Effluent Guidelines Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6103-5]

RIN 2040-AC20

Effluent Guidelines Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed effluent guidelines plan.

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

SUMMARY: Today's document announces the Agency's proposed plans for

developing new and revised effluent guidelines, which regulate

industrial discharges to surface waters and to publicly owned treatment

works. The document also describes EPA's revisions to its regulation

development process, based on recommendations of the Effluent

Guidelines Task Force. Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act requires

EPA to publish a biennial Effluent Guidelines Plan. The Agency requests

comment on the proposal and will publish a final plan following the

close of the comment period.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in writing to: Water Docket Clerk (4101),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20460. The public record for this notice is available for review

in the EPA Water Docket, East Tower Basement, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. For access to Docket materials, call (202) 260-3027

between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. for an appointment. The EPA public

information regulation (40 CFR part 2) provides that a reasonable fee

may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Strassler, EPA Engineering and

Analysis Division, telephone 202-260-7150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulated Entities

II. Legal Authority

III. Introduction

A. Purpose of Today's Document

B. Overview of Today's Document

IV. Effluent Guidelines Program Background

A. Statutory Framework

B. Components of an Effluent Guideline Regulation

C. Traditional Approach to Development of Effluent Guideline

Regulations

D. Recent Revisions to the Effluent Guidelines Planning Process

and Recommendations of the Effluent Guidelines Task Force

E. NRDC Litigation and Consent Decree

V. Today's Proposed Effluent Guidelines Plan

A. Effluent Guidelines Currently Under Development

1. Schedule for Ongoing Rulemaking

2. Rulemaking Projects Started in 1997

a. Oil and Gas Extraction

b. Coal Mining c. Feedlots (Swine and Poultry Subcategories)

B. Process for Selection of New Effluent Guideline Regulations

1. New Rulemaking Activities a. Feedlots (Beef and Dairy Cattle

Subcategories) b. Other Rules

2. Candidates for Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking Projects

a. Preliminary Studies

b. Previously-Noticed Studies

c. Photographic Processing

d. Chemical Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging

e. Urban Storm Water

f. Airport Deicing

g. Fish Hatcheries and Farms

3. Future Studies

C. Other Rulemaking Actions

1. Pulp, Paper and Paperboard, Phases 2 & 3

2. Ore Mining and Dressing

VI. Request for Comments

VII. Economic Impact Assessment; Executive Order 12866

Appendix A--Promulgated Effluent Guidelines

Appendix B--Current and Future Rulemaking Projects

Appendix C--Preliminary Studies

I. Regulated Entities

Today's proposed plan does not contain regulatory requirements and

does not provide specific definitions for each industrial category.

Entities potentially affected by decisions regarding the final plan are

listed below.

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

Examples of potentially affected

Category of entity entities

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

Industry/Commercial............... Pulp, Paper and Paperboard; Oil and

Gas Extraction; Centralized Waste

Treatment; Pharmaceutical

Manufacturing; Metal Products and

Machinery (including

electroplating, metal finishing);

Landfills; Industrial Waste

Combustors (Incinerators);

Industrial Laundries;

Transportation Equipment Cleaning

(truck tanks, railroad tank cars,

barge tanks); Iron and Steel

Manufacturing; Coal Mining;

Petroleum Refining; Textile Mills;

Inorganic Chemicals; Steam Electric

Power Generating; Photographic

Processing; Chemical Formulating,

Packaging and Repackaging;

Airports.

Agriculture....................... Feedlots (swine, poultry, dairy and

beef cattle); Fish Hatcheries and

Farms (Aquaculture).

Federal Government................ Metal Products and Machinery

(including electroplating, metal

finishing); Landfills; Airports.

State Government.................. Metal Products and Machinery

(including electroplating, metal

finishing); Municipal Separate

Storm Sewer Systems (Urban Storm

Water); Landfills; Airports.

Local Government.................. Metal Products and Machinery

(including electroplating, metal

finishing); Municipal Separate

Storm Sewer Systems (Urban Storm

Water); Landfills; Airports.

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

To determine whether your facility would be regulated, you should

carefully examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate

proposed rule (previously published or forthcoming). Not all of the

categories listed in the above table have been selected for rulemaking.

Citations for previously published proposed rules and schedules for

forthcoming proposed rules are provided in Appendices A and B of

today's document.

II. Legal Authority

Today's document is published under the authority of section 304(m)

of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1314(m), which requires EPA to

publish a biennial Effluent Guidelines Plan, which sets a schedule for

review and revision of existing regulations and identifies categories

of dischargers to be covered by new regulations.

III. Introduction

A. Purpose of Today's Document

Today's document announces the Agency's proposed biennial plan

pursuant to section 304(m). EPA invites the public to comment on the

proposed plan, and following the close of the comment period the Agency

will publish a final plan.

B. Overview of Today's Document

The Agency proposes to develop effluent limitation guidelines and

standards (``effluent guidelines'') as follows:

1. Continue development of nine rules listed in the 1996 Effluent

Guidelines Plan (61 FR 52582, October 7, 1996) and the 1997 Update (62

FR 8726, February 26, 1997). The categories are: Pulp, Paper and

Paperboard, Phases 2 and 3; Centralized Waste Treatment; Pharmaceutical

Manufacturing; Metal Products and Machinery; Landfills; Industrial

Waste Combustors (Incinerators); Industrial Laundries;

[[Page 29204]]

Transportation Equipment Cleaning; and Iron and Steel Manufacturing.

2. Continue development of 3 rules started by the Agency in 1997:

Oil and Gas Extraction (Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids); Coal Mining

(Remining and Western subcategories); and Feedlots (Poultry and Swine

subcategories).

3. Begin development of revised effluent guidelines for the

Feedlots category (Beef and Dairy Cattle subcategories) and two

additional categories (new or revised), by December 1998.

4. Complete preliminary studies on Feedlots, Urban Storm Water, and

Airport Deicing.

5. Plan for development of two additional effluent guidelines,

either new or revised. EPA's current plan is to begin development of

two rules by December 1999.

IV. Effluent Guidelines Program Background

A. Statutory Framework

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1972 (Pub. L.

92-500, Oct. 18, 1972) (the ``Act'') established a program to restore

and maintain the integrity of the nation's waters. To implement the

Act, Congress directed EPA to issue effluent limitation guidelines,

pretreatment standards, and new source performance standards for

industrial dischargers. These regulations were to be based principally

on the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application

of control technologies.

The 1977 amendments to the FWPCA, known as the Clean Water Act

Amendments (Pub. L. 95-217, Dec. 27, 1977) (CWA), added an additional

level of control for conventional pollutants such as biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS), and stressed additional

control of 65 toxic compounds or classes of compounds (from which EPA

later developed a list of 126 specific ``priority pollutants''). To

further strengthen the toxics control program, section 304(e), added by

the 1977 amendments, authorized the Administrator to establish

management practices to control toxic and hazardous pollutants in plant

site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage

from raw material storage.

The effluent guidelines promulgated by EPA reflect the several

levels of regulatory stringency specified in the Act, and they also

focus on different types of pollutants. Section 301(b)(1)(A) directs

the achievement of effluent limitations requiring application of best

practicable control technology currently available (BPT). In general,

effluent limitations based on BPT represent the average of the best

treatment technology performance for an industrial category. For

conventional pollutants listed under section 304(a)(4), section

301(b)(2)(E) directs the achievement of effluent limitations based on

the performance of best conventional pollutant control technology

(BCT). The Act requires that BCT limitations be established in light of

a two-part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. The test, which assesses the

relative costs of conventional pollutant removals, is described in

detail in the Federal Register notice promulgating the final BCT rule

on July 9, 1986 (51 FR 24974).

Both BPT and BCT regulations apply only to direct dischargers,

i.e., those facilities that discharge directly into waters of the

United States. In general, regulations are not developed to control

conventional pollutants discharged by indirect dischargers because the

POTWs receiving those wastes normally provide adequate treatment of

these types of pollutants or they can be adequately controlled through

local pretreatment limits.

For the toxic pollutants listed in section 307(a), and for

nonconventional pollutants, sections 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D) and (F)

direct the achievement of effluent limitations requiring application of

best available technology economically achievable (BAT). Effluent

limitations based on BAT are to represent at a minimum the best control

technology performance in the industrial category that is

technologically and economically achievable.

In addition to limitations for existing direct dischargers, EPA

also establishes new source performance standards (NSPS) under section

306 of the Act, based on the best available demonstrated control

technology, processes operating methods, or other alternatives. NSPS

apply to new direct dischargers. Generally the NSPS limitations are to

be as stringent as, or more stringent than, BAT limitations for

existing sources within the category or subcategory.

Although the limitations are based on the performance capability of

particular control technologies, including in some cases in-process

controls, dischargers may meet their requirements using whatever

combination of control methods they choose, such as manufacturing

process or equipment changes, product substitution, and water re-use

and recycling. The limitations and standards are implemented in permits

issued through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) pursuant to section 402 of the Act for point sources

discharging directly to the waters of the United States.

Section 402 of the CWA provides for the issuance of permits to

direct dischargers under NPDES. These permits, which are required by

section 301, are issued either by EPA or by a State agency approved to

administer the NPDES program. Individual NPDES permits must incorporate

applicable technology-based limitations contained in guidelines and

standards for the industrial category in question. Where EPA has not

promulgated applicable technology-based effluent guidelines for a

category, section 402(a)(1)(B) provides that the permit must

incorporate such conditions as the Administrator determines are

necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. In other words, the

permit writer uses best professional judgment (BPJ) to establish

technology-based limitations for the dischargers.

Indirect dischargers are regulated by the general pretreatment

regulations (40 CFR part 403), local discharge limits developed

pursuant to part 403, and categorical pretreatment standards for new

and existing sources (PSNS and PSES) covering specific industrial

categories. These categorical standards under sections 307(b) and (c)

apply to the discharge of pollutants from non-domestic sources which

interfere with or pass through publicly owned treatment works (POTWs),

and are enforced by POTWs or by State or Federal authorities. The

categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources covering

specific industries are generally analogous to the BAT limitations

imposed on direct dischargers. The standards for new sources are

generally analogous to NSPS.

To ensure that effluent guidelines remain current with the state of

the industry and with available control technologies, section 304(b) of

the Act provides that EPA shall revise the effluent guidelines at least

annually if appropriate. In addition, section 301(d) provides that EPA

shall review and if appropriate, revise any effluent limitation

required by section 301(b)(2).

B. Components of an Effluent Guideline Regulation

The principal components of most effluent guideline regulations are

numerical wastewater discharge limitations controlling specified

pollutants for a given category. These are typically concentration-

based limits (specified in units such as milligrams of pollutant per

liter of water) or

[[Page 29205]]

production-based mass limits (specified in units such as milligrams of

pollutant per unit of production). Numerical limits also cover

parameters such as pH and temperature.

A guideline is often subcategorized based on differences in raw

materials, manufacturing processes, characteristics of the wastewaters,

or type of product manufactured; in some cases, non-water quality

environmental impacts or other appropriate factors that justify the

imposition of specialized requirements on the subcategorized facilities

are used as a basis. EPA develops a set of effluent limitations for

each category or subcategory at each level of control (BPT, BAT, etc.)

that is addressed in the guideline.

A guideline also may prescribe Best Management Practices (``BMPs'')

in addition to or in lieu of numerical limits. BMPs may include, for

example, requirements addressing the minimization or prevention of

storm water runoff, plant maintenance schedules and requirements

addressing the training of plant personnel. The recently promulgated

Pulp, Paper and Paperboard rule requires mills to implement BMPs to

prevent or otherwise contain leaks and spills of spent pulping liquor,

soap, and turpentine and to control intentional diversions of those

materials (40 CFR 430.03, 63 FR 18641, April 15, 1998).

C. Traditional Approach to Development of Effluent Guideline

Regulations

EPA has accumulated substantial experience and expertise in the

course of preparing 51 effluent guidelines. This section of the notice

summarizes the various tasks which the Agency typically undertakes in

an effluent guideline rulemaking.

Traditionally, EPA begins work on an effluent guideline rulemaking

project by tentatively defining the scope and dimensions of the

discharger category. The Agency determines the size of the category as

it has been defined, using all available sources of information. Given

the diversity of regulatory categories, no single source suffices to

establish size. At various times, EPA has used one or more of the

following sources: Standard published sources, information available

through trade associations, data purchased from the Dun and Bradstreet,

Inc. data base, other publicly available data bases, U.S. Census Bureau

data, other U.S. Government information, and any available EPA data

base. If a category is very large and/or diverse, the Agency will

determine whether it can be broken down into appropriate categories or

subcategories. If more than one subcategory can be identified, the

Agency may need to establish priorities for regulation.

EPA works with interested stakeholders early in the regulation

development process. State and local regulatory officials familiar with

the category are consulted, and business associations and citizen

groups are also invited to share information.

Regulatory information about discharger categories has often been

obtained by EPA through survey questionnaires, site visits and

wastewater sampling. Survey questionnaires solicit detailed information

necessary to assess the statutory rulemaking factors (particularly

technological and economic achievability of available controls), water

use, production processes, and wastewater treatment and disposal

practices. A portion of the Agency's questionnaires also seek

information necessary to assess the economic achievability of a

prospective regulation.

Generally, the Agency uses on-site wastewater sampling and detailed

monitoring data to characterize the pollutants found in discharges.

Site visits are also used to assess manufacturing processes, wastewater

generation, pollutant control technologies, pollution prevention

opportunities (e.g., process changes), and potential non-water quality

impacts of effluent guidelines (e.g., air emissions, sludge generation,

energy usage).

In developing a list of pollutants of concern for a category, EPA

initially will study wastewater samples for a broad range of pollutants

that can be measured by recognized analytical methods. Currently over

457 pollutants or analytes can be measured by these methods. This

includes the subset of 126 pollutants known as ``priority'' pollutants

developed pursuant to CWA section 307(a). EPA will develop new

analytical methods to cover additional pollutants as necessary. For

example, the Agency has developed new methods for use in the

Pesticides, Pulp and Paper, Pharmaceuticals, and Offshore Oil and Gas

effluent guidelines. (EPA generally proposes any new methods for public

comment concurrently with the proposed rule.)

Most of the effluent sampling and analysis that has been conducted

specifically to support effluent guideline regulations promulgated to

date has been conducted by EPA. On occasion, however, these activities

have been pursued on a cooperative basis with discharging facilities.

For example, EPA and numerous pulp and paper manufacturers participated

in cooperative efforts to sample and analyze effluent, wastewater

treatment sludge, and pulp from domestic mills that bleach chemical

pulp in their production processes.

EPA conducts engineering and statistical analyses of the technical

data to develop control and treatment options for the pollutants of

concern, and the projected costs for these options. The Agency

considers the costing information and economic data gathered from the

survey and other sources in its economic impact analysis, and then

selects one or more of the options as the basis for a rulemaking

proposal. It also develops assessments of the environmental impact of

the category's discharges, and may conduct a benefit-cost analysis as

well.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Title

III of Pub. L. 104-121, March 29, 1996), requires that EPA conduct

regulatory flexibility analyses for rules which have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These

analyses are to assess the impact of the rule on small entities and

consider alternative ways of reducing those impacts. Section 344 of

SBREFA also requires EPA to organize a ``small business advocacy review

panel'' for each rule where a regulatory flexibility analysis is

required.

Prior to publishing a proposed rule, EPA usually conducts a public

meeting to discuss the Agency's findings and describe the general

outlines of the rule. Following publication, a hearing is conducted

during the public comment period, and supplemental notices of new data

may be published, if appropriate.

D. Recent Revisions to the Effluent Guidelines Planning Process and

Recommendations of the Effluent Guidelines Task Force

EPA has recently revised the Effluent Guidelines planning process

based on its discussions with the Effluent Guidelines Task Force, an

advisory committee. The Task Force was established by EPA in 1992 to

recommend improvements to the effluent guidelines program. The

committee consists of members appointed by the Agency from industry,

citizen groups, state and local government, the academic and scientific

communities, and EPA's Office of Research and Development. The Task

Force was created to offer advice to the EPA Administrator on the long-

term strategy for the effluent guidelines

[[Page 29206]]

program, and particularly to provide recommendations on a process for

expediting the promulgation of effluent guidelines. It is chartered as

a subcommittee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental

Policy and Technology (NACEPT), the external policy advisory board to

the Administrator, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5

U.S.C. App. II, sec. 9(c)).

The Task Force has been focusing on alternative regulatory

processes that would allow EPA to promulgate effluent guidelines more

rapidly and at lower cost to the government. Several key aspects of the

rulemaking process have been discussed, including determination of

regulatory scope and data collection.

The Task Force has suggested that EPA consider making decisions on

the scope of a regulation early in the rulemaking process. Task Force

members generally believe that by focusing on the segment of an

industry that is of greatest concern, EPA can reduce its data

collection and analysis costs while achieving the majority of benefits

that would be achieved by the more exhaustive examination currently

given to industrial sectors. Several Task Force members have suggested

that additional savings could be realized by limiting the examination

of potential control technologies to one or two well-demonstrated

technologies, rather than pursuing data on a larger range of

technologies employed by good performers in the industry. Similarly,

several Task Force members have suggested that by focusing on the known

pollutants of greatest concern rather than conducting independent

testing of over 400 pollutant parameters, both time and money could be

saved. These approaches could lead to more focused regulations that are

developed based on early presumptions regarding the most effective

control technologies and key pollutant parameters to be controlled.

Key to the success of these approaches is the early involvement of

a variety of stakeholders with knowledge of the industry, control

technologies, and environmental impacts. Potential drawbacks include a

reduced ability to identify pollution prevention opportunities for all

or segments of the industry, and a reduced ability to quantify (and

monetize) the full range of benefits that will result from the

regulation. The Task Force acknowledged that decision-makers would be

expected to accept greater risk and make decisions on less

comprehensive data if the time and cost savings are to be realized.

The Task Force also suggested that the Agency could reduce both the

time and costs for data collection by relying more on existing data

sources and less on specially-designed questionnaires.

With respect to technical process and wastewater control data, the

Agency could rely on assessments of the current baseline by industry,

states, and local municipalities, and supplement those assessments with

independent site and sampling episodes.

With respect to performance data, EPA could conduct fewer site

visits and sampling episodes compared to previous rules and rely more

on existing performance data that meets the Agency's quality control

criteria. Since most existing data would be on conventional pollutants,

with less data on a limited set of nonconventional and toxic

pollutants, this shift to existing data is also linked with the concept

of focusing on a limited number of pollutant parameters. Additional

sampling for the effluent guideline could also be performed by

stakeholders to supplement the Agency's independent efforts. For

example, EPA worked with the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage

Agencies (AMSA) to develop a sampling protocol which was used by the

Hampton Roads Sanitary District, Virginia Beach, VA., to independently

sample a facility that falls within the scope of the Metal Products and

Machinery regulation. Other associations have expressed interest in

conducting their own sampling episodes based on this protocol to

further supplement the regulatory record.

With respect to financial and economic information, there is a

subset of data that is publicly available for many of the larger,

publicly-held entities. Economic impacts on smaller and privately-held

entities that may be affected may be more difficult to assess. This

difficulty may be offset by a focus on larger sources in the original

scoping of the regulatory project.

Each of the three new effluent guideline projects started in late

1997 respond to the Task Force recommendations in one or more ways.

EPA is developing a focused rule that will establish

limitations for the use of synthetic-based drilling fluids (SBFs) in

the Oil and Gas Extraction category (40 CFR part 435). Because of the

extensive information collected in the previous two rulemakings

covering the offshore and coastal subcategories, a limited amount of

data collection activities are necessary. The Agency has already

acquired data on the characteristics of SBFs and is developing other

data in cooperation with the industry and the Departments of Energy and

Interior which will be useful in supporting an accelerated regulation

development approach. Identifying appropriate toxicity tests,

consisting of both aqueous and sediment phase test methods, analytical

methods for use with synthetic rather than water-based drilling fluids

and technologies for cleaning drill cuttings are in progress and are

expected to give results that will be used in developing the proposed

rule.

EPA is developing a focused rule addressing coal remining

operations, which are not covered by the existing Coal Mining Category

(40 CFR part 434), and alkaline mining operations in the west, for

which existing regulations based on sedimentation ponds may not be

environmentally effective. Since promulgation in 1985, sediment control

technologies have reportedly advanced in both number and

sophistication. For this regulation, EPA is implementing a number of

the Task Force recommendations. First, EPA is focusing on two segments

for which controls have been identified that would result in

environmental improvements. Second, the Agency has enlisted the support

of the U.S. Office of Surface Mining and the Interstate Mining Compact

Commission to assemble and analyze existing information. This

information includes information on the current state of the industry

that will allow EPA to assess the baseline and economic status. It also

includes performance data on pollutant controls that will allow us to

assess the effectiveness of technologies and management practices.

Pollutants of concern will be determined from among those pollutants

for which performance data exist.

The revisions to the Feedlots category (40 CFR part 412)

will also rely on the Task Force recommendations. First, the regulation

will focus on specific industry segments, beginning with pork and

poultry operations, and then looking at beef and dairy cattle

operations. Second, EPA will rely, in part, on stakeholders for

background information. For example, the Agency is working with the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the major trade associations

to develop models (both technical and economic) to depict the current

baseline activities, and to assess costs and impacts of alternative

controls. EPA has received a ``framework'' document from the Pork

Producers Council which identifies their recommendations for controls

of wastes generated at their member facilities. The poultry industry is

embarking on a similar effort. The

[[Page 29207]]

environmental community has offered to provide their recommendations

for regulatory controls for the feedlot industry as a whole. EPA

expects to use each of these as well as expertise and research from

USDA to evaluate control options.

These new projects are discussed further in section V.A.2 of

today's document.

E. NRDC Litigation and Consent Decree

EPA has developed today's proposed Effluent Guidelines Plan

pursuant to a consent decree in NRDC et al v. Browner (D.D.C. Civ. No.

89-2980, January 31, 1992, as modified). The Decree commits EPA to

schedules for proposing and taking final action on effluent guidelines,

and also for conducting preliminary studies. Some of the categories to

be regulated are specified in the Decree. For the remaining required

rulemakings, EPA retains the discretion to select guidelines for

development based on Agency priorities.

EPA will use the results of the preliminary studies and other

information (such as public comments and recommendations from state and

local governments) to select industries for future regulation. The

Decree requires the Agency to study eleven industries.

The Decree also required EPA to establish the Effluent Guidelines

Task Force to formulate recommendations for improvements to the

effluent guidelines program. The Task Force has held several public

meetings and has submitted recommendations to the EPA Administrator.

Since 1992, EPA and NRDC have agreed to several modifications of

the Decree consisting of deadline extensions for certain rules.

V. Today's Proposed Effluent Guidelines Plan

A. Effluent Guidelines Currently Under Development

1. Schedule for Ongoing Rulemaking

The Agency is currently in the process of developing new or revised

effluent guidelines for 12 categories. The categories and actual or

Consent Decree dates for proposal and final action are set forth in

Table 1.

Table 1.--Effluent Guidelines Currently Under Development

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

Proposal Final action

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

Category Consent decree

or publication Consent decree

date

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

Pulp, Paper and Paperboard, Phases

2 & 3............................ \1\ 12/17/93 \1\ 2000-2002

Centralized Waste Treatment....... 1/27/95 \3\ 8/15/99

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing...... 5/2/95 7/98

Metal Products and Machinery...... \2\ 5/30/95

10/00 12/02

Industrial Laundries.............. 2/17/97 6/99

Landfills......................... 2/6/98 11/99

Industrial Waste Combustors

(Incinerators)................... 2/6/98 11/99

Transportation Equipment Cleaning. 5/15/98 6/15/00

Oil and Gas Extraction (Synthetic

Drilling Fluids)................. 12/98 12/00

Iron and Steel Manufacturing...... \3\ 12/98 \3\ 12/00

Coal Mining....................... 12/99 12/01

Feedlots (Poultry and Swine

Subcategories)................... 12/99 12/01

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

\1\ The Pulp, Paper and Paperboard rulemaking is not covered by the

January 31, 1992 consent decree and dates reflect projected dates for

final promulgation of the 2 phases.

\2\ 5/30/95 proposal covered Phase 1 MP&M facilities only. Proposal in

10/00 will cover Phase 1 and 2 facilities combined.

\3\ EPA is discussing extensions to consent decree dates with NRDC.

2. Rulemaking Projects Started in 1997

In 1997 EPA began to develop revised or new standards for portions

of three categories: Oil and Gas Extraction, Coal Mining, and Feedlots.

The rationale for selection and the tentative scope of rulemaking

coverage are described below.

a. Oil and Gas Extraction. Oil and Gas Extraction is covered by

existing effluent guidelines at 40 CFR part 435. The most recent

amendments were promulgated for the Offshore Category (58 FR 12454,

March 4, 1993) and the Coastal Subcategory (61 FR 66086, December 16,

1996). This regulatory development project will establish limitations

for the use and discharge of synthetic-based drilling fluids (SBFs)

where discharge of drilling fluids is permitted. SBFs are used in lieu

of oil-based drilling fluids in certain high performance drilling

operations. SBFs are not adequately addressed by current effluent

limitations for discharge of drilling fluids which were developed based

on the use of oil and water-based fluids. Current information suggests

that improvements in synthetic-based drilling fluids in recent years

have reduced their aquatic toxicity, increased their biodegradability,

and reduced the volume of drilling fluids and cuttings wastes

generated. Use of synthetic-based drilling fluids instead of water-

based drilling fluids in the geographic areas where discharge is

allowed will provide additional environmental protection by reducing

aquatic toxicity of discharges and reducing the amount of cuttings on

the ocean floor.

EPA intends to issue a proposed rule by December 1998 and take

final action by December 2000.

b. Coal Mining. Coal Mining activities are covered by existing

effluent guidelines at 40 CFR part 434. The existing regulations,

however, do not address remining operations, which improve effluent

quality and quantity from abandoned mine lands while reclaiming them,

and prevent disturbance of previously undisturbed lands. This

regulatory project focuses, in part, on remining operations nationwide

which will expedite permitting and provide a national standard of

environmental performance for these activities.

The existing regulations do not differentiate between alkaline

mining operations in the west and the acidic mining operations in other

geographic regions. Advances in treatment technologies and Best

Management Practices pertinent to alkaline coal

[[Page 29208]]

mines in the west show promise of being more protective of water

quality than existing standards. Given concerns over the ability of

existing regulations to achieve water quality standards established by

Native American tribes, EPA intends to explore the development of a new

subcategory for alkaline mining operations in the west.

EPA intends to issue a proposed rule by December 1999 and take

final action by December 2001.

c. Feedlots (Swine and Poultry Subcategories). Feedlot operations

are covered by existing effluent guidelines at 40 CFR part 412. These

regulations, which require the largest confined animal feeding

operations to achieve zero discharge of wastes to surface waters except

under extreme storm events, have not been sufficient to resolve water

quality impairment from feedlot operations. Waste spills and leaks from

storage lagoons, runoff of wastes from land application, and the

combined effect of allowable waste discharges from smaller facilities

have led to a range of environmental and health problems ranging from

fish kills and accelerated eutrophication of surface waters to

contamination of drinking water and shell fish.

This regulatory project focuses on swine and poultry operations

which have been identified as substantial contributors of nutrients in

surface waters that have severe anoxia (low levels of dissolved oxygen)

and problem algae blooms especially in estuarine waters.

EPA intends to issue a proposed rule for the Swine and Poultry

Subcategories by December 1999 and take final action by December 2001.

B. Process for Selection of New Effluent Guideline Regulations

Section 304(m) does not specify criteria that the Agency should use

to select categories for regulation by effluent guidelines. For the

first Effluent Guidelines Plan, published January 2, 1990 (55 FR 80),

EPA listed criteria it had used to select categories. The 1992 consent

decree, while specifying some of the categories to be regulated, allows

the Agency flexibility in selecting future categories for regulation,

and does not specify selection criteria. EPA intends to continue to use

selection criteria such as those listed in previous Effluent Guidelines

Plans. Additionally, in light of recommendations from the Task Force,

the Agency has considered the availability of technical data on a

category's discharges (both within EPA, at other Federal agencies, and

from States, local governments and industry) and the potential for

developing a rule on an expedited schedule in determining which

projects are good candidates for early implementation of the Effluent

Guidelines Task Force recommendations.

1. New Rulemaking Activities

The 1992 consent decree requires that EPA begin two rulemaking

projects by December 1998, and begin two additional projects by

December 1999. EPA plans to begin development of effluent guidelines

for the Beef and Dairy Cattle subcategories of the Feedlots category

this year. The Agency will select additional projects at a later date.

a. Feedlots (Beef and Dairy Cattle Subcategories). This regulatory

project focuses on dairy and beef cattle operations which represent a

large segment of the feedlot industry and have been identified as

substantial contributors of nutrients in surface waters that have

severe anoxia (low levels of dissolved oxygen) and affect drinking

water sources in the western and central regions of the United States.

EPA intends to issue a proposed rule for the Dairy and Beef Cattle

Subcategories by December 2000 and take final action by December 2002.

b. Other Rules. EPA has not yet selected additional rulemaking

projects. EPA is not proposing specific industrial categories for

selection in today's notice. However, based on the data sources listed

above, the Agency may choose the next categories from the following

list. A brief discussion of candidate categories is provided later in

this section.

Petroleum Refining

Textile Mills

Inorganic Chemicals

Steam Electric Power Generating

Photographic Processing

Chemical Formulators and Packagers

Urban Storm Water

Airport Deicing

Fish Hatcheries and Farms

Other categories identified in public comments on today's

proposed plan.

2. Candidates for Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking Projects

Candidate categories for rulemaking include both categories

specifically studied by EPA and others about which the Agency has

received information on wastewater and storm water discharges and

adverse environmental impacts. The public is invited to comment on

these categories, as well as recommending other categories for

development of new or revised effluent guidelines.

a. Preliminary Studies. The purpose of a Preliminary Study is to

describe the nature of pollutant discharges from a category of

facilities, and to provide a basis for comparison with other categories

for purposes of assigning priorities for regulation. The results of a

Preliminary Study for a category are published in a ``Preliminary Data

Summary.'' The Preliminary Data Summary presents a synopsis of recent

technical and economic information on a category of dischargers. The

Preliminary Data Summaries are not used directly as a basis for

rulemaking, but are used in the Agency's determination of which

categories most require preparation of new or revised effluent

guidelines. (They also may be expanded to become guidance documents for

NPDES permit writers and POTWs.)

A Preliminary Study typically collects data on the following:

The products manufactured and/or services provided by a

category;

Number, types and geographic location of facilities;

Destination of discharges (directly to surface waters,

indirectly to POTWs, or both);

Characterization of the wastewater discharges and

identification of pollutants present in the waste streams (e.g., mean

concentrations of pollutants, wastewater volumes, mass loadings);

Sampling and analytical methods employed to ascertain the

presence and concentration of pollutants in the wastewater;

Source reduction, recycling and pollution control

technologies in use and potentially applicable to the category;

Non-water quality environmental impacts associated with

wastewater treatment in the category (e.g., air emissions, wastewater

treatment sludges, and other wastes including hazardous wastes);

Cost of control technologies in place and cost estimates

for additional controls;

Cost-effectiveness of reduction of toxic and

nonconventional pollutants;

Estimates of water quality impacts of discharges within

the subject category; and

Economic assessment (current financial condition of

facilities, expansion or reduction trends, size characterization of

businesses or other organizations, impact of estimated treatment costs

on representative facilities).

The type and level of detail of information varies among the

Preliminary Data Summaries, depending on the data available to the

Agency when each document is prepared and whether the category is

covered by an

[[Page 29209]]

existing effluent guideline. For example, some of the Summaries have

comprehensive, primary data on the number and location of the

discharging facilities while others contain estimates drawn from

secondary data sources. However, the Summaries represent the Agency's

best characterization of industries at the time the summaries are

compiled. As additional data are acquired, they are factored into the

evaluation process. Consequently, the Preliminary Data Summaries are

also subject to revision. The Agency has made the Summaries available

to the public and has received comments on some of these studies.

Comments are available for review in the record for today's proposed

Plan.

b. Previously-Noticed Studies. Six of the completed studies were

described in the 1996 Proposed Plan (61 FR 35048): Petroleum Refining;

Metal Finishing; Textile Mills; Inorganic Chemicals; Steam Electric

Power Generating; and Iron and Steel Manufacturing.

c. Photographic Processing. The Photographic regulations were

promulgated in 1976 for BPT (direct dischargers) only, at 40 CFR part

459. Subsequent to promulgation of the BPT rule, EPA collected some

additional information to support development of BAT, NSPS and

pretreatment standards, but no additional rules were promulgated.

EPA completed a Preliminary Data Summary for the Photographic

Processing Industry in 1996. The study found that about 100,000

establishments were listed in 1996 in Dun & Bradstreet data under the

term ``commercial photo processing.'' In addition, significant photo

processing also occurs as an ancillary activity within the health care

profession and at noncommercial facilities such as schools and police

departments. Combining all types of facilities, it was estimated that

photo processing operations occur at 350,000 to 500,000 locations in

the United States. However, virtually none of these photo processing

establishments have discharge permits based on the existing effluent

guidelines because: (a) Most establishments are indirect dischargers,

and no pretreatment standards were established; or (b) those that are

direct dischargers do not meet the 1,600 square feet per day processing

requirement for applicability under part 459.

The study estimated the water use in 1994 by the commercial sector

(approximated to represent 44 percent of total photo processing volume)

to be 2,250 million gallons. The major waste stream constituents of

concern (with values for the commercial sector) includes sulfates (2.8

million lbs.), ammonia (3 million lbs.), silver (190 thousand lbs.),

thiosulfate, and cyanide. Several technologies are available and

employed to either treat the wastestreams, or as common in this

industry, recover the chemicals and metals in the wastewater for resale

or reuse.

Local POTW limits vary from municipality to municipality, but are

normally numeric and concentration-based. Frequently, the only

pollutant monitored in the indirect discharge permit is silver. Many of

the local limits are based on silver nitrate, a highly dissociated and

toxic compound. While silver nitrate is used in the production of

photographic film and paper, it is not a characteristic pollutant of

photo processing wastewaters. Rather, silver in photo processing

wastewaters is characteristically in the form of silver thiosulfate

complex, which has been shown to be about 20,000 to 40,000 times less

toxic, on a concentration basis, to acutely exposed fathead minnows.

The local limits may be overly stringent with regard to concentration

of silver discharged, while lax on total mass of silver or other

pollutants, due to lack of technical expertise and resources available

at the local level.

In an effort to provide more technical expertise to photo

processing facilities and POTWs, AMSA and the Silver Council, an

industry association, have developed a set of recommended silver

management practices. They are currently evaluating the effectiveness

of the management practices at a variety of sites nationwide.

d. Chemical Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging. EPA completed a

Preliminary Data Summary for the Chemical Formulating, Packaging and

Repackaging (CFPR) industry in 1996. The summary describes the size and

demographics of the industry, CFPR operations and the typical

wastewaters generated, as well as the extent to which pollution

prevention (P2) techniques are used throughout the industry. In

addition, the study compares the operations, P2 techniques and economic

viability of the CFPR industry to the Pesticide Formulating, Packaging

and Repackaging (PFPR) industry. For the purposes of the study, EPA

included the following sectors in the CFPR industry: specialty

cleaners, polishes, sanitation preparations, cosmetics, perfumes,

personal products, soaps and detergents, adhesives and sealants, paints

(non-solvent based), inks (non-solvent based), and water treatment

chemicals (non-pesticide).

There are no existing effluent guidelines or categorical standards

for the CFPR industry and their discharges are regulated largely

through local POTW limitations. The facilities are not subject to

general EPA reporting requirements pertaining to their production and

wastewater generation and the Agency estimates that there may be as

many as 12,800 facilities based on Dun and Bradstreet data. Much of the

technical portion of the study discusses anecdotal information

collected through contacts with POTWs, regional and state pretreatment

coordinators, individual facilities, and trade associations

representing several sectors of the CFPR industry. The study also

includes information from EPA's Adhesives and Sealants Study (``Summary

of Findings: Water and Waste Management for the Adhesives and Sealants

Manufacturing Point Source Category,'' EPA Effluent Guidelines

Division, draft report August 1984), the databases for the final PFPR

effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 455, 61 FR 57518, November 6, 1996),

as well as economic information from the U.S. Economic Census and the

Census Bureau's Annual Survey of Manufactures.

The volume of a CFPR facility discharge is small--typically 10

million gallons per year-- compared to those from chemical

manufacturing facilities. CFPR discharges include surfactants and

various organic chemicals. Overall, POTWs report having experienced

very few treatment system upsets or pollutant pass-through incidents

associated with their CFPR users. Some POTWs have reported foaming

problems or high-concentration (``slug'') discharges from CFPRs, but

these problems have been corrected though a variety of methods

available in the general pretreatment program.

e. Urban Storm Water. EPA is conducting a preliminary study of

urban storm water discharges to explore how the Effluent Guidelines

program can contribute to the Agency's efforts in implementing the

national storm water program requirements under section 402(p) of the

Clean Water Act. Discharges from municipal separate storm water sewer

systems (``MS4'') serving a population of 100,000 or more are subject

to NPDES storm water permitting requirements at 40 CFR 122.21 and

122.26. The Agency recently published a proposed rule that would extend

NPDES permit requirements to smaller MS4s in urbanized areas (63 FR

1536, January 9, 1998).

EPA is considering whether development of effluent guidelines

regulations, or additional technical information and guidance on

[[Page 29210]]

characterizing storm water discharges and evaluating the efficacy of

controls would be useful to discharging facilities in complying with

permit requirements. Because the nature of the dischargers and

discharges in urban storm water are somewhat different from the

industrial discharges usually regulated by effluent guidelines, the

study format will vary somewhat to accommodate other issues and

concerns. EPA intends that the study will include a summary of existing

storm water resources on best management practices (BMPs), a

description of adverse environmental impacts from storm water

discharges, a summary of available methods for estimating the

relationship between storm event size and bacteriological impacts,

descriptions of types of regionally-appropriate storm water BMPs (both

structural and non-structural) and how to measure their performance,

cost and economic impact considerations, and a description of

measurable goals that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of

storm water management controls. The Agency will complete a preliminary

data summary by December 1998.

f. Airport Deicing. EPA began the Airport Deicing study formally in

January 1998, although some site visits were conducted as early as

Summer 1997. Early data-gathering efforts for the study have been

initiated. The Agency is conducting a literature search on pollution

prevention practices related to aircraft deicing, including alternative

and innovative deicing practices at airports in the United States, as

well as in other countries. The Agency is reviewing previously-

collected data as well as information gathered through contacts with

the trade associations representing various segments of the industry,

environmental groups, manufacturers of deicing chemicals and vendors of

deicing-related equipment and treatment technologies. Also, the Agency

is planning to review airport storm water monitoring data that is

collected under the Multi-Sector General Permit requirements.

The Agency will be conducting site visits to airports of differing

sizes and geographic locations. These visits will include airports that

employ pollution prevention, on-site recycling or alternative deicing

technologies. Specifically, the purposes of the site visits are:

To gather basic information on a variety of deicing

activities and to determine what factors affect deicing operations;

To determine and evaluate the level of wastewater

treatment for any collected deicing fluids;

To gather information to characterize the raw, untreated

effluent generated from any deicing operations in terms of pollutant

concentrations, volumes and environmental impacts; and

To gather information on new or innovative pollution

prevention practices.

EPA will examine the effectiveness of the current storm water

permitting system and the comparative effectiveness of an effluent

guideline approach for airport deicing activities. The Agency will also

evaluate the status and trends of de-icing chemical use at airports,

including the costs and cost-minimization opportunities of deicing

material management, and the development and use of prevention and

treatment technologies will be evaluated. Wastewater characterization

sampling visits are expected to be conducted next winter. The Agency

will complete a preliminary data summary by December 1999.

g. Fish Hatcheries and Farms. EPA considered developing effluent

guidelines for fish hatcheries and farms, also called aquaculture

facilities, in 1977. A draft development document recommended issuance

of BPT limitations, but regulations were not promulgated.

(``Development Document for Recommended Effluent Limitations Guidelines

and Standards of Performance for the Fish Hatcheries and Farms Point

Source Category,'' EPA Effluent Guidelines Division, draft February

1977.) Aquaculture operations include ponds, tanks, raceways (a series

of tanks), netpens, and cages. These operations generate manure, which

can adversely affect water quality with BOD, suspended and settleable

solids, nutrients, chemical additives (including pesticides), water

temperature changes, and pathogens such as streptococcus. Uneaten fish

food can also generate nutrient discharges.

Potential problems stemming from aquaculture discharges are

described in a recent report by the Environmental Defense Fund (``Murky

Waters: Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in the United States,''

Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, DC, 1997). The report provides

an overview of the aquaculture industry and a description of water use,

pollutants generated, and environmental impacts. Among the report's

recommendations is a call for EPA to promulgate effluent guidelines for

aquaculture operations.

EPA is also aware that reports developed by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (a Federal

interagency advisory group), and other organizations may address waste

issues associated with aquaculture. The Agency invites submission of

such reports and other data on aquaculture discharges.

3. Future Studies

EPA has nearly completed its Consent Decree requirements for

developing eleven preliminary studies. However, the Agency may develop

additional studies from time to time, and several study topics have

been suggested. Among the categories that EPA may study are:

Hospitals

Ore Mining and Dressing (including Placer Mining)

Glass Manufacturing

Canmaking

Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers

Pulp, Paper and Paperboard (topics not addressed in recent or

ongoing rule projects)

Wood Chip Mills

Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries)

Generic Effluent Guideline Issues.

EPA invites submission of data and other comments on these

categories and topics.

C. Other Rulemaking Actions

1. Pulp, Paper and Paperboard, Phases 2 & 3

In the Pulp and Paper effort, EPA intends to revise existing

limitations in 10 of the 12 subcategories in 2 phases. Phase 2

includes: Unbleached Kraft; Semi-Chemical; Mechanical Pulp; Non-Wood

Chemical Pulp; Secondary Fiber Deink; Secondary Fiber Non-Deink; Fine

and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp; and Tissue, Filter, Non-

Woven, and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp. Phase 3 includes: Dissolving

Kraft and Dissolving Sulfite. Guidelines and standards for these 10

subcategories were proposed as part of the Pulp and Paper Rule (also

known as the ``Cluster Rule'') in December of 1993 but final action was

deferred in the Phase I Rule promulgated April 15, 1998, based on

public comment. The Agency intends to publish notices of data

availability prior to taking final action on both phases.

2. Ore Mining and Dressing

EPA had proposed to exclude a waste stream from previously-

promulgated effluent guidelines for the Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold,

Silver and Molybdenum Ores Subcategory of the Ore Mining and Dressing

Category (40 CFR part 440, subpart J). The Agency published a proposed

rule on February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5364). Dewatered tailings generated by

the Alaska-Juneau (A-J) gold mine

[[Page 29211]]

project near Juneau, Alaska would have been affected by this proposal.

On January 14, 1997, Echo Bay Mines announced that it would

terminate its development plans for the A-J mine project. EPA has

concluded, in light of the closure of the A-J mine project and the lack

of information about other mine sites exhibiting similarly extreme

environmental conditions, that it is unnecessary to continue this

rulemaking. The Agency published a document withdrawing the proposal on

January 16, 1998 (63 FR 2646).

VI. Request for Comments

EPA invites public comment on its plans for development of effluent

guidelines and preliminary studies. Comments will be accepted until

July 27, 1998. In particular, the Agency is interested in data that

would facilitate comparisons of discharger categories with regard to

wastestream characteristics, treatment practices and effects on water

quality. In addition to the categories discussed or listed in today's

notice, EPA will consider information on other categories in developing

Effluent Guidelines Plans.

VII. Economic Impact Assessment; Executive Order 12866

Today's document proposes a plan for the review and revision of

existing effluent guidelines and for the selection of priority

industries for new regulations. This document is not a ``rule'' subject

to 5 U.S.C. 553 and does not establish any requirements; therefore, no

economic impact assessment has been prepared. EPA will provide economic

impact analyses, regulatory flexibility analyses or regulatory impact

assessments, as appropriate, for all of the future effluent guideline

rulemakings developed by the Agency.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review

and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines

``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a

rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this plan is not a ``significant

regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is

therefore not subject to OMB review.

Dated: May 21, 1998.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Water.

Appendix A--Promulgated Effluent Guidelines

``Promulgation'' refers to the date of promulgation of BAT

controls unless otherwise noted. Minor amendments or corrections are

not shown.

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

Revised rule

(P: Proposal F:

Category 40 CFR Promulgation Final Action)

part or Study

Completion (S)

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

Aluminum Forming............ 467 10/83

Asbestos Manufacturing...... 427 2/74

Battery Manufacturing....... 461 3/84

Builder's Paper and Board 431 12/86 (BCT)

Mills \1\.

Carbon Black Manufacturing.. 458 1/78

Cement Manufacturing........ 411 8/79 (BCT)

Coal Mining................. 434 10/82 P 12/99; F 12/

01.

Coil Coating................ 465 12/82

Canmaking Subcategory... ....... 11/83

Copper Forming.............. 468 8/83

Dairy Products Processing... 405 6/86 (BCT)

Electroplating.............. 413 1/81 (PSES) P 10/00; F 12/

02\2\.

Electrical and Electronic 469 4/83

Components.

Explosives Manufacturing.... 457 3/76

Feedlots.................... 412 2/74 S 1998.

P 12/99; F 12/

01 (Swine &

Poultry).

P 12/00; F 12/

02 (Dairy &

Beef

Cattle).

Ferroalloy Manufacturing.... 424 7/86 (BCT)

Fertilizer Manufacturing.... 418 8/79 (BCT)

Fruits and Vegetables 407 7/86 (BCT)

Processing.

Glass Manufacturing......... 426 7/86 (BCT)

Grain Mills................. 406 7/86 (BCT)

Gum and Wood Chemicals...... 454 5/76 (BPT)

Hospitals................... 460 5/76 (BPT) S 1989.

Ink Formulating............. 447 7/75

Inorganic Chemicals......... 415 6/82 S 1994.

Iron and Steel Manufacturing 420 5/82 S 1995; P 12/98

\3\; F 12/00

\3\.

Leather Tanning and 425 11/82

Finishing.

Meat Products............... 432 7/76 (BCT)

Metal Finishing............. 433 7/83 S 1994; P 10/

00; F 12/02

\2\.

Metal Molding and Casting 464 10/85

(Foundries).

Mineral Mining and 436 7/77 (BPT)

Processing.

Nonferrous Metals Forming... 471 8/85

Nonferrous Metals 421 6/84

Manufacturing.

Oil and Gas Extraction...... 435 P 12/98; F 12/

00 (Synthetic-

Based Fluids).

[[Page 29212]]

Offshore Subcategory.... ....... 3/93

Coastal Subcategory..... ....... 12/96

Other Subcategories..... ....... 11/79 (BPT)

Ore Mining and Dressing..... 440 12/82

Gold Placer Mining ....... 5/88

Subcategory.

Organic Chemicals, Plastics 414 11/87

and Synthetic Fibers.

Paint Formulating........... 446 7/75 S 1989.

Paving and Roofing Materials 443 7/75

Pesticide Chemicals......... 455

Manufacturing........... ....... 9/93

Formulating, Packaging, ....... 11/96

Repackaging.

Petroleum Refining.......... 419 10/82 S 1993.

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 439 10/83 P 5/2/95; F 7/

98.

Phosphate Manufacturing..... 422 6/76

Photographic Processing..... 459 7/76 (BPT) S 1996.

Plastics Molding and Forming 463 12/84

Porcelain Enameling......... 466 11/82

Pulp, Paper and Paperboard.. 430

Subparts B & E (Phase 1 ....... 4/98

rule).

Other subparts.......... ....... 12/86 (BCT) P 12/93; F 2000-

2002 (Phase 2

& 3 rules).

Rubber Manufacturing........ 428 2/74

Seafood Processing.......... 408 7/86 (BCT)

Soap and Detergent 417 4/74

Manufacturing.

Steam Electric Power 423 11/82 S 1995.

Generating.

Sugar Processing............ 409 7/86 (BCT)

Textile Mills............... 410 9/82 S 1994.

Timber Products Processing.. 429 1/81

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

\1\ EPA proposed merging part 431 with part 430 in the proposed Pulp,

Paper and Paperboard rule on 12/17/93. Part 431 will be deleted.

\2\ The Electroplating and Metal Finishing categories will be modified

by the new Metal Products and Machinery rule. See Appendix B for

rulemaking dates.

\3\ EPA is discussing extensions to Consent Decree dates with NRDC.

Appendix B--Current and Future Rulemaking Projects

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

Category Proposed Final

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

Pulp, Paper and Paperboard, 12/17/93 \1\ 2000-2002 \1\

Phases 2 & 3.

(58 FR 66078)

Centralized Waste Treatment... 1/27/95 8/99

(60 FR 5464)

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing.. 5/2/95 7/98

(60 FR 21592)

Metal Products and Machinery.. 5/30/95 \2\ .................

(60 FR 28209)

(Phase 1 only)

10/00 12/02

Industrial Laundries.......... 12/17/97 6/99

(62 FR 66182)

Landfills..................... 2/6/98 11/99

(63 FR 6425)

Industrial Waste Combustors 2/6/98 11/99

(Incinerators).

(63 FR 6391)

Transportation Equipment 5/15/98 6/15/00

Cleaning.

Oil and Gas Extraction........ 12/98 12/00

Iron and Steel Manufacturing.. 12/98 \3\ 12/00 \3\

Coal Mining................... 12/99 12/01

Feedlots (Poultry & Swine 12/99 12/01

subcategories).

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

\1\ The Pulp, Paper and Paperboard rulemaking is not covered by the

January 31, 1992 consent decree.

\2\ 5/30/95 proposal covered Phase 1 MP&M facilities only. The proposal

in 10/00 will cover Phase 1 and 2 facilities combined.

\3\ EPA is discussing extensions to Consent Decree dates with NRDC.

Appendix C--Preliminary Studies

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

Category Complete

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

Petroleum Refining......................................... 1993

Metal Finishing............................................ 1993

Textile Mills.............................................. 1994

Inorganic Chemicals........................................ 1994

Steam Electric Power Generating............................ 1995

Iron and Steel Manufacturing............................... 1995

[[Page 29213]]

Photographic Processing.................................... 1996

Chemical Formulators and Packagers......................... 1996

Feedlots................................................... 1998

Urban Storm Water.......................................... 1998

Airport Deicing............................................ 1999

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

[FR Doc. 98-14156 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P