[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66286-66304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27742]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517; FRL-9483-4]
RIN 2040-AF06
Notice of Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice presents the final 2010 Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan(``final 2010 Plan''), which, as required under the Clean
Water Act (CWA), identifies any new or existing industrial dischargers,
both those discharging directly to surface waters and those discharging
to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), selected for effluent
guidelines rulemaking and provides a schedule for such rulemakings. CWA
section 304(m) requires EPA to biennially publish such a plan after
public notice and comment. The Agency published the preliminary 2010
Plan on December 28, 2009 (74 FR 68599) and solicited comments from the
public for 60 days.
After considering rulemakings already in development, the 2010
reviews, the preliminary Plan and public comments and input to
determine what, if any, new rulemakings should be initiated, EPA has
decided to develop effluent guidelines and standards for the discharge
of wastewater from the Coalbed Methane Extraction (CBM) industry and
will develop pretreatments requirements for discharges of mercury from
the Dental industry, and for the discharges of wastewater from the
Shale Gas Extraction (SGE) industry.
EPA is also issuing the detailed study report for the Coalbed
Methane Extraction and the preliminary study report of the Ore Mining
and Dressing industry.
This notice also solicits public comments on EPA's 2011 reviews
pursuant to the authority of CWA sections 304(b), 304(g), 301(d) and
307(b).
DATES: Submit comments on or before November 25, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on the final 2010 Plan, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517, by one of the following methods:
(1) http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
(2) E-mail: [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2008-0517.
(3) Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
4203M,
[[Page 66287]]
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517. Please include a total of 3 copies.
(4) Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be
made.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-
0517. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute (see below for instructions on
submitting CBI). Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The federal
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment, and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Submitting Confidential Business Information
Do not submit confidential business information (CBI) to EPA
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Any CBI you wish to
submit should be sent via a trackable physical method, such as Federal
Express or United Parcel Service, to Mr. M. Ahmar Siddiqui, Document
Control Officer, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T), Room 6231S
EPA West, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460. A
CBI package should be double-wrapped, so that the CBI is in one
package, which is itself inside another package. Clearly mark the part
or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information
on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk
or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or
CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to
one complete copy of the material that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the material that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the index at
http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.
Key documents providing additional information about EPA's annual
reviews and the final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan include the
following:
Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan, EPA-820-R-10-021, DCN 07320;
Coalbed Methane Point Source Category: Detailed Study
Report, EPA-820-R-10-022, DCN 09999;
Draft Guidance Document: Best Management Practices for
Unused Pharmaceuticals at Health Care Facilities, August 26, 2010, EPA-
821-R-10-006.
Ore Mining and Dressing Category Preliminary Study, EPA-
820-R-10-025, DCN 07369.
Data and Information for the 2011 Annual Review
Submit any data and information you have for the 2011 annual
reviews, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824, by one of the
methods described above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William F. Swietlik at (202) 566-
1129 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
How is this document organized?
The outline of this notice follows.
I. General Information
II. Legal Authority
III. What is the purpose of this Federal Register notice?
IV. Background
V. EPA's 2010 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g),
304(m), and 307(b)
VI. EPA's 2010 Evaluation of Categories of Indirect Dischargers
Without Categorical Pretreatment Standards To Identify Potential New
Categories for Pretreatment Standards
VII. The Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan
VIII. EPA's 2011 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g),
and 307(b)
IX. Request for Comment and Information
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This notice provides a summary of the Agency's effluent guidelines
review and planning processes and priorities at this time, and does not
contain any regulatory requirements. This notice also provides a
summary of the Agency's pretreatment standards review.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA for the 2011
annual review?
1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
[[Page 66288]]
Explain your views as clearly as possible.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
Follow the special procedures for submitting Confidential
Business Information (CBI).
II. Legal Authority
This notice is published under the authority of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
1251, et seq., and in particular sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g),
304(m), 306, 307(b), 308, 33 U.S.C. 1311(d), 1314(b), 1314(g), 1314(m),
1316, 1317(b), and 1318.
III. What is the purpose of this Federal Register notice?
This notice presents EPA's 2010 review of existing effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards under CWA sections 301, 304 and
307. It also presents EPA's evaluation of indirect dischargers without
categorical pretreatment standards to identify potential new categories
for pretreatment standards under CWA sections 304(g) and 307(b) and
(c). This notice presents the final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program
Plan (``final 2010 Plan''), which, as required under CWA section
304(m), identifies any new or existing industrial categories selected
for effluent guidelines rulemaking, as well as the establishment or
revision of pretreatment standards, and provides a schedule for such
rulemakings. CWA section 304(m) requires EPA to biennially publish such
a plan after public notice and comment. The Agency published a
preliminary 2010 Plan on December 28, 2009 (74 FRN 68599) and solicited
comment through February 26, 2010. This notice also provides EPA's
preliminary thoughts concerning its 2011 annual reviews under CWA
sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 306 and 307(b) and solicits comments,
data and information to assist EPA in performing these reviews.
IV. Background
A. What are effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards?
The CWA directs EPA to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines
and standards (``effluent guidelines'') that reflect pollutant
reductions that can be achieved by categories or subcategories of
industrial point sources using technologies that represent the
appropriate level of control. See CWA sections 301(b)(2), 304(b), 306,
307(b), and 307(c). For point sources that introduce pollutants
directly into the waters of the United States (direct dischargers), the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated by EPA are
implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits. See CWA sections 301(a), 301(b), and 402. For sources
that discharge to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), termed
indirect dischargers, EPA promulgates pretreatment standards that apply
to those sources and are enforced by the POTWs and State and Federal
authorities. See CWA sections 307(b) and (c).
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--CWA
Sections 301(b)(1)(A) & 304(b)(1)
EPA defines Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT) effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and non-
conventional pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as
conventional pollutants: Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501). EPA has identified 65
pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic pollutants, of which 126
specific substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants. See
Appendix A to part 423. All other pollutants are considered to be non-
conventional.
In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first
considers the total cost of applying the control technology in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age
of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed, and any
required process changes, engineering aspects of the control
technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements), and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems
appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA
establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best
performances of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes,
processes, or other common characteristics. Where existing performance
is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than
currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency determines
that the technology can be practically applied.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--CWA Sections
301(b)(2)(E) & 304(b)(4)
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with Best
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for discharges from
existing industrial point sources. In addition to considering the other
factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B) to establish BCT limitations,
EPA also considers a two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA
explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in
1986. See 51 FR 24974 (July 9, 1986).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--CWA
Sections 301(b)(2)(A) & 304(b)(2)(B)
For toxic pollutants and non-conventional pollutants, EPA
promulgates effluent guidelines based on the Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT). See CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D)
and (F). The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of
achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities
involved, the process employed, potential process changes, non-water
quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements, and other
such factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA
section 304(b)(2)(B). The technology must also be economically
achievable. See CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). The Agency retains
considerable discretion in assigning the weight accorded to these
factors. BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable
through changes in a facility's processes and operations. Where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher
level of performance than is currently being achieved within a
particular subcategory based on technology transferred from a different
subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process changes or
internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry
practice.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--CWA Section 306
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reflect effluent reductions
that are achievable based on the best available demonstrated control
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
[[Page 66289]]
stringent controls attainable through the application of the best
available demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (i.e.,
conventional, non-conventional, and priority pollutants). In
establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost
of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--CWA Section
307(b)
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) are designed to
prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with,
or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs), including sludge disposal methods at POTWs.
Pretreatment standards for existing sources are technology-based and
are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines. The General
Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for the
implementation of national pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR
part 403.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--CWA Section 307(c)
Like PSES, Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) are
designed to prevent the discharges of pollutants that pass through,
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of
POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as NSPS. New indirect
dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate into their facilities
the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the
same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
B. What are EPA's review and planning obligations under sections
301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 304(m), and 307(b)?
1. EPA's Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections 301(d), 304(b),
and 304(m)--Direct Dischargers
Section 304(b) requires EPA to review its existing effluent
guidelines for direct dischargers each year and to revise such
regulations ``if appropriate.'' Section 304(m) supplements section
304(b) by requiring EPA to publish a plan every two years announcing
its schedule for performing this annual review and its schedule for
rulemaking for any effluent guidelines selected for possible revision
as a result of that annual review. Section 304(m) also requires the
plan to identify categories of sources discharging toxic or non-
conventional pollutants for which EPA has not published effluent
limitations guidelines under section 304(b)(2) or NSPS under section
306. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(B); S. Rep. No. 50, 99th Cong., 1st
Sess. (1985); WQA87 Leg. Hist. 31 (indicating that section 304(m)(1)(B)
applies to ``non-trivial discharges.''). Finally, under section 304(m),
the plan must present a schedule for promulgating effluent guidelines
for industrial categories for which it has not already established such
guidelines, providing for final action on such rulemaking not later
than three years after the industrial category is identified in a final
Plan. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(C); NRDC et al. v. EPA, 542 F.3d 1235,
1251 (9th Cir. 2008). EPA is required to publish its preliminary Plan
for public comment prior to taking final action on the plan. See CWA
section 304(m)(2).
In addition, CWA section 301(d) requires EPA to review every five
years the effluent limitations required by CWA section 301(b)(2) and to
revise them if appropriate pursuant to the procedures specified in that
section. Section 301(b)(2), in turn, requires point sources to achieve
effluent limitations reflecting the application of the best practicable
control technology (all pollutants), best available technology
economically achievable (for toxic pollutants and non-conventional
pollutants) and the best conventional pollutant control technology (for
conventional pollutants), as determined by EPA under sections
304(b)(1), 304(b)(2) and 304(b)(4), respectively. For over three
decades, EPA has implemented sections 301 and 304 through the
promulgation of effluent limitations guidelines, resulting in
regulations for 57 industrial categories. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 113 (1977). Consequently, as part of its annual
review of effluent limitations guidelines under section 304(b), EPA is
also reviewing the effluent limitations they contain, thereby
fulfilling its obligations under sections 301(d) and 304(b)
simultaneously.
2. EPA's Review and Planning Obligations Under Sections 304(g) and
307(b)--Indirect Dischargers
Section 307(b) requires EPA to revise its pretreatment standards
for indirect dischargers ``from time to time, as control technology,
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives change.'' See CWA
section 307(b)(2). Section 304(g) requires EPA to annually review these
pretreatment standards and revise them ``if appropriate.'' Although
section 307(b) only requires EPA to revise existing pretreatment
standards ``from time to time,'' section 304(g) requires an annual
review. Therefore, EPA meets its 304(g) and 307(b) requirements by
reviewing all industrial categories subject to existing categorical
pretreatment standards on an annual basis to identify potential
candidates for revision.
Section 307(b)(1) also requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for pollutants not susceptible to treatment by POTWs or that
would interfere with the operation of POTWs, although it does not
provide a timing requirement for the identification of new industries
for pretreatment standards. EPA, in its discretion, periodically
evaluates indirect dischargers not subject to categorical pretreatment
standards to identify potential candidates for new pretreatment
standards. The CWA does not require EPA to publish its review of
pretreatment standards or identification of potential new categories,
although EPA is exercising its discretion to do so in this notice.
EPA intends to repeat this publication schedule for future
pretreatment standards reviews (e.g., EPA will publish the 2011 annual
pretreatment standards review in the notice containing the Agency's
2011 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and the preliminary
2012 plan). EPA intends that these contemporaneous reviews will provide
meaningful insight into EPA's effluent guidelines and pretreatment
standards program decision-making. Additionally, by providing a single
notice for these and future reviews, EPA hopes to provide a
consolidated source of information for the Agency's current and future
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards program reviews.
V. EPA's 2010 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g),
304(m), and 307(b)
A. What process did EPA use to review existing effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards under CWA Section 301(d), 304(b), 304(g),
304(m), and 307(b)?
1. Overview
In its 2010 annual review, EPA reviewed all industrial categories
subject to existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
standards, representing a total of 57 point source categories and over
450 subcategories. Generally, EPA uses four factors in a phased
approach to review existing effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards:
(1) Pollutants discharged in an industrial category's effluent,
[[Page 66290]]
(2) Potential pollution prevention and control technology options,
(3) Category growth and economic considerations of technology
options, and
(4) Implementation and efficiency considerations of revising
existing effluent guidelines or publishing new effluent guidelines (see
December 21, 2006; 71 FR 76666).
In the 2010 annual review EPA incorporated, for the first time,
discharge data from approximately 15,000 ``minor'' industrial
dischargers. Point sources are generally classified as major or minor,
depending on size and nature of the discharges. A major industrial
discharger is a facility scoring over 80 points based on rating
criteria. Minor industrial discharges are facilities that score below
the criteria score of 80 on the rating scale.
2. What analyses did EPA perform for its 2009 and 2010 annual reviews
of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards?
a. Screening-Level Review
The first component of EPA's 2010 annual review consisted of a
screening-level review of all industrial categories subject to existing
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards. EPA focused its efforts
on collecting and analyzing data to identify industrial categories
whose pollutant discharges potentially are the most significant. EPA
used Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), Permit Compliance System (PCS) and
Integrated Compliance Information System--National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) data to estimate the mass of pollutant
discharges from industrial facilities. Because pollutant toxicities are
different, EPA converted the toxic and non-conventional pollutant
discharges that are reported in a mass unit (pounds) into a measure of
relative toxicity--a toxic-weighted pound equivalent or TWPE.
EPA calculated the TWPE for each pollutant discharged by
multiplying the pollutant specific toxic weighting factor (TWF) and the
mass of the pollutant discharge. Where data are available, these TWFs
reflect both aquatic life and human health effects. EPA ranked point
source categories according to their discharges of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants (reported in units of TWPE) to assess the
significance of these toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges
to human health or the environment. EPA conducted this process for the
2010 annual reviews using the most recent TRI, PCS and ICIS-NPDES data
(2008).
Based on this methodology, EPA prioritized for potential revision
industrial categories that offered the greatest potential for reducing
hazard to human health and the environment. EPA assigned those
categories with the lowest estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant
discharges a lower priority for revision (i.e., industrial categories
marked ``(3)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4
of this notice).
In order to further focus its inquiry during the 2010 annual
review, EPA assigned a lower priority for potential revision to
categories for which effluent guidelines had been recently promulgated
or revised, or for which effluent guidelines rulemaking was currently
underway. EPA removed an industrial point source category from further
consideration during the current review cycle if EPA established,
revised, or reviewed in a rulemaking context the category's effluent
guidelines after August 2003 (i.e., the last seven years). EPA chose
seven years because this is the time it customarily takes for the
effects of effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards to be fully
reflected in pollutant loading data and TRI reports (in large part
because effluent limitations guidelines are often incorporated into
NPDES permits only upon re-issuance of those permits, which could be up
to five years after the effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards
are promulgated). EPA also removed an industrial point source category
from further consideration during the current review cycle if EPA
recently completed a preliminary study or a detailed study and
determined that no further action is necessary at this time. These
categories are marked ``(1)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1
in section V.B.4 of this notice.
Because there are 57 point source categories (including over 450
subcategories) with existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment
standards that must be reviewed annually, EPA believes it is important
to prioritize its review so as to focus on industries where changes to
the existing effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards are most
likely to result in further pollutant discharge reduction. In general,
industries for which effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards have
recently been promulgated are less likely to warrant such changes.
As part of the 2010 annual review, EPA also considered the number
of facilities responsible for the majority of the estimated toxic-
weighted pollutant discharges associated with an industrial activity.
EPA applied a lower priority for potential revision to industrial
categories where only a few facilities in a category accounted for the
vast majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges (i.e., categories
marked ``(2)'' in the ``Findings'' column in Table V-1 in section V.B.4
of this notice). EPA believes that revision of individual permits for
such facilities may be more effective than a revised national
rulemaking. Individual permit requirements can be better tailored to
these few facilities and may take considerably less time and resources
to establish than revising the national effluent guidelines. The Docket
accompanying this notice lists facilities that account for the vast
majority of the estimated toxic-weighted pollutant discharges for a
particular category (see DCN 07320). For these facilities, EPA will
consider identifying pollutant control and pollution prevention
technologies that will assist permit writers in developing facility-
specific technology-based effluent limitations on a best professional
judgment (BPJ) basis. In future annual reviews, EPA also intends to re-
evaluate each category based on the information available at the time
in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the BPJ permit-based support.
EPA also applied a lower priority to categories without sufficient
data to determine whether revision would be appropriate. For any
industrial categories marked ``(5)'' in the ``Findings'' column in
Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of this notice, EPA lacks sufficient
information at this time on the magnitude of the toxic-weighted
pollutant discharges. EPA will continue reviewing available data on the
discharges and will seek additional information on the discharges from
these categories in the next annual review in order to determine
whether a detailed study is warranted. See the appropriate section in
the TSD for the final 2010 Plan (see DCN 07320) for EPA's data needs
for these industrial categories. This assessment provides an additional
level of quality assurance on the reported pollutant discharges and
number of facilities that represent the majority of toxic-weighted
pollutant discharges.
For industrial categories marked ``(4)'' in the ``Findings'' column
in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of this notice, EPA had sufficient
information on the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges to continue or
complete a detailed study of these industrial categories.
For industrial categories marked ``(6)'' in the ``Findings'' column
in Table V-1 in section V.B.4 of this notice, EPA is identifying this
industry for a revised effluent guidelines rulemaking.
[[Page 66291]]
Next, EPA considered the availability of technologies to reduce
pollutant discharges. EPA does not have, for all of the 57 existing
industrial categories, information about the availability of treatment
or process technologies to reduce pollutant wastewater discharges
beyond the performance of the technologies upon which existing effluent
guidelines and standards were developed. At present 46 states and one
U.S. territory are authorized to administer the CWA NPDES program.
Under the CWA, permitting authorities must include water-quality based
effluent limits where the technology-based effluent limits are not
sufficient to meet applicable water quality standards. Therefore,
dischargers may have already installed technologies that reduce
pollutant discharges to a level below the original technology-based
requirements in order to meet such water-quality based effluent
limitations.
Analyzing the significance of the remaining pollutant discharges is
most useful for assessing the potential effectiveness of additional
technologies because such an analysis focuses on the amount and
significance of pollutant discharges that would actually be removed
through new, technology-based nationally-applicable regulations for
these categories. Where potential pollutant discharge reductions are
not significant, there are likely few effective technology options for
a technology-based rule. Once EPA determined which industries have the
potential for significant additional pollutant removals, EPA further
examined the availability of technologies for certain industries. For
example, EPA identified technologies to minimize pollutant discharges
from coalbed methane extraction facilities (see Coalbed Methane Point
Source Category: Detailed Study Report, EPA-820-R-10-022, DCN 09999).
EPA also considered whether there was a way to develop a suitable
tool for comprehensively evaluating the availability and affordability
of treatment or process technologies, but determined that there is not,
because the universe of facilities is too broad and complex. EPA could
not find a reasonable way to prioritize the industrial categories based
on readily available engineering and economic data. In the past, EPA
has gathered information regarding technologies and economic
achievability for one industrial category at a time through detailed
questionnaires distributed to hundreds of facilities within a category
or subcategory for which EPA has commenced rulemaking. Such
information-gathering is subject to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 33 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information acquired
in this way is valuable to EPA in its rulemaking efforts, but the
process of gathering, validating and analyzing the data can consume
considerable time and resources. EPA does not think it is appropriate
or feasible to conduct this level of analysis for all point source
categories in conducting an annual review. Rather, EPA uses its
analyses of existing pollutant discharges to identify the categories
with the largest toxic-weighted discharges. From this smaller list of
categories, EPA evaluates the possibility of effective technologies and
selects certain industries for further examination (e.g., Preliminary
Category Reviews, Detailed Studies).
Additionally, when EPA becomes aware of the growth of a new
industrial activity within an existing category or where new concerns
are identified for previously unevaluated pollutants discharged by
facilities within an industrial category, EPA applies more scrutiny to
the category in a subsequent review.
EPA also considers whether there are industrial activities not
currently subject to effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards that
should be included with these existing categories, either as part of
existing subcategories or as potential new subcategories. These
industries are sometimes suggested by commenters during the public
comment period or may come to EPA's attention in other ways.
EPA also continued to use the quality assurance project plan (QAPP)
developed for the 2009 annual review to document the type and quality
of data needed to make the decisions in this 2010 annual review and to
describe the methods for collecting and assessing those data (see EPA-
820-R-10-021). EPA performed quality assurance checks on the data used
to develop estimates of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges (i.e.,
verifying 2008 discharge data reported to TRI, PCS and ICIS-NPDES) to
determine whether any of the pollutant discharge estimates relied on
incorrect or suspect data. For example, EPA contacted facilities and
permit writers to confirm and, as necessary, correct TRI, PCS or ICIS-
NPDES data for facilities that EPA had identified in its screening-
level review as the significant dischargers.
In summary, through its screening level review, EPA focused on
those point source categories that appeared to have the greatest
potential for reducing hazard to human health and the environment. This
enabled EPA to concentrate its resources on conducting more in-depth
reviews of the higher priority categories.
b. Further Review of Prioritized Categories
EPA conducts a preliminary category review when it lacks sufficient
data to determine whether a regulatory revision would be appropriate
and for which EPA is performing a further assessment of pollutant
discharges before starting a detailed study. These assessments provide
an additional level of quality assurance on the reported pollutant
discharges and number of facilities that represent the majority of
toxic-weighted pollutant discharges.
In conducting a preliminary category review, EPA uses the same
types of data sources used for the detailed studies or effluent
guidelines development but in less depth. As part of the preliminary
category reviews, EPA may evaluate technologies that could achieve
better control of pollutant discharges. EPA might also conduct surveys
or collect data from additional sources. The full description of EPA's
methodology for the 2010 annual review is presented in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) for the final 2010 Plan (see DCN 07320).
c. Detailed Studies
EPA conducts detailed studies to obtain information on hazard,
availability and cost of technology options, and other factors in order
to determine if it would be appropriate to identify the category for
possible effluent guidelines revision. The full description of EPA's
methodology for the 2010 review is presented in the Technical Support
Document (TSD) for the final 2010 Plan (see DCN 07320).
3. How did EPA's 2009 annual review influence its 2010 annual review of
point source categories with existing effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards?
In view of the annual nature of its reviews of existing effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards, EPA believes that each annual
review can and should influence succeeding annual reviews, e.g., by
indicating data gaps, identifying new pollutants or pollution reduction
technologies, or otherwise highlighting industrial categories for
additional scrutiny in subsequent years.
During its 2009 annual review, which concluded the end of December
2009, EPA continued detailed studies of the existing effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards for two industrial categories:
Oil and Gas Extraction category (Part 435) for the purpose of assessing
whether to revise the limits to include coalbed methane
[[Page 66292]]
extraction as a new subcategory, and Hospitals (Part 460) which is part
of the Health Care Industry detailed study on the management of unused
pharmaceuticals. In addition, EPA conducted a preliminary study of the
Ore Mining and Dressing category (part 440) during 2009. EPA used the
findings, data and comments on the 2009 annual review to inform its
2010 annual review and the final 2010 Plan. The 2010 review also built
on the previous reviews by incorporating some refinements to assigning
discharges to categories and updating toxic weighting factors.
EPA published the findings from its 2009 annual review with its
preliminary 2010 Plan (December 28, 2009, 74 FRN 68599), making the
pollutant discharge and industry profile data available for public
comment. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517.
4. How did EPA consider public comments in its 2010 annual review?
EPA's annual review process considers information provided by
stakeholders regarding the need for new or revised effluent limitations
guidelines and pretreatment standards. Public comments received on
EPA's prior reviews and Plans helped the Agency prioritize its analysis
of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards during the
2010 review. Public comments, depending on the number, the issues, the
data and information submitted and the recommendations made therein,
can influence the annual review.
In accordance with CWA section 304(m)(2), EPA published the
preliminary 2010 Plan for public comment prior to this publication of
the final 2010 Plan. See December 28, 2009 (74 FRN 68599). The Docket
accompanying this notice includes a complete set of all of the comments
submitted, as well as the Agency's responses (see DCN 07368). The
Agency received 51 sets of comments on the preliminary 2010 Plans.
Commenting organizations representing industry included the
American Petroleum Institute, American Health Care Association,
Independent Petroleum Association of America, National Association of
Clean Water Agencies, American Dental Association, American Water Works
Association, and the National Mining Association.
Six environmental groups commented, including the Northern Plains
Resources Council, Earth Justice, Environmental Integrity Project and
the Powder River Basin Council.
Eight states, or state representing organizations, also commented,
including the states of WY, MT, NY, WI, OR, FL, ID and the Quicksilver
Caucus.
EPA received comments from 22 private individuals, all addressing
the issue of the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing used in
shale gas extraction. Most of these individuals were from NY and PA,
and their comments reflected concerns about shale gas extraction in the
Marcellus Shale formation.
EPA also received comments from one Tribal Nation (the Northern
Cheyenne) and four local organizations (Tompkins County Senior Citizen
Council, St. Paul MetroCouncil, Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group and
Albany Medical College).
Comments were distributed among the following subject areas, in
order of abundance:
--Coalbed Methane and Shale Gas Extraction (40 comments)
--Health Care Industry--(unused pharmaceuticals) (35 comments)
--Ore Mining and Dressing (2 comments)
--Steam Electric Power Generation (2 comments)
--Effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) and Plan process in general (2
comments)
--Dental Amalgam (1 comment)
--Other (2 comments)
For coalbed methane, there were seven comments that also expressed
concern with the practice of shale gas extraction; 13 comments
requesting that EPA examine shale gas extraction in the coalbed methane
detailed study; seven requests to not add shale gas extraction to the
coalbed methane study; six commenters who suggested that EPA should do
a coalbed methane ELG rule; and seven commenters who suggested that EPA
not do a rule.
For the Health Care industry, in particular the management of
unused pharmaceuticals, EPA received three comments supporting the
detailed study; three comments suggesting EPA work more closely with
the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA); four comments that explained
EPA should work with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and health
insurance companies to encourage unused pharmaceutical returns and a
coordinated message about such; twelve comments indicating EPA should
develop BMPs, disposal guidance, flyers and other disposal information;
three comments supporting take-back programs; six comments that
suggested current disposal practices are barriers to return/reuse; and
four comments indicating that pharmaceutical flushing should be
controlled by sewage treatment authorities.
For the Ore Mining and Dressing category there were two comments
that stated EPA should not develop a new ELG.
For the Steam Electric Power Generation industry, which is
currently undergoing a revised ELG as a result of last year's Plan,
there was one comment that supported EPA's selection of the steam
electric industry for rulemaking, and one commenter that believed EPA
made several errors in its detailed study final report.
One commenter asked EPA to select the dental industry for an ELG
rulemaking, arguing that the industry is responsible for half of the
national mercury loadings to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs),
and the ongoing activities under the Dental Amalgam control MOU are
insufficient.
A more detailed summary table of the comments can be found in the
2010 TSD, EPA-820-R-10-021 (DCN 07320). EPA carefully considered all
public comments and information submitted in developing the final 2010
Plan. A comment response document is also available at (DCN 07368).
B. What were EPA's findings from its 2010 annual review for categories
subject to existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards?
1. Screening-Level Review
In its 2010 screening level review, EPA considered hazard, and the
other factors described in section V.A.2. above, in prioritizing
effluent guidelines for potential revision. See Table V-1 in section
V.B.4 of this notice for a summary of EPA's findings with respect to
each existing category; see also the TSD for the final 2010 Plan, EPA-
820-R-10-021, DCN 07320). Of the categories subject only to the
screening level review in 2010, EPA is not identifying any for effluent
guidelines rulemaking at this time, based on the factors described in
section V.A above and in light of the effluent guidelines rulemakings
in progress.
EPA carefully examined the industrial categories currently
regulated by existing effluent guidelines that cumulatively comprise
95% of the reported hazard (reported in units of toxic-weighted pound
equivalent or TWPE). The TSD for the preliminary 2010 Plan presents a
summary of EPA's review of these 21 industrial categories (see DCN
07320).
EPA identified one category where additional data are required to
evaluate toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA will initiate a
preliminary category review for the cellulosic products
[[Page 66293]]
segment of the Plastics Molding and Forming (part 463) industrial
category.
Although EPA identified only one industrial category for
preliminary category review in the 2010 annual review, EPA also
identified that estimated toxic-weighted pollutant discharges of lead
from the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (part 430) industrial category
need further investigation. EPA intends to continue reviewing the Pulp,
Paper and Paperboard industry during the 2011 annual review.
EPA identified the need for additional data review as part of the
2011 annual review for three industrial categories. See the appropriate
section in the TSD for the final 2010 Plan, EPA-820-R-10-021, (see DCN
07320) for a detailed discussion of EPA's findings for these industrial
categories: Mineral Mining and Processing (part 436); Landfills (Part
445); and Waste Combustors (part 444). See Section IX of this notice
for the requested public comments. Based on new data submitted with
public comment and screening-level data collected as part of the 2011
annual review, EPA intends to re-evaluate the category toxic-weighted
pollutant discharges.
2. Results of Detailed Studies
Oil and Gas Extraction (part 435)
As a result of prior 304(m) planning, EPA initiated a detailed
study of the coalbed methane industry and its wastewater discharges.
Coalbed methane extraction is considered a subcategory of the Oil and
Gas Extraction Point Source Category, although it is not currently
subject to the effluent guidelines promulgated for this category. Since
2006, the coalbed methane industry has expanded. In addition, EPA
received comments in 2005, 2008, and again during the 2010 review from
citizens and environmental advocacy groups requesting development of a
regulation for coalbed methane extraction as well as for shale gas
extraction, another subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point
Source Category. Unlike coalbed methane extraction, however, shale gas
extraction is now subject to effluent guidelines for the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category, although there are currently no
applicable categorical pretreatment standards for shale gas extraction.
Coalbed methane-produced water discharges can impact receiving
surface waters and soils. Saline discharges from coalbed methane
operations can adversely affect aquatic life. The large volume of water
discharged can also cause stream bank erosion and salt deposition,
creating hardpan soil. Long-term impacts include sodium buildup,
reduction of plant diversity, mobilization of salts and other elements,
and alteration of surface and subsurface hydrology.
Overview of Operations:
Methane gas is naturally created during the geologic process of
converting plant material to coal (coalification). To extract the
methane, coalbed methane operators drill wells into coal seams and pump
out ground water. Removing the ground water from the formation is
necessary to produce coalbed methane, as the water removal reduces the
pressure and allows the methane to release from the coal to produce
flowing natural gas. In 2008, 252 coalbed methane operators managed
approximately 55,500 coalbed methane wells in the U.S. in 13 distinct
regions, called basins.
Produced Water
The ground water that has been pumped out of the well, called
``produced water,'' like most ground water found deep below the surface
of the earth, has high salinity and can include pollutants such as
chloride, sodium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, barium,
magnesium, ammonia, and arsenic. To quantify the amount of pollutants
in coalbed methane produced waters, EPA relied on measuring total
dissolved solids (TDS) and electrical conductivity (EC), which are bulk
parameters for quantifying the total amount of dissolved solids in a
wastewater.
A single coalbed methane well can discharge thousands of gallons of
produced water per day, and may discharge produced water for anywhere
from 5 to 15 years. Coalbed methane wells have a distinctive production
history characterized by an early stage when large amounts of water are
produced to reduce reservoir pressure which in turn encourages release
of gas; a stable stage when quantities of produced gas increase as the
quantities of produced water decrease; and a late stage when the amount
of gas produced declines and water production remains low.
The quantity and quality of produced water varies from basin to
basin, within a particular basin, from coal seam to coal seam, and over
the lifetime of a coalbed methane well. For example, coalbed methane
produced water volumes range from 1,000 gallons per day per well in the
San Juan Basin to 17,000 gallons per day per well in the Powder River
Basin.
Management of Produced Water
Coalbed methane operators need to dispose of thousands of gallons
of produced water per day for each coalbed methane well. Operators can
employ a range of options for treatment and management of this
wastewater.
Preliminary estimates based on survey data predict that
approximately 47 billion gallons of produced water are pumped annually
from coal seams across the country. Approximately 45% of those produced
waters are directly discharged to waters of the U.S., for a total
national discharge of 22 billion gallons per year.
Surface water discharge is most prevalent in three U.S. coalbed
methane basins: The Black Warrior Basin in Alabama and Mississippi (11%
of total coalbed methane surface discharges), the Powder River Basin in
Wyoming and Montana (72% of total coalbed methane surface discharges),
and the Raton Basin in Colorado and New Mexico (11% of total coalbed
methane surface discharges). Many of these discharges are largely
untreated. Surface discharge occurs rarely, if at all, in the other
major commercial basins.
In the other commercial basins in the U.S, coalbed methane
operators are, for the most part, able to prevent discharging their
produced water by discharging the water to land (where there may be
other impacts to the soil or vegetation), re-injecting the produced
water back into the ground, or using the water in one of many
beneficial use options (e.g., stock watering, irrigation).
Treatment of Produced Waters
Available technology options for adequately removing pollutants
from produced water include ion exchange and reverse osmosis.
Summary of Outreach
In 2007 EPA conducted several site visits to coalbed methane basins
throughout the country and gathered information on potential treatment
technologies for coalbed methane-produced water discharges. EPA also
conducted widespread outreach with stakeholders, both in the industry
and from the communities adjacent to coalbed methane basins. EPA
conducted more than 30 site visits to locations in six coalbed methane
basins and met with over 300 different stakeholders. EPA also conducted
13 meetings and teleconferences with over 150 stakeholders. In addition
to the extensive information collection through site visits and
outreach, EPA acknowledged that an informed decision about rulemaking
would
[[Page 66294]]
require even more detailed information. EPA developed an industry
questionnaire, solicited public comment twice, and in 2009 obtained OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, to conduct a mandatory
survey directed at operators of coalbed methane projects which consist
of a single well or a group of wells operated by the same company. The
questionnaire collected technical and economic data in a two-part
survey, a screener and a detailed survey, on the operations and
operators of coalbed methane projects. Questionnaire responses arrived
in early 2010 and the data was used by EPA to create national estimates
of pollutant discharges across the country from the coalbed methane
industry and to develop an economic profile of the industry.
In response to the 2010 preliminary Plan, EPA received 32 comments
on coalbed methane extraction. Comments from industry sources did not
support rulemaking for coalbed methane, suggesting an effluent
guideline was not appropriate due to the variability of produced water
quality, quantity and available management techniques across the
country. Additionally, industry stated that the current regulatory
framework of site-specific BPJ permits was adequately addressing
pollutant discharges from produced water discharges.
The final detailed study report for coalbed methane is being issued
concurrent with the publication of this FR Notice and is a part of the
final 2010 Plan. The study report is available at DCN 09999.
Coalbed methane production represents about 8% of natural gas
production in this country, and coalbed methane extraction is expected
to continue for decades. Of the 22 billion gallons of water discharged
to surface water each year some has high total dissolved solids. The
detailed study also found that there are readily available technologies
to treat this produced water. As a result of the information gathered
in the detailed study, EPA has decided to initiate rulemaking for
coalbed methane extraction, a currently unregulated subcategory of the
Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category.
3. Results of Preliminary Category Reviews
Ore Mining and Dressing (Part 440)
As discussed in the 2008 Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan,
EPA conducted a preliminary study of facilities covered under 40 CFR
part 440 ``Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category'' to examine
why toxic weighted pollutant discharges by the ore mining industry
ranked relatively high compared to other industries in the 2002 through
2008 annual reviews. The purpose of the study was to identify, collect,
and review readily available existing data and information on toxic
pollutants in wastewater discharges to determine whether additional
analysis or revision of 40 CFR part 440 might be warranted to better
control toxic discharges.
The preliminary study focused on active ore mines covered under 40
CFR part 440 subpart J: ``Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver, and
Molybdenum Ores.'' These types of mines comprise approximately 76
percent (263) of the approximately 345 ore mines in the United States.
Inactive ore mines were not included as they are not covered by the
effluent guidelines.
Approximately 294 ore mines currently have National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permits.
There is a difference between the total number of ore mines and the
number with NPDES permits because not all ore mines have wastewater
discharges. The approximately 1,870 placer mines, covered under 40 CFR
part 440 subpart M, were not examined in this study because they employ
mining practices and wastewater streams that are fundamentally
different from mines covered under the other subparts of 40 CFR part
440.
The preliminary study examined information pertaining to the two
types of wastewater discharged by ore mines: Process wastewater
(including mine drainage) and stormwater. Process wastewater is covered
under 40 CFR part 440. Stormwater is not covered under 40 CFR part 440
unless it is commingled with process wastewater prior to discharge to a
surface waterbody.
The study was limited by incomplete national-level process
wastewater discharge data, and the lack of any nationally
representative stormwater data for the ore mines of interest. EPA did
review available ore mine-specific process wastewater discharge
information, available Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) reports,
information for ore mine site stormwater discharges, and an industrial
wastewater treatment technology, known as high density sludge
recycling, which was identified during the course of the study.
Based on EPA's review of toxic pollutant data, EPA found that in
2007, the most recent year for which quality-checked data are
available, approximately only two percent of ore mining facilities were
responsible for approximately 90 percent of toxic weighted discharges
by the ore mining industry for toxic pollutants.
Given that only a small percentage of active ore mines account for
the majority of toxic weighted discharges, this can best be addressed
through permitting, compliance, and enforcement activities for the
specific ore mining sources, rather than by revision of 40 CFR part
440.
While the available toxic pollutant data does not suggest that EPA
revisit the ELG for ore mining and dressing (40 CFR part 440) at this
time, the Agency currently remains concerned about many other types of
mining-related water quality impairments. EPA has a number of
activities that address discharges of pollutants from mines including
interim guidance on Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal
Mining Operations Under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental
Policy Act, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order, plans to
revise the water quality criteria for selenium, increased attention on
compliance with, and enforcement of, individual permit limits; improved
permitting guidance and more stringent discharge monitoring
requirements in permits.
The Ore Mining Preliminary Study report is being issued concurrent
with the publication of this FR Notice and represents a portion of the
final 2010 Plan. The Ore Mining Preliminary Study report (EPA-820-R-10-
025) is available at DCN 07369.
4. Other Reviews
Shale Gas Extraction
Overview
As discussed in the March 2011 ``Blueprint for a Secure Energy
Future,'' (``Blueprint'') the production of domestic natural gas
enhances energy security and fuels our nation's economy (DCN 07496). In
2010, U.S. natural gas production reached its highest level in more
than 30 years with much of the increase resulting from the production
of natural gas from shale formations. This is due to recent advances in
horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing that have made extraction
of natural gas from shale formations more technically and economically
feasible. The increase is expected to continue. The U.S. Department of
Energy projects shale gas production as a percentage of the U.S.
natural gas production will increase over the next 25 years from the
current level of 14% to an estimated 45%.
As indicated in the ``Blueprint,'' the Administration is taking
several steps to
[[Page 66295]]
ensure natural gas is developed in a safe and environmentally
responsible manner. The ``Blueprint'' lists several initiatives to
support these goals, including disclosure of fracturing chemicals,
public meetings, EPA- and DOE-led research, the establishment of an
expert panel to examine fracturing issues, and technical assistance to
State regulators. In particular, the ``Blueprint'' directed the
Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the EPA Administrator and
Secretary of the Interior, to task the Secretary of Energy Advisory
Board (SEAB) with establishing a subcommittee to examine issues related
to shale gas production through hydraulic fracturing. The subcommittee
is supported by DOE, EPA and DOI, and its membership extends beyond
SEAB members to include leaders from industry, the environmental
community, academia, and states. The subcommittee is working to
identify both immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety
and environmental performance of fracturing and to provide consensus
recommended advice to the agencies on practices for shale extraction to
ensure the protection of public health and the environment. On August
11, 2011, the Subcommittee submitted a 90-day report with its
preliminary recommendations (DCN 07504). The report recommends measures
to increase public disclosure and transparency and address concerns
about air and water pollution. The report also recommends a range of
tools for implementing these measures, including regulation, continuous
improvement in best practices by industry, and ongoing research and
development.
Today's decision to initiate rulemaking is consistent with these
initiatives in that it addresses potential environmental impacts
associated with hydraulic fracturing. This is part of the
Administration's commitment in the ``Blueprint'' to continue to review
existing regulatory structures governing both onshore and offshore oil
and gas development to identify potential efficiencies in those
processes and any crucial gaps that pose safety and environmental
risks.
EPA will carefully consider the SEAB's preliminary and final
recommendations as EPA develops regulatory options. EPA's regulatory
action will complement and benefit by the initiatives already announced
in the President's ``Blueprint.''
Introduction
The production of natural gas from shale formations has increased
over the past few years and the upward trend is expected to continue.
For example, data from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection shows that the number of shale gas wells drilled in
Pennsylvania increased substantially in the past few years, with more
wells drilled and permits issued between January and April of 2010,
than during all of 2008 (DCN 07474). As the number of shale gas wells
in the U.S. increases, so too does the volume of shale gas wastewater
that requires disposal. Wastewater associated with shale gas extraction
can contain high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), fracturing
fluid additives, metals, and naturally occurring radioactive materials
(NORM).
EPA requested comments in the 2010 Preliminary Effluent Guidelines
Plan on whether to include shale gas extraction as part of the Coal Bed
Methane Detailed Study. Many of the comments on this topic expressed
general concern about drinking water contamination and water quality
impacts from shale gas extraction.
Industry commenters asserted that a shale gas rulemaking was not
needed since existing Oil and Gas Effluent Guidelines require zero
discharge from shale gas extraction. Although the existing regulations
for onshore oil and gas extraction prohibit direct discharges of
wastewaters from shale gas extraction, the current regulations do not
contain pretreatment standards for pollutants associated with these
discharges. EPA also has data that document pollutants in wastewaters
associated with shale gas extraction are not treated by the
technologies typically used at publicly and privately owned treatment
facilities (DCN 07477 and DCN 07472A1).
EPA ultimately decided not to expand the Coal Bed Methane Study to
include shale gas extraction. However, as a result of public comments,
EPA began reviewing available data to inform a decision on whether or
not a rulemaking to establish pretreatment standards for shale gas
extraction was appropriate.
Overview of Shale Gas Operations
The term ``Shale Gas'' is typically used to describe natural gas
trapped in underground shale deposits. Well operators use the process
of hydraulic fracturing to extract this gas. Hydraulic fracturing is a
method of extracting natural gas from highly impermeable rock
formations by injecting large amounts of fracturing fluids (typically 3
to 5 million gallons) at high pressures to create a network of
fissures, typically 250 feet in length (with occasional fractures as
long as 1,000 feet), in the rock formations and provide the natural gas
a pathway to travel to the well for extraction.
While the composition of the fracturing fluids varies from region
to region, and is specific to the formation to be fractured, the
classes of compounds in the fluids are largely the same. The major
components of fracturing fluid are water and proppant (typically sand),
used to keep the fractures open after the fracturing has been complete,
and chemical additives. EPA has reviewed data presented by industry
sources including Chesapeake Energy, Talisman Energy, the Gas
Technology Institute (GTI) and Halliburton, regarding the different
classes of compounds in fracturing fluids, such as biocides, friction
reducers, surfactants, scale and corrosion inhibiters and acids.
Additionally, EPA has reviewed a registry developed jointly by the
Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas
Commission of chemicals used in fracturing fluids voluntarily provided
by oil and gas companies (http://www.fracfocus.org).
A portion of the injected fracturing fluid will remain in the
fractures. The precise amount of fluid retention is uncertain and
depends on the geologic formation. The fluids not retained in the
formation will ultimately return to the surface as ``flowback'' or
``produced water.'' These wastewaters may contain the chemicals
originally found in the fracturing fluids as well as other naturally
occurring constituents that may be released into the fluid as the rock
formations are broken.
Produced Waters From Shale Gas Extraction
A shale gas well has two distinct phases of water production from
the formation. The first phase typically occurs during the first 30
days following the fracturing process (DCN 07482A10 and DCN 07482A23),
also known as the ``flowback period.'' During this time a portion of
the injected fracturing fluid will return to the surface.
There are varying reports on the actual volume of flowback;
multiple studies and presentations report that volumes ranging from 10-
75% of the injected fracturing fluids are returned during the flowback
period. The amount of ``flowback'' is dependent, in part, on the
geology of the shale basin (DCN 07477).
After this initial surge of flowback passes, produced water will
continue to come to the surface for the life of the well. Chesapeake
Energy provided data indicating that ``long term'' produced water
volumes range from 200-1,000 gallons per million cubic feet of gas
[[Page 66296]]
produced depending on the basin in which the well is located.
Currently, the Barnett shale formation has the highest long term
flowback volumes and the Marcellus shale formation has the lowest.
While there is no consensus on when the initial ``flowback'' period
ends, some operators choose to view all water passing from the
formation up through the wellbore as ``produced water'' regardless of
the time period in which it occurs.
Pollutants in Shale Gas Wastewaters
Produced waters (shale gas wastewaters) generally contain elevated
concentrations of fracturing fluid additives, salt content (often
expressed as total dissolved solids--TDS), conventional pollutants,
organics, metals, and NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material).
EPA has multiple sources of shale gas produced water
characterization data including reports published by the Department of
Energy (DCN 07476 and DCN 07474) and industry flowback analysis made
available by Chesapeake Energy, Talisman Energy, Devon Energy, Superior
Well Services, and GTI.
Total dissolved solids is the most reported pollutant. Data on TDS
concentrations are widely available due to the potential negative
impact of high concentrations of TDS on the ability to re-use the shale
gas wastewater. Elevated TDS levels may also impact the effectiveness
of the additives in the fracturing fluids (DCN 07482A03).
High concentrations of TDS are common in shale gas wastewater
across the country, although the levels may vary from basin to basin.
TDS concentrations of 100,000 ppm are typical and can be as high as
400,000 ppm (DCN 07476). For comparison, sea water contains
approximately 35,000 ppm TDS. The main component ion of TDS in shale
gas wastewater appears to be chloride, which accounts for approximately
60% of the TDS found in shale gas wastewater. Chloride has been
measured in shale gas wastewater water at levels of 8,800--153,000 ppm.
Other components may include barium (21--13,900 ppm), strontium (Non-
Detect--3,700 ppm), calcium (314--23,500 ppm), magnesium (135--5,000
ppm) and sodium (2,800--65,000 ppm). Additionally, the concentrations
of TDS in produced water from each well tend to increase over time (DCN
07482A13, DCN 07482A10, DCN 07482A23, and DCN 07482A15).
Organic and inorganic pollutants appear to be less frequently
sampled in comparison to the well documented TDS concentrations. EPA
has reviewed limited data on organic pollutants in produced water and
found a range of pollutant concentrations: phenol (Non-Detect--3,700
ppb), pyridine (Non-Detect--534 ppb), benzene (1--3,400 ppb), ethyl
benzene (Non-Detect--1,400 ppb), toluene (Non-Detect--11,400 ppb),
total xylenes (2--14,500 ppb), and glycol (10,000--120,000 ppb).
Additionally, bromide linked to shale gas wastewater has been measured
in POTW outfalls (1,020--1,100 ppm) (DCN 07481A04, DCN 07481A03, DCN
07479A06, and DCN 07481A02).
NORM is an acronym for naturally occurring radioactive material.
The U.S. Department of Energy published a report in 2009 that includes
a description of the process by which NORM in the rock formations would
be brought to the surface by hydraulic fracturing (DCN 07476). Radium
226, which has a half life of over 1,000 years, has been found to be
present in concentrations up to 16,030 pCi/l in the Marcellus Shale
produced water as reported by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation in 2009 (DCN 07473). This reported
radionuclide concentration exceeds the drinking water Maximum
Contaminant Level of 5 pCi/L for Radium 226.
While EPA has some data on the additives in fracturing fluid, EPA
is not aware of any substantial sampling data on the presence or
absence of these additives in shale gas wastewaters.
Shale Gas Wastewater Disposal and Treatment
Up to 1 million gallons of shale gas wastewater may be produced
from a single well within the first 30 days following fracturing.
Smaller volumes of shale gas wastewater will also be produced
throughout the life of the well. Many well operators transport this
wastewater to Underground Injection Control (UIC) program permitted
brine injection wells where the wastewater is permanently emplaced
underground, a common practice in the oil and gas industry. The ability
to inject shale gas wastewater varies based on local geology and
permitting requirements. For example, this practice is widely used in
the Barnett (Texas) formation where the state has more than 12,000
brine disposal wells, and less so in the Marcellus formation (PA, WV,
OH, NY, MD). For comparison purposes, the Marcellus formation states
presently have less than 300 brine disposal wells. The state of
Pennsylvania, where most Marcellus shale drilling occurs, has six brine
disposal wells.
Some operators elect to re-use a portion of the wastewater to
replace and/or supplement fresh water in formulating fracturing fluid
for a future well \1\. Re-use of shale gas wastewater is, in part,
dependent on the levels of pollutants in the wastewater and the
proximity of other fracturing sites that might re-use the wastewater.
This practice has increased over the last couple of years, especially
in regions of the country where fresh water is not plentiful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to prepare shale gas wastewater for re-use, the
produced water is filtered to remove suspended solids from
wastewater and then combined with fresh water and additives to
formulate fracturing fluid. Typically re-used shale gas wastewater
makes up only a small percentage of water demand for fracturing
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When injection and re-use are not viable options for shale gas
wastewater disposal, operators may dispose of this wastewater by
sending it to POTWs or to private centralized waste treatment
facilities (CWTs). The vast majority of POTWs employ equalization, bulk
solids removal, biological treatment, and disinfection. POTWs are
likely effective in treating only some of the pollutants in shale gas
wastewater, such as the conventional and organic pollutants. These
treatment technologies are not designed to treat high levels of TDS,
NORM, or high levels of metals \2\; it is believed that much of these
pollutants pass through the POTW untreated. Many CWTs, of which 90%
discharge to POTWs, are similarly not designed to treat for high TDS or
NORM (DCN 07474).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Metcalf & Eddy Inc. (2003) Wastewater Engineering: Treatment
and Reuse McGraw-Hill, New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High concentrations of TDS may also lead to inhibition or
disruptions of POTW treatment efficiency. However, most POTWs that
accept shale gas wastewaters blend small volumes with traditional POTW
wastewaters (1% shale gas wastewater by volume) to reduce pollutant
concentrations through dilution to prevent POTW inhibition (DCN 07474).
Local Limits for Shale Gas Extraction Wastewater Introductions to POTWs
Under the Clean Water Act statutory and regulatory framework, POTWs
must establish requirements for any introduction of wastewater to the
POTW or its collection system if it either would cause ``pass through''
or ``interference'' (e.g., cause the POTW to violate its permits
limits, or interfere with the operation of the POTW or the beneficial
use of its sewage sludge). POTWs are subject to the secondary treatment
effluent limitations at 40 CFR part 133, which do not address the
parameters of concern in shale gas extraction wastewater (e.g., TDS,
chloride, radionuclides, etc). If a water quality
[[Page 66297]]
based effluent limit for these parameters is not included in the POTW
permit, and if there is no evidence of interference, or sewage sludge
contamination, the POTW may not have a basis to develop appropriate
local limits. Independent of CWA requirements, POTWs can establish
local limits under their sewer use ordinances for any parameters they
determine could cause problems at the POTW. Currently, however, it is
uncommon that POTWs have established local limits for the parameters of
concern here, or that POTWs have water quality-based effluent
limitations (WQBELs) for such parameters. Possible Impacts of Shale Gas
Wastewater Discharges to Drinking Water Sources and Aquatic Life.
TDS has been shown to have negative impacts on aquatic life and
drinking water. The level at which these impacts may occur is far less
than the level of TDS typically found in shale gas wastewater. As
described above, the average concentration of TDS in shale gas
wastewaters is typically 100,000 ppm and can be as high as 400,000 ppm.
Available data indicates the levels of TDS in shale gas wastewaters can
often exceed recommended drinking water concentrations \3\ by a factor
of 200. Because TDS concentrations in fresh non-brackish drinking water
sources are typically well below the recommended drinking water levels,
few drinking water treatment facilities have technologies to remove
TDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Two published standards regarding TDS include EPA's
secondary maximum contaminant level for TDS of 500 ppm and the U.S.
Public Health Service recommendation that TDS in drinking water
should not exceed 500 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic life toxicity of freshwater contaminated with high TDS is
dependent on the specific ionic composition of the water. In shale gas
wastewaters, the largest single contributor to TDS is chlorides.
Macroinvertebrates, and more specifically aquatic insects, have an open
circulatory system and are more sensitive to pollutants like chloride,
which at elevated exposure concentrations, negatively affect their
ability to maintain the right concentration of salts and water in the
body, which involves excreting metabolic wastes that would be toxic to
the organism if allowed to accumulate. Based on laboratory toxicity
data from EPA's 1988 chloride criteria document and more recent
studies, invertebrate sensitivity to chloride acute effect
concentrations ranged from 953 ppm to 13,691 ppm and chronic effect
concentrations ranged from 489 ppm to 556 ppm. Aquatic vertebrates such
as fish and frogs are less sensitive to chloride with acute effect
concentrations ranging from 3,959 ppm to 14,500 ppm and chronic effect
concentrations of 646 ppm to 955 ppm (DCN 07483). Available data on
maximum chloride concentrations in shale gas wastewaters exceed the
acute effect concentration by a factor of over 100 \4\ (DCN 07482A15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As discussed, many of the POTWs that accept shale gas
wastewaters blend small volumes with traditional POTW wastewaters
and reduce pollutant concentrations through dilution, so high
concentrations in shale gas wastewaters do not necessarily lead to
concentrations that exceed aquatic life criteria at the point of
discharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the laboratory data, EPA also has data from a 2009
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection violation report
documenting a fishkill attributed to a spill of diluted produced water
in Hopewell Township, PA. A sample of the receiving water at the
location of the fishkill was analyzed and TDS was measured as high as
7,000 ppm. The report documents the effects of the TDS on aquatic
species such as fish and salamanders and frogs, including mortalities
(DCN 07471).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ While not related to shale gas wastewater, negative impacts
of high TDS, including fish kills, were documented during 2009 at
Dunkard Creek located in Monongalia County, Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, bromide found in shale gas wastewater may react with
disinfectants used at water treatment plants, creating potentially
harmful disinfection byproducts such as trihalomethane. Bromide, linked
to shale gas wastewater, has been recorded in POTW effluents in
concentrations as high as 1,100 ppm (DCN 07472 and DCN 07481A02).
Conclusion:
Natural gas can increase our domestic energy options, thus,
reducing dependence on non-U.S. sources, and it has the potential to
improve air quality, increase stability in energy prices, and provide
greater certainty about future energy reserves. Also, natural gas can
serve as a bridge fuel from coal to even more efficient energy sources
that can further reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Natural gas holds
great potential for our energy future and for our environment and EPA
supports the commitment in the ``Blueprint,'' to responsible
development of this important domestic resource and to proactively
addressing the concerns that have been raised regarding potential
negative impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing of shale
formations.
We have heard from the public and environmental organizations that
they are concerned about the safety of natural gas production and the
possible impacts that shale gas development could have on American
communities. Some states have allowed development; others have put a
hold on any development, cautious about the environmental impacts of
shale gas production. Some states have asked that national standards be
promulgated, and have also requested resources to help deal with these
possible impacts. We have also heard from industry that shale gas
extraction is currently regulated under the existing Oil and Gas
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and those regulations are sufficient.
What we know is that shale gas extraction generates extremely large
volumes of wastewater that contain considerable pollutant loads. Some
of this is being responsibly reinjected into appropriate underground
wells; other volumes of wastewater are likely not being treated
effectively by existing treatment facilities. Resulting discharges have
the potential to affect both drinking water supplies and aquatic life.
These concerns and issues will not dissipate as shale gas production is
expected to increase. As a result, EPA has decided to initiate
rulemaking to decide the appropriate level of pretreatment standards
for this industry. As noted above, EPA will carefully consider the
SEAB's recommendations as EPA develops regulatory options.
As a first step in developing a regulation, EPA will conduct
extensive data gathering, including site visits, stakeholder outreach,
and development of a national survey of the industry. More
specifically, EPA will visit natural gas extraction operations where
hydraulic fracturing is occurring to obtain data directly from the well
operators on well drilling and fracturing operations, produced water
characteristics, and wastewater management. In addition to the site
visits, EPA will reach out to stakeholders and other affected entities
to identify and better understand concerns regarding environmental
impacts associated with fracturing wastewater and potential industry
implications of the regulation. Finally, EPA will begin the process of
developing and seeking approval to distribute a nationally
representative survey to collect information on the shale gas industry.
This survey will assist EPA in obtaining national data on the
operations, economics, and wastewater characteristics associated with
hydraulic fracturing, as well as data pertaining to available treatment
technologies for shale gas wastewater.
In 2010, Congress directed EPA to ``carry out a study on the
relationship between hydraulic fracturing and
[[Page 66298]]
drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the best
available science, as well as independent sources of information. The
conferees expect the study to be conducted through a transparent, peer-
reviewed process that will ensure the validity and accuracy of the
data.'' In accordance with this direction from Congress, EPA conducted
extensive stakeholder outreach to solicit advice regarding the design
of the study. In February 2011, EPA submitted a draft study plan to the
Science Advisory Board for peer review. In March and May 2011, the
Science Advisory Board subcommittee met to provide peer review of the
EPA's draft study plan. Consistent with the operating procedures of the
SAB, an opportunity was provided for stakeholders and the public to
provide comments for the SAB to take into account during their review.
EPA is revising the study plan in response to the SAB's comments and
initial study results are expected by the end of 2012. However, certain
portions of the work will be long-term projects that are not likely to
be finished at that time. Additional reports of study findings will be
published as the longer-term projects progress. While the primary focus
of this study is on impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water
resources, including surface water impacts, EPA will carefully review
and consider any relevant information that is collected to support this
study. Likewise, any data collected pursuant to this new rulemaking
will be shared with the EPA office that is conducting the
Congressionally-mandated study.
Should the report or EPA's rulemaking survey, in combination with
other data gathering and public outreach, indicate that POTWs are
already adequately treating shale gas wastewater so that it is not
causing pass through or interference with POTW operations, including
sludge management, EPA is open to adjusting its rulemaking plans
accordingly. However, EPA believes that beginning rulemaking now, and
particularly the data collection necessary to support such a rule, is
an appropriate step given what we already know about wastewater
discharges from the industry.
5. Summary of 2010 Annual Review Findings
The summary of the findings of the 2010 annual review is presented
below in Table V-1 (see also the TSD for the final 2010 Plan for
greater details). This table uses the following codes to describe the
Agency's findings with respect to each existing industrial category.
(1) Effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for this
industrial category were recently revised through an effluent
guidelines rulemaking, or a rulemaking is currently underway. Or EPA
recently completed a preliminary study or a detailed study, and no
further action is necessary at this time.
(2) Revising the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment
standards is not the best tool for this industrial category because
most of the toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges are from
one or a few facilities in this industrial category. EPA will consider
assisting permitting authorities in identifying pollutant control and
pollution prevention technologies for the development of technology-
based effluent limitations by best professional judgment (BPJ) on a
facility-specific basis.
(3) Not identified as a priority based on data available at this
time (e.g., not among industries that cumulatively comprise 95% of
discharges as measured in units of TWPE).
(4) EPA intends to start or continue a detailed study of this
industry in its 2011 annual review to determine whether to identify the
category for effluent guidelines rulemaking.
(5) EPA is continuing or initiating a preliminary category review
or will continue to review discharges using screening-level data
because incomplete data are currently available to determine whether to
conduct a detailed study or identify for possible revision. EPA
typically performs a further assessment of the pollutant discharges
before starting a detailed study of the industrial category. This
assessment provides an additional level of quality assurance on the
reported pollutant discharges and number of facilities that represent
the majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges. EPA may also
develop a preliminary list of potential wastewater pollutant control
technologies before conducting a detailed study.
(6) EPA is identifying this industry for a revision of an existing
effluent guideline.
Note that dental mercury is not included in the analysis below, as
dental facilities do not currently have an effluent guideline.
Table V-1--Findings From the 2010 Annual Review of Effluent Guidelines
and Pretreatment Standards Conducted Under Section 301(d), 304(b),
304(g), and 307(b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry
category
No. (listed 40 CFR Part Findings *
alphabetically)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................. Aluminum Forming 467 (3)
2................. Asbestos 427 (3)
Manufacturing.
3................. Battery 461 (3)
Manufacturing.
4................. Canned and 407 (3)
Preserved
Fruits and
Vegetable
Processing.
5................. Canned and 408 (3)
Preserved
Seafood
Processing.
6................. Carbon Black 458 (3)
Manufacturing.
7................. Cement 411 (3)
Manufacturing.
8................. Centralized 437 (3)
Waste Treatment.
9................. Coal Mining..... 434 (3)
10................ Coil Coating.... 465 (3)
11................ Concentrated 412 (1)
Animal Feeding
Operations
(CAFO).
12................ Concentrated 451 (1)
Aquatic Animal
Production.
13................ Construction and 450 (1)
Development.
14................ Copper Forming.. 468 (3)
15................ Dairy Products 405 (3)
Processing.
16................ Electrical and 469 (3)
Electronic
Components.
17................ Electroplating.. 413 (1)
18................ Explosives 457 (3)
Manufacturing.
19................ Ferroalloy 424 (3)
Manufacturing.
20................ Fertilizer 418 (3)
Manufacturing.
21................ Glass 426 (3)
Manufacturing.
[[Page 66299]]
22................ Grain Mills..... 406 (3)
23................ Gum and Wood 454 (3)
Chemicals.
24................ Hospitals....... 460 (1)
25................ Ink Formulating. 447 (3)
26................ Inorganic 415 (1) and (3)
Chemicals [Note
1].
27................ Iron and Steel 420 (1)
Manufacturing.
28................ Landfills....... 445 (5)
29................ Leather Tanning 425 (3)
and Finishing.
30................ Meat and Poultry 432 (1)
Products.
31................ Metal Finishing. 433 (1)
32................ Metal Molding 464 (3)
and Casting.
33................ Metal Products 438 (1)
and Machinery.
34................ Mineral Mining 436 (5)
and Processing.
35................ Nonferrous 471 (3)
Metals Forming
and Metal
Powders.
36................ Nonferrous 421 (2)
Metals
Manufacturing.
37................ Oil and Gas 435 (6)
Extraction.
38................ Ore Mining and 440 (2)
Dressing.
39................ Organic 414 (1) and (3)
Chemicals,
Plastics, and
Synthetic
Fibers [Note 1].
40................ Paint 446 (3)
Formulating.
41................ Paving and 443 (3)
Roofing
Materials (Tars
and Asphalt).
42................ Pesticide 455 (3)
Chemicals.
43................ Petroleum 419 (3)
Refining.
44................ Pharmaceutical 439 (3)
Manufacturing.
45................ Phosphate 422 (3)
Manufacturing.
46................ Photographic.... 459 (3)
47................ Plastic Molding 463 (5)
and Forming.
48................ Porcelain 466 (3)
Enameling.
49................ Pulp, Paper, and 430 (5)
Paperboard.
50................ Rubber 428 (3)
Manufacturing.
51................ Soaps and 417 (3)
Detergents
Manufacturing.
52................ Steam Electric 423 (1)
Power
Generating.
53................ Sugar Processing 409 (3)
54................ Textile Mills... 410 (3)
55................ Timber Products 429 (3)
Processing.
56................ Transportation 442 (3)
Equipment
Cleaning.
57................ Waste Combustors 444 (5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The descriptions of the ``Findings'' codes are presented immediately
prior to this table.
Note 1: Two codes (``(1)'' and ``(3)'') are used for this category as
both codes are applicable to this category and do not overlap. The
first code (``(1)'') refers to the ongoing effluent guidelines
rulemaking for the Chlorinated and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH)
manufacturing sector, which includes facilities currently regulated by
the OCPSF and Inorganics effluent guidelines. The second code
(``(3)'') indicates that the remainder of the facilities in these two
categories does not represent a hazard priority at this time.
VI. EPA's 2010 Evaluation of Categories of Indirect Dischargers Without
Categorical Pretreatment Standards To Identify Potential New Categories
for Pretreatment Standards
A. EPA's Evaluation of Pass Through and Interference of Toxic and Non-
Conventional Pollutants Discharged to POTWs
All indirect dischargers are subject to general pretreatment
standards (40 CFR part 403), including a prohibition on discharges
causing ``pass through'' or ``interference'' (See 40 CFR 403.5). All
POTWs with approved pretreatment programs must develop local limits to
implement the general pretreatment standards. All other POTWs must
develop such local limits where they have experienced ``pass through''
or ``interference'' and such a violation is likely to recur. There are
approximately 1,500 POTWs with approved pretreatment programs and
13,500 small POTWs that are not required to develop and implement
pretreatment programs.
In addition, EPA establishes technology-based national regulations,
termed ``categorical pretreatment standards,'' for categories of
industry discharging pollutants to POTWs that may pass through,
interfere with or otherwise be incompatible with POTW operations (CWA
section 307(b)). Generally, categorical pretreatment standards are
designed such that wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial
dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. EPA has
promulgated such pretreatment standards for 35 industrial categories.
One of the tools traditionally used by EPA in evaluating whether
pollutants ``pass through'' a POTW, is a comparison of the percentage
of a pollutant removed by POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant
removed by discharging facilities applying BAT. Pretreatment standards
for existing sources are technology based and are analogous to BAT
effluent limitations guidelines. In most cases, EPA has concluded that
a pollutant passes through the POTW when the median percentage removed
nationwide by representative POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment
requirements) is less than the median percentage removed by facilities
complying with BAT effluent limitations guidelines for that pollutant.
This approach to the definition of ``pass through'' satisfies two
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect
dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers; and (2)
that the treatment capability and performance of POTWs be recognized
and taken into account in
[[Page 66300]]
regulating the discharge of pollutants from indirect dischargers.
The term ``interference'' means a discharge which, alone or in
conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, both:
(1) Inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or
operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal; and (2) therefore
is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit
(including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation) or
of the prevention of sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with
applicable regulations or permits. See 40 CFR 403.3(k). To determine
the potential for ``interference,'' EPA generally evaluates the
industrial indirect discharges in terms of: (1) The compatibility of
industrial wastewaters and domestic wastewaters (e.g., type of
pollutants discharged in industrial wastewaters compared to pollutants
typically found in domestic wastewaters); (2) concentrations of
pollutants discharged in industrial wastewaters that might cause
interference with the POTW collection system, the POTW treatment
system, or biosolids disposal options; and (3) the potential for
variable pollutant loadings to cause interference with POTW operations
(e.g., batch discharges or slug loadings from industrial facilities
interfering with normal POTW operations).
If EPA determines a category of indirect dischargers causes pass
through or interference, EPA would then consider the BAT and BPT
factors (including ``such other factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate'') specified in section 304(b) to determine whether to
establish pretreatment standards for these activities. Examples of
``such other factors'' include a consideration of the magnitude of the
hazard posed by the pollutants discharged as measured by: (1) The total
annual TWPE discharged by the industrial sector; and (2) the average
TWPE discharged among facilities that discharge to POTWs. Additionally,
EPA would consider whether other regulatory tools (e.g., use of local
limits under part 403) or voluntary measures would better control the
pollutant discharges from this category of indirect dischargers. For
example, EPA relied on a similar evaluation of ``pass through
potential'' in its prior decision not to promulgate national
categorical pretreatment standards for the Industrial Laundries
industry. See 64 FR 45071 (August 18, 1999). EPA noted in this 1999
final action that, ``While EPA has broad discretion to promulgate such
[national categorical pretreatment] standards, EPA retains discretion
not to do so where the total pounds removed do not warrant national
regulation and there is not a significant concern with pass through and
interference at the POTW.'' See 64 FR 45077 (August 18, 1999).
B. Hospitals (Part 460) (Health Care Industry Detailed Study of the
Management of Unused Pharmaceuticals)
Pharmaceutical chemicals have been detected in our nation's
waterways, leading to concerns that these compounds may affect aquatic
life and possible human health through drinking water sources. As a
result of public comments on the Final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program
Plan, EPA initiated a study of unused pharmaceutical disposal practices
at health care facilities. The focus of this study was on disposal to
water via sewers. EPA studied medical facilities; including, hospitals,
hospices, long-term care facilities, health care clinics, physician
offices, and veterinary facilities. A standard disposal practice at
many health care facilities is to flush unused pharmaceuticals down the
toilet or drain.
Unused pharmaceuticals include leftover medication that is expired,
not dispensed, and/or partially used, and residues from delivery
devices. During the study, EPA conducted intensive outreach to over 700
stakeholders and evaluated a range of management practices to reduce
the generation of unused pharmaceuticals and their disposal down the
drain. Based on the information collected through the outreach, EPA has
drafted a guidance document, ``Best Management Practices for Unused
Pharmaceuticals at Health Care Facilities''. The guidance document was
made available for a 60 day public review and comment as announced in a
Federal Register Notice, published on September 8, 2010. The draft
guidance document was posted on the Agency's Web site.
In summary, the guidance recommends the following practices to
prevent or minimize the amount of pharmaceuticals being disposed in
water:
--Conduct an inventory of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical waste to
quantify the amount of medication the facility is disposing of;
--Reduce pharmaceutical waste by reviewing purchasing practices, use
limited dose or unit dose dispensing, replace pharmaceutical samples
with vouchers, and perform on-going inventory control and stock
rotation;
--Reuse or donate unused pharmaceuticals when possible; return unused
pharmaceuticals to the pharmacy; send unused pharmaceuticals to a
reverse distributor for credit and proper disposal in accordance with
the facility's state environmental regulations; properly identify and
manage hazardous pharmaceutical wastes in accordance with federal and
state regulations; use EPA recommended practices to dispose of non-
hazardous pharmaceutical waste at the facility;
--Segregate waste for disposal to ensure regulations are met;
--Train staff in proper disposal methods.
EPA received 89 comments on the proposed guidance on November 8,
2010 and is reviewing suggested changes to the document and working
with relevant Federal Agencies to ensure any incorporated comments are
consistent with other Federal laws and policies.
C. Dental Amalgam
In the 2008 final Plan, EPA decided it would not initiate an
effluent limitation guideline rulemaking for discharges of dental
amalgam from dentists' offices. However, at that time EPA indicated it
would examine whether a significant majority of dentists began
utilizing amalgam separators and stated that after such examination,
EPA may re-evaluate its decision not to initiate an effluent guidelines
rulemaking for this sector.
After assessing the progress made under the Memorandum of
Understanding to Reduce Dental Amalgam Discharges (MOU), and other
factors, EPA announced, in September 2010, it will initiate a
rulemaking to control mercury associated with dental amalgam discharges
to sewer systems from dental offices.
Background
Across the United States, many States and municipal wastewater
treatment plants (publicly owned treatment works--POTWs) are working
toward the goal of reducing discharges of mercury into sewer collection
systems. Many studies have been conducted in an attempt to identify the
sources of mercury entering these collection systems. According to the
2002 Mercury Source Control and Pollution Prevention Program Final
Report prepared for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies
(NACWA), dental offices are the largest source of mercury discharges to
POTWs. The American
[[Page 66301]]
Dental Association (ADA) estimated in 2003 that up to 50% of mercury
entering POTWs was caused by dental offices (see DCN 04698).
EPA estimates there are approximately 160,000 dentists working in
120,000 dental offices that use or remove amalgam in the United
States--almost all of which discharge their wastewater exclusively to
POTWs. Mercury in dental wastewater originates from waste particles
associated with the placement and removal of amalgam fillings. Most
dental offices currently use some type of basic filtration system to
reduce the amount of mercury solids passing into the sewer system.
However, best management practices and the installation of amalgam
separators, which generally have a removal efficiency of 95% or
greater, can reduce discharges even further. A recent study funded by
NACWA (see DCN 04225) concluded that the use of amalgam separators
results in reductions in POTW influent concentrations and biosolids
mercury concentrations.
In December, 2008 EPA entered into the MOU with NACWA and ADA. The
purpose of the MOU was to estimate the number of dental facilities with
amalgam separators installed, establish interim goals for increases in
the number of separators voluntarily installed, and conduct outreach to
dentists.
EPA learned from several states that their efforts to increase the
number of amalgam separator installations on a voluntary basis were
largely unsuccessful. Additionally, several environmental organizations
have urged EPA to establish pretreatment standards for dental amalgam.
The Quicksilver Caucus commented on the preliminary 2010 Plan
requesting that EPA initiate a rulemaking to establish pretreatment
standards for discharges of dental amalgam.
Given the human health and aquatic-life impacts associated with
mercury, the level of stakeholder interest, and the availability of a
technological solution, EPA decided to initiate rulemaking to develop
pretreatment standards for dental mercury to more thoroughly and
expeditiously address this water pollution problem.
VII. The Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan
EPA views the effluent guidelines planning process as a mechanism
designed to promote regular and transparent priority-setting on the
part of the Agency. A plan is ultimately a statement of choices and
priorities. These priorities necessarily need to take into account all
the other statutory mandates and policy initiatives designed to
implement the CWA's goals and the funds appropriated by Congress to
execute them.
By requiring this planning process, culminating in the publication
of a plan after public notice and comment, Congress assured that EPA
would regularly re-evaluate its policy choices and priorities
(including whether to identify an activity for effluent guidelines
rulemaking) to account for changed circumstances. Ultimately, however,
Congress left the content of the plan to EPA's discretion--befitting
the role that effluent guidelines play in the overall structure of the
CWA and their relationship to other tools for addressing water
pollution.
A. EPA's Schedule for Annual Review and Revision of Existing Effluent
Guidelines under Section 304(b)
1. Schedule for 2011 and 2012 Annual Reviews Under Section 304(b)
As noted in section IV.B, CWA section 304(m)(1)(A) requires EPA to
publish a biennial plan that establishes a schedule for the annual
review and revision, in accordance with section 304(b), of the effluent
guidelines that EPA has promulgated under that section. Today's plan
announces EPA's schedule for performing its section 304(b) reviews for
2011 and 2012. The schedule is to coordinate its annual review of
existing effluent guidelines under section 304(b) with its publication
of preliminary and final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans under CWA
section 304(m). In other words, in odd-numbered years, EPA intends to
complete its annual review upon publication of 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
intends to complete its annual review upon the publication of the final
Plan. EPA's 2011 annual review is the review cycle ending upon the
publication of the preliminary Plan in 2011 and its 2012 annual review
is the review cycle ending upon publication of the 2012 final Plan.
2. Schedule for Revision of Effluent Guidelines Promulgated Under
Section 304(b)
Currently, EPA is engaged in effluent limitations guideline (ELG)
rulemakings to revise the following existing guidelines:
Steam Electric Power Generation--this rulemaking involves the
revision of an existing ELG for about 1200 power-generating facilities
with a particular focus on about 500 coal-fired power plants. The
decision to revise the current effluent guidelines for this industry
was largely driven by the high level of toxic-weighted pollutant
discharges from coal fired power plants and the expectation that these
discharges will increase significantly in the next few years as new air
pollution controls are installed. EPA is under a consent decree
obligation to issue a final rule for this industry in 2014.
Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Manufacturing--EPA
is currently conducting a rulemaking to potentially revise existing
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for the following
categories: Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)
and Inorganic Chemicals (to address discharges from Vinyl Chloride and
Chlor-Alkali facilities identified for effluent guidelines rulemaking
in the final 2004 Plan, now termed the ``Chlorine and Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon (CCH) manufacturing'' rulemaking). EPA previously indicated
it would conduct an industry survey for this effluent guidelines
rulemaking (April 18, 2006; 71 FR 19887). EPA is considering its next
steps for this survey and the rulemaking as it reviews data from a
voluntary industry monitoring program. EPA worked with industry to
develop the extensive monitoring program to better understand the
category's dioxin discharges.
In addition, EPA is today announcing initiation of an effluent
limitations guideline (ELG) rulemaking to revise the following existing
guidelines:
Oil and Gas Extraction--As explained in Section V.B.2, EPA
is initiating a rulemaking for Coalbed Methane Extraction, a currently
unregulated subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category. Because of concern over high TDS levels in the wastewater for
Coalbed, availability of treatment technologies, and the fact that
Coalbed Methane production will continue to grow, EPA believes the
initiation of a rulemaking to address direct discharges to surface
waters and discharges to POTWs is appropriate.
B. Identification of Point Source Categories Under CWA Section
304(m)(1)(B)
The Effluent Guidelines Program Plan must identify categories of
sources discharging non-trivial amounts of toxic or non-conventional
pollutants for which EPA has not published effluent limitations
guidelines under section 304(b)(2) or new source performance standards
NSPS) under section 306. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(B). The Plan
[[Page 66302]]
must also establish a schedule for the promulgation of effluent
guidelines for the categories identified under section 304(m)(1)(B) not
later than three years after such identification. See CWA section
304(m)(1)(C). EPA is currently taking the following actions on new
industry categories:
Airport De-icing--This final ELG rulemaking addresses the
environmental impact of aircraft and airfield deicing fluid on the
environment at the about 200 airports in this country that conduct
deicing operations. This rule is complicated by the shared
responsibility for deicing operations between the airports and the
airlines that use them. EPA currently plans to issue a final rule for
this category in 2011.
Drinking Water Treatment Industry--EPA is not at this time
continuing its effluent guidelines rulemaking for the Drinking Water
Treatment industry. In the 2004 Plan, EPA announced that it would begin
development of a regulation to control the pollutants discharged from
drinking water treatment plants. See 69 FR 53720 (September 2, 2004).
Based on a preliminary study and on public comments, EPA was interested
in the potential volume of discharges associated with drinking water
facilities. The preliminary data were not conclusive, and the Agency
proceeded with additional study and analysis of treatability, including
an industry survey. After considering extensive information about the
industry, its treatment residuals, wastewater treatment options, and
discharge characteristics, and after considering other priorities, EPA
has suspended work on this rulemaking.
The ELG Program is also developing the cooling water intake
existing facility rule--Under section 316(b) of the CWA, EPA plans to
issue a final rule in 2012 addressing the withdrawal of trillions of
aquatic organisms from waters of the U.S. by about 1260 power plants
and manufacturing facilities which withdraw water for cooling purposes.
Also for the 2010 Plan, EPA is issuing the detailed study report
for the coalbed methane industry and is issuing the preliminary study
report for the Ore Mining and Dressing industry, and will be taking no
further action on this industry at this time. EPA initiated a
preliminary study of cellulose manufacturers in the Plastic Molding and
Forming category (part 463) due, in part, to high carbon disulfide
discharges which were revealed during the 2010 review.
Finally, EPA interprets section 304(m)(1)(B) to give EPA the
discretion to identify in the Plan only those potential new categories
for which an effluent guidelines rulemaking may be an appropriate tool
for controlling discharges. Therefore, EPA does not identify in the
Plan all potential new categories discharging toxic and non-
conventional pollutants. Rather, EPA identifies only those potential
new categories for which it believes that effluent guidelines may be
appropriate, taking into account Agency priorities, resources and the
full range of other CWA tools available for addressing industrial
discharges. In this Plan, EPA is not identifying for rulemaking any new
categories discharging toxic and non-conventional pollutants.
EPA is continuously investigating and solicits comment on how to
improve its analyses (see section IX. Request for Comment and
Information for the 2011 Annual Reviews).
C. Identification of Guidelines for Pretreatment of Pollutants under
CWA Section 304(g)(1) and 307(b)(1)
EPA has decided to initiate rulemaking for two industries to
address their indirect industrial discharges to POTWs. This includes
the indirect discharge of dental amalgam from dental offices and
wastewater from shale gas extraction to publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) that may cause pass-through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with POTWs.
With regard to dental amalgam discharges from dental offices, EPA
was asked by some states and environmental groups to revisit its 2008
decision not to initiate rulemaking for this industry. Dental amalgam
contains mercury, which is a concern to human health because mercury is
a persistent, bioaccumulative toxic element. EPA estimates that
dentists discharge approximately 3.7 tons of mercury each year to
publicly owned treatment works. In addition, EPA has not seen
significant increases in the installation of amalgam separators under
current voluntary efforts. Consequently, EPA has decided to initiate
rulemaking which will reduce mercury discharges from dental facilities
more completely, and in a more predictable timeframe than has been
demonstrated through voluntary means alone.
EPA also is initiating rulemaking for shale gas extraction, another
subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, which
is now subject to effluent guidelines under this Category but not to
applicable pretreatment standards. Because of concern over high TDS
levels in the wastewater for shale gas extraction, availability of
treatment technologies, and the fact that shale gas extraction
production will continue to grow, EPA believes the initiation of a
rulemaking to address discharges to POTWs is appropriate.
D. Current Rulemakings
Airport Deicing and Steam Electric Power Generation:
Schedules
Airport Deicing:
--Final ELG Rule--Fall 2011
Steam Electric Power Generation:
--Proposed Rule--July 2012
--Final Rule--January 2014
E. New Rulemakings
Dental Amalgam
Schedule to Develop the Regulation for Dental Amalgam:
--Proposed Rule--October 2011
--Final Rule--October 2012
Coalbed Methane Extraction
Schedule to Develop the Regulation for Coalbed Methane Extraction:
--Proposed Rule--2013
Shale Gas Extraction
Schedule to Develop the Regulation for Shale Gas Extraction:
--Proposed Rule--2014
These Agency decisions, announcements and the studies described
previously fulfill EPA's obligations to annually review both existing
effluent limitations guidelines for direct dischargers and existing
pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers under CWA sections
304(b) and (g), as well as other review requirements under CWA section
301(d) and 307(b).
VIII. EPA's 2011 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards Under CWA Sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g),
304(m) and 307(b)
This notice also provides EPA's preliminary thoughts concerning its
2011 annual reviews under CWA sections 304(b) and 304(g) as well as its
reviews under 301(d) and 307(b) and solicits comments, data and
information to assist EPA in performing these reviews.
A. Schedule for the 2011 Annual Reviews Under Section 304(b)
As noted in section IV.B, CWA section 304(m)(1)(A) requires EPA to
publish a Plan every two years that establishes a schedule for the
annual review and revision, in accordance with section 304(b), of the
effluent guidelines that EPA has promulgated under that
[[Page 66303]]
section. This final 2010 Plan announces EPA's schedule for performing
its section 304(b) reviews in 2011.
The schedule is as follows: EPA will coordinate its annual review
of existing effluent guidelines with its publication of the preliminary
and final Plans under CWA section 304(m). In other words, in odd-
numbered years, EPA intends to complete its annual review upon
publication of the preliminary Plan that EPA must publish for public
review and comment under CWA section 304(m)(2). In even-numbered years,
EPA intends to complete its annual review upon the publication of the
final Plan. EPA's 2010 annual review is the review cycle ending upon
the publication of this final 2010 Plan.
EPA is coordinating its annual reviews with publication of Plans
under section 304(m) for several reasons. First, the annual review is
inextricably linked to the planning effort, because the results of each
annual review can inform the content of the preliminary and final
Plans, e.g., by identifying candidates for effluent guidelines revision
for which EPA can schedule rulemaking in the Plan, or by calling to
EPA's attention point source categories for which EPA has not
promulgated effluent guidelines. Second, even though not required to do
so under either section 304(b) or section 304(m), EPA believes that the
public interest is served by periodically presenting to the public a
description of each annual review (including the review process
employed) and the results of the review. Doing so at the same time EPA
publishes preliminary and final plans makes both processes more
transparent. Third, by requiring EPA to regularly review all existing
effluent guidelines, Congress appears to have intended that each
successive review would build upon the results of earlier reviews.
Therefore, by describing the 2010 annual review along with the final
2010 final Plan, EPA hopes to gather and receive data and information
that will inform its reviews for 2011 and 2012 and the final 2012 Plan.
IX. Request for Comment and Information for the 2011 Annual Reviews
A. EPA Requests Information on
1. Data Sources and Methodologies
EPA solicits comments on whether EPA used the correct evaluation
factors, criteria, and data sources in conducting its annual review and
developing this final Plan. EPA also solicits comment on other data
sources EPA can use in its annual reviews and biennial planning
process. Please see the docket for a more detailed discussion of EPA's
analysis supporting the reviews in this notice (see DCN 07320).
EPA is also soliciting comments on ways to enhance its Plan
analysis. In particular: Are there new or additional factors that
should be brought to bear for screening existing industries for
revisions to their current guidelines? Are there approaches that could
be used to better identify new industries that currently do not have
guidelines that should? EPA is interested in receiving comment on all
aspects of its current methodology.
2. Climate Change and Water Efficiency
EPA solicits comments, and data and information on whether the
actions described under this Plan will have effects on water
conservation or on climate change. In particular, will certain
technologies or actions help to conserve water, and thereby energy and
thus reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, or will the actions
envisioned by this plan waste water and/or energy resources. Likewise,
will the actions and potential industry changes contemplated by this
Plan result in greater emission of green house gases, or are there
opportunities for industry to reduce green house gas emissions.
3. BPJ Permit-Based Support
EPA solicits comments on whether, and if so, how the Agency should
provide EPA Regions and States with permit-based support instead of
revising effluent guidelines (e.g., when the vast majority of the
hazard is associated with one or a few facilities). EPA solicits
comment on categories for which the Agency should provide permit-based
support.
4. Implementation Issues Related to Existing Effluent Guidelines and
Pretreatment Standards
As a factor in its decision-making, EPA considers opportunities to
eliminate inefficiencies or impediments to pollution prevention or
technological innovation, or opportunities to promote innovative
approaches such as water quality trading, including within-plant
trading. Consequently, EPA solicits comment on implementation issues
related to existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards.
5. EPA's Evaluation of Categories of Indirect Dischargers Without
Categorical Pretreatment Standards To Identify Potential New Categories
for Pretreatment Standards
EPA solicits comments on its evaluation of categories of indirect
dischargers without categorical pretreatment standards. Specifically,
EPA solicits wastewater characterization data (e.g., wastewater
volumes, concentrations of discharged pollutants), current examples of
pollution prevention, treatment technologies, and local limits for all
industries without pretreatment standards. EPA also solicits comment on
whether there are industrial sectors discharging pollutants that cause
interference issues that cannot be adequately controlled through the
general pretreatment standards. Finally, EPA solicits comment on how
better to access and aggregate discharge data reported to local
pretreatment programs. Currently, pollutant discharge data are
collected by the local pretreatment program to demonstrate compliance
with pretreatment standards and local limits but are not typically
electronically transmitted to the States or EPA Regions.
6. Data and Information on Discharges of Pollutants From Waste
Combustors
EPA solicits data and information on discharges of wastewater from
waste combustors. DMR data suggest the consistent discharge of metals
and possible discharge of pesticides from waste combustors. EPA's
analysis for the 2010 ELG Final Plan shows that pesticides are
discharged at concentrations below limits of detection. EPA is
requesting information on waste combustors metals and pesticide
discharges, to determine if they are present at concentrations below
treatable levels.
7. Data and Information on Discharges of Pollutants From Shale Gas
Extraction
EPA solicits data and information on the pollutants generated by
the Shale Gas extraction industry. In particular EPA is soliciting data
and information on the type of pollutants in shale gas wastewaters,
including the type and toxicity of additives, the volumes of flowback
and concentrations of the pollutants in the flowback, the fate and
transport of pollutants to ground waters, and data and information on
the pass-through of pollutants at publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs). EPA also solicits documented impacts of these pollutants on
aquatic life and human health.
8. Data and Information on Discharges of Nanosilver From Industrial
Manufacturing
Nanosilver is becoming a more commonly used substance in industrial
materials and commercial products as an active pesticide ingredient. In
some uses, fabric is impregnated with
[[Page 66304]]
nanosilver as an anti-microbial during manufacturing and nanosilver
discharges may result. In other applications, nanosilver is used as a
preservative in textile products which could also lead to nanosilver
discharges. Other products, such as household washing machines, are
being manufactured with the washer drum coated with nanosilver polymers
to kill bacteria during clothes laundering. Since many of the
nanosilver applications have the potential to create a source of silver
in wastewater discharges from industries using nanosilver in the
manufacture of products, or use of products containing nanosilver, EPA
is interested in gathering as much information as possible on the fate,
transport and effects of nanosilver on the aquatic environment and
human health.
EPA is soliciting data and information on the manufacture, use, and
environmental release of silver materials, including nanosilver. EPA is
requesting information on the manufacturing of silver materials,
including:
--Raw silver products, such as colloidal nanosilver;
--Intermediates such as polymers or fibers embedded with silver,
nanosilver, or silver compounds; and
--End products, such as silver-embedded textile and plastic products,
or appliances with nanosilver coated surfaces.
Dated: October 20, 2011.
Nancy K. Stoner,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 2011-27742 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P