&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Final 2014 Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan
July 2015
-------
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-15-002
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
-------
Table of Contents
TABLE OF 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 Review and Planning Process 2-3
2.2.1 Annual Review Process 2-4
2.2.2 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans 2-9
2.3 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Overview 2-10
2.3.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) —
CWA Sections 301(b)(l)(A) and 304(b)(l) 2-11
2.3.2 Best Conventional Pollution Control Technology (BCT) — CWA
Sections 301(b)(2)(E) and 304(b)(4) 2-12
2.3.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) — CWA
Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2) 2-12
2.3.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) — CWA Section 306 2-12
2.3.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) — CWA Section
307(b) 2-12
2.3.6 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) — CWA Section
307(c) 2-13
3. 2014 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY 3-1
3.1 Summary of the 2014 Annual Review Methodology 3-1
3.1.1 Public Comments on the Preliminary 2014 Plan and Stakeholder Input 3-1
3.1.2 Continued Review of Selected Industrial Categories 3-1
3.1.3 New Data Sources and Additional Supporting Analyses 3-3
3.2 Categories Excluded from EPA's 2014 Annual Review 3-4
3.2.1 Categories for Which EPA Has Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs 3-4
3.2.2 Discharges Not Categorizable 3-5
3.3 Data Quality Assurance and Limitations 3-5
3.3.1 Data Sources Supporting New or Continued Analyses 3-6
3.3.2 DMR and TRI Data 3-7
4. RESULTS OF THE 2014 ANNUAL REVIEW 4-1
4.1 Findings from Public Comments and Stakeholder Input 4-1
4.2 Findings from Continued Review of Select Industrial Categories 4-4
4.3 Findings from New Data Sources and Additional Supporting Analyses 4-5
5. FINAL 2014 PLAN DECISIONS AND ACTIONS 5-1
5.1 Industries Previously Identified for Further Review for Which EPA is Taking
No Action 5-1
IV
-------
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5.2 Industries for Which EPA is Currently Undertaking an ELG Rulemaking 5-2
5.2.1 EPA's Current Schedule for ELG Actions 5-2
5.3 Industries for Which EPA Is Currently Conducting Further Study 5-3
5.3.1 Continued Detailed Study of the Petroleum Refining Category (40 CFR
Part 419) 5-3
5.3.2 Continued Detailed Study of CWT Category (40 CFR Part 437) 5-4
5.3.3 Continued Evaluation of Cook Inlet, Alaska Oil and Gas Requirements 5-4
5.3.4 Actions from the 2014 Annual Review 5-5
6. SUMMARY TABLE OF FINDINGS FOR EXISTING GUIDELINE CATEGORIES FROM
THE 2014 ANNUAL REVIEW 6-1
7. REFERENCES FOR THE FINAL 2014 PLAN 7-1
-------
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3-1. Point Source Categories That Have Undergone Recent Rulemaking 3-4
Table 3-2. TRI and DMR Data Utility and Limitations 3-8
Table 6-1. Summary of Findings from EPA's 2014 Annual Review of Existing
Industrial Categories 6-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2-1. Odd-Year Annual Review of Existing ELGs 2-6
Figure 2-2. Odd-Year Identification of Possible New ELGs 2-7
Figure 2-3. Even-Year Annual Review of Existing ELGs and Identification of Possible
New ELGs 2-8
Figure 2-4. Further Review of Industrial Categories Identified During Annual Reviews 2-9
Figure 2-5. Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges 2-11
VI
-------
Section 1—Executive Summary
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (Final 2014 Plan), prepared pursuant
to Clean Water Act (CWA) section 304(m), 33 U.S.C. § 1314(m), identifies any new or existing
industrial categories selected for effluent guidelines rulemakings and provides a schedule for
such rulemakings. It also discusses the results of EPA's 2014 Annual Review of effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards, consistent with CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and
304(m), and it includes EPA's evaluation of indirect discharge categories that do not have
categorical pretreatment standards for the purpose of identifying potential new categories for
which pretreatment standards under CWA section 307(b) might be warranted.
Based on the 2014 Annual Review and public comment, EPA has concluded that no
additional industries 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 an effluent guidelines rulemaking, aside from those currently undergoing a
rulemaking (revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the Steam Electric
Power Generating Category and for the Canned and Preserved Seafood Category covering the
Alaskan seafood processing subcategories).
EPA is also not identifying the development of any new or revised pretreatment standards
at this time, excluding those that are currently under development (pretreatment standards for the
Dental Category and the Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Category).
However, EPA plans to continue its review and/or study of several industrial categories
or pollutant groups to determine if new or revised effluent guidelines are warranted. These
industrial categories include Petroleum Refining, Centralized Waste Treatment (CWTs), Metal
Finishing, Pesticide Chemicals, Engineered Nanomaterials Manufacturing and Formulating
(ENMs), and Oil and Gas Extraction in Cook Inlet, Alaska.
The Final 2014 Plan and its conclusions are supported by EPA's 2014 Annual Effluent
Guidelines Review Report (2014 Annual Review Report) (U.S. EPA, 2015), which builds on
prior reviews and uses new hazard data sources and additional supporting analyses to identify
new pollutants of concern and wastewater discharges in industrial categories not currently
regulated by ELGs. Annual Review Reports for prior years are a part of the Annual Review
record and can be found at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/304m/index.cfm.
During the 2014 Annual Review, EPA followed up on several proposed actions identified
in the Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans (Final 2012 and
Preliminary 2014 Plans) (U.S. EPA, 2014a). Specifically, EPA continued the following reviews:
(1) preliminary review of the Metal Finishing Point Source Category; (2) targeted review of
pesticide active ingredients (PAIs), for which the discharge from manufacturing is not currently
regulated under the Pesticide Chemicals ELGs; and (3) review of brick and structural clay
products manufacturing. EPA also initiated an investigation of the manufacture and processing
of ENMs as a potential new source of industrial wastewater discharges. Additionally, EPA
continued its collection of industrial wastewater treatment technology performance data for the
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology (IWTT) Database.
1-1
-------
Section 1—Executive Summary
From the 2014 Annual Review, EPA determined that continued reviews are warranted for
two regulated point source categories: Metal Finishing and Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing.
The manufacture and processing of ENMs also warrant further review. Specifically, EPA
determined the following:
• EPA's continued preliminary review of the Metal Finishing Category identified
several topics that warrant further investigation. These include: (1) potential new,
unregulated pollutants of concern that are being used more commonly in metal
finishing processes; (2) the prevalence of potential pollutants of concern
associated with wastewater generated from the use of wet air pollution control
devices at metal finishing operations; (3) the availability and use of advanced
wastewater treatment technologies; and (4) the prevalence of zero discharge
practices in the industry. As a result, EPA plans to continue this review through a
preliminary study of the Metal Finishing Category.
• EPA plans to continue its targeted review of PAIs for which the discharge from
manufacturing is not currently regulated under the Pesticide Chemicals ELGs.
EPA will use production information reported under Section 7 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as well as facility National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit applications, fact
sheets, and permits for the PAI-producing facilities, to determine which PAIs are
produced in the U.S. and are present in industrial wastewater discharges from
pesticide chemicals manufacturing.
• Research and information to date suggest that industrial wastewater discharges
may contain ENMs, which may have impacts on human health and the
environment. From its initial review, EPA identified four main areas of research
appropriate to better assess the potential presence and impact of ENMs in
industrial wastewater: (1) development of standard methods and sampling
techniques to detect and characterize ENMs in industrial wastewater; (2)
evaluation of the toxic impacts of ENMs in industrial wastewater, taking into
consideration their relevant forms and concentrations; (3) identification of the
universe of facilities, production values, and waste associated with the
manufacturing and processing of ENMs; and (4) evaluation and characterization
of the fate, transformation, and treatment of ENMs in industrial wastewaters. EPA
plans to continue to monitor ongoing research in these areas in future annual
reviews and collect any new information on the discharge of ENMs as it becomes
available.
EPA determined that further review of brick and structural clay products manufacturing
is not warranted at this time because wet scrubber use (which EPA identified as a potential new
source of industrial wastewater discharge from this industry) is limited to a very few facilities.
See Section 4.2 of this Plan as well as Section 5.3 of the 2014 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA,
2015), for more details regarding EPA's findings related to this industry.
As part of the 2014 Annual Review, EPA also summarized the information captured to
date in its IWTT Database, including treatment system and performance data from 98 research
articles that cover 35 industrial categories, 142 pollutant parameters, and 53 individual types of
-------
Section 1—Executive Summary
treatment technologies. EPA plans to continue adding industrial wastewater treatment
technology data into IWTT for use in future annual reviews. EPA will use this database to
identify whether specific industrial categories warrant further review for new or revised ELGs,
based on the range of available treatment technology performance.
As announced in the Preliminary 2014 Plan, EPA has also begun a study of the
Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) industry. The study evaluates facilities that accept oil and
gas extraction wastewaters to determine if the existing ELGs are adequately controlling
pollutants found in the wastewaters. EPA has collected existing data and plans to visit sites,
conduct monitoring, and gather additional data in the coming year.
Also announced in the Preliminary 2014 Plan, EPA has begun a study of the Petroleum
Refining industry. The study will determine if changes that the industry has experienced since
the ELGs were last revised, including the use of heavier crude and wet air pollution controls,
make updates to the existing ELGs, including pretreatment standards, appropriate. The study will
also investigate whether pollution prevention or wastewater treatment methods are available to
reduce pollutants present in the industrial wastewater. As part of the study, EPA plans to collect
updated industry profile data, recent discharge data, and NPDES permit information. EPA also
plans to conduct site visits and will collect additional information from industry, EPA regions,
states, and literature sources.
EPA also considered public comments and information submitted by stakeholders in
response to a solicitation for comments on the Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program
Plan (Preliminary 2014 Plan), published together with the Final 2012 Plan in the Federal
Register on September 16, 2014 (79 FR 55472). These Plans can be found at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-09-16/html/2014-22062.htm.
A total of 12 comment letters were received on the Preliminary 2014 Plan. The majority
of the public comments either supported or did not support studies relating to the CWT Category,
the Petroleum Refining Category, and the Metal Finishing Category, which EPA announced in
the Preliminary 2014 Plan. Two commenters expressed support for EPA's continued
investigation into the presence and impact of ENMs in industrial wastewater. See Section 4 for a
more detailed summary of the public comments received on the Preliminary 2014 Plan.
Additionally, a table of the comments, including commenter name, commenter organization, and
a short summary of the comment can be found in the 2014 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA,
2015).
1-3
-------
Section 2—Background
2. BACKGROUND
This section explains how the Effluent Guidelines Program fits into EPA's National
Water Program, describes the general and legal background of the Effluent Guidelines Program,
and summarizes EPA's process for making effluent guidelines revision and development
decisions (i.e., effluent guidelines planning).
2.1 The Clean Water Act and the Effluent Guidelines Program
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is based on the principle of cooperative federalism, with
distinct roles for both EPA and the states, in which the goal is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. To that end, the Act is
generally focused on two types of controls: (1) water-quality-based controls, based on water
quality standards; and (2) technology-based controls, based on effluent limitations guidelines and
standards (ELGs).
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), 33 U.S.C. § 1314(a), which states may
adopt or modify as appropriate to reflect local conditions.
EPA is responsible for developing technology-based ELGs, based on currently available
technologies, for controlling industrial wastewater discharges. ELGs apply to pollutant
discharges from industrial facilities directly to surface water (direct discharges) and to publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) (indirect discharges). For sources discharging directly to
surface waters, 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 — must incorporate EPA-promulgated limitations and standards into discharge
permits, where applicable (U.S. EPA, 2010). Categorical pretreatment standards are directly
enforceable.
While technology-based effluent limitations and standards in discharge permits are
sometimes as stringent as, or more stringent than necessary to meet water quality standards, the
effluent guidelines program is not specifically designed to ensure that the discharges from each
facility meet the water quality standards of its receiving water body. For this reason, the CWA
also requires authorized states to establish water-quality-based effluent limitations where
necessary to meet water quality standards. Water-quality-based limits may require industrial
facilities to meet requirements that are more stringent than those in a national effluent guideline
regulation. In the overall context of the CWA, ELGs 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 amendments to the 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. 125 l(a)). Before 1972, the CWA focused principally on water
-------
Section 2—Background
quality standards. This approach was challenging, however, because of the difficulty in
determining whether a specific discharger, or combination of dischargers, was responsible for
decreasing the water quality in a receiving stream.
The 1972 CWA directed EPA to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines and standards
that reflect pollutant reductions achievable by categories or subcategories of industrial point
sources through the implementation of available treatment and prevention technologies. The
ELGs 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, ELGs 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 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.
In passing the CWA, Congress viewed the creation of a single national pollution control
requirement for each industrial category, based on the "best" technology the industry can afford,
as a way to reduce the potential creation of "pollution havens" and set the nation's sights on
eliminating pollutant discharge to U.S. waters. Consequently, EPA's goal in establishing national
ELGs 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 and
standards representing the performance of the "best" pollution control technologies or pollution
prevention practices. ELGs 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.
The Effluent Guidelines Program has helped reverse the water quality degradation that
accompanied industrialization in this country. Permits developed using the technology-based
industrial regulations are a critical element of the nation's clean water program and reduce the
discharge of pollutants that have serious environmental impacts, including pollutants that:
• Kill or impair fish and other aquatic organisms;
• Cause human health problems through contaminated water, fish, or shellfish; and
• Degrade aquatic ecosystems.
EPA has promulgated effluent guidelines for 58 industrial categories (see Table 6-1
below; all 58 industrial categories are described at
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/history.cfm). These regulations apply to between
35,000 and 45,000 facilities that discharge directly to the nation's waters, as well as another
12,000 facilities that discharge to POTWs. Based on estimates of pollutant reductions from each
separate guideline, EPA has estimated that the regulations, cumulatively, have prevented the
discharge of approximately 700 billion pounds of toxic pollutants annually.
2-2
-------
Section 2—Background
2.2 Effluent Guidelines Review and Planning Process
In addition to establishing new regulations, the CWA requires EPA to review existing
effluent guidelines annually. EPA reviews all point source categories subject to existing effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards to identify potential candidates for revision, consistent
with CWA sections 304(b), 301(d), 304(m)(l)(A) and 304(g). EPA also reviews industries
consisting of direct-discharging facilities not currently subject to effluent guidelines to identify
potential candidates for effluent guidelines rulemakings, pursuant to CWA section 304(m)(l)(B).
Finally, EPA reviews industries consisting entirely or almost entirely of indirect-discharging
facilities that are not currently subject to pretreatment standards, to identify potential candidates
for pretreatment standards development under CWA sections 307(b).
In the effluent guidelines planning process, EPA is guided by the following goals:
• Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
nation's waters; and
• Provide transparent decision-making and involve stakeholders early and often
during the planning process.
EPA uses four major factors to prioritize existing effluent guidelines or pretreatment
standards for possible revision. These factors were developed in EPA's draft National Strategy,
described at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/strategy/fs.cfm.
The first factor EPA considers is the amount and type of pollutants in an industrial
category's discharge and the relative hazard posed by that discharge. Using this factor enables
EPA to prioritize rulemakings to achieve significant environmental and health benefits.
The second factor EPA considers is the performance and cost of applicable and
demonstrated wastewater treatment technologies, process changes, or pollution prevention
alternatives that could effectively reduce pollutant concentrations in the industrial category's
wastewater and, consequently, reduce the hazard posed by these pollutant discharges to human
health or the environment.
The third factor EPA considers is the affordability or economic achievability of the
wastewater treatment technology, process change, or pollution prevention measures identified
using the second factor. If the financial condition of the industry indicates that it would not be
affordable to implement expensive and stringent new requirements, EPA might conclude a less
stringent, less expensive approach to reduce pollutant loadings would better satisfy applicable
statutory requirements.
The fourth factor EPA considers is an opportunity to eliminate inefficiencies or
impediments to pollution prevention or technological innovation, or opportunities to promote
innovative approaches such as water-quality trading, including within-plant trading. This factor
might also prompt EPA, during annual reviews, to decide against revising an existing set of
effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards where the pollutant source is already efficiently and
effectively controlled by other regulatory or non-regulatory programs.
2-3
-------
Section 2—Background
2.2.1 Annual Review Process
EPA's annual review process includes an odd- and even-year annual review cycle, to
address cohesively and comprehensively the factors laid out in EPA's draft National Strategy. In
the odd-year reviews, EPA screens industrial dischargers through a toxicity ranking analysis
(TRA) that identifies and ranks those categories whose reported pollutant discharges pose a
substantial hazard to human health and the environment (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). For the
TRA, EPA relies on discharge monitoring report (DMR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
data to rank industrial discharge categories by toxic-weighted pound equivalents (TWPE)
released.
In the even years, EPA reviews additional hazard data sources and conducts alternate
analyses to enhance the identification of industrial categories for which new or revised ELGs
may be appropriate, beyond those that traditionally rank high in the TRA. This is consistent with
the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) recommendation that EPA's annual review
approach include additional industrial hazard data sources to augment its screening-level review
of discharges from industrial categories.1 Furthermore, EPA recognizes the value in considering,
in the screening phase, the availability of treatment technologies, process changes, or pollution
prevention practices that can reduce the identified hazards. Specifically, in its even-year reviews,
EPA is targeting new data sources that will provide information on other considerations not
previously captured as part of the TRA, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Industrial process changes;
• Emerging contaminants of concern;
• Advances in treatment technologies and pollution prevention practices;
• Availability of new, more sensitive analytical methods; and
• Other hazard data and information not captured through the TRA and/or
suggested by stakeholders or by public comments.
Figure 2-3 illustrates the even-year review process. See Section 3 of this Final 2014
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (Final 2014 Plan), for details on the methodology used
specifically for EPA's 2014 Annual Review.
EPA also conducts a more detailed preliminary category review of those industrial
discharge categories that rank highest in terms of TWPE (i.e., pose the greatest potential hazard
to human health and the environment) in the TRA, or are identified as warranting further review
during the even-year analyses. If EPA determines that further review is appropriate for an
industrial category, EPA may complete a preliminary or detailed study of the point source
category (see Section 2.2.1.1 and Section 2.2.1.2, respectively), which may eventually lead to a
new or revised guideline.
1 GAO's recommendations for the review of additional hazard data sources were published in GAO's September
2012 report, Water Pollution: EPA Has Improved Its Review of Effluent Guidelines but Could Benefit from More
Information on Treatment Technologies, available online at http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/647992.pdf.
24
-------
Section 2—Background
2.2.1.1 Preliminary Category Reviews
For the industrial categories with the highest hazard potential identified in the TRA, or
identified as a priority from any of the even-year review analyses, EPA may conduct a
preliminary category review, particularly if it lacks sufficient data to determine whether
regulatory action would be appropriate, as illustrated in Figure 2-4. EPA may complete
preliminary category reviews as part of the annual review cycle, depending on the industrial
categories warranting review at that time. In its preliminary category reviews, EPA typically
examines the following: (1) wastewater characteristics and pollutant sources, (2) the pollutants
driving the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges, (3) availability of pollution prevention and
treatment, (4) the geographic distribution of facilities in the industry, (5) any pollutant discharge
trends within the industry, and (6) any relevant economic factors. First, EPA attempts to verify
the toxicity ranking results and fill in data gaps. Next, EPA considers the factors that may be
contributing to these discharges. These include, for example, changes in the production practices,
costs, and performance of applicable and demonstrated technologies, or pollution prevention
alternatives that can effectively reduce the pollutants in the point source category's wastewater.
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 the following: (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. If a
preliminary category review reveals that the reports of toxic discharges are correct, not
geographically isolated, and likely to be the result of the production practices in use broadly
throughout the category, EPA may decide to conduct a preliminary or detailed study prior to
initiating a rulemaking. In many cases, the information and data gathered for a study forms the
basis of information used for the rulemaking. However, in some instances, EPA may decide not
to move forward with a rulemaking following a study, if the data and information gathered
indicates that a new or revised guideline is not warranted. Regardless of the outcome, EPA
announces to the public and other stakeholders decisions to conduct studies, or to develop
rulemakings, in the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. When a rulemaking is determined
appropriate, schedules are also announced in the Plan.
2.2.1.2 Preliminary and Detailed Studies
After conducting the preliminary category reviews, as shown in Figure 2-4, EPA may
then conduct either a preliminary or detailed study of an industrial category. Typically, these
studies profile an industry category, gather information about the hazards posed by its
wastewater discharges, collect information about availability and cost of treatment and pollution
prevention technologies, assess the financial status of the facilities in the category, and
investigate other factors 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,
-------
Section 2—Background
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 analysis conducted during a
preliminary category review or study, and may include primary data collection activities (such as
industry questionnaires and wastewater sampling and analysis) to fill data gaps.
Begin odd-year review
of existing ELGs
Preliminary results of Toxicity Rankings Analysis
= Combined TRIReleases and DMRLoads
database rankings (Factor 1)
<- DMR&TRI
database
tools
Stakeholder
recommendations
and comments
Evaluation of treatment technology performance data
Stakeholder recommendations and comments
Not a priority category,
no further review at this time
Not a priority
category, no
further
review at this time
Are ELG revisions
currently
underway?
Have
ELGs been
developed or revised
within the past 7
ears?
Not a priority
category, no further
review at this time*
Are
non-representative
facilities responsible for
overall category
TWPE?
Not a priority
category,
but may recommend
permitting support
for individual facilities
When ranked
by TWPE, does category
contribute to top 95% of
cumulative TWPE of al
categories?
Further review
(see Figure 2-4)
Possible outcomes
-Further review
-BPJ support
-Identify for
possible
revision of existing
ELGs
-No action
Are there
identified implementation
and efficiency
issues (Factor 4)?
* If EPA is aware of new segment growth within such a category or new concerns are identified, EPA may do
further review.
Figure 2-1. Odd-Year Annual Review of Existing ELGs
2-6
-------
Section 2—Background
Stakeholder recommendations
and comments
Identify SIC/NAICS codes
with discharges not subject
to existing ELGs
Is the SIC/NAICS code
appropriately considered a
otential new subcategory
fan existing ELG?
Include in annual review
of
existing category
(see Figure 2-1)
Begin industry
identification
No identification or
further review necessary
Do
discharges interfere
with or otherwise pass
through POTW
operations?
Are pollutants
potentially present at
significant
concentrations?*
Is the possible new
category all or nearly all
indirect dischargers?
No identification or
further review
necessary
Identify other tools
(e.g. permit-based
support or guidance
Are ELGs the
appropriate tool?
Further review
(see Figure 2-4)
* Significant concentrations include levels above minimum levels from 40 CFR Part 136 or other EPA-approved
methods, levels above treatability levels, or at levels of concern to human health and toxicity.
Figure 2-2. Odd-Year Identification of Possible New ELGs
2-7
-------
Section 2—Background
Begin even-year review
of hazard data sources and
treatment technology
performance data
Continued review from
odd-year (as necessary)
Identify industries with
pollutant
discharges not previously
reviewed
Stakeholder
recommendations
and comments
Collect additional data from
industry groups, published
reports from EPA, and peer-
reviewed publications
Are pollutants
potentially present at
significant
concentrations?*
Determine if an
existing industry point source
category is applicable
to discharges
Do ELGs
appropriately
regulate all pollutant
ischarges identified
Not a priority
category, no
further
review at this time
Further review
see Figure 2-4)
Not a priority
category, no further
review at this time
* Significant concentrations include levels above minimum levels from 40 CFR Part 136 or other EPA-approved
methods, levels above treatability levels, or at levels of concern to human health and toxicity.
Figure 2-3. Even-Year Annual Review of Existing ELGs and Identification of Possible
New ELGs
2-8
-------
Section 2—Background
Category identified for further
review (see Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2
v
Not enough
information
Further Review
- Preliminary category
review
- Preliminary or detailed
study
(continue collecting data
covering all four factors)
Stakeholder
input
Are discharges
adequately controlled
by existing ELGs?
No further review at this time
Identify for possible
promulgation or revision
of ELGs
Are ELGs potentially
the appropriate tool?
Identify other too Is (e. g.,
permit-based support or guidance)
Figure 2-4. Further Review of Industrial Categories Identified During Annual Reviews
2.2.2 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans
CWA section 304(m)(l)(A) requires EPA to publish an Effluent Guidelines Program
Plan (Plan) every two years that establishes a schedule for the annual review and revision, in
accordance with section 304(b), of the effluent limitations guidelines that EPA has promulgated
under that section. EPA's 2014 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report (2014 Annual Review
Report) presents the results of its effluent limitations guidelines reviews (U.S. EPA, 2015).
Under the even- and odd-year annual review approach described above in Section 2.2.1,
EPA works to coordinate its annual reviews of existing effluent guidelines under section 304(b)
with its publication of Preliminary and Final Plans under CWA section 304(m). As a result, Final
Plans present the compilation of the odd- and even-year reviews and any public comments
received on the Preliminary Plan. EPA may initiate, continue, or complete preliminary category
reviews or in-depth studies during the odd- or even-year reviews, depending upon when it
2-9
-------
Section 2—Background
identifies a category warranting further review. Additionally, EPA may publish the conclusions
from these studies as part of the Preliminary or Final Plan, based on when during the planning
cycle the study or review is completed.
EPA coordinates 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 each review year's results may inform the content of the Preliminary and
Final Plans (e.g., by identifying candidates for effluent limitations guidelines revision, or by
identifying point source categories for which EPA has never promulgated effluent limitations
guidelines). Second, even though it is not required to do so under either section 304(b) or section
304(m), EPA believes it can serve the public interest by periodically describing the annual
reviews (including the review process used) and review results to the public. Doing so while
simultaneously publishing the Preliminary and Final Plans makes both processes more
transparent. Third, by requiring EPA to review existing effluent limitations guidelines each year,
Congress appears to have intended for each successive review to build upon the results of earlier
reviews.
2.3 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Overview
The effluent guidelines program is one component of the Nation's clean water program,
established by the 1972 Clean Water Act and subsequent amendments. The effluent guidelines
program is authorized under CWA sections 301, 304, 306, and 307, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1314,
1316, 1317. In summary, the CWA directs EPA to promulgate categorical regulations through
the following six levels of control:
1. Best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
2. Best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
3. Best conventional control technology (BCT).
4. New source performance standards (NSPS).
5. Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
6. Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
For point sources that discharge pollutants directly into surface waters (direct
dischargers), the limitations and standards promulgated by EPA are implemented through
NPDES permits. See CWA sections 301(a), 301(b), 402; 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1311(b), 1342.
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), (c); 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b), (c). Figure 2-5 illustrates the
relationship between the regulation of direct and indirect dischargers.
2-10
-------
Section 2—Background
Direct Dischargers
Indirect Dischargers
New
Sources
NSPS
• Conventional Pollutants
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
PSNS
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
Existing
Sources
BCT
• Conventional Pollutants
BAT
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
PSES
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
BPT
• Conventional Pollutants
• Nonconventional Pollutants
• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)
Figure 2-5. Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) — CWA Sections
and304(b)(l)
2. 3.1
EPA develops effluent limitations based on BPT for conventional, toxic, and
nonconventional pollutants. CWA section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BODs), total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and
any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator
designated oil and grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (see 44 FR
44501). EPA has identified 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic pollutants, of which
126 specific substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants. See Appendix A to Part
423, reprinted after 40 CFR Part 423.17. All other pollutants are considered to be
nonconventional .
In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers the total cost of
applying the control technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. It 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 by averaging the best performances of facilities of various ages, sizes, processes, or
other common characteristics within the industry. Where existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than currently in place in an industrial
category, if EPA determines that the technology can be applied practically.
2-11
-------
Section 2—Background
2.3.2 Best Conventional Pollution Control Technology (BCT) — CWA Sections 301(b)(2)(E)
and304(b)(4)
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for
conventional pollutants associated with BCT for discharges from existing industrial point
sources. In addition to the other factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that
EPA establish BCT limitations after considering 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 considers the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-
water-quality environmental impacts and energy requirements. See CWA section 306(b)(l)(B).
2.3.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) — CWA Section 307(b)
PSES apply to indirect dischargers and are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants
that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs,
including wastewater conveyance and sludge disposal. Pretreatment standards are technology-
based and are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines. See CWA section 301(b)(l)(A).
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for implementing
national pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR Part 403.
2-12
-------
Section 2—Background
2.3.6 Presentment 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 the best available demonstrated
technologies in their plants. EPA considers the same factors in promulgating PSNS as it does in
promulgating NSPS.
2-13
-------
Section 3—2014 Effluent Guidelines Planning Process and Methodology
3. 2014 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
This section summarizes the process EPA used in its 2014 Annual Review to identify
industrial categories for potential development of new or revised effluent limitations guidelines
and standards (ELGs), as well as the data sources and limitations used to complete this review.
This process consists of the following:
• Considering public comments on the Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan (Preliminary 2014 Plan) and other stakeholder input.
• Continuing to review (e.g., collecting additional data, contacting permit writers,
evaluating available treatment technology information) specific industrial
categories that EPA identified as warranting additional review in the Final 2012
and Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans (Final 2012 and
Preliminary 2014 Plans).
• Identifying and evaluating new data sources and conducting additional supporting
analyses to do the following:
— Identify new wastewater discharges or pollutants not previously regulated;
and
— Identify wastewater discharges that industry can more effectively treat or
eliminate.
3.1 Summary of the 2014 Annual Review Methodology
This section briefly summarizes EPA's 2014 Annual Review methodology. For more
information and details on EPA's 2014 Annual Review methodology and analyses, see Part II
(Sections 3 through 6) of EPA's 2014 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report (2014 Annual
Review Report) (U.S EPA, 2015).
3.1.1 Public Comments on the Preliminary 2014 Plan and Stakeholder Input
For the 2014 Annual Review, EPA considered public comments and stakeholder input
received on the Preliminary 2014 Plan. See Section 4.1 for a summary of the public comments
and stakeholder input received. For a detailed listing of the organizations that provided public
comment and stakeholder input, see DCN 08110.
3.1.2 Continued Review of Selected Industrial Categories
EPA continued to evaluate industrial categories that it identified as warranting further
review in the Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Plans. These included two regulated industrial
categories, Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433) and Pesticide Chemicals (40 CFR Part 455), and
one potential new source of industrial wastewater discharge (brick and structural clay products
manufacturing) (U.S. EPA, 2014a).
EPA documented the quality and usability of the data supporting its continued review of
these industrial categories and evaluated how the data could be used to improve the
-------
Section 3—2014 Effluent Guidelines Planning Process and Methodology
characterization of industrial wastewater discharges. EPA collected and reviewed data to identify
the universe of facilities with known or potential discharges, the concentration and quantity of
pollutants, and the wastewater treatment available for new industries. EPA then prioritized the
findings for further review.
3.1.2.1 Continued Review of the Metal Finishing Category (40 CFR Part 433)
As part of the 2012 Annual Review, EPA determined that transfers from metal finishing
wastewater to publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) sludge may be contributing to higher
POTW sludge concentrations of metals, particularly chromium, nickel, and zinc. In addition, in a
recent letter to EPA and in its public comments on the Preliminary 2012 Plan, the Association of
Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) urged EPA to revise the regulations or issue new guidance
to address advancements in process and treatment technology for metal finishing and metal
finishing wastewater. ACWA also urged EPA to update the interpretation of the applicability of
the Metal Finishing regulations in light of current industrial practices (ACWA, 2013; U.S. EPA,
2014b). Furthermore, in the 2013 Annual Review, the Metal Finishing Category ranked high in
terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalents (TWPE) in EPA's toxicity ranking analysis (TRA).
To understand whether the Metal Finishing Category's current ELGs may warrant
revisions, EPA reviewed the scope of the existing ELGs, examined the current industry profile,
and gathered data on wastewater treatment technologies in the 2014 Annual Review. EPA also
contacted regional EPA pretreatment coordinators to further discuss metal finishing operations
and potential applicability issues with the Metal Finishing ELGs. See Section 5.1 of the 2014
Annual Review Report for details on the specific methodologies and analyses EPA employed for
its continued review of the Metal Finishing Category (U.S. EPA, 2015).
3.1.2.2 Targeted Review of Pesticide Active Ingredients (PAIs) Without Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Effluent Limits (40 CFR Part 455)
As part of the 2012 Annual Review, EPA reviewed analytical methods that it recently
developed or revised to facilitate its identification of unregulated pollutants in industrial
wastewater discharge. By examining these methods, EPA identified 30 PAIs that are now
measured by existing analytical methods under 40 CFR Part 136, but that do not currently have
effluent limits under Subparts A and B in the Pesticide Chemicals ELGs (40 CFR Part 455) (U.S.
EPA, 2014c). For the 2014 Annual Review, EPA began evaluating data sources that would
provide information on the production of the 30 PAIs of interest to identify and prioritize for
further review any that are manufactured in the U.S. These sources included pesticide
registration status under Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and production information reported under Section 7 of FIFRA. See Section 5.2 of the
2014 Annual Review Report for details on the specific methodologies and analyses EPA
employed for its targeted review of PAIs for which the discharge from manufacturing is not
regulated under the Pesticide Chemicals ELGs (U.S. EPA, 2015).
3.1.2.3 Continued Review of Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing
In its 2012 Annual Review, EPA identified brick and structural clay products
manufacturing as an industry not currently regulated by ELGs that may generate industrial
wastewater discharges due to federal air pollution control requirements. To understand if
-------
Section 3—2014 Effluent Guidelines Planning Process and Methodology
wastewater discharges are being generated as a result of the implementation of the air
regulations, as part of its 2014 Annual Review, EPA reviewed the current National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the industry to assess more about the
potential impacts on the industry, specifically regarding the installation of wet air pollution
controls. See Section 5.3 of the 2014 Annual Review Report for details on the specific
methodologies and analyses EPA employed for its continued review of brick and structural clay
products manufacturing (U.S. EPA, 2015).
3.1.3 New Data Sources and Additional Supporting Analyses
For the 2014 Annual Review, EPA also initiated a review of engineered nanomaterials
(ENMs), an emerging pollutant group of concern, and continued its review of industrial
wastewater treatment technology performance data in order to populate the Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Technology (IWTT) Database. EPA's goals in focusing on these specific
analyses were to identify new wastewater discharges or pollutants not previously regulated, and
to identify wastewater discharges that can be eliminated or treated more effectively.
EPA documented the quality of the data supporting these reviews, evaluated how the data
could be used to improve the characterization of industrial wastewater discharges (such as
detection or monitoring of new pollutants, wastewater treatment available for specific industries,
as well as current treatability levels), and prioritized the findings for further review.
3.1.3.1 Review of Engineered Nanomaterials (ENMs) in Industrial Wastewater
In the 2014 Annual Review, EPA began evaluating ENMs as a potential emerging
industrial wastewater pollutant category of concern. This was in response to public comments
received on the Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (76 FR 66286) regarding the
manufacture, use, and environmental release of nanosilver, as well as recent research and interest
about ENMs impacts on human health and the environment. EPA reviewed current literature and
communicated with leading researchers and government stakeholders about the fate, transport,
and effects of ENMs on the environment and human health, and about the presence and
discharge of ENMs in industrial wastewater. EPA focused its review on three classes of ENMs:
silver, titanium dioxide, and carbon-based nanomaterials, which are estimated to be produced in
the largest volumes. Further research has more fully classified their impact on human health and
the environment relative to the impacts of other types of ENMs (for which there is little
information). EPA assessed currently available information and identified outstanding data gaps
related to characterizing and quantifying the presence and impact of ENMs in industrial
wastewater discharges. See Section 6.1 of the 2014 Annual Review Report for details on the
specific methodologies and analyses EPA employed for its review of ENMs in industrial
wastewater (U.S. EPA, 2015).
3.1.3.2 Review of Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies
EPA continued reviewing technical papers and research articles that document the
performance of new and improved industrial wastewater treatment technologies. EPA is working
to capture the performance data and treatment information in a searchable database. Such a
database would facilitate screening of industrial categories for new or revised ELGs based on the
availability and effectiveness of technologies in removing pollutants of concern from specific
-------
Section 3—2014 Effluent Guidelines Planning Process and Methodology
industrial wastewater discharges. As part of the 2014 Annual Review, EPA described its
industrial wastewater treatment technology data collection methodology; data quality assurance
and control protocol; and database design, development, and storage. EPA also summarized the
industrial wastewater treatment technology information collected to date. See Section 6.2 of the
2014 Annual Review Report for details on the specific methodologies and analyses EPA
employed for its review of industrial wastewater treatment technologies (U.S. EPA, 2015).
3.2 Categories Excluded from EPA's 2014 Annual Review
Consistent with its previous annual reviews, EPA eliminated the following from further
consideration during its 2014 Annual Review:
• Discharges from industrial categories for which EPA has recently promulgated or
revised ELGs (within the past seven years);
• Discharges from facilities that require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit, but do not fall under an existing or new point source
category or subcategory (e.g., Superfund sites); and
• Discharges from facilities determined not to be representative of their category.
3.2.1 Categories for Which EPA Has Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs
In its 2014 Annual Review, EPA excluded point source categories for which ELGs were
recently established or revised but are not yet fully implemented. Point source categories that
were recently reviewed in a rulemaking context, but for which EPA decided to withdraw the
proposal or select the "no action" option, were also excluded. In general, EPA removed an
industrial point source category from further consideration during a review cycle if EPA
established, revised, or reviewed the category's ELGs within seven years prior to the annual
reviews. This seven-year period allows time for the ELGs to be incorporated into NPDES
permits. Table 3-1 lists the categories EPA excluded from the 2014 Annual Review due to this
seven-year period.
Table 3-1. Point Source Categories That Have Undergone Recent Rulemaking
40CFRPart
450
122 and 412
449
Point Source Category
Construction and Development
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
Airport Deicing
Date of Rulemaking
December 1, 2009
Revised March 6, 2014
November 20, 2008
May 16, 2012
As part of its 2014 Annual Review, EPA also did not consider industrial categories for
which it is currently engaged in a rulemaking process. These include the Steam Electric Power
Generating Category, Canned and Preserved Seafood Category (covering the Alaskan seafood
processing subcategories), dental practices (specifically, relating to the discharge of mercury
found in dental amalgam), and unconventional extraction in the Oil and Gas Extraction
3-4
-------
Section 3—2014 Effluent Guidelines Planning Process and Methodology
Category. See Section 5.2 of this Final 2014 Plan for details on the rulemaking status for these
categories.
3.2.2 Discharges Not Categorizable
In its 2011 Annual Review, EPA identified discharges that are not categorizable into
existing or new point source categories or subcategories (U.S. EPA, 2012a). In particular, EPA
reviewed high TWPE discharges from a Superfund site (Auchterlonie, 2009). Direct discharges
from Superfund sites, whether made on site or off site, are subject to NPDES permitting
requirements (U.S. EPA, 1988a, 1988b). For the reasons discussed in the Preliminary 2012 Plan
(78 FR 48159), EPA determined that these discharges do not fall into a single point source
category and continued to exclude these discharges in its 2014 Annual Review.
3.3 Data Quality Assurance and Limitations
EPA's methodology for the 2014 Annual Review involved several components, as
discussed in Section 3.1, including continued review of selected industrial categories, an
evaluation of new data sources and additional supporting analyses, and an assessment of public
comments and other stakeholder input.
EPA used the following sources to characterize wastewater discharges during the 2014
Annual Review:
• Data and information from academic researchers (non-published);
• Conference proceedings, peer-reviewed journals, industry-specific organization
literature;
• EPA, state, and local government information provided in telephone calls, and
email correspondence;
• Federal, state, and local government publications;
• Data and information obtained from industry;
• Data and information obtained from trade associations;
• Information obtained from the National Nanotechnology Initiative;
• Other stakeholder data and information; and
• U.S. Economic Census data.
In addition, as in previous annual reviews, EPA continued to use Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) and discharge monitoring report (DMR) data, downloaded from the DMR
Pollutant Loading Tool during the 2014 Annual Review. This section discusses these data
sources and their limitations.
3-5
-------
Section 3—2014 Effluent Guidelines Planning Process and Methodology
3.3.1 Data Sources Supporting New or Continued Analyses
For its 2014 Annual Review, EPA used existing data to support analyses of the potential
environmental impact of industrial discharges. EPA obtained the existing data from publications
and databases available from other EPA offices, directly from industry and regulators, and
through online sources. EPA considered the accuracy, reliability, and representativeness of data
sources to assess their usability for the 2014 Annual Review, as described below and in Section
4.3.1 of the Environmental Engineering Support for Clean Water Regulations Programmatic
Quality Assurance Project Plan (PQAPP; (ERG, 2013). EPA also referenced Table 4-2 in the
PQAPP to determine if the sources provided information that was sufficiently accurate and
reliable to use in the 2014 Annual Review.
Accuracy. EPA assumed that the supporting data and information contained in certain
sources were sufficiently accurate to support the characterization of industry waste streams and
the performance of specified treatment technologies. These sources included state and federal
reports, selected conference proceedings, peer-reviewed journal articles, and information
obtained directly from federal, state, or local government organizations. EPA also considered
data and information from certain non-peer-reviewed industry publications to assist in
qualitatively characterizing specific industrial discharges.
Reliability. Using the following factors, EPA also evaluated the reliability of collected
existing data for use in qualitative analyses:
• The scientific work is clearly written, so that all assumptions and methodologies
can be identified;
• The variability and uncertainty (quantitative and qualitative) in the information or
in the procedures, measures, methods, or models are evaluated and characterized;
• The assumptions and methodologies are consistently applied throughout the
analysis, as reported in the source; and
• Waste stream, parameters, units, and detection limits (when appropriate) are
clearly characterized.
EPA considered data sources that met these criteria sufficiently reliable to support the
characterization of industry waste streams and the performance of specified treatment
technologies.
Representativeness. EPA evaluated existing data for use in qualitative analyses based on
whether the data provide a national perspective and are relevant to and representative of the
industry or pollutant group to which the data are applied using the following factors:
• Relevance. The data source is relevant to the industry or pollutant group of
interest (e.g. the industry description or Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes provided in
the data source, when available, match the industry or pollutant group of interest,
3-6
-------
Section 3—2014 Effluent Guidelines Planning Process and Methodology
the wastewater treatment technology is appropriate for the waste stream(s)
generated at the facility).
• Notional Applicability. The data can be applied broadly to provide a national
perspective relative to the industry or pollutant group of interest (e.g., are the data
characteristic of the industry or pollutant group as a whole? Can the treatment
technology generally be used to treat wastewater(s) from the industry?).
EPA considered data sources that met these criteria sufficiently representative to support
the characterization of industry waste streams and the performance of specified treatment
technologies.
For more information on the quality assurance activities supporting the 2014 Annual
Review, including a summary of EPA's data quality and utility evaluation for the additional data
sources, see Appendix B of the 2014 Annual Review Report (U.S EPA, 2015).
3.3.2 DMR and TRIData
EPA has previously explained its use of DMR and TRI data in the Technical Support
Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential
New Point Source Categories (2009 Screening-Level Analysis (SLA) Report) (U.S. EPA, 2009).
The 2009 SLA Report provides the detailed methodology used to process thousands of data
records and generate national estimates of industrial effluent discharges.
In general, EPA uses DMR data to understand discharges of pollutants that are regulated
by an ELG or for which NPDES permits require monitoring. More than 190,000 industrial
facilities and 17,000 wastewater treatment plants have NPDES individual or general permits2 for
wastewater discharges to waters of the U.S. Facilities must report compliance with NPDES
permit limits via DMRs. DMR data can include pollutant concentration and/or quantity, flow,
and identification of permit violations. Thus DMR data provide readily available and relevant
information on industrial pollutant discharges to surface waters, e.g., direct discharges.
In comparison, EPA generally uses TRI data to understand indirect discharges of
pollutants to POTWs as well as the discharge of pollutants that are not regulated via NPDES
permits. TRI requires facilities that meet operating thresholds, to report on-site releases of certain
listed toxic chemicals to receiving streams and POTWs, as well as other media (e.g., air, land,
underground wells, and several other categories). In addition, the list of chemicals reported to
TRI can be broader than the chemicals for which facilities have NPDES permit limitations or
monitoring requirements, and therefore reported on DMRs. Thus TRI data provides
supplementary information to DMR data regarding potential additional unregulated pollutants
that may be discharged by an industrial category. However, as discussed below, TRI data are
somewhat limited in utility due to TRI reporting requirements, including requirements that allow
facilities to report releases that are based on estimates and not actual sampling data.
2 An NPDES individual permit is written to reflect site-specific conditions of a single discharger based on
information submitted by that discharger in a permit application. An individual permit is unique to that discharger.
NPDES general permits are written to cover multiple dischargers with similar operations and types of discharges
based on the permit writer's professional knowledge of those types of activities and discharges (U.S. EPA, 2007).
-------
Section 3—2014 Effluent Guidelines Planning Process and Methodology
For its analyses EPA typically relies on outputs from the DMR Pollutant Loading Tool,3
which categorizes pollutant discharges using the SIC and NAICS codes and calculates pollutant
loadings using DMR and TRI discharge data. In its analyses, EPA multiplies a mass loading of a
pollutant in pounds per year (as reported in the DMR Pollutant Loading Tool) by a pollutant-
specific toxic weighting factor (TWF) to derive a toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE)
loading. For more information on TWFs, see EPA's Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology
(U.S. EPA, 2012b). EPA also classifies each facility reporting discharges into a particular
industrial point source category based on the applicable SIC or NAICS codes for that facility.
TRI includes information on a facility's NAICS code, while DMR data include information on a
facility's SIC code. EPA then sums the TWPE for each facility classified in a point source
category to calculate a total TWPE per category for a given year. Table 3-2 describes the utility
and limitations of the DMR and TRI data.
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 facilities classified by
manufacturing NAICS codes and some other
industrial categories.
National scope.
Discharge reports are based on effluent chemical analysis
and metered flows.
Includes discharge data from facilities classified by any
SIC code.
Limitations of Data
Small establishments and those that do not 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 a class, not as
individual compounds.3 This can cause inaccurate
estimates of the toxicity of chemical releases.
Facilities are identified by NAICS codes, not point
source category.
TRI only requires facilities to report certain
chemicals; therefore, all pollutants discharged from a
facility may not be captured.
Data systems contain data only for pollutants in the
facility permit.
Limited discharge data on minorb discharges.
Data systems do not include data characterizing indirect
discharges from industrial facilities to POTWs.
Facilities do not always report duration of discharges,
which may overestimate toxic releases based on the
assumption that discharges are continuous.
Some data systems do not identify the type of wastewater
discharged, which may include stormwater or non-
contact cooling water; pipe identification is not always
clear.
3 The DMR Pollutant Loading Tool is at http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/. The tool is maintained by EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Compliance.
3-8
-------
Section 3—2014 Effluent Guidelines Planning Process and Methodology
Table 3-2. TRI and DMR Data Utility and Limitations
TRI
DMR
Facilities are identified by SIC codes, not point source
category.
Data may contain errors from manual data entry.
Facilities do not always report average concentrations or
quantities, which results in an overestimation if only
maximum values are reported.
a Chemicals reported as a class include polycyclic aromatic compounds, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, and
metal compounds.
b EPA developed a major/minor classification system for industrial and municipal wastewater discharges. The
distinction was initially made to help EPA and states set 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 Permit Compliance System
and Integrated Compliance Information System-NPDES databases (U.S. EPA, 2010).
The DMR and TRI data EPA used have been evaluated and corrected during previous
Toxicity Ranking Analyses (TRAs) reported for calendar years 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006-
2013. For a detailed list of all corrections made to the 2011 DMR and TRI data, see Section 3.3.1
and 3.3.2, respectively, in EPA's 2013 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2014d).
3-9
-------
Section 4—Results of the 2014 Annual Review
4. RESULTS OF THE 2014 ANNUAL REVIEW
For the 2014 Annual Review, EPA evaluated public comments and stakeholder input
received on the Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (Preliminary 2014 Plan)
and continued its review of specific industrial categories that EPA identified as warranting
additional review in the Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans
(Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Plans). Furthermore, EPA identified new data sources and
conducted additional supporting analyses.
4.1 Findings from Public Comments and Stakeholder Input
EPA's annual review process considers information provided by the public and
stakeholders regarding new or revised effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards.
This section presents a summary of the comments received on the Preliminary 2014 Plan. A
more detailed summary table of the comments can be found in the 2014 Annual Effluent
Guidelines Review Report (2014 Annual Review Report) (U.S. EPA, 2015).
EPA published its Preliminary 2014 Plan together with the Final 2012 Plan and provided
a 60-day public comment period on the Preliminary 2014 Plan starting on September 16, 2014
(see 79 FR 55472). The Docket supporting this Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan
(Final 2014 Plan) includes a complete set of the comments submitted, as well as the Agency's
responses (see DCN 08110).
EPA received public comments on the Preliminary 2014 Plan from 18 organizations; one
consultant to pretreatment programs for local governments, one organization representing states,
nine organizations representing industry, and seven environmental organizations.4 The public
comments addressed the following topics:
• Centralized waste treatment (CWTs) (5 comments);
• Petroleum refining (4 comments);
• Metal finishing (3 comments);
• Nanomaterials (3 comments);
• Oil and gas pretreatment standards and ongoing rulemaking for oil and gas
extraction for unconventional oil and gas facilities (2 comments); and
• Other (2 comments).
EPA received five comments on its proposed CWTs detailed study from one consultant
to local government pretreatment programs, two industry representatives, and several
environmental organizations. The consultant to local government pretreatment programs
commented that EPA should review and clearly define the applicability of CWT effluent
limitations guidelines and standards (40 CFR Part 437) as they relate to accepting oil and natural
4 Seven environmental organizations submitted one combined public comment on the Preliminary 2014 Plan. One of
the environmental organizations also submitted a separate public comment on the Preliminary 2014 Plan.
-------
Section 4—Results of the 2014 Annual Review
gas produced wastewater. One industry representative questioned the intent and basis for the
CWTs detailed study, stating there is a lack of definition for what qualifies as a CWT, a lack of a
reasonable basis for initiating the study, and potential overlap with the Oil and Gas Extraction
ELGs for shale gas facilities that direct their wastewater to CWTs. The other industry
representative commented that revising the CWT ELG may not be necessary to address
discharges of oil and gas extraction wastewater (to CWTs, POTWs, or surface water) and that
any new regulations and/or guidelines for CWT facilities could be aided by direct meetings
between EPA, industry experts in the field, and the operators of CWT facilities. The
environmental organizations supported EPA's decision to undertake a detailed study of CWTs
that accept oil and gas wastewaters and requested the study be expedited, stating that (1) the
CWT ELGs are out of date in light of the developments in the oil and gas extraction industry; (2)
CWTs may not have treatment in place for pollutants in oil and gas wastewaters; (3) oil and gas
wastewaters may have potential impacts on drinking water sources; and (4) pretreatment
standards under development for discharges to POTWs from onshore unconventional oil and gas
extraction could result in more discharges to CWTs. One environmental organization also
provided recommendations for resources and information in support of the CWT detailed study.
For the Petroleum Refining Category (40 CFR Part 419), EPA received three comments
from industry representatives questioning the quality and appropriateness of data used as the
basis for initiating the study. Industry representatives also questioned EPA's objective for
examining feedstock metals. One industry representative questioned the basis for EPA's
investigation of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. EPA also received a comment from the
consultant to local government pretreatment programs supporting the detailed study and
suggesting that EPA specifically evaluate common problem pollutants, including benzene and
sulfides. In addition, the commenter indicated that EPA should evaluate groundwater pump-and-
treat operations to clearly define regulated, unregulated, and dilute waste streams.
EPA received comments on its proposal to continue review of the Metal Finishing
Category (40 CFR Part 433) from the consultant to local government pretreatment programs, one
industry representative, and an organization representing states. The consultant to the local
government pretreatment programs did not support reopening the regulation because it could
make the regulation vulnerable to weakening by special interest groups. The industry
representative did not support further review of the Metal Finishing Category, stating that EPA
recently reviewed the industry as part of the Metal Products and Machinery ELGs rulemaking
and determined that revised guidelines were not necessary. Further, the industry representative
commented that the industry is not using new processes or treatment technologies that would
suggest the need to revise the applicable Metal Finishing ELGs, and POTWs have the ability to
impose stricter limits to address specific concerns. The organization representing states
supported further review of the Metal Finishing Category, stating that the industry has changed
significantly since the existing regulations were developed. These changes include updated
chemical formulas and processes, new pollutants of concern, new treatment technologies, and a
broader scope for the metal finishing universe. The organization representing states also
commented that clarification is needed regarding classification of a facility as an existing or new
source, that there are inconsistencies in categorical determinations across the country for certain
metal finishing applications (etching vs cleaning, coating vs adsorption, phosphate coating vs
cleaning), and that EPA should consider adopting a sunset provision for the Electroplating ELGs
(40 CFR Part 413) to require eventual compliance with the Metal Finishing ELGs (40 CFR Part
433).
-------
Section 4—Results of the 2014 Annual Review
For nanomaterials, the consultant to local government pretreatment programs and one
industry representative supported EPA's effort to characterize nanomaterials in industrial
wastewater discharges. Specifically, the industry representative urged EPA to recognize the
diversity of nanomaterials and their applications across multiple industries in its future reports;
coordinate closely with EPA's New Chemicals Program to understand nanomaterial releases in
water; consider work on the fate and transport of nanomaterials completed or currently
underway; and recognize the potential for nanotechnology to provide new and improved tools for
wastewater treatment. One wastewater treatment products manufacturer also commented that he
is currently testing a coagulant/flocculent/filter aid that has shown success at settling nano-
particles, E. coli, phosphorus and other particulates.
The group of seven environmental groups commented that ongoing revisions to
pretreatment standards for discharges to POTWs need to reflect changes in onshore oil and gas
exploration, stimulation, and extraction. One environmental organization commented that the oil
and gas ELG rulemaking for the unconventional oil and gas facilities should be finalized as soon
as possible, and provided recommendations for resources and information in support of the
rulemaking.
The organization representing states supported EPA's new even-year review
methodology, used in the 2012 Annual Review, as well as inclusion of the current status of ELGs
under development in the Final 2012 Plan. This commenter also suggested improvements to the
ELG review and planning processes, including an increase in EPA staff allocated to work on
ELGs and pretreatment standards, and publication of Annual Review Reports earlier in the
planning process, as well as more timely publication of future ELG Plans.
The consultant to local government pretreatment programs commented that EPA should
add biodiesel manufacturing to the list of industrial sectors to evaluate.
Lastly, EPA received three unsolicited comments on final decisions announced in the
Final 2012 Plan. EPA did not solicit public comment on the contents of the Final 2012 Plan since
public comments were solicited on the actions and decisions when they were proposed in the
Preliminary 2012 Plan on August 7, 2013. Regardless, one industry commenter indicated support
for EPA's decision in the Final 2012 Plan to delist coalbed methane as a new subcategory under
the Oil and Gas Extraction Category (40 CFR Part 435), and an environmental organization
indicated they did not support EPA's decision to delist coalbed methane. The third unsolicited
comment by an industry organization indicated support for EPA's final decision in the Final
2012 Plan not to further review Pulp and Paper industry discharges.
In general, the public comments submitted on the Preliminary 2014 Plan did not result in
any new direction or determinations with respect to the proposed actions announced in the
Preliminary 2014 Plan, or EPA's final decisions and actions indicated in this Final 2014 Plan.
EPA did, however, receive useful information and input from the public review that will help
inform ongoing studies, in particular Petroleum Refining, Metal Finishing, and CWTs. EPA's
responses to the specific comments can be found in EPA's comment response document (DCN
08110).
4-3
-------
Section 4—Results of the 2014 Annual Review
4.2 Findings from Continued Review of Select Industrial Categories
For the 2014 Annual Review, EPA continued to evaluate two regulated industrial
categories and one potential new source of industrial wastewater discharge, all of which EPA
had identified in the Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Plans as warranting further review: Metal
Finishing (40 CFR Part 433), Pesticide Chemicals (40 CFR Part 455), and brick and structural
clay products manufacturing (unregulated) (U.S. EPA, 2014a). Below are the findings from these
2014 continued category reviews.
• Continued Review of the Metal Finishing Category (40 CFR Part 433). EPA's
continued review of the Metal Finishing Category in 2014 indicates that the
industry has not experienced significant growth in the last 30 years. However,
research suggests that the industry is consolidating into larger companies that tend
to compete better with the expanding global market; this consolidation may have
slightly reduced the size of the U.S. metal finishing industry. Further, the industry
is exploring the use of new chemicals that improve surface finishing quality
and/or eliminate the use of toxic chemicals. These alternatives may be changing
the characteristics of metal finishing wastewater. In addition, at least some portion
of the industry is employing more advanced wastewater treatment technologies,
including reuse, although a majority of the industry continues to meet the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) using the more common treatment
technologies that formed the basis of best available technology economically
achievable as defined in the ELGs.
EPA's continued preliminary review of the Metal Finishing Category identified
several topics that warrant further review, including the following:
— Potential new pollutants of concern not currently regulated that are
increasingly used in metal finishing processes.
— Prevalence of potential pollutants of concern associated with wastewater
generated from the use of wet air pollution control devices to control air
emissions from metal finishing operations.
— The application of advanced wastewater treatment technologies and the
prevalence of zero discharge practices in the industry.
• Targeted Review of Pesticide Active Ingredients (PAIs) without Pesticide
Chemicals Manufacturing Effluent Limits (40 CFR Part 455). EPA reviewed the
30 PAIs that are now measured by analytical methods listed in 40 CFR Part 136,
but discharges of which from manufacturers are not currently regulated under the
Pesticide Chemicals ELGs. The review identified only seven that are currently
registered or under registration review in accordance with Section 3 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The remaining 23 PAIs of interest
have either never been registered or have had their registrations canceled.
However, registration status may not be an indicator of whether the PAI is
manufactured in the U.S. (and potentially present in industrial wastewater
discharge), because unregistered pesticides may still be manufactured in the U.S.
44
-------
Section 4—Results of the 2014 Annual Review
for export. Though EPA was not able to prioritize a subset of the PAIs for further
review at this time, EPA did identify follow-up questions and sources of
information that will indicate which of the 30 PAIs of interest are produced in the
U.S. and are thus potentially present in wastewater discharges. These sources of
information include the Pesticide Registration Information System (PRISM),
Section Seven Tracking System (SSTS) production data, permit applications, fact
sheets, and facility permits for producers of the PAIs in the U.S.
• Continued Review of Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing. As part
of EPA's 2012 Annual Review, EPA identified brick and structural clay products
manufacturing as an industry not currently regulated by ELGs that may generate
industrial wastewater discharges due to federal air pollution control requirements.
During its 2014 Annual Review, EPA determined that wet scrubbers are not a
common air pollution control method within the industry. Additionally, EPA
determined that only two of the 345 brick manufacturing facilities, two of the 24
clay ceramics facilities, and three of 127 ceramic tile facilities in the U.S.
currently have wet scrubbers installed. The findings suggest that the use of wet
scrubbers to control air pollution is limited in this industry and not expected to
increase.
4.3 Findings from New Data Sources and Additional Supporting Analyses
EPA initiated a review of a group of emerging pollutants of concern and continued its
review of industrial wastewater treatment technology performance data as part of the 2014
Annual Review (U.S. EPA, 2015). Below are the findings from these reviews.
• Review of Engineered Nanomaterials (ENMs) in Industrial Wastewater. EPA
reviewed current literature and scientific research and communicated with
researchers and government stakeholders regarding ENMs. As a result, EPA
determined the following:
— Some manufacturing and processing methods likely generate wastewater,
but the quantity generated and waste management practices are not
documented.
— Toxicity hazards from ENMs have been demonstrated in the laboratory,
but the environmental and human health risks are largely unknown.
— Fate of and exposure to industrial wastewater releases of ENMs to the
environment have not been studied.
— The small size, unique properties, and complexity of ENMs present a
challenge for environmental monitoring, risk assessment, and regulation.
— Methods for detecting and characterizing nanomaterials in complex media,
like industrial wastewater, are under development.
4-5
-------
Section 4—Results of the 2014 Annual Review
— EPA has not approved any standardized methods for sampling, detecting,
or quantifying of nanomaterials in aqueous media.
— Research has shown that common treatment technologies employed at
municipal wastewater treatment plants can remove nanomaterials from the
wastewater, but that these may then accumulate in the sludge.
EPA's review also identified four main areas of further research appropriate to
better assess the potential presence and impact of ENMs in industrial wastewater:
— Development of standard methods and sampling techniques to detect and
characterize nanomaterials in industrial wastewater.
— Evaluation of ENM toxicity impacts and potential occurrence in industrial
wastewater, taking into consideration relevant forms and concentrations of
ENMs.
— Identification of the universe of ENM facilities, their production values,
and the waste generated and disposed of during the manufacturing and
processing of ENMs.
— Evaluation and characterization of the fate, transformation, and treatment
of ENMs in industrial wastewaters.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a collaborative, interagency U.S.
government research and development initiative, provides a framework for
individual and cooperative nanotechnology-related activities for 20 federal
department and agency units, including EPA. Ongoing research coordinated by
NNI agencies and academic research centers (e.g., research by several offices
within EPA, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and others) may serve to address
these research needs and facilitate understanding of the potential for wastewater
discharges from the manufacture and processing of ENMs, as well as potential
human health and environmental impacts.
Review of Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies. From EPA's continued
review of technical papers and research articles that document the performance of
new and improved industrial wastewater treatment technologies, EPA has
identified and captured treatment information from 163 articles in the Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Technology (IWTT) Database as of September 2014. Of
the 163 articles, 98 provide both treatment system information and performance
data (i.e., pollutant removal efficiencies). The 98 articles with performance data
represent 35 industrial categories; however, most of the literature reviews
conducted to date have focused on the petroleum refining and metal finishing
industries. IWTT documents the removal efficiencies of 142 parameters,
including many metals, chemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and
total dissolved solids. Though performance data are captured for pilot- and full-
-------
Section 4—Results of the 2014 Annual Review
scale treatment systems as a whole, 53 individual treatment technologies (which
constitute the various treatment systems) are currently included in IWTT, with
chemical precipitation, membrane bioreactors, and clarification described in the
greatest number of articles.
4-7
-------
Section 5—Final 2014 Plan Decisions and Actions
5. FINAL 2014 PLAN DECISIONS AND ACTIONS
As proposed in the Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans
(Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Plans), EPA initiated studies of the Centralized Waste
Treatment (CWT) Category (40 CFR Part 437) and Petroleum Refining Category (40 CFR Part
419) (U.S. EPA, 2014a). As part of the 2014 Annual Review, EPA also continued several other
activities, including its preliminary review of the Metal Finishing Category (40 CFR Part 433);
collection of data for the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology (IWTT) Database; review
of the brick and structural clay manufacturing industry (for which air regulations may result in an
unregulated wastewater discharge); and evaluation of several pesticide active ingredients (PAIs),
identified through EPA's review of analytical methods, for which the discharge from
manufacturing is not currently regulated under the Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing,
Formulating, and Packaging effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) (40 CFR Part
455). In addition, EPA began investigating the environmental toxicity and industrial wastewater
discharge of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs). This section presents EPA's decisions on actions
proposed in the Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Plans.
As part of the Final 2012 and Preliminary 2104 Plans, EPA also proposed to continue
reviewing specific Chemical Action Plan chemicals and industrial categories identified in the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Sectors Expansion rule; however, EPA did not focus on these
actions during the 2014 Annual Review. EPA plans to focus on these actions during future
annual reviews as additional data and information become available.
Based on the 2012, 2013, and 2014 Annual Reviews and public comments, EPA has
concluded that no new industrial wastewater discharges present concerns 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 industries for new effluent guidelines, aside
from those currently undergoing rulemakings. EPA is also not identifying the development of
any new or revised pretreatment standards at this time, excluding those that are currently under
development.
5.1 Industries Previously Identified for Further Review for Which EPA is Taking
No Action
In the Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Plan, EPA announced its continued review of
industries for which air regulations may result in unregulated wastewater discharge (U.S. EPA,
2014a). As part of that review, EPA further evaluated brick and structural clay products
manufacturing. The findings suggest that the use of wet scrubbers to control air pollution is
limited in this industry; therefore, EPA determined that brick and structural clay products
manufacturing is not now generating a potential new source of industrial wastewater discharge
that warrants regulation. Based on these findings from the 2014 Annual Review, EPA has
concluded that no further review of discharges from brick and structural clay products
manufacturing is warranted and is taking no further action related to this category at this time
(U.S. EPA, 2015).
5-1
-------
Section 5—Final 2014 Plan Decisions and Actions
5.2 Industries for Which EPA is Currently Undertaking an ELG Rulemaking
EPA is currently undertaking a rulemaking that would revise ELGs for the Steam Electric
Power Generating Point Source Category (40 CFR 423). Because the Steam Electric rulemaking
is underway, EPA excluded these facilities' discharges from analyses conducted for the 2014
Annual Review.
EPA is also developing an amendment to the ELGs for the Canned and Preserved
Seafood Category — Alaskan Seafood Subcategories (40 CFR Part 408). This action was
initiated in 1980 in response to two petitions submitted by the Alaska seafood processing
industry. Since that time, EPA has taken a number of actions to respond to the petitions,
including publishing a proposed rule in 1981, sending data and information requests (in the form
of a questionnaire) to nine corporations in 2010, and issuing a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) on November 7, 2013. Currently, EPA is reviewing public comments received on the
NOD A, and an effluent guideline revision for this subcategory is expected to be final sometime
in late 2015. For further information see:
http://water.epa. gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/seafood/alaskan. cfm.
EPA is currently engaged in a rulemaking to develop potential pretreatment requirements
for discharges of mercury from dental practices. Based on information submitted in prior annual
reviews (2004, 2006, and 2008), commenters raised concerns about mercury discharges from
dental practices and urged EPA to consider establishing effluent guidelines and pretreatment
standards for such discharges. EPA announced the rulemaking concerning mercury discharges
from dental practices in the Final 2010 Plan. Subsequently, EPA published a proposed rule on
October 22, 2014 (79 FR 63,256), and held public hearings on November 10, 2014. The public
comment period ended on February 20, 2015.
EPA also indicated in its Final 2010 ELG Plan (76 FR 66286) that it was initiating two
separate rulemakings to potentially revise ELGs for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category (40 CFR Part 435) to address discharges from coalbed methane and shale gas
extraction. EPA announced that it was delisting the coalbed methane extraction industry from the
effluent guidelines plan in the Final 2012 Plan (U.S. EPA, 2014a). EPA recently proposed a
rulemaking on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18557), which will revise the ELGs for the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category, adding a subcategory for pretreatment standards for
unconventional oil and gas extraction to address wastewaters, including, but not limited to, shale
gas, shale oil, tight gas, and tight oil extraction. This proposed rule would fill a gap in existing
federal wastewater regulations to ensure that the current practice of not sending wastewater
discharges from this sector to POTWs continues into the future. Direct discharge requirements
are not being revised.
5.2.1 EPA's Current Schedule for ELG Actions
Steam Electric Power Generation:
- Proposed Rule June 7, 2013
- Final Action September 30, 2015
5-2
-------
Section 5—Final 2014 Plan Decisions and Actions
Pretreatment Standards for the Dental Category:
- Proposed Rule October 22, 2014
-Final Rule June 2016
Pretreatment Standards for Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction:
- Proposed Rule April 7,2015
Canned and Preserved Seafood Category covering the Alaskan Seafood
Processing Subcategories:
- Notice of Data Availability November 7, 2013
-Final Rule Early 2016
5.3 Industries for Which EPA Is Currently Conducting Further Study
Based on the findings from EPA's 2014 Annual Review and status of ongoing studies,
EPA plans to continue its review and/or study of several industrial categories or pollutant groups
to determine if new or revised effluent guidelines are warranted, as discussed in the subsections
below.
5.3.1 Continued Detailed Study of the Petroleum Refining Category (40 CFR Part 419)
In the Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Plan, EPA announced it was planning to initiate a
detailed study of petroleum refineries (40 CFR Part 419) (U.S. EPA, 2014a). EPA has initiated
that study to determine if changes to the existing ELGs or pretreatment standards are appropriate
for this industry. In reviewing DMRs from petroleum refineries, EPA has observed an increase in
discharges of metal pollutants that are not regulated by the existing regulations and identified
some dioxin compound discharges. In particular, the detailed study will investigate the effects of
heavier crudes and new wet air pollution controls on wastewater discharges. The detailed study
will also investigate pollution prevention or wastewater-treatment methods available to reduce
pollutants present in petroleum refining wastewater.
The following information will initially be collected for the industry:
• Updated profile information obtained from a variety of public sources (e.g. crude
types processed, wet air pollution control types used, and economic information);
• Recent DMR and TRI discharges;
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit information;
• Information from site visits to petroleum refineries; and
• Information from industry, other EPA programs, EPA regions, states, and
literature sources.
5-3
-------
Section 5—Final 2014 Plan Decisions and Actions
After analyzing the information collected from the sources listed above, EPA will
determine whether an information collection request to the industry and wastewater sampling are
appropriate.
5.3.2 Continued Detailed Study ofCWT Category (40 CFR Part 437)
In the Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Plan, EPA announced it was planning to initiate a
detailed study of the CWT industry (40 CFR Part 437) for facilities accepting oil and gas
extraction wastewaters (U.S. EPA, 2014a). EPA has initiated that study to determine if revisions
to the ELGs are warranted. The current regulations do not include limitations for pollutants
commonly found in these wastewaters, such as total dissolved solids, barium, bromide, radium,
and strontium. The study is intended to be comprehensive and will cover all oil and gas
wastewater, including both conventional and unconventional oil and gas extraction. As part of
this study, EPA plans to evaluate the following:
• The extent of facilities accepting oil and gas extraction wastewaters;
• The technologies used to treat these wastewaters, their performance, and costs;
• Financial characteristics of the industry;
• Environmental impacts of these wastewater discharges to waters in the U.S.; and
• Current practices for management of treatment residuals.
To date, EPA has been conducting site visits at CWT facilities across the country and
collecting existing information and data to characterize the industry. In the coming year, EPA
plans to continue conducting site visits and sampling wastewater and treatment residuals at
facilities to evaluate the pollutants present, their concentrations, and the performance of
treatment technologies.
5.3.3 Continued Evaluation of Cook Inlet, Alaska Oil and Gas Requirements
EPA received comments during public review of the Preliminary 2012 ELG Plan
questioning the appropriateness of the limits established for Cook Inlet, Alaska in the Coastal
Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 435, Subpart
D). In 1996, EPA decided not to require zero discharge of drill cuttings, produced water, and
other drilling wastes for oil and gas extraction operators in Cook Inlet. EPA determined that
onsite injection and other zero discharge options did not represent BAT in Cook Inlet. Currently,
Cook Inlet discharge requirements are the same as those that apply to dischargers in the Offshore
Subcategory.
According to commenters, the limits that apply in Cook Inlet allow contamination of the
Inlet, which poses significant concerns because the inlet is a source of commercial, recreational,
and subsistence harvesting offish, shellfish, and other marine species. As a result of the public
comments, EPA is evaluating the current implementation of the effluent guidelines, including the
availability and economic achievability of injection wells that could achieve zero discharge for
produced water, drilling muds and cuttings from all wells and exploration in the Inlet. EPA is
examining data provided from EPA Region 10, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, and the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to evaluate injection
capacity and/or other barriers that may exist in Cook Inlet to managing wastewater to achieve
zero discharge.
54
-------
Section 5—Final 2014 Plan Decisions and Actions
5.3.4 Actions from the 2014 Annual Review
EPA plans to continue its evaluation of the following categories and pollutant groups of
interest based on results from the 2014 Annual Review:
• Preliminary Study of the Metal Finishing Category (40 CFR Part 433). EPA will
continue its review through a preliminary study of the Metal Finishing Category
to help determine whether revisions to the existing Metal Finishing ELGs are
warranted. The study will focus on the following:
— Potential new pollutants of concern not currently regulated that are
increasingly used in metal finishing processes;
— Prevalence of potential pollutants of concern associated with wastewater
generated from the use of wet air pollution controls at metal finishing
operations; and
— The application of advanced wastewater treatment technologies and the
prevalence of zero discharge practices in the industry.
• Targeted Review ofPAIs Without Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing Effluent
Limits (40 CFR Part 455). EPA plans to continue its targeted review of PAIs for
which the discharge from manufacturing is not regulated under the Pesticide
Chemicals ELGs. Specifically, EPA plans to conduct a comprehensive review of
production data compiled in the Pesticide Registration Information System
(PRISM), Section Seven Tracking System (SSTS) database, maintained under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA will focus on
the 23 PAIs of interest that are not currently registered (never registered or with
canceled registrations). After identifying specific PAIs that are produced in the
U.S., EPA plans to further review plant process and permit information for the
facilities that produce the PAIs to identify whether they are present in wastewater
discharges from pesticide chemicals manufacturing.
• Continued Review ofENMs in Industrial Wastewater. EPA plans to continue to
monitor ongoing research on ENMs in future annual reviews and will collect any
new information as it becomes available, particularly related to the following data
gaps:
— Development of standard methods and sampling techniques to detect and
characterize nanomaterials in industrial wastewater;
— Evaluation of ENM toxicity impacts and potential occurrence in industrial
wastewater, taking into consideration relevant forms and concentrations of
ENMs;
— Identification of the universe of facilities, their production values, and the
nature of the waste generated and disposed by manufacturing and
processing ofENMs; and
-------
Section 5—Final 2014 Plan Decisions and Actions
— Evaluation and characterization of the fate, transformation, and treatment
of ENMs in industrial wastewaters.
Continued Review of Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies. EPA plans
to continue to collect industrial wastewater treatment technology data for IWTT
for use in future annual reviews. EPA expects to use this database to identify
whether specific industrial categories warrant further review for new or revised
ELGs, based on the range of available treatment technology performance.
5-6
-------
6.
Section 6—Summary Table of Findings for Existing Guideline Categories from the 2014 Annual Review
SUMMARY TABLE OF FINDINGS FOR EXISTING GUIDELINE CATEGORIES FROM
THE 2014 ANNUAL REVIEW
Table 6-1 summarizes the findings from EPA's 2014 Annual Review of existing point
source categories. EPA uses the following codes to describe its findings and potential next steps
for each industrial category:
1. Effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for this industrial category were
recently promulgated or revised through an effluent guidelines rulemaking, or a
rulemaking is currently underway. Or, EPA recently completed a preliminary
study or a detailed study, and no further action is warranted at this time.
2. Revising the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards is not the best
tool to control toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges because most
discharges result from one or a few facilities in this industrial category. EPA will
consider assisting permitting authorities in identifying pollution-control and
pollution-prevention technologies for the development of technology-based
effluent limitations during the development of individual permits.
3. Not identified as a priority based on data available at this time because EPA did
not identify during the 2014 Annual Review that revisions to the national effluent
guidelines or pretreatment standards are warranted.
4. EPA intends to start, or continue to conduct, a preliminary category review of the
pollutant discharges from this category.
5. EPA intends to start or continue either a preliminary or detailed study of this
industry to determine whether to identify the category for effluent guidelines
rulemaking.
6. EPA is identifying this industry for a potential revision of an existing effluent
guideline.
Table 6-1. Summary of Findings from EPA's 2014 Annual Review of Existing
Industrial Categories
No,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Industry Category (Listed Alphabetically)
Airport Deicing
Aluminum Forming
Asbestos Manufacturing
Battery Manufacturing
Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetable Processing
Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Cement Manufacturing
Centralized Waste Treatment
40CFRPart
449
467
427
461
407
408
458
411
437
Findings
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(5)
6-1
-------
Section 6—Summary Table of Findings for Existing Guideline Categories from the 2014 Annual Review
Table 6-1. Summary of Findings from EPA's 2014 Annual Review of Existing
Industrial Categories
No.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Industry Category (Listed Alphabetically)
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
Construction and Development
Copper Forming
Dairy Products Processing
Electrical and Electronic Components
Electroplating
Explosives Manufacturing
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Fertilizer Manufacturing
Glass Manufacturing
Grain Mills
Gum and Wood Chemicals
Hospitals
Ink Formulating
Inorganic Chemicals3
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Landfills
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Meat and Poultry Products
Metal Finishing
Metal Molding and Casting
Metal Products and Machinery
Mineral Mining and Processing
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Oil and Gas Extraction13
Ore Mining and Dressing
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers3
Paint Formulating
Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt)
Pesticide Chemicals
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
40CFRPart
434
465
412
451
450
468
405
469
413
457
424
418
426
406
454
460
447
415
420
445
425
432
433
464
438
436
471
421
435
440
414
446
443
455
419
439
Findings
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(5)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(l)and(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(5)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(1) and (3)
(2)
(1), (2), and (3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(3)
6-2
-------
Section 6—Summary Table of Findings for Existing Guideline Categories from the 2014 Annual Review
Table 6-1. Summary of Findings from EPA's 2014 Annual Review of Existing
Industrial Categories
No.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Industry Category (Listed Alphabetically)
Phosphate Manufacturing
Photographic
Plastic Molding and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Rubber Manufacturing
Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing
Steam Electric Power Generating
Sugar Processing
Textile Mills
Timber Products Processing
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Waste Combustors
40CFRPart
422
459
463
466
430
428
417
423
409
410
429
442
444
Findings
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
a Codes (1) and (3) are used for this category. The first code, (1), refers to the recent effluent guidelines rulemaking,
and subsequent delisting for the Chlorinated and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH) manufacturing sector, which
includes facilities currently regulated by the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers and Inorganic
Chemicals effluent guidelines. The second code, (3), indicates that the remainder of the facilities in these two
categories does not represent a hazard priority at this time.
b Codes (1) and (3) are used for this category. The first code, (1), refers to the ongoing effluent guidelines
rulemaking for shale gas extraction and EPA's review of the coalbed methane extraction sector of the industry. The
second code, (3), refers to category discharges of the oil and gas extraction industry, excluding coalbed methane and
shale gas extraction, that do not represent a hazard priority at this time.
6-3
-------
Section 7—References For the Final 2014 Plan
7. REFERENCES FOR THE FINAL 2014 PLAN
1. ACWA. 2013. Public Comment Submitted by the Association of Clean Water
Administrators on the Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Re: Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824/Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan
and 2011 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report. (October 7). EPA-HQ-OW-2010-
0824-0218-A2.
2. Auchterlonie, Steve. 2009. Notes from Telephone Communication 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.
3. ERG. 2013. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Environmental Engineering Support for Clean
Water Regulations Programmatic Quality Assurance Project Plan (PQAPP). Chantilly,
VA. (May). EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0229.
4. U.S. EPA. 1988a. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Interim Final.
OSWER Publication 9234.1-01. Washington, D.C. (August). Available online at:
www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedv/pdf/540g-89006-s.pdf EPA-540-G-89-006.
5. U.S. EPA. 1988b. Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at
Superfund Sites. OSWER Directive 9283.1-2. (December). Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policv/remedv/pdfs/540g-88003-s.pdf EPA-540-G-88-
003.
6. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing
Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories.
Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-821-R-09-007. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517-0515.
7. U.S. EPA. 2010. U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers' Manual. Washington, D.C.
(September). Available online at: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/basics/NPDES-
Permit-Writers-Manual.cfm. EPA-833-K-10-001. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0236.
8. U.S. EPA. 2012a. The 2011 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report. Washington,
D.C. (December). EPA-821-R-12-001. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0195.
9. U.S. EPA. 2012b. Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology. Washington, D.C. (March).
EPA-HQ-OW-820-R-12-005.EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0004.
10. U.S. EPA. 20 \4a.Final 2012 an d Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans.
Washington, D.C. (September). EPA-820-R-14-001. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-
0002.
11. U.S. EPA. 2014b. Response to Comments for the Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan. Washington D.C. (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0318.
7-1
-------
Section 7—References For the Final 2014 Plan
12. U.S. EPA. 2014c. The 2012 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report. Washington
D.C.(September). EPA-821-R-14-004. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0320.
13. U.S. EPA. 2014d. The 2013 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report. Washington,
D.C. (September). EPA-821-R-14-003. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0077.
14. U.S. EPA. 2015. The 2014 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report. Washington, D.C.
(July). EPA-821-R-15-001. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170. DCN 08106.
7-2
------- |