? To what extent are each of these practices applied? What 
factors drive current practices?
    <bullet> Are there federal, state, or local requirements or 
guidance for disposal of mercury? What are these requirements?
    <bullet> How are control authorities currently controlling (or not 
controlling) disposal of mercury via wastewater?
    <bullet> To what extent do POTWs report pass through or 
interference problems related to mercury discharges?

[[Page 53234]]

    <bullet> What technologies are available: (1) As alternatives to 
wastewater disposal; and (2) to control pollutant discharges. Is there 
any qualitative or quantitative information on their efficiency?
    <bullet> What Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used as 
alternatives to wastewater disposal and/or to control discharges and is 
there any qualitative or quantitative information on their efficiency?
    <bullet> Is there any quantitative or qualitative information on 
the costs associated with identified technologies and/or BMPs?
    Across the United States, many States and municipal wastewater 
treatment plants (publicly owned treatment works--POTWs) are working 
toward the goal of reducing discharges of mercury into collection 
systems. Many studies have been conducted in an attempt to identify the 
sources of mercury entering these collection systems. According to the 
2002 Mercury Source Control and Pollution Prevention Program Final 
Report prepared for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies 
(NACWA), dental clinics are the main source of mercury discharges to 
POTWs. The American Dental Association (ADA) estimated in 2003 that up 
to 50% of mercury entering POTWs was contributed by dental offices (see 
DCN 04698).
    EPA estimates there are approximately 160,000 dentists working in 
120,000 dental offices that use or remove amalgam in the United 
States--almost all of which discharge their wastewater exclusively to 
POTWs. Mercury in dental wastewater originates from waste particles 
associated with the placement and removal of amalgam fillings. Most 
dental offices currently use some type of basic filtration system to 
reduce the amount of mercury solids passing into the sewer system. 
However, best management practices and the installation of amalgam 
separators, which generally have a removal efficiency of 95%, have been 
shown to reduce discharges even further. A recent study funded by NACWA 
(see DCN 04225) concluded that the use of amalgam separators results in 
reductions in POTW influent concentrations and biosolids mercury 
concentrations. Use of amalgam separators does not always result in 
reductions in POTW effluent, however, since most amalgam particles are 
removed with biosolids. Mercury that partitions to wastewater sludge 
may be incinerated or disposed to a landfill.
    States, Regions, and localities have implemented mandatory and 
voluntary programs to reduce dental mercury discharges. Specifically, 
11 states and at least 19 localities have mandatory pretreatment 
programs that require the use of dental mercury amalgam separators (see 
DCN 05518). Additionally, at least 20 POTWs have voluntary programs to 
reduce mercury discharges from dental offices. Success rates for these 
voluntary programs vary greatly, and are usually higher when there is a 
mandatory ``second phase'' to the voluntary program. EPA Region 5 
published guidance for permitting dental mercury discharges (see EPA-
HQ-OW-2006-0771-0460). The ADA has also adopted and published best 
management practices for its members. On October 2, 2007, the ADA 
updated its best management practices to include the use of amalgam 
separators (see EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0211). The document titled ``Health 
Services Industry Detailed Study: Dental Amalgam,'' compiles the 
information EPA has collected to date on existing guidance and 
requirements for dental mercury (see DCN 05518).
    In 2007 and 2008, EPA focused its efforts on collecting and 
compiling information on current mercury discharges from dental 
offices, best management practices (BMPs), and amalgam separators. For 
amalgam separators, EPA looked at the frequency with which they are 
currently used; their effectiveness in reducing discharges to POTWs; 
and the capital and annual costs associated with their installation and 
operation (see DCN 05518). EPA also conducted a POTW pass-through 
analysis on mercury for the industry.
    EPA received comments from 32 stakeholders on the preliminary 2008 
Plan. Most commenters were from pretreatment programs that provided 
useful information on their mandatory and voluntary pretreatment 
programs that include the use of amalgam separators. EPA used this 
information to update its final report on management and best practices 
for the control of dental mercury (see DCN 05518). ADA and NACWA 
commented that although they do not support development of national 
pretreatment standards, they are willing to work with one another and 
EPA to increase the use of amalgam separators by dental facilities. EPA 
is exploring options with ADA and NACWA to promote the use of amalgam 
separators.
    In response to mercury water quality and pollution prevention 
concerns, there is progress at the State and local level as amalgam 
separators and other BMPs are increasingly being mandated by States and 
local governments. ADA's recently revised BMPs will likely help in 
convincing dentists to install amalgam separators and employ other BMPs 
to recover dental amalgam and prevent the discharge of mercury to 
POTWs. This will help POTWs reduce the amount of mercury in their 
biosolids and the potential for mercury emissions when biosolids are 
incinerated. Additionally, due to mercury-free fillings and improved 
overall dental health, the use of mercury in dentistry is decreasing in 
the U.S. (see DCN 05518).
    At this time EPA is not identifying this sector for an effluent 
guidelines rulemaking. As previously noted above, industrial categories 
demonstrating significant progress through voluntary efforts to reduce 
hazard to human health or the environment associated with their 
effluent discharges are a 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. As an example, in the final 2006 Plan EPA relied on a 
national voluntary partnership program for the industrial laundries 
sector as a factor in not identifying the industrial laundries sector 
for an effluent guidelines rulemaking (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782, 
Section 19.9). In future annual reviews, EPA will continue to examine 
the percentage of dentists using amalgam separators and their 
effectiveness at recovering dental amalgam and reducing mercury 
discharges to POTWs. EPA notes ADA's recent positive step in revising 
their BMPs to include the recommendation for dentists to use amalgam 
separators. In particular, EPA will examine whether a significant 
majority of dentists are utilizing amalgam separators. After such 
examination, EPA may re-evaluate its current view not to initiate an 
effluent guidelines rulemaking for this sector.
2. Unused Pharmaceuticals
    To date, scientists have identified more than 160 pharmaceutical 
compounds at discernable concentrations in our nation's rivers, lakes, 
and streams (see Section 3 of DCN 05519). To address this issue at the 
source, EPA is studying how the drugs are entering our waterways and 
what factors contribute to the current situation. Towards this end, EPA 
initiated a study on pharmaceutical disposal practices at health care 
facilities, such as hospitals, hospices, long-term care facilities, and 
veterinary hospitals. Unused pharmaceuticals include dispensed 
prescriptions that patients do not use as well as materials that are 
beyond their expiration dates. Another potential source of unused 
pharmaceuticals is the residuals

[[Page 53235]]

remaining in used and partially used dispensers, containers, and 
devices. Many of these dispensers, containers, and devices are bulky 
and are likely not disposed to the sewer as they could create blockages 
in the sewer; however, some might be sewered (e.g., medical patches). 
As a point of clarification, the term ``unused pharmaceuticals'' does 
not include excreted pharmaceuticals.
    For many years, a standard practice at many health care facilities 
was to dispose of unused pharmaceuticals by flushing them down the 
toilet or drain. Through this study, EPA seeks to investigate the 
following questions:
    <bullet> What are the current industry practices for disposing of 
unused pharmaceuticals?
    <bullet> Which pharmaceuticals are being disposed of and at what 
quantities?
    <bullet> What are the options for disposing of unused 
pharmaceuticals other than down the drain or toilet?
    <bullet> What factors influence disposal decisions?
    <bullet> Do disposal practices differ within industry sectors?
    <bullet> What Best Management Practices (BMPs) could facilities 
implement to reduce the generation of unused pharmaceuticals?
    <bullet> What reductions in the quantities of pharmaceuticals 
discharged to POTWs would be achieved by implementing BMPs or 
alternative disposal methods?
    <bullet> What are the costs of current disposal practices compared 
to the costs of implementing BMPs or alternative disposal methods?
    In a related effort, EPA also seeks to determine the effectiveness 
with which publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) can remove 
pharmaceuticals from incoming sewage. Upon completion of the health 
services study, EPA hopes to understand what factors contribute to 
unused pharmaceutical disposal methods at health service facilities and 
which disposal methods represent best practices to minimize 
environmental impacts.
    To date, EPA has completed an interim study of the health services 
industry (see DCN 05519). To gather data for the study, EPA completed 
site visits to two hospitals and a pharmaceutical reverse distributor; 
investigated secondary data sources such as existing institutional 
surveys on disposal practices; and conducted a series of meetings and 
teleconferences with other Federal agencies and health care stakeholder 
groups.
    The study focused on hospitals and long-term care facilities 
(LTCFs) because these facilities are likely responsible for the largest 
amounts of unused pharmaceuticals being disposed into sewage collection 
systems within this industry sector. In 2005, there were about 7,000 
hospitals and 35,000 LTCFs in the United States (see DCN 05519).
    EPA's four preliminary findings include:
    (1) Federal, state, and local laws and regulations often require 
special handling of pharmaceutical waste. These laws and regulations 
can influence the options hospitals and long-term care facilities have 
for disposing of unused pharmaceuticals.
    <bullet> Some federal regulations may inadvertently encourage 
disposal of unused pharmaceuticals via the sewer. The Controlled 
Substances Act (CSA), enforced by the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA), establishes a closed distribution system for controlled 
substances. The CSA prohibits the return of controlled substances from 
end-users to any person except, in certain cases, a law-enforcement 
agent and CSA registrants. Disposal of controlled substances by CSA 
registrants is carefully regulated to ensure that the substance is 
destroyed or rendered unrecoverable. One acceptable method of 
destruction is witnessed disposal of controlled substances in a drain 
or toilet.
    <bullet> Some unused pharmaceuticals are regulated as hazardous 
wastes and subject to the nation's hazardous waste disposal 
requirements. Pharmaceutical wastes may be hazardous waste (under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)) if they are: (1) the 
pharmaceutical or its sole active ingredient is specifically listed in 
40 CFR part 261.33(e) or (f) (commonly referred to as the P or U lists, 
respectively); and/or (2) the waste exhibits one or more 
characteristics of hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity, 
reactivity, or toxicity as defined in 40 CFR parts 261.21-24, 
respectively). Common pharmaceutical wastes that are RCRA hazardous 
waste when disposed of include epinephrine, nitroglycerin, warfarin, 
nicotine, and some chemotherapeutic agents.\4\ Healthcare facilities 
must determine if these wastes are RCRA hazardous wastes, and if so, 
must comply with all applicable RCRA Subtitle C requirements, including 
many special handling and transportation requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Agency clarified its regulation at 40 CFR 261.33, 
explaining that epinephrine salts are not included in the 
epinephrine P042 listing (since the listing only specifies 
epinephrine and not epinephrine salts); the salts, therefore, would 
be hazardous only if the waste epinephrine salt exhibited one or 
more of the hazardous waste characteristics (see ``Scope of 
Hazardous Waste Listing P042 (Epinephrine),'' October 15, 2007, RCRA 
Online<greek-i> 14778)''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> State regulations vary widely and influence disposal 
practices. State regulations of the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals 
and controlled substances vary widely (see DCNs 04952 and 04953). Many 
state regulations require both hospitals and LTCFs to destroy unused 
pharmaceuticals but often do not specify the process of destruction; 
however, many states (33 states according to DCN 04953) have 
requirements for the types of facility personnel required to conduct 
and oversee the destruction. Some states have hazardous waste 
regulations that are more stringent than EPA (see DCN 04944). For 
example, some wastes are regulated as hazardous under state law but not 
RCRA (see Table 4-1 of DCN 05519). State regulations for reuse of 
medications vary widely. Many states allow re-use of uncontaminated 
pharmaceuticals (excluding controlled substances) that have been in a 
controlled environment, such as an automatic dispensing system (see DCN 
04952). At least five states strictly prohibit hospitals and LTCFs from 
reusing pharmaceuticals entirely. These states include Arizona, 
Kentucky, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas. California allows county 
health departments to collect unused pharmaceuticals from LTCFs, 
wholesalers, and manufacturers and redistribute them for dispensing to 
the uninsured poor. Some State Medicare and Medicaid requirements often 
deter LTCFs from donating or redistributing their unused medications 
(see DCN 05961).
    <bullet> Medicare and Medicaid requirements also influence hospital 
disposal practices. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 
(CMS), the federal agency within the Department of Health and Human 
Services, administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Medicare 
provides health insurance to elderly and disabled Americans, while 
Medicaid provides health insurance for low income Americans, including 
long-term care coverage (see DCN 05074). In a March 22, 2006 letter, 
CMS provided guidance to State Medicaid programs encouraging states to 
require LTCFs to return unused medications to pharmacies and to ensure 
Medicaid is repaid for unused treatments when nursing home patients 
die, are discharged, or have their prescriptions changed. In addition, 
some state Medicaid programs require LTC pharmacies to accept returned 
unused pharmaceuticals (excluding controlled substances) from LTCFs. 
The LTC pharmacy then credits Medicaid for

[[Page 53236]]

the unused doses. However, LTC pharmacies typically receive little 
payment for these return services and have not found them to be cost 
effective. For example, when a pharmacy takes back a previously 
dispensed medication for disposal, it must pay to have the medication 
destroyed, but it is not compensated for this service (see DCN 04952). 
Therefore, few LTC pharmacies participate in these programs.
    (2) Organization size, ease and access of disposal, and cost are 
also factors influencing the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals.
    Some facilities use flushing to sewers as a primary means of 
disposal since it is both easy and complies with CSA requirements for 
destruction. Facilities are most likely to flush pharmaceuticals if 
they do not have an on-site pharmacy and/or do not have a pre-existing 
contract with a hazardous waste hauler to dispose of the 
pharmaceuticals. In the past, public health agencies and health-related 
non-government organizations guided the public to destroy unused 
medications by flushing them down the toilet. Many LTCFs have adopted 
this method for destruction of unused controlled substances. Many LTCFs 
have also extended this practice to include flushing all unused 
medications--controlled and non controlled substances (see EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0771-0851).
    (3) Fewer disposal opportunities exist for long-term care 
facilities because they are often not CSA registrants and cannot 
generally return pharmaceuticals to the manufacturer or use reverse 
distributors.
    Hospitals typically have on-site pharmacies. It is common practice 
at hospitals to return some unused pharmaceuticals to the hospital 
pharmacy and then on to the manufacturer for credit or disposal. 
However, this option extends only to those pharmaceuticals for which 
the hospital can receive credit and does not include unused 
pharmaceuticals that are considered waste (e.g., pharmaceuticals in an 
intravenous bag, drug samples brought into the hospital). Also, 
hospitals typically do not prescribe medication far in advance or in 
large quantities. As a result, the potential for pharmaceuticals to be 
wasted is reduced. In addition, hospitals typically have pre-existing 
arrangements for disposal of unused pharmaceuticals as hazardous waste 
(see EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0851).
    (4) Best management practices, if widely implemented, have the 
potential to reduce the amount of unused pharmaceuticals entering our 
nation's waters from disposal.
    Three organizations provide guidance in the form of Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) to medical facilities on managing pharmaceutical 
waste: Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E), Product Stewardship 
Institute (PSI), and Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare 
Organizations (JCAHO). The guidelines provided by these organizations 
all aim to reduce health and environmental impacts due to current 
disposal practices of pharmaceutical waste, as discussed in Section 5.2 
of the Interim Technical Report (see DCN 05519). Examples of model BMPs 
identified to date include waste minimization and reverse distribution 
systems used by hospitals in California, Minnesota, and Washington. 
Waste minimization techniques include maintaining inventories of high-
use pharmaceuticals and identifying those that are close to expiring. 
Short-dated pharmaceuticals are redistributed to other areas of the 
hospitals where they are needed. Also, dispensed pharmaceuticals can go 
unused at a hospital or LTCF if the patient has an allergic or adverse 
reaction to the medication, no longer requires treatment, refuses 
treatment, or the medication expires. Hospitals and LTCFs can reduce 
the amount of pharmaceutical waste generated by limiting the amount of 
pharmaceuticals dispensed to patients and residents at one time. This 
can be accomplished by using unit dose packaging, limited quantity 
dispensing, automatic dispensing systems, and standardized medication 
dosages, as discussed in Section 5.2 of the Interim Technical Report 
(see DCN 05519). Hospitals and LTCFs have the option of hiring reverse 
distributors to manage their unused and/or expired medication that the 
facility believes could be returned to the manufacturer or wholesaler 
for credit. The reverse distributor determines which medications may be 
returned to the manufacturer or wholesaler for credit and arranges for 
disposal of unused medications that are waste. However, there are CSA 
limitations for reverse distributors and controlled substances. In most 
cases, reverse distributors cannot handle controlled substances.
    EPA is concerned about pharmaceuticals in the environment and is 
working on this issue in many different areas. Over the last few years, 
EPA has increased its work in a number of areas to better understand 
pharmaceuticals. EPA has an overall strategy to address the risks 
associated with emerging contaminants. This four-pronged strategy is 
aimed at improving science, improving public understanding, identifying 
partnership and stewardship opportunities, and taking regulatory action 
as appropriate. We are focused on learning more about the occurrence 
and health effects of pharmaceuticals in water. In addition, we are 
working to better understand what treatment technologies may remove 
them from wastewater and drinking water. We are developing analytical 
methods to improve detection capabilities. We are conducting national 
studies and surveys to help direct our course of action. We are also 
partnering with government agencies, stakeholders, and the private 
sector, and increasing public awareness about product stewardship and 
pollution prevention (see DCN 06111). Additionally, the Agency is 
considering amending its hazardous waste regulations to add hazardous 
pharmaceutical wastes to the universal waste system to facilitate its 
oversight of the disposal of pharmaceutical waste (40 CFR 273) (see RIN 
2050-AG39, April 30, 2007; 72 FR 23170). In addition, the inclusion of 
hazardous pharmaceutical wastes in the universal waste rule may 
encourage health care facilities to manage all their pharmaceutical 
wastes as universal wastes, even wastes that are not regulated as 
hazardous but which nonetheless pose hazards. Finally, EPA has 
identified the issue of pharmaceuticals in wastewater is part of the 
Agency's Strategic Plan (2006-2011) to meet its goals of clean and safe 
water.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan,'' http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA continues to study the issue of how health care facilities are 
managing and disposing of unused pharmaceuticals and POTW treatment 
effectiveness in an effort to identify the root cause and potential 
solutions to address the issue of pharmaceuticals in our waterways. 
Over the coming year, EPA will need to gather more technical and 
economic information on unused pharmaceutical management in the Health 
Services Industry. To aid its decision-making, EPA intends to submit an 
Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for their review and approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA), 33 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., during the 2009 annual 
review. EPA will use this ICR to collect technical and economic 
information on unused pharmaceutical management and identify 
technologies and BMPs that reduce or eliminate the discharge of unused 
pharmaceuticals to POTWs. In designing this industry survey EPA

[[Page 53237]]

expects to work closely with industry representatives from hospitals, 
hospices, long-term care facilities, veterinary hospitals and other 
affected stakeholders. EPA has published a separate Federal Register 
notice for this ICR and solicits comment on the potential scope of this 
ICR (see August 12, 2008; 73 FR 46903).
    EPA also plans to conduct additional site visits to facilities to 
obtain more detailed information on how pharmaceuticals are managed, 
tracked, and disposed as well as influences on behavior. In addition, 
EPA is considering collecting data from other types of health care 
facilities (e.g., medical and dental offices, university and prison 
health clinics, and veterinary clinics). EPA is also reviewing studies 
on POTW effectiveness. EPA remains concerned about this issue and plans 
to expedite completion of this study.

VIII. The Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan Under Section 
304(m)

    In accordance with CWA section 304(m)(2), EPA published the 
preliminary 2008 Plan for public comment prior to this publication of 
the final 2008 Plan. See October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61335). The Agency 
received 32 comments from a variety of commenters including industry 
and industry trade associations, municipalities and sewerage agencies, 
environmental groups, and State government agencies. Many of these 
public comments are discussed in this notice. The Docket accompanying 
this notice includes a complete set of all of the comments submitted, 
as well as the Agency's responses (see DCN 06109). EPA carefully 
considered all public comments and information submitted to EPA in 
developing the final 2008 Plan.

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

1. Schedule for 2007 and 2008 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. This 
final 2008 Plan announces EPA's schedule for performing its section 
304(b) reviews. The schedule is as follows: EPA will coordinate its 
annual review of existing effluent guidelines under section 304(b) with 
its publication of the preliminary and final Plans under CWA section 
304(m). In other words, in odd-numbered years, EPA intends to complete 
its annual review upon publication of the preliminary Plan that EPA 
must publish for public review and comment under CWA section 304(m)(2). 
In even-numbered years, EPA intends to complete its annual review upon 
the publication of the final Plan. EPA's 2008 annual review is the 
review cycle ending upon the publication of this final 2008 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 identifying candidates for 
effluent guidelines revision for which EPA can schedule rulemaking in 
the Plan, or by calling to EPA's attention point source categories for 
which EPA has not promulgated effluent guidelines. Second, even though 
not required to do so under either section 304(b) or section 304(m), 
EPA believes that the public interest is served by periodically 
presenting to the public a description of each annual review (including 
the review process employed) and the results of the review. Doing so at 
the same time EPA publishes preliminary and final plans makes both 
processes more transparent. Third, by requiring EPA to 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 2008 annual review along 
with the final 2008 Plan, EPA hopes to gather and receive data and 
information that will inform its reviews for 2009 and 2010 and the 
final 2010 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 three 
categories. For the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 
(OCPSF) and Inorganic Chemicals categories, the effluent guidelines 
rulemaking is focused on discharges from Vinyl Chloride and Chlor-
Alkali facilities. EPA first identified this effluent guidelines 
rulemaking in the final 2004 Plan and refers to it as the ``Chlorine 
and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon (CCH) manufacturing'' rulemaking. EPA 
emphasizes that identification of the rulemaking schedules for these 
effluent guidelines does not constitute a final decision to revise the 
guidelines. EPA may conclude at the end of the formal rulemaking 
process--supported by an administrative record and following an 
opportunity for public comment--that effluent guidelines revisions are 
not appropriate for these categories. EPA is not scheduling any other 
existing effluent guidelines for rulemaking at this time.

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

    The final Plan must also identify categories of sources discharging 
toxic or non-conventional pollutants for which EPA has not published 
effluent limitations guidelines under section 304(b)(2) or new source 
performance standards (NSPS) under section 306. See CWA section 
304(m)(1)(B). The final Plan must also establish a schedule for the 
promulgation of effluent guidelines for the categories identified under 
section 304(m)(1)(B), providing for final action on such rulemaking not 
later than three years after the identification of the category in a 
final Plan.\6\ See CWA section 304(m)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA recognizes that one court--the U.S. District Court for 
the Central District of California--has found that EPA has a duty to 
promulgate effluent guidelines within three years for new categories 
identified in the Plan. See NRDC et al. v. EPA, 437 F.Supp.2d 1137 
(C.D. Ca. 2006). However, an appeal is currently pending before the 
Ninth Circuit and EPA continues to believe that the mandatory duty 
under section 304(m)(1)(c) is limited to mandating a schedule for 
concluding the effluent guidelines rulemaking--not for promulgating 
new effluent guidelines--within three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is currently conducting effluent guidelines rulemakings for two 
potential new categories (see September 2, 2004; 69 FR 53705). One of 
these categories--Airport Deicing Operations--was identified as a 
potential new category in the final 2004 Plan. EPA plans to propose 
these effluent guidelines for Airport Deicing Operations later this 
calendar year. EPA initiated new rulemaking for the other category--
Construction and Development--because it was directed to do so by a 
district court order. Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 04-8307, order (C.D. Ca. December 
6, 2006). EPA disagrees with the district court's decision and an 
appeal is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit; however, in order 
to comply with the district court's order EPA is conducting the 
rulemaking ordered by the court. The district court order requires EPA 
to propose a rule by December 1, 2008 and finalize it by December 1, 
2009. EPA expects to meet this court order with the publication of

[[Page 53238]]

the proposed rule for Construction and Development no later than 
December 1, 2008 and publication of the final rule one year later.
    For the reasons discussed below, EPA is not identifying any 
potential new category for effluent guidelines rulemaking. Therefore, 
EPA is not scheduling effluent guidelines rulemaking for any category 
is this final Plan. In the 2004 Plan, EPA announced that it would begin 
development of a regulation to control the pollutants discharged from 
drinking water treatment plants. See 69 FR 53720 (September 2, 2004). 
Based on preliminary study and on public comments, EPA was interested 
in the potential volume of discharges associated with drinking water 
facilities. The preliminary data were not conclusive, and the Agency 
proceeded with additional study and analysis of treatability, including 
an industry survey. The additional analysis included extensive 
information about the industry, its treatment residuals, wastewater 
treatment options, and discharge characteristics. EPA is evaluating a 
range of effluent guidelines priorities, including court-mandated 
actions, and plans to make a decision shortly on whether to continue 
work on this rulemaking.
    In order to identify industries not currently subject to effluent 
guidelines, EPA primarily used data from TRI and PCS. Facilities with 
data in TRI and PCS are identified by a four-digit SIC code (see DCN 
05515). EPA performed a crosswalk between the TRI and PCS data, 
identified with 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 currently regulated by existing 
effluent guidelines (see DCN 05515). EPA also relied on comments 
received on its previous 304(m) plans to identify potential new 
categories. 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 (see DCN 06112). EPA notes 
that the Ninth Circuit has recently held that the precise number and 
kind of categories identified by EPA in its 304(m) planning process is 
discretionary with the Administrator. Our Children's Earth v. EPA, 
527F.3d 842, 852 (9th Cir. 2008).
    The first criterion for identifying industries under section 
304(m)(1)(B) is whether they are ``categories of sources'' for which 
EPA has not promulgated effluent guidelines. Because this section does 
not define the term ``categories,'' EPA interprets this term based on 
the use of the term in other sections of the Clean Water Act, 
legislative history, and Supreme Court case law, and in light of 
longstanding Agency practice. These sources indicate that the term 
``categories'' refers to an industry as a whole based on similarity of 
product produced or service provided, and is not meant to refer to 
specific industrial activities or processes involved in generating the 
product or service. EPA therefore identifies in its biennial Plan only 
those new industries that it determines are properly considered stand-
alone ``categories'' within the meaning of the Act--not those that are 
properly considered potential new subcategories of existing categories 
based on similarity of product or service.
    EPA's interpretation of the term ``categories'' is consistent with 
longstanding Agency practice. Pursuant to CWA section 304(b), which 
requires EPA to establish effluent guidelines for ``classes and 
categories of point sources,'' EPA has promulgated effluent guidelines 
for 56 industrial ``categories.'' Each of these ``categories'' consists 
of a broad array of facilities that produce a similar product or 
perform a similar service--and is broken down into smaller subsets, 
termed ``subcategories,'' that reflect variations in the processes, 
treatment technologies, costs and other factors associated with the 
production of that product that EPA is required to consider in 
establishing effluent guidelines under section 304(b). For example, the 
``Pulp, Paper and Paperboard point source category'' (40 CFR part 430) 
encompasses a diverse range of industrial facilities involved in the 
manufacture of a like product (paper); the facilities range from mills 
that produce the raw material (pulp) to facilities that manufacture 
end-products such as newsprint or tissue paper. EPA's classification of 
this ``industry by major production processes used many of the 
statutory factors set forth in CWA Section 304(b), including 
manufacturing processes and equipment (e.g., chemical, mechanical, and 
secondary fiber pulping; pulp bleaching; paper making); raw materials 
(e.g., wood, secondary fiber, non-wood fiber, purchased pulp); products 
manufactured (e.g., unbleached pulp, bleached pulp, finished paper 
products); and, to a large extent, untreated and treated wastewater 
characteristics (e.g., BOD loadings, presence of toxic chlorinated 
compounds from pulp bleaching) and process water usage and discharge 
rates.'' \7\ Each subcategory reflects differences in the pollutant 
discharges and treatment technologies associated with each process. 
Similarly, the ``Iron and Steel Manufacturing point source category'' 
(40 CFR part 420) consists of various subcategories that reflect the 
diverse range of processes involved in the manufacture of iron and 
steel, ranging from facilities that make the basic fuel used in the 
smelting of iron ore (subpart A--Cokemaking) to those that cast the 
molten steel into molds to form steel products (subpart F--Continuous 
Casting). An example of an industry category based on similarity of 
service provided is the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source 
Category (40 CFR Part 442), which is subcategorized based on the type 
of tank (e.g., rail cars, trucks, barges) or cargo transported by the 
tanks cleaned by these facilities, reflecting variations in wastewaters 
and treatment technologies associated with each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. EPA, 1997. Supplemental Technical Development Document 
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, 
Paper, and Paperboard Category, Page 5-3, EPA-821-R-97-011, October 
1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 comprised exclusively or almost exclusively of 
indirect discharging facilities regulated under section 307.
    Third, CWA section 304(m)(1)(B) applies only to industrial 
categories of sources that discharge toxic or non-conventional 
pollutants to waters of the United States. EPA therefore did not 
identify in the Plan industrial activities for which conventional 
pollutants, rather than toxic or non-conventional pollutants, are the 
pollutants of concern. In addition, even when toxic and non-
conventional pollutants might be present in an industrial category's 
discharge, section 304(m)(1)(B) does not apply when those discharges 
occur in trivial amounts. 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 discharge of toxic or non-conventional 
pollutants.
    Finally, EPA interprets section 304(m)(1)(B) to give EPA the 
discretion to identify in the Plan only those

[[Page 53239]]

potential new categories for which an effluent guidelines rulemaking 
may be an appropriate tool for controlling discharges. Therefore, EPA 
does not identify in the Plan all potential new categories discharging 
toxic and non-conventional pollutants. Rather, EPA identifies only 
those potential new categories for which it believes that effluent 
guidelines may be appropriate, taking into account Agency priorities, 
resources and the full range of other CWA tools available for 
addressing industrial discharges.

IX. Request for Comment and Information

A. EPA Requests Information on the Steam Electric Power Generating 
Category (Part 423)

    EPA solicits public comments on the following areas of interest to 
support the Steam Electric Power Generating Detailed Study.
    <bullet> Treatment technologies for wastewaters from wet FGD 
systems. EPA solicits information and data regarding the costs and 
performance of treatment technologies for wastewater from wet FGD 
systems. Treatment technologies of interest include, but are not 
limited to, chemical precipitation, biological systems, evaporation/
brine concentration zero liquid discharge, underground injection, and 
complete recycle. Both capital and annual operations and maintenance 
costs are requested, as well as information on key variables that 
determine these costs for any particular facility and how they would 
vary as a function of plant electric generating capacity, wastewater 
flow rate, pollutant characteristics, or other factors. To help 
evaluate efficacy of the treatment technologies, EPA seeks both 
influent and effluent data from full scale or pilot applications. Data 
submitted should include details on: (1) Date for the sample collection 
and analysis; (2) identification of laboratory analytical methods; and 
(3) detailed descriptions of the wastewater treatment system and sample 
collection points. The description of the treatment system should also 
include design and operational information such as flow rate (design 
maximum and average flow rates for the influent scrubber purge and 
treatment system effluent; typical operating flow rate for the influent 
purge and effluent; and actual flow rate corresponding to sampling data 
submitted), residence time, chemical additives, and the flow rates for 
recirculation flows within the treatment system.
    <bullet> Effect of SCR/SNCR on FGD wastewater characteristics. EPA 
solicits data quantifying how the operation of selective catalytic 
reduction (SCR) or selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission reduction technologies affects FGD wastewater 
characteristics. In particular, EPA solicits concentration and mass 
data for metals, ammonia, and other nitrogen compounds. In addition to 
data for other metals, EPA solicits information to assess the degree to 
which SCR or SNCR operation may increase levels of hexavalent chromium 
in the FGD wastewater.
    <bullet> Effects of scrubber additives on FGD wastewater 
characteristics and treatability. EPA solicits information on the 
effect scrubber additives (e.g., dibasic acid (DBA) or formic acid) 
have on the characteristics of FGD wastewater, and how these additives 
may positively or negatively affect the treatability of the wastewater. 
EPA also solicits information on the reasons operators use these 
additives and why one additive may be considered preferentially over 
the other (for instance, why an operator would choose to use DBA 
instead of formic acid, or vice versa).
    <bullet> Ash pond management. EPA solicits information that would 
help identify best management practices for ash ponds. For example, EPA 
is aware of information suggesting that managing pyritic wastes in ash 
ponds should be avoided because it can contribute to lowering pH of the 
ash pond impoundment, potentially liberating metals in ash sediments 
and elevating the level of metals released to surface waters. In 
addition, introducing certain other wastes such as coal pile runoff can 
substantially affect ash pond pH, similarly producing conditions that 
favor releasing metals present in ash pond sediments and suspended 
particulates. EPA solicits information on best management practices for 
minimizing the potential for such wastes to adversely impact ash pond 
operation and discharges.
    EPA solicits data on pollutant removal performance of ash ponds. 
Such data should include influent and effluent concentration, mass and 
flow data. EPA solicits such data for total and dissolved metals, 
nitrogen compounds (ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrates, 
nitrites, and total nitrogen), total dissolved solids, and effluent 
toxicity.
    EPA also solicits information on seasonal effects on ash pond 
discharges, such as those resulting from seasonal turnover. EPA is 
particularly interested in the magnitude of the seasonal effects on the 
concentration and mass of pollutants discharged.
    Finally, EPA solicits information that quantify how ash pond 
discharges have been affected by introducing FGD wastewater into ash 
ponds that previously did not receive this wastewater.
    <bullet> Environmental assessments/impacts. EPA solicits 
information on environmental assessments that have been conducted for 
discharges from steam electric power plants. In particular, EPA seeks 
information linking the environmental assessments to discharges of 
metals (e.g., mercury, arsenic, selenium, boron, and magnesium), 
ammonia and other nitrogen compounds, phosphorus, total dissolved 
solids, or biocide residuals (e.g., chlorinated or brominated 
compounds, or non-oxidizing chemical biocides). EPA also solicits 
information on the toxicity of discharges from power plants, 
particularly for FGD and ash pond wastewater. EPA also seeks more 
general information regarding the potential environmental hazard 
associated with discharges of these pollutants from steam electric 
power plants.
    <bullet> Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facilities. 
EPA solicits comment on the wastewaters that may be generated or 
otherwise affected by the coal gasification process. What are the 
sources and characteristics of wastewaters generated by coal 
gasification and related processes at IGCC plants? How do these 
wastewaters compare to those of traditional coal-fired steam electric 
processes? What treatment technologies are being used to treat IGCC 
wastewaters, and what are the pollutant removal efficiencies of these 
systems?
    <bullet> Carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>) capture processes. EPA 
solicits information describing and characterizing wastewaters that may 
be generated at power plants when implementing processes to capture and 
dispose of CO<INF>2</INF> emissions.

B. EPA Requests Information on the Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector of 
the Oil and Gas Extraction Category (Part 435)

    EPA is researching the following questions and topics as they 
relate to the quantity and toxicity of pollutants discharged and the 
environmental impacts of these discharges to support the Oil and Gas 
Extraction/Coalbed Methane detailed study.
    <bullet> What is the range of pollutant concentrations in CBM 
produced water?
    <bullet> What is the toxicity of these pollutants to human health 
and the environment?

[[Page 53240]]

    <bullet> What is the range of pollutant concentrations and what are 
the CBM produced water flow rates for the major CBM basins?
    <bullet> What CBM produced water pollutants are typically 
controlled through permit limits and what is the range of these permit 
limits?
    <bullet> What are the observed and potential impacts of CBM 
produced water discharges on aquatic environments and communities, 
riparian zones, and other wetlands?
    <bullet> How does the composition of CBM produced water change when 
discharged to normally dry draws or ephemeral streams?
    <bullet> To what extent do CBM produced water discharges mobilize 
metals, soil nutrients, pesticides and other organic contaminants 
present in soil and carry these constituents to surface waters?
    <bullet> What are measures that can mitigate potential impacts to 
uses of surface waters that are used for irrigation?
    EPA is researching the following questions and topics as they 
relate to the potential technology options and beneficial use practices 
for this industrial sector.
    <bullet> What are the current industry treatment technologies for 
CBM produced water?
    <bullet> What are the potential beneficial use applications of CBM 
produced water and what are the corresponding criteria for such uses?
    <bullet> How effectively do these treatment technologies and 
beneficial use practices reduce the potential impacts of CBM produced 
water discharges?
    <bullet> What is the range of incremental annualized compliance 
costs associated with these technologies and practices? How do these 
costs differ between existing and new sources?
    <bullet> What is the demonstrated use and economic affordability 
(e.g., production losses, firm failures, employment impacts resulting 
from production losses and firm failures, impacts on small businesses) 
of these technologies across the different CBM basins?
    <bullet> What are the types of non-water quality environmental 
impacts (including energy impacts) associated with the current industry 
treatment technologies and beneficial use practices for CBM produced 
water?
    EPA is researching the following questions and topics as they 
relate to the expansion of CBM exploration and development and the 
affordability of potential technology options for this industrial 
sector.
    <bullet> What is the near-term and long-term growth rate for this 
industry sector? Which CBM basins are likely to experience the most 
growth within the next ten years?
    <bullet> What are the current industry drilling and infrastructure 
expansion plans for CBM exploration and development?
    <bullet> What is the predicted range of CBM reserves across the 
different basins that would be economically recoverable at different 
natural gas prices?
    <bullet> What are the potential impacts on developing CBM reserves 
and operator profitability and rates of return on investment of any 
increased costs associated with potential industry treatment 
technologies and beneficial use practices for CBM produced water 
discharges?
    <bullet> What is the difference between potential impacts on 
existing sources versus new sources?
    <bullet> What percentage of CBM operators are considered small 
entities?
    EPA is researching the following questions and topics as they 
relate to current regulatory controls.
    <bullet> How do NPDES permit programs regulate CBM produced water 
discharges (e.g., individual permits, general permits)?
    <bullet> What is the BPJ basis for existing technology-based 
effluent limits for CBM produced water discharges?
    <bullet> To what extent and how do current regulatory controls 
ensure the beneficial use of CBM produced water?
    <bullet> What other statutes might affect the ability to discharge, 
treat, or beneficially use CBM produced water (e.g., SDWA, RCRA)?

C. EPA Requests Comments and Information on the Following as it Relates 
to Unused Pharmaceutical Management for the Health Services Industry

    <bullet> EPA solicits identification of any policies, procedures or 
guidelines that govern the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals from 
hospitals and hospices; offices of doctors and mental health 
practitioners; nursing, long-term care, re-habilitation, and personal 
care facilities; medical laboratories and diagnostic service 
facilities; and veterinary care facilities.
    <bullet> EPA solicits information on the most likely sub-sectors 
within the Health Service sector that would accumulate unused 
pharmaceuticals for management and disposal.
    <bullet> When applicable, to what extent are unused pharmaceuticals 
disposed according to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA)?
    <bullet> EPA solicits comment and data on: (1) The main factors 
that drive current disposal practices; and (2) any barriers preventing 
the reduction or elimination of unused pharmaceuticals to POTWs and/or 
surface waters. In particular, EPA solicits comment on the extent to 
which that the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) 
complicates the design of an efficacious solution to drug disposal.
    <bullet> EPA solicits quantitative information or tracking sheets 
for the past year on the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals via the 
toilet, drain, or sewer.
    <bullet> EPA solicits data on how control authorities are currently 
controlling disposal of unused pharmaceuticals via wastewater.
    <bullet> EPA solicits information on any technologies or BMPs that 
are available to control, reduce, or eliminate the disposal of unused 
pharmaceuticals to POTWs.
    <bullet> EPA solicits qualitative and quantitative data on the 
effectiveness and annualized costs of the technologies or BMPs that 
health service facilities use to control or eliminate the discharge of 
unused pharmaceuticals from their wastewater. EPA is also interested in 
obtaining information on the current costs (including labor) associated 
with disposal of unused pharmaceuticals via the drain or toilet.
    <bullet> EPA solicits any studies or information on the potential 
for unused pharmaceuticals that are disposed of in non-hazardous-waste 
landfills to contaminate underground resources of drinking water.
    EPA will need to gather more technical and economic information on 
unused pharmaceutical management in the Health Services Industry. To 
aid its decision-making, EPA intends to submit an Information 
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for their review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 
33 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., in the 2009 annual review. EPA will use this 
ICR to collect technical and economic information on unused 
pharmaceutical management and identify technologies and BMPs that 
reduce or eliminate the discharge of unused pharmaceuticals to POTWs. 
In designing this industry survey EPA expects to work closely with 
industry representatives and other affected stakeholders. EPA has 
published a separate Federal Register notice for this ICR and solicits 
comment on the potential scope of this ICR (see August 12, 2008; 73 FR 
46903).

D. Preliminary Category Reviews for the 2008 Annual Review

    EPA requests information on the Ore Mining and Dressing category 
for which it is continuing a preliminary category review (i.e., 
industrial point source

[[Page 53241]]

categories with existing effluent guidelines identified with ``(5)'' in 
the column entitled ``Findings'' in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of 
today's notice). EPA will need to collect more information for the 2009 
annual review. Specifically, EPA hopes to gather the following 
information:
    <bullet> What toxic pollutants are discharged from this industry in 
non-trivial amounts on an industry and per-facility basis?
    <bullet> What raw material(s) or process(es) are the sources of 
these pollutants?
    <bullet> What technologies or management practices are available 
(technically and economically) to control or prevent the generation 
and/or release of these pollutants.

E. Data Sources and Methodologies

    EPA solicits comments on whether EPA used the correct evaluation 
factors, criteria, and data sources in conducting its annual review and 
developing this final Plan. EPA also solicits comment on other data 
sources EPA can use in its annual reviews and biennial planning 
process. Please see the docket for a more detailed discussion of EPA's 
analysis supporting the reviews in this notice (see DCN 05515).

F. BPJ Permit-Based Support

    EPA solicits comments on whether, and if so, how the Agency should 
provide EPA Regions and States with permit-based support instead of 
revising effluent guidelines (e.g., when the vast majority of the 
hazard is associated with one or a few facilities). EPA solicits 
comment on categories for which the Agency should provide permit-based 
support.

G. 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.

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

    EPA solicits comments on its evaluation of categories of indirect 
dischargers without categorical pretreatment standards. Specifically, 
EPA solicits wastewater characterization data (e.g., wastewater 
volumes, concentrations of discharged pollutants), current examples of 
pollution prevention, treatment technologies, and local limits for all 
industries without pretreatment standards. EPA also solicits comment on 
whether there are industrial sectors discharging pollutants that cause 
interference issues that cannot be adequately controlled through the 
general pretreatment standards. Finally, EPA solicits comment on how 
better to access and aggregate discharge data reported to local 
pretreatment programs. Currently, pollutant discharge data are 
collected by the local pretreatment program to demonstrate compliance 
with pretreatment standards and local limits but are not typically 
electronically transmitted to the States or EPA Regions.

I. Industrial Water Conservation, Reuse and Recycling Technology 
Transfer

    EPA requests data to evaluate the costs, benefits, and impacts of 
industrial water conservation practices. In particular, EPA solicits 
the following industrial sector or facility level data on water re-use 
and reduction technologies and pollution prevention practices:
    <bullet> The main reasons why these technologies and practices were 
adopted (e.g., limitations to source water, increased water purchasing 
or treatment costs), and whether these technologies and practices are 
transferable to other facilities.

Notice of Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

    <bullet> Descriptions of the water conservation technologies and 
practices employed at industrial unit operations; wastewater flow and 
pollutant data; and descriptions of the extent to which these water 
conservation technologies and practices reduce the amount of wastewater 
volume, the mass of wastewater pollutants resulting from an industrial 
unit operation, or both.
    <bullet> Detailed descriptions of the wastewater treatment and the 
annual costs of operating wastewater treatment to maintain compliance 
with the facility's effluent limits.
    <bullet> 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 will likely adopt 
more advanced water conservation technologies and practices over the 
next five years as a result of limitations on water source availability 
or potential costs savings.

    Dated: September 5, 2008.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. E8-21484 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>