Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, 68599-68615 [E9-30625]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 247 (Monday, December 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68599-68615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30625]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517; FRL-9095-5]
RIN 2040-AF06


Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Water Act (CWA) sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 
304(m), and 307(b) require EPA to annually review its effluent 
guidelines and

[[Page 68600]]

pretreatment standards. This notice presents EPA's 2009 review of 
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. This notice 
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). 
Finally, this notice presents the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan (``preliminary 2010 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. EPA is soliciting comment on its preliminary 2010 Plan 
and on its 2009 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 February 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, data and information for the 2009 
annual review of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment 
standards and the preliminary 2010 Plan, identified by Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517, by one of the following methods:
    (1) https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 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: 
2822T, 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 
https://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 
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 
https://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 https://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 2010 Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan:
     Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2010 
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, EPA-821-R-09-006, DCN 06703, October 
2009.
     Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of 
Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point 
Source Categories, EPA-821-R-09-007, DCN 06557, October 2009.
     Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: 
Final Detailed Study Report, EPA-821-R-09-008, DCN 06390, October 2009.

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 2009 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 
304(m), and 307(b)
VI. EPA's 2010 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 
304(m), 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 2010 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 https://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).

[[Page 68601]]

     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 2009 review of existing effluent 
guidelines and pretreatment standards under CWA sections 301(d), 
304(b), 304(g), 304(m), and 307(b). This notice also provides EPA's 
preliminary thoughts concerning its 2010 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 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program 
Plan (``preliminary 2010 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 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 (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

[[Page 68602]]

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 Is 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) and 304(m) require EPA to review 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. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(C). EPA also 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). EPA is required to publish its 
preliminary Plan for public comment prior to taking final action on the 
plan. See CWA section 304(m)(2).
    In addition, CWA section 301(d) requires EPA to review every five 
years the effluent limitations required by CWA section 301(b)(2) and to 
revise them if appropriate pursuant to the procedures specified in that 
section. Section 301(b)(2), in turn, requires point sources to achieve 
effluent limitations reflecting the application of the best 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 57 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 sections 304(b) and 
304(m), 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 2010 annual 
pretreatment standards review in the notice containing the Agency's 
2010 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and the final 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 2009 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 
304(m), 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), 
304(m), and 307(b)?

1. Overview
    In its 2009 annual review, EPA reviewed all industrial categories

[[Page 68603]]

subject to existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment 
standards, representing a total of 57 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 three industrial categories prioritized for 
further review in the final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 
(September 15, 2008; 73 FR 53218) 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). Specifically, EPA continued work on 
three detailed studies as part of the 2009 annual review: Steam 
Electric Power Generating (Part 423), Oil and Gas Extraction (Part 435) 
(only to assess whether to include coalbed methane extraction as a new 
subcategory), and Hospitals (Part 460).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 Care 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), 304(b), 304(m) 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 has decided to pursue an effluent guidelines 
rulemaking for the Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423) category.
2. How Did EPA's 2008 Annual Review Influence its 2009 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, in the current 
annual review EPA continued its detailed studies of the following three 
categories: Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423); 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 Care Industry detailed study). In 
addition, EPA is expending additional resources to conduct its 
preliminary category review of the Ore Mining and Dressing (Part 440) 
category in its 2009 annual review based on the toxic discharges 
reported to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), Permit Compliance 
System (PCS), and the Integrated Compliance Information System National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES).
    EPA conducts a preliminary category review when it 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 2008 annual review with 
its final 2008 Plan, making the data collected available for public 
comment. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771. EPA used the findings, data 
and comments on the 2008 annual review to inform its 2009 annual 
review. The 2009 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 2009 Annual Reviews of 
Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?
a. Screening-level Review
    The first component of EPA's 2009 annual review consisted of a 
screening-level review of all industrial categories subject to existing 
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards. As a starting point EPA 
collected and analyzed 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). 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, PCS, and ICIS-
NPDES. 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 pollutant discharges. EPA used 
the most recent 2007 data from the TRI, PCS, and ICIS-NPDES databases. 
The full description of EPA's methodology for the 2009 screening-level 
review is presented in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 
preliminary 2010 Plan (see DCN 06703) and the Technical Support 
Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 
Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories (see DCN 
06557).
    EPA also developed a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) for its 
use of TRI, PCS, and ICIS-NPDES data in the 2009 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 06558). 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 2007 discharge data reported to TRI, PCS, and ICIS-NPDES) 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, PCS, and 
ICIS-NPDES 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

[[Page 68604]]

marked ``(3)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 
of this notice).
    In order to further focus its inquiry during the 2009 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 this notice). For 
example, EPA excluded facilities that are associated with the Chlorine 
and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon (CCH) Manufacturing effluent guidelines 
rulemaking from its 2009 hazard assessment of the Organic Chemicals, 
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) and Inorganic Chemicals point 
source categories because the CCH rulemaking is underway.
    Additionally, EPA applied less scrutiny to industrial categories 
for which EPA had promulgated effluent guidelines or pretreatment 
standards within the past seven years. EPA chose seven years because 
this is the time it customarily takes for the effects of effluent 
guidelines or pretreatment standards to be fully reflected in pollutant 
loading data and TRI reports (in large part because effluent 
limitations guidelines are often incorporated into NPDES permits only 
upon re-issuance, which could be up to five years after the effluent 
guidelines or pretreatment standards are promulgated). Because there 
are 57 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. EPA identified no such instance during the 2009 
annual review.
    EPA also applied a lower priority to categories without sufficient 
data to determine whether revision would be appropriate. For any 
industrial categories marked ``(5)'' in the ``Findings'' column in 
Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of this notice, EPA lacks sufficient 
information at this time on the magnitude of the toxic-weighted 
pollutant discharges. EPA will seek additional information on the 
discharges from 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 
2010 Plan (see DCN 06703) 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 this notice, EPA had sufficient 
information on the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges to continue or 
complete a detailed study of these industrial categories. 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 2009 annual review, EPA continued 
or completed detailed studies of three such categories.
    As part of its 2009 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 this 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 rulemaking. Individual 
permit requirements can be better tailored to these few facilities and 
may take considerably less time and resources to establish than 
revising the national effluent guidelines. 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 06703). For these facilities, EPA will consider identifying 
pollutant control and pollution prevention technologies that will 
assist permit writers in developing facility-specific, technology-based 
effluent limitations on a best professional judgment (BPJ) basis. In 
future annual reviews, EPA also intends to re-evaluate each category 
based on the information available at the time in order to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the BPJ permit-based support.
    EPA received comments 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 57 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.

[[Page 68605]]

    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 evaluating 
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), 304(m), and 307(b) (see DCN 07073). 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 2008 Plan EPA identified one 
category, Ore Mining and Dressing (Part 440), for further investigation 
(``preliminary category review''), and a status report is included in 
this notice. EPA identified this category with ``(5)'' in the column 
entitled ``Findings'' in Table V-1, Page 53231 of the final 2008 Plan. 
EPA is not identifying any other categories for preliminary category 
reviews at this time.
    In conducting a preliminary category review, EPA uses the same 
types of data sources used for the detailed studies but in less depth. 
For example, an assessment of the pollutant discharges 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 
the Ore Mining and Dressing category at this time because EPA needs 
additional information regarding this industry to determine whether a 
detailed study is warranted. EPA plans to complete its analysis of this 
additional information for the final 2010 Plan.
c. Detailed Study of Three Categories
    In this review cycle, EPA continued detailed studies of three 
categories: Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423), 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 Care Industry detailed study). For these 
industries, EPA gathered and analyzed additional data on pollutant 
discharges, economic factors, and technology issues. In general, EPA 
examines one or more of the following elements as part of a detailed 
study: (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, PCS, and ICIS-NPDES 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/or (11) stakeholder 
comments (see DCN 06703). Additionally, in order to evaluate available 
and affordable treatment technology options for the coalbed methane 
extraction industry sector, EPA is conducting an industry survey.
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 2009 annual review at the time of publication of the 
final 2008 Plan to provide the public with an opportunity to submit 
additional information to assist the Agency in its 2009 annual review. 
EPA received four public comments and placed these comments in the 
supporting docket (see EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517-0045 through 0048, https://www.regulations.gov). One commenter requested that EPA expand its 
detailed study of coalbed methane extraction to include all oil and gas 
exploration, stimulation, and extraction techniques that result in 
contamination of surface and groundwater, including hydraulic 
fracturing in all formations. The other three commenters requested that 
EPA initiate an effluent guidelines rulemaking for the Steam Electric 
Power Generating category. In particular, they requested that EPA limit 
the discharges of metals from this category and eliminate the use of 
wet handling for coal combustion wastes.

B. What Were EPA's Findings From Its 2009 Annual Review for Categories 
Subject to Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?

1. Screening-level Review
    In its 2009 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 this notice

[[Page 68606]]

for a summary of EPA's findings with respect to each existing category; 
see also the TSD for the preliminary 2010 Plan. Out of the categories 
subject only to the screening level review in 2009, 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 
effluent guidelines rulemakings and detailed studies in progress.
    EPA carefully examined 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 for the preliminary 2010 Plan presents a 
summary of EPA's review of these seven industrial categories (see DCN 
06703).
2. Detailed Studies
a. Overview
    In its 2009 annual review, EPA continued detailed studies of three 
industrial point source categories: Steam Electric Power Generating 
(Part 423), 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 Care Industry 
detailed study). EPA is investigating whether the pollutant discharges 
reported to TRI, PCS, and ICIS-NPDES for 2007 accurately reflect the 
current discharges. EPA is also analyzing the reported pollutant 
discharges, 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. For Coalbed Methane Extraction and Health Care 
Industry EPA plans to use the detailed studies to determine whether EPA 
should identify in the final 2010 Plan (or a future Plan) either of 
these two industrial categories for possible revision of their existing 
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. EPA's reviews of two of 
three categories are described below and its review of hospitals is 
described in section VII.B (Health Care Industry detailed study).
b. Steam Electric Power Generating (Part 423)
    EPA has completed a multi-year study of the Steam Electric Power 
Generating industry and, based on the results, has determined that 
revising the current effluent guidelines is warranted. EPA's decision 
to revise the current effluent guidelines is largely driven by the high 
level of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges from power plants and the 
expectation that these discharges will increase significantly in the 
next few years as new air pollution controls are installed. Over the 
course of the study EPA has identified technologies that are available 
to significantly reduce these pollutant discharges.
    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 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).
    Since 2005, EPA has been carrying out an intensive review of 
wastewater discharges from power plants. As part of this effort, EPA 
has sampled wastewater from surface impoundments and advanced 
wastewater treatment systems, conducted on-site reviews of the 
operations at more than two dozen power plants, and issued a detailed 
questionnaire that obtained information on thirty power plants using 
authority granted under section 308 of the Clean Water Act. EPA's data 
collection primarily focused on four target areas: (1) Determining the 
pollutant characteristics of power plant wastewater; (2) identifying 
treatment technologies for the wastewater generated by air pollution 
control equipment; (3) characterizing the practices used by the 
industry to manage or eliminate discharges of fly ash and bottom ash 
wastewater; and (4) identifying methods for managing power plant 
wastewater that allow recycling and reuse, rather than discharge to 
surface waters. Much of the information collected thus far, including 
laboratory data from sampling, were made available to the public in an 
interim study report, ``Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source 
Category: 2007/2008 Detailed Study Report,'' (see EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-
1699) and the final study report, ``Steam Electric Power Generating 
Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report,'' (see DCN 03690).
    EPA's review of the wastewater characteristics indicates that most 
of the toxic pollutant loadings for this category are associated with 
metals and certain other elements present in wastewater discharges, and 
that the waste streams contributing the majority of these pollutants 
are associated with ash handling and wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) 
systems. Other potential sources of these pollutants include coal pile 
runoff, metal cleaning wastes, coal washing, leachate from landfills 
and wastewater impoundments, and certain low-volume wastes.
    Between July 2007 and October 2008, EPA conducted six sampling 
episodes to characterize untreated wastewaters generated by coal-fired 
power plants, including FGD wastewater, and fly ash and bottom ash 
transport water. EPA also collected samples to assess the effluent 
quality from different types of treatment systems currently in place at 
these operations. Samples were analyzed for metals and other 
pollutants, such as total suspended solids and nitrogen. Sampling 
reports for the first five episodes are included in the docket for the 
2008 Plan, and the report for the final sampling episode is included in 
the docket for the 2010 Plan (see DCN 06197). These reports discuss the 
specific sample points and analytes, the sample collection methods 
used, the field quality control samples collected, and the analytical 
results for the wastewater samples.
    EPA expects that the use of wet FGD systems will increase 
substantially over the next decade as State and Federal regulations are 
implemented to reduce air emissions. Metals and other pollutants are 
transferred from the flue gas to the wastewater produced by wet FGD 
systems. Based on results from the sampling and other data, EPA 
determined that there are unregulated toxic and conventional pollutants 
present in ash pond and FGD wastewater which can be reduced 
significantly with treatment technologies.
    An increasing amount of evidence indicates that the characteristics 
of coal combustion wastewater have the potential to impact human health 
and the environment. Discharges of coal combustion wastewater have been 
associated with fish kills, reductions in the growth and survival of 
aquatic organisms, behavioral and physiological effects in wildlife and 
aquatic organisms, potential impacts to human health (e.g., drinking 
water contamination), and changes to the local habitat. Many of the 
pollutants commonly found in coal combustion wastewater (e.g., 
selenium, mercury, and arsenic) are known to cause environmental harm 
and potentially represent a human health risk. Although

[[Page 68607]]

coal-fired power plants often dilute coal combustion wastewater with 
other large volume wastewater (e.g., cooling water) to reduce the 
pollutant concentrations prior to discharge, the effluent can contain 
large mass loads (i.e., total pounds) of pollutants. Some of the 
pollutants in these discharges, although present at low concentrations, 
can bioaccumulate and present an increased ecological threat due to 
their tendency to persist in the environment, resulting in slow 
ecological recovery times following exposure. In addition, leachate 
from impoundments and landfills containing coal combustion wastes can 
contain high concentrations of pollutants and has been identified as a 
source of ground water and surface water impacts.
    Additional information about data collected and findings of the 
detailed study of the Steam Electric Power Generating industry is 
presented in the final study report, ``Steam Electric Power Generating 
Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report,'' (see DCN 06390). 
The report includes data on the characteristics of wastewater from coal 
fired power plants, identifies the wastewater treatment technologies 
reviewed, presents an overview of the industry profile and predicted 
future trends in the use of air pollution controls, and describes 
environmental impacts that have been linked to coal combustion 
wastewater.
    The Agency expects that data collection efforts for the effluent 
guidelines rulemaking will include wastewater sampling and issuing a 
survey that will obtain detailed technical and financial information. 
In particular, EPA recently published a Federal Register notice 
announcing its intent to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for their review and 
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 33 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq. See 74 FR 55837 (October 29, 2009).
c. Oil and Gas Extraction (Part 435) (Only To Assess Whether To Include 
Coalbed Methane Extraction as a New Subcategory).
    Coalbed methane (CBM) extraction activities accounted for about 7% 
of the total U.S. natural gas production (gross withdrawals) in 2007 
and are expanding in multiple basins across the U.S. Currently, the 
Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects 
CBM production to remain an important source of domestic natural gas 
over the next few decades.
    CBM extraction requires removal of large amounts of water from 
underground coal seams before CBM can be released. CBM wells have a 
distinctive production history characterized by an early stage when 
large amounts of water are produced to reduce reservoir pressure which 
in turn encourages release of gas. This is followed by a stable stage 
when quantities of produced gas increase as the quantities of produced 
water decrease; and a late stage when the amount of gas produced 
declines and water production remains low (see EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-
1904).
    The quantity and quality of water that is produced in association 
with CBM development varies from basin to basin, within a particular 
basin, from coal seam to coal seam, and over the lifetime of a CBM 
well. Pollutants often found in these wastewaters include chloride, 
sodium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, barium, magnesium, 
ammonia, and arsenic. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and electrical 
conductivity (EC) are bulk parameters that States typically use for 
quantifying and controlling the amount of pollutants in CBM produced 
waters.
    EPA identified the coalbed methane (CBM) sector as a candidate for 
a detailed study in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (71 
FR 76656; December 21, 2006). As part of that announcement EPA made it 
clear that it would conduct data collection through an information 
collection request (ICR) to support this detailed study. In accordance 
with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), EPA obtained approval from the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its ``Coalbed Methane 
Extraction Sector Survey'' on February 18, 2009. This approval followed 
two public comment periods on the survey (January 25, 2008; 73 FR 4556 
and July 15, 2008; 73 FR 40757) and more than two years of outreach by 
EPA with interested stakeholders.
    The approved mandatory survey, conducted under the authority of 
Section 308 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1318), includes a 
screener and a detailed questionnaire. EPA sent the screener 
questionnaire in February 2009 to all CBM methane operators that have 
three or more CBM wells. EPA used data from 291 screener questionnaires 
and state data on operators with one or two CBM wells to identify that 
in 2008 there were 56,049 CBM wells that operators managed in 692 
different CBM projects. This CBM production, 2.0 trillion cubic feet, 
represents approximately 7.7 percent of the total U.S. natural gas 
production in 2008. The 692 CBM projects are located in 16 different 
CBM basins across the Nation but are mainly concentrated in the States 
of Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Alabama. EPA used these data to 
draw a representative sample of CBM projects. EPA began distribution of 
the detailed questionnaire to the representative sample of CBM projects 
in late October 2009. The detailed questionnaire will collect financial 
and technical data on approximately 250 CBM methane projects across the 
country.
    EPA will use the screener and detailed questionnaires to collect 
technical and economic information from a wide range of CBM operations. 
EPA plans to collect information on geographical and geologic 
differences in the characteristics of CBM produced waters, 
environmental data, current regulatory controls, and availability and 
affordability of treatment technology options.
    EPA also visited eight different CBM produced water treatment 
technologies in Wyoming. Included in these technologies are ion 
exchange, reverse osmosis, thermal distillation, and lined pit disposal 
and evaporation. These site visits supplemented EPA site visits to 
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Alabama, New Mexico, Colorado, 
Wyoming, and Montana in 2007 (see EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0977).
    EPA is also conducting a literature review of environmental impacts 
and beneficial uses of produced water. The literature review is being 
conducted in three phases focusing on: (1) Scientific journal articles, 
(2) documents retrieved from Web sites of State and Federal agencies, 
universities, and non-governmental organizations, and (3) 
environmentally sustainable beneficial uses of produced water. Results 
of the first phase are included in the docket (see DCN 06934). 
Additionally, EPA will be reviewing current requirements for surface 
water discharge of produced water. Currently, regulatory controls for 
CBM produced waters vary from State to State and permit to permit (see 
EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782, 2540). The assessment of State permitting 
requirements for surface water discharge of produced water will examine 
factors such as the number of current permits, the proportion of 
discharges covered under individual versus general permits, the types 
of pollutants controlled, and the numeric concentration limits 
required. This assessment will give EPA a better understanding of 
variations and consistencies among States in controlling CBM produced 
water discharges.
    Finally, EPA is soliciting public comment on whether it should 
expand its detailed study of coalbed methane extraction to include all 
oil and gas

[[Page 68608]]

exploration, stimulation, and extraction techniques that result in 
contamination of surface and groundwater, including hydraulic 
fracturing in all formations.
3. Results of Preliminary Category Reviews
    During the 2008 annual review, EPA identified the Ore Mining and 
Dressing (Part 440) category for a preliminary category review for two 
reasons: (1) The industry has a high TWPE discharge estimate of process 
wastewater (i.e., EPA identified this category with ``(5)'' in the 
column entitled ``Findings'' in Table V-1, Page 53231 of the final 2008 
Plan); and (2) comments received on previous Plans assert that better 
controls are needed for stormwater discharges to surface water at ore 
mining sites. Stormwater discharges from Ore Mining and Dressing 
facilities that are not commingled with process wastewater are not 
regulated by effluent guidelines but are regulated under individual or 
general stormwater NPDES permits. This preliminary category review is 
on-going.
    EPA performed several analyses during the 2009 annual review. These 
analyses included: (1) Coordinating with the primary western ore mining 
States to collect information for mines classified as NPDES minor 
facilities (i.e., collecting information States do not typically submit 
to EPA's ICIS or PCS databases); (2) reviewing journals and technical 
literature to identify the latest advances in wastewater treatment 
technologies; and (3) reviewing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans 
to determine whether active ore mine discharges are discharging into 
impaired waterbodies. Section IX of this notice and the TSD for the 
preliminary 2010 Plan (see DCN 06703) lists the data and information 
that EPA would like to collect on the pollutant discharges and 
potential treatment technology options for the Ore Mining and Dressing 
category in order to complete this preliminary category review.
4. Summary of 2009 Annual Review Findings
    In its 2009 annual review, EPA reviewed all categories subject to 
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards in order to 
identify appropriate candidates for revision. Based on this review and 
prior annual reviews, and in light of the ongoing effluent guidelines 
rulemakings and detailed studies currently in progress, EPA has decided 
to pursue an effluent guidelines rulemaking for the Steam Electric 
Power Generating (Part 423) category. Additionally, EPA is continuing 
to conduct detailed studies for two existing categories: Oil and Gas 
Extraction (only with respect to coalbed methane) and Hospitals (part 
of the Health Care Industry detailed study).
    A summary of the findings of the 2009 annual review is presented 
below in Table V-1. This table uses the following codes to describe the 
Agency's findings with respect to each existing industrial category.
    (1) Effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for this 
industrial category were recently revised or reviewed through an 
effluent guidelines rulemaking, or a rulemaking is currently underway.
    (2) Revising the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment 
standards is not the best tool for this industrial category because 
most of the toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges are from 
one or a few facilities in this industrial category. EPA will consider 
assisting permitting authorities in identifying pollutant control and 
pollution prevention technologies for the development of technology-
based effluent limitations by best professional judgment (BPJ) on a 
facility-specific basis.
    (3) Not identified as a hazard priority based on data available at 
this time (e.g., not among industries that cumulatively comprise 95% of 
reported hazard in TWPE units).
    (4) EPA intends to continue a detailed study of this industry in 
its 2010 annual review to determine whether to identify the category 
for effluent guidelines rulemaking.
    (5) EPA is continuing or initiating a preliminary category review 
because incomplete data are available to determine whether to conduct a 
detailed study or identify for possible revision. EPA typically 
performs a further assessment of the pollutant discharges before 
starting a detailed study of the industrial category. This assessment 
provides an additional level of quality assurance on the reported 
pollutant discharges and number of facilities that represent the 
majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA may also develop a 
preliminary list of potential wastewater pollutant control technologies 
before conducting a detaile