[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29203-29213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14156]
[[Page 29203]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6103-5]
RIN 2040-AC20
Effluent Guidelines Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed effluent guidelines plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's document announces the Agency's proposed plans for
developing new and revised effluent guidelines, which regulate
industrial discharges to surface waters and to publicly owned treatment
works. The document also describes EPA's revisions to its regulation
development process, based on recommendations of the Effluent
Guidelines Task Force. Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act requires
EPA to publish a biennial Effluent Guidelines Plan. The Agency requests
comment on the proposal and will publish a final plan following the
close of the comment period.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 27, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in writing to: Water Docket Clerk (4101),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460. The public record for this notice is available for review
in the EPA Water Docket, East Tower Basement, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. For access to Docket materials, call (202) 260-3027
between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. for an appointment. The EPA public
information regulation (40 CFR part 2) provides that a reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Strassler, EPA Engineering and
Analysis Division, telephone 202-260-7150.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Regulated Entities
II. Legal Authority
III. Introduction
A. Purpose of Today's Document
B. Overview of Today's Document
IV. Effluent Guidelines Program Background
A. Statutory Framework
B. Components of an Effluent Guideline Regulation
C. Traditional Approach to Development of Effluent Guideline
Regulations
D. Recent Revisions to the Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
and Recommendations of the Effluent Guidelines Task Force
E. NRDC Litigation and Consent Decree
V. Today's Proposed Effluent Guidelines Plan
A. Effluent Guidelines Currently Under Development
1. Schedule for Ongoing Rulemaking
2. Rulemaking Projects Started in 1997
a. Oil and Gas Extraction
b. Coal Mining c. Feedlots (Swine and Poultry Subcategories)
B. Process for Selection of New Effluent Guideline Regulations
1. New Rulemaking Activities a. Feedlots (Beef and Dairy Cattle
Subcategories) b. Other Rules
2. Candidates for Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking Projects
a. Preliminary Studies
b. Previously-Noticed Studies
c. Photographic Processing
d. Chemical Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
e. Urban Storm Water
f. Airport Deicing
g. Fish Hatcheries and Farms
3. Future Studies
C. Other Rulemaking Actions
1. Pulp, Paper and Paperboard, Phases 2 & 3
2. Ore Mining and Dressing
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Economic Impact Assessment; Executive Order 12866
Appendix A--Promulgated Effluent Guidelines
Appendix B--Current and Future Rulemaking Projects
Appendix C--Preliminary Studies
I. Regulated Entities
Today's proposed plan does not contain regulatory requirements and
does not provide specific definitions for each industrial category.
Entities potentially affected by decisions regarding the final plan are
listed below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially affected
Category of entity entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry/Commercial............... Pulp, Paper and Paperboard; Oil and
Gas Extraction; Centralized Waste
Treatment; Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing; Metal Products and
Machinery (including
electroplating, metal finishing);
Landfills; Industrial Waste
Combustors (Incinerators);
Industrial Laundries;
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
(truck tanks, railroad tank cars,
barge tanks); Iron and Steel
Manufacturing; Coal Mining;
Petroleum Refining; Textile Mills;
Inorganic Chemicals; Steam Electric
Power Generating; Photographic
Processing; Chemical Formulating,
Packaging and Repackaging;
Airports.
Agriculture....................... Feedlots (swine, poultry, dairy and
beef cattle); Fish Hatcheries and
Farms (Aquaculture).
Federal Government................ Metal Products and Machinery
(including electroplating, metal
finishing); Landfills; Airports.
State Government.................. Metal Products and Machinery
(including electroplating, metal
finishing); Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer Systems (Urban Storm
Water); Landfills; Airports.
Local Government.................. Metal Products and Machinery
(including electroplating, metal
finishing); Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer Systems (Urban Storm
Water); Landfills; Airports.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether your facility would be regulated, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate
proposed rule (previously published or forthcoming). Not all of the
categories listed in the above table have been selected for rulemaking.
Citations for previously published proposed rules and schedules for
forthcoming proposed rules are provided in Appendices A and B of
today's document.
II. Legal Authority
Today's document is published under the authority of section 304(m)
of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1314(m), which requires EPA to
publish a biennial Effluent Guidelines Plan, which sets a schedule for
review and revision of existing regulations and identifies categories
of dischargers to be covered by new regulations.
III. Introduction
A. Purpose of Today's Document
Today's document announces the Agency's proposed biennial plan
pursuant to section 304(m). EPA invites the public to comment on the
proposed plan, and following the close of the comment period the Agency
will publish a final plan.
B. Overview of Today's Document
The Agency proposes to develop effluent limitation guidelines and
standards (``effluent guidelines'') as follows:
1. Continue development of nine rules listed in the 1996 Effluent
Guidelines Plan (61 FR 52582, October 7, 1996) and the 1997 Update (62
FR 8726, February 26, 1997). The categories are: Pulp, Paper and
Paperboard, Phases 2 and 3; Centralized Waste Treatment; Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing; Metal Products and Machinery; Landfills; Industrial
Waste Combustors (Incinerators); Industrial Laundries;
[[Page 29204]]
Transportation Equipment Cleaning; and Iron and Steel Manufacturing.
2. Continue development of 3 rules started by the Agency in 1997:
Oil and Gas Extraction (Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids); Coal Mining
(Remining and Western subcategories); and Feedlots (Poultry and Swine
subcategories).
3. Begin development of revised effluent guidelines for the
Feedlots category (Beef and Dairy Cattle subcategories) and two
additional categories (new or revised), by December 1998.
4. Complete preliminary studies on Feedlots, Urban Storm Water, and
Airport Deicing.
5. Plan for development of two additional effluent guidelines,
either new or revised. EPA's current plan is to begin development of
two rules by December 1999.
IV. Effluent Guidelines Program Background
A. Statutory Framework
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1972 (Pub. L.
92-500, Oct. 18, 1972) (the ``Act'') established a program to restore
and maintain the integrity of the nation's waters. To implement the
Act, Congress directed EPA to issue effluent limitation guidelines,
pretreatment standards, and new source performance standards for
industrial dischargers. These regulations were to be based principally
on the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application
of control technologies.
The 1977 amendments to the FWPCA, known as the Clean Water Act
Amendments (Pub. L. 95-217, Dec. 27, 1977) (CWA), added an additional
level of control for conventional pollutants such as biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS), and stressed additional
control of 65 toxic compounds or classes of compounds (from which EPA
later developed a list of 126 specific ``priority pollutants''). To
further strengthen the toxics control program, section 304(e), added by
the 1977 amendments, authorized the Administrator to establish
management practices to control toxic and hazardous pollutants in plant
site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage
from raw material storage.
The effluent guidelines promulgated by EPA reflect the several
levels of regulatory stringency specified in the Act, and they also
focus on different types of pollutants. Section 301(b)(1)(A) directs
the achievement of effluent limitations requiring application of best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT). In general,
effluent limitations based on BPT represent the average of the best
treatment technology performance for an industrial category. For
conventional pollutants listed under section 304(a)(4), section
301(b)(2)(E) directs the achievement of effluent limitations based on
the performance of best conventional pollutant control technology
(BCT). The Act requires that BCT limitations be established in light of
a two-part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. The test, which assesses the
relative costs of conventional pollutant removals, is described in
detail in the Federal Register notice promulgating the final BCT rule
on July 9, 1986 (51 FR 24974).
Both BPT and BCT regulations apply only to direct dischargers,
i.e., those facilities that discharge directly into waters of the
United States. In general, regulations are not developed to control
conventional pollutants discharged by indirect dischargers because the
POTWs receiving those wastes normally provide adequate treatment of
these types of pollutants or they can be adequately controlled through
local pretreatment limits.
For the toxic pollutants listed in section 307(a), and for
nonconventional pollutants, sections 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D) and (F)
direct the achievement of effluent limitations requiring application of
best available technology economically achievable (BAT). Effluent
limitations based on BAT are to represent at a minimum the best control
technology performance in the industrial category that is
technologically and economically achievable.
In addition to limitations for existing direct dischargers, EPA
also establishes new source performance standards (NSPS) under section
306 of the Act, based on the best available demonstrated control
technology, processes operating methods, or other alternatives. NSPS
apply to new direct dischargers. Generally the NSPS limitations are to
be as stringent as, or more stringent than, BAT limitations for
existing sources within the category or subcategory.
Although the limitations are based on the performance capability of
particular control technologies, including in some cases in-process
controls, dischargers may meet their requirements using whatever
combination of control methods they choose, such as manufacturing
process or equipment changes, product substitution, and water re-use
and recycling. The limitations and standards are implemented in permits
issued through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) pursuant to section 402 of the Act for point sources
discharging directly to the waters of the United States.
Section 402 of the CWA provides for the issuance of permits to
direct dischargers under NPDES. These permits, which are required by
section 301, are issued either by EPA or by a State agency approved to
administer the NPDES program. Individual NPDES permits must incorporate
applicable technology-based limitations contained in guidelines and
standards for the industrial category in question. Where EPA has not
promulgated applicable technology-based effluent guidelines for a
category, section 402(a)(1)(B) provides that the permit must
incorporate such conditions as the Administrator determines are
necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. In other words, the
permit writer uses best professional judgment (BPJ) to establish
technology-based limitations for the dischargers.
Indirect dischargers are regulated by the general pretreatment
regulations (40 CFR part 403), local discharge limits developed
pursuant to part 403, and categorical pretreatment standards for new
and existing sources (PSNS and PSES) covering specific industrial
categories. These categorical standards under sections 307(b) and (c)
apply to the discharge of pollutants from non-domestic sources which
interfere with or pass through publicly owned treatment works (POTWs),
and are enforced by POTWs or by State or Federal authorities. The
categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources covering
specific industries are generally analogous to the BAT limitations
imposed on direct dischargers. The standards for new sources are
generally analogous to NSPS.
To ensure that effluent guidelines remain current with the state of
the industry and with available control technologies, section 304(b) of
the Act provides that EPA shall revise the effluent guidelines at least
annually if appropriate. In addition, section 301(d) provides that EPA
shall review and if appropriate, revise any effluent limitation
required by section 301(b)(2).
B. Components of an Effluent Guideline Regulation
The principal components of most effluent guideline regulations are
numerical wastewater discharge limitations controlling specified
pollutants for a given category. These are typically concentration-
based limits (specified in units such as milligrams of pollutant per
liter of water) or
[[Page 29205]]
production-based mass limits (specified in units such as milligrams of
pollutant per unit of production). Numerical limits also cover
parameters such as pH and temperature.
A guideline is often subcategorized based on differences in raw
materials, manufacturing processes, characteristics of the wastewaters,
or type of product manufactured; in some cases, non-water quality
environmental impacts or other appropriate factors that justify the
imposition of specialized requirements on the subcategorized facilities
are used as a basis. EPA develops a set of effluent limitations for
each category or subcategory at each level of control (BPT, BAT, etc.)
that is addressed in the guideline.
A guideline also may prescribe Best Management Practices (``BMPs'')
in addition to or in lieu of numerical limits. BMPs may include, for
example, requirements addressing the minimization or prevention of
storm water runoff, plant maintenance schedules and requirements
addressing the training of plant personnel. The recently promulgated
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard rule requires mills to implement BMPs to
prevent or otherwise contain leaks and spills of spent pulping liquor,
soap, and turpentine and to control intentional diversions of those
materials (40 CFR 430.03, 63 FR 18641, April 15, 1998).
C. Traditional Approach to Development of Effluent Guideline
Regulations
EPA has accumulated substantial experience and expertise in the
course of preparing 51 effluent guidelines. This section of the notice
summarizes the various tasks which the Agency typically undertakes in
an effluent guideline rulemaking.
Traditionally, EPA begins work on an effluent guideline rulemaking
project by tentatively defining the scope and dimensions of the
discharger category. The Agency determines the size of the category as
it has been defined, using all available sources of information. Given
the diversity of regulatory categories, no single source suffices to
establish size. At various times, EPA has used one or more of the
following sources: Standard published sources, information available
through trade associations, data purchased from the Dun and Bradstreet,
Inc. data base, other publicly available data bases, U.S. Census Bureau
data, other U.S. Government information, and any available EPA data
base. If a category is very large and/or diverse, the Agency will
determine whether it can be broken down into appropriate categories or
subcategories. If more than one subcategory can be identified, the
Agency may need to establish priorities for regulation.
EPA works with interested stakeholders early in the regulation
development process. State and local regulatory officials familiar with
the category are consulted, and business associations and citizen
groups are also invited to share information.
Regulatory information about discharger categories has often been
obtained by EPA through survey questionnaires, site visits and
wastewater sampling. Survey questionnaires solicit detailed information
necessary to assess the statutory rulemaking factors (particularly
technological and economic achievability of available controls), water
use, production processes, and wastewater treatment and disposal
practices. A portion of the Agency's questionnaires also seek
information necessary to assess the economic achievability of a
prospective regulation.
Generally, the Agency uses on-site wastewater sampling and detailed
monitoring data to characterize the pollutants found in discharges.
Site visits are also used to assess manufacturing processes, wastewater
generation, pollutant control technologies, pollution prevention
opportunities (e.g., process changes), and potential non-water quality
impacts of effluent guidelines (e.g., air emissions, sludge generation,
energy usage).
In developing a list of pollutants of concern for a category, EPA
initially will study wastewater samples for a broad range of pollutants
that can be measured by recognized analytical methods. Currently over
457 pollutants or analytes can be measured by these methods. This
includes the subset of 126 pollutants known as ``priority'' pollutants
developed pursuant to CWA section 307(a). EPA will develop new
analytical methods to cover additional pollutants as necessary. For
example, the Agency has developed new methods for use in the
Pesticides, Pulp and Paper, Pharmaceuticals, and Offshore Oil and Gas
effluent guidelines. (EPA generally proposes any new methods for public
comment concurrently with the proposed rule.)
Most of the effluent sampling and analysis that has been conducted
specifically to support effluent guideline regulations promulgated to
date has been conducted by EPA. On occasion, however, these activities
have been pursued on a cooperative basis with discharging facilities.
For example, EPA and numerous pulp and paper manufacturers participated
in cooperative efforts to sample and analyze effluent, wastewater
treatment sludge, and pulp from domestic mills that bleach chemical
pulp in their production processes.
EPA conducts engineering and statistical analyses of the technical
data to develop control and treatment options for the pollutants of
concern, and the projected costs for these options. The Agency
considers the costing information and economic data gathered from the
survey and other sources in its economic impact analysis, and then
selects one or more of the options as the basis for a rulemaking
proposal. It also develops assessments of the environmental impact of
the category's discharges, and may conduct a benefit-cost analysis as
well.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Title
III of Pub. L. 104-121, March 29, 1996), requires that EPA conduct
regulatory flexibility analyses for rules which have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These
analyses are to assess the impact of the rule on small entities and
consider alternative ways of reducing those impacts. Section 344 of
SBREFA also requires EPA to organize a ``small business advocacy review
panel'' for each rule where a regulatory flexibility analysis is
required.
Prior to publishing a proposed rule, EPA usually conducts a public
meeting to discuss the Agency's findings and describe the general
outlines of the rule. Following publication, a hearing is conducted
during the public comment period, and supplemental notices of new data
may be published, if appropriate.
D. Recent Revisions to the Effluent Guidelines Planning Process and
Recommendations of the Effluent Guidelines Task Force
EPA has recently revised the Effluent Guidelines planning process
based on its discussions with the Effluent Guidelines Task Force, an
advisory committee. The Task Force was established by EPA in 1992 to
recommend improvements to the effluent guidelines program. The
committee consists of members appointed by the Agency from industry,
citizen groups, state and local government, the academic and scientific
communities, and EPA's Office of Research and Development. The Task
Force was created to offer advice to the EPA Administrator on the long-
term strategy for the effluent guidelines
[[Page 29206]]
program, and particularly to provide recommendations on a process for
expediting the promulgation of effluent guidelines. It is chartered as
a subcommittee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology (NACEPT), the external policy advisory board to
the Administrator, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App. II, sec. 9(c)).
The Task Force has been focusing on alternative regulatory
processes that would allow EPA to promulgate effluent guidelines more
rapidly and at lower cost to the government. Several key aspects of the
rulemaking process have been discussed, including determination of
regulatory scope and data collection.
The Task Force has suggested that EPA consider making decisions on
the scope of a regulation early in the rulemaking process. Task Force
members generally believe that by focusing on the segment of an
industry that is of greatest concern, EPA can reduce its data
collection and analysis costs while achieving the majority of benefits
that would be achieved by the more exhaustive examination currently
given to industrial sectors. Several Task Force members have suggested
that additional savings could be realized by limiting the examination
of potential control technologies to one or two well-demonstrated
technologies, rather than pursuing data on a larger range of
technologies employed by good performers in the industry. Similarly,
several Task Force members have suggested that by focusing on the known
pollutants of greatest concern rather than conducting independent
testing of over 400 pollutant parameters, both time and money could be
saved. These approaches could lead to more focused regulations that are
developed based on early presumptions regarding the most effective
control technologies and key pollutant parameters to be controlled.
Key to the success of these approaches is the early involvement of
a variety of stakeholders with knowledge of the industry, control
technologies, and environmental impacts. Potential drawbacks include a
reduced ability to identify pollution prevention opportunities for all
or segments of the industry, and a reduced ability to quantify (and
monetize) the full range of benefits that will result from the
regulation. The Task Force acknowledged that decision-makers would be
expected to accept greater risk and make decisions on less
comprehensive data if the time and cost savings are to be realized.
The Task Force also suggested that the Agency could reduce both the
time and costs for data collection by relying more on existing data
sources and less on specially-designed questionnaires.
With respect to technical process and wastewater control data, the
Agency could rely on assessments of the current baseline by industry,
states, and local municipalities, and supplement those assessments with
independent site and sampling episodes.
With respect to performance data, EPA could conduct fewer site
visits and sampling episodes compared to previous rules and rely more
on existing performance data that meets the Agency's quality control
criteria. Since most existing data would be on conventional pollutants,
with less data on a limited set of nonconventional and toxic
pollutants, this shift to existing data is also linked with the concept
of focusing on a limited number of pollutant parameters. Additional
sampling for the effluent guideline could also be performed by
stakeholders to supplement the Agency's independent efforts. For
example, EPA worked with the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies (AMSA) to develop a sampling protocol which was used by the
Hampton Roads Sanitary District, Virginia Beach, VA., to independently
sample a facility that falls within the scope of the Metal Products and
Machinery regulation. Other associations have expressed interest in
conducting their own sampling episodes based on this protocol to
further supplement the regulatory record.
With respect to financial and economic information, there is a
subset of data that is publicly available for many of the larger,
publicly-held entities. Economic impacts on smaller and privately-held
entities that may be affected may be more difficult to assess. This
difficulty may be offset by a focus on larger sources in the original
scoping of the regulatory project.
Each of the three new effluent guideline projects started in late
1997 respond to the Task Force recommendations in one or more ways.
EPA is developing a focused rule that will establish
limitations for the use of synthetic-based drilling fluids (SBFs) in
the Oil and Gas Extraction category (40 CFR part 435). Because of the
extensive information collected in the previous two rulemakings
covering the offshore and coastal subcategories, a limited amount of
data collection activities are necessary. The Agency has already
acquired data on the characteristics of SBFs and is developing other
data in cooperation with the industry and the Departments of Energy and
Interior which will be useful in supporting an accelerated regulation
development approach. Identifying appropriate toxicity tests,
consisting of both aqueous and sediment phase test methods, analytical
methods for use with synthetic rather than water-based drilling fluids
and technologies for cleaning drill cuttings are in progress and are
expected to give results that will be used in developing the proposed
rule.
EPA is developing a focused rule addressing coal remining
operations, which are not covered by the existing Coal Mining Category
(40 CFR part 434), and alkaline mining operations in the west, for
which existing regulations based on sedimentation ponds may not be
environmentally effective. Since promulgation in 1985, sediment control
technologies have reportedly advanced in both number and
sophistication. For this regulation, EPA is implementing a number of
the Task Force recommendations. First, EPA is focusing on two segments
for which controls have been identified that would result in
environmental improvements. Second, the Agency has enlisted the support
of the U.S. Office of Surface Mining and the Interstate Mining Compact
Commission to assemble and analyze existing information. This
information includes information on the current state of the industry
that will allow EPA to assess the baseline and economic status. It also
includes performance data on pollutant controls that will allow us to
assess the effectiveness of technologies and management practices.
Pollutants of concern will be determined from among those pollutants
for which performance data exist.
The revisions to the Feedlots category (40 CFR part 412)
will also rely on the Task Force recommendations. First, the regulation
will focus on specific industry segments, beginning with pork and
poultry operations, and then looking at beef and dairy cattle
operations. Second, EPA will rely, in part, on stakeholders for
background information. For example, the Agency is working with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the major trade associations
to develop models (both technical and economic) to depict the current
baseline activities, and to assess costs and impacts of alternative
controls. EPA has received a ``framework'' document from the Pork
Producers Council which identifies their recommendations for controls
of wastes generated at their member facilities. The poultry industry is
embarking on a similar effort. The
[[Page 29207]]
environmental community has offered to provide their recommendations
for regulatory controls for the feedlot industry as a whole. EPA
expects to use each of these as well as expertise and research from
USDA to evaluate control options.
These new projects are discussed further in section V.A.2 of
today's document.
E. NRDC Litigation and Consent Decree
EPA has developed today's proposed Effluent Guidelines Plan
pursuant to a consent decree in NRDC et al v. Browner (D.D.C. Civ. No.
89-2980, January 31, 1992, as modified). The Decree commits EPA to
schedules for proposing and taking final action on effluent guidelines,
and also for conducting preliminary studies. Some of the categories to
be regulated are specified in the Decree. For the remaining required
rulemakings, EPA retains the discretion to select guidelines for
development based on Agency priorities.
EPA will use the results of the preliminary studies and other
information (such as public comments and recommendations from state and
local governments) to select industries for future regulation. The
Decree requires the Agency to study eleven industries.
The Decree also required EPA to establish the Effluent Guidelines
Task Force to formulate recommendations for improvements to the
effluent guidelines program. The Task Force has held several public
meetings and has submitted recommendations to the EPA Administrator.
Since 1992, EPA and NRDC have agreed to several modifications of
the Decree consisting of deadline extensions for certain rules.
V. Today's Proposed Effluent Guidelines Plan
A. Effluent Guidelines Currently Under Development
1. Schedule for Ongoing Rulemaking
The Agency is currently in the process of developing new or revised
effluent guidelines for 12 categories. The categories and actual or
Consent Decree dates for proposal and final action are set forth in
Table 1.
Table 1.--Effluent Guidelines Currently Under Development
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal Final action
-------------------------------------
Category Consent decree
or publication Consent decree
date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard, Phases
2 & 3............................ \1\ 12/17/93 \1\ 2000-2002
Centralized Waste Treatment....... 1/27/95 \3\ 8/15/99
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing...... 5/2/95 7/98
Metal Products and Machinery...... \2\ 5/30/95
10/00 12/02
Industrial Laundries.............. 2/17/97 6/99
Landfills......................... 2/6/98 11/99
Industrial Waste Combustors
(Incinerators)................... 2/6/98 11/99
Transportation Equipment Cleaning. 5/15/98 6/15/00
Oil and Gas Extraction (Synthetic
Drilling Fluids)................. 12/98 12/00
Iron and Steel Manufacturing...... \3\ 12/98 \3\ 12/00
Coal Mining....................... 12/99 12/01
Feedlots (Poultry and Swine
Subcategories)................... 12/99 12/01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Pulp, Paper and Paperboard rulemaking is not covered by the
January 31, 1992 consent decree and dates reflect projected dates for
final promulgation of the 2 phases.
\2\ 5/30/95 proposal covered Phase 1 MP&M facilities only. Proposal in
10/00 will cover Phase 1 and 2 facilities combined.
\3\ EPA is discussing extensions to consent decree dates with NRDC.
2. Rulemaking Projects Started in 1997
In 1997 EPA began to develop revised or new standards for portions
of three categories: Oil and Gas Extraction, Coal Mining, and Feedlots.
The rationale for selection and the tentative scope of rulemaking
coverage are described below.
a. Oil and Gas Extraction. Oil and Gas Extraction is covered by
existing effluent guidelines at 40 CFR part 435. The most recent
amendments were promulgated for the Offshore Category (58 FR 12454,
March 4, 1993) and the Coastal Subcategory (61 FR 66086, December 16,
1996). This regulatory development project will establish limitations
for the use and discharge of synthetic-based drilling fluids (SBFs)
where discharge of drilling fluids is permitted. SBFs are used in lieu
of oil-based drilling fluids in certain high performance drilling
operations. SBFs are not adequately addressed by current effluent
limitations for discharge of drilling fluids which were developed based
on the use of oil and water-based fluids. Current information suggests
that improvements in synthetic-based drilling fluids in recent years
have reduced their aquatic toxicity, increased their biodegradability,
and reduced the volume of drilling fluids and cuttings wastes
generated. Use of synthetic-based drilling fluids instead of water-
based drilling fluids in the geographic areas where discharge is
allowed will provide additional environmental protection by reducing
aquatic toxicity of discharges and reducing the amount of cuttings on
the ocean floor.
EPA intends to issue a proposed rule by December 1998 and take
final action by December 2000.
b. Coal Mining. Coal Mining activities are covered by existing
effluent guidelines at 40 CFR part 434. The existing regulations,
however, do not address remining operations, which improve effluent
quality and quantity from abandoned mine lands while reclaiming them,
and prevent disturbance of previously undisturbed lands. This
regulatory project focuses, in part, on remining operations nationwide
which will expedite permitting and provide a national standard of
environmental performance for these activities.
The existing regulations do not differentiate between alkaline
mining operations in the west and the acidic mining operations in other
geographic regions. Advances in treatment technologies and Best
Management Practices pertinent to alkaline coal
[[Page 29208]]
mines in the west show promise of being more protective of water
quality than existing standards. Given concerns over the ability of
existing regulations to achieve water quality standards established by
Native American tribes, EPA intends to explore the development of a new
subcategory for alkaline mining operations in the west.
EPA intends to issue a proposed rule by December 1999 and take
final action by December 2001.
c. Feedlots (Swine and Poultry Subcategories). Feedlot operations
are covered by existing effluent guidelines at 40 CFR part 412. These
regulations, which require the largest confined animal feeding
operations to achieve zero discharge of wastes to surface waters except
under extreme storm events, have not been sufficient to resolve water
quality impairment from feedlot operations. Waste spills and leaks from
storage lagoons, runoff of wastes from land application, and the
combined effect of allowable waste discharges from smaller facilities
have led to a range of environmental and health problems ranging from
fish kills and accelerated eutrophication of surface waters to
contamination of drinking water and shell fish.
This regulatory project focuses on swine and poultry operations
which have been identified as substantial contributors of nutrients in
surface waters that have severe anoxia (low levels of dissolved oxygen)
and problem algae blooms especially in estuarine waters.
EPA intends to issue a proposed rule for the Swine and Poultry
Subcategories by December 1999 and take final action by December 2001.
B. Process for Selection of New Effluent Guideline Regulations
Section 304(m) does not specify criteria that the Agency should use
to select categories for regulation by effluent guidelines. For the
first Effluent Guidelines Plan, published January 2, 1990 (55 FR 80),
EPA listed criteria it had used to select categories. The 1992 consent
decree, while specifying some of the categories to be regulated, allows
the Agency flexibility in selecting future categories for regulation,
and does not specify selection criteria. EPA intends to continue to use
selection criteria such as those listed in previous Effluent Guidelines
Plans. Additionally, in light of recommendations from the Task Force,
the Agency has considered the availability of technical data on a
category's discharges (both within EPA, at other Federal agencies, and
from States, local governments and industry) and the potential for
developing a rule on an expedited schedule in determining which
projects are good candidates for early implementation of the Effluent
Guidelines Task Force recommendations.
1. New Rulemaking Activities
The 1992 consent decree requires that EPA begin two rulemaking
projects by December 1998, and begin two additional projects by
December 1999. EPA plans to begin development of effluent guidelines
for the Beef and Dairy Cattle subcategories of the Feedlots category
this year. The Agency will select additional projects at a later date.
a. Feedlots (Beef and Dairy Cattle Subcategories). This regulatory
project focuses on dairy and beef cattle operations which represent a
large segment of the feedlot industry and have been identified as
substantial contributors of nutrients in surface waters that have
severe anoxia (low levels of dissolved oxygen) and affect drinking
water sources in the western and central regions of the United States.
EPA intends to issue a proposed rule for the Dairy and Beef Cattle
Subcategories by December 2000 and take final action by December 2002.
b. Other Rules. EPA has not yet selected additional rulemaking
projects. EPA is not proposing specific industrial categories for
selection in today's notice. However, based on the data sources listed
above, the Agency may choose the next categories from the following
list. A brief discussion of candidate categories is provided later in
this section.
Petroleum Refining
Textile Mills
Inorganic Chemicals
Steam Electric Power Generating
Photographic Processing
Chemical Formulators and Packagers
Urban Storm Water
Airport Deicing
Fish Hatcheries and Farms
Other categories identified in public comments on today's
proposed plan.
2. Candidates for Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking Projects
Candidate categories for rulemaking include both categories
specifically studied by EPA and others about which the Agency has
received information on wastewater and storm water discharges and
adverse environmental impacts. The public is invited to comment on
these categories, as well as recommending other categories for
development of new or revised effluent guidelines.
a. Preliminary Studies. The purpose of a Preliminary Study is to
describe the nature of pollutant discharges from a category of
facilities, and to provide a basis for comparison with other categories
for purposes of assigning priorities for regulation. The results of a
Preliminary Study for a category are published in a ``Preliminary Data
Summary.'' The Preliminary Data Summary presents a synopsis of recent
technical and economic information on a category of dischargers. The
Preliminary Data Summaries are not used directly as a basis for
rulemaking, but are used in the Agency's determination of which
categories most require preparation of new or revised effluent
guidelines. (They also may be expanded to become guidance documents for
NPDES permit writers and POTWs.)
A Preliminary Study typically collects data on the following:
The products manufactured and/or services provided by a
category;
Number, types and geographic location of facilities;
Destination of discharges (directly to surface waters,
indirectly to POTWs, or both);
Characterization of the wastewater discharges and
identification of pollutants present in the waste streams (e.g., mean
concentrations of pollutants, wastewater volumes, mass loadings);
Sampling and analytical methods employed to ascertain the
presence and concentration of pollutants in the wastewater;
Source reduction, recycling and pollution control
technologies in use and potentially applicable to the category;
Non-water quality environmental impacts associated with
wastewater treatment in the category (e.g., air emissions, wastewater
treatment sludges, and other wastes including hazardous wastes);
Cost of control technologies in place and cost estimates
for additional controls;
Cost-effectiveness of reduction of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants;
Estimates of water quality impacts of discharges within
the subject category; and
Economic assessment (current financial condition of
facilities, expansion or reduction trends, size characterization of
businesses or other organizations, impact of estimated treatment costs
on representative facilities).
The type and level of detail of information varies among the
Preliminary Data Summaries, depending on the data available to the
Agency when each document is prepared and whether the category is
covered by an
[[Page 29209]]
existing effluent guideline. For example, some of the Summaries have
comprehensive, primary data on the number and location of the
discharging facilities while others contain estimates drawn from
secondary data sources. However, the Summaries represent the Agency's
best characterization of industries at the time the summaries are
compiled. As additional data are acquired, they are factored into the
evaluation process. Consequently, the Preliminary Data Summaries are
also subject to revision. The Agency has made the Summaries available
to the public and has received comments on some of these studies.
Comments are available for review in the record for today's proposed
Plan.
b. Previously-Noticed Studies. Six of the completed studies were
described in the 1996 Proposed Plan (61 FR 35048): Petroleum Refining;
Metal Finishing; Textile Mills; Inorganic Chemicals; Steam Electric
Power Generating; and Iron and Steel Manufacturing.
c. Photographic Processing. The Photographic regulations were
promulgated in 1976 for BPT (direct dischargers) only, at 40 CFR part
459. Subsequent to promulgation of the BPT rule, EPA collected some
additional information to support development of BAT, NSPS and
pretreatment standards, but no additional rules were promulgated.
EPA completed a Preliminary Data Summary for the Photographic
Processing Industry in 1996. The study found that about 100,000
establishments were listed in 1996 in Dun & Bradstreet data under the
term ``commercial photo processing.'' In addition, significant photo
processing also occurs as an ancillary activity within the health care
profession and at noncommercial facilities such as schools and police
departments. Combining all types of facilities, it was estimated that
photo processing operations occur at 350,000 to 500,000 locations in
the United States. However, virtually none of these photo processing
establishments have discharge permits based on the existing effluent
guidelines because: (a) Most establishments are indirect dischargers,
and no pretreatment standards were established; or (b) those that are
direct dischargers do not meet the 1,600 square feet per day processing
requirement for applicability under part 459.
The study estimated the water use in 1994 by the commercial sector
(approximated to represent 44 percent of total photo processing volume)
to be 2,250 million gallons. The major waste stream constituents of
concern (with values for the commercial sector) includes sulfates (2.8
million lbs.), ammonia (3 million lbs.), silver (190 thousand lbs.),
thiosulfate, and cyanide. Several technologies are available and
employed to either treat the wastestreams, or as common in this
industry, recover the chemicals and metals in the wastewater for resale
or reuse.
Local POTW limits vary from municipality to municipality, but are
normally numeric and concentration-based. Frequently, the only
pollutant monitored in the indirect discharge permit is silver. Many of
the local limits are based on silver nitrate, a highly dissociated and
toxic compound. While silver nitrate is used in the production of
photographic film and paper, it is not a characteristic pollutant of
photo processing wastewaters. Rather, silver in photo processing
wastewaters is characteristically in the form of silver thiosulfate
complex, which has been shown to be about 20,000 to 40,000 times less
toxic, on a concentration basis, to acutely exposed fathead minnows.
The local limits may be overly stringent with regard to concentration
of silver discharged, while lax on total mass of silver or other
pollutants, due to lack of technical expertise and resources available
at the local level.
In an effort to provide more technical expertise to photo
processing facilities and POTWs, AMSA and the Silver Council, an
industry association, have developed a set of recommended silver
management practices. They are currently evaluating the effectiveness
of the management practices at a variety of sites nationwide.
d. Chemical Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging. EPA completed a
Preliminary Data Summary for the Chemical Formulating, Packaging and
Repackaging (CFPR) industry in 1996. The summary describes the size and
demographics of the industry, CFPR operations and the typical
wastewaters generated, as well as the extent to which pollution
prevention (P2) techniques are used throughout the industry. In
addition, the study compares the operations, P2 techniques and economic
viability of the CFPR industry to the Pesticide Formulating, Packaging
and Repackaging (PFPR) industry. For the purposes of the study, EPA
included the following sectors in the CFPR industry: specialty
cleaners, polishes, sanitation preparations, cosmetics, perfumes,
personal products, soaps and detergents, adhesives and sealants, paints
(non-solvent based), inks (non-solvent based), and water treatment
chemicals (non-pesticide).
There are no existing effluent guidelines or categorical standards
for the CFPR industry and their discharges are regulated largely
through local POTW limitations. The facilities are not subject to
general EPA reporting requirements pertaining to their production and
wastewater generation and the Agency estimates that there may be as
many as 12,800 facilities based on Dun and Bradstreet data. Much of the
technical portion of the study discusses anecdotal information
collected through contacts with POTWs, regional and state pretreatment
coordinators, individual facilities, and trade associations
representing several sectors of the CFPR industry. The study also
includes information from EPA's Adhesives and Sealants Study (``Summary
of Findings: Water and Waste Management for the Adhesives and Sealants
Manufacturing Point Source Category,'' EPA Effluent Guidelines
Division, draft report August 1984), the databases for the final PFPR
effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 455, 61 FR 57518, November 6, 1996),
as well as economic information from the U.S. Economic Census and the
Census Bureau's Annual Survey of Manufactures.
The volume of a CFPR facility discharge is small--typically 10
million gallons per year-- compared to those from chemical
manufacturing facilities. CFPR discharges include surfactants and
various organic chemicals. Overall, POTWs report having experienced
very few treatment system upsets or pollutant pass-through incidents
associated with their CFPR users. Some POTWs have reported foaming
problems or high-concentration (``slug'') discharges from CFPRs, but
these problems have been corrected though a variety of methods
available in the general pretreatment program.
e. Urban Storm Water. EPA is conducting a preliminary study of
urban storm water discharges to explore how the Effluent Guidelines
program can contribute to the Agency's efforts in implementing the
national storm water program requirements under section 402(p) of the
Clean Water Act. Discharges from municipal separate storm water sewer
systems (``MS4'') serving a population of 100,000 or more are subject
to NPDES storm water permitting requirements at 40 CFR 122.21 and
122.26. The Agency recently published a proposed rule that would extend
NPDES permit requirements to smaller MS4s in urbanized areas (63 FR
1536, January 9, 1998).
EPA is considering whether development of effluent guidelines
regulations, or additional technical information and guidance on
[[Page 29210]]
characterizing storm water discharges and evaluating the efficacy of
controls would be useful to discharging facilities in complying with
permit requirements. Because the nature of the dischargers and
discharges in urban storm water are somewhat different from the
industrial discharges usually regulated by effluent guidelines, the
study format will vary somewhat to accommodate other issues and
concerns. EPA intends that the study will include a summary of existing
storm water resources on best management practices (BMPs), a
description of adverse environmental impacts from storm water
discharges, a summary of available methods for estimating the
relationship between storm event size and bacteriological impacts,
descriptions of types of regionally-appropriate storm water BMPs (both
structural and non-structural) and how to measure their performance,
cost and economic impact considerations, and a description of
measurable goals that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of
storm water management controls. The Agency will complete a preliminary
data summary by December 1998.
f. Airport Deicing. EPA began the Airport Deicing study formally in
January 1998, although some site visits were conducted as early as
Summer 1997. Early data-gathering efforts for the study have been
initiated. The Agency is conducting a literature search on pollution
prevention practices related to aircraft deicing, including alternative
and innovative deicing practices at airports in the United States, as
well as in other countries. The Agency is reviewing previously-
collected data as well as information gathered through contacts with
the trade associations representing various segments of the industry,
environmental groups, manufacturers of deicing chemicals and vendors of
deicing-related equipment and treatment technologies. Also, the Agency
is planning to review airport storm water monitoring data that is
collected under the Multi-Sector General Permit requirements.
The Agency will be conducting site visits to airports of differing
sizes and geographic locations. These visits will include airports that
employ pollution prevention, on-site recycling or alternative deicing
technologies. Specifically, the purposes of the site visits are:
To gather basic information on a variety of deicing
activities and to determine what factors affect deicing operations;
To determine and evaluate the level of wastewater
treatment for any collected deicing fluids;
To gather information to characterize the raw, untreated
effluent generated from any deicing operations in terms of pollutant
concentrations, volumes and environmental impacts; and
To gather information on new or innovative pollution
prevention practices.
EPA will examine the effectiveness of the current storm water
permitting system and the comparative effectiveness of an effluent
guideline approach for airport deicing activities. The Agency will also
evaluate the status and trends of de-icing chemical use at airports,
including the costs and cost-minimization opportunities of deicing
material management, and the development and use of prevention and
treatment technologies will be evaluated. Wastewater characterization
sampling visits are expected to be conducted next winter. The Agency
will complete a preliminary data summary by December 1999.
g. Fish Hatcheries and Farms. EPA considered developing effluent
guidelines for fish hatcheries and farms, also called aquaculture
facilities, in 1977. A draft development document recommended issuance
of BPT limitations, but regulations were not promulgated.
(``Development Document for Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards of Performance for the Fish Hatcheries and Farms Point
Source Category,'' EPA Effluent Guidelines Division, draft February
1977.) Aquaculture operations include ponds, tanks, raceways (a series
of tanks), netpens, and cages. These operations generate manure, which
can adversely affect water quality with BOD, suspended and settleable
solids, nutrients, chemical additives (including pesticides), water
temperature changes, and pathogens such as streptococcus. Uneaten fish
food can also generate nutrient discharges.
Potential problems stemming from aquaculture discharges are
described in a recent report by the Environmental Defense Fund (``Murky
Waters: Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in the United States,''
Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, DC, 1997). The report provides
an overview of the aquaculture industry and a description of water use,
pollutants generated, and environmental impacts. Among the report's
recommendations is a call for EPA to promulgate effluent guidelines for
aquaculture operations.
EPA is also aware that reports developed by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (a Federal
interagency advisory group), and other organizations may address waste
issues associated with aquaculture. The Agency invites submission of
such reports and other data on aquaculture discharges.
3. Future Studies
EPA has nearly completed its Consent Decree requirements for
developing eleven preliminary studies. However, the Agency may develop
additional studies from time to time, and several study topics have
been suggested. Among the categories that EPA may study are:
Hospitals
Ore Mining and Dressing (including Placer Mining)
Glass Manufacturing
Canmaking
Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard (topics not addressed in recent or
ongoing rule projects)
Wood Chip Mills
Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries)
Generic Effluent Guideline Issues.
EPA invites submission of data and other comments on these
categories and topics.
C. Other Rulemaking Actions
1. Pulp, Paper and Paperboard, Phases 2 & 3
In the Pulp and Paper effort, EPA intends to revise existing
limitations in 10 of the 12 subcategories in 2 phases. Phase 2
includes: Unbleached Kraft; Semi-Chemical; Mechanical Pulp; Non-Wood
Chemical Pulp; Secondary Fiber Deink; Secondary Fiber Non-Deink; Fine
and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp; and Tissue, Filter, Non-
Woven, and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp. Phase 3 includes: Dissolving
Kraft and Dissolving Sulfite. Guidelines and standards for these 10
subcategories were proposed as part of the Pulp and Paper Rule (also
known as the ``Cluster Rule'') in December of 1993 but final action was
deferred in the Phase I Rule promulgated April 15, 1998, based on
public comment. The Agency intends to publish notices of data
availability prior to taking final action on both phases.
2. Ore Mining and Dressing
EPA had proposed to exclude a waste stream from previously-
promulgated effluent guidelines for the Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold,
Silver and Molybdenum Ores Subcategory of the Ore Mining and Dressing
Category (40 CFR part 440, subpart J). The Agency published a proposed
rule on February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5364). Dewatered tailings generated by
the Alaska-Juneau (A-J) gold mine
[[Page 29211]]
project near Juneau, Alaska would have been affected by this proposal.
On January 14, 1997, Echo Bay Mines announced that it would
terminate its development plans for the A-J mine project. EPA has
concluded, in light of the closure of the A-J mine project and the lack
of information about other mine sites exhibiting similarly extreme
environmental conditions, that it is unnecessary to continue this
rulemaking. The Agency published a document withdrawing the proposal on
January 16, 1998 (63 FR 2646).
VI. Request for Comments
EPA invites public comment on its plans for development of effluent
guidelines and preliminary studies. Comments will be accepted until
July 27, 1998. In particular, the Agency is interested in data that
would facilitate comparisons of discharger categories with regard to
wastestream characteristics, treatment practices and effects on water
quality. In addition to the categories discussed or listed in today's
notice, EPA will consider information on other categories in developing
Effluent Guidelines Plans.
VII. Economic Impact Assessment; Executive Order 12866
Today's document proposes a plan for the review and revision of
existing effluent guidelines and for the selection of priority
industries for new regulations. This document is not a ``rule'' subject
to 5 U.S.C. 553 and does not establish any requirements; therefore, no
economic impact assessment has been prepared. EPA will provide economic
impact analyses, regulatory flexibility analyses or regulatory impact
assessments, as appropriate, for all of the future effluent guideline
rulemakings developed by the Agency.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this plan is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
Dated: May 21, 1998.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
Appendix A--Promulgated Effluent Guidelines
``Promulgation'' refers to the date of promulgation of BAT
controls unless otherwise noted. Minor amendments or corrections are
not shown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised rule
(P: Proposal F:
Category 40 CFR Promulgation Final Action)
part or Study
Completion (S)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum Forming............ 467 10/83
Asbestos Manufacturing...... 427 2/74
Battery Manufacturing....... 461 3/84
Builder's Paper and Board 431 12/86 (BCT)
Mills \1\.
Carbon Black Manufacturing.. 458 1/78
Cement Manufacturing........ 411 8/79 (BCT)
Coal Mining................. 434 10/82 P 12/99; F 12/
01.
Coil Coating................ 465 12/82
Canmaking Subcategory... ....... 11/83
Copper Forming.............. 468 8/83
Dairy Products Processing... 405 6/86 (BCT)
Electroplating.............. 413 1/81 (PSES) P 10/00; F 12/
02\2\.
Electrical and Electronic 469 4/83
Components.
Explosives Manufacturing.... 457 3/76
Feedlots.................... 412 2/74 S 1998.
P 12/99; F 12/
01 (Swine &
Poultry).
P 12/00; F 12/
02 (Dairy &
Beef
Cattle).
Ferroalloy Manufacturing.... 424 7/86 (BCT)
Fertilizer Manufacturing.... 418 8/79 (BCT)
Fruits and Vegetables 407 7/86 (BCT)
Processing.
Glass Manufacturing......... 426 7/86 (BCT)
Grain Mills................. 406 7/86 (BCT)
Gum and Wood Chemicals...... 454 5/76 (BPT)
Hospitals................... 460 5/76 (BPT) S 1989.
Ink Formulating............. 447 7/75
Inorganic Chemicals......... 415 6/82 S 1994.
Iron and Steel Manufacturing 420 5/82 S 1995; P 12/98
\3\; F 12/00
\3\.
Leather Tanning and 425 11/82
Finishing.
Meat Products............... 432 7/76 (BCT)
Metal Finishing............. 433 7/83 S 1994; P 10/
00; F 12/02
\2\.
Metal Molding and Casting 464 10/85
(Foundries).
Mineral Mining and 436 7/77 (BPT)
Processing.
Nonferrous Metals Forming... 471 8/85
Nonferrous Metals 421 6/84
Manufacturing.
Oil and Gas Extraction...... 435 P 12/98; F 12/
00 (Synthetic-
Based Fluids).
[[Page 29212]]
Offshore Subcategory.... ....... 3/93
Coastal Subcategory..... ....... 12/96
Other Subcategories..... ....... 11/79 (BPT)
Ore Mining and Dressing..... 440 12/82
Gold Placer Mining ....... 5/88
Subcategory.
Organic Chemicals, Plastics 414 11/87
and Synthetic Fibers.
Paint Formulating........... 446 7/75 S 1989.
Paving and Roofing Materials 443 7/75
Pesticide Chemicals......... 455
Manufacturing........... ....... 9/93
Formulating, Packaging, ....... 11/96
Repackaging.
Petroleum Refining.......... 419 10/82 S 1993.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 439 10/83 P 5/2/95; F 7/
98.
Phosphate Manufacturing..... 422 6/76
Photographic Processing..... 459 7/76 (BPT) S 1996.
Plastics Molding and Forming 463 12/84
Porcelain Enameling......... 466 11/82
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard.. 430
Subparts B & E (Phase 1 ....... 4/98
rule).
Other subparts.......... ....... 12/86 (BCT) P 12/93; F 2000-
2002 (Phase 2
& 3 rules).
Rubber Manufacturing........ 428 2/74
Seafood Processing.......... 408 7/86 (BCT)
Soap and Detergent 417 4/74
Manufacturing.
Steam Electric Power 423 11/82 S 1995.
Generating.
Sugar Processing............ 409 7/86 (BCT)
Textile Mills............... 410 9/82 S 1994.
Timber Products Processing.. 429 1/81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA proposed merging part 431 with part 430 in the proposed Pulp,
Paper and Paperboard rule on 12/17/93. Part 431 will be deleted.
\2\ The Electroplating and Metal Finishing categories will be modified
by the new Metal Products and Machinery rule. See Appendix B for
rulemaking dates.
\3\ EPA is discussing extensions to Consent Decree dates with NRDC.
Appendix B--Current and Future Rulemaking Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Proposed Final
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard, 12/17/93 \1\ 2000-2002 \1\
Phases 2 & 3.
(58 FR 66078)
Centralized Waste Treatment... 1/27/95 8/99
(60 FR 5464)
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing.. 5/2/95 7/98
(60 FR 21592)
Metal Products and Machinery.. 5/30/95 \2\ .................
(60 FR 28209)
(Phase 1 only)
10/00 12/02
Industrial Laundries.......... 12/17/97 6/99
(62 FR 66182)
Landfills..................... 2/6/98 11/99
(63 FR 6425)
Industrial Waste Combustors 2/6/98 11/99
(Incinerators).
(63 FR 6391)
Transportation Equipment 5/15/98 6/15/00
Cleaning.
Oil and Gas Extraction........ 12/98 12/00
Iron and Steel Manufacturing.. 12/98 \3\ 12/00 \3\
Coal Mining................... 12/99 12/01
Feedlots (Poultry & Swine 12/99 12/01
subcategories).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Pulp, Paper and Paperboard rulemaking is not covered by the
January 31, 1992 consent decree.
\2\ 5/30/95 proposal covered Phase 1 MP&M facilities only. The proposal
in 10/00 will cover Phase 1 and 2 facilities combined.
\3\ EPA is discussing extensions to Consent Decree dates with NRDC.
Appendix C--Preliminary Studies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Complete
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refining......................................... 1993
Metal Finishing............................................ 1993
Textile Mills.............................................. 1994
Inorganic Chemicals........................................ 1994
Steam Electric Power Generating............................ 1995
Iron and Steel Manufacturing............................... 1995
[[Page 29213]]
Photographic Processing.................................... 1996
Chemical Formulators and Packagers......................... 1996
Feedlots................................................... 1998
Urban Storm Water.......................................... 1998
Airport Deicing............................................ 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 98-14156 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
