-II
-------
-------
Consideration of Pollution Prevention
in
EPA's Effluent Guideline Development Process
Introduction
One of the objectives of EPA's Industrial Pollution Prevention Project (IP3), initiated in 1991,
was to determine how best to incorporate pollution prevention into EPA's effluent guidelines
process. One task of the IP3 was to analyze the steps of the effluent guideline development
process and identify where in the process pollution prevention can be considered.
The following flowchart lays out the 18 steps of the process and identifies those steps (the shaded
boxes in the flowchart) where pollution prevention considerations and decisions can most
appropriately be made. The text following the flowchart describes each of the 18 steps.
This document then concludes with a "snapshot" of how EPA's effluent guidelines program is
now promoting pollution prevention in the effluent guidelines currently under development.
-------
-------
THE EFFLUENT GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The following paragraphs correspond to the flowchart and provide a brief overview of the steps
in developing an effluent guideline. Please note that the arrows in the chart represent a simplified
critical path. That is, the actual sequence of events involves many iterations between some of
the boxes illustrated, and various supporting functions critical to the completion of an effluent
guideline (for example, development of analytical methods for measuring pollutants in
wastewater) are not shown. Although each step in the process is displayed only once in the
flowchart, many of the steps occur repeatedly or continuously over several years. (A
comprehensive flowchart would require a Gantt or time-line chart to display simultaneous tasks
and their interdependencies.) The sequence of the discussion is generally in chronological order.
Some of the steps described below are marked with an asterisk, These correspond to the shaded
boxes in the flowchart and are the principal steps affecting pollution prevention decisions.
The initial purpose of this document was to brief IP3 Focus Group members in a convenient
format. The steps described herein are not intended to be a comprehensive statement of EPA's
approach to the development of effluent guidelines or of all the legal requirements or authorities
applicable to the process.
1. Industry Designated in Effluent Guidelines Plan (see flowchart)
The biennial Effluent Guidelines Plan (Section 304(m) Plan) designates an Industrial
Category for regulation by effluent guidelines.
2. Review available data; identify data gaps
Staff in the EPA Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), and sometimes support
contractors, review Agency files, reports, data bases and information from outside sources
to determine what is known about the industry's wastewater characteristics, processes,
demographics, economics, etc. A tentative definition of the scope and dimensions of the
category is developed. If the category was subject to previous rulemaking by EPA (by
effluent guidelines or other programs such as RCRA or Clean Air Act) those files are
reviewed. Ongoing EPA data gathering processes such as the Toxic Release Inventory
System may be used to conduct broad scans on industry discharge patterns. Data
requirements are formulated and plans are made for data gathering. Decisions are made
regarding which data needs will be met through primary data gathering (surveys and plant
visits) and secondary (databases from other EPA programs, other Federal agencies, state
governments, foreign governments, private/purchased databases, literature searches, etc.)
-------
3. Survey Questionnaire
A survey questionnaire is needed for most effluent guideline projects. The primary
purpose of this questionnaire is to characterize the state of the industry, both technically
and financially. The questionnaire generally has two principal sections: engineering and
economic. The form may include questions developed by the air, solid waste, or pollution
prevention offices, to support analysis of cross-media impacts and to support other Agency
projects. EAD (based on appropriate statistical analyses) decides whether a census of the
entire industry is necessary or a sample of facilities can be surveyed. The draft
questionnaire is distributed for public comment and must be approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) before it is administered. The total time for the survey
step, including survey design, OMB review, mail-out to industry, and receiving all forms
back, can be 18 months or more.
4. Select Plants for Visits
Most facilities to be visited are selected after an initial review of questionnaire responses.
However, EAD staff usually have some familiarity with the industry at the project's
outset, and after reviewing available data, can often identify some facilities of interest
because of their size, complexity, advanced treatment systems, etc. These visits may be
scheduled while the survey is being planned or administered.
5. Secondary Data Collection
EPA acquires data from other sources as appropriate to build a comprehensive profile of
the category. These sources include other EPA programs, other Federal agencies, state
and local governments, foreign governments, and commercial (i.e., purchased) databases.
Examples include the pesticide registration data collected by EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs, financial reports from the Securities and Exchange Commission, Census Bureau
manufacturing surveys, state permit and monitoring databases, and commercial
information services such as Petroleum Information, Inc., Lockwood's Directory of the
Paper Industry, Dun and Bradstreet Financial Records, etc.
6. Engineering, Economic, Statistical Analysis of Responses
The questionnaires are initially screened by engineering and economic staff, and
incomplete or unclear submissions require follow-up with the respondents. The forms are
then keyed into computer databases and descriptive statistical reports are generated under
the supervision of the EAD statistics staff.
-------
7. Plant Visits
Plant visits are important both to assess technology (e.g., manufacturing processes,
wastewater generation, pollutant control technologies, potential for process changes, etc.)
and to provide an accurate characterization of the pollutants in industry discharges. In a
typical project, a given number of facilities are visited for technology assessment and
planning for possible sampling — up to 25 or 30 plants in some industries. Actual
sampling episodes may be conducted at a subset of the facilities. Sampling is usually
conducted at intermediate process and treatment points, end-of-pipe, and wastewater
treatment sludges. Sampling and analysis activities are the most expensive tasks in most
effluent guideline projects, sometimes totalling $2 million per project. (For a few
projects, EPA has conducted some joint sampling and analysis tasks with industry, with
sharing of some costs.)
* 8. Studies on Process Modifications and Treatability
BAD staff and contractors review available data (step 2, above), early questionnaire results
and site reports on technology (step 9, below) on manufacturing/operational processes.
The review is conducted to identify opportunities for process modifications and/or
improvement of the treatability of the pollutants of concern, with emphasis on net
reduction of pollutants (toxicity) discharged. For example, in the current review of the
pulp and paper industry, EAD is looking at process modifications such as increasing pulp
cooking times and alternatives to chlorine bleaching, with the objective of reducing
discharges of dioxins, chlorinated phenolics, and volatile organics to all media (effluent,
sludge, air, and pulp products).
Industry-supplied data inform EPA which technologies are being used to treat pollutants
of concern and how well these technologies are performing. Bench-scale or pilot plant
studies may be performed by EPA, sometimes cooperatively with industry to further
explore treatment technologies.
9. Site Reports on Technology
EAD engineering staff and contractors prepare site reports for each plant visited. These
are used to document the basis and context of industry-supplied monitoring data and the
technologies in use by the industry and support the subcategorization decisions, costing
methodologies, and determinations of incremental pollutant removals for the various
technology options.
-------
10. Lab Analysis of Field Samples
The field samples are taken by EAD's environmental engineering contractors and are
analyzed by EAD's contract laboratories. Rigorous adherence to approved analytical
methods is required. Samples are analyzed for all pollutants covered by the methods,
which currently cover over 457 pollutants. For some projects, new analytical methods
must be developed. Analysis is conducted by about 15 laboratories under contract to
EPA. Overall coordination of sampling, quality control and lab management is handled
by EAD's Sample Control Center, operated by a separate contractor.
11. Statistical Analysis of Field Data
EAD statisticians oversee development of the analytical data bases and supply the
engineering staff with reports on individual plant results as well as national estimates of
the category's discharge patterns.
12. Assess Technology
To simplify the flowchart, the "Assess Technology" step is shown as taking place at one
point in the process where decisions on available technologies are made in order to have
information necessary to develop regulatory options. Technology assessment actually
starts at the beginning of the project and occurs continuously through development of the
regulatory options (step 13 below). In assessing technology, the engineering staff defines
the control options that are technically feasible for each industrial subcategory.
12a. Technology Costing
Staff develop estimates of the direct costs of various control technologies being
considered. Factors in the calculations include treatment components and costs for
capital investment (engineering design, equipment, installation, land, site clearance,
utility interconnections, etc.), annual operating and maintenance, and capital
amortization. Costs are usually estimated by developing a model plant or for each
plant in an industry, based on data gathered from the site visits, questionnaires,
equipment and chemical vendors, and other sources.
-------
12b. Subcategorization
Subcategorization is often appropriate due to differences in raw materials,
manufacturing processes, wastewater characteristics, or type of product
manufactured (or services performed). In some cases, economic impacts are used
for Subcategorization. Non-water quality environmental impacts, such as air
emissions, energy use, or residuals disposal may also be used.
12c. Economic Analysis
Economic analyses are conducted for each technically feasible control option for
each subcategory. The methodology for these analyses varies somewhat by the
industry and by the amount and type of financial and cost data that are available,
but generally involves consideration of net present value or cash flow, to assess
closures and other impacts. The economists conduct a gross screening of the
options to exclude options that are obviously outside any range of affordable cost.
The relevant data are compiled (from the questionnaire and secondary sources) and
economic impact analyses are conducted for each option. While not a statutory
factor, cost-effectiveness analyses provide additional comparative data on
technology options and are performed on an incremental basis for each option.
This type of analysis looks at costs of the least stringent to the most stringent
option, taking into account the amount of pollutants removed. (The different
toxicity levels of the various pollutants removed are factored into the accounting,
using the concept of "toxic pound-equivalents.") For major regulations, EPA also
performs a detailed cost-benefit analysis.
13. Develop Regulatory Options
Once technologies are assessed at various levels of control (e.g., BPT, BAT, etc.) and
relevant economic analyses are performed (for each subcategory, as appropriate), EAD
staff then develop regulatory options for consideration by senior EPA management. Each
option typically shows the technology basis and associated effluent limitations and
standards (usually mass-based); the amounts of pollutants that can be removed; potential
costs to industry; cost-effectiveness; non-water quality environmental impacts, if any, and
potential benefits. The Agency also determines, for indirect dischargers, whether toxic
or other nonconventional pollutants to be regulated pass through publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) inadequately treated, or interfere with the operation or sludge disposal
options (especially beneficial use) of POTWs. Pretreatment standards are developed for
pollutants found to pass through or interfere with POTWs. Regulatory options also may
include best management practices (BMPs) and monitoring requirements.
-------
14. Calculate Effluent Limitations
BAD determines limitations on the basis of statistical analysis of treated effluent data from
facilities with well-operated treatment systems using recommended technology.
Limitations are specified for daily maximum and maximum monthly average discharge
levels. Appropriate allowance for variability in normal operation of treatment is provided
in setting limitations values. Candidate limitations are developed for each alternative
technology option and subcategory.
15. Environmental Assessments
Environmental assessments are performed concurrently with the data collection and
technology assessment tasks. Environmental engineers and scientists perform analyses to
determine the potential impacts of industrial discharges on aquatic life, human health and
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The assessments characterize the potential risk
posed by the discharges and project the environmental benefits of the draft regulation.
16. Select Preferred Option
EPA management selects a preferred regulatory option that best meets Clean Water Act
requirements, considering economic achievability (for BAT), implementation issues,
potential benefits, and cost-effectiveness..
17. Proposed Regulation
The central components of the rulemaking package are the preamble and regulatory text
of the Federal Register notice. The preamble describes EPA's rationale for the proposed
regulation, and summarizes the data gathering processes, technologies considered,
selection of preferred options and the costs, economic impacts and environmental impacts.
Fuller discussions of the data and rationale are provided in the separately-published
Development Document and Economic Impact Analysis Reports (see below).
The regulatory text of an effluent guideline is typically brief compared to the length of
the preamble. The text generally consists of some specialized definitions and tables of
numerical effluent limitations for various pollutants, for each subcategory.
-------
18. Documents
The following documents generally are published simultaneously with the proposed
regulation:
a. Development Document
The Development Document is a summary of the Agency's study of the industry
and explains the technical rationale for establishing the regulations. It summarizes
pertinent industry characteristics, manufacturing process variations, water use,
wastewater characteristics, performance and costs of control and pollution
prevention technologies, the technical basis for the options and other factors which
distinguish a specific grouping of segments within the industry.
b. Economic Impact Analysis
The economic analysis for an effluent guideline assesses the economic impacts
associated with the costs of complying with effluent limitations guidelines and
standards in accordance with the applicable statutory criteria. Estimates of the
total investment and operation and maintenance costs, including monitoring costs,
of complying with each technology option generally are provided. In some
analyses, these cost estimates are provided on a "model plant" basis, where the
models may be defined by production process, volume, size, etc. When model
plant costs are used, the costs are frequently adjusted or extrapolated so that
facility-specific costs can be estimated and then used in the economic analysis.
In other cases, compliance costs are estimated for each individual facility. Based
on these cost estimates, the economic impact analysis projects the impact of each
control option.
A cost-effectiveness analysis is also prepared. This provides a ratio comparing the
incremental annualized cost of a pollution control option to the incremental pound
equivalents of pollutant removed by the control option. The ratio is calculated for
each industry subcategory and each control option. The "pound-equivalent"
measure is used to reflect differences in toxicity among the pollutants; the measure
is based on a pollutant-specific toxic weighting factor, and reflects the product of
the toxic weighting factor and the pounds of pollutant removed under each option.
For major rules (e.g., annual cost of compliance exceeds $100 million) EPA
prepares a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) as required by Executive Order 12291.
The goal of an RIA is to develop and organize information on benefits, costs and
economic impacts so as to clarify trade-offs among alternative regulatory options.
Costs and benefits are quantified as monetized to the extent possible. An RIA also
-------
incorporates all analyses required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (P.L.
96-354). Alternative regulatory options are considered for small businesses if it
is determined that the preferred regulatory option may result in a significant
impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
c. Environmental Assessment
Environmental assessments for effluent guidelines evaluate potential impacts of
discharges on human health as well as potential impacts on POTW operations.
Depending on the industry and data availability these assessments include a variety
of analyses: 1) identifying and compiling documented environmental problems;
2) preparing an industry profile that identifies industry locations, receiving streams
and POTWs and quantities of pollutants released to the environment;
3) categorizing released pollutants based on physical-chemical/fate properties and
toxicity to human health and aquatic life; 4) projecting potential aquatic life and
human health impacts using stream dilution modeling of wastewater; and
5) projecting the potential risks to human health and aquatic life.
10
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION IN CURRENT EFFLUENT GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT
Background
The EPA Science Advisory Board in its report, Reducing Risk, said that "EPA should emphasize
pollution prevention as the preferred option for reducing risk. By encouraging actions that
prevent pollution from being generated in the first place, EPA will help reduce the ... intermedia
transfers of pollution and residual risks so often associated with end-of-pipe controls."
Although EPA's Effluent Guidelines Program has been addressing pollution prevention ever since
its inception in 1972, the focus of the program has traditionally been on end-of-pipe controls.
EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) shows that, although the discharge of chemicals is
decreasing, there is not a similar downward trend in waste generation prior to recycling,
treatment, and disposal. This suggests that industry has not yet fully embraced pollution
prevention and that EPA needs to do more to promote pollution prevention in the Effluent
Guidelines Program.
In the last year or two, the Effluent Guidelines Program has placed increased emphasis on
promoting pollution prevention. In developing new and revised effluent guidelines, the program
is examining options that would bring about changes in manufacturing processes, changes in input
chemicals and solvents, closed-loop recycling of process water, pollutant recovery from effluent,
and other prevention options to reduce the generation of pollutants. The program is also
including pollution prevention questions in the industry questionnaire surveys that are used in the
development of effluent limitations. These questionnaire surveys provide information on
prevention technologies used by the leaders in an industry, which can be factored into the
guideline development process.
Four of the effluent guidelines currently under development (pulp and paper; pesticide
formulating, packaging, and repackaging; Pharmaceuticals; and metal products and machinery)
have been participating in EPA's Source Reduction Review Project (SRRP), an Agency-wide
initiative to promote source reduction in designing regulations.
Current Status
Effluent guidelines currently under development are promoting pollution prevention in the
following specific ways:
11
-------
O Metal Products and Machinery Effluent Guideline
- Proposed (in Proposed Guideline 5/30/95) a mass-based standard instead of a
concentration-based standard, which will promote water conservation and may
also encourage reduction in loadings of metals.
- Requested comment on the applicability of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
in place of, or in addition to, numerical standards, which will promote pollution
prevention through the use of good housekeeping measures. BMPs could also
be a vehicle through which pollution prevention planning or waste tracking
could be required.
- Costing in-process pollution prevention technologies, which will account for
benefits such as reduced raw material purchases and downsizing of treatment
systems.
O Pharmaceuticals Effluent Guideline
- Analyzing the industrial questionnaire surveys to look for pollution prevention
practices.
- Working with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to identify ways to
enable industry to make process changes.
- Sharing data with EPA's air programs to identify and mitigate potential cross-
media issues.
- Working with EPA's air office to develop a joint rule for air and water.
O Pesticide Formulating. Packaging, and Repackaging Effluent Guideline
- Proposed (in Proposed Guideline 4/14/94) zero discharge based on pollution
prevention, recycling, and reuse and, when necessary, treatment and reuse.
- Based on comments received, EPA published a Supplemental Notice for public
comment on a revised regulatory option which combines zero discharge and a
flexible P2 alternative. Facilities may choose to comply with zero discharge
or choose to comply with a list of specified P2, recycle, and reuse practices
along with a discharge allowance. These P2 practices are the same as those on
which the proposed rule was based.
- Following promulgation of the final rule (3/96) there will be a series of
regional workshops as well as a specific P2 guidance manual currently being
developed.
12
-------
O Pulp and Paper Effluent Guideline
- Integrating the development of the effluent guideline for water with the
development of the MACT standard for air ~ the first joint rulemaking in the
history of EPA ~ which will promote pollution prevention.
- Seeking international data on pollution prevention-based process changes.
- Basing the effluent guideline on pollution prevention process changes ~ low-
chlorine and/or totally chlorine-free processes — along with add-on controls.
- Considering having one of the points of compliance being in-process (at the end
of the bleach line) in addition to end-of-pipe.
- Considering the inclusion of BMPs for the prevention and control of spills in
the pulping and chemical recovery areas.
- Reducing, through the pollution prevention-based process changes, the toxicity
of resulting sludge, which may remove the need to develop hazardous waste
requirements for the sludge under RCRA.
- Working cooperatively with industry to encourage voluntary pollution
prevention initiatives.
- Considering language in the effluent guideline preamble addressing long-term
process-change goals for pulping and bleaching (including TCP (totally
chlorine-free) for paper-grade kraft mills as well as for sulfite mills).
- Considering providing incentives in the effluent guideline to encourage kraft
mills to go to a TCP bleaching process.
In all of the effluent guidelines currently being developed, pollution prevention technologies and
practices are being included in the Development Documents, so that industries and permit writers
(and others in the regulating community) will have information on prevention technologies as
well as control technologies, even when the reference technologies are control technologies.
13
-------
Challenges and Issues
Despite the important steps that the Effluent Guidelines Program is taking to advance pollution
prevention, there are still some barriers. Pollution prevention's full potential will not be realized
until the program:
(1) becomes more multi-media oriented in order to accomplish true pollution
prevention. (The Pulp and Paper Effluent Guideline is a good start in that
direction, and EPA is continuing to look for similar opportunities in other
rulemakings, e.g., Pharmaceuticals.)
(2) finds a way to foster the flexibility needed by industry to use creatively those site-
specific pollution prevention technologies and practices that can surpass BAT in
protecting the environment.
(3) imparts a pollution prevention mindset to everyone throughout the entire effluent
guidelines process. As the Effluent Guidelines Program strives to promote
pollution prevention in its effluent guidelines standard-setting process, that same
emphasis on pollution prevention needs to be promoted all the way — through
permits, compliance, and enforcement.
The Industrial Pollution Prevention Project (IPS) Focus Group — comprised of representatives
from industry, labor, environmental groups, academia, and all levels of government (federal, state,
and local) ~ has made some recommendations to EPA that address these three challenges.* The
Effluent Guidelines Task Force has taken the recommendations of the IP3 Focus Group and has
developed some of the IP3 recommendations further.**
To address the challenges fully, some of the specific questions that EPA needs to resolve include
the following:
1. To what degree should EPA set effluent standards which result in the most
beneficial overall impact on the environment, accounting for all media?
2. Should budgets for rule development be administered by cross-media teams rather
than by single-media program offices, and should resources be allocated
specifically for pollution prevention and multi-media analysis as a condition for
program funding?
3. Should every guideline be developed in a "cluster" process similar to the Pulp and
Paper Cluster?
14
-------
4. Should EPA have the authority in an effluent guideline to prohibit use of
technologies that have a significant adverse effect on the environment through
another media?
5. Should EPA develop a program to verify and validate new and existing pollution
prevention technologies for use in meeting BAT standards even when they were
not used as the reference technologies for the standards? (The cost of the program
could perhaps be covered by a fee paid by the developer of the prevention
technology.)
6. What are the appropriate steps to take to change program culture and promote
pollution prevention throughout the effluent guidelines process ~ specifically in
the permits, compliance, and enforcement programs?
* How Best to Promote Industrial Pollution Prevention Through the Effluent Guidelines
Process (EPA-820-R-94-002, May 1994)
** Task Force Recommendations (Fostering Pollution Prevention and Incorporating Multi-
media Considerations into Effluent Guideline Development)
15
-------
------- |