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

The CPIP presents an array of review these effluent guidelines and No. OW–2004–0032. Use Docket ID No. conceptual long-term port improvement pretreatment standards. Today’s notice OW–2002–0020 for comments, data, and scenarios, some of which would involve first presents EPA’s 2005 review of its information on the draft Strategy. Such future federal activities were they to be existing effluent guidelines and deliveries are only accepted during the advanced to the status of a real project. pretreatment standards. It also presents Docket’s normal hours of operation, and Any future port-improvement projects EPA’s evaluation of categories of special arrangements should be made involving federal actions, as defined indirect dischargers without for deliveries of boxed information. under NEPA, would be required to pretreatment standards to identify Instructions: Direct your comments, undergo the applicable environmental potential new categories for data, and information to Docket ID No. review process. Given the considerable pretreatment standards. CWA section OW–2004–0032. For comments, data, time period before the conceptual 304(m) requires EPA to biennially and information on the draft Strategy, improvements identified in the CPIP publish an effluent guidelines program use Docket ID No. OW–2002–0020. Plan would become actual proposed plan and provide for public notice and EPA’s policy is that all comments, data, projects with sponsors, a detailed comment on such plan. Therefore, this and information received will be environmental review and analysis, as notice also presents the preliminary included in the public docket without conducted in an EIS, is not warranted at 2006 effluent guidelines program plan. change and may be made available this time. As a result, the Federal co- Included in the preliminary 2006 plan online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, lead agencies are canceling the EIS is a solicitation for comments and data including any personal information process. In the short-term, a on industry categories that may be provided, unless the material includes programmatic analysis in the form of an discharging non-trivial amounts of toxic information claimed to be Confidential Environmental Assessment will be or non-conventional pollutants and are Business Information (CBI) or other prepared to identify what type of not currently subject to any effluent information whose disclosure is environmental review could be guidelines. Finally, this notice provides restricted by statute. Do not submit expected of any improvement projects a second opportunity for public notice through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or that may be proposed. This and comment on the draft Strategy for e-mail information that you consider to programmatic Environmental National Clean Water Industrial be CBI or otherwise protected. The EPA Assessment will be available for public Regulations (‘‘draft Strategy’’), see 67 FR EDOCKET and the federal review in Fall 2005. 71165 (November 29, 2002). regulations.gov websites are ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DATES: If you wish to comment on any means EPA will not know your identity portion of this notice, EPA must receive Grace Musumeci, U.S. Environmental or contact information unless you Protection Agency, (212) 637–3738; your comments by October 28, 2005. provide it in the body of your comment. Bryce Wisemiller, U.S. Army Corps of EPA will conduct a public meeting on If you send an e-mail comment directly Engineers, (917) 790–8307; Richard E. 20 September 2005, from 9 a.m. to 12 to EPA without going through Backlund, Federal Highway p.m. Eastern Standard Time. For EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your Administration, (212) 668–2205. information on the location of the e-mail address will be automatically Dated: August 4, 2005. public meeting, see ADDRESSES section. captured and included as part of the Kathleen C. Callahan, ADDRESSES: Identify your comments, comment that is placed in the public Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. data and information relating to the docket and made available on the Agency’s draft Strategy; by Docket ID [FR Doc. 05–17125 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] Internet. If you submit an electronic No. OW–2002–0020. Identify all other BILLING CODE 6560–50–P comment, EPA recommends that you comments, data and information include your name and other contact relating to this notice by Docket ID No. information in the body of your ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OW–2004–0032. Submit your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM AGENCY comments, data and information by one you submit. If EPA cannot read your of the following methods: comment due to technical difficulties [OW–2004–0032; FRL–7959–8] A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// and cannot contact you for clarification, www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line RIN 2040–AE76 EPA may not be able to consider your instructions for submitting comments. comment. Electronic files should avoid Notice of Availability of Preliminary B. Agency Website: http:// the use of special characters, any form 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s of encryption, and be free of any defects electronic public docket and comment or viruses. For additional information AGENCY: Environmental Protection system, is EPA’s preferred method for about EPA’s public docket visit Agency (EPA). receiving comments, data, and EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal ACTION: Notice of preliminary 2006 information. Follow the on-line Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). Effluent Guidelines Program Plan; instructions for submitting comments. For additional instructions on obtaining request for comments. C. E-mail: [email protected]. access to comments, go to section I.B of D. Mail: Water Docket, Environmental the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section SUMMARY: Under the Clean Water Act Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, of this document. (CWA), EPA establishes national 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Docket: All documents in the docket technology-based regulations known as Washington, DC 20460, Attention are listed in the EDOCKET index at effluent guidelines and pretreatment Docket ID No. OW–2004–0032. For http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although standards to reduce pollutant discharges comments, data, and information on the listed in the index, some information is from categories of industry discharging draft Strategy, use Docket ID No. OW– not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other directly to waters of the United States or 2002–0020. information whose disclosure is discharging indirectly through Publicly E. Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA restricted by statute. Certain other Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). The Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, material, such as copyrighted material, CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., is not placed on the Internet and will be and 307(b) require EPA to annually Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID publicly available only in hard copy

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 51043

form. Publicly available docket program plan under CWA section electronically. Although not all docket materials are available either 304(m) (‘‘Plan’’). EPA anticipates materials may be available electronically in EDOCKET or in hard completing the final 2006 Plan by electronically, you may still access any copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA August 2006. As required by CWA of the publicly available docket West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution section 304(m), the final Plan will: (1) materials through the docket facility Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Present a schedule for EPA’s annual identified in section I.B.1. Once in the Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to review of existing effluent guidelines system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, under CWA section 304(b) and a appropriate docket identification excluding Federal holidays. The schedule for any effluent guidelines number. telephone number for the Public revisions; and (2) identify industries for C. What Are the Public Meeting Details Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and which EPA has not promulgated for the Preliminary Plan? the telephone number for the Water effluent guidelines but may decide to do Docket is (202) 566–2426. so through rulemaking and a schedule A public meeting to review the Public Meeting: EPA will hold an for these rulemakings. preliminary 2006 Plan will be held in informational public meeting for Washington, DC (see the DATES and interested stakeholders in the EPA East B. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information? ADDRESSES sections for the date and Building, Room 1153 (also known as the location of the public meeting). The ‘‘Great Room’’ or the ‘‘Map Room’’), 1. Docket meeting is open to the public, and 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA has established an official public limited seating for the public is Washington, DC. For more information docket for the Agency’s 2005 and 2006 available on a first-come, first-served on the details and location of the public annual reviews of existing effluent basis. For security reasons, we request meeting, see section I.C. limitations guidelines and pretreatment that you bring photo identification with FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. standards under CWA sections 301(d), you to the meeting. Also, it will Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566–1014 or 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b), and the 2006 expedite the process of entering the [email protected], or Ms. Jan Plan under CWA section 304(m) under building if you contact Ms. Cassandra Matuszko at (202) 566–1035 or Docket ID No. OW–2004–0032. EPA has Holmes at least three business days [email protected]. established an official public docket for prior to the meeting with your name, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the Agency’s draft Strategy under phone number, and any affiliation. Ms. Docket ID No. OW–2002–0020. The Holmes can be reached via e-mail at How Is This Document Organized? official public docket consists of the [email protected]. Please use The outline of today’s notice follows: documents specifically referenced in ‘‘304(m) Public Meeting Attendee’’ in I. General Information this action, any public comments the e-mail subject line. Ms. Holmes can II. Legal Authority received, and other information related also be reached by telephone at (202) III. What is the Purpose of Today’s Federal to this action. Although a part of the 566–1000. Register Notice? official docket, Confidential Business EPA will not distribute meeting IV. Background Information (CBI) or other information materials in advance of the public V. EPA’s 2005 Annual Review of Existing meeting; all materials will be distributed Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment whose disclosure is restricted by statute Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), is not included in the materials at the meeting. The purpose of the 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b) available to the public. The official public meeting is to: (1) Present the VI. EPA’s 2006 Annual Review of Existing public docket is the collection of Agency’s 2005 annual review of existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment materials that is available for public effluent guidelines and pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA standards under CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b) Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, 304(b), 307(b), and 304(g); (2) present VII. EPA’s Evaluation of Categories of Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., the Agency’s evaluation of categories of Indirect Dischargers Without Categorical indirect dischargers without categorical Pretreatment Standards to Identify NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Potential New Categories for Center Public Reading Room is open pretreatment standards to identify Pretreatment Standards from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday potential new categories for VIII. The Preliminary 2006 Effluent through Friday, excluding legal pretreatment standards under CWA Guidelines Program Plan Under Section holidays. The telephone number for the section 307(b); (3) present the 304(m) Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, preliminary 2006 Plan under CWA IX. Request for Comment and Information and the telephone number for the Water section 304(m); (4) review the industry I. General Information Docket is (202) 566–2426. sectors identified for further investigation; and (5) identify A. Regulated Entities 2. Electronic Access information collection activities and Today’s notice does not contain You may access this Federal Register analyses EPA anticipates completing for regulatory requirements. Rather, today’s document electronically through the the Agency’s 2006 review of effluent notice describes: (1) The Agency’s 2005 EPA Internet under the ‘‘Federal guidelines and pretreatment standards annual review of existing effluent Register’’ listings at http:// and the final Plan. EPA will not provide limitations guidelines and pretreatment www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic a transcript of the meeting but will standards under the Clean Water Act version of the public docket is available record the meeting minutes for the (CWA) sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), through EPA’s electronic public docket docket supporting this action. and 307(b); (2) EPA’s review of indirect and comment system, EPA Dockets. You Individuals wishing to comment on the dischargers without categorical may use EPA Dockets at http:// Agency’s review and the preliminary pretreatment standards to identify www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public Plan would need to submit written potential new categories for comments, access the index listing of comments as described in section I.C. in pretreatment standards under CWA the contents of the official public order for EPA to consider their sections 304(g) and 307(b); and (3) the docket, and to access those documents comments in the next annual review preliminary 2006 effluent guidelines in the public docket that are available and final Plan.

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 51044 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices

If you need special accommodations IV. Background based on the average of the best performances of facilities within the at this meeting, including wheelchair A. What Are Effluent Guidelines and industry of various ages, sizes, access or special audio-visual support Pretreatment Standards? needs, you should contact Ms. Holmes processes, or other common at least seven days prior to the meeting The CWA directs EPA to promulgate characteristics. Where existing so that we can make appropriate effluent limitations guidelines and performance is uniformly inadequate, standards that reflect pollutant arrangements. For those unable to BPT may reflect higher levels of control reductions that can be achieved by attend the meeting, a copy of the than currently in place in an industrial categories or subcategories of industrial category if the Agency determines that presentation and meeting materials will point sources using specific be posted on the EPA Dockets website the technology can be practically technologies. See CWA sections applied. at: http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ and 301(b)(2), 304(b), 306, 307(b), and EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Planning web 307(c). For point sources that introduce 2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control site at: http://www.epa.gov/guide/ pollutants directly into the waters of the Technology (BCT)—CWA Sections plan.html. United States (direct dischargers), the 301(b)(2)(E) & 304(b)(4) Please note that parking is very effluent limitations guidelines and The 1977 amendments to the CWA limited in downtown Washington, and standards promulgated by EPA are required EPA to identify effluent we recommend you use public transit. implemented through National reduction levels for conventional The EPA Headquarters complex is Pollutant Discharge Elimination System pollutants associated with Best (NPDES) permits. See CWA sections located near the Federal Triangle Metro Conventional Pollutant Control 301(a), 301(b), and 402. For sources that station. Upon exiting the Metro station, Technology (BCT) for discharges from discharge to publicly owned treatment walk east to 12th Street. On 12th Street, existing industrial point sources. In works (POTWs) (indirect dischargers), walk south to Constitution Avenue. At addition to considering the other factors EPA promulgates pretreatment specified in section 304(b)(4)(B) to the corner, turn right onto Constitution standards that apply directly to those establish BCT limitations, EPA also Avenue and proceed to the entrance at sources and are enforced by POTWs and considers a two part ‘‘cost- the EPA East Building, 1201 State and Federal authorities. See CWA reasonableness’’ test. EPA explained its Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, sections 307(b) and (c). DC. methodology for the development of 1. Best Practicable Control Technology BCT limitations in 1986. See 51 FR II. Legal Authority Currently Available (BPT)—CWA 24974 (July 9, 1986). Sections 301(b)(1)(A) & 304(b)(1) Today’s notice is published under the 3. Best Available Technology authority of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251, EPA defines Best Practicable Control Economically Achievable (BAT)—CWA et seq., and in particular sections 301(d), Technology Currently Available (BPT) Sections 301(b)(2)(A) & 304(b)(2) 304(b), 304(g), 304(m), 306, and 307(b), effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and non-conventional pollutants. For toxic pollutants and non- 33 U.S.C. 1311(d), 1314(b), 1314(g), Section 304(a)(4) designates the conventional pollutants, EPA 1314(m), 1316, and 1317. following as conventional pollutants: promulgates effluent guidelines based III. What Is the Purpose of Today’s biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), on the Best Available Technology Federal Register Notice? total suspended solids, fecal coliform, Economically Achievable (BAT). See pH, and any additional pollutants CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D) & (F). Today’s notice presents EPA’s 2005 defined by the Administrator as The factors considered in assessing BAT review of its existing effluent guidelines conventional. The Administrator include the cost of achieving BAT and pretreatment standards. It also designated oil and grease as an effluent reductions, the age of presents EPA’s evaluation of indirect additional conventional pollutant on equipment and facilities involved, the dischargers without categorical July 30, 1979. See 44 FR 44501 (July 30, process employed, potential process pretreatment standards to identify 1979). EPA has identified 65 pollutants changes, non-water quality potential new categories for and classes of pollutants as toxic environmental impacts, including pretreatment standards. CWA section pollutants, of which 126 specific energy requirements, and other such 304(m) requires EPA to biennially substances have been designated factors as the EPA Administrator deems publish an effluent guidelines program priority toxic pollutants. See Appendix appropriate. See CWA section plan and provide for public notice and A to part 423. All other pollutants are 304(b)(2)(B). The technology must also comment on such plan. Therefore, this considered to be non-conventional. be economically achievable. See CWA notice also presents the preliminary In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a section 301(b)(2)(A). The Agency retains number of factors. EPA first considers considerable discretion in assigning the 2006 effluent guidelines program plan. the total cost of applying the control weight accorded to these factors. BAT Included in the preliminary 2006 plan technology in relation to the effluent limitations may be based on effluent is a solicitation for comments and data reduction benefits. The Agency also reductions attainable through changes on industry categories that may be considers the age of the equipment and in a facility’s processes and operations. discharging non-trivial amounts of toxic facilities, the processes employed, and Where existing performance is or non-conventional pollutants and are any required process changes, uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect not currently subject to effluent engineering aspects of the control a higher level of performance than is guidelines. Finally, this notice provides technologies, non-water quality currently being achieved within a a second opportunity for public notice environmental impacts (including particular subcategory based on and comment on the draft Strategy for energy requirements), and such other technology transferred from a different National Clean Water Industrial factors as the EPA Administrator deems subcategory or category. BAT may be Regulations (‘‘draft Strategy’’), see 67 FR appropriate. See CWA section based upon process changes or internal 71165 (November 29, 2002). 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA controls, even when these technologies establishes BPT effluent limitations are not common industry practice.

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 51045

4. New Source Performance Standards 304(m) supplements the core See CWA section 307(b)(2). Section (NSPS)—CWA Section 306 requirement of section 304(b) by 304(g) requires EPA to annually review New Source Performance Standards requiring EPA to publish a plan every these pretreatment standards and revise (NSPS) reflect effluent reductions that two years announcing its schedule for them ‘‘if appropriate.’’Although section are achievable based on the best performing this annual review and its 307(b) only requires EPA to review available demonstrated control schedule for rulemaking for any effluent existing pretreatment standards ‘‘from technology. New sources have the guideline selected for possible revision time to time,’’ section 304(g) requires an opportunity to install the best and most as a result of that annual review. Section annual review. Therefore, EPA meets its efficient production processes and 304(m) also requires the plan to identify 304(g) and 307(b) review requirements wastewater treatment technologies. As a categories of sources discharging non- by reviewing all industrial categories result, NSPS should represent the most trivial amounts of toxic or non- subject to existing categorical stringent controls attainable through the conventional pollutants for which EPA pretreatment standards on an annual application of the best available has not published effluent limitations basis to identify potential candidates for guidelines under section 304(b)(2) or revision. demonstrated control technology for all NSPS under section 306. See CWA Section 307(b)(1) also requires EPA to pollutants (i.e., conventional, non- section 304(m)(1)(B); S. Rep. No. 50, promulgate pretreatment standards for conventional, and priority pollutants). 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985); WQA87 pollutants not susceptible to treatment In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to Leg. Hist. 31. Finally, under section by POTWs or that would interfere with take into consideration the cost of 304(m), the plan must present a the operation of POTWs, although it achieving the effluent reduction and any schedule for promulgating effluent does not provide a timing requirement non-water quality environmental guidelines for industrial categories for for the promulgation of such new impacts and energy requirements. which it has not already established pretreatment standards. EPA, in its 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing such guidelines, with final action on discretion, periodically evaluates Sources (PSES)—CWA Section 307(b) such rulemaking required not later than indirect dischargers not subject to categorical pretreatment standards to Pretreatment Standards for Existing three years after the industrial category identify potential candidates for new Sources (PSES) are designed to prevent is identified in a final Plan. See CWA pretreatment standards. The CWA does the discharge of pollutants that pass section 304(m)(1)(C). EPA is required to not require EPA to publish its review of through, interfere with, or are otherwise publish its preliminary Plan for public pretreatment standards or identification incompatible with the operation of comment prior to taking final action on of potential new categories, although publicly-owned treatment works the plan. See CWA section 304(m)(2). In addition, CWA section 301(d) EPA is exercising its discretion to do so (POTWs), including sludge disposal requires EPA to review every five years in this notice. methods at POTWs. Pretreatment the effluent limitations required by EPA intends to repeat this publication standards for existing sources are CWA section 301(b)(2) and to revise schedule for future pretreatment technology-based and are analogous to them if appropriate pursuant to the standards reviews (e.g., EPA will BAT effluent limitations guidelines. procedures specified in that section. publish the 2006 annual pretreatment The General Pretreatment Section 301(b)(2), in turn, requires point standards review in the notice Regulations, which set forth the sources to achieve effluent limitations containing the Agency’s 2006 annual framework for the implementation of reflecting the application of the best review of existing effluent guidelines national pretreatment standards, are available technology economically and the final 2006 Plan). EPA intends found at 40 CFR part 403. achievable (for toxic pollutants and non- that these coincident reviews will 6. Pretreatment Standards for New conventional pollutants) and the best provide meaningful insight into EPA’s Sources (PSNS)—CWA Section 307(c) conventional pollutant control effluent guidelines and pretreatment Like PSES, Pretreatment Standards for technology (for conventional standards program decision-making. New Sources (PSNS) are designed to pollutants), as determined by EPA Additionally, EPA hopes to most prevent the discharges of pollutants that under sections 304(b)(2) and 304(b)(4), efficiently serve the public with these pass through, interfere with, or are respectively. For nearly three decades, coincident reviews whereby this single otherwise incompatible with the EPA has implemented sections 301 and notice and future notices serve as the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be 304 through the promulgation of ‘‘one-stop shop’’ source of information issued at the same time as NSPS. New effluent limitations guidelines, resulting for the Agency’s current and future in regulations for 56 industrial indirect dischargers have the effluent guidelines and pretreatment categories. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours opportunity to incorporate into their standards program reviews. & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 113 (1977). facilities the best available V. EPA’s 2005 Annual Review of Consequently, as part of its annual demonstrated technologies. The Agency Existing Effluent Guidelines and review of effluent limitations guidelines considers the same factors in Pretreatment Standards Under CWA under section 304(b), EPA is also promulgating PSNS as it considers in Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and reviewing the effluent limitations they promulgating NSPS. 307(b) contain, thereby fulfilling its obligations B. What Are EPA’s Review and Planning under section 301(d) and 304(b) A. What Process Did EPA Use to Review Obligations Under Sections 301(d), simultaneously. Existing Effluent Guidelines and 304(b), 304(g), 304(m), and 307(b)? Pretreatment Standards Under CWA 2. EPA’s Review and Planning Section 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 1. EPA’s Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections 304(g) and 307(b)? Obligations Under Sections 301(d), 307(b)—Indirect Dischargers 304(b), and 304(m)—Direct Dischargers Section 307(b) requires EPA to revise 1. Background Section 304(b) requires EPA to review its pretreatment standards for indirect In its 2005 annual review, EPA its existing effluent guidelines for direct dischargers ‘‘from time to time, as reviewed all industrial categories dischargers each year and to revise such control technology, processes, operating subject to existing effluent limitations regulations ‘‘if appropriate.’’ Section methods, or other alternatives change.’’ guidelines and pretreatment standards,

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 51046 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices

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

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 51047

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

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 51048 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices

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

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 51049

account for the effects of successful In summary, EPA focused its 2005 of the final 2006 Plan. An expected voluntary programs through taking into screening-level review on industrial outcome of these detailed studies will consideration any significant reductions categories whose pollutant discharges be the determination of whether it in pollutant discharges reflected in potentially pose the greatest hazards to would be appropriate to identify these discharge monitoring and TRI data, as human health or the environment industrial categories for possible well as any data provided directly by because of their toxicity. EPA also effluent guidelines revision in the 2006 commenters, that EPA used to assess the considered efficiency and final Plan. The current status of these toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. implementation issues raised by two detailed studies is presented in EPA directly assessed the availability stakeholders. By using this multi- section V.B. of technology for some—but not all— layered screening approach, the Agency industrial categories (see OW–2004– concentrated its resources on those c. Preliminary Review of Effluent 0032–0016 and 0017). As was the case point source categories with the highest Guidelines for Certain Industrial in the 2004 annual review, EPA was estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant Categories unable to gather the data needed to discharges (based on best available perform a comprehensive screening- data), while assigning a lower priority to In addition to identifying two level analysis of the availability of categories that the Agency believes are categories for detailed studies (see treatment or process technologies to not good candidates for effluent section V.B.2) during the 2005 screening reduce toxic pollutant wastewater guidelines or pretreatment standards level review, EPA identified 11 discharges beyond the performance of revision at this time. additional categories with potentially technologies already in place for all of b. Detailed Review of Certain Industries high TWPE discharge estimates (i.e., the 56 existing industrial categories. industrial point source categories with For a number of the industries that However, EPA believes that its analysis existing effluent guidelines identified appeared to offer the greatest potential of hazard can also serve as a proxy for with ‘‘(5)’’ in the column entitled for reducing hazard to human health or assessing the effectiveness of existing ‘‘Findings’’ in Table V–1). EPA will the environment, EPA gathered and technologies in terms of the amount and continue to collect and analyze hazard analyzed additional data on pollutant significance of the pollutants discharges, economic factors, and and technology-based information on discharged. technology issues during its 2005 these eleven industrial categories but Similarly, EPA could not identify a annual review. EPA examined: (1) will assign a higher priority to suitable screening-level tool for Wastewater characteristics and investigating the Pulp, Paper, and comprehensively evaluating the pollutant sources; (2) the pollutants Paperboard and Steam Electric Power affordability of treatment or process driving the toxic-weighted pollutant Generation industrial categories. The technologies because the universe of discharges; (3) treatment technology and docket accompanying this notice facilities is too broad and complex. EPA pollution prevention information; (4) presents a summary of EPA’s findings could not find a reasonable way to the geographic distribution of facilities on these eleven industrial categories prioritize the industrial categories based in the industry; (5) any pollutant (see OW–2004–0032–0016). on a broad economic profile. In the past, discharge trends within the industry; EPA has gathered information regarding and (6) any relevant economic factors. d. Public Comments on the 2004 Annual technologies and economic EPA relied on many different sources Review considerations through detailed of data including: (1) 1997 and 2002 EPA’s annual review process questionnaires distributed to hundreds U.S. Economic Census; (2) TRI and PCS considers information provided by of facilities within a category or data; (3) contacts with reporting subcategory for which EPA has facilities to verify reported releases and stakeholders regarding the need for new commenced rulemaking. Such facility categorization; (4) contacts with or revised effluent limitations information-gathering is subject to the regulatory authorities (states and EPA guidelines and pretreatment standards. requirements of the Paperwork regions) to understand how category To that end, EPA established a docket Reduction Act, 33 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. facilities are permitted; (5) NPDES for its 2005 annual review with the The information acquired in this way is permits and their supporting fact sheets; publication of the final 2004 Plan to valuable to EPA in its rulemaking (6) EPA effluent guidelines technical provide the public with an opportunity efforts, but the process of gathering, development documents; (7) relevant to provide additional information to validating and analyzing the data—even EPA preliminary data summaries or assist the Agency in its annual review. for only a few subcategories—can study reports; (8) technical literature on EPA’s Regional Offices and stakeholders consume considerable time and pollutant sources and control identified other industrial point source resources. EPA does not think it technologies; (9) information provided categories as potential candidates for appropriate to conduct this level of by industry including industry revision of effluent limitations analysis prior to identifying an conducted survey and sampling data; guidelines and pretreatment standards industrial category for possible and (10) stakeholder comments (see based on potential opportunities to regulation. Consequently, EPA is OW–2004–0032–0016, 0017, and 0020). improve implementation of these working to develop more streamlined During its 2005 annual review, EPA regulations or because of their pollutant screening-level tools for assessing started detailed studies for the Pulp, discharges (see OW–2004–0032–0020). technological and economic Paper, and Paperboard (Part 430) and See section V.B.3. EPA hopes that achievability as part of future annual Steam Electric Power Generation (Part public review of the 2005 annual review reviews under section 301(d), 304(b), 423) point source categories because and the preliminary Plan in this notice, and 307(b). EPA solicits comment on they represent the two industrial point how to best identify and use screening- source categories with the largest as well as public review of future level tools for assessing technological combined TWPE based on EPA’s annual reviews and Plans, will elicit and economic achievability on an ranking approach. EPA plans to additional information and suggestions industry-specific basis as part of future complete these detailed studies in its for improving the Effluent Guidelines annual reviews. 2006 annual review, prior to publication Program.

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 51050 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices

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

TABLE V–1.—FINDINGS FROM THE 2005 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS PROMULGATED UNDER SECTION 301(D), 304(B), 304(G), AND 307(B)

Industry category No. (listed alphabetically) 40 CFR Part Findings †

1 ...... Aluminum Forming ...... 467 (3) 2 ...... Asbestos Manufacturing ...... 427 (3) 3 ...... Battery Manufacturing ...... 461 (3) 4 ...... Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetable Processing ...... 407 (3) 5 ...... Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing ...... 408 (3) 6 ...... Carbon Black Manufacturing ...... 458 (3) 7 ...... Cement Manufacturing ...... 411 (3) 8 ...... Centralized Waste Treatment ...... 437 (1) 9 ...... Coal Mining ...... 434 (1) and (3) 10 ...... Coil Coating ...... 465 (3) 11 ...... Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) ...... 412 (1) 12 ...... Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production ...... 451 (1) 13 ...... Copper Forming ...... 468 (3) 14 ...... Dairy Products Processing ...... 405 (3) 15 ...... Electrical and Electronic Components ...... 469 (3) 16 ...... Electroplating ...... 413 (1) 17 ...... Explosives Manufacturing ...... 457 (3) 18 ...... Ferroalloy Manufacturing ...... 424 (3) 19 ...... Fertilizer Manufacturing ...... 418 (5) 20 ...... Glass Manufacturing ...... 426 (3) 21 ...... Grain Mills ...... 406 (3) 22 ...... Gum and Wood Chemicals ...... 454 (3) 23 ...... Hospitals ...... 460 (3) 24 ...... Ink Formulating ...... 447 (3) 25 ...... Inorganic Chemicals ...... 415 (1) and (5) 26 ...... Iron and Steel Manufacturing ...... 420 (1) 27 ...... Landfills ...... 445 (1) 28 ...... Leather Tanning and Finishing ...... 425 (3) 29 ...... Meat and Poultry Products ...... 432 (1) 30 ...... Metal Finishing ...... 433 (1) 31 ...... Metal Molding and Casting ...... 464 (3) 32 ...... Metal Products and Machinery ...... 438 (1) 33 ...... Mineral Mining and Processing ...... 436 (3) 34 ...... Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders ...... 471 (3) 35 ...... Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing ...... 421 (5) 36 ...... Oil and Gas Extraction ...... 435 (1) and (2) 37 ...... Ore Mining and Dressing ...... 440 (5) 38 ...... Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers ...... 414 (1) and (5) 39 ...... Paint Formulating ...... 446 (3) 40 ...... Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt) ...... 443 (3) 41 ...... Pesticide Chemicals ...... 455 (5) 42 ...... Petroleum Refining ...... 419 (5) 43 ...... Pharmaceutical Manufacturing ...... 439 (1) 44 ...... Phosphate Manufacturing ...... 422 (3) 45 ...... Photographic ...... 459 (3) 46 ...... Plastic Molding and Forming ...... 463 (5) 47 ...... Porcelain Enameling ...... 466 (5) 48 ...... Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard ...... 430 (2) and (4) 49 ...... Rubber Manufacturing ...... 428 (5) 50 ...... Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing ...... 417 (3) 51 ...... Steam Electric Power Generation ...... 423 (4) 52 ...... Sugar Processing ...... 409 (3) 53 ...... Textile Mills ...... 410 (5) 54 ...... Timber Products Processing ...... 429 (3)

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 51051

TABLE V–1.—FINDINGS FROM THE 2005 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS PROMULGATED UNDER SECTION 301(D), 304(B), 304(G), AND 307(B)—Continued

Industry category No. (listed alphabetically) 40 CFR Part Findings †

55 ...... Transportation Equipment Cleaning ...... 442 (1) 56 ...... Waste Combustors ...... 444 (1) † Note: The descriptions of the ‘‘Findings’’ codes are presented immediately prior to this table.

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

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 51052 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices

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

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 51053

writers recalculate lower mass-based pretreatment standards. In addition to VII. EPA’s Evaluation of Categories of permit limits based on the reduced the comments identified in the previous Indirect Dischargers Without wastewater flow rates when re-issuing section, EPA received five comments on Categorical Pretreatment Standards To NPDES permits. The commenters how to conduct its annual review and Identify Potential New Categories for suggest that OCPSF facilities should be which industries and pollutants should Pretreatment Standards able to retain mass limits of the original be the focus of this review (see OW– As noted in 40 CFR 403.2, the three stringency, established prior to 2004–0032–0020). These comments are principal objectives of the National wastewater flow reduction, when located in the docket. EPA considered Pretreatment Program are to: (1) Prevent process wastewater flows are reduced relevant information from these the wide-scale introduction of for purposes of water conservation. The comments in its 2005 annual review. pollutants into publicly owned commenters also stated that if process treatment works (POTWs) that will wastewater flows are decreased for other In particular, industry stakeholders interfere with POTW operations, reasons, the mass-based limits should commented that EPA should revise the including use or disposal of municipal continue to be adjusted pursuant to the analytical methods in the Oil and Gas sludge; (2) prevent the introduction of current rule. Extraction point source category (40 pollutants into POTWs which will pass As part of the Agency’s commitments CFR Part 435, Subpart A) to eliminate through the treatment works or will in the President’s Manufacturing the current differences between the Initiative, EPA began an evaluation of otherwise be incompatible with the synthetic-based drilling fluids (SBF) treatment works; and (3) improve options for promoting water analytical methods used in the EPA conservation through the use of mass- opportunities to recycle and reclaim Region 4 and 6 general permits municipal and industrial wastewaters based limits as part of its 2005 annual regulating offshore oil and gas facilities review of existing effluent guidelines. and sludges. See Introduction to the in the Eastern and Western Gulf of National Pretreatment Program, EPA– See the OMB report to Congress titled, Mexico (see OW–2004–0032–0051). ‘‘Regulatory Reform of the U.S. 833–B–98–002, February 1999. Industry stakeholders also supplied Manufacturing Sector,’’ Page 30, March All indirect dischargers are subject to additional data and suggested that EPA 9, 2005. See http:// general pretreatment standards (40 CFR www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/ change the sediment toxicity analytical part 403), including a prohibition on regpol-reports_congress.html. EPA methods to account for analytical discharges causing ‘‘pass through’’ or strongly supports water conservation method variability (see OW–2004– ‘‘interference.’’ See 40 CFR 403.5. and encourages all sectors, including 0032–0007). See section IX.H. POTWs that are required to implement approved programs, and those that have municipal, industrial, and agricultural, VI. EPA’s 2006 Annual Review of to achieve efficient water use. EPA does experienced interference or pass Existing Effluent Guidelines and through, are required to develop local not intend for its regulations to present Pretreatment Standards Under CWA a barrier to efficient water use in any limits to implement the general Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and industrial sector. pretreatment standards. There are EPA proposed, and is currently 307(b) approximately 1,500 POTWs with approved pretreatment programs and considering finalizing, greater flexibility As discussed in section V and further 13,500 small POTWs that are not for control authorities to convert in section VIII, EPA is coordinating its required to develop and implement concentration-based pretreatment annual review of existing effluent standards to flow-normalized mass- pretreatment programs. guidelines and pretreatment standards based permit limits for indirect In addition, EPA establishes under CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), dischargers where necessary to facilitate technology-based national regulations, adoption of water conservation 307(b) and 304(g) with the publication termed ‘‘categorical pretreatment technologies, provided there is no of a preliminary and biennial Plan standards,’’ for categories of industry increase in the discharge of pollutants to under section 304(m). Public comments discharging to Publicly Owned the environment. See 64 FR 39563 (July received on EPA’s prior reviews and Treatment Works (POTWs) pollutants 22, 1999). EPA requests comment on Plans helped the Agency to prioritize its that may pass through, interfere with or whether it should consider a rulemaking analysis of existing effluent guidelines are otherwise incompatible with POTW or other ways that would extend greater and pretreatment standards during the operations. CWA section 307(b). flexibility to permitting authorities to 2005 review. The information gathered Generally, categorical pretreatment retain mass-based limits based on during the 2005 annual review, standards are designed such that current wastewater flows for direct including the identification of data gaps wastewaters from direct and indirect discharges where necessary to facilitate in the analysis of certain existing industrial dischargers are subject to the prospective adoption of water industry categories, in turn, provides a similar levels of treatment. conservation technologies. EPA is starting point for EPA’s 2006 annual EPA has promulgated such particularly interested in specific, review. See Table V–1 above. In 2006, pretreatment standards for 35 industrial detailed examples of situations where EPA intends to conduct a screening- categories. In this review, EPA the adoption of water conservation level analysis of all 56 industry evaluated various indirect discharging technologies and practices have or have categories and compare the results industries without categorical pretreatment standards to determine not made the achievement of new flow- against those from previous years. EPA whether their discharges were causing normalized mass-based permit limits will also conduct more detailed pass through or interference, in order to based on the reduced wastewater flow analyses of those industries that rank more difficult. See section IX.G. determine whether categorical high in terms of toxic and non- pretreatment standards may be b. Stakeholder Identified Industries conventional discharges among all point necessary for these industrial categories. With the publication of the final 2004 source categories. EPA specifically Stakeholder comments and pollutant Plan, EPA solicited public comment to invites comment and data on the 56 discharge information have helped EPA inform its 2005 annual review of point source categories. to identify industrial sectors for this existing effluent guidelines and review. In particular, EPA has looked

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 51054 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices

more closely at sectors that are EPA based this two part evaluation in that might pass through POTWs and comprised entirely or nearly entirely of part on EPA’s prior decision not to into surface waters. indirect dischargers, and is grouping promulgate national categorical B. EPA’s Evaluation of ‘‘Interference them into the following seven industrial pretreatment standards for an industrial Potential’’ of Industrial Indirect categories: Food Service Establishments; category (i.e., Industrial Laundries). See Discharges Industrial Laundries; Photoprocessing; August 18, 1999 (64 FR 45071). EPA Printing and Publishing; Independent noted in this 1999 final action that, For each of these seven industrial and Stand Alone Laboratories; ‘‘While EPA has broad discretion to sectors EPA evaluated the ‘‘interference Industrial Container and Drum promulgate such [national categorical potential’’ of indirect industrial Cleaning; and Health Services Industry. pretreatment] standards, EPA retains discharges. The term ‘‘interference’’ EPA is including within the Health discretion not to do so where the total means a discharge which, alone or in Services Industry the following pounds removed do not warrant conjunction with a discharge or activities: Independent and Stand Alone national regulation and there is not a discharges from other sources, both (1) Medical and Dental Laboratories, significant concern with pass through inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its Offices and Clinics of Doctors of and interference at the POTW.’’ See treatment processes or operations, or its Medicine, Offices and Clinics of August 18, 1999 (64 FR 45077). EPA sludge processes, use or disposal; and Dentists, Nursing and Personal Care solicits comment on this two part (2) therefore is a cause of a violation of Facilities, Veterinary Care Services, and evaluation for determining the ‘‘pass any requirement of the POTW’s NPDES Hospitals and Clinics. EPA solicits through potential’’ for industrial permit (including an increase in the comment on that grouping (see OW– categories comprised entirely or nearly magnitude or duration of a violation) or 2004–0032–0038). For all seven of these entirely of indirect dischargers. of the prevention of sewage sludge use industrial sectors EPA evaluated (1) the or disposal in compliance with EPA’s 2005 review of these seven applicable regulations or permits. See ‘‘Pass Through Potential’’ of toxic industrial sectors used pollutant pollutants and non-conventional 40 CFR 403.3(i). To determine the discharge information from TRI, PCS, ‘‘interference potential,’’ EPA generally pollutants through POTW operations; and other publicly available data to and (2) the ‘‘Interference Potential’’ of evaluates the industrial indirect estimate the total annual TWPE discharges in terms of: (1) The industrial indirect discharges with discharged per facility. EPA’s use of POTW operations. EPA also received, compatibility of industrial wastewaters PCS data was limited as nearly all of the and domestic wastewaters (e.g., type of reviewed, and summarized suggestions PCS discharge monitoring data is from pollutants discharged in industrial from commenters on options for direct dischargers. Consequently, EPA wastewaters compared to pollutants improving various categorical transferred pollutant discharges from typically found in domestic pretreatment standards (see OW–2004– direct dischargers to indirect wastewaters); (2) concentrations of 0032–0020). dischargers in some of the seven pollutants discharged in industrial A. EPA’s Evaluation of ‘‘Pass Through industrial sectors when other data were wastewaters that might cause Potential’’ of Toxic and Non- not available. Based on these estimated interference with the POTW collection Conventional Pollutants Through POTW toxic pollutant discharges, EPA’s review system (e.g., oil and grease discharges Operations suggests that there is a low pass through causing blockages in the POTW potential for four of the seven industrial collection system), the POTW treatment For these seven industrial sectors, sectors and that categorical pretreatment system (e.g., high ammonia mass EPA evaluated the ‘‘pass through standards for these four industrial discharges inhibiting the POTW potential’’ of toxic pollutants and non- sectors are not warranted at this time. treatment system) or biosolids disposal conventional pollutants through POTW These four industrial sectors are: Food options; and (3) the potential for operations. Historically, for most Service Establishments; Industrial variable pollutant loadings to cause effluent guidelines rulemakings, EPA Laundries; Photoprocessing; and interference with POTW operations determines the ‘‘pass through potential’’ Printing and Publishing. EPA is (e.g., batch discharges or slug loadings by comparing the percentage of the currently evaluating the pass through from industrial facilities interfering with pollutant removed by well-operated potential for the Industrial Container normal POTW operations). POTWs achieving secondary treatment and Drum Cleaning industry using data EPA relied on readily available with the percentage of the pollutant from its recent study of this industrial information from the literature and removed by wastewater treatment sector, ‘‘Preliminary Data Summary: stakeholders to evaluate the severity, options that EPA is evaluating as the Industrial Container and Drum Cleaning duration, and frequency of interference bases for categorical pretreatment Industry,’’ EPA–821–R–02–011, June incidents caused by industrial indirect standards (January 28, 1981; 46 FR 2002. EPA also did not have enough discharges. As part of its evaluation, 9408). For these seven industry sectors, information to determine whether there EPA reviewed data from its recent however, EPA was unable to gather the was pass through potential for the report to Congress on one type of data needed for a comprehensive remaining two industrial sectors: interference incidents, blockages in the analysis of the availability and Independent and Stand Alone POTW collection system leading to performance (e.g., percentage of the Laboratories and Health Services combine sewer overflows (CSOs) and pollutants removed) of treatment or Industries. EPA will continue to sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). See process technologies that might reduce evaluate the pass through potential for Impacts and Controls of CSOs and toxic pollutant discharges beyond that these three industrial sectors and SSOs, EPA 833–R–04–001, August 2004. of technologies already in place at these conducted detailed studies if warranted With respect to Food Service facilities. Instead, EPA evaluated the for the 2007/2008 planning cycle. A Establishments, EPA noted that ‘‘grease ‘‘pass through potential’’ as measured summary of EPA’s analyses supporting from restaurants, homes, and industrial by the total annual TWPE discharged by this review are located in the docket sources is the most common cause the industrial sector and the average (see OW–2004–0032–0017). EPA solicits (47%) of reported blockages. Grease is TWPE discharge among facilities that comment on whether these or other problematic because it solidifies, discharge to POTWs. industrial activities discharge pollutants reduces conveyance capacity, and

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 51055

blocks flow.’’ Other major sources of VIII. The Preliminary 2006 Effluent interest is served by periodically blockages are grit, rock, and other debris Guidelines Program Plan Under Section presenting to the public a description of (27%), roots (22%), and roots and grease 304(m) each annual review (including the (4%). In accordance with CWA section review process employed) and the EPA’s review of current information 304(m)(2), EPA is publishing this results of the review. Doing so at the indicates that there is no interference preliminary Plan for public comment same time EPA publishes preliminary potential from the seven industrial prior to publication of the final Plan. and final plans makes both processes sectors that would warrant the EPA expects to finalize this Plan by more transparent. Third, by requiring development of categorical pretreatment August 2006. EPA will carefully EPA to review all existing effluent standards. Information collected from consider all public comments and guidelines each year, Congress appears control authorities and stakeholders information. Commenters should see the to have intended that each successive indicate that a growing number of DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this review would build upon the results of control authorities are using their notice for instructions on how to submit earlier reviews. Therefore, by describing existing authority (under general comments to EPA on this preliminary the 2005 annual review along with the pretreatment standards in Part 403) to Plan. EPA will respond to all these preliminary 2006 Plan, EPA hopes to set more stringent permit limits or to public comments and include these gather and receive data and information enforce existing permit limits and local responses in the docket supporting the that will inform its review for 2006 and ordinances to reduce interferences with final Plan. final 2006 Plan. POTW operations (e.g., blockages from fats, oils, and greases). A. EPA’s Schedule for Annual Review 2. Schedule for Possible Revision of EPA did receive comments from and Revision of Existing Effluent Effluent Guidelines Promulgated Under stakeholders during its review that even Guidelines Under Section 304(b) Section 304(b) with current authority provided in the EPA is currently conducting 1. Schedule for 2005 and 2006 Annual general pretreatment regulations, some rulemakings to potentially revise Reviews Under Section 304(b) POTWs have difficulty controlling existing effluent guidelines and interference from some categories of As noted in section IV.B, CWA pretreatment standards for the following indirect industrial dischargers (see OW– section 304(m)(1)(A) requires EPA to categories: Vinyl Chloride and Chlor- 2004–0032–0020). EPA notes, however, publish a Plan every two years that Alkali Manufacturing, Iron and Steel that to a large extent, interference establishes a schedule for the annual Manufacturing, and Concentrated problems tend to be a local, rather than review and revision, in accordance with Animal Feeding Operations. For a a national, problem. Pollutants which section 304(b), of the effluent guidelines summary of the status of the current interfere with the operation of one that EPA has promulgated under that effluent guidelines rulemakings and a POTW may not adversely affect the section. Today’s preliminary Plan list of completed effluent guidelines operation of another. These differences announces EPA’s schedule for rulemakings conducted by EPA since are attributable to several factors performing its section 304(b) reviews. 1992, see the Docket accompanying this including the varying sensitivities of The schedule is as follows: To notice (see OW–2004–0032–0042). EPA different POTWs and the constituent coordinate its annual review of existing solicits comment on these proposed composition of wastewater collected effluent guidelines under section 304(b) schedules. and treated by the POTW (January 28, with its publication of the preliminary As previously identified in Table 1981; 46 FR 9406). and final Plans under CWA section V–1, EPA does not have sufficient EPA notes that local pretreatment 304(m). In other words, in odd- information to identify any additional programs already have the necessary numbered years, EPA intends to effluent guidelines for potential revision tools to control interference problems complete its annual review upon at this time. Because there are 56 point with existing authority provided by the publication of the preliminary Plan that source categories (including over 450 general pretreatment standards (40 CFR EPA must publish for public review and subcategories) with existing effluent Part 403). Under the provisions of comment under CWA section 304(m)(2). guidelines that must be reviewed § 403.5(c)(1) & (2), in defined In even-numbered years, EPA intends to annually, EPA believes it is important to circumstances, a POTW must establish complete its annual review upon the prioritize its review so as to focus specific local limits to prevent publication of the final Plan. EPA’s 2005 especially on industries where changes interference. ‘‘[A] POTW must develop annual review is the review cycle to the existing effluent guidelines are specific limits for Industrial Users to ending upon the publication of this most likely to be needed. Consequently, guard against interference with the preliminary 2006 Plan and the 2006 EPA has identified thirteen industrial operation of the municipal treatment annual review is the review cycle categories whose pollutant discharges works.’’ 46 FR 9406 (January 28, 1981). ending upon publication of the final warrant further study at this time. (i.e., Consequently, pretreatment programs 2006 Plan. highest estimates of toxic-weighted should correct interference incidents EPA is coordinating its annual pollutant discharges). with enforcement and oversight reviews under section 304(b) with In particular, as a result of its 2005 activities. The interference incidents publication of Plans under section annual review, EPA identified two of identified by commenters do not 304(m) for several reasons. First, the these thirteen industrial point source necessarily indicate the need for annual review is inextricably linked to categories with existing effluent additional categorical pretreatment the planning effort, because the results guidelines for detailed study in its 2006 standards, but they may indicate the of each annual review can inform the annual review: Pulp, Paper, and need for additional oversight and content of the preliminary and final Paperboard (Part 430) and Steam enforcement. EPA solicits comment on Plans, e.g., by calling to EPA’s attention Electric Power Generation (Part 423). whether there are industrial sectors point source categories for which EPA During detailed study of these discharging pollutants that cause has not promulgated effluent guidelines. categories, EPA will verify the pollutant interference issues that cannot be Second, even though not required to do discharges identified in the 2005 annual adequately controlled through the so under either section 304(b) or section reviews and perform an in-depth general pretreatment standards. 304(m), EPA believes that the public analysis of pollutant discharges,

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 51056 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices

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

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 51057

interpretation is supported by the fact mechanism, Congress has given EPA discharges of these pollutants present that section 304(m) imposes an on-going that discretion. any pass through or interference issues planning requirement, with new final for POTW operations. 2. Discharges From Tobacco Products EPA has already made considerable Plans due every two years and draft Facilities Plans published for public comment in progress in investigating pollutant between. The CWA specifically Public comments on the preliminary discharges in this category and has contemplated that effluent guidelines 2004 Plan suggested that EPA consider solicited and received assistance from would not be the only solution to all developing effluent guidelines for the the companies who represent 90% of water quality problems. tobacco products industrial sector due the U.S. market. EPA held several to the potential of facilities in this meetings with these tobacco products EPA interprets section 304(m), industrial sector to discharge nontrivial companies since publication of the 2004 including its requirement that EPA amounts of nonconventional and toxic Plan and the meeting minutes are identify in a plan any industrial pollutants. In particular, commenters included in the docket (see OW–2004– categories for which it might promulgate expressed concern over the quantity of 0032–0043 and 0044). These companies effluent guidelines, as a mechanism toxics and carcinogens that may be have provided extensive information on designed to promote regular and discharged in wastewater associated processes, pollutant discharges and transparent priority-setting on the part with the manufacture of cigarettes. At existing permits. Based on information of the Agency. A plan, ultimately, is a the time of publication of the final 2004 collected to date, EPA believes that statement of choices and priorities. See Plan, EPA was unable to make a primary processing at cigarette Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness determination, based on readily manufacturers and their related Alliance, et al., 124 S. Ct. 2373, 2383 available information, as to whether reconstituted tobacco operations is the (2004). Identifying an industrial activity toxic and nonconventional discharges main source of discharged wastewater for possible effluent guideline associated with tobacco products pollution in this industrial sector. EPA rulemaking reflects EPA’s view, at the facilities are trivial or nontrivial. In conducted site visits at six tobacco time the plan is issued, that a national order to better respond to these product facilities, four cigarette categorical regulation may be an comments and determine whether to manufacturing facilities and two appropriate tool to accomplish the identify the tobacco products industrial dedicated reconstituted tobacco desired environmental results. sector as a potential new point source facilities. In addition to collecting Similarly, announcing a schedule category, EPA is conducting a detailed information on processes and reflects EPA’s assignment of priorities, study of the pollutant discharges for this wastewater generation, EPA also taking into account all of the other industrial sector. collected grab samples of wastewater statutory mandates and policy This industrial sector is divided into during these site visits. EPA collected initiatives designed to implement the the following four industry groups: (1) these wastewater samples to: (1) Further CWA’s goals and the funds appropriated SIC code 2111 (Cigarettes)— characterize wastewater generated and/ establishments primarily engaged in by Congress to execute them. By or discharged at these facilities; and (2) manufacturing cigarettes from tobacco requiring EPA to publish its plan, evaluate treatment effectiveness, as or other materials; (2) SIC code 2121 Congress assured that EPA’s priority- applicable. EPA expects to place non- (Cigars)—establishments primarily setting processes would be available for CBI information and data regarding engaged in manufacturing cigars; (3) SIC public viewing. By requiring EPA to these site visits and sampling episodes code 2131 (Chewing and Smoking in the public record (EPA Docket No. solicit comments on preliminary plans, Tobacco and Snuff)—establishments Congress assured that interested OW–2004–0032) by December 2005. As primarily engaged in manufacturing these data will be available after the members of the public could contribute chewing and smoking tobacco and ideas and express policy preferences. close of the public comment period (see snuff; and (4) SIC code 2141 (Tobacco DATES section), EPA will accept public Finally, by requiring publication of Stemming and Redrying)— comment on these data for 30 days after plans every two years, Congress assured establishments primarily engaged in the these data become available in the that EPA would regularly re-evaluate its stemming and redrying of tobacco or in docket. Members of the public who past policy choices and priorities manufacturing reconstituted tobacco. would like notice of when this data is (including whether to identify an Based on information in the 2002 available should contact EPA (see FOR industrial activity for effluent guidelines Economic Census, EPA estimates there FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). rulemaking) to account for changed are 114 tobacco products facilities in the EPA also plans to work with State circumstances. Ultimately, however, United States, nine of which are direct NPDES permit writers and pretreatment Congress left the content of the plan to dischargers and currently have NPDES control authorities to obtain existing EPA’s discretion—befitting the role that permits. EPA’s review of TRI and PCS permits and to identify any issues or effluent guidelines play in the overall data indicates that there is very little concerns with wastewaters from this structure of the CWA and their information about the facilities in this industrial sector. relationship to other tools for addressing sector. Consequently, EPA is conducting water pollution. Considering the full a detailed review of this industrial C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory scope of the mandates and authorities sector. EPA plans to complete this Planning and Review established by the CWA, of which detailed review prior to publication of Under Executive Order 12866, [58 effluent guidelines are only a part, EPA the final 2006 Plan in order to Federal Register 51735 (October 4, needs the discretion to promulgate new determine whether to identify this 1993)] the Agency must determine effluent guidelines in a phased, orderly industry sector as a potential new whether a ‘‘regulatory action’’ is manner. Otherwise, EPA might find industrial point source category. Key ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to itself commencing an effluent issues EPA will address in its detailed OMB review and the requirements of guidelines rulemaking when none is study include the source and magnitude the Executive Order. The Order defines actually needed for the protection of of the toxic and non-conventional the term ‘‘regulatory action’’ to include human health or the environment. By pollutants discharged directly to waters any substantive action by an agency crafting section 304(m) as a planning of the U.S. and whether indirect (normally published in the Federal

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 51058 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices

Register) that is expected to lead to the descriptions contained in PCS for pollutant concentrations for wastewater promulgation of a final rule or bleached papergrade kraft and discharges (e.g., what are typical regulation. While EPA does not papergrade sulfite mills (Phase I mills). wastewater volumes and pollutant normally publish plans and priority- EPA identified these pipes and outfalls concentrations of arsenic, beryllium, setting documents such as this as bleach plant effluent, final effluent, lead, mercury, and selenium in ash- preliminary 2006 Plan in the Federal or other type of monitoring location. handling wastewaters). Register, EPA is required by statute to EPA requests that operators of these EPA solicits information on any new do so here. The Order also defines Phase I mills verify EPA’s identification technologies or process changes for flow ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one of their PCS monitoring locations. See or pollutant reduction that might that is likely to result in a rule that may: OW–2004–0032–0046, Appendix A. appropriately serve as the basis for (1) Have an annual effect on the EPA reviewed the information revised effluent guidelines. In economy of $100 million or more or provided by AF&PA and its member particular, EPA solicits comment on adversely affect in a material way the companies regarding the measurement whether facilities are implementing economy, a sector of the economy, techniques used to calculate TRI- pollution prevention, best management productivity, competition, jobs, the reported toxic discharges at 19 practices, or other operational changes environment, public health or safety, or individual Phase I mills. EPA requests (e.g., flow reduction technology) to State, local, or tribal governments or additional details of methods used to reduce wastewater pollutant discharges. communities; estimate releases of toxic pollutant For each practice or technology EPA (2) Create a serious inconsistency or discharges reported to TRI, in particular solicits information on which of these otherwise interfere with an action taken those methods used by Phase II mills are more readily adopted by new or planned by another agency; (mills without bleached papergrade facilities rather than existing facilities. (3) Materially alter the budgetary kraft or papergrade sulfite operations). EPA also solicits comment as to whether impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, Some permits require in-process any other regulatory programs or or loan programs or the rights and monitoring (bleach plant effluent voluntary programs have had or may obligations of recipients thereof; or monitoring) but the permitting authority have any effect on the mass of (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues (state) does not include in-process pollutants discharged by existing steam arising out of legal mandates, the monitoring results in PCS. EPA requests electric facilities to surface waters and President’s priorities, or the principles that operators of bleached papergrade POTWs. set forth in the Executive Order. kraft or papergrade sulfite mills provide EPA notes that process additives in Pursuant to the terms of Executive results of their permit-required (or use in the steam electric power Order 12866, it has been determined other) bleach plant effluent monitoring, generation category have changed over that this is not a ‘‘significant regulatory where these monitoring results are time. Starting in the early 1990s, some action’’ within the meaning of the missing from PCS. power plants began converting from the Executive Order. Consequently, EPA did EPA requests information about non- use of chlorinated compounds to not submitted this notice to OMB for its bleaching sources of toxic wastewater brominated compounds. However, review under Executive Order 12866. pollutants, such as pollutants derived many of these plants report only total from combustion-related activities, residual oxidant (TRO) as part of their IX. Request for Comment and spent pulping liquor from unbleached NPDES permit requirements. EPA Information kraft mills, and papermachine additives solicits information on the amount and EPA invites and encourages public and coatings. type of brominated compounds participation in the development of the EPA requests examples (case studies) discharged from this industry. effluent guidelines annual reviews and of mill process changes implemented in EPA also solicits comment regarding the biennial Plans. The Agency asks that response to the cluster rules, including electric power generation facilities that comments address deficiencies in the the wastewater pollution reduction use prime movers other than steam docket of this preliminary Plan and that benefits of installing BAT and using turbines (e.g., gas turbines). Specifically, commenters provide supporting data for BMPs for the control of spent pulping EPA solicits comments on: (1) The suggested revisions or corrections where liquor losses. wastewater volumes and pollutant possible. concentrations of these discharges; (2) Steam Electric Power Generation (Part the similarities and differences of the A. Detailed Studies 423) discharge characteristics as compared to EPA requests information on the EPA is investigating various types of steam electric facilities regulated by Part industries for which it is conducting wastewater discharges by steam electric 423; (3) current pollution prevention detailed studies: Pulp, Paper, and utility and non-utility facilities and treatment options for these Paperboard (Part 430); Steam Electric including: Cooling water, ash-handling discharges and estimates of which Power Generation (Part 423); and wastes, coal pile drainage, water pollution prevention and treatment Tobacco Products (SIC 21). As discussed treatment wastes, boiler blowdown, wet options are most widely used in this above, the Agency has identified two of air pollution control device wastes, industry sector; and (4) whether EPA these categories through its annual maintenance cleaning wastes, and should amend the applicability of the hazard screening review process (Pulp, miscellaneous waste streams. EPA existing steam electric power generation Paper, and Paperboard and Steam solicits information on these and any effluent guidelines to regulate these Electric Power Generation) and the third other wastewaters that may be discharges. through public comment (Tobacco discharged by steam electric utility and Similarly, EPA is also soliciting Products). EPA hopes to gather the non-utility facilities. In particular, EPA information related to these four following information. solicits information on the pollution questions in order to better evaluate the prevention, management, and treatment discharges from: (1) The non-utility Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Part 430) for these wastewaters (e.g., how many electric power generation sector and In order to evaluate the facilities discharge coal pile runoff to non-conventional renewable and other implementation of the Cluster Rules, ash ponds for further treatment) and the fuel sources sector (e.g., facilities using EPA reviewed pipe and outfall typical wastewater volumes and wood, wood wastes, non-wood wastes,

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 51059

refuse, geothermal and solar as the for a more detailed discussion of EPA’s to evaluate the costs, benefits, and energy sources to fuel steam turbines); analysis supporting the reviews in this impacts of water conservation practices and (2) facilities using combined-cycle, notice (see OW–2004–0032–0017). advocated by commenters. EPA also combustion turbine, and integrated solicits comment on whether the D. BPJ Permit-Based Support gasification combined-cycle technology. commenters’ suggestion could have a EPA solicits comments on whether, broader application to other industrial Tobacco Products (SIC 21) and if so how, the Agency should categories with flow-normalized mass- EPA solicits information and data on provide EPA Regions and States with based NPDES permit limits. the number and identity of tobacco permit-based support instead of revising In particular, EPA requests paired products processing facilities that effluent guidelines (e.g., when the vast influent and effluent regulated pollutant discharge to surface waters and POTWs. majority of the hazard is associated with concentration and flow data where EPA solicits information and data on the one or a few facilities). available, before and after volume and characteristics of tobacco implementation of the increased water E. Identification of New Industrial products processing discharges to conservation technologies and practices, Categories surface waters and POTWs. EPA solicits to determine wastewater treatment information and data on the fate and EPA solicits comment on the performance (i.e., percent pollutant affects of nicotine discharges to waters methodology for grouping industrial removals) and the discharged effluent of the U.S. EPA solicits information and sectors currently not subject to effluent pollutant concentrations for OCPSF data on the treatment effectiveness of guidelines or pretreatment standards for (and other) facilities that they believe POTWs in removing nicotine from review and prioritization, and the may or may not have adversely tobacco products processing factors and measures EPA should impacted their ability to achieve wastewaters. consider for determining whether to existing effluent guidelines. EPA also Based on information collected to identify such industries for a solicits other data on these water re-use date, EPA believes non-cigarette related rulemaking. EPA solicits comment on and reduction technologies and tobacco products processing (such as other data sources and approaches EPA pollution prevention practices which the manufacture of cigars, smokeless can use to identify industrial sectors may include: tobacco products, and tobacco stemming currently not subject to effluent • The main reasons why these and redrying) generate and discharge guidelines or pretreatment standards for technologies and practices were little or no wastewater (in terms of review and prioritization. adopted, and whether these technologies and practices are volumes and toxic and/or non- F. Implementation Issues Related to conventional pollutant mass) to waters transferrable to other facilities. Existing Effluent Guidelines and • Detailed process flow diagrams of the U.S. EPA solicits data to support Pretreatment Standards or refute this assertion. including wastewater flows from each As a factor in its decision-making, industrial unit operation; typical B. EPA Requests Information on the EPA considers opportunities to pollutant concentration wastewater data Industries Recommended for a eliminate inefficiencies or impediments from each industrial unit operation; Preliminary Category Review to pollution prevention or technological descriptions of the water conservation EPA requests information on the innovation, or opportunities to promote technologies and practices employed at industries for which there are innovative approaches such as water each of these industrial unit operations; incomplete data available for analysis quality trading, including within-plant and data and descriptions on whether (i.e., industrial point source categories trading. Consequently, EPA solicits these water conservation technologies with existing effluent guidelines comment on implementation issues and practices reduce the amount of identified with ‘‘(5)’’ in the column related to existing effluent guidelines wastewater volume or the mass of entitled ‘‘Findings’’ in Table V–1). EPA and pretreatment standards. EPA also wastewater pollutants resulting from an will need to collect more information solicits comment on these proposed industrial unit operation or both. • for the next biennial plan. Specifically, schedules for current effluent guidelines Detailed descriptions of the EPA hopes to gather the following rulemakings (see OW–2004–0032– wastewater treatment and the annual information: 0042). costs of operating wastewater treatment • What toxic pollutants are to maintain compliance with the G. EPA Solicits Comment on effluent guidelines. Detailed discharged from these industries in non- Implementation Issues Related to the trivial amounts on an industry and per- descriptions of the capital and annual Use of Flow Normalized Mass-Based costs associated with implementing facility basis? Permit Limits and Their Potential • What raw material(s) or process(es) water conservation technologies and Impact on the Adoption of Water practices and any cost savings resulting are the sources of these pollutants? Conservation Technologies • What technologies or management from water conservation technologies practices are available (technically and EPA solicits comment on the and practices. economically) to control or prevent the suggested revisions to the OCPSF Additionally, EPA solicits estimates generation and/or release of these effluent guidelines raised by of the amount of increased water pollutants. commenters. See section V.B.3.a. In conservation and the number of particular, EPA requests comment on facilities that would adopt more C. Data Sources and Methodologies the likely advantages and disadvantages advanced water conservation EPA solicits comments on whether of the commenters’ suggestion (i.e., technologies and practices as a sole EPA used the correct evaluation factors, allowing NPDES permittees to keep result of: (1) Implementing the criteria, and data sources in conducting flow-normalized mass-based permit commenters’ suggestion; or (2) other its annual review and developing this limits established at the beginning of the factors (e.g., limitations on water source preliminary Plan. EPA also solicits prior permit term before possible water availability, potential costs savings). comment on other data sources EPA can re-use and reduction technologies and EPA would be particularly interested in use in its annual reviews and biennial pollution prevention practices may have specific, detailed examples of situations planning process. Please see the docket been implemented). EPA requests data where the adoption of water

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1 51060 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices

conservation technologies and practices addressed through improved Dated: August 19, 2005. have or have not made the achievement standardization of the SBF analytical Michael Shapiro, of new flow-normalized mass-based methods in order to reduce variability Acting Assistant Administrator for Water. permit limits based on the reduced rather than the commenter’s suggested [FR Doc. 05–17032 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] wastewater flow more difficult for both revisions to the effluent guidelines. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P direct and indirect dischargers. EPA solicits comment on how and when I. EPA Solicits Comment on the Draft NPDES permit writers are calculating Strategy ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION flow-normalized mass-based permit AGENCY limits when facilities reduce their In connection with the final 2006 wastewater flow. EPA solicits comment Plan, EPA intends to finalize the draft [FRL–7961–8] on whether the commenters’ suggestion Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations (‘‘draft Strategy’’). Proposed CERCLA Administrative is more or less relevant to certain Agreement; Circuitron Corporation See 67 FR 71165 (November 29, 2002). industries, treatment technologies, or Superfund Site, East Farmingdale, EPA again solicits public comment on pollutants. If EPA were to address the Suffolk County, NY commenters’ suggestion, should any the draft Strategy. This will allow time rule or guidance changes be limited to for EPA to better refine the Strategy as AGENCY: Environmental Protection one or a few industries (e.g., OCPSF) or it performs future effluent guidelines Agency (EPA). more broadly applicable. EPA solicits reviews. In particular, EPA requests ACTION: Notice; request for public comment on whether there are comments on its proposed use of the comment. differences between direct and indirect four factors described in the draft SUMMARY: In accordance with the dischargers that might suggest that Strategy (see section V.A.2) and invites different approaches are warranted. Agency’s May 24, 1995, ‘‘Guidance on the public to identify other or different Agreements with Prospective Comments and data provided to EPA factors for EPA’s consideration. will be evaluated in the context of the Purchasers of Contaminated Property,’’ CWA factors required for consideration The Agency is also interested to notice is hereby given of a proposed of effluent guidelines. Were EPA to receive comments on whether each of prospective purchaser agreement make any effluent guidelines revisions, these four factors should be ranked, and (‘‘PPA’’) with the United States they would need to be supported by an if so, whether different weights should Environmental Protection Agency; administrative record following an be applied to each. EPA also requests Suffolk County, New York; the State of opportunity for public comment based suggestions as to the information the New York; and an as-of-yet unnamed on available data. Agency should use to prioritize ‘‘Auction Purchaser’’ regarding a 0.9- industrial categories that pass both the acre parcel of real property (the H. EPA Solicits Comment on ‘‘Property’’) included within the Implementation Issues Related to the primary and secondary screening reviews described in the draft Strategy. Circuitron Corporation Superfund Site, Analytical Methods for Synthetic-Based located at 82 Milbar Boulevard in East Drilling Fluids (SBF) in the Oil and Gas J. EPA’s Evaluation of Categories of Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York Extraction Point Source Category (40 Indirect Dischargers Without (the ‘‘Site’’). Under the PPA, Suffolk CFR Part 435) Categorical Pretreatment Standards To County would market the Property at EPA solicits comment on the Identify Potential New Categories for auction, with a portion of the proceeds suggested revisions to the Oil and Gas Pretreatment Standards to be paid to EPA in reimbursement of Extraction effluent guidelines (40 CFR response costs it incurred at the Site. Part 435) raised by commenters. See EPA solicits comments on its Also under the PPA, the United States section V.B.3.b. In particular, EPA evaluation of categories of indirect and the State would covenant not to sue solicits comment on whether EPA dischargers without categorical or take administrative action against should propose a rulemaking to replace pretreatment standards. Specifically, Suffolk County and its departments and the synthetic-based drilling fluids (SBF) EPA solicits wastewater characterization agencies, and the Auction Purchaser, analytic methods in the Oil and Gas data (e.g., wastewater volumes, under Sections 106 or 107(a) of the Extraction effluent guidelines with the concentrations of discharged Comprehensive Environmental SBF analytical methods from the EPA pollutants), current examples of Response, Compensation, and Liability Region 6 general permit for the ‘‘Outer pollution prevention, treatment Act of 1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’). Continental Shelf of the Gulf of technologies, and local limits for all EPA also agrees to release the CERCLA Mexico,’’ NPDES Permit No: industries EPA evaluated: Food Service Section 107(l) lien against the Property, GMG290000 (see OW–2004–0032– Establishments; Industrial Laundries; and waive any lien or right to perfect 0047). EPA also solicits comment on the any lien it may have on the Property Photoprocessing; Printing and number, geographic distribution, and now and in the future under Section Publishing; Independent and Stand types of wells (e.g., oil or gas extraction, 107(r) of CERCLA. By publication of this exploration or development, deepwater Alone Laboratories; Industrial Container Notice, a thirty (30) day period has been or shallow water, likely bottom depth of and Drum Cleaning; and Health Services established in which the Agency will well) with down-hole temperatures Industry. EPA solicits comment on the accept written comments relating to the above the practical limitations of ester- grouping of six industrial sectors into PPA agreement. The Agency will based drilling fluids (i.e., above 350 °F). the Health Services Industry grouping consider all comments received and EPA also solicits comment on whether (see OW–2004–0032–0038). EPA also may modify or withdraw its consent to drilling fluid additives (e.g., emulsifiers) solicits comment on whether there are the PPA if comments received disclose can address the effects of high industrial sectors discharging pollutants facts or considerations which indicate temperatures on ester-based drilling that cause interference issues that that the agreement is inappropriate, fluids. Finally, EPA solicits comments cannot be adequately controlled through improper, or inadequate. The Agency’s on whether the issues raised by the general pretreatment standards. response to any comments received will commenters are more appropriately be available for public inspection at the

VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:17 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM 29AUN1