&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Technical Support Document for the 2008
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan
                                     August 2008
                                 EPA-821-R-08-015

-------
Photograph of pills in a box, center top, is reprinted with permission from The Omaha
                         World-Herald, copyright 2008.

-------
                                     CONTENTS

                                                                                Page


PART I: INTRODUCTION	I

1.0   BACKGROUND	1-1
       1.1    EPA's Clean Water Act Program	1-1
       1.2    Background on the Effluent Guidelines Program	1-1
       1.3    What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?	1-2
             1.3.1  Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) —
                   CWA Sections 301(b)(l)(A) and 304(b)(l)	1-3
             1.3.2  Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) — CWA
                   Sections 301(b)(2)(E) and 304(b)(4)	1-4
             1.3.3  Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) — CWA
                   Sections 30l(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2)	1-4
             1.3.4  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) — CWA Section 306	1-4
             1.3.5  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) — CWA Section
                   307(b)	1-4
             1.3.6  Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) — CWA Section
                   307(c)	1-5
       1.4    Success of EPA's Effluent Guidelines Program	1-5
       1.5    What Are EPA's Effluent Guidelines Planning and Review Requirements?	1-5
       1.6    Background References	1-6

2.0   PUBLIC COMMENT s ON THE FINAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN FOR 2006
      AND PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN FOR 2008	2-1

3.0   THE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS	3-1
      3.1    Goals of the ELG Planning Process	3-1
      3.2    Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards .... 3-1
             3.2.1  Factors Considered in Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and
                   Pretreatment Standards	3-1
             3.2.2  Overview: Review of Existing Point Source Categories	3-5
      3.3    Identification of New Categories of Direct Dischargers for Possible Effluent
             Guidelines Development	3-7
      3.4    Identification of New Categories of Indirect Dischargers for Possible Effluent
             Guidelines Development	3-8
      3.5    Stakeholder Involvement and Schedule	3-8
      3.6    The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process References	3-9

4.0   METHODOLOGY, DATA SOURCES, AND LIMITATIONS	4-1
      4.1    Data Sources and Limitations	4-1
             4.1.1  SIC Codes	4-2
             4.1.2  Toxic Weighting Factors	4-3
             4.1.3  Calculation of TWPE	4-4
             4.1.4  Data from TRI	4-4
             4.1.5  Data from PCS	4-6

-------
                              CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                                Page

       4.2    Methodology Corrections Affecting Both Screening-Level Review Databases .4-9
       4.3    Corrections to the TRIReleases2004 Database	4-9
       4.4    Corrections to the PCSLoads2004 Database	4-9
       4.5    Corrections to the TRIReleases2005 Database	4-9
             4.5.1   TRIReleases2005: Categorization of Discharges	4-9
             4.5.2   TRIReleases2005: Pollutant Corrections	4-11
             4.5.3   TRIReleases2005: Data Quality Review	4-12
             4.5.4   TRIReleases2005: Facility Reviews	4-13
       4.6    TRIReleases2004 and TRIReleases2005 Rankings and PCSLoads2004
             Rankings	4-13
       4.7    Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations References	4-17

PART II: RESULTS OF THE 2008 ANNUAL REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES WITH EXISTING
       ELGs	II

5.0    2008 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND
       STANDARDS AND RANKING OF POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES	5-1
       5.1    Summary of the Results from the 2007 Annual Review	5-1
       5.2    Results of the 2008 Screening-Level Review	5-1
             5.2.1   Facilities for Which EPA Is Currently Developing or Revising ELGs ... 5-2
             5.2.2   Categories for Which EPA Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs	5-2
             5.2.3   Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE	5-3
             5.2.4   Results of the 2008 Screening-Level Review	5-5
       5.3    Prioritization of Categories for the 2008 Annual Review	5-5
             5.3.1   Detailed Study of Existing ELGs	5-11
             5.3.2   Preliminary Review	5-11
       5.4    2008 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
             Standards and Ranking of Point Source Categories References	5-13

6.0    CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT (40 CFR PART 437)	6-1
       6.1    CWT Category Background	6-1
             6.1.1   CWT Industry Profile	6-1
             6.1.2   40CFRPart437	6-2
       6.2    CWT Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level  Reviews	6-3
       6.3    CWT Category 2004 through 2008 Pollutants of Concern	6-4
       6.4    CWT Category Pesticide Discharges	6-4
             6.4.1   Pesticide Discharges for Vopak Logistics Services — Deer Park, TX ...6-8
             6.4.2   Pesticides Discharges for DuPont Chambers Works — Deepwater, NJ. 6-8
       6.5    CWT Category Poly cyclic Aromatic Compounds Discharges	6-10
       6.6    CWT Category Conclusions	6-11
       6.7    CWT Category References	6-12
                                          11

-------
                              CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                               Page

7.0   ORGANIC CHEMICALS PLASTICS AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS (40 CFR PART 414)	7-1
      7.1    OCPSF Category Background	7-1
             7.1.1  OCPSF Industry Profile	7-1
             7.1.2  40CFRPart414	7-4
      7.2    OCPSF Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews	7-5
      7.3    OCPSF Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern	7-5
      7.4    OCPSF Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges in TRI	7-8
      7.5    OCPSF Category Hexachlorobenzene Discharges in TRI and PCS	7-12
      7.6    OCPSF Category Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Discharges in TRI	7-14
      7.7    OCPSF Category Aluminum Discharges in PCS	7-15
      7.8    OCPSF Category Benzidine Discharges in PCS	7-16
      7.9    OCPSF Category Conclusions	7-17
      7.10   OCPSF Category References	7-18

8.0   ORE MINING AND DRESSING (40 CFR PART 440)	8-1
      8.1    Ore Mining Category Background	8-1
             8.1.1  Ore Mining Industry Profile	8-1
             8.1.2  40CFRPart440	8-4
      8.2    Ore Mining Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews	8-5
      8.3    Ore Mining Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern	8-6
      8.4    Ore Mining Category Mercury Compounds Discharges	8-9
      8.5    Ore Mining Category Arsenic Compounds Discharges	8-9
      8.6    Ore Mining Category Facility Identification	8-10
      8.7    Comparison of Discharges to Part 440 ELGs and Permit Limits	8-13
      8.8    Permit Analysis	8-15
             8.8.1  Effluent Limits Comparison	8-15
             8.8.2  Review of Permit Monitoring Data	8-16
      8.9    Ore Mining Category Conclusions	8-18
      8.10   Ore Mining Category References	8-18

9.0   PETROLEUM REFINING (40 CFR PART 419)	9-1
      9.1    Petroleum Refining Category Background	9-1
             9.1.1  Petroleum Refining Industry Profile	9-1
             9.1.2  40CFRPart419	9-4
      9.2    Petroleum Refining Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews ...9-4
      9.3    Petroleum Refining Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern	9-5
      9.4    Petroleum Refining Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges	9-5
             9.4.1  Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Chevron —
                   Richmond, CA	9-8
             9.4.2  Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Hovensa —
                   Christiansted, VI	9-9
             9.4.3  Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Tesoro —
                   Anacortes, WA	9-10
             9.4.4  Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Tesoro —
                   Martinez, CA	9-11
      9.5    Petroleum Refining Category Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Discharges ...9-11
                                         iii

-------
                              CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                                Page

       9.6    Petroleum Refining Category Conclusions	9-12
       9.7    Petroleum Refining Category References	9-16

10.0   PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD (40 CFR PART 430)	10-1
       10.1   Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Background	10-1
             10.1.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry Profile	10-1
             10.1.2 40CFRPart430	10-4
       10.2   Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category 2005 Through 2008 Screening-Level
             Reviews	10-5
       10.3   Pulp and Paper Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern	10-6
       10.4   Pulp and Paper Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges	10-9
       10.5   Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Metals Discharges	10-10
       10.6   Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Conclusions	10-10
       10.7   Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category References	10-11

11.0   WASTE COMBUSTORS (40 CFR PART 444)	11-1
       11.1   Waste Combustors Category Background	11-1
             11.1.1 Waste Combustors Industry Profile	11-1
             11.1.2 40CFRPart444	11-2
       11.2   Waste Combustors Category 2004  Through 2008  Screening-Level Reviews... 11-3
       11.3   Waste Combustors Category 2004  Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern	11-3
       11.4   Waste Combustors Category Pesticide Discharges	11-6
             11.4.1 Pesticide Discharges for Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX	11-7
             11.4.2 Pesticides Management at Von Roll America - East Liverpool, OH.... 11-9
             11.4.3 Pesticides Management at Ross Incineration Services - Grafton, OH 11-10
       11.5   Waste Combustors Category Conclusions	11-10
       11.6   Waste Combustors Category References	11-11

PART III: DETAILED STUDIES	Ill

12.0   COAL MINING CATEGORY (PART 434)	12-1
       12.1   Summary of Public Comments	12-1
       12.2   Key Definitions	12-2
       12.3   Applicability of 40 CFR Part 434 Manganese Effluent Limits	12-2
       12.4   Key Findings  Concerning Public Comments	12-3
             12.4.1 Bond Forfeitures	12-3
             12.4.2 Potential Environmental Impacts	12-4
             12.4.3 Surrogate Removal of Metal s through Manganese Treatment	12-4
             12.4.4 Effectiveness of Passive Treatment Systems	12-4
       12.5   EPA 2008 Decision on Revising Part 434 Effluent Guidelines	12-5
       12.6   Introduction References	12-5

13.0   HEALTH SERVICES INDUSTRY AND HOSPITALS CATEGORY (PART 460)	13-1
       13.1   Dental Mercury	13-2
       13.2   Unused Pharmaceuticals	13-4
       13.3   Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category References	13-9

                                         iv

-------
                           CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                      Page

14.0   OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION CATEGORY (PART 435)	14-1
      14.1  Oil and Gas Extraction Category References	14-2

15.0   STEAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING CATEGORY (PART 423)	15-1
      15.1  Steam Electric Power Generating Category References	15-3

Appendix A: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS FOR EAD' S SCREENING-LEVEL
           ANALYSIS

Appendix B: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
           TRIRELEASES2005

Appendix C: RESULTS OF TRIRELEASES2004  V3, TRIRELEASES2005  V2, AND
           PCSLOADS2004 V4

-------
                                 LIST OF TABLES

                                                                                Page

2-1   Comments on the Preliminary 2008 and Final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program
      Plans EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771	2-2

4-1   Newly Developed TWFs in 2007	4-4

4-2   Summary of TRIReleases2005 Facility Review	4-14

5-1   Point Source Categories That Have Undergone a Recent Rulemaking or Review	5-3

5-2   Point Source Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE Discharges	5-4

5-3   Final PCS 2004 and TRI 2004 Combined Point Source Category Rankings	5-6

5-4   Final TRI 2005 Rankings	5-8

5-5   2008 Annual Review of Categories with Existing ELGs: Level of Review	5-9

5-6   Previous Reviews for Point Source Categories Reviewed as Part of the 2008 Annual
      Review	5-12

6-1   Number of Facilities Identified as CWTs	6-1

6-2   Centralized Waste Treatment Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in
      TRI 2004 and 2005	6-2

6-3   Part 437 Subcategories and Regulated Pollutants	6-2

6-4   CWT Category Screening-Level Results	6-3

6-5   2008 Review: CWT Category Pollutants of Concern	6-5

6-6   Summary of CWT Pesticide Facility Contacts	6-7

6-7   Pesticide Discharges from Vopak Logistics Services Reported to TRI	6-8

6-8   Pesticide Discharges from DuPont Chambers Works Reported to TRI	6-9

6-9   Estimates of Pesticide Discharges from DuPont Chambers Works Based on Sampling
      Data	6-10

6-10  PAC Discharges from LNVA North Regional Treatment Plant Reported to TRI	6-10

6-11  Pesticides Treatability Data	6-14

7-1   Number of Facilities in OCPSF SIC Codes	7-2

7-2   OCPSF Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005	7-3
                                         vi

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

                                                                                Page

7-3   Applicability of Subcategories in the OCPSF Category	7-4

7-4   OCPSF Screening-Level Results	7-5

7-5   2008 Review: OCPSF Category Pollutants of Concern	7-6

7-6   2006 Review: OCPSF Category Pollutants of Concern	7-7

7-7   OCPSF Facilities Reporting Dioxin Releases to TRI	7-9

7-8   OCPSF Facilities Reporting HCB Releases to TRI	7-12

7-9   OCPSF Facilities Reporting Discharges of HCB to PCS in 2002 or 2004	7-13

7-10  OCPSF Facilities Reporting PAC Releases to TRI	7-15

7-11  OCPSF Facilities Reporting Aluminum to PCS	7-16

7-12  Monthly Benzidine Concentrations and Loads for Rohm & Haas, Bristol, PA	7-16

8-1   Number of Facilities in Ore Mining SIC Codes	8-2

8-2   Ore Mining Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005 8-3

8-3   Ore Mining Category Subcategory Applicability	8-4

8-4   Ore Mining Category Screening-Level Results	8-6

8-5   2008 Review: Ore Mining Category Pollutants of Concern	8-7

8-6   2006 Review: Ore Mining Category Pollutants of Concern	8-8

8-7   Flow and Mercury Concentrations for Northshore Mining Company	8-9

8-8   2006 Review: Arsenic Discharges in PCSLoads2004_v4 and PCSLoads2002_v4 from
      Facilities in the Ore Mining Category	8-11

8-9   2006 Review: Arsenic Discharges Reported to TRI from Facilities in the Ore Mining
      Category	8-12

8-10  Compliance Status of High TWPE Discharges	8-14

8-11  NPDES Permits by Mine Type	8-15

8-12  Average Metals Concentrations  (in mg/L) for Ore Mines with Self-Monitoring Data. 8-17

8-13  Summary  Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining Facilities	8-20

8-14  Ore Mining Category Master Facility List	8-25

                                         vii

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

                                                                                Page

9-1   Number of Facilities in Petroleum Refining SIC Codes	9-2

9-2   Petroleum Refining Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004
      and 2005	9-3

9-3   Petroleum Refining Category Screening-Level Results	9-4

9-4   2008 Review: Petroleum Refining Category Pollutants of Concern	9-6

9-5   2006 Review: Petroleum Refining Category Pollutants of Concern	9-7

9-6   Detected Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Congeners for Chevron	9-9

9-7   TCDD Equivalents Monitored in 2004	9-11

9-8   Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in
      2002-2005	9-14

9-9   PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002-2005	9-17

10-1  Number of Facilities in Pulp and Paper SIC Codes	10-2

10-2  Pulp and Paper Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and
      2005	10-3

10-3  Relationship Between Pulp and Paper Regulatory Phases and Subcategories	10-5

10-4  Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Screening-Level Results	10-6

10-5  2008 Review: Pulp and Paper Category Pollutants of Concern	10-7

10-6  2006 Review: Pulp and Paper Category Pollutants of Concern	10-8

10-7  Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in
      2002-2005	10-12

11-1  Number of Facilities in Waste Combustors Category	11-2

11-2  Waste Combustors by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005	11-2

11-3  Applicability of Subcategories in the Waste Combustor Category	11-3

11-4  Waste Combustors Category Screening-Level Results	11-3

11-5  2008 Review: Waste Combustors Category Pollutants of Concern	11-5

11-6  Sampling Data Summary from Waste Combustors Rulemaking	11-6

11-7  Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX TRI-Reported Pesticide Discharge	11-7

                                        viii

-------
                          LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

                                                                             Page

11-8   Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX Wastewater Sampling Data	11-8

11-9   Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX 2006 Discharges Estimated from Sampling Data for
      Toxaphene and Hexachlorobenzene	11-9

11-10 Summary of Waste Combustor Pesticide Facility Contacts	11-13
                                        IX

-------
                                LIST OF FIGURES




                                                                              Page




1-1    Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges Under NPDES	1-3




3-1    Flow Chart of Annual Review of Existing ELGs	3-2




3-2    Flow Chart of Further Review of Existing ELGs	3-3




3-3    Flow Chart of Identification of Possible New ELGs	3-4

-------
                                Part I - Introduction
PART I: INTRODUCTION

-------
                                                                     Section 1.0 - Background
This document supports the Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. It presents the
methodology used to perform the annual reviews of industrial discharges required by the Clean
Water Act and the results of the reviews.

1.0    BACKGROUND

       This section explains how the Effluent Guidelines Program fits into the Clean Water Act
(CWA) Program, describes the general and legal background of the Effluent Guidelines
Program, and describes EPA's process for making effluent guidelines revision and development
decisions (i.e., effluent guideline planning).

1.1    EPA's Clean Water Act Program

       EPA's Office of Water is responsible for developing the programs and tools authorized
under the CWA, which provides EPA and the states with a variety of programs and tools to
protect and restore the Nation's waters. These programs and tools generally rely either on water
quality-based controls, such as water quality standards and water quality-based effluent
limitations, or technology-based controls  such as effluent guidelines and technology-based
effluent limitations.

       The CWA gives  states the primary responsibility for establishing, reviewing, and revising
water quality standards.  These consist of designated uses for each water body (e.g., fishing,
swimming, supporting aquatic life), numeric pollutant concentration limits ("criteria") to protect
those uses, and an antidegradation policy. EPA develops national  criteria for many pollutants,
which states may adopt or modify as  appropriate to reflect local conditions. In a parallel track to
water quality standards,  EPA also develops technology-based effluent limitation guidelines and
standards, which are factor-based regulations that provide effluent limits based on current
available technologies. These limitations and standards are then incorporated into discharge
permits as technology-based effluent limitations (U.S. EPA, 1996). While technology-based
effluent limitations in discharge permits may be as stringent as or more stringent than water
quality-based effluent limits, the effluent guidelines program is not specifically designed to
ensure that the discharge from each facility meets the water quality standards for that particular
water body. For this reason, the CWA also requires states to establish water quality-based permit
limitations, where necessary to attain and maintain water quality standards that require industrial
facilities to meet requirements that are more stringent than those in a national effluent guideline
regulation. EPA notes that the various components of water quality-based permitting (water
quality standards, water quality-based effluent limits, and total maximum daily loads) are in
different stages of development nationally and by state, which may result in different levels of
protection across states.  Therefore, national categorical effluent limitations and standards remain
a critical component of EPA's CWA  Program. Consequently, in the overall context of the CWA,
effluent guidelines must be viewed as one tool in the broad arsenal of tools Congress provided to
EPA and the states to protect and restore the Nation's water quality.

1.2    Background on the Effluent Guidelines Program

       The 1972 CWA marked a distinct change in Congress's efforts "to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." See CWA ง 101(a), 33
U.S.C. ง 1251(a). Prior to  1972, the CWA relied on "water quality standards." This approach

-------
                                                                    Section 1.0 - Background
was challenging, however, because it was very difficult to prove that a specific discharger was
responsible for decreasing the water quality of its receiving stream.

       Since 1972, the CWA has directed EPA to promulgate effluent guidelines that reflect
pollutant reductions that can be achieved by categories or subcategories of industrial point
sources. The effluent guidelines are based on specific technologies (including process changes)
that EPA identifies as meeting the statutorily prescribed level of control. See CWA sections
301(b)(2), 304(b), 306, 307(b), and 307(c). Unlike other CWA tools, effluent guidelines are
national in scope and establish pollution control obligations for all facilities that discharge
wastewater within an industrial category or subcategory.  In establishing these controls, EPA
assesses: (1) the performance and availability of the best pollution control technologies  or
pollution prevention practices that are available for an industrial category or subcategory as a
whole; (2) the economic achievability of those technologies, which can include consideration of
costs, effluent reduction benefits, and affordability of achieving the reduction in pollutant
discharge; (3) non-water-quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements); and (4)
such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.

       Creating a single national pollution control requirement for each industrial category
based on the best technology the industry could afford was seen by Congress as a way to reduce
the potential creation of "pollution havens" and to set the Nation's sights on attaining the highest
possible level  of water quality. Consequently, EPA's goal in establishing national effluent
guidelines is to assure that industrial facilities with similar characteristics, regardless of their
location or the nature of their receiving water, will at a minimum meet similar effluent
limitations representing the performance of the best pollution control technologies or pollution
prevention practices.

       Unlike other CWA tools, effluent guidelines also provide the opportunity to promote
pollution prevention and water conservation. This may be particularly important in controlling
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic pollutants discharged in concentrations below analytic
detection levels. Effluent guidelines also control pollutant discharges at the point of discharge
from industrial facilities and cover discharges directly to surface water (direct discharges) and
discharges to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) (indirect discharges). For industrial
dischargers to POTWs, this can have the added benefit of preventing the untreated discharge of
pollutants to groundwater from leaking sewer pipes or to surface waters due to combined sewer
overflows.

1.3    What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?

       The national clean water industrial regulatory program is authorized under sections 301,
304, 306 and 307 of the CWA.

       The CWA directs EPA to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines and standards
through six levels of control: BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. For point sources that
discharge pollutants directly into the waters of the United States (direct dischargers), the
limitations and standards promulgated by EPA are implemented through National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. See CWA sections 301 (a), 301(b), and 402.
For sources that discharge to POTWs (indirect dischargers), EPA  promulgates pretreatment
standards that apply directly to those sources and are enforced by  POTWs and state and federal

-------
                                                                      Section 1.0 - Background
authorities. See CWA sections 307(b) and (c). Figure 1-1 illustrates the relationship between the
regulation of direct and indirect dischargers.
                                     Direct
                                  Dischargers
                                                                   Indirect
                                                                 Dischargers
        New
      Sources
                               NSPS

                         Nonconventional Pollutants
                         Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
       Existing
       Sources
       PSNS

• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
                            BCT

                      • Conventional Pollutants
                                            BAT

                                     1 Nonconventional Pollutants
                                     1 Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
       PSES

• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
                                       BPT

                               1 Conventional Pollutants
                               1 Nonconventional Pollutants
                               1 Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
   Figure 1-1. Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges Under NPDES
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) — CWA Sections
             and304(b)(l)
1.3.1
       EPA develops effluent limitations based on BPT for conventional, toxic, and
nonconventional pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BODs), total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and
any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator
designated oil and grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979. See 44 FR
44501 (July 30, 1979). EPA has identified 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic
pollutants, of which 126 specific substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants. See
Appendix A to Part 423, reprinted after 40 CFR Part 423. 17. All other pollutants are considered
to be nonconventional.

       In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers the total cost of
applying the control technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also
considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any required
process changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water-quality
environmental impacts (including energy  requirements), and such other factors as the EPA
Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(l)(B). Traditionally, EPA establishes
BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities within the
industry of various ages, sizes, processes or other common characteristics. Where existing
performance is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than currently in
                                             1-3

-------
                                                                   Section 1.0 - Background
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology can be practically
applied.

1.3.2  Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) — CWA Sections 301(b)(2)(E)
       and304(b)(4)

       The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for
conventional pollutants associated with BCT for discharges from existing industrial point
sources. In addition to the other factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that
EPA establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two-part "cost-reasonableness" test. EPA
explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in 1986. See 51 FR 24974
(July 9, 1986).

1.3.3  Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) — CWA Sections
       301(b)(2)(A) and304(b)(2)

       For toxic pollutants and nonconventional pollutants, EPA promulgates effluent guidelines
based on BAT. See CWA sections 301(b)(2)(C), (D), and (F). The factors considered in
assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, potential process changes, non-water-quality
environmental impacts, including energy requirements, and other  such factors as the EPA
Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(2)(B). The technology must also be
economically achievable. See CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). The Agency retains considerable
discretion in assigning the weight it accords to these factors. BAT limitations may be based on
effluent reductions attainable through changes  in a facility's processes and operations. Where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate,  BAT may reflect a higher level of performance
than is currently being achieved within a particular subcategory based on technology transferred
from a different subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal
controls, even when these technologies are not common industry practice.

1.3.4  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) — CWA Section 306

       NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best available
demonstrated control technology. New sources have the opportunity to install the best and most
efficient production processes and wastewater  treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should
represent the most stringent controls attainable through the application of the best available
demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and
priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS,  EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost of
achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water-quality environmental impacts and energy
requirements.

1.3.5  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) — CWA Section 307(b)

       PSES apply to indirect dischargers, and are designed to prevent the discharge of
pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of
POTWs, including sludge disposal methods at  POTWs. Pretreatment standards are technology-
based and are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
                                           1-4

-------
                                                                    Section 1.0 - Background
       The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for implementing
national pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR Part 403.

1.3.6  Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) — CWA Section 307(c)

       Like PSES, PSNS apply to indirect dischargers, and are designed to prevent the
discharges of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers
have the opportunity to incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in
promulgating NSPS.

1.4    Success of EPA's Effluent Guidelines Program

       The effluent guidelines program has helped reverse the water quality degradation that
accompanied industrialization in this country. Permits developed using the technology-based
industrial regulations are a critical element of the Nation's clean water program and reduce the
discharge of pollutants that have serious environmental impacts, including pollutants that:

       •      Kill or impair fish and other aquatic organisms;
       •      Cause human health problems through contaminated water, fish, or shellfish; and
       •      Degrade aquatic ecosystems.

       EPA has issued effluent guidelines for 56 industrial categories and these regulations
apply to between 35,000 and 45,000 facilities that discharge directly to the Nation's waters, as
well  as another 12,000 facilities that discharge to POTWs. These regulations have prevented the
discharge of more than 1.2 billion pounds of toxic pollutants each year.

1.5    What Are EPA's Effluent Guidelines Planning and Review Requirements?

       The CWA also requires EPA to annually review existing effluent guidelines. EPA
reviews all point source categories subject to existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment
standards to identify potential candidates for revision, as required by CWA sections 304(b),
301(d), 304(g), and 307(b). EPA also reviews industries consisting of direct discharging facilities
not currently subject to effluent guidelines to identify potential candidates for effluent guidelines
rulemakings, as required by CWA section 304(m)(l)(B). Finally, EPA reviews industries
consisting entirely or almost entirely of indirect discharging facilities that are not currently
subject to pretreatment standards to identify potential candidates for pretreatment standards
development, as required by  CWA sections 304(g) and 307(b). CWA section 304(m) requires
EPA to publish an effluent guidelines program plan every two years. As part of the development
of this plan, the public is provided an opportunity to comment on a "preliminary" plan before it
is finalized. EPA publishes the preliminary plan on a two-year schedule followed by the final
effluent guidelines program plan in the succeeding years. The preliminary plan is published in
odd-numbered years and the final plan is published in even-numbered years.
                                           1-5

-------
                                                                 Section 1.0 - Background
1.6    Background References

1.     U. S. EPA. 1996. U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers'Manual. Washington, DC.
      (December). EPA-833-B-96-003. Available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/
      writermanual. cfm?program_id=4 5.
                                         1-6

-------
                                                             Section 2.0 - Public Comments
2.0    PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN FOR 2006
       AND PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN FOR 2008

       EPA published its Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (2008 Preliminary
Plan) on October 30, 2007 (72 FRN 61335) and requested comments on various aspects of its
analyses, data, and information to inform its 2008 annual review and four detailed studies.

       Comments EPA received on the 2006 Final Plan and on the 2008 Preliminary Plan are
located in EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 (available at
http://www.regulations.gov). Commenters' names and issues they raised during these comment
periods are listed in this section.

       The Agency received 36 comments on the 2006 Final Plan and 2008 Preliminary Plan
from a variety of commenters including industry and industry trade associations, municipalities
and sewerage agencies, environmental groups, and other advocacy groups, private citizens,
federal agencies, and state government agencies. Stakeholders' suggestions played a significant
role in both the 2007 and 2008 annual reviews. Table 2-1 lists all the commenters as well as a
synopsis of the comments.
                                         2-1

-------
                                                                                             Section 2.0 - Public Comments
                  Table 2-1. Comments on the Preliminary 2008 and Final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans
                                        EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Commenter Name
Gregory E. Conrad
Interstate Mining Compact
Commission (IMCC)
William J. Walsh
Pepper Hamilton, LLP
(American Dental
Association)
Beverly B. Head
Metropolitan Sewer District
of Greater Cincinnati, Ohio
Joseph Pizarchik,
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Mining and
Reclamation
David J. Knight P.E.,
Southwest Regional Office,
Water Quality Program,
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Allen Gilliam, Pretreatment
Coordinator, Arkansas
Department of
Environmental Quality
Nancy Busen, City of
Bentonville, AR
Lab/Pretreatment
Supervisor
Elizabeth Aldridge and
Donna Hill, UWAG
EPA
E-Docket No.
0002
0003 (also see
0837)
0004
0005
0823
0824
0825
0826
Comment Summary
General comments in favor of the Coal Mining Detailed Study. Recommends that EPA focus on a
review of manganese effluent guidelines and not focus on those pollutants not currently regulated by
the Coal Mining Effluent Guidelines (e.g., sulfates, chlorides and TDS).
General comments on the Health Services Detailed Study. Recommends that EPA collect more data and
conduct additional analyses before requiring the universal and mandatory use of amalgam separators.
Provides information for the Health Services Detailed Study. States that, "the District's history with the
Health Services Industry is that this group generally complies with all local limits for metals and
organics. However, pH noncompliance does occur and appears to be tied to integrated laundries and
laboratories serving the industry."
General comments in favor of the Coal Mining Detailed Study. States that, "if the current standards are
not necessary for protection of public health and the environment, they are posing an undue burden on
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and anyone else who is responsible for treating mine drainage."
General comments providing data and recommendations for multiple industrial categories.
Recommends the review of discharges from the following industries: boilers and cooling towers, food
processing (brewing beer and wine), petroleum refining, steam electric and electrical and electronics.
Recommends using WET testing instead of TWFs and supports pretreatment standards for hospitals.
Provided information on an alternative Pharmaceuticals disposal technology: non-incineration pyrolysis
technology for destruction of unused Pharmaceuticals in Western Canada (vendor is Phase Separation
Solutions Inc.).
Expressed need for hospice and home health care disposal programs.
Requested extension to comment period.
to
to

-------
                                                                                            Section 2.0 - Public Comments
                  Table 2-1. Comments on the Preliminary 2008 and Final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans
                                       EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
No.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Commenter Name
Gus Changaris, EXP
Unused Pharmaceuticals
Corp.
Martina Nelson, P.E. and
Leo Hermes, P.E.,
Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services
(MCES)
Bruce E. Cunha RN MS
COHN-S, Manager,
Employee Health, Safety,
and Infection
Prevention/Control,
Marshfield Clinic,
Marshfield, WI
Roger E.Claff, P.E. ,
American Petroleum
Institute (API)
Louis Kollias, Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District
of Greater Chicago
Donna Hill, UWAG
Linda Eichmiller,
ASIWPCA
Mark Taratoot, Corvallis,
OR Public Works
Department
Thomas W. Curtis, AWWA
EPA
E-Docket No.
0827
0828
0829
0831
0832
0833
0834
0835
0836
Comment Summary
Provided information on pharmaceutical return-for-credit programs, waste disposal needs of pharmacy
facilities, the need to remove unused Pharmaceuticals from waste streams, example BMPs, and
controlled substance/reverse distribution problems.
Provided data on wastewater for several industries, including: dental, healthcare, and CWT.
Recommended that EPA consider: eliminating Part 413 (Electroplating) and regulate under Part 433
(Metal Finishing); revise Part 403 so that Non Significant Categorical Industrial Users (NSCIUs) are
subject to POTW Local Limits only (exempt from categorical pretreatment standards), establish PSES
for Metal Molding and Casting (Zinc Category). Provided general comments on plan approach: prefer
guidance over new ELGs. Recommends no review of indirect discharges (which are covered by local
limits); recommends focusing on non-point sources.
Provided data related to unused pharmaceutical disposal: costs, BMPs, take-back programs, community
"clean sweep" programs, and state regulations.
Provides several recommendations: commends use of QAPP for TRI and PCS databases; recommends
assessment and documentation of treatment technologies; study, not regulation of, industries with high
TWPE; consideration of concentrations in addition to loading, in terms of TWPE; minimization of
workload for CBM questionnaire.
Provides information on their history of unused pharmaceutical disposal.
Requested extension to comment period.
Recommends considering the effects of nutrients and treatment technologies.
Provides feedback on how the DBA and law enforcement affect disposal practices.
Recommends how to identify new industries for pretreatment regulations: focus on nutrients and
pathogens and clarify role of planning process.
to

-------
                                                                          Section 2.0 - Public Comments
Table 2-1. Comments on the Preliminary 2008 and Final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans
                      EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
No.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Commenter Name
William Walsh, Pepper
Hamilton LLP
(American Dental
Association)
StanDempsey, Jr.,
Colorado Petroleum
Association (CPA)
Michael P. Walls
Will Perry and Kathleen
Klein, Public Health/Seattle
& King County
Janet Gillaspie — Executive
Director, Oregon
Association of Clean Water
Agencies (ACWA)
Beryl B. Fletcher, Oregon
Dental Association
Christopher Sproul,
Attorney for Ecological
Rights Foundation and Our
Children's Earth
Foundation
Christopher Sproul,
Environmental Advocates
Cynthia A. Finley,
NACWA
Paul Chu, EPRI
EPA
E-Docket No.
0837 (also see
0003)
0840, 0842,
0858
0843, 0859
0844
0845
0846
0847, 0854
0848
0849
0850
Comment Summary
Provides information from the ADA on dental amalgam: BMPs, regulations, history, voluntary
programs, industry profile, costs and effectiveness of technologies, and amalgam separator
effectiveness and use.
Recommends that EPA "right size" the CBM survey to reduce burden, involve and collect data from
state agencies, and consider basin-specific differences in technology and reuse.
Provided recommendations on EPA's review methodology and specific comments on industries:
support continued evaluation of TWF determination; TRI/PCS databases overestimate discharges from
OCPSF; no further review needed for CWTs/Waste Combustors; and no regulation is needed for co-
generation facilities.
Provided data on unused Pharmaceuticals: generation rates, disposal methods, hazardous waste
management, leachate, return/take-back programs, and residential consumer issues.
Provided data on dental amalgam and unused Pharmaceuticals: BMPs, state/local regulations, voluntary
programs, effectiveness, pass through, pharmaceutical disposal concerns, and disposal methods.
Provided data on dental amalgam: BMPs, performance of BMPs, recycling resources, and mercury
collection events.
Restated issues in the ongoing litigation of Our Children 's Earth Foundation, et al. v. U.S. EPA.
Concurred with Ecological Rights Foundation and Our Children's Earth Foundation comments.
Provided data on dental mercury: removals at POTWs, content in effluent/biosolids, technology
effectiveness, and cost/benefits. Also commented that pretreatment standards are not preferred.
Provided data related to discharges from steam electric facilities: IGCC facilities information,
environmental assessments/inputs information (TRUE Model), TRUE multimedia risk assessment
model, and case studies.

-------
                                                                          Section 2.0 - Public Comments
Table 2-1. Comments on the Preliminary 2008 and Final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans
                      EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
No.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Commenter Name
Michael Garvin, PhRMA
Charlotte A. Smith,
PharmEcology Associates,
LLC
Liz Aldridge, UWAG
Sheila Lockwood,
Environmental Health and
Safety Coordinator
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Diana Klemans, The
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
Larry Lamperti, City of
Corvallis, OR
Christie True, King County
Water Treatment Division
Thomas P. Uva,
Narragansett Bay
Commission (NBC)
Paul Martyn, LA County
EPA
E-Docket No.
0851
0852
0853, 0862
0855
0856
0857
0860
0861
1059
Comment Summary
Provided data on unused Pharmaceuticals: disposal practices, barriers preventing the reduction of
unused Pharmaceuticals to POTWs or surface water, efforts with the DBA, BMPs, and fate of unused
Pharmaceuticals that go to landfills.
Provided data on the driving force of disposal practices in hospitals, state regulations and programs,
work with the DBA, and BMPs.
Provided comments on EPA's ongoing detailed study of the steam electric industry.
Provided data on dental amalgam: links to regulations, data on mercury reductions in biosolids from
amalgam separators, and education and outreach materials. Also provided data on unused
Pharmaceuticals: links to guidance, BMPs, discharge authorization programs, and trial medicine take-
back programs.
Recommended regulation of phosphorus discharges from POTWs and national categorical pretreatment
standards for unused Pharmaceuticals and other personal care products.
Provided data on BMPs: City's effluent mercury before and after BMPs, POTW implementation costs,
and example BMPs.
Provided comments on dental amalgam and unused Pharmaceuticals: does not support national
pretreatment standards; supports voluntary initiatives; and provides data on success of their programs.
Provided data on dental amalgam BMPs. Also does not recommend any new federal categorical
pretreatment standards because local limits suffice.
Supported EPA studying health services dental amalgam and unused Pharmaceuticals: need for
amalgam separators and take-back programs for unused Pharmaceuticals.

-------
                                            Section 3.0 - The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
3.0    THE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS

       This section provides a general overview of the process EPA uses to identify industrial
categories for potential development of new or revised effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards (ELGs) in 2007 and 2008. This process consists of: (1) annual review of
existing ELGs to identify candidates for revision; (2) identification of new categories of direct
dischargers for possible development of effluent guidelines; and (3) identification of new
categories of indirect dischargers for possible development of pretreatment standards. Each of
these components is illustrated in Figures 3-1 through 3-3 and discussed below.

3.1    Goals of the ELG Planning Process

       In the effluent guideline planning process, EPA is guided by the following goals:

       •      Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
              Nation's waters; and
       •      Provide transparent decision-making and involve stakeholders early and often
              during the planning process.

3.2    Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment  Standards

       This section describes the four factors used (Section 3.2.1) and how they are used
(Section 3.2.2) in the annual review of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards.

3.2.1  Factors Considered in Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment
       Standards

       EPA uses four major factors in prioritizing existing effluent guidelines or pretreatment
standards for possible revision.

       The first factor EPA considers is the amount and type of pollutants in  an industrial
category's discharge, and the relative hazard posed by that discharge. This enables the Agency to
set priorities for rulemaking to achieve the greatest environmental and  health  benefits. EPA
estimates the toxicity of pollutant discharges in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalents
(TWPE), discussed in detail in Section 4.1.3. To assess the effectiveness of pollution control,
EPA examines the removal  of pollutants, in terms of pounds and TWPE.

       The second factor EPA considers is the performance and cost of applicable and
demonstrated wastewater treatment technologies, process changes, or pollution prevention
alternatives that could effectively reduce the pollutants in the industrial category's wastewater
and, consequently, reduce the hazard to human health or the environment associated with these
pollutant discharges.
                                           3-1

-------
                                                    Section 3.0 - The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
re Begin annual
iview of existing
    ELGs
                                    Preliminary Results of Screening-Level
                                    Review = Combined TRIReleases and
                                    PCSLoads database rankings (Factor 1)
       PCS & TRI
        database
          tools
         Stakeholder
         recommendations
         and comments
     Stakeholder
     recommendations
     and comments
                                                 Are ELG
                                             revisions currently
                                                underway?
                                                Have ELGs
                                             been developed or
                                          revised within the past 7
                                                 years?
                                                 Are only
                                             a very few facilities
                                           responsible for overall
                                              category TWPE?
                                               When ranked
                                          by TWPE, does category
                                           contribute to top 95% of
                                           cumulative TWPE of all
                                                categories?
                                                                                 Do further review
                                                                                 (see Figure 3-2)
                                                 Are there
                                          identified implementation
                                            and efficiency issues
                                                (Factor 4)?
                                          Not a priority category; no
                                          further review at this time
 Possible outcome
- Further review
- BPJ support
- Identify for
  possible revision
  of existing ELGs
- No action
*lf EPA is aware of new segment growth within such a category or new concerns are identified, EPA may do further review.
                Figure 3-1. Flow Chart of Annual Review of Existing ELGs
                                                  3-2

-------
                                                      Section 3.0 - The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
                                      /'Category identified for further \
                                      I    review (see Figure 3-1)   J
                                             Further Review
                                      - Detailed studies
                                      - Preliminary review
                                      - Continue collecting data (all
                                        four factors)
Not enough
information
             Stakeholder input
                                             Are discharges
                                           adequately controlled
                                            by existing ELGs?*
Yes
             No further review at this time
                                                                    Yes
                                                                                  ^Identify for possible revision on
                                                                                              ELGs           I
                                          Identify other tools (e.g.,
                                          permit-based support or
                                               guidance)
                                   'Continue further review if not enough data.
                  Figure 3-2. Flow Chart of Further Review of Existing ELGs
                                                    3-3

-------
                                                                                     Section 3.0 - The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
Stakeholder recommendations
       and comments

: Begin industry
identification
\ T >
J t *
PCS & TRI
database tools
Identify SIC codes
with discharges
not subject to
existing ELGs

w
W
                                                        sthe SIC code
                                                        appropriately
                                                    considered a potential
                                                     ew subcategory of an
                                                        existing ELG?
                                                                         Include in annual review of
                                                                             existing category
                                                                             (see Figure 3-1)
                     No identification or   \
                  further review necessary/
                            Do
                    discharges interfere
                   with or otherwise pass
                      through POTW
                       operations?
                                                                              Are
                                                                        discharges of toxic
                                                                        or nonconventional
                                                                            pollutants
                                                                             trivial?*
  Is the possible new
category all or nearly all
 indirect dischargers ?
                                                     Are ELGs potentially
                                                     the appropriate
   No identification or
further review necessary
f  Identify other tools
f    (e.g., permit-based
V support or guidance )
             •Continue further review if not enough data.
                                       f  Identify for possible \
                                       / new effluent guidelines  J
                                       V     or standards     J
                        Figure 3-3. Flow Chart of Identification of Possible New ELGs

-------
                                             Section 3.0 - The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
       The third factor EPA considers is the affordability or economic achievability of the
wastewater treatment technology, process change, or pollution prevention measures identified
using the second factor. If the financial condition of the industry indicates that it would be
difficult to implement new requirements, EPA might conclude that it would be more cost-
effective to develop less expensive approaches to reducing pollutant loadings that would better
satisfy applicable statutory requirements.

       The fourth factor EPA considers is an opportunity to eliminate inefficiencies or
impediments to pollution prevention or technological innovation, or opportunities to promote
innovative approaches such as water quality trading, including within-plant trading. This factor
might also prompt EPA, during an annual review, to decide against identifying an existing set of
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for revision where the pollutant source is already
efficiently and effectively controlled by other regulatory or nonregulatory programs.

3.2.2  Overview: Review of Existing Point Source Categories

       EPA has established ELGs to regulate wastewater discharges from 56 point source
categories. EPA must annually review the ELGs for all of these categories. EPA first does a
screening-level review of all categories subject to existing ELGs. EPA then conducts further
review of categories prioritized as a result of the screening-level review. This further review
consists of either  an in-depth "detailed study" or a somewhat less detailed "preliminary category
review." Based on this further review, EPA identifies existing categories for potential ELGs
revision.

       3.2.2.1    Screening-Level Review

       The screening-level review is the first step in EPA's annual review. Section 4.0 provides
details on the database methodology used in the screening-level review. EPA uses this step to
prioritize categories for further review. In conducting the screening-level review, EPA considers
the amount and toxicity of the pollutants in a category's discharge and the extent to which these
pollutants pose a hazard to human health or the environment (Factor 1).

       EPA conducts its screening-level review with data from the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) and Permit Compliance System (PCS). The Quality Assurance Project Plan for the 2007
Annual Screening-Level Analysis of TRI and PCS Industrial Category Discharge Data describes
the quality objectives EPA used with the TRI and PCS data in more detail (ERG, 2007a). TRI
and PCS do not list the effluent guideline(s) applicable to a particular facility. However, they
both include information on a facility's Standard  Industrial Classification (SIC) code. Therefore,
the first step in EPA's screening-level review is to assign each SIC code to an industrial
category. * EPA then uses the information reported in TRI and PCS, for a specified year, in
combination with toxic weighting factors (TWFs)2 to calculate the total discharge of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants (reported in units of toxic-weighted pound equivalent or TWPE) for
each facility in a category for that year. For indirect dischargers, EPA adjusts this facility-
specific value to account for removals at the POTW. EPA then  sums the TWPE for each facility
1 For more information on EPA's assignment of each SIC code to an industrial category, see Section 5.0 of the 2005
Annual Screening-Level Analysis Report (U.S. EPA, 2005).
2 For more information on Toxic Weighting Factors, see Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA
304(m) Planning Process (U.S. EPA, 2006).	
                                            3-5

-------
                                              Section 3.0 - The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
in a category to calculate a total TWPE per category for that year. EPA calculates two TWPE
estimates for each category: one based on data in TRI and one based on data in PCS. EPA
combined the estimated discharges of toxic and nonconventional pollutants calculated from the
TRI and PCS databases to estimate a single TWPE value for each industrial category. EPA took
this approach because it found that combining the TWPE estimates from the TRI and PCS
databases into a single TWPE number offered a clearer perspective of the industries with the
most toxic pollution.3

       EPA then ranks point source categories according to their total TWPE discharges. In
identifying categories for further review, EPA prioritizes categories accounting for 95 percent of
the cumulative TWPE from the combined databases (see Section 5.3). EPA also  excludes from
further review categories for which effluent guidelines had been recently promulgated or revised
(within the past seven years), or for which an effluent guidelines rulemaking is currently
underway. EPA chose seven years because this is the time it customarily takes for the effects of
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards to be fully reflected in pollutant loading data and
TRI reports. EPA also considers the number of facilities responsible for the majority of the
estimated toxic-weighted pollutant discharges associated with an industrial activity. Where only
a few facilities in a category account for the vast majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges,
EPA typically does not prioritize the category for additional review.  In this case, EPA believes
that revising  individual permits may be more effective in addressing the toxic-weighted pollutant
discharges than a national effluent guidelines rulemaking because requirements can be better
tailored to these few facilities, and because individual permitting actions may take considerably
less time than a national rulemaking.

       3.2.2.2     Further Review

       Following its screening-level review of all point source categories, EPA prioritizes
certain categories for further review. The purpose of the further review is to determine whether it
would be appropriate for EPA to identify in the final plan a point source category for potential
effluent guidelines revision. EPA typically conducts two types of further review: detailed studies
and preliminary reviews. EPA selects categories for further review based on the screening-level
review and/or stakeholder input.

       EPA's detailed studies generally examine the following: (1) wastewater characteristics
and pollutant sources; (2) the pollutants driving the  toxic-weighted pollutant discharges; (3)
availability of pollution prevention and treatment; (4) the geographic distribution of facilities in
the industry;  (5) any pollutant discharge trends within the industry; and (6) any relevant
economic factors. First, EPA attempts to verify the  screening-level results and to fill in data gaps
(Factor 1). Next, EPA considers costs and performance of applicable and demonstrated
technologies, process changes, or pollution prevention alternatives that can effectively reduce the
pollutants remaining in the point source category's wastewater (Factor 2). Last, EPA considers
3 Different pollutants may dominate the TRI and PCS TWPE estimates for an industrial category due to the
differences in pollutant reporting requirements between the TRI and PCS databases. The single TWPE number for
each category highlights those industries with the most toxic discharge data in both TRI and PCS. Although this
approach could have theoretically led to double-counting, EPA's review of the data indicates that because the two
databases focus on different pollutants, double-counting was minimal and did not affect the ranking of the top
ranked industrial categories.	
                                            3-6

-------
                                             Section 3.0 - The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
the affordability or economic achievability of the technology, process change, or pollution
prevention measures identified using the second factor (Factor 3).

       Types of data sources that EPA may consult in conducting its detailed studies include,
but are not limited to: (1) U.S. Economic Census; (2) TRI and PCS data; (3) trade associations
and reporting facilities to verify reported releases and facility categorization; (4) regulatory
authorities (states and EPA regions) to understand how category facilities are permitted; (5)
NPDES permits and their supporting fact sheets; (6) EPA effluent guidelines technical
development documents; (7) relevant EPA preliminary data summaries or study reports; and (8)
technical literature on pollutant sources and control technologies.

       Preliminary  reviews are similar to detailed studies and have the same purpose. During
preliminary reviews, EPA generally examines the same factors and data sources listed above for
detailed studies. However, in a preliminary review, EPA's examination of a point source
category and available pollution prevention and treatment options is less rigorous than in its
detailed studies. While EPA collects and analyzes hazard and technology performance and cost
information on categories undergoing preliminary review, it assigns a higher priority to
investigating categories undergoing detailed studies.

3.3    Identification of New Categories of Direct Dischargers for Possible Effluent
       Guidelines Development

       Concurrent with its review of existing point source categories, EPA also reviews
industries not currently subject to effluent guidelines to identify potential new point source
categories. To identify possible new categories, EPA conducts a "crosswalk" analysis based on
data in PCS and TRI. Facilities with data in PCS and TRI are identified by a four-digit SIC code
(Section 4.1.1 provides more details on SIC codes). As with existing sources, EPA links each
four-digit SIC code to an appropriate industrial category  (i.e., "the crosswalk").4 This crosswalk
identifies SIC codes that EPA associated with industries  subject to an  existing guideline. The
crosswalk also identifies SIC codes not associated with an existing guideline. In addition to the
crosswalk analysis,  EPA relies on stakeholder comments and data in identifying potential new
point sources categories. TRI and PCS have only limited data on discharges on  potential new
categories or subcategories. Section 4.1 discusses the utility and limitations of TRI and PCS in
detail.

       For each industry identified through the crosswalk analysis or  stakeholder comments,
EPA evaluates whether it constitutes a potential new category subject to identification in the plan
or whether it is properly considered a potential new subcategory of an existing point source
category.  To  make this determination, EPA generally looks at whether the industry produces a
similar product or performs a similar service as an existing category. If so, EPA generally
considers the industry to be a potential new subcategory  of that category. If, however, the
industry is significantly different from existing categories in terms of products or services
provided, EPA considers the industry as a potential new  stand-alone category subject to
identification in the plan.
4 For additional information on "the crosswalk," see Section 5.0 of the 2005 Annual Screening-Level Analysis
Report (U.S. EPA, 2005).	
                                           3-7

-------
                                             Section 3.0 - The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
       Because the CWA specifies different requirements for potential new categories of direct
and indirect dischargers, EPA examines potential new categories to determine if the category
comprises mostly indirect dischargers or if it comprises both direct and indirect dischargers. If a
category consists largely of indirect dischargers, EPA evaluates the pass-through and
interference potential of the category (see Section 3.4). If a category includes direct dischargers,
EPA evaluates the type of pollutants discharged by the category.

       EPA does not identify in the plan industries for which conventional pollutants, rather than
toxic or nonconventional  pollutants, are the pollutants of concern. Also, even where toxic and
non-conventional pollutants are present in the discharge,  EPA does not identify the industry in
the plan if such pollutants are present only in trivial amounts and thereby present an insignificant
hazard to human health and the environment.

       Further, EPA would likely not identify an industrial sector as a candidate point source
category for an effluent guidelines rulemaking when: (1) the industrial category is currently the
subject of an effluent guidelines rulemaking effort (e.g., Airport Deicing Operations, Drinking
Water Treatment Facilities); or (2) direct discharges from point sources within the industrial
sector are not subject to the CWA permitting requirements (e.g., direct discharges from
silviculture operations).

       Finally, EPA does not necessarily identify in the plan all potential new categories subject
to identification. Rather, EPA may exercise its discretion to identify only those potential new
categories for which it believes an ELG would be an appropriate tool — and rely on other CWA
tools (e.g., water quality-based effluent limitations or assistance to permit writers in establishing
site-specific technology-based effluent limitations) when such other mechanisms would be more
effective and efficient.

3.4    Identification of New Categories of Indirect Dischargers for Possible Effluent
       Guidelines Development

       For potential new categories with primarily indirect discharges, EPA evaluates the
potential for the wastewater to "interfere with, pass through, or  [be] otherwise incompatible
with" the operation of POTWs. See 33 U.S.C. ง 1371(b)(l). Using available data, EPA reviews
the types of pollutants in an industry's wastewater. Then, EPA reviews the likelihood of those
pollutants to pass through a POTW. For most categories, EPA evaluated the "pass through
potential" as measured by: (1) the total annual TWPE discharged by the industrial sector; and  (2)
the average TWPE discharge among facilities that discharge to POTWs. EPA also assesses the
interference potential of the discharge. Finally, EPA considers whether the pollutant discharges
are already adequately controlled by general pretreatment standards and/or local pretreatment
limits.  In particular, EPA reviewed the pollutant discharges and potential technology options for
dental amalgam and unused pharmaceutical management in the Health  Services Industry, which
is composed of nearly all indirect dischargers (see Section 12.2).

3.5    Stakeholder Involvement and Schedule

       EPA's goal is to involve stakeholders early and often during its annual reviews of
existing effluent guidelines and the development of the biennial plans. This will likely maximize
                                           3-8

-------
                                           Section 3.0 - The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
collection of data to inform EPA's analyses and provide additional transparency and
understanding of EPA's effluent guidelines priorities identified in the biennial plans.

       EPA's annual reviews build on reviews from previous years, and reflect a lengthy
outreach effort to involve stakeholders in the review process. In performing its annual reviews,
EPA considers all public comments, information, and data submitted to EPA as part of its
outreach activities. EPA solicits public comment at the beginning of each annual review of
effluent guidelines and on the preliminary biennial plan. In each Federal Register Notice, EPA
requests stakeholder comments on specific industries and discharges  as well as any general
comments.

       EPA completes an annual review of industrial discharges each year, upon publication of
the Preliminary and Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans. In odd-numbered years, EPA
publishes its preliminary plan that EPA must publish for public review and comment under
CWA section 304(m)(2). In even-numbered years, EPA publishes its final plan that incorporates
the comments received on the preliminary plan.

       EPA intends that these coincident reviews will provide meaningful insight into EPA's
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards program decision-making. Additionally, EPA is
using an annual publication schedule to most efficiently serve the public as these annual notices
will serve as the "one-stop shop" source of information on the Agency's current and future
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards program.

3.6    The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process References

1.      ERG.  2007. Quality Assurance Project Plan for 2007 Annual  Screening-Level Analysis
       of TRI and PCS Industrial Category Discharge Data. (March  19). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
       0771-0208.

2.      U.S. EPA. 2005. 2005 Annual Screening-Level Analysis: Supporting the Annual Review
       of Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Identification of New
       Point Source Categories for Effluent Limitations and Standards. EPA-821-B-05-003.
       Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0901.

3.      U. S. EPA. 2006. Toxic Weighting Factor Development  in Support of CWA 304(m)
       Planning Process. Washington, DC. (June). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1634.
                                          3-9

-------
                                          Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
4.0    METHODOLOGY, DATA SOURCES, AND LIMITATIONS

       As discussed in Section 1.0, the CWA requires EPA to conduct an annual review of
existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs). It also requires EPA to identify
unregulated industrial categories. EPA's methodology for this annual review and unregulated
category identification involves several components, as discussed in Section 3.0.

       First, EPA performs a screening-level review of all point source categories subject to
existing ELGs to identify categories discharging high levels of toxic and nonconventional
pollutants relative to other categories. Using the results of the screening-level review, EPA
continues its annual review of priority categories to identify candidate ELGs for revision, as
required by CWA sections 304(b), 301(d), 304(g), and 307(b). The findings of EPA's 2008
annual review are discussed in Part II (Sections 5.0 to 11.0). Second, EPA reviews indirect
discharging industries not currently subject to pretreatment standards to identify potential
candidates for pretreatment standards development, as required by CWA section 307(b). Finally,
EPA reviews direct discharging industries not currently subject to ELGs to identify potential
candidates for ELG development, as required by section 304(m)(l)(B) of the CWA. EPA did not
identify for rulemaking any  indirect or direct discharging industries not currently subject to
pretreatment standards or ELGs in the 2008 annual review.

       In performing the  screening-level reviews of existing ELGs and identifying unregulated
industrial categories, EPA relies on data from the Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI).  This section discusses these databases, related data sources, and their
limitations.

       EPA has developed two screening-level tools, the TRIReleases andPCSLoads databases,
to facilitate analysis of TRI and PCS. EPA previously explained the creation of these screening-
level analysis tools in the 2005 Annual Screening-Level Analysis: Supporting the Annual Review
of Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Identification of Potential New
Categories for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (2005 SLA Report), dated August
2005 (U.S.  EPA, 2005b).  Additionally, the Technical Support Document for the Preliminary
2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (2008 Preliminary Plan  TSD), dated October 2007  (U.S.
EPA, 2007), describes updated methodology for the development of the TRIReleases and
PCSLoads databases. The 2005 SLA Report and 2008 Preliminary Plan TSD provide the detailed
methodology used to process thousands of data records and generate national estimates of
industrial effluent discharges. This section does not revisit the details of creating the database
tools. Instead, it lists the methodology corrections made to the PCS and TRI databases after
EPA's 2007 annual review. It also presents the preliminary category rankings from
TRIReleases2004_v3,  TRIReleases2005 v2,  and PCSLoads2004 v4.

4.1    Data Sources and Limitations

       This subsection provides general information on the use of SIC codes, TWFs, TRI data,
and PCS data. The following reports supplement this section and discuss EPA's methodology for
developing and using these tools:
                                          4-1

-------
                                         Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
       •      2005 Annual Screening-Level Analysis: Supporting the Annual Review of Existing
             Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Identification of New Point
             Source Categories for Effluent Limitations and Standards (2005 SLA Report),
             dated August 2005  (U.S. EPA, 2005b). Documents the methodology and
             development ofthePCSLoads2002 and TPJReleases2002 databases, including
             (but not limited to)  matching SIC codes to point source categories and using
             TWFs to estimate TWPE.
       •      Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan
             (2006 TSD), dated December 2006 (U.S. EPA, 2006b). Explains and documents
             methodology corrections made to the TRI and PCS databases after EPA's 2005
             and 2006 annual reviews.
       •      Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines
             Program Plan (2008 Preliminary Plan TSD), dated October 2007 (U.S. EPA,
             2007). Explains and documents methodology corrections made to the TRI and
             PCS databases for EPA's 2007 annual review.
       •      Draft Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of the CWA 304(m)
             Planning Process (Draft TWF Development Document), dated July 2005 (U.S.
             EPA, 2005a). Explains how EPA developed its TWFs.
       •      Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of the CWA  304(m) Planning
             Process (Final TWF Development Document) (U.S. EPA, 2006a). Explains how
             EPA developed the April 2006 TWFs.

4.1.1   SIC Codes

       The SIC system was developed to help with the collection, aggregation, presentation, and
analysis of data from the U.S. economy (OMB, 1987).  The SIC code is formatted in the
following way:

       •      The first two digits  represent the major industry group;
       •      The third digit represents the industry group; and
       •      The fourth digit represents the industry.

       For example, major SIC code 10: Metal Mining, includes all metal mining operations.
Within SIC code 10, four-digit SIC codes are used to separate mines by metal type: 1011 for iron
ore mining, 1021 for copper ore mining, etc.

       The SIC system is used by  many government agencies, including EPA, to promote data
comparability. In the SIC system, each establishment is classified according to its primary
economic activity, which is determined by its principal product or group of products. An
establishment may have activities in  more than one SIC code. Some data collection organizations
(e.g., the economic census) track only the primary SIC code for each establishment. TRI allows
reporting facilities to identify their primary SIC code and up to five additional SIC codes. PCS
includes one four-digit SIC code, reflecting the principal activity causing the discharge at each
facility. For a given facility, the  SIC  code in PCS may differ from the primary SIC code
identified in TRI.

       Regulations for an individual point source category may apply to one SIC code, multiple
SIC codes, or a portion of the facilities in an SIC code. Therefore, to use databases that identify

-------
                                         Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
facilities by SIC code, EPA linked each four-digit SIC code to an appropriate point source
category, as summarized in the "SIC/Point Source Category Crosswalk" table (Table A-l in
Appendix A).

       There are some SIC codes for which EPA has not established national ELGs. Some of
these SIC codes were reviewed because they were identified through stakeholder comments or
other factors.  Table A-2 in Appendix A lists the SIC codes for which facility discharge data are
available in TRI and/or PCS, but for which EPA could not identify an applicable point source
category. For a more detailed discussion, see Section 5.5 of the 2005 SLA Report (U.S. EPA,
2005b).

4.1.2  Toxic Weighting Factors

       In developing ELGs, EPA developed a variety of tools and methodologies to evaluate
effluent discharges. Within EPA's Office of Water,  the Engineering and Analysis Division
(EAD) maintains a Toxics Database, compiled from over 100 references, that contain aquatic life
and human health toxicity data, as well as physical/chemical property data, for more than 1,900
pollutants. The pollutants in this database are identified by a unique Chemical Abstracts Service
(CAS) number. EPA calculates TWFs from these data to account for differences in toxicity
across pollutants and to provide the means to compare mass loadings of different pollutants on
the basis of their toxic potential.  In its analyses, EPA multiplies a mass loading of a pollutant in
pounds per year (Ib/yr) by a pollutant-specific weighting factor to derive a "toxic-equivalent"
loading (Ib-equivalent/yr). The development of TWFs is discussed in detail in the Draft and Final
TWF Development Documents (U.S. EPA, 2005a; U.S. EPA, 2006a).

       EPA derives TWFs from chronic aquatic life criteria (or toxic effect levels) and human
health criteria (or toxic effect levels) established for the consumption offish. In the
establishment of 304(a) water quality criteria for carcinogenic substances, EPA's goal is to set
the human health risk level at 10"6 (i.e., protective to a level allowing 1 in 1,000,000 excess
lifetime cancer cases over background). In the TWF method for assessing water-based effects,
these toxicity levels  are compared to benchmark values. EPA selected copper, a toxic metal
commonly detected and removed from industry effluent, as the benchmark pollutant. The Final
TWF Development Document contains details on how EPA developed its TWFs (U.S. EPA,
2006a). Table A-3 in Appendix A lists the TWFs for those chemicals in the TRIReleases and
PCSLoads databases for which EPA has developed  TWFs.

       4.1.2.1    New Toxic Weighting Factors Developed During the 2007 Annual Review

       During the 2007 annual review, EPA revised the TWF for one chemical (reflecting
updated information on the underlying data) and developed new TWFs for chemicals that had
not previously had TWFs. Table 4-1 lists the newly  developed TWFs. The only pollutants with
new TWFs in EPA's databases {TRIReleases and PCSLoads) are picloram acid (TGAI) and
potassium picloram (K-salt). However, only one facility reports picloram acid (TGAI) and
potassium picloram (K-salt) in TRIReleases2005, while these pollutants are not in the
PCSLoads2004 database.
                                          4-3

-------
                                          Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
                        Table 4-1. Newly Developed TWFs in 2007
Pollutant
Picloram triisopropanolamine salt
(TIPA)
Nonylphenol
Octylphenol
Alky phenol ethoxylates
Picloram acid (TGAI)
Potassium picloram (K-salt)
CAS Number
6753475
25154-52-3
27193-28-8
68987-90-6
1918-02-01
2545-60-0
TWF
0.00285
0.848
0.295
2.80
0.0103
0.00436
Source: Toxic Weighting Factors Developed for the Proposed 2008 Effluent Guidelines Plan (ERG, 2007b).

4.1.3   Calculation of TWPE

       EPA weighted the annual pollutant discharges calculated from the TRI (see Section 4.1.4)
and PCS (see Section 4.1.5) databases using EAD's TWFs to calculate TWPE for each reported
discharge. EPA summed the estimated TWPE discharged by each facility in a point source
category to understand the potential hazard of the discharges from each category. The following
subsections discuss the calculation of TWPE.

4.1.4   Data from TRI

       TRI is the common name for Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Each year, facilities that meet certain thresholds must report their
releases and other waste management activities for listed toxic chemicals. Facilities must report
the quantities of toxic chemicals recycled, collected and combusted for energy recovery, treated
for destruction, or disposed of. A separate report must be filed for each chemical that exceeds the
reporting threshold. The TRI list of chemicals for reporting years 2004 and 2005 includes more
than 600 chemicals and chemical categories. For the 2007 and 2008 screening-level reviews,
EPA used data for reporting years 2004 and 2005, because they were the most recent available at
the time the review began.

       A facility must meet the following three criteria to be required to submit a TRI report for
a given reporting year:

       1.     SIC Code Determination. Facilities in SIC codes 20 through 39, facilities in 16
              additional SIC codes outside that range,5 and federal  facilities are subject to TRI
              reporting. EPA generally relies on facility claims regarding the SIC code
              identification. The primary SIC code determines TRI reporting.
       2.     Number of Employees. Facilities must have 10 or more full-time employees or
              their equivalent. EPA defines a "full-time equivalent" as a person that works
              2,000  hours in the reporting year (there are several exceptions and special
              circumstances that are well-defined in the TRI reporting instructions).
       3.     Activity Thresholds. If the facility is in a covered SIC code and has  10 or more
              full-time employee equivalents, it must conduct an activity threshold analysis for
5 The 16 additional SIC codes are 1021, 1031, 1041, 1044, 1061, 1099, 1221, 1222, 1231, 4911, 4931, 4939, 4953,
5169, 5171, and 7389.	
                                           4-4

-------
                                          Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
              every chemical and chemical category on the current TRI list. The facility must
              determine whether it manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses each chemical at
              or above the appropriate activity threshold. Reporting thresholds are not based on
              the amount of release. All TRI thresholds are based on mass, not concentration.
              Different thresholds apply for persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals
              than for non-PBT chemicals. Generally, threshold quantities are 25,000 pounds
              for manufacturing and processing activities and 10,000 pounds for other use
              activities. All thresholds are determined per chemical over the calendar year. For
              example, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are considered PBT chemicals. The
              TRI reporting guidance requires any facility that manufactures, processes, or
              otherwise uses 0.1 grams of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to report it to TRI
              (U.S. EPA, 2000).

       In TRI, facilities report annual loads released to the environment of each toxic chemical
or chemical category that meets reporting requirements. They must report onsite releases or
disposal to air, receiving streams, land, underground wells, and several other categories. They
must also report the amount of toxic chemicals in wastes transferred to offsite locations, (e.g.,
POTWs, commercial waste disposal facilities).

       For its screening-level reviews, EPA focused on the amount of chemicals facilities
reported either discharging directly to a receiving stream or transferring to a POTW. For
facilities discharging directly to a stream, EPA took the annual loads directly from  the reported
TRI data for calendar years 2004 and 2005. For facilities transferring to POTWs, EPA first
adjusted the TRI pollutant loads reported to be transferred to POTWs to account for pollutant
removal that occurs at the POTWs prior to discharge to the receiving stream. Table A-4 in
Appendix A lists the POTW removals used for all TRI chemicals reported as transferred to
POTWs.

       Facilities reporting to TRI are not required to sample and analyze waste streams to
determine the quantities of toxic chemicals released. They may estimate releases based on mass
balance calculations, published emission factors, site-specific  emission factors, or other
approaches. Facilities are required to indicate, by a reporting code, the basis of their release
estimate. TRI's reporting guidance is that, for most chemicals reasonably expected to be present
but measured below the detection limit, facilities should use half the detection limit to estimate
the mass released. However, for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, non-detects should be
treated as zero.

       TRI allows facilities to report releases as specific numbers or as ranges, if appropriate.
Specific estimates are encouraged if data are available to ensure the accuracy; however,  EPA
allows facilities to report releases in the following ranges: 1 to 10 pounds, 11 to 499 pounds, and
500 to 999 pounds. For its screening-level reviews, EPA used the midpoint of each reported
range to represent a facility's releases,  as applicable.

       4.1.4.1    Utility of TRI Data

       The data collected in TRI are particularly useful for ELG planning for the following
reasons:
                                           4-5

-------
                                          Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
       •      TRI is national in scope, including data from all 50 states and U.S. territories;
       •      TRI includes releases to POTWs, not just direct discharges to surface water;
       •      TRI includes discharge data from manufacturing SIC codes and some other
              industrial categories; and
       •      TRI includes releases of many toxic chemicals, not just those in facility discharge
              permits.

       4.1.4.2    Limitations of TRI

       For purposes of ELG planning, limitations of the data collected in TRI include the
following:

       •      Small establishments (less than 10 employees) are not required to report, nor are
              facilities that don't meet the reporting thresholds. Thus, facilities reporting to TRI
              may be a subset of an industry.
       •      Release reports are, in part, based on estimates, not measurements, and, due to
              TRI guidance, may overstate releases, especially at facilities with large
              wastewater flows.
       •      Certain chemicals  (polycyclic aromatic compounds [PACs], dioxin and dioxin-
              like compounds, metal compounds) are reported as a class, not as individual
              compounds. Because the individual  compounds in most classes have widely
              varying toxic  effects, the potential toxicity of chemical releases can be
              inaccurately estimated.
       •      Facilities are identified by SIC code, not point source category. For some SIC
              codes, it may be difficult or impossible to identify the point source category that
              is the source of the toxic wastewater releases.

       Despite these limitations, EPA determined that the data summarized in TRIReleases2004
and TRIReleases2005 were usable for the 2007 and 2008 screening-level reviews and
prioritization of the toxic-weighted pollutant loadings discharged by industrial categories. The
TRI database remains the only  data source for national estimates of industrial wastewater
discharges of unregulated pollutants.

4.1.5   Data from PCS

       PCS is a computerized information management system maintained by EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA).  It was created to track permit, compliance,
and enforcement status of facilities regulated by the NPDES program under the  CWA. Among
other things, PCS houses discharge data for these facilities.

       More than 65,000 industrial facilities and wastewater treatment plants have permits for
wastewater discharges to waters of the United States. To provide an initial framework for setting
permitting priorities, EPA developed a major/minor classification system for industrial and
municipal wastewater discharges. Major discharges almost always have the capability to impact
receiving waters if not controlled and, therefore, have received more regulatory  attention than
minor discharges. There are approximately 6,400 facilities (including sewerage  systems) with
major discharges for which PCS has extensive records. Permitting authorities classify discharges
as major based on an assessment of six characteristics:

-------
                                         Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
       4.      Toxic pollutant potential;
       5.      Discharge flow: stream flow ratio;
       6.      Conventional pollutant loading;
       7.      Public health impact;
       8.      Water quality factors; and
       9.      Proximity to coastal waters.

       Facilities with major discharges must report compliance with NPDES permit limits via
monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted to the permitting authority. The
permitting authority enters the reported DMR data into PCS, including pollutant concentration
and quantity values and identification of any types of permit violations.

       Minor discharges may, or may not, adversely impact receiving water if not controlled.
Therefore, EPA does not require DMRs for facilities with minor discharges. For this reason, the
PCS database includes data only for a limited set of minor dischargers when the states choose to
include these data.

       Parameters in PCS include water quality parameters (such as pH and temperature),
specific chemicals, conventional parameters (such as BOD5 and total suspended solids [TSS]),
and flow rates. Although other pollutants may be discharged, PCS contains only data for the
parameters identified in the facility's NPDES permit. Facilities typically report monthly average
pounds per day discharged, but also report daily maxima and average pollutant concentrations.

       For the 2007 annual review, EPA used data for reporting year 2004, to correspond to the
data obtained from TRI.  For the 2008 annual review, EPA corrected certain aspects of the 2004
data in response to comments (see Section 4.2). EPA did not use data for reporting year 2005
because, based on comparisons of 2000, 2001, and 2002 PCS data for certain industrial
categories, 2005  discharges were not likely to change significantly from 2004, and also because
the creation of the PCSLoads database is labor-intensive. EPA used a mainframe computer
program, called the Effluent Data Statistics (EDS) System, to calculate annual loads using PCS
data for 2000 and 2002 discharges. For the 2007 annual review, however, EPA used the
PCSLoadCalculator instead of EDS to calculate annual loads using PCS data for 2004
discharges. EPA used the PCSLoadCalculator because it allows EPA more flexibility and
control over the annual load calculations and provides more transparent documentation of the
calculation routine. Section 6.0 of the 2008 Preliminary Plan TSD provides details on the
methodology and development ofPCSLoads2004 (U.S. EPA, 2007).

       4.1.5.1     Utility of PCS

       The data collected in PCS are particularly useful for the ELG planning process for the
following reasons:

       •       PCS is national in scope, including data from all  50 states and U.S. territories.
       •       Discharge reports included in PCS are based on effluent chemical analysis and
              metered flows.
       •       PCS includes facilities in all SIC codes.
                                          4-7

-------
                                          Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
       •      PCS includes data on conventional pollutants for most facilities and for the
              nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus for many facilities. However, EPA did not use
              the nutrient data because of data quality concerns.

       4.1.5.2    Limitations of PCS

       Limitations of the data collected in PCS include the following:

       •      PCS contains data only for pollutants a facility is required by permit to monitor;
              the facility is not required to monitor or report all pollutants actually discharged.
       •      Some states do not submit all DMR data to PCS, or do not submit the data in a
              timely fashion.
       •      PCS includes very limited discharge monitoring data from minor dischargers.
       •      PCS does not include data characterizing indirect discharges from industrial
              facilities to POTWs.
       •      Some of the pollutant parameters included in PCS  are reported as a group
              parameter and not as individual compounds (e.g., "Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen," "oil
              and grease"). Because the individual compounds in the group parameter may have
              widely varying toxic effects, the potential toxicity  of chemical releases can be
              inaccurately estimated.
       •      In some cases, the PCS database identifies the type of wastewater (e.g., process
              wastewater, stormwater, noncontact cooling water) being discharged; however,
              most do not and, therefore, total flow rates reported to PCS may include
              stormwater and noncontact cooling water, as well as process wastewater.
       •      Pipe identification is not always clear. For some facilities, internal monitoring
              points are labeled as outfalls, and PCS may double-count a facility's discharge. In
              other cases, an outfall may be labeled as an internal monitoring point, and PCS
              may not account for all of a facility's discharge.
       •      Facilities provide SIC code information for only the primary operations, even
              though data may represent other operations as well. In addition, some facilities do
              not provide information on applicable SIC codes.
       •      Facilities are identified by SIC code, not point source category. For  some SIC
              codes, it may be difficult or impossible to identify  the point source category that
              is the source of the reported wastewater discharges.
       •      PCS was designed as a permit compliance tracking system and does not contain
              production information.
       •      PCS data may be entered into the database manually, which leads to data-entry
              errors.
       •      In PCS, data may be reported as an average quantity, maximum quantity, average
              concentration, maximum concentration, and/or minimum concentration. For many
              facilities and/or pollutants, average quantity values are not provided. In these
              cases, EPA is limited to estimating facility loads based on the maximum quantity.
              Section 4.4.2 discusses the maximum quantity issue in detail.

       Despite these limitations, EPA determined that the data summarized in PCSLoads2004
were usable for the 2007 and 2008 screening-level  reviews and prioritizations of the toxic-
weighted pollutant loadings discharged by industrial facilities. The PCS database remains the
                                           4-8

-------
                                         Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
only data source quantifying the pounds of regulated pollutants discharged directly to surface
waters of the United States.

4.2   Methodology Corrections Affecting Both Screening-Level Review Databases

      EPA did not make any methodological changes to the screening-level review databases,
TRIReleases2004, PCSLoads2004, and TRIReleases2005, as part of the 2008 annual review.

4.3   Corrections to the TRIReleases2004 Database

      EPA did not make any corrections to the TRIReleases2004 v3 database as part of the
2008 annual review.

4.4   Corrections to the PCSLoads2004 Database

      For the 2008 annual review, EPA updated the PCSLoads2004 database. The 2008
Preliminary Plan TSD provides details on the methodology for developing the PCSLoads2004
database (U.S. EPA, 2007). This section describes the changes made to the PCSLoads2004
database after publication of the 2007 Preliminary Plan.

      EPA identified only one correction to the database during the 2008 annual review. The
discharges of hexachlorobenzene were incorrectly classified as BHC, another pollutant, and
linked to the TWF for BHC. The PCSLoads2004 v3 database corrects  this error.

4.5   Corrections to the TRIReleases2005 Database

      EPA developed the TPJReleases2005 database as part of the 2008 annual review using
the methodology explained in the 2005 SLA Report and  2008  Preliminary Plan TSD (U.S. EPA,
2005b;U.S. EPA, 2007).

      During previous screening-level analyses, EPA identified numerous facility-specific
corrections for TRI data reported for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004. Several of these
corrections similarly apply to the 2005 TRI data. In addition, EPA reviewed the quality  of the
2005 TRI data and discharges from facilities with discharges that have the greatest impact on
total category loads and category rankings. Table B-l in  Appendix B of this report lists all
corrections made to the 2005  TRI data.

4.5.1 TRIReleases2005: Categorization of Discharges

      This section describes database corrections to categorization of facilities and pollutant
discharges in TRIReleases2005. Section 5 of the 2005 SLA Report describes the development of
the SIC/Point Source  Category Crosswalk, which EPA uses to link between facility SIC codes
and categories with existing ELGs (U.S. EPA, 2005). Because most point source categories are
not defined by SIC code, the relationship between SIC code and point source category is not a
one-to-one correlation. A single SIC code may include facilities in more than one point  source
category, so associating an SIC code with only one category may be an over simplification. Also,
many facilities have operations subject to more than one point source category. Further, facilities
in some  categories cannot be identified by SIC code (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment

-------
                                         Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
facilities). The database changes, summarized below, are described in detail in Section 5 of the
2005 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2005b):

       •      Facility-Level Point Source Category Assignment. For some SIC codes that
             include facilities subject to guidelines from more than one point source category,
             EPA was able to assign each facility to the category that best applied to the
             majority of its discharges. EPA reviewed information available about each facility
             to determine which point source category applied to the facility's operations. EPA
             assigned the following SIC codes to point source categories at the facility level:
             —     SIC 2048  (Prepared Feed and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowl,
                    Except Dogs and Cats). Facility discharges are assigned to either the Grain
                    Mills Manufacturing, Meat and Poultry Products, or Pharmaceutical
                    Manufacturing point source categories.
             —     SIC 2819  (Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, NEC). Facility discharges are
                    assigned to either the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing, Nonferrous
                    Metals Manufacturing, or Phosphate Manufacturing point source
                    categories.
             —     SIC 2874  (Phosphatic Fertilizers). Facility discharges are assigned to
                    either the Phosphate Manufacturing or Fertilizer Manufacturing point
                    source categories.
             —     SIC code changes for specific industries. Facility discharges are assigned
                    to the following point source categories:
                           Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category phases (see the
                           2005 SLA Report [U.S. EPA, 2005b]);
                           Chlorine or chlorinate hydrocarbon (CCH) manufacturing facilities
                           in the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers or
                           Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Categories (see
                           the 2005 SLA Report [U.S. EPA, 2005b]); and
                           Porcelain Enameling Point Source Category (see the 2006 TSD
                           [U.S. EPA, 2006b]).

       •      Pollutant-Level Point Source  Category Assignment. Many facilities have
             operations  subject to more than one point source category. For most of these
             facilities, EPA cannot divide the pollutant discharges among the applicable point
             source categories. Two exceptions where EPA was able to assign wastewater
             discharges  of certain chemicals to the appropriate point source category include
             Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)/Pesticides and
             MP&M/Metal Finishing:
             —    OCPSF/Pesticides. EPA removed all pesticide discharges from OCPSF
                    and counted them as discharges from the Pesticides Chemicals Point
                     Source Category.
             —    MP&M/Metal Finishing. EPA used the methodologies described in
                     Section 5 of the SLA Report to apportion pollutant loads between the
                    MP&M and Metal Finishing Point Source Categories.

       •      Categories Not Identified by SIC Code (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment,  Waste
             Combustor, and Landfills). The SIC/Point Source Category Crosswalk does not
             assign any  SIC codes to the Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) Point Source

-------
                                         Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
              Category (40 CFR Part 437), Waste Combustor Point Source Category (30 CFR
              Part 444), or Landfills Category (40 CFR Part 445). Furthermore, the applicability
              of these three regulations is not defined by SIC codes and no SIC code properly
              describes the CWT, waste combustor, or landfill services. However, some
              facilities in these categories report under SIC 4953: Refuse Systems. EPA
              identified specific facilities as CWTs during previous category reviews and
              assigned these CWT facilities a placeholder SIC code of "CWT," putting them in
              the CWT Point Source Category. EPA also identified specific facilities as waste
              combustors  during previous category reviews and assigned these waste combustor
              facilities a placeholder SIC code of "WC," putting them in the Waste Combustor
              Point Source Category. The remaining facilities were categories as the Landfills
              Point Source Category. In addition, for the TRIReleases2005 database, EPA
              categorized  the facilities reporting SIC code 4953 into the CWT, Landfills, or
              Waste Combustors Point Source Categories based on the specific operations at the
              facility.

4.5.2   TRIReleases2005: Pollutant Corrections

       This section describes database corrections made to discharges of specific pollutants
reported to the TRI for EPA's 2008 screening-level review in the  TRIReleases2005 database.

       •       Metal Compounds. For TRI reporting,  facilities may be required to report
              discharges of a metal (e.g., zinc) and its compounds (e.g., zinc compounds) on a
              single reporting form. Because the release quantity for the metal compound
              reporting is  based on the mass of the parent metal,  EPA uses the parent metal
              TWF to calculate TWPE for the metal  and metal compound discharges. For
              ranking purposes, EPA combined the TWPEs for the metal and metal compounds
              (i.e., TWPE reported for "zinc and zinc compounds"). For more details on this
              correction, see Section 3.4.4 of the 2005  SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2005b).
       •       Sodium Nitrite. For TRI reporting, sodium nitrite release quantities are reported as
              the mass of the sodium nitrite. Sodium nitrite is an ionic salt that will fully
              dissociate into nitrite and sodium ions in aqueous solutions. In addition, the nitrite
              ions are unstable in water and will oxidize to nitrate. Therefore, EPA converted
              the pounds of TRI-reported sodium nitrite discharges to pounds of nitrogen in the
              discharge and used the TWF for "nitrate  as N" (0.0032) to calculate TWPE for
              sodium nitrite. In addition, EPA also used the POTW removal for nitrate to
              account for the removal of sodium nitrite in POTWs.
       •       Phosphorus (Yellow or White). Yellow and white phosphorus, both allotropes of
              elemental phosphorus, are hazardous chemicals that spontaneously ignite in air.
              During the 2006 screening-level review,  EPA determined that facilities were
              incorrectly reporting discharges of total phosphorus (i.e., the phosphorus portion
              of phosphorus-containing compounds) as phosphorus (yellow or white).
              Therefore, EPA deleted all phosphorus (yellow or white) discharges reported to
              TRI for the 2008 screening-level review.
                                          4-11

-------
                                          Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
4.5.3  TRIReleases2005: Data Quality Review

       EPA evaluated the quality of TRI data for use in the 2008 screening-level review and
prioritization of loadings of toxic and non-conventional pollutants discharged by industrial
categories based on completeness, accuracy, reasonableness, and comparability. The Quality
Assurance Project Plan for the 2007 Annual Screening-Level Analysis of TRI and PCS Industrial
Category Discharge Data describes the quality objectives in more detail (ERG, 2007a).  The
following discussion provides an overview of the quality review steps:

       •      Completeness Checks. EPA compared counts of facilities in TPJReleases2005 to
              TRIReleases2004, TRIReleases2003, and TRIReleases2002 to describe the
              completeness of the database. The comparison showed that for 74 percent of the
              SIC codes, the number of facilities reporting wastewater discharges changed by
              less than 25 percent from 2004 to  2005. EPA also determined that most SIC codes
              exhibiting  a large percentage change did so because only a few facilities in these
              SIC codes  reported discharges (e.g., a change from one facility to three facilities
              is equivalent to a 200 percent increase).
       •      Accuracy of Facility Discharges. EPA identified facilities with the highest TWPE
              loadings. EPA identified facilities for review whose pollutant discharges
              accounted  for more than 95 percent of the TWPE for their point source category.
              EPA compared 2005 TRI data to other available information, such as PCS,
              information from EPA's Envirofacts Web page, the facilities' NPDES permits,
              and discussion with facility contacts.
       •      Accuracy of Category Discharges. EPA reviewed the accuracy of category
              discharges by verifying that pollutant discharges in TRI were assigned to the
              appropriate point source category. EPA used engineering judgment to determine
              if pollutant discharges were reasonably associated with the point source category.
       •      Accuracy of Database Queries. EPA's quality review for the development of
              TRIReleases2005 included accuracy checks for database queries in
              TRlCalculations2005 and TRIReleases2005. Documentation of accuracy checks is
              provided in a QC table in each Microsoft Access database.
       •      Comparability. EPA compared TRIReleases2005 to TRIReleases2004,
              TRIReleases2003, and TRlReleases2002 to identify pollutant discharges that
              differ more than the year-to-year variation of other chemicals and facilities. From
              the comparison, EPA determined that 59 percent of the pollutants discharged in
              both 2005  and 2004 had a change of less than 50 percent in the quantity
              discharged. EPA also determined that most of the large percentage change
              reflected initial discharges of small quantities.  In addition, most of these pollutant
              discharges resulted in small TWPEs.
                                          4-12

-------
                                          Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
4.5.4  TRIReleases2005: Facility Reviews

       Table 4-2 presents EPA's TRI facility review and corrections made to the
TRIReleases2005 database. EPA reviewed the accuracy of calculated discharges from facilities
with discharges that have the greatest impact on total category loads and category rankings. EPA
used the following criteria to select facilities for review:

       •      Facilities with the highest toxic-weighted discharges of all facilities reporting to
             TRI for reporting year 2005;
       •      Facilities with the highest toxic-weighted discharges of individual chemicals that
             contribute the majority of the toxic-weighted discharges for all categories; and
       •      Facilities with the highest toxic-weighted discharges from categories that
             contribute the majority of the toxic-weighted discharges for all categories.

       For the identified facilities, EPA used the following steps to review the accuracy of the
loads calculated from TRI data.

       1.     Review database  corrections for TRIReleases2004, TRIReleases2003,
             TRIReleases2002., and TRIReleases2000 to determine whether corrections were
             made during previous reviews and evaluate whether these corrections should be
             applied to TRIReleases2005.
       2.     Review discharges reported to TRI for other reporting years (i.e., 2000, 2002,
             2003, and 2004) and compare to discharges reported to TRI for reporting year
             2005.
       3.     Review 2005 discharge monitoring report data in PCS, if available, to hand-
             calculate annual pollutant loads and compare to discharges reported to TRI for
             reporting year 2005.
       4.     Contact the facility to verify whether the pollutant discharges are reported
             correctly.

4.6    TRIReleases2004 and TRIReleases2005 Rankings and PCSLoads2004 Rankings

       After incorporating the changes discussed in Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5, EPA generated
the final versions of the TRI and PCS databases used for the 2008 screening-level review:
TRIReleases2004 v3, PCSLoads2004 v4, and TRIReleases2005_v2. Tables C-l, C-2, and C-3 in
Appendix C present the category rankings by TWPE from the TRIReleases2004_v3,
TRIReleases2005 v2, and PCSLoads2003_v4 databases, respectively. The category rankings
presented in these tables reflect all the corrections made during the 2007 and 2008 screening-
level reviews. Tables C-4 through C-6 in Appendix C present the four-digit SIC code rankings
by TWPE from the TRIReleases2004_v3, TRIReleases2005  v2, andPCSLoads2004 v4
databases, respectively. Tables C-7 through C-9 in Appendix C present the chemical rankings by
TWPE from the TRIReleases2004_v3, TRIReleases2005 v2, PCSLoads2004 v4 databases,
respectively.
                                          4-13

-------
                                           Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
Table 4-2. Summary of TRIReleases2005 Facility Review
Facility Name
ADM
Cahaba Pressure Treated
Forest Products
Dow Chemical Co Freeport
Facility
Du Pont Memphis Plant
Facility Location
Decatur, IL
Brierfield, AL
Freeport, TX
Shelby, TN
Point Source
Category
Grain Mills
Timber
Pesticide
Chemicals
Inorganic
Chemicals
Chemical(s) in
Question
Chlorine
Dioxin
Picloram
Dioxin And
Dioxin-Like
Compounds
Review Findings
Facility reported discharging
61,099 TWPE of chlorine. Facility
reported that the chlorine
discharge in TRI is erroneous, and
the facility is currently working to
re-submit their Form R for
chlorine.
Facility reported a dioxin
congener distribution using
outdated industry guidance. Based
on information collected in 2008.
Facility reported picloram load to
be 99% picloram salt and 1%
picloram acid. Based on
information collected in 2006.
The facility provided the dioxin
and dioxin-like compounds
analytical data, which included
measurements in a blank sample
with greater than or equal values
for several congeners. Contacts
made during the 2006 category
review.
Actions Taken/Database
Correction
No changes made
Changed dioxin distribution to
the industry -provided dioxin
distribution for SIC code 2491.
Changed the picloram TWPE
from 333,000 to 700, using
TWFs for the two forms of
picloram.
Changed the dioxin and dioxin-
like compound load and
distribution based on the revised
measurement data.

-------
                                           Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
Table 4-2. Summary of TRIReleases2005 Facility Review
Facility Name
DuPont Chambers Works


Eastman Kodak Co Kodak
Park




ExxonMobil Chemical
Baton Rouge Chemical
Plant


International Paper Co
Camden Complex

Tronox Pigments Inc
(Formerly Kerr-McGee)


Facility Location
Deepwater, NJ


Rochester, NY




Baton Rouge, LA


Camden, TX

Savannah, GA


Point Source
Category
Pesticide
Chemicals


Metal Finishing




OCPSF


Timber

Inorganic
Chemicals


Chemical(s) in
Question
Hexachloro-
benzene


Dioxin And
Dioxin-Like
Compounds




Polycyclic
Aromatic
Compounds


Dioxin and Dioxin-
Like Compounds

Dioxin And
Dioxin-Like
Compounds


Review Findings
Based on contact regarding 2005
data, over 99% of
hexachlorobenzene on site comes
from outside contracts associated
with the CWT.
The facility calculates the dioxin
and dioxin-like compound
discharge based on the measured
concentration in the effluent from
the treatment plant and the total
plant flow rate. In 2005, the
facility detected only one
congener
(octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin)
three times in their wastewater
effluent. Based on contact made in
2008.
Facility used 1/2 the detection
limit for PACs in their 2000 TRI
estimate. ERG contacted the
facility about the TRI 2004 PACs
discharge. Facility stated that it
measured for all PACs every
month and all were less than
detection limit.
Facility reported an erroneous
dioxin congener distribution
originating from a spreadsheet
error. Based on information
collected in 2008.
The facility provided data that
shows all concentrations of
dioxins and furan congeners in the
water were below detection limit.
Based on communications with
facility for 2006 review.
Actions Taken/Database
Correction
Changed the SIC code for the
hexachlorobenzene discharge to
CWT.


Changed the dioxin distribution
to reflect detection of
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin only.




Changed the PACs load to zero.


Changed dioxin distribution
based on a facility -guided
revision of the dioxin
calculations.

Changed dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds load to zero.



-------
                                           Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
Table 4-2. Summary of TRIReleases2005 Facility Review
Facility Name
Tronox Pigments Inc
(formerly Kerr-McGee)
Various facilities
Viskase Corp
Facility Location
Savannah, GA

Loudon, TN
Point Source
Category
Inorganic
Chemicals
Various
categories
Plastics
Chemical(s) in
Question
Manganese
Phosphorus
(Yellow Or White)
Carbon Bisulfide
Review Findings
Facility reported discharge of
manganese based on sampling
data from 2002 and the total plant
flow rate in 2005. However, as a
result of ceasing operation of the
sulfate process mid-year in 2005,
manganese discharges were
expected to decrease significantly.
Elemental phosphorus is not likely
to be discharged by facilities, and
is likely reported incorrectly.
Based on calls to a couple of
facilities regarding 2002 data.
Facility reported a carbon
disulfide discharge using an
anomalous data point collected in
2004. Based on information
collected from pretreatment
coordinator in 2008.
Actions Taken/Database
Correction
No changes made.
Changed phosphorus yellow and
white load to zero.
Changed the carbon disulfide
load based on monitoring data
for 2005.

-------
                                        Section 4.0 - Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
4.7   Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations References

1.     ERG. 2007a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Quality Assurance Project Plan for 2007
      Annual Screening-Level Analysis of TRI and PCS Industrial Category Discharge Data.
      Chantilly, VA. (March 19). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0208.

2.     ERG. 2007b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Toxic Weighting Factors Developed for the
      Proposed 2008 Effluent Guidelines Plan. Chantilly, VA. (September). EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771-0781.

3.     OMB. 1987. Office of Management and Budget. Standard Industrial Classification
      Manual. Washington, DC. (Unknown).

4.     U.S. EPA. 2000. EPCRA Section 313 Guidance for Reporting Toxic Chemicals Within
      the Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds Category. EPA-745-B-00-021. Washington,
      DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1150.

5.     U.S. EPA. 2005a. Draft Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA
      304(m) Planning Process. Washington, DC. June. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0857.

6.     U.S. EPA. 2005b. 2005 Annual Screening-Level Analysis: Supporting the Annual
      Review of Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Identification of
      New Point Source Categories for Effluent Limitations and Standards. EPA-821-B-05-
      003. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0901.

7.     U.S. EPA. 2006a. Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA 304(m)
      Planning Process. Washington, DC. (June). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1634.

8.     U.S. EPA. 2006b. Technical  Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines
      Program Plan. EPA-821-R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-
      0032-2782.

9.     U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent
      Guidelines Program Plan. EPA-821-R-07-007. Washington, DC. (October). EPA-HQ-
      OW-2006-0771-0819.
                                        4-17

-------
                             Part II - Results of the 2008 Annual Review
PART II: RESULTS OF THE 2008 ANNUAL REVIEW OF
 INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES WITH EXISTING ELGS

-------
                                                            Section 5.0 - 2008 Annual Review
5.0    2008 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND
       STANDARDS AND RANKING OF POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES

       For the 2008 annual review, EPA conducted the following activities:

       •       Updated the reviews from previous years (i.e., revised the 2007 annual review
              results with new or corrected data);
       •       Performed new research:  contacted industry to verify discharges, conducted
              literature searches, and collected additional data; and
       •       Solicited information from stakeholders through comment response and other
              stakeholder outreach (e.g., meetings with industry trade groups).

       This section summarizes the results from the 2008 annual review (Section 5.1), presents
the results of the 2008 screening-level review (Section 5.2), and presents the prioritization of
categories for the 2008 annual review (Section 5.3).

5.1    Summary of the Results from the 2007 Annual Review

       EPA published its 2007 annual review of existing ELGs as part of the Preliminary 2008
Plan on October 30, 2007 (72 FR  61335). In the 2007 annual review, EPA identified 12 point
source categories that represent the bulk of the estimated toxic  discharges (as measured by
TWPE) from existing industrial point source categories. EPA ranked each point source category
by the amount of toxic pollutants in its discharge (as measured by TWPE) and identified the
CWT and Steam Electric Power Generating (Steam Electric) Categories as the two categories
with the highest TWPE (accounting for more than 50 percent of the total TWPE). EPA identified
nine additional categories with potentially high TWPE discharge estimates (accounting for more
than 45 percent of existing point source category TWPE). EPA conducted a "detailed study" of
the Steam Electric Category and "preliminary category reviews" of the 11 other categories based
on the results of the 2007  screening-level review and stakeholder comments. Based on the
findings from the detailed studies  and preliminary category reviews, EPA identified four
categories for detailed study in 2008: Steam Electric (Part 423), Coal Mining (Part 434), Oil and
Gas Extraction (Part 435) (to assess whether to revise the limits to include Coal Bed Methane
extraction as a new subcategory),  and the Health Care Industry (including Hospitals (Part 460)).

       In view of the annual nature of its reviews of existing ELGs, EPA believes that each
annual review can and should influence succeeding annual reviews (e.g., by indicating data gaps,
identifying new pollutants or pollution reduction technologies,  or otherwise highlighting
industrial categories for more detailed scrutiny in subsequent years). EPA used the findings, data
and comments on the 2007 annual review to inform its 2008 annual review. The 2007 review
built on the previous reviews by continuing to use the screening methodology and incorporating
some refinements to assigning discharges to categories. EPA made similar refinements to
assigning discharges to categories for the 2008 annual review.

5.2    Results of the 2008 Screening-Level Review

       For the 2008 screening-level review, EPA used the combined results of the
TRIReleases2004  v3 and thePCSLoads2004 v4 databases and the results of the
TRIReleases2005_v2 database, discussed in Section 4.6 of this  document. When combining the

-------
                                                             Section 5.0 - 2008 Annual Review
results of the 2004 databases, EPA adjusted the rankings for the following: discharges from
industrial categories for which EPA is currently developing or revising ELGs, discharges from
point source categories for which EPA has recently promulgated or revised ELGs, and
discharges from facilities determined not to be representative of their categories. Sections 5.2.1
through 5.2.3 discuss the rationale for these decisions. EPA made the same adjustments to the
final ranking using the TRIReleases2005_v2 database. The final combined database rankings
represent the results of the 2008 screening-level review and are presented in Section 5.2.4.

5.2.1   Facilities for Which EPA Is Currently Developing or Revising ELGs

       EPA is currently considering revisions to ELGs for OCPSF (40 CFR 414) and the
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR 415) Point Source Categories for facilities that
produce CCH.6 Because the CCH rulemaking is underway, EPA excluded discharges from these
facilities from further consideration under the current planning cycle. EPA subtracted the TWPE
loads from facilities that produce chlorine or chlorinated hydrocarbons from the OCPSF and
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category loads. Because facilities that produce
chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons are only a subset of the OCPSF and Inorganic Chemicals
Manufacturing Categories, EPA included loads for all other facilities in these two categories in
its prioritization of categories for further review.

5.2.2   Categories for Which EPA Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs

       For the 2008 annual review and development of category rankings, EPA excluded point
source categories for which ELGs were recently established or revised but not yet fully
implemented, or were recently reviewed in a rulemaking context, but EPA decided to withdraw
the proposal or select the "no action" option. This seven-year period allows time for the ELGs to
be incorporated into NPDES permits. In general, EPA removed an industrial point source
category from further consideration during the current review cycle if EPA had established,
revised, or reviewed the category's effluent guidelines after August 2001 (i.e., seven years prior
to August 2008, the expected publication of the Final 2008 Plan). For the 2009 and 2010 annual
reviews EPA will exclude any categories with ELGs established or revised after August 2002
and August 2003, respectively. Table 5-1 lists these  categories.

       Removing a point source category from further consideration in the development of the
rankings does not mean that EPA eliminates the category from annual review. In cases where
EPA is aware of the growth of a new segment within such category, or where new concerns are
identified for previously unevaluated pollutants discharged by facilities in the category, EPA
would  apply closer scrutiny to the discharges from the category in deciding whether to consider
it further during the current review cycle. For example, EPA conducted the detailed study of the
coal mining industry based on comments received on the 2006 Preliminary Plan, although the
coal mining ELGs were revised in January 2002.
6 EPA is also currently revising ELGs for the following industries: Concentration Animal Feeding Operations and
Construction and Development; however, the TWPE associated with these categories is low and does not affect the
prioritization of categories based on TWPE. For more information on industries currently undergoing rulemakings,
see http://www.epa.gov/guide/industry.html.	
                                           5-2

-------
                                                             Section 5.0 - 2008 Annual Review
    Table 5-1. Point Source Categories That Have Undergone a Recent Rulemaking or
                                         Review
40CFRPart
Number
451
432
413, 433, and 438
122, 123, and 412
420
434
Point Source Category
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (or Aquaculture)
Meat and Poultry Products
Metal Products and Machinery (including Metal Finishing and
Electroplating)
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Coal Mining (Coal Remining and Western Alkaline Coal Mining)
Date of Rulemaking
August 23, 2004
September 8, 2004
May 13, 2003
February 12, 2003
October 17, 2002
January 23, 2002
EPA, 2006a).

5.2.3  Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE

       EPA identified point source categories with significant TWPE where only one facility
was responsible for most of the TWPE reported to be discharged (i.e., where one facility's
TWPE accounted for more than 95 percent of the category TWPE, but was not the only facility
reporting discharges for the category). Table 5-2 lists these categories. EPA identified seven
facilities that dominated the TWPE in the category to which they belonged. EPA investigated
these facilities to determine if their discharges were representative of the category. If they were
not, EPA subtracted the facility's TWPE from the total category TWPE and recalculated the
category's ranking. EPA performed this analysis separately for each of the three databases.

       Three facilities in the TRI2004 and TRI2005 databases accounted for more than 95
percent of the category TWPE for the categories with significant TWPE:

       •      Vopak Logistics Services USA Inc.;
       •      Clean Harbors Deer Park LP; and
       •      Dow Freeport Co., Freeport Facility.

EPA reviewed these facilities' discharges and determined that they are representative of the
respective categories and should be included in the category totals.
                                           5-3

-------
                                                                                                Section 5.0 - 2008 Annual Review
                   Table 5-2. Point Source Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE Discharges
Point Source Category
Centralized Waste Treaters
(Part 437)
Pesticide Chemicals (Part
455)
Waste Combustors
(Commercial Incinerators
Combusting Hazardous
Waste) (Part 444)
Facility with Over
95% of Category
TWPE
Vopak Logistics
Services USA Inc.
Dow Freeport Co.,
Freeport Facility
Clean Harbors Deer
ParkLP
City, State
Deer Park,
TX
Freeport,
TX
Deer Park,
TX
Data
Source
TRI 2004
TRI 2004
TRI 2004
TRI 2005
Pollutant Driving
TWPE
Diazinon
Picloram
Benzidine
Toxaphene
Facility
TWPE
7,029,354
492,108
242,547
51,859
% of Total
Category
TWPE
94.2%
94.9%
99.9%
99.3%
Action
Did not remove load
from category TWPE
Did not remove load
from category TWPE
Did not remove load
from category TWPE
Did not remove load
from category TWPE
Source: TRIReleases2004 v3; TRIReleases2005 v2.

-------
                                                             Section 5.0 - 2008 Annual Review
5.2.4  Results of the 2008 Screening-Level Review

       After adjusting the category TWPE totals and rankings as described in Sections 5.2.1
through 5.2.3, EPA consolidated the 2004 PCS and TRI rankings into one set using the following
steps:

       •     EPA combined the two lists of point source categories by adding each category's
             PCS TWPE and TRI TWPE. EPA noted that this may result in "double-counting"
             of chemicals a facility reported to both PCS  and TRI, and "single-counting" of
             chemicals reported in only one of the databases. The combined databases do not
             count chemicals that may be discharged but  are not reported to PCS or TRI.
       •     EPA then ranked the point source categories based on total PCS and TRI TWPE.

       Table 5-3 presents the combined PCS 2004 and TRI 2004 rankings. These are the final
category rankings accounting for all corrections made to the databases during the 2007 and 2008
annual reviews and removal of any categories and discharges as discussed  in Sections 5.2.1
through 5.2.3.

       Table 5-4 presents the final rankings for TRI 2005 excluding the categories for which
EPA is currently developing or revising ELGs, categories for which EPA recently promulgated
or revised ELGs, and discharges from facilities that dominate the category  TWPE, but are not
representative of the category. Four of the top five categories  by TWPE from the combined TRI
and PCS 2004 data (Table 5-3) are in the top five categories from the TRI 2005 data (Table 5-4),
with only the Fertilizer Category not represented at the top  of TRI 2005 rankings.

5.3     Prioritization of Categories for the 2008 Annual Review

       Based on its screening-level review, EPA was able to  prioritize for  further review (i.e., a
detailed study or preliminary category review) those industrial categories whose pollutant
discharges potentially pose the greatest hazards to human health or the environment because of
their toxicity (i.e., categories that collectively discharge over 95 percent of the total TWPE). EPA
also considered efficiency and implementation issues raised by stakeholders in identifying
candidates for further review. By using this multilayered screening approach, the Agency
concentrated its resources on those point source categories with the highest estimates of toxic-
weighted pollutant discharges  (based on best available data), while assigning a lower priority to
categories that the Agency believes are not good candidates for ELGs revision at this time.

       Table 5-5 lists the point source categories with existing ELGs, the level of review EPA
performed as part of the 2008 annual review, and how the category was identified for further
review, if applicable.
                                          5-5

-------
                                                                     Section 5.0 - 2008 Annual Review
Table 5-3. Final PCS 2004 and TRI 2004 Combined Point Source Category Rankings
40CFR
Part
437
423
419
414
418
430
440
455
415
421
444
410
463
422
429
436
454
458
467
439
464
471
411
424
468
469
Point Source Category
Centralized Waste Treaters
Steam Electric Power Generation
Petroleum Refining
Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers
Fertilizer Manufacturing
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Ore Mining and Dressing
Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Waste Combustors (Commercial
Incinerators Combusting Hazardous Waste)
Textile Mills
Plastic Molding and Forming
Phosphate Manufacturing
Timber Products Processing
Mineral Mining and Processing
Gum And Wood Chemicals
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Aluminum Forming
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries)
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal
Powders
Cement Manufacturing
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Copper Forming
Electrical and Electronic Components
TRI 2004 TWPE
7,460,703
791,179
669,434
957,134
10,843
668,518
88,001
518,385
122,514
52,599
242,888
3,043
72,657
1,064
63,885
5,387
6,311
48,603
3,318
10,706
19,147
10,033
898
11,327
10,573
7,693
PCS 2004
TWPE
8,731
2,410,093
818,705
490,290
1,168,160
164,787
580,831
102,256
309,022
321,299
9,087
123,392
10,766
74,218
443
49,315
46,446

27,580
13,255
4,746
11,599
17,461
6,431
3,644
4,890
Total TWPE
7,469,434
3,201,272
1,488,139
1,447,424
1,179,003
833,306
668,832
620,641
431,536
373,898
251,975
126,435
83,423
75,282
64,328
54,702
52,757
48,603
30,897
23,962
23,893
21,632
18,359
17,758
14,217
12,583
Cumulative Percent of
Total TWPE
39.9%
57.0%
64.9%
72.7%
79.0%
83.4%
87.0%
90.3%
92.6%
94.6%
95.9%
96.6%
97.1%
97.5%
97.8%
98.1%
98.4%
98.6%
98.8%
98.9%
99.1%
99.2%
99.3%
99.4%
99.4%
99.5%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-------
                                                                                                 Section 5.0 - 2008 Annual Review
                     Table 5-3. Final PCS 2004 and TRI 2004 Combined Point Source Category Rankings
40CFR
Part
409
425
445
407
461
428
406
417
426
NA
405
NA
457
443
408
435
NA
466
NA
446
465
447
460

Point Source Category
Sugar Processing
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Landfills
Fruits and Vegetable Processing
Battery Manufacturing
Rubber Manufacturing
Grain Mills Manufacturing
Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing
Glass Manufacturing
Tobacco Products
Dairy Products Processing
Printing and Publishing
Explosives
Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and
Asphalt)
Canned and Preserved Seafood
Oil and Gas Extraction
Independent and Stand Alone Labs
Porcelain Enameling
Construction and Development
Paint Formulating
Coil Coating
Ink Formulating
Hospital
Total
TRI 2004 TWPE
200
8,832
152
6,392
2,441
5,695
4,336
6,156
2,822
5,159
3,710
177
93
612
198
596
205
247
—
210
167
42
—
11,905,285
PCS 2004
TWPE
11,919
705
9,087
2,457
5,169
1,667
2,427
80
2,707
2
41
2,190
2,273
1,313
828
18
269
7
231
—
—
—
14
6,820,849
Total TWPE
12,118
9,537
9,239
8,849
7,610
7,362
6,763
6,236
5,529
5,161
3,751
2,367
2,366
1,924
1,027
613
474
254
231
210
167
42
14
18,726,133
Cumulative Percent of
Total TWPE
99.6%
99.6%
99.7%
99.7%
99.8%
99.8%
99.8%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

Rank
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; PCSLoads2004_v4.
NA — Not applicable; no existing ELGs apply to discharges.

-------
                                  Section 5.0 - 2008 Annual Review
Table 5-4. Final TRI 2005 Rankings
40CFRPart
437
423
414
430
419
415
440
444
429
458
421
455
454
463
464
471
425
439
468
424
418
503
436
NA
469
407
406
405
428
467
410
461
417
501
426
411
435
443
422
Point Source Category
Centralized Waste Treatment
Steam Electric Power Generating
Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Petroleum Refining
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
Ore Mining and Dressing
Waste Combustors
Timber Products Processing
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Pesticide Chemicals
Gum and Wood Chemicals Manufacturing
Plastics Molding and Forming
Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries)
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Copper Forming
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Fertilizer Manufacturing
Miscellaneous Foods and Beverages
Mineral Mining and Processing
Tobacco Products
Electrical and Electronic Components
Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing
Grain Mills
Dairy Products Processing
Rubber Manufacturing
Aluminum Forming
Textile Mills
Battery Manufacturing
Soap and Detergent Manufacturing
Drinking Water Treatment
Glass Manufacturing
Cement Manufacturing
Oil and Gas Extraction
Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt)
Phosphate Manufacturing
Total Pounds
Released, all
Chemicals
724,164
2,880,742
35,350,810
22,479,514
17,930,959
7,795,516
399,164
4,541
50,751
509
3,892,225
1,416,983
14,807
1,759,032
238,902
1,476,557
410,478
1,930,453
99,219
205,459
4,972,723
5,851,557
2,414,860
181,818
4,728,033
4,728,033
6,186,932
1,721,519
5,754,217
677,583
556,449
754,748
54,406
105,492
28,622
186,900
62,242
4,351
269
TWPE
4,282,304
851,876
758,964
639,419
627,618
92,146
76,673
52,251
51,469
47,095
41,771
31,417
24,746
22,294
13,814
13,058
12,240
11,849
9,728
8,353
7,307
6,670
6,262
5,836
5,766
5,766
5,139
4,877
4,344
4,305
3,256
3,037
2,578
2,155
1,987
958
802
677
515
                5-8

-------
                                                              Section 5.0 - 2008 Annual Review
                           Table 5-4. Final TRI 2005 Rankings
40CFRPart
446
465
409
408
NA
Point Source Category
Paint Formulating
Coil Coating
Sugar Processing
Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing
Printing and Publishing
Total Pounds
Released, all
Chemicals
36,345
124,571
5,333
205,929
190,618
TWPE
368
331
181
180
145
Source: TRIReleases2005_v2.
NA — Not applicable; no existing ELGs apply to discharges.


    Table 5-5. 2008 Annual Review of Categories with Existing ELGs: Level of Review
40 CFR Part
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
432
Point Source Category
Dairy Products Processing
Grain Mills Manufacturing
Fruits and Vegetable Processing
Canned and Preserved Seafood
Sugar Processing
Textile Mills
Cement Manufacturing
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
Electroplating
Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers
Inorganic Chemicals
Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing
Fertilizer Manufacturing
Petroleum Refining
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Phosphate Manufacturing
Steam Electric Power Generation
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Glass Manufacturing
Asbestos Manufacturing
Rubber Manufacturing
Timber Products Processing
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Meat and Poultry Products
Level of Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Preliminary Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Preliminary Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Detailed Study
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Preliminary Review
Screening-Level Review
Source of
Identification for
Further Review
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
TWPE
NAa
NAa
NAa
TWPE
NAa
NAa
NAa
TWPE
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
TWPE
NAa
                                           5-9

-------
                                                                      Section 5.0 - 2008 Annual Review
     Table 5-5. 2008 Annual Review of Categories with Existing ELGs: Level of Review
40CFRPart
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
442
443
444
445
446
447
451
454
455
457
458
459
460
461
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
471
Point Source Category
Metal Finishing
Coal Mining
Oil and Gas Extraction
Mineral Mining and Processing
Centralized Waste Treaters
Metal Products and Machinery
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Ore Mining and Dressing
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and
Asphalt)
Waste Combustors (Commercial Incinerators
Combusting Hazardous Waste)
Landfills
Paint Formulating
Ink Formulating
Aquatic Animal Production Industry
Gum and Wood Chemicals
Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing
Explosives
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Photographic
Hospital
Battery Manufacturing
Plastic Molding and Forming
Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries)
Coil Coating
Porcelain Enameling
Aluminum Forming
Copper Forming
Electrical and Electronic Components
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders
Level of Review
Screening-Level Review
Detailed Study
Detailed Study (of Coal Bed
Methane Operations)
Screening-Level Review
Preliminary Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Preliminary Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Preliminary Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Detailed Study (of Health
Care Industry)
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Screening-Level Review
Source of
Identification for
Further Review
NAa
Comments
Comments
NAa
TWPE
NAa
NAa
TWPE
NAa
NAa
TWPE
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
Comments
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
NAa
a — For categories with only a screening-level review, the source of identification is not applicable, as EPA
conducts a screening-level review of all categories subject to existing effluent guidelines. The "source of
identification" is only applicable for those industries selected for further review.
NA — Not available.
                                                5-10

-------
                                                             Section 5.0 - 2008 Annual Review
5.3.1   Detailed Study of Existing ELGs

       EPA performed detailed studies on four point source categories as part of its 2008 annual
review based on the results of its 2007 screening-level review. EPA continued a detailed study of
the Steam Electric Category (Part 423) because EPA data collection is not complete. Also, the
Steam Electric Category ranked second in combined TWPE rankings. EPA also identified Coal
Mining (Part 434), Oil and Gas Extraction (Part 435) (to assess whether to revise the limits to
include coalbed methane extraction as a new subcategory), and the Health Services Industry
(includes Hospitals (Part 460)) as detailed studies for the 2007 and 2008 annual reviews based on
comments on the 2006 Preliminary Plan.

       EPA did not select the CWT Category (Part 437) as a detailed study because the category
had been excluded from previous screening-level reviews due to the ELG being recently
promulgulated (December 22, 2000). EPA determined it would conduct a preliminary review of
the CWT Category before to conducting a detailed study.

       EPA's detailed studies generally examine the following: (1) wastewater characteristics
and pollutant sources; (2) the pollutants driving the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges; (3)
availability of pollution prevention and treatment; (4) the geographic distribution of facilities in
the industry; (5) any pollutant discharge trends within the industry; and (6) any relevant
economic factors. First, EPA attempts to verify the screening-level results and fill in data gaps.
Next, EPA considers costs and performance of applicable and demonstrated technology, process
change, or pollution prevention alternatives that can effectively reduce the pollutants remaining
in the industrial category's wastewater. Last, EPA considers the affordability or economic
achievability of the technology, process change, or pollution prevention measures identified
above.

       Types of data sources that EPA may consult in conducting its detailed studies include,
but are not limited to: (1) the U.S. Economic Census; (2) TRI and PCS data; (3) trade
associations and reporting facilities to verify reported releases and facility categorization; (4)
regulatory authorities (states and EPA regions) to understand how category facilities are
permitted; (5) NPDES permits and their supporting fact sheets; (6) EPA effluent guidelines
technical development documents; (7) relevant EPA preliminary data summaries or study
reports; and (8) technical literature on pollutant sources and control technologies.

       For more information about the Steam Electric Detailed Study, Coal Mining Detailed
Study, Oil and Gas Extraction Detailed Study (Coalbed Methane Industry), and Health  Services
Industry Detailed Study, see Part III of this report (U.S. EPA, 2008a; U.S. EPA, 2008b; U.S.
EPA, 2008c; U.S. EPA, 2008d).

5.3.2   Preliminary Review

       Preliminary reviews are similar to  detailed studies and have the same purpose. During
preliminary reviews, EPA generally examines the same items listed above for detailed studies.
However, EPA's preliminary review of a category and available pollution prevention and
treatment options is less rigorous than its detailed studies. While EPA collects and analyzes
hazard and technology-based information  on categories undergoing preliminary review, it
assigns a higher priority to investigating categories undergoing detailed studies.

-------
                                                            Section 5.0 - 2008 Annual Review
       For its 2008 annual review, EPA selected categories for preliminary review based on
TWPE in the 2004 PCS and TRI and 2005 TRI databases. In 2007, EPA reviewed the categories
accounting for the top 95 percent of total PCS 2004 and TRI 2004 combined TWPE, and
identified 11 point source categories for preliminary review (U.S. EPA, 2007). Of those 11 point
source categories, EPA identified six for continued preliminary review as part of the 2008 annual
review (72 FRN 61335).7 These categories account for approximately 64 percent of the
cumulative PCS 2004 and TRI 2004 combined TWPE. The six preliminary reviews identified are
listed below, along with a reference to where they are discussed in this report:

             CWT (Section 6.0);
             OCPSF(Section 7.0);
       •      Ore Mining and Dressing (Section 8.0);
       •      Petroleum Refining (Section 9.0);
       •      Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Section 10.0); and
       •      Waste Combustors (Section 11.0).

       EPA recently conducted detailed studies or preliminary reviews of many of the categories
listed above. Table 5-6 lists these categories and the level of review EPA performed for its 2003
through 2006 annual reviews. For each of these categories, because EPA's annual review builds
on previous reviews, EPA primarily looked at the pollutants reported in 2004 and 2005 and their
contribution to their category's TWPE. EPA then compared these more recent results to its
previous studies and reviews. EPA excluded CWT (40 CFR Part 437) and Waste Combusters (40
CFR Part 444) from further review in 2003 through 2006, because EPA applies less scrutiny to
industrial categories with promulgated effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards within the
past seven years (see Section 5.2.2).

   Table 5-6. Previous Reviews for Point Source  Categories Reviewed as Part of the 2008
                                    Annual Review
40 CFR
Part
423
434
435
460
419
414
430
Point Source Category
Steam Electric
Coal Mining
Oil and Gas Extraction
(Coalbed Methane)
Hospitals (Health Services)
Petroleum Refining
OCPSF
Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard
Level of Review for
2003/2004
Preliminary Category
Review
NA
NA
NA
Detailed Study
Detailed Study
Preliminary Category
Review
Level of Review for
200S/2006
Detailed Study
Preliminary Category
Review
Preliminary Category
Review
Preliminary Category
Review
Preliminary Category
Review
Preliminary Category
Review
Detailed Study
Level of Review for
2007/2008
Detailed Study
Detailed Study
Detailed Study
Detailed Study
Preliminary Category
Review
Preliminary Category
Review
Preliminary Category
Review
 EPA has identified that no further review is necessary at this time (72 FRN 61335).

-------
                                                          Section 5.0 - 2008 Annual Review
   Table 5-6. Previous Reviews for Point Source Categories Reviewed as Part of the 2008
                                   Annual Review
40CFR
Part
440
437
444
Point Source Category
Ore Mining and Dressing
Centralized Waste Treaters
Waste Combustors
Level of Review for
2003/2004
Preliminary Category
Review
NAa
NAa
Level of Review for
2005/2006
Preliminary Category
Review
NAa
NAa
Level of Review for
2007/2008
Preliminary Category
Review
Preliminary Category
Review
Preliminary Category
Review
a — Centralized Waste Treaters and Waste Combustors were not reviewed in 2003 through 2006 because the
regulations were promulgated in 2000.
NA — Not applicable.

5.4   2008 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and
      Ranking of Point Source Categories References

1.     U.S. EPA. 2006a. Guidelines: Final, Proposed, and Under Development. "Industrial
      Waters Pollution Control." Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide.

2.     U. S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program
      Plan. EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782.

3.     U. S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent
      Guidelines Program Plan. EPA-821-R-07-007. Washington, DC. (October). EPA-HQ-
      OW-2006-0771-0819.

4.     U.S. EPA. 2008a. Coal Mining Detailed Study. EPA-821-R-08-012 Washington, DC.
      (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05517.

5.     U.S. EPA. 2008b. Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Dental Amalgam. EPA-821-
      R-08-014 Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05518.

6.     U. S. EPA. 2008c. Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Management and Disposal of
      Unused Pharmaceuticals (Interim Technical Report). EPA-821-R-08-013 Washington,
      DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05519.

7.     U.S. EPA. 2008d. Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: 2007/2008
      Detailed Study Report. EPA-821-R-08-011 Washington, DC. (August).  EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771 DCN 05516.
                                        5-13

-------
                                       Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
6.0    CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT (40 CFR PART 437)

       EPA selected the Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) Category for a preliminary review
from its 2007 annual review because it ranked high, in terms of TWPE, in point source category
rankings (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4 for the most recent point source category rankings). EPA began
the preliminary review of this industry in 2007 and published the results as part of the 2008
Preliminary ELG Plan (72 FR 61335). As part of the 2008 annual review, EPA continued the
preliminary review by investigating possible pesticide discharges from the CWT Category. EPA
has determined that no further review of pesticide discharges from the CWT Category is
necessary at this time.

6.1    CWT Category Background

       This subsection provides background on the CWT Category, including a brief profile of
the CWT industry and background on 40 CFR Part 437.

6.1.1   CWT Industry Profile

       The CWT industry includes facilities that treat and/or recover hazardous or non-
hazardous industrial waste, wastewater, or used material from other manufacturing facilities.
Many of the wastes received by CWT facilities contain very high pollutant concentrations
compared to manufacturing facilities' wastes and can often be difficult to treat. EPA identified
CWT facilities by the primary SIC codes in the PCS and TRI  databases, as described in Section
4.5 of this document.  The SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems, includes CWT facilities but also
includes landfills and commercial waste combustors, whose wastewater discharges are regulated
by 40 CFR Parts 444 and 445 (the Waste Combustors and Landfills Categories, respectively).

       EPA reviewed all of the facilities reporting SIC code 4953 to identify the facilities that
are in the CWT Category rather than the Waste Combustors and Landfills Categories. Table 6-1
presents the number of facilities identified as CWTs during its review of other categories.

                    Table 6-1. Number of Facilities Identified as CWTs
2004 PCS a
4
2004 TRI b
36 c
2005 TRI b
36 c
Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — Major and minor dischargers.
b — Releases to any media.
c — These counts include two waste combustor facilities, which will be corrected in future TRI databases. EPA
contacted facilities and found that two facilities initially identified as CWT facilities are actually waste combustors.
These facilities contribute negligible TWPE (approximately 95 TWPE for 2005) and therefore, have no impact on
the overall category TWPE or rankings. These changes are further discussed in Section 11.0, "Waste Combustors".

       CWTs discharge directly to surface water as well as to POTWs. Table 6-2 presents the
types of discharges reported by facilities in the 2004 and 2005 TRI databases. The majority of
CWTs reporting to TRI reported discharging indirectly.
                                            6-1

-------
                                         Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
     Table 6-2. Centralized Waste Treatment Category Facilities by Type of Discharge
                               Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005
TRI 2004 a
Reported
Only Direct
Discharges
8
Reported
Only
Indirect
Discharges
17
Reported
Both Direct
and Indirect
Discharges
6
Reported
No Water
Discharges
5
TRI 2005 "
Reported
Only Direct
Discharges
7
Reported
Only
Indirect
Discharges
18
Reported
Both Direct
and Indirect
Discharges
5
Reported No
Water
Discharges
6
Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRlReleases2005_v2.
a — These counts include two waste combustor facilities, which will be corrected in future TRI databases. EPA
contacted facilities and found that two facilities initially identified as CWT facilities are actually waste combustors.
These facilities contribute negligible TWPE (approximately 95 TWPE for 2005) and therefore, have no impact on
the overall category TWPE or rankings. These changes are  further discussed in Section 11.0, "Waste Combustors".

6.1.2  40 CFR Part 437

       EPA first promulgated ELGs for the CWT Category (40 CFR Part 437) in 2000 (65 FR
81241), with amendments made in 2003 (68 FR 71014).  This category is divided into four
subcategories based on type of waste received, shown in Table 6-3.  The technology basis for the
final rule varies by type of waste the facility is treating:
       •       Two-stage chemical precipitation and filtration for metal-bearing wastes;
       •       Emulsion breaking, two-stage gravity separation and dissolved air flotation for
               oily wastes; and
       •       Equalization and biological treatment for organic wastes.

       To ensure that combined wastes are treated, not simply co-diluted, facilities that elect to
comply with Subpart D, Multiple Wastestreams, must certify that an equivalent treatment system
is installed and properly designed, maintained, and operated.

       Table 6-3  lists the pollutants regulated by Part 437. Pesticides are not regulated in any
subcategory, as discussed in Section 6-4 of this document.

                Table 6-3. Part 437 Subcategories  and Regulated Pollutants
  Subpart Name
               Subpart Applicability
    Regulated Pollutants
 A: Metals
 Treatment and
 Recovery
The discharge of wastewater from a CWT facility that
results from the treatment of, or recovery of metals from,
both metal-bearing wastes received from off-site and other
CWT wastewater associated with the treatment of, or
recovery of metal-bearing wastes.
Oil and Grease, pH, TSS,
Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium,
Chromium, Cobalt, Copper,
Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Silver,
Tin, Titanium, Vanadium, and
Zinc
 B: Oils Treatment
 and Recovery
The discharge of wastewater from a CWT facility that
results from the treatment or recovery of oil from both oily
wastes received from off-site and other CWT wastewater
associated with the treatment of, or recovery of oily wastes.
Oil and Grease, pH, TSS,
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium,
Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Mercury,
Tin, Zinc, Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
Phthalate, Butylbenzyl
Phthalate, Carbazole, n-Decane,
Flouranthene, and n-Octadecane
                                              6-2

-------
                                           Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
                 Table 6-3. Part 437 Subcategories and Regulated Pollutants
  Subpart Name
               Subpart Applicability
    Regulated Pollutants
 C: Organics
 Treatment and
 Recovery
The discharge of wastewater from a CWT facility that
results from the treatment of, or recovery of organic
material from both organic wastes received from off-site
and other CWT wastewater associated with the treatment
of, or recovery of organic wastes.
BODS, pH, TSS, Copper, Zinc,
Acetone, Acetophenone, 2-
Butanone, o-Cresol, p-Cresol,
Phenol, Pyridine, and 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenol
 D: Multiple
 Wastestreams
The discharges of wastewater from a CWT facility that
treats wastes subject to more than one of the previous
Subparts must comply with either provisions of this subpart
or the applicable provisions of Subpart A, B, or C. The
provisions of this subpart are applicable to that portion of
wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment
facility that results from mixing any combination of treated
or untreated waste otherwise subject to Subpart A, Subpart
B, or Subpart C of this part only if a facility requests the
permit writer or control authority to develop Subpart D
limitations (or standards) and establishes that it provides
equivalent treatment as defined in ง437.2(h).
BODS, Oil and Grease, pH,
TSS, Antimony, Arsenic,
Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt,
Copper, Cyanide, Lead,
Mercury, Nickel, Silver, Tin,
Titanium, Vanadium, and Zinc,
Acetone, Acetophenone, Bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate, 2-
Butanone, Carbazole, o-Cresol,
p-Cresol, n-Decane,
Flouranthene, n-Octadecane,
Phenol, Pyridine, and 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenol
Source: 40 CFR Part 437; Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry (U.S. EPA, 2000).

6.2     CWT Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews

        The CWT Category was excluded from previous annual reviews because the ELG had
been promulgated recently (December 22, 2000). Table 6-4 shows the screening-level results for
the CWT Category from the TRI and PCS databases composed between 2002  and 2005. Both the
2004 TRI and PCS TWPEs increased compared to previous years. However, the 2005 TRI
TWPE decreased compared to the 2004 TRI TWPE. The increase in TWPE from the 2002 and
2003 data sources to the 2004 and 2005 data sources could result from permit  modifications that
incorporate the limitations from the promulgated ELGs.

                      Table 6-4. CWT Category Screening-Level Results
Year of Review
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year of Data Source
2002
2003
2004
2005
Centralized Waste Treatment Category a
TRI TWPE b
38,123
65,250
7,460,703
4,282,304
PCS TWPE
3,423
NA
8,731
NA
Source: PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2; PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3;
TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — Direct and indirect water releases only.
b — This table includes the TWPE from two waste combustor facilities, which will be corrected in future databases.
EPA contacted facilities and found that two facilities initially identified as CWT facilities are actually waste
combustors. These facilities contribute negligible TWPE and therefore, have no impact on the overall category
TWPE or rankings. These changes are further discussed in Section 11.0, Waste Combustors.
NA — Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate PCS data for 2003 and 2005.
                                               6-3

-------
                                      Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
6.3    CWT Category 2004 through 2008 Pollutants of Concern

       Table 6-5 shows the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2004_v3,
TRIReleases2005  v2, and PCSLoads2004_v3 for the CWT Category. Because EPA did not
conduct preliminary reviews of the CWT Category in 2005 and 2006, EPA did not identify the
pollutants with the highest TWPE from the 2002 and 2003 TRI databases or the 2002 PCS
database.

       The CWT Category TWPE in 2004 PCS are significantly lower than the TRI 2004 or
2005 TWPE.  Therefore, EPA focused the additional review on the TRI-reported pollutants that
account for the majority of the category TWPE.

       Pesticides, including diazinon, malathion, and heptachlor,  are the top TRI-reported
pollutants in 2004 and 2005, contributing more than 92 percent of the total category TWPE for
both 2004 and 2005. Poly cyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) in TRI are the pollutant with the
third highest TWPE in TRI 2004 and TRI 2005. EPA's additional review for the pollutants of
concern is presented in the following sections:

       •     Section 6.4: Pesticides from TRI; and
       •     Section 6.5: PACs from TRI.

6.4    CWT Category Pesticide Discharges

       EPA reviewed discharges of pesticides from CWTs because they ranked high, in terms of
TWPE, in the PCS and TRI databases. For the 2008 preliminary review, EPA contacted facilities
and collected additional discharge data to determine the following:

       1.     That pesticide discharges were based on actual  discharges, not estimated based on
             concentrations of pesticides below analytical minimum levels.
       2.     Whether CWTs had an increased receipt of pesticide waste as a result of
             regulation of wastewater from the pesticides formulating, packaging, and
             repackaging (PFPR) industry (U.S. EPA, 1996).
       3.     Pesticide treatment effectiveness, using data from EPA's Pesticides Chemicals
             ELG rulemaking (U.S. EPA,  1996). Table 6-10 at the end of this section
             summarizes EPA's treatment efficiency data from the Pesticides Formulators,
             Packagers, and Re-packagers (PFPR) rulemaking.
                                          6-4

-------
                                                                                   Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
                                    Table 6-5. 2008 Review: CWT Category Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant
Zinc
Sulfide
Cadmium
Barium
Arsenic
Diazinon
Malathion
PACs
Heptachlor
Chlordane
Acrylonitrile
CWT Category Total
PCS 2004 a
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
3
2
1
2
2
Total Pounds
103,596
912
21
155,451
44
TWPE
4,857
2,555
493
309
176
Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2004
reported pollutants.
4C
10,465,007,382
8,730
TRI2004b'd
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
Total Pounds
TWPE
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2004
reported pollutants.
1
1
1
1
1
10,282
10,283
2,600
9
35
6,398,170
575,931
261,716
76,767
69,763
Pollutant is not in the top five TRI 2004
reported pollutants
5C
18,835,213
7,460,703
TRI 2005 b
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
Total
Pounds
TWPE
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2005 reported pollutants.
1
1
1
1
5,841
5,840
2,400
2.4
3,634,709
327,077
241,584
20,471
Pollutant is not in the top five TRI 2005
reported pollutants
1
5C
16,289
724,164
37,126
4,282,304
Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — Discharges include only major dischargers.
b — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.
c — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.
d — This table includes the TWPE from two waste combustor facilities, which will be corrected in future databases. EPA contacted facilities and found that two
facilities initially identified as CWT facilities are actually waste combustors. These facilities contribute negligible TWPE and therefore, have no impact on the
overall category TWPE or rankings. These changes are further discussed in Section 11.0, "Waste Combustors".
PACs — Polycyclic aromatic compounds.

-------
                                      Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
       40 CFR Part 437 does not include limitations or standards for pesticides. At the time of
the rulemaking, EPA collected samples at two CWT facilities and analyzed the samples for the
entire spectrum of chemical compounds for which EPA had approved analytical methods. This
included pesticides and herbicides. EPA found that pesticides/herbicides were only found in low
concentrations (U.S. EPA, 1994). However, EPA did not analyze the samples for diazinon or
malathion — the two pesticides with the highest TWPE in the 2004 and 2005 TRI databases for
the CWT Category. As of December 31, 2004, it is unlawful to sell outdoor, non-agricultural
diazinon products in the United States. It is, however, legal for consumers to use diazinon
products, provided they follow all label directions and precautions (U.S. EPA, 2007). Because
some CWT facilities are permitted to accept hazardous waste, CWT facilities may receive waste
diazinon for some time even though it is no longer sold in the United States.

       Discharges of pesticide chemicals in the TRI 2004 and 2005 databases account for the
majority of the total category's TWPE. EPA examined discharges of pesticides from CWTs for
the preliminary review of this category. EPA contacted five facilities about their pesticide
discharges reported to TRI in 2004 and 2005, presented in Table 6-6. EPA identified two
facilities for additional review of their TRI-reported pesticide discharges because they account
for all of the CWT Category pesticide TWPE:

       •      Vopak Logistics Services — Deer Park, TX (Section 6.4.1); and
       •      DuPont Chambers Works — Deepwater, NJ (Section 6.4.2).

       Table 6-6 summarizes findings from EPA's contacts to CWTs regarding pesticides
reports to  TRI. EPA found that only one CWT facility, DuPont Chambers Works, detected
pesticides in water discharges from CWT operations.

       EPA found that CWTs report pesticide releases to TRI based on waste characterization
reports provided by their clients rather than wastewater monitoring data. Waste characterization
reports include a list of all possible contaminants in a delivered waste  stream with an estimated
concentration range for each contaminant. Some CWTs require testing of a fraction of influent
wastes (e.g., 10 percent of all influent wastewater) to verify the accuracy of waste
characterization reports.

       CWTs use either the midpoint or the maximum concentration of each constituent in their
waste characterization reports to estimate what is being treated at the facility. The facility may
calculate a pollutant loading which is then reduced by a removal efficiency or destruction
efficiency to account for the pollutants removed during treatment. Although this method of
estimation is appropriate for TRI reporting, it does not accurately reflect wastewater discharges.
Of the facilities contacted, four facilities had tested for pesticides in their wastewater. Only one
of these facilities reported detecting pesticides during sampling.
                                           6-6

-------
                                                                                  Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
                                       Table 6-6. Summary of CWT Pesticide Facility Contacts
Facility Name
Vopak Logistics
Services USA Inc.
LNVA— North
Regional Treatment
Plant
Dupont Chambers
Works
CWM Chemical
Services LLC
Clean Harbors
Baton Rouge LLC
City
Deer Park, TX
Beaumont, TX
Deepwater, NJ
Model City, NY
Baton Rouge, LA
Facility TWPE
from TMI 2005
4,000,309
245,555
26,129
9,193
Oa
Facility Receives
Pesticides?
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Facility Detected
Pesticides?
No
No
No
No
No
Comments
Vopak reports releases of a variety of pesticides, including
diazinon (3,634,700 TWPE). Facility contact believes that
diazinon and malathion were incorrectly reported on Form
Rs for 2004 and 2005. Contact believes these wastes went
to the injection facility, but their manifests were labeled
improperly. Form 2c of the NPDES Permit Application
(submitted by facility) indicates that the facility did not
sample for pesticides. Facility stopped receiving outside
waste shipments in June 2006 (Krejci, 2008b).
Facility does not receive pesticides from any of its clients.
Facility estimates pesticide discharges based on quarterly
SARA sampling data, which is non-detect for all PACs
according to EPA Test Method SW846 8270C (Krejci,
2008a).
Facility submitted eight or nine Form R's for pesticides for
2001 to 2004 and submitted 14 in 2005. Facility detected
both endrin and heptachlor once from 2004 to 2007 (Krejci,
2008c).
Facility reported one pesticide to TRI which was sent to the
on-site landfill. The facility has tested landfill leachate in
the past and has not detected the chemical of concern. No
other pesticides have been received at the facility (Krejci,
2008e).
The facility does comprehensive pesticides sampling every
six months and has never detected any pesticide above the
detection limit. The facility does not currently receive any
known pesticides (Krejci, 2008d).
Source: TRIReleases2005_v2; E-mail communication with Jesse Eastep, LNVA - North Regional Treatment Plant, Beaumont, TX (Krejci, 2008a); Notes from
telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Rino Wong and Tony Vundick, Vopak Logistics Services, Deer Park, TX
(Krejci, 2008b); E-mail communication with Scott Northey, DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ (Krejci, 2008c); Notes from telephone conversation
between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Bill Clark, Clean Harbors, Baton Rouge, LA (Krejci, 2008d); Notes from telephone conversation
between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Jill Banaszak, CWM Chemical Services, Model City, NY (Krejci, 2008e).
a — Facility reports zero pounds released or transferred to surface water in the TRI.

-------
                                      Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
6.4.1   Pesticide Discharges for Vopak Logistics Services — Deer Park, TX

       The pesticide discharges from Vopak Logistics Services (Vopak) in Deer Park, TX,
contribute approximately 6,970,000 TWPE to TRI 2004 and 6,980,000 TWPE to TRI 2005.
Table 6-7 shows pesticide discharges reported to TRI from Vopak for 2002 through 2005.

      Table 6-7. Pesticide Discharges from Vopak Logistics Services Reported to TRI
Pollutant
Diazinon
Malathion
Total
2004
Total Pounds
10,281.9
10,283.3
TWPE
6,398,170
575,931
6,970,000
200S
Total Pounds
5,841
5,840
TWPE
3,634,708
327,078
3,960,000
Source: TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3.

       Based on information provided by the facility, EPA believes that Vopak is not
discharging pesticides to surface water. EPA contacted Vopak as part of the 2007 and 2008
annual reviews to verify the company's estimation methodology for TRI and inquire about
pesticides sampling data (MacQueen, 2007; Krejci, 2008b). EPA will correct future versions of
its TRIReleases databases to reflect the findings that the Vopak facility is not discharging
pesticides to surface water.

       Vopak estimates pesticide discharges for TRI based on client-provided waste
characterization reports and removal efficiency estimates for its wastewater treatment system,
following TRI guidelines. Vopak has not analyzed for pesticides in its wastewater. In June 2006,
Vopak stopped receiving commercial waste shipments and currently only treats wastes from the
co-located Vopak Terminal facility. The Vopak Terminal facility is a storage warehouse for bulk
chemical products and generates wash down water that the CWT treats. Because Vopak stopped
receiving outside waste shipments at the CWT facility, the facility no longer receives pesticides.
Vopak expects that they will likely not report pesticide releases to  TRI in the future (Krejci,
2008b).

       Furthermore, Vopak identified a possible error in how pesticide releases were reported.
Vopak disposes of wastewater either by injection into a deep well or through a biological
wastewater treatment train that discharges to surface water. After EPA contacts, the facility
examined its estimates and found that pesticide wastes were likely sent to the deep well injection
facility, not discharged to surface water. The facility concluded that pesticide discharges were
mistakenly reported as surface water releases instead of deep well  injections in TRI since 2004
(Krejci, 2008b).

6.4.2   Pesticides Discharges for DuPont Chambers Works — Deepwater, NJ

       The pesticide discharges from the DuPont Chambers Works facility, in Deepwater, NJ,
contribute approximately 918,320  TWPE (2004) and 26,160 TWPE8 (2005) in the TRI
 EPA changed reported hexachlorobenzene discharges from 80,923 to 0 TWPE based on non-detect results from
sampling episode.	
                                           6-8

-------
                                      Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
databases. Table 6-8 shows pesticide discharges reported to TRI from the DuPont Chambers
Works facility for 2002 through 2005.

     Table 6-8. Pesticide Discharges from DuPont Chambers Works Reported to TRI
Pollutant
Atrazine
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
2002
Total
Pounds
NA
13
1
25
Total
TWPE
NA
20,300
4,090
18,100
42,500
2003
Total
Pounds
2,709
14
4
25

TWPE
2,820
27,900
34,100
48,700
114,000
2004
Total
Pounds
4,340
35
9
39

TWPE
4,520
69,800
76,800
76,000
227,000
2005
Total
Pounds
3,521
1
2.4
Oa

TWPE
3,670
1,990
20,500
0
26,100
Source: TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — EPA changed value based on non-detect results from sampling episode.
NA — Not applicable.

       EPA contacted DuPont Chambers Works as part of the 2005 annual review regarding
chlordane, heptachlor, and pendimethalin discharges (Johnston, 2005), and as part of the 2008
annual review regarding hexachlorobenzene discharges (Krejci, 2008c). Discharges of pesticide
chemicals in the TRI 2004 and 2005 databases account for the majority of the total CWT
Category's  TWPE. DuPont Chambers Works indicated that the pesticide discharges result from
the treatment of wastewater from outside facilities at the DuPont Chambers Works wastewater
treatment plant (Johnston, 2005). This contact prompted EPA to reclassify the pesticide
discharges from the facility as regulated by the CWT ELGs.

       DuPont Chambers Works estimates pesticide discharges for TRI based on the maximum
concentration in client-provided waste characterization reports and its estimated treatment
removals. The facility has analyzed untreated and treated wastewater for pesticides in the
following events (Krejci, 2008c):

       •     In 2006, DuPont Chambers Works analyzed the untreated wastewater from three
             delivery trucks. Hexachlorobenzene was not detected in these samples.
       •     In 2005, the facility analyzed wastewater at an internal monitoring point prior to
             tertiary treatment system. Hexachlorobenzene was not detected.

       For  the 2005 TRI, the facility reported 18 pounds of hexachlorobenzene based on the
client-provided waste characterization reports (Krejci, 2008c). Because the only sampling  event
for hexachlorobenzene in 2005 returned a non-detect result, EPA corrected the
TRIReleases2005 v02 database, denoting the hexachlorobenzene release as zero pounds per
year.

       Based on information provided by the facility, EPA believes that DuPont Chambers
Works is overestimating the pesticide releases it reported to TRI. In calculating these releases,
DuPont Chambers Works assumes that pesticides are present in its influent at the maximum
possible concentration,  and that some fraction of the pesticide waste is discharged (based on
destruction  efficiencies). According to DMR data for reporting years 2004 to 2007 (available
through the New Jersey Department of Environmental  Protection [NJ DEP] Web-site), the

-------
                                       Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
facility has detected both endrin and heptachlor in its wastewater at least once (NJDMR, 2008).
The facility had not detected any of the other pesticides it reports to TRI (chlordane,
pendamethalin, and hexachlorobenzene) from 2004 through 2007.  Table 6-9 shows EPA's
estimates of annual loads based on sampling data from DMRs that DuPont Chambers Works
submitted to NJ DEP. Based on the annual loads calculated using the sampling data, EPA
estimates discharges of zero TWPE for chlordane and hexachlorobenzene and 508 TWPE for
heptachlor. For future versions of the TRIReleases databases, EPA will consider these data and
may make additional database changes to accurately reflect the DuPont Chambers Works
discharges.

   Table 6-9. Estimates of Pesticide Discharges from DuPont Chambers Works Based on
                                      Sampling Data
Pollutant
Atrazine ฐ
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Total
Pounds
Reported
to TRI
3,521
1
2.4
0
TWPE
3,670
1,990
20,500
0
Cone. Range in
Residual Sludge
(mg/kg)
NR
O.00035 — <1.6
<.000010 — 0.159
O.38 — O.84
Annual Load (Ib/yr) a
Assuming
Cone. BDL
IsO
NA
0.000
0.046
0.000
Assuming
Cone. BDL
Is yz DL
NA
0.332
0.060
0.038
Assuming
Cone. BDL
IsDL
NA
0.665
0.073
0.762
Revised
TWPEb
3,670
0
508
0
Source: TRIReleases2005_v2; Discharge Monitoring Report Data for DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ
downloaded from the NJ DMR data system (NJDMR, 2008).
a — EPA used the quarterly pesticide residual sludge load (mg/kg) and the total suspended solids load (kg/day) to
determine the annual pesticide load.
b — Revised TWPE uses EPA's methodology. When all the concentrations are reported below the detection limit
the annual pounds are zero. When one or more concentrations are above the detection limit the annual pounds
assume the concentration is half the detection limit for the non-detect concentrations.
c — EPA has not estimated the revised TWPE for atrazine due to a lack of sampling data.
BDL — Below detection limit.
Cone. — Concentration.
DL — Detection limit.
NR — Not reported.

6.5    CWT Category Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Discharges

       After pesticide chemicals, PACs are the largest contributor to the TWPE discharges from
TRI 2004 and 2005 for the CWT Category.  The PAC discharges are reported by one facility,
LNVA North Regional Treatment Plant (LNVA) in Beaumont, TX. Table 6-10 shows PAC
discharges reported to TRI from LNVA for 2004 through 2005. No PAC discharges were
reported from this facility prior to 2004.


  Table 6-10. PAC Discharges from LNVA North Regional Treatment Plant Reported to
                                           TRI
Pollutants
PACs
2004
Total Pounds
2,600
TWPE
261,176
2005
Total Pounds
2,400
TWPE
241,584
Source: TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3.
                                           6-10

-------
                                      Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
       EPA contacted LNVA in 2005 regarding the facility's PAC discharges. LNVA treats
industrial waste from the ExxonMobil refinery and chemical plant, PD Glycol, Peak Sulfur, and
Elf Atochem. The facility stated that it had never detected any PACs above detection limits in its
wastewater and that it currently uses half the detection limit multiplied by total plant flow for
TRI reporting (Wolford, 2005). EPA contacted LNVA again in 2008; the facility reported that it
had still not detected any PACs in its effluent above the method detection limit for EPA Method
SW846 8270C (Krejci, 2008). In future versions of the TRI database, EPA will correct the
discharges of PACs from this facility to denote zero pounds per year.

6.6    CWT Category Conclusions

       During the 2008 Annual Review, EPA used information gathered from TRI and PCS
databases and facility contacts to conclude that no further review of discharges from CWTs is
necessary at this time. The conclusions of the CWT Category review are as follows:

       •       TRI-reported discharges of pesticides account for the majority of the CWT
              Category's TWPE. EPA determined that pesticide releases from the CWT
              facilities contributing significant portions of the category TWPE (Vopak and
              DuPont Chambers Works)  are estimated using waste characterization reports from
              clients and treatment efficiencies, rather than actual sampling data.
       •       Only one CWT facility that EPA contacted detected pesticides in its discharges:
              DuPont Chambers Works, which detected endrin and heptachlor at least once in
              its effluent between 2004 and 2007. Based on the information collected from
              DuPont Chambers Works, the amount of pesticides discharged to surface water is
              less than the amounts reported to TRI. Instead of the 26,129  TWPE9 for TRI
              2005, EPA believes the actual pesticide discharges from DuPont Chambers
              Works were approximately 4,178 TWPE.
       •       TRI-reported discharges of PACs are the third highest ranking pollutant in terms
              of TWPE in the TRI 2004 and 2005 databases, which all result from reports by
              one CWT facility, LNVA. LNVA estimates PAC discharges based on half the
              detection limit multiplied by the flow. The facility has never detected PACs in its
              discharges above the detection limit. In future versions of the TRIReleases
              databases, EPA will correct the TRI databases, denoting the  discharge as zero
              pounds per year.
       •       EPA prioritizes point  source categories with existing regulations for potential
              revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the
              environment, measured as toxic-weighted equivalents (or TWPE). Based on the
              above conclusions, EPA is  assigning this category a lower priority for revision
              (i.e., this category is marked with "(3)" in the "Findings" column in Table V-l in
              the accompanying Federal Register notice that presents the 2008 annual review of
              effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards).
9 EPA changed reported DuPont Chambers Works hexachlorobenzene discharges from 80,923 to 0 TWPE based on
non-detect results from sampling episode in TRIReleases2005. This TWPE includes the revisions to the
hexachlorobenzene.	
                                          6-11

-------
                                     Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
6.7    CWT Category References

1.      Johnston, Carey. 2005. U.S. EPA. E-mail communication with Ken Wood, DuPont.
       "Chambers Works Pesticides Discharges TRI in 2002." EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN
       05976.

2.      Krejci, Christopher. 2008a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. E-mail communication with
       Jesse Eastep, LNVA — North Regional Treatment Plant, Beaumont, TX. "PACs
       Discharges from LNVA." (April 1). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05949.

3.      Krejci, Christopher. 2008b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone
       conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Rino Wong
       and Tony Vundick, Vopak Logistics Services, Deer Park, TX. "Pesticides Receipt and
       Possible Discharge from Vopak Logistics." (March 31). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN
       05952.

4.      Krejci, Christopher. 2008c. Eastern Research Group, Inc. E-mail communication with
       Scott Northey, DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ. "Pesticides Receipt and
       Possible Discharge from DuPont Chambers Works." (April 1). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
       DCN 05950.

5.      Krejci, Christopher. 2008d. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone
       conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Bill Clark,
       Clean Harbors, Baton Rouge,  LA. "Pesticides Receipt and Possible Discharge from Clean
       Harbors Baton Rouge." (March 24). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05953.

6.      Krejci, Christopher. 2008e. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone
       conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Jill
       Banaszak, CWM Chemical Services, Model City, NY. "Pesticides Receipt and Possible
       Discharge from CWM Chemical Services." (March 21). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN
       05948.

7.      MacQueen, Casey. 2007. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone
       conversation between Casey MacQueen, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Rino Wong,
       Vopak Logistics Services. "Vopak estimation methods used to report direct discharges to
       Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in 2004." (January  11). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0442.

8.      NJDMR. New Jersey Discharge Monitoring Report. 2008. Discharge Monitoring Report
       Data for DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ downloaded from the NJ DMR data
       system. Available online at: http://datamine2.state.nj.us/dep/DEP_OPRA/index2.html.
       Date accessed: April 14, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05970.

9.      U.S. EPA. 1996. Technical Development Document for the Pesticides Formulating,
       Packaging, and Re-packaging Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
       and New Source Performance Standards. EPA-821-R-96-019. Washington, DC.
       (September 30).
                                        6-12

-------
                                     Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
10.    U. S. EPA. 2000. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
      Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. EPA-821-R-00-020.
      Washington, DC. (December). Available online at: http://epa.gov/guide/cwt/
      fmal/develop/index.html. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2223.

11.    U.S. EPA. 2007. Diazinon: Phase Out of all Residential Uses of the Insecticide.
      Washington, DC. (July 24). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
      factsheets/chemicals/diazinon-factsheet.htm. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05977.

12.    U.S. EPA. 1994. Draft Pesticides Formulators, Packagers, andRepackagers Treatability
      Database Report. EPA-821-R-93-016. (April). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05978.

13.    Wolford, Jessica. 2005. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes  from telephone conversation
      between Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and  Jesse Eastep, LNVA —
      North Regional Treatment Plant, Beaumont, TX. "LNVA PACs Discharges in TRI
      2003." EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1115.
                                         6-13

-------
                                Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
Table 6-11. Pesticides Treatability Data
Pesticide
Atrazine
Chlordane
Diazinon
Heptachlor
Haxachlorobenzene a
Structural Group
S-Triazine
Tricyclic
Phosphorothioate
Tricyclic
Lindane
Pesticide
Mf r BAT
Technology
HD, BO
NM86
AC
RA
AC
Hydrolysis
Half-Life
(Min.) or %
Rem.
65.5% (b,d)
4800 (b)
17,700 (b)
2760 (b)
731

>5,000,000
(b)



5
706 (b)
706 (b)


1400 (b)



300,000 (b)



Source
EPA Sampling
Other
Other
EPA Bench
Study
Extrapolated

Other



EPA Bench
Study
Other
EPA Bench
Study


Other



Other



Carbon
Saturation
Loading (g/g)
or % Rem.
86.2% (d)
0.2159 (e)
0.04 (c)
99.99% (d)
0.168(d)
0.014, 0.13 (g)
99.9% (c)
>99.5%
0.25,0.38 (g)
0.065
95.2% (d)
93. 2% (d)
0. 14,0.49 (g)
0.147(c)
84.8% (d)
1.22, 0.95 (g)
0.014
>70%
>99.5%
0.26,0.49 (g)
>99.5% (f)
>99%
0.0195 (c)
Source
Other
Other
EPA Bench Study
EPA Sampling
EPA Bench Study
EPA Bench Study
Other
Other
Other
Other
EPA Sampling
EPA Sampling
EPA Bench Study
EPA Bench Study
EPA Sampling
Other
Other
EPA Bench Study
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Chemical
Oxidation
% Rem.
14.80%














65%







Source
EPA Sampling














EPA Bench
Study








-------
                                                                                     Section 6.0 - Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)
                                                  Table 6-11. Pesticides Treatability Data
Pesticide

Malathion
Toxaphene
Structural Group

Phosphorodithioate
Bicyclic
Pesticide
Mf r BAT
Technology

HD
AC
Hydrolysis
Half-Life
(Min.) or %
Rem.


60 (b)
<30



5,000,000 (b)

Source


EPA Bench
Study
EPA Bench
Study



Other

Carbon
Saturation
Loading (g/g)
or % Rem.
0.257
0.025
>98.8% (f)
>98.3% (d)
99.90%
0.26, 0.22 (g)
87.5% (f)
0.0034,0.399 (g)
0.042
Source
Other
Other
Graph
EPA Sampling
Other
EPA Bench Study
Other
90th
Other
Chemical
Oxidation
% Rem.









Source









Source: Draft Pesticides Formulators, Packagers, and Repackagers Treatability Database Report (U.S. EPA, 1994).
a — Transferred from Lindane based on experimental data.
b — Hydrolysis conditions other than pH 12 and 60ฐC
c — Data include multiple runs at varying design and operating conditions; value given is for best treatability performance
d — Data include multiple runs at similar design and operating conditions; average performance value is given.
e — Value given is for total chlorotriazine pesticides. Data for individual pesticides are not available.
f— Multiple data points from the document listed in table for the same PAI because document provided data from different sources.
g — Values given are Freundlich isotherm parameters K in grams PAI per gram carbon and 1/n (unitless).
NM86 — Not produced in United States in 1986.
RA — Rain adsorption.
AC — Activated carbon.
HD — Hydrolysis.
BO — Biological oxidation.

-------
                                      Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
7.0    ORGANIC CHEMICALS PLASTICS AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS (40 CFR PART 414)

       EPA selected the OCPSF Category (40 CFR Part 414) for preliminary review because it
continues to rank high, in terms  of TWPE, in point source category rankings (see Tables 5-3 and
5-4 for the point source category rankings). EPA previously performed a detailed study of this
industry, published as  part of the 2004 Final ELG Plan (69 FR 53705). EPA has also reviewed
discharges from OCPSF facilities as part of its annual reviews since 2004. Each year, including
this year of review, EPA has concluded that wastewater from OCPSF facilities does not warrant
a more detailed review at this time.

       EPA is currently reviewing discharges from the Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Manufacturing
Segment of the OCPSF Category as part of the CCH effluent guidelines rulemaking. Because a
rulemaking for this segment of the OCPSF Category is underway, EPA excluded discharges
from these facilities from further consideration in this review (see Table V-l, 70 FR 61335,
October 30, 2007).

7.1    OCPSF Category Background

       This subsection provides background on the OCPSF Category, including a brief profile of
the OCPSF industry and background on 40 CFR Part 414.

7.1.1   OCPSF Industry Profile

       The OCPSF Category includes many chemical industries producing a wide variety of end
products, such as polypropylene, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), chlorinated
solvents, rubber precursors, styrofoam additives, and polyester. Some OCPSF facilities are
extremely complex and produce hundreds of chemicals, while others are simpler, producing one
or two end products. Facilities in the following five SIC codes could perform operations covered
by the OCPSF ELGs:

       •      2821: Plastic Materials, Synthetic Resins, and Nonvulcanizable Elastomers;
       •      2823: Cellulosic  and Other Man-Made Fibers;
       •      2824: Synthetic Organic Fibers, Except Cellulose;
       •      2865: Cyclic Crudes and Intermediates, and Organic Dyes and Pigments; and
       •      2869: Industrial Organic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC).

In addition, EPA is considering  including operations from five other SIC codes as potential new
subcategories of the OCPSF Category.
10
       Table 7-1 presents the number of facilities in the five SIC codes that compose the OCPSF
industry. Because the U.S. Economic Census reports data by NAICS code, and TRI and PCS
10 EPA reviews industries with SIC codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes,
operations, wastewaters, and pollutants of facilities in the SIC codes 2842, 2844, 2891, 2899, and 5169 (listed in
Table 7-1) are similar to those of the OCPSF Category (U.S. EPA, 2004). The tables in this section include
discharge information from the potential new subcategories; however, these facilities contribute negligible amounts
of TWPE. Consistent with the conclusions drawn during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004) and 2006 review
(U.S. EPA, 2006), EPA found that large numbers of these facilities discharge no wastewater and only a small
number of facilities discharge TWPE greater than zero.	
                                           7-1

-------
                                       Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
report data by SIC code, EPA reclassified the 2002 U.S. Economic Census by the equivalent SIC
code.

       OCPSF facilities discharge directly to surface water as well as to POTWs. Table 7-2
presents the types of discharges reported by facilities in the 2004 and 2005 TRI databases. The
majority of facilities reporting to TRI reported no water discharges, but facilities  may be
discharging pollutants in wastewater at levels below the TRI-reporting thresholds.

                   Table 7-1. Number of Facilities in OCPSF SIC Codes
SIC
2821: Plastic Materials, Synthetic Resins, and
Nonvulcanizable Elastomers
2823: Cellulosic and Other Man-Made Fibers
2824: Synthetic Organic Fibers, Except Cellulosic
2865: Cyclic Crudes and Intermediates, and Organic
Dyes and Pigments
2869: Industrial Organic Chemicals, NEC
OCPSF Category Total c
2002 U.S.
Economic
Census
688
8
94
217
3,215
4,222
2004 PCS a
144
3
10
36
219
412
2004 TRI b
383
4
38
87
471
983
2005 TRI b
380
5
35
84
476
980
Potential New Subcategories
2842: Specialty Cleaning, Polishing, and Sanitation
Preparations
2844: Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet
Preparations
2891: Adhesives and Sealants
2899: Chemicals and Chemical Preparations, NEC
5169: Chemicals and Allied Products
Potential New Subcategories Total
604
1,586
585
3,582
54,314
60,671
0
11
14
56
0
81
137
39
174
329
444
1,123
455
138
38
173
327
1,131
Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002);PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3;
TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — Major and minor dischargers.
b — Releases to any media.
c — Excludes the potential new Subcategories.
NEC — Not elsewhere classified.
                                            7-2

-------
                                                                            Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
                  Table 7-2. OCPSF Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005
SIC Code
2821: Plastic Materials, Synthetic
Resins, and Nonvulcanizable Elastomers
2823: Cellulosic and Other Man-Made
Fibers
2824: Synthetic Organic Fibers, Except
Cellulosic
2865: Cyclic Crudes and Intermediates,
and Organic Dyes and Pigments
2869: Industrial Organic Chemicals,
NEC
OCPSF Category Total a
TRI 2004
Reported
Only Direct
Discharges
62
2
9
19
106
198
Reported
Only
Indirect
Discharges
92
0
14
28
128
262
Reported
Both Direct
and Indirect
Discharges
18
1
2
4
26
51
Reported
No Water
Discharges
211
1
13
36
211
472
TRI 2005
Reported
Only Direct
Discharges
65
o
6
i
18
106
199
Reported
Only
Indirect
Discharges
92
0
12
28
118
250
Reported
Both Direct
and Indirect
Discharges
16
1
4
5
28
54
Reported
No Water
Discharges
207
1
12
33
224
477
Potential New Subcategories
2842: Specialty Cleaning, Polishing, and
Sanitation Preparations
2844: Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other
Toilet Preparations
2891: Adhesives and Sealants
2899: Chemicals and Chemical
Preparations, NEC
5169: Chemicals and Allied Products
Potential New Subcategories Total
1
0
o
6
14
8
26
38
23
22
88
36
207
0
0
1
8
1
10
98
16
148
219
399
880
9
1
0
4
15
29
34
39
20
24
83
200
1
0
0
0
9
10
411
98
18
145
220
892
Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRlReleases2005_v2.
a — Excludes the potential new Subcategories.
NEC — Not elsewhere classified.

-------
                                      Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
7.1.2  40 CFR Part 414

       EPA first promulgated ELGs for the OCPSF Category (40 CFR Part 414) on
November 5, 1987 (52 FR 42568). This category consists of eight subcategories that apply to the
manufacture of products and product groups, as shown in Table 7-3 with the corresponding SIC
codes and applicability. Subparts B through H have limitations for BODs, TSS, and pH. The
regulation also includes limitations and/or pretreatment standards for certain toxic pollutants in
three additional subparts:

       •      Subpart I — Direct Discharge Point Sources That Use End-of-Pipe Biological
              Treatment;
       •      Subpart J — Direct Discharge Point Sources That Do Not Use End-of-Pipe
              Biological Treatment; and
       •      Subpart K — Indirect Discharge Point Sources.

             Table 7-3. Applicability of Subcategories in the OCPSF Category
Subpart
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Subpart Name
Rayon Fibers
Other Fibers
Thermoplastic
Resins
Thermosetting
Resins
Commodity
Organic
Chemicals
Bulk Organic
Chemicals
Specialty
Organic
Chemicals
Applicable SIC Code(s)
2823: Cellulosic Manmade
Fibers
2823: Cellulosic Manmade
Fibers 2824: Synthetic Organic
Fibers, Except Cellulosic
28213: Thermoplastic Resins
28214: Thermosetting Resins
2865: Cyclic Crudes and
Intermediates, Dyes and
Organic Pigments 2869:
Industrial Organic Chemicals,
NEC
2865: Cyclic Crudes and
Intermediates, Dyes and
Organic Pigments 2869:
Industrial Organic Chemicals,
NEC
2865: Cyclic Crudes and
Intermediates, Dyes and
Organic Pigments 2869:
Industrial Organic Chemicals,
NEC
Subpart Applicability
Cellulosic manmade fiber (Rayon) manufactured
by the Viscose process.
All other synthetic fibers (except Rayon)
including, but not limited to, products listed in
Section 414.30.
Any plastic product classified as a thermoplastic
resin including, but not limited to, products listed
in Section 4 14.40.
Any plastic product classified as a thermosetting
resin including, but not limited to, products listed
in Section 4 14. 50.
Commodity organic chemicals and commodity
organic chemical groups including, but not limited
to, products listed in Section 414.60.
Bulk organic chemicals and bulk organic chemical
groups including, but not limited to, products
listed in Section 414.70.
All other organic chemicals and organic chemical
groups including, but not limited to, products
listed in the OCPSF Development Document (Vol.
II, Appendix II-A, Table VII).
Source: Product and Product Group Discharges Subject to Effluent Limitations and Standards for the Organic
Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category—40 CFR 414, Table 2-2 (U.S. EPA, 2005).
NEC — Not elsewhere classified.
                                           7-4

-------
                                        Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
7.2    OCPSF Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews

       Over the years of EPA review, from 2004 through 2008, the TWPE associated with
OCPSF facilities has increased. Table 7-4 shows the screening-level results for the OCPSF
industry from the 2002 through 2005 TRI and PCS databases. The TRI TWPE increased
significantly from 2002 to 2003 and then decreased from 2003 to 2005. However, the 2005 TRI
TWPE is still more than double the TRI TWPE for 2002. The PCS TWPE has increased about 23
percent from 2002 to 2004.

                         Table 7-4. OCPSF Screening-Level Results
Year of Review
2005
2006
2007 e
2008
Year of Data
Source
2002
2003
2004
2005
OCPSF Category a
TRI TWPE b
349, 429
1,021,401
957,134
758,964
PCS TWPE c
397,951
NA
608,394
NA
Potential New Subcategory for the
OCPSF Category d
TRI TWPE b
12,153
4,161
3,578
19,215
PCS TWPE c
17,252
NA
3,121
NA
Source: PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2; PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3;
TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — Includes TWPE from the potential new subcategory.
b — Direct and indirect water releases only.
c — Major dischargers only.
d — EPA reviews industries with SIC codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes,
operations, wastewaters, and pollutants of facilities in the SIC codes 2842, 2844, 2891, 2899, and 5169 (listed in
Table 7-1) are similar to those of the OCPSF Category (U.S. EPA, 2004). The tables in this section include
discharge information from the potential new subcategories; however, these facilities contribute negligible amounts
of TWPE. Consistent with the conclusions drawn during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004) and 2006 review
(U.S. EPA, 2006), EPA found that large numbers of these facilities discharge no wastewater and only a small
number of facilities discharge TWPE greater than zero.
e — EPA corrected the PCS TWPE during the 2008 annual review because EPA determined that hexachlorobenzene
(HCB) loads were linked to the incorrect pollutant TWF in PCSLoads2004_v3.  As a result, the OCPSF Category
TWPE increased from 490,000 to 608,000 Ib-eq/yr from the 2007 annual review to the 2008 annual review.
NA — Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate PCS data for 2003 and 2005.

7.3    OCPSF Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern

       Table 7-5 shows the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2004,
TRIReleases2005, and PCSLoads2004. For comparison purposes, Table 7-6 provides similar
information from the 2006 Final ELG Plan (71 FR 76644) using TRIReleases2002,
TRIReleases2003, and PCSLoads2002.
                                             7-5

-------
                                                                                Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
                                 Table 7-5. 2008 Review: OCPSF Category Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant
Hexachlorobezene d
Aluminum
Benzidine
Chlorine
Fluoride
Dioxin and Dioxin-Like
Compounds
Hydroquinone
Nitrate Compounds
PACs
Acrylonitrile
OCPSF Category Total
PCS 2004 b
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
13
20
1
46
12
Total Pounds
62.9
3,233,568
23
74,952
806,793
TWPE
122,529
209,183
63,844
38,162
28,238
Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2004
reported pollutants.
228 e
3,800,000,000
608,000
TRI 2004 c
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
4
Total
Pounds
43
TWPE
84,480
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2004
reported pollutants.
21
45,018
22,921
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2004
reported pollutants.
8
6
130
0.527
13,383
21,719,795
693,358
17,051
16,217
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2004
reported pollutants.
754 e
35,300,000
957,000
TRI 2005 c
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
Total
Pounds
TWPE
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2005 reported pollutants.
20
59,391
30,240
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2005 reported pollutants.
7
0.388
503,240
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2005 reported pollutants.
128
10
28
68 e
26,662,576
463
8,491
35,400,000
19,908
46,620
19,353
759,000
Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRlReleases2005_v2.
a — This table presents the top five pollutants composing the category TWPE, including the potential new subcategory SIC codes. However, the potential new
subcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE.
b — Discharges include only major dischargers.
c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.
d — EPA corrected the PCS TWPE during the 2008 annual review because EPA determined that hexachlorobenzene (HCB) loads were linked to the incorrect
pollutant TWF in PCSLoads2004_v3. As a result, the OCPSF Category TWPE increased from 490,000 to 608,000 Ib-eq/yr from the 2007 annual review to the
2008 annual review.
e — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.
PACs — Polycyclic aromatic compounds.

-------
                                                                                Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
                                 Table 7-6. 2006 Review: OCPSF Category Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant
Hexachlorobenzene
Chlorine
Fluoride
Benzo(a)pyrene
Copper
Dioxin and Dioxin-like
Compounds
Nitrate Compounds
Hydroquinone
PACs
PCBs
OCPSF Category Total
PCS 2002 b
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
13
58
14
16
100
Total Pounds
53
106,278
910,270
288
33,629
TWPE
103,420
54,113
31,859
28,990
21,348
Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2002
reported pollutants.
232 d
978,243,371
397,951
TRI 2002 c
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
4
25
Total
Pounds
30
56,954
TWPE
59,272
28,999
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2002
reported pollutants.
8
131
6
0.019
44,533,702
13,513
115,132
33,252
17,217
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2002
reported pollutants.
791 d
53,973,135
349,429
TRI 2003 c
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
4
22
Total
Pounds
32
55,810
TWPE
61,656
28,416
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2003 reported pollutants.
6
0.440
703,572
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2003 reported pollutants.
10
2
762 d
675
0.812
37,904,315
67,964
27,627
1,021,401
Source: PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2.
a — This table presents the top five pollutants composing the category TWPE, including the potential new subcategory SIC codes. However, the potential new
subcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE.
b — Discharges include only major dischargers.
c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.
d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.
PACs — Polycyclic aromatic compounds.
PCBs — Polychlorinated biphenyls.

-------
                                    Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
       EPA identified the OCPSF pollutants of concern based on relative TWPE. Dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds have the highest TWPE in the TRI databases from 2002 to 2005,
contributing more than 65 percent of the total category TWPE for both 2004 and 2005. The TRI-
reported discharges of hexachlorobenzene (HCB) decreased from 2004 to 2005; in 2005, HCB
was no longer a top pollutant in terms of TWPE. However, the TRI-reported discharges of PACs
increased from 2004 to 2005 in TRI. For PCS, HCB is the top pollutant discharged in terms of
TWPE in 2002 and 2004. Other top pollutants in 2004 are aluminum and benzidine. Aluminum
and benzidine were not listed top pollutants in 2002. EPA performed additional review for the
pollutants of concern:

       •      Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from TRI (Section 7.8);
             PACs from TRI (Section 7.9);
             HCB from TRI and PCS (Section 7.10);
       •      Aluminum from PCS (Section 7.11); and
       •      Benzidine from PCS (Section 7.12).

EPA did not perform additional review of other top TRI pollutants because their relative
contributions in the 2004 and 2005 databases account for less than 34 percent of the combined
OCPSF Category TWPE. EPA did not perform additional review of the other top PCS pollutants
because TRI TWPE dominates the PCS TWPE for the OCPSF Category.

7.4    OCPSF Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges in TRI

       EPA has reviewed discharges of dioxin and  dioxin-like compounds each year for the
OCPSF Category since 2004. For the 2008 annual review, EPA reviewed information about
facilities that reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to TRI to determine
potential process sources and methods used to estimate reported discharges. The results of the
2008 annual review show that dioxin and dioxin-like compounds continue to rank high in terms
of TRI TWPE. PCS dioxin and dioxin-like compounds TWPE, however, has decreased
significantly from the 2005 annual review.

       Table 7-7 shows the OCPSF facilities that reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds to TRI from 2002 to 2005 and how the  facilities estimated discharges of dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds (based on contact with the facilities) (ERG, 2006). One facility, BP
Solvay Polyethylene in Deer Park, TX contributes more than 95 percent of the total dioxin and
dioxin-like compound TRI TWPE for the OCSPF Category from 2003 to 2005. In addition to the
facilities presented in Table 7-7, EPA identified two new facilities reporting wastewater releases
of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds for 2004 and 2005:

       •      CIBA Specialty Chemicals Corp, St. Gabriel, LA; and
       •      Nation Ford Chemical Co, Fort Mill, SC.

Combined, these two facilities contribute less than 200 TWPE (<0.05 percent) of the OCPSF
Category total TWPE for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. Therefore, EPA did not contact
these facilities to gather information on their basis of estimate or process sources of dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds for the 2008 annual review.
                                         7-8

-------
                                          Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
Table 7-7. OCPSF Facilities Reporting Dioxin Releases to TRI
Facility Name
(Facility Location)
Atofina (Total)
Petrochemicals Inc.
(La Porte, TX)
BP Solvay
Polyethylene N.A.
(Innovene)
(Deer Park, TX)

Celanese Acetate
Celco Plant
(Narrows, VA)
Cytec Industries Inc.
(Wallingford, CT)
Dow Chemical Co.
Midland Ops.
(Midland, MI)
DuPont Chambers
Works
(Deepwater, NJ)
TRI 2002
Dioxin
TWPE
57,489

NR


941
13,460
25,502
334
TRI 2003
Dioxin
TWPE
799

678,344


NR
5,982
NR
0.580
TRI 2004
Dioxin
TWPE
799

657,253


NR
8,973
6,542
NR
TRI 2005
Dioxin
TWPE
799

480,414


NR
NR
6,852
NR
Basis of
Estimate
TCEQ
sampling
episode in
1999
TCEQ
sampling
episode in
2002

Worst-case
scenario
engineering
estimate
Engineering
estimate
Routine
monitoring
conducted by
facility
Engineering
estimate
Was Dioxin
Detected?
TCEQ detected
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HpCDD, OCDD,
and OCDF (TCEQ,
2003)
TCEQ detected
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HpCDD, OCDD,
and 1,2,3,4,7,8-
HxCDF (TCEQ,
2003)
No
Not monitored
Yes —
Reported all
congeners except
1,2,3,6,7,8-
HxCDF, and
1,2,3,6,7,8-
HxCDD to TRI for
2002/2003.
Not monitored
Findings
TCEQ sampled at the final outfall for the facility's
NPDES permit and provided one concentration that
represented a mixture of dioxin congeners. Facility
multiplies this concentration by the total wastewater flow
for the outfall. Facility continues to use the TCEQ dioxin
number every year for their TRI reports.
TCEQ sampled at the final outfall for the facility's
NPDES permit and provided one concentration that
represented a mixture of dioxin congeners. Facility
multiplies this concentration by the total wastewater flow
for the outfall. Facility continues to use the TCEQ dioxin
number every year for their TRI reports.
Facility uses dissolving-grade wood pulp as a raw
material. Celanese had reviewed a study that looked at the
dioxin content of wood pulp and its potential to end up in
stormwater. Wastewater monitoring data for Celanese's
Form 2C application shows all nondetects for dioxin.
Celanese stopped reporting water releases of dioxin to TRI
in 2004.
Dioxin water release was based on an engineering estimate
for the operation of an incinerator that was used to dry out
biosolids. This incinerator is no longer in operation and
site did not report dioxin to TRI for 2005.
Dioxin sources include historical process and waste
management units no longer in operation at the site. A
very small amount may also come from an on-site
incinerator. The TRI dioxin water release is a TM 17 value
that sums the average congener concentrations from
samples collected throughout the year. Dow uses EPA
Method 1613B to analyze for dioxin and sets all
concentrations that are below the detection limit to zero.
A contaminated ferric chloride additive used for solids
settling in the wastewater treatment plant was the dioxin
source. Du Pont used information from the vendor on the
dioxin composition of the contaminated ferric chloride to
estimate their TRI releases. The site has since stopped
using ferric chloride for settling. The dioxin release
included in the TRI 2004 database will be zero.

-------
                                                                                Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
                                   Table 7-7. OCPSF Facilities Reporting Dioxin Releases to TRI
Facility Name
(Facility Location)
Lyondell Chemical
Co. (Westlake, LA)
SasolNA. Inc.
(Baltimore, MD)

SasolN.A. Inc.
Lake Charles
Chemical Complex
(Westlake, LA)
Shell Chemical Co.
Deer Park (Deer
Park, TX)
OCPSF Category
Total
TRI 2002
Dioxin
TWPE
219
3.26

17,183
NR
115,132
TRI 2003
Dioxin
TWPE
NR
NR

4,479
13,967
703,572
TRI 2004
Dioxin
TWPE
NR
NR

4,479
15,152
693,358
TRI 2005
Dioxin
TWPE
NR
NR

4,479
10,529
503,240
Basis of
Estimate
Routine
monitoring
conducted by
facility
Routine
monitoring
conducted by
facility
Sampling
results from
studies
conducted
over the years
TCEQ
sampling
episode in
2003

Was Dioxin
Detected?
Yes - Did not
report a
distribution to TRI
for 2002.
Yes - Reported
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HpCDD and
OCDD to TRI for
2002.
Yes — Reported
17 congeners to
TRI for 2002/2003.
TCEQ detected 10
dioxin congeners
(TCEQ, 2003)

Findings
A small amount of dioxin is produced by an on-site
hazardous waste incinerator scrubber. The bulk of the
dioxin enters the plant with the source water from the
Sabine River. The site monitors the intake and final
effluent for dioxin, then calculates a balance to report what
is discharged. The balance is reported to TRI.
Facility formerly operated a chlorination process that
generated dioxin. They began sampling process
wastewater and final effluent in 2001 and detected trace
amounts of OCDD. The dioxin release reported to TRI
was based on this single detected congener (concentration
was just above the detection limit). The site stopped
monitoring for dioxin in 2003 when the chlorination
process was shut down. They no longer report dioxin
water releases to TRI.
Facility receives wastewater from the Georgia Gulf Lake
Charles VCM plant. The VCM process wastewater is the
source of dioxin.
TCEQ sampled at the outfall for the facility's chemical
plant and provided dioxin congener concentration data for
17 dioxin congeners. Facility multiplies this concentration
by the total wastewater flow for the outfall. Facility
continues to use the TCEQ dioxin number every year for
their TRI reports. Facility treats wastewater for an
Oxy Vinyls EDC/VCM plant, which is a large source of
dioxins in their wastewater. Facility has also identified
other process sources that are small contributors of dioxin.

Source: TRIReleases2002_v4', TRIReleases2003_v2; Telephone conversations with various OCPSF facility representatives and Meghan Kandle of Eastern
Research Group, Inc. (ERG, 2006).
NR - Not reported.
TCEQ - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
TM-17 - Total mass of 17 dioxin and dioxin-like congeners.
EDC - Ethylene dichloride.
VCM - Vinyl chlorine monomer.

-------
                                     Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
       According to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) sampling at three
facilities, dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges contribute 99 percent of the dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds TWPE for 2002. TCEQ conducted the sampling to support the total
maximum daily load (TMDL) study for the Houston Ship Channel, which was placed on the
Section 303(d) list after the Texas Department of Health issued a seafood consumption advisory
for catfish and blue crabs in the upper portion of the Galveston Bay and Houston Ship Channel
in September 1990. The purpose of the study is to develop a TMDL for dioxin in the Houston
Ship Channel, including upper Galveston Bay, and to develop a plan for managing dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds to correct existing water quality impairments and maintain good water
quality. TCEQ analyzed effluent from the following facilities for dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds:  Albermarle, Atofma,  Beechnut MUD, BP Solvay, Clean Harbors, Dow DP, DuPont,
Equistar, Exxon, GB Biosciences, Newport MUD, Oxy Vinyls Battleground, Oxy Vinyls Deer
Park, Oxy Vinyls La Porte, Rohm & Haas, Shell Chemical, Shell Refinery, Valero, Vopak, and
several POTWs.

       From 1999 to 2003 TCEQ conducted sampling at the facilities' outfalls at  Atofma, Shell,
and BP Solvay and detected dioxin and  dioxin-like compounds. The facilities use  the dioxin
congener concentrations measured by TCEQ to estimate the releases of dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds that they report to TRI. Each facility updates its TRI releases each year by
multiplying the same dioxin concentration by the facility's annual flow. Therefore, increases in
TRI-reported releases of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from year to year reflect increases in
wastewater flow and not necessarily increases in dioxin discharges.

       Based on the information in Table 7-7, EPA identified the following sources of dioxin in
OCPSF wastewater:

       •      Historical Processes. Three facilities, Cytec Industries, Dow Chemical, and Sasol
             Baltimore, MD, reported dioxin to TRI based on processes that are no longer in
             operation. Sasol Baltimore has not reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like
             compounds to TRI since  2002.
       •      Raw Materials.  Two facilities, DuPont Chambers Works and Celanese Acetate,
             estimated discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds based on
             contamination of raw materials. Celanese's estimate was based on theoretical
             contamination of wood pulp, and DuPont's estimate was based on actual
             contamination of ferric chloride. Celanese stopped reporting discharges of dioxin
             and dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2003, and DuPont stopped reporting  dioxin
             and dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2004 (U.S. EPA, 2006).
       •       Vinyl Chloride Wastewater. Two facilities, Sasol Lake Charles, LA and Shell
             Deer Park, TX, treat wastewater from nearby vinyl chloride monomer plants,
             which are the major source of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds that the
             facility reports to TRI. EPA is reviewing production of vinyl chloride monomer as
             part of the CCH rulemaking effort.
       •       Wet Air Pollution Controls. One facility, Lyondell, stated that an onsite
             incinerator is the source of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds that was reported to
             TRI for 2002. The facility stated that the amount of dioxin and dioxin-like
             compounds discharged by the incinerator scrubber is small (only 219 TWPE in
             Table 7-7). Lyondell has not reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like
             compounds to TRI since  2002 (U.S. EPA, 2006).

-------
                                     Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
       •      No Process Source Identified. Facility contacts at Atofma and BP Solvay could
             not identify a potential process source for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds
             that TCEQ detected at their outfalls.

7.5    OCPSF Category Hexachlorobenzene Discharges in TRI and PCS

       EPA reviewed TRI and PCS data on HCB discharges from OCPSF facilities for the 2008
annual review: four facilities in TRI and 14 facilities in PCS. Tables 7-8 and 7-9 list the HCB
data for the TRI (2004 and 2005) and PCS (2002 and 2004) databases.

       Table 7-8 presents the facilities that reported wastewater releases of HCB to TRI for 2004
or 2005. HCB discharges ranked second in terms of 2004 TRI TWPE for the OCPSF Category.
One facility, DuPont Chambers Works, contributed 90 percent of the total HCB TWPE for the
OCSPF Category. EPA contacted the facility and determined that the HCB discharges were from
CWT operations at the plant. Therefore, EPA categorized DuPont Chambers Works' HCB
discharges in the CWT Category. As a result, HCB discharges decreased 98  percent from 2004
to 2005. Based on TRI data, HCB is not discharged at significant TWPE as a result of OCPSF
operations.

              Table 7-8. OCPSF Facilities Reporting HCB Releases to TRI
Facility Name
Clariant Lsm Florida Inc
DuPont Chambers Works
Solutia Inc Delaware River Plant
Sun Chemical Corp.
Location
Gainesville, FL
Deepwater, NJ
Bridgeport, NJ
Cincinnati, OH
Total
2004
Total Pounds
Released a
0.0157
39.0
4.00
0.358
43.4
TWPE
30.6
75,961
7,791
697
84,480
2005
Total Pounds
Released a
NR
NR
0.500
0.371
0.871
TWPE
NR
NR
974
722
1,696
Source: TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2.
a — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

       Table 7-9 shows the OCPSF facilities with HCB discharges in PCS for 2002 or 2004. The
HCB TWPE is evenly distributed across facilities in the 2002 PCS database for the OCPSF
Category. In the 2004 PCS database, DuPont de Nemours, Carneys Point, NJ, accounts for 60
percent of the HCB TWPE for the OCPSF Category.

       EPA reviewed monthly DMR data for 2002 and 2004 and calculated the average detected
HCB concentration for each facility. Based on this review, EPA believes that HCB loads in PCS
may be calculated from concentrations that are below the detection limit. According to EPA
Method 1625, the method detection limit for HCB is 10 ug/L. Concentrations for HCB range
from 0.04 to 12, and all but one are less than or equal to the method detection limit.
                                         7-12

-------
                                                                               Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
                        Table 7-9. OCPSF Facilities Reporting Discharges of HCB to PCS in 2002 or 2004
NPD1S ID
NJ0005100
WV0000868
WV0002496
WV0001112
DE0020001
NJ0005045
AL0002097
PAOO 12769
WV0004740
WV0022047
FL0002313
WV0000841
WV0004588
LA0038890
SC0002798
SC0003557
WV0001279
WV0005169
Facility Name
E I Dupont De Nemours & Co
Flexsys America LP
Ripplewood Phosphorus U.S.
LLC
Sunoco, Inc. (R & M)
Metachem Products, LLC b
FERRO CORP
Honeywell International Inc
Rohm and Haas Company
Crompton Corporation
Crompton Corporation
Air Prod & Chem Escam
Pensacol
GE Plastics
Koppers Industries Inc
Nalco Company
Invista S.A.R.L./Spartanburg
Honeywell Nylon LLC/
Columbia
E I Dupont De Nemours & Co
Bayer Materialscience, LLC
Facility Location
Carneys Point
Nitro
Gallipolis Ferry
Kenova
Delaware City
Logan Twp
Fairfield
Bristol Boro
Morgantown
Morgantown
Santa Rosa County
Washington
Follansbee
Garyville
Spartanburg
Columbia
Parkersburg
New Martinsville
Average 2002
HCB
Concentration
(MS/L)
NR
2.5
4.13 a
10
3.18
NR
4.01 a
NR
0.55
0.55
NR
NR
0.5
4.75 a
10
5.00 a
0.04
0.05
OCPSF Category Total
2002 Pounds
of HCB
Discharged
NR
10
7.2
5.4
3.25
NR
0.5
NR
0.36
0.036
NR
NR
0.36
6.48
7.95
8.28
2.88
0.36
53.1
2002
HCB
TWPE
NR
19,537
14,024
10,518
6,335
NR
982
NR
701
70.1
NR
NR
701
12,621
15,493
16,127
5,609
701
103,420
Average 2004
HCB
Concentration
(Hg/L)
0.670 a
2.50
5.00
5.00
10.0
0.683 a
12.7 a
0.800
0.550
0.500
NC
0.00750
0.050
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR

2004
Pounds of
HCB
Discharged
38
7.51
7.20
3.60
1.68
1.67
1.08
0.920
0.540
0.180
0.0900
0.0540
0.0257
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
63
2004
HCB
TWP!
74,728
14,620
14,024
7,012
3,272
3,246
2,104
1,791
1,052
351
175
105
50
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
122,529
a — Concentration was back-calculated using monthly mass and flow data.
b — Facility is no longer active.
NR — Not Reported. HCB discharges were not included in PCS for the reporting year.
NC — Not Calculated. No flow information was included in PCS to back calculate the concentration.

-------
                                     Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
7.6    OCPSF Category Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Discharges in TRI

       EPA has reviewed wastewater releases of PACs as part of the OCSPF Category since
2004, with the exception of the 2007 annual review because of TWPE in the TRI databases.
PACs were not identified as a pollutant of concern during the 2007 annual review based on the
2004 TRI and PCS databases. Table 7-10 lists the OCPSF facilities that reported discharges of
PACs to TRI from 2002 to 2005.

       In 2004, EPA reviewed the coal tar refining sector of the OCPSF Category based on
discharges of PACs reported to TRI for 2000. EPA identified three U.S. coal tar refining
companies (10 facilities) operating in 2000: Honeywell International, Inc., Koppers Industries,
Inc., and Reilly Industries, Inc. Seven of these facilities continue to report discharges of PACs to
TRI and are listed in Table 7-10. Since 2000,  Honeywell, Inc. has closed all three of its coal tar
refining operations, and Reilly Tar &  Chemical Company has closed its Cleveland, OH facility.
As of 2004, six facilities owned by two companies continued to refine coal tar in the United
States.  EPA's review of the coal tar industry concluded that the industry was declining, and that
the PAC discharges were at concentrations near or at treatable levels. As a result, EPA
determined that, based on the information available in 2004, it was not appropriate to select coal
tar refining sector of the OCPSF Category for possible effluent guidelines revision.

       In addition to coal tar refiners, Table 7-10 lists five facilities that reported releases of
PACs to TRI from 2002 to 2005:

       •      DSM Chemicals in Augusta, GA, produces caprolactam — a raw material for the
             production of nylon-6, cyclohexanone, ammonium sulphate for fertilizer use, and
             polyester resins for the powder coating industry (DSM, 2006);
       •      DuPont Chambers Works in Deep Water, NJ produces fluorochemicals,
             elastomers, and hytrel polyester elastomer (U.S. EPA, 2004);
       •      DuPont Washington Works in  Washington, WV produces polymer products for
             the automotive industry including Delrinฎ, Crastinฎ, Ryniteฎ, Zytelฎ,
             Butaciteฎ,  Dymetrolฎ, Hytrelฎ and Teflonฎ (DuPont, 2008);
       •      Neutrogena in Los Angeles, CA packages toiletries and soaps (Food & Drug
             Packaging, 2004); and
       •      Sasol NA in Baltimore, MD produces commodity and specialty chemicals for
             soaps, detergents and personal  care products (Sasol, 2006).

       DSM Chemicals in Augusta, GA, contributed more than 90 percent of the PACs TWPE
for 2003, but did not report PAC discharges for 2002. The PAC discharges from DSM chemicals
have decreased from 2003 to 2005. EPA contacted DSM Chemicals to discuss the basis of
estimate for the 2003 TRI-reported PAC discharges (Connell, 2006). DSM confirmed that the
TRI-reported discharge is based on measured  concentrations of three PACs congeners:
benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and  indeno-l,2,3-c-pyrene. The facility samples for
PACs and other priority pollutants once per year. Prior to 2003, the sampling did not include data
on PACs concentrations. DSM suspects that the Number 2 fuel oil used at the site is the source
of PACs in their wastewater.

       The large increase  in PAC releases from 2004 to 2005 results from increased releases
reported by DuPont Chambers Works and new releases reported by DuPont Washington Works.

-------
                                     Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
Combined, these facilities contribute more than 80 percent of the 2005 PACs TWPE for the
OCPSF Category (but less than 5 percent of the OCPSF Category's total TWPE). EPA obtained
2006 TRI data to review the trends in PAC discharges from the two DuPont facilities.  EPA
found that DuPont Chambers Works' PAC releases decrease by 87 percent and DuPont
Washington Works' PAC releases decreased by 52 percent from 2005 to 2006. EPA will
continue to monitor increased reports of PAC discharges from  these and other OCPSF facilities,
but EPA concludes that no further review is warranted at this time.

              Table 7-10. OCPSF Facilities Reporting PAC Releases to TRI
Facility Name
DSM Chemicals North America Inc.
DuPont Chambers Works
DuPont Washington Works
Honeywell International, Inc. b
Honeywell International, Inc. b
Koppers Inc. b
Koppers Industries, Inc. Follansbee Tar Plant b
Koppers Industries, Inc. Woodward Tar Plant b
Neutrogena Corp.
Reilly Industries, Inc. b
Reilly Industries, Inc. b
SasolN.A., Inc.
Facility Location
Augusta, GA
Deepwater, NJ
Washington, WV
Birmingham, AL
Ironton, OH
Cicero, IL
Follansbee, WV
Dolomite, AL
Los Angeles, CA
Granite City, IL
Lone Star, TX
Baltimore, MD
Total
2002
PAC
TWPIa
NR
1,510
NR
604
705
4.22
403
1,268
0.963
119
NR
NR
4,613
2003
PAC
TWPE"
61,503
3,221
NR
604
NR
4.45
403
2,013
0.0741
148
37.0
30.2
67,964
2004
PAC
TWPE"
3,359
6,100
NR
101
NR
3.48
1,309
NR
0.148
148
7.41
NR
11,027
2005
PAC
TWPE"
3,331
17,414
20,233
40
NR
227
5,234
NR
0.148
133
7.41
NR
46,620
Source: TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2.
Italics denote facilities no longer in operation.
a — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.
b — Facility is a coal tar refiner and was included in EPA's detailed study of the OCPSF Category for the 2004
Plan.
NR — Not reported. Facility did not report PAC releases for reporting year.

7.7    OCPSF Category Aluminum Discharges in PCS

       Aluminum was the top PCS pollutant in terms of TWPE for the OCSPF Category based
on 2004 data. EPA had not identified aluminum as a top pollutant for the OCSPF Category in
previous reviews. Table 7-11 presents the facilities that reported discharges of aluminum to PCS
for 2004. As shown in the table, one facility, GE Silicones LLC, contributes 98 percent of the
aluminum TWPE for the OCPSF Category. EPA obtained GE Silicones' permit information to
verify reporting units for total recoverable aluminum and flow. GE Silicones' permit includes
only monitoring requirements for aluminum and does not have a permit limit. EPA will monitor
this facility's aluminum discharges during future OCPSF Category reviews.
                                          7-15

-------
                                     Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
               Table 7-11. OCPSF Facilities Reporting Aluminum to PCS
NPID
WV0000094
AL0000205
WV0022047
SC0001783
TX0006033
TX0005061
WV0004740
WV0000787
WV0001279
TX0007048
AR0035386
TX0069493
SC0003581
PA0000507
TX0119792
MI0000761
NY0005801
TX0074276
NY0002470
WV0004588
Name
GE Silicones LLC
3M Co Decatur Plant
Crompton Corporation
Celanese Acetate LLC/Celriver
BP Solvay Polyethylene North A
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Th
Crompton Corporation
Cytec Industries
E I DuPont De Nemours & Co
Lubrizol Corporation, The
Eastman Chemical Company, Arka
Lyondell Chemical Company
Milliken/Dewey Plant
Eastman Chemical Resins Inc
Equistar Chemicals, L.P.
Flint Ink-Cdr-Holland
Schenectady International, Inc
Sunoco, Inc. (R&M)
Buffalo Color Corp
Koppers Industries Inc
City
Friendly
Decatur
Morgantown
Rock Hill
Deer Park
Beaumont
Morgantown
Willow Island
Washington
Deer Park
Batesville
Channelview
Inman
Jefferson
Deer Park
Holland
Rotterdam Junction
Houston
Buffalo /C/
Follansbee
Total
Total Pounds
3,183,201
10,421
8,850
7,467
5,267
4,023
3,268
2,871
2,130
1,689
1,470
724
465
435
398
348
306
104
78
54.0
3,233,568
2005 TWPE
205,925
674
572
483
341
260
211
186
138
109
95.1
46.8
30.1
28.2
25.7
22.5
19.8
6.71
5.08
3.49
209,183
Source: PCSLoads2004_v03.

7.8    OCPSF Category Benzidine Discharges in PCS

       Benzidine discharges ranked second in terms of TWPE for PCS pollutants for the OCPSF
Category. EPA reviewed the benzidine discharges and found that they were reported by one
facility, Rohm & Haas, Bristol, PA. Table 7-12 presents the monthly concentration and load data
for benzidine that EPA used to calculate the annual load of 23 pounds per year. As shown in the
table, all reported benzidine measurements were nondetect except for March 2004. For this
month, the benzidine concentration is the same as for other months that were reported as
nondetects. Therefore, EPA believes that the single benzidine detect for 2004 may be a data-
entry error and that the total benzidine load for 2004 should be zero.

 Table 7-12. Monthly Benzidine Concentrations and Loads for Rohm & Haas, Bristol, PA
Month
1/31/2004
2/29/2004
3/31/2004
4/30/2004
Average Load
(kg/day)
O.0120
O.0179
0.0220
O.0196
Maximum
Load (kg/day)
O.0200
O.0179
0.0220
O.0196
Average
Concentration
(mg/L)
<0.005
O.0054
0.0055
O.0055
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/L)
O.005
O.0054
0.0055
O.0055
Average
Flow
(MGD)
0.993
0.984
0.989
0.94
Maximum
Flow
(MGD)
1.446
1.312
1.144
1.148
                                         7-16

-------
                                     Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
 Table 7-12. Monthly Benzidine Concentrations and Loads for Rohm & Haas, Bristol, PA
Month
5/31/2004
6/30/2004
7/31/2004
8/31/2004
9/30/2004
10/31/2004
11/30/2004
12/31/2004
Average Load
(kg/day)
0.0177
0.0153
0.0567
O.0459
O.0161
O.0543
O.330
O.0474
Maximum
Load (kg/day)
0.0177
0.0153
0.0567
O.0459
O.0161
O.0543
O.0330
O.0474
Average
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.0055
0.0054
0.013
O.013
O.0054
O.013
O.013
O.013
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.0055
0.0054
0.013
O.013
O.0054
O.013
O.013
O.013
Average
Flow
(MGD)
0.974
0.93
1.019
0.886
0.894
0.826
0.778
0.775
Maximum
Flow
(MGD)
1.144
1.147
1.551
1.047
1.65
1.164
1.028
1.097
Source: PCSLoadCalculator2004.

7.9    OCPSF Category Conclusions

       During the 2008 Annual Review, EPA did not obtain any information to change its
conclusions that have previously been made regarding the wastewater discharges from the
OCPSF facilities. Therefore, the conclusions of the OCPSF category review are as follows:

       •      The OCPSF Category was selected for detailed review because of high TWPE in
             the 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 annual reviews.
       •      Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds is the highest ranking pollutant in terms of
             TWPE in the TRI databases from 2002 to 2005. EPA contacted the facilities that
             reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in previous reviews, and
             maintains its findings from these reviews: none of these facilities operate a
             manufacturing process that is a major source of dioxin and dioxin-like
             compounds. Facilities that did  identify a process  source of dioxin and dioxin-like
             compounds have stopped operating the dioxin-generating process.
       •      Ninety percent of the HCB TWPE in TRIReleases2004 v3 result from one
             facility, DuPont Chambers Works. This facility stated that the HCB discharges
             were related to CWT operations at the facility. EPA classified the discharges in
             the CWT Category. As a result, the HCB TRI TWPE decreased 98 percent from
             2004 to 2005.
       •      HCB is the top pollutant, in terms of TWPE, in PCS for the OCPSF Category for
             the 2005 annual review. EPA reviewed monthly concentrations of HCB in PCS
             for 2004 and 2002 and found that almost all concentrations were equal to or
             below the method detection limit for HCB. Therefore, EPA believes that the PCS
             HCB loads are based on non-detects, and will follow up with any necessary
             corrections in future PCS databases.
       •      PACs also rank high in terms of TRI TWPE for the OCSPF Category. The
             majority of the TRI TWPE for 2005 is from two facilities. Future OCPSF
             category review by EPA could focus on verification of PAC releases reported to
             TRI, including method of estimation, effluent concentrations, and review of
             process sources.
       •      Aluminum is the top pollutant, in terms of TWPE, in PCSLoads2004_v4. One
             facility contributes 98 percent of the aluminum TWPE for 2005. EPA verified the

-------
                                    Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
             annual load calculation and reporting units for the aluminum discharges, and EPA
             will continue to monitor this facility's aluminum discharges during future OCPSF
             Category reviews.
       •      Benzidine is the second highest pollutant in PCSLoads2004_v4 based on TWPE.
             The sole benzidine discharge inPCSLoads2004_v4 is reported by one facility.
             EPA believes that the PCS loads are based on nondetect values and should be
             zero. EPA will follow up with any necessary corrections in future PCS databases.
       •      EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential
             revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health  and the
             environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is
             assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is
             marked with "(3)" in the "Findings" column in Table V-l in the accompanying
             Federal Register notice that presents the 2008 annual review of effluent guidelines
             and pretreatment standards).

7.10   OCPSF Category References

1.      Connell, Beth. 2006. Telephone conversation with Beth Connell of DSM Chemicals,
       Augusta, GA, and Meghan Kandle of Eastern Research Group, Inc. "PACs Discharges
       reported to TRI for 2003." (August 4). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2561.

2.      DSM. 2006. DSM in the United States. Available online at:
       http://www.dsm.com/en_US/html/about/location_fmder.htm. Date accessed: June 21.
       EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2565.

3.      DuPont. 2008. DuPont Washington Works Web  Site. Available online at:
       http://www2.dupont.com/Washington_Works/en_US/products.html. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
       0771 DCN 05955.

4.      ERG. 2006. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Telephone conversations with various OCPSF
       facility representatives and Meghan Kandle of Eastern Research Group, Inc. "Basis of
       Estimation for Dioxin Releases Reported to TRI." EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2563.

5.      Food and Drug Packaging. 2004. "Top 25 Personal Care Packagers." Food and Drug
       Packaging. (July). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2566.

6.      Sasol. 2006. Sasol North America, Inc. Bristol Borough, PA Baltimore, MD. Available
       online at: http://www.sasolbaltimore.com. Date accessed: June 21. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-
       0032-2567.

7.      TCEQ. 2003. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Total Maximum Daily Load
       Program. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Dioxins in the Houston Ship Channel. Final
       Report.  (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2569.

8.      U.S. Census, 2002. U.S. Economic Census. Available online at:
       http://www.census.gov/econ/census02.
                                         7-18

-------
                                    Section 7.0 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
9.     U. S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program
      Plan. EPA-821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1346
      through 1352.

10.    U.S. EPA. 2005. Product and Product Group Discharges Subject to Effluent Limitations
      and Standards for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Point Source
      Category — 40 CFR 414. Washington, DC. (April). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2568.

11.    U. S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program
      Plan. EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782.
                                        7-19

-------
                                         Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
8.0    ORE MINING AND DRESSING (40 CFR PART 440)

       EPA selected the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 440) for
preliminary review because it continues to rank high, in terms of TWPE, in point source category
rankings (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4 for the point source category rankings). EPA has reviewed
discharges from ore mining facilities as part of its annual reviews since 2004. Each year, EPA
has concluded that there is not sufficient data available to determine whether wastewater
discharges from the Ore Mining and Dressing (Ore Mining) Category warrant a detailed study.
EPA plans to continue reviewing the Ore Mining Category during the 2009 Annual Review and
collect additional data from state and regional contacts.

8.1    Ore Mining  Category Background

       This subsection provides background on the Ore Mining Category, including a brief
profile of the ore mining industry and background on 40 CFR Part 440.

8.1.1   Ore Mining Industry Profile

        The ore mining and dressing industry includes facilities that mine, mill, or prepare 23
separate metal ores (U.S. EPA, 2005). This industry is divided into nine SIC codes, as shown in
Table 8-1. The following SIC codes are not required to report discharges to TRI:

       •      1011: Iron Ores;
       •      1081: Metal Mining Services; and
       •      1094: Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ores.

       Because the U.S. Economic Census reports data by NAICS code, and TRI and PCS
report data by SIC code, EPA reclassified the 2002 U.S. Economic Census data by equivalent
SIC code. The facilities in SIC code 1081 subject to the Ore Mining ELGs do not translate
directly to a NAICS  code, and EPA could not determine the number of facilities in the 2002 U.S.
Economic Census for SIC code 1081.

       Of the almost 400 ore mines in the 2002 U.S. Economic Census, only 73 (18 percent)
reported to TRI in 2005, because facilities in SIC codes 1011, 1081, and 1094 are not required to
report discharges to TRI.

       Of the 35 ore mines reporting wastewater discharges in  TRI, only one mine (a gold mine)
reported having indirect discharges. Table 8-2 presents the types of discharges reported by
facilities in the 2004 and 2005 TRI databases.
                                          8-1

-------
                                              Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                  Table 8-1. Number of Facilities in Ore Mining SIC Codes
SIC Code
1011: Iron Ores
1021: Copper Ores
1031: Lead and Zinc Ores
1041: Gold Ores
1044: Silver Ores
1061: Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vanadium
1081: Metal Mining Services
1094: Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ores
1099: Miscellaneous Metal Ores, NEC
Total
2002 U.S.
Economic
Census
24
33
22
180
11
72
NAC
17
39
>398
2004 PCS a
8
15
28
25
5
6
NR
17
11
92
2004 TRIb
NRd
20
11
30
3
7
NRd
NRd
7
78
2005 TRI b
NRd
22
9
28
2
5
NRd
NRd
7
73
Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002);PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3;
TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — Major and minor dischargers.
b — Releases to any media.
c — Poor bridging between SIC codes and NAICS codes. Number of facilities could not be determined.
d — Facilities in this SIC code are not required to report to TRI.
NR — Not reported.
NA — Not applicable.
NEC — Not elsewhere classified.
                                               8-2

-------
                                                                                      Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                     Table 8-2. Ore Mining Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005
SIC Code
1011: Iron Ores
1021: Copper Ores
1031: Lead and Zinc Ores
1041: Gold Ores
1044: Silver Ores
1061: Ferroalloy Ores, Except
Vanadium
1081: Metal Mining Services
1094: Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ores
1099: Miscellaneous Metal Ores, NEC
Total
TRI 2004
Reported
Only Direct
Discharges
NRa
5
9
7
1
3
NRa
NRa
o
6
28
Reported
Only
Indirect
Discharges
NRa
0
0
1
0
0
NRa
NRa
0
1
Reported
Both Direct
and Indirect
Discharges
NRa
0
0
0
0
0
NRa
NRa
0
0
Reported
No Water
Discharges
NRa
15
2
22
2
4
NRa
NRa
4
49
TRI 2005
Reported
Only Direct
Discharges
NRa
6
8
6
1
3
NRa
NRa
o
5
27
Reported
Only
Indirect
Discharges
NRa
0
0
0
0
0
NRa
NRa
0
0
Reported
Both Direct
and Indirect
Discharges
NRa
0
0
0
0
0
NRa
NRa
0
0
Reported
No Water
Discharges
NRa
16
1
22
1
2
NRa
NRa
4
46
oo
      Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRlReleases2005_v2.
      a — Facilities in this SIC code are not required to report to TRI.
      NR — Not reported.
      NEC — Not elsewhere classified.

-------
                                         Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
8.1.2   40 CFR Part 440

       EPA first promulgated ELGs for the Ore Mining Category (40 CFR Part 440) on
December 3, 1982 (47 FR 54609). This category consists of 12 subcategories, as shown in
Table 8-3 with the related SIC codes and descriptions of the subcategories' applicability (U.S.
EPA,  1982; U.S.  EPA, 1988). BAT limitations are set equal to BPT levels for priority pollutants
for this category. The priority pollutants arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and
zinc are regulated in at least one subcategory (U.S. EPA, 2005). None of the subcategories
include PSES or PSNS limitations.
               Table 8-3. Ore Mining Category Subcategory Applicability
Subpart
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Subeategory Title
Iron Ore
Aluminum Ore
Uranium, Radium,
and Vanadium Ores
Mercury Ore
Titanium Ores
Tungsten Ore
Nickel Ore
Vanadium Ore
(Mined Alone, not as
By-product)
Antimony Ore
Copper, Lead, Zinc,
Gold, Silver, and
Molybdenum Ores
Platinum Ore
Related SIC Code(s)
1011: Iron Ores
1099: Miscellaneous
Metal Ores, NEC
1094: Uranium-Radium-
Vanadium Ores
1099: Miscellaneous
Metal Ores, NEC
1099: Miscellaneous
Metal Ores, NEC
1061: Ferroalloy Ores,
Except Vanadium
1061: Ferroalloy Ores,
Except Vanadium
1094: Uranium-Radium-
Vanadium Ores
1099: Miscellaneous
Metal Ores, NEC
1021: Copper Ores
1031: Lead and Zinc
Ores
1041: Gold Ores
1044: Silver Ores
1061: Ferroalloy Ores,
Except Vanadium
1099: Miscellaneous
Metal Ores, NEC
Subeategory Applicability
Iron ore mines and mills using physical or chemical
separation or magnetic and physical separation in the
Megabit Range
Bauxite mines producing aluminum ore
Open-pit or underground mines and mills using acid
leach, alkaline leach, or combined acid and alkaline
leach to produce uranium, radium, and byproduct
vanadium
Open-pit or underground mercury ore mines and mills
using gravity separation or froth-flotation
Titanium ore mines from lode deposits and mills using
electrostatic, magnetic, and physical separation or
flotation; dredge mines and mills for placer deposits of
rutile, ilmenite, leucoxene, monazite, zircon, and other
heavy metals
Tungsten mines and mills using gravity separation or
froth-flotation
Nickel ore mines and mills
Vanadium ore mines and mills
Antimony ore mines and mills
Copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, and molybdenum ore
open-pit or underground mines, except for placer
deposits, and mills using froth-flotation and/or other
separation techniques; mines and mills using dump,
heap, in situ leach, or vat-leach to extract copper from
ores or ore waste materials; gold or silver mills using
cyanidation; except for mines and mills from the
Quartz Hill Molybdenum Project in the Tongass
National Forest, Alaska
Platinum ore mines and mills
                                          8-4

-------
                                            Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                 Table 8-3. Ore Mining Category Subcategory Applicability
Subpart
M
Subeategory Title
Gold Placer Mine
Related SIC Code(s)
1041: Gold Ores
Subeategory Applicability
Placer deposit gold ore mines, dredges, and mills
using gravity separation
Source: Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing
Point Source Category (U.S. EPA, 1982); Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category Gold Placer Mine Subcategory (U.S. EPA,
1988).
NEC — Not elsewhere classified.

       Runoff from waste rock and overburden piles is not subject to effluent guidelines unless
it naturally drains (or is intentionally diverted) to a point source and combines with "mine
drainage" that is otherwise subject to the effluent guidelines (65 FR 64774, October 30, 2000).
These discharges are controlled by the Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGP).u
(See 65 FR 64746,  Oct. 30, 2000, and 70 FR 72116, December 1, 2005.) The MSGP includes
very general benchmark values for sampling and general requirements to develop a stormwater
pollution prevention plan,  but does not establish numeric limits or stormwater
containment/treatment requirements. The MSGP establishes benchmark monitoring for
pollutants including TSS, pH, hardness,  arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, iron, lead,
manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, and uranium.12

       Commenters on previous effluent guidelines program plans have requested that EPA
reverse its decision to exclude  discharges from waste rock and overburden piles from the Part
440 applicability definition of "mine drainage." Specifically, commenters suggested that EPA
conduct a rulemaking to address discharges from waste rock piles, overburden piles,  and other
sources of water pollution at mine sites that are not currently covered by Part 440. See 63 FR
47285 (September 4, 1998).

8.2    Ore Mining Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews

       Over the years of EPA  review, from 2004 through  2008, the TWPE associated with
facilities in the Ore Mining Category has increased slightly. Table 8-4 shows the screening-level
results for the Ore Mining Category from the 2002 through 2005 TRI and PCS databases. Both
the 2004 TRI  and PCS TWPEs increased compared to previous years. Also, the 2005 TRI TWPE
increased compared to 2002, but decreased compared to 2003 and 2004.
11 Mine sites not regulated by the MSGP include: (1) sites with their stormwater discharges regulated by an
individual permit; and (2) sites without any discharge of stormwater. A facility has the option of obtaining an
individual permit for stormwater discharges instead of requesting coverage under the MSGP; however, in practice
this is seldom done. The current MSGP expires this year, but EPA intends to reissue it. Almost all mine sites
discharge stormwater (e.g., from haul roads, process areas, equipment storage areas, mine waste rock).
12 Table G-4 of the MSGP lists what wastewaters from mining activities are covered by Part 440 and what
wastewaters are to be covered by the industrial MSGP. In response to litigation from the National Mining
Association, EPA revised its interpretation of applicability for wastewaters from hard rock mining operations. Under
the revised interpretation, runoff from waste rock and overburden piles is not subject to effluent guidelines unless it
naturally drains (or is intentionally diverted) to a point source and combines with "mine drainage" that is otherwise
subject to the effluent guidelines (65 FR 64774,  October 30, 2000).	
                                             8-5

-------
                                         Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                 Table 8-4. Ore Mining Category Screening-Level Results
Year of Review
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year of Discharge
2002
2003
2004
2005
Ore Mining Category
TRI TWPE a
70,214
77,649
88,001
76,673
PCS TWPE b
410,266
NA
580,831
NA
Source: PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2; PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3;
TRIReleases2005_v2.
a - Direct and indirect water releases only.
b - Major and minor dischargers.
NA - Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate PCS data for 2003 and 2005.

8.3    Ore Mining Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern

       Table 8-5 shows the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2004_v3,
TRIReleases2005  v2, and PCSLoads2004_v4 for the Ore Mining Category. For comparison
purposes, Table 8-6 provides similar information from the 2006 Final ELGPlan (71 FR 76644)
using  TRIReleases2002_v4, TRIReleases2003_v2, and PCSLoads2002_v4.

       EPA identified the ore mining pollutants  of concern based on relative TWPE. Mercury is
the pollutant with the highest TWPE in the PCS  database from 2004, contributing more than 65
percent of the total category TWPE for 2004. Arsenic TWPE increased by more than 50 percent
in PCSLoads and  TRIReleases from 2002 to 2004. However, the cadmium, cyanide, and
molybdenum TWPE decreased from 2002 to 2004 and 2005. The decrease in the cyanide TWPE
for the Ore Mining Category between 2002 and 2004 is also the result one facility, Zortman
Mining Inc. in Zortman, MT. The decreases in the cadmium and molybdenum TWPE for the Ore
Mining Category between 2005 and 2006 annual reviews and the 2007 and 2008 annual reviews
are also the result of one  facility for each pollutant. EPA performed additional review for the
pollutants of concern:

       •      Mercury from PCS (Section 8.4); and
       •      Arsenic from PCS and TRI (Section 8.5).

       EPA did not perform additional review of other top pollutants because their relative
contributions in the 2004 and 2005 databases account for less than 25 percent of the combined
Ore Mining Category TWPE.

       To evaluate pollutants of concern, EPA also reviewed ore mining PCS and TRI data for
completeness. As  seen in Table 1, the TRI and PCS databases contain discharge data for less
than 25 percent of ore mines in the U.S. Census.  EPA collected data to supplement the TRI and
PCS data, estimating pollutant discharges for the portion of the ore mining industry that is not
included in the PCS and TRI  databases (Section  8.7).

-------
                                                                                        Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                                    Table 8-5. 2008 Review: Ore Mining Category Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant
Mercury
Arsenic and Arsenic
Compounds
Cadmium and Cadmium
Compounds
Lead and Lead Compounds
Molybdenum
Silver And Silver Compounds
Vanadium And Vanadium
Compounds
Ore Mining Category Total
PCS 2004 a
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
28
10
38
40
4
Total Pounds
3,768
7,651
911
8,523
93,117
TWPE
441,338
30,921
21,052
19,091
18,757
Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2004
reported pollutants.
49 ซ
2,158,293,854
580,831
TRI 2004 b
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
Total Pounds
TWPE
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2004 reported pollutants.
5
6
21
7,532
512
9,344
30,439
11,840
20,930
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2004 reported pollutants.
2
o
6
29 c
500
205,500
550,088
8,235
7,193
88,001
TRI 2005 b
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
Total Pounds
TWPE
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2005 reported pollutants.
6
6
21
6,582
515
7,273
26,600
11,905
16,291
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2005 reported pollutants.
2
3
27 c
500
110,500
399,163
8,235
3,868
76,673
oo
      Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRlReleases2005_v2.
      a — Discharges include only major dischargers.
      b — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.
      c — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.

-------
                                                                                        Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                                    Table 8-6. 2006 Review: Ore Mining Category Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant
Molybdenum
Cyanide
Cadmium and
Cadmium
Compounds
Lead and Lead
Compounds
Arsenic and
Arsenic
Compounds
Silver and Silver
Compounds
Vanadium and
Vanadium
Compounds
Ore Mining
Category Total
2002 PCS a
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
4
7
26
30
11
Total Pounds
Released
770,329
109,018
2,360
10,406
3,143
TWPE
155,174
121,764
54,556
23,309
12,701
Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2002
reported pollutants.
50 c
702,310,349
410,266
2002 TRI b
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
Total Pounds
Released
TWPE
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2002
reported pollutants.
10
25
9
2
3
35 c
848
5,526
3,312
500
147,310
462,061
19,603
12,378
13,383
8,235
5,156
70,214
2003 TRI b
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
Total Pounds
Released
TWPE
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2003
reported pollutants.
9
23
8
2
3
32 c
642
5,153
5,882
500
240,200
597,196
14,878
11,542
23,770
8,235
8,407
77,649
oo
I
oo
      Source: PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2.
      a — Discharges include only major dischargers.
      b — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.
      c — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.

-------
                                         Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
8.4    Ore Mining Category Mercury Compounds Discharges

       EPA reviewed discharges of mercury inPCSLoads2004_v4 because mercury accounts
for over 75 percent of the category TWPE from that database. EPA determined that over 99
percent (441,093 TWPE) of the mercury m PCSLoads2004_v4 results from Northshore Mining
Company in Silver Bay, MN.

       EPA collected additional information on this facility's discharges, including the facility's
NPDES permit and available discharge information. The facility's permit does not set limits for
mercury discharges, and Part 440 Subpart A (Iron Ore mines) set ELGs for only iron, total
suspended solids, and pH. The permit does require that mercury be monitored in the facility's
wastewater. Table 8-7 shows the mine's flow rates and mercury concentrations from
PCSLoads2004_v4.

      Table 8-7. Flow and Mercury Concentrations for Northshore Mining Company
Date
March 3 1,2004
June 30, 2004
September 30, 2004
December 3 1,2004
Flow (MGD)
3.26
3.56
4.13
3.58
Total Mercury
Concentration (mg/L)
Non-detect
Non-detect
0.0005
0.7
Permit Limit
Monitoring Only
Source: PCSLoads200_v4.

       Northshore Mining Company mines and processes taconite (iron ore) to produce iron
(Northshore Mining Company, 2006). The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has
linked the processing of taconite to elevated mercury levels in Minnesota's surface waters
(MDNR, 2003). Possible sources of mercury in wastewater discharges from taconite processing
include the following (U.S. EPA, 1995):

       •      Slowdown from wet air pollution control equipment controlling emissions from
             crushing and beneficiation;
       •      Slowdown from wet air pollution control equipment controlling emissions from
             induration furnaces;
       •      Slowdown from wet air pollution control equipment controlling emissions from
             the top gas stack; and
       •      Mine drainage.

       EPA plans to contact this facility as part of the 2009 Annual Review to review the
facility's mercury discharges.

8.5    Ore Mining Category Arsenic Compounds Discharges

       The arsenic TWPE for the Ore Mining Category increased over the years of EPA's
review in both PCS and TRI, although the TRI TWPE decreased slightly between 2004 and
2005. The increases in arsenic discharges do not result from newly reported discharges, but
rather increased discharges from the same facilities.
                                          8-9

-------
                                          Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
       Table 8-8 shows arsenic discharges by facility reported in PCSLoads2002_v4 and
PCSLoads2004_v4. In PCSLoads2004_vฅ, arsenic discharges from the Ore Mining Category are
dominated by two facilities: Kennecott Utah Copper Mine in Salt Lake City, UT, and Lac
Minerals (USA) Gold Mine in Lead, SD. Although eight of the 10 facilities reporting arsenic
discharges to PCS during years of review are gold mining facilities, the top arsenic discharge in
the Ore Mining Category comes from  Kennecott Copper Mine in Salt Lake City, UT. Arsenic
discharges from this facility contributed 85 and 66 percent of the category arsenic TWPE in
PCSLoads2002_v4 and PCSLoads2004_v4, respectively.

       Table 8-9 shows arsenic discharges by facility reported to TRI from 2002 through 2005.
In TRI, arsenic discharges from the Ore Mining Category are dominated by three facilities: the
Newmont Lone Tree Mine in Valmy, NV, the Kennecott Utah Copper Mine in Salt Lake City,
UT, and the Kennecott Utah Copper Smelter and Refinery in Magna, UT. Of the 11 facilities
reporting arsenic discharges to TRI from 2002 through 2005, six are gold mining facilities.

       Based on the results shown in Tables 8-8 and 8-9, EPA intends to review arsenic
discharges as part of the 2009 annual review. EPA plans to review discharges from facilities with
the majority of the TWPE:  copper mines. EPA also plans to review gold mine arsenic discharges,
because the majority of facilities with  arsenic  discharges are gold mines.

8.6    Ore Mining Category Facility Identification

       EPA received comments on previous effluent guidelines program plans stating that
discharges from facilities in the Ore Mining Category may not be adequately quantified in the
PCS and TRI databases and that these discharges can  significantly affect water quality (Johnston,
2003). As part of the 2007 review, EPA reviewed facility information to better understand the
portion of the industry that is not included in the PCS  and TRI databases.

       EPA compared the facilities in the PCS and TRI databases to the USGS Mineral
Yearbook to identify facilities that could be discharging but are not in EPA's databases. Because
facilities in Subparts A (Iron Ore) and J (Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver, and Molybdenum
Ores) contribute the majority of the category TWPE, EPA focused on identifying facilities in
these subcategories. Table 8-14 at the  end of this section lists all of the facilities that EPA
identified during the 2007 category review with discharges applicable to 40 CFR Part 440. EPA
identified 57 facilities that are not included in  the PCS and TRI databases but are in the USGS
Mineral Yearbook.
                                          8-10

-------
                                                                                 Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
        Table 8-8. 2006 Review: Arsenic Discharges in PCSLoads2004_v4 and PCSLoads2002_v4 from Facilities in the Ore Mining
                                                             Category a
Type of
Mine
Copper
Gold
Gold
Gold
Gold
Silver
Gold
Gold
Gold
Copper
Facility Name
Kennecott Copper Co
Lac Minerals (USA) Inc
Wharf Resources (USA), Inc.
Golden Reward Mining Co
Homestake Mining Co-Gold Div
Platoro Mining Co & Union Gold
Zortman Mining Inc.
Zortman Mining Inc.
Hecla Mining Co
Phelps Dodge Corp
Location
Salt Lake City, UT
Lead, SD
Lead, SD
Lead, SD
Lead, SD
Conejos County, CO
Zortman, MT
Zortman, MT
Stanley, ID
Cottonwood, AZ
Maximum Arsenic
Concentration in
PCSLoads2004_v4 (mg/L)
0.726
0.007
0.136
0.021
0.011
0.092
NR
NR
NR
NR
Total
2004
Total Pounds
Released
5,051
2,512
41
27
17
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
7,651
TWPE
20,414
10,153
166
108
70
10
NR
NR
NR
NR
30,921
2002
Total Pounds
Released
2,660
7
113
30
212
1
76
34
9
2
3,143
TWPE
10,750
27
455
121
856
4
307
138
36
7
12,700
oo
      Source: PCSLoads2004_v4: PCSLoads2002_v4.
      a — Includes only discharges greater than one TWPE from PCS Majors.
      NR — Not reported

-------
                                                                                        Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                 Table 8-9. 2006 Review: Arsenic Discharges Reported to TRI from Facilities in the Ore Mining Category a
Type of
Mine
Gold
Copper
Copper
Ferroalloy
Lead/Zinc
Gold
Lead/Zinc
Gold
Gold
Gold
Gold
Facility Name
Newmont Mining Corp. Lone Tree
Mine
Kennecott Utah Copper Smelter &
Refy.
Kennecott Utah Copper Mine
Concentrators & Power Plant
Thompson Creek Mining Co.
Pend Oreille
Pogo Mine
Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co.
Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc.
Newmont Mining Corp. Twin Creeks
Mine
Getchell Gold Corp.
Homestake Mine
Location
Valmy, NV
Magna, UT
Salt Lake City,
UT
Clayton, ID
Metaline Falls,
WA
Pogo Mine, AK
Juneau, AK
Elko, NV
Golconda, NV
Golconda, NV
Lead, SD
Total
2005
Total
Pounds
Released
3,400
2,400
750
15
12
5
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
6,582
TWPE
13,741
9,699
3,031
61
48
20
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
26,600
2004
Total
Pounds
Released
3,000
3,400
1,100
15
NR
NR
NR
NR
17
NR
NR
7,532
TWPE
12,124
13,741
4,445
61
NR
NR
NR
NR
69
NR
NR
30,440
2003
Total
Pounds
Released
2,900
2,100
750
15
NR
NR
7
NR
9
1
100
5,882
TWPE
11,720
8,487
3,031
61
NR
NR
28
NR
36
3
404
23,770
2002
Total
Pounds
Released
2,000
750
250
15
NR
NR
10
19
52
0.3
215
3,312
TWPE
8,083
3,031
1,010
61
NR
NR
40
77
210
1
869
13,383
oo
I
to
      Source: TRIReleases2005_v2: TRIRelease2004_v3; TRIReleases2003_v2;TRIReleases2002_v4.
      a — Does not include facilities reporting to SIC Codes 1011, 1081, and 1094. Facilities classified under these SIC codes are not required to report to TRI.
      NR — Not reported.

-------
                                          Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
       EPA reviewed technical reports on the ore mining industry collected by the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assistance to determine if any large ore mines with a history of
non-compliance are not reporting to PCS and TRI databases. These reports contain a variety of
sampling data for groundwater and surface water near ore mine sites, but do not provide
wastewater discharge data. EPA verified that all of the major sites identified in the technical
reports as currently operational are included in PCS and TRI databases.

       EPA also reviewed why some facilities in the PCS databases do not report to TRI
(Section 8.7.1). EPA compared the discharges in the PCS databases to the threshold reporting
values for TRI. From this analysis, some ore mines that meet threshold reporting requirements
are not reporting to TRI (Krejci, 2008a).

8.7    Comparison of Discharges to Part 440 ELGs and Permit Limits

       EPA analyzed top pollutant discharges (larger than 4,000 TWPE) in PCSLoads2004 v4
and compared them to permit limits for the appropriate outfalls the in permits gathered through
OTIS.13 Table 8-10 lists the discharges analyzed and the applicable permit limit for each
discharge. EPA analyzed  seven discharges  from three facilities and found the following:

       •      EPA reviewed the Northshore mercury discharges separately (see Table 8-7).
              These discharges contribute 76 percent of the category TWPE. The facility's
              permit requires that mercury be monitored in the wastewater but does not set a
              numerical limit.
       •      None of the discharges reviewed by EPA exceeded effluent limits; however, the
              facilities were only required to monitor for the pollutants (i.e., the permit did not
              require numerical limitations for the pollutants). These discharges accounted for
              27 percent14 of the category TWPE in PCSLoads2004_v4.
       •      Three of the 11 pollutant discharges reviewed by EPA were reported in
              concentrations above the detection limit but below the permit limit.
       •      One of the 11 pollutant discharges reviewed by  EPA did not exceed effluent
              limits because the pollutant of concern was not detected in the facility's
              wastewater.
13 EPA has not obtained a permit for Kennecott Copper in Salt Lake City, Utah.
14 Including the mercury discharges from Northshore Mining Company, pollutant discharges where a facility was
only required to monitor for the pollutant in question represent 85 percent of the Ore Mining Category TWPE.
                                          8-13

-------
                                                                                      Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                                         Table 8-10. Compliance Status of High TWPE Discharges
Name
Climax
Molybdenum
Company
Doe Run,
Viburnum Mine
#35
Lac Minerals
(USA) Inc
Location
Summit
County, CO
Viburnum, MO
Lead, SD
Parameter
Fluoride, Total
Molybdenum,
Total
Cadmium, Total
Recoverable
Lead, Total
Recoverable
Aluminum, Total
Recoverable
Arsenic, Total
Recoverable
Copper, Total
Recoverable
Outfall(s)
1
1
1,2,3,4
1
o
6
4
1,2,3,4,STR
3
STR
2
3
Max. Cone. In
PCSLoads2004 v4
(mg/L)
6.7
2.42
BDLa
0.207
0.304
0.005
1.27 a
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
Permitted
Limit (mg/L)
Monitor Only
Monitor Only
Monitor Only
0.264
Monitor Only
Monitor Only
Monitor Only
Monitor Only
Monitor Only
0.3
0.3
Total
TWPE
8,526
18,229
5,080
2,667
5,732
245
10,852
10,119
34
2,782
1,987
Cumulative
TWPE
8,526
18,229
5,080
8,644
10,852
10,153
4,769
Compliance
Status
Monitor Only
Monitor Only
BDL
In Compliance
Monitor Only
Monitor Only
Monitor Only
Monitor Only
Monitor Only
In Compliance
In Compliance
oo
      Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; NPDES Permits (Krejci, 2008b).
      a — Maximum concentration reported at any of the permitted outfalls.
      BDL — Below Detection Limit

-------
                                         Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
8.8    Permit Analysis

       EPA reviewed permits downloaded from the Online Tracking Information System
(OTIS) and compared effluent limits across states for similar mine types. OTIS is a data system
developed by EPA to monitor compliance with permits under multiple EPA programs. OTIS also
contains electronic permits for 28 of the 115 ore mining facilities that EPA identified as having
NPDES permits. EPA compared permit limits for the 28 permits and analyzed the self-
monitoring data included with 16 of the permits. For facilities with available permits, Table 8-11
lists the mine type and associated permit ID.

       EPA analyzed the permits to determine the basis for effluent limits used by permitting
authorities and to evaluate the level of control of ore mining discharges provided by NPDES
(Section 8.8.1). EPA analyzed the available monitoring data to investigate any trends in reported
discharges (Section 8.8.2).

                       Table 8-11. NPDES Permits by Mine Type
Type of Mine
Bauxite
Copper
Gold
Permit ID
AR0000582
AZ0000035
UT0022403
AK0049514
AK0050571
AK0053341
CO0024562
CO0038954
CO0043648
ID0026468
ID0027022
SD0025852
SD0025933
SD0026883
SD0026905
Type of Mine
Lead
Lead, Zinc
Lead, Zinc, Silver, Gold
Molybdenum
Uranium
Zinc
Permit ID
MO0001848
AK0038652
CO0041467
ID0000175
MO0100226
AK0043206
ID0025402
WY0026689
TN0001732
TN0001759
TN0004227
TN0027677
TN0060127
8.8.1   Effluent Limits Comparison

       Table 8-12 at the end of this section summarizes effluent limits for wastewater from the
Ore Mining Category.  The table presents minimum, average, and maximum effluent limits for
monthly average and daily maximum concentrations, summarized by mine type. All of the data
in the tables below were gathered from the 28 permits and associated permit fact sheets that EPA
compiled during the category review.

       In addition to compiling permit limits, EPA used information from permit fact sheets to
determine the basis for each permit limit. Permit writers based some limits on ELGs set by EPA,
and others on water quality. For metals discharges, EPA found that water quality-based limits are
typically set for the following parameters:
                                         8-15

-------
                                         Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
       •      Total mercury;
       •      Total recoverable lead;
       •      Total recoverable copper;
       •      Total recoverable cadmium; and
       •      Total recoverable zinc.

8.8.2   Review of Permit Monitoring Data

       EPA compiled data from the 12 permits that included self-monitoring data in the permit
facts sheets. These data included various metals concentrations and other conventional pollutants
as well as flow data. EPA analyzed the monitoring data to analyze trends in metals
concentrations by type of mine. EPA identified mine type by the information in the permit fact
sheets. Table 8-13 summarizes the data by maximum and average metals concentrations for each
mine type. Gold mines monitored for the most analytes; EPA focused the analysis on the gold
mine discharges, finding that:

       •      Only one gold mine (City and Borough of Juneau Mine in Juneau, AK) detected
             mercury (<0.00006 mg/L, which is below the Subpart J ELGs of 0.001 mg/L
             monthly average, 0.002 mg/L daily maximum).
       •      Four of the five gold mines with monitoring data measured arsenic at
             concentrations above detection (on average). Part 440 Subpart J does not limit
             arsenic.
       •      Four of the five gold mines monitoring for cadmium detect it above the lower
             detection limit. For these four facilities, maximum recorded concentrations range
             from 0.00026 to 0.0031 mg/L, which is below the Subpart J ELGs (0.05 mg/L
             monthly average, 0.1 mg/L daily maximum).
       •      Cyanide, which contributed 122,000 to the Ore Mining Category TWPE in
             PCSLoads2004_v4, is only monitored at one of the 12 mines reviewed — a
             molybdenum mine. It was detected at concentrations from 0.00524 to 0.04 mg/L.
             Part 440 Subpart J does not limit cyanide.
       •      Molybdenum, which contributed 155,000 to the Ore Mining Category  TWPE in
             PCSLoads2002_v4, is only monitored at two of the 12 mines reviewed (one
             copper and one molybdenum). It was detected from 1.313 to 2.76 mg/L. Part 440
             Subpart J does not limit molybdenum.
       •      All of the five mines monitoring lead (four gold mines and one lead/zinc mine)
             detected it above the detection limit on average. Part 440 Subpart J limits lead
             concentrations in wastewater discharges to 0.3 mg/L monthly average  and 0.6
             mg/L daily maximum. One mine detected lead at 3.59 mg/L, but all other mines
             detected it at less than 0.385 mg/L.
                                         8-16

-------
                                                                                         Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                     Table 8-12. Average Metals Concentrations (in mg/L) for Ore Mines with Self-Monitoring Data
                                                                                                                          a, b
Parameter
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Fluoride
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Copper Mines (1)
Avg Cone
NR
ND
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Max Cone
28
ND
ND
0.53
NR
33
3.0
ND
360
3.0
ND
0.050
ND
NR
0.28
Gold Mines (5)
Avg Cone
1.9
0.037
0.00094
0.20
NR
0.035
NR
0.00047
NR
0.68
ND
NR
0.013975
0.00034
0.010
Max Cone
19
0.22
0.0080
12
NR
1.37
NR
0.003
NR
5.55
0.00060
NR
0.064
0.00050
0.040
Lead, Zinc Mines (2)
Avg Cone
NR
NR
0.00050
0.0040
NR
0.030
NR
0.001
NR
0.65
ND
NR
NR
ND
0.11
Max Cone
NR
NR
0.00080
0.0090
NR
0.46
NR
0.00040
NR
1.56
ND
NR
NR
0.00013
0.14
Molybdenum Mines (1)
Avg Cone
NR
NR
NR
0.0035
.00524
NR
4.4
NR
NR
0.75
NR
1.31
NR
0
0.071
Max Cone
NR
NR
NR
0.060
0.040
NR
9.2
NR
NR
2.7
NR
2.8
NR
0.000070
0.90
Zinc Mines (3)
Avg Cone
NR
NR
NR
0.0057
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
ND
NR
NR
NR
0.25
Max Cone
NR
NR
NR
0.018
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
ND
NR
NR
NR
1.1
oo
      Source: NPDES Permit Fact Sheets (Krejci, 2008b).
      a — EPA determined the type of ore being mined or processed using information from permit fact sheets.
      b — Concentrations below the detection limit are specified at the detection limit for summarization.
      () — Number of similar mines.
      ND — Non-detect.
      NR — Not reported.

-------
                                         Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
8.9    Ore Mining Category Conclusions

       The conclusions of the Ore Mining Category review are as follows:

       •      The high TWPE ranking for the Ore Mining Category in the 2008 annual review
             was due to discharges of mercury from one facility: Northshore Mining Company
             in Silver Bay, MN. The facility's NPDES permit does not set limits for mercury,
             but requires quarterly monitoring, which shows detections of mercury at 0.005
             and 0.7 mg/L (PCSLoads2004_v4). The facility mines and processes taconite,
             which can be associated with mercury discharges (MDNR, 2003). In addition, the
             facility generates power in a co-located power plant.
       •      Pollutants without effluent limits for which ore mining facilities are only required
             to monitor contributed approximately 85 percent of the category TWPE: 76
             percent of TWPE from mercury discharges from Northshore and 9 percent of the
             category TWPE from other facilities in PCSLoads2004_v4.
       •      EPA obtained facility information for 398  facilities. PCSLoads2004_v4 and
             TRIReleases2004 v3 represent only 73 facilities (18 percent).
       •      EPA intends to continue its review of arsenic discharges from copper and gold
             mines in the 2009 annual review.

8.10   Ore Mining Category References

1.      Finseth, TJ. 2007. Telephone conversation  with Nancy Smith of Northshore Mining
       Company, Silver Bay, MN. "Molybdenum  and Mercury Discharges from Outfall 010
       during 2004." EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0489.

2.      Johnston, Carey. 2003. U.S. EPA. Memorandum to Public Record for the Effluent
       Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005. "Description and Results of EPA Methodology
       to Synthesize Screening-level Results for the CWA 304(m) Effluent Guidelines Program
       Plan for 2004/2005." (December 23). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-0420.

3.      Krejci, Chris. 2008a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Memorandum to Public Record for
       Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 2008. "Status of Ore Mining  Category Review."
       (January 4, 2008). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05967.

4.      Krejci, Chris. 2008b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Memorandum to Public Record for
       Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 2008. "NPDES Permits Collected for the 2008 Ore
       Mining Category Preliminary Review (Part 440)." (April 30, 2008). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
       0771 DCN 05975.

5.      Mineral Policy Center. 1996. Six Mines Six Mishaps.  (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
       0771 DCN 05974.

6.      Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2003. Mercury and Mining in
       Minnesota. St. Paul, MN. (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05968.
                                         8-18

-------
                                        Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
7.     Northshore Mining Company. 2006. Northshore Mining Comments Re: MCPA
      Implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule. St. Paul, MN. (July). EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771 DCN 05966.

8.     U.S. Census. 2002. U.S. Economic Census. Available online at:
      http://www.census.gov/econ/census02.

9.     U. S. EPA. 1982. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
      Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category. EPA-440/1-82/061.
      Washington, D.C.

10.    U.S. EPA. 1988. Development Document for Effluent Limitations and Guidelines for New
      Source Performance Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category
      Gold Placer Mine Subcategory.  EPA-440/1-88-061. Washington, D.C.

11.    US. EPA. 1995. AP 42, Fifth Edition: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
      Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Washington, DC. (January). Available
      online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/.

12.    U. S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program
      Plan. EPA-821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1346 to
      1352.

13.    U. S. EPA. 2005. Preliminary Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial Discharger?,.
      EPA-821-B-05-004. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0053.

14.    U. S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program
      Plan. EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782.
                                        8-19

-------
                                                                                   Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                               Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining Facilities
Type of
Mine3
Bauxite
Copper
Gold
Regulated Parameter
Aluminum, Total
Iron, Total
Aluminum, Total
Recoverable
Lead, Total
Recoverable
Mercury, Total
Recoverable
Zinc, Total Recoverable
Aluminum, Total
Recoverable
Arsenic, Total
Recoverable
Cadmium, Dissolved
Cadmium, Total
Recoverable
Chromium, Total
Recoverable
Copper, Dissolved
Copper, Potentially
Dissolved
Copper, Total
Recoverable
Iron, Total Recoverable
Lead, Dissolved
ELG Monthly
Average
(mg/L)
1
0.5
NA
0.3
0.001
0.75
NA
NA
0.05
NA
0.15
NA
0.3
Average Monthly Concentration
(mg/L)
Min
1
0.5
0.98
0.029
0.00005
0.75
0.071
0.05
0.0062
0.0001
0.008
0.029
0.0036
0.0019
0.8
0.3
Avg
1
0.5
0.98
0.029
0.00005
0.75
0.071
0.63
0.024
0.026
0.0093
0.073
0.031
0.082
6.4
0.3
Max
1
0.5
0.98
0.029
0.00005
0.75
0.071
4.4
0.05
0.05
0.011
0.15
0.059
0.15
23
0.3
ELG Daily
Maximum
(mg/L)
2
1
NA
0.6
0.002
1.5
NA
NA
0.1

NA
0.3
NA
0.6
Maximum Daily Concentration
(mg/L)
Min
2
1
0.75
0.01
0.002
0.38
0.14
0.1
0.1
0.0002
0.0016
0.05
0.0048
0.0038
1.6
0.6
Avg
2
1
0.75
0.03
0.002
0.94
0.14
1.2
0.1
0.053
0.014
0.14
0.051
0.16
13
0.6
Max
2
1
0.75
0.05
0.002
1.5
0.14
8.8
0.1
0.1
0.016
0.3
0.098
0.3
46
0.6
oo

to
o

-------
                                                                                   Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                               Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining Facilities
Type of
Mine3
Gold
Lead
Regulated Parameter
Lead, Potentially
Dissolved
Lead, Total
Recoverable
Manganese, Dissolved
Manganese, Total
Recoverable
Mercury, Total
Mercury, Total
Recoverable
Nickel, Total
Recoverable
Silver, Potentially
Dissolved
Silver, Total
Recoverable
WAD Cyanide
Zinc, Dissolved
Zinc, Potentially
Dissolved
Zinc, Total
Zinc, Total Recoverable
Cadmium, Dissolved
Cadmium, Total
Recoverable
Chromium, Dissolved
ELG Monthly
Average
(mg/L)
0.3
NA
NA
0.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.75
0.05
NA
Average Monthly Concentration
(mg/L)
Min
0.00055
0.0005
3.8
0.05
9.8E-06
0.000012
0.013
6.9E-06
0.0002
0.0043
0.6
0.54
0.00033
0.018
0.057
0.012
0.17
Avg
0.015
0.15
3.8
0.05
0.00024
0.00078
0.28
0.0004
0.0036
0.026
0.68
0.54
0.00033
0.42
0.057
0.012
0.17
Max
0.03
0.3
3.8
0.05
0.001
0.001
1.5
0.0008
0.02
0.08
0.75
0.54
0.00033
0.75
0.057
0.012
0.17
ELG Daily
Maximum
(mg/L)
0.6
NA
NA
0.002

NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
0.1
NA
Maximum Daily Concentration
(mg/L)
Min
0.01
0.0009
5.9
0.073
0.00002
0.0014
0.026
0.00019
0.0004
0.0081
1.5
0.6
0.00036
0.037
0.094
0.019
0.28
Avg
0.47
0.32
5.9
0.073
0.00055
0.0019
0.56
0.011
0.003
0.025
1.5
0.6
0.00036
0.84
0.094
0.019
0.28
Max
0.92
0.6
5.9
0.073
0.002
0.002
3
0.021
0.013
0.066
1.5
0.6
0.00036
1.5
0.094
0.019
0.28
oo
to

-------
                                                                                   Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                               Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining Facilities
Type of
Mine3
Lead
Lead, Zinc
Regulated Parameter
Copper, Total
Recoverable
Cyanide, amen, to
chlorination
Lead, Total
Recoverable
Mercury, Total
Zinc, Dissolved
Zinc, Total Recoverable
Cadmium, Dissolved
Cadmium, Total
Recoverable
Chlorine, Total
Residual
Copper, Dissolved
Copper, Potentially
Dissolved
Copper, Total
Recoverable
Cyanide, Total
Lead, Dissolved
Lead, Potentially
Dissolved
Lead, Total
Recoverable
Mercury, Total
ELG Monthly
Average
(mg/L)
0.15
NA
0.3
0.001
0.75
NA
NA
NA
0.15
NA
0.3
0.3
0.001
Average Monthly Concentration
(mg/L)
Min
0.029
0.0012
0.18
1.2E-06
0.99
0.34
0.016
0.0007
2.2
0.034
0.0086
0.000021
0.004
0.023
0.0026
0.0081
0.00001
Avg
0.07
0.0012
0.2
1.2E-06
0.99
0.34
0.043
0.0011
2.2
0.034
0.018
0.015
0.004
0.023
0.0055
0.098
0.00022
Max
0.084
0.0012
0.26
1.2E-06
0.99
0.34
0.057
0.002
2.2
0.034
0.028
0.051
0.004
0.023
0.009
0.26
0.001
ELG Daily
Maximum
(mg/L)
0.3
NA
0.6
0.002
1.5
NA
NA
NA
0.3
NA
0.6

0.6
0.002
Maximum Daily Concentration
(mg/L)
Min
0.047
0.022
0.3
2.4E-06
1.6
0.56
0.025
0.0018
3.6
0.056
0.013
0.000042
0.009
0.037
0.067
0.02
0.00002
Avg
0.05
0.022
0.33
2.4E-06
1.6
0.56
0.071
0.0022
3.6
0.056
0.027
0.033
0.009
0.037
0.14
0.16
0.00064
Max
0.051
0.022
0.42
2.4E-06
1.6
0.56
0.094
0.0034
3.6
0.056
0.044
0.084
0.009
0.037
0.23
0.43
0.002
oo

to
to

-------
                                                                                   Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                               Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining Facilities
Type of
Mine3
Lead, Zinc
Lead, Zinc,
Silver, Gold
Molybdenum
Molybdenum
Uranium
Regulated Parameter
Silver, Total
Recoverable
Zinc, Potentially
Dissolved
Zinc, Total Recoverable
Cadmium, Total
Recoverable
Copper, Total
Recoverable
Lead, Total
Recoverable
Mercury, Total
Zinc, Total Recoverable
Cadmium, Total
Recoverable
Chromium, Total
Recoverable
Copper, Total
Recoverable
Lead, Total
Recoverable
Mercury, Total
Selenium, Total
Recoverable
Silver, Total
Recoverable
Zinc, Total Recoverable
Uranium, Total
Zinc, Total
ELG Monthly
Average
(mg/L)
NA
0.75
0.05
0.15
0.3
0.001
0.75
0.05
NA
0.15
0.3
NA
NA
NA
0.5
2
0.5
Average Monthly Concentration
(mg/L)
Min
0.0016
0.15
0.071
0.05
0.11
0.3
0.001
0.5
0.0035
0.02
0.015
0.0083
0.000018
0.011
0.006
0.14
2
0.5
Avg
0.0023
0.26
0.29
0.05
0.11
0.3
0.001
0.5
0.0093
0.02
0.052
0.021
0.00012
0.042
0.006
0.33
2
0.5
Max
0.0033
0.38
0.75
0.05
0.11
0.3
0.001
0.5
0.024
0.02
0.15
0.064
0.00032
0.11
0.006
0.75
2
0.5
ELG Daily
Maximum
(mg/L)
NA
1.5

0.1
0.3
0.6
0.002
1.5
0.1
NA
0.3
0.6
NA
NA
NA
1
4
1
Maximum Daily Concentration
(mg/L)
Min
0.0027
0.15
0.19
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.002
1
0.0052
0.04
0.022
0.012
0.000037
0.017
0.012
0.21
4
1
Avg
0.0039
0.26
0.59
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.002
1
0.015
0.04
0.099
0.034
0.00022
0.058
0.012
0.62
4
1
Max
0.0056
0.38
1.5
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.002
1
0.035
0.04
0.3
0.094
0.00061
0.15
0.012
1.5
4
1
oo
to

-------
                                                                                         Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                                 Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining Facilities
Type of
Mine3
Zinc
Regulated Parameter
Cadmium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Zinc, Total
ELG Monthly
Average
(mg/L)
0.05
0.15
0.3
0.001
0.75
Average Monthly Concentration
(mg/L)
Min
0.007
0.062
0.024

0.5
Avg
0.025
0.12
0.12
0.00057
0.66
Max
0.05
0.15
0.3
0.001
0.75
ELG Daily
Maximum
(mg/L)
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.002
1.5
Maximum Daily Concentration
(mg/L)
Min
0.033
0.1
0.6
0.0016
0.76
Avg
0.077
0.23
0.6
0.0019
1.2
Max
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.002
1.5
      Source: NPDES Permits (Krejci, 2008b).
      a — EPA determined the type of ore being mined or processed at the facilities above using information from permit fact sheets.
oo
to

-------
                                                                                      Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                                          Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List
SIC
Code(s) a
1031
1044
1031
1041
1041
1041
1011
1021
1021
1021
1021
1021
1061
1021
1021
1021
1021
1061
1061
1031
1044
1041
1041
NPDES ID
AK0038652
AK0043206
AK0049514
AK0050571
AK0053341
AL0071111
AZ0000035
AZ0020389
AZ0020401
AZ0020516
AZ0022268
AZ0022705
AZ0024112
AZ0024546
CA0081876
CO0000230
CO0000248
CO0000591
CO0000710
CO0024562
CO0027529
TRIID
99752-RDDGP-90MIL
99801-KNNCT-13401




85237-SRCNC-HWY17

85539-BHPCP-HWY60
85539-BHPCP-HWY6A

86321-CYPRS-1MAIN
85540-PHLPS-4521U



80468-CLMXM-19302



80860-CRPPL-2755S

Name
Teck Cominco Alaska Inc
Kennecott Greens Crk
Mining Co
Juneau, City & Borough Of
Coeur Alaska Inc
Teck-Pogo Inc
Tuscaloosa Steel Mobile Dri
Asarco, Inc
Resolution Copper
BHP Copper
Phelps Dodge
Phelps Dodge Bagdad, Inc
Phelps Dodge Morenci, Inc
Carlota Copper Company
Phelps Dodge Corp
Mining Remedial Recovery
Co
Climax Molybdenum
Company
Climax Molybdenum
Company
Res-Asarco Joint Venture
Homestake Mining Company
Cripple Crk& Victor Gold
Mining
Gold King Mines
Corporation
City
Kotzebue
Juneau
Juneau
Juneau
Delta Junction
Mobile
Hay den
Superior
Miami
Christmas
Bagdad
Morenci
Miami /T/
Yavapai County
Redding
Grand County
Summit County
Lake County
Mineral County
Teller County
San Juan County
State
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AL
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
Zip
49920
41730
41730
41730
22650
56000
37370
83250
52540
16320
05550
54020
52540
97100
63540
38210
86960
53110
62350
87510
80310
In USGS
2005?
Y
Y






Y

Y
Y









PCS 2004
InDB
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Major?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
InTRI
2004?
Y
Y




Y

Y

Y
Y



Y





oo
to

-------
                                                                                      Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                                          Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List
SIC
Code(s) a
1041
1031
1041
1041
1044
1061
1041
1041
1041
1041
1031
1044
1031
1031
1061
1061
1044
1041
1041
1011
1011
1021
1011
NPDES ID
CO0032751
CO0035394
CO0037206
CO0038334
CO0038954
CO0041467
CO0043168
CO0043648
CO0045756
CO0046167
ID0000027
ID0000159
ID0000167
ID0000175
ID0025259
ID0025402
ID0025429
ID0026468
ID0027022
LAO 103284
MI0000094
MI0006114
MI0038369
TRIID





80438-CLMXM-9MILE









83227-THMPS-SQUAW







Name
Calais Resources Colorado,
Inc
Climax Molybdenum
Company
Walker Ruby Trust Mining
Co.
London Mine Lie
Platoro Mining Co&Union
Gold
Climax Molybdenum Co.
Hunter Gold Mining, Inc.
Cripple Creek & Victor Gold
Specie Ridge Holding Co.,
Inc.
New Cardinal Lie
Coeur Silver Valley Inc
Sunshine Precious Metals Inc
Hecla Mining Co
Hecla Mining Co
Noranda Mining Inc
Thompson Creek Mining Co
Coeur Silver Valley Inc
Hecla Mining Co
Meridian Beartrack Co
American Iron Reduction
Empire Iron Mining
Partnership
Copper Range Co
Tilden Mining Co
City
Boulder
Gunnison County
Ouray County
Park County
Conejos County
Clear Creek County
Gilpin County
Teller County
Dolores County
Boulder County
Osburn
Osburn
Mullan
Mullan
Cobalt
Clayton
Wallace
Stanley
Salmon
Convent
Palmer
White Pine
Ishpeming
State
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
LA
MI
MI
MI
Zip
08820
40870
68050
69950
18750
16580
36210
87510
24490
08830
67500
67500
61750
61750
18700
17750
93750
85500
80250
70723
72900
98830
47700
In USGS
2005?







Y







Y







PCS 2004
In DB
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Major?

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y


Y


Y

Y

Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
InTRI
2004?





Y









Y







oo
to

-------
                                                                                      Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                                          Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List
SIC
Code(s) a
1011
1011
1011
1031
1011
1031
1031
1031
1031
1031
1021
1061
1021
1041
1041
1031
1041
1044
1021
1021
1061
1041
1031
NPDES ID
MI0045063
MN0046981
MN0055301
MO0000086
MO0000574
MO0001848
MO0001856
MO0001872
MOO 1002 18
MOO 100226
MT0000191
MT0024716
MT0025020
MT0030015
MT0030031
MT0030252
MT0030279
MT0030287
NM0020435
NM0022306
NM0028711
NY0001791
TRIID





63629-BRSHY-HWYKK
63629-FLTCH-HWYTT



59701-MNTNR-600SH







88043 -CHNMN-210CO



Name
National Steel-Dober Mine
Cpx
Northshore Mining Co;Cliffs
Mn
Northshore Mining/Silver
BayP
Doe Run, Viburnum Div
Upland Wings
Doe Run, Brushy Cr Mine/M
Doe Run,Fletcher Mine/Mil
Cominco, Magmont Mine
Doe Run, West Fork Unit
Doe Run, Viburnum Mine
#35
Montana Resources
Stillwater Mining Company
Montana Gold & Sapphires
Inc
M & W Milling & Refining
Inc
Asarco Inc (Mike Horse)
Tvx Mineral Hill Mine
Noranda Minerals Corp
Revert Silver Company
Chino Mines Co-Hurley
Molycorp Inc - Questa
Pegasus Gold Corporation
Balmat Mines & Mill
City
Stambaugh Twp
Babbitt
Silver Bay
Viburnum
Sullivan
Viburnum
Viburnum
Bixby
Bunker
Viburnum
Butte
Nye
Lewis And Clark Coun
Virginia City
Lewis And Clark Coun
Jardine
Lincoln County
Noxon
Hurley
Questa
Santa Fe County
Balmat N Y
State
MI
MN
MN
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
NM
NM
NM
NY
Zip
89350
05000
86750
81260
77100
81260
81260
06780
11280
81260
12240
61920
49400
88020
49400
43920
50300
61740
42000
69930
78970
04600
In USGS
2005?





Y
Y



Y








Y


PCS 2004
InDB
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Major?
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y




N
Y
Y

Y
InTRI
2004?





Y
Y











Y



oo
to

-------
                                                                                       Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                                          Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List
SIC
Code(s) a
1031
1041
1041
1041
1041
1041
1041
1031
1031
1031
1031
1031
1031
1031
1031
1031
1031
1021
1031
1031
1011
1031
1061
1021
1041
NPDES ID
NY0109126
SC0040479
SC0041378
SD0000043
SD0025933
SD0025852
SD0026883
SD0026905
TN0001732
TN0001741
TN0001759
TN0004227
TN0027677
TN0029360
TN0057029
TN0060127
TN0061468
TN0064289
UT0000051
UT0022403
UT0025259
WV0044903




TRIID



57754-HMSTK-630ES
57754-WHRFR-TROJA









37881-SVGZN-RTE13


84006-KNNCT-8362W



08857-BLNDR-UAKE
19720-MRCNM-301PI
44095-SKLDC-34580
59638-MNTNT-5MILE
Name
Pierrepont Mine
Haile Gold Mine
Kennecott/Ridgeway Gold
Mine
Homestake Mining Co-Gold
Div
Wharf Resources (Usa), Inc.
Lac Minerals (Usa) Inc
Golden Reward Mining Co
Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div.
Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div.
Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div.
Mossy Creek Mining, Lie
Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div.
Mossy Creek Mining, Lie
Mossy Creek Mining, Lie
Mossy Creek Mining, Lie
Asarco, Inc. Tn Mines Div.
Mossy Creek Mining, Lie
Kennecott Copper Co
Jordanelle Special Service
Dis
Lexco, Inc. (E)
Reiss Viking
Blonder Tongue Labs
American Minerals Inc.
Skrl Die Casting Inc
Apollo Gold Corp. Montana
Tunnels
City
Pierrepont Manor
Kershaw
Ridgeway
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead
Jefferson City
New Market
Mascot
Elmwood
Jefferson County
Gordonsville
New Market
Thorn Hill
Jefferson City
Carthage
Salt Lake City
Heber/City/
Vernal
Fairmont
Old Bridge
New Castle
Eastlake
Jefferson City
State
NY
SC
sc
SD
SD
SD
SD
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
UT
UT
UT
WV
NJ
DE
OH
MT
Zip
65400
45300
74400
49680
49680
49680
49680
44400
62160
55560
28440
44410
36120
62160
85200
44400
13920
77880
35360
91800
26940




In USGS
2005?




Y












Y






Y
PCS 2004
In DB
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y




Major?



Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y

N




InTRI
2004?




Y









Y


Y



Y
Y
Y
Y
oo

to
oo

-------
                                                                                       Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                                          Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List
SIC
Code(s) a
1041
1061
1031
1031
1061
1044
1021
1021
1041
1021
1021
1021
1061
1021
1021
1021
1061
1021
1041
1041
1021
1041
1041
NPDES ID






















TRIID
59759-GLDNS-453MO
62982-MRCNM-FERRE
63638-SWTMM-HIGHW
65440-BCKMN-HWYKK
79922-MRCNM-3666D
83846-LCKYF-I90EX
83 873 -SL VRV-LAKEG
84006-KNNCT-12300
84006-KNNCT-8200S
85532-NSPRT-POBOX
85603-PHLPS-36WHW
85614-CYPRS-6200W
85629-SRCNC-4201W
85653-SLVRB-25000
86401-QTRLM-16MIL
88031-MRCNM-2010F
88065-PHLPS-HWY90
89045-SMKYV-1SMOK
89316-RBYHL-INTER
89319-BHPCP-7MILE
89406-KNNCT-55MIL
89414-GTCHL-28MIN
Name
Golden Sunlight Mines Inc
American Minerals Inc.
Doe Run Resources Corp.
Sweetwater Mine/Mill
Buick Mine/Mill
American Minerals Inc
Hecla Mining Co Lucky
Friday Mine Unit
Coeur Silver Valley Inc
Kennecott Utah Copper Mine
Concentrators & Power Plant
Kennecott Barneys Canyon
Mining Co
Phelps Dodge Miami Inc
Phelps Dodge Mining Co
Copper Queen Branch
Phelps Dodge Sierrita Inc
Asarco Inc. Mission Complex
Silver Bell Mining Lie
Equatorial Mineral Park Inc
American Minerals Inc
Phelps Dodge Tyrone Inc
Smoky Valley Common
Operation
Ruby Hill Mine
Robinson Nevada Mining Co
Kennecott Rawhide Mining
Co
Placer Turquoise Ridge Inc
City
Whitehall
Rosiclare
Ellington
Boss
El Paso
Mullan
Wallace
Copperton
Bingham Canyon
Claypool
Bisbee
Green Valley
Pima County
Marana
Kingman
Deming
Tyrone
Round Mountain
Eureka
Ruth
Fallen
Golconda
State
MT
IL
MO
MO
TX
ID
ID
UT
UT
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
NM
NM
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
Zip










2004
2004

2004
2004







In USGS
2005?


Y


Y


Y
Y

Y
Y



Y



Y

PCS 2004
InDB






















Major?






















InTRI
2004?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
oo

to
VO

-------
                                             Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List
oo
1
o
SIC
Code(s) a
1041
1041
1041
1041
1044
1041
1041
1041
1041
1041
1041
1041
1044
1041
1041
1041
1041
1041
1041
1021
NPDES ID




















TRIID
89414-KNSNY-60MIL
894 14-NWMNT-3 SMIL
89415-SMRLD-28LUC
89418-FLRDC-EXIT1
89419-CRRCH-180EX
89438-GLMSM-3MILE
8943 8-NWMNT-EIGHT
8943 8-NWMNT-STONE
89801-JRRTT-50MIL
89803 -BLDMN-70MIL
89803-BRRCK-27MIL
89820-BTTLM-COPPE
89820-CHBYM- 1MCCO
89821-CRTZG-STARA
89822-NWMNT-25MIL
89822-NWMNT-6MAIL
92227-NWMNT-6502E
93554-GLMSR-27850
93562-CRBRG-WINGA
97828-PRKSB-331GO
Name
Newmont Midas Operations
Newmont Mining Corp Twin
Creeks Mine
Esmeralda Mine
Florida Canyon Mining Inc
Coeur Rochester Inc
Glamis Marigold Mining Co
Newmont Mining Corp
Trenton Canyon Mine
Newmont Mining Corp Lone
Tree Mine
Queenstake Resources Ltd.
Jerritt Canyon Mine
Placer Dome Inc. Bald
Mountain Mine
Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc
Newmont Mining
Corporation-Copper Canyon
Facility
Newmont Mining Corp
Mccoy/Cove Mine
Cortez Gold Mines
Newmont Mining Corp
Carlin North Area
Newmont Mining Corp
Carlin South Area
Western Mesquite Mines Inc
Glamis Rand Mine
Cr Briggs Corp
Parks Bronze
City
Midas
Golconda
Hawthorne
Imlay
Lovelock
Valmy
Valmy
Valmy
Elko
Elko
Elko
Battle Mountain
Battle Mountain
Crescent Valley
Carlin
Carlin
Brawley
Randsburg
Trona
Enterprise
State
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
CA
CA
CA
OR
Zip




















In USGS
2005?
Y
Y


Y
Y

Y
Y
Y






Y

Y

PCS 2004
In DB




















Major?




















InTRI
2004?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

-------
                                                                                      Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                                         Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List
SIC
Code(s) a
1041
1031
1041
1041
1041
1031
1041
1021
1021
1021
1041
1061
1044
1031
1031
1031
1041
NPDES ID

















TRIID
99118-CHBYN-2400W
99153-PNDRL-1382P
99166-KTTLR-363FI
99707-FRTKN- 1FORA
99712-TRNRT-1TWIN
99752-RDDGP-13MIL











Name
K2 Mine
Teck Cominco American Inc.
Pend Oreille
Kinross Gold Corp. KETTLE
RIVER OPERATIONS
MILL
FORT KNOX MINE
TRUE NORTH MINE
DELONG MOUNTAIN
TRANSPORTATION
FACILITY PORT SITE
Kinross Gold Corp. Fort
Knox
ASARCO Inc. Ray
ASARCO Inc. Silver Bell
BHP Copper Co. Pinto
Valley
LKA International Golden
Wonder
Phelps Dodge Corp.
Henderson
Silver Valley Resources
Corp. Galena
Doe Run Resources Corp.
Buick
Doe Run Resources Corp.
Viburnum (#29 and #35)
Doe Run Resources Corp.
Viburnum (#38 and #35)
Placer Dome Inc. Golden
Sunlight
City
Curlew
Metaline Falls
Republic
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Kotzebue
Fairbanks County
Final County
Pima County
Gila County
Hinsdale County
Cleak Creek County
Shoshone County
Iron County
Iron County
Iron County
Jefferson County
State
WA
WA
WA
AK
AK
AK
AK
AZ
AZ
AZ
CO
CO
ID
MO
MO
MO
MT
Zip

















In USGS
2005?

Y
Y



Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
PCS 2004
In DB

















Major?

















InTRI
2004?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y











oo

-------
                                                                                        Section 8.0 - Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)
                                         Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List
oo
1
to
SIC
Code(s) a
1021
1061
1041
1041
1041
1041
1041
1041
1041
1041
1044
1044
1021
1061
1021
1061
NPDES ID













TRIID













Name
Phelps Dodge Corp. Chino
Barrick Gold Corp. Betze-
Post
Barrick Gold Corp. Meikle
Jipangu Inc. Florida Canyon
Jipangu Inc. Standard
Kinross Gold Corp. Smoky
Valley Common Operation
Newmont Mining Corp. Mule
Canyon
Newmont Mining Corp.
Turquoise Ridge
Placer Dome Inc. Cortez
Kinross Gold Corp. Round
Mountain
Newmont Mining Corp.
Eastern Nevada Operations
Quadra Mining Ltd.
Robinson
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.
Bingham Canyon
City
Grant County
Eureka County
Elko County
Pershing County
Pershing County
Nye County
Lander County
Humboldt County
Lander County
Nye County
Elko County
White Pine County
Salt Lake County
State
NM
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
UT
Zip













In USGS
2005?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
PCS 2004
In DB













Major?













InTRI
2004?













Source: PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2004_v4.
a — EPA determined SIC codes by the mineral type listed in the USGS Minerals Yearbook.

-------
                                                Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
9.0    PETROLEUM REFINING (40 CFR PART 419)

       EPA selected the Petroleum Refining Category (40 CFR Part 419) for preliminary review
because it continues to rank high, in terms of TWPE, in point source category rankings (see
Tables 5-3 and 5-4 for the point source category rankings). EPA previously performed a detailed
study of this industry, published as part of the 2004 Final ELGPlan (69 FR 53705). EPA has
also reviewed discharges from petroleum refineries as part of its annual reviews since 2004.
Each year, including this year of review, EPA has concluded that wastewater from petroleum
refiners is not a hazard priority  at this time.

9.1    Petroleum Refining Category Background

       This subsection provides background on the Petroleum Refining Category including a
brief profile of the petroleum refining industry and background on 40 CFR Part 419.

9.1.1   Petroleum Refining Industry Profile

       The petroleum refining industry includes facilities that produce gasoline, kerosene,
distillate fuel oils, residual fuel  oils, and lubricants through fractionation or straight distillation of
crude oil, redistillation of unfinished petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other processes. This
industry is represented by one SIC code 2911,  Petroleum Refining; however, EPA includes
operations from four other SIC  codes as part of the review of the Petroleum Refining Category,
considered potential new subcategories.15

       Table 9-1  presents the number of facilities in the SIC codes that compose the petroleum
refining industry. Because the U.S. Economic Census reports data by NAICS code, and TRI and
PCS report data by  SIC code, EPA reclassified the 2002 U.S. Economic Census by the
equivalent SIC code. The facilities in SIC code 5171  do not correlate directly to a NAICS code
and therefore EPA could not determine the number of facilities in the 2002 U.S. Economic
Census for SIC code 5171.

       Petroleum refineries discharge directly to surface water as well as to POTWs. Table 9-2
presents the types of discharges reported by facilities in the 2004 and 2005 TRI database. The
majority of petroleum refineries reporting to TRI reported discharging directly. The majority of
facilities reporting to TRI in SIC codes classified as potential new subcategories reported no
water discharges, but facilities may be discharging pollutants in wastewater at levels below the
TRI-reporting threshold.
15 EPA reviews industries with SIC codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes,
operations, wastewaters, and pollutants of facilities in the SIC codes 2992, 2999, 4612, and 5171 (listed in
Table 9-1) are similar to those of the Petroleum Refining Category (U.S. EPA, 2004). The tables in this section
include discharge information from the potential new subcategories; however, these facilities contribute negligible
amounts of TWPE. Consistent with the conclusions drawn during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004) and
2006 review (U.S. EPA, 2006), EPA found that large numbers of these facilities discharge no wastewater and only a
small number of facilities discharge TWPE greater than zero.	
                                            9-1

-------
                                                   Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
              Table 9-1. Number of Facilities in Petroleum Refining SIC Codes
SIC
2911: Petroleum Refining
2002 U.S.
Economic
Census
199
2004 PCS a
144
2004 TRI b
164
2005 TRI b
159
Potential New Subcategories
2992: Lubricating Oils and Greases
2999: Products of Petroleum and Coal, NEC
4612: Crude Petroleum Pipelines
5171: Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
Potential New Subcategories Total
407
74
271
NAC
>752
21
22
28
481
552
130
30
0
540
700
129
35
0
523
687
Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002);PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3;
TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — Major and minor dischargers.
b — Releases to any media.
c — Poor bridging between SIC codes and NAICS codes. Number of facilities could not be determined.
NA — Not applicable.
NEC — Not elsewhere classified.
                                               9-2

-------
                                                                                         Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
                 Table 9-2. Petroleum Refining Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005
SIC Code
2911: Petroleum Refining
TRI 2004
Reported
Only Direct
Discharges
92
Reported
Only
Indirect
Discharges
21
Reported
Both Direct
and
Indirect
Discharges
16
Reported
No Water
Discharges
35
TRI 2005
Reported
Only Direct
Discharges
90
Reported
Only
Indirect
Discharges
23
Reported
Both Direct
and
Indirect
Discharges
16
Reported
No Water
Discharges
30
Potential New Subcategories
2992: Lubricating Oils and Greases
2999: Products of Petroleum and Coal, NEC
4612: Crude Petroleum Pipelines
5171: Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
Potential New Subcategories Total
7
6
0
129
142
16
0
0
20
36
5
0
0
13
18
102
24
0
378
504
7
7
0
134
148
16
0
0
19
35
6
0
0
13
19
100
28
0
357
485
VO
Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRlReleases2005_v2.
NEC — Not elsewhere classified.

-------
                                                Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
9.1.2  40 CFR Part 419

       EPA first promulgated ELGs for the Petroleum Refining Category (40 CFR Part 419) on
October 18, 1982 (47 FR 46446). The five subcategories established all have limitations or
standards set for BPT, BAT, BCT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS. EPA established numerical
limitations for ammonia as nitrogen, hexavalent chromium, phenolic compounds, sulfide, and
total chromium in at least one subcategory. Section 7 of the 2004 TSD provides more
information on the existing regulations for the Petroleum Refining Category (U.S. EPA, 2004).

9.2    Petroleum Refining Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews

       Over the years of EPA review, from 2004 through 2008, the TWPE associated with
petroleum refineries has increased. Table 9-3 shows the screening-level results for the Petroleum
Refining Category including the potential new subcategory SIC codes from the 2002 through
2005 TRI and PCS databases. Both the 2004 TRI and PCS TWPEs have increased compared to
previous years. Also, the 2005 TRI TWPE increased compared to 2002 and 2003, but decreased
compared to 2004. However, the largest increase in TWPE is in PCS from 2002 to 2004.

             Table 9-3. Petroleum Refining Category Screening-Level Results
Year of Review
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year of Data
Source
2002
2003
2004
2005
Petroleum Refining Category a
TRI TWPE b
467,009
498,367
669,434
627,618
PCS TWPE c
165,076
NA
818,705
NA
Potential New Subcategory for the
Petroleum Refining Category d
TRI TWPE b
3,922
2,570
2,592
3,116
PCS TWPE c
445
NA
7,944
NA
Source: PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2;PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3;
TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — Includes TWPE from the potential new subcategory.
b — Direct and indirect water releases only.
c — Major and minor dischargers.
d — EPA reviews industries with SIC codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes,
operations, wastewaters, and pollutants of facilities in the SIC codes 2992, 2999, 4612, and 5171 (listed in
Table 9-1) are similar to those of the Petroleum Refining Category (U.S. EPA, 2004). The tables in this section
include discharge information from the potential new subcategories; however, these facilities contribute negligible
amounts of TWPE. Consistent with the conclusions drawn during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004) and
2006 review (U.S. EPA, 2006), EPA found that large numbers of these facilities discharge no wastewater and only a
small number of facilities discharge TWPE greater than zero.
NA — Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate PCS data for 2003 and 2005.
                                            9-4

-------
                                              Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
9.3    Petroleum Refining Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern

       Table 9-4 shows the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2004_v3,
TRIReleases2005 v2, and PCSLoads2004 v3 for the Petroleum Refining Category. For
comparison purposes, Table 9-5 provides similar information from the 2006 Final ELGPlan (71
FR 76644) using TRIReleases2002_v4, TRIReleases2003_v2, and PCSLoads2002  v4. With the
exception of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, the pollutants of concern and their relative
contribution to the category's total TWPE remain the same. That is, the TWPE from the top
pollutants in TRIReleases and PCSLoads from 2002 through 2005 generally remain the same,
except for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. The 2004 and 2006 TSDs discuss EPA's
conclusions for pollutants other than dioxin and dioxin-like compounds (U.S. EPA, 2004; U.S.
EPA, 2006). Section 9.4 discusses EPA's review of discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds from petroleum refineries, while section 9.5 discusses EPA's review of discharges of
polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) from petroleum refineries.

9.4    Petroleum Refining Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges

       The increase in the overall TWPE for the Petroleum Refining Category is largely due to
increases of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, as reflected in the TRI and PCS databases. The
discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are from the petroleum refineries (SIC code
2911), not facilities in the potential new subcategories of the Petroleum Refining Category.
Therefore, this section focuses on discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from
petroleum refineries only.

       EPA examined discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from petroleum
refineries extensively for its detailed and previous preliminary studies. From these studies, EPA
concluded that (U.S. EPA, 2004):

       Dioxin and dioxin like compounds are produced during catalytic reforming and catalyst
       regeneration operations at petroleum refineries. Of the 163 petroleum refineries, 17
       reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to TRI. Of the 17 refineries
       reported discharges in 2002, only five reported discharges based on analytical
       measurements. Only two of these facilities detected dioxin and dioxin-like compounds
       above the Method 1613B minimum level and both of these facilities measured dioxin at
       the point immediately following catalytic regeneration and prior to wastewater
       treatment.
                                          9-5

-------
                                                                                                Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
                                Table 9-4. 2008 Review: Petroleum Refining Category Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant
Dioxin and Dioxin-Like
Compounds
Sulfide
Chlorine
Aluminum
Fluoride
PACs
Lead and Lead Compounds
Nitrate Compounds
Mercury and Mercury
Compounds
Petroleum Refining
Category Total
PCS 2004 b
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
1
71
16
9
11
Total Pounds
0.000761
41,309
100,888
530,616
432,123
TWPE
535,673
115,724
51,368
34,326
15,124
Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2004
reported pollutants.
113d
1,717,808,018
818,705
TRI 2004 c
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
17
Total
Pounds
0.0157
TWPE
558,877
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2004 reported pollutants.
65
108
63
61
325 d
1,027
8,905
16,737,280
102
18,835,213
26,110
19,947
12,497
11,978
669,434
TRI 2005 c
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
15
Total
Pounds
0.0148
TWPE
516,064
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2005 reported pollutants.
63
120
61
67
331 d
1,351
7,502
16,308,453
100
17,930,959
34,343
16,803
12,177
11,715
627,618
VO
      Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2.
      a — This table presents the top five pollutants composing the category TWPE,
      subcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE.
      b — Discharges include only major dischargers.
      c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.
      d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.
      PACs — Polycyclic aromatic compounds.
including the potential new subcategory SIC codes. However, the potential new

-------
                                                                                                Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
                                Table 9-5. 2006 Review: Petroleum Refining Category Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant
Sulfide
Chlorine
Fluoride
Silver
Selenium
Dioxin and Dioxin-Like
Compounds
PACs
Mercury and Mercury
Compounds
Lead and Lead
Compounds
Nitrate Compounds
Petroleum Refining
Category Total
PCS 2002 b
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
77
17
12
7
17
Total Pounds
29,851
45,011
406,609
769
7,560
TWPE
83,626
22,918
14,231
12,669
8,477
Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2002
reported pollutants
118 d
7,606,670,158
165,076
TRI2002C
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
Total
Pounds
TWPE
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2002
reported pollutants
16
61
68
97
62
352 d
0.0114
3,309
124
5,644
16,796,417
18,412,828
296,024
85,642
14,465
12,643
12,541
467,009
TRI 2003 c
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
Total
Pounds
TWPE
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2003 reported pollutants
18
59
66
116
61
343d
0.0123
1,291
110
9,882
15,706,670
17,314,282
374,030
32,825
12,912
22,136
11,728
498,367
VO
      Source: PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2.
      a — This table presents the top five pollutants composing the category TWPE, including the potential new subcategory SIC codes. However, the potential new
      subcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE.
      b — Discharges include only major dischargers.
      c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.
      d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.
      PACs — Polycyclic aromatic compounds.

-------
                                              Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
       Table 9-8, at the end of this section, lists all of the dioxin and dioxin-like compound
discharges reported to TRI from 2002 to 2005. The 2004 and 2005 data show the same trend that
was seen in the previous reviews. Seventeen facilities reported discharges of dioxin or dioxin-
like compounds to TRI in 2004 and 15 facilities reported discharges of dioxin or dioxin-like
compounds to TRI in 2005. The 2004 PCS data include dioxin discharges from one facility,
Tesoro in Martinez, CA. EPA reviewed the dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges in the
TRI and PCS databases  for the following four facilities, with newly reported, increased, and/or
high TWPE associated with discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds:

       •      Chevron  - Richmond, CA;
       •      Hovensa LLC - Christiansted, VI;
       •      Tesoro - Anacortes, WA; and
       •      Tesoro - Martinez, CA.

       For discharges reported to TRI, as  with the previous detailed and preliminary study, new
or increased dioxin and  dioxin-like compound discharges are based on estimates rather than
wastewater monitoring data. The dioxin and dioxin-like discharges in the PCSLoads2004 v3
database  from the Tesoro refinery in Martinez, CA, are from stormwater sources, not petroleum
refining processes, and are being investigated by the San Francisco Region Water Quality
Control Board (SF RWQCB). In the following subsections, EPA discusses its findings on the
four facilities listed above.

9.4.1   Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Chevron —Richmond, CA

       The dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges from Chevron Products, in Richmond,
CA, contribute approximately 140,000 TWPE to TRI 2004 and 120,000 TWPE to TRI 2005.
EPA contacted Chevron, which estimated discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds based
on semi-annual analysis of its effluent discharge. Table 9-6 presents the concentrations of the
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds that were detected, with the lower calibration limit (LCL), for
the 2003  and 2004 samples. In the four sampling episodes the following dioxin and dioxin-like
congeners were detected above the LCL: octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD): 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
heptachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF): and octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF). The
facility measured most dioxin and dioxin-like compounds at concentrations below the method
detection limit (DL) and LCL. The DL and LCL  can change with instrument, analyst, and
matrix, and therefore may vary for  each sample. The DL and LCL are different from the Method
1613B minimum level (ML). EPA  sets the ML as the lowest concentration of an analyte that can
be reliably measured within specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory
operating conditions. The ML is always greater than the DL and LCL. Chevron calculated the
quantities (g/year) of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds reported to TRI, by using half the DL
for sample concentrations measured below the DL and half of the LCL for sample concentrations
measured above the DL but below the LCL, based on EPA's TRI guidance (Lizarraga, 2007).

       Of the TWPE from dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in the Chevron Richmond
wastewater discharges, the detected congeners accounted for 350  of the 37,000 TWPE in
TRIReleases2003 and 69,000 of the 141,000 TWPE in TRIReleases2004. In 2004, Chevron
detected 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (not detected in 2003), which accounted for most of
the increase in TWPE from 2003 to 2004.  The TWPE from dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in
TRIReleases2005 decreased compared to the 2004 TWPE; however, the 2005 TWPE is still

-------
                                               Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
larger than the 2002 and 2003 TWPEs. Chevron noted that the only process identified where
conditions exist for dioxin formation and subsequent capture in the process wastewater is
regeneration of two semi-regenerative catalytic reformers'  catalyst (Lizarraga, 2007).

      Table 9-6. Detected Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Congeners for Chevron
Dioxin and Dioxin-
Like Compound
Congener
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD



OCDD



1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF


1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF


Method 1613B
Minimum
Level (pg/L)
50



100



50
50
50

50

50
50


50
100


Sample Date
5/6/03
11/10/03
5/5/04
11/5/04
5/6/03
11/10/03
5/5/04
11/5/04
11/5/04
11/5/04
11/10/03
11/5/04
5/6/03
11/5/04
11/5/04
5/6/03
5/5/04
11/5/04
11/5/04
5/6/03
5/5/04
11/5/04
Concentration
(Pg/L)
5.88
4.17
3.29
12.3
24.8
23.8
22.6
31.3
8.34
5.68
1.11
23.2
1.76
12.7
3.81
6.10
1.12
34.4
11.6
10.0
4.42
30.2
Lower
Calibration
Limit (pg/L)
23
26
23
23
17
26
17
17
24
21
19
26
26
26
29
28
28
28
26
17
17
17
Comments

Also detected in
the Method
Blank


Above the LCL
Also detected in
the Method
Blank; Above
the LCL
Above the LCL
Above the LCL









Above the LCL



Above the LCL
Source: Letter to Jan Matuszko of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, from Tery A. Lizarraga, Chevron
Products Company, Richmond, CA (Lizarraga, 2007).
LCL — Lower calibration limit.

9.4.2  Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Hovensa — Christiansted, VI

      The dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges from Hovensa LLC, in Christiansted,
VI, contribute approximately 149,000 TWPE (2004) and 180,000 TWPE (2005) in the TRI
databases. These values are approximately two orders of magnitude larger than the facility
TWPE from TRIReleases2002. Hovensa has not analyzed their wastewater for dioxin and dioxin-
like compounds.
                                           9-9

-------
                                              Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
       Hovensa is reporting increased discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in part
because they changed how they estimate dioxin formation (U.S. EPA, 2004). Prior to 2003,
Hovensa estimated dioxin and dioxin-like compound emissions to air based on an EPA factor of
136 ng/(bbl/yr x catalytic reforming regeneration events). Hovensa then multiplied the estimated
air emissions by a factor of 101.01 to estimate the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds discharges
to water. After attending a TRI workshop in 2003 which presented a case study of a petroleum
refinery, Hovensa began reporting 0.55 grams of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds for each
regeneration event during the year (U.S. EPA, 2004).

       The increase in estimated dioxin likely resulted from the change in how discharges are
estimated, as well as an increased number of regenerations. Based on the facility's reported 2.2
grams of dioxin and dioxin-like discharges reported to TRI in 2005, EPA assumes that the
facility performed four regenerations during 2005 (Antoine, 2007). Similarly, based on the 1.7
grams of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds reported to TRI in 2004, EPA assumes that the
facility performed three regenerations during 2005. The increased numbers of regeneration
events are likely due to increased production.

9.4.3   Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Tesoro — Anacortes, WA

       The dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges from Tesoro Northwest, in Anacortes,
WA, contribute approximately 54,000 TWPE to TRI 2004 and 55,000 TWPE to TRI 2005.
These values reflect about a 15 percent increase over the discharges contained in the 2002 and
2003 TRI databases. EPA analyzed and studied dioxin discharge data from this facility as part of
its previous detailed study and found the following information (U.S. EPA, 2004):

       The Tesoro Northwest Refinery (Anacortes, WA) sampled its effluent on two occasions,
       during batch discharges of treated wastewater generated during the regeneration of
       catalytic reformer spent catalyst. Each sample was analyzed by two independent
       analytical laboratories. Tesoro Northwest detected between 6 and 11 dioxin congeners in
       its final effluent. However, two compounds were present in the corresponding laboratory
       blank.  Several other compounds were detected below the lower calibration limit (LCL).
       OCDF and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDF were detected at about the method minimum level by
       both laboratories and in both samples. The most toxic dioxin forms (2,3,7,8 -TCDD and
       2,3,7,8-TCDF) were not detected in any samples. The refinery has not done an additional
       study to identify the sources of dioxin in its final effluent. At this point, because the dioxin
       concentrations in the upstream source (catalytic reformer regeneration wastewaters) are
       also high, EPA assumes the spent caustic/wash water from catalytic reformer
       regeneration is the source of the dioxins in the final effluent. These effluent measurements
       equate to 29.9 to 196 TWPE (low value assumes nondetects equal zero and high value
       assumes nondetects equal the detection limit).

       EPA believes that the discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds continue to
increase due to increases in production, and that the majority of the TWPE reported to TRI is
based on values below the LCL and/or minimum level.
                                         9-10

-------
                                              Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
9.4.4   Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Tesoro — Martinez, CA

       The dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges from the Tesoro refinery in Martinez,
CA, contribute approximately 535,000 TWPE inPCSLoads2004_v3. The 2000 and 2002
versions of the PCSLoads databases, do not include discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds from Tesoro Martinez (i.e., no discharges greater than zero). Tesoro Martinez reports
monitors TCDD equivalents rather than dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. Table 9-7 presents
the monitoring data for 2004.

                    Table 9-7. TCDD Equivalents Monitored in 2004
Sample Date
7/31/2004
Concentration Reported (pg/L)
140.0 a
Source: PCSLoadCalculator2004_AK_DC.
a — The Method 1613b method limit for 2,3,7,8-TCDD is 10 pg/L.

      EPA analyzed and studied dioxin discharge data from this facility as part of its previous
detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004):

      In 1997, the Tesoro (Martinez, CA) refinery completed an extensive study to find the
      source of dioxin in its wastewaters. The study determined that stormwater is the largest
      source of dioxin in the final effluent (50 percent) with the coke pond and clean canal
      forebay as the second largest (45 percent).  The refinery reported that the wastewater
      treatment plant (i.e., treated process wastewater) contributed 2 percent of the dioxins in
      the final effluent. The facility collected and analyzed two samples of fully treated process
      wastewater for this study.  The analytical results were 0.000 pg/L TCDD-equivalents and
      0.012pg/L TCDD-equivalents. These concentrations equate to 12.8 Ib-equivalents. In
      comparison, the calculated TCDD-equivalents of the concentrations detected in the final
      effluent in 2000 were 0.00028, 0.30, and 0.09pg/L.

      The majority of the refinery's discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds result
from stormwater because the soil at the refinery is  contaminated with dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds. The SF RWQCB is working with Tesoro to reduce dioxin discharges to the San
Francisco Bay (SF RWQCB, 2005).

      EPA believes that because the discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are from
stormwater, not a petroleum refining  process, and the SF RWQCB are working with Tesoro, the
discharges do not warrant additional review.

9.5   Petroleum Refining Category Polycyclic  Aromatic Compounds Discharges

      PACs are the second largest contributor to the TWPE discharges from TRI 2004 and
2005 for the Petroleum Refining Category. The PAC discharges contained in PCS are reported as
individual compounds, and therefore, are not a combined category of pollutants. None of the
individual PACs were among the top pollutants discharged from petroleum refineries in PCS
2004. EPA  examined reported PAC discharges from petroleum refining facilities extensively for
its detailed  and previous preliminary  studies. From these previous studies, EPA concluded that
(U.S. EPA,  2004):

-------
                                              Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
       Petroleum refineries report PACs discharges to TRI; however, these discharges are
       either based on one-half the detection limit multiplied by the flow or are estimated using
       emission factors. Out of 39 dischargers that reported PACs, EPA has verified only three
       petroleum refineries that measured PACs in their final effluent. Of these, two discharge
       indirectly to POTWs and receive additional treatment prior to discharge to surface
       waters and the third reported?AC discharges representing 81 TWPE. Therefore, this is
       little evidence that PACs are being discharged to surface waters in concentrations above
       the detection limit.

       Table 9-9, at the end of this section, lists the PACs reported to TRI from 2002 to 2005.
The PACs in the TRI databases increased from 26,000 TWPE  in 2004 to 34,000 TWPE in 2005;
however, the TWPE in TRIReleases2005 is still lower than the TWPE from TRIReleases2002.
Thirty-eight facilities reported PAC discharges to TRI  in 2004 and 39 facilities reported PAC
discharges to TRI in 2005. Using the 2004 and 2005 TRI-reported data, EPA did not identify any
additional petroleum refineries that measured PACs in their final effluent; therefore, EPA draws
the same conclusion that was reached in the previous studies.

9.6    Petroleum Refining Category Conclusions

       During the 2008 Annual Review, EPA did not obtain any information to change the
conclusions that have previously been made regarding the wastewater discharges from the
petroleum refineries. Therefore, the conclusions of the petroleum refining category review are as
follows:

       •     EPA previously determined that dioxin  and dioxin-like compounds are produced
             during catalytic reforming and catalyst regeneration operations at petroleum
             refineries. Most facilities never detected dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in
             their process wastewater effluent.

             Of the 164 identified U.S. petroleum refineries  (SIC code 2911) in TRI 2004, 17
             report discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2004 and 15
             report discharge of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2005. Of the 17
             refineries reporting  discharges in 2004 and 2005, only seven of these refineries
             reported dioxin discharges based on analytical measurements (i.e., see the "Basis
             of Estimate" field noted as "M" in Table 9-8). Only three of these facilities
             detected dioxin and dioxin-like compounds above the Method 1613B minimum
             level and two of these facilities measured dioxin at the point immediately
             following catalytic regeneration and prior to wastewater treatment.

       •     In PCSLoads2004_v3, one facility had measurable discharges of dioxin and
             dioxin-like compounds: the Tesoro refinery in Martinez, CA. The majority of the
             dioxin discharge, in terms of TWPE, results from stormwater runoff from an area
             with contaminated soil. The facility's dioxin discharges are not representative of
             petroleum refining process wastewater.  In addition, the SF RWQCB is working
             with the facility to reduce the dioxin discharged from this facility.
                                          9-12

-------
                                 Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
Petroleum refineries report PAC discharges to TRI; however, these discharges are
either based on half the detection limit multiplied by the flow or estimated using
emission factors. Out of 39 dischargers that reported PACs to TRI in 2005, EPA
has verified only three petroleum refineries that measured PACs in their final
effluent. Of these, two discharge indirectly to POTWs and receive additional
treatment prior to discharge to surface waters and the third reported PAC
discharges representing 81 TWPE. Therefore, there is little evidence that PACs
are being discharged to surface waters in concentrations above the detection limit.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential
revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the
environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is
assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is
marked with "(3)" in the "Findings" column in Table V-l in the accompanying
Federal Register notice that presents the 2008 annual review of effluent guidelines
and pretreatment standards).
                             9-13

-------
                                                                                        Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
                Table 9-8. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002-2005
TRI ID
00851-HSSLV-
LIMET
94802-CHVRN-
841ST
98221-SHLLL-
WESTM
70669-CNCLK-
OLDSP
43616-SHLCM-
400 1C
90245-CHVRN-
324WE
74603-CNCPN-
1000S
77536-DRPRK-
5900H
80022-CNCDN-
5801B
08066-MBLLC-
BILLI
39567-CHVRN-
POBOX
62454-MRTHN-
MARAT
00654-PHLPS-
PHILI
70602-CTGPT-
HIGHW
19706-TXCDL-
2000W
46394-MCLC -
28151
Facility Name
Hovensa LLC
Chevron Products Co.
Richmond
Refinery (a,b)
Tesoro Refining &
Marketing Co
Conocophillips Lake
Charles Refinery
Bp Products North
America Inc Toledo
Refinery
Chevron Products Co.
Div Of Chevron US A
Inc.
Conocophillips Ponca
City Refinery
Shell Oil Co - Deer
Park Refining LP
Suncor Energy
Commerce City
Refinery
Valero Refining Co
New Jersey
Chevron Products Co
Pascagoula Refinery
Marathon Ashland
Petroleum LLC Illinois
Refining Div
Chevron Phillips
Chemical Puerto Rico
Core Inc.
Citgo Petroleum Corp
Premcor Refining
Group Inc
Bp Products North
America Whiting
Business Unit
Location
Christiansted,
VI
Richmond,
CA
Anacortes,
WA
Westlake, LA
Oregon, OH
El Segundo,
CA
Ponca City,
OK
Deer Park, TX
Commerce
City, CO
Paulsboro, NJ
Pascagoula,
MS
Robinson, IL
Guayama, PR
Westlake, LA
Delaware
City, DE
Whiting, IN
2005
Grams
Released
2.2
0.94
1.94
0.539
0.331
0.158
0.141
0.114
0.111
0.0879
0.099
0.0404
0.0054
0.00256
0.0000965
NR
TWPE
180,442
121,521
55,248
48,580
47,084
16,221
11,601
10,850
9,104
7,209
4,234
3,314
443
210
2
NR
Basis of
Estimate
E
M
M
0
0
M
0
M
M
0
0
0
E
E
0
NR
2004
Grams
Released
1.7
1.35
1.95
0.54
0.34
0.2
0.28
0.16
0.037
0.18
0.12
0.04
0.0035
0.0026
0.022
0.000011
TWPE
148,653
141,106
54,406
48,580
47,795
20,533
25,485
15,477
3,333
15,838
5,217
3,604
318
231
559
1.8
Basis of
Estimate
C
0
M
0
M
M
0
M
M
0
0
0
E
E
0
0
2003
Grams
Released
1.1
0.68
1.7
0.54
0.38
0.34
0.28
0.15
0.074
0.088
0.099
0.0404
0.00596
0.0026
0.022
NR
TWPE
85,167
36,798
47,382
48,580
54,054
35,317
21,901
14,581
5,729
6,813
4,234
3,128
461
199
559
NR
Basis of
Estimate
C
0
M
0
M
M
0
0
E
0
0
0
E
E
0
NR
2002
Grams
Released
0.034
0.76
1.6
0.54
0.36
0.11
0.44
NR
0.095
0.088
0.086
0.04
NR
0.0026
NR
NR
TWPE
2,342
19,229
45,504
48,580
51,209
11,191
31,071
NR
6,640
6,151
3,678
2,796
NR
179
NR
NR
Basis of
Estimate
C
0
M
0
M
M
0
NR
E
0
0
0
NR
E
NR
NR
VO

-------
                                                                                                                      Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
                   Table 9-8. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002-2005
TRI ID
60434-MBLJL-
INTER
99611-TSRLS-
MILE2
07036-XXN -
1400P
77590-MRTHN-
FOOTO
Facility Name
ExxonMobil Oil Corp
Joliet Refinery
Tesoro Alaska - Kenai
Refinery (a,b)
Conocophillips Co.
Bayway Refinery
Marathon Ashland
Petroleum L.L.C.
Location
Channahon, IL
Kenai, AK
Linden, NJ
Texas City,
TX
2005
Grams
Released
NR
NR
NR
NR
TWPE
NR
NR
NR
NR
Basis of
Estimate
NR
NR
NR
NR
2004
Grams
Released
NR
NR
NR
NR
TWPE
NR
NR
NR
NR
Basis of
Estimate
NR
NR
NR
NR
2003
Grams
Released
0.0007
0.0006
NR
NR
TWPE
64
46
NR
NR
Basis of
Estimate
0
M
NR
NR
2002
Grams
Released
0.43
NR
0.25
0.0044
TWPE
39,602
NR
5,229
304
Basis of
Estimate
0
NR
M
0
Indirect
90748-NCLLS-
1660W
Conocophillips Co La
Refinery Wilmington
Plant (a)
Wilmington,
CA
NR
NR
NR
0.27
27,738
M
0.088
9,015
M
0.28
22,320
M
Source: TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2003_v2; TRIReleases2002_v4; Memorandum: Revisions to TWFs for Dioxin and its Congeners and Recalculated TWPEs for OCPSF and
Petroleum Refining (Zipf, 2004).
a — Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds were detected above the Method 1613B minimum level.
b — Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds were sampled after the catalytic regeneration and prior to the wastewater treatment plant.
NR — Not reported.
For indirect discharges, the mass shown is the mass transferred to the POTW that is ultimately discharged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 83% removal of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds by the
POTW.
The TWPEs in this table were calculated using the 2006 TWFs (the 2006 dioxin and dioxin-like compound TWFs did not change from the August or December 2004 TWFs).
Refineries reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M — Monitoring data/measurements; C — Mass balance calculations; E — Published emission factors; and O — Other approaches (e.g., engineering calculations).

-------
                                            Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
9.7   Petroleum Refining Category References

1.     Antoine, Kathleen. 2007. E-mail communication with Kathleen Antoine of Hovensa
      LLC, Christiansted, VI, and Jan Matuszko of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
      "Reported TRIDioxins." (April 30). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0449.

2.     Lizarraga, Tery A. 2007. Letter to Jan Matuszko of U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, from Tery A. Lizarraga, Chevron Products Company, Richmond, CA.
      "Response to Information Request Regarding 2003 and 2004 Dioxin Discharges to
      Water." (July 30). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05956.

3.     SF RWQCB. 2005. San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. Fact Sheet for
      NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Tesoro Refining & Marketing
      Company Golden Eagle Refinery NPDES CA0004961. Oakland, CA. (Unknown). EPA-
      HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05965.

4.     U.S. Census. 2002. U.S. Economic Census. Available online at:
      http://www.census.gov/econ/census02.

5.     U. S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program
      Plan. EPA-821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1346
      through 1352.

6.     U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program
      Plan. EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782.

7.     Zipf, Lynn. 2004. U.S. EPA. Memorandum to 304(m) Record, EPA Docket Number
      OW-2004-0074 from Lynn Zipf, EPA and Jan Matuszko, EPA. "Revisions to TWFs for
      Dioxin and its Congeners and Recalculated TWPEs for OCPSF and Petroleum Refining."
      (August 10). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1006.
                                       9-16

-------
                                                                                        Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
                         Table 9-9. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002-2005
TRI ID
96707CHVRN91480
44711SHLND2408G
90245CHVRN324WE
39567CHVRNPOBOX
55071SHLND100WT
70075MRPHY2500E
84116CHVRN2351N
70037LLNCRHIGHW
70669CNCLKOLDSP
79008PHLLPSTATE
77590MRTHNFOOTO
60439NCLCR135TH
62454MRTHNMARAT
70750HLLPTHWY10
80022CNCDN5801B
94802CHVRN841ST
99611TSRLSMILE2
Facility Name
Chevron Products Co -
Hawaii Refinery
Marathon Petroleum
Co LLC Ohio Refining
Div
Chevron Products Co
Div of Chevron US A
Inc
Chevron Products Co
Pascagoula Refinery
Marathon Petroleum
Co LLC Saint Paul
Park Refiner
Murphy Oil USA Inc
Meraux Refinery
Chevron Products Co
Salt Lake Refinery
ConocoPhillips Co -
Alliance Refinery
ConocoPhillips Co
Lake Charles Refinery
ConocoPhillips Co
Marathon Petroleum
Co LLC
PDV Midwest Refining
LLC Lemont Refinery
Marathon Ashland
Petroleum LLC Illinois
Refining Div
Valero Refining Co
Louisiana
Suncor Energy
Commerce City
Refinery
Chevron Products Co
Richmond Refinery
Tesoro Alaska - Kenai
Refinery
Location
Kapolei, HI
Canton, OH
El Segundo, CA
Pascagoula, MS
Saint Paul Park,
MN
Meraux, LA
Salt Lake City,
UT
Belle Chasse, LA
Westlake, LA
Borger, TX
Texas City, TX
Lemont, IL
Robinson, IL
Krotz Springs,
LA
Commerce City,
CO
Richmond, CA
Kenai, AK
2005
Pounds
Released
270.0
149.0
137.4
126.1
95.7
66.0
60.0
43.8
41.0
39.0
34.6
32.1
24.0
23.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
TWPE
6862.6
3787.1
3492.3
3205.1
2431.1
1677.5
1525.0
1114.3
1042.1
991.3
879.4
814.9
610.0
584.6
482.9
482.9
482.9
Basis of
Estimate
M
M
M
0
M
0
M
M
0
M
M
M
O
O
O
M
O
2004
Pounds
Released
270.0
NR
113.0
115.0
24.0
NR
59.0
49.0
43.0
43.0
29.0
NR
28.0
22.0
28.0
19.3
18.9
TWPE
6863.0
NR
2882.0
2923.0
616.0
NR
1500.0
1233.0
1093.0
1093.0
742.0
NR
712.0
567.0
712.0
491.0
480.0
Basis of
Estimate
M
NR
M
0
M
NR
M
M
0
M
M
NR
O
O
O
M
O
2003
Pounds
Released
261
NR
117
115
NR
NR
59
34.9
51
NR
30
NR
1
19
53
15
19
TWPE
6629.0
NR
2974.0
2923.0
NR
NR
1500.0
887
1296.0
NR
768
NR
25
483
1347.0
376
480
Basis of
Estimate
M
NR
M
0
NR
NR
M
M
0
NR
M
NR
O
O
O
M
O
2002
Pounds
Released
277
NR
287
110
NR
NR
59
31
31
NR
93
NR
21
19
9
14
19
TWPE
7041.0
NR
7287.0
2796.0
NR
NR
1500.0
788
788
NR
2369
NR
534
483
229
351
480
Basis of
Estimate
M
NR
M
0
NR
NR
M
M
0
NR
M
NR
O
O
O
M
O
VO

-------
                                                                                        Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
                         Table 9-9. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002-2005
TRI ID
62084SHLLLRTE11
78410KCHRFSUNTI
70047TRNSM 14902
74603CNCPN1000S
70051MRTHNHWY61
46394MCLC 28151
19706TXCDL2000W
77017LYNDL12000
93420NCLSN2555W
70079MTVNR15536
98221PGTSN600ST
08861CHVRN1200S
94553TSCCRAVONR
77592TXSCTLOOP1
78408STHWS1700N
19061BPLCMPOSTR
90749RCPRD1801E
42501THSMR501RE
59101CNCBL401SO
67042TXCRF1401S
Facility Name
ConocoPhillips Co
Wood River Refinery
Flint Hills Resources
LP - West Plant
Valero Refining New
Orleans LLC
ConocoPhillips Co
Ponca City Refinery
Marathon Petroleum
Corp Garyville
BP Products North
America Whiting
Premcor Refining
Group Inc
Lyondell-Citgo
Refining LP
ConocoPhillips Co
Santa Maria Refinery
Motiva Enterprises
LLC Convent Refinery
Shell Oil Products US
Puget Sound Refinery
Chevron Products Co
Tesoro Refining and
Marketing Co
Valero Refining -
Texas LP
Flint Hills Resources
LP - East Plant
ConocoPhillips Co.
Trainer Refinery
BP West Coast
Products LLC Carson
Somerset Refinery Inc
ConocoPhillips Co
Billings Refinery
Frontier El Dorado
Refining Co
Location
Roxana, IL
Corpus Christi,
TX
New Sarpy, LA
Ponca City, OK
Garyville, LA
Whiting, IN
Delaware City,
DE
Houston, TX
Arroyo Grande,
CA
Norco, LA
Anacortes, WA
Perth Amboy, NJ
Martinez, CA
Texas City, TX
Corpus Christi,
TX
Trainer, PA
Carson, CA
Somerset, KY
Billings, MT
El Dorado, KS
2005
Pounds
Released
11.0
10.6
9.0
8.0
5.0
3.6
3.4
3.0
2.0
1.4
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
NR
NR
NR
TWPE
279.6
269.4
228.8
203.3
127.1
91.5
86.4
76.3
50.8
35.6
25.4
15.3
15.3
12.7
12.7
3.6
2.5
NR
NR
NR
Basis of
Estimate
0
M
0
0
c
o
o
M
O
o
o
0
M
M
M
0
M
NR
NR
NR
2004
Pounds
Released
11.0
16.0
9.0
8.0
5.0
1.0
4.0
0.0
2.0
NR
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.2
NR
NR
NR
0.7
TWPE
280.0
412.0
229.0
203.0
127.0
25.0
102.0
0.0
51.0
NR
25.0
23.0
13.0
5.0
15.0
5.0
NR
NR
NR
18.0
Basis of
Estimate
0
M
0
0
C
o
o
M
O
NR
O
0
M
M
M
0
NR
NR
NR
O
2003
Pounds
Released
10
8
9
8
5
1
3.2
NR
2
NR
0.9
0.6
0.6
NR
1
0.2
NR
0.08
0.4
0.7
TWPE
254
203
229
203
127
25
81
NR
51
NR
23
15
15
NR
25
5
NR
2
10
18
Basis of
Estimate
0
M
0
0
C
o
o
NR
O
NR
O
0
M
NR
M
0
NR
M
M
O
2002
Pounds
Released
8.9
1771.0
9
8
NR
NR
1.4
17
0.8
NR
1.08
0.8
1.3
69
NR
0.41
NR
0.01
8
1
TWPE
226
45014.0
229
203
NR
NR
36
429
20
NR
27
20
33
1754.0
NR
10
NR
0
203
25
Basis of
Estimate
0
M
0
0
NR
NR
O
M
O
NR
O
0
M
M
NR
0
NR
M
M
O
VO
I


oo

-------
                                                                                                                   Section 9.0 - Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)
                               Table 9-9. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002-2005
TRI ID
70143TNNCL500WE
70606CLCSRWESTE
70723TXCRFFOOTO
73098KRRMC906SO
74107SNCLR902W2
8270 1 WYMNG740WE
94572NCLSNOLDHI
Facility Name
Chalmette Refining Co
Calcasieu Refining Co
Motiva Enterprises
LLC Convent Refinery
Wynnewood Refining
Co
Sinclair Oil Corp Tulsa
Refinery
Wyoming Refining Co
ConocoPhillips San
Francisco Refinery
Location
Chalmette, LA
Lake Charles, LA
Convent, LA
Wynnewood, OK
Tulsa, OK
Newcastle, WY
Rodeo, CA
2005
Pounds
Released
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TWPE
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Basis of
Estimate
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2004
Pounds
Released
1.0
2.0
NR
10.0
NR
NR
NR
TWPE
25.0
51.0
NR
254.0
NR
NR
NR
Basis of
Estimate
0
O
NR
O
NR
NR
NR
2003
Pounds
Released
11
182
2
10
18
NR
NR
TWPE
280
4626.0
51
254
450
NR
NR
Basis of
Estimate
0
O
O
O
M
NR
NR
2002
Pounds
Released
NR
191
2.3
10
17
1.06
8
TWPE
NR
4855.0
59
254
437
27
203
Basis of
Estimate
NR
O
O
O
M
E
M
Indirect
48217MRTHN1300S
79905LPSRF6500T
90744TXCRF2101E
93307KRNLRRR677
36611BLCHRVIADU
77506CRWNC111RE
77017LYNDL12000
79905CHVRN6501T
Marathon Petroleum
Co LLC Michigan
Refining Div
Western Refining Co
El Paso Refinery
Shell Oil Products US
Los Angeles Refinery
Kern Oil Refining Co
Gulf Atlantic
Operations LLC
Crown Central
Petroleum Corp
Houston Refinery
Lyondell-Citgo
Refining LP
Chevron El Paso
Refinery
Detroit, MI
El Paso, TX
Wilmington, CA
Bakersfield, CA
Chickasaw, AL
Pasadena, TX
Houston, TX
El Paso, TX
94.0
54.0
7.3
0.3
0.0
NR
NR
NR
175.8
101.0
13.7
0.5
0.0
NR
NR
NR
M
0
M
O
M
NR
NR
NR
98.0
51.0
7.6
0.3
0.0
NR
NR
NR
184.0
95.0
14.0
1.0
0.0
NR
NR
NR
M
0
M
O
C
NR
NR
NR
92
55
13
0.28
0.009
NR
155
NR
172
102
24
1
0
NR
3928.0
NR
M
0
M
M
C
NR
O
NR
93
24
43
0.28
NR
4.6
146
1.8
174
45
80
1
NR
117
3718.0
45
M
0
M
M
NR
O
M
O
Source: TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2003_v2; TRIReleases2002_v4.
NR — Not reported.
For indirect dischargers, the mass shown is the mass transferred to the POTW that is ultimately discharged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 92.64% removal of PACs by the POTW.
Refineries reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M — Monitoring data/measurements; C — Mass balance calculations; E — Published emission factors; and O — Other approaches (e.g., engineering calculations).
The 2002 TWPE was calculated using the December 2004 TWFs.
The 2003 TWPE was calculated using the April 2006 TWFs.

-------
                                       Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
10.0   PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD (40 CFR PART 430)

       EPA selected the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Pulp and Paper) Category (40 CFR Part
430) for preliminary review because it continues to rank high, in terms of TWPE, in the point
source category rankings (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4 for the point source category rankings). EPA
conducted a detailed study of this industry in support of the 2006 Final ELG Plan (71 FR 76644).
EPA has also reviewed discharges from pulp and paper mills as part of its annual reviews since
2004. Each year, including this year of review, EPA has concluded that wastewater from  pulp
and paper mills does not warrant a more detailed review at this time.

10.1   Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Background

       This subsection provides background on the Pulp and Paper Category including a brief
profile of the industry and background on 40 CFR Part 430.

10.1.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry Profile

       The pulp and paper industry includes facilities that manufacture pulp from wood and
other fibers, produce paper and paperboard from pulp, or convert it from paper products.
Facilities in the following three SIC codes could perform operations covered by existing
regulations for the Pulp and Paper Category:

              2611: Pulp Mills;
       •      2621: Paper Mills; and
       •      2631: Paperboard Mills.

A facility may be identified under more than one SIC code, such as integrated facilities that
manufacture pulp on site for the production of paper products. In addition, EPA is considering
including operations from five other SIC codes as potential new subcategories of the Pulp and
Paper Category.16

       Table 10-1 presents the number of facilities in the SIC codes that compose the pulp and
paper industry. Because the U.S. Economic Census reports data by NAICS code, and TRI and
PCS report data by SIC code, EPA reclassified the 2002 U.S. Economic Census by the
equivalent SIC code.

       Pulp and paper manufacturers discharge wastewater directly to surface water as well as to
POTWs. Table 10-2 presents the types of discharges reported by facilities in the 2004 and 2005
TRI databases. The  majority of pulp and paper manufacturers reporting to TRI reported
discharging directly. The majority of facilities reporting to TRI in SIC codes classified as
potential new subcategories reported no water discharges.
16 EPA reviews industries with SIC codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes,
operations, wastewaters, and pollutants of facilities in the SIC codes 2653, 2655, 2656, 2657, 2671, 2672, 2674, and
2679 (listed in Table 10-1) are similar to those of the Pulp and Paper Category (U.S. EPA, 2004). The tables in this
section include discharge information from the potential new subcategories; however, these facilities contribute
negligible amounts of TWPE. Consistent with the conclusions drawn during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA,
2004) and 2006 review (U.S. EPA, 2006a), EPA found that large numbers of these facilities discharge no
wastewater and only a small number of facilities discharge TWPE greater than zero.	
                                           10-1

-------
                                         Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
               Table 10-1. Number of Facilities in Pulp and Paper SIC Codes
SIC Code
2611: Pulp Mills
2621: Paper Mills
2631: Paperboard Mills
Pulp and Paper Category Total c
2002 U.S.
Economic
Census
32
329
199
560
2004 PCS a
84
133
55
272
2004 TRI b
73
140
96
309
2005 TRI b
73
140
96
309
Potential New Subcategories
2653 : Corrugated and Solid Fiber Boxes
2655: Fiber Cans, Tubes, Drums, and Similar Products
2656: Sanitary Food Containers, Except Folding
2657: Folding Paperboard Boxes, Including Sanitary
2671: Packaging Paper and Plastics Film, Coated and
Laminated
2672: Coated and Laminated Paper, NEC
2674: Uncoated Paper and Multiwall Bags
2679: Converted Paper and Paperboard Products, NEC
Potential New Subcategories Total
1,719
261
72
490
391
541
123
869
4,466
7
2
3
1
7
0
0
4
24
18
1
2
5
44
87
3
25
185
16
0
2
2
44
79
2
27
172
Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002);PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2004_v3;
TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — Major and minor dischargers.
b — Releases to any media.
c — Excludes the potential new Subcategories.
NEC — Not elsewhere classified.
                                             10-2

-------
                                                                             Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
             Table 10-2. Pulp and Paper Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI2004 and 2005
SIC Code
2611: Pulp Mills
2621: Paper Mills
2631: Paperboard Mills
2653 : Corrugated and Solid Fiber Boxes
2655: Fiber Cans, Tubes, Drums, and
Similar Products
2656: Sanitary Food Containers, Except
Folding
2657: Folding Paperboard Boxes,
Including Sanitary
2671: Packaging Paper and Plastic Film,
Coated and Laminated
2672: Coated and Laminated Paper, Not
Elsewhere
2674: Unciated Paper and Multiwall Bags
2679: Converted Paper and Paperboard
Products, Not Elsewhere Classified
Potential New Subcategories Total
TRI 2004
Reported
Only Direct
Discharges
65
78
47
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
191
Reported
Only
Indirect
Discharges
4
22
27
1
0
2
2
1
17
2
3
81
Reported
Both Direct
and
Indirect
Discharges
1
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
Reported
No Water
Discharges a
3
33
19
17
0
0
o
J
43
69
1
22
210
TRI 2005
Reported
Only Direct
Discharges
66
74
50
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
191
Reported
Only
Indirect
Discharges
o
J
18
30
2
0
1
1
1
15
2
2
75
Reported
Both Direct
and
Indirect
Discharges
0
8
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
Reported
No Water
Discharges a
4
40
14
14
0
0
1
43
63
0
25
204
Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — Facilities reporting no wastewater discharges may be discharging chemicals to water that do not meet TRI reporting thresholds. TRI thresholds are based on
the amount of chemical used or manufactured at the site.

-------
                                        Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
10.1.2 40 CFR Part 430

       Between 1974 and 1986, EPA promulgated ELGs for the Pulp and Paper Category. For
these regulations, EPA divided the industry into 25 sub categories, based on the products made
and processes used at the mills.

       A 1988 legal suit obligated EPA to address discharges of poly chlorinated dibenzo-(p)-
dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans17 from 104 bleaching pulp mills, including nine
dissolving pulp mills. While meeting that obligation, EPA also reviewed ELGs for the entire
Pulp and Paper Category. As part of that review, EPA reorganized the category into 12
subcategories. Although the Pulp and Paper Category regulations apply to all facilities in SIC
codes 2611, 2621, and 2631, the 12 subcategories are organized by process  used and product
produced and do not correspond to SIC codes.

       During its response to the 1988 legal suit, EPA decided to review and revise the Pulp and
Paper Category regulations in three phases. Table 10-3 presents these three  phases and the
subcategories EPA planned to address in each phase.

       In revising the Pulp and Paper Category regulations, EPA first addressed two
subcategories,  Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and  Subpart E (Papergrade
Sulfite), because these subparts applied to the majority of the 104 mills identified in the 1988
suit.18 Subparts B and E became known as Phase I; EPA promulgated revised ELGs for these
subparts on April 15, 1998 (63 FR 18504). EPA promulgated the Phase I ELGs at the same time
as it promulgated National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for
kraft and sulfite pulp mills. Because these water and air regulations were  developed, analyzed,
and promulgated jointly, they are called the Cluster Rules.
17 Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs) constitute a group of
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals. Facilities are required to report to EPA's TRI the total mass of 17
of these CDDs and CDFs released to the environment every year. In this report, EPA uses the term "dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds" to refer to the total mass of the 17 CDDs and CDFs, as reported to TRI. For discharges
from certain mills in the Pulp and Paper Category, EPA promulgated ELGs for two specific dioxins: 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran. In this report, these compounds are referred to as
TCDD and TCDF, respectively. See Section 3.2 of the detailed study report (71 FR 76644) for a discussion of
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds.
18 The remainder of the 104 mills identified in the 1988 suit were in Subpart A, Dissolving Kraft, and Subpart D,
Dissolving Sulfite. These two subparts became known as Phase III.	
                                            10-4

-------
                                     Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
  Table 10-3. Relationship Between Pulp and Paper Regulatory Phases and Subcategories
Phase
I
II
III
Subpart
B
E
C
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
A
D
Subeategory
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Papergrade Sulfite
Unbleached Kraft
Semi-Chemical
Groundwood, Chemi-Mechanical, and Chemi-Thermo-Mechanical
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non- Woven and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Dissolving Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Note: EPA promulgated revised ELGs for Phase I, known as the Cluster Rules on April 15, 1998. EPA has not
promulgated revised ELGs for Phase II or Phase III.

       Eight subcategories are known as Phase II and are listed in Table 10-3. EPA has not
revised the ELGs for these subcategories, which were promulgated between 1974 and 1986.

       Phase III affected the two dissolving pulp subcategories (Subpart A, Dissolving Kraft,
and Subpart D, Dissolving Sulfite). EPA  did not promulgate revised ELGs addressing TCDD
and TCDF for Phase III in 1998, because the affected companies were undertaking a multiyear
laboratory study and mill trial to develop alternative bleaching technologies. EPA anticipated
that final ELGs would be based on different technologies than those that served as the basis for
the Phase I regulations. As of August 2006, there were only three operating mills in these two
subcategories. As part of its 2004 and 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans, EPA determined
that rather than promulgate revised ELGs for Phase III mills (see 58 FR 44078, December 17,
1993), EPA would support NPDES permit writers individually in developing permit-specific
effluent limitations to control TCDD and TCDF releases from these three mills (see 69 FR
53716, September 2, 2004;  71 FR 76651-76652, December 21, 2006). In 2007, EPA developed
and distributed to Georgia and Florida state regulatory agencies a technical document for
NPDES permit writers in order to support the development of effluent limitations for facilities in
the Dissolving Kraft (Subpart A) and Dissolving Sulfite (Subpart D) subcategories of the Pulp
and Paper Category (40 CFR Part 430) (see EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0774). In future annual
reviews, EPA intends to re-evaluate each category based on the information available at the time
and to evaluate the effectiveness of this BPJ permit-based support.

10.2   Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category 2005 Through 2008 Screening-Level
       Reviews

       Over the years of EPA review, from 2004 through 2008, the TWPE associated with
wastewater discharges from pulp and paper mills has decreased. Table 10-4 shows the screening-
level results for the pulp and paper industry from the 2002 through 2005 TRI and PCS databases.
The TRI TWPE increased from 2002 to 2003  and then decreased significantly from 2003 to
2004. The PCS TWPE has decreased by 88 percent from 2002 to 2004.

-------
                                        Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
             Table 10-4. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Screening-Level Results
Year of Review
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year of Pollutant
Discharge
2002
2003
2004
2005
Pulp and Paper Category a
TRI TWPE b
1,950,000
2,880,000
669,000
639,000
PCS TWPE c
1,540,000
NA
165,000
NA
Potential New Subcategories for
the Pulp and Paper Category d
TRI TWPE b
563
865
73.3
39.2
PCS TWPE c
0
NA
0
NA
Source: PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2; PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2004_v3;
TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — Includes TWPE from the potential new subcategories.
b — Direct and indirect water releases only.
c — Major and minor dischargers.
d — EPA reviews industries with SIC codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes,
operations, wastewaters, and pollutants of facilities in the SIC codes 2653, 2655, 2656, 2657, 2671, 2672, 2674, and
2679 (listed in Table 9-1) are similar to those of the Pulp and Paper Category (U.S. EPA, 2006b). The tables in this
section include discharge information from the potential new subcategories; however, these facilities contribute
negligible amounts of TWPE.
NA — Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate PCS data for 2003 and 2005.

10.3   Pulp and Paper Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern

       Table 10-5 shows the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2004.,
TRIReleases2005, andPCSLoads2004. For comparison purposes, Table 10-6 provides similar
information from the 2006 Final ELG Plan (71 FR 76644) using TRIReleases2002,
TRIReleases2003., andPCSLoads2002. With the exception of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds,
the TWPE from the top pollutants in TRIReleases and PCSLoads from 2002 through 2005 and
their relative contribution to the category's total TWPE generally remain the same. The Pulp and
Paper Final Detailed Study Report discusses EPA's conclusions about discharges of manganese
and aluminum (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
                                            10-6

-------
                                                                                Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
                            Table 10-5. 2008 Review: Pulp and Paper Category Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant
Manganese And Manganese
Compounds
Dioxin And Dioxin-Like
Compounds
Aluminum
Chlorine
Sulfide
Iron
Lead And Lead Compounds
Polycyclic Aromatic
Compounds
Zinc And Zinc Compounds
Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Category Total
PCS 2004 b
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
Total Pounds
TWPE
Pollutants are not in the top five PCS
2004 reported pollutants.
1
26
22
1
12
0.011
993,000
55,200
5,020
1,380,000
8,640
64,300
28,100
14,100
7,740
Pollutants are not in the top five PCS
2004 reported pollutants.
150 d
2,340,000,000
165,000
TRI 2004 c
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
117
64
Total
Pounds
4,490,000
0.219
TWPE
316,000
178,000
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2004 reported pollutants.
189
77
83
282 d
27,500
1,270
346,000
23,200,000
61,600
42,600
16,200
669,000
TRI 2005 c
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
117
57
Total Pounds
4,470,000
0.181
TWPE
315,000
147,000
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2005
reported pollutants.
196
76
88
276 d
27,300
1,190
371,000
22,500,000
61,200
40,100
17,400
639,000
Source: PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — This table presents the top five pollutants composing the category TWPE, including the potential new subcategory SIC codes. However, the potential new
subcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE.
b — Discharges include only major dischargers.
c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.
d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.

-------
                                                                                      Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
                                  Table 10-6. 2006 Review: Pulp and Paper Category Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant
Dioxin and Dioxin-like
Compounds
Aluminum
Chlorine
Sulfide
Mercury
Copper
Manganese and Manganese
Compounds
Lead and Lead Compounds
Polycyclic Aromatic
Compounds
Zinc
Pulp and Paper Category
Total
2002 PCS b
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
1
29
25
1
15
44
Total Pounds
Released
0.002
1,425,308
47,105
2,442
58
8,657
TWPE
1,366,677
92,205
23,984
6,841
6,838
5,496
Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2002
reported pollutants.
181 d
3,980,000,000
1,537,056
2002 TRI c
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
61
Total
Pounds
Released
0.145
TWPE
1,469,101
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2002 reported pollutants.
12
34,442
17,537
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2002 reported pollutants.
74
62
7,251
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2002 reported pollutants.
112
186
79
72
293d
4,312,307
29,571
1,341
309,694
19,399,504
303,729
66,240
45,146
14,520
1,952,130
2003 TRI c
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
60
Total Pounds
Released
0.216
TWPE
2,387,924
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2003
reported pollutants.
11
28,555
14,539
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2003
reported pollutants.
77
11
113
180
76
61
4,590
4,317,774
25,449
1,313
7,196
2,914
304,114
57,006
44,190
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2003
reported pollutants.
281"
21,105,926
2,879,522
oo
      Source: PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2.
      a — This table presents the top five pollutants composing the category TWPE, including the potential new subcategory SIC codes. However, the potential new
      subcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE.
      b — Discharges include only major dischargers.
      c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.
      d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.

-------
                                     Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
10.4   Pulp and Paper Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges

       The decrease in the overall TWPE for the Pulp and Paper Category is due to a recent
decrease in reported discharges of the most toxic of the dioxin and dioxin-like congeners.
However, according to PCS and TRI data, the total quantity of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds
released from the industry has not decreased in recent years.

       The decrease in TWPE is related to the differences in toxicity of the dioxin congeners.
EPA accounts for the differences in the relative toxicity of each congener by using a standard
congener distribution developed by the National  Council for Air and Stream Improvement from
mill effluent sampling data (Matuszko, 2006). EPA uses the congener distribution to calculate
the TWF applied to dioxin and dioxin-like compound releases in the pulp and paper category.

       EPA examined discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from pulp and paper
manufacturers extensively during the detailed study (2005-2006) and previous preliminary
studies. EPA determined that the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds discharges reported to TRI
did not reflect the actual quantity discharged, because the majority of the estimated releases of
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds reported to TRI were based on pollutant concentrations below
the Method 1613B minimum levels (MLs), including the congener-specific measurement data
that NCASI used to develop an emission factor for wastewater discharges (U.S. EPA, 2006b).

       Table 10-7, at the end of this section, lists all mills that reported dioxin and dioxin-like
compound discharges to TRI from 2002 to 2005. The 2004 and 2005 data show the same trend
that was seen in previous reviews. Forty-seven facilities reported discharges of dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2004 and 59 facilities that reported discharges of dioxin or
dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2005. Although the TWPE of dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds discharges decreased from 1,470,000 in 2002 to 147,000 in 2005, the total quantity
of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds discharged increased from 65.77 to 82.10 grams. The
decrease in TWPE is a direct result of lower reported discharges for the more toxic congeners.
One facility, Weyerhaeuser Co. in Bennettsville, SC, reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-
like compounds (0.956 grams) to TRI in 2005 but did not previously report discharges.

       The 2004 PCS data include dioxin discharges from only one facility, Bowater Newsprint
Calhoun Operations in McMinn County, TN. In  addition to reporting 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) the facility
reports "dioxin" discharges to the state of Tennessee. None of the reported parameters
representing dioxin and dioxin-like compounds were detected in 2004 except "dioxin," which
was detected only once.

       Due to its large TWPE, EPA reviewed the dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges in
the TRI database for Domtar Industries in Ashdown, AR.  In 2005, discharges of dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds from this mill contributed more than 10 percent of the Pulp and Paper
Category's TRI TWPE. EPA contacted the facility in 2005 to verify the increase in dioxin and
dioxin-like compound discharges in TRI 2002 and TRI 2003 (1.8 grams to 40 grams) (Lange,
2005). The TRI 2004 and TRI 2005  reported dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges are
similar to the TRI 2003 data.
                                          10-9

-------
                                     Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
       EPA determined that Domtar reported increased discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds in 2003 because they changed how they estimate dioxin discharges. Prior to 2003,
Domtar estimated dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges based on total plant flow rate and
NCASI emission factor of 105.7 picograms (pg) of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds per liter.
In 2003, the mill sampled for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds at the bleach plant monitoring
location and used the measured concentration (506.5 pg of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds per
liter) in place of the NCASI emission factor. Domtar also said that significant change in plant
flow rate occurred between 2002 and 2003. EPA assumes Domtar is using the same method to
report dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges in TRI 2004 and TRI 2005. EPA concluded
that the new method of estimating releases of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from Domtar
Ashdown is likely more accurate, and therefore made no changes to the facility's releases.

       Despite the increase in dioxin and dioxin-like compounds discharged from Domtar
Ashdown, TWPE associated with dioxin and dioxin-like compounds for the entire Pulp and
Paper Category  has decreased.  This decrease is due to lower reported discharges of the more
toxic congeners.

10.5   Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Metals Discharges

       Metals are the second largest contributor to Pulp and Paper Category TWPE discharges
from TRI 2004 and 2005. Of the 639,000 TWPE reported to TRI in 2005, manganese contributes
147,000 TWPE  and lead contributes 61,200 TWPE. These releases are similar to those observed
in TRI 2002 to 2004.

       Aluminum contributes 64,300 of the 165,000 TWPE reported to PCS in 2004  and 92,200
TWPE of the 1,537,076 TWPE reported to PCS in 2002.

       EPA examined reported metals discharges from pulp and paper facilities during the Pulp
and Paper Detailed Study (2005-2006) and its previous preliminary studies. EPA obtained
discharge data in Form 2c of NPDES permit applications for 40 mills. EPA concluded that
typical metals discharges from  pulp and paper mills were at concentrations too low to be
treatable using end-of-pipe  treatment technologies for large plant flow rates (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
The data from the current review do not lead to any new conclusions.

10.6   Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Conclusions

       During the 2008 Annual Review, EPA did not obtain any information to change the
conclusions that have previously been made regarding the wastewater discharges from the pulp
and paper mills. Therefore,  the conclusions of the Pulp and Paper Category review are as
follows:

       •      EPA previously determined that dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are produced
             during bleaching of papergrade chemical pulp using chlorine and chlorine
             containing compounds.
       •      EPA has observed a decrease in the TWPE discharged of dioxin and dioxin-like
             compounds in PCS and TRI databases. This decrease is due to reductions in the
             reported discharges of the most toxic dioxin and dioxin-like compounds.
                                         10-10

-------
                                     Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
       •      Based on the findings of the detailed study, aluminum and manganese are not
             currently pollutants of concern because they were detected at concentrations not
             considered treatable with end-of-pipe treatment technologies suitable for large
             effluent flows.
       •      EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential
             revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the
             environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is
             assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is
             marked with "(3)" in the "Findings" column in Table V-l in the accompanying
             Federal Register notice that presents the 2008 annual review of effluent guidelines
             and pretreatment standards).

10.7   Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category References

1.      Lange, Bryan. 2005. Telephone conversation with William Betrand and Holly Harvey of
       Domtar, Ashdown, AR. "Domtar Ashdown Dioxin Discharges in TRI 2003." (November
       9). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1486.

2.      Matuszko, Jan; Bicknell, Betsy; and Lange, Bryan. 2006. Memorandum to Public Record
       for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. "Calculation of a Category-Specific
       Toxic Weighting Factor for "Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds" Reported Released to
       EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) by Pulp, Paperboard and Paper Mills."
       (12 September) EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2393.

3.      U.S. Census. 2002. U.S. Economic Census. Available online at:
       http://www.census.gov/econ/census02.

4.      U. S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program
       Plan. EPA-821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1346
       through 1352.

5.      U. S. EPA. 2006a. Final Report: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard. EPA-821R-06-016.
       Washington, DC. (November). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2249.

6.      U.S. EPA. 2006b. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines
       Program Plan. EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-
       0032-2782.

7.      U.S. EPA. 2007. Background Information Document for Permit Writers: Dissolving
       Kraft and Dissolving Sulfite Pulp Mills. EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. EPA-HQ-
       OW-2006-0771-0774.
                                        10-11

-------
                                                                              Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
               Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2002-2005
TRI ID
7 1 822-NKSPP-HIGHW
71635-GRGPC-PAPER
71611-NTRNT-FAIRF
36916- JMSRV-ROUTE
37662-MDPPR-POBOX
36769-MCMLL-
HIGHW
70791-GRGPC-ZACHA
36545-BSCSC-307WE
28560-WYRHS-STREE
98201-SCTTP-2600F
32347-BCKYC-ROUTE
27962-WYRHS-
TROWB
29512-WLLMT-
HWY91
17362-PHGLT-228SO
98362-DSHWM-
MARIN
Facility Name
Domtar
Industries Inc
Ashdown Mill
Georgia-Pacific
Crossett Ops.
International
Paper
Fort James
Operating Co
Weyerhaeuser
Co Kingsport
Paper Mill
Weyerhaeuser
USA Inc Pine
Hill Operations
Georgia-Pacific
Corp Port
Hudson
Operations
Boise White
Paper LLC
Weyerhaeuser
Kimberly-Clark
Worldwide
Buckeye Florida
Lp
Weyerhaeuser
Co Plymouth
Weyerhaeuser
Co
P. H. Glatfelter
Co Spring Grove
Mill
Nippon Paper
Industries USA
Co. Ltd.
Location
Ashdown, AR
Crossett, AR
Pine Bluff,
AR
Pennington,
AL
Kingsport, TN
Pine Hill, AL
Zachary, LA
Jackson, AL
Vanceboro,
NC
Everett, WA
Perry, FL
Plymouth, NC
Bennettsville,
SC
Spring Grove,
PA
Port Angeles,
WA
2005
Grams
Discharged
38.4
4.87
3.7
3.6
3.45
3.36
2.77
2.1
1.7
1.33
1.32
0.989
0.9563
0.946
0.92
TWPE
69,000
8,740
6,640
6,460
6,190
6,020
4,970
3,770
3,050
2,380
2,380
1,770
1,715
1,700
1,650
Basis of
Estimate
M
E
O
M
M
E
E
E
E
C
M
E
0
E
M
2004
Grams
Discharged
40.96
5.49
3.6
3.3
3.4
2.43
2.77
2.1
1.74
2.7
1.3
0.91
NR
0.9
1.82
TWPE
73,494
9,850
6,459
5,921
6,101
4,369
4,974
3,768
3,119
4,846
2,330
1,638
NR
1,616
3,266
Basis of
Estimate
M
E
O
M
M
E
E
E
E
C
M
E
NR
E
M
2003
Grams
Discharged
40
5.49
0.018
5.32
2.5
2.34
3.32
1.98
1.82
3
1.27
0.82
NR
0.92
1.8
TWPE
1,511,611
9,850
32
9,551
4,486
4,197
63,803
3,553
3,257
472,778
2,282
1,470
NR
1,653
282
Basis of
Estimate
M
E
E
M
M
E
E
E
E
C
M
E
NR
E
M
2002
Grams
Discharged
1.8
4.9
0.018
5.3
2.2
NR
3.3
2.01
1.6
8.2
1.3
0.74
NR
0.86
1.8
TWPE
3,203
8,867
32
9,555
3,894
NR
63,803
3,615
2,924
1,104,866
2,303
1,334
NR
1,549
290
Basis of
Estimate
E
E
E
M
M
NR
E
E
E
C
M
E
NR
E
M
O



to

-------
                                                               Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2002-2005
TRI ID
37309-BWTRS-ROUTE
32533-CHMPN-375MU
29442-NTRNT-KAMIN
75504-NTRNT-POBOX
31407-STNCN-1BONN
04694-GRGPC-MILLA
32034-TTRYN-FOOTO
70775-JMSRV-ENDOF
12883-NTRNT-SHORE
83501-PTLTC-805MI
36732-GLFST-HIGHW
71654-PTLTC-HIGHW
70634-BSSTH-USHIG
31521-BRNSW-14W9T
Facility Name
Bowater
Newsprint
Calhoun
Operations
International
Paper Pensacola
Mill
International
Paper
Georgetown Mill
International
Paper Texarkana
Mill
Weyerhaeuser
Co
Domtar Maine
Corp
Rayonier
Performance
Fibers LLC
Tembec USA
LLC
International
Paper
Potlatch Corp
Idaho Pulp &
Paperboard &
Cpd
Rock-Tenn Mill
Co LLC
Potlatch Corp
Boise Packaging
& Newsprint
LLC
Brunswick
Cellulose Inc
Location
Calhoun, TN
Cantonment,
FL
Georgetown,
SC
Queen City,
TX
Port
Wentworth,
GA
Baileyville,
ME
Fernandina
Beach, FL
Saint
Francisville,
LA
Ticonderoga,
NY
Lewiston, ID
Demopolis,
AL
Arkansas City,
AR
Deridder, LA
Brunswick,
GA
2005
Grams
Discharged
0.87
0.8
0.753
0.68
0.679
0.615
0.56
0.48
0.46
0.441
0.292
0.204
0.19
0.186
TWPE
1,560
1,440
1,350
1,220
1,220
1,100
1,000
861
826
792
524
365
341
335
Basis of
Estimate
M
E
C
M
E
M
M
E
E
E
E
0
E
E
2004
Grams
Discharged
0.94
0.93
0.75
3.87
0.69
0.82
1
0.502
0.46
4.18
0.32
0.97
0.22
0.19
TWPE
1,690
1,669
1,351
6,944
1,239
1,463
1,794
901
834
7,501
575
1,737
395
335
Basis of
Estimate
M
E
C
M
E
M
M
E
E
E
E
0
E
E
2003
Grams
Discharged
0.91
0.93
0.77
2.36
0.72
NR
NR
0.5
0.46
4.18
0.23
0.92
0.26
0.19
TWPE
1,626
1,669
1,380
4,235
1,284
NR
NR
899
817
7,505
416
1,646
467
335
Basis of
Estimate
M
E
C
M
E
NR
NR
E
E
E
E
0
E
E
2002
Grams
Discharged
0.85
0.8
0.78
0.11
NR
3.15
0.14
0.49
0.46
4.3
0.23
0.57
0.31
NR
TWPE
1,528
1,435
1,395
197
NR
5,654
251
873
820
7,657
410
1,026
556
NR
Basis of
Estimate
M
E
C
M
NR
E
M
E
E
E
E
0
E
NR

-------
                                                               Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2002-2005
TRI ID
29044-NNCMP-ROUTE
71220-NTRNT-705CO
04976-SDWRR-RFD3U
01238-KMBRL-GREYL
98421-SMPSN-801PO
98550-GRYSH-23RDR
18629-PRCTR-ROUTE
99363-BSCSC-POBOX
45601-MDCRP-401SP
54474-WYRHS-200GR
28456-FDRLP-RIEGE
98537-WYRHS-700EA
63702-PRCTR-POBOX
12502-SCHWT-2424R
31068-BCKYC-OLDST
Facility Name
International
Paper
International
Paper Co
Louisiana Mill
S.D. Warren Co
Sappi Fine Paper
N.A.
Schweitzer
Mauduit
International Inc
Simpson Tacoma
Kraft Co.
Grays Harbor
Paper Lp
Procter &
Gamble Paper
Products Co
Boise White
Paper LLC
Mw Custom
Papers LLC
Weyerhaeuser
International
Paper
Riegelwood Mill
Weyerhaeuser
Pulp Mill
Procter &
Gamble Paper
Products Co
Schweitzer-
Mauduit
International Inc
Weyerhaeuser
Co
Location
Eastover, SC
Bastrop, LA
Skowhegan,
ME
Lee, MA
Tacoma, WA
Hoquiam, WA
Mehoopany,
PA
Wallula, WA
Chillicothe,
OH
Rothschild,
WI
Riegelwood,
NC
Cosmopolis,
WA
Jackson, MO
Ancram, NY
Oglethorpe,
GA
2005
Grams
Discharged
0.183
0.175
0.168
0.156
0.154
0.142
0.087
0.083
0.0554
0.042
0.0304
0.01
0.0042
0.004
0.001
TWPE
328
314
302
280
277
255
156
149
99
75
55
18
8
7
2
Basis of
Estimate
O
E
O
O
E
C
E
O
M
M
E
O
0
E
0
2004
Grams
Discharged
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.135
0.012
0.012
0.83
0.082
0.048
0.0305
0.01
0.0051
0.008
0.0005
TWPE
282
280
305
303
242
22
22
1,496
147
86
55
18
9.2
14
0.9
Basis of
Estimate
O
E
O
O
E
C
C
O
M
M
E
O
0
E
0
2003
Grams
Discharged
0.16
0.22
0.18
0.153
0.13
0.012
0.018
0.14
0.0858
0.12
0.0304
0.0093
0.0047
0.02
0.0005
TWPE
290
399
323
275
240
21
33
242
154
206
55
17
8.4
36
0.9
Basis of
Estimate
O
M
O
O
E
C
0
O
M
M
E
O
0
O
0
2002
Grams
Discharged
0.16
0.21
0.18
0.15
0.13
0.016
0.0195
0.13
0.099
0.152
0.03
0.014
0.0059
0.02
0.0006
TWPE
281
380
329
269
232
29
35
235
178
273
54
25
11
36
1.1
Basis of
Estimate
O
M
O
O
E
C
0
O
M
M
E
O
0
O
0

-------
                                                               Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2002-2005
TRI ID
39703-CLMBS-CARSO
54308-THPRC-501EA
98632-WYRHS-3401I
98607- JMSRV-NE4TH
97068- JMSRV-4800M
39120-NTRNT-312LO
36701-HMMRM-
RIVER
36426-CNTNR-HIGHW
35618-CHMPN-
POBOX
31558-GLMNP-1000O
31520-BRNSW-WEST9
29704-BWTRC-5300C
28358-LPHCL-1000E
23851-NNCMP-
HIGHW
Facility Name
Columbus Pulp
& Paper
Complex
Procter &
Gamble Paper
Products Co
Weyerhaeuser
Co
Fort James
Camas LLC
West Linn Paper
Co
International
Paper - Natchez
International
Paper Riverdale
Mill
Smurfit-Stone
Container
Enterprises Inc
International
Paper Courtland
Mill
Durango-
Georgia Paper
Co.
Georgia-Pacific
Corp. Brunswick
Ops.
Bowater Coated
& Specialty
Papers Div
Buckeye
Lumberton Inc.
International
Paper-Franklin
Mill
Location
Columbus,
MS
Green Bay,
WI
Longview,
WA
Camas, WA
West Linn,
OR
Natchez, MS
Selma, AL
Brewton, AL
Courtland, AL
Saint Marys,
GA
Brunswick,
GA
Catawba, SC
Lumberton,
NC
Franklin, VA
2005
Grams
Discharged
0.0007
0.0003
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TWPE
1
1
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Basis of
Estimate
M
C
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2004
Grams
Discharged
0.0007
0.0005
NR
NR
0.006
NR
0.108
2.5
0.094
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.28
TWPE
1.3
0.9
NR
NR
11
NR
194
4,486
168
NR
NR
NR
NR
4,086
Basis of
Estimate
M
C
NR
NR
C
NR
E
E
E
NR
NR
NR
NR
E
2003
Grams
Discharged
0.0018
0.0006
0.025
1.06
0.35
1.17
0.12
2.2
0.088
NR
NR
5.58
NR
2.27
TWPE
3.2
1.1
45
1,902
4,139
2,099
208
3,947
158
NR
NR
261,826
NR
4,066
Basis of
Estimate
M
C
0
E
C
E
E
E
E
NR
NR
M
NR
E
2002
Grams
Discharged
0.0017
0.0007
0.02
3.58
0.502
0.81
0.12
2.4
0.072
3.4
0.2
3.7
0.1
2.1
TWPE
3.1
1.3
36
6,427
7.2
1,453
210
4,306
130
6,062
360
217,867
1,525
3,760
Basis of
Estimate
M
C
0
E
C
E
E
E
E
O
E
M
M
E

-------
                                                               Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2002-2005
TRI ID
13142-SCHLL-CENTE
04462-GRTNR-1KATA
04239-NTRNT-RILEY
Facility Name
Felix Schoeller
Technical Papers
Inc.
Great Northern
Paper Inc.
International
Paper
Location
Pulaski, NY
Millinocket,
ME
Jay, ME
2005
Grams
Discharged
NR
NR
NR
TWPE
NR
NR
NR
Basis of
Estimate
NR
NR
NR
2004
Grams
Discharged
NR
NR
0.002
TWPE
NR
NR
3.6
Basis of
Estimate
NR
NR
M
2003
Grams
Discharged
NR
NR
0.02
TWPE
NR
NR
36
Basis of
Estimate
NR
NR
M
2002
Grams
Discharged
0.0011
0.037
0.021
TWPE
26
66
38
Basis of
Estimate
C
0
M
Indirect
55744-BLNDN-115SW
52402-CDRRV-4600C
23860-STNHP-910IN
32401-STNCN-1EVER
5 5720-PTLTC-NORTH
07407-MRCLP-1MARK
49443-SDWRR-2400L
01236-FXRVR-295PA
3 1702-THPRC-USROU
54308-THPRC-501EA
Upm Blandin
Paper Co
Cedar River
Paper A
Weyerhaeuser
Business
Smurfit-Stone
Container Corp
Smurfit-Stone
Container Corp
Sappi Cloquet
LLC
Marcal Paper
Mills Inc.
S. D. Warren Co
Fox River Paper
Co Rising Paper
Div
Procter &
Gamble Paper
Pro Ducts Co
Procter &
Gamble Paper
Products Co
Grand Rapids,
MN
Cedar Rapids,
IA
Hopewell, VA
Panama City,
FL
Cloquet, MN
Elmwood
Park, NJ
Muskegon, MI
Housatonic,
MA
Albany, GA
Green Bay,
WI
2.261
0.46631
0.221
0.0782
0.04811
0.02499
0.023945
0.00697
0.001989
0.00034
4,060
837
397
140
86
45
43
13
4
1
M
0
O
E
E
M
E
0
O
c
2
0.35
0.21
0.078
0.044
0.00799
0.042
0.0073
0.0036
0.00051
3,599
636
378
140
78
14
75
13
6.4
0.9
M
0
O
E
E
M
E
0
O
C
2.21
NR
NR
0.066
0.041
0.014
0.05
0.012
0.0032
0.00068
60
NR
NR
119
0.18
26
90
22
5.7
1.2
M
NR
NR
E
E
M
E
0
O
C
3.2
NR
NR
0.078
0.041
0.012
0.03
NR
0.004
0.00085
86
NR
NR
140
0.18
22
54
NR
7.1
1.5
M
NR
NR
E
E
M
E
NR
O
C

-------
                                                                                                       Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)
                  Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2002-2005
TRI ID
93030-PRCTR-800NO
Facility Name
Procter &
Gamble Paper
Products Co
Location
Oxnard, CA
2005
Grains
Discharged
0.0000214
TWPE
0
Basis of
Estimate
C
2004
Grams
Discharged
0.0034
TWPE
6.1
Basis of
Estimate
C
2003
Grams
Discharged
0.0002
TWPE
0.43
Basis of
Estimate
C
2002
Grams
Discharged
0.00024
TWPE
0.43
Basis of
Estimate
O
Source: TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2003_v2; TRIReleases2002_v4.
NR — Not reported.
For indirect discharges, the mass shown is the mass transferred to the POTW that is ultimately discharged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 83 percent removal of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds by
the POTW.
The TWPEs in this table were calculated using the 2006 TWFs (the 2006 dioxin and dioxin-like compound TWFs did not change from the August or December 2004 TWFs).
Facilities reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M — Monitoring data/measurements; C — Mass balance calculations; E — Published emission factors; and O — Other approaches (e.g., engineering calculations).

-------
                                              Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
11.0   WASTE COMBUSTORS (40 CFR PART 444)

       EPA selected the Waste Combustors Category (40 CFR Part 444) for preliminary review
because it ranks high, in terms of TWPE, in point source category rankings (see Tables 5-3 and
5-4 for the point source category rankings). EPA previously performed a preliminary review of
this industry, published as part of the 2008 Preliminary ELGPlan (72 FR 61335). As part of the
2008 annual review, EPA investigated possible pesticide discharges from the Waste Combustors
Category. EPA has identified that no further review of pesticide discharges from the CWT
Category is necessary at this time.

11.1   Waste Combustors Category Background

       This subsection provides background on the Waste Combustors Category including a
brief profile of the waste Combustors industry and background on 40 CFR Part 444.

11.1.1  Waste Combustors Industry Profile

       The waste Combustors industry includes facilities that recover energy from or dispose of
wastes (both hazardous and non-hazardous) by incineration. This industry is represented by one
SIC code: 4953  Refuse Systems. However, this SIC code also includes operations from the
Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) Category, regulated under 40 CFR Part 437 (see Section
6.0) and the Landfill Category, regulated under 40 CFR Part 445.

       EPA reviewed all of the facilities reporting SIC code 4953 to identify those that are in the
Waste Combustors Category rather than the CWT and Landfill Categories. Using information
from other preliminary studies, Internet searches, and company Web sites, EPA identified
facilities reporting a primary SIC code of 4953 that should be classified in the Waste Combustors
Category. Table 11-1 presents the number  of facilities in the Waste Combustor Category based
on EPA's review.

       After finalizing its screening-level database  TRIReleases2005 v02, EPA learned that two
facilities in the CWT Category in TRIReleases2005 v02 are actually waste Combustors. These
two facilities contribute less than 0.2 percent of either category's total TWPE in
TRIReleases2005 v02. Therefore, in the TRIReleases2005  v02 database, the discharges from
these facilities are included as part of the CWT Category; however, EPA included their discharge
information in certain tables of this section to augment the 2008 review of waste Combustors. For
future versions of the TRIReleases databases, EPA will classify these facilities as part of the
Waste Combustors Category.

       Waste combustors discharge directly to surface water  as well as to offsite wastewater
treatment plants. EPA has identified two waste combustors that send wastewater to offsite
wastewater treatment plants. Table 11-2 presents the types of discharges reported by facilities in
the 2004 and 2005 TRI database. Table 11-2 includes the two facilities that are currently
included in the CWT Category but are waste  combustors.
                                          11-1

-------
                                                  Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
              Table 11-1. Number of Facilities in Waste Combustors Category
2004 PCS a
6
2004 TRI b
8C
2005 TRI b
8C
Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — Major and minor dischargers.
b — Releases to any media.
c — After finalizing TRIReleases2005_v02, EPA identified two facilities in the CWT Category that are waste
combustors. These two facilities contribute negligible TWPE and do not affect overall rankings. Therefore, EPA
included these two facilities in the CWT Category in the TRIReleases2005_v02 database; however, EPA included
their discharge information in this table because they are waste combustors. For future versions of the TRIReleases
databases, EPA will classify these facilities as part of the Waste Combustors Category.


   Table 11-2. Waste Combustors by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005 a
TRI 2004
Reported
Only Direct
Discharges
3
Reported
Only
Indirect
Discharges
0
Reported
Both Direct
and
Indirect
Discharges
0
Reported
No Water
Discharges
3
TRI 2005
Reported
Only Direct
Discharges
3
Reported
Only
Indirect
Discharges
0
Reported
Both Direct
and
Indirect
Discharges
0
Reported
No Water
Discharges
3b
Additional Facilities Identified with Discharges Applicable to the Waste Combustors Category During the
2008 Preliminary Review a
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — After finalizing TRIReleases2005_v02, EPA identified two facilities in the CWT Category that are waste
combustors. These two facilities contribute negligible TWPE and do not affect overall rankings. Therefore, EPA
included these two facilities in the CWT Category in the TRIReleases2005_v02 database; however, EPA included
their discharge information in this table because they are waste combustors. For future versions of the TRIReleases
databases, EPA will classify these facilities as part of the Waste Combustors Category.
b — EPA identified one facility that sends wastewater to an off-site wastewater treatment plant, but reports null
values to TRI for pollutants transferred off-site.

11.1.2 40 CFR Part 444

       EPA first promulgated ELGs for the Waste Combustors Category (40 CFR Part 444) on
January 27, 2000 (65 FR 4381).  The Waste Combustors ELGs apply to wastewater discharges
from hazardous waste combustors, except cement kilns, regulated as "incinerators" or "boilers
and industrial furnaces" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The rule applies
solely to commercial facilities (i.e., facilities that accept wastes from off-site for fee or
remuneration). At the time of promulgation, EPA estimated that the rule would apply to eight
facilities (U.S. EPA, 2000).

       Table 11-3 lists the pollutants regulated by Part 444. Pesticides are not regulated in any
subcategory, as discussed in Section  11-4.
                                              11-2

-------
                                                Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
       Table 11-3. Applicability of Subcategories in the Waste Combustor Category
  Subpart Name
               Subpart Applicability
    Regulated Pollutants
 A: Commercial
 Hazardous Waste
 Combustor
 (CWHC)
The discharge of wastewater from a CHWC facility
including any thermal unit, except a cement kiln, if the
thermal unit burns RCRA hazardous wastes received from
off-site for a fee or other remuneration in the following
circumstances. The thermal unit is a commercial hazardous
waste combustor if the off-site wastes are generated at a
facility not under the same corporate structure or subject to
the same ownership as the thermal unit.
TSS, pH, Arsenic, Cadmium,
Chromium, Copper, Lead,
Mercury, Silver, Titanium, and
Zinc
Source: 40 CFR Part 444; Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors (U.S. EPA, 2000).

11.2   Waste Combustors Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews

       The Waste Combustors Category was excluded from previous annual reviews because
EPA recently promulgated the ELGs (January 27, 2000). Table 11-3 shows the screening-level
results for the Waste Combustors Category from the 2002 through 2005 TRI and PCS databases.
The TRI TWPE has increased significantly from 2002 to 2004 reporting years, although it
decreased again from 2004 to 2005.  The largest increase in TWPE is in TRI from 2003 to 2004.

             Table 11-4. Waste Combustors Category Screening-Level Results
Year of Review
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year of Data Source
2002
2003
2004
2005
Waste Combustors Category a'd
TRI TWPE b
179,672
78,705
242,879
52,202
PCS TWPE c
170
NA
155
NA
Source: PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2; PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3;
TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — After finalizing TRIReleases2005_v02, EPA identified two facilities included in the CWT Category that are
waste combustors. These two facilities contribute negligible TWPE and are not included in this table. For future
versions of the TRIReleases databases, EPA will classify these facilities as part of the Waste Combustors Category.
b — Direct and indirect water releases only.
c — Major and minor dischargers.
NA — Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate PCS data for 2003 and 2005.

11.3   Waste Combustors Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern

       Table 11-5 shows the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2004_v3,
TRIReleases2005 v2, and PCSLoads2004_v4 for the Waste Combustors Category. Because EPA
did not conduct preliminary reviews of the Waste Combustors Category in 2005 and 2006, EPA
did not identify the pollutants with the highest TWPE from the 2002 and 2003 TRI databases or
the 2002 PCS database. The Waste Combustors Category TWPE in PCS for 2004 is significantly
lower than the TRI TWPE for 2004 or 2005. Therefore, EPA focused the additional review on
the TRI-reported pollutants.
                                            11-3

-------
                                              Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
       Discharges of pesticide chemicals in TRIReleases2004 v3 and TRIReleases2005_v2
account for the majority of the total category's TWPE. The pesticide chemicals are benzidine,
toxaphene, hexachlorobenzene, and chlordane. Benzidine is the most significant pesticide release
reported to TRI, in terms of TWPE, by the Waste Combustors Category. Benzidine is reported
by only one facility in 2004, Clean Harbors Deer Park, and no facilities in 2005. Relative
contributions of other pesticides reported in 2004 and 2005 to TRI remain the same. Section 11.4
presents EPA's review of pesticide discharges from waste combustor facilities.
                                          11-4

-------
                                                                                           Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
                           Table 11-5. 2008 Review: Waste Combustors Category Pollutants of Concern
Pollutant
Copper
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total (As N)
Zinc
Nickel
Chromium
Benzidine
Toxaphene
Hexachlorobenzene
Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds
Silver and Silver Compounds
Mercury and Mercury Compounds
Chlordane
Waste Combustors Category Total
PCS 2004 b
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
2
1
2
1
1
Total
Pounds
90
8,622
408
162
173
TWPE
57
20
19
18
13
Pollutants are not in the top five PCS
2004 reported pollutants.
2"
944,770
155
TRI 2004 c
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
Total
Pounds
TWPE
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2004 reported pollutants.
1
1
1
1
2
67
1
6
138
140
187,680
34,520
11,901
3,187
2,304
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2004 reported pollutants.
3d
5,088
242,879
TRI 2005 c
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Pollutant
Total
Pounds
TWPE
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2005 reported pollutants.
1
1
1.15
6.63
34,520
12,913
Pollutants are not in the top five TRI
2005 reported pollutants.
2
2
1
3d
130
8.33
0.26
4,265
2,141
976
518
52,202
Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRlReleases2005_v2.
a — After finalizing TRIReleases2005_v02, EPA identified two facilities included in the CWT Category that are waste Combustors. These two facilities
contribute negligible TWPE and are not included in this table. For future versions of the TRIReleases databases, EPA will classify these facilities as part of the
Waste Combustors Category.
b — Discharges include only major dischargers.
c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.
d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.

-------
                                             Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
11.4   Waste Combustors Category Pesticide Discharges

       EPA reviewed discharges of pesticides from waste combustors because they ranked high,
in terms of TWPE, in the PCS and TRI databases. For the 2008 preliminary review, EPA
contacted facilities and collected additional discharge data to determine the following:

       1.     Whether pesticide discharges reported to TRI were based on actual discharges,
             not estimated based on concentrations of pesticides below analytical minimum
             levels.
       2.     Whether waste combustors had an increased receipt of pesticide waste as a result
             of regulation of wastewater from the pesticides formulating, packaging, and
             repackaging (PFPR) industry.
       3.     Pesticides treatment effectiveness, using data from EPA's Pesticides Chemicals
             ELG rulemaking (U.S. EPA, 1996). Table 6-6 in Section 6 of this document
             summarizes EPA's treatment efficiency data from the PFPR rulemaking.

       The Waste Combustors ELGs (40 CFR Part 444) do not include limitations or standards
for pesticides. At the time of the rulemaking, EPA collected grab samples of untreated industrial
waste combustor scrubber blowdown water at 12 hazardous waste combustor facilities (U.S.
EPA, 2000). Table 11-6 summarizes pesticide sampling data from the Waste Combustors
rulemaking. Among other pollutants, EPA analyzed these wastewater samples for pesticides and
herbicides. EPA found that pesticides/herbicides were generally only found, if at all, in low
concentrations. EPA analyzed the waste combustor samples for the top three pollutants driving
the TWPE (benzidine, toxaphene, and hexachlorobenzene); none were detected.

        Table 11-6. Sampling Data Summary from Waste Combustors Rulemaking
PoDutant
Atrazine
Dichlorprop
Dinoseb
2,4-D
Minimum
Level (jtg/L)
10
1
1
1
Number of
Observatio
IIS
14
11
11
11
Number of
Detects
1
5
2
2
Mean
(HS/L)
13.8
7.2
1.2
2.5
Min.
(HS/L)
8.9
1.0
0.5
1.0
Max. (ng/L)
35.6
47.0
4.5
8.9
Non-Detects
Benzidine
Diazinon
Endrin
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Toxaphene
50
2
0
0
10
5
27
11
14
14
27
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Applicable
Source: Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Commercial
Hazardous Waste Combustors (U.S. EPA, 2000).

       Discharges of pesticide chemicals in the TRIReleases databases for 2004 and 2005
account for the majority of the total category TWPE. EPA examined discharges of pesticides
from waste combustors extensively for the preliminary review of this category. EPA contacted
                                          11-6

-------
                                               Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
facilities that reported high-TWPE pesticide discharges (greater than 50,000 TWPE) or large
quantities of pesticides treated on site (greater than 100,000 pounds). Table 11-7 at the end of
this section summarizes EPA's findings from each of these calls.

       Overall, of the six facilities EPA contacted, five use waste characterization reports
provided by offsite facilities delivering untreated waste for TRI reporting. These facilities use
removal efficiency estimates to account for the quantity of pesticides removed by their treatment
processes. Only one facility, Clean Harbors Deer Park, estimates pesticide discharges using
monthly  sampling data. This facility has no pesticide detections on record19 and estimates
pesticide discharges using half of the method detection limit for non-detect values. In the
following subsections, EPA discusses details of its findings on three facilities:

       •       Clean Harbors (formerly Safety Kleen) — Deer Park, TX;
       •       Von Roll America — East Liverpool, OH; and
       •       Ross Incineration Services — Grafton, OH.

       Based on the information collected by contacting the facilities, the amount of pesticides
discharged to surface water is less than the amounts reported to TRI and PCS. In addition, the
pesticide discharges result from discharges from landfills, which will be corrected in future
versions  of the databases.

11.4.1 Pesticide Discharges for Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX

       The pesticide discharges from Clean Harbors in Deer Park, TX, contribute approximately
235,000 TWPE to TRI 2004 and 48,300 TWPE to TRI 2005. Table 11-7 shows pesticides
discharges reported to TRI from the facility for 2004 to 2005.

      Table 11-7. Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX TRI-Reported Pesticide Discharge
Pollutant
Aldrin
Benzidine
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Toxaphene
TRIReleases2004
Total Pounds
Released a
0.02
66.61
0.26
0.02
6.11
1.15
TWPE
223
187,680
518
171
11,901
34,520
TRIReleases2005
Total Pounds
Released a
0.02
NR
0.26
0.02
6.63
1.15
TWPE
223
NR
518
171
12,913
34,520
Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2.
a — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

       EPA contacted Clean Harbors in 2007 and 2008 about their pesticide discharges reported
to TRI (Finseth, 2007; Krejci, 2008a). Clean Harbors incinerates all of the waste they receive.
They also have two onsite landfills where they dispose of ash from the incinerator, filter cake
from the wastewater treatment plant, and construction debris. The landfills are permitted for
  The facility contact stated that pesticides might have been detected in the past, and that any detections of
pesticides in the facility's wastewater would result from the leachate discharged from the onsite landfill.
                                           11-7

-------
                                               Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
direct disposal of offsite wastes, but Clean Harbors typically incinerates all of its wastes prior to
sending waste to the landfill. The wastewater treatment plant treats quench water from the
incinerators' venturi scrubbers and landfill leachate. Clean Harbors reports pesticide discharges
using monthly wastewater sampling data from the onsite wastewater treatment plant. According
to the point of contact, any pesticides detected in the facility's wastewater would depend on the
type of waste being incinerated at that time.

       EPA obtained wastewater sampling data for toxaphene and hexachlorobenzene for all of
2006 from Clean Harbors Deer Park. Neither toxaphene nor hexachlorobenzene was detected
during the 12 months of sampling. For non-detect results,  Clean Harbors Deer Park uses half of
the detection limit for their TRI reporting. Table 11-8 presents the monitoring data provided by
Clean Harbors.

         Table 11-8. Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX Wastewater Sampling Data
Sampling Date
January -06
February -06
March-06
April-06
May-06
June-06
July-06
August-06
September-06
October-06
November-06
December-06
Hexachlorobenzene
Detected?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Concentration (jig/L)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Toxaphene
Detected?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Concentration (u.g/L)
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Source: Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci,
Honohan, Clean Harbors, Deer Park, TX (Krejci, 2008a).
Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Kevin
       The facility contact stated that pesticides have been detected in the facility's wastewater
in the past; however, the facility does not have any record of these detections. Personnel believe
that any detection of pesticides in the facility's wastewater would result from the leachate
discharged from the onsite landfills. Therefore, the facility has no record of pesticide detection,
and any pesticide discharges would be covered by Part 445, the Landfills Point Source Category
effluent guidelines (Krejci, 2008a).

       Table 11-9 shows estimated pesticide release amounts, based on the facility's sampling
results in Table 11-8. EPA estimated the loads under three different scenarios:

       1.      Assuming non-detect concentrations are equal to the detection limit;
       2.      Assuming non-detect concentrations are equal to half the detection limit; and
       3.      Assuming non-detect concentrations are zero.
                                           11-8

-------
                                              Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
The table also shows the values reported to TRI, for comparison purposes. Based on the facility
sampling data showing all concentrations below detection, the facility's 2006 loads were likely
less than 5,500 TWPE (toxaphene) and 14,700 TWPE (hexachlorobenzene).

  Table 11-9. Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX 2006 Discharges Estimated from Sampling
                       Data for Toxaphene and Hexachlorobenzene
Detection Limit Scenario
Value Reported to the 2006 TRI
Assume Non-Detects= MDL
Assume Non-Detects = 1A x MDL
Assume Non-Detects = 0
Hexachlorobenzene
Ibs/yr
5.7
5.63
2.82
0
TWPE/yr
11,099
10,963
5,491
0
Toxaphene
Ibs/yr
1
0.98
0.49
0
TWPE/yr
30,017
29,417
14,709
0
Source: Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Kevin
Honohan, Clean Harbors, Deer Park, TX (Krejci, 2008a).

11.4.2 Pesticides Management at Von Roll America - East Liverpool, OH

       The pesticide discharges from Von Roll America in East Liverpool, OH, contribute
negligible pesticide TWPE to TRI in 2004 and 2005 (331 TWPE and 330 TWPE, respectively).
However, the facility reported treating approximately 1,000,000 pounds of pesticide waste by
incineration each year from 2003 to 2005.

       EPA contacted the facility in 2008 to determine the source of the facility's wastewater
discharges and to discuss pesticide management at the facility (Krejci, 2008b). According to the
point of contact, blowdown from the incinerator's wet scrubber system is neutralized and
recycled to the scrubber. Estimates of pesticide discharges reported to TRI are based on
stormwater discharges, rather than process wastewater. In addition, the treatment process for the
scrubber blowdown creates a powdered residual waste that the facility refers to as "ash." The ash
is sent off site to landfill disposal, after being tested according to Land Disposal Restriction
(LDR) standards (40 CFR Part 268). The LDR standards require that the facility test for all
pollutants on the underlying hazardous constituents list, including a variety of pesticides.  The
facility has never detected any pesticides in its waste ash (Krejci, 2008b).

       Von Roll America estimates the discharges reported to  TRI using waste characterization
reports submitted by clients in conjunction with periodic testing of waste received to verify the
characterization reports. The facility has not tested its wastewater for pesticides (Krejci, 2008b).

       EPA also collected information, where available, on increased receipt of pesticide waste
receipt resulting from the PFPR ELGs. The PFPR ELGs, Part 455 Subpart C, was promulgated
in 1996 and requires zero discharge of process wastewater from PFPR manufacturing (U.S. EPA,
1996). As a result of the zero discharge requirement,  PFPR facilities may send their wastewater
off site, including to incinerators. According to the point of contact, the facility received
pesticides consistently until 2007, when the overall pesticide receipt increased by approximately
25 percent (Krejci, 2008b).  Therefore, the increase in pesticides receipt does not appear to result
from the PFPR ELGs.
                                           11-9

-------
                                              Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
11.4.3 Pesticides Management at Ross Incineration Services - Graf ton, OH

       Ross Incineration Services in Grafton, OH, reported treating over 120,000 pounds of
pesticide wastes annually to TRI from 2003 to 2005. EPA contacted the facility in 2008 because
of the large quantity of pesticides incinerated on site (Krejci, 2008c).

       Ross Incineration Services operates an incinerator with a wet scrubber system for
disposal of commercial wastes. The facility sends wastewater from the wet scrubber system to an
offsite wastewater treatment plant. The facility tests the wastewater delivered to the treatment
plant on a quarterly basis for a variety of pollutants, but has never detected any  pesticides since it
began sampling in the early 1990s (Krejci, 2008c).

       EPA also collected information, where available, on increased receipt of pesticide waste
resulting from the PFPR ELGs. The PFPR ELGs, Part 455 Subpart C, was promulgated in 1996
and requires zero discharge of process wastewater from PFPR manufacturing (U.S. EPA, 1996).
As a result of the zero discharge requirements, PFPR facilities may send their wastewater off
site, including to incinerators. According to the point of contact, Ross Incineration Services has
seen a recent increase in pesticides receipt at the facility, although the increased pesticides
receipt may result from an overall increase in total waste received (Krejci, 2008c).

11.5   Waste Combustors Category Conclusions

       During the 2008 Annual Review, EPA used information gathered from TRI and PCS
databases and facility contacts to conclude that no further review of the Waste Combustor
Category is necessary at this time. The conclusions of the Waste Combustor Category review are
as follows:

       •       TRI-reported discharges of pesticides account for the majority of the Waste
              Combustors Category's TWPE. EPA determined that pesticide releases from
             waste combustors (with the exception of Clean Harbors Deer Park) are generally
              estimated using waste characterization reports from clients and treatment
              efficiency data, rather than actual sampling data.  Clean Harbors Deer Park
              estimates discharges based on sampling data,  and no pesticides were detected in
             2006.  Based on the facility sampling data showing all concentrations below
              detection, the facility's 2006 loads were likely less than 5,500 TWPE (toxaphene)
              and 14,700 TWPE (hexachlorobenzene). In addition, the facility believes any
             pesticides detected in the wastewater result from  landfill leachate, not
             incineration.
       •      EPA did not identify any facilities that detected pesticides in the wastewater from
             their waste combustion operations. The contact at Clean Harbors Deer Park, the
             highest ranking facility in terms of overall TWPE, stated that pesticides were
              detected in the past, but no records are available for those detections. The facility
              contact also stated that any pesticide discharge results from one of the onsite
             landfills. As a result, no pesticide discharge results would be regulated by Part
             444, Waste Combustors. In future versions of the TRI  databases, EPA will correct
             pesticide discharges from this facility, classifying the discharge under the
             Landfills Point Source Category.
                                          11-10

-------
                                             Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
       •      EPA contacted six waste combustor facilities. Of these, five used waste
             characterization reports provided by offsite facilities delivering untreated waste to
             estimate releases for TRI reporting. Two of the six facilities had tested for
             pesticides in their wastewater and one facility had tested for pesticides in its
             wastewater treatment residuals. None of the facilities had any detections of
             pesticides on record.
       •      EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential
             revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the
             environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is
             assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is
             marked with "(3)" in the "Findings" column in Table V-l in the accompanying
             Federal Register notice that presents the 2008 annual review of effluent guidelines
             and pretreatment standards).

11.6   Waste Combustors Category References

1.      Finseth, TJ. 2007b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone conversation
       between TJ Finseth, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Craig Elam, Clean Harbors.
       "Clean Harbors direct pesticide discharges reported to Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in
       2004." (May 1). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0445.

2.      Krejci, Christopher. 2008a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone
       conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Kevin
       Honohan, Clean Harbors, Deer Park, TX. "Clean Harbors Deer Park Pesticides
       Discharges in TRI." (March 17). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05973.

3.      Krejci, Christopher. 2008b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone
       conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Steve Lorah,
       Von Roll America, East Liverpool, OH. "Pesticides Treatment at Von Roll America."
       (March 13). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05942.

4.      Krejci, Christopher. 2008c. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone
       conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Jeffrey
       Lynch, Ross  Incineration Services, Grafton, OH.  "Pesticides Treatment at Ross
       Incineration Services." (March 27). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05944.

5.      Krejci, Christopher. 2008d. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone
       conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Dan
       Duncan, ONYX Environmental Services (aka Veolia Environmental Services), Port
       Arthur, TX. "Pesticides Receipt and Possible Discharge at ONYX Port Arthur." (March
       25). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05941.

6.      Krejci, Christopher. 2008e. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone
       conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Dan Robley,
       Terris, LLC (aka Clean Harbors El Dorado), El Dorado, AR. "Pesticides Receipt and
       Possible Discharge at Terris." (April 9). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05943.
                                         11-11

-------
                                             Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
7.     Krejci, Christopher. 2008f. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone
      conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Dennis
      Warchol, ONYX Environmental Services Incineration Services (aka Veolia
      Environmental Services), Sauget, IL. "Pesticides Receipt and Possible Discharge at
      ONYX Sauget." (March 27). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05945.

8.     U.S. EPA. 1996. Technical Development Document for the Pesticides Formulating,
      Packaging, and Re-packaging Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
      and New Source Performance Standards. EPA-821-R-96-019. Washington, DC.
      (September 30).

9.     U. S. EPA. 2000. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
      Standards for Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors. EPA-821-R-99-020.
      Washington, DC. (January). Available online at:
      http ://epa.gov/guide/chwc/final/technical .html.
                                        11-12

-------
                                                    Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
Table 11-10. Summary of Waste Combustor Pesticide Facility Contacts
Facility Name
Clean Harbors
Deer Park LP
Von Roll
America Inc
Onyx
Environmental
Services LLC a
Teris LLC
Onyx
Environmental
Services a
City
Deer Park,
TX
East
Liverpool,
OH
Port Arthur,
TX
El Dorado,
AR
Sauget, IL
Facility TWPE
from TRI 2005
51,858.58
329.95
94.51
13.58
0.73
Facility
Receives
Pesticides?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Pesticides Detected
in Treated
Wastewater?
Yes
No
No
No
No
Comments
Facility tests for a variety of pesticides as required by their Texas
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permit. Facility
submitted sampling data for 2006 which does not reveal any
pesticide detections. Facility contact believes pesticides have been
detected in the past, but the contact has no record of this. Also, any
pesticides detected at permitted outfalls result from landfill leachate
(Krejci, 2008a).
Facility does not discharge process wastewater from incinerators —
it is treated and recycled. Residuals are sent to an off-site landfill.
Pesticides receipt at the facility in 2007 was approximately 25%
above normal levels (Krejci, 2008b).
Facility disposes of scrubber blowdown by deep-well injection.
Facility has not seen a noticeable increase in pesticides receipt in
recent years (Krejci, 2008d).
Facility samples approximately 10 percent of their influent for
various chemicals, including pesticides. Facility frequently detects
pesticides in the incoming waste shipments, but does not discharge
any wastewater. Incinerator uses a dry emissions control system
(baghouse). For TRI reporting, the facility uses waste
characterization profiles provided by clients (Krejci, 2008e).
Facility does not generate wastewater (incinerator emissions flow
through a dry scrubber). Facility has not seen an increase in
pesticides receipt in recent years. Facility estimates the quantities
reported to TRI based on waste characterization reports provided by
clients (Krejci, 20081).

-------
                                                                                             Section 11.0 - Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)
                               Table 11-10. Summary of Waste Combustor Pesticide Facility Contacts
Facility Name
Ross
Incineration
Services Inc
City
Grafton, OH
Facility TWPE
from TRI 2005
NA
Facility
Receives
Pesticides?
Yes
Pesticides Detected
in Treated
Wastewater?
No
Comments
Facility does not discharge process wastewater from incinerators.
Scrubber blowdown is sent to an off-site wastewater treatment
facility. The facility tests for a variety of pesticides on a quarterly
basis, and has not detected any since they first began testing in the
early 1990s. The facility generally uses waste characterization
reports in conjunction with emissions factors to calculate releases
for TRI reporting. Pesticides receipt at the facility has definitely
increased in recent years, but total waste received has also
increased. It is unclear how much the pesticides fraction of total
waste has increased (Krejci, 2008c).
Source: Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Kevin Honohan, Clean Harbors, Deer Park, TX
(Krejci, 2008a); Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Steve Lorah, Von Roll America, East
Liverpool, OH (Krejci, 2008b); Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Jeffrey Lynch, Ross
Incineration Services, Grafton, OH (Krejci, 2008c); Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Dan
Duncan, ONYX Environmental Services (aka Veolia Environmental Services), Port Arthur, TX (Krejci, 2008d); Notes from telephone conversation between
Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Dan Robley, Terris, LLC (aka Clean Harbors El Dorado), El Dorado, AR (Krejci, 2008e); Notes from
telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Dennis Warchol, ONYX Environmental Services Incineration Services
(aka Veolia Environmental Servcices), Sauget, IL (Krejci, 20081).
a — EPA included these two facilities in the CWT Category but learned from facility contacts that they are waste combustors. These two facilities are included in
this table because they are waste combustors, but TRIReleases2005_v02 classifies them as CWTs. They contribute negligible TWPE and do not affect overall
rankings; therefore, EPA did not correct TRIReleases_v02. For future versions of the TRIReleases databases, EPA will classify these facilities as part of the
Waste Combustor Category.
NA — Not applicable. Ross Incineration Services Inc does not report water discharges to TRI.

-------
                             Part III - Detailed Studies
PART III: DETAILED STUDIES

-------
                                                  Section 12.0 - Coal Mining Category (Part 434)
12.0   COAL MINING CATEGORY (PART 434)

       The purpose of this report is to summarize the analytical approach, research activities,
and findings of the Coal Mining Detailed Study that EPA conducted to evaluate the comments
received from a public interest group and from states and industry urging revisions to pollutant
limitations in the Coal Mining Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) (40 CFR
Part 434) (see 71 FR 76644-76667, December 21, 2006; 72 FR 61342-61343, October 30, 2007).

       To facilitate this study, EPA identified data sources, developed a methodology for
estimating treatment costs and discharge loads, and initiated data collection activities in
consultation with the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, state agencies in West Virginia
and Pennsylvania, and the Office  of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement within the
U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. EPA, 2007). EPA's analysis focused primarily on
Pennsylvania and West Virginia because acid mine drainage (AMD) from coal mining,
commonly containing manganese, is most prevalent in these two states.

       EPA also evaluated the technology basis for the existing Coal Mining ELGs rulemakings:
chemical precipitation and settling (U.S. EPA,  1976). EPA evaluated the current application of
this technology, treatment costs, and pollutant discharge loads (see Sections 6.1, 7.0, and 8.0,
respectively). EPA reviewed scientific literature and participated in discussions with state
regulatory personnel in order to assess the potential effects of manganese discharges to surface
water and to determine whether other pollutants in coal mining discharges are of concern (see
Section 9.0). EPA also addressed  the question of whether coal mining companies are forfeiting
bonds because of the cost of manganese treatment by  examining bonding requirements, past
bond forfeiture rates, and future potential bond forfeiture rates (see Section 10.0).

12.1   Summary of Public Comments

       The public interest group,  the Environmental Law and Policy  Center (ELPC), asked EPA
to place more stringent controls on total dissolved solids (TDS) (e.g., sulfates and chlorides),
mercury, cadmium, manganese, and selenium in coal  mining discharges. ELPC referenced a
study by EPA Region 5 on potential adverse impacts of the discharge of sulfates on aquatic life
(EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2614 through 2617).

       The Interstate Mining Compact Commission, which represents mining regulatory
agencies in 28 states, state mine permitting agencies in Pennsylvania  and Virginia, two
Pennsylvania coal mining companies, and a Pennsylvania coal mining trade association, asked
EPA to remove the current manganese limitations stating:

       1.      Manganese treatment doubles or triples overall treatment costs resulting in the
              forfeiture of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) bonds;
       2.      Manganese treatment is unnecessary to protect aquatic life and there are no
              widespread toxicity problems from discharges of manganese;
       3.      Manganese treatment sometimes results in environmental harm because mining
              operators must add excessive chemicals to meet the discharge limits;
       4.      EPA should reconsider its rationale for setting manganese limits to ensure
              surrogate removal  of other metals because data show that other metals occur only
              in low concentrations; and

                                          12-1

-------
                                                  Section 12.0 - Coal Mining Category (Part 434)
       5.     Manganese limits discourage the use of passive treatment technologies which are
             more environmentally beneficial than active treatment because the limits are
             overly stringent.

       Individual state and industry commenters cited the following factors in support of their
comments:

       1.     States enacted more stringent coal mining reclamation bonding requirements after
             the promulgation of SMCRA to control water discharges from mines undergoing
             reclamation;
       2.     Studies support their contention that manganese is not harmful to aquatic life at
             levels above the current effluent limits; and
       3.     Active treatment with chemical additions is perceived to possibly complicate
             permit compliance and cause environmental harm.

12.2   Key Definitions

       Proper understanding of the following terms is essential to understanding EPA's response
to the public commenters. The following terms are from 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart A - General
Provisions:

       •     Acid or ferruginous mine drainage. Mine drainage which, before any treatment,
             either has a pH of less than 6.0 or a total iron concentration equal to or greater
             than 10 mg/L (40 CFR 434.1 l(a)).
       •     Active mining area. The area, on and beneath land, used or disturbed in activity
             related to the extraction, removal, or recovery of coal from its natural deposits.
             This term excludes coal preparation plants, coal preparation plant associated areas
             and post-mining areas (40 CFR 434.1 l(b)).
       •     Alkaline, mine drainage. Mine drainage which, before any treatment, has a pH
             equal to or greater than 6.0 and total iron concentration of less than 10 mg/L (40
             CFR434.11(c)).
       •     Bond release. The time at which the appropriate regulatory authority returns a
             reclamation or performance bond based upon its determination that reclamation
             work (including, in the case  of underground mines, mine sealing and
             abandonment procedures) has been satisfactorily completed (40 CFR 434.1 l(d)).
       •     Post-mining area. (1) A reclamation area or (2) The underground workings of an
             underground coal mine after the extraction, removal, or recovery of coal from its
             natural deposit has ceased and prior to bond release (40 CFR 434.1 l(k)).
       •     Reclamation area. The surface  area of a coal mine which has been returned to
             required contour and on which re-vegetation (specifically, seeding or planting)
             work has commenced (40 CFR 434.11(1)).

12.3   Applicability of 40 CFR Part 434 Manganese Effluent Limits

       It is important to note that EPA has promulgated manganese effluent limits only for the
following subset of coal mining operations  as codified in 40 CFR Part 434:
                                          12-2

-------
                                                  Section 12.0 - Coal Mining Category (Part 434)
       1.     Active surface and underground mining areas with acid or ferruginous mine
             drainage discharges (Subpart C - Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage); and
       2.     Underground post-mining areas with acid or ferruginous mine drainage
             discharges (Subpart E - Post Mining Areas).

There are no national manganese effluent limits for surface post-mining areas with AMD, nor for
any surface or underground alkaline mine drainage discharges. There are no national manganese
effluent limits for AMD that may develop after SMCRA bond release has been granted, nor are
there national manganese effluent limits for AMD from abandoned coal mines.

12.4   Key Findings Concerning Public Comments

       The following is a summary of key findings of the Coal Mining Detailed Study in
response to comments received from stakeholders. The findings are discussed in more detail
throughout the remainder of the study.

12.4.1  Bond Forfeitures

       EPA clarified states' comments regarding the costs of EPA's 40 CFR Part 434
manganese limits. In their initial public comments, state commenters did not distinguish the costs
of manganese removal among the three phases of coal mining: active mining areas, post-mining
areas, and post-bond release areas. This is important because the Part 434 manganese limits only
apply to a subset of coal mining phases. EPA clarified through discussions with state agencies
that states are most concerned about the cost of manganese treatment at post-mining areas where
bonds cannot be released because effluent manganese concentrations in the discharges exceed
the permit limits. States expressed a concern that operators at such mines may default on their
bonds rather than renew their bonds as required every five years. States indicate that reduced
manganese treatment costs at such mines may decrease the number of potential bond forfeitures
(Codding, 2006). EPA, however, is not able to address this issue through revisions to Part 434
because there are no manganese limits for surface post-mining areas. EPA's review of state data
indicates that manganese limits in permits for discharges from surface post-mining areas are
derived by state permit writers from state manganese water quality standards or from site specific
best professional judgment (BPJ) technology-based effluent limits. There are, however,
manganese limits for underground post-mining areas with AMD which are adequate and to
which no changes are warranted at this time. See Section 4.1 for additional information on the
applicability of Part 434 and water quality standards and Section 5.2.1 for additional information
on the manganese water quality-based limits.

       EPA found that manganese removal does double or triple treatment costs, but for active
surface and underground mining areas with AMD  (regulated by Part 434 Subpart C Acid or
Ferruginous Mine Drainage) and post-mining areas of underground mines with AMD (regulated
by Subpart E Post-Mining Areas) manganese treatment technology is available (see Section 6.0),
economically achievable (see 42 FR 23180-21390, April 26, 1977), and compliance rates with
permit limits derived from the Part 434 management limits are high (see Section 5.2).

       Based on information received from Pennsylvania and West Virginia, EPA concluded
that only a small percentage of coal mine bond forfeitures are due to the cost of manganese
treatment. Overall, EPA found that there is little potential for future bond forfeitures on SMCRA

                                          12-3

-------
                                                 Section 12.0 - Coal Mining Category (Part 434)
permits that have been granted during the past five years or will be granted in the future.
Similarly, EPA believes that current trends will continue, making it unlikely that companies will
forfeit bonds on permits that will be issued in the future. EPA's analysis indicates that forfeitures
are largely a legacy of the first decade of SMCRA implementation during the 1980s and early
1990s. In particular, SMCRA requires a Probable Hydrologic Consequence (PHC) analysis prior
to approval of the SMCRA permit in order to identify regional  hydrologic impacts associated
with the coal mining and reclamation operation.  The PHC is a determination of baseline quality
and quantity of ground water and surface water and the impact the proposed mining will have on
these baseline conditions. When potential adverse impacts are identified (e.g., AMD) through use
of the PHC, appropriate protection, mitigation, and rehabilitation plans are developed and
included in mining and reclamation permit requirements.  If the potential adverse impacts cannot
be sufficiently mitigated the SMCRA permit may be denied. The ultimate goal of using the PHC
in the SMCRA permit review is to prevent AMD after land reclamation is complete and the
SMCRA bond is released. PHC analytical techniques have evolved over time due to increasing
knowledge. The current methods for PHC analysis are more advanced and can adequately predict
AMD formation, where as in the past predictions were not as accurate. Based on the
advancements in the PHC analysis, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
anticipates that less than one percent of recently  SMCRA permitted mines will develop AMD
after reclamation and bond release. See Section 10.0 for additional information on the reasons for
bond forfeitures.

12.4.2 Potential Environmental Impacts

       Due to data limitations, EPA was able to conduct only a very limited analysis  of potential
impacts from TDS (e.g., sulfates and chlorides),  mercury, cadmium, manganese, and selenium in
order to respond to comments that more stringent controls on these pollutants may be warranted.
EPA reviewed readily available literature and analyzed mine drainage information provided by
Pennsylvania and West Virginia in order to better understand the potential for human health and
aquatic life effects of these pollutants. EPA found limited information concerning documented
environmental impacts. The discharge data provided by OSMRE and the states was difficult to
use for the purpose of assessing potential impacts because of the small sample sizes for certain
pollutants and inconsistencies across data sets due to different collection purposes. EPA's review
of potential impacts is discussed in Section 9.0 of this report.

12.4.3 Surrogate Removal of Metals through Manganese Treatment

       EPA reviewed the technical development documents and federal register notices
supporting the Coal Mining ELGs and did not identify any discussion regarding promulgating
manganese effluent guidelines to ensure surrogate removal of other metals. EPA's review of
these documents showed that EPA's rationale for requiring manganese control for a subset of
coal mines was to address drinking water organoleptic effects (U.S. EPA, 1976).

12.4.4 Effectiveness of Passive Treatment Systems

       EPA reviewed the cost and performance  of passive treatment systems and concluded that
they are less expensive than active treatment systems, but they  generally do not perform as well
as active treatment systems. See Section 6.2 for more information.
                                          12-4

-------
                                                Section 12.0 - Coal Mining Category (Part 434)
12.5   EPA 2008 Decision on Revising Part 434 Effluent Guidelines

       Based on its review of the available data and the findings described above, EPA is not
proposing revisions to the pollutant limitations in the coal mining effluent guidelines (40 CFR
Part 434). As with all industrial discharges, EPA will continue to examine discharges from coal
mines in future annual reviews to determine if existing effluent guidelines are appropriate and
sufficient.

12.6   Introduction References

1.      Codding, Ellie. 2006. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032. "RE: Draft
       Meeting Minutes for 6/15/06 Conference Call with Office of Surface Mining
       Reclamation and Enforcement." (June 26). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2517.

2.      U.S. EPA. 1976. Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
       Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Coal Mining Point Source
       Category. EPA 440/1-76/057-a. (May). Washington, D.C. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
       DCN06117.

3.      U.S. EPA. 2007. Detailed Study Plan for the Coal Mining Point Source Category (Part
       434). (September).  Washington, D.C. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0011.
                                         12-5

-------
                             Section 13.0 - Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)
13.0   HEALTH SERVICES INDUSTRY AND HOSPITALS CATEGORY (PART 460)

       EPA identified the Health Services Industry as a candidate for a detailed study in the final
2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (71 FR 76656, December 21, 2006). The Health Services
Industry includes establishments engaged in various aspects of human health (e.g., hospitals,
hospices, long-term care facilities, dentists) and animal health (e.g., veterinarians). Health
services establishments fall under SIC major group 80 "Health Services" and industry group 074
"Veterinary Services." According to the 2002 U.S. Economic Census, there are over 475,000
facilities in the Health Services Industry (U.S. Census, 2005). EPA is including the following
sectors within the Health Services Industry in its detailed study (70 FR 51054, August 29, 2005):

       •       Offices and Clinics of Dentists;
       •       Doctors and Mental Health Practitioners;
       •       Nursing and Personal Care Facilities (long-term care facilities);
       •       Hospitals, Hospices and  Clinics;
       •       Medical Laboratories and Diagnostic Centers; and
       •       Veterinary Care Services.

As discussed below, EPA is focusing on two main issues for these sectors within this industry.

       All these sectors  require services to be delivered by trained professionals for the purpose
of providing health care  and social assistance for individuals or animals. These entities may be
free standing or part of a hospital or health system and may be privately or publicly owned. The
services can include diagnostic, preventative, cosmetic, and curative health services.

       The vast majority of establishments in the health services industries are not subject to
categorical limitations and standards. In 1976, EPA promulgated 40 CFR 460, which only
applies to  direct discharging hospitals. Part 460 did not establish pretreatment standards for
indirect discharging facilities.

       In  evaluating the health services industries to date, EPA has found little readily available
information from EPA databases. Both EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) contain sparse  information on health care service establishments. For
2002, PCS only has data for two facilities that are considered "major" sources of pollutants, and
only Federal facilities in the healthcare industry are required to report to TRI.

       Based on preliminary information, major pollutants of concern in discharges from health
care service establishments include solvents, mercury, pharmaceuticals, and biohazards (e.g.,
items contaminated with blood) (U.S. EPA, 2005). The majority  of the mercury originates from
the following sources: amalgam used in dental facilities and medical equipment, laboratory
reagents, and cleaning supplies used in healthcare facilities (Fairfax, 2006; Johnston, 2005). EPA
found little to no quantitative information on wastewater discharges of pollutants of emerging
concern such as pharmaceuticals but was able to identify some information on biohazards (OH
EPA,  1993).

       As described above, the Health Services Industry is expansive and contains
approximately half a million facilities. Because of the size and diversity of this category and
other resource constraints, EPA decided to focus its detailed study on certain types of

                                           13-1

-------
                             Section 13.0 - Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)
dischargers. EPA selected its focus areas, for the most part, to respond to stakeholder concerns.
The focus areas are:

       •      Dental mercury: EPA focused its evaluation on mercury discharges from the
              offices and clinics of dentists due to the potential hazard and bioaccumulative
              properties associated with mercury.
       •      Unusedpharmaceuticals: EPA is focusing its evaluation on the management of
              unused or leftover pharmaceuticals from health service facilities due to the
              growing concern over the discharge of pharmaceuticals into water and the
              potential environmental effects.

13.1   Dental Mercury

       The Agency notes that it has an overall interest in mercury reduction and on July 5, 2006,
issued a report titled, "EPA's Roadmap for Mercury," (U.S. EPA, 2006a). Among other things,
EPA's report highlights mercury sources and describes progress to date in addressing mercury
sources. As part of the 2008 Health Services Industry detailed study, EPA researched the
following questions/topics for the 2008  final plan as they relate to disposal of mercury into
municipal sewer systems:

       •      What are current industry practices regarding the mercury disposal? To what
              extent are each of these practices applied? What factors drive current practices?
       •      Are there federal, state, or local requirements or guidance for disposal of
              mercury? What are these requirements?
       •      How are control authorities currently controlling (or not controlling) disposal of
              mercury via wastewater?
       •      To what extent do POTWs report pass through or interference problems related to
              mercury discharges?
       •      What technologies are available: (1) as alternatives to wastewater disposal; and
              (2) to control pollutant discharges. Is there any qualitative or quantitative
              information on their efficiency?
       •      What Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used as alternatives to wastewater
              disposal and/or to control discharges and  is there any qualitative or quantitative
              information on their efficiency?
       •      Is there any quantitative or qualitative information on the costs associated with
              identified technologies and/or BMPs?

       Across the United States, many States and municipal wastewater treatment plants
(publicly owned treatment works [POTWs]) are working toward the goal of reducing discharges
of mercury into collection systems. Many studies  have been conducted in an attempt to identify
the sources of mercury entering these collection systems. According to the 2002 Mercury Source
Control and Pollution Prevention Program Final Report prepared for the National Association of
Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), dental clinics are the main source of mercury discharges to
POTWs. The American Dental Association (ADA) estimated in 2003 that up to 50 percent of
mercury entering POTWs was contributed by dental offices (Vandeven, 2005).

       EPA estimates there are approximately 160,000 dentists working in 120,000 dental
offices that use or remove amalgam in the United States -  almost all of which discharge their

                                          13-2

-------
                            Section 13.0 - Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)
wastewater exclusively to POTWs. Mercury in dental wastewater originates from waste particles
associated with the placement and removal of amalgam fillings. Most dental offices currently use
some type of basic filtration system to reduce the amount of mercury solids passing into the
sewer system. However, BMPs and the installation of amalgam separators, which generally have
a removal efficiency of 95 percent, have been shown to reduce discharges even further. A recent
study funded by NACWA (Larry Walker Associates, 2002) concluded that the use of amalgam
separators results in reductions in POTW influent concentrations and biosolids mercury
concentrations. Use of amalgam separators does not always result in reductions in POTW
effluent, however, since most amalgam particles are removed with biosolids. Mercury that
partitions to wastewater sludge may be incinerated or disposed to a landfill.

       States, Regions, and localities have implemented mandatory and voluntary programs to
reduce dental mercury discharges. Specifically, 11 states and at least 19 localities have
mandatory pretreatment programs that require the use of dental mercury amalgam separators
(U.S. EPA, 2008a). Additionally, at least 20 POTWs have voluntary programs to reduce mercury
discharges from dental offices. Success rates for these voluntary programs vary greatly, and are
usually higher when there is a mandatory "second phase" to the voluntary program. EPA
Region 5 published guidance for permitting dental mercury discharges (U.S. EPA, 2004).  The
ADA has also adopted and published BMPs for its members. On October 2, 2007, the ADA
updated its BMPs to include the use of amalgam separators (ADA, 2007). The document titled
Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Dental Amalgam, compiles the information EPA has
collected to date on existing guidance and requirements for dental mercury (U.S. EPA, 2008a).

       In 2007 and 2008,  EPA focused its efforts on collecting and compiling information on
current mercury discharges from dental offices, BMPs, and amalgam separators. For amalgam
separators, EPA looked at the frequency with which they are currently used; their effectiveness
in reducing discharges to POTWs; and the capital and annual costs associated with  their
installation and operation  (U.S.  EPA, 2008a). EPA also conducted a POTW pass-through
analysis on mercury for the industry.

       EPA received comments from 32 stakeholders on the preliminary 2008 Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan.  Most commenters were from pretreatment programs that provided
useful information on their mandatory and voluntary pretreatment programs that include the use
of amalgam separators. EPA used this information to update its final report on management and
best practices for the control of dental mercury (U.S. EPA, 2008a). ADA and NACWA
commented that although they do not support development of national pretreatment standards,
they are willing to work with one another and EPA to increase the use of amalgam separators by
dental facilities. EPA is exploring options with ADA and NACWA to promote the use of
amalgam separators.

       In response to mercury water quality and pollution prevention concerns, there is progress
at the State and local level as amalgam  separators and other BMPs are increasingly being
mandated by States and local governments. ADA's recently revised BMPs will likely help in
convincing dentists to install amalgam separators and employ other BMPs to recover dental
amalgam and prevent the discharge of mercury to POTWs. This will help POTWs reduce  the
amount of mercury in their biosolids and the potential for mercury emissions when biosolids are
incinerated. Additionally,  due to mercury-free fillings and improved overall dental health, the
use of mercury in dentistry is decreasing in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2008a).

-------
                             Section 13.0 - Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)
       At this time EPA is not identifying this sector for an effluent guidelines rulemaking. As
previously noted above, industrial categories demonstrating significant progress through
voluntary efforts to reduce hazard to human health or the environment associated with their
effluent discharges are a lower priority for effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards revision,
particularly where such reductions are achieved by a significant majority of individual facilities
in the industry. As an example, in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan EPA relied
on a national voluntary partnership program for the industrial laundries sector as a factor in not
identifying the industrial laundries sector for an effluent guidelines rulemaking (Section 19.9 of
U.S. EPA, 2006b). In future annual reviews, EPA will continue to examine the percentage of
dentists using amalgam separators and their effectiveness at recovering dental amalgam and
reducing mercury discharges to POTWs. EPA notes ADA's recent positive step in revising their
BMPs to include the recommendation for dentists to use amalgam separators. In particular, EPA
will examine whether a significant majority of dentists are utilizing amalgam separators. After
such examination, EPA may re-evaluate its current view not to initiate an effluent guidelines
rulemaking for this sector.

13.2   Unused Pharmaceuticals

       To date, scientists have identified more than 160 pharmaceutical compounds at
discernable concentrations in our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams (Section 3 of U.S. EPA,
2008b). EPA is very concerned about these findings. To address this issue at the source, EPA is
studying how the drugs are entering our waterways and what factors contribute to the current
situation. Towards this end, EPA initiated a study on pharmaceutical disposal practices at health
care facilities,  such as hospitals, hospices, long-term  care facilities, and veterinary hospitals.
Unused pharmaceuticals include dispensed prescriptions that patients do not use as well as
materials that are beyond their expiration dates. Another potential source of unused
Pharmaceuticals is the residuals remaining in used and partially used dispensers, containers, and
devices. Many of these dispensers, containers, and devices are bulky and are likely not disposed
to the sewer as they could create blockages in the sewer; however,  some might be sewered  (e.g.,
medical patches). As a point of clarification, the term "unused pharmaceuticals" does not include
excreted pharmaceuticals.

       For many years, a standard practice at many health care facilities was to dispose of
unused pharmaceuticals by flushing them down the toilet or drain. Through this study, EPA
seeks to investigate the following questions:

       •      What are the current industry practices for disposing of unused pharmaceuticals?
       •      Which pharmaceuticals are being disposed of and at what quantities?
       •      What are the options for  disposing of unused pharmaceuticals other than down the
              drain or toilet?
       •      What factors influence disposal decisions?
       •      Do disposal practices differ within industry sectors?
       •      What BMPs could facilities implement to reduce the generation of unused
              pharmaceuticals?
                                           13-4

-------
                             Section 13.0 - Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)
       •      What reductions in the quantities of pharmaceuticals discharged to POTWs would
              be achieved by implementing BMPs or alternative disposal methods?
       •      What are the costs of current disposal practices compared to the costs of
              implementing BMPs or alternative disposal methods?

       In a related effort, EPA also seeks to determine the effectiveness with which POTWs can
remove pharmaceuticals from incoming sewage. Upon completion of the health services study,
EPA hopes to understand what factors contribute to unused pharmaceutical disposal methods at
health service facilities and which disposal methods represent best practices to minimize
environmental impacts.

       To date, EPA has completed an interim study of the health services industry (U.S. EPA,
2008b). To gather data for the study, EPA completed site visits to two hospitals and a
pharmaceutical reverse distributor; investigated secondary data sources such as existing
institutional surveys on disposal practices; and conducted a series of meetings and
teleconferences with other Federal agencies and health care stakeholder groups.

       The study focused on hospitals and long-term care facilities (LTCFs) because these
facilities are likely responsible for the largest amounts of unused pharmaceuticals being disposed
into sewage collection systems within this industry sector. In 2005, there were about 7,000
hospitals and 35,000 LTCFs in the United States (U.S. EPA, 2008b).

       EPA's preliminary findings include:

       •      Hospitals and long-term care facilities have limited disposal options for unused
             pharmaceuticals. Limitations include Federal regulations, state regulations, non-
              regulatory factors such as ease of disposal and costs, and difficulties encountered
              during implementation of pharmaceutical take-back programs.
       •      Some federal regulations may inadvertently encourage disposal of unused
             pharmaceuticals via the sewer. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), enforced
              by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), establishes a closed distribution
              system for controlled substances. The CSA prohibits the return of controlled
              substances from end-users to any person except, in certain cases, a law-
              enforcement agent and CSA registrants. Disposal of controlled substances by
              CSA registrants is carefully regulated to ensure that the substance is destroyed or
              rendered unrecoverable. One acceptable method of destruction is witnessed
              disposal of controlled substances in a drain or toilet.
       •      Some unused pharmaceuticals are regulated as hazardous wastes and subject to
              the nation's hazardous waste disposal requirements. Pharmaceutical wastes may
              be hazardous waste (under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
              (RCRA)) if they are: (1) the pharmaceutical or its sole active ingredient is
              specifically listed in 40 CFR part 261.33(e) or (f) (commonly referred to as the P
              or U lists, respectively); and/or (2) the waste exhibits one or more characteristics
              of hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity as defined in 40
              CFR parts 261.21-24, respectively). Common pharmaceutical wastes that are
              RCRA hazardous waste when disposed of include epinephrine, nitroglycerin,
                                          13-5

-------
                             Section 13.0 - Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)


              warfarin, nicotine, and some chemotherapeutic agents.20 Healthcare facilities
              must determine if these wastes are RCRA hazardous wastes, and if so, must
              comply with all applicable RCRA Subtitle C requirements, including many
              special handling and transportation requirements.
              State regulations vary widely and influence disposal practices. State regulations
              of the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals and controlled substances vary widely
              (The Lewin Group, 2004; APhA, 2006). Many state regulations require both
              hospitals and LTCFs to destroy unused pharmaceutical s but often do not specify
              the process of destruction; however, many states (33 states according to APhA,
              2006) have requirements for the types of facility personnel required to conduct
              and oversee the destruction. Some states have hazardous waste regulations that
              are more stringent than EPA (AAEVT, 2006). For example, some wastes are
              regulated as hazardous under state law but not RCRA (Table 4-1 of U.S. EPA,
              2008b).  State regulations for reuse of medications vary widely. Many states allow
              re-use of uncontaminated pharmaceuticals (excluding controlled substances) that
              have been in a controlled environment, such as an automatic dispensing system
              (The Lewin Group, 2004). At least five states strictly prohibit hospitals and
              LTCFs from reusing pharmaceuticals entirely. These states include Arizona,
              Kentucky,  Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas. California allows county health
              departments to collect unused pharmaceuticals from LTCFs, wholesalers, and
              manufacturers and redistribute them for dispensing to the uninsured poor. Some
              State Medicare and Medicaid requirements often deter LTCFs from donating or
              redistributing their unused medications (Hessanauer, 2007).
              Medicare and Medicaid requirements also influence hospital disposal practices.
              The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency
              within the Department of Health and Human Services, administers the Medicare
              and Medicaid programs. Medicare provides health insurance to elderly and
              disabled Americans, while Medicaid provides health insurance for low income
              Americans, including long-term care coverage (CMS, Unknown). In a March 22,
              2006 letter, CMS provided  guidance to State Medicaid programs encouraging
              states to require LTCFs to return unused medications to pharmacies and to ensure
              Medicaid is repaid for unused treatments when nursing home patients die, are
              discharged, or have their prescriptions changed. In addition, some state Medicaid
              programs require LTC pharmacies to accept returned unused pharmaceuticals
              (excluding controlled substances) from LTCFs. The LTC pharmacy then credits
              Medicaid for the unused doses. However, LTC pharmacies typically receive little
              payment for these return  services and have not found them to be cost effective.
              For example, when a pharmacy takes back a previously dispensed medication for
              disposal, it must pay to have the medication destroyed, but it is not compensated
              for this service (The Lewin Group, 2004). Therefore, few LTC pharmacies
              participate in these programs.
              Organization size, ease of disposal and cost are also factors influencing the
              disposal of unused pharmaceuticals. Some facilities use flushing to sewers as a
              primary  means of disposal since it is both easy and complies with CSA
20 The Agency clarified its regulation at 40 CFR 261.33, explaining that epinephrine salts are not included in the
epinephrine P042 listing (since the listing only specifies epinephrine and not epinephrine salts); the salts, therefore,
would be hazardous only if the waste epinephrine salt exhibited one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics
(Hale, 2007).	
                                          13-6

-------
                Section 13.0 - Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)
requirements for destruction. Facilities are most likely to flush pharmaceuticals if
they do not have an on-site pharmacy and/or do not have a pre-existing contract
with a hazardous waste hauler to dispose of the pharmaceutical s. In the past,
public health agencies and health-related non-government organizations guided
the public to destroy unused medications by flushing them down the toilet. Many
LTCFs have adopted this method for destruction of unused controlled substances.
Many LTCFs have also extended this practice to include flushing all unused
medications - controlled and non controlled substances (Garvin, 2007).
Logistics for disposing of unused pharmaceuticals at hospitals are different from
long-term care facilities. Hospitals typically have on-site pharmacies. It is
common practice at hospitals to return some unused pharmaceuticals to the
hospital pharmacy and then on to the manufacturer for credit or  disposal.
However, this option extends  only to those pharmaceuticals for which the hospital
can receive credit and does not include unused pharmaceuticals  that are
considered waste (e.g., pharmaceuticals in an intravenous bag, drug samples
brought into the hospital). Also, hospitals typically do not prescribe medication
far in advance or in large quantities. As a result, the potential for pharmaceuticals
to be wasted is reduced. In addition, hospitals typically have pre-existing
arrangements for disposal of unused pharmaceuticals as  hazardous waste (Garvin,
2007).
Widespread implementation of best management practices may reduce the
number and quantity of unused pharmaceuticals entering in our nation's waters
from disposal. Three organizations provide guidance in the form of BMPs to
medical facilities on managing pharmaceutical waste: Hospitals for a Healthy
Environment (H2E), Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), and Joint Commission
on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). The guidelines provided
by these organizations all aim to reduce health and environmental impacts due to
current disposal practices of pharmaceutical waste, as discussed in Section 5.2 of
the Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Management and Disposal of
Unused Pharmaceuticals (Interim Technical Report) (U.S. EPA, 2008b).
Examples of model BMPs identified to date include waste minimization and
reverse distribution systems used by hospitals  in California, Minnesota, and
Washington. Waste minimization techniques include maintaining inventories of
high-use pharmaceuticals and identifying those that are close to  expiring. Short-
dated pharmaceuticals are redistributed to other areas of the hospitals where they
are needed. Also, dispensed pharmaceuticals can go unused at a hospital or LTCF
if the patient has an allergic or adverse reaction to  the medication, no longer
requires treatment, refuses treatment, or the medication expires.  Hospitals and
LTCFs can reduce the amount of pharmaceutical waste generated by limiting the
amount of pharmaceuticals dispensed to patients and residents at one time. This
can be accomplished by using unit dose packaging, limited quantity dispensing,
automatic dispensing systems and standardized medication dosages, as discussed
in Section 5.2 of the Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Management and
Disposal of Unused Pharmaceuticals (Interim Technical Report) (U.S. EPA,
2008b). Hospitals and LTCFs have the option  of hiring reverse distributors to
manage their unused and/or expired medication that the facility believes could be
returned to the manufacturer or wholesaler for credit. The reverse distributor
determines which medications may be returned to  the manufacturer or wholesaler

                             13-7

-------
                             Section 13.0 - Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)


              for credit and arranges for disposal of unused medications that are waste.
              However, there are CSA limitations for reverse distributors and controlled
              substances. In most cases, reverse distributors cannot handle controlled
              substances.

       EPA is concerned about Pharmaceuticals in the environment and is working on this issue
in many different areas. Over the last few years, EPA has increased its work in a number of areas
to better understand pharmaceuticals. EPA has an overall strategy to address the risks associated
with emerging contaminants. This four-pronged strategy is aimed at improving  science,
improving public understanding, identifying partnership and stewardship opportunities, and
taking regulatory action as appropriate. We are  focused on learning more about the occurrence
and health effects of pharmaceuticals in water. In addition, we are working to better understand
what treatment technologies may remove them  from wastewater and drinking water. We are
developing analytical methods to improve detection capabilities. We are conducting national
studies and surveys to help direct our course of action. We are also partnering with government
agencies, stakeholders, and the private sector, and increasing public awareness about product
stewardship and pollution prevention (Grumbles, 2008). Additionally, the Agency is considering
amending its hazardous waste regulations to add hazardous pharmaceutical wastes to the
universal waste system to facilitate its oversight of the disposal of pharmaceutical waste (40 CFR
273) (72 FR 23170, April 30, 2007). In addition, the inclusion of hazardous pharmaceutical
wastes in the universal waste rule will also encourage health care facilities to manage all their
pharmaceutical wastes as universal wastes, even wastes that are not regulated as hazardous but
which nonetheless  pose hazards. Finally, EPA has identified the issue of pharmaceuticals in
wastewater is part of the Agency's Strategic Plan (2006-2011) to meet its goals of clean and safe
water.21

       EPA continues to study the issue of how health care facilities are managing and disposing
of unused pharmaceuticals and POTW treatment effectiveness in an effort to identify the root
cause and potential solutions to address the issue of pharmaceuticals in our waterways. Over the
coming year, EPA  will need to gather more technical and economic information on unused
pharmaceutical management in the Health Services Industry. To aid its decision-making, EPA
intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget for their review and approval under the  Paperwork Reduction Act, 33 U.S.C.  3501, et
seq., in the 2009 annual review. EPA will use this ICR to collect technical and economic
information on unused pharmaceutical management and identify technologies and BMPs that
reduce or eliminate the discharge of unused pharmaceuticals to POTWs. In designing this
industry survey EPA expects to work closely with industry representatives from hospitals,
hospices, long-term care facilities, veterinary hospitals and other affected stakeholders. EPA has
published a separate Federal Register notice for this ICR and solicits comment on the potential
scope of this ICR (73 FR 46903, August 12, 2008).

       EPA also plans to conduct additional site visits to facilities to obtain more detailed
information on how pharmaceuticals are managed, tracked, and disposed as well as influences on
behavior. In addition, EPA is considering collecting data from other types of health care facilities
(e.g., medical and dental offices, university and prison health clinics, and veterinary clinics).
  See "2006 - 2011 EPA Strategic Plan," http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm.
                                          13-8

-------
                            Section 13.0 - Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)


EPA is also reviewing studies on POTW effectiveness. EPA remains very concerned about this
issue and plans to expedite completion of this study.

13.3   Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category References

1.      AAEVT. 2006. American Association of Equine Veterinary Technicians. "News and
       Events Web-site." (October 19). Available online at: www.aaevt.org/news_events.htm.
       Date accessed: July 10, 2007. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0322.

2.      ADA. 2007. American Dental Association. "ADA Updates Environmental
       Recommendations for Handling Waste." (October 2). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0211.

3.      APhA. 2006. American  Pharmacists Association. "Re-Distribution of Medications:
       APhA Policy Committee Background Information." (November). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
       0771-0319.

4.      CMS. Unknown. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare
       and Medicaid Services. "CMS Programs and Information Web-site." Baltimore, MD.
       Available online at: www.cms.hhs.gov/default.asp.  Date accessed: October 3, 2007.
       EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 -0548.

5.      Fairfax. Fairfax County  Government. 2006. Energy Resource Recovery Facility Web-
       site. Fairfax, VA. (August 28). Available online at:
       www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/trash/dispomsf.htm. Date accessed: August 31, 2006.
       EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2391.

6.      Garvin, M.G. 2007. Comments on the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program
       Plan. (December 21). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0851.

7.      Grumbles, Benjamin H.  2008. Testimony of Benjamin H. Grumbles Assistant
       Administration for Water Environmental Protection Agency Before the Transportation
       Safety, Infrastructure Security and Water Quality Subcommittee of the Environment and
       Public Works Committee United States  Senate. (April 15). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
       DCN06111.

8.      Hale, Matt. 2007. Director, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste. Memorandum to RCRA
       Division Directors: EPA Regions I - X.  "Subject: Scope of Hazardous Waste Listing
       P042 (Epinephrine)." Washington, D.C. (October 15). Available online at:
       http://www.epa.gov/regionl/healthcare/pdfs/EpiMemo_Final.pdf. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-
       0771 DCN 05862.

9.      Hessanauer, Meghan. 2007. U.S. EPA. Memorandum to Public Record for the 2008
       Effluent Guidelines Program Plan EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
       (www.regulations.gov).  "Subject: Health Services Outreach Meeting with the Center for
       Excellence in Assisted Living (CEAL) Advisory Council (18 October 2007) - Final."
       (December 17). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 05961.
                                        13-9

-------
                           Section 13.0 - Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)
10.    Johnston, Carey. 2005. U.S. EPA. Memorandum to Public Record for the 2006 Effluent
      Guidelines Program Plan EPA Docket Number OW-2004-0032 (www.epa.gov/edockets).
      "RE: Industry Sectors Being Evaluated under Proposed "Health Services Industry"
      Category." (August 4). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0038.

11.    Larry Walker Associates. 2002. Mercury Source Control and Pollution Prevention
      Program Evaluation: Final Report. Prepared for: Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
      Agencies. (July). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0434.

12.    OH EPA. State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Blood in the Sewer
      System: Does it Pose a Health Risk? Fact Sheet 0105. Columbus, OH. (January). EPA-
      HQ-OW-2006-077 1-0533.

13.    The Lewin Group. 2004. CMS Review of Current Standards of Practice for Long-Term
      Care Pharmacy Services: Long-Term Care Pharmacy Primer. Prepared for: Centers for
      Medicare and Medicaid Services. (December 30). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0317.

14.    U.S. Census. 2005. U.S. Economic Census. Establishment and Firms Size: 2002
      (Including Legal Form of Organization). "Receipts/Revenue Size of Establishments for
      the United States: 2002." 2002 Economic Census, Health Care and Social Assistance.
      Subject Series.  EC02-62SS-SZ. (November). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1615.

15.    U.S. EPA. 2008a. Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Dental Amalgam. EPA-821-
      R-08-014. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05518.

16.    U.S. EPA. 2008b. Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Management and Disposal of
      Unused Pharmaceuticals (Interim Technical Report). EPA-821-R-08-013. Washington,
      D.C. (August).  EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05519.

17.    U. S. EPA. 2006a. EPA 's Roadmapfor Mercury. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0013.
      Washington, D.C. (June). Available online  at: www.epa.gov/mercury/roadmap/htm.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1612.

18.    U. S. EPA. 2006b. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines
      Program Plan. EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, D.C. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-
      0032-2782, Section 19.9

19.    U. S. EPA. 2005. EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project: Profile of the
      Healthcare Industry. EPA/310-R-05-002. Washington, D.C.  (February). EPA-HQ-OW-
      2004-0032-0729.

20.    U. S. EPA. 2004. Region 5 NPDES Programs Branch. "Mercury Pollutant Minimization
      Program Guidance." Chicago, IL. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0460.

21.    Vandeven, Jay  and Steve McGinnis. 2005. Environ International Corporation. "An
      Assessment of Mercury in the Form of Amalgam in Dental Wastewater in the United
      States." Water, Air, and Soil Pollution (2005) 164:349-366. (March 4). EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771-0222.

                                       13-10

-------
                                         Section 14.0 - Oil and Gas Extraction Category (Part 435)
14.0   OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION CATEGORY (PART 435)

       EPA identified the coalbed methane (CBM) sector as a candidate for a detailed study in
the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (71 FR 76656, December 21, 2006). As part of
that announcement EPA made it clear that it would conduct data collection through an
information collection request (ICR) to support this detailed study. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act EPA must seek Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval
for an ICR. EPA also provided notice of this ICR in the preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan (72 FR 61343, October 30, 2007) and in two separate Federal Register notices (73
FR 4556, January 25, 2008; 73 FR 40757, July 15, 2008). EPA is conducting this detailed study
and data collection to determine whether it would be appropriate to initiate an effluent guidelines
and limitations (ELGs) rulemaking to control pollutants discharged in coalbed methane (CBM)
produced water.

       CBM extraction requires removal of large amounts of water from underground coal
seams before CBM can be released. CBM wells have a distinctive production history
characterized by an early stage when large amounts of water are produced to reduce reservoir
pressure which in turn encourages release of gas. This is followed by a stable stage when
quantities of produced gas increase as the quantities of produced water decrease; and a late stage
when the amount of gas produced declines and water production remains low (De Bruin, et al,
2001).  The quantity and quality of water that is produced in association with CBM development
varies from basin to basin, within a particular basin, from coal  seam to coal seam, and over the
lifetime of a CBM well.

       Pollutants often found in these wastewaters include chloride, sodium,  sulfate,
bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, barium, magnesium, ammonia, and arsenic. Total dissolved solids
(TDS)  and electrical conductivity (EC) are bulk parameters that States typically use for
quantifying and controlling the amount of pollutants in CBM produced waters.

       Controlling the sodicity of the CBM produced waters is equally important in preventing
environmental damage. Sodicity is often quantified as the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), which
is expressed as the  ratio of sodium ions to calcium and magnesium ions. Sodicity is an important
factor in controlling the produced water's suitability for irrigation as sodic soils are subject to
severe  structural degradation and restrict plant performance through poor soil-water and soil-air
relations. All of these dissolved inorganic parameters can potentially affect environmental
impacts as well  as potential beneficial uses of CBM produced water.

       Impacts to surface water from discharges of CBM produced waters can be severe
depending upon the quality of the CBM produced waters. These discharges have variable effects
depending on the biology of the receiving stream. Some waterbodies and watersheds may be able
to absorb the discharged water while others are sensitive to CBM produced water discharges. For
example, large lakes or rivers with sufficient dilution capacity or marine waters are less sensitive
to saline discharges than smaller receiving water bodies. Discharge of these CBM produced
waters may also cause erosion and in some cases irreversible soil damage from elevated TDS
concentrations and SAR values. This may limit future agricultural and livestock uses of the water
and watershed.
                                          14-1

-------
                                          Section 14.0 - Oil and Gas Extraction Category (Part 435)
       Currently, regulatory controls for CBM produced waters vary from State to State and
permit to permit (De Bruin, et al, 2001). There is very limited permit information (e.g., effluent
limits, restrictions) in EPA's Permit Compliance System and Toxics Release Inventory for this
industrial sector. Consequently, EPA is gathering additional information from State National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit programs and industry on the current regulatory
controls across the different CBM basins.

       CBM extraction activities accounted for about 10 percent of the total U.S. natural gas
production in 2006 and are expanding in  multiple basins across the United States. Currently, the
Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration expects CBM production to remain
an important source of domestic natural gas over the next few decades.

       As discussed in Section 3.2.1, EPA's review of existing ELGs considers four factors:

       1.     Pollutants discharged in an industrial category's effluent;
       2.     Current and potential  pollution prevention  and control technology options;
       3.     Category growth and  economic considerations of technology options; and
       4.     Implementation and efficiency considerations of revising existing effluent
             guidelines or publishing new effluent guidelines.

EPA will use the CBM ICR to collect technical and economic information from a wide range of
CBM operations to address these factors  in greater detail (e.g., geographical and geologic
differences in the characteristics of CBM produced waters, environmental data, current
regulatory controls, availability and affordability of treatment technology options).  Response to
EPA's questionnaire is mandatory for recipients and EPA will administer the questionnaire using
its authority under Section 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1318.

       In 2007  and 2008, EPA worked with a range of stakeholders (e.g., industry
representatives; Federal, State, and Tribal representatives; public interest groups and landowners;
and water treatment experts) to obtain information on the industry and its CBM produced water
management practices. EPA's outreach started with teleconferences and then continued with a
series of meetings and site visits in the major CBM basins. In total, EPA contacted  over 700
people in eight states during more than 60 outreach and data collection activities in 2007 and
2008 (e.g., meetings, teleconferences, site visits) (Johnston, 2008; U.S. EPA, 2008a). EPA also
solicited public  comment through two separate Federal Register notices on the draft survey and
supporting statement (73 FR 4556, January 25, 2008; 73 FR 40757, July 15, 2008). This outreach
helped the development of the ICR as EPA incorporated data, comments, and suggestions from
industry and other stakeholders into the questionnaire. EPA intends to distribute the two-phased
questionnaire to industry within a few months of OMB approval (see Section 5(d) of U.S. EPA,
2008b). EPA will process the survey data it collects and plans to present preliminary results on
available and affordable technology options in the preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan.

14.1   Oil and  Gas Extraction Category References

1.      De Bruin, R.H. R.M. Lyman, R.W.  Jones, and L.W. Cook. 2001. CoalbedMethane in
       Wyoming Information Pamphlet 7 (revised). Wyoming State Geological Survey. EPA-
       HQ-OW-2004-0032-1904.

                                          14-2

-------
                                        Section 14.0 - Oil and Gas Extraction Category (Part 435)
2.     Johnston, Carey A. U.S. EPA. 2008. Memorandum to Public Record for the 2008
      Effluent Guidelines Program Plan EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0661
      (www.regulations.gov). "Index of Record Items Supporting Coalbed Methane Extraction
      Sector Survey: Updated [DCN 05768]." (June 27). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-1124.

3.     U.S. EPA. 2008a. Coalbed Methane Detailed Study: 2007 Data Collection and Outreach.
      (January 25). Washington, D.C. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0977.

4.     U.S. EPA. 2008b.  Supporting Statement: Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector
      Questionnaire Information Collection Request Supporting the U.S. EPA Clean Water Act
      Section 304(b) Effluent Guidelines Annual Reviews.  (June). Washington, D.C. EPA-HQ-
      OW-2006-0771-1119.
                                        14-2

-------
                                 Section 15.0 - Steam Electric Power Generating Category (Part 423)
15.0   STEAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING CATEGORY (PART 423)

       The Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines and Limitations (ELGs) (40
CFR 423) apply to a subset of the electric power industry, namely those facilities "primarily
engaged in the generation of electricity for distribution and sale which results primarily from a
process utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal, oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction with a thermal
cycle employing the steam water system as the thermodynamic medium" (see 40  CFR 423.10).
EPA's most recent revisions to the ELGs for this category were promulgated in 1982 (see 47 FR
52290, November 19, 1982).

       EPA has focused efforts for the 2007/2008 Detailed Study for the Steam Electric Power
Generating Category on certain discharges from coal-fired power plants. The study sought to:

       1.      Characterize the mass and concentrations of pollutants in wastewater discharges
              from coal-fired steam electric facilities; and
       2.      Identify the pollutants that comprise a significant portion of the category's TWPE
              discharge estimate and the corresponding industrial operation.

EPA's previous annual reviews have indicated that the toxic-weighted loadings for this category
are predominantly driven by the metals present in wastewater discharges, and that the waste
streams contributing the majority  of these metals are associated with ash handling and wet flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) systems (U.S. EPA, 2006). Other potential sources of metals include
coal pile runoff, metal/chemical cleaning wastes, coal washing, and certain low volume wastes.
EPA is continuing to collect data for the detailed study through facility inspections, wastewater
sampling, a data request that was sent to a limited number of companies, and various secondary
data sources (U.S. EPA, 2008c).

       EPA's data collection efforts are primarily focused on coal-fired power plants, with
particular interest in FGD wastewater treatment, the management of ash sluice water, and water
reuse opportunities. EPA's site visit program gathers information on the types  of wastewaters
generated by coal-fired  steam electric power plants, as well as the methods of managing these
wastewaters to allow for recycle, reuse, or discharge. EPA conducted site visits at 16 coal-fired
power plants and is continuing to  identify potential site visit candidates to assess FGD systems
using different scrubber designs or sorbents,  and facilities operating or planning to install
different types of treatment and water reuse options, including facilities achieving zero liquid
discharge from their wet FGD operations.

       Between July and October of 2007, EPA conducted five sampling episodes to
characterize untreated wastewaters generated by coal-fired power plants, including FGD
scrubber purge, fly ash sluice, bottom ash sluice, and combined fly- and bottom ash sluice. EPA
also collected samples to assess the effluent quality from different types of treatment systems
currently in place at these operations. Samples collected during the five episodes were analyzed
for metals and other pollutants,  such as total  suspended solids and nitrogen. Site-specific
sampling episode reports are in the docket for the 2008 Plan (ERG, 2008a; ERG,  2008b; ERG,
2008c; ERG, 2008d; ERG, 2008e). These reports discuss the specific sample points and analytes,
the sample collection methods used, the field quality control samples collected, and the
analytical results for the wastewater samples.
                                          15-1

-------
                                 Section 15.0 - Steam Electric Power Generating Category (Part 423)
       EPA is continuing to identify potential sampling candidates to evaluate additional types
of FGD wastewater treatment systems, including advanced biological metals removal processes
and chemical precipitation systems. EPA plans to conduct wastewater sampling at one or more
additional plants in 2008 or early 2009.

       EPA also collected facility-specific information using a data request conducted under
authority of CWA Section 308 (U.S. EPA, 2007). In May 2007, EPA distributed this data request
to nine companies that operate a number of coal-fired power plants with wet FGD systems. The
data request complements the wastewater sampling effort as it requested facility-specific
information about wastewaters, and identifies management practices, for facilities not included
in EPA's  sampling program. EPA received responses in August and October 2007 and
characterized operations at 30 coal-fired power plants. EPA conducted technical reviews of the
data received and resolved questions with the individual companies before entering the
information into a database (U.S. EPA, 2008a; U.S. EPA, 2008c). The data request collected
information on selected wastewater sources, air pollution controls, wastewater management and
treatment practices, water reuse/recycle, and treatment system capital and  operating costs.

       The Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) provided EPA with a database that contains
selected National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Form 2C data for 86  coal-fired plants
operated  by UWAG's member companies, namely those plants that operate wet FGD systems or
wet fly ash sluice systems. The database provides facility information,  data on facility outfalls,
process flow diagrams, wastewater treatment information, and intake and effluent characteristics.
Data are provided for the FGD, ash sluice, and coal pile runoff wastestreams (Aldridge, 2008;
UWAG, 2008).

       EPA is also in the process of contacting vendors and conducting literature searches to
collect additional information on wastewater treatment technology options and wastewater reuse
opportunities for particular waste streams. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is
conducting bench- and pilot-scale tests on FGD wastewater treatment technologies, including
chemical precipitation, ion exchange, and biological metals removal.

       EPA intends to continue its detailed review of the Steam Electric Power Generating
Category in the 2009  and 2010 annual reviews of effluent guidelines. Wastewater sampling  at a
facility operating a treatment system of interest was delayed by nearly one year due to
operational conditions at the plant.  In addition, several other plants recently began operating a
new generation of FGD wastewater treatment technology that promises to achieve substantially
better pollutant reductions of metals and nutrients than EPA has evaluated to date. EPA believes
it is important to evaluate the performance of these technologies, as well as the processes being
investigated by EPRI, prior to concluding the detailed study. As noted above, EPA has not yet
completed its wastewater sampling activities. The UWAG Form 2C database was recently
delivered to EPA; however, EPA has not had sufficient time to fully evaluate this data. The
database  provides substantial information on wastewater generation and wastewater management
and treatment practices for a large number of plants. EPA believes it is important to take
additional time to evaluate the Form 2C data, in concert with EPA's sampling data and the
responses to EPA's data request. EPA also intends to continue investigating water reuse
opportunities to assess the degree to which they may yield pollutant reductions for discharges of
ash sluice and FGD wastewater.
                                          15-2

-------
                               Section 15.0 - Steam Electric Power Generating Category (Part 423)
15.1  Steam Electric Power Generating Category References

1.     Aldridge, Elizabeth. Hunton and Williams. 2008. Letter from Ms. Elizabeth Aldridge,
      Hunton and Williams, to Mr. Ron Jordan, U.S. EPA. RE: Completion of UWAG Form
      2C Database. (June 6). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05861.

2.     ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2008a. Final Sampling Episode Report, EME Homer
      City Generation L.P.'s Homer City Power Plant. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771
      DCN 05823.

3.     ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2008b. Final Sampling Episode Report, Ohio Power
      Company's Cardinal Power Plant. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05836.

4.     ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2008c. Final Sampling Episode Report, Ohio Power
      Company's Mitchell Plant. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05834.

5.     ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2008d. Final Sampling Episode Report, Tampa
      Electric Company's Big Bend Station. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05816.

6.     ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2008e. Final Sampling Episode Report, Tennessee
      Valley Authority's Widows Creek Fossil Plant.  (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771  DCN
      05844.

7.     U.S. EPA. 2008a. Confidential Business Information Version of the Data Request
      Database for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry. (June 12). Washington,  D.C.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05755.

8.     U.S. EPA. 2008b. Non-Confidential Business Information Version of the Data Request
      Database for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry. (June 12). Washington,  D.C.
      EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 5754.

9.     U.S. EPA. 2008c. Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: 2007/2008
      Detailed Study Report. EPA-821-R-08-011.  (August). Washington, D.C. EPA-HQ-OW-
      2006-0771 DCN 05516.

10.    U.S. EPA. 2007. Steam Electric Detailed Study: Summary Paper for the Preliminary
      2008 Effluent Guidelines Plan. EPA-821-R-07-008. (October). Washington, D.C. EPA-
      HQ-OW-2006-0771 -0417.

11.    U. S. EPA. 2006. Interim Detailed Study Report for the Steam Electric Power Generating
      Point Source Category. EPA-821-R-06-015. (November). Washington, D.C. EPA-HQ-
      OW-2004-0032-2781

12.    UWAG. Utility Water Act Group. 2008. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
      System Form 2C Database, June 2008. (June). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN
      05861A01.
                                        15-2

-------