vvEPA
DRAFT
A STRATEGY FOR
NATIONAL CLEAN WATER
INDUSTRIAL REGULATIONS
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Source Performance Standards
November 2002
-------
EPA-821-R-02-025
Office of Science and Technology
Engineering and Analysis Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
I. Background Information
A. What is the Effluent Guidelines Program?
B. Genesis of Effluent Guideline Regulations as One Arm of the
Nation's Clean Water Program
C. Contribution of the Effluent Guidelines Program to Improving
the Nation's Water Quality
D. Contribution of the Water Quality Program to Improving the
Nation's Water Quality
E. Addressing the Remaining Challenges
II. Planning for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations
A. Statutory Requirements for Program Planning
B. Litigation on Program History
C. Effluent Guidelines Task Force Recommendations on Planning
D. Outreach in Plan Development
III. A National Plan For Clean Water Industrial Regulations
A. Key Factors for Selecting Industrial Categories for Effluent
Guideline Development or Revision
B. Information to Evaluate the Key Factors
C. Proposed Planning Process
D. Schedule for the Proposed Annual Review Process
E. Biennial Effluent Guidelines Plan Draft Strategy
F. Solicitation of Stakeholder Recommendations
IV. Glossary
APPENDICES
1. Table of Industries Covered by National Clean Water Industrial
Regulations
2. Section 304(m) Requirements
DRAFT Page 1 November 5,2002
-------
Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed this draft National
Strategy in order to provide interested stakeholders - industry, academia,
equipment manufacturers, States, POTWs, environmental interest groups, and
members of the public - the chance to consider how national industrial
technology-based regulations (known as effluent guidelines) can best meet the
needs of the broader national clean water program in the years ahead.
This draft National Strategy outlines a process for developing a biennial
plan that is designed to meet both the statutory requirements that are specified in
sections 304(b), 304(g), 304(m), 306(b), and 307(b) of the Clean Water Act, as
well as the water quality challenges of the 21st century. EPA used the following
overarching goals to guide development of this Strategy:
- Reduce Risk to Human Health and the Environment
- Provide Transparent Decision-making
This draft National Strategy is divided into three major sections:
I. Background that describes the history, intent, and contributions of the
effluent guidelines program;
II. Description of the Clean Water Act planning requirements, program
litigation history, recommendations from the Effluent Guidelines Task
Force, and suggestions from participants at a public meeting EPA held in
April 2001 to develop potential planning processes;
III. Presentation of EPA's current thinking on the process it plans to follow in
developing a biennial plan for the program and the criteria EPA expects to
use in assessing the need to develop and/or revise effluent guidelines for
specific industrial categories.
DRAFT Page 2 November 5,2002
-------
EPA looks forward to receiving public comments on this draft National
Strategy and plans to review comments and prepare a revised, final Strategy early
next year.
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
EPA's Office of Water is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act
(or "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 permit limitations, or technology-based controls
such as effluent guidelines and technology-based permit limitations. Permits
developed using the technology-based industrial regulations have been a critical
element of the Nation's clean water program for the past thirty years, and have
helped EPA and the States substantially reduce industrial water pollution during
that time.
The CWA gives States the primary responsibility for establishing,
reviewing, and revising water quality standards. These consist of designated uses
for each waterbody (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. While
technology-based permits may, in fact, result in meeting State water quality
standards, the effluent guidelines program is not specifically designed to ensure
that the discharge from each facility meets the water quality standards for that
particular waterbody. 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.
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.
This section of the draft National Strategy describes the key concepts behind
the national effluent guidelines program, the genesis of this program as one arm of
DRAFT Page 3 November 5,2002
-------
the Nation's clean water program, and the contribution of the program in
improving the Nation's water quality.
A. What is the Effluent Guidelines Program?
The effluent guidelines program is
one component of the Nation's clean
water program, established by the 1972
Clean Water Act. The national clean
water industrial regulatory program is
authorized under sections 301, 304, 306
and 307 of the CWA and is founded on six
core concepts.
First, the program is designed to
address specific industrial categories. To date, EPA has promulgated effluent
guidelines that address 55 categories — ranging from manufacturing industries
such as petroleum refining to service industries such as centralized waste
treatment. (See Appendix 1.) 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 into publicly owned treatment works or "POTWs".
Second, national effluent guideline regulations typically specify the
maximum allowable levels of pollutants that may be discharged by facilities within
an industrial category or subcategory. While the limits are based on the
performance of specific technologies, they do not generally require the industry to
use these technologies, but rather allow the industry to use any effective
alternatives to meet the numerical pollutant limits.
Third, each facility within an industrial category or subcategory must
generally comply with the applicable discharge limits — regardless of its location
within the country or on a particular water body. See CWA section 307(b) and (c);
and CWA section 402(a)(l). The regulations, therefore, constitute a single,
standard, pollution control obligation for all facilities within an industrial category
or subcategory.
DRAFT Page 4 November 5,2002
-------
Fourth, in establishing national effluent guidelines for pollutants, EPA must
conduct a critical assessment of (1) the performance of the best pollution control
technologies or pollution
prevention practices that are
available for an industrial category Direct and Indirect Discharges
or subcategory as a whole; and (2)
the economic achievability of that
technology, which can include
consideration of costs, benefits,
and affordability of achieving the
reduction in pollutant discharge.
Fifth, national regulations
apply to three types of facilities
within an industrial category: existing facilities that discharge directly to surface
waters (i.e., direct discharges); existing facilities that discharge to POTWs (indirect
dischargers); and newly constructed facilities (new sources) that discharge to
surface waters either directly or indirectly.
Finally, the CWA requires EPA to conduct an annual review of existing
effluent guidelines and, if appropriate, to revise these regulations to reflect changes
in the industry and/or changes in available pollution control technologies.
B. Genesis of Effluent Guideline Regulations as One Arm of
the Nation's Clean Water Program
During the Clean Water Act debates in Congress in 1971 and 1972, there
was general agreement about what was needed: reduce pollution levels in the
Nation's waters. However, there was less agreement on how this could be
accomplished.
Most State water pollution control efforts at that time focused on developing
ambient, site-specific, pollution controls that were intended to meet a specific
public health or environmental goal for an individual water body. This process had
drawbacks: it was slow, complex, and the State-established goals for water body
DRAFT
Page 5
November 5, 2002
-------
"...the Committee bill makes a sharp break
with present practice -for the beginning point
is not the degree of pollution considered
tolerable, but the elimination of polluting
discharges to the extent that available
technology allows."
- Senator John Sherman Cooper; 1972
health varied widely across the
country. Consequently, the 1972
CWA represents
a delicate balance between supporters
of a newer approach (e.g.,
technology-based standards such as
effluent guidelines) and the earlier
State/locally-led efforts (e.g., State-
determined ambient water quality
standards).
The debate over the need for national industrial regulations focused on a
number of issues. First, some members of Congress were concerned that
individual States might establish different standards for water quality than those in
other States in an effort to attract industrial development and economic growth to
their State. The willingness of one State to have lower water quality might then
create a "race to the bottom" as other States felt compelled to meet or even
undercut the less protective and less costly control requirements of their neighbors.
Creating a single national pollution control requirement for each industrial
category based on the best technology the industry could afford was seen as a way
to reduce the potential creation of "pollution havens" and to set the country's sights
on attaining the highest possible level of water quality.
Second, some members of Congress were concerned that relying only on
water quality standards to protect water quality might create the potential for States
to manage their waters in ways that allowed pollution to reach the maximum
allowable levels for a given use (e.g., recreation, fishing). This could create risk of
i^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^_i impairment to these waters as a result
of unexpected new pollution loadings,
noncompliance with established
limits, and/or unusual conditions in
the water body. By requiring that
industrial dischargers comply with
effluent limits based on the best
available technology economically
achievable, the CWA would provide
more pollution control than was
"This legislation represents a major change
in the basic philosophy governing our
attempts to eliminate water pollution. In
altering our approach from standards of
water quality to controls based on effluent
limitations, we are starting down a new road,
one that will reach the same goal but by a
more direct and precise route. "
-Senator Jennings Randolph; 1972
DRAFT
Page 6
November 5, 2002
-------
necessary to meet the water
quality standards in some water
bodies. This "margin of
safety" would, in turn, help
protect water bodies from
unexpected changes in
conditions, keep waters away
from the brink of
nonattainment, and provide
additional capacity to support
industrial and economic
growth.
Third, in the early 1970's
the scientific information
concerning the human health
and environmental effects of pollutants was limited. Congress directed EPA to
develop this information and provide it to the States (see section 304(a) of the
CWA). In doing so, however, Congress recognized that EPA's effort to
understand the health and environmental effects of many pollutants would take
time and States would need additional time to adopt this information into water
quality standards. Therefore, Congress required national regulations for industrial
categories containing discharge limits based on treatment capabilities of available
technology. These limits could be in place sooner than water quality standards and
would address far more pollutants than could be addressed in water quality
standards.
"The committee recommends the change to effluent
limits as the best available mechanism to control
water pollution. With effluent limits, the
Administrator can require the best control
technology: He need not search for a precise link
between pollution and water quality. "
"With this recommendation, the committee intends
no criticism of the States...nor of the State officials
whose programs are superior in many respects to the
Federal water pollution control program. To the
contrary, it is the committee 's intent to restore the
balance of Federal-State effort in the program as
contemplated by the 1965 and 1966 acts. "
- Senator Edmund S. Muskie; 1972
Fourth, some Members of
Congress feared that pollutant specific
numerical standards that identified
allowable levels of a pollutant in a water
body could not account for the
interactive effects of the pollutant on the
aquatic life in the water body, which can
be either negative or positive. Where
the effect is negative, even compliance
with water quality standards for all the
"...the intent is that effluent limitations
applicable to point sources be as uniform
as possible. The Administrator is expected
to be precise in his guidelines so as to
assure that similar characteristics
regardless of their location or the nature
of the water in which the discharge is
made, will meet similar effluent
limitations."
-Senator Edmund Muskie; 1972
DRAFT
Page 7
November 5, 2002
-------
individual pollutants in a water body will not protect the designated use. In some
cases, this problem could be mitigated by implementing more stringent pollutant
limits based on treatment capability. Furthermore, treatment technologies tend to
control multiple pollutants simultaneously.
Finally, there was concern that, in the case of industrial dischargers to
POTWs (i.e, indirect dischargers), controls on the POTW alone could not guard
against shifts of pollutants to other environmental media. In the case of the
industrial dischargers, for example, pollutants are piped to POTWs for treatment
along with conventional sewage prior to discharge to water bodies. However,
some pollutants may not actually reach the treatment plant because they may leak
from sewer pipes to groundwater or may be released to surface waters prior to
treatment as a result of overflows of sanitary sewers or of combined storm and
sanitary sewers.
A related concern is that pollutants may be removed from the effluent
discharged to a water body by becoming part of the sewage sludge from the
treatment plant. Much of this sludge is applied to land and pollutants can then run
off into water bodies. (Note that Congress amended the Clean Water Act in 1987
to provide for the development of standards for sewage sludge similar to those for
water quality.)
What was Congress' solution? — A melding of two approaches, the newer
national approach (i.e., technology-based standards known as effluent guidelines)
and existing State/local efforts (e.g., State-determined ambient water quality
standards).
C. Contribution of the Effluent Guidelines Program to
Improving the Nation's Water Quality
In the thirty years since Congress passed the 1972 Clean Water Act, the
quality of the Nation's waters has improved dramatically, and the Nations's water
programs have matured and expanded. The national effluent guidelines program
has been an important tool, and has helped improve water quality by reducing the
discharge of pollutants that kill or impair aquatic organisms, degrade aquatic
DRAFT Page 8 November 5,2002
-------
ecosystems, or cause human health problems through ingestion of contaminated
water, fish, or shellfish.
National effluent guidelines are implemented through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which is responsible for
preventing the discharge of almost 700 billion pounds of pollutants each year.1 Of
this total, over 1 billion pounds are toxic pollutants such as heavy metals, over 470
billion pounds are nonconventional pollutants such as nutrients and salts, and
almost 220 billion pounds are conventional pollutants such as suspended solids.
These pollutants include chemicals known to cause or contribute to cancer, impact
reproductive health, hinder mental and motor development in children, impact the
central nervous system, and damage major organs such as the liver and kidney.
Effluent guidelines control these pollutants regardless of whether EPA has
developed a water quality criteria or whether a State has adopted a numeric water
quality standard based on that criteria. Development of water quality criteria by
EPA and adoption/modification of these criteria by the States is a significant and
lengthy effort. To date, EPA has published criteria documents for over 160
pollutants, approximately one-third of the pollutants examined for control through
the effluent guidelines program.
D. Contribution of the Water Quality Program to Improving
the Nation's Water Quality
In addition to the technology-based effluent guidelines program, EPA and
the States implement a wide range of water-quality based programs also designed
to protect and restore the Nation's waters. Many of these programs are used in
tandem with effluent guidelines, and can augment and complement the benefits
gained by the technology-based program.
For example, water quality standards and criteria are the regulatory and
scientific foundation for the Nation's water quality-based programs. Water quality
standards - consisting of designated uses for waters, water quality criteria to
protect the uses, and antidegradation policies - serve the dual purposes of
on a review of effluent guideline development documents.
DRAFT Page 9 November 5,2002
-------
establishing water quality goals for specific water bodies and providing the
regulatory basis for establishing certain treatment controls and strategies.
All states, territories, and authorized Indian tribes now have water quality
standards in place under the CWA. EPA provides guidance to these jurisdictions
for adopting scientifically defensible water quality standards, and reviews and
approves those standards. In addition, EPA has promulgated water quality
standards for specific pollutants in 18 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of
Columbia. (Under the CWA, EPA must adopt water quality standards in cases
where it determines they are necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Act.) EPA has
also issued national numeric water quality criteria guidance for 165 pollutants, 101
of which are priority toxic pollutants.
Several key provisions of the CWA are linked to water quality standards.
For example, water quality standards are used to assess impairments in U.S.
waters, to establish targets and load reductions needed in impaired waters through
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and to set limits on pollutants through
enforceable NPDES permits where technology-based limits are insufficient to
protect water quality.
The States and EPA have controlled over 48,000 individual industrial
facilities through the issuance of individual NPDES permits, and controlled
thousands more through general permits. Over 70 percent of our rivers, 68 percent
of our estuaries and 60 percent of our lakes now meet applicable water quality
standards. Fish are coming back, habitats are recovering, and many miles of
formerly contaminated beaches are now safe for swimmers.
E. Addressing the Remaining Challenges
Though there has been considerable progress in improving the quality of the
Nation's waters, we still have not achieved water quality objectives in many water
bodies. Under EPA and State permit programs, industrial discharge restrictions -
in the form of technology-based and water-quality based effluent limitations - have
contributed to great improvements. However, significant sources of pollutants
remain. Many of these pollutants come from sources that are not related to
industrial discharges, such as non-point source runoff from agricultural lands,
DRAFT Page 10 November 5,2002
-------
stormwater flows from cities, seepage into ground water from nonpoint sources,
and the loss of critical habitats such as wetlands.
EPA is committed to developing science, methods, models and other tools to
better identify, assess and quantify risks caused from exposure to chemical and
biological contaminants. In the short term, EPA will vigorously implement legal
requirements to ensure we maintain the gains in water quality made over the last
three decades. One facet of EPA's overall approach to resolving the remaining
water quality problems is the continued implementation of the national effluent
guidelines program to address water quality problems associated with industrial
dischargers.
EPA is proposing a process to establish priorities that is predicated on
selecting opportunities for the greatest risk reduction using the best programs and
tools available. EPA intends to characterize and compare risks based on sound,
reliable data and sound analysis. Further, EPA intends to establish priorities and to
make choices in consultation with the public and regulated communities based on
the potential to cost-effectively reduce levels of risk to public health and the
environment.
In this draft National Strategy., EPA proposes a decision-making process and
identifies the key factors EPA expects to consider as it evaluates the need to revise
existing effluent guidelines or to develop new effluent guidelines. In making these
decisions, EPA also intends to consider other factors suggested by the public, as
appropriate.
DRAFT Page 11 November 5,2002
-------
II. Planning For National Clean Water Industrial
Regulations
In the early years of clean water programs, EPA focused on establishing
national regulations for core industrial categories. In the mid-1970's, work on
several categories was set aside as EPA shifted its focus to further control toxic
pollutants — first as the result of litigation, then in compliance with the 1977
amendments to the Clean Water Act. In 1987, Congress again amended the CWA
to, among other things, establish a formal planning process for the effluent
guidelines program. This new provision, section 304(m), reiterated EPA's
mandatory duty to annually review existing effluent guidelines for potential
revision and clarified EPA's duty to identify categories of sources discharging
toxic or nonconventional pollutants for which no effluent guidelines exist. EPA's
first attempt to comply with the new planning provision resulted in litigation by the
Natural Resources Defense Council and Public Citizen, Inc. for failure to comply
with section 304(m). EPA entered into a consent decree in 1992 that has governed
the program for the past decade. EPA anticipates that it will soon fulfill its
commitments under the provisions of that consent decree. The Agency is now
considering how it will comply with the 304(m) planning requirements in the
future.
This section of the draft National Strategy reviews the 304(m) planning
requirements and summarizes the litigation and implementation of those
requirements to date. It then describes the planning-related recommendations of
the Effluent Guidelines Task Force, as well as the recommendations of an invited
group of experts who participated in a public meeting convened by EPA in April
2001 to provide their ideas on how best to conduct this planning effort.
A. Statutory Requirements for Program Planning
The Clean Water Act requires that EPA periodically review existing effluent
guidelines, pretreatment standards, and standards of performance for new sources
and to revise them "if appropriate" or, in the case of new source performance
standards, "as technology and alternatives change." See CWA sections 301(d),
304(b), 304(g)(l), 306(b)(l)(B). In addition, the CWA requires EPA to
promulgate effluent guidelines for new categories of dischargers under certain
DRAFT Page 12 November 5,2002
-------
circumstances. See CWA section 304(m)(l)(B) and (C). (See the inset box below
for section 304(m) requirements, and Appendix 2 for a summary of other CWA
provisions regarding the review, revision, and promulgation of effluent guidelines
regulations.)
B. Litigation on Program Planning
On October 30, 1989, the
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc. and Public Citizen, Inc. filed an
action against EPA in which they
alleged, among other things, that EPA
had failed to comply with Clean Water
Act section 304(m). The plaintiffs and
EPA eventually agreed to a settlement
of that action in a consent decree
entered on January 31, 1992.
The consent decree, which has
been modified several times,
established a schedule by which EPA
was to propose and take final action on
both the revision of existing effluent
guidelines and the promulgation of new
effluent guidelines. It also established
a schedule by which EPA was to
conduct preliminary studies of several
industries. Under the decree, EPA was
directed to use the studies as well as
other available information to select the
categories for which EPA would issue
new or revised rules.
Clean Water Act Section 304(m)
Schedule for Review of Guidelines
"(1) Publication: Within 12 months after
February 4, 1987, and biennially thereafter, the
Administrator shall publish in the Federal
Register a plan which shall —-
"(A) establish a schedule for the annual
review and revision of promulgated
effluent guidelines, in accordance with
subsection (b) of this section;
(B) identify categories of sources
discharging toxic or nonconventional
pollutants for which guidelines under
subsection (b)(2) of this section and
section 1316 of this title have not
previously been published; and
(C) establish a schedule for promulgation of
effluent guidelines for categories
identified in subparagraph (B), under
which promulgation of such guidelines
shall be no later than 4 years after
February 4, 1987, for categories
identified in the first published plan or 3
years after the publication of the plan for
categories identified in later published
plans."
"2) Public Review: The Administrator shall
provide for public review and comment on the
Finally, the consent decree provided that section 304(m) plans issued
subsequent to the decree which are consistent with its terms shall satisfy EPA's
obligations to publish such plans on a biennial basis.
DRAFT
Page 13
November 5, 2002
-------
Since 1992, EPA has promulgated new or revised effluent guidelines for ten
industrial categories. Based on a review of technical support documents, EPA
estimates these regulations prevent the discharge of over 1 billion pounds of
pollutants a year to waters of the U.S., including over 6 million pounds of toxic
pollutants, almost 600 million pounds of nonconventional pollutants, and almost
490 million pounds of conventional pollutants. EPA notes that these reductions,
while significant, represent less than one percent of the total loadings reductions
projected for all effluent guidelines as implemented through the NPDES program
(see page 8). This suggests that, rather than continuing to focus on high volume
discharges, the Agency shift its focus to addressing remaining risks.
In preparation for the 2004 biennial plan (which will be EPA's first section
304(m) plan developed independently of the consent decree), EPA has begun to
explore the process by which it will conduct the annual review of effluent
guidelines as required by statute. EPA has also begun to identify the factors it
expects to consider when deciding whether or not to promulgate new or revised
effluent guidelines.
C. Effluent Guidelines Task Force Recommendations on
Planning
Under the consent decree, EPA was required to establish an Effluent
Guidelines Task Force to make recommendations for improving the effluent
guidelines program. Consequently, in 1992, EPA created a Task Force consisting
of members appointed by the Agency from industry, citizen groups, State and local
governments, the academic and scientific communities, and EPA's Office of
Research and Development.
The Task Force has held public meetings since 1993, and has submitted a
number of reports to the Agency making recommendations for improving national
clean water industrial regulations. Some of these recommendations are relevant to
the 304(m) planning process and are discussed below.
In 1995, the Task Force prepared a report titled The Effluent Guideline
Program: Selection Criteria for Preliminary Industry Studies. The report, among
other things, recommended that the Agency use certain information sources and
DRAFT Page 14 November 5,2002
-------
criteria to select industries for further study. This report and other Task Force
reports are available on-line at http://www.epa. gov/ost/guide/taskforce/.
First, the Task Force recommended that EPA begin its screening process by
consulting with pretreatment control authorities, States authorized to implement the
NPDES, industry, and professional/trade associations regarding their
recommendations regarding revisions of existing effluent guidelines and targeting
industries for new guidelines.
They specifically recommended that EPA obtain feedback from these
stakeholders regarding their satisfaction with the effluent guidelines both in terms
of ease of administration and effectiveness. They recommended coordination with
the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) as part of their
national pretreatment coordinator's meetings, and with planned conferences
sponsored by the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA), Water Environment Federation (WEF), American
Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), Air and Waste Management Association
(AWMA), and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
The Task Force also recommended that EPA use, as a gross screening tool,
lists of facilities discharging into water quality-impaired receiving waters. The
Task Force noted the lack of cause-and-effect relationship between an industrial
category discharging into an impaired water body and that impairment, but thought
that such categories of industries should advance through the preliminary screening
phase.
The Task Force further recommended that EPA review its National
Sediment Quality Survey to target, on a national basis, industrial dischargers which
potentially contribute to sediment contamination, recognizing limitations in the
sources of information for this inventory.
In addition, the Task Force recommended that EPA use the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) to screen industries, but urged EPA to take into consideration the
fact that the TRI includes pollutant releases associated with treatment chemicals
and pollutants which are compatible with municipal sewage treatment plant
processes, that it sometimes contains imprecise information on listed chemical
releases and transfers based on approximate estimates, and that it provides
DRAFT Page 15 November 5,2002
-------
incomplete coverage of pollutants and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)2
codes.
Finally, the Task Force recommended that EPA use the Permit Compliance
System (PCS), which contains data on the discharges of NPDES-permitted
facilities, to the extent possible, given its data limitations. Specifically, the Task
Force encouraged EPA to evaluate whether compliance monitoring of whole
effluent toxicity (WET) could be used to identify high priority source categories.
The Task Force also addressed the issue of the criteria EPA should use to prioritize
industrial categories for preliminary study. These recommendations do not directly
address whether or not a new or revised effluent guideline would be appropriate,
but rather present a series of factors to be weighed by the Agency in determining
whether further study of the category is warranted. (See box.)
Establishments are assigned a primary SIC Code on the basis of principal product or
service rendered. The RSEI model can sort based on 2-, 3-, or 4-digit SIC codes. North
American Industry Classification Codes (NAICS) will not be incorporated into the TRI until
reporting year 2004.)
DRAFT Page 16 November 5,2002
-------
Criteria Recommended by the
Effluent Guidelines Task Force
Heed any legal mandates (statutory or judicial) to perform specific studies.
Continue to utilize a measure of toxicity (specifically a metric known as total toxic pounds equivalent
(TTPE), which normalizes the toxicity of pollutant discharges to that of copper, e.g., 10 TTPE has the
toxicity of 10 pounds of copper).
Give priority to selecting industries not covered by existing effluent guidelines that are highly ranked in
terms of TTPE discharged.
Consider both the number of facilities and total wastewater discharge flow, thereby focusing on those
categories that collectively have the greatest potential for significant impacts.
Consider alternative control approaches, such as guidance for the local control authority or State permit
writer, for categories with few facilities or cte minimis flow.
Consider categories which have not implemented pollution prevention as a higher priority than those
which have.
Give, to the extent practicable, priority to industries targeted for regulations by other media programs.
These should provide efficiencies to government and industry, as well as an improved opportunity to
explore pollution prevention approaches that minimize the potential for shifting discharges from one
environmental medium to another.
Give priority to selecting service industries for preliminary study. (At the time the Task Force made this
recommendation, there were several "service industries" that had been identified as part of the Consent
Decree: industrial laundries, transportation equipment cleaning facilities, centralized waste treatment
facilities, landfills, and industrial hazardous waste combustors.)
Consider the investment cycles of industrial categories so that pollution control can be considered in the
early stage of investment planning.
D. Outreach in Plan Development
In 2000, EPA discussed with the Effluent Guidelines Task Force the need to
develop a process to meet the statutory planning requirements in a way that
supports the national water program's needs and priorities. The Task Force
recommended that EPA sponsor a workshop of experts who would be able to
suggest data sources and screening criteria for EPA's consideration. Based on
those recommendations, EPA sponsored an Effluent Guidelines Planning
Workshop on April 2 and 3, 2001 in Baltimore, Maryland. Workshop participants
included regulatory authorities, industry representatives, technology experts,
academia, and environmental advocacy representatives.
DRAFT Page 17 November 5,2002
-------
EPA asked attendees to explore approaches for both the annual review of
existing effluent guidelines and the identification of new industries for potential
effluent guidelines development. The ideas advanced during the workshop varied
considerably.
Many of the suggestions relied heavily on obtaining data and input from a
wide variety of stakeholders - industry, academia, equipment manufacturers,
States, POT Ws, environmental interest groups, and members of the public -
and using it to rank relative risks to human health and the environment.
Some suggestions started with identifying water quality problems and then
trying to identify categories of industry that contribute to them.
Some suggestions started with reviewing each industrial category to
determine the cumulative toxicity (measured as TTPE) of each category's
discharges.
Other suggestions focused on tracking changes that have occurred in the
industry since the effluent guideline was last revised (in the case of existing
regulations) or tracking new production processes for industries that are not
regulated by an effluent guideline.
One suggestion proposed using the selection process as an incentive to
encourage industries to implement voluntary pollution reduction efforts —
by giving lowest priority to industries that have reduced their pollutant
loadings the most in recent years.
Another suggestion addressing innovative approaches focused on in-plant
trading of pollutant discharges as a possible incentive to encourage
reductions in overall discharges.
The processes suggested by
individuals at this workshop, the
associated selection criteria, and the
discussions at the workshop helped inform
the structure of the draft National Strategy
published here today. A summary of the
meeting, ideas generated in preparation for
DRAFT Page 18 November 5,2002
-------
the meeting, and a list of attendees is included in the record. This information is
also available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/plan.html.
To supplement the results of the workshop, the Office of Water (OW)
solicited additional information from a variety of sources, both within EPA and in
the States. OW participated in teleconferences with EPA Regional Pretreatment
Coordinators, EPA Water Quality Permit Specialists, and the NPDES Regional
Program Managers. EPA solicited State concerns at these discussions, as well as
directly in phone interviews with a number of representatives from State
environmental protection departments.
III. A NATIONAL PLAN FOR CLEAN WATER
INDUSTRIAL REGULATIONS
This draft National Strategy sets forth a planning process to review national
effluent guidelines and establish priorities to address the water quality challenges
of the 21st century. In developing this process, EPA was guided by two major
goals:
Reduce risk to human health and the environment
Provide transparent decision-making
This section of the draft National Strategy describes the planning process,
including a discussion of the key factors EPA believes are appropriate in
determining the need to develop new or revise existing effluent guideline
regulations, and the type of information that EPA expects to consider when
deciding whether to begin effluent guideline regulation development or revision.
This section then presents the proposed review process itself. It describes
how EPA intends to evaluate readily available information on potential risk to
human health or the environment, to solicit input from a wide variety of
stakeholders on this and other appropriate factors, to gather additional information
on the industrial categories that most warrant further study, to evaluate whether
effluent guidelines are the most efficient approach to achieving environmental
DRAFT Page 19 November 5,2002
-------
improvements in those categories, and to present the results to the public. EPA
plans to screen and select industrial categories for regulation based on the latest
methodologies and information available. All appropriate information will be
placed in the public record at the time the Agency publishes each proposed and
final biennial plan. Finally, this section describes new information and procedures
EPA would like to develop to better support this proposed planning process in the
future.
A. Key Factors for Selecting Industrial categories for
Effluent Guideline Development or Revision
EPA has established effluent guidelines for 55 categories of industry (See
Appendix 1) and has subsequently assessed, and promulgated as appropriate,
revisions to these categories. For most of these categories, these regulations
achieve 90 to 99 percent reduction in pollutant discharge when compared to
uncontrolled, untreated wastes, based on a review of technical support documents.
EPA anticipates that as we work with stakeholders to gather and analyze data in
our review process, effluent guidelines will be only one of many tools and
mechanisms to resolve remaining environmental problems. The review process
being proposed today is designed not only to assess whether effluent guideline
development or revision is the appropriate tool to reduce risk, but also to identify
what other tools may be more efficient and effective to achieve our clean water
goals.
In developing the review process described in this draft National Strategy,
EPA first examined the Clean Water Act (CWA) provisions regarding review,
promulgation, or revision of effluent guidelines (See Appendix 2). EPA then
reviewed its past bases for making final regulatory decisions - including decisions
not to regulate new industrial categories or revise existing regulations. EPA found
that the mere existence of technologies that perform better than the current industry
norm is less of an indicator of the ultimate need for a new or revised effluent
guideline than the extent to which the industry is controlling pollutants that pose a
risk to human health or the environment. This is particularly true in the case of
industrial categories currently regulated by effluent guideline regulations.
Revision of Existing Effluent Guidelines
DRAFT Page 20 November 5,2002
-------
Based upon a review of past actions, EPA has identified four major factors
that could lead EPA to conclude that a revision of an existing effluent guideline
would be necessary and appropriate. These factors are derived from sections
301(b)(2) and 304(b) of the CWA, which specify the factors EPA must consider
when selecting the best available technology economically achievable for an
industrial category. In addition, section 304(b) authorizes EPA to consider other
factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.
Just as EPA can rely on these statutory factors in selecting or rejecting
technologies, EPA is similarly authorized to consider these factors prior to
initiating a rulemaking to revise existing effluent guidelines, e.g., to examine
whether the current technology basis for the guideline remains the best available
technology economically achievable for that industry category. Indeed, Section
304(m)(l)(A) of the CWA specifically refers to Section 304(b) in connection with
the effluent guidelines planning process.
EPA will also consider additional factors as it deems appropriate in the
context of each biennial plan. Prior to making a decision regarding whether to
initiate an effluent guidelines rulemaking, EPA expects to consider not only the
factors described below but also any other factors it determines to be appropriate at
that time in the context of each biennial plan.
First, EPA believes that the
revision of an effluent guideline should
be dependent upon the extent to which
the pollutants remaining in an industry
category's discharge pose a substantial
risk to human health or the
environment.
Second, the revision should also
be dependent on EPA's identification
of an applicable and demonstrated
technology, process change, or
pollution prevention alternative that can
effectively reduce the pollutants
remaining in the industry category's
EXISTING EFFLUENT GUIDELINES:
Major Factors EPA Expects to Consider
The extent to which the industry category is
discharging pollutants that pose a risk to
human health or the environment.
The identification of an applicable and
demonstrated technology, process change, or
pollution prevention approach that would
substantially reduce the remaining risk.
The cost, performance, and affordability of the
technology, process change, or pollution
prevention approach that would substantially
reduce that risk.
Implementation/efficiency considerations (see
box below).
DRAFT
Page 21
November 5, 2002
-------
Examples of
Implementation/Efficiency
Considerations
Has the industry changed such that
the existing effluent guidelines are
inappropriate or inadequate?
Is there confusion on the part of the
permitting authority and/or industry
as to whether or not the existing
effluent guideline should be applied,
and if so, how it should be applied?
Are there issues with regard to
implementation, performance
monitoring, or enforceability?
Is the current effluent guideline a
barrier to the use of newer, more
effective technologies with multi-
media benefits?
wastewaters and thereby substantially reduce
the remaining risk to human health or the
environment associated with those pollutants.
The third factor encompasses the cost,
performance, and affordability of the
technology, process change, or pollution
prevention measures identified using the
second factor. If the cost of the improvement
is too great in comparison to the human health
or environmental benefits associated with the
pollutant reductions achieved, or if the
financial condition of the industry category
indicates significant difficulties to achieve the
reductions, EPA would be reluctant to select
the effluent guideline for revision. In this
case, Agency resources would be more
effectively spent developing other more
efficient, less costly approaches to reducing pollutant loadings.
The fourth factor incorporates implementation and efficiency considerations.
Under this factor, EPA would consider whether existing effluent guidelines could
be revised, for example, to eliminate inefficiencies or impediments to technological
innovation, or to promote innovative approaches such as water quality trading,
including within-plant trading. This factor might also prompt EPA to decide not to
revise an effluent guideline for an industry category where the pollutant source is
already being addressed by another regulatory program, such as TMDLs, or by
non-regulatory programs that may more effectively address the problem. While
EPA has not tied this factor directly to risk, the Agency hopes that any efficiencies
resulting from revisions relating to this factor would allow permitting authorities
and industry to devote their resources to other areas posing greater risk to human
health and the environment. See the box for some examples of
implementation/efficiency considerations.
The following three scenarios illustrate how the first two factors would be
considered. Under the first scenario, the industry category discharges pose no risk
to human health or the environment. In this scenario, the ability to substantially
DRAFT
Page 22
November 5, 2002
-------
reduce risk does not exist. In the absence of information indicating otherwise,
EPA would likely conclude that effluent guideline revision for this category is
unnecessary.
Under the second scenario, the industry category discharge poses some risk
to human health or the environment, but EPA has not identified a technology,
process change, or pollution prevention approach that would substantially reduce
that risk. In this scenario, there is no technology basis to justify a revision to the
effluent guideline for that category at the current time. However, the risk to human
health or the environment would signal that the Agency resources could effectively
be spent supporting development of improved technologies. The greater the
human health or the environmental harm, the higher priority EPA would place on
supporting technology development.
Under the third scenario, the industry category poses risk to human health or
the environment, and EPA has identified a technology, process change or pollution
prevention approach that would substantially reduce human health or
environmental risk beyond current performance. Here, a variety of metrics could
be used to evaluate human health or environmental risk ranging from estimates of
risk based on loadings and exposures to information on geographic concentration
and distribution of potential loading reductions. In this scenario, EPA would
probably proceed with preliminary development of an effluent guideline revision
in order to determine whether the third (economic) factor, discussed above, also
supported a revision.
Promulgation of Effluent Guidelines for New Industrial Categories
As part of its planning obligations under the CWA, EPA must assess the
need for effluent guidelines for industrial categories that presently are not subject
to technology-based limitations on a case-by-case basis. See CWA section
304(m)(l)(B). EPA has identified four major factors that could lead EPA to
conclude that national effluent guidelines regulations would be necessary and
appropriate for such industrial categories.
These factors are nearly identical to the factors discussed above with respect
to the revision of existing effluent guidelines, and are derived from the same
statutory bases. In addition, the factors reflect Congress' expectation that EPA will
DRAFT Page 23 November 5,2002
-------
address "significant amounts" of toxic pollutant discharges through national
technology-based regulations. See S. Rep. No. 50, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985);
WQASVLeg. Hist. 31.
As with the decision whether to revise existing effluent guidelines, the first
factor EPA expects to consider is the extent to which the industry category is
discharging pollutants that pose a risk to human health or the environment. As a
threshold consideration, EPA does not believe that it is necessary, nor was it
Congress's intent, to develop a national effluent guideline regulation for categories
of sources that are not likely to pose a significant risk to human health or the
environment. See S. Rep. No. 50, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985); WQA87 Leg. Hist.
31.
In determining whether discharges from an industrial category pose a
significant risk, EPA expects to consider both the total amount of pollutants
discharged by the industrial category, and the toxicity of that discharge. In the case
of indirect dischargers, EPA expects to consider both the interaction of the
discharge with the POTW treatment system (i.e., whether the discharge interferes
with POTW operation and performance) and the nature of the discharge to the
environment (i.e., the amount of those pollutants expected to pass through the
POTW treatment system).
Additionally, the number of facilities in the industrial category can also play
a role in this determination. Establishing a national effluent guideline for one or
two facilities, or for a category of facilities that are all located in one State, may not
be appropriate (unless growth in the industrial category is anticipated). Rather,
EPA might work with State and local regulatory agencies to ensure that discharges
from these sources are adequately addressed through technology-based effluent
limitations or local limitations calculated on the basis of best professional
judgement, without an over-arching national regulation.
Under the second factor, EPA would expect to consider whether there is a
demonstrated, applicable technology, process change, or pollution prevention
approach that could control pollutants that pose a risk to human health or the
DRAFT Page 24 November 5,2002
-------
NEW EFFLUENT GUIDELINES:
Major Factors EPA Expects to Consider
- The extent to which the industry category
is discharging pollutants that pose a risk to
human health or the environment.
- The identification of an applicable and
demonstrated technology, process
change, or pollution prevention approach
beyond current industry performance that
could control pollutants to reduce the risk.
- The cost, performance, and affordability of
a demonstrated technology, process
change, or pollution prevention approach
beyond current industry performance that
could control pollutants to reduce the risk.
- Implementation/efficiency considerations
(see box above).
environment beyond current industry
performance. EPA would expect to
determine current industry performance
based on each facility's current set of
permit limits (if applicable), which can
vary considerably from one facility to the
next.
As with the decision whether to
revise existing effluent guidelines, the third
factor is the cost, performance, and
affordability of the technology, process
change, or pollution prevention measures
identified using the second factor. EPA's
past experience shows that the analysis of
the costs associated with treatment
technologies, pollution prevention
activities, or process changes, as well as
the analysis of the financial condition of the industry category, are important
factors in determining whether an available measure is "best" or "economically
achievable."
The fourth factor that EPA expects to consider in selecting industrial
categories for national effluent guidelines regulation incorporates implementation
and efficiency considerations. This factor, for example, might prompt EPA to
decide not to develop an effluent guideline for an industry category where the
pollutant source is already being addressed by another regulatory program, such as
TMDLs, or non-regulatory programs that may more effectively address the
problem.
EPA may also consider additional factors when deciding whether to initiate
a national effluent guidelines rulemaking for an industrial category presently
regulated on a case-by-case basis. Prior to making such a decision, EPA expects to
consider not only the factors described above but also any other factors it
determines to be appropriate in the context of each biennial plan.
DRAFT
Page 25
November 5, 2002
-------
B. Information to Evaluate the Key Factors
In order to consider the factors presented above, EPA expects it would need
to analyze the following types of information. The list below is based on the
recommendations of the Effluent Guidelines Task Force and the suggestions put
forth by participants in the Effluent Guidelines Planning Workshop.
The estimated environmental impact (human health or ecological risk) posed
by the industry category.
The estimated number of facilities in the category (or subcategory), as well
as the overall structure, including the size of firms (small businesses versus
large corporations), direct versus indirect discharges, and geographic
concentration.
Information on the current practices for control of wastewater pollutants,
including estimates of pollutant loadings (total and toxic pound-equivalent).
Information on any technology, process change, or pollution prevention
approach that can substantially reduce the discharge of pollutants.
The projected incremental reduction in loadings beyond current levels using
the approach or approaches identified above.
The estimated cost to the industry category as a whole to implement the
suggested approach.
The estimated cost of the approach to the industry category with respect to
the incremental reduction in pollutant loadings (i.e., cost reasonableness or
cost effectiveness).
The cost to sales ratio associated with the approach for an average facility.
The projected environmental or human health benefits associated with the
approach.
DRAFT Page 26 November 5,2002
-------
Other information relevant in making decisions (such as potential for
multimedia benefits, the relationship of projected benefits to costs, and any
requests for clarification/revision by regulators or stakeholders).
EPA management expects to use this information and other information
submitted by the public to determine if effluent guideline development or revision
is appropriate. EPA plans to screen and select industrial categories for regulation
based on the latest methodologies and information available. All appropriate
information will be placed in the public record at the time the Agency publishes
each proposed and final biennial plan.
The Agency intends to make its decision-making process more transparent to
interested parties. To do this, EPA would make summaries of this information (as
well as the supporting information and analyses) available for any industries for
which EPA has completed this assessment at the time it proposes and/or finalizes
the biennial plan.
C. Proposed Planning Process
The Effluent Guidelines Task Force and participants in the Effluent
Guidelines Planning Workshop noted that there is no single, aggregated source of
the information needed to evaluate the key factors. They suggested a variety of
approaches for review. All of these approaches included a cursory screening effort
of all industries followed by further study of a subset of categories that most
warrant further examination. EPA has followed that general approach in this
planning document.
EPA believes that such an approach to the review of existing effluent
guidelines and new industrial categories is consistent with Congress' intent for
EPA to perform an annual review. EPA also believes it is good practice to conduct
a broad screening review and then focus resources on performing detailed review
and analysis for industries that are most likely to pose the greatest human health or
environmental risk.
DRAFT Page 27 November 5,2002
-------
Solicitation of Stakeholder Recommendations
As recommended by the Effluent Guidelines Task Force, the Agency
believes that an important first step in the planning process is to consult with
NPDES authorized states, pretreatment control authorities, and professional
associations to obtain their recommendations pertaining to revising existing
effluent guidelines and identifying industries for new guidelines. These
stakeholders can help to identify water quality concerns related to industrial
categories as well as changes in industry which affect the administration and
effectiveness of existing regulations. EPA intends to use a variety of mechanisms
to solicit input from these stakeholders, coordinating with major organizations to
use regularly planned conferences and meetings to the maximum extent possible.
EPA recognizes that there are other stakeholders who may have concerns or
data indicating the need for new or revised regulations. Many of these
stakeholders are not represented by a major organization, and would need to be
provided a more direct opportunity to provide input to the Agency. EPA intends to
use two mechanisms to obtain their recommendations. First, EPA plans to publish
in the Federal Register a notice indicating its intention to develop a biennial plan,
and seeking comment and supporting information from the public on industrial
categories for which there is a need for development or revision of effluent
guideline regulations. Second, EPA plans to use its internet web-site to provide a
more convenient forum for information exchange with a broader audience.
Initial Screening and Review
Although the many suggestions EPA received from stakeholders for
conducting an annual review varied significantly in detail, each involved an initial
screen of readily available information followed by a more detailed review of a
subset of industrial categories. EPA's proposed planning process includes this
step. Accordingly, EPA's annual review of existing guidelines would consist of an
evaluation of readily available-screening level data to create an initial list of
potential categories that warrant further examination. In addition to the
information obtained from the stakeholder outreach in step one, this review would
include an evaluation of data available to EPA through databases and literature.
This review and the information sources are discussed in more detail below.
DRAFT Page 28 November 5,2002
-------
Stakeholders suggested three distinct approaches for the initial screening
steps:
1) Examine the human health and environmental impact of individual
categories - then focus on the categories with the greatest impact,
working with knowledgeable stakeholders to identify technology,
process change, or pollution prevention advances that may help to
substantially reduce risk from those industrial categories.
2) Track technological advances in the areas of process engineering,
pollution prevention, and treatment - then focus on the industrial
categories for which those advances could substantially reduce risk to
human health or the environment.
3) Work with industry and State and local governments to identify
regulatory revisions that are warranted due to implementation and
efficiency considerations - then focus on revisions that will improve
the ease of administering the effluent guideline, or remove barriers to
alternative technologies with greater multi-media benefits.
The Agency sees value in all of these approaches. First, it makes sense for
the EPA to focus resources on reducing risks from identified water quality impacts,
identifying industrial categories causing the greatest human health and
environmental harm, and identifying technologies that can significantly reduce this
harm. This focus is also consistent with another EPA role: promoting the
development of new technologies to solve environmental problems.
Second, by tracking trends in the industry, EPA will be more proactive in
preventing water quality problems as growth in an industry category occurs or as
new processes are implemented. By working with industry as it changes, EPA can
play a vital role in ensuring that protection of water quality is considered in the
development of new production processes. This will prevent the impairment of
water quality due to industrial growth and economic expansion.
Third, EPA sees value in taking steps to improve the ease of administering
effluent guidelines (an implementation/efficiency factor), or to remove barriers to
new approaches, such as water quality trading, or technologies with greater multi-
DRAFT Page 29 November 5,2002
-------
media benefits. For example, the "water bubble" is a regulatory flexibility
mechanism included in the Iron and Steel regulation at 40 CFR 420.03 to allow for
intra-plant trading of conventional and toxic pollutants between outfalls at any
single steel mill. The bubble has been used at some facilities to realize cost
savings and/or to facilitate compliance. Most of the time, these improvements can
be accomplished through guidance, technical assistance, and training. However,
EPA has found regulatory revision to be necessary in some instances. By working
with permitting authorities, industry, and the public to identify and resolve these
considerations, the effluent guidelines program will be implemented more
effectively with less confusion and lower costs, and provide greater environmental
protection.
Evaluate Human Health and Environmental Impacts
There are a number of tools (models, databases, and reports) that EPA may
utilize to evaluate human health and environmental impacts. Several of these are
discussed in the sections that follow. However, this is not an exhaustive list, and
the Agency intends to consider all available resources as appropriate.
Human Health: One of the criteria included in this step is the likelihood of
risk to humans, i.e., adverse human health impacts resulting from exposure to
pollutant discharges associated with a source category. Human exposure can occur
through drinking water, fish ingestion, and contact recreation, although not all
exposures to pollutants are damaging to human health. EPA plans to estimate
relative contributions to human health impacts using existing screening models and
data. As these models are refined and databases are expanded, and as new ones
become available, EPA will incorporate these improvements into this screening
process. EPA plans to screen and select industrial categories for regulation based
on the latest methodologies and information available. All appropriate information
will be placed in the public record at the time the Agency publishes each proposed
and final biennial plan.
One of the readily available tools to assess the relative risk of specific source
categories is EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model.
RSEI is a multimedia, screening-level tool for examining toxic chemical releases
from several perspectives. RSEI uses fate and transport modeling to estimate
DRAFT Page 30 November 5,2002
-------
surrogate doses3 associated with reported TRI chemical discharges to air and water
pathways. It then weights these estimates using each chemical's toxicity via
inhalation or ingestion, and the size of the populations exposed to each chemical.
Based upon these estimates, industrial categories, chemicals, geographic areas, and
facilities can be ranked by relative risk associated with human health effects.
Currently, the primary database providing chemical release and transfer
information to the RSEI model is the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). EPA
recognizes that there are limitations associated with the discharge information
reported to the TRI. For example, some specific industries are not required to
report to TRI. For other industries, only some facilities report to TRI.
Furthermore, much of the release information reported to TRI is estimated (rather
than measured), and only ranges of releases are provided in some instances. The
RSEI model is not restricted to TRI reporting, however, and EPA may elect to use
a different primary database or supplement the TRI information with other release
data in the future.
RSEI is able to provide a ranking of relative risk for all facilities reporting to
TRI. It can also be used to rank groups of facilities, such as all facilities under the
same Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, by relative risk. SIC codes are
one way to identify an industrial source category. In addition to the limitations
discussed above, the results of this approach must be reviewed carefully to
determine if highly ranked categories are either the result of many facilities, which
could indicate that an examination of the category is warranted, or the result of few
facilities with large discharges, which may indicate reporting errors, site-specific
problems, or a general lack of information on a particular source category.
Environmental Impacts: Another criterion considered in this screening step
is the likelihood of adverse ecological impacts resulting from pollutant discharges
associated with a source category. EPA will estimate relative contributions to
ecological impacts using the relative hazard and the quantity of those pollutants
being discharged by each source category. There are a number of data sources that
may provide this type of information. EPA plans to screen and select industrial
Surrogate dose is a measure related to the amount of chemical contacted by an individual
per kilogram body weight per day. To estimate the surrogate dose, an exposure evaluation is
conducted for each relevant emissions and exposure pathway and then combined with human
exposure assumptions to estimate the magnitude of the surrogate dose.
DRAFT Page 31 November 5,2002
-------
categories for regulation based on the latest methodologies and information
available. All appropriate information will be placed in the public record at the
time the Agency publishes each proposed and final biennial plan.
To begin, the Agency plans to review information on existing river and
stream impairments and attempt to identify the sources responsible for those
impairments. The reports generated under CWA sections 303(d) and 305(b)
provide information on water quality impairments, and the pollutants and sources
of pollutants associated with these impairments. Most of the information is based
on data collected and evaluated by the States, tribes, and other jurisdictions. As
with TRI, EPA recognizes that there are limitations associated with using this
information as a screening tool. First, not all of the Nation's waters are assessed,
and those that are assessed are based on a variety of data sources (e.g., ambient
monitoring, water quality modeling, and land use data). Each State uses its own
approach for evaluating and reporting on waters, and only limited data are
currently available on sources of the impairments.
EPA is beginning work to link sources of pollutants with impaired waters.
This effort will link the facilities discharging pollutants as identified in the Permit
Compliance System (PCS) database with impaired water bodies identified using
the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). PCS contains information on facilities
that have been issued direct discharge permits to discharge wastewater into waters
of the U.S. Generally, it includes information for all major dischargers and
POTWs, but each State uses its discretion in determining whether to include
information for minor dischargers. For regulated pollutants, PCS includes permit
restrictions and the actual wastewater discharge monitoring.
The information on impairments (identified initially using 303(d) and 305(b)
reports) will be traced upstream to potential sources using the NHD which contains
digital spatial data about surface water features including streams and rivers. EPA
hopes that the NHD and other ongoing research efforts will allow it to better
understand the fate and transport of pollutant discharges and their upstream
sources. In addition to the limitations of State reporting practices discussed above,
the results of this analysis must be reviewed carefully, in order to verify input data
and identify water-body specific anomalies.
DRAFT Page 32 November 5,2002
-------
Future information sources currently under development for ecological
impacts include EPA's Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results
(WATERS) tool. EPA envisions that the data sources in WATERS would
supplement the information reported under 303(d) and 305(b), especially since
these reports are only generated biannually.4 WATERS unites water quality
information previously available only on individual State agency homepages with
information from several EPA websites.
State and Federal water quality managers, as well as interested citizens, can
use WATERS to quickly identify the status of individual water bodies of interest to
them. It can also be used to generate summary reports on all waters of a State. The
next release of WATERS (July 2002) will include information on nutrients,
drinking water intakes, recreational beaches, no discharge zones, water quality
monitoring stations, and water quality assessments from section 305(b) of the
CWA.
Another source of information is data generated by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) under its National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program.
Under NAWQA, USGS scientists collect and interpret data about water chemistry,
hydrology, land use, stream habitat, and aquatic life in more than 50 major river
basins and aquifers covering nearly all 50 states. National summary reports,
published under the signature title "The Quality of Our Nation's Waters," describe
water quality from a national perspective.
The first report in this series covers nutrients and pesticides. Subsequent
reports may address such topics as radon and arsenic in ground water, industrial
chemicals in streams and ground water, and stream ecology. These reports will
provide information based on actual monitoring data that the EPA can use in
determining pollutants causing ecological impacts and their potential sources. The
Agency plans to analyze these reports and the data on which they are based as part
of its evaluation of the ecological impacts criterion. EPA intends to utilize USGS
models, such as the SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed Attributes
(SPARROW) model (designed for regional interpretation of water-quality
monitoring data), to support its analysis of USGS data. The Agency plans to try to
4EPA notes that listing requirements for 303(d) and 305(b) are currently being revised
through development of the Watershed Rule.
DRAFT Page 33 November 5,2002
-------
identify the potential sources of these impacts in a manner similar to the approach
described for 303(d) and 305(b) data above (i.e., by tracing the impacts upstream
using georeferenced data on potential sources).
Technology Advances and Process Changes
EPA plans to conduct a screening level analysis of changes in industry, and
advances in analytical method techniques, treatment technology, and pollution
prevention practices by evaluating readily available information. For example,
EPA plans to regularly review trade journals, participate in professional
conferences, review Department of Commerce and Department of Energy project
reports on industrial technologies with potential environmental benefits or resource
efficiencies, and consult with permit writers, pretreatment coordinators, industry
representatives and the public.
Since much of the information that is readily available on technology
advancements is anecdotal, EPA is considering an effluent guidelines planning
questionnaire that would be distributed to specific industrial categories and State
regulators to expand on the available data. This questionnaire would be sent to
those industrial categories that EPA has identified as discharging pollutants that
pose a risk to human health and the environment but for which data on available
treatment technologies and pollution prevention practices are lacking. EPA would
use data collected in these questionnaires to assess the key factors for selecting
industrial categories for effluent
guideline development or revision (See
section III.A). EPA is also soliciting
information on other sources of up-to-
date systematic information on
technology use in industry.
In addition, EPA, together with
Vanderbilt University, is holding a
technology conference entitled
"Industrial Wastewater and Best
Available Treatment (BAT)
Technologies: Performance Reliability,
and Economics" in February, 2003.
Specific Topics of EPA/Vanderbilt's
Technology Conference Include:
- Performance and Reliability of Existing and
Alternative Technologies
- New and Innovative Wastewater Treatment
Technologies
- Pollution Prevention Techniques and
Process Alternatives to Reduce or Modify
Pollutant Loads
- Modeling and Optimization of Wastewater
Treatment Technologies
- Cost Analyses for Wastewater Treatment
and Pollution Prevention Technologies
DRAFT
Page 34
November 5, 2002
-------
Representatives of academia, government, and industry are invited to examine and
discuss industry trends and technology advances. Participants will have the
opportunity to provide and obtain information on state of the art techniques for
improving their water pollution control activities. EPA anticipates this conference
will be a good source of relevant, up-to-date information on technology advances,
pollution prevention techniques, and process changes. EPA will use the lessons
learned through this conference to plan periodic conferences to inform future
section 304(m) plans, as appropriate.
Implementation/Efficiency Considerations
Another criterion to identify categories for which revised or new guidelines
may be needed is the existence of problems in either implementation of,
compliance with, or enforcement of existing effluent guidelines. In addition, EPA
will consider information on innovative approaches to pollutant and risk reduction,
such as in-plant trading. Sources of this information include State and regional
pretreatment coordinators, permit writers, industry representatives, and concerned
citizens. EPA will use the results of the early stakeholder outreach in step one to
determine which categories should be examined further for possible effluent
guideline revision.
Second-Level Screening of Industries for Further Investigation
EPA envisions that the outcome of its initial screening process will be
several discrete lists of industrial categories. EPA plans to use the following
criteria to help establish priorities among these categories for further study. EPA
plans to screen and select industrial categories for regulation based on the latest
methodologies and information available. All appropriate information will be
placed in the public record at the time the Agency publishes each proposed and
final biennial plan.
Effluent Guidelines Currently Under Development
EPA suspects that in any given year, the categories for which new or revised
effluent guideline development is currently underway will appear on the lists of
categories generated in the initial screening step. Since rulemaking is already
DRAFT Page 35 November 5,2002
-------
underway, study is part of that rulemaking process and covered in the rulemaking
schedule portion of the section 304(m) plan. EPA is currently developing effluent
guidelines for several categories. Table 1 below lists these categories:
Table 1: Guidelines Currently Under Development/Revision
Industry Category
Metal Products and Machinery
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
Meat and Poultry Products
Construction and Development
Aquatic Animal Production
Pulp and Paper Phase III
Code of Federal
Regulations
40CFR438
40CFR412
40CFR432
40 CFR 450
40CFR451
40 CFR 430
Effluent Guidelines Promulgated Within the Past Seven Years
Similar to categories for which effluent guidelines are currently under
development, EPA suspects that many categories with effluent guidelines that have
recently been promulgated, but not yet implemented, will appear on the lists of
categories generated in the screening step. In these instances, unless EPA has
information indicating that the specific sources that are driving the identification
were not addressed by the new guidelines, further study of these categories would
not be a priority. In general, EPA would probably remove categories for which
effluent guidelines have been promulgated within the past seven years from the
lists, and not consider them for further study at that time. A seven-year time frame
takes into account the lag time that occurs as effluent guidelines are implemented.
In addition, there are unlikely to be dramatic changes in the industry category
during the first seven years after promulgation of a new or revised guideline. In
cases where EPA is aware of the growth of a new segment within a source
DRAFT Page 36 November 5,2002
-------
category5, effluent guidelines may be appropriate and EPA would continue to list
the subcategory for further consideration.
Voluntary Loadings Reductions by Industry
One of the participants in the Effluent Guidelines Planning Workshop
suggested that EPA consider creating an incentive for industrial categories to
reduce pollutant loadings on their own. This participant suggested that EPA not
revise or develop effluent guidelines for source categories that demonstrate
continual improvement through voluntary effluent reductions.
EPA agrees that voluntary efforts should be encouraged and rewarded,
especially where those voluntary reductions have been widely adopted within an
industry and have led to significant reductions in pollutant discharges. EPA may
choose not to revise an existing effluent guideline or develop a new effluent
guideline for an industrial category that has demonstrated that significant progress
is being made through voluntary industry effort to reduce risk to human health and
the environment.
EPA proposes to use information in the PCS system to identify categories
for which loadings have decreased over the past 5 years. As explained previously,
PCS provides discharge monitoring data for a subset of facilities that have been
issued direct discharge permits to discharge wastewater into waters of the U.S.
The system can be used to sort loadings (in pounds per year) of a large number of
pollutants by SIC code. The Agency will also adjust these loadings to reflect
relative toxicity using the Toxic Weighting Factors (TWFs) it has developed to
assess the loadings reductions and cost effectiveness of effluent guidelines. EPA
plans to review these total and toxicity-adjusted loadings profiles to identify
industries that show the greatest decrease in loadings over the past five years.
EPA recognizes that there are limitations associated with the discharge
information reported to the PCS. For example, PCS only contains discharge
monitoring data from facilities with individual permits. For some industries, PCS
only contains discharge monitoring data for a subset of facilities (for example,
5One example is the newly promulgated subcategory for synthetic based fluids under the
oil and gas extraction point source category.
DRAFT Page 37 November 5,2002
-------
major discharges). PCS may not contain information on all of the pollutants of
concern because it only contains information on pollutants currently regulated in a
facility's discharge permit. In addition to the limitations discussed above, the
results of this analysis must be reviewed carefully to verify input data and identify
any anomalies in the results.
EPA also recognizes that this methodology may identify industrial
categories with load reductions due primarily to production decreases. Similarly,
this methodology may retain for further consideration industrial categories with
voluntary pollutant reductions that are masked from notice due to production
increases. Despite these limitations, the Agency believes that this is an acceptable
screening approach. The Agency expects to review PCS data in conjunction with
industry-level production data as a way to address these issues.
EPA also intends to evaluate decreases in water loadings of pollutants
relative to possible increases in release of these same pollutants to other
environmental media, for example, volatilization to air or land disposal of sludge.
To help supplement PCS and other data, EPA will consider general trends in
pollutant discharge using the RSEI model, and will evaluate census data and
economic changes in industry categories. EPA will compare the results from all of
these sources to the information gathered from outreach to State and local
governments, industry, the public, and citizen's groups.
There are a number of voluntary pollution prevention programs sponsored
by EPA and industry groups that may also be a source of information on industry-
wide pollutant loadings. In many instances, these programs foster pollutant
reductions to air and land, as well as water.
Further Investigation
Once EPA has completed the screening level steps explained above, it would
need to prioritize the remaining industries for further study. The number of
categories for which EPA will be able to conduct further study may vary from year
to year depending upon known sources of information, known complexity of the
industry category, and available resources.
DRAFT Page 38 November 5,2002
-------
EPA expects to give highest priority for further study to industrial categories
that appear to present the greatest human health or environmental risk based upon
the screening level data. EPA plans to screen and select industrial categories for
regulation based on the latest methodologies and information available. All
appropriate information will be placed in the public record at the time the Agency
publishes each proposed and final biennial plan.
EPA acknowledges that the screening-level data that forms the basis for our
priority-setting will likely be only preliminary. We anticipate that some studies,
once started, may be discontinued based upon further information indicating that
effluent guideline development or revision is not appropriate.
During this phase, EPA intends to continue to collect and analyze as much
information as possible on all of the relevant factors listed in Section III.B above
(pages 26 and 27). The Agency will also consider using proxy data where
necessary and available.
In the first stage of in-depth study, EPA would work to validate and expand
on the basic information collected on each category during the initial screening
step. EPA also would begin identifying data gaps that need to be filled, in order to
allow the consideration of the relevant factors presented in Section III.B. In order
to ensure that the best possible data are made available during the study phase,
EPA would work closely with stakeholders, including industry, States and local
governments, academia, environmental groups, and members of the public to
gather and analyze the relevant information.
Decision on Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking Activities
After considering the results of the studies, EPA would then determine
whether development or revision of an effluent guideline is appropriate. Final
determinations would be presented in the next biennial effluent guidelines plan. If
EPA determines that developing a new or revised effluent guideline is not
appropriate, EPA would attempt to identify other Agency actions that may be
appropriate to address any remaining risk. Such action may include the issuance of
compliance or permitting guidance, technical assistance to the States or industry, or
a voluntary partnership to support broader environmental goals. For example, EPA
DRAFT Page 39 November 5,2002
-------
may determine that a targeted program to implement comprehensive
Environmental Management Systems is a more efficient approach to dealing with
certain types of environmental issues.
D. Schedule for the Proposed Annual Review Process
Schedule for Annual Review Process
Solicitation of Stakeholder
Recommendations
Screening (1st and 2nd level
screening)
Further investigation of
industries selected for further
study
Conduct Outreach Meetings
Decision on Effluent
Guidelines Rulemaking
Activities
February through April, and at other times in
concert with national conferences
April through August, annually
September until completed
As needed to identify data sources, present
available data, and verify accuracy
Prior to publication of biennial Effluent
Guidelines Plan (based upon studies completed
to date)
E. Biennial Effluent Guidelines Plan
EPA intends to publish and seek comment on a draft biennial plan for
2004/2005 that describes the results of the annual review process: 1) the outcomes
of both stages of the screening process, 2) EPA's tentative selection of industrial
categories for further study, and 3) the rationale for this selection of industrial
categories for further study. In addition, the notice would summarize additional
information collected and analyzed on specific industrial categories beyond the
initial screening step, and would identify current data gaps.
DRAFT
Page 40
November 5, 2002
-------
During the public comment period, EPA intends to hold outreach meetings
to discuss its findings with interested parties. Verifying its findings at this point in
the process will enable EPA to "reality-check" the results of its analyses and also
identify potential oversights or errors. EPA also plans to use these meetings as an
opportunity to solicit additional information to fill in data gaps, and to identify
partners for further data collection efforts.
After considering comment on the draft plan, EPA will publish a biennial
Effluent Guidelines Plan that describes EPA's decisions and summarizes key
information supporting those decisions. The Plan will include a schedule for any
guidelines that will be developed/revised. Because the study phase may take
longer for some industrial categories than others, this plan will indicate a schedule
for the completion of studies that have not yet been completed.
F. Solicitation of Stakeholder Recommendations
EPA is aware that a broad range of stakeholders is interested in this draft
Strategy, including members of industry, environmental groups, academia, and the
general public. In addition to welcoming comments from our stakeholders on the
draft Strategy as a whole, there are several specific issues discussed in the draft
document about which EPA requests comments.
Key Factors for Evaluating Existing Effluent Guidelines: EPA identified
four major factors, derived from sections 301(b)(2) and 304(b) of the CWA, that
could lead EPA to conclude that a revision of an existing effluent guideline would
be appropriate: 1) the extent to which the industry category is discharging
pollutants that pose a risk to human health or the environment; 2) the
identification of an applicable and demonstrated technology, process change, or
pollution prevention approach that would substantially reduce the remaining risk;
3) the cost, performance, and affordability of the technology, process change, or
pollution prevention approach that would substantially reduce that risk; and 4)
implementation and efficiency considerations, such as whether revising a guideline
is the most effective approach for reducing the risk. In addition, section 304(b)
authorizes EPA to consider other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.
EPA requests comments on its proposed use of these factors, and invites the public
to suggest additional or different factors.
DRAFT Page 41 November 5,2002
-------
The Agency is also interested to receive comments on whether each of the
four factors identified above should be ranked, and if so, whether different weights
should be applied to each. EPA also requests suggestions as to the information the
Agency should use to prioritize industrial categories that pass both the primary and
secondary screening reviews described in the draft Strategy.
Key Factors for Developing New Effluent Guidelines: EPA identified four
major factors that could lead EPA to conclude that new national effluent guidelines
regulations would be necessary and appropriate for industrial categories. These
factors are identical to the factors discussed above with respect to the revision of
existing effluent guidelines, and are derived from the same statutory bases. (The
main difference is than an industry category with no existing guideline in place
may have greater variation in current discharges and pollutant reduction
technologies in place. This depends on what technology-based limits permit
writers have established using best professional judgment and what limits they
have established to protect water quality.) These factors reflect Congress'
expectation that EPA will address "significant amounts" of toxic pollutant
discharges through national technology-based regulations. S. Rep. No. 50, 99th
Cong., 1st Sess. 24-25 (1985). EPA requests comments on its proposed use of
these factors and invites the public to identify other or different factors for EPA's
consideration.
The Agency is also interested to receive comments on whether each of these
factors should be ranked, and if so, whether different weights should be applied to
each. EPA also requests suggestions as to the information the Agency should use
to prioritize industrial categories that pass both the primary and secondary
screening reviews described in the draft Strategy.
Sources of Water Quality Impairments: An impaired water is one that does
not achieve the water quality standards adopted by a State, Tribe, or EPA under
CWA section 303(c). Building on ongoing work by EPA, States, Tribes, and
others, the Agency is working to identify links between industrial sources of
pollutants with pollutants identified as the causes of impairments in impaired
waters. This effort links the categories of facilities discharging pollutants as
identified in Agency's Permit Compliance System (PCS) database with types of
impairments of water bodies identified using the U.S. Geological Survey's
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and State and Tribal reported data from the
DRAFT Page 42 November 5,2002
-------
reports generated under CWA sections 303(d) and 305(b). (Section 303(d)
requires States to develop lists of waterbodies for which technology-based
limitations and other requirements are not sufficient to ensure attainment of water
quality standards. Section 305(b) requires States to report to EPA every other year
on the quality of their waters.) EPA requests suggestions on other sources of
relevant information, particularly data relating to facilities that discharge to
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
Voluntary Loading Reductions: EPA is considering an incentive for
industrial categories to reduce pollutant loadings through voluntary programs. A
stakeholder suggested that EPA not develop effluent guidelines for source
categories that demonstrate continual improvement through voluntary effluent
reductions. EPA agrees that voluntary efforts should be encouraged and rewarded,
and is proposing that source categories that have accomplished voluntary pollutant
discharge reductions should be given a lower priority for new or revised effluent
guidelines.
EPA is also considering whether to indicate a quantitative voluntary
reduction goal that source categories seeking a deferral of consideration for new or
revised guidelines should try to achieve. EPA is considering a goal, suggested by a
stakeholder, of a 10 percent reduction in total load, or in toxic-equivalent load over
a five-year period (the standard permit term). EPA emphasizes that the goal would
not be binding on either the Agency or the industry; EPA would retain the
discretion to decide whether to develop an effluent guideline. EPA would consider
voluntary load reductions on an industry-by-industry basis in making its planning
decisions (and may make decisions irrespective of the general, non-binding goal).
The Agency requests comment on this entire issue. EPA also invites comment on
whether a different general goal, such as a 25 percent reduction in total or toxic-
equivalent load, would be more appropriate.
EPA proposes to use information in the PCS system to identify categories
for which loadings have decreased over the past 5 years, but requests suggestions
on alternative sources of this information. EPA also invites comment on how it
might assess voluntary pollutant reductions in industrial categories with increased
production over five years. Finally, EPA invites comment on ways to evaluate
claims of decreases in water loadings of toxicity relative to possible increases in
DRAFT Page 43 November 5,2002
-------
release of these emissions to other environmental media, for example volatilization
to air or land disposal of sludge.
Technology Innovation, Market-based Incentives, and Multi-media
Pollutant Reduction: In addition to the above discussion of voluntary loading
reductions, EPA seeks comment on others ways the Agency might structure the
effluent guidelines program to encourage and reward technology innovation. EPA
invites stakeholders to suggest industry categories for which development or
revision of an effluent guideline may provide an opportunity for multi-media
pollutant reduction. EPA also seeks comment on the role of market-based
incentives, including pollutant trading, in the effluent guidelines program.
In addition, EPA encourages comments on the extent to which the Agency
should consider multi-media pollutant reduction opportunities in deciding which
guidelines to develop or revise. For example, should the Agency assign greater
weight to revising a guideline that has the opportunity to reduce the loading of 100
million pounds of nutrients into surface waters impaired by nutrient pollution, or
one that might reduce nutrient loading by 80 million pounds but also reduce
noxious odors and emissions of greenhouse gases?
Level of Effort Devoted to Effluent Guidelines: Since Congress passed the
1972 Clean Water Act, EPA has promulgated effluent guidelines that address over
50 industry categories. 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 into publicly owned treatment works. These regulations
are responsible for preventing the discharge of almost 700 billion pounds of
pollutants each year.
In addition to the technology-based effluent guidelines program, EPA and
the States implement a wide range of water-quality based programs also designed
to protect and restore the Nation's waters. For example, the water quality
standards adopted by all States, Territories and 20 authorized Tribes are the
regulatory and scientific foundation for the Nation's water quality-based programs.
Water quality standards are used to assess impairments in U.S. waters, to establish
targets and load reductions needed in impaired waters through total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs), and to set limits on pollutants through enforceable NPDES
permits where technology-based limits are insufficient to protect water quality.
DRAFT Page 44 November 5,2002
-------
Under EPA and State permit programs, industrial discharge restrictions - in
the form of technology-based and water-quality based effluent limitations - have
controlled over 48,000 individual industrial facilities through the issuance of
individual NPDES permits, and controlled thousands more through general
permits. Fish are coming back, habitats are recovering, and many miles of
formerly contaminated beaches are now safe for swimmers. However, we have not
achieved water quality objectives in many water bodies. Many of the remaining
pollutants come from sources that are not related to industrial discharges, such as
non-point source runoff from agricultural lands, stormwater flows from cities,
seepage into ground water from nonpoint sources, and loss of critical habitats such
as wetlands.
One facet of EPA's overall approach to resolving the remaining water
quality problems is the continued implementation of the national effluent
guidelines program to address water quality problems associated with industrial
dischargers. As EPA moves forward to address the remaining water quality
problems, EPA invites comment on whether it should devote the same, less, or
greater resources to the effluent guidelines program as it has in the past.
DRAFT Page 45 November 5,2002
-------
IV. Glossary
Clean Water Act (CWA) : The primary federal law that protects our Nation's
waters, including lakes, rivers, wetlands, and coastal areas. It is codified in 33
U.S.C. section 1251, et seq.
Consent Decree: Equivalent to a court order. The consent decree under which
EPA developed most of its effluent guidelines since 1992 was filed on January 31,
1992, in the case presently entitled Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v.
Whitman. Civ. No. 89-2980 (RCL) (D.D.C.). The consent decree has been
amended several times since 1992. It defines EPA's obligations under Clean
Water Act section 304(m) during the pendency of the decree.
Criteria: See "Water Quality Criteria" below.
Environmental Management System (EMS): An EMS is a set of processes and
practices that enable an organization to reduce its environmental impacts and
increase its operating efficiency. It is a continual cycle of planing, implementing,
reviewing and improving the processes and actions that an organization undertakes
to meet its business and environmental goals. For more information, see EPA's
web site at http://www.epa.gov/ems/.
Impairment: Condition in which applicable water quality standards are not being
met. The water body often is degraded and in need of restoration. Water quality
impairment is often indicated by excursions of numeric water quality criteria,
which are a component of water quality standards. Numeric water quality criteria
provide quantitative targets for particular parameters such as total suspended
solids. Water quality impairment may also be identified as an inability to meet a
narrative water quality criterion or an inability to support a designated use.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): A permit program
under Clean Water Act section 402 that controls water pollution by regulating
point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States.
National Sediment Quality Survey (NSQS): A biennial report to Congress titled
"The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the
United States, National Sediment Quality Survey" presents the results of a national
DRAFT Page 46 November 5,2002
-------
survey to identify areas in the United States where available data indicate direct or
indirect exposure to the sediment could be associated with adverse effects to
aquatic life and/or to human health. The first National Sediment Quality Survey
report was released in 1997, and the first update to the report is expected to be
released in 2002.
Nonattainment: See "Impairment" above.
Permit Compliance System (PCS)'. The Permit Compliance System is a national
computerized management information system that automates entry, updating, and
retrieval of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) data and
tracks permit issuance, permit limits and monitoring data, and other data pertaining
to facilities regulated under NPDES. PCS was developed in 1974 and resides on a
mainframe computer at EPA's National Computer Center (NCC) at Research
Triangle Park (RTP) in North Carolina. PCS records water-discharge permit data
on more than 64,000 facilities nationwide.
POTW\ Publicly owned treatment works. Accepts the wastewater of industrial
facilities and commercial businesses, as well as conventional sewage. The POTW
collects and treats this wastewater to remove pollutants before discharging it to
surface water.
Risk: The possibility of suffering loss, such as loss of human health or loss of
functioning in an ecosystem. Risk can be assessed by evaluating the potential
exposure to a substance (through contact with or drinking water containing that
substance) and the hazard posed by that substance (harmful health or ecological
effects).
Sewage sludge: The solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the
treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is
not limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in primary, secondary, or
advanced wastewater treatment processes; and a material derived from sewage
sludge. Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage
sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator or grit and screenings generated during
preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. See 40 C.F.R.
section 503.9(w).
DRAFT Page 47 November 5,2002
-------
Standards: See "Water Quality Standards" below.
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code: A number code representing a
category within the Standard Industrial Classification System, which is
administered by the Statistical Policy Division of the U.S. Office of Management
and Budget. The system was established to classify all industries in the U.S.
economy. A two-digit code designates each major industry group, which is coupled
with successive digits refining the degree of specialization of the industrial
facilities down to the seven-digit level. SIC codes are gradually being replaced by
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) : A publicly available EPA database that contains
information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities
reported annually by certain covered industry groups as well as federal facilities.
This inventory was established under the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and expanded by the Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990.
Water Quality Criteria: Constituent concentrations, levels, or narrative statements,
representing a quality of water that supports a particular use. See 40 C.F.R. section
Water Quality Standards: Provisions under State or Federal law that consist of a
designated use or uses for the waters of the United States, and water quality criteria
for such waters based upon such uses. Water quality standards are to protect the
public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of
the Clean Water Act. See 40 C.F.R. section 131.3(i). Water quality standards also
include antidegradation provisions. See 40 C.F.R. section 131.12.
Whole effluent toxicity (WET) : The aggregate toxic effect of an effluent or
receiving (ambient) water measured directly with standardized test organisms. The
Agency-approved WET methods are specified at 40 CFR section 136.3, Table IA.
These WET methods use test organisms that are representative of freshwater,
marine, and estuarine vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants to directly measure the
acute or short-term chronic adverse effects of an aqueous test sample on those test
organisms.
DRAFT Page 48 November 5,2002
-------
Appendix 1
Industries Covered by National Clean Water Industrial Regulations
Industry Category
Dairy products processing
Grain mills manufacturing
Fruits and vegetable processing
Canned and preserved seafood
Sugar processing
Textile mills
Cement manufacturing
Feedlots
Electroplating
Organic chemicals, plastics
and synthetic fibers
Inorganic chemicals
Soaps and detergents
manufacturing
Fertilizer manufacturing
Petroleum refining
Iron and steel manufacturing
40CFR
part
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
417
418
419
420
First
prom.
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1982
1974
1974
1981
1987
1982
1974
1974
1982
1982
Reviewed
1986
1995
1986
1995
1986
1995
1986
1995
1986
1995
1983
1996 '
1986
1995
1975
1995
19992
200 13
1986
1993
1984
19964
1975
1995
1987
1995
1985
19965
1984
1995 6
2002 7
Limitations and Standards
BPT, BCT, NSPS
BPT, BCT, NSPS, PSNS
BPT, BCT, NSPS
BPT, BCT, NSPS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS
BPT, BAT, NSPS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS
PSES
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
DRAFT
Page 49
November 5, 2002
-------
Industry Category
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
Builder's paper and board mills10
Meat products
Metal finishing
Coal mining
Oil and gas extraction
Mineral mining and processing
Centralized waste treatment
40CFR
part
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
434
432
433
434
435
436
437
First
prom.
1984
1974
1982
1974
1982
1974
1974
1974
1981
1998
1974
1983
1985
1979
1975
2000
Reviewed
1990
1979
1983
19968
1986
1995
1996
1986
1995
1979
1995
1975
1995
1981
19919
1999
1986
1995
2002 3
1986
1994 u
200 13
1985
2002 7
1989 12
1997
200 17
1979
1995
2000
Limitations and Standards
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS
BPT, BAT, NSPS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES,
PSNS, BMP
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS,
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BAT, NSPS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, NSPS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
DRAFT
Page 50
November 5, 2002
-------
Industry Category
Pharmaceutical manufacturing
Ore mining and dressing
Transportation equipment cleaning
Paving and roofing materials
Waste combustors
Landfills
Paint formulating
Ink formulating
Gum and wood chemicals
Pesticide chemicals manufacturing,
formulating and packaging
Explosives
Carbon black manufacturing
Photographic
Hospitals
Battery manufacturing
Plastic molding and forming
Metal molding and casting
40CFR
part
439
440
442
443
444
445
446
447
454
455
457
458
459
460
461
463
464
First
prom.
1983
1982
2000
1975
2000
2000
1975
1975
1976
1978
1976
1978
1976
1976
1984
1984
1985
Reviewed
1989 13
1999
1988
1989 w
2000
1975
1995
2000
2000
1975
1989 ls
1995
1975
1995
1976
1995
1989 16
1998
1976
1995
1978
1995
1976
1997 17
1989 18
1995
1986
1985
1986
Limitations and Standards
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BAT, NSPS, BMP
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS
BPT
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS
BPT
BPT
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BCT, NSPS
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
DRAFT
Page 51
November 5, 2002
-------
Industry Category
Coil coating
Porcelain enameling
Aluminum forming
Copper forming
Electrical and electronic
components
Nonferrous metals forming and
metal powders
40CFR
part
465
466
467
468
469
471
First
prom.
1983
1982
1983
1983
1983
1985
Reviewed
1985
1985
1988
1986
1985
1989
Limitations and Standards
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS
1. Preliminary study (EPA-821-R-96-014)
2. Preliminary study (EPA-821/R-99-002)
3. Proposed revisions for some subcategories.
4. Preliminary study (EPA-821/R-96-016)
5. Preliminary study (EPA-821/R-96-015)
6. Preliminary study (EPA-821/R-95-037)
7. Promulgated revisions for some subcategories.
8. Preliminary study (EPA-821-Z-96-010)
9. Preliminary study (EPA-440/1-91-023)
10. 40 CFR 431 has been deleted.
11. Preliminary study (EPA-821/R-94-006)
12. Preliminary study (EPA-440/1-89-105)
13. Preliminary study (EPA-440/1-89-084)
14. Preliminary study (EPA-440/1-89-104)
15. Preliminary study (EPA-440/1-89-050)
16. Preliminary study (EPA-440/l-89-060e)
17. Preliminary study (EPA-821/R-97-003)
18. Preliminary study (EPA-440/l-89-060n)
DRAFT
Page 52
November 5, 2002
-------
Appendix 2
Section 304(m) Requirements
Clean Water Act - Section 304(tn) [33 USC 1314(m)1:
(m) Schedule for review of guidelines.
(1) Publication. —
Within 12 months after the date of the enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987, and
biennially thereafter, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a plan which shall -
(A) establish a schedule for the annual review and revision of promulgated effluent
guidelines, in accordance with subsection (b) of this section;
(B) identify categories of sources discharging toxic or nonconventional pollutants for
which guidelines under subsection (b)(2) of this section and section 306 have not
previously been published; and
(C) establish a schedule for promulgation of effluent guidelines for categories identified
in subparagraph (B), under which promulgation of such guidelines shall be no later than
4 years after such date of enactment for categories identified in the first published plan or
3 years after the publication of the plan for categories identified in later published plans.
(2) Public review. —
The Administrator shall provide for public review and comment on the plan prior to final
publication.
Clean Water Act - Section 3040^ [33 USC 1314fbYI:
(b) Effluent limitation guidelines.
For the purpose of adopting or revising effluent limitations under this act the Administrator
shall, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons,
publish within one year of enactment of this title, regulations, providing guidelines for effluent
limitations, and, at least annually thereafter, revise, if appropriate, such regulations. Such
regulations shall -
(1)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and
biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree of effluent reduction attainable through
the application of the best practicable control technology currently available for classes
and categories of point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works); and
(B) specify factors to be taken into account in determining the control measures and
practices to be applicable to point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works)
within such categories or classes. Factors relating to the assessment of best practicable
control technology currently available to comply with subsection (b)(l) of section 301 of
this Act shall include consideration of the total cost of application of technology in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application, and shall
DRAFT Page 53 November 5,2002
-------
also take into account the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed,
the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques, process
changes, non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and
such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate;
(2)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and
biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree of effluent reduction attainable through
the application of the best control measures and practices achievable including treatment
techniques, process and procedure innovations, operating methods, and other alternatives
for classes and categories of point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works);
and
(B) specify factors to be taken into account in determining the best measures and
practices available to comply with subsection (b)(2) of section 301 of this Act to be
applicable to any point source (other than publicly owned treatment works) within such
categories or classes. Factors relating to the assessment of best available technology
shall take into account the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process
employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control
techniques, process changes, the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, non-water
quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and such other factors as
the Administrator deems appropriate;
(3) identify control measures and practices available to eliminate the discharge of
pollutants from categories and classes of point sources, taking into account the cost of
achieving such elimination of the discharge of pollutants; and
(4)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and
biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree of effluent reduction attainable through
the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology (including measures
and practices) for classes and categories of point sources (other than publicly owned
treatment works); and
(B) specify factors to be taken into account in determining the best conventional
pollutant control technology measures and practices to comply with sub-section (b)(2) of
section 301 of this Act to be applicable to any point source (other than publicly owned
treatment works) within such categories or classes. Factors relating to the assessment of
best conventional pollutant control technology (including measures and practices) shall
include consideration of the reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of
attaining a reduction in effluents and the effluent reduction benefits derived and the
comparison of the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from the discharge from
publicly owned treatment works to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from
a class or category of industrial sources, and shall take into account the age of equipment
and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects of the application
of various types of control techniques, process changes, non-water quality environmental
impact (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator
deems appropriate.
DRAFT Page 54 November 5,2002
------- |