Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, 51042-51060 [05-17032]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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


Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2006 Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 51043]]

form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, 
EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water 
Docket is (202) 566-2426.
    Public Meeting: EPA will hold an informational public meeting for 
interested stakeholders in the EPA East Building, Room 1153 (also known 
as the ``Great Room'' or the ``Map Room''), 1201 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC. For more information on the details and location 
of the public meeting, see section I.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-
1014 or johnston.carey@epa.gov, or Ms. Jan Matuszko at (202) 566-1035 
or matuszko.jan@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Is This Document Organized?

    The outline of today's notice follows:

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

I. General Information

A. Regulated Entities

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

B. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information?

1. Docket
    EPA has established an official public docket for the Agency's 2005 
and 2006 annual reviews of existing effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards under CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 
307(b), and the 2006 Plan under CWA section 304(m) under Docket ID No. 
OW-2004-0032. EPA has established an official public docket for the 
Agency's draft Strategy under Docket ID No. OW-2002-0020. The official 
public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this 
action, any public comments received, and other information related to 
this action. Although a part of the official docket, Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute is not included in the materials available to the 
public. The official public docket is the collection of materials that 
is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-
2426.
2. Electronic Access
    You may access this Federal Register document electronically 
through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at 
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public 
docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment 
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at https://www.epa.gov/
edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the 
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents 
in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not 
all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still 
access any of the publicly available docket materials through the 
docket facility identified in section I.B.1. Once in the system, select 
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

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

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

[[Page 51044]]

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

II. Legal Authority

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

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

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

IV. Background

A. What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?

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

[[Page 51045]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 51046]]

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

[[Page 51047]]

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

[[Page 51048]]

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

[[Page 51049]]

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

[[Page 51050]]

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

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

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