&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan
May 2013
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (43 03 T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821-R-12-002
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
2. BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 The Clean Water Act and the Effluent Guidelines Program 2-1
2.2 Effluent Guidelines Planning and Review Requirements 2-2
2.3 Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Overview 2-3
2.3.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) —
CWA Sections 301(b)(l)(A) and 304(b)(l) 2-4
2.3.2 Best Conventional Pollution Control Technology (BCT) — CWA
Sections 301(b)(2)(E) and 304(b)(4) 2-5
2.3.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) — CWA
Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2) 2-5
2.3.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) — CWA Section 306 2-5
2.3.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) — CWA Section
307(b) 2-6
2.3.6 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) — CWA Section
307(c) 2-6
2.4 Results of the 2010 Annual Reviews 2-6
3. EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY 3-1
3.1 Summary of the 2011 Annual Reviews Methodology 3-1
3.1.1 Annual Reviews Procedure 3-5
3.1.2 Preliminary Category Review 3-6
3.1.3 Preliminary and Detailed Studies 3-7
3.2 Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 3-7
4. 2011 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND
STANDARDS AND RANKING OF POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES 4-1
4.1.1 Categories for Which EPA Is No Longer Considering Developing or
Revising ELGs 4-1
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
.2 Categories for Which EPA is Currently Revising ELGs 4-3
.3 Categories for Which EPA Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs 4-3
.4 Discharges Not Categorizable 4-4
.5 Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE 4-4
.6 Results of the 2011 Toxicity Ranking Analysis 4-5
.7 Summary of 2011 Preliminary Category Reviews 4-10
5. POTENTIAL CATEGORIES OF INDIRECT DISCHARGERS FOR PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS 5-1
5.1 Evaluation of Pass-Through and Interference of Toxic and Non-Conventional
Pollutants Discharged to POTWs 5-1
6. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND INPUT 6-1
7. USE OF OTHER EXISTING DATA IN EPA's 2012 ANNUAL REVIEWS 7-1
8. FINDINGS FROM EPA's 2011 ANNUAL REVIEWS 8-1
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
9. 2012 PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN CONCLUSIONS 9-1
10. INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM 10-1
11. REFERENCES 11-1
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3-1. Overview of SIC and NAICs Code Classification Systems 3-8
Table 3-2. TRI and DMR Data Utility and Limitations 3-9
Table 4-1. Point Source Categories That Have Undergone a Recent Rulemaking or Review 4-4
Table 4-2. Point Source Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE Discharges 4-6
Table 4-3. Final TRIRdeases2009 and DMRLoads2009 Combined Point Source Category
Rankings 4-7
Table 8-1. Findings from EPA's 2011 Annual Reviews of Industrial Categories 8-1
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2-1. Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges 2-4
Figure 3-1. Annual Review of Existing ELGs in 2011 3-2
Figure 3-2. Further Review of Existing ELGs in 2011 3-3
Figure 3-3. Identification of Possible New ELGs in 2011 3-4
Vlll
-------
Section 1—Executive Summary
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan ("Preliminary 2012 Plan"),
which is being prepared pursuant to Clean Water Act (CWA) section 304(m), identifies any new
or existing industrial categories selected for effluent guidelines rulemaking and provides a
schedule for such rulemaking. It also discusses the results of EPA's 2011 Annual Reviews of
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards, consistent with CWA sections 301(d), 304(b),
304(g), 304(m) and 307(b). It presents EPA's 2011 evaluation of indirect discharges without
categorical pretreatment standards to identify potential new categories for pretreatment standards
under CWA section 307(b). Finally, this Preliminary 2012 Plan provides EPA's findings and
conclusions on specific effluent guidelines actions that the Agency initiated in prior years and
introduces the methods used in EPA's 2012 Annual Reviews.
This Preliminary 2012 Plan and its conclusions are supported by EPA's 2011 Annual
Review Report, which presents the detailed results of EPA's 2011 Annual Reviews of existing
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards (U.S. EPA, 2012a). The 2011 Annual Review
Report explains how industry discharges were analyzed for the potential need for new or revised
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards and provides the basis for the conclusions made in
this Plan. The Report is a part of the Annual Review record and can be found at
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/304m/index.cfm (DCN 07685).
During the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA determined that discharges from 17 of the top 20
ranked industrial categories were not a hazard priority. These 17 categories were removed from
further analysis primarily because of data errors, which dropped them from the rankings, or
because the toxic weighted pound equivalent (TWPE) was from one facility and not
characteristic of the entire category.
EPA determined that additional review was necessary for three point source categories:
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430), Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419), and
Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432). Therefore, EPA continued to review these
categories' discharges during the 2012 annual review period and will report findings for these
three categories in its Final 2012 Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) Program Plan (Final
2012 Plan).
During 2011, a preliminary study was conducted on regenerated cellulose manufacturers,
which were identified during the 2006 and 2010 Annual Reviews as having high carbon disulfide
discharges. This study has concluded that a revision to the effluent guidelines for this industry is
not necessary for controlling discharges of carbon disulfide (CS2). The CS2 discharges are
primarily a single-facility issue that can be dealt with effectively and more appropriately through
permitting.
With respect to ongoing effluent guidelines revisions, EPA is proposing to delist from the
effluent guidelines plan the chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons (CCH) manufacturing
industry and to discontinue this rulemaking (See Section 4.1.1). EPA is also proposing to delist
the coalbed methane extraction industry and to discontinue its rulemaking based on new
information regarding the declining prevalence and economic viability of this industry, due in
large part to the extraction of natural gas from other sources. After reviewing financial data
pertaining to this industry (including natural gas price projections from the U.S. Energy
Information Administration), wastewater quality/quantity data and the cost of available
-------
Section 1—Executive Summary
wastewater treatment options, it appears that EPA may not be able to identify a wastewater
treatment technology that would be economically achievable for this industrial subcategory (See
Section 4.1.1).
EPA also considered public comments and information submitted by stakeholders in
response to a solicitation for comments on the Final 2010 Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG)
Program Plan (Final 2010 Plan), published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2011. The
Final 2010 Plan can be found at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201 l-10-26/html/2011-
27742.htm.
A total of 31 organizations provided comment on the Final 2010 Plan. Most of the public
comment and input submitted was focused on expressing opposition or support for the
announced rulemakings for shale gas extraction, coalbed methane extraction and dental
amalgam. A few comments provided a small amount of information and ideas on the 304(m)
planning process in general, nanomaterial discharges, the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals
and on the ore mining and dressing study report.
Based on the 2011 Annual Reviews and public comment and input, EPA has concluded
that no new industrial wastewater discharges present concerns that warrant new or revised
effluent guidelines at this time. Therefore at this time, EPA is not identifying any existing
effluent guidelines for revision, nor is EPA identifying any new industries for new effluent
guidelines, aside from ones currently undergoing rulemakings. EPA is also not identifying the
need for any new or revised pretreatment standards at this time, excluding those that are
currently under development.
EPA conducted its 2012 Annual Reviews during calendar year 2012 and will incorporate
its findings, along with the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews and respective public comment
and input, into its Final 2012 Plan.
1-2
-------
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
EPA's Office of Water is responsible for developing the programs and tools authorized
under the Clean Water Act (CWA), which enables EPA and the states to protect and restore the
Nation's waters. These programs and tools are generally focused on one of two types of controls:
(1) water-quality-based controls, such as water quality standards and water-quality-based
effluent limitations; or (2) technology-based controls, such as effluent guidelines and
technology-based effluent limitations.
The CWA gives states the primary responsibility for establishing, reviewing, and revising
water quality standards. 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.
On a parallel track to water quality standards, EPA also develops technology-based
effluent limitation 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 water-quality-based effluent limits, the effluent guidelines
program is not specifically designed to ensure that the discharge from each facility meets the
water quality standards of its receiving water body. For this reason, the CWA also requires states
to establish water-quality-based permit 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., and attaining the highest possible level of water
quality in the nation's waters. 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 at the point of discharge from industrial facilities and cover discharges
directly to surface water (direct discharges) and discharges to publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) (indirect discharges).
2.2 Effluent Guidelines Planning and Review Requirements
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), 304(g), and 307(b). This document explains how EPA uses
reported discharge data and other factors to conduct this review. 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).
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 2—Background
section. EPA's 2077 Annual Review Report presents the results of the section 304(b) reviews
(U.S. EPA, 2012a). EPA works to coordinate its annual reviews of existing effluent guidelines
under section 304(b) with its publication of the preliminary and final plans under CWA section
304(m). In other words, in odd-numbered years, EPA works to complete its annual reviews upon
publication of the preliminary plan that EPA publishes for public review and comment under
CWA section 304(m)(2). In even numbered years, EPA works to complete its annual reviews
upon the publication of the final plan. EPA's 2011 Annual Reviews represent the review cycle
conducted during calendar year 2011.
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 ELG revision for which EPA can
schedule rulemaking in the plans, 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
presenting to the public a description of 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. Therefore, by describing the 2011 Annual Reviews
along with the Preliminary 2012 Plan, EPA is able to gather and receive information that can be
used to inform its 2012 Annual Reviews and the Final 2012 Plan.
The Effluent Guidelines Program has helped reverse the water quality degradation that
accompanied industrialization in this country. Permits developed using the technology-based
industrial regulations are a critical element of the nation's clean water program and reduce the
discharge of pollutants that have serious environmental impacts, including pollutants that:
• Kill or impair fish and other aquatic organisms;
• Cause human health problems through contaminated water, fish, or shellfish; and
• Degrade aquatic ecosystems.
EPA has issued effluent guidelines for 57 industrial categories; these regulations apply to
between 35,000 and 45,000 facilities that discharge directly to the nation's waters, as well as
another 12,000 facilities that discharge to POTWs. The regulations have prevented the discharge
of more than 700 billion pounds of toxic pollutants each year.
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);
-------
Section 2—Background
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 United States
(direct dischargers), the limitations and standards promulgated by EPA are implemented through
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. See CWA sections 301(a),
301(b), and 402. For sources that discharge to POTWs (indirect dischargers), EPA promulgates
pretreatment standards that apply directly to those sources and are enforced by POTWs and state
and federal authorities. See CWA sections 307(b) and (c). Figure 2-1 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)
Existing
Sources
PSNS
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
BCT
• Conventional Pollutants
BAT
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
PSES
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
BPT
• Conventional Pollutants
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
Figure 2-1. Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges
2. 3.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) — CWA Sections
and304(b)(l)
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 (BOD5), 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 .
2-4
-------
Section 2—Background
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
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)
and 304(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).
2-5
-------
Section 2—Background
2.3.5 Presentment 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.
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.
2.4 Results of the 2010 Annual Reviews
EPA published its 2010 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs as part of the Final 2010 Plan
on October 26, 2011 (76 FR 27742). In view of the annual nature of its reviews of existing
ELGs, EPA believes that the annual reviews can and should influence succeeding annual reviews
(e.g., by indicating data gaps, identifying new pollutants or pollution reduction technologies, or
otherwise highlighting industrial categories for more detailed scrutiny in subsequent years). EPA
used the findings, data, and comments on the Final 2010 Plan to inform its 2011 Annual
Reviews. The 2010 Annual Reviews built on the previous reviews by continuing to use the
toxicity ranking analysis and incorporating some refinements in assigning discharges to
categories. EPA made similar refinements to the 2011 Annual Reviews.
2-6
-------
Section 3—Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
3. EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
This section provides a summary of the process EPA used in the 2011 Annual Reviews to
identify industrial categories for potential development of new or revised effluent limitations
guidelines and pretreatment standards (ELGs) and the data sources and limitations used to
complete this review. In future years in which EPA publishes a preliminary plan (i.e., odd-
numbered years), EPA intends to use this same process. This process consists of (1) reviewing
existing ELGs each year to identify candidates for revision, (2) identifying new categories of
direct dischargers for possible development of effluent guidelines, and (3) identifying new
categories of indirect dischargers for possible development of pretreatment standards. These
components are illustrated in Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-3 and discussed below.
3.1 Summary of the 2011 Annual Reviews Methodology
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.
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 the greatest environmental and health benefits.
EPA estimates the potential hazard of pollutant discharges in terms of toxic weighted pollutant
equivalent (TWPE) discussed in detail in Section 3.1.3 of EPA's 2011 Annual Review Report
(U.S. EPA, 2012a). To assess the effectiveness of pollution control, EPA examines the removal
of pollutants in terms of pounds and TWPE.
The second factor EPA considers is the performance and cost of applicable and
demonstrated wastewater treatment technologies, process changes, or pollution prevention
alternatives that could effectively reduce the 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.
3-1
-------
Section 3—Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
; Begin annual "^
review of existing
ELGs )
fc
?
\
\
1
Identify
applicable
SIC and
NAICS codes
for each point
source
category
Preliminary Results of Screening -Level
DMRLoads database rankings (Factor 1)
i
DMR & TRI
database tools
Stakeholder
recommendations
and comments
Stakeholder
recommendations
and comments
Are ELG revisions
currently
underway?
Have ELGs been
developed or
revised within the
past 7 years?
Are only a very few
facilities responsible
for overall category
TWPE?
When ranked by
TWPE, does category
contribute to top 95%
of cumulative TWPE
of all categories ?
Possible outcome
Further review
BPJ support
Identify for possible
revision of existing ELGs
No action
Are there identified
implementation and
efficiency issues
(Factor 4)?
Not a priority category ;
no further review at this
time
If EPA is aware of new segment growth within such a category or new concerns are identified , EPA may do further review .
Figure 3-1. Annual Review of Existing ELGs in 2011
3-2
-------
Section 3—Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
^Category identified forfurthen
v review (see Figure 3-1) J
\
Further review
Detailed studies
Preliminary study
Continue collecting data
(all four factors)
Not enough
information
Stakeholder input-
Are discharges
''adequately controlled'
by existing
ELGs?*
Yes
No further review at this
Are ELGs
potentially the
appropriate
tool?
time
J
Identify for possible
revision of ELGs
Identify othertools (e.g.,
permit-based support or
guidance)
*Continue further review if not enough data
Figure 3-2. Further Review of Existing ELGs in 2011
3-3
-------
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
Stakeholder recommendations
and comments
1
: Begin industry
identification
\ T >
J t '
DMR&TRI
database tools
R
Identify SIC/NAICS
codes with
discharges not
subject to existing
ELGs
Is the SIC/
NAICS code
appropriately
considered a potential
ew subcategory of a
existing ELG?
Include in annual review
of existing category (see
Figure 3-1)
No identification or
further review necessaryy
r ^/
Do
discharges interfere
with or otherwise pass
through POTW
operations?*
Are
discharges of toxic
or nonconventional
pollutants
trivial?*
Is the possible new
category all or nearly all
indirect dischargers?
Are ELGs potentially
the appropriate tool?
No identification or
further review necessary
f Identify other tools
I (e.g., permit-based
\support or guidance)
'Continue further review if not enough data.
/ Identify for possible \
•I new effluent guidelines j
\ or standards J
•+^_ ^.S
Figure 3-3. Identification of Possible New ELGs in 2011
3-4
-------
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
The third factor EPA considers is the affordability or economic achievability of the
wastewater treatment technology, process change, or pollution prevention measures identified
using the second factor. If the financial condition of the industry indicates that it would be
difficult to implement stringent new requirements, EPA might conclude that it would be more
cost-effective to adopt less stringent, less expensive approaches to reduce pollutant loadings that
would better satisfy applicable statutory requirements.
The fourth factor EPA considers is an opportunity to eliminate inefficiencies or
impediments to pollution prevention or technological innovation, or opportunities to promote
innovative approaches such as water quality trading, including within-plant trading. This factor
might also prompt EPA, during 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.
EPA has established ELGs to regulate wastewater discharges from 57 point source
categories and must annually review the ELGs for all of these categories. EPA first conducts a
toxicity ranking analysis of all categories subject to existing ELGs to prioritize the categories for
further review. The Agency then conducts another level of review, including possibly an in-
depth "detailed study," a somewhat less intense study - a "preliminary study," or an even less
detailed "preliminary category review," to identify existing categories for potential ELGs
revision.
3.1.1 Annual Reviews Procedure
The toxicity ranking analysis is the first step in the procedure for EPA's Annual Reviews,
which, in prior years, EPA has implemented every year. Starting in 2012, however, EPA began
conducting the toxicity ranking analysis every other year - only in the odd-numbered years. In
the even years EPA plans to evaluate public comments submitted on preliminary plans and will
use additional industrial hazard data sources, treatment technology information and other sources
of industrial wastewater information to supplement the toxicity ranking analysis to identify
unregulated industrial discharges or categorical regulations that should be considered for
revision. Where more data or analyses are needed for specific industrial categories, EPA will
continue its reviews of categories on an ongoing basis.
Section 3.2 of this report and Section 3 in the 2011 Annual Review Report provide details
on the methodology used in the toxicity ranking analysis (U.S. EPA, 2012a). EPA uses this step
to prioritize industrial categories for potential further review. In conducting the toxicity ranking
analysis, EPA considers the amount and toxicity of pollutants in a category's discharges and the
extent to which these pollutants pose a hazard to human health or the environment (Factor 1).
EPA conducts its toxicity ranking analysis using data from the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) and data from discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) contained in the Permit Compliance
System (PCS) and the Integrated Compliance Information System - National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES). EPA combines the DMR data from both PCS and ICIS-
NPDES in a database called DMRLoads. The Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
2009 Annual Screening-Level Analysis of TRI, ICIS-NPDES, and PCS Industrial Category
Discharge Data describes in detail the quality criteria EPA used to evaluate the TRI and DMR
data (ERG, 2009). TRI and DMR data do not identify the effluent guideline(s) applicable to a
particular facility. However, TRI includes information on a facility's North American Industry
-------
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
Classification System (NAICS) code, while DMR data include information on a facility's
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. Therefore, the first step in EPA's toxicity ranking
analysis is to relate each SIC and NAICS code to an industrial category.l The second step is to
use the information reported in TRI and DMR, for a specified year, to calculate the annual
pollutant discharges in pounds, including toxic, nonconventional, and conventional pollutants.
For indirect dischargers, EPA adjusts the facility discharges to account for removals at the
POTW. The third step is to apply TWFs2 to the annual pollutant discharges to calculate the total
discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants (reported in units of TWPE). EPA then sums
the TWPE for each facility in a category to calculate a total TWPE per category for that year.
EPA calculates two TWPE estimates for each category: one based on data in TRI and one based
on DMR data. EPA combines the estimated discharges of toxic and nonconventional pollutants
calculated from TRI and DMR data to estimate a single TWPE value for each industrial
category. EPA takes this approach because it found that combining the TWPE estimates from
TRI and DMR data into a single TWPE number offered a clearer perspective of the industries
with the most toxic pollution.3
EPA then ranks point source categories according to their total TWPE discharges. In
identifying categories for further review, EPA prioritizes categories accounting for 95 percent of
the cumulative TWPE from the combined databases (see Section 4.1.6). As Figure 3-1 shows,
EPA also excludes from further review categories for which an effluent guidelines rulemaking is
currently underway or for which effluent guidelines have been promulgated or revised within the
past seven years. EPA chose seven years because this is the typical length of time for the effects
of effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards to be fully reflected in pollutant loading data and
TRI reports. EPA also considers the number of facilities responsible for the majority of the
estimated toxic-weighted pollutant discharges associated with an industrial activity. Where only
a few facilities in a category account for the vast majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges,
EPA typically does not prioritize the category for additional review. In this case, EPA believes
that revising individual permits may be more effective in addressing the toxic-weighted pollutant
discharges than a national effluent guidelines rulemaking because requirements can be better
tailored to these few facilities and because individual permitting actions may take considerably
less time than a national rulemaking.
3.1.2 Preliminary Category Review
EPA may conduct a preliminary category review when it lacks sufficient data to
determine whether a regulatory revision would be appropriate and when it is further assessing
pollutant discharges before starting a preliminary study or detailed study. During preliminary
category reviews, EPA typically examines the following: (1) wastewater characteristics and
1 For more information on how EPA related each SIC and NAICS code to an industrial category, see Section 5.0 of
the 2009 Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of
Potential New Point Source Categories (U.S. EPA, 2009).
2 For more information on toxic weighting factors, see Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support ofCWA
304(m) Planning Process (U.S. EPA, 2006).
3 Different pollutants may dominate the TRI and DMR TWPE estimates for an industrial category due to the
differences in pollutant reporting requirements between the TRI and DMR databases. The single TWPE number for
each category highlights those industries with the most toxic discharge data in both TRI and DMR. Although this
approach could have theoretically led to double-counting, EPA's review of the data indicates that because the two
databases focus on different pollutants, double-counting is minimal and does not affect the order of the top-ranked
industrial categories.
3-6
-------
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
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 to fill in data gaps
(Factor 1). Next, EPA considers costs and performance of applicable and demonstrated
technologies, process changes, or pollution prevention alternatives that can effectively reduce the
pollutants in the point source category's wastewater (Factor 2). 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
(Factor 3). 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.
3.1.3 Preliminary and Detailed Studies
After conducting the preliminary category reviews, EPA may next conduct either
preliminary or detailed studies on industry categories to obtain more information on the hazard
posed, availability and cost of technology options, and 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.
3.2 Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations
As discussed in Section 2.1, the CWA requires EPA to do an annual review of existing
ELGs. It also requires EPA to identify industrial categories without applicable ELGs. EPA's
methodology for the 2011 Annual Reviews and new point source category identification involves
several components, as discussed in Section 3.1.
In performing the toxicity ranking analysis of existing ELGs and identifying industrial
categories without ELGs, EPA relies on DMR data (contained in PCS and ICIS-NPDES) and
TRI. This section discusses these databases, related data sources, and their limitations.
EPA has developed two toxicity ranking tools, the TRIReleases and DMRLoads
databases, to facilitate analysis of TRI and PCS/ICIS-NPDES data. EPA previously explained
the creation of these tools 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
-------
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
detailed methodology used to process thousands of data records and generate national estimates
of industrial effluent discharges.
The two toxicity ranking analyses categorize and calculate pollutant loadings using the
SIC and NAICS codes and toxic weighting factors (TWFs) in conjunction with DMR and TRI
data. EPA's Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, maintains a Toxics Database
compiled from over 100 references for more than 1,900 pollutants. The Toxics Database includes
aquatic life and human health toxicity data, as well as physical and chemical property data. EPA
calculates TWFs from these data to account for differences in toxicity across pollutants and to
provide the means to compare mass loadings of different pollutants. For more information on
TWFs, see EPA's Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology (U.S. EPA, 2012d). In its analyses,
EPA multiplies a mass loading of a pollutant in pounds per year by a pollutant-specific
weighting factor to derive a "toxic-equivalent" loading. (Throughout this document, the toxic-
equivalent is also referred to as TWPE.) EPA summed the estimated TWPE discharged by each
facility in a point source category to understand the potential hazard of the discharges from each
category. Table 3-1 provides information on the use of SIC and NAICS codes.
Table 3-1. Overview of SIC and NAICs Code Classification Systems
Data Source
SIC code
NAICS code
Primary Purpose
Developed to help with the
collection, aggregation,
presentation, and analysis of
data from the U.S.
economy.
Developed to better
represent the economic
structure of countries
participating in the North
American Free Trade
Agreement and to respond
to criticism about the SIC
code system.
Use
System used by many
government agencies,
including EPA, to
promote data
comparability.
System used for
industrial
classification purposes
at many government
agencies, including
EPA.
ELG Applicability
Regulations for an individual point
source category may apply to one
SIC code, multiple SIC codes, or a
portion of the facilities in a SIC
code. Therefore, EPA linked each
four-digit SIC code to an
appropriate point source category.
Regulations for an individual point
source category may apply to one
NAICS code, multiple NAICS
codes, or a portion of the facilities
in a NAICS code. Therefore, EPA
linked each six-digit NAICS code to
an appropriate point source
category.
Sources: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/sic.html and http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.
3-8
-------
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
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 all SIC codes
Includes data on conventional pollutants, for most
facilities
Includes data on nitrogen and phosphorus, for most
facilities
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
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
The majority of pollutant parameters are reported as a
group parameter,0 not individual compounds; this can
inaccurately estimate the toxicity of chemical releases
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)
c - Pollutants reported as a group parameter include total Kjeldahl nitrogen, oil and grease, etc.
For the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA made no changes to the calculation methodology of
the TRIReleases and DMRLoads databases. However, EPA identified numerous facility-specific
corrections for PCS and ICIS-NDPES data during previous toxicity ranking analyses reported for
-------
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
calendar years 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006-2008. The types of corrections previously identified
apply to the 2009 DMR data, which were used for the 2011 review. The following list presents
the types of corrections typically made to the DMR data during the annual toxicity ranking
analysis. For a detailed list of all corrections made to the 2009 DMR data, see Section 3.3.7 in
EPA's 2011 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2012a).
• Re-categorization of discharges, based on SIC codes, at a facility or pollutant
level for a specific point source category;
• Identification and deletion of internal monitoring points to avoid overestimation
of discharges;
• Identification and correction to the number of days for intermittent discharges to
avoid overestimation of monthly discharges;
• Exclusion of pollutant parameters that are reported in units that cannot be
converted to mg/L or kg/day for the load calculation (e.g., temperature, pH, fecal
coliform, whole effluent toxicity);
• Pollutant corrections made to discharges of specific pollutants resulting from
reasonable checks of the PCS CNVRT4 output (e.g., mercury total low-level
concentrations reported with incorrect units);
• Corrections resulting from evaluation of the completeness, accuracy,
reasonableness, and comparability of the PCS CONVRT and ICIS_NPDES
Convert Module outputs, load calculator routines (accuracy checks for database
queries in the DMR Loadings Tool), and the DMRLoads2009 database output;
and
• Corrections of facility-specific discharges resulting from the review of previous
database corrections, checking hand-calculated pollutant loads to determine
accuracy, and the review of PCS and ICIS-NPDES pipe description from EPA's
online Envirofacts data system, ICIS-NDPES supporting tables, or facilities'
NPDES permits and permit fact sheets.
Similar to the PCS and ICIS-NPDES data, EPA identified typical database errors in the
TRIReleases databases through previous years of toxicity ranking analyses from 2002 through
2008. Several of these corrections similarly apply to the 2009 TRI data, which were used for the
2011 review. The following list presents the types of corrections typically made to the TRI data.
For a detailed list of all corrections made to the 2009 TRI data, see Section 3.4.4 in EPA's 2011
Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2012a).
• Re-categorization of discharges, based on NAICS codes, at a facility or pollutant
level for a specific point source category and for facilities that are not identified
by a specific NAICS code;
4 For more information on the PCS CNVRT and ICIS-NPDES model outputs, see Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the
2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009).
3-10
-------
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process
• Corrections to specific pollutants based on previous screening-level reviews for
metal compounds, sodium nitrite, and phosphorus (yellow or white);
• Corrections as a result of a quality review of the TRIReleases database based on
completeness, accuracy, reasonableness, and comparability; and
• Facility-specific load corrections resulting from the review of previous database
corrections, the review of discharges from previous TRI reporting years, the
review of corresponding DMR data in PCS and ICIS-NPDES, if available, and
contacting the facility to verify pollutant discharges.
After incorporating the changes discussed above, EPA generated the final versions of the
TRIReleases and DMRLoads databases used for the 2011 toxicity ranking analysis:
TRIReleases2009_v2 and DMRLoads2009_v2. Section 4.1.6 provides more detailed information
on the 2011 final rankings.
3-11
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
4. 2011 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND
STANDARDS AND RANKING OF POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES
For the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA did the following:
• Conducted the 2011 toxicity ranking analysis and preliminary category reviews.
• Updated the reviews from previous years (i.e., revised the 2010 Annual Reviews
results with new or corrected data);
• Performed new research (i.e., contacted industry to verify discharges, conducted
literature searches, and collected additional data from site visits and state
permitting agencies); and
• Solicited and received information from stakeholders through public comments
and other stakeholder outreach (e.g., meetings with industry trade groups).
For the 2011 toxicity ranking analysis, EPA used the combined results of the
TRIReleases2009_v2 and the DMRLoads2009_v2 databases, discussed in Section 3.2 of this
document. When combining the results of these databases, EPA eliminated from further
consideration the results for the following:
• Discharges from industrial categories for which EPA is currently developing or
revising effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs);
• Discharges from point source categories for which EPA has recently (within past
seven years) promulgated or revised ELGs;
• Discharges from facilities that require an NPDES permit but do not fall into an
existing or new point source category or subcategory (eg, Superfund sites); and
• Discharges from facilities determined not to be representative of their category.
Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.5 discuss the rationale for EPA's decisions regarding existing
point source categories. Section 4.1.6 presents the final combined database rankings, which
represent the results of the 2011 toxicity ranking analysis.
4.1.1 Categories for Which EPA Is No Longer Considering Developing or Revising ELGs
In prior year reviews, EPA considered revisions to 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). Concurrent with the Preliminary 2012 Plan, EPA is proposing to
discontinue a revised ELG for facilities that produce chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons
(CCH).
The CCH Manufacturing Industry ELGs development began in March 2005 after being
selected in the 2004 304m Plan. In the 2004 304m plan, EPA selected the vinyl chloride (a type
of chlorinated hydrocarbon) manufacturing segment of the organic chemicals industry for
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
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 sampled 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, EPA is proposing 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 chloride already have wastewater treatment technology that
would potentially represent "best available technology" for the industry. EPA therefore believes
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,
2012b).
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. At this time EPA is proposing to
delist the coalbed methane extraction industry from the effluent guidelines plan based on new
information regarding the declining prevalence and economic viability of this subcategory, due
in large part to the increasing prevalence of natural gas extraction 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 coalbed methane extraction was a growing industry and
that there were available treatment technologies to address pollutants discharged by the industry.
However, since initiating the rulemaking, the data appear to be indicating otherwise. After
reviewing financial data pertaining to this industry (including natural gas price projections from
the U.S. Energy Information Administration), wastewater quality/quantity data and the cost of
available wastewater treatment options, it appears that EPA may not be able to identify a
wastewater treatment technology that would be economically achievable for this industrial
subcategory. Although potential treatment technologies may exist, these technologies do not
appear to be economically achievable due, in part, to the decrease in gas prices as a result of the
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
recent boom in development of shale gas resources. The data EPA evaluated to come to this
decision are available for review in the Federal Data Management System Docket EPA-HQ-OW-
2010-0824, available atwww.regulations.gov.
4.1.2 Categories for Which EPA is Currently Revising ELGs
EPA is currently working to 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 consideration under the 2011 Annual Reviews. EPA also promulgated
ELGs for wastewater from airport deicing, a new industrial category and is working on
pretreatment requirements for discharges of mercury from the Dental industry.
• EPA also indicated in its Final 2010 ELG Plan that it was initiating two separate
rulemakings to 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 in Section 4.1.1 above, EPA is now proposing to delist
the coalbed methane extraction industry from the effluent guidelines plan.
The following is EPA's current schedule for ELG actions:
Airport Deicing:
-Final ELG Rule Issued April 25, 2012
Steam Electric Power Generation:
-Proposed Rule April 2013
-Final Rule May 2014
Dental Amalgam: -Proposed Rule TBD
-Final Rule TBD
Unconventional Extraction in the
Oil and Gas Industry
-Proposed Rule 2014
4.1.3 Categories for Which EPA Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs
For the 2011 Annual Reviews and development of category rankings, EPA excluded
point source categories for which ELGs were recently established or revised but not yet fully
implemented, or were recently reviewed in a rulemaking context but 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 4-1
lists the categories EPA excluded from the 2011 reviews due to this seven-year period.
Removing a point source category from further consideration in the development of the
rankings does not mean that EPA eliminates the category from Annual Reviews. If EPA is aware
of the growth of a new segment within such a category or new concerns are identified based on
previously unevaluated pollutants discharged by facilities in the category, EPA will more closely
4-3
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
scrutinize the discharges from the category in deciding whether to consider it further during the
current review cycle. For example, EPA conducted the detailed study of the Coal Mining
Category (40 CFR Part 434) based on comments received on the Preliminary 2006 Plan,
although the Coal Mining ELGs were revised in January 2002.
Table 4-1. Point Source Categories That Have Undergone a Recent Rulemaking or
Review
40 CFR Part
450
122 and 4 12
Point Source Category
Construction and Development
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
Date of Rulemaking
December 1, 2009
November 20, 2008
4.1.4 Discharges Not Categorizable
EPA identified discharges that are not categorizable into existing or new point source
categories or subcategories. 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 below EPA determined that these discharges do not represent a point
source category and excluded these TWPE from the point source category rankings.
EPA determined that discharges from Superfund sites are too varied to be categorized
into a single point source category. In particular, these discharges vary by:
• Contaminants (e.g., metals, pesticides, dioxin);
• Treatment technologies (e.g., air stripping, granular activated carbon,
chemical/ultraviolet oxidation, aerobic biological reactors, chemical
precipitation); and
• Types of facilities causing groundwater contamination (e.g., wood treatment
facilities, metal finishing and electroplating facilities, drum recycling facilities,
mine sites, mineral processing facilities, radium processing facilities).
Moreover, the duration and volume of these direct discharges vary significantly due to
differences in aquifer characteristics and the magnitude, fate, and transport of contaminants in
aquifers and vadose zones. Currently at Superfund sites, permit writers determine technology-
based effluent limits using their best professional judgment (BPJ). EPA selects the remedial
technology and derives numerical effluent discharge limits. The permit must also contain more
stringent effluent limitations when required to comply with state water quality standards. EPA
finds that the current site-specific BPJ approach is workable and flexible within the context of a
Superfund cleanup.
4.1.5 Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE
EPA identified point source categories with significant TWPE where only one facility
was responsible for more than 95 percent of the TWPE reported to be discharged (see Table 4-2).
EPA identified 9 source categories where a single facility dominated the TWPE in the category.
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
EPA investigated these facilities to determine if their discharges were representative of the
category. Based on EPA's knowledge of the production, practices, raw materials used and
sources, wastewater characteristics, treatment, sampling data, and other information from the
literature, along with past examinations and experiences with the industry, EPA determined that
all of the pollutants discharged from these individual facilities were representative of their
respective industries. Therefore, the TWPE from those individual facilities were included in the
TWPE for the industrial category. If EPA had found an individual facility's releases to not be
representative of the pollutants discharged by the industrial category, the TWPE from that single
facility would be subtracted from the total category TWPE and the industrial category's ranking
would be recalculated.
4.1.6 Results of the 2011 Toxicity Ranking Analysis
After adjusting the category TWPE totals and rankings as described in Sections 4.1.1
through 4.1.5, EPA consolidated the 2009 DMR and TRI rankings into one set using the
following steps:
• EPA combined the two lists of point source categories by adding each category's
DMRLoads2009 TWPE and TRIReleases2009 TWPE5.
• EPA then ranked the point source categories based on total DMRLoads2009 and
TRIReleases2009 TWPE.
Table 4-3 presents the combined DMRLoads2009 and TRIReleases2009 rankings. These
are the final category rankings, accounting for all corrections made to the databases during the
2011 toxicity ranking analysis and removal of any categories and discharges as discussed in
Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.5.
5 EPA notes that this may result in "double-counting" of chemical discharges a facility reported to both PCS/ICIS-
NPDES and TPJ, and "single-counting" of chemicals reported in only one of the databases. Further, the combined
databases do not count chemicals that may be discharged but are not reported to PCS/ICIS-NPDES or TRI. See also
Footnote #3.
4-5
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
Table 4-2. Point Source Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE Discharges
Point Source Category
Coil Coating
Battery Manufacturing
Paint Formulating
Porcelain Enameling
Tobacco Products
Asbestos Manufacturing
Industrial Laundries
Photographic Processing
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Facility With Over
95% of Category
TWPE
Latasde Aluminio
Reynolds
New Eagle Picher Tech
LLC
Cook Composites &
Polymer
State Ind-Ashland Cty
The Sustainability Park
LLC
Honeywell Friction
Materials
Meritex, Inc - Hilton
Hotels
USGS— Eros Data
Center
Eramet Marietta Inc
Facility
Location
Guayama, PR
Joplin, MO
North Kansas
City, MO
Ashland City,
TN
Chesterfield
County, VA
Green Island,
NY
Portage, IN
Sioux Falls, SD
Marietta, OH
Data Source
DMR 2009
DMR 2009
DMR 2009
DMR 2009
DMR 2009
DMR 2009
DMR 2009
DMR 2009
TRI 2009
Pollutant Driving
TWPE
Sulfur
Silver
Copper
Lead
Ammonia as N
Aluminum
Ammonia as N
Ammonia as N
Manganese And
Manganese
Compounds
Facility
TWPE
218
176
66
35.1
4.55
3.55
0.212
0.0242
10,400
Percentage
of Total
Category
TWPE
100.0
95.3
98.4
100.0
100.0
97.8
100.0
100.0
98.8
Action
Did not remove load
from category TWPE.
Did not remove load
from category TWPE.
Did not remove load
from category TWPE.
Did not remove load
from category TWPE.
Did not remove load
from category TWPE.
Did not remove load
from category TWPE.
Did not remove load
from category TWPE.
Did not remove load
from category TWPE.
Did not remove load
from category TWPE.
Sources: DMRLoads2009 v2 and TRIReleases2009 v2.
4-6
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
Table 4-3. Final TRIReleases2009 and DMRLoads2009 Combined Point Source Category Rankings
40CFR
Part
430
418
419
414
433
435
420
445
421
440
463
415
429
436
432
434
437
455
467
410
444
458
471
439
451
411
464
Point Source Category
Pulp, paper and paperboard
Fertilizer manufacturing
Petroleum refining
Organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers
Metal finishing
Oil & gas extraction
Iron and steel manufacturing
Landfills
Nonferrous metals manufacturing
Ore mining and dressing
Plastics molding and forming
Inorganic chemicals manufacturing
Timber products processing
Mineral mining and processing
Meat and poultry products
Coal mining
Centralized waste treatment
Pesticide chemicals
Aluminum forming
Textile mills
Waste combustors
Carbon black manufacturing
Nonferrous metals forming and metal powders
Pharmaceutical manufacturing
Concentrated aquatic animal production
Cement manufacturing
Metal molding and casting (foundries)
TRIReleases2009
TWPE
956,000
9,550
436,000
146,000
86,100
NA
96,200
2,750
40,500
68,900
89,300
72,500
29,700
5,430
53,800
1,010
10,500
35,700
5,920
1,910
10,500
31,600
24,700
6,600
NA
957
6,970
DMRLoads2009
TWPE
287,000
902,000
295,000
541,000
197,000
238,000
134,000
219,000
174,000
139,000
87,500
51,300
91,200
80,100
17,200
65,800
40,500
10,000
33,800
37,200
27,900
66
4,330
14,400
18,600
17,000
6,180
Total TWPE
1,240,000
912,000
731,000
687,000
283,000
238,000
230,000
222,000
215,000
208,000
177,000
124,000
121,000
85,500
71,000
66,800
51,000
45,700
39,700
39,100
38,400
31,700
29,000
21,000
18,600
18,000
13,200
Cumulative
Percentage of Total
TWPE
20.4%
35.5%
47.5%
58.8%
63.5%
67.4%
71.2%
74.8%
78.4%
81.8%
84.7%
86.8%
88.8%
90.2%
91.3%
92.4%
93.3%
94.0%
94.7%
95.3%
96.0%
96.5%
97.0%
97.3%
97.6%
97.9%
98.1%
Rank
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4-7
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
Table 4-3. Final TRIReleases2009 and DMRLoads2009 Combined Point Source Category Rankings
40CFR
Part
469
422
424
428
NA
409
406
468
407
405
408
413
461
NA
417
460
438
442
425
443
NA
457
426
465
454
NA
Point Source Category
Electrical and electronic components
Phosphate manufacturing
Ferroalloy manufacturing
Rubber manufacturing
Miscellaneous foods and beverages
Sugar processing
Grain mills
Copper forming
Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables
processing
Dairy products processing
Canned and preserved seafood processing
Electroplating
Battery manufacturing
Printing & publishing
Soap and detergent manufacturing
Hospital
Metal products and Machinery
Transportation equipment cleaning
Leather tanning and finishing
Paving and roofing materials (tars and asphalt)
Independent and stand alone labs
Explosives manufacturing
Glass manufacturing
Coil coating
Gum and wood chemicals manufacturing
Food service establishments
TRIReleases2009
TWPE
2,580
229
10,500
7,470
3,900
215
6,190
4,730
4,130
3,560
180
2,870
1,680
71.2
1,710
NA
1,390
NA
1,240
744
80
22.1
335
164
52.3
NA
DMRLoads2009
TWPE
9,660
11,200
575
3,510
6,260
9,840
2,900
2,270
670
1,110
3,020
NA
185
1,740
88
1,760
54
1,360
6.94
220
868
670
284
218
317
305
Total TWPE
12,200
11,400
11,100
11,000
10,200
10,100
9,090
7,000
4,800
4,670
3,200
2,870
1,870
1,810
1,800
1,760
1,440
1,360
1,250
964
948
692
619
382
369
305
Cumulative
Percentage of Total
TWPE
98.3%
98.5%
98.7%
98.9%
99.1%
99.2%
99.4%
99.5%
99.6%
99.6%
99.7%
99.7%
99.8%
99.8%
99.8%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Rank
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
4-8
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
Table 4-3. Final TRIReleases2009 and DMRLoads2009 Combined Point Source Category Rankings
40CFR
Part
446
466
NA
447
427
NA
459
NA
Point Source Category
Paint formulating
Porcelain enameling
Tobacco products
Ink formulating
Asbestos manufacturing
Industrial laundries
Photographic
Photo processing
Total
TRIReleases2009
TWPE
202
18.7
22.9
4.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,280,000
DMRLoads2009
TWPE
67
35.1
4.55
2.06
3.63
0.212
0.0242
0.0242
3,790,000
Total TWPE
269
53.8
27.5
6.43
3.63
0.212
0.0242
0.0242
6,070,000
Cumulative
Percentage of Total
TWPE
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Rank
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Sources: TRIReleases2009_v2 and DMRLoads2009_v2.
NA: Not applicable.
4-9
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
4.1.7 Summary of 2011 Preliminary Category Reviews
EPA identified 20 industrial categories that cumulatively discharge more than 95 percent
of the combined DMRLoads2009 and TRIReleases2009 total TWPE. Below is a summary of the
findings from the 2011 preliminary category reviews, as explained in detail in the 2077 Annual
Review Report, starting with the highest-ranking category TWPE. EPA will incorporate into the
2012 Annual Review Report and Final 2012 Plan the results of any additional review and
assessments that it conducted during the 2012 annual review period related to these categories
where noted below.
• Pulp and Paper (40 CFR Part 430). EPA identified and corrected database
errors for discharges of aluminum (a top pollutant). EPA determined that
discharges of manganese and sulfide were all measured at concentrations below
treatable levels and do not present a hazard based on current data. EPA continued
reviewing dioxin for the category. EPA continued to review this category during
its 2012 annual review, including an assessment of information collected for this
industry related to the review of air pollution regulations.
• Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418). For this category, the top
pollutant, in terms of TWPE, is fluoride, which results mainly from two facilities
exempt from ELGs. Therefore, EPA believes these discharges do not represent
the category as a whole. Excluding these discharges removes the category from
the top 95 percent category rankings.
• Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419). EPA determined that PACs and sulfide
(top pollutants) in petroleum refining wastewater discharges were measured at
concentrations below treatable levels determined during the 2004 detailed study
and do not present a hazard based on current data. EPA also identified and
corrected an error in DMR chlorine (a top pollutant) discharges. EPA continued
reviewing dioxin and metals (top pollutants) during its 2012 annual review. EPA
also investigated the effect of new air pollution control technologies on
wastewater streams at petroleum refiners. EPA continued to review discharges
from the petroleum refining category, including using information collected from
this industry for air pollution rule development.
• OCPSF (40 CFR Part 414). EPA believes that polychlorinated biphenyls (a top
pollutant) are a legacy issue and warrant no further review at this time. EPA also
believes that discharges of hexachlorobenzene (also a top pollutant) are due to
database errors or are at concentrations that do not present a categorical issue.
After database corrections, the category TWPE is still high due to the number of
facilities and types of discharges. EPA therefore continued to review OCPSF
discharges in its 2012 annual review. Separate from rankings determinations, EPA
also continued to review a subset of this category for potential discharges of
perfluorinated compounds.
— Regenerated Cellulose Manufacturers. As a result of the 2011 preliminary
study of the regenerated cellulose manufacturers, EPA will categorize
4-10
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
these discharges under Part 414, OCPSF, for future annual reviews. The
preliminary study (DCN 7718) identified seven active regenerated
cellulose manufacturers in the United States. These facilities use carbon
disulfide in manufacturing regenerated cellulose. Although the study
found that carbon disulfide discharges are occurring at only one of these
facilities, EPA continued to investigate the question of how significant
concentrations of carbon disulfide (non-detectable concentrations to 17.1
mg/L) remain in the water, although carbon disulfide is highly volatile
(430 times more volatile than acetone, for example).
Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433). EPA identified and corrected database
errors for cyanide (a top pollutant) and reviewed silver and polychlorinated
biphenyls (also top pollutants), determining that they are likely accurate. PCBs
are likely present as a result of remediation activities rather than ongoing
manufacturing practices. After database corrections, the category TWPE is still
high due to the number of facilities, however, each individual facility's TWPE is
low. EPA thus continued to review metal finishing discharges during its 2012
annual review.
Oil and Gas Extraction (40 CFR Part 435).EPA believes that the majority of
the sulfide discharges are traceable primarily to one facility, and the permitting
authority has determined that their sulfide discharges are unique to that facility's
geologic formation. Excluding this discharger removes the category from the top
95 percent category rankings.
Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420). EPA identified and
corrected database errors for chlorine and chromium (top pollutants). EPA also
reviewed cyanide and aluminum (top pollutants) and determined that compliance
support or facility-specific permitting is appropriate to manage these discharges.
For cyanide, EPA found that one facility's cyanide discharges were beginning to
exceed their monthly permit limits. As documented in the Annual Review Report,
the exceedances appeared to continue in 2010 but were resolved in 2011 (U.S.
EPA, 2012a). For aluminum, the discharges result from stormwater associated
with industrial activity, not process wastewater. EPA also found that compliance
assistance was necessary to control aluminum discharges. EPA also reviewed
fluoride discharges (a top pollutant) and determined that the facility discharges
were not a hazard priority at this time. For additional details on the facilities
discharging cyanide, fluoride and aluminum, see Sections 9.4, 9.7, and 9.8 of
EPA's 2011 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2012a). After database
corrections, the category TWPE is still high due to the number of facilities. EPA
therefore continued to review iron and steel discharges during its 2012 annual
review.
Landfills (40 CFR Part 445). EPA identified database errors for copper, fluoride,
boron, manganese, and iron (top pollutants). Correcting these errors removes the
category from the top 95 percent category rankings.
4-11
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421). EPA identified and
corrected database errors for molybdenum (a top pollutant). EPA also identified
fluoride, lead, and calcium (top pollutants) discharges from individual
facilities. Fluoride discharges result from one facility, Horsehead Corporation, a
zinc smelter. EPA estimated that concentrations in the final effluent are still
higher than levels achieved by two-stage chemical precipitation with a lime
treatment system and is considering facility-specific permitting support to address
this facility's fluoride discharges. EPA continued to review fluoride discharges
from Horsehead Corporation.
Lead discharges result from one facility: Buick Resource Recycling, which
exceeded its maximum mass-based lead permit limits for all reporting periods in
2009 for stormwater outfalls 002 and 003. U.S. EPA's Office of Civil
Enforcement has identified compliance and operation problems with the Buick
facility, owned by Doe Run, and is already addressing the lead discharges.
Cadmium discharges result from three facilities, Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc., and two
Doe Run lead smelters (Glover and Herculaneum). EPA's Office of Civil
Enforcement already identified compliance and operation problems with the two
Doe Run facilities and is already addressing these facilities' discharges. Nyrstar
exceeded its monthly average permit limits for one month in 2009, and the back-
calculated cadmium concentrations are above levels that can be achieved with
treatment. The existing regulations already set limits for cadmium; therefore, EPA
recommends facility-specific permitting to control cadmium discharges at this
facility.
Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440). EPA has DMR data for 80 of the
roughly 2,252 U.S. ore mines. Fourteen of these 80 compose the majority of the
pollutant loading, and EPA studied these fourteen in 2010 as part of the Ore
Mining and Dressing Preliminary Study (U.S. EPA, 201 Ib). The 2009 DMR data
are consistent with data in the 2010 Preliminary Study, and EPA found that
discharges for this category (represented by the small number of facilities) are
best managed through facility-specific permitting assistance (U.S. EPA, 201 Ib).
Plastics Molding and Forming (40 CFR Part 463). EPA reviewed carbon
disulfide discharges from cellulose products manufacturers as part of a
preliminary study. As a result of the 2011 preliminary study of the regenerated
cellulose manufacturers, EPA will categorize these discharges as OCPSF for
future annual reviews. These discharges are, therefore, being removed from the
Plastics Molding and Forming category.
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415). For this category, the
top pollutants, in terms of TWPE, are manganese and dioxin, which result mainly
from TRI data from three titanium dioxide manufacturing facilities. Two of the
titanium dioxide manufacturers reported large discharges of manganese in the
2009 TRI database, accounting for 65 percent of the manganese TWPE (23,300).
One of these has since shut down many operations, including the process
4-12
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
expected to generate manganese and dioxin, and a second facility had a process
upset in 2009, causing the manganese release. One titanium dioxide manufacturer
reported dioxin discharges that account for 86 percent (11,700) of the category's
dioxin TWPE (13,800) in TRIReleases2009_v2. As part of its NPDES permit, this
facility has installed additional solids removal and is required to further decrease
its dioxin releases. Therefore, EPA found that these discharges do not represent
the category as a whole and would best be managed by facility-specific permitting
and compliance assistance.
Timber Products Processing (40 CFR Part 429). EPA identified and corrected
reporting errors for the top facilities reporting discharges of copper and dioxin
(top pollutants). Correcting this reporting error removes the category from the top
95 percent category rankings.
Mineral Mining and Processing (40 CFR Part 436). EPA identified and
corrected database errors for cadmium and chlorine (top pollutants) discharges.
EPA also reviewed fluoride (top pollutant) discharges from mines in North
Carolina and Florida. EPA determined that these discharges did not represent the
category as a whole, and thus no further review is necessary.
Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432). EPA determined that further
review of nitrate (a top pollutant) is necessary and, therefore, continued the
review of this category during the 2012 annual review period.
Coal Mining (40 CFR Part 434). EPA identified and corrected flow errors for
the top facilities reporting discharges of manganese and iron (top pollutants).
Correcting these errors removes the category from the top 95 percent category
rankings.
Centralized Waste Treaters (40 CFR Part 437). EPA identified and corrected a
reporting error for the top facility in Louisiana reporting discharges of
hexachlorobenzene (a top pollutant). Correcting this reporting error removes the
category from the top 95 percent category rankings. (Also see Section 5.1 for a
discussion of EPA's concerns regarding the discharge of unconventional oil and
gas extraction wastewaters from CWTs.)
Pesticide Chemicals (40 CFR Part 455). EPA identified and corrected a
reporting error for the top facility in Texas reporting discharges of
polychlorinated biphenyls (a top pollutant). Correcting this reporting error
removes the category from the top 95 percent category rankings.
Aluminum Forming (40 CFR Part 467). EPA identified and corrected a
reporting error for the top facility in West Virginia reporting discharges of lead (a
top pollutant). Correcting this reporting error removes the category from the top
95 percent category rankings.
4-13
-------
Section 4—2011 Annual Review
Textile Mills (40 CFR Part 410). EPA determined that discharges of sulfide (a
top pollutant) from facilities in the Carpet Finishing and Knit Fabric subcategories
compose the majority of the discharge TWPE associated with this category.
Existing regulations for these subcategories include ELGs for sulfide (best
practicable technology currently available, best available control technology
economically achievable, and new source performance standards). EPA
confirmed that the discharged concentrations of sulfide (as high as 25.89 mg/L)
exceed levels that available treatment technologies can achieve. Facility-specific
permitting assistance may be warranted to determine if existing ELGs are being
properly applied.
4-14
-------
Section 5—Pretreatment Review
5. POTENTIAL CATEGORIES OF INDIRECT DISCHARGERS FOR PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS
5.1 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
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 effluent limitations guidelines (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
5-1
-------
Section 5—Pretreatment Review
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
establish 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:
(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).
EPA reviewed TRI data in order to identify industry categories without categorical
pretreatment standards that are discharging pollutants to POTWs that may pass through, interfere
with or otherwise be incompatible with POTW operations (see DCN 04247). This review did not
identify any such industrial categories (excluding the industrial categories for which the
development of pretreatment standards is currently underway). EPA also evaluated stakeholder
comments and pollutant discharge information in the previous Annual Reviews to inform this
review. In particular, on the 2004, 2006, and 2008 304m plans, commenters raised concerns
about discharges of emerging pollutants of concern such as endocrine disrupters and mercury
discharges from dentists and health care facilities and urged EPA to consider establishing
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for such discharges. In response to these
comments, EPA initiated the Health Care Industry Detailed Study in its 2006 Annual Review.
Since then, EPA announced the dental amalgam rulemaking to regulate mercury discharges from
dentists' offices in the Final 2010 Plan.
In addition, due to new industry developments, EPA announced its intention to develop
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for unconventional oil and gas extraction (coalbed
methane and shale gas extraction) in the Final 2010 Plan. EPA noted in that Plan that when
injection and re-use are not viable options for unconventional oil and gas wastewater disposal,
operators may dispose of this wastewater by sending it to private centralized waste treatment
facilities (CWTs). Many CWTs employ equalization, bulk solids removal and biological
treatment similar to POTWs. These treatment technologies are not designed to treat high levels
of total dissolved solids (TDS), naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM), or high levels
of metals. EPA is concerned that these pollutants may not be getting adequate treatment by
CWTs. In addition, 90% of CWTs discharge to POTWs there by raising concerns of pass-
through or interference at the POTWs. EPA will explore potential approaches for addressing
5-2
-------
Section 5—Pretreatment Review
these concerns, including appropriate controls on discharges derived from unconventional oil and
gas extraction wastewaters either to or from CWTs.
5-3
-------
Section 6—Public Comments
6. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND INPUT
EPA's annual review process considers information provided by stakeholders regarding
the need for new or revised effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards. Public
comments received on EPA's prior reviews and Plans helped the Agency prioritize its analysis of
existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards during the preliminary 2012 review.
EPA published the Final 2010 Plan and provided a 30-day public comment period
starting on October 26, 2011 (see 76 FRN 27742). The public comment period was re-opened for
an additional 60 days from December 27, 2011 to February 27, 2012. The Docket accompanying
this notice includes a complete set of all of the comments submitted, as well as the Agency's
responses (see DCN 07715). The Agency received 31 sets of comments on the Final 2010 Plan.
Commenting organizations representing industry included the Silver Nanotechnology
Working Group, Independent Petroleum Association of America, Coalbed Methane Association
of Alabama, American Petroleum Institute, Marcellus Shale Coalition, Range Resources,
LAMNIPipe Inc., Cabot Specialty Fluids Limited, Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., National
Mining Association, and Reynolds Metals Company.
Three environmental groups commented, including the Coalition for SafeMinds, Natural
Resources Defense Council and The Clean Water Action.
Seven sanitation districts or publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) groups also
commented, including the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services, National Association of Clean Water Agencies, Southern
California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works, and Metropolitan Sewer District of
Greater Cincinnati.
Five states, municipalities, or state representing organizations, also commented, including
the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, the State of Alabama Office of the Attorney General, Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality, the Geological Survey of Alabama and the Association of
Clean Water Administrators.
Four organizations, including a Representative of the U.S. Congress, submitted requests
for a 60-day comment period extension. EPA received comments from one private citizen,
addressing oil and gas issues in parts of Southern California as well as other industrial
discharges.
Comments were distributed among the following subject areas, in order of abundance:
• Coalbed Methane and Shale Gas Extraction (16 comments)
• Dental Amalgam (8 comments)
• Nanomaterials (3 comments)
• Health Care Industry - (unused pharmaceuticals) (2 comments)
• Ore Mining and Dressing (2 comments)
• Effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) and Plan process in general (1 comment)
6-1
-------
Section 6—Public Comments
• Other (3 comments)
For coalbed methane, there were four comments that do not support an ELG rulemaking;
three comments that do support an ELG rulemaking; and one comment that provided details on a
treatment technology for coalbed methane produced water.
For shale gas extraction, there was one comment that did not support a shale gas
extraction ELG rulemaking; five comments supporting a shale gas extraction ELG rulemaking;
three comments supporting a rulemaking for shale gas extraction pretreatment standards; and two
comments stating that POTWs alone cannot sufficiently treat shale gas extraction wastewater. Of
these, one comment urged EPA to consider a faster, non-traditional approach to regulations to
both protect the environment and prevent market confusion.
Six commenters asked EPA to consider only best management practices (BMPs) and not
implement numerical limits for Dental Amalgam in order to minimize the POTW burden. There
were four comments stating that standards should apply only to POTWs which discharge to
mercury-impaired receiving waters; four comments stating that dental offices should not be
classified as significant industrial users (SIUs); two comments stating that dental offices covered
by existing programs should be grandfathered in; two comments suggesting EPA should take a
leading role in convening a volunteer National Amalgam Separator Review Committee; two
comments stating that the federal pretreatment program design is not flexible enough to be
adaptable to state/local resources and that it should not be used for a dental amalgam rule; and
one comment stating that state and local programs for regulating dental amalgam already exist,
and it is unnecessary to change regulations.
For nanomaterials, there was one comment supporting an ELG to regulate discharges of
nanomaterials; one comment not supporting an ELG; and one comment providing nanomaterials
data.
For the Health Care industry, in particular the management of unused pharmaceuticals,
EPA received one comment stating that old style ELGs should not be used to regulate discharges
of unused pharmaceuticals; and one comment that recommended more research on ethyl mercury
discharges from unused pharmaceuticals.
For the Ore Mining and Dressing category, there were two comments questioning the
data presented in the Ore Mining Preliminary Study; and one comment supporting EPA's
decision not to move forward with revision to 40 CFR Part 440 ELGs.
One commenter suggested improvements to the ELGs and 304m process in general,
including concerns about shifting away from technology-based regulations because total reliance
on water quality standards is not effective; and that the 304m vision should be expanded because
all potential problems need to be considered, including those that may be covered by
departments other than the Office of Water. The commenter also stated that the metal finishing
category should be reexamined due to significant changes in the industry over the last few years.
A more detailed summary table of the comments can be found in the 2011 Annual Review
Report (U.S. EPA, 2012a). EPA carefully considered all public comments and information
6-2
-------
Section 6—Public Comments
submitted in developing the Preliminary 2012 Plan. A comment response document is also
available at (DCN 07715).
6-3
-------
Section 7—Other Information
7. USE OF OTHER EXISTING DATA IN EPA's 2012 ANNUAL REVIEWS
The current annual review methodology, described in Section 3.1, enables EPA to review
and rank category discharges on a national level based on the toxicity of their discharges.
Beginning in 2012, EPA initiated a DMR and TRI toxicity ranking analysis every other year, in
the odd-numbered years. EPA has determined that the results of the toxicity ranking analysis
using DMR and TRI data does not vary much from year to year, as would be expected since TRI
data and DMR data does not change much on an annual basis. For the 2012 Annual Reviews,
and for subsequent even-year reviews, EPA plans to use additional data sources to enable
targeted annual reviews of industrial discharges. For example, EPA investigated four new data
sources for its 2012 annual reviews:
• ID Pass-Through Pollutants: Sewage Sludge. EPA determined that examining
sewage sludge for pollutants associated with industrial activity may identify new
pollutants or industry categories that require further review. EPA reviewed the
Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey (TNSSS), which includes data on
pollutants of concern in sewage sludge. EPA examined other pollutants6
discharged to POTWs from industrial dischargers for potential interference (i.e.,
land application denials) based on publicly available data. EPA also examined
recent contamination issues associated with the beneficial reuse of biosolids (i.e.,
perfluorinated chemicals). For more information on the TNSSS see-
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/biosolids/tnsss-overview.cfm.
• ID New Pollutants/Industries Via EPA's Toxic Chemical Control Programs.
EPA reviewed data and plans from its Toxic Chemical Control Programs for new
industrial categories or potential new pollutants of concern not currently
regulated.
• Identify New Waste Streams from Air Pollution Control. Recent changes to
air regulations at the federal, state and local level may lead to new air pollution
controls. Some air pollution controls have the potential to generate new or
changed wastewater streams with new pollutants of interest. For example, the wet
scrubbers for flue-gas desulfurization at steam electric generating plants generate
a wastewater stream that is not currently regulated by the Part 423 guideline for
steam electric. In 2012 EPA assessed implementation of current air programs to
determine any similar trends in wet air pollution control and resulting wastewater
discharges.
• Identify New Industries: Potential TRI Expansion Sectors. EPA examined
TRI Program data and information available as part of the consideration of recent
expansion sectors. Currently, these sectors include Iron Ore Mining, Phosphate
Mining, Steam Generation from Coal and/or Oil, Petroleum Bulk Storage, Solid
Waste Combustors and Incinerators, and Large Dry Cleaning. EPA reviewed the
6 Pollutants to be examined include: benzo(a)pyrene; 2-methylnaphthalene; bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate; fluoride;
water-extractable phosphorus; polybrominated diphenyl ethers; and Pharmaceuticals, steroids, and hormones.
-------
Section 7—Other Information
collected data with previous reviews of applicable industries to consider if further
review of these industries is necessary.
Following this approach in 2012, in 2013, EPA will again use TRI and DMR data in the
toxicity ranking analysis as the primary basis for the 2013 Annual Reviews. As explained earlier
in this Preliminary Plan, the Annual Reviews build on the previous year's reviews, and EPA will
consider appropriate and available information to fulfill its annual review requirements.
7-2
-------
Section 8—Findings
8.
FINDINGS FROM EPA's 2011 ANNUAL REVIEWS
For the 57 existing point source categories, Table 8-1 presents the results of the 2011
annual reviews. EPA uses the following codes to describe the results for each industrial category:
1. Effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for this industrial category were
recently 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 necessary at this time.
2. Revising the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards is not the best
tool for this industrial category because most of the toxic and non-conventional
pollutant 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 (e.g., not among
industries that cumulatively compose 95% of discharges as measured in units of
TWPE).
4. EPA intends to start or continue either a preliminary or detailed study of this
industry in its 2012 Annual Reviews to determine whether to identify the category
for effluent guidelines rulemaking.
5. EPA is continuing to conduct a preliminary category review of the pollutant
discharges because incomplete data are currently available to determine whether
to conduct a preliminary study, a detailed study or to identify the category for
possible revision.
6. EPA is identifying this industry for a revision of an existing effluent guideline.
Table 8-1. Findings from EPA's 2011 Annual Reviews of Industrial Categories
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Industry Category (listed alphabetically)
Aluminum Forming
Asbestos Manufacturing
Battery Manufacturing
Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetable Processing
Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Cement Manufacturing
Centralized Waste Treatment
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)
40CFRPart
467
427
461
407
408
458
411
437
434
465
412
Findings
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(3)
(3)
(1)
8-1
-------
Section 8—Findings
Table 8-1. Findings from EPA's 2011 Annual Reviews of Industrial Categories
No.
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
47
48
49
50
Industry Category (listed alphabetically)
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
Photographic
Plastic Molding and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Rubber Manufacturing
40CFRPart
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
459
463
466
430
428
Findings
(3)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(1) and (3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(5)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(1) and (3)
(2)
(1), (2), and (3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(5)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(5)
(3)
8-2
-------
Section 8—Findings
Table 8-1. Findings from EPA's 2011 Annual Reviews of Industrial Categories
No.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Industry Category (listed alphabetically)
Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing
Steam Electric Power Generating
Sugar Processing
Textile Mills
Timber Products Processing
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Waste Combustors
40CFRPart
417
423
409
410
429
442
444
Findings
(3)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
Codes ("(!") and "(3)") are used for this category. The first code ("(!)") refers to the ongoing effluent
guidelines rulemaking for the Chlorinated and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH) manufacturing sector, which
includes facilities currently regulated by the OCPSF and Inorganics 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 coalbed methane sectors of the industry (although EPA is
proposing to discontinue the ELG revision for coal bed methane). 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.
8-3
-------
Section 9—Conclusions
9. 2012 PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN CONCLUSIONS
Based on the 2011 reviews and public comments and input, EPA has not identified any
new or existing industrial wastewater discharges that warrant new or revised effluent guidelines
at this time. Therefore, EPA is not identifying any existing effluent guidelines for revision, nor is
EPA identifying any new industries for new effluent guidelines, excluding those effluent
guidelines rulemakings that are currently under development. EPA has also not identified the
need for any new or revised pretreatment standards, excluding those that were previously
identified and are currently undergoing effluent guidelines actions.
In prior year reviews, EPA considered revisions to 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 is proposing to delist the chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons
manufacturing industry from the effluent guidelines plan and to discontinue the rulemaking for
this industry as described in more detail in Section 4.1.1.
EPA also considered revisions to ELGs for Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category
(40 CFR Part 135) to address discharges from coalbed methane. EPA is also proposing to delist
the coalbed methane extraction industry from the effluent guidelines plan and to discontinue the
rulemaking as discussed in Section 4.1.1 and is soliciting public comment on this.
EPA is working together with the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) on an EPA-
State Pilot on Improving Regulatory Implementation. Through the Pilot, EPA and the States plan
to work together on the effluent limitations guidelines revisions for unconventional oil and gas
extraction. The purpose of the Pilot is to identify potential implementation issues early in the
process of EPA regulation development and to identify opportunities for addressing such issues
during the regulation development. States are often in a unique position to anticipate such
implementation issues and opportunities for dealing with them. Opportunities might consist of
tools, processes, analyses, plans, communications, and/or strategies that can be considered or
developed during rule development.
During 2011, a preliminary study was conducted on regenerated cellulose manufacturing,
identified during the 2010 Annual Reviews as having high carbon disulfide discharges. (In the
2010 Annual Reviews, these facilities were assigned to the Plastic Molding and Forming
Category (40 CFR Part 463), but were later correctly defined as regenerated cellulose
manufacturers under the OCPSF category due to their process characteristics). This study
indicates that a revision to the effluent guidelines for this category is not necessary for
controlling discharges of carbon disulfide (CS2). The CS2 discharges are primarily a single-
facility issue that can be dealt with more appropriately and effectively through permitting.
EPA conducted its 2012 Annual Reviews during calendar year 2012 and will incorporate
the findings from the 2012 reviews, along with the findings and results reported in this
Preliminary 2012 Plan and the 2011 Annual Review Report, and from public comment and input,
into its Final 2012 Plan.
9-1
-------
Section 10—Innovation and Technology
10. 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.
In October, 2011, EPA released the document entitled; Technology Innovation For
Environmental and Economic Progress: An EPA Roadmap, (U.S. EPA, 2012c) which is intended
to accelerate EPA's actions for leading and enabling environmental technology innovation. The
Roadmap framed EPA's vision for technology innovation by stating:
"EPA promotes innovation that eliminates or significantly reduces the use of toxic
substances and exposure to pollutants in the environment and that also promotes growth
of the American economy. Building upon EPA 's history of scientific and technological
expertise and innovation, the Agency seeks out prospective technological advances that
have the greatest potential to help achieve multiple environmental goals. Working in
partnership with EPA 's diverse set of stakeholders, the Agency speeds the design,
development and deployment of the next generation of environmental technologies,
creating a cleaner environment and a stronger economy for our nation and the world. "
The roadmap lays out a portfolio of policy, regulatory, financial and other actions that,
taken together, will institutionalize and promote technology innovation along the entire
continuum of technology development and deployment.
This Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Plan represents 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 is requesting
public comment and ideas on this subject. EPA seeks 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 57 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?
10-1
-------
Section 11—References
11. 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. ERG. 2009. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
2009 Annual Screening-Level Analysis of TRI, ICIS-NPDES, and PCS Industrial
Category Discharge Data. Chantilly, VA. (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517-0507.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. U.S. EPA. 2006. Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support ofCWA 304(m)
Planning Process. Washington, DC. (June). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1634.
6. 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.
7. U.S. EPA. 2010. U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers'Manual. Washington, DC.
(September). EPA-833-K-10-001. Available online at:
http ://cfpub .epa.gov/npdes/writermanual. cfm?program_id=45.
8. U.S. EPA. 2011a. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan. Washington, DC. (September). EPA-HQ-820-R-10-021.
9. U.S. EPA. 2011 b. Ore Mining and Dressing Preliminary Study Report. Washington, D. C.
(December). EPA-821-R-08-012. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517. DCN 07369.
10. U.S. EPA. 2012a. 2011 Annual Review Report. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-821-
R-12-001. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824. DCN 07685.
11. U.S. EPA. 2012b. Memorandum to the Record, Subj: Chlorine and Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon Data Collection and Analysis Summary. (February). EPA-HQ-OW-2010-
0824. DCN CCH00653.
12. U.S. EPA. 2012c. Technology Innovation For Environmental And Economic Progress:
An EPA Roadmap. (April).
11-1
-------
Section 11—References
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100EDIO.PDF. EPA 190-S-12-003. DCN
07721.
13. U.S. EPA. 2012d. Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology. Washington, DC. (March).
EPA-HQ-OW-820-R-12-005.
14. U.S. EPA. 2013 a. 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.
15. 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.
11-2
------- |