[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75515-75531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-32214]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7604-7]
RIN 2040-ACXX


Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of preliminary effluent guidelines plan; request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: Today's notice presents and invites comment on EPA's 
preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005. Under the 
Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA establishes technology-based national 
regulations, termed ``effluent guidelines,'' to reduce pollutant 
discharges from industrial facilities to waters of the United States. 
Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to publish an 
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan every two years. Today's notice has 
three purposes. First, it presents the results of EPA's annual review 
of the effluent guidelines that EPA has promulgated under CWA section 
304(b). Second, it solicits public comment on the preliminary Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan. Third, it describes and solicits comment on 
the analytical framework that EPA has employed to date in performing 
the annual review for 2003 and in developing today's preliminary 
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. EPA had articulated an early form of 
this evolving analytical framework in the draft Strategy for National 
Clean Water Industrial Regulations, which EPA hopes to finalize 
concurrently with the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan in 2004.

DATES: EPA must receive comments on the preliminary Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan for 2004/2005 by February 17, 2004. EPA will conduct a 
public meeting on Wednesday, January 28, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. 
Eastern Standard Time. For information on the location of the public 
meeting, see ADDRESSES section.

ADDRESSES: You can submit comments electronically, by mail, or through 
hand-delivery/courier. Please mail comments to the Water Docket, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 4101 T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 or submit them electronically to 
http://www.epa.gov/edocket/. For more information on submitting 
comments, see section I.C. EPA will hold an informational public 
meeting for interested stakeholders in the EPA East Building, Room 1153 
(also known as the ``Great Room'' or the ``Map Room''), 1201 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. For more information on the 
details and location of the public meeting, see section I.F.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-
1014 or [email protected], or Mr. Tom Wall at (202) 566-1060 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Is This Document Organized?

    The outline of the preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 
2004/2005 follows.

I. General Information
II. Legal Authority
III. What Are Effluent Guidelines?
IV. What Requirements Apply to This Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 
Effort?
V. What Is the Purpose of Today's Federal Register Notice?
VI. 2003 Annual Review of Effluent Guidelines That EPA Has 
Promulgated Under CWA Section 304(b)
VII. What Will Be the Focus of EPA's 2004 Annual Review?
VIII. Identification of and Schedule for Possible Categories for 
Potential New Effluent Guidelines
IX. Request for Comment and Information

I. General Information

A. Regulated Entities

    Today's preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005 
does not contain regulatory requirements, nor will the final plan do 
so. Rather, today's preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 
describes the current status of the effluent guidelines planning 
process, presents the results of the Agency's annual review of the 
effluent guidelines EPA has already promulgated for industrial 
categories, and identifies industrial categories that EPA expects to 
investigate further for the possible development or revision of 
effluent limitations guidelines.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket
    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. OW-2003-0074. The official public docket consists of the 
documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments 
received, and other information related to this action. Although a part 
of the official docket, the public docket does not include information 
claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket 
is the collection of materials that

[[Page 75516]]

is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 
Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-
2426.
    The following are the major documents supporting the preliminary 
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan:
    [sbull] Factor 1 Analysis: Human Health and Environmental Impacts--
Status of Screening Level Review Phase (DCN 00545, section 2.1).
    [sbull] Factor 2 Analysis: Technology Advances and Process 
Changes--Status of Screening Level Review Phase (DCN 00546, section 
2.2).
    [sbull] Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency 
Considerations--Status of Screening Level Review Phase (DCN 00547, 
section 2.3).
    [sbull] Description and Results of EPA Methodology to Synthesize 
Screening Level Results for the CWA 304(m) Effluent Guidelines Program 
Plan for 2004/2005 (DCN 00548, section 3.0).
2. Electronic Access
    You may access this Federal Register document electronically 
through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at 
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public 
docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment 
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of 
the contents of the official public docket, and to access those 
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once 
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket identification 
number for this action: OW-2003-0074.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent 
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in 
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the 
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the 
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. 
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you 
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through 
the docket facility identified in section I.B.1.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, information claimed as CBI, or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA 
identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide 
a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, 
including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public 
docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. We will not accept comments by facsimiles (faxes). To 
ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the following docket 
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your 
comment: OW-2003-0074. Please ensure that your comments are submitted 
within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close 
of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to 
consider these late comments. If you wish to submit information you 
claim as CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, 
please follow the instructions in section I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets 
or e-mail to submit information you claim as CBI or information 
protected by statute.
1. Electronically
    If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this section, 
EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-
mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. 
Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD 
ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD 
ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the 
comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on 
the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit 
your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in 
the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's 
electronic public docket. 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.
a. EPA Dockets
    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to 
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go 
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select 
``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OW-2003-0074. The system is 
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment.
b. E-mail
    Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-0074. In contrast to 
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an 
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's 
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
c. Disk or CD ROM
    You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 
mailing address identified in section I.C.2. These electronic 
submissions will be accepted as in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. 
Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

[[Page 75517]]

2. By Mail
    Send the original and three copies of your comments and enclosures 
(including references) to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Mail Code 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20460, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-0074. Commenters who want EPA to 
acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-addressed, 
stamped envelope.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
    Deliver your comments to: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-0074. Such deliveries 
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as 
identified in section I.B.1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically to EPA Docket Center or through EPA's electronic public 
docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only 
to the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 304(m) 
Effluent Guidelines Planning, 1201 Constitution Ave, NW., Room 6231G, 
EPA West Building, Washington, DC 20004. You may claim information that 
you submit to EPA as CBI by marking that information as CBI. If you 
submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, indicate on the outside of the disk or CD 
ROM that it contains information claimed as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except 
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any 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 and EPA's electronic public docket. If you use a 
disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly to 
indicate that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI 
will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public 
docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the 
procedures for claiming CBI, please consult one of the persons 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    [sbull] Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    [sbull] Describe any assumptions that you used.
    [sbull] Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    [sbull] Review section IX, ``Request for Comment and Information,'' 
for areas on which EPA specifically requests comments and information.
    [sbull] If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    [sbull] Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    [sbull] Offer alternatives.
    [sbull] Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.
    [sbull] To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the following 
docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of 
your response: OW-2003-0074. It would also be helpful if you provided 
the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

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

    A public meeting to review the preliminary Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan for 2004/2005 will be held in Washington, DC (see DATES 
and ADDRESSES for the date and location of the public meeting). The 
meeting is open to the public, and limited seating for the public is 
available on a first-come, first-served basis. For security reasons, we 
request that you bring photo identification with you to the meeting. 
Also, it will expedite the process of signing in if you contact Ms. 
Patricia Harrigan at least three business days prior to the meeting 
with your name, phone number, and affiliation. Ms. Harrigan can be 
reached via e-mail at [email protected]. Please use ``304(m) 
Public Meeting Attendee'' in the subject line. Ms. Harrigan can also be 
reached by telephone at (202) 566-1666.
    EPA will not distribute meeting materials in advance of the public 
meeting; all materials will be distributed at the meeting. The purpose 
of the public meeting is to: (1) Review the preliminary Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005; (2) review the industry sectors 
identified for further investigation; and (3) identify information 
collection activities and analyses EPA anticipates completing for the 
final Plan. EPA will not record the meeting for the record supporting 
this action. Individuals wishing to comment on the preliminary Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005 would need to submit written 
comments as described in section I.C. in order for EPA to consider 
their comments in finalizing the plan.
    If you need special accommodations at this meeting, including 
wheelchair access or special audio-visual support needs, you should 
contact Ms. Harrigan at least five business days prior to the meeting 
so that we can make appropriate arrangements. For those unable to 
attend the meeting, a copy of the presentation and meeting materials 
will be posted on the EPA Dockets Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ and EPA's Effluent Guidelines Planning Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/guide/plan.html.
    Please note that parking is very limited in downtown Washington, 
and we recommend you use public transit. The EPA Headquarters complex 
is located near the Federal Triangle Metro station. Upon exiting the 
Metro station, walk east to 12th Street. On 12th Street, walk south to 
Constitution Avenue. At the corner, turn right onto Constitution Avenue 
and proceed to the EPA East Building entrance.

II. Legal Authority

    Today's notice is published under the authority of section 304(m) 
of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1314(m).

III. What Are Effluent Guidelines?

    The CWA directs EPA to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards that, for most pollutants, reflect the level of pollutant 
control that is achievable by the best available technologies 
economically achievable for categories or subcategories of industrial 
point sources. 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 limitations 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).

[[Page 75518]]

A. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA

    EPA defines Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available 
(BPT) effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and non-
conventional pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as 
conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total 
suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants 
defined by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator 
designated oil and grease as an additional conventional pollutant on 
July 30, 1979 (see 44 FR 44501). 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 403, reprinted after 40 CFR 423.17). 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.

B. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section 
304(b)(4) of the CWA

    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 the other factors 
specified in section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA establish 
BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the 
development of BCT limitations in July 9, 1986 (51 FR 24974).

C. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section 
304(b)(2) of the CWA

    In general, Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) 
effluent limitations guidelines represent the best available 
economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial 
subcategory or category. 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. The Agency retains considerable discretion in 
assigning the weight EPA accords 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.

D. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA

    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.

E. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section 307(b) 
of the CWA

    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.

F. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(c) of the 
CWA

    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 plants the 
best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the same 
factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

IV. What Requirements Apply to This Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 
Effort?

    Section 304(m) requires EPA to publish a plan every two years 
containing three elements. First, EPA must establish a schedule for the 
annual review and revision of existing effluent guidelines in 
accordance with section 304(b). See CWA section 304(m)(1)(A). Section 
304(b) specifies factors that EPA must consider when deciding whether 
to establish or revise effluent guidelines for existing direct 
dischargers and requires EPA to revise such regulations as appropriate. 
Second, EPA must 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). Finally, EPA must establish a 
schedule for promulgating effluent guidelines for industrial categories 
for which it has not already established such guidelines. The statute 
requires final action on such rulemaking not later than three years 
after the industrial category is identified in the Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(C). EPA is required to publish 
its Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for public comment prior to taking 
final action on the plan. See CWA section 304(m)(2).
    The Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005 is intended to 
implement these statutory requirements. As part of the Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan under CWA section 304(m), EPA

[[Page 75519]]

reviews existing limitations and standards for direct dischargers. In 
the course of this review EPA also reviews indirect dischargers in an 
industrial point source category when the industrial point source 
category is composed of both direct and indirect dischargers. For 
industrial point source categories that are entirely or almost entirely 
composed of indirect dischargers, EPA reviews, revises, and establishes 
pretreatment standards under a separate planning process, which is 
described in section 304(g) of the CWA.
    Certain elements of EPA's current work on effluent guidelines 
continue to be governed by a Consent Decree. On October 30, 1989, the 
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Public Citizen, Inc., 
filed an action against EPA in which they alleged, among other things, 
that EPA had failed to comply with CWA section 304(m). Plaintiffs and 
EPA agreed to a settlement of that action in a Consent Decree entered 
on January 31, 1992. The Consent Decree, which has been modified 
several times, established a schedule for proposal and final action for 
eleven point source categories identified by name and for eight other 
point source categories identified only as new or revised rules. The 
Decree also established deadlines for EPA to complete studies of eight 
identified and three unidentified point source categories and required 
EPA to consider the results of those studies when identifying point 
source categories for possible new or revised effluent guidelines.
    The last date for EPA action under the modified Decree is June 30, 
2004. Table IV-1 identifies the new or revised effluent guidelines 
currently under development under the Decree and the schedules for 
final action.

   Table IV-1.--Effluent Guidelines Governed by Current Consent Decree
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Federal Register
    Category \1\ (EPA web sites)      proposal citation    Final action
                                            (date)             date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat Products (http://epa.gov/guide/ 67 FR 8581 (Feb.           02/26/04
 mpp/).                               25, 2002).
Construction and Development (http:/ 67 FR 42644 (June          03/31/04
 /epa.gov/guide/construction/).       24, 2002).
Aquatic Animal Production (http://   67 FR 57872 (Sept.        06/30/04
 epa.gov/guide/aquaculture/).         12, 2002).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: EPA has proposed to add parts 450 and 451 to title 40 of the
  Code of Federal Regulations. EPA has proposed to change the title of
  40 CFR 432 from ``Meat Products'' to ``Meat and Poultry Products.''

    The preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005 
(``304(m) Plan'' or ``Plan'') is a key step in developing the final 
plan. It represents a considerable effort by the Agency to implement a 
planning process that considers the hazards or risks to human health 
and the environment from industrial point source categories. It 
reflects a lengthy outreach effort to involve stakeholders in the 
planning process. It also reflects EPA's initial screening-level 
estimates of hazard or risk, which EPA examined for the purpose of 
identifying industrial point source categories. EPA will use these 
estimates to decide if new or revised guidelines are appropriate. In 
preparing this preliminary plan, EPA also considered the structure of 
specific industries and the availability of economically achievable 
technology that will reduce the identified hazard or risk. EPA will 
complete these analyses prior to publishing the final Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005.

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

    Today's Federal Register notice has three purposes. First, it 
presents the results of EPA's annual review of the effluent guidelines 
that EPA has promulgated under CWA section 304(b). Second, it solicits 
public comment on the preliminary effluent guidelines plan as required 
by section 304(m)(2) of the CWA. Third, it describes and solicits 
comment on the analytical framework that EPA has employed to date in 
performing the annual review for 2003 and in developing today's 
preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. EPA articulated an early 
form of this evolving analytical framework in the draft Strategy for 
National Clean Water Industrial Regulations (``draft Strategy''), which 
EPA hopes to finalize concurrently with the Effluent Guidelines Program 
Plan in 2004.

VI. 2003 Annual Review of Effluent Guidelines That EPA Has Promulgated 
Under CWA Section 304(b)

    As noted in section IV, the CWA requires EPA to publish a plan 
every two years that establishes a schedule for the annual review of 
the effluent guidelines that EPA has promulgated under CWA section 
304(b). In today's Federal Register notice, EPA proposes a schedule 
whereby EPA would perform its annual review under CWA section 
304(m)(1)(A) in concert with its efforts to identify industrial 
categories for new or revised effluent guidelines. In other words, in 
odd-numbered years, EPA would coordinate its annual review with the 
preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan that EPA must publish for 
public review and comment under CWA section 304(m)(2). In even-numbered 
years, EPA would coordinate its annual review with its publication of 
the final plan.
    EPA proposes this schedule for several reasons. First, the annual 
review is inextricably linked to the planning effort, because the 
results of each annual review inform the content of the proposed and 
final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans. Second, publishing the results 
of each annual review (including a description of the review process 
employed) at the same time EPA publishes proposed and final plans makes 
both processes more transparent. Third, by requiring EPA to review all 
existing effluent guidelines each year, we assume that Congress 
intended that each successive review would build upon the results of 
earlier reviews. Therefore, by publishing the results of the 2003 
annual review here, EPA hopes to receive data and information that will 
inform its review for 2004 and the future. In addition, EPA hopes that 
publishing the 2003 annual review will prompt comments not only on the 
content of that review but also on the processes and factors we used in 
performing it. EPA may decide to change that process as a result of 
comments on today's notice.
    As part of its 2003 annual review, EPA also reviewed the NSPS 
promulgated by EPA under CWA section 306 and pretreatment standards 
promulgated under CWA sections 307(b) and 307(c), although it was not 
required under CWA section 304(m)(1)(A) to do so.

[[Page 75520]]

A. What Process and Rationale Did EPA Use To Review Effluent Guidelines 
That EPA Has Promulgated Under CWA Section 304(b)?

1. What Is an Existing Set of Effluent Guidelines for Purposes of EPA's 
Annual Review Under Section 304(m)(1)(A)?
    EPA's annual review obligation under section 304(m)(1)(A) applies 
to ``promulgated effluent guidelines.'' Because this subparagraph 
refers specifically to section 304(b), EPA interprets this to refer to 
Best Available Technology (BAT), Best Practicable Technology (BPT) and 
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) effluent 
limitations guidelines codified at 40 CFR parts 405-471 (representing a 
total of 55 categories and over 450 subcategories). As discussed in 
more detail in section VI.A.2, EPA used pollutant loading, 
technological, economic, and other factors required by the CWA to 
consider whether it is appropriate to revise the specific limitations 
codified in each set of effluent guidelines.
    EPA also examined the processes and operations forming the basis of 
each subcategory for which EPA had already promulgated effluent 
guidelines in order to decide whether it might be appropriate to 
address (through new subcategories) other industrial activities that 
are similar in terms of type of operations performed, wastewaters 
generated, and available pollution prevention and treatment options. 
Issues associated with new subcategories very often are interwoven with 
the structure and requirements of the existing regulation. A previous 
example where EPA addressed industrial operations not currently 
regulated by existing effluent guidelines by establishing new 
subcategories under an existing category is the agricultural refilling 
establishments subcategory (subpart E) that EPA added to the Pesticide 
Chemicals point source category (40 CFR part 455) (November 6, 1996; 61 
FR 57518).
    EPA's annual review of existing effluent guidelines also focused on 
identifying pollutants that are not regulated by existing effluent 
guidelines but that comprise a significant portion of the hazard or 
risk estimate for the industrial point source categories. EPA believes 
that it is reasonable to consider new pollutants for regulation in the 
course of reviewing existing effluent guidelines under CWA section 
304(m)(1)(A). EPA has several reasons for this. First, a newly 
identified pollutant might be adequately addressed through the 
additional control of regulated pollutants in an existing set of 
effluent guidelines. In some cases, revising existing limitations for 
one set of pollutants will address hazards or risks associated with a 
newly identified pollutant. Second, EPA believes it is necessary to 
understand the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of existing effluent 
guidelines in controlling newly identified pollutants before EPA can 
identify potential technology-based control options for these 
pollutants. For example, EPA revised existing effluent guidelines for 
the Oil and Gas Extraction point source category (40 CFR part 435) to 
address new pollutants that resulted from a new pollution prevention 
technology (synthetic-based drilling fluids). See 66 FR 6850 (January 
22, 2001). Similarly, EPA revised BAT limitations for the bleached 
papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite subcategories within 
the Pulp and Paper industrial point source category in 1998 to include 
for the first time effluent guidelines for dioxin. Third, the 
regulatory organization of subcategories in an existing guidelines also 
has a bearing on the identification of pollutants for regulation.
    In short, EPA believes that the appropriateness of creating a new 
subcategory or addressing a newly identified pollutant is best 
considered in the context of revising an existing set of effluent 
guidelines as a whole. Accordingly, EPA is performing these analyses as 
part of the Agency's responsibilities under CWA section 304(m)(1)(A).
2. What Factors Did EPA Consider When Performing its 2003 Annual Review 
of Existing Guidelines?
    The starting point of EPA's analysis is CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), 
which requires dischargers to achieve effluent limitations that reflect 
the ``best available technology economically achievable,'' as 
identified by the Administrator under the authority of CWA section 
304(b)(2). Section 304(b), in turn, requires EPA to consider many 
factors in identifying BAT. These are discussed in section III.C. 
Because CWA section 304(m)(1)(A) requires EPA to review promulgated 
guidelines in accordance with CWA section 304(b), EPA interprets the 
statute to authorize EPA to employ the same factors for its annual 
review that it would consider in selecting BAT in a rulemaking context. 
EPA believes that this is a reasonable approach because the outcome of 
EPA's annual review is a decision--expressed in the final Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan--identifying those effluent guidelines for 
possible revision.
    By using the statutory factors in section 304(b) and section 
301(b)(2)(A) as the framework for its annual review of existing 
guidelines, EPA can begin its investigation with a variety of 
technological, economic, and environmental issues associated with 
industrial categories that ultimately will help determine the need for, 
or scope of, a revised effluent guideline. In the draft Strategy for 
National Clean Water Industrial Regulations, EPA identified four major 
factors--based on section 304(b)--that the Agency would examine, in the 
course of its annual review, to determine whether it would be necessary 
and appropriate to revise an existing set of effluent guidelines, or 
whether to develop a new set of effluent guidelines for a newly 
identified industrial category.
    The first factor (referred to in this notice as ``Factor 1'') is 
consideration of the extent to which the pollutants remaining in an 
industrial category's discharge pose a hazard or risk to human health 
or the environment. The second factor (referred to in this notice as 
``Factor 2'') is identification of an applicable and demonstrated 
technology, process change, or pollution prevention alternative that 
can effectively reduce the pollutants remaining in the industrial 
category's wastewaters and thereby substantially reduce the hazard or 
risk to human health or the environment associated with these pollutant 
discharges.
    The third factor (referred to in this notice as ``Factor 3'') 
encompasses the cost, performance, and affordability of the technology, 
process change, or pollution prevention measures identified using the 
second factor. If the financial condition of the industry indicates 
significant difficulties in achieving the reductions, EPA would be 
reluctant to select the effluent guidelines for revision because there 
is a significant probability that EPA might ultimately determine that 
standards based on the new technology, process change, or pollution 
prevention measures were not ``economically achievable,'' as required 
by the CWA. Agency resources would be more effectively spent developing 
more efficient, less costly approaches to reducing pollutant loadings 
that would better satisfy applicable statutory requirements.
    The fourth factor (referred to in this notice as ``Factor 4'') 
incorporates implementation and efficiency considerations and 
recommendations from stakeholders. Here, EPA considers opportunities to 
eliminate inefficiencies or impediments to pollution prevention or 
technological innovation, or

[[Page 75521]]

opportunities to promote innovative approaches such as water quality 
trading, including within-plant trading. For example, industry 
requested in comments on the Offshore and Coastal effluent guidelines 
rulemakings that EPA specifically set standards for a new pollution 
prevention technology (synthetic-based drilling fluids). EPA 
promulgated these revision on January 22, 2001 (66 FR 6850). This 
factor might also prompt EPA to decide in a particular Plan against 
scheduling an existing effluent guideline for revision where the 
pollutant source is already efficiently addressed by another regulatory 
program or by non-regulatory programs.
    EPA also considered stakeholder recommendations for guideline 
development or revision even when they did not raise issues associated 
with implementation or efficiency considerations. In evaluating those 
recommendations, EPA considered the extent to which the pollutants in 
an industrial category's discharge pose a hazard or risk to human 
health or the environment (see Factor 1). EPA also considered whether 
the industrial sectors recommended by stakeholders are potentially 
subject to the Effluent Guidelines Program.
    In the course of performing its annual review for 2003, EPA 
evaluated where possible publicly available Agency databases and 
reports that contain nationwide information on an industry basis, but 
became aware of data quality and limitations in evaluating this 
information. EPA learned that it lacked sufficient data and information 
to consider the four factors for the industrial categories for which 
EPA has promulgated effluent guidelines under CWA section 304(b) in the 
exact manner and sequence described in the draft Strategy. For example, 
EPA found that it was much more difficult than anticipated to gather 
the data needed to perform a meaningful screening-level analysis of the 
availability of treatment or process technologies that might reduce 
hazard or risk beyond the performance of technologies in place at 
facilities in 55 industrial categories. Similarly, EPA could not 
identify a suitable screening-level tool for evaluating the economic 
affordability of treatment or process technologies because the universe 
of facilities is too broad and complex. Furthermore, EPA could not find 
a reasonable way to prioritize industries for the Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan based on a broad economic profile. Consequently, for its 
2003 review, EPA focused its efforts on collecting and analyzing 
screening-level data to identify industrial categories whose pollutant 
discharges potentially pose the greatest hazards or risks to human 
health and the environment because of their toxicity. EPA also 
considered efficiency and implementation issues. As described in 
section VII, EPA will conduct detailed studies, as part of its 2004 
annual review, to evaluate economic and technology issues for 
industrial categories with discharges that EPA believes offer the most 
significant opportunities for reducing risks or hazards. EPA will also 
continue to collect and analyze data on other industries whose 
discharges potentially pose high risks or hazards. See sections VII.B 
and C.
    In order to focus its inquiry during the 2003 annual review, EPA 
excluded categories for which EPA had promulgated effluent guidelines 
within the past seven years. EPA chose seven years because of the time 
it takes for effluent guidelines to be incorporated as enforceable 
effluent limitations into NPDES permits when they are renewed, which 
could be up to five years after the effluent guidelines are 
promulgated. This time period also allows for the pollutant reductions 
associated with recently-promulgated guidelines to be reflected in 
discharge monitoring data and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reports, 
so that the Agency can assess the potential for remaining risks or 
hazards. (In cases where EPA is aware of the growth of a new segment 
within a category for which EPA had recently revised effluent 
guidelines, or where new concerns are identified for pollutants 
discharged by facilities within the industrial category, EPA may decide 
not to exclude the category from review, but EPA identified no such 
instance during the 2003 review.) EPA also excluded categories with 
guideline revisions currently underway.
    EPA also excluded industry categories addressed by other Clean 
Water Act provisions. For example, some stakeholders urged EPA to 
identify municipal storm water discharges for effluent limitation 
guidelines; however, these discharges are addressed under CWA section 
402(p). Similarly, technology-based standards for publicly-owned 
treatment works (POTWs) are addressed under sections 301(b)(1)(B) and 
304(d).
    Commenters also identified discharges from ocean going vessels 
(cruise ships, ballast and bilge water) as a possible candidate for an 
effluent guidelines rulemaking. However, discharges of ballast water 
from vessels are not subject to CWA permitting requirements. See 68 FR 
53165 (September 9, 2003). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.3(a), 
discharges from properly functioning marine engines (i.e., bilge 
water), laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes, and other discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel do not require NPDES 
permit authorization unless the vessel is operating in a capacity other 
than as a means of transportation. Finally, discharges of sewage from 
vessels, are regulated under CWA section 312. None of these discharges 
requires NPDES permits under section 402 and, therefore, none are 
subject to BAT limitations or NSPS. Although EPA is currently 
considering a citizen petition seeking detailed consideration of cruise 
ship discharges and, if necessary, rulemaking to regulate such 
discharges, EPA has not yet decided whether (and if so, which) cruise 
ship discharges should be regulated under NPDES permits. In addition, 
recently-enacted, free standing legislation--not the CWA--imposes 
discharges limitations on black water (i.e., sewage) and gray water 
(i.e., laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes) for cruise ships 
operating in certain Alaskan waters.
    EPA also excluded from consideration in its 2003 review: (1) 
Industries composed entirely or almost exclusively of indirect 
dischargers (e.g., dental facilities), because the facilities are not 
subject to effluent guidelines under CWA section 304(b)(2); and (2) 
industries where the estimated hazard or risk was unclear and more data 
were needed to determine its magnitude. For the latter group, EPA 
intends to collect additional information for the next biennial Plan. 
EPA also did not identify industries where the vast majority of the 
estimated hazard or risk was limited to only one or a few facilities, 
because EPA believes that in such cases permit writing support to the 
States might better address the environmental problem. In judging 
whether support to permit writers would more effectively address a 
hazard or risk than national rulemaking, EPA will consider the number 
of facilities, their geographic location and other relevant factors.) 
EPA would assist in identifying control technologies and the effluent 
limitations based on best professional judgment (BPJ) on a facility-
specific basis. EPA will evaluate this decision criterion based on the 
information available at the time of each annual review. By using this 
multi-layered screening approach, the Agency concentrated its resources 
on those categories that posed the greatest hazard or risk (based on 
best available data), while deferring consideration of industrial point 
source

[[Page 75522]]

categories that the Agency believes are not good candidates for 
effluent guidelines establishment or revision during this planning 
cycle.
    As part of this year's review, EPA considered excluding from 
additional review industrial categories that have demonstrated that 
they are making significant progress through voluntary efforts to 
reduce hazard or risk to human health and the environment associated 
with their discharges. EPA agrees with stakeholders who have stated 
that voluntary efforts should be encouraged and rewarded, especially 
where voluntary reductions have been widely adopted within an industry 
and have led to significant reductions in pollutant discharges. EPA 
could not complete a systematic review of voluntary pollutant loading 
reductions during this annual review. However, a successful voluntary 
program would produce significant reductions in pollutant discharges, 
which in turn would be reflected in discharge monitoring and TRI data 
that EPA used to assess the potential hazard or risk associated with 
pollutant discharges.
    For a number of the industries that appeared to offer the greatest 
potential for reducing hazard or risk to human health or the 
environment, EPA attempted to gather and analyze additional data prior 
to commencing detailed and costly economic and technology studies. EPA 
examined: (1) The pollutants driving the hazard or risk estimates; (2) 
the geographic distribution of facilities in the industry; (3) any 
discharge trends within the industry; and (4) possible links between 
industrial point source discharges and impaired waterbodies identified 
by EPA, States, and Tribal governments under CWA section 303(d). EPA 
also performed limited quality assurance checks on the data used to 
develop hazard or risk estimates (e.g., verifying data reported to TRI 
and the Permit Compliance System) to determine if any of the hazard or 
risk estimates relied on incorrect or suspect data. To the extent 
possible, EPA also considered the efficiency of existing treatment and 
any applicable and demonstrated technology, process change, or 
pollution prevention alternatives that could effectively reduce the 
pollutants remaining in the industry category's wastewaters.
    Performance of this screening level analysis constitutes EPA's 
annual review for 2003.
3. What Was the Outcome of the Annual Review for 2003?
    As a result of its 2003 annual review, EPA identified two 
industrial categories for detailed investigation in its 2004 annual 
review: Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (part 414); 
and Petroleum Refining (part 419). During detailed investigation of 
these categories, EPA hopes to perform a more in-depth analysis of 
technology innovation and process changes in these industrial 
categories, as well as an analysis of technology cost and 
affordability. EPA will also consider whether new subcategories are 
needed for either of these categories. The purpose of the detailed 
investigation is to determine whether, in the final Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan for 2004/2005, EPA should identify one or both of these 
industrial categories for possible revision of their existing effluent 
guidelines. Based on the information available to EPA at this time, EPA 
is not proposing to make such an identification. However, EPA will 
examine the results of its 2004 annual review, which it intends to 
conclude prior to publishing the final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 
for 2004/2005, and will make a final decision on this matter as part of 
its final Plan. EPA requests comment and supporting data on whether it 
should identify either or both of these industrial categories for 
possible effluent guidelines rulemakings in the final Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005.
    At that time or shortly thereafter, EPA would make available for 
public comment the data and information underlying any decision to 
identify for possible revision the guidelines for one or both of these 
industrial categories. EPA would then consider the public comments as 
part of its 2005 annual review. EPA emphasizes that a decision in the 
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005 to identify one or both 
guidelines for possible revision does not in any way constitute a final 
decision to revise the guideline or guidelines. EPA would make any such 
effluent guidelines revisions--supported by an administrative record 
following an opportunity for public comment--only in connection with a 
formal rulemaking process pursuant to a schedule announced in that or a 
future Effluent Guidelines Program Plan.
    If EPA decides to identify one or both of the guidelines for these 
industrial categories for possible revision in its final Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005, EPA would expect to announce in 
that plan that EPA would start the rulemaking process in the Summer of 
2004. The rulemaking schedule itself would depend on a number of 
factors including the complexity of the industry and the availability 
of the data needed to support the development of a proposal. In 
addition, if EPA were to select both of these industrial categories for 
effluent guidelines rulemakings, EPA would likely stagger the start 
dates of the rulemakings in order to ensure that Agency resources are 
used most effectively. In proposing the next Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan, EPA would review these schedules and its progress to 
date. At that time, EPA could also determine, based on more in-depth 
data gathering and analyses, particularly with respect to Factors 2 and 
3, that revisions to the effluent guidelines for one or both industrial 
categories were not warranted (i.e., that the existing guidelines 
remain appropriate in light of applicable statutory factors). See 
section VII.A for additional information on the status of EPA's 
investigation of these industries.
    EPA also identified potentially high risks or hazards associated 
with discharges from two other industrial categories: Inorganic 
Chemicals (part 415) and Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (part 421). 
However, the Agency identified data gaps or issues that made these 
industries a lower priority than organic chemicals and petroleum 
refining. EPA does not have enough information at this time to 
determine whether there is a hazard or risk warranting a detailed 
review of these industries for potential guideline revision and does 
not anticipate identifying these effluent guidelines for revision in 
the final 2004/2005 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. See section VII.B 
for additional information on the status of EPA's investigation of 
these industrial point source categories.
    EPA identified seven other industrial point source categories with 
relatively high estimates of potential hazard or risk, but also 
identified significant data gaps or issues affecting the Agency's 
estimates of these hazards or risks. EPA will continue to collect and 
analyze information on these seven industrial categories but will 
assign a higher priority to investigating the organic chemicals, 
petroleum refining, inorganic chemicals and nonferrous metals 
manufacturing industrial categories. EPA does not anticipate 
identifying any of these seven industries for revision of an effluent 
guideline in the final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005. 
See section VII.C.
    EPA's Regional Offices and stakeholders identified nine other 
industrial point source categories as potential candidates for effluent 
guideline revision based on potential opportunities to improve 
efficient implementation of the national water quality program or 
because their

[[Page 75523]]

discharges may contribute to water quality problems. EPA evaluated 
these industrial point source categories and, based on available data, 
did not identify hazard or risks that appear to warrant effluent 
guideline revision. EPA does not anticipate identifying any of these 
nine industries for revision of an effluent guideline in the final 
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005. See section VII.C.
    The outcome of the 2003 annual review is presented in Table VI-1. 
The table identifies some of the information considered by EPA during 
this annual review, including whether the industry was mentioned at 
least once during stakeholder and EPA Regional outreach efforts, and 
where the industry ranks in terms of hazard in units of toxic-weighted 
pounds equivalent (TWPE) using TRI and PCS data. It also indicates 
whether EPA is identifying the particular industrial category for 
further investigation during the 2004 annual review (leading to a 
possible decision in the final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 
2004/2005 to identify that category for rulemaking). A ``No'' in this 
column means that EPA does not plan to conduct a detailed study for 
this industry prior to publication of the final Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan for 2004/2005. It also means that EPA does not plan to 
select this industry for effluent guidelines revisions for the final 
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005. Finally, EPA used a set 
of rationales for making industry specific decisions for the 
preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005. Table VI-1 
uses the following codes to describe the rationales for the Agency's 
industry specific decisions:
    (1) Effluent guidelines for this industry were recently revised or 
rulemaking is underway.
    (2) EPA will consider whether to provide region-, State-, or 
facility-specific permit support for this industry.
    (3) Not identified as a hazard or risk priority.
    (4) Incomplete data available for analysis: Need to collect more 
information for the next biennial plan.
    (5) EPA will consider whether to develop guidance in order to 
clarify existing permitting requirements.
    (6) All or nearly all sources engaged in this industrial activity 
are indirect dischargers.

                           Table VI-1.--Industries Covered by Existing Effluent Guidelines (Promulgated Under Section 304(b))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Conduct detailed
                  Industry category    40 CFR       Suggested in        TRI rank     PCS rank     investigation of
       No.             (listed        part \1\       stakeholder          \2\          \2\       industry for 2004/                Rationale
                   alphabetically)               outreach? (Yes/No)                             2005 plan?  (Yes/No)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............  Aluminum Forming.        467  No..................           25           18  No..................  (3)
2...............  Aquatic Animal           451  Yes.................          N/A           45  No..................  (1)
                   Production
                   Industry.
3...............  Asbestos                 427  No..................           51          N/A  No..................  (3)
                   Manufacturing.
4...............  Battery                  461  Yes.................           36           48  No..................  (3)
                   Manufacturing.
5...............  Canned and               407  Yes.................           29           38  No..................  (4)
                   Preserved Fruits
                   and Vegetable
                   Processing.
6...............  Canned and               408  Yes.................           49           26  No..................  (4)
                   Preserved
                   Seafood
                   Processing.
7...............  Carbon Black             458  No..................          N/A          N/A  No..................  (3)
                   Manufacturing.
8...............  Cement                   411  No..................           33           29  No..................  (3)
                   Manufacturing.
9...............  Centralized Waste        437  No..................          N/A          N/A  No..................  (1)
                   Treatment.
10..............  Coal Mining......        434  Yes.................           26           39  No..................  (1) and (4).
11..............  Coil Coating.....        465  Yes.................           32          N/A  No..................  (4)
12..............  Concentrated             412  No..................          N/A          N/A  No..................  (1)
                   Animal Feeding
                   Operations
                   (CAFO).
13..............  Construction and         450  Yes.................          N/A          N/A  No..................  (1)
                   Development.
14..............  Copper Forming...        468  No..................           28           34  No..................  (3)
15..............  Dairy Products           405  Yes.................           37           47  No..................  (4)
                   Processing.
16..............  Electrical and           469  Yes.................           34           23  No..................  (4)
                   Electronic
                   Components.
17..............  Electroplating...        413  Yes.................           23           27  No..................  (1)
18..............  Explosives               457  No..................           41           35  No..................  (3)
                   Manufacturing.
19..............  Ferroalloy               424  No..................           27           31  No..................  (3)
                   Manufacturing.
20..............  Fertilizer               418  Yes.................           20           17  No..................  (4)
                   Manufacturing.
21..............  Glass                    426  No..................           38           48  No..................  (3)
                   Manufacturing.
22..............  Grain Mills......        406  No..................           35           42  No..................  (3)
23..............  Gum and Wood             454  No..................           46           21  No..................  (3)
                   Chemicals.
24..............  Hospitals........        460  Yes.................           40           46  No..................  (6)
25..............  Ink Formulating..        447  No..................           45          N/A  No..................  (3)
26..............  Inorganic                415  Yes.................           12            7  No..................  See section VII.B.1.
                   Chemicals
                   Manufacturing.

[[Page 75524]]

 
27..............  Iron and Steel           420  No..................            6            5  No..................  (1)
                   Manufacturing.
28..............  Landfills........        445  No..................            9           12  No..................  (1)
29..............  Leather Tanning          425  No..................           24           36  No..................  (3)
                   and Finishing.
30..............  Meat Products....        432  Yes.................           30           25  No..................  (1)
31..............  Metal Finishing..        433  Yes.................           11            8  No..................  (1)
32..............  Metal Molding and        464  Yes.................           22           33  No..................  (4) and (5).
                   Casting.
33..............  Metal Products           438  Yes.................           47           15  No..................  (1)
                   and Machinery.
34..............  Mineral Mining           436  Yes.................           52           22  No..................  (4)
                   and Processing.
35..............  Nonferrous Metals        471  No..................           16           30  No..................  (3)
                   Forming and
                   Metal Powders.
36..............  Nonferrous Metals        421  No..................            8            9  No..................  See section VII.B.2.
                   Manufacturing.
37..............  Oil and Gas              435  No..................           50           43  No..................  (1) and (4).
                   Extraction.
38..............  Ore Mining and           440  Yes.................           21           10  No..................  (4)
                   Dressing.
39..............  Organic                  414  Yes.................            1            4  Yes.................  See section VII.A.1.
                   Chemicals,
                   Plastics and
                   Synthetic Fibers.
40..............  Paint Formulating        446  No..................          N/A          N/A  No..................  (3)
41..............  Paving and               443  No..................           48           41  No..................  (3)
                   Roofing
                   Materials (Tars
                   and Asphalt).
42..............  Pesticide                455  No..................           31           16  No..................  (3)
                   Chemicals.
43..............  Petroleum                419  Yes.................            4           14  Yes.................  See section VII.A.2.
                   Refining.
44..............  Pharmaceutical           439  No..................           17           24  No..................  (1)
                   Manufacturing.
45..............  Phosphate                422  No..................           44            6  No..................  (4)
                   Manufacturing.
46..............  Photographic.....        459  No..................          N/A           48  No..................  (3)
47..............  Plastic Molding          463  No..................           15           37  No..................  (3)
                   and Forming.
48..............  Porcelain                466  No..................           18           20  No..................  (3)
                   Enameling.
49..............  Pulp and Paper           430  Yes.................            3            3  No..................  (1)
                   Subparts B & E
                   (Phase I).
50..............  Pulp and Paper           430  Yes.................            7           19  No..................  (4)
                   Subparts C and F
                   through L (Phase
                   II).
51..............  Pulp and Paper           430  Yes.................           30           25  No..................  (2)
                   Subparts A & D
                   (Phase III).
52..............  Rubber                   428  No..................           14           32  No..................  (3)
                   Manufacturing.
53..............  Soaps and                417  No..................           42           44  No..................  (3)
                   Detergents
                   Manufacturing.
54..............  Steam Electric           423  Yes.................            5            1  No..................  (4)
                   Power Generation.
55..............  Sugar Processing.        409  No..................           43           28  No..................  (3)
56..............  Textile Mills....        410  Yes.................           19           11  No..................  (4)
57..............  Timber Products          429  Yes.................            2           40  No..................  (4)
                   Processing.
58..............  Transportation           442  Yes.................          N/A          N/A  No..................  (1) and (6).
                   Equipment
                   Cleaning.
59..............  Waste Combustors.        444  No..................            9           12  No..................  (1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: EPA has proposed to add parts 450 and 451 to title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA has proposed to change the title of 40 CFR 432
  from ``Meat Products'' to ``Meat and Poultry Products.''
\2\ Note: These rankings are based on the toxic-weighted pounds equivalent (TWPE) associated with their toxic or non-conventional pollutant discharges
  reported to TRI or PCS. An NA in this column means that data and information were not available for this category.


[[Page 75525]]

B. How Did EPA Estimate Potential Hazards or Risks to Human Health or 
the Environment As Part of Its 2003 Annual Review?

    The screening-level review of potential hazards or risks to human 
health or the environment (EPA's ``Factor 1'' review) focused on using 
readily available information to assess the potential hazard or risk 
associated with pollutants discharged from industrial point sources. 
EPA reviewed such data sources as Agency databases, models, existing 
scientific literature, the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan, and analyses 
currently underway on chemical contaminants in the environment. This 
included data on pollutant point source discharges, water quality, 
environmental impacts (e.g., sediment and fish contamination), and 
pathogen impacts. The two major data sources/analyses that formed the 
basis of ranking industries for the current Factor 1 analysis are the 
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and Permit Compliance System (PCS). The 
Factor 1 analysis also describes the available data linking water 
quality impairments with point sources discharges. EPA focused this 
impaired waters analysis on those point source dischargers discharging 
the most pounds of toxic and non-conventional pollutants (as estimated 
by the initial screening TRI and PCS analyses). Section 2.1 of the 
docket contains the complete analysis including descriptions of 
additional data sources that may be useful in future planning cycles.
    EPA primarily relied on PCS and TRI for estimating pollutant 
discharges. EPA believes that the TRI database is a reasonable starting 
point for identifying possible hazard or risk concerns as it is a 
national database on reported toxic discharges. EPA's Permit Compliance 
System (PCS) contains information required by the NPDES Permit Program 
for major dischargers across the country.\1\ EPA does not require 
States to include data for other dischargers (e.g., minor and indirect 
dischargers) in PCS, so little information is available about 
industries dominated by minor and indirect dischargers. However, EPA is 
primarily concerned with facilities that may discharge high volumes of 
polluted wastewaters because these are more likely to pose the greatest 
hazard or risk to human health or the environment. PCS is the primary 
repository of data used to determine reductions in pollutant loads to 
the waters of the United States. Because of its national scope, PCS is 
also a reasonable starting point for identifying hazard or risk 
concerns, especially when combined with other sources of information. 
Finally, the Agency also analyzed the spatial correlation between the 
discharge outfalls of regulated facilities that report to PCS and 
impaired water bodies listed under section 303(d) of the Clean Water 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A major discharger is any NPDES facility or activity 
classified as such by the Regional Administrator, or, in the case of 
approved State Programs, the Regional Administrator in conjunction 
with the State Director. Major industrial facilities are determined 
based on specific ratings criteria developed by EPA and approved 
State Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We used the TRI and PCS databases as the focus in this round of 
analysis because of their nationwide coverage, relative accessability, 
ability to link the source with the pollutant discharge, and the 
important types of toxic releases that they cover. However, as detailed 
in the complete Factor 1 report, the Agency is exploring other avenues 
of information that may be added in future planning cycles. These 
include, for example, regional resources such as the Gulf Hypoxia 
Action Plan (nutrients), various sources related to pathogens, 
information that becomes available as the Agency implements its 
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, and information being developed 
in the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment 
Program.

C. How Did EPA Evaluate Stakeholder Input As Part of Its 2003 Annual 
Review?

    EPA's planning process for the Effluent Guidelines Program has 
historically considered information provided by stakeholders regarding 
the need for new or revised effluent guidelines or regarding issues 
associated with effluent guidelines implementation and efficiency. For 
the 2003 annual review, EPA obtained information from informal 
discussions with stakeholder groups with an interest in the Effluent 
Guidelines Program and with EPA and state staff charged with 
implementing effluent guidelines in NPDES permits, as well as from 
public comments submitted to EPA on the draft strategy.
    Stakeholders' suggestions played a prominent role in the screening 
analyses conducted for the preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 
for 2004/2005. Examples of such sectors include food processing/
preparation industries (nutrients and/or oil and grease); and drinking 
water supply and treatment (total suspended solids); and coalbed 
methane (total dissolved solids, sodium adsorption ratio).
    Results of the formal comment process are presented in this notice 
and in the following document: Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and 
Efficiency Considerations--Status of Screening Level Review Phase (DCN 
00547, section 2.3). Results of the informal process are described in 
today's notice and in the public record, section 2.3. EPA will follow 
up with stakeholders, as necessary, for more information on their 
recommendations as the planning process continues. EPA hopes that 
public review of this and future proposed and final Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plans will elicit additional information and suggestions. 
Tables VI-2 and VI-3 describe which industry sectors were identified 
during the Agency's outreach activities. Table VI-2 uses the same codes 
as Table VI-1 to describe the rationales for the Agency's industry 
specific decisions. Table VI-3 uses the same codes as Table VIII-1 to 
describe the rationales for the Agency's industry specific decisions.

                  Table VI-2.--Industrial Point Source Categories Currently Regulated by Effluent Guidelines Identified During Outreach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Formal comment process                          Draft stratey outreach
                                 ----------------------------------   Previous   ----------------------------------
            Industry                Comments on      Comments on      outreach       Permitting      AMSA and/or                  Rationale
                                   draft strategy   2002/2003 plan                  authorities      ASWIPCA \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canned and Preserved Fruits and   ...............  ...............     [bcheck]   ...............  ...............  (3)
 Vegetable Processing.
Canned and Preserved Seafood      ...............  ...............     [bcheck]         [bcheck]         [bcheck]   (4)
 Processing.
Coal Mining.....................  ...............        [bcheck]      [bcheck]   ...............        [bcheck]   (1) and (4).

[[Page 75526]]

 
Coil Coating....................  ...............  ...............  ............        [bcheck]   ...............  (3)
Dairy Products Processing.......  ...............  ...............     [bcheck]   ...............  ...............  (4)
Electrical and Electronic         ...............  ...............  ............        [bcheck]   ...............  (4)
 Components.
Electroplating..................        [bcheck]   ...............  ............  ...............  ...............  (1)
Fertilizer Manufacturing........  ...............  ...............     [bcheck]         [bcheck]   ...............  (4)
Hospitals.......................        [bcheck]         [bcheck]   ............        [bcheck]   ...............   (6)
Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing  ...............  ...............  ............        [bcheck]   ...............  See section VII.B.1.
Meat Products...................  ...............  ...............     [bcheck]         [bcheck]         [bcheck]   (1)
Metal Finishing.................        [bcheck]   ...............     [bcheck]         [bcheck]         [bcheck]   (1)
Metal Molding and Casting.......        [bcheck]   ...............     [bcheck]         [bcheck]         [bcheck]   (4) and (5).
Metal Products and Machinery....  ...............  ...............  ............        [bcheck]   ...............  (1)
Mineral Mining and Processing...  ...............  ...............     [bcheck]   ...............  ...............  (4)
Oil and Gas Extraction            ...............        [bcheck]      [bcheck]         [bcheck]   ...............  (1) and (4).
 (including coal bed methane as
 new potential subcategory).
Ore Mining and Dressing (hard     ...............        [bcheck]      [bcheck]         [bcheck]   ...............  (4)
 rock mining).
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, &          [bcheck]   ...............  ............  ...............  ...............  See section VII.A.1.
 Synthetic Fibers (including
 chemical formulating,
 packaging, and repackaging
 (including adhesives and
 sealants) operations as a new
 potential subcategory).
Petroleum Refining (including     ...............  ...............     [bcheck]         [bcheck]         [bcheck]   See section VII.A.2.
 petroleum bulk stations and
 terminals as a new potential
 subcategory).
Pulp and Paper, Subparts B & E    ...............  ...............     [bcheck]         [bcheck]   ...............  (1)
 (Phase I).
Pulp and Paper, Subparts C and F  ...............  ...............     [bcheck]         [bcheck]   ...............  (4)
 through L (Phase II).
Pulp and Paper, Subparts A & D    ...............  ...............     [bcheck]         [bcheck]   ...............  (2)
 (Phase III).
Steam Electric..................  ...............  ...............     [bcheck]         [bcheck]   ...............  (4)
Textile Mills...................  ...............  ...............     [bcheck]         [bcheck]   ...............  (4)
Timber Products Processing......  ...............  ...............  ............        [bcheck]   ...............  (4)
Transportation Equipment                [bcheck]   ...............  ............  ...............  ...............  (1) and (6).
 Cleaning (including industrial
 container & drum cleaning as a
 new potential subcategory).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASWIPCA).
\2\ Note: This column uses the same codes as Table VI-1 to describe the rationales for the Agency's industry-specific decisions.


                         Table VI-3.--Industry Sectors Currently Not Regulated by Effluent Guidelines Identified During Outreach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Formal comment process                          Draft strategy outreach
                                         ----------------------------------   Previous   ----------------------------------
                Industry                    Comments on      Comments on      outreach       Permitting      AMSA and/or            Rationale \2\
                                           draft strategy   2002/2003 plan                  authorities      ASWIPCA \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport Industrial Discharges...........  ...............  ...............      [radic]   ...............  ...............  (3)
Aquatic Animal Production...............  ...............  ...............      [radic]          [radic]   ...............  (1)
Storm Water Discharges from Construction  ...............  ...............  ............  ...............         [radic]   (1)
 and Development.
Dental Facilities.......................         [radic]          [radic]   ............         [radic]   ...............  (4)
Drinking Water Supply & Treatment.......  ...............  ...............      [radic]   ...............  ...............  (2)
Food Service Establishments (SIC 581)...         [radic]   ...............  ............  ...............  ...............  (4)
Discharges from Groundwater Remediation.  ...............  ...............  ............         [radic]   ...............  (5)
Independent and Stand-Alone Laboratories         [radic]   ...............  ............  ...............  ...............  (4)
Ocean Going Vessels (cruise ships,        ...............         [radic]       [radic]   ...............  ...............  (6)
 ballast and bilge water).

[[Page 75527]]

 
Printing and Publishing.................         [radic]   ...............  ............  ...............  ...............  (4)
Prisons.................................  ...............  ...............  ............         [radic]   ...............  (4)
Municipal Storm Water Runoff............  ...............  ...............      [radic]          [radic]          [radic]   (5)
Wastewater Treatment and Sewerage         ...............  ...............      [radic]   ...............  ...............  (5)
 Systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASWIPCA).
\2\ Note: This column uses the same codes as Table VIII-1 to describe the rationales for the Agency's industry-specific decisions.

VII. What Will Be the Focus of EPA's 2004 Annual Review?

A. Industrial Point Source Categories EPA Has Identified for Detailed 
Investigation

    As noted in section VI, EPA has identified two industrial 
categories for detailed investigation in the 2004 annual review: 
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (including Chemical 
Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging and Adhesives and Sealants 
operations) (part 414); and Petroleum Refining (including Petroleum 
Bulk Stations & Terminals) (part 419). The purpose of the 2004 detailed 
investigation is to determine whether, in the final Effluent Guidelines 
Program Plan for 2004/2005, EPA should identify Organic Chemicals, 
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers or Petroleum Refining (or both) as the 
subject of possible rulemaking to revise their existing effluent 
guidelines. During the 2004 annual review, which will conclude with 
EPA's publication of the final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 
2004/2005, EPA intends to collect additional information from NPDES 
permits, permitting authorities, and specific industry facilities, as 
well as review data and comments submitted in response to today's 
notice.
1. Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)
    This industry ranked high in terms of toxic and non-conventional 
pollutant discharges among all industrial point source categories 
investigated in the screening level analyses. Of 1,581 facilities 
classified as OCPSF manufacturing facilities, PCS location data are 
sufficient to index 578 facilities to their receiving waterbodies. Of 
these facilities, 205 (35%) are discharging pollutants (e.g., priority 
organics, nutrients, metals) identified as causing water quality 
impairments to their receiving streams. EPA has information that 
suggests there may be demonstrated pollution prevention opportunities 
and advanced technologies for better treating toxic pollutants and 
nutrients, and reducing wastewater flow. As part of its review of this 
industry, EPA will consider whether any subcategories should be added. 
For example, EPA has identified chemical formulating, packaging, and 
repackaging (including adhesives and sealants) operations, which is not 
currently regulated by technology-based effluent guidelines as a 
possible new subcategory.
    Some stakeholders have encouraged EPA to consider revising these 
effluent guidelines. During outreach efforts, some stakeholders 
asserted that the structure and scope of part 414 presents a number of 
permitting and enforcement challenges: (1) Difficulties encountered in 
correctly calculating and establishing mass-based limits; (2) problems 
in obtaining the data necessary to determine compliance with mass-based 
limits; (3) deficiencies in permits and control mechanisms that have 
hindered enforcement actions against non-compliant facilities; and (4) 
challenges encountered in determining the correct Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) codes to apply to facilities, which in turn makes 
it difficult for permit writers to identify the applicable effluent 
guidelines requirements. Therefore, these stakeholders recommend 
reevaluating these guidelines to consider more general coverage that is 
not tied to SIC codes. They also recommend switching from mass-based 
limits to concentration-based limits because of difficulties in 
implementing and enforcing mass-based limits.
    In comments on the draft Strategy a commenter identified chemical 
formulating, packaging, and repackaging (including adhesives and 
sealants) operations as an unregulated subcategory for which effluent 
guidelines should potentially be developed. EPA intends to review 
chemical formulating, packaging, and repackaging (including adhesives 
and sealants) operations for possible inclusion in the OCPSF point 
source category because of the potential similarities in operations 
performed, wastewaters generated, and available pollution prevention 
and treatment options.
2. Petroleum Refining
    This industry ranked high in terms of toxic and non-conventional 
pollutant discharges among all industrial point source categories 
investigated in the screening level analyses. A large number of 
petroleum refineries report discharges of toxic pollutants (e.g., 
priority organics, metals). EPA has information suggesting that there 
may pollution prevention alternatives opportunities for this industry 
(e.g., via product substitution), and that treatment technologies 
(e.g., membrane separation, novel adsorption) may exist to better 
prevent stormwater contamination and to control effluent discharges 
from this industrial category.
    During outreach, some stakeholders encouraged EPA to consider 
revising these effluent guidelines. Their suggestions included 
expanding the list of regulated pollutants to include: (1) Priority 
pollutants; (2) metals, especially selenium; (3) nutrients (ammonia); 
(4) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD); and (5) chemical oxygen demand 
(COD). Stakeholders suggested a review of Best Practicable Technology 
(BPT), Best Available Technology (BAT), and Best Conventional Pollutant 
Control Technology (BCT) for accuracy and relevance because the current 
effluent guidelines were promulgated in 1982.
    Some EPA Regional Offices and stakeholders also asserted that the 
effluent guidelines for this category are outdated relative to the 
current state of the industry, and should be a priority for revision. 
These stakeholders argue that not only have the technologies

[[Page 75528]]

changed significantly since the guidelines were first issued in 1982, 
but many refineries have two to four times the throughput than was used 
when the effluents guidelines were first issued and can probably 
achieve greater pollutant reductions than they are presently required 
to achieve. For industries with production based limitations and 
standards, such as this one, a significant change in production may 
suggest a need to review the effluent guidelines.
    As part of its review of this industry, EPA will consider whether 
any new subcategories should be added. For example, EPA has identified 
petroleum bulk stations and terminals, which are not currently 
regulated by technology-based effluent guidelines, as a possible new 
subcategory. Some stakeholders identified concerns for discharges from 
petroleum bulk stations and terminals facilities. EPA intends to 
consider petroleum bulk stations and terminals (not currently regulated 
by effluent guidelines) as it reviews the Petroleum Refining point 
source category (part 419) because of potential similarities in 
operations performed, wastewaters generated, and available pollution 
prevention and treatment options.

B. Industrial Point Source Categories EPA Has Identified as the Highest 
Priority for Further Investigation

    EPA intends to address data gaps and uncertainties affecting EPA's 
estimates of the potential risks and hazards posed by two industrial 
categories: Inorganic Chemicals (part 414) and Nonferrous Metals 
Manufacturing (part 421). However, EPA does not anticipate completing 
its review of these industrial categories in this planning cycle. EPA 
expects to complete its review of Group II industries for the Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan for 2006/2007. Consequently, EPA does not 
anticipate selecting either of these industrial categories for revision 
of their effluent guidelines in the final Effluent Guidelines Program 
Plan for 2004/2005.
1. Inorganic Chemicals
    This industry ranked high in terms of toxic and non-conventional 
pollutant discharges among all industrial point source categories 
investigated in the screening level analyses. EPA identified this 
industry as a lower priority than the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and 
Synthetic Fibers and Petroleum Refining industries based on the 
following:
    [sbull] Only a few facilities account for the reported toxic 
releases. For the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source 
Category, 12 facilities in the 2000 TRI database account for 
approximately 90 percent of the reported releases of toxic-weighted 
pound equivalents (TWPE) to waters of the United States.
    [sbull] The reported toxic releases are dominated by dioxin. Dioxin 
and dioxin-like compounds represent approximately 70 percent of the 
TWPE reported releases to surface waters and three facilities discharge 
approximately 80 percent of those TWPE. The majority of reported dioxin 
discharges are from chlor-alkali facilities (SIC 2812).
    [sbull] Use of industry-specific dioxin toxic weighting factors. 
Using the best available information, EPA is using different toxic 
weighting factors for the different dioxin congeners. Further 
information and data may also affect EPA's estimate of the toxicity 
associated with these dioxin discharges.
    [sbull] Low-level mercury discharges reported in PCS account for a 
substantial part of the TWPE for this industry. Excluding one facility, 
the average mercury discharge is at a very low concentration, raising 
issues about the treatability of these discharges.
    During outreach efforts, some stakeholders suggested that the 
Inorganic Chemical effluent guidelines (part 415) should be reevaluated 
to determine whether the ``no discharge'' requirement is reasonable. 
Stakeholders stated that there have been substantial changes to this 
industrial point source category since the effluent guidelines were 
promulgated in 1982. In particular, stakeholders suggested revising the 
effluent guidelines with respect to chlor-alkali and nitrous oxide 
manufacturing. The majority of reported dioxin discharges are from 
chlor-alkali facilities (SIC 2812). Stakeholders also suggested 
revising the potassium manufacturing subcategory to address 
interpretation issues for new sources as to what constitutes process 
wastewater.
2. Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
    This industry ranked high in terms of toxic and non-conventional 
pollutant discharges among all industrial point source categories 
investigated in the screening level analyses. The existing effluent 
guidelines use SIC codes to determine applicability but in some cases a 
single SIC code covers facilities not only in this industrial point 
source category, but also in other categories. Consequently, EPA has 
begun to conduct further review of the discharges reported in TRI and 
PCS for this category to ensure that EPA is not double-counting 
pollutants among two or more categories. This review has already 
lowered the estimated toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges 
attributed to this category and may do so further. EPA also notes that 
nonferrous metals manufacturing facilities tend to have efficient 
metals removal from existing treatment-in-place (most metals removals 
are approximately 99% efficient based on 2000 TRI data).

C. Other Industry Categories

    EPA identified seven other industrial point source categories with 
relatively high estimates of potential hazard or risk based on the 
screening tools used to evaluate hazard or risk and the information 
gathered from EPA Regional Offices and stakeholders: fertilizer 
manufacturing; ore mining and dressing; phosphate manufacturing; pulp 
and paper (phase II); steam electric power generating; textile mills; 
and timber products processing. EPA also identified numerous data gaps 
and issues that may affect the Agency's estimate of the risk or hazard 
posed by discharges from these industrial point source categories. EPA 
will continue investigating pollutant discharges from these industrial 
point source categories, but will assign a higher priority to the 
industrial categories described in sections VII A. and B. At the 
present time, the Agency does not have enough information to determine 
whether the hazard or risk that appears to be posed by these categories 
warrants revision of the applicable effluent guidelines. Therefore, EPA 
does not anticipate identifying any of these categories for revision of 
an effluent guideline in the final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 
2004/2005.
    EPA Regional Offices and outreach efforts identified nine other 
industrial point source categories as potential candidates for effluent 
guideline revision: canned and preserved fruits and vegetable 
processing; canned and preserved seafood processing; coal mining; coil 
coating; dairy products processing; electrical and electronic 
components; metal molding and casting; mineral mining and processing; 
and oil and gas extraction (including coalbed methane extraction). 
These industries were identified because of potential opportunities to 
improve efficient implementation of the national water quality program 
or because their discharges may contribute to water quality problems. 
EPA evaluated these categories and, based on available data, did not 
identify hazard or risks that appear to warrant effluent guideline 
revision. Therefore, EPA does not anticipate identifying any of these 
categories for revision of an effluent guideline in the final Effluent 
Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005.

[[Page 75529]]

VIII. Identification of and Schedule for Possible Categories for 
Potential New Effluent Guidelines

    In its Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, EPA must 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 new source performance standards (NSPS) under 
section 306. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(B). For the categories EPA 
identifies under this provision, EPA must establish a schedule for the 
promulgation of effluent guidelines not later than three years after 
such identification. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(C). Today's Federal 
Register notice presents EPA's preliminary decisions under section 
304(m)(1)(B).

A. Review Process and Decision Criteria for Industrial Categories for 
Which EPA Has Not Promulgated Effluent Guidelines

    The universe of potential industrial categories subject to section 
304(m)(1)(B) is limited. First, and most important, this analysis 
applies only to industrial categories for which EPA has not promulgated 
effluent guidelines, not to unregulated subcategories or pollutants 
within a currently regulated industrial category. Thus, the first 
decision criterion asks whether the industrial operation or activity in 
question is properly characterized as an industry ``category.'' The 
list of ``categories of sources'' set forth at section 306(b)(1)(A) 
(e.g., pulp and paper mills, organic chemicals manufacturing, steam 
electric powerplants) suggests that Congress intended that this term 
should be broadly construed. EPA considers the need to address new 
subcategories and new pollutants as part of its annual review of 
existing effluent guidelines. See section VI. EPA believes that the 
decision whether to revise a guideline to address additional related 
industrial activities or pollutants should be made in the context of 
evaluating the promulgated effluent guideline as a whole. For example, 
as part of its annual review under CWA section 304(m)(1)(A), EPA is 
reviewing the following industrial operations as potential new 
subcategories of existing effluent guidelines: (1) Petroleum Bulk 
Stations and Terminals (SIC 5171) will be reviewed as a potential new 
subcategory under Petroleum Refining (part 419); and (2) Chemical 
Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging (including Adhesives and 
Sealants) operations will be reviewed as a potential new subcategory 
under Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (part 414).
    Second, the analysis under CWA section 304(m)(1)(B) applies only to 
industrial categories to which effluent guidelines under section 
304(b)(2) or section 306 would apply, if promulgated. Therefore, for 
purposes of section 304(m)(1)(B), EPA would not identify industrial 
categories composed exclusively or almost exclusively of indirect 
discharging facilities regulated under section 307 or categories like 
wastewater treatment plants regulated under section 301(b)(1)(B). EPA 
also believes this criterion should be used to exclude categories where 
the vast majority of toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges 
are accounted for by one or a few facilities. EPA believes that more 
effective environmental protection can be accomplished sooner for such 
categories, and with less use of limited Agency resources, by providing 
site-specific guidance to permit authorities on appropriate limitations 
and standards based on best professional judgment. This decision 
criterion acknowledges that other tools created by the Clean Water Act 
better pollutant discharges from some categories of facilities.
    Third, the analysis under CWA section 304(m)(1)(B) applies only to 
industrial categories of sources that the record shows are making non-
trivial discharges of toxic or non-conventional pollutants to waters of 
the United States. EPA does not believe that it is necessary, nor was 
it Congress's intent, to develop national effluent guidelines 
regulations for categories of sources that are likely to pose an 
insignificant risk to human health or the environment. See S. Rep. No. 
50, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985); WQA87 Leg. Hist. 31. This decision 
criterion leads EPA to focus on those remaining industrial categories 
where new effluent guidelines have the potential to address an 
identifiable hazard or risk to human health or the environment. In 
other words, using this decision criterion, EPA will identify those 
industrial categories of polluters for which effluent guidelines may be 
appropriate, based on information available during the development of a 
particular Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Thus, EPA might judge in 
2004, based on information available at that time, that the toxic and 
non-conventional pollutant discharges from sources within an industrial 
category are trivial, and then, based on changes in the industry or new 
information, reach a different conclusion in 2006 or later. Priority-
setting is intrinsic to any planning exercise, and this decision 
criterion is an important priority-setting tool. Because section 
304(m)(1)(C) requires that EPA complete an effluent guidelines 
rulemaking within three years of identifying an industrial category in 
a 304(m) plan, it is important that EPA have the discretion to identify 
only those industrial categories where the risks or hazards are indeed 
non-trivial. Otherwise, EPA might find itself commencing an effluent 
guidelines rulemaking when none is actually needed for the protection 
of human health or the environment. In assessing hazard or risk for 
purposes of CWA section 304(m)(1)(B), EPA used the same methodology 
discussed in section VI for reviewing industrial categories with 
existing effluent guidelines.

B. Outcome of EPA's Analysis Under CWA Section 304(m)(1)(B)

    Applying these decision criteria, EPA identified no new candidates 
for effluent guidelines rulemaking for this preliminary Plan. 
Consequently, EPA is not proposing to schedule an effluent guidelines 
rulemaking for any industrial category not already regulated by 
existing effluent guidelines. EPA's application of these decision 
criteria to industrial activities without effluent guidelines under 
sections 304(b) or 306 is presented in Table VIII-1 and in the record 
(DCN 00548, section 3.0). The ``Rationale'' column in Table VIII-1 uses 
a numeric coding system to explain why EPA did not identify the 
industrial activity in this preliminary Plan as a candidate for an 
effluent guidelines rulemaking:
    (1) An effluent guidelines rulemaking for this industry is underway 
or was recently concluded.
    (2) The vast majority of the estimated hazards are limited to only 
one or a few facilities.
    (3) Inadequate data to determine if there are non-trivial 
discharges; additional data collection on-going.
    (4) All or nearly all sources engaged in this industrial activity 
are indirect dischargers and are not subject to CWA section 304(b) or 
section 306.
    (5) Other CWA controls apply (e.g. Uniform National Discharge 
Standards for armed forces vessels, municipal storm water regulations).
    (6) Industrial activity is not subject to CWA permitting 
requirements.

[[Page 75530]]



                               Table VIII-1.--Industrial Activities for Which EPA Has Not Promulgated Effluent Guidelines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Continue
                                                                                                             investigation for
                                                                                                                  possible
                                          Suggested in                                                       identification for
        Industrial activity           stakeholder outreach?         TRI rank               PCS rank            final Effluent            Rationale
                                            (Yes/No)                                                         Guidelines Program
                                                                                                            Plan for 2004/2005?
                                                                                                                  (Yes/No)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport Industrial Discharges......  Yes...................  Not Avail............  2....................  No...................  (3)
Aquatic Animal Production..........  Yes...................  Not Avail............  Not Avail............  No...................  (1)
Storm Water Discharges from          Yes...................  Not Avail............  Not Avail............  No...................  (1)
 Construction and Development.
Dental Facilities..................  Yes...................  Not App..............  Not App..............  No...................  (4)
Drinking Water Supply & Treatment..  Yes...................  1....................  1....................  No...................  (2)
Food Service Establishments (SIC     Yes...................  Not App..............  Not App..............  No...................  (4)
 581).
Discharges from Groundwater          Yes...................  Not App..............  Not App..............  No...................  (5)
 Remediation.
Independent & Stand-Alone            Yes...................  Not App..............  Not App..............  No...................  (4)
 Laboratories.
Industrial Laundries...............  No....................  Not App..............  Not App..............  No...................  (4)
Ocean Going Vessels (cruise ships,   Yes...................  Not App..............  Not App..............  No...................  (6)
 ballast and bilge water).
Printing & Publishing..............  Yes...................  Not App..............  Not App..............  No...................  (4)
Prisons............................  Yes...................  Not App..............  Not App..............  No...................  (4)
Municipal Storm Water Runoff.......  Yes...................  Not App..............  Not App..............  No...................  (5)
Wastewater Treatment and Sewerage    Yes...................  Not App..............  Not App..............  No...................  (5)
 Systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: ``Not Avail.'' means that the information was not available using data from TRI or PCS. ``Not App.'' means that this 304(m) ranking was not
  applicable for this industry, in as much as this industry is not subject to 304(m) effluent guidelines planning.

IX. Request for Comment and Information

    EPA invites and encourages public participation in the development 
of the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005. The Agency asks 
that comments address deficiencies in the record of this preliminary 
Plan and that commenters provide supporting data for suggested 
revisions or corrections where possible.
    EPA particularly requests comments and information on these issues:
    A. EPA requests information on the industries recommended for 
detailed investigation: Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic 
Fibers (40 CFR part 414) and Petroleum Refining (40 CFR part 419). 
Specifically, EPA hopes to gather the following information:

OCPSF (SIC codes 2821, 2823, 2824, 2865, 2869)

    [sbull] What is the source (raw material, process, product) of the 
TRI-reported releases of toxic chemicals, particularly dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds, PACs, aniline, and sodium nitrite?
    [sbull] What control technologies or techniques can be used to 
reduce the wastewater contamination with these pollutants?
    [sbull] What toxic chemicals are released from OCPSF facilities, 
but not reported to TRI or PCS?
    [sbull] Manufacturers of azo dyes and certain facilities in the 
rubber industry reported wastewater releases of aniline and sodium 
nitrite. What is the source (raw material, process, product) of these 
releases? What control technologies or techniques can be used to reduce 
wastewater contamination with these pollutants?
    [sbull] Manufacturers of ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride 
monomer reported wastewater releases of dioxin and dioxin-like 
compounds. What is the source (raw material, process, product) of these 
releases? What control technologies or techniques can be used to reduce 
wastewater contamination with these pollutants?

Chemical Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging (SIC codes 2841, 2842, 
2844, 2851, 2891, 2893, 2899)

    [sbull] What are the sources of wastewaters discharged from these 
facilities?
    [sbull] What pollutants (toxic, conventional, and nonconventional) 
are contained in these wastewaters and at what quantity?
    [sbull] What control technologies or techniques can be used to 
reduce the wastewater contamination with these pollutants?
    [sbull] What is the basis for the discharge limits in NPDES permits 
issued to facilities in these SIC codes?

Petroleum Refining (SIC code 2911)

    [sbull] In 2000, why did 19 refineries report surface water and 
POTW releases of PACs to TRI, while 164 refineries did not report 
releases?
    [sbull] What control technologies or techniques can be used to 
reduce the PACs in refinery wastewaters?
    [sbull] What is the source of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in 
refinery wastewaters?
    [sbull] What process modifications have been implemented at 
refineries to reduce the generation of dioxins?
    [sbull] What is the source of vanadium and other toxic metals in 
refinery wastewaters?
    [sbull] What process modifications have been implemented at 
refineries to reduce the vanadium in refinery wastewaters? Of other 
toxic metals?
    [sbull] What toxic chemicals are released from refineries, but not 
reported to TRI or PCS?

Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals (SIC code 5171)

    [sbull] What is the discharge status (number of facilities with 
direct, indirect, and zero discharge) of facilities in this SIC code?
    [sbull] Why or how do certain facilities discharge no wastewater, 
while other facilities discharge substantial volumes? (off-site 
disposal, lack of rainfall, 100% recycle/reuse, etc.)
    [sbull] What is the discharge of toxic pollutants (pollutant 
concentrations and mass)?
    [sbull] Is ammonia a typical contaminant in wastewater from 
facilities in SIC code 5171? What is the source of ammonia at these 
facilities?

[[Page 75531]]

    [sbull] What are wastewater sources and discharge volumes?
    [sbull] Are wastewater discharges continuous or intermittent 
(depending on facility operations, rainfall, or other event)?
    [sbull] What is the current level of treatment in place?
    [sbull] One source of contaminated wastewater at PBST facilities is 
water that accumulates at the bottom of product tanks, known as tank 
bottom water. How are PBSTs currently managing this wastewater (hauled 
off-site for contract disposal, mixed with accumulated stormwater and 
treated on-site, or other means)? What determines how a PBST will 
dispose of its tank bottom waters? How do PBST facilities manage and 
treat contact stormwater?
    [sbull] What is the extent of pollution prevention/recovery 
practices in place?
    [sbull] How have EPA's stormwater regulations impacted PBST 
discharges?
    B. EPA requests information on the industries for which the Agency 
states that there is incomplete data available for analysis (i.e., 
industrial point source categories with existing effluent guidelines 
identified with ``(4)'' in the column titled ``Rationale'' in Tables 
VI-1 and industrial point source categories with no existing effluent 
guidelines identified with ``(3)'' in the column titled ``Rationale'' 
in Tables VIII-1). EPA will need to collect more information for the 
next biennial plan. Specifically, EPA hopes to gather the following 
information:
    [sbull] What toxic pollutants are discharged from these industries 
in non-trivial amounts on an industry and per-facility basis?
    [sbull] What raw material(s) or process(es) are the sources of 
these pollutants?
    [sbull] What technologies are available (technically and 
economically) to control or prevent the generation and/or release of 
these pollutants.
    C. EPA solicits comments on whether EPA used the correct evaluation 
factors, criteria and data sources to develop this proposed plan. 
Please see the record for a more detailed discussion of EPA's analysis 
supporting this proposal (DCN 00548, section 3.0). Also see the record 
for more information on how EPA's analysis differed from the analytical 
framework described in the draft Strategy for National Clean Water 
Industrial Regulations (DCN 00553, section 3.0). EPA invites comment on 
the appropriateness of and to suggest improvements to its approach, its 
identification of relevant data sources and its uses of these data.
    D. EPA solicits comments on whether, and if so how, should the 
Agency provide EPA Regions and States with permit-based support instead 
of revising effluent guidelines (e.g., when the vast majority of the 
hazard or risk is associated with one or a few facilities).
    E. EPA solicits comment on how to improve its impairment analysis 
to better characterize and quantify relationships between industrial 
point sources and impaired waters.
    F. EPA solicits comment on the sources of data EPA might use to 
document industry efforts to voluntarily reduce pollutant discharges. 
EPA invites commenters to provide any information they have documenting 
voluntary pollution reductions by any of the industry categories 
regulated (or potentially regulated) by effluent limitation guidelines.
    G. EPA solicits comment on the methodology for grouping industries 
for review and prioritization and the factors and measures EPA should 
consider for determining if discharges are trivial.
    H. Process additives in use in the steam electric power generation 
point source category have changed over time. Starting in the early 
1990s, some power plants began converting from the use of chlorinated 
compounds to brominated compounds. However, many of these plants report 
only total residual oxidant (TRO) as part of their NPDES permit 
requirements. What additional data sources are available to quantify 
the amount and type of brominated compounds discharged from this 
industry?
    I. EPA solicits comment on implementation issues related to 
existing effluent guidelines.

    Dated: December 23, 2003.
G. Tracy Mehan III,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 03-32214 Filed 12-30-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P