Notice of Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, 53218-53241 [E8-21484]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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


Notice of Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan.

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

[[Page 53219]]

SUMMARY: EPA establishes national technology-based regulations known as 
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards to reduce pollutant 
discharges from categories of industry discharging directly to waters 
of the United States or discharging indirectly through Publicly Owned 
Treatment Works (POTWs). The Clean Water Act (CWA) sections 301(d), 
304(b), 304(g), and 307(b) require EPA to review these effluent 
guidelines and pretreatment standards. This notice presents EPA's 2008 
review of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. It 
also presents EPA's evaluation of indirect dischargers without 
categorical pretreatment standards to identify potential new categories 
for pretreatment standards under CWA sections 304(g) and 307(b). This 
notice also presents the final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 
(``final 2008 Plan''), which, as required under CWA section 304(m), 
identifies any new or existing industrial categories selected for 
effluent guidelines rulemaking and provides a schedule for such 
rulemaking. CWA section 304(m) requires EPA to biennially publish such 
a plan after public notice and comment. The Agency published the 
preliminary 2008 Plan on October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61335). This notice 
also provides EPA's preliminary thoughts concerning its 2009 annual 
reviews under CWA sections 304(b) and 304(g) as well as its reviews 
under 301(d) and 307(b) and solicits comments, data and information to 
assist EPA in performing these reviews. EPA intends to continue its 
detailed studies of the steam electric power generating industry, the 
health services industry, and the coalbed methane extraction industry, 
which is part of the oil and gas extraction industry. Finally, EPA is 
using this notice to solicit public comment to identify industry 
sectors and facilities that use water efficiency practices that promote 
water efficiency, re-use, and recycling because such practices can be 
related to reducing overall pollutant discharges.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-
1014 or 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 2008 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 
and 307(b)
VI. EPA's 2009 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 
and 307(b)
VII. EPA's Evaluation of Categories of Indirect Dischargers Without 
Categorical Pretreatment Standards To Identify Potential New 
Categories for Pretreatment Standards
VIII. The Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan Under Section 
304(m)
IX. Request for Comment and Information

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

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

[[Page 53220]]

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

1. Submitting Confidential Business Information
    Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov 
or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail 
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
     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, 307(b), 308, 33 U.S.C. 1311(d), 1314(b), 1314(g), 1314(m), 
1316, 1317(b), and 1318.

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

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

IV. Background

A. What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?

    The CWA directs EPA to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards (``effluent guidelines'') that reflect pollutant 
reductions that can be achieved by categories or subcategories of 
industrial point sources using technologies that represent the 
appropriate level of control. See CWA sections 301(b)(2), 304(b), 306, 
307(b), and 307(c). For point sources that introduce pollutants 
directly into the waters of the United States (direct dischargers), the 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated by EPA are 
implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permits. See CWA sections 301(a), 301(b), and 402. For sources 
that discharge to POTWs (indirect dischargers), EPA promulgates 
pretreatment standards that apply directly to those sources and are 
enforced by POTWs and State and Federal authorities. See CWA sections 
307(b) and (c).
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)-- CWA 
Sections 301(b)(1)(A) & 304(b)(1)
    EPA defines Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available 
(BPT) effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and non-
conventional pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as 
conventional pollutants: Biochemical oxygen demand (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 
performances of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, 
processes, or other common characteristics. Where existing performance 
is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than 
currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency determines 
that the technology can be practically applied.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--CWA Sections 
301(b)(2)(E) & 304(b)(4)
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent 
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with Best 
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for discharges from 
existing industrial point sources. In addition to considering the other 
factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B) to establish BCT limitations, 
EPA also considers a two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA 
explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in 
1986. See 51 FR 24974 (July 9, 1986).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--CWA 
Sections 301(b)(2)(A) & 304(b)(2)(B)
    For toxic pollutants and non-conventional pollutants, EPA 
promulgates effluent guidelines based on the Best Available Technology 
Economically Achievable (BAT). See CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D) 
and

[[Page 53221]]

(F). The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of 
achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities 
involved, the process employed, potential process changes, non-water 
quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements, and other 
such factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA 
section 304(b)(2)(B). The technology must also be economically 
achievable. See CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). The Agency retains 
considerable discretion in assigning the weight accorded to these 
factors. BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable 
through changes in a facility's processes and operations. Where 
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher 
level of performance than is currently being achieved within a 
particular subcategory based on technology transferred from a different 
subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process changes or 
internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry 
practice.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--CWA Section 306
    New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reflect effluent reductions 
that are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control 
technology. New sources have the opportunity to install the best and 
most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment 
technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent 
controls attainable through the application of the best available 
demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, 
non-conventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA 
is directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the 
effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and 
energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--CWA Section 
307(b)
    Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) are designed to 
prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, 
or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly owned 
treatment works (POTWs), including sludge disposal methods at POTWs. 
Pretreatment standards for existing sources are technology-based and 
are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
    The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework 
for the implementation of national pretreatment standards, are found at 
40 CFR part 403.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--CWA Section 307(c)
    Like PSES, Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) are 
designed to prevent the discharges of pollutants that pass through, 
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of 
POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as NSPS. New indirect 
dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate into their facilities 
the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the 
same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

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

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

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

    In addition, CWA section 301(d) requires EPA to review every five 
years the effluent limitations required by CWA section 301(b)(2) and to 
revise them if appropriate pursuant to the procedures specified in that 
section. Section 301(b)(2), in turn, requires point sources to achieve 
effluent limitations reflecting the application of the best practicable 
control technology (all pollutants), best available technology 
economically achievable (for toxic pollutants and non-conventional 
pollutants) and the best conventional pollutant control technology (for 
conventional pollutants), as determined by EPA under sections 
304(b)(1), 304(b)(2) and 304(b)(4), respectively. For over three 
decades, EPA has implemented sections 301 and 304 through the 
promulgation of effluent limitations guidelines, resulting in 
regulations for 56 industrial categories. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & 
Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 113 (1977). Consequently, as part of its annual 
review of effluent limitations guidelines under section 304(b), EPA is 
also reviewing the effluent limitations they contain, thereby 
fulfilling its obligations under sections 301(d) and 304(b) 
simultaneously.
2. EPA's Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections 304(g) and 
307(b)--Indirect Dischargers
    Section 307(b) requires EPA to revise its pretreatment standards 
for indirect dischargers ``from time to time, as control technology, 
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives change.'' See CWA 
section 307(b)(2). Section 304(g) requires EPA to annually review these 
pretreatment standards and revise them ``if appropriate.'' Although 
section 307(b) only requires EPA to revise existing pretreatment 
standards ``from time to time,'' section 304(g) requires an annual 
review. Therefore, EPA meets its 304(g) and 307(b) requirements by 
reviewing all industrial categories subject to existing categorical 
pretreatment standards on an annual basis to identify potential 
candidates for revision.
    Section 307(b)(1) also requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for pollutants not susceptible to treatment by POTWs or that 
would interfere with the operation of POTWs, although it does not 
provide a timing requirement for the promulgation of such new 
pretreatment standards. EPA, in its discretion, periodically evaluates 
indirect dischargers not subject to categorical pretreatment standards 
to identify potential candidates for new

[[Page 53222]]

pretreatment standards. The CWA does not require EPA to publish its 
review of pretreatment standards or identification of potential new 
categories, although EPA is exercising its discretion to do so in this 
notice.
    EPA intends to repeat this publication schedule for future 
pretreatment standards reviews (e.g., EPA will publish the 2009 annual 
pretreatment standards review in the notice containing the Agency's 
2009 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and the preliminary 
2010 plan). EPA intends that these contemporaneous reviews will provide 
meaningful insight into EPA's effluent guidelines and pretreatment 
standards program decision-making. Additionally, by providing a single 
notice for these and future reviews, EPA hopes to provide a 
consolidated source of information for the Agency's current and future 
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards program reviews.

V. EPA's 2008 Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment 
Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b)

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

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

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

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

[[Page 53223]]

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

[[Page 53224]]

pollutant discharges a lower priority for revision (i.e., industrial 
categories marked ``(3)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in 
section V.B.4 of today's notice).
    Because there are 56 point source categories (including over 450 
subcategories) with existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment 
standards that must be reviewed annually, EPA believes it is important 
to prioritize its review so as to focus on industries where changes to 
the existing effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards are most 
likely to result in further pollutant discharge reduction. In general, 
industries for which effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards have 
recently been promulgated are less likely to warrant such changes. 
However, when EPA becomes aware of the growth of a new industrial 
activity within an existing category or where new concerns are 
identified for previously unevaluated pollutants discharged by 
facilities within an industrial category, EPA would apply more scrutiny 
to the category in a subsequent review. EPA identified no such instance 
during the 2008 annual review. In order to further focus its inquiry 
during the 2008 annual review, EPA assigned a lower priority for 
potential revision to categories for which effluent guidelines had been 
recently promulgated or revised, or for which effluent guidelines 
rulemaking was currently underway (i.e., industrial categories marked 
``(1)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of 
today's notice). EPA removed an industrial point source category from 
further consideration during the current review cycle if EPA 
established, revised, or reviewed in a rulemaking context the 
category's effluent guidelines after August 2001 (i.e., seven years 
prior to August 2008, the expected publication of the final 2008 
Effluent Guidelines Program). EPA chose seven years because this is the 
time it customarily takes for the effects of effluent guidelines or 
pretreatment standards to be fully reflected in pollutant loading data 
and TRI reports (in large part because effluent limitations guidelines 
are often incorporated into NPDES permits only upon re-issuance, which 
could be up to five years after the effluent guidelines or pretreatment 
standards are promulgated). EPA also applied a lower priority for 
potential revision at this time to the Ore Mining and Dressing category 
as EPA lacked sufficient data to determine whether revision would be 
appropriate (i.e., this category is marked with ``(5)'' in the 
``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of today's notice). 
EPA lacks sufficient information at this time on the magnitude of the 
toxic-weighted pollutant discharges associated with this category. EPA 
will seek additional information on the discharges from this category 
in the next annual review in order to determine whether a detailed 
study is warranted. EPA typically performs a further assessment of the 
pollutant discharges before starting a detailed study of an industrial 
category. This assessment (``preliminary category review'') provides an 
additional level of quality assurance on the reported pollutant 
discharges and number of facilities that represent the majority of 
toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. See the appropriate section in the 
TSD for the final 2008 Plan (see DCN 05515) for EPA's data needs for 
these industrial categories.
    For industrial categories marked ``(4)'' in the ``Findings'' column 
in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of today's notice, EPA had sufficient 
information on the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges associated with 
these categories to continue a detailed study of these industrial 
categories in the 2008 annual review. EPA intends to use the detailed 
study to obtain information on hazard, availability and cost of 
technology options, and other factors in order to determine if it would 
be appropriate to identify the category for possible effluent 
guidelines revision. EPA will continue three detailed studies in the 
2009 annual review: Steam Electric Power Generating category, Oil and 
Gas Extraction category (only to assess whether to revise the limits to 
include Coalbed Methane extraction as a new subcategory), and unused 
pharmaceutical management for the Health Services Industry (which 
includes the Hospital category).
    As part of its 2008 annual review, EPA also considered the number 
of facilities responsible for the majority of the estimated toxic-
weighted pollutant discharges associated with an industrial activity. 
Where only a few facilities in a category accounted for the vast 
majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges (i.e., categories 
marked ``(2)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 
of today's notice), EPA applied a lower priority for potential 
revision. EPA believes that revision of individual permits for such 
facilities may be more effective than a revised national effluent 
guidelines rulemaking. Individual permit requirements can be better 
tailored to these few facilities and may take considerably less time 
and resources to establish than a national effluent guidelines 
rulemaking. The Docket accompanying this notice lists facilities that 
account for the vast majority of the estimated toxic-weighted pollutant 
discharges for particular categories (see DCN 05515). For these 
facilities, EPA will consider identifying pollutant control and 
pollution prevention technologies that will assist permit writers in 
developing facility-specific, technology-based effluent limitations on 
a best professional judgment (BPJ) basis. For example, EPA developed 
and distributed a 2007 technical document to NPDES permit writers in 
order to support the development of effluent limitations for facilities 
in the dissolving kraft (Subpart A) and dissolving sulfite (Subpart D) 
subcategories of the pulp and paper point source category (40 CFR Part 
430) (see EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0774). In future annual reviews, EPA also 
intends to re-evaluate each category based on the information available 
at the time in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the BPJ permit-
based support.
    EPA received comments in previous biennial planning cycles urging 
the Agency to encourage and recognize voluntary efforts by industry to 
reduce pollutant discharges, especially when the voluntary efforts have 
been widely adopted within an industry and the associated pollutant 
reductions have been significant. EPA agrees that industrial categories 
demonstrating significant progress through voluntary efforts to reduce 
hazard to human health or the environment associated with their 
effluent discharges would be a comparatively lower priority for 
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards revision, particularly 
where such reductions are achieved by a significant majority of 
individual facilities in the industry. Although during this annual 
review EPA could not complete a systematic review of voluntary 
pollutant loading reductions, EPA's review did indirectly account for 
the effects of successful voluntary programs because any significant 
reductions in pollutant discharges should be reflected in TRI 2005 
discharge data, as well as any data provided directly by commenters, 
that EPA used to assess the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges.
    In summary, EPA's review enables EPA to concentrate its resources 
on conducting more in-depth reviews of certain industries, as discussed 
below.
b. Further Review of Prioritized Categories
    In the publication of the preliminary 2008 Plan, EPA identified 
three categories with potentially high TWPE discharge estimates for 
further investigation (``preliminary category

[[Page 53225]]

review'') as a result of the 2007 annual review: Ore Mining and 
Dressing (Part 440), Centralized Waste Treatment (Part 437), and Waste 
Combustors (Part 444) (i.e., EPA identified these categories with 
``(5)'' in the column entitled ``Findings'' in Table V-1, Page 61345 of 
the preliminary 2008 Plan). EPA reviewed these three categories in its 
2008 annual review.
    EPA typically performs a further assessment of the pollutant 
discharges before starting a detailed study of an industrial category. 
In conducting these preliminary category reviews, EPA used the same 
types of data sources used for the detailed studies but in less depth. 
This assessment provides confirmation of the reported pollutant 
discharges and number of facilities that represent the majority of 
toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA may also develop a preliminary 
list of potential wastewater pollutant control technologies before 
conducting a detailed study.
c. Detailed Study of Four Categories
    EPA continued detailed studies of four categories: Steam Electric 
Power Generating (Part 423), Coal Mining (Part 434), Oil and Gas 
Extraction (Part 435) (only to assess whether to include coalbed 
methane extraction as a new subcategory), and Hospitals (Part 460) 
(which is part of the Health Services Industry detailed study). For 
these industries, EPA gathered and analyzed additional data on 
pollutant discharges, economic factors, and technology issues. EPA 
examined: (1) Wastewater characteristics and pollutant sources; (2) the 
pollutants discharged from these sources and the toxic weights 
associated with these discharges; (3) treatment technology and 
pollution prevention information; (4) the geographic distribution of 
facilities in the industry; (5) any pollutant discharge trends within 
the industry; and (6) any relevant economic factors.
    EPA relied on many different sources of data including: (1) The 
2002 U.S. Economic Census; (2) TRI and PCS data; (3) contacts with 
reporting facilities to verify reported releases and facility 
categorization; (4) contacts with regulatory authorities (states and 
EPA regions) to understand how category facilities are permitted; (5) 
NPDES permits and their supporting fact sheets; (6) monitoring data 
included in facility applications for NPDES permit renewals (Form 2C 
data); (7) EPA effluent guidelines technical development documents; (8) 
relevant EPA preliminary data summaries or study reports; (9) technical 
literature on pollutant sources and control technologies; (10) 
information provided by industry including industry conducted survey 
and sampling data; (11) CWA section 308 data requests and surveys; and 
(12) stakeholder comments (see DCN 06109). Additionally, in order to 
evaluate available and affordable treatment technology options for the 
coalbed methane extraction industry sector, EPA is seeking approval 
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an Information 
Collection Request (ICR) to gather data from the industry (July 15, 
2008; 73 FR 40757). EPA is also planning to submit a proposed ICR to 
OMB for the Health Services Industry; in particular, a study of unused 
pharmaceuticals from medical and veterinary facilities. This is a 
request for a new collection. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for 
review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of 
the proposed information collection (August 12, 2008; 73 FR 46903).
d. Public Comments
    EPA's annual review process considers information provided by 
stakeholders regarding the need for new or revised effluent limitations 
guidelines and pretreatment standards. To that end, EPA established a 
docket at the time of publication of the final 2006 Plan to provide the 
public with an opportunity to submit additional information to assist 
the Agency in its 2007 and 2008 annual reviews. These public comments 
are in the supporting docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771, www.regulations.gov) 
and summarized in the TSD for the final 2008 Plan (see DCN 05515).

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

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

[[Page 53226]]

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

[[Page 53227]]

(TDS) (e.g., sulfates and chlorides), mercury, cadmium, manganese, and 
selenium in coal mining discharges. They referenced a study by EPA 
Region 5 on potential adverse impacts of the discharge of sulfates on 
aquatic life (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2614 through 2617).
    The Interstate Mining Compact Commission, which represents mining 
regulatory agencies in 28 states, state mine permitting agencies in 
Pennsylvania and Virginia, and a few mining companies, asked EPA to 
remove the current manganese limitations. They made the following 
requests and assertions: (1) Permittees should be allowed to employ 
best management practices as necessary to reduce manganese discharges 
based on the water quality of receiving waterbodies; (2) manganese 
treatment is unnecessary to protect aquatic life and there are no 
widespread toxicity problems from discharges of manganese; (3) 
manganese treatment doubles or triples overall treatment costs 
resulting in the forfeiture of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act (SMCRA) bonds; (4) EPA should reconsider its rationale for setting 
manganese limits to ensure surrogate removal of other metals because 
data show that other metals occur only in low concentrations; (5) 
manganese treatment sometimes results in environmental harm because 
mining operators must add excessive chemicals to meet the discharge 
limits; and (6) because manganese limits are overly stringent they 
discourage the use of passive treatment technologies which are more 
environmentally beneficial than active treatment.
    Individual state and industry commenters cited the following 
factors in support of their comments: (1) More stringent state-imposed 
coal mining reclamation bonding requirements, enacted after the 
promulgation of SMCRA, to control water discharges from mines 
undergoing reclamation; (2) studies supporting their contention that 
manganese is not harmful to aquatic life at levels above the current 
effluent limits; and (3) perception that active treatment with chemical 
additions may complicate permit compliance and may cause environmental 
harm.
    EPA initiated the Coal Mining Detailed Study in January 2007. The 
study is consistent with the framework presented in the Detailed Study 
Plan, a draft of which the Agency placed into the docket (see EPA-HQ-
OW-2004-0032-2312) during the fall of 2006. EPA revised and finalized 
the Detailed Study Plan in April 2007 to reflect public comments. The 
study evaluated treatment technologies, costs, and pollutant discharge 
loads, as well as the effects of manganese and other pollutants on 
aquatic life. The study also addressed the question of whether bonds 
are being forfeited because of the cost of manganese treatment by 
examining bonding and trust fund requirements, past bond forfeiture 
rates, future potential bond forfeiture rates, and the issues related 
to state assumption of long-term water treatment responsibilities for 
mines where the bonds have been forfeited.
    As outlined in the Detailed Study Plan, EPA framed study questions 
based on public comment, identified data sources to help answer the 
study questions, developed a methodology for estimating treatment costs 
and discharge loads, and initiated data collection activities with the 
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, state agencies, and the Office of 
Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement within the U.S. Department 
of the Interior. In responding to these public comments the study used 
Part 434 definitions to describe the industry. In particular, proper 
understanding of the following terms is useful in understanding the 
following discussion and EPA's response to the public commenters:
     The term ``acid or ferruginous mine drainage'' means mine 
drainage which, before any treatment, either has a pH of less than 6.0 
or a total iron concentration equal to or greater than 10 mg/l (see 40 
CFR 434.11(a)).
     The term ``active mining area'' means the area, on and 
beneath land, used or disturbed in activity related to the extraction, 
removal, or recovery of coal from its natural deposits. This term 
excludes coal preparation plants, coal preparation plant associated 
areas and post-mining areas (see 40 CFR 434.11(b)).
     The term ``alkaline mine drainage'' means mine drainage 
which, before any treatment, has a pH equal to or greater than 6.0 and 
total iron concentration of less than 10 mg/l (see 40 CFR 434.11(c)).
    <