vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Effluent
Guidelines Program Plans
September 2014
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (43 03 T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-820-R-14-001
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND I
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 The Clean Water Act and the Effluent Guidelines Program 2-1
2.2 Effluent Guidelines Review and Planning Process 2-3
2.2.1 Annual Review Process 2-4
2.2.2 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans 2-10
2.3 Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Overview 2-10
2.3.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
— CWA Sections 301 (b)(l)(A) and 304(b)(l) 2-11
2.3.2 Best Conventional Pollution Control Technology (BCT) — CWA
Sections 301(b)(2)(E) and 304(b)(4) 2-12
2.3.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) —
CWA Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2) 2-12
2.3.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) — CWA Section 306 2-12
2.3.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) — CWA
Section 307(b) 2-12
2.3.6 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) — CWA Section
307(c) 2-13
PART II: FINAL 2012 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN II
3. 2012 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY 3-1
3.1 Summary of the 2012 Annual Review Methodology 3-1
3.1.1 Public Comments on the Preliminary 2012 Plan and Stakeholder
Input 3-1
3.1.2 Continued Review of Selected Point Source Categories 3-1
3.1.3 Additional Data Sources and New Supporting Analyses 3-2
3.2 Categories Excluded from EPA's 2012 Annual Review 3-4
3.2.1 Categories for Which EPA has Recently Considered Developing or
Revising ELGs or has Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs 3-4
3.2.2 Discharges Not Categorizable 3-5
3.3 Data Quality Assurance and Limitations 3-5
3.3.1 Additional Data Sources Supporting New Analyses 3-6
3.3.2 DMR and TRI Data 3-7
4. RESULTS OF THE 2011 AND 2012 ANNUAL REVIEWS 4-1
4.1 Summary of Results from the 2011 Annual Review 4-1
4.2 Findings from the 2012 Annual Review 4-1
4.2.1 Findings from Public Comments and Stakeholder Input 4-1
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
4.2.2 Findings from Continued Review of Selected Point Source
Categories 4-3
4.2.3 Findings from Additional Hazard Data Sources Supporting New
Analyses 4-4
5. FINAL 2012 PLAN DECISIONS 5-1
5.1 Industries for Which EPA Is No Longer Undergoing an ELG Rulemaking 5-1
5.2 Industries Previously Identified for Further Review for Which EPA is
Taking No Action 5-4
5.3 Potential Indirect Dischargers for Pretreatment Standards 5-4
5.3.1 Evaluation of Pass-Through and Interference of Toxic and Non-
Conventional Pollutants Discharged to POTWs 5-4
5.4 Industries for Which EPA is Currently Undergoing an ELG Rulemaking 5-6
5.4.1 EPA's Current Schedule for ELG Actions 5-6
5.5 Results of Solicitation for Innovation and Technology in the Effluent
Guidelines Program 5-7
PART III: PRELIMINARY 2014 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN Ill
6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM THE 2013 ANNUAL REVIEW AND EPA's
PRELIMINARY 2014 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN 6-1
6.1 Findings from EPA's 2013 Annual Review 6-1
6.2 Proposed Actions for the Preliminary 2014 Plan 6-2
6.3 Additional Actions for the 2014 Annual Review 6-4
7. SUMMARY TABLE OF FINDINGS FOR EXISTING GUIDELINE CATEGORIES FROM
THE 2011,2012 AND 2013 ANNUAL REVIEWS 7-1
PART IV: REFERENCES FOR FINAL 2012 AND PRELIMINARY 2014 EFFLUENT
GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLANS IV
8. REFERENCES 8-1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3-1. Point Source Categories That Have Undergone Recent Rulemaking or Review 3-5
Table 3-2. TRI and DMR Data Utility and Limitations 3-8
Table 6-1. Results of EPA's 2013 Toxicity Ranking Analysis 6-1
Table 7-1. Summary of Findings from EPA's 2011, 2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews of
Existing Industrial Categories 7-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2-1. Odd-Year Annual Review of Existing ELGs 2-6
Figure 2-2. Odd-Year Identification of Possible New ELGs 2-7
Figure 2-3. Even-Year Annual Review of Existing ELGs and Identification of Possible
New ELGs 2-8
Figure 2-4. Further Review of Industrial Categories Identified During Odd- and Even-
Year Annual Reviews 2-9
Figure 2-5. Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges 2-11
VI
-------
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
-------
Section 1—Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
This document presents the Final 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan ("Final 2012
Plan") and the Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan ("Preliminary 2014 Plan"),
both of which were prepared pursuant to Clean Water Act (CWA) section 304(m). It also
provides a summary of EPA's review of effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards,
consistent with CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 304(m), and EPA's evaluation of
indirect discharges without categorical pretreatment standards to identify potential new
categories for pretreatment standards under CWA section 307(b). From these reviews, the Plans
identify any new or existing industrial categories selected for effluent guidelines rulemakings,
and provide a schedule for such rulemakings. In addition, the Plans present any new or existing
categories selected for further review and analysis.
Both Plans are supported by EPA's 2012 Annual Review (U.S. EPA, 2014a), which
builds on prior reviews, including EPA's 2011 Annual Review (U.S. EPA, 2012a), and includes
additional hazard data sources and supporting analyses aimed at identifying new pollutants of
concern and identifying wastewater discharges in industrial categories not currently regulated by
effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs). EPA's 2011 and 2012 Annual Review
Reports are a part of the Annual Review record and can be found at
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/304m/index.cfm. The Preliminary 2014 Plan is
also supported by the findings of EPA's 2013 Annual Review, which are presented as part of the
Preliminary 2014 Plan.
This document is separated into three parts:
• Introduction and Background. This section provides an overview of the Final 2012
and Preliminary 2014 Plans. It also provides background on the CWA and the
effluent guidelines program planning process and requirements.
• Final 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. The Final 2012 Plan presents the
methodology for EPA's 2012 Annual Review, findings and follow-up to the 2011
Annual Review, and review and findings from additional data sources and new
analyses conducted as part of EPA's 2012 Annual Review. The Final 2012 Plan also
summarizes and incorporates stakeholder input and public comments received on the
Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan and presents EPA's final
decisions on actions proposed in the Preliminary 2012 Plan.
• Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. The Preliminary 2014 Plan
presents the results of EPA's 2013 Annual Review. It also presents EPA's new
actions, investigations and proposed decisions, based primarily on the findings of the
2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews, and solicits public comment and input on those
proposed actions.
1-1
-------
Section 2—Background
2. BACKGROUND
This section explains how the Effluent Guidelines Program fits into EPA's National
Water Program, describes the general and legal background of the Effluent Guidelines Program,
and summarizes EPA's process for making effluent guidelines revision and development
decisions (i.e., effluent guidelines planning).
2.1 The Clean Water Act and the Effluent Guidelines Program
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is based on the principle of cooperative federalism, with
distinct roles for both EPA and the states, in which the goal is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. To that end, the Act is
generally focused on two types of controls: (1) water-quality-based controls, based on water
quality standards, and (2) technology-based controls, based on effluent limitations guidelines and
standards.
The CWA gives states the primary responsibility for establishing, reviewing, and revising
water quality standards. Water quality standards consist of designated uses for each water body
(e.g., fishing, swimming, supporting aquatic life), criteria that protect the designated uses
(numeric pollutant concentration limits and narrative criteria, for example, "no objectionable
sediment deposits"), and an antidegradation policy. EPA develops recommended national criteria
for many pollutants, pursuant to CWA section 304(a), which states may adopt or modify as
appropriate to reflect local conditions.
EPA is responsible for developing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and
standards (ELGs), based on currently available technologies for controlling industrial wastewater
discharges. Permitting authorities (states authorized to administer the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and EPA in the few states that are not
authorized) then must incorporate these guidelines and standards into discharge permits as
technology-based effluent limitations where applicable (U.S. EPA, 2010).
While technology-based effluent limitations in discharge permits are sometimes as
stringent as, or more stringent than, necessary to meet water quality standards, the effluent
guidelines program is not specifically designed to ensure that the discharges from each facility
meet the water quality standards of its receiving water body. For this reason, the CWA also
requires authorized states to establish water-quality-based effluent limitations, where necessary
to meet water quality standards. Water-quality-based limits may require industrial facilities to
meet requirements that are more stringent than those in a national effluent guideline regulation.
In the overall context of the CWA, effluent guidelines must be viewed as one tool in the broader
set of tools and authorities Congress provided to EPA and the states to restore and maintain the
quality of the nation's waters.
The 1972 CWA marked a distinct change in Congress's efforts "to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" (see CWA section 101(a),
33 U.S.C. 125l(a)). Before 1972, the CWA focused principally on water quality standards. This
approach was challenging, however, because it was very difficult to determine where a specific
discharger, or combination of dischargers, was responsible for decreasing the water quality of its
receiving stream.
2-1
-------
Section 2—Background
The 1972 CWA directed EPA to promulgate effluent guidelines that reflect pollutant
reductions that can be achieved by categories or subcategories of industrial point sources through
the implementation of available treatment and prevention technologies. The effluent guidelines
are based on specific technologies (including process changes) that EPA identifies as meeting the
statutorily prescribed level of control (see CWA sections 301(b)(2), 304(b), 306, 307(b), and
307(c)). Unlike other CWA tools, effluent guidelines are national in scope and establish
pollution-control obligations for all facilities that discharge wastewater within an industrial
category or subcategory. In establishing these controls, under the direction of the statute, EPA
assesses, for example, (1) the performance and availability of the best pollution-control
technologies or pollution-prevention practices for an industrial category or subcategory as a
whole; (2) the economic achievability of those technologies, which can include consideration of
the affordability of achieving the reduction in pollutant discharge; (3) the cost of achieving
effluent reductions; (4) non-water-quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements); and (5) such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate.
Creating a single national pollution-control requirement for each industrial category
based on the best technology the industry can afford was seen by Congress as a way to reduce
the potential creation of "pollution havens" and to set the nation's sights on eliminating the
discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. Consequently, EPA's goal in establishing national
effluent guidelines is to ensure that industrial facilities with similar characteristics, regardless of
their location or the nature of their receiving water, will at a minimum meet similar effluent
limitations representing the performance of the best pollution control technologies or pollution
prevention practices.
In addition to establishing technology-based effluent limits, effluent guidelines provide
the opportunity to promote pollution prevention and water conservation. This may be particularly
important in controlling persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic pollutants discharged in
concentrations below analytic detection levels. Effluent guidelines and standards also control
pollutant discharges from industrial facilities and cover discharges directly to surface water
(direct discharges) and discharges to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) (indirect
discharges).
The Effluent Guidelines Program has helped reverse the water quality degradation that
accompanied industrialization in this country. Permits developed using the technology-based
industrial regulations are a critical element of the nation's clean water program and reduce the
discharge of pollutants that have serious environmental impacts, including pollutants that:
• Kill or impair fish and other aquatic organisms;
• Cause human health problems through contaminated water, fish, or shellfish; and
• Degrade aquatic ecosystems.
EPA has promulgated effluent guidelines for 58 industrial categories (see Table 7-1
below, also all 58 industrial categories are described at
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/industry.cfm); these regulations apply to between
35,000 and 45,000 facilities that discharge directly to the nation's waters, as well as another
12,000 facilities that discharge to POTWs. The regulations have prevented the discharge of more
than 700 billion pounds of toxic pollutants each year.
2-2
-------
Section 2—Background
2.2 Effluent Guidelines Review and Planning Process
In addition to establishing new regulations, the CWA requires EPA to review existing
effluent guidelines annually. EPA reviews all point source categories subject to existing effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards to identify potential candidates for revision, consistent
with CWA sections 304(b), 301(d), and 304(g). EPA also reviews industries consisting of direct-
discharging facilities not currently subject to effluent guidelines to identify potential candidates
for effluent guidelines rulemakings, pursuant to CWA section 304(m)(l)(B). Finally, EPA
reviews industries consisting entirely or almost entirely of indirect-discharging facilities that are
not currently subject to pretreatment standards to identify potential candidates for pretreatment
standards development under CWA sections 307(b).
In the effluent guidelines planning process, EPA is guided by the following goals:
• Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's
waters; and
• Provide transparent decision-making and involve stakeholders early and often during
the planning process.
EPA uses four major factors in prioritizing existing effluent guidelines or pretreatment
standards for possible revision. These factors were developed in EPA's draft National Strategy,
described at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/strategy/fs.cfm.
The first factor EPA considers is the amount and type of pollutants in an industrial
category's discharge and the relative hazard posed by that discharge. Using this factor enables
the Agency to prioritize rulemakings to achieve significant environmental and health benefits.
The second factor EPA considers is the performance and cost of applicable and
demonstrated wastewater treatment technologies, process changes, or pollution prevention
alternatives that could effectively reduce the concentrations of pollutants in the industrial
category's wastewater and, consequently, reduce the hazard to human health or the environment
associated with these pollutant discharges.
The third factor EPA considers is the affordability or economic achievability of the
wastewater treatment technology, process change, or pollution prevention measures identified
using the second factor. If the financial condition of the industry indicates that it would not be
affordable to implement expensive and stringent new requirements, EPA might conclude a less
stringent, less expensive approach to reduce pollutant loadings would better satisfy applicable
statutory requirements.
The fourth factor EPA considers is an opportunity to eliminate inefficiencies or
impediments to pollution prevention or technological innovation, or opportunities to promote
innovative approaches such as water-quality trading, including within-plant trading. This factor
might also prompt EPA, during annual reviews, to decide against revising an existing set of
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards where the pollutant source is already efficiently and
effectively controlled by other regulatory or non-regulatory programs.
2-3
-------
Section 2—Background
2.2.1 Annual Review Process
Beginning in 2011, EPA revised its annual review process to include an odd- and even-
year annual-review cycle, which was reflected in the 2011 and 2012 Annual Reviews. This
approach more cohesively and comprehensively addresses the factors laid out in EPA's draft
National Strategy. In the odd-year reviews, EPA screens industrial dischargers through a toxicity
ranking analysis (TRA) that identifies and ranks those categories whose pollutant discharges
pose a substantial hazard to human health and the environment. For the TRA, EPA relies on
discharge monitoring report (DMR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data to rank industrial
discharge categories by toxic-weighted pound equivalents (TWPE) released. Figure 2-1 details
how EPA uses the TRA to identify existing ELGs that may warrant revision. Figure 2-2 shows
how EPA addresses new categories that may warrant regulation, as identified from the TRA. See
Section 3 of the Preliminary 2012 Plan for further details on EPA's odd-year annual review
process and methodology (78 FR 48159).
In the even years, EPA reviews additional hazard data sources and conducts alternate
analyses to enhance the identification of industrial categories for which new or revised ELGs
may be appropriate, beyond those that traditionally rank high in the TRA. This is consistent with
the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) recommendation that EPA's annual review
approach include additional industrial hazard data sources to augment its screening-level review
of discharges from industrial categories.1 Furthermore, EPA recognizes the need to consider in
the screening phase the availability of treatment technologies, process changes, or pollution-
prevention practices that can reduce the identified hazards. Specifically, in its even-year reviews,
EPA is targeting new data sources that will provide information on other considerations not
previously captured as part of the TRA, including, but not limited to:
• Industrial process changes.
• Emerging contaminants of concern.
• Advances in treatment technologies and pollution prevention practices.
• Availability of new, more sensitive analytical methods.
• Other hazard data and information not captured through the TRA and/or suggested
by stakeholders or from public comments.
Figure 2-3 illustrates the even-year review process. See Section 3 of this Final 2012 Plan
for details on the methodology used specifically for EPA's 2012 Annual Review.
EPA also conducts a more detailed preliminary category review of those industrial
discharge categories that rank highest in terms of TWPE (i.e., pose the greatest hazard to human
health and the environment) in the TRA or are identified as warranting further review during the
even-year analyses. If EPA determines that further review is appropriate for an industrial
category, EPA may complete a preliminary or detailed study of the point source category (see
1 GAO's recommendations for the review of additional hazard data sources were published in GAO's September
2012 report, Water Pollution: EPA Has Improved Its Review of Effluent Guidelines but Could Benefit from More
Information on Treatment Technologies, available online at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/647992.pdf.
-------
Section 2—Background
Section 2.2.1.1 and Section 2.2.1.2, respectively), which may eventually lead to a new or revised
guideline.
2.2.1.1 Preliminary Category Reviews
For the industrial categories with the highest hazard potential identified in the TRA, or
identified as a priority from any of the even-year review analyses, EPA may conduct a
preliminary category review, particularly if it lacks sufficient data to determine whether
regulatory action would be appropriate, as illustrated in Figure 2-4. EPA will complete
preliminary category reviews as part of the odd- or even-year review cycle depending on the
industrial categories warranting review at that time. In its preliminary category reviews EPA
typically examines the following: (1) wastewater characteristics and pollutant sources, (2) the
pollutants driving the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges, (3) availability of pollution prevention
and treatment, (4) the geographic distribution of facilities in the industry, (5) any pollutant
discharge trends within the industry, and (6) any relevant economic factors. First, EPA attempts
to verify the toxicity ranking results and fill in data gaps. Next, EPA considers costs and
performance of applicable and demonstrated technologies, process changes, or pollution-
prevention alternatives that can effectively reduce the pollutants in the point source category's
wastewater. Finally, and if appropriate based on the other findings, EPA considers the
affordability or economic achievability of the technology, process change, or pollution
prevention measure identified using the second factor. These assessments provide an additional
level of quality assurance on the reported pollutant discharges and number of facilities that
represent the majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharge.
During a preliminary category review, EPA may consult data sources including, but not
limited to: (1) the U.S. Economic Census, (2) TRI and DMR data, (3) trade associations and
reporting facilities that can verify reported releases and facility categorization, (4) regulatory
authorities (states and EPA regions) that can clarify how category facilities are permitted, (5)
NPDES permits and their supporting fact sheets, (6) EPA effluent guidelines technical
development documents, (7) relevant EPA preliminary data summaries or study reports, and (8)
technical literature on pollutant sources and control technologies.
2.2.1.2 Preliminary and Detailed Studies
After conducting the preliminary category reviews, as shown in Figure 2-4, EPA may
next conduct either a preliminary or detailed study of an industrial category. Typically these
studies profile an industry category, gather information about the hazards posed in its wastewater
discharges, gather information about availability and cost of treatment and pollution prevention
technologies, assess economic achievability, and investigate other factors in order to determine if
it would be appropriate to identify the category for possible effluent guidelines revision. During
preliminary or detailed studies, EPA typically examines the factors and data sources listed above
for preliminary category reviews. However, during a detailed study, EPA's examination of a
point source category and available pollution prevention and treatment options is generally more
rigorous than the analyses conducted during a preliminary category review or a preliminary
study and may include primary data collection activities (such as industry questionnaires and
wastewater sampling and analysis) to fill data gaps.
2-5
-------
Section 2—Background
Preliminary results of Toxicity Rankings Analysis
= Combined TRIReleasesand DMRLoads
database rankings (Factor 1)
Begin odd-year review
of existing ELGs
Have
ELGs been
developed or revised
within the past?
ears?
Are
non-representative
facilities responsible for
overall category
TWPE?
When ranked
by TWPE, does category
contribute to top 95% of
cumulative TWPE of all
categories?
<- DMR&TRI
database
tools
Not a priority
category, no
further
review at this time
Not a priority
category, no further
review at this time*
Not a priority
category,
but may recommend
permitting support
for individual facilities
Further rev lew
(see Figure 2-4)
Possible outcome
-Further rev lew
-BPJ support
-Identify for
possible
revision of
existing
ELGs
-No action
' If EPA is aware of new segment growth within such a category or new concerns are identified, EPA may do further review.
Figure 2-1. Odd-Year Annual Review of Existing ELGs
2-6
-------
Section 2—Background
Figure 2-2. Odd-Year Identification of Possible New ELGs
2-7
-------
Section 2—Background
L
Yes
Figure 2-3. Even-Year Annual Review of Existing ELGs and Identification of Possible New
ELGs
2-8
-------
Section 2—Background
Category identified for further
review (see Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3),
Not enough
information
Stakeholder
input
FurtherReview
- Preliminary category
review
- Preliminary or detailed
study
(continue collecting data
covering all four factors)
Incorporate findings from
treatment technology
reviews
Are discharges
adequately controlled
by existing ELGs?
No further review at this time
Identify f
promulgati
"
Are ELGs potentially
the appropriate tool?
Identify othertools (e.
permit-based support or guidance)
Figure 2-4. Further Review of Industrial Categories Identified During Odd- and Even-Year
Annual Reviews
2-9
-------
Section 2—Background
2.2.2 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans
CWA section 304(m)(l)(A) requires EPA to publish an Effluent Guidelines Program
Plan (Plan) every two years that establishes a schedule for the annual review and revision, in
accordance with section 304(b), of the effluent guidelines that EPA has promulgated under that
section. EPA's 2012 Annual Review Report presents the results of the section 304(b) reviews
(U.S. EPA, 2014a).
Under the even- and odd- year annual-review approach described above in Section 2.2.1,
EPA works to coordinate its annual reviews of existing effluent guidelines under section 304(b)
with its publication of Preliminary and Final Plans under CWA section 304(m). As a result, Final
Plans present the compilation of the odd- and even- year reviews and public comments received
on the Preliminary Plan. EPA may initiate, continue, or complete preliminary category reviews
or in-depth studies during the odd- or even-year reviews, depending upon when it identifies a
category warranting further review. Additionally, EPA may publish the conclusions from these
studies as part of the Preliminary or Final Plan, based on when during the planning cycle the
study or review is completed.
EPA is coordinating its annual reviews under section 304(b) with publication of Plans
under section 304(m) for several reasons. First, the annual reviews are inextricably linked to the
planning effort because the results of each year of review can inform the content of the
Preliminary and Final Plans (e.g., by identifying candidates for effluent guidelines revision, or by
identifying point source categories for which EPA has not promulgated effluent guidelines).
Second, even though it is not required to do so under either section 304(b) or section 304(m),
EPA believes it can serve the public interest by periodically describing to the public the annual
reviews (including the review process used) and the results of the reviews. Doing so at the same
time as publishing the Preliminary and Final Plans makes both processes more transparent.
Third, by requiring EPA to review all existing effluent guidelines each year, Congress appears to
have intended for each successive review to build upon the results of earlier reviews.
2.3 Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Overview
The national clean water industrial regulatory program is authorized under sections 301,
304, 306, and 307 of the CWA. The CWA directs EPA to promulgate categorical regulations
through six levels of control:
1. Best practicable control technology currently available (BPT);
2. Best available control technology economically achievable (BAT);
3. Best conventional control technology (BCT);
4. New source performance standards (NSPS);
5. Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES); and
6. Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
For point sources that discharge pollutants directly into the waters of the U.S. (direct
dischargers), the limitations and standards promulgated by EPA are implemented through
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. See CWA sections 301(a),
301(b), and 402. For sources that discharge to POTWs (indirect dischargers), EPA promulgates
pretreatment standards that apply directly to those sources and are enforced by POTWs and state
2-10
-------
Section 2—Background
and federal authorities. See CWA sections 307(b) and (c). Figure 2-5 illustrates the relationship
between the regulation of direct and indirect dischargers.
Direct Dischargers
Indirect Dischargers
New
Sources
NSPS
• Conventional Pollutants
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
PSNS
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
Existing
Sources
BCT
• Conventional Pollutants
BAT
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
PSES
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
BPT
• Conventional Pollutants
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
Figure 2-5. Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) — CWA Sections
and304(b)(l)
2.3.1
EPA develops effluent limitations based on BPT for conventional, toxic, and
nonconventional pollutants. CWA section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BODs), total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and
any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator
designated oil and grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (see 44 FR
44501). EPA has identified 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic pollutants, of which
126 specific substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants. See Appendix A to Part
423, reprinted after 40 CFR Part 423.17. All other pollutants are considered to be
nonconventional.
In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers the total cost of
applying the control technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also
considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any required
process changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water-quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such other factors the EPA
Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(l)(B). Traditionally, EPA establishes
BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities within the
industry of various ages, sizes, processes, or other common characteristics. Where existing
2-11
-------
Section 2—Background
performance is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than currently in
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology can be applied
practically.
2.3.2 Best Conventional Pollution Control Technology (BCT) — CWA Sections
301(b)(2)(E) and304(b)(4)
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for
conventional pollutants associated with BCT for discharges from existing industrial point
sources. In addition to the other factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that
EPA establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two-part "cost-reasonableness" test. EPA
explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in 1986 (see 51 FR 24974,
July 9, 1986).
2.3.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) — CWA Sections
301(b)(2)(A) and304(b)(2)
For toxic pollutants and nonconventional pollutants, EPA promulgates effluent guidelines
based on BAT. See CWA sections 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D), and (F). The factors considered in
assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, potential process changes, non-water-quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such other factors the EPA
Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(2)(B). The technology must also be
economically achievable. See CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). In addition to end-of-pipe wastewater
treatment, BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a
facility's processes and operations. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT
may reflect a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved within a particular
subcategory based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may
be based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not
common industry practice.
2.3.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) — CWA Section 306
NSPS reflect effluent reductions based on the best available demonstrated control
technology. New sources have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production
processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most
stringent controls attainable through the application of the best available demonstrated control
technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In
establishing NSPS, EPA takes into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and
any non-water-quality environmental impacts and energy requirements. See CWA section
306(b)(l)(B).
2.3.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) — CWA Section 307(b)
PSES apply to indirect dischargers and are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants
that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs,
including wastewater conveyance and sludge disposal. Pretreatment standards are technology-
based and are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines. See CWA section 301(b)(l)(A).
2-12
-------
Section 2—Background
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for implementing
national pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR Part 403.
2.3.6 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) — CWA Section 307(c)
Like PSES, PSNS apply to indirect dischargers and are designed to prevent the
discharges of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as NSPS. See CWA section 307(c).
New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate into their plants the best available
demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating PSNS as it
considers in promulgating NSPS.
2-13
-------
PART II: FINAL 2012 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
PROGRAM PLAN
-------
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology
3. 2012 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
This section provides a summary of the process EPA used in its 2012 Annual Review to
identify industrial categories for potential development of new or revised effluent limitations
guidelines and standards (ELGs) and the data sources and limitations used to complete this
review. In future even-year reviews, EPA intends to use this same process. This process consists
of:
• Considering public comments on the Preliminary Plan and other stakeholder input.
• Continuing any ongoing preliminary category reviews (e.g., collecting more data,
contacting permit writers, evaluating available treatment technology information) of
specific point source categories that EPA identified for additional review in the odd-
year review.
• Identifying and evaluating additional data sources and conducting supporting
analyses to:
— identify new wastewater discharges or pollutants not previously regulated;
and
— identify wastewater discharges that industry can more effectively treat or
eliminate.
3.1 Summary of the 2012 Annual Review Methodology
This section provides a brief summary of the methodology EPA used for its 2012 Annual
Review. For more information and details on EPA's 2012 Annual Review methodology and
analyses see Part II (Sections 3 through 6) of EPA's 2012 Annual Review Report (U.S EPA,
2014a).
3.1.1 Public Comments on the Preliminary 2012 Plan and Stakeholder Input
For the 2012 Annual Review, EPA considered public comments and stakeholder input
received on the Preliminary 2012 Plan. See Section 4.2.1 for a summary of the public comments
and stakeholder input received. For a detailed listing of the organizations that provided public
comment and stakeholder input see DCN 07979.
3.1.2 Continued Review of Selected Point Source Categories
EPA also continued its review of three point source categories that EPA identified as
warranting further review in the Preliminary 2012 Plan (78 FR 48159): Meat and Poultry
Products (40 CFR Part 432); Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419); and Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430). EPA's continued review consisted of collecting additional
discharge data from permit writers, publicly available data sources (e.g., DMR Loading Tool),
trade associations, and specific facility contacts to confirm the discharges reported in the TRA
databases. Additionally, EPA collected information on available treatment technologies for
specific industrial categories to compare current discharges to discharge levels that are treatable
with available technologies.
3-1
-------
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology
3.1.3 Additional Data Sources and New Supporting Analyses
For the 2012 Annual Review, EPA explored additional data sources and conducted six
new analyses (described briefly below) to supplement the toxicity rankings analysis (TRA)
conducted as part of the 2011 Annual Review (U.S EPA, 2012a). These analyses included:
• Identification of Industrial Pollutants in Sewage Sludge
• Review of Chemical Action Plans
• Identification of Wastewater Discharges Related to Air Pollution Control Not
Currently Covered by ELGs
• Review of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Industry Sectors Expansion
• Review of Analytical Methods
• Review of Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies
EPA identified and prioritized these data sources and analyses based on (1) the likelihood
that they would assist in identifying unregulated industrial discharges, (2) their utility in
identifying new wastewater treatment technologies or pollution prevention alternatives, and (3)
how well the data represent the activity of an industrial category. EPA's goals in selecting these
specific analyses were to identify new wastewater discharges or pollutants not previously
regulated and to identify wastewater discharges that can be eliminated or treated more
effectively.
EPA documented the data quality and usability of each source, analyzed how the data
could be used to improve the characterization of industrial wastewater discharges (concentration
and quantity of pollutants, wastewater treatment available for new industries/concentrations), and
prioritized the findings for further review.
3.1.3.1 Identification of Industrial Pollutants in Sewage Sludge
EPA reviewed the Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey (TNSSS), conducted by
EPA's Office of Water (OW), in combination with indirect discharges from the 2009 TRI
database, to examine pollutants discharged to POTWs and determine how those pollutants might
interfere with beneficial use of sewage sludge. The TNSSS measured contaminant concentrations
in sewage sludge from 74 publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). See Section 6.1 of the
2012 Annual Review Report for details on the specific methodologies and analyses EPA
employed for its review of the TNSSS data (U.S EPA, 2014a).
3.1.3.2 Review of Chemical Action Plans
EPA reviewed data and information from the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT's) available chemical action plans (CAPs), published between 2009 to 2011, to identify
new pollutants or wastestreams that might warrant regulation. Under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), OPPT has developed CAPs for 10 classes of chemicals that potentially
create health and/or environmental hazards when manufactured in or imported into the U.S.
Subsequently (Feb. 2012), OPPT modified its approach for evaluating existing chemicals under
TSCA and began the Work Plan Chemicals initiative. See Section 6.2 of the 2072 Annual Review
3-2
-------
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology
Report for details on the specific methodologies and analyses EPA employed for its review of
OPPT's CAPs (U.S EPA, 2014a).
3.1.3.3 Identification of Wastewater Discharges Related to Air Pollution Control
Not Currently Covered by ELGs
EPA reviewed federal air regulations to determine if, through the prescription of wet air
pollution controls, they may result in the generation of unregulated industrial wastewater
discharges or changes to currently regulated wastewater streams (containing new pollutants of
concern). Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA controls emissions of air pollutants through
several programs, including New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). EPA focused its review on NSPS and
NESHAP rules promulgated or revised after 1990 to evaluate their potential impact on
wastewater discharges from industries with older ELGs that were promulgated prior to the
enactment of the air regulations. See Section 6.3 of the 2072 Annual Review Report for details on
the specific methodologies and analyses EPA employed for its review of federal air regulations
(U.S EPA, 2014a).
3.1.3.4 Review of TRI Industry Sectors Expansion
In June 2011, EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) initiated a rulemaking
to add or expand the coverage of TRI for six industries, including phosphate mining, iron ore
mining, solid waste combustors and incinerators, large dry cleaning facilities, bulk petroleum
storage, and steam generating facilities. EPA reviewed the proposed expansion of TRI to
evaluate whether new hazard data were available for these industries (that was used as a basis for
the expansion proposal). EPA also evaluated whether the identified industrial sectors represent
new or unregulated wastewater discharges that are not adequately regulated by ELGs. See
Section 6.4 of the 2072 Annual Review Report for details on the specific methodologies and
analyses EPA employed for its review of TRI industry sector expansion data (U.S EPA, 2014a).
3.1.3.5 Review of Analytical Methods
EPA reviewed analytical methods recently developed or revised by the Agency to help
identify unregulated pollutants in industrial wastewater discharges and to identify changes to
existing analytical methods that provide for increased sensitivity that would allow EPA to
identify previously undetected pollutants or strengthen existing requirements for regulated
pollutants. EPA focused its review on recent updates to the wastewater analytical methods listed
in 40 CFR Part 136 as well as drinking water methods developed by EPA's Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water and Office of Research and Development. See Section 6.5 of the
2072 Annual Review Report for details on the specific methodologies and analyses EPA
employed for its review of analytical methods (U.S EPA, 2014a).
3.1.3.6 Review of Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies
EPA has initiated a review of relevant literature to document the performance of new and
improved industrial wastewater treatment technologies. EPA plans to capture these performance
data in a searchable industrial wastewater treatment technology (IWTT) database. EPA intends
to use the IWTT database in its screening process in future annual reviews to quantify the
3-3
-------
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology
effectiveness of technologies for removing pollutants of concern from specific industrial
wastewater discharges. EPA is focusing its initial efforts on collecting and reviewing
performance data for technologies that remove metals and that treat wastewater discharge
pollutants from the Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419), Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433),
and Electroplating (40 CFR Part 413) point source categories. EPA's recent reviews of these
categories suggest that discharges of metals and other potentially hazardous pollutants are of
increasing concern. See Section 6.6 of the 2012 Annual Review Report for details on the specific
methodologies and analyses EPA employed for its review of industrial wastewater treatment
technologies (U.S EPA, 2014a).
3.2 Categories Excluded from EPA's 2012 Annual Review
Consistent with its previous annual reviews, EPA eliminated from further consideration
during its 2011 and 2012 Annual Reviews the following:
• Discharges from industrial categories for which EPA recently considered developing
or revising ELGs, or for which EPA has recently promulgated or revised ELGs
(within the past seven years).
• Discharges from facilities that require a NPDES permit but do not fall into an
existing or new point source category or subcategory (e.g., Superfund sites).
• Discharges from facilities determined not to be representative of their category.
3.2.1 Categories for Which EPA has Recently Considered Developing or Revising ELGs
or has Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs
EPA did not consider as part of its 2011 and 2012 Annual Reviews industrial categories
for which it has recently considered developing or revising ELGs because it has thoroughly
reviewed these categories separately from the annual review process. These categories include
Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR 414) and Inorganic
Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR 415) point source categories for facilities that produce
chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons (CCH), as well as the coalbed methane extraction
industry. See Section 5 of this Plan for details on EPA's determinations related to these
categories.
Similarly, EPA excluded from its 2011 and 2012 Annual Reviews point source
categories for which ELGs were recently established or revised but are not yet fully
implemented, or were recently reviewed in a rulemaking context, but for which EPA decided to
withdraw the proposal or select the "no action" option. In general, EPA removed an industrial
point source category from further consideration during a review cycle if EPA established,
revised, or reviewed the category's ELGs within seven years prior to the Annual Reviews. This
seven-year period allows time for the ELGs to be incorporated into NPDES permits. Table 3-1
lists the categories EPA excluded from the 2011 and 2012 reviews due to this seven-year period.
3-4
-------
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology
Table 3-1. Point Source Categories That Have Undergone Recent Rulemaking or Review
4QCFRPart
450
122 and 4 12
449
Point Source Category
Construction and Development
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
Airport Deicing
Date of RuIemaHng
December 1, 2009
November 20, 2008
May 16, 2012
EPA also did not consider as part of its 2011 or 2012 Annual Reviews industrial
categories for which it is currently engaged in a rulemaking process. These include steam electric
power generation, dental amalgam, and oil and gas extraction, specifically shale gas extraction.
See Section 5.2 of this Final 2012 Plan for details on the rulemaking status for these categories.
3.2.2 Discharges Not Categorizable
In its 2011 Annual Review, EPA identified discharges that are not categorizable into
existing or new point source categories or subcategories (U.S. EPA, 2012a). In particular, EPA
reviewed high TWPE discharges from a Superfund site (Auchterlonie, 2009). Direct discharges
from Superfund sites, whether made onsite or offsite, are subject to NPDES permitting
requirements (U.S. EPA, 1988a, 1988b). For the reasons discussed in the Preliminary 2012 Plan
(78 FR 48159), EPA determined that these discharges do not fall into a single point source
category and excluded these TWPE from the point source category rankings. EPA continued to
exclude these discharges in its 2012 Annual Review.
3.3 Data Quality Assurance and Limitations
EPA's methodology for the 2012 Annual Review involved several components, as
discussed in Section 3.1, including continued preliminary category reviews of selected point
source categories, an evaluation of additional data sources and new supporting analyses, and an
assessment of public comments and other stakeholder input.
EPA identified and used the following data sources as part of the six new analyses
conducted for the 2012 Annual Review:
• Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)/Online Tracking Information
System (OTIS).
• Supporting documentation to the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) Regulations: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
• Conference proceedings, water-related journals, industry-specific organization
literature.
• Data provided by trade association contacts.
• State regulatory agency data.
• Data obtained directly from industry.
• Purdue University Calumet Water Institute-Argonne National Laboratory Task Force
(Purdue-Argonne Task Force) Report.
3-5
-------
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology
• Steam Detailed Study Report (DSR).
• Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey (TNSSS).
• EPA, state, and local government representative data and information.
• EPA Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW), and
Office of Research and Development (ORD) Analytical Methods.
• EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPT) program data
sources: Chemical Action Plans (CAPs), Significant New Use Rule (SNUR).
• Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Sectors
Expansions Rulemaking Data.
• Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) data sources: OPPT PFOA Stewardship Program,
Long-Chain Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs) public docket.
• Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) Drinking Water
Treatability Database.
In addition, as in previous annual reviews, EPA continued to use TRI and DMR data
from the DMR Loading Tool during the 2012 Annual Review. This section discusses these data
sources and their limitations.
3.3.1 Additional Data Sources Supporting New Analyses
For its 2012 Annual Review, EPA used existing data to support the six new analyses of
the impact of industrial discharges on the environment. These analyses relied on published
literature identified during review of materials related to the targeted analyses. EPA obtained the
existing data from publications and databases available from other EPA offices,
www.regulations.gov, and other websites, as well as directly from industry and regulators
(including EPA representatives). EPA considered the accuracy, reliability, and representativeness
of data sources to assess their usability as follows.
Accuracy. EPA assumed that the underlying data and information contained in state and
federal reports, selected conference proceedings, and peer-reviewed journal articles were
accurate. That is, EPA assumed that data from these sources were of sufficient quality to
identify characteristics of industrial discharges and that known analytical methods were
used for any pollutant measurements.
Reliability. EPA evaluated existing data for reliability based on the following factors:
• The scientific work is clearly written, so that all assumptions and methodologies can
be identified.
• The variability and uncertainty (quantitative and qualitative) in the information or in
the procedures, measures, methods, or models are evaluated and characterized.
• The assumptions and methodologies are consistently applied throughout the analysis
as reported in the source.
3-6
-------
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology
• Waste stream, parameters, units, and detection limits (when appropriate) are clearly
characterized.
During the review of existing literature, EPA encountered sources that contained limited
documentation of actual measurements, and instead provided qualitative discussion. For
example, numerous media articles state that perfluorinated chemicals cause cancer, but the
articles do not cite the source for the statement, do not provide numerical measurements of
cancer incidence (increased risk), and do not provide amounts of exposure (such as mg/kg). In
addition, many of articles from industry publications and conferences do not describe the
analytical methods used to measure pollutant concentrations, but that the detection limits are
consistently provided when measured concentrations are reported at or below detection. These
data sources represented a lower level of reliability than peer-reviewed literature, but provided
useful information for capturing the full range of environmental impacts associated with
industrial discharges.
Representativeness. EPA evaluated existing data for use in qualitative analyses based on
whether the data provide a national perspective and are relevant to and representative of the
industry to which the data are applied.
For more information on the quality assurance activities supporting the 2012 Annual
Review, including a summary of EPA's data quality and utility evaluation for the additional data
sources, see Appendix B of the 2012 Annual Review Report (U.S EPA, 2014a).
3.3.2 DMR and TRIData
EPA has previously explained its use of DMR and TRI data in the Technical Support
Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential
New Point Source Categories (2009 Screening-Level Analysis (SLA) Report) (U.S. EPA, 2009).
The 2009 SLA Report provides the detailed methodology used to process thousands of data
records and generate national estimates of industrial effluent discharges.
EPA relies on outputs from the DMR Loading Tool,2 which categorizes and calculates
pollutant loadings using the SIC and NAICS codes and toxic weighting factors (TWFs) in
conjunction with DMR and TRI discharge data. In its analyses, EPA multiplies a mass loading of
a pollutant in pounds per year (as reported in the DMR Loading Tool) by a pollutant-specific
TWF to derive a "toxic-weighted pound equivalent" loading. (Throughout this document, the
toxic-weighted pound equivalent is referred to as TWPE.) For more information on TWFs, see
EPA's Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology (U.S. EPA, 2012b). EPA also classifies each
facility reporting discharges into a particular industrial point source category based on the
applicable SIC or NAICS codes for that facility. TRI includes information on a facility's NAICS
code, while DMR data include information on a facility's SIC code. EPA then sums the TWPE
for each facility classified in a point source category to calculate a total TWPE per category for a
given year. Table 3-2 describes the utility and limitations of the DMR and TRI data.
2 The DMR Loading Tool is located at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/. The tool is maintained by EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Compliance.
3-7
-------
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology
Table 3-2. TRI and DMR Data Utility and Limitations
TRI
DMR
Utility of Data
National scope
Includes releases to POTWs, not just direct dischargers
to surface waters
Includes releases of many toxic chemicals, not just those
on the facility permit
Includes discharge data from manufacturing NAICS
codes and some other industrial categories
National scope
Discharge reports are based on effluent chemical
analysis and metered flows
Includes facilities in any SIC code
Limitations of Data
Small establishments and those that don't meet reporting
requirements are not included in the database
Some releases are based on estimates due to TRI
reporting guidance, some facilities may over- or under-
estimate releases
Certain chemicals are reported as class, not individual
compounds,3 which can inaccurately estimate the
toxicity of chemical releases
Facilities are identified by NAICS codes, not point
source category
TRI only requires facilities to report certain chemicals;
therefore, all pollutants discharged from a facility may
not be captured
Data systems contain data only for pollutants in the
facility permit
Limited discharge data on minorb discharges
Data systems do not include data characterizing indirect
discharges from industrial facilities to POTWs
Facilities do not always report duration of discharges,
which may overestimate toxic releases based on the
assumption that discharges are continuous
Some data systems do not identify the type of
wastewater discharged, which may include stormwater
or non-contact cooling water; pipe identification is not
always clear
Facilities are identified by SIC codes, not point source
category
Data may contain errors from manual data entry
Facilities do not always provide average concentrations
or quantities, which results in an overestimation if only
maximum values are used
a Chemicals reported as a class include polycyclic aromatic compounds, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, metal
compounds.
b EPA developed a major/minor classification system for industrial and municipal wastewater discharges. The
distinction was made initially to assist EPA and states in setting priorities for permit issuance and reissuance.
Facilities with minor discharges must report compliance with NPDES permit limits via monthly DMRs
submitted to the permitting authority; however, EPA does not require the permitting authority to enter data in
the PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases. (U.S. EPA, 2010)
The DMR and TRI data EPA used have been evaluated and corrected during previous
toxicity ranking analyses reported for calendar years 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006-2011. For a
detailed list of all corrections made to the 2009 DMR data, see Section 3.3.7 and 3.3.4,
respectively, in EPA's 2011 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2012a).
3-8
-------
Section 4—Results of the 2011 and 2012 Annual Review
4. RESULTS OF THE 2011 AND 2012 ANNUAL REVIEWS
This section briefly summarizes the results of EPA's 2011 Annual Review and presents
new findings from its 2012 Annual Review.
4.1 Summary of Results from the 2011 Annual Review
EPA published results of its 2011 Annual Review (U.S. EPA, 2012a), which consisted of
the odd-year TRA, in support of the Preliminary 2012 Plan (78 FR 48159). From the 2011
Annual Review, EPA determined that additional review for three point source categories was
appropriate, as announced in the Preliminary 2012 Plan: Pulp, Paper and Paperboard (40 CFR
Part 430), Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419), and Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part
432). EPA continued to review these categories in the 2012 Annual Review.
4.2 Findings from the 2012 Annual Review
For the 2012 Annual Review, EPA evaluated public comments and stakeholder input
received on the Preliminary 2012 Plan and continued its review of the three point source
categories identified during the 2011 Annual Review as warranting additional review.
Additionally, EPA identified additional data sources and conducted six new analyses to
supplement the toxicity rankings analysis.
4.2.1 Findings from Public Comments and Stakeholder Input
EPA's annual review process considers information provided by the public and
stakeholders regarding new or revised effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards.
Public comments received on EPA's prior reviews and Plans helped the Agency prioritize its
analyses of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. This section presents a
summary of the comments received on the Preliminary 2012 Plan.
EPA published its Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (Preliminary 2012
Plan) and provided a 60-day public comment period starting on August 7, 2013 (see 78 FRN
48159). The Docket supporting this Final Plan includes a complete set of the comments
submitted, as well as the Agency's responses (see DCN 07979).
EPA received comments on the Preliminary 2012 Plan from 19 organizations
representing industry, six environmental groups, one state representing organization, one
publicly owned treatment works group, one tribal government, and one county government.
Comments addressed the following subject areas:
• Coalbed methane and shale gas extraction (17 comments)
• Chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbon (3 comments)
• Oil and gas coastal subcategory (2 comments)
• Alaska offshore seafood processors (2 comments)
• Dental amalgam (1 comment)
• Effluent limitation guidelines and standards (ELGs) and Plan process in general (1
comment)
4-1
-------
Section 4—Results of the 2011 and 2012 Annual Review
• Other (1 comment)
For coalbed methane extraction (CBM extraction), EPA received 13 comments from
industry representatives and county government supporting the delisting of CBM extraction for
three main reasons:
• Additional costs would further reduce the feasibility of production, due to the
declining economics of the industry.
• CBM extraction production and discharges are declining.
• Discharges are already effectively permitted.
Environmental groups commented that EPA should move forward with developing
regulations for CBM extraction because EPA should not rely solely on economic considerations.
The environmental groups suggest that changes in gas production processes, gas demand, and
wastewater treatment costs could change EPA's conclusions. The environmental groups also
noted there are environmental impacts from CBM extraction discharges that need to be
addressed. One commenter provided information summarizing several ongoing Department of
Energy projects related to CBM extraction and potential new produced water treatment
technologies. The new technologies are variations of desalination and reverse osmosis systems.
These studies have not yet been completed.
For chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbon (CCH), two industry trade groups supported
the delisting for the reasons EPA presented in the Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program
Plan. One company provided a comment correcting EPA's classification of their facility in
EPA's Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Data Collection and Analysis Summary report.
Two commenters, one environmental organization and one tribal government, asked EPA
to remove the exemption for Cook Inlet, Alaska from the zero discharge requirements in the oil
and gas coastal ELGs.
One industry trade group requested that EPA revise the requirements under the Alaska
Offshore Seafood Processors General Permit AK-G2-4000. Additionally, two industry trade
groups petitioned EPA to initiate a rulemaking to add a subpart to the Canned and Preserved
Seafood Processing point source category, adding ELGs for discharges resulting from the
processing of seafood on mobile seafood processing vessels.
For Dental Amalgam, one POTW group requested that EPA take clear action on the draft
dental amalgam separator rule and expressed support for dropping it from consideration if EPA
did take such action.
One organization, representing a number of states, suggested improvements to the ELGs
and 304m process in general, including using additional data sources to consider improved
hazard data and advances in treatment technology. The commenter suggested that EPA
incorporate information from other EPA offices and states into the ELG program. The
commenter also stated that the metal finishing category should be re-examined because there
have been significant changes in the industry over the last few years.
4-2
-------
Section 4—Results of the 2011 and 2012 Annual Review
One industry trade group expressed support for EPA's conclusion that pulp and paper
mills present a low risk and that the ELGs should be a lower priority for revision. A more
detailed summary table of the comments can be found in the 2012 Annual Review Report (U.S.
EPA, 2014a). EPA carefully considered all public comments and information submitted in
developing the Final 2012 Plan. A comment response document is also available at (DCN
07979).
4.2.2 Findings from Continued Review of Selected Point Source Categories
During the 2011 Annual Review, EPA identified three point source categories for which
further review is appropriate: Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432); Petroleum Refining
(40 CFR Part 419); and Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430). EPA continued review
of these categories as part of the 2012 Annual Review (U.S EPA, 2014a). Below are the findings
from these 2012 continued category reviews.
• Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432). EPA completed further review of
Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI) reported nitrate discharges and found that the
majority of the top nitrate compound dischargers are in compliance with the Part 432
total nitrogen limitations or are receiving new permits to meet Part 432 total nitrogen
limitations. Therefore, EPA concludes that nitrate discharges from meat and poultry
products facilities are decreasing due to the 2004 Part 432 effluent guidelines
revisions.
• Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419). EPA further reviewed discharges of dioxin
and dioxin-like compounds and metals, identified as pollutants of concern in the
TRA for the Petroleum Refining category. For dioxins, EPA found that one facility's
reported discharges contributed to the majority (65 percent) of the dioxin and dioxin-
like compound TRI TWPE, however this facility's reported discharges are estimated
(based on the number of reformer catalyst regenerations) and not directly measured.
From the 2010 DMR data for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds EPA only identified
one refinery reporting discharging detectable concentrations (above the Method
1613B Minimum Level (ML)), though available data indicates this facility's dioxin
discharges result largely from stormwater contaminated via aerial deposition, not the
discharge of treated process wastewater. EPA has not yet determined whether dioxin
is being discharged at concentrations above the 1613B Minimum Level (ML) or
identified the primary source of the discharge (e.g., stormwater or process
wastewater from catalytic reforming and catalyst regeneration operations).
For metals discharges, EPA reviewed DMR data from 76 refineries from across the
country and identified metals present in most petroleum refineries' effluent
discharges that exceeded comparable treatability data for metals removals achieved
by more recent technologies. EPA continued its examination of the petroleum
refining category in 2013.
• Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430). EPA further reviewed
discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and found that the majority of
estimated releases reported to TRI were based on pollutant concentrations below the
4-3
-------
Section 4—Results of the 2011 and 2012 Annual Review
Method 1613B ML. EPA concluded that dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from
pulp and paper facilities are not a hazard priority at this time.
4.2.3 Findings from Additional Hazard Data Sources Supporting New Analyses
EPA identified additional data sources and conducted six new analyses as part of the
2012 Annual Review (U.S. EPA, 2014a). Below are the findings from these new analyses.
• Identification of Industrial Pollutants in Sewage Sludge. EPA's review of the
Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey (TNSSS), combined with available
indirect discharge data from TRI identified the Metal Finishing point source category
(40 CFR Part 433) as potentially discharging high concentrations of metals,
particularly chromium, nickel, and zinc, to publically owned treatment works
(POTWs). These metals could transfer to sewage sludge and impact its beneficial
use. Based on the TNSSS and 2009 TRI datasets, EPA could not identify for further
review any new pollutants of concern or wastewater discharges from industrial
categories not currently regulated by ELGs. EPA focused its review on the pollutants
in the TNSSS with discharge information available in TRI since TRI provided a
means to link industrial wastewater sources to the pollutants found in POTW sludge.
See Section 6.1 of the 2072 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2014a) for more
information regarding this analysis.
• Review of Chemical Action Plans. EPA reviewed data and information from the
OPPT's available CAPs to identify new pollutants or waste streams that might
warrant regulation. OPPT developed CAPs for 10 classes of chemicals that
potentially create health and/or environmental hazards when manufactured in or
imported into the U.S. If these potentially hazardous chemicals are currently
produced and/or used in the U.S. and have the potential to be discharged in
wastewater from manufacture and/or use, these wastewater discharges may warrant
regulation.
From review of the CAPs, EPA identified six chemicals or classes of chemicals that
are currently produced and have known or potential wastewater discharges:
Benzidine dyes, Bisphenol A (BPA), Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD),
Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates, Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs), and
Phthalates. Another class of chemicals, short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs)
are no longer manufactured in the U.S., but they have been used in metal working
and have the potential to be discharged in wastewater from this industry.
Additionally, two of the chemicals, Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate (MDI) and
Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI), do not have significant wastewater discharges.
However, EPA identified that the hydrolysis byproducts of TDI and MDI, toluene
diamine and methyl diphenyl diamine, may be present in industrial wastewater.
One chemical category is being phased out of U.S. commerce; EPA does not intend
to pursue further review for Penta, Octa, and Decabromodiphenyl Ethers (PBDEs).
See Section 6.2 of the 2072 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2014a) for more
information regarding this analysis.
4-4
-------
Section 4—Results of the 2011 and 2012 Annual Review
• Identification of Wastewater Discharges Related to Air Pollution Control Not
Currently Regulated by ELGs. EPA identified new and revised air regulations that
likely result in the generation of new wastestreams that contain metals at petroleum
refineries. EPA also identified three air regulations that may result in an unregulated
wastewater discharge: regulations for brick and structural clay product
manufacturing; industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers; and industrial,
commercial, and institutional steam generating units. In addition, EPA identified 13
industries with existing ELGs, for which new air regulations may result in the
discharge of new or additional pollutants. See Section 6.3 of the 2012 Annual Review
Report (U.S. EPA, 2014a) for more information regarding this analysis.
• Review of TRI Industry Sectors Expansion. The TRI sector expansion rulemaking
is still under development. Available information suggests that selenium discharges
from phosphate mines (regulated under 40 CFR Part 136) may be a new wastewater
pollutant of concern. See Section 6.4 of the 2072 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA,
2014a) for more information regarding this analysis.
• Review of Analytical Methods. EPA reviewed recent analytical method
developments included in the 2012 Method Update Rule and identified that there are
reduced detection limits for some metals and additions of new methods for detecting
other pollutants of concern from industrial wastewater discharges, including: free
cyanide, acid mine drainage, nonylphenol, and bisphenol A.
In addition, EPA identified several pesticides measured by some of the approved
pesticide analytical methods (listed in 40 CFR Part 136) that do not currently have
effluent limits under the Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing, Formulating, and
Packaging ELGs (40 CFR Part 455).
EPA also reviewed OGWDW and ORD drinking water analytical methods and
identified two relatively new methods developed by ORD to measure concentrations
of PFCs and 1,4-dioxane. OGWDW is using these methods in its Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) to evaluate PFCs and 1,4-dioxane in
drinking water. EPA has identified industrial wastewater discharges for both PFCs
and 1,4-dioxane.
See Section 6.4 of the 2072 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2014a) for more
information regarding this analysis.
• Review of Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies. EPA has initiated a
review of scientific literature reporting the performance of new and improved
industrial wastewater treatment technologies and plans to capture these performance
data in a searchable industrial wastewater treatment technology (IWTT) database. As
a first step, EPA is identifying and reviewing industrial wastewater treatment
technology performance data related to petroleum refining, metal finishing, and
electroplating industries (and metals removal in general). See Section 6.5 of the 2072
Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2014a) for more information regarding the
findings from this analysis.
4-5
-------
Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions
5. FINAL 2012 PLAN DECISIONS
This section presents EPA's final decisions on actions proposed in the Preliminary 2012
Plan (78 FR 48159). Preliminary results of the 2013 Annual Review and proposed actions
resulting from both the 2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews are presented in Preliminary 2014 Plan
(see Part III of this document).
5.1 Industries for Which EPA Is No Longer Undergoing an ELG Rulemaking
Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH) Manufacturing:
In prior year reviews, EPA considered revisions to effluent limitations guidelines and
standards (ELGs) for the Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR
414) and Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR 415) point source categories for facilities
that produce chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons (CCH). EPA proposed to discontinue a
revised ELG for facilities that produce chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons (CCH) in the
preliminary 2012 plan, and after considering public comments, EPA has decided not to move
forward with a rulemaking for this industry.
EPA began an ELG rulemaking for the CCH Manufacturing Industry in March 2005,
after issuing the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (69 FR 53705). In the 2004 Effluent
Guidelines Program plan, EPA selected the vinyl chloride (a type of chlorinated hydrocarbon)
manufacturing segment of the organic chemicals industry for possible revision because
preliminary analysis showed that the segment discharged significant quantities of toxic weighted
pound-equivalents. In addition, because many chlorine manufacturers are co-located with vinyl
chloride manufacturing and because these facilities discharge significant quantities of TWPEs,
EPA also selected the chlorine manufacturing segment of the inorganic chemicals industry for
possible revision. Also, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) manufacturers were considered to be part of
the vinyl chloride manufacturing segment due to frequent co-location.
As part of the initial industry assessment, both industry and EPA collected samples to
measure dioxins being generated and discharged in the wastewater at CCH facilities. First, EPA
completed 13 site visits to determine sampling possibilities at facilities with potential BAT
wastewater treatment technology. Ultimately, four sampling episodes were completed by EPA.
Additionally, 12 sampling episodes were completed by the Vinyl Chloride Producers (VCP) as
part of the voluntary plan established in February 2007 as an alternative to completing an EPA
questionnaire or further EPA sampling. EPA designed the sampling plans for each of the 12
facilities.
After thoroughly reviewing all of the dioxin sampling data and evaluating public
comments received on the Preliminary 2012 Plan, EPA has decided not to move forward with the
development of effluent limitations guidelines for the CCH manufacturing industry. Very low
TWPE annual discharges were calculated for all PVC manufacturers for which data were
available. Similarly, very low TWPE annual discharges were calculated for all but one of the
chlorine manufacturing facilities for which data were collected. Although the chlorinated
hydrocarbon manufacturers that manufacture vinyl chloride discharge a maximum of 1.1 million
TWPEs, one facility accounts for the vast majority of this TWPE and the associated discharge of
dioxins. Also, almost all chlorinated hydrocarbon manufacturing facilities that manufacture vinyl
5-1
-------
Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions
chloride already have wastewater treatment technology that would potentially represent "best
available technology" for the industry. EPA therefore has determined that it would be best to
address the few facilities with significant dioxin discharges through permitting rather than
through the development of national effluent guidelines (U.S. EPA, 2012c).
Coalbed Methane (CBM) Extraction Industry:
In its Final 2010 ELG Plan, EPA also indicated it was initiating rulemakings to revise
ELGs for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 135) to address
discharges from coalbed methane and shale gas extraction. In the 2012 Preliminary Plan, EPA
proposed to delist the coalbed methane extraction (CBM extraction) industry from the effluent
guidelines plan and to discontinue the rulemaking. EPA proposed to delist the CBM extraction
industry from the effluent guidelines plan based on new information regarding the declining
economic viability of CBM extraction production at a national level, which affects the economic
achievability of controls for the CBM extraction industry as a whole. The reduced economic
viability of CBM extraction production results from declining natural gas prices, due in large
part to the increased extraction of natural gas from other sources, such as shale formations. (U.S.
EPA, 2013a; U.S. EPA, 2013b). The initial decision to identify this industry for rulemaking was
based on the results of a detailed industry study and comments from the public indicating at that
time that CBM extraction was a growing industry and that treatment technologies were available
to address pollutants discharged by the industry. However, since initiating the rulemaking, more
recent data on the quantity and projected levels of CBM extraction production and CBM
extraction production economics indicate otherwise. After reviewing financial data pertaining to
this industry collected through the Detailed Questionnaire for the Coalbed Methane Extraction
Sector, and natural gas price projections through 2040 from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA), wastewater quality/quantity data and the cost of available wastewater
treatment options, EPA was not able to identify a wastewater treatment technology that would be
economically achievable for this industrial subcategory as a whole. Although potential treatment
technologies exist, are demonstrated, and may be affordable for some sites, these technologies do
not appear to be economically achievable for the CBM extraction industry as a whole due, in
part, to the decrease in gas prices as a result of the recent boom in development of shale gas
resources. EPA's analysis found that the cost of treatment technologies would likely lead to
early shutdown of existing wells, with associated loss of CBM extraction gas production to
society; in addition, EPA's analysis found that new CBM extraction wells may not be
economically viable for a substantial period into the future, and that imposing an additional cost
for new treatment technologies at this time would further extend the time in which new CBM
extraction wells could become economically viable.
EPA received comments on its proposal to delist the CBM extraction industry from
industry, environmental groups, and a local government official. In general, environmental
groups opposed EPA's proposal primarily because CBM extraction discharges may have
negative impacts; these comments argued that EPA's decision should not be driven by costs to
the industry and/or the associated economic impacts. These commenters did not disagree with
the EIA projections of natural gas prices that underlie EPA's economic analyses; rather, they
focused on the inherent uncertainty in predicting gas prices. They assert that because of the
uncertainty, EPA should not base decisions on it. They also noted that the potential for CBM
5-2
-------
Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions
extraction development remains, and increases in demand could once again shift the projections
for this sub category.
Others supported EPA's proposal based on the declining economic condition of the
industry since EPA's announcement and previous data collection, and/or provided additional
company-specific information regarding the effect of gas prices on the company's current and
projected operation.
After reviewing all of the comments and its rulemaking record, EPA concludes that it did
not receive any data or information to alter its former findings. EPA concludes that while
effective technologies exist, are demonstrated, and may be affordable for some sites, these
technologies are not economically achievable for the CBM extraction industry as a whole. This
applies to existing and new CBM extraction wells based on current and future economic
conditions. See "Economic Analysis for Existing and New Projects in the Coalbed Methane
Industry" (U.S. EPA, 2013a).
EPA's decision to delist the CBM extraction industry based on economic achievability is
appropriate. Indeed, the statute specifically provides that for toxic and non-conventional
pollutants, limitations be based on the "best available technology economically achievable, " thus
requiring a consideration of economic achievability in establishing effluent limitation guidelines
based on BAT. CWA Section 301(b)(2)(A), 33.U.S.C. 131 l(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). If EPA
is unable to identify an available technology that is economically achievable for the industry as a
whole, EPA does not have a basis for establishing effluent guidelines for this industry.
Generally, the EPA determines economic achievability on the basis of the projected effect of cost
of compliance with BAT limitations and pretreatment standards on the overall industry and
subcategory financial conditions, as discussed in the Economic Analysis. Similarly, in
establishing NSPS and PSNS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the "cost of achieving
the effluent reductions" (CWA section 306(b)(l)(B), 33. U.S.C. 1316(b)(l)(B)), and EPA
appropriately conducted a barrier to entry analysis in considering such costs, as discussed in the
Economic Analysis.
EPA is not mandated to make decisions on perfect information, but rather on the best
information and data available to the Agency. Therefore, while the EPA acknowledges that EIA
projections of natural gas prices are uncertain, EIA's projections are regarded as high quality,
unbiased projections from a credible government source. The commenters did not provide any
other sources of natural gas price projections. EPA continues to find that EIA's projections
provide a sufficient basis for its regulatory determinations. Additionally, EPA did not receive
any information or data to refute its other data sources or its economic analyses. Rather, the
Agency received additional data that supports its analysis.
EPA is not suggesting that direct and indirect wastewater discharges associated with
CBM extraction may not have negative environmental impacts and do not ever need to be
controlled. On the contrary, EPA notes that in establishing NPDES permits, permitting
authorities, in the absence of applicable ELGs, must establish technology-based effluent limits
on a case-by-case basis using best professional judgment (BPJ), considering the same factors that
EPA would consider in establishing an effluent guideline (40 CFR 125.3(c)(2)). Additional
limitations based on water quality standards are also required to be included in the permits in
5-3
-------
Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions
certain circumstances to protect water quality should specific facilities' discharges be found to
cause, or have the reasonable potential to cause, violations of state water quality standards.
Nothing in the record for today's decision precludes a permitting authority from making the
determination on a site-specific basis that a technology is available and economically achievable
upon which to base technology-based limitations using BPJ. In fact, EPA's record demonstrates
that on a site-specific basis, technologies are already being employed to control pollutant
discharges associated with CBM extraction. The record demonstrates that at this time, these
requirements should not be established on a uniform basis across the entire industry, but should
instead continue to be appropriately established on a site-specific BPJ basis.
The data that EPA evaluated to come to this decision, including public comments
received on its proposal to delist the coalbed methane extraction industry in the Preliminary 2012
Plan, are available for review in the Federal Data Management System Docket EPA-HQ-OW-
2010-0824, available atwww.regulations.gov.
5.2 Industries Previously Identified for Further Review for Which EPA is Taking No
Action
In the Preliminary 2012 Plan (78 FR 48159), EPA announced its continued review of
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) and
nitrate discharges for the Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432) point source categories.
Based on the findings from the 2012 Annual Review (U.S. EPA, 2014a) related to these
categories, EPA has concluded that no further review of these discharges is warranted and is
taking no further action related to these categories at this time.
Meat and Poultry Products Manufacturing:
For Meat and Poultry Products, EPA determined that a majority of the top nitrate
compound dischargers are in compliance with the Part 432 total nitrogen limitations or are
receiving new permits to meet Part 432 total nitrogen limitations. Therefore, EPA concludes that
nitrate discharges from meat and poultry products facilities are decreasing due to the 2004 Part
432 effluent guidelines revisions.
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing:
For Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard, EPA determined that a majority of the estimated dioxin
and dioxin-like compound releases reported to TRI were based on pollutant concentrations below
the Method 1613B ML. Therefore, EPA concluded that dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from
pulp and paper facilities are not a hazard priority at this time.
5.3 Potential Indirect Dischargers for Pretreatment Standards
5.3.1 Evaluation of Pass-Through and Interference of Toxic and Non-Conventional
Pollutants Discharged to POTWs
All indirect dischargers are subject to general pretreatment standards (40 CFR 403),
including a prohibition on discharges causing "pass-through" or "interference" (See 40 CFR
403.5). All POTWs with approved pretreatment programs must develop local limits to
5-4
-------
Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions
implement the general pretreatment standards. All other POTWs must develop such local limits
where they have experienced pass-through or interference and such a violation is likely to recur.
There are approximately 1,500 POTWs with approved pretreatment programs and 13,500 small
POTWs that are not required to develop and implement pretreatment programs.
In addition, EPA establishes technology-based national regulations, termed "categorical
pretreatment standards," for categories of industry discharging pollutants to POTWs that may
pass through, interfere with, or otherwise be incompatible with POTW operations (Clean Water
Act section 307(b)). Generally, categorical pretreatment standards are designed such that
wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of
treatment. EPA has promulgated such pretreatment standards for 35 industrial categories.
One of the tools traditionally used by EPA in evaluating whether pollutants pass through
a POTW is a comparison of the percentage of a pollutant removed by POTWs with the
percentage of the pollutant removed by discharging facilities applying the best available control
technology economically achievable (BAT). Pretreatment standards for existing sources are
technology-based and are analogous to BAT ELGs. In most cases, EPA has concluded that a
pollutant passes through the POTW when the median percentage removed nationwide by
representative POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment requirements) is less than the median
percentage removed by facilities complying with BAT effluent limitations guidelines for that
pollutant.
This approach to the definition of "pass-through" satisfies two competing objectives set
by Congress: (1) that standards for indirect dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct
dischargers and (2) that the treatment capability and performance of POTWs be recognized and
taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from indirect dischargers.
The term "interference" means a discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a
discharge or discharges from other sources, both (1) inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment
processes or operations, or its sludge processes, use, or disposal and (2) therefore is a cause of a
violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in the
magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of sewage sludge use or disposal in
compliance with applicable regulations or permits. See 40 CFR 403.3(k). To determine the
potential for interference, EPA generally evaluates the industrial indirect discharges in terms of:
(1) the compatibility of industrial wastewaters and domestic wastewaters (e.g., type of pollutants
discharged in industrial wastewaters compared to pollutants typically found in domestic
wastewaters); (2) concentrations of pollutants discharged in industrial wastewaters that might
cause interference with the POTW collection system, the POTW treatment system, or biosolids
disposal options; and (3) the potential for variable pollutant loadings to interfere with POTW
operations (e.g., batch discharges or slug loadings from industrial facilities interfering with
normal POTW operations).
If EPA determines that a category of indirect dischargers causes pass-through or
interference, EPA will then consider the BAT and BPT factors (including "such other factors as
the Administrator deems appropriate") specified in section 304(b) to determine whether to
develop pretreatment standards for these activities. Examples of "such other factors" include a
consideration of the magnitude of the hazard posed by the pollutants discharged as measured by:
5-5
-------
Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions
(1) the total annual TWPE discharged by the industrial sector and (2) the average TWPE
discharged among facilities that discharge to POTWs. Additionally, EPA would consider
whether other regulatory tools (e.g., use of local limits under Part 403) or voluntary measures
would better control the pollutant discharges from this category of indirect dischargers. For
example, EPA relied on a similar evaluation of "pass-through potential" in its prior decision not
to promulgate national categorical pretreatment standards for the Industrial Laundries industry.
See 64 FR 45071 (August 18, 1999). EPA noted in this 1999 final action that, "While EPA has
broad discretion to promulgate such (national categorical pretreatment) standards, EPA retains
discretion not to do so where the total pounds removed do not warrant national regulation and
there is not a significant concern with pass through and interference at the POTW." See 64 FR
45077 (August 18, 1999).
During the 2012 Annual Review, EPA's review of the Targeted National Sewage Sludge
Survey (TNSSS), combined with available indirect discharge data from TRI, identified the Metal
Finishing Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 433) as potentially discharging high
concentrations of metals, particularly chromium, nickel, and zinc, to POTWs. These metals
could transfer to sewage sludge and impact its beneficial use.
5.4 Industries for Which EPA is Currently Undergoing an ELG Rulemaking
EPA is currently undergoing a rulemaking that would revise ELGs for the Steam Electric
(40 CFR 423) Point Source Category. Because the Steam Electric rulemaking is underway, EPA
excluded discharges from these facilities from analysis under the 2011 and 2012 Annual
Reviews since a guideline was already underway.
EPA also has been undergoing a rulemaking to develop potential pretreatment
requirements for discharges of mercury from the dental industry. Based on information
submitted in prior annual reviews (2004, 2006, and 2008), commenters raised concerns about
discharges of mercury from dentists facilities and urged EPA to consider establishing effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards for such discharges. EPA announced the dental amalgam
rulemaking to regulate mercury discharges from dentists' offices in the Final 2010 Plan.
EPA also indicated in its Final 2010 ELG Plan (76 FR 66286) that it was initiating two
separate rulemakings to potentially revise ELGs for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category (40 CFR Part 435) to address discharges from coalbed methane and shale gas
extraction. As discussed above, after proposing not to go forward with a rulemaking pertaining to
the coalbed methane extraction industry and considering public comments on this proposal, EPA
has decided to delist the coalbed methane extraction industry from the effluent guidelines plan.
However, EPA is continuing the rulemaking to potentially revise the ELGs for the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category to address pretreatment standards for shale gas extraction.
5.4.1 EPA's Current Schedule for ELG Actions
Steam Electric Power Generation:
-Proposed Rule June 7, 2013
-Final Rule September 2015
5-6
-------
Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions
Dental Amalgam:
-Proposed Rule September 2014
-Final Rule March 2016
Unconventional Extraction in the Oil and Gas Industry
-Proposed Rule (Shale Gas Extraction) October 2014
5.5 Results of Solicitation for Innovation and Technology in the Effluent Guidelines
Program
Innovation and technology have played key roles in improving the strength of the U. S.
economy while at the same time vastly improving public health and the environment. The U. S.
leads the way in the environmental technology arena that has become a worldwide market of
over $800 billion. The environmental technology sector employs about 1.7 million Americans.
EPA solicited public comments in the Preliminary 2012 Plan to provide the public with
an opportunity to advance the dialogue about ways EPA can foster innovative technologies while
fulfilling its obligations under Sections 304(m), 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b) of the Clean
Water Act. EPA sought public input and comment on the following questions and related
themes:
• Are there new, innovative pollution control or pollution prevention technologies that
can be used by any of the existing 58 categories of industry with effluent limitations
guidelines?
• Are there innovative manufacturing approaches that can be used by industries to
reduce or prevent their wastewater discharges?
• How can EPA's effluent limitations guidelines program enhance technology transfer
to catalyze and harness innovation to solve industrial wastewater problems, both now
and in the future?
• How can EPA better foster consideration of innovative technologies through the
effluent guidelines planning process?
EPA did not receive any public comment or stakeholder input on this solicitation.
5-7
-------
PART III: PRELIMINARY 2014 EFFLUENT
GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN
-------
Section 6—Findings of the 2013 Annual Review and Preliminary 2014 Plan
6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM THE 2013 ANNUAL REVIEW AND EPA's PRELIMINARY
2014 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN
This section presents a summary of the findings from EPA's 2013 Annual Review and
EPA's Preliminary 2014 Plan. EPA developed the Preliminary 2014 Plan based on information
gathered as part of EPA's 2011, 2012, and 2013 Annual Reviews, including information from
stakeholders and public comment received on the Preliminary 2012 Plan. EPA is requesting
public comment on the Preliminary 2014 Plan, particularly on the potential actions and next
steps related to the specific industries or target pollutants identified. EPA will consider public
comment as it develops the Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan.
6.1 Findings from EPA's 2013 Annual Review
In its 2013 Annual Review, consistent with the odd-year review methodology, EPA
conducted a toxicity ranking analysis (TRA) to identify and rank categories with pollutant
discharges that may pose a substantial hazard to human health and the environment (see Section
3 of the Preliminary 2012 Plan (78 FR 48159) for details on the odd-year annual review
methodology). For the 2103 TRA, EPA relied on 2011 discharge monitoring report (DMR) and
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data to rank industrial discharge categories by toxic-weighted
pound equivalents (TWPE) released. From the data, EPA prioritized for further review those
industrial categories accounting for 95 percent of the cumulative combined DMR and TRI
TWPE. The results of the TRA are presented in Table 6-1 below. The TRA is the basis of EPA's
2013 Annual Review and supports the proposed actions presented in this Preliminary 2014 Plan.
The full results of the 2013 Annual Review are published in the 2013 Annual Review
Report. The 2013 Annual Review Report details the TRA methodology, data sources and
limitations, facility-specific data errors and corrections, and specific findings from EPA's
preliminary category reviews of each of the categories identified in the table below (U.S. EPA,
2014b).
Table 6-1. Results of EPA's 2013 Toxicity Ranking Analysis
40
CFR
Part
414
430
419
NA
440
420
418
415
421
455
Point Source Category
Organic Chemicals, Plastics And
Synthetic Fibers3
Pulp, Paper And Paperboard
Petroleum Refining
Drinking Water Treatment
Ore Mining And Dressing
Iron And Steel Manufacturing3
Fertilizer Manufacturing
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing3
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Pesticide Chemicals
TRI TWPE
148,000
651,000
681,000
1,640
1,230,000
82,900
6,670
327,000
42,900
374,000
DMR
TWPE
1,540,000
1,030,000
752,000
1,380,000
110,000
1,170,000
599,000
142,000
383,000
19,300
Total
TWPE
1,690,000
1,690,000
1,430,000
1,390,000
1,340,000
1,250,000
606,000
469,000
426,000
393,000
Cumulative
Percentage
of Total
TWPE
13.1%
26.3%
37.4%
48.2%
58.6%
68.4%
73.1%
76.7%
80%
83.1%
Rank
1
2
o
5
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6-1
-------
Section 6—Findings of the 2013 Annual Review and Preliminary 2014 Plan
Table 6-1. Results of EPA's 2013 Toxicity Ranking Analysis
40
CFR
Part
409
433
451
434
432
429
435
Point Source Category
Sugar Processing
Metal Finishing
Concentrated Aquatic Animal
Production
Coal Mining
Meat And Poultry Products
Timber Products Processing
Oil & Gas Extraction
Total TWPE for Categories in Top 95%
Total TWPE for All Point Source Categories
TRI TWPE
430
51,700
NA
564
39,100
32,300
NA
3,670,000
3,920,000
DMR
TWPE
373,000
265,000
292,000
189,000
119,000
98,600
106,000
8,570,000
8,930,000
Total
TWPE
374,000
317,000
292,000
189,000
158,000
131,000
106,000
12,300,000
12,900,000
Cumulative
Percentage
of Total
TWPE
86%
88.5%
90.7%
92.2%
93.4%
94.5%
95.3%
Rank
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Source: DMRLTOutput2011_vl and TRILTOutput2011_vl.
NA: Not Applicable.
a Categories with a subcategory currently under review or recently reviewed.
6.2 Proposed Actions for the Preliminary 2014 Plan
Based on public comments and other input received on the Preliminary 2012 Plan, EPA's
review of new data sources and information, and the supporting analyses conducted in its 2012
Annual Review, and the TRAs conducted in 2011 and 2013, EPA is proposing the following
actions:
• Study of Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities. EPA plans to conduct a
detailed study of CWT facilities accepting oil and gas extraction wastewater.
Although discharges from CWT facilities are regulated under 40 CFR Part 437, the
current regulations may not provide adequate controls for oil and gas extraction
wastewaters. As EPA noted in the Final 2010 ELG Plan and again in the
Preliminary 2012 ELG Plan, when injection is not a viable option for oil and gas
extraction wastewater disposal, operators may transfer this wastewater to a CWT
facility. In some cases, the CWT facility treats the oil and gas wastewater so that it
can be re-used in subsequent extractions. Others treat the wastewater and
subsequently discharge it to a publically owned treatment works (POTW) or to
surface waters. Many CWT facilities do not have treatment for some pollutants
present in oil and gas wastewaters (e.g., TDS, radionuclides) enabling these
pollutants to pass through the treatment system which may result in discharge to a
POTW or surface water. Based on more recent information collected by EPA, the
trend of sending oil and gas wastewaters to CWT facilities is increasing. Therefore,
EPA and some States are concerned about the transfer of oil and gas wastewaters to
CWT facilities and their subsequent discharge. EPA expects, as part of the study, to
collect data on the extent of CWT facilities accepting oil and gas extraction
wastewater, available treatment technologies (and their associated costs), discharge
6-2
-------
Section 6—Findings of the 2013 Annual Review and Preliminary 2014 Plan
type, financial characteristics of these CWT facilities, and the environmental impacts
of discharges from these CWTs.
Study of Petroleum Refineries. EPA plans to initiate a detailed study of Petroleum
Refineries (40 CFR Part 419). EPA's continued category review of petroleum
refining (40 CFR Part 419) toxic weighted discharges and review of new and revised
air regulations indicates that implementation of wet air-pollution controls, as well as
a changes in feedstock, may result in an increased discharge of metals from
petroleum refineries, potentially at concentrations above treatable levels. In addition,
EPA has determined that further review of dioxin and dioxin-like compound
discharges from petroleum refineries is appropriate to determine whether dioxin is
being discharged at concentrations above the 1613B Minimum Level (ML) and to
identify the primary source of the discharge (e.g., stormwater or process wastewater
from catalytic reforming and catalyst regeneration operations). Specifically, EPA
expects to use the study to determine whether petroleum refining warrants new or
revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs).
Continued Preliminary Category Review of Metal Finishing. EPA plans to
continue a preliminary categorical review of the Metal Finishing point source
category (40 CFR Part 433). EPA's review of Targeted National Sewage Sludge
Survey (TNSSS) data indicates that these facilities may be potentially discharging
high concentrations of metals, particularly chromium, nickel, and zinc, to publically
owned treatment works (POTWs). These metals could transfer to sewage sludge and
impact its beneficial use. Additionally EPA intends to consider changes that have
occurred in the metal finishing chemistry which may result in changes in pollutant
discharge characteristics.
Continued Population and Use of IWTT Database. EPA plans to continue to
collect industrial wastewater treatment technology data for the industrial wastewater
treatment technology (IWTT) database for use in future annual reviews. EPA expects
to use this database to identify whether specific industrial categories warrant further
review for new or revised ELGs, based on the range of available treatment
technology performance. As a specific next step, in its detailed study of petroleum
refining and continued categorical review of metal finishing, EPA plans to use the
data it has collected regarding the performance of treatment technologies that have
been applied to treat petroleum refining and metal finishing wastewaters,
respectively.
Continued Review of CAPs Chemicals. EPA plans to continue its review of the
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT's) Chemical Action Plan (CAP)
chemicals with the highest likelihood of industrial wastewater discharges.
Chemicals may include Benzidine dyes, Bisphenol A (BPA),
Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates,
Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs), Phthalates, Short-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins
(SCCPs), and Toluene Diamine and Methyl Diphenyl Diamine, which are hydrolysis
byproducts of Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI) and Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate
(MDI), respectively. EPA plans to work with OPPT regarding the chemicals
6-3
-------
Section 6—Findings of the 2013 Annual Review and Preliminary 2014 Plan
reviewed and available data to characterize their presence in industrial wastewater
discharges.
EPA does not intend to pursue further review of Penta, Octa, and
Decabromodiphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) because they are being phased out of U.S.
commerce or do not have significant wastewater discharges.
• Continued Review of Air Regulations. EPA plans, in future annual reviews, to
continue its review of industries for which air regulations may result in an
unregulated wastewater discharge.
• Continued Review of TRI Sectors Expansion. EPA plans to review available TRI
sector expansion data in future annual reviews to determine if new wastewater
hazard data are available and should be considered. Selenium discharges from
Phosphate Mines may be a new pollutant of concern.
• Continued Review of Analytical Methods. EPA identified several pesticides
measured by some of the approved pesticide analytical methods that do not currently
have effluent limits under the Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing, Formulating, and
Packaging ELGs (40 CFR Part 455). In future annual reviews EPA plans to evaluate
whether any of the unregulated pesticides have active ingredients that are
manufactured in the U.S. and if they are present in industrial wastewater discharges.
EPA is requesting public comment and input on these actions and next steps related to
specific industries or targeted pollutants and solicits any available data and information the
public and stakeholders may have to help inform these actions.
6.3 Additional Actions for the 2014 Annual Review
In the Final 2010 Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) Plan (76 FR 66286), EPA
solicited data and information from the public and all interested stakeholders on wastewater
discharges of nanosilver. In response to the solicitation, EPA received comments supporting an
EPA investigation into the potential environmental and human health risks from wastewater
discharges of nanosilver as well as other nanomaterials. However, commenters provided little or
no data or information regarding such potential risks.
As a part of its 2014 Annual Review of industrial wastewater discharges, EPA will report
on a methodology and interim findings of its investigation into the environmental toxicity and
industrial wastewater discharge of nanomaterials. In support of that investigation, EPA requests
public comment and stakeholder input relative to any information or data available on the
wastewater hazards and discharges associated with the manufacture of nanomaterials and their
use in manufacturing or formulating other products.
6-4
-------
Section 7—Summary Tables
7. SUMMARY TABLE OF FINDINGS FOR EXISTING GUIDELINE CATEGORIES FROM THE
2011,2012 AND 2013 ANNUAL REVIEWS
Table 7-1 summarizes the findings from EPA's 2011, 2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews of
existing point source categories. EPA uses the following codes to describe its findings and
potential next steps for each industrial category:
1. Effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for this industrial category were
recently promulgated or revised through an effluent guidelines rulemaking, or a
rulemaking is currently underway. Or, EPA recently completed a preliminary
study or a detailed study, and no further action is warranted at this time.
2. Revising the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards is not the best
tool to control toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges because most
discharges result from one or a few facilities in this industrial category. EPA will
consider assisting permitting authorities in identifying pollution-control and
pollution-prevention technologies for the development of technology-based
effluent limitations during the development of individual permits.
3. Not identified as a priority based on data available at this time because (1) the
category was not among industries that cumulatively compose 95% of discharges
as measured in units of TWPE in the 2011 and 2013 Annual Reviews, (2) EPA
did not identify during the 2011 and/or 2013 preliminary category reviews that
revisions to the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards are
warranted, or (3) EPA did not identify during the 2012 Annual Review that
revisions to the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards are
warranted.
4. EPA intends to start, or continue to conduct, a preliminary category review of the
pollutant discharges from this category.
5. EPA intends to start or continue either an in-depth category study of this industry
in its 2014 Annual Reviews to determine whether to identify the category for
effluent guidelines rulemaking.
6. EPA is identifying this industry for a potential revision of an existing effluent
guideline.
Table 7-1. Summary of Findings from EPA's 2011, 2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews of
Existing Industrial Categories
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Industry Category (listed alphabetically)
Airport Deicing
Aluminum Forming
Asbestos Manufacturing
Battery Manufacturing
Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetable Processing
Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Cement Manufacturing
40CFRPart
449
467
427
461
407
408
458
411
Findings
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
7-1
-------
Section 7—Summary Tables
Table 7-1. Summary of Findings from EPA's 2011, 2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews of
Existing Industrial Categories
No.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Industry Category (listed alphabetically)
Centralized Waste Treatment
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
Construction and Development
Copper Forming
Dairy Products Processing
Electrical and Electronic Components
Electroplating
Explosives Manufacturing
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Fertilizer Manufacturing
Glass Manufacturing
Grain Mills
Gum and Wood Chemicals
Hospitals
Ink Formulating
Inorganic Chemicals3
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Landfills
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Meat and Poultry Products
Metal Finishing
Metal Molding and Casting
Metal Products and Machinery
Mineral Mining and Processing
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Oil and Gas Extraction13
Ore Mining and Dressing
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers3
Paint Formulating
Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt)
Pesticide Chemicals
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Phosphate Manufacturing
40CFRPart
437
434
465
412
451
450
468
405
469
413
457
424
418
426
406
454
460
447
415
420
445
425
432
433
464
438
436
471
421
435
440
414
446
443
455
419
439
422
Findings
(5)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(l)and(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(1) and (3)
(2)
(1), (2), and (3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(5)
(3)
(3)
7-2
-------
Section 7—Summary Tables
Table 7-1. Summary of Findings from EPA's 2011, 2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews of
Existing Industrial Categories
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Industry Category (listed alphabetically)
Photographic
Plastic Molding and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Rubber Manufacturing
Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing
Steam Electric Power Generating
Sugar Processing
Textile Mills
Timber Products Processing
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Waste Combustors
40CFRPart
459
463
466
430
428
417
423
409
410
429
442
444
Findings
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
Codes ("(!") and "(3)") are used for this category. The first code ("(!)") refers to the recent effluent guidelines
rulemaking, and subsequent delisting for the Chlorinated and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH) manufacturing
sector, which includes facilities currently regulated by the OCPSF and Inorganic Chemicals effluent guidelines.
The second code ("(3)") indicates that the remainder of the facilities in these two categories do not represent a
hazard priority at this time.
Codes ("(!)" and "(3)") are used for this category. The first code ("(!)") refers to the ongoing effluent
guidelines rulemaking for shale gas extraction and EPA's review of the coalbed methane extraction sector of the
industry. The second code ("(3)") refers to category discharges of the oil and gas extraction industry, excluding
coalbed methane and shale gas extraction, that do not represent a hazard priority at this time.
7-3
-------
PART IV: REFERENCES FOR FINAL 2012 AND
PRELIMINARY 2014 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
PROGRAM PLANS
IV
-------
Section 8—References
8. REFERENCES
1. Auchterlonie. Steve. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Steve
Auchterlonie, Front St. Remedial Action, and Chris Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc.
"RE: Verification of magnitude and basis of estimate for dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds discharges in PCS." (March 13). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517-0076.
2. U.S. EPA. 1988a. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Interim Final. EPA-
540-G-89-006. OSWER Publication 9234.1-01. Washington, DC. (August). Available
online at: www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/pdf/540g-89006-s.pdf
3. U.S. EPA. 1988b. Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at
Superfund Sites. OSWER Directive 9283.1-2. EPA-540-G-88-003. (December).
Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/540g-88003-
s.pdf.
4. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing
Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories. EPA-
821-R-09-007. Washington, DC. (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517-0515.
5. U.S. EPA. 2010. U.S. EPANPDES Permit Writers' Manual. Washington, D.C.
(September). EPA-833-K-10-001. Available online at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/writermanual.cfm?program_id=45.
6. U.S. EPA. 2012a. 2011 Annual Review Report. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-821-
R-12-001. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824. DCN 07685.
7. U.S. EPA. 2012b. Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology. Washington, DC. (March).
EPA-HQ-OW-820-R-12-005. DCN 07501.
8. U.S. EPA. 2012c. Memorandum to the Record, Subj: Chlorine and Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon Data Collection and Analysis Summary. (February). EPA-HQ-OW-2010-
0824. DCN CCH00653.
9. U.S. EPA. 2013a. Economic Analysis for Existing and New Projects in the Coalbed
Methane Industry. Washington, DC. (July). EPA 820-R-13-006. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-
0824. DCN CBM00680.
10. U.S. EPA. 2013b. Technical Development Document for the Coalbed Methane (CBM)
Extraction Industry. Washington, DC. (April). EPA 820-R-13-009. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-
0824. DCN CBM00669.
11. U.S. EPA. 2014a. The 2012 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report. Washington D.C.
(September). EPA-821-R-14-004. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824. DCN 07933.
12. U.S. EPA. 2014b. The 2013 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report. Washington, DC.
(September). EPA-821-R-14-003. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170. DCN 07972.
8-1
------- |