Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, 61335-61355 [E7-21310]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61335-61355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21310]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771; FRL-8486-3]
RIN 2040-AE89


Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan.

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

SUMMARY: EPA establishes national, technology-based regulations known 
as effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards to reduce pollutant 
discharges from categories of industry discharging directly to waters 
of the United States or discharging indirectly through Publicly Owned 
Treatment Works (POTWs). The Clean Water Act (CWA) sections 301(d), 
304(b), 304(g), and 307(b) require EPA to annually review these 
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. This notice presents 
EPA's 2007 review of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment 
standards. It also presents EPA's evaluation of indirect dischargers 
without categorical pretreatment standards to identify potential new 
categories for pretreatment standards under CWA sections 304(g) and 
307(b). This notice also presents the Preliminary 2008 Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan (``preliminary 2008 Plan''), which, as required 
under CWA section 304(m), identifies any new or existing industrial 
categories selected for effluent guidelines rulemaking and provides a 
schedule for such rulemaking. CWA section 304(m) requires EPA to 
biennially publish such a plan after public notice and comment. EPA is 
soliciting comment on its preliminary 2008 Plan and on its 2007 annual 
review of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards and 
industrial categories not currently regulated by effluent guidelines 
and pretreatment standards.

DATES: If you wish to comment on any portion of this notice, EPA must 
receive your comments by December 31, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, data and information for the 2007 
annual review of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment 
standards and the preliminary 2008 Plan, identified by Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771, by one of the following methods:
    (1) www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    (2) E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0771.
    (3) Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 
4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771. Please include a total of 3 copies.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 
Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be 
made.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
0771. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you

[[Page 61336]]

consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The federal regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
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 you send an e-mail comment directly to 
EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the index at 
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is 
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 
at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading 
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket 
is (202) 566-2426.
    The following key document provides additional information about 
EPA's annual reviews and the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan: ``Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan,'' EPA-821R-07-007, DCN 04247, October 
2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-
1014 or johnston.carey@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

How is this document organized?

    The outline of this notice follows.

I. General Information
II. Legal Authority
III. What is the Purpose of This Federal Register Notice?
IV. Background
V. EPA's 2007 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 
and 307(b)
VI. EPA's 2008 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 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan Under 
Section 304(m)
IX. Request for Comment and Information

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

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

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

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

II. Legal Authority

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

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

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

IV. Background

A. What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?

    The CWA directs EPA to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards (``effluent guidelines'') that reflect pollutant 
reductions that can be achieved by categories or subcategories of 
industrial point sources using technologies that represent the 
appropriate level of control. See CWA sections 301(b)(2), 304(b), 306, 
307(b), and 307(c). For point sources that introduce pollutants 
directly into the waters of the United States (direct dischargers), the 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated

[[Page 61337]]

by EPA are implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permits. See CWA sections 301(a), 301(b), and 402. For 
sources that discharge to POTWs (indirect dischargers), EPA promulgates 
pretreatment standards that apply directly to those sources and are 
enforced by POTWs and State and Federal authorities. See CWA sections 
307(b) and (c).
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--CWA 
Sections 301(b)(1)(A) & 304(b)(1)
    EPA defines Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available 
(BPT) effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and non-
conventional pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as 
conventional pollutants: Biochemical oxygen demand (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 (44 FR 44501). EPA has identified 65 
pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic pollutants, of which 126 
specific substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants. See 
Appendix A to part 423. All other pollutants are considered to be non-
conventional.
    In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first 
considers the total cost of applying the control technology in relation 
to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age 
of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed, and any 
required process changes, engineering aspects of the control 
technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy 
requirements), and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems 
appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA 
establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best 
performance 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 
are 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) 
and (F). The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of 
achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities 
involved, the process employed, potential process changes, non-water 
quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements, and other 
such factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA 
section 304(b)(2)(B). The technology must also be economically 
achievable. See CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). The Agency retains 
considerable discretion in assigning the weight accorded to these 
factors. BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable 
through changes in a facility's processes and operations. Where 
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher 
level of performance than is currently being achieved within a 
particular subcategory based on technology transferred from a different 
subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process changes or 
internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry 
practice.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--CWA Section 306
    New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reflect effluent reductions 
that are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control 
technology. New sources have the opportunity to install the best and 
most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment 
technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent 
controls attainable through the application of the best available 
demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, 
non-conventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA 
is directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the 
effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and 
energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--CWA Section 
307(b)
    Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) are designed to 
prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, 
or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly-owned 
treatment works (POTWs), including sludge disposal methods at POTWs. 
Pretreatment standards for existing sources are technology-based and 
are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
    The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework 
for the implementation of national pretreatment standards, are found at 
40 CFR part 403.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--CWA Section 307(c)
    Like PSES, Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) are 
designed to prevent the discharges of pollutants that pass through, 
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of 
POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as NSPS. New indirect 
dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate into their facilities 
the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the 
same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

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

1. EPA's Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections 301(d), 304(b), 
and 304(m)--Direct Dischargers
    Section 304(b) requires EPA to review its existing effluent 
guidelines for direct dischargers each year and to revise such 
regulations ``if appropriate.'' Section 304(m) supplements the core 
requirement of section 304(b) by requiring EPA to publish a plan every 
two years announcing its schedule for performing this annual review and 
its schedule for rulemaking for any effluent guidelines selected for 
possible revision as a result of that annual review. Section 304(m) 
also requires the plan to identify categories of sources discharging 
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

[[Page 61338]]

Leg. Hist. 31 (indicating that section 304(m)(1)(B) applies to ``non-
trivial discharges.''). Finally, under section 304(m), the plan must 
present a schedule for promulgating effluent guidelines for industrial 
categories for which it has not already established such guidelines, 
providing for final action on such rulemaking not later than three 
years after the industrial category is identified in a final Plan.\1\ 
See CWA section 304(m)(1)(C). EPA is required to publish its 
preliminary Plan for public comment prior to taking final action on the 
plan. See CWA section 304(m)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In addition, CWA section 301(d) requires EPA to review every five 
years the effluent limitations required by CWA section 301(b)(2) and to 
revise them if appropriate pursuant to the procedures specified in that 
section. Section 301(b)(2), in turn, requires point sources to achieve 
effluent limitations reflecting the application of the best 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 sections 301(d) and 304(b) 
simultaneously.
2. EPA's Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections 304(g) and 
307(b)--Indirect Dischargers
    Section 307(b) requires EPA to revise its pretreatment standards 
for indirect dischargers ``from time to time, as control technology, 
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives change.'' See CWA 
section 307(b)(2). Section 304(g) requires EPA to annually review these 
pretreatment standards and revise them ``if appropriate.'' (Although 
section 307(b) only requires EPA to revise existing pretreatment 
standards ``from time to time,'' section 304(g) requires an annual 
review. Therefore, EPA meets its 304(g) and 307(b) requirements by 
reviewing all industrial categories subject to existing categorical 
pretreatment standards on an annual basis to identify potential 
candidates for revision.
    Section 307(b)(1) also requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for pollutants not susceptible to treatment by POTWs or that 
would interfere with the operation of POTWs, although it does not 
provide a timing requirement for the promulgation of such new 
pretreatment standards. EPA, in its discretion, periodically evaluates 
indirect dischargers not subject to categorical pretreatment standards 
to identify potential candidates for new 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 2008 annual 
pretreatment standards review in the notice containing the Agency's 
2008 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and the final 2008 
Plan). EPA intends that these contemporaneous reviews will provide 
meaningful insight into EPA's effluent guidelines and pretreatment 
standards program decision-making. Additionally, by providing a single 
notice for these and future reviews, EPA hopes to provide a 
consolidated source of information for the Agency's current and future 
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards program reviews.

V. EPA's 2007 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. Overview
    In its 2007 annual review, EPA reviewed all industrial categories 
subject to existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment 
standards, representing a total of 56 point source categories and over 
450 subcategories. This review consisted of a screening level review of 
all existing industrial categories based on the hazard associated with 
discharges from each category and other factors identified by EPA as 
appropriate for prioritizing effluent guidelines and pretreatment 
standards for possible revision. EPA used this review to confirm the 
identification of the four industrial categories prioritized for 
further review in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 
(December 21, 2006; 71 FR 76644) and to list the industrial categories 
currently regulated by existing effluent guidelines that cumulatively 
comprise 95% of the reported hazard (reported in units of toxic-
weighted pound equivalent or TWPE).
    As reported in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 
(December 21, 2006; 71 FR 76644), EPA also continued or began work on 
four detailed studies as part of the 2007 annual review: Steam Electric 
Power Generating (Part 423), Coal Mining (Part 434), Oil and Gas 
Extraction (Part 435) (only to assess whether to include coalbed 
methane extraction as a new subcategory), and Hospitals (Part 460).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Together, these reviews discharged EPA's 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).
    Based on this review and prior annual reviews, and in light of the 
ongoing effluent guidelines rulemakings and detailed studies currently 
in progress, EPA is not identifying any existing categories for 
effluent guidelines rulemaking at this time.
2. How did EPA's 2006 annual review influence its 2007 annual review of 
point source categories with existing effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards?
    In view of the annual nature of its reviews of existing effluent 
guidelines and pretreatment standards, EPA believes that each annual 
review can and should influence succeeding annual reviews, e.g., by 
indicating data gaps, identifying new pollutants or pollution reduction 
technologies, or otherwise highlighting industrial categories for 
additional scrutiny in subsequent years. For example, during its 2005 
and 2006

[[Page 61339]]

annual reviews EPA started a detailed study of the Steam Electric Power 
Generating (Part 423) category. At the conclusion of the 2006 annual 
review EPA indicated that it would continue the detailed study of the 
Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423) category and begin detailed 
studies for the following three industrial categories: Coal Mining 
(Part 434), Oil and Gas Extraction (Part 435) (only to assess whether 
to include coalbed methane extraction as a new subcategory); and 
Hospitals (Part 460) (which is part of the Health Services Industry 
detailed study). In addition, EPA identified two other industrial 
categories, Ore Mining and Dressing (Part 440) and Textile Mills (Part 
410), at the conclusion of the 2006 annual review as candidates for 
``preliminary category reviews'' in the 2007 review based on the toxic 
discharges reported to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and Permit 
Compliance System (PCS). These are categories for which EPA lacks 
sufficient data to determine whether revision would be appropriate and 
for which EPA is performing a further assessment of pollutant 
discharges before starting a detailed study. This assessment provides 
an additional level of quality assurance on the reported pollutant 
discharges and number of facilities that represent the majority of 
toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA published the findings from 
its 2006 annual review with its final 2006 Plan (December 21, 2006; 71 
FR 76644), making the data collected available for public comment. 
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032. EPA used the findings, data and 
comments on the 2006 annual review to inform its 2007 annual review. 
The 2007 review also built on the previous reviews by continuing to use 
the screening methodology, incorporating some refinements to assigning 
discharges to categories and updating toxic weighting factors used to 
estimate potential hazards of toxic pollutant discharges.
3. What actions did EPA take in performing its 2007 annual reviews of 
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards?
a. Screening-Level Review
    The first component of EPA's 2007 annual review consisted of a 
screening-level review of all industrial categories subject to existing 
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards. As a starting point for 
this review, EPA examined screening-level data from its 2007 annual 
reviews. In its 2007 annual reviews, EPA focused its efforts on 
collecting and analyzing data to identify industrial categories whose 
pollutant discharges potentially 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 TRI and 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 or 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, which EPA then uses as its 
estimate of the hazard posed by these toxic and non-conventional 
pollutant discharges to human health or the environment. For the 2007 
annual reviews, EPA used the most recent PCS and TRI data (2004). The 
full description of EPA's methodology for the 2007 screening-level 
review is presented in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 
preliminary 2008 Plan (see DCN 04247) and in the Docket (see EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0771) accompanying this notice.
    EPA is continuously investigating and solicits comment on how to 
improve its analyses. In particular, EPA recently conducted a peer 
review of the TWF methodology and the Agency's use of TWFs in effluent 
guidelines program planning. An independent panel of scientific experts 
was asked to provide comment on the appropriateness of the TWF 
calculations and the quality and hierarchy of the data used in 
developing individual TWFs. EPA is currently in the process of 
reviewing and responding to the peer reviewer's comments. EPA is also 
in the process of updating the following document, Draft Toxic 
Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA 304(m) Planning Process, 
EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1634, to address some of the peer reviewers 
concerns. EPA plans to release the peer review report with the Agency's 
response as soon as it's completed, but no later than when the final 
2008 304(m) Plan is released. EPA also is exploring how best to 
communicate the uncertainty inherent with incomplete data regarding 
individual TWFs. EPA will continue to update individual TWFs as new 
information becomes available.
    EPA also developed a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) for its 
use of TRI and PCS data in the 2007 annual review 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 DCN 04422). 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 2004 
discharge data reported to TRI and 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, correct TRI and PCS data for facilities that EPA had 
identified in its screening-level review as the significant dischargers 
of nutrients and of toxic and non-conventional pollution.
    Based on this methodology, EPA prioritized for potential revision 
industrial categories 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 section V.B.4 
of today's notice).
    In order to further focus its inquiry during the 2007 annual 
review, EPA assigned a lower priority for potential revision to 
categories for which effluent guidelines had been recently promulgated 
or revised, or for which effluent guidelines rulemaking was currently 
underway (i.e., industrial categories marked ``(1)'' in the 
``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of today's notice). 
For example, EPA excluded facilities that are associated with the 
Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon (CCH) Manufacturing effluent 
guidelines rulemaking (formerly known as the ``Vinyl Chloride and 
Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing'' effluent guidelines rulemaking) currently 
underway from its 2006 hazard assessment of the Organic Chemicals, 
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) and Inorganic Chemicals point 
source categories to which CCH facilities 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

[[Page 61340]]

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 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 industrial activity 
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 2007 annual review.
    EPA also applied a lower priority for potential revision at this 
time to categories for which EPA lacked sufficient data to determine 
whether revision would be appropriate. For industrial categories marked 
``(5)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of 
today's notice, EPA lacks sufficient information at this time on the 
magnitude of the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges associated with 
these categories. EPA will seek additional information on the 
discharges from these categories in the next annual review in order to 
determine whether a detailed study is warranted. EPA typically performs 
a further assessment of the pollutant discharges before starting a 
detailed study of an industrial category. This assessment 
(``preliminary category review'') provides an additional level of 
quality assurance on the reported pollutant discharges and number of 
facilities that represent the majority of toxic-weighted pollutant 
discharges. See the appropriate section in the TSD for the preliminary 
2008 Plan (DCN 04247) for EPA's data needs for these industrial 
categories.
    For industrial categories marked ``(4)'' in the ``Findings'' column 
in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of today's notice, EPA had sufficient 
information on the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges associated with 
these categories to start or continue a detailed study of these 
industrial categories in the 2007 annual review. EPA intends to use the 
detailed study to obtain information on hazard, availability and cost 
of technology options, and other factors in order to determine if it 
would be appropriate to identify the category for possible effluent 
guidelines revision. In the 2007 annual review, EPA began or continued 
detailed studies of four such categories.
    As part of its 2007 annual review, EPA also considered the number 
of facilities responsible for the majority of the estimated toxic-
weighted pollutant discharges associated with an industrial activity. 
Where only a few facilities in a category accounted for the vast 
majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges (i.e., categories 
marked ``(2)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 
of today's notice), EPA applied a lower priority for potential 
revision. EPA believes that revision of individual permits for such 
facilities may be more effective than a revised national effluent 
guidelines rulemaking. Individual permit requirements can be better 
tailored to these few facilities and may take considerably less time 
and resources to establish than a national effluent guidelines 
rulemaking. The Docket accompanying this notice lists facilities that 
account for the vast majority of the estimated toxic-weighted pollutant 
discharges for particular categories (see DCN 04247). For these 
facilities, EPA will consider identifying pollutant control and 
pollution prevention technologies that will assist permit writers in 
developing facility-specific, technology-based effluent limitations on 
a best professional judgment (BPJ) basis. For example, EPA developed 
and distributed a 2007 technical document to NPDES permit writers in 
order to support the development of effluent limitations for facilities 
in the dissolving kraft (Subpart A) and dissolving sulfite (Subpart D) 
subcategories of the pulp and paper point source category (40 CFR Part 
430) (see DCN 04167). As of the beginning of 2006, there were four 
affected facilities in these two subcategories, two in Florida and one 
each in Georgia and Washington. EPA indicated in the final 2006 Plan 
(see December 21, 2006; 71 FR 76651-76652) that it would provide 
support to permit writers in establishing facility-specific effluent 
limits for these subcategories based on their Best Professional 
Judgment (BPJ) in lieu of finalizing its 1993 effluent guidelines 
rulemaking (see December 17, 1993; 58 FR 44078). In future annual 
reviews, EPA also intends to re-evaluate each category based on the 
information available at the time in order to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the BPJ permit-based support.
    EPA received comments in previous biennial planning cycles urging 
the Agency to encourage and recognize voluntary efforts by industry to 
reduce pollutant discharges, especially when the voluntary efforts have 
been widely adopted within an industry and the associated pollutant 
reductions have been significant. EPA agrees that industrial categories 
demonstrating significant progress through voluntary efforts to reduce 
hazard to human health or the environment associated with their 
effluent discharges would be a comparatively lower priority for 
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards revision, particularly 
where such reductions are achieved by a significant majority of 
individual facilities in the industry. Although during this annual 
review EPA could not complete a systematic review of voluntary 
pollutant loading reductions, EPA's review did indirectly account for 
the effects of successful voluntary programs because any significant 
reductions in pollutant discharges should be reflected in discharge 
monitoring and TRI data, as well as any data provided directly by 
commenters, that EPA used to assess the toxic-weighted pollutant 
discharges.
    As was the case in previous annual reviews, 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 is useful 
for assessing the effectiveness of existing technologies because it 
focuses on the amount and significance of pollutants that are still 
discharged following existing treatment. Therefore, by assessing the 
hazard associated with discharges from all existing categories in its 
screening-level review, EPA was indirectly able to assess the 
possibility that further significant reductions could be achieved 
through new pollution control technologies for these categories. In 
addition, EPA directly assessed the availability of technologies for 
certain industries that were prioritized for a more in-depth review as 
a result of the screening level analysis. See DCN 04247.

[[Page 61341]]

    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 readily available economic data. In the 
past, EPA has gathered information regarding technologies and economic 
achievability through detailed questionnaires distributed to hundreds 
of facilities within a category or subcategory for which EPA has 
commenced rulemaking. Such information-gathering is subject to the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 33 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq. The information acquired in this way is valuable to EPA in its 
rulemaking efforts, but the process of gathering, validating and 
analyzing the data can consume considerable time and resources. EPA 
does not think it appropriate to conduct this level of analysis for all 
point source categories in conducting an annual review. Rather, EPA 
believes it is appropriate to set priorities based on hazard and other 
screening-level factors identified above, and to directly consider the 
availability and affordability of technology only in conducting the 
more in-depth reviews of prioritized categories. For these prioritized 
categories, EPA may conduct surveys or other PRA-governed data 
collection activities in order to better inform the decision on whether 
effluent guidelines are warranted. Additionally, EPA is working to 
develop tools for directly assessing technological and economic 
achievability as part of the screening-level review in future annual 
reviews under section 301(d), 304(b), and 307(b) (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-
0032-2344). 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, through its screening level review, EPA focused on 
those point source categories that appeared to offer the greatest 
potential for reducing hazard to human health or the environment, 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. This enabled EPA to concentrate its resources on 
conducting more in-depth reviews of certain industries prioritized as a 
result of the screening level analysis, as discussed below (see section 
V.A.3.b and c).
b. Further Review of Prioritized Categories
    In the publication of the final 2006 Plan EPA identified two 
additional categories with potentially high TWPE discharge estimates 
for further investigation (``preliminary category review'') in the 2007 
annual review: Ore Mining and Dressing (Part 440) and Textile Mills 
(Part 410) (i.e., EPA identified these categories with ``(5)'' in the 
column entitled ``Findings'' in Table V-1, Page 76657 of the final 2006 
Plan). From its 2007 annual review, EPA is identifying the Centralized 
Waste Treatment (Part 437) and Waste Combustors (Part 444) categories 
for preliminary category reviews in the 2008 annual review.
    In conducting these preliminary category reviews EPA uses the same 
types of data sources used for the detailed studies but in less depth. 
EPA typically performs a further assessment of the pollutant discharges 
before starting a detailed study of an industrial category. This 
assessment provides an additional level of quality assurance on the 
reported pollutant discharges and number of facilities that represent 
the majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA may also 
develop a preliminary list of potential wastewater pollutant control 
technologies before conducting a detailed study. EPA is not conducting 
a detailed study for these categories at this time because EPA needs 
additional information regarding these industries to determine whether 
a detailed study is warranted.
c. Detailed Study of Four Categories
    In addition to conducting a screening-level review of all existing 
categories, EPA started or continued detailed studies of four 
categories: Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423), Coal Mining 
(Part 434), Oil and Gas Extraction (Part 435) (only to assess whether 
to include coalbed methane extraction as a new subcategory), and 
Hospitals (Part 460) (which is part of the Health Services Industry 
detailed study). For these industries, EPA gathered and analyzed 
additional data on pollutant discharges, economic factors, and 
technology issues during its 2007 annual review. EPA examined: (1) 
Wastewater characteristics and pollutant sources; (2) the pollutants 
discharged from these sources and the toxic weights associated with 
these discharges; (3) treatment technology and pollution prevention 
information; (4) the geographic distribution of facilities in the 
industry; (5) any pollutant discharge trends within the industry; and 
(6) any relevant economic factors.
    EPA is relying on many different sources of data including: (1) The 
2002 U.S. Economic Census; (2) TRI and PCS data; (3) contacts with 
reporting facilities to verify reported releases and facility 
categorization; (4) contacts with regulatory authorities (states and 
EPA regions) to understand how category facilities are permitted; (5) 
NPDES permits and their supporting fact sheets; (6) monitoring data 
included in facility applications for NPDES permit renewals (Form 2C 
data); (7) EPA effluent guidelines technical development documents; (8) 
relevant EPA preliminary data summaries or study reports; (9) technical 
literature on pollutant sources and control technologies; (10) 
information provided by industry including industry conducted survey 
and sampling data; and (11) stakeholder comments (see DCN 04247). 
Additionally, in order to evaluate available and affordable treatment 
technology options for the coalbed methane extraction industry sector, 
EPA intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval prior 
to publication of the final 2008 Plan.
d. Public Comments
    EPA's annual review process considers information provided by 
stakeholders regarding the need for new or revised effluent limitations 
guidelines and pretreatment standards. To that end, EPA established a 
docket for its 2007 annual review at the time of publication of the 
final 2006 Plan to provide the public with an opportunity to submit 
additional information to assist the Agency in its 2007 annual review. 
These public comments are in the supporting docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
0771, www.regulations.gov) and summarized in the TSD for the 
preliminary 2008 Plan (see DCN 04247).

B. What Were EPA's Findings From its 2007 Annual Review for Categories 
Subject to Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?

1. Screening-Level Review
    In its 2007 screening level review, EPA considered hazard--and the 
other factors described in section A.3.a. above--in prioritizing 
effluent guidelines for potential revision. See Table V-1 in section 
V.B.4 of today's notice for a summary of EPA's findings with respect to 
each existing category; see also the TSD for the preliminary 2008 Plan 
(``TSD''). Out of the categories subject only to the screening level 
review in 2007, EPA is not identifying any for effluent guidelines 
rulemaking

[[Page 61342]]

at this time, based on the factors described in section A.3.a above and 
in light of the effluent guidelines rulemakings and detailed studies in 
progress.
    In the 2007 annual review EPA listed the industrial categories 
currently regulated by existing effluent guidelines that cumulatively 
comprise 95% of the reported hazard (reported in units of toxic-
weighted pound equivalent or TWPE). The TSD presents a summary of EPA's 
review of these eleven industrial categories (see DCN 04247).
2. Detailed Studies
    In its 2007 annual review, EPA started or continued detailed 
studies of four industrial point source categories with existing 
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards: Steam Electric Power 
Generating (Part 423), Coal Mining (Part 434), and Oil and Gas 
Extraction (Part 435) (only to assess whether to include coalbed 
methane extraction as a new subcategory), and Hospitals (Part 460) 
(which is part of the Health Services Industry detailed study). EPA is 
investigating whether the pollutant discharges reported to TRI and PCS 
for 2004 accurately reflect the current discharges of the industry. EPA 
is also analyzing the reported pollutant discharges, and technology 
innovation and process changes in these industrial categories. 
Additionally, EPA is considering whether there are industrial 
activities not currently subject to effluent guidelines or pretreatment 
standards that should be included with these existing categories, 
either as part of existing subcategories or as potential new 
subcategories. EPA will use these detailed studies to determine whether 
EPA should identify in the final 2008 Plan (or a future Plan) any of 
these industrial categories for possible revision of their existing 
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. EPA's reviews of three 
of these four categories are described below and its review of 
hospitals is described in section VII.B (Health Services Industry 
detailed study).
a. Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423)
    The Steam Electric Power Generating effluent guidelines (40 CFR 
423) apply to a subset of the electric power industry, namely those 
facilities ``primarily engaged in the generation of electricity for 
distribution and sale which results primarily from a process utilizing 
fossil-type fuel (coal, oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction 
with a thermal cycle employing the steam water system as the 
thermodynamic medium.'' See 40 CFR 423.10. EPA's most recent revisions 
to the effluent guidelines and standards for this category were 
promulgated in 1982 (see November 19, 1982; 47 FR 52290).
    EPA previously found that facilities in the Steam Electric Power 
Generating point source category collectively discharge relatively high 
amounts of toxic pollutants (as measured in toxic-weighted pound 
equivalents (TWPE)). See Tables 5-3 and 5-4 of the TSD for the final 
2006 Plan, EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782, and Section 5.4.4.7 of the TSD for 
the final 2004 Plan, EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1346 through 1351. The 2007 
annual review again identified this category as the second-largest 
discharger of toxic pollutants (see DCN 04247). EPA also determined 
that PCS and TRI data provide an incomplete picture of the wastewaters 
generated by the regulated steam electric industry. For example, EPA 
anticipates greater amounts of nitrogen compounds, selenium, and other 
metals, most of which are not regulated by the effluent guidelines, and 
therefore, may not be reported to TRI or PCS, in steam electric 
wastewaters as a result of the increasing use of air pollution controls 
(see Interim Detailed Study Report for the Steam Electric Power 
Generating Point Source Category, November 2006, EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-
2781). Consequently, EPA focused on supplementing its review of PCS and 
TRI data for this category with additional data collection as described 
below and in the supporting docket (see DCN 04247).
    The detailed study for the Steam Electric Power Generating point 
source category is mainly focused on: (1) Characterizing the mass and 
concentrations of pollutants in wastewater discharges from coal-fired 
steam electric facilities; and (2) identifying the pollutants that 
comprise a significant portion of the category's TWPE discharge 
estimate and the corresponding industrial operation. Waste streams of 
particular interest include cooling water, fly ash and bottom ash 
wastes, coal pile runoff, and discharges from wet air pollution control 
devices [e.g., wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD)]. EPA's previous 
annual reviews have identified that: (1) The TWPE discharge estimate 
for this category is predominantly driven by the metals present in 
wastewater discharges; and (2) the waste streams contributing the 
majority of these metals are associated with ash handling and wet FGD 
systems (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2781). Other potential sources of 
metals include coal pile runoff, metal/chemical cleaning wastes, coal 
washing, and certain low volume wastes. EPA is collecting data for the 
detailed study through facility inspections, wastewater sampling, a 
data request that was sent to a limited number of companies, and 
various secondary data sources (see DCN 04711).
    EPA is conducting wastewater sampling of ash ponds and FGD 
wastewater treatment systems at several steam electric facilities. 
Samples collected are being analyzed for metals and classical 
pollutants, such as total suspended solids and nitrogen. EPA selected 
the plants for sampling based on characteristics and process 
configurations of interest. Factors taken into consideration include 
the type of fuel, type of wet FGD systems in operation, fly ash 
handling practices, nitrogen oxides (NOX) controls (e.g., 
selective catalytic reduction systems), and wastewater treatment 
technologies. See the following document for information about the 
sample collection methodologies, analytes of interest, and laboratory 
analytical methods: ``Generic Sampling and Analysis Plan for Coal-Fired 
Steam Electric Power Plants,'' DCN 04296.
    EPA also collected facility specific information using a data 
request conducted under authority of CWA section 308 (see DCN 04711). 
EPA sent this data request to nine companies that operate a number of 
coal-fired power plants with wet FGD systems. The data request 
complements the wastewater sampling effort as it collects facility-
specific information about wastewaters EPA is not sampling. 
Additionally, the data request collects detailed information about 
wastewater generation rates and management practices for wastewaters 
included in EPA's sampling program. The data request seeks information 
on selected wastewater sources, air pollution controls, wastewater 
management and treatment practices, water reuse/recycle, and treatment 
system capital and operating costs.
b. Coal Mining (Part 434)
    As discussed in the ``Notice of Availability of Final 2006 Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan'' EPA is conducting a detailed study during the 
2007 and 2008 annual reviews to evaluate the merits of comments by 
states, industry, and a public interest group that urged revisions to 
pollutant limitations in the Coal Mining effluent guidelines (40 CFR 
Part 434) (see December 21, 2006; 71 FR 76644-76667). The Interstate 
Mining Compact Commission, which represents mining agencies in 35 
states, together with a few individual state agencies, and a few

[[Page 61343]]

mining companies, asked EPA to remove the current manganese limitations 
and allow permittees to employ best management practices as necessary 
to reduce manganese discharges based on the quality of receiving 
waterbodies.
    The public interest group, the Environmental Law and Policy Center, 
asked EPA to place greater controls on coal mining discharges of 
sulfates, chlorides, mercury, cadmium, manganese, selenium, and other 
unspecified pollutants.
    State and industry commentors cited the following factors in 
support of their comments: (1) New, more stringent coal mining 
reclamation bonding requirements on post-closure discharges; (2) 
evidence that current manganese limitations are more stringent than 
necessary to protect aquatic life; (3) perception that high cost of 
manganese treatment is causing permittees to default on their post-
closure bonds; and (4) perception that treatment with chemical addition 
may complicate permit compliance, especially after a mine is closed. 
The public interest group referenced a study by EPA Region 5 on 
potential adverse impacts of the discharge of sulfates on aquatic life 
(see DCN 2487).
    EPA initiated the Coal Mining Detailed Study in January 2007. The 
study follows the framework presented in the Detailed Study Plan, a 
draft of which the Agency placed into the docket (see DCN 2488) during 
the Fall of 2006. EPA revised and finalized the Detailed Study Plan in 
April 2007 to reflect public comments. The study will evaluate 
treatment technologies, costs, and pollutant discharge loads, as well 
as the effects of manganese and other pollutants on aquatic life. The 
study will also address the question of whether bonds are being 
forfeited because of the cost of manganese treatment by examining 
bonding and trust fund requirements, past bond forfeiture rates, future 
potential bond forfeiture rates, and the issues related to state 
assumption of long-term water treatment responsibilities for mines 
where the bonds have been forfeited. As outlined in the Detailed Study 
Plan, EPA has framed study questions based on public comment, 
identified data sources to help answer the study questions, developed a 
methodology for estimating treatment costs and discharge loads, and 
initiated data collection activities with the Interstate Mining Compact 
Commission, state agencies, and the Office of Surface Mining, 
Reclamation, and Enforcement within the U.S. Department of the 
Interior.
    The Coal Mining Detailed Study consists of several interim products 
which will be summarized in the 2008 final report: An industry 
financial profile which will include information about the types and 
locations of mines, ownership, and revenues; a summary of state and 
federal permitting requirements; a summary of bonding and trust fund 
requirements for control of water discharges from post-mining sites; an 
analysis of bond forfeiture and the consequences for the states; an 
analysis of treatment technologies, costs, and pollutant discharge 
loads; and an environmental summary of the aquatic life effects of 
manganese and other pollutants.
    During 2007, EPA plans to complete data collection, complete the 
industry financial profile, begin analysis of bonding and trust fund 
issues, and begin analysis of treatment costs and discharge loads. 
During 2008, EPA will complete analysis of bonding and trust fund 
issues, complete estimates of treatment costs and discharge loads, 
complete its analysis of bond defaults, complete the summary of 
environmental impacts, and complete the final report.
    EPA will use the results of the Coal Mining Detailed Study, which 
will be summarized in the 2008 annual review, to help decide 
appropriate regulatory steps.
c. Oil and Gas Extraction (Part 435) (Only To Assess Whether To Include 
Coalbed Methane Extraction as a New Subcategory)
    As discussed in the 2006 annual review, EPA is conducting a 
detailed study of the coalbed methane industry to determine whether to 
revise the effluent guidelines for the Oil and Gas Extraction category 
to include limits for this potential new subcategory (see December 21, 
2006; 71 FR 76656). The coalbed methane (CBM) industrial sector is an 
important part of the Nation's domestic source of natural gas. In 2004, 
CBM accounted for about 10.4% of the total U.S. natural gas production 
and is expanding in multiple basins across the Nation. Currently, the 
Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects 
CBM production to remain an important source of domestic natural gas 
over the next few decades. Based on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 
States' projections this will likely involve over 100,000 CBM wells. 
The growth in the CBM industrial sector can be explained by the 
decrease in drilling and transmission costs in getting the CBM to 
market, clarity of gas ownership, and the increase of long-term natural 
gas prices. See Section 6 of the TSD for the final 2006 Plan, EPA-HQ-
OW-2004-0032-2782, December 2006. EPA identified the CBM extraction 
industry as a potential new subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction 
category (40 CFR 435) in the 2006 annual review (see December 21, 2006; 
71 FR 76656).
    Coalbed methane (CBM) extraction requires removal of large amounts 
of water from underground coal seams before CBM can be released. CBM 
wells have a distinctive production history characterized by an early 
stage when large amounts of water are produced to reduce reservoir 
pressure which in turn encourages release of gas; a stable stage when 
quantities of produced gas increase as the quantities of produced water 
decrease; and a late stage when the amount of gas produced declines and 
water production remains low (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1904). The 
quantity and quality of water that is produced in association with CBM 
development will vary from basin to basin, within a particular basin, 
from coal seam to coal seam, and over the lifetime of a CBM well.
    Pollutants often found in these wastewaters include chloride, 
sodium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, barium, magnesium, 
ammonia, and arsenic. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and electrical 
conductivity (EC) are bulk parameters used for quantifying the total 
amount of dissolved solids in a wastewater and that may also be used to 
quantify and control the amount of pollutants in CBM produced waters. 
Equally important in preventing environmental damage is controlling the 
sodicity of the CBM produced waters. Sodicity is often quantified as 
the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), which is expressed as the ratio of 
sodium ions to calcium and magnesium ions, and is an important factor 
in controlling the produced water's suitability for irrigation and its 
potential for degrading soils. All of these parameters can potentially 
affect environmental impacts as well as potential beneficial uses of 
CBM produced water.
    Impacts to surface water from discharges of CBM produced waters can 
be severe depending upon the quality of the CBM produced waters. Saline 
discharges have variable effects depending on the biology of the 
receiving stream. Some waterbodies and watersheds may be able to absorb 
the discharged water while others are sensitive to large amounts of 
low-quality CBM water. For example, large surface waters with 
sufficient dilution capacity or marine waters are less sensitive to 
saline discharges than smaller freshwater surface waters. Discharge of

[[Page 61344]]

these CBM produced waters may also cause erosion and in some cases 
irreversible soil damage from elevated TDS concentrations and SAR 
values. This may limit future agricultural and livestock uses of the 
water and watershed.
    Currently, regulatory controls for CBM produced waters vary from 
State to State and permit to permit (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782, 
2540). There is very limited permit information (e.g., effluent limits, 
restrictions) in PCS and TRI for this industrial sector. Consequently, 
EPA is gathering additional information from State NPDES permit 
programs and industry on the current regulatory controls across the 
different CBM basins.
    EPA indicated in the 2006 annual review that it will need to gather 
more specific information as part of a detailed review of the coalbed 
methane industry in order to determine whether it would be appropriate 
to conduct a rulemaking to potentially revise the effluent guidelines 
for the Oil and Gas Extraction category to include limits for CBM. In 
particular, EPA will need to collect technical, economic, and 
environmental data from a wide range of CBM operations (e.g., 
geographical differences in the characteristics of CBM-produced waters, 
current regulatory controls, potential environmental impacts, 
availability and affordability of treatment technology options). 
Accordingly, EPA intends to submit an Information Collection Request 
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and 
a