oEPA—
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Preliminary
Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan 15
September 2021
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821-R-21-003
-------
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 Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Overview 2-1
2.3 Effluent Guidelines Review and Planning Process 2-3
3. SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 3-1
4. SUMMARY OF ANNUAL REVIEW ACTIVITIES 4-1
5. REVIEWS OF INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES 5-1
5.1 Cross-Category Review of Discharge Monitoring Report Concentration Data 5-2
5.1.1 Data Used in the Analysis 5-2
5.1.2 Methodology and Considerations for the Analyses 5-3
5.1.3 Results of the Cross-Category Concentration Analysis 5-5
5.1.4 Potential Refinements to the Analysis 5-10
5.2 Metal Products and Machinery (40 CFR Part 438) 5-10
5.3 Explosives Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 457) 5-11
5.4 Canned and Preserved Seafood (40 CFR Part 408) 5-12
5.5 Sugar Processing (40 CFR Part 409) 5-13
5.6 Soap and Detergent Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 417) 5-14
5.7 Landfills (40 CFR Part 445) 5-15
5.8 Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies Reviews 5-17
5.9 ELG Planning Tools 5-18
5.9.1 Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology Database 5-18
5.9.2 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards Database 5-18
5.10 Environmental Justice 5-19
6. ONGOING ELG STUDIES 6-1
6.1 Detailed Study of Electrical and Electronic Components Category (40 CFR Part 469). 6-1
6.2 Study of Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 432) 6-1
6.3 Study of Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewater Management 6-3
6.4 Study of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Industrial Sources and Discharges 6-3
6.4.1 PFAS Manufacturers and Formulators 6-4
6.4.2 Metal Finishing 6-4
6.4.3 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 6-5
6.4.4 Textile and Carpet Manufacturers 6-5
6.4.5 Commercial Airports 6-6
in
-------
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
7. ONGOING ELG RULEMAKING 7-1
7.1 Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 423) 7-1
8. REFERENCES FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN 15 8-1
iv
-------
List of Tables
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2-1. Statutorily Prescribed Levels of Control 2-2
Table 5-1. Cross-Category Concentration Analysis Results 5-7
v
-------
1—Executive Summary
1. Executive Summary
EPA prepares Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plans pursuant to Clean Water Act (CWA)
section 304(m). Preliminary plans provide a description of the EPA's annual review of effluent
guidelines and pretreatment standards, consistent with CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 304(m),
and 307(b). From these reviews, preliminary plans identify any new or existing industrial categories
selected for effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards rulemakings and provide a schedule for such
rulemakings. In addition, preliminary plans present any new or existing categories of industry selected
for further review and analysis.
This Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 (Preliminary Plan 15) discusses EPA's 2020
annual review of effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards, presents its preliminary review of
specific categories identified through the review, and provides an update on the analyses and tools that
EPA is continuing to develop to improve its annual review and biennial planning process.
Preliminary Plan 15 announces that EPA is initiating three new rulemakings. After several years of
collecting and analyzing data, EPA has determined that revision of the following effluent guidelines or
pretreatment standards are warranted:
• Meat and Poultry Products Category to address nutrient discharges (see Section 6.2 for additional
details)
• Organic Chemicals, Plastics & Synthetic Fibers Category to address Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances (PFAS) discharges (see Section 6.4 for additional details)
• Metal Finishing Category to address Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) discharges
(see Section 6.4 for additional details)
Preliminary Plan 15 also discusses ongoing efforts related to the Steam Electric Power Generating
category rulemaking (see Section 7.1 for additional details) that the agency announced on July 26, 2021.
At that time, EPA announced that the agency was initiating a rulemaking process to strengthen certain
wastewater pollution discharge limitations for coal power plants that use steam to generate electricity.
Finally, Preliminary Plan 15 provides updates on ongoing point source category studies of the Electrical
and Electronic Components Category and the Preliminary Multi-Industry PFAS study and announces no
further action on oil and gas extraction wastewater management. Additionally, initial results from
reviews of readily available data are discussed for the Metal Products and Machinery, Explosives
Manufacturing, Canned and Preserved Seafood, Sugar Processing, Soap and Detergent Manufacturing,
and Landfill Point Source Categories.
EPA solicits comments on the entirety of Preliminary Plan 15, particularly on its reviews of industrial
wastewater discharges and treatment technologies that are described in Section 5 of this plan. This
includes the 2020 annual review, which consisted of a cross-category concentration rankings analysis
and preliminary review of specific, high-ranking point source categories. Along with any new
comments, commenters who have previously provided relevant comments or rulemaking petitions must
resubmit them for EPA to consider these comments in the context of Preliminary Plan 15.
1-1
-------
2—Background
2. Background
This section explains how the Effluent Guidelines Program fits into EPA's National Water Program,
provides an overview of the Effluent Guidelines Program, and summarizes EPA's procedures for
revising and developing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) (i.e., the effluent
guidelines planning process).
2.1 The Clean Water Act and the Effluent Guidelines Program
The CWA is focused on two types of controls for point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States: (1) technology-based controls, based on ELGs and (2) water-quality-based controls, based
on applicable water quality standards.
The CWA directs EPA to promulgate technology-based ELGs that reflect pollutant reductions
achievable in categories or subcategories of industrial point sources through implementation of available
treatment technologies.1 ELGs apply to pollutants discharged from industrial facilities to surface water
(direct discharges) and to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) (indirect discharges). EPA's
technology-based standards ensure that industrial facilities with similar characteristics will, at a
minimum, meet similar effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards representing the performance of
the "best" pollution control technologies, regardless of their location or the nature of their receiving
water or POTW into which they discharge.
The CWA also gives states the primary responsibility for establishing, reviewing, and revising water
quality standards. Effluent guidelines are not specifically designed to ensure that regulated discharges
meet the water quality standards of the receiving water body. For this reason, while technology-based
ELGs in discharge permits may meet or exceed water quality standards, the CWA also requires EPA and
authorized states to establish water quality-based effluent limitations as stringent as necessary to meet
water quality standards.2 Water-quality-based limitations may require industrial facilities to meet
standards that are more stringent than those in the ELGs.
To date, EPA has promulgated ELGs for 59 industrial categories. See EPA's Industrial Effluent
Guidelines webpage3 for more information. These ELGs apply to between 35,000 and 45,000 U.S.
direct dischargers, as well as to another 129,000 facilities that discharge to POTWs. Based on pollutant
reduction estimates from each ELG, EPA estimates that the regulations altogether prevent the discharge
of over 700 billion pounds of pollutants annually.4
2.2 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Overview
EPA promulgates technology-based limitations for conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants
in accordance with six statutorily prescribed levels of control (Table 2-1). The limitations are based on
performance of specific technologies, but the regulations do not require use of a specific control
1 See 33 U.S.C. 1311(b) and 1314(b).
2 See 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(C).
3 See https://www.epa.gov/eg/industrial-effluent-guidelines.
4 Based on the difference between discharges from each point source category before ELG promulgation and the estimated
(lower) volume of discharges from each point source category after promulgation (from review of ELG development
documents).
2-1
-------
2—Background
technology to achieve the limitations. For more information, see EPA's Learn about Effluent Guidelines
webpage.5
The CWA specifies different levels of control based on the type of pollutant at issue (i.e., conventional,
toxic, or nonconventional). CWA section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional pollutants:
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and grease as
an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979.6 EPA has identified 65 pollutants and classes of
pollutants as toxic, among which 126 specific substances have been designated by EPA as priority toxic
pollutants.7 All other pollutants are considered nonconventional.
Table 2-1. Statutorily Prescribed Levels of Control
Level of
Control
CWA Statutory
Reference
Description
Best
Practicable
Control
Technology
(BPT)
CWA sections
301(b)(1)(A) and
304(b)(1), 33
U.S.C.
1311(b)(1)(A) and
1314(b)(1)
EPA develops effluent limitations based on BPT for conventional, toxic, and
nonconventional pollutants. EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the
average of the best performance of facilities within an industry of various ages,
sizes, processes, or other common characteristics. Where existing performance is
uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than currently in
place in an industrial category if the agency determines that the technology can be
practically applied.
Best
Conventional
Pollutant
Control
Technology
(BCT)
CWA sections
301(b)(2)(E) and
304(b)(4), 33
U.S.C.
1311(b)(2)(E) and
1314(b)(4)
BCT addresses conventional pollutants from existing industrial point sources. EPA
establishes BCT limitations by considering the factors specified in Section
304(b)(4)(B), including a two-part "cost-reasonableness" test. This methodology
was published in a Federal Register notice on July 9, 1986 (51 FR 24974).
Best Available
Technology
Economically
Achievable
(BAT)
CWA sections
301(b)(2)(A) and
304(b)(2), 33
U.S.C.
1311(b)(2)(A) and
1314(b)(2)
EPA develops effluent limitations based on BAT for toxic and nonconventional
pollutants. BAT represents the best available economically achievable performance
of plants in an industrial subcategory or category. Factors considered in
establishing BAT include the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process
employed, the engineering aspects of control techniques or process changes, the
cost of achieving such effluent reduction, non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate. (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B)). BAT limitations may be based on end-of-
pipe wastewater treatment or effluent reductions attainable through changes in a
facility's processes and operations.
Standards of
Performance
for New
Sources
(NSPS)
CWA section 306,
33 U.S.C. 1316
EPA develops effluent limitations based on NSPS for conventional, toxic, and
nonconventional pollutants. NSPS reflect effluent reductions based on the best
available demonstrated control technology. (33 U.S.C. 1316(a)(1)). In establishing
or revising NSPS, EPA considers the cost of achieving such effluent reduction and
any non-water-quality, environmental impact, and energy requirements. (33 U.S.C.
1316(b)(1)(B)).
5 See https://www.epa.gov/eg/learn-about-effIuent-guidelines.
s 44 FR 44501
7 Appendix A to Part 423, reprinted after 40 CFR Part 423.17
2-2
-------
2—Background
Table 2-1. Statutorily Prescribed Levels of Control
Level of
Control
CWA Statutory
Reference
Description
Pretreatment
Standards for
Existing
Sources
(PSES)
CWA section
307(b), 33 U.S.C.
1317(b)
EPA develops PSES for nonconventional and toxic pollutants. PSES are national,
uniform, teclinology-based standards that apply to indirect dischargers. They are
designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with or
are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. (33 U.S.C. 1317(b)(1))
The agency considers the same factors for PSES as it does for BAT limitations. (33
U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B))
Pretreatment
Standards for
New Sources
(PSNS)
CWA section
307(c), 33 U.S.C.
1317(c)
EPA develops PSNS for nonconventional and toxic pollutants. PSNS are national,
uniform, teclinology-based standards that apply to new indirect dischargers. Like
PSES, they are designed to prevent the discharges of pollutants that pass through
interfere with or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS
are issued at the same time as NSPS. (33 U.S.C. 1317(c)). The agency considers
the same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS. (33
U.S.C. 1316(a)(1))
EPA and states implement ELGs for point sources that discharge pollutants into surface waters through
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.8 POTWs, states, and EPA enforce
pretreatment standards for point sources that discharge to POTWs.9
2.3 Effluent Guidelines Review and Planning Process
The CWA contains multiple provisions requiring EPA to review and revise the limitations, standards,
and guidelines that apply to new and existing as well as direct and indirect dischargers.
For existing direct dischargers, i.e., those who discharge into navigable waters, the CWA requires EPA
to review effluent limitations "at least every five years and, if appropriate, revise[]" those limitations.10
The CWA also requires EPA to publish regulations providing "guidelines for effluent limitations, and, at
least annually thereafter, revise, if appropriate, such regulations."11 Historically, rather than conducting
separate reviews, EPA consolidates its review of effluent limitations required under section 301(d) into
its review of ELGs under section 304(b).12
For indirect dischargers, i.e., those who discharge to POTWs, the CWA requires EPA "from time to
time" to publish proposed regulations establishing pretreatment standards.13 The CWA also requires
EPA to "review at least annually . . . and, if appropriate, revise guidelines for pretreatment."14
For new sources, both direct and indirect, the CWA requires EPA to "publish (and from time to time
thereafter [] revise) a list of categories of sources, which shall, at the minimum, include . . ." and
"propose and publish regulations establishing Federal standards of performance for new sources within
8 See CWA sections 301(a), 301(b), and 402; 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), 1311(b), and 1342.
9 See CWA sections 307(b) and 307(c); 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and 1317(c).
10 See CWA section 301(d); 33 U.S.C. 1311(d).
11 See CWA section 304(b); 33 U.S.C. 1314(b). See also Our Children's Earth v. EPA, 527 F.3d 842, 848-49 (9th Cir. 2008)
("Sections 304(b) and (m) require an annual review of "guidelines for effluent limitations" applicable to direct dischargers
and revision "if appropriate.").
12 See Our Children's Earth v. EI'. 1. 527 F.3d 842, 849 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing EPA's processes of combining the reviews
required under sections 301(d) and 304(b)).
13 See CWA section 307(b); 33 U.S.C. 1317(b).
14 See CWA section 304(g); 33 U.S.C. 1314(g).
2-3
-------
2—Background
such category . . ,"15 The CWA further provides that, "[t]he Administrator shall, from time to time, as
technology and alternatives change, revise such standards following the procedure required by this
subsection for promulgation of such standards."16
In the 1987 Amendments to the CWA, Congress added a provision that requires EPA to biennially
publish in the Federal Register a "plan" that "establishes] a schedule for the annual review and revision
of promulgated effluent guidelines"; identifies certain categories of sources for which ELGs have not
previously been published and establishes a schedule for promulgating ELGs for certain categories of
sources for which such guidelines have not previously been published.17 The biennial planning
requirement was enacted after the CWA provisions regarding review and revision of effluent limitations
and ELGs and informs EPA's obligations under those provisions. When read together, these provisions
require EPA to annually review ELGs and revise those guidelines, if appropriate; and to biennially
publish a plan as described above.
While the CWA requires EPA to annually "review" effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
guidelines,18 it does not require EPA to make a "yes" or "no" determination every year on whether to
revise the guidelines. See Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 14 (Plan 14, U.S. EPA, 2021a), Section 2.3
for further discussion of EPA's annual obligations.
To increase transparency and stakeholder awareness, EPA's biennial plans include information on its
review of existing ELGs and pretreatment standards, as well as industries reviewed for potential
development of new ELGs or pretreatment standards.
Preliminary Plan 15 describes ongoing planning activities, including projects EPA initiated as part of its
2020 annual review, and describes EPA's effluent guidelines planning efforts, including preliminary
category reviews, category studies, and ELG rulemakings. For additional details, see EPA's Review of
Industrial Wastewater Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Data for Preliminary Plan 15 and 2020
Preliminary Review of Industrial Point Source Categories (U.S. EPA, 2021b, 2021c).
15 See CWA section 306(b)(1); 33 U.S.C. 1316(b)(1).
16 See CWA section 306(b)(1)(B); 33 U.S.C. 1316(b)(1)(B).
17 See CWA section 304(m); 33 U.S.C. 1314(m).
18 See CWA sections 304(b), 304(m)(l)(A), and 304(g); 33 U.S.C. 1314(b), 1314(m)(l)(A), 1314(g).
2-4
-------
3—Solicitation of Public Comments
3. Solicitation of Public Comments
EPA seeks public input and comment on all aspects of its planning process including the entirety of
Preliminary Plan 15. In particular, EPA requests comments on the following questions and related
themes:
• EPA solicits feedback on the cross-category rankings analysis. To the extent that any comment
advocates for a revision to existing ELGs the commenter should explain why EPA should
prioritize these point source categories ahead of the ones that EPA is studying and revising
(Section 5.1).
• EPA solicits public input on the capabilities, performance, and costs of membrane treatment
technologies for industrial wastewater to support the membrane technology review (Section 5.8).
• EPA solicits public input on how best to incorporate environmental justice into the ELG
planning process (Section 5.10).
• EPA solicits feedback on the findings of the Preliminary Multi-Industry PFAS study, specifically
findings from the pulp and paper manufacturers and commercial airports (Section 6.4, U.S. EPA,
202 Id).
• EPA solicits public input on the announcements made within Preliminary Plan 15 regarding
ongoing studies and rulemaking activities (Sections 6 and 7).
3-1
-------
4—Summary of Annual Review Activities
4. Summary of Annual Review Activities
Preliminary Plan 15 presents EPA's 2020 annual review activities, including its expanded cross-
category review of discharge monitoring report (DMR) monthly average concentration data, initiated as
part of the 2019 annual review and discussed in Plan 14 (U.S. EPA, 2021a). EPA updated the analysis
using 2019 DMR data and analyzed the results using two different ranking approaches to identify
categories that have discharges with relatively high pollutant concentrations compared to other point
source categories (PSCs) (see Section 5.1). This analysis looked across all existing ELGs, including
relevant data for industries with existing ELGs, and data for some industries that are not currently
regulated by ELGs. Based on the results of the rankings analysis, EPA identified seven PSCs for
preliminary review to assess which categories, if any, require further review and study (see Sections 5.2
through 5.6). EPA also conducted a preliminary review of the Landfills PSC (40 CFR Part 445) to assess
the discharges of perfluorinated compounds, based on ongoing industrial wastewater reviews and
stakeholder input (see Section 5.7, U.S. EPA, 2021a and 2021d). In addition, EPA continued to develop
and update tools to facilitate the annual review and biennial planning processes, including a review of
treatment technologies (see Section 5.8), and the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology (IWTT)
and Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) Databases (see Section 5.9).
The 2020 annual review and the information presented in this Preliminary Plan 15 build on EPA's
previous annual reviews, including the 2019 annual review and ELG planning process described in Plan
14 (U.S. EPA, 2021a). Likewise, the analyses presented herein, as well as public comments received on
Preliminary Plan 15, will inform EPA's 2021 annual review and ELG planning process. EPA welcomes
comments on including the following analyses in the 2021 annual review:
• Evaluation of industrial category rankings based on annual pollutant loadings rather than
concentration.
• Conduct of the cross-category concentration rankings analysis for a targeted pollutant group,
such as toxic pollutants, rather than aggregating all pollutants.
• Updates to and expansion of the impaired waters analysis described in Plan 14, using new
Assessment, Total Maximum Daily Load Tracking and Implementation System (ATTAINS)
data.
• Reviews of emerging contaminants.
EPA plans to describe its 2021 annual review and consider any public comments received on
Preliminary Plan 15 in developing Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15.
4-1
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
5. Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
This section describes EPA's ongoing ELG program planning activities and analyses to identify
industrial categories for potential new or revised ELGs and summarizes the data sources used to
complete the reviews and the limitations of those data. This section also presents findings and next steps
for the associated planning activities. Since Plan 14 (U.S. EPA, 2021a), EPA has undertaken the
following efforts (discussed further below):
• Continued a cross-category review of monthly average concentration data from discharge
monitoring reports (DMR) (see Section 5.1).
• Conducted preliminary category reviews of the top-ranking point source categories (PSCs)
identified in the cross-category review of DMR concentration data and other categories identified
through stakeholder input (see Sections 5.2 through 5.7).
• Continued to screen, prioritize, and further review specific industrial wastewater treatment
technologies that may be more broadly evaluated as technology options in future studies and
rulemakings (see Section 5.8).
• Continued to compile wastewater treatment technology information in the Industrial Wastewater
Treatment Technology (IWTT) Database and populate the information in the IWTT web
application for public use (see Section 5.9.1).
• Published the ELG Database, which includes information across all regulated PSCs in a
consolidated, searchable database (see Section 5.9.2).
In Plan 14, EPA discussed the possibility of initiating reviews of four industrial categories based on
EPA's 2019 nutrient analyses. EPA's 2020 analysis of the overall amount of nutrient discharges
indicated that further review of one category— Explosives Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 457)— is
appropriate. EPA's analysis did not, however, support further review of Fertilizer Manufacturing (40
CFR Part 418), Plastics Molding and Forming (40 CFR Part 463), or Miscellaneous Food and Beverages
(no current ELG) at this time. As discussed below, these latter three categories did not rank highly in
EPA's 2020 analyses of pollutant discharges as compared to the other categories and other current EPA
priorities for rulemaking. EPA uses its annual analyses and technical expertise to prioritize its reviews
and to focus on point source categories that are best suited for revisions that further the objectives of the
CWA. EPA solicits comments on using this 2020 analysis as a basis for prioritization. EPA may choose
to continue its reviews of these categories in the future.
As required by the CWA, EPA reviewed all PSCs as part of its annual review. For categories not
discussed in detail in this Preliminary Plan 15, EPA is currently not prioritizing further review. As
described in detail below and in documents in the docket for this preliminary plan, EPA does not have
data indicating that these categories discharge quantities of pollutants that would warrant revising the
ELGs at this time. Additionally, given EPA's available resources, these categories are less important
than the other PSC for which EPA is undertaking further study and or rulemaking. EPA solicits
comment on this approach and will continue to review all categories while preparing the next plan.
5-1
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
EPA received petitions19'20 for rulemaking that request changes to the ELGs for Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations and Plastic Manufacturers and EPA is carefully reviewing those petitions. At this
time, based on EPA's general methodology and results from the 2020 annual review, and balancing this
information with the agency's available resources for ELG revisions and this Administration's priorities,
EPA is not planning to revise these ELGs at this time. EPA solicits comments on this approach and to
the extent that any comment advocates for a revision to the ELGs, the commenter should explain why
EPA should prioritize these point source categories ahead of the ones that EPA is studying and revising.
5.1 Cross-Category Review of Discharge Monitoring Report Concentration Data
As part of its 2020 annual review of the ELGs, EPA evaluated concentration data reported by industrial
facilities on their 2019 DMRs. This analysis, referred to as the cross-category concentration rankings
analysis, compared facility wastewater discharge pollutant concentrations across PSCs to identify
categories that have relatively high pollutant concentration discharges compared to other PSCs. This
comparison provides a mechanism for prioritizing specific PSCs for further review and adds to the
analysis begun as part of EPA's 2019 annual review (U.S. EPA, 2021a). The following subsections
discuss the data sources and methodology of the cross-category review, describe some factors that EPA
considered in its review, summarize the results, and present potential refinements that EPA is
considering to improve the analysis. For additional details on the cross-category concentration analysis,
see EPA's Review of Industrial Wastewater Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Data for Preliminary
Plan 15 (2020 DMR Data Report, U.S. EPA, 2021b).
5.1.1 Data Used in the Analysis
For this analysis, EPA evaluated available industrial wastewater discharge data reported on facilities'
2019 DMRs. Facilities that directly discharge wastewater to surface waters of the United States pursuant
to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit are required to report monitoring
data via DMRs for pollutants listed in their NPDES permits. Facilities send DMRs electronically to their
respective NPDES permitting authorities (state or EPA). The DMR data are stored in EPA's centralized
program database, Integrated Compliance Information System National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (ICIS-NPDES). ICIS-NPDES captures pollutant-specific permit limits, monitoring
requirements, and DMR data, including, but not limited to facility, outfall, and monitoring-period-
specific pollutant discharge concentrations, quantities, and wastewater flows. EPA used the following
three sets of 2019 DMR data from ICIS-NPDES to rank PSCs by the concentrations of pollutants in
their discharges relative to other PSCs:
• 2019 DMR Industrial Monthly Average Concentration Data
• 2019 DMR Industrial Monthly Average Quantity Data
• 2019 DMR Flow Data
19 Food & Water Watch, et al. "Petition to Revise the Clean Water Act Regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations." Submitted 8 March, 2017.
20 Center for Biological Diversity, et al. "Petition to Revise the Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Petro-Plastics Industry Under the 40 C.F.R. Part 419 Petroleum Refining Industrial Category (Cracking and
Petrochemicals Subparts) and Part 414 Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Industrial Category." Submitted 23
July, 2019.
5-2
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
EPA used 2019 data for this review because they comprised the most recent and complete set of
industrial wastewater discharge data available when this review began.
5.1.2 Methodology and Considerations for the Analyses
EPA limited the cross-category concentration analysis to toxic and nonconventional pollutants to focus
the analysis on pollutants that have historically been part of the rationale to revise ELGs.
Facilities may monitor and report concentration and quantity data for different statistical bases (i.e.,
averages, maximums, or minimums) and frequencies (e.g., annually, monthly, or daily) depending on
their NPDES permit requirements. To maintain comparability between data reported by facilities and to
account for variability of the data throughout the year, EPA used concentration and quantity data
reported as monthly averages in this analysis.
To prepare the data for analysis, when reported concentration data were not available, EPA calculated
discharge concentrations of pollutants from quantity and flow data and then combined into a static
database these calculated monthly average concentration data with the reported monthly average
concentrations for all facilities and all monitoring periods into a static database (ERG, 2021). If a facility
reported both a concentration and a quantity for the same monitoring period, parameter, and outfall,
EPA prioritized the reported concentration over the calculated concentration derived from the quantity
value to avoid double counting data. EPA then averaged all the monthly average concentrations from
2019 (either reported or calculated when a reported value was not available) to calculate a single 2019
average monthly concentration for each pollutant reported for each facility that could be compared with
other facilities for use in the cross-category concentration analysis.
EPA used established crosswalks maintained in the Loading Tool documentation to relate individual
facility and reported pollutants to the most appropriate PSC, commonly based on the facility's primary
reported Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) or North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code.21
Once the data were processed, as described above, EPA followed the steps described below to compare
wastewater discharge pollutant concentrations across pollutants for facilities in each PSC to identify
categories that have relatively high pollutant concentration discharges.
Step 1: Calculate Median Pollutant Concentrations by PSC
From the concentration data set, EPA calculated the median of the average monthly
concentrations (hereafter referred to as the median concentration) for each pollutant discharged
by facilities in each PSC. If a pollutant was only reported by one facility within a PSC, EPA
excluded that pollutant from this analysis because it was considered unrepresentative of category
discharges.
Step 2: Identify PSCs with Highest Median Concentrations by Pollutant
For each pollutant, EPA sorted the median pollutant concentrations for the PSCs from highest to
lowest, assigning each PSC a rank. EPA only ranked PSCs with median concentrations greater
than 0 mg/L in order to focus its review on top-ranking discharges. EPA removed pollutants
21 EPA did not review facilities that did not report a SIC or NAICS code, facilities that reported a SIC code of 4952 (publicly
and privately owned treatment works), and facilities that reported a SIC code but are not industrial facilities.
5-3
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
reported by only one PSC because the analysis is intended to be a comparison of discharge
concentrations across PSCs.
Step 3: Calculate PSC Scores
EPA used two approaches22 to count the number of top-ranking pollutants within a PSC and
developed a PSC score for each approach:
• Top Five PSC Approach. Counts the number of pollutants where the median
concentration for the PSC was among the five highest median concentrations for the
pollutant across all PSCs.
• Top 25 Percent PSC Approach. Counts the number of pollutants where the median
concentration for the PSC was among the top 25 percent of highest median
concentrations for the pollutant across all PSCs.
To normalize for the varying number of pollutants reported by each PSC, EPA divided the count
of top-ranking pollutants (under each approach) by the total number of pollutants reported by
more than one facility in the PSC. This provided a directly comparable "score" for each PSC
representing the percent of pollutants in the PSC with median concentrations ranked higher
across PSCs. Using the Sugar Processing category as an example, the median pollutant
concentrations ranked among the top five across PSCs for seven of the 12 pollutants (58 percent)
reported by the facilities in the PSC and among the top 25 percent for eight of the 12 pollutants
(67 percent), see Table 5-1. These percentages become the PSCs scores for the Top Five PSC
Approach and Top 25 Percent PSC Approach, respectively.
Step 4: Rank and Prioritize PSCs for Further Review
EPA ranked the categories by the PSC score using both the Top Five PSC Approach and the Top
25 Percent PSC Approach (identified in Step 3). EPA selected the top-five ranking PSCs from
each approach for further consideration for preliminary category review, excluding any PSCs
currently being reviewed (as identified in Plan 14, U.S. EPA, 2021a). See Section 5.1.3 for the
specific PSCs selected for the 2020 annual review.
EPA identified several limitations of the cross-category concentration analysis, which include but are
not limited to the following:
• Analysis is relative to what other categories are reporting and does not consider the extent of
discharge. A PSC that discharges larger concentrations relative to other categories may or may
not indicate the potential for reducing or eliminating pollutant discharges within that PSC.
• Analysis uses median concentration and does not directly account for the range of concentration
data within a PSC.
• Analysis does not compare the median pollutant concentrations for a PSC to any national
effluent limitations, if there is one, or to specific permit limits.
• Analysis does not consider the magnitude (i.e., pollutant loading) or toxicity of the pollutants
being discharged.
22 EPA analyzed the rankings using two different approaches to account for top-ranking PSCs that are identified using the
Top Five PSC Approach simply because few PSCs report a pollutant. This can result in PSCs being flagged as having a
median concentration ranking in the top five, even if there are less than five PSCs reporting a pollutant.
5-4
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
• Analysis may rank higher those PSCs whose facilities monitor and report pollutants unique to the
PSC simply because few other PSCs report those pollutants.
Even with these limitations, the cross-category concentration analysis provides an appropriate screening-
level review of industrial discharges, as it allows comparison of the concentrations of pollutant
discharges between PSCs.
5.1.3 Results of the Cross-Category Concentration Analysis
Table 5-1 presents the results of this analysis, including the following information for each PSC:
• Top Five Approach PSC Score. Percent of pollutants reported by more than one facility where
the PSCs median concentration ranked among the five highest median concentrations reported
for the pollutant across all PSCs. Value is calculated from the number of pollutants that rank in
the top five and the number of pollutants with data reported. The table is sorted from highest to
lowest PSC score (and then alphabetically for PSCs with the same score).
• Top Five Approach Number of Top-Ranking Pollutants. Number of pollutants reported by more
than one facility where the PSCs median concentration ranked among the five highest median
concentrations reported for the pollutant across all PSCs.
• Top 25 Percent Approach PSC Score. Percent of pollutants reported by more than one facility
where the PSCs median concentration ranked among the 25 percent highest median
concentrations reported for the pollutant across all PSCs. Value is calculated from the number of
pollutants that rank in the top 25 percent and the number of pollutants with data reported.
• Top 25 Percent Approach Number of Top-Ranking Pollutants. Number of pollutants reported by
more than one facility where the PSCs median concentration ranked among the top 25 percent
highest median concentrations reported for the pollutant across all PSCs.
• Number of Pollutants with Data Reported. Number of pollutants considered as part of the cross-
category concentration analysis that were reported by more than one facility within a PSC.
Pollutants excluded from this analysis (e.g., conventional pollutants or those reported by only
one facility) are not captured in the counts for this analysis.
• Number of Facilities Reporting Data. Number of facilities corresponding to reported
concentrations for pollutants considered part of the cross-category concentration analysis.
Facilities reporting conventional pollutants, or other excluded pollutants, are not captured in the
counts for this analysis.
EPA selected for further review the PSCs that were among the top five PSC scores from either of the
two "top-five" approaches described above, after excluding any categories currently under review (U.S.
EPA, 2021a). The following PSCs ranked in the top five in one or both of the two approaches (also
highlighted in green and blue in Table 5-1):
• Metal Products and Machinery (40 CFR Part 438)
• Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 461)
• Explosives Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 457)
• Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing (40 CFR Part 408)
• Paint Formulating (40 CFR Part 446)
• Sugar Processing (40 CFR Part 409)
5-5
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
• Soap and Detergent Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 417)
As a first step, for each of the seven categories listed above, EPA reviewed the underlying 2019 DMR
concentration data for the top-ranking pollutants and the facilities reporting the top-ranking
concentration data. Following this initial review, EPA decided to exclude the following two PSCs from
further preliminary review:
• Paint Formulating (40 CFR Part 446). This PSC ranked high for total residual chlorine,
chlorine product oxidants, and iron. The direct discharge requirements for existing and new
plants state "there shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants to navigable waters" (40 CFR
Part 446). These pollutants were reported by five facilities and, through a review of the facility
NPDES permits, EPA determined that these pollutants are associated with the discharges of
noncontact cooling water and stormwater. The permit requirements are all based on state water
quality criteria. Based on the available data, and the limited number of facilities reporting these
discharges, revisions to the ELGs are unlikely to result in significant pollutant discharge
reductions relative to the other point source categories discussed in this Plan.
• Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 461). This PSC ranked high for lead, which were only
reported by two out of 21 facilities. Based on EPA's review of the 2019 DMR concentration
data, both facilities manufacture storage batteries and are captured under Subpart C of the
Battery Manufacturing ELGs (Lead Subcategory). Permit requirements for both facilities are
based on state water quality criteria and the ELGs. One facility is currently reporting
concentrations that exceed permit limits. Based on the available data, and the number of facilities
reporting these discharges, revisions to the ELGs are unlikely to result in significant pollutant
discharge reductions relative to the other point source categories discussed in this Plan. EPA
recommends that state and local permitting authorities consider applying water-quality based
effluent limits or best professional judgement on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate, to address
any other potential issues with pollutants in discharges from this category.
5-6
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
Table 5-1. Cross-Category Concentration Analysis Results
PSC
PSC Name
Top Five Approach
Top 25 Percent Approach
Number of
Pollutants
with Data
Reported
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Data
PSC Score
(Percent of
Top- Ranking
Pollutants)
Number of
Top-Ranking
Pollutants
PSC Score
(Percent of
Top-Ranking
Pollutants)
Number of
Top- Ranking
Pollutants
469
Electrical and Electronic Components3
100.0%
3
100.0%
3
3
5
461
Battery Manufacturing
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
1
2
438
Metal Products and Machinery
100.0%
11
0.0%
0
11
63
457
Explosives Manufacturing
80.0%
4
80.0%
4
5
6
408
Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing
66.7%
6
77.8%
7
9
27
417
Soap and Detergent Manufacturing
63.3%
19
20.0%
6
30
11
429
Timber Products Processing
60.5%
23
28.9%
11
38
54
409
Sugar Processing
58.3%
7
66.7%
8
12
15
455
Pesticide Chemicals
55.6%
5
55.6%
5
9
15
414
Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers3
51.6%
32
24.2%
15
62
296
446
Paint Formulating
50.0%
2
75.0%
3
4
6
443
Paving And Roofing Materials (Tars and
Asphalt)
50.0%
8
50.0%
8
16
37
437
Centralized Waste Treatment3
50.0%
14
32.1%
9
28
7
420
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
44.7%
21
38.3%
18
47
100
432
Meat and Poultry Products3
43.3%
13
40.0%
12
30
185
415
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
40.5%
17
38.1%
16
42
112
N/A
Food Service Establishments
40.0%
2
40.0%
2
5
107
467
Aluminum Forming
40.0%
4
40.0%
4
10
10
433
Metal Finishing
40.0%
18
26.7%
12
45
357
439
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
37.5%
9
37.5%
9
24
32
430
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
37.1%
13
40.0%
14
35
145
421
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
37.0%
10
40.7%
11
27
36
426
Glass Manufacturing
36.8%
7
42.1%
8
19
23
442
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
36.4%
8
18.2%
4
22
39
5-7
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
Table 5-1. Cross-Category Concentration Analysis Results
Top Five Approach
Top 25 Percent Approach
PSC Score
Number of
Top-Ranking
Pollutants
PSC Score
Number of
Top- Ranking
Pollutants
Number of
Number of
PSC
PSC Name
(Percent of
Top- Ranking
Pollutants)
(Percent of
Top-Ranking
Pollutants)
Pollutants
with Data
Reported
Facilities
Reporting
Data
423
Steam Electric Power Generating3
36.0%
18
10.0%
5
50
442
445
Landfills
34.1%
14
19.5%
8
41
143
N/A
Independent And Stand Alone Labs
33.3%
4
25.0%
3
12
14
435
Oil & Gas Extraction3
33.3%
9
29.6%
8
27
76
449
Airport Deicing
31.3%
5
37.5%
6
16
44
436
Mineral Mining and Processing
31.3%
10
18.8%
6
32
217
471
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal
Powders
30.4%
7
56.5%
13
23
33
405
Dairy Products Processing
30.0%
6
30.0%
6
20
77
418
Fertilizer Manufacturing
27.8%
5
33.3%
6
18
35
N/A
Drinking Water Treatment
27.8%
10
22.2%
8
36
1425
N/A
Unassigned Waste Facility
27.5%
11
17.5%
7
40
115
460
Hospital
26.7%
4
33.3%
5
15
140
468
Copper Forming
25.0%
1
50.0%
2
4
5
424
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
23.8%
5
23.8%
5
21
9
440
Ore Mining and Dressing
23.3%
7
10.0%
3
30
72
419
Petroleum Refining
21.9%
7
15.6%
5
32
331
434
Coal Mining
20.5%
8
10.3%
4
39
1700
464
Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries)
20.0%
3
40.0%
6
15
29
450
Construction and Development
20.0%
4
25.0%
5
20
49
412
Concentrated Animal Feed Operations
20.0%
1
40.0%
2
5
16
407
Canned And Preserved Fruits and Vegetables
Processing
18.8%
3
25.0%
4
16
56
444
Waste Combustors
13.3%
2
33.3%
5
15
11
463
Plastics Molding and Forming
12.5%
2
31.3%
5
16
31
451
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
12.5%
2
0.0%
0
16
193
428
Rubber Manufacturing
11.8%
2
11.8%
2
17
43
5-8
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
Table 5-1. Cross-Category Concentration Analysis Results
PSC
PSC Name
Top Five Approach
Top 25 Percent Approach
Number of
Pollutants
with Data
Reported
Number of
Facilities
Reporting
Data
PSC Score
(Percent of
Top- Ranking
Pollutants)
Number of
Top-Ranking
Pollutants
PSC Score
(Percent of
Top-Ranking
Pollutants)
Number of
Top- Ranking
Pollutants
N/A
Miscellaneous Foods and Beverages
10.7%
3
0.0%
0
28
82
406
Grain Mills
9.1%
1
63.6%
7
11
26
410
Textile Mills3
8.3%
1
50.0%
6
12
31
411
Cement Manufacturing
4.3%
1
4.3%
1
23
48
N/A
Printing & Publishing
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
1
2
422
Phosphate Manufacturing
0.0%
0
12.5%
1
8
14
Source: U.S. EPA, 2021b.
N/A: Not Applicable
a EPA is conducting other efforts on these categories and they were not further reviewed in this context.
Note: Top PSCs identified through the Top Five Approach are highlighted in blue, and top PSCs identified through the Top 25 Percent Approach are highlighted in
green. PSCs not included in this review due to only one facility reporting a pollutant: Coil Coating, Gum and Wood Chemicals Manufacturing, Industrial Laundries,
Leather Tanning and Finishing, Tobacco Products, Carbon Black Manufacturing, Ink Formulating, Asbestos Manufacturing
5-9
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
EPA's preliminary reviews of the remaining five PSCs are summarized in Sections 5.2 through 5.6.
EPA's preliminary review of the Landfills Category, identified for review through stakeholder input, is
summarized in Section 5.7.
To conduct the preliminary category reviews, EPA reviewed available rulemaking documentation,
publicly available NPDES discharge permits and fact sheets, other publicly available facility discharge
information in the Loading Tool (e.g., Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data), contacted relevant EPA
Regions and state permitting authorities, and compared available discharge concentrations to ELGs,
long-term averages, and available effluent data from EPA's IWTT database (see Section 5.9.1), ELG
database (see Section 5.9.2), or other benchmarks. EPA analyzed these concentration data to compare
current performance to the potential for improvements based on upgraded treatment technologies. See
EPA's 2020 Preliminary Review of Industrial Point Source Categories (2020 Preliminary Category
Review Report) for more details on EPA's preliminary category reviews (U.S. EPA, 2021c).
5.1.4 Potential Refinements to the Analysis
EPA considers the cross-category concentration analysis to be a dynamic screening level analysis that
can be adapted in future annual reviews and ELG planning cycles to further refine EPA's prioritization
of PSCs for review. EPA plans to make the following refinements in future reviews to expand the scope
of the current analysis:
• Update DMR data. Industrial facilities submit new DMRs continuously, based on permit and
reporting requirements. EPA may refresh the cross-category concentration analysis with updated
DMR data to review the current state of discharges within and across PSCs. This will capture
changes based on updated permitting requirements such as the incorporation of emerging
pollutants that are added to permits to address water quality criteria and standards. Additionally,
refreshing the analysis with updated DMR data would enable reviews more closely reflecting the
current state of industrial practice, including recent changes in market conditions or
manufacturing processes that may have led to fluctuations in discharges.
• Evaluate pollutant loads. The current cross-category concentration analysis uses concentration
data submitted through DMRs. EPA may perform the cross-category analysis using pollutant
loads (pounds of pollutants discharged per year) instead of, or in addition to, concentrations to
capture the magnitude of the discharge and account for the impacts of facility and industry flow.
• Include TRI data. If conducting an analysis of pollutant loads, EPA may also consider
incorporating TRI data to assess discharges of additional toxic pollutants not reported on DMRs,
as well as indirect discharges. The TRI program only requires reporting of pollutant loads; it
does not provide data on pollutant concentrations or facility flows.
• Focus analysis on specific group(s) of pollutants. EPA may perform the cross-category
concentration analysis for a specific group of pollutants (e.g., metals, organics, toxics),
depending on agency priorities or the availability of a viable technology to treat specific
pollutants or pollutant groups.
5.2 Metal Products and Machinery (40 CFR Part 438)
EPA reviewed the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) Category because it ranked high in the 2020
cross-category concentration analysis for 11 pollutants, all of which were defined as toxic organics in
the 2003 MP&M Technical Development Document (U.S. EPA, 2021c). The 11 top-ranking pollutants
were:
5-10
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
1,4-Dioxane
Acenaphthene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
T ri chl oroethy 1 ene
Anthracene
Chloroform
EPA promulgated BPT, BCT, and NSPS limitations for the MP&M Category in 2003, specifically for
the Oily Wastes Subcategory. The limitations included total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease
(O&G), and pH and were based on the following technologies: chemical emulsion followed by gravity
separation using an oil/water separator, two-stage countercurrent cascade rinsing for all flowing rinses,
centrifugation and recycling of painting water curtains, and centrifugation, pasteurization, and recycling
of water-soluble machining coolants. There are no pretreatment standards for the MP&M Category.
EPA reviewed the 2019 DMR concentration data for both regulated pollutants and top-ranking
pollutants. EPA compared the TSS and O&G 2019 DMR concentration data for the MP&M Category to
available effluent data in IWTT for different treatment technologies. EPA found that current discharge
concentrations of both TSS and O&G from MP&M facilities are within the range of the effluent
concentrations in IWTT and the long-term averages (LTAs) documented during the MP&M rulemaking.
EPA compared the top-ranking pollutants to available effluent concentration data in IWTT and to other
benchmarks, including EPA and state water quality criteria (both human health and aquatic). The
rulemaking documents indicate that O&G was identified as a surrogate pollutant for the 11 top-ranking
pollutants identified in EPA's rankings analysis and that they would be controlled through the regulation
of O&G. Based on these data, the current toxic organic pollutant and O&G discharge concentrations are
consistent with discharges from treatment technologies evaluated in IWTT. EPA is not considering
revision of the ELGs for this category at this time because, based on the available data, such a revision is
unlikely to yield significant pollutant discharge reductions.
5.3 Explosives Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 457)
EPA identified the Explosives Manufacturing (Explosives) Category for preliminary review because it
ranked high in the 2020 cross-category concentration analysis for nitrogen, ammonia, and phosphorus
(U.S. EPA, 2021c).
EPA promulgated BPT limitations for two subcategories, Subpart A (Manufacture of Explosives) and
Subpart C (Explosives Load, Assemble, and Pack Plants) in 1976. Subpart A limitations include
biological oxygen demand (BODs), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and TSS. The technology basis
for these limitations includes equalization, neutralization, primary sedimentation (or pre-clarification),
activated sludge (aeration basin, final clarification), and sludge handling system. For Subpart C, the
limitations include TSS and O&G and are based on the Subpart A technology followed by extended
aeration, which includes screening, biotreatment, and clarification with skimming and chlorination.
EPA compared the 2019 DMR concentration data for the regulated pollutants to available effluent data
in IWTT for different treatment technologies and effluent data collected during the 1976 rulemaking.
EPA found that current discharge concentrations of regulated pollutants from these facilities are within
the range of the effluent concentrations in IWTT and the rulemaking data.
For the top-ranking pollutants, EPA evaluated each of the six facilities reporting the nutrient parameters.
EPA found that the some of these facilities were making updates to their facility operations, treatment
systems, and outfalls to comply with the revised limits and legal agreements with corresponding
permitting authorities, some were out of compliance with permit limits, and the remainder were within
5-11
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
the ranges of concentrations evaluated from IWTT and the rulemaking data. For this reason, EPA did
not select this category for further review.
5.4 Canned and Preserved Seafood (40 CFR Part 408)
EPA identified the Canned & Preserved Seafood Processing (Seafood Processing) Category for
preliminary review because it ranked high in the 2020 cross-category concentration analysis for
nutrients, zinc, and mercury (U.S. EPA, 2021c).
The Seafood Processing Category, promulgated in 1974 and 1975, is organized into 33 subcategories,
generally characterized by the processing type and the species processed. EPA established production-
based BAT limitations for BODs, TSS, O&G, and pH for 30 subcategories based on a technology option
include screening systems, dissolved air flotation units, grease traps, and process modifications to reduce
wastewater loads. The remaining three subcategories are considered to be remote Alaskan seafood
processors, and are required to grind solids down to 0.5 inches or less in any direction.
In 1980, EPA received a petition requesting a suspension of the applicability requirements for onshore
seafood processors in the Alaskan cities of Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, and Petersburg,
which would made them subject to the same limitations as remote facilities (i.e., required to be grinding
solids). Following proposed revisions in 1981 and a Notice of Data Availability in 2013, EPA decided
not to finalize proposed amendments to the ELGs in 2017, leaving the remote classification in effect per
the 1980 petition. EPA concluded that, because all affected facilities are in Alaska, the state of Alaska
may set stricter controls on wastewater through NPDES permits wherever the state determined it
necessary (U.S. EPA, 2017).
For the purpose of this review, and due to the number of subcategories in the ELGs, EPA divided its
review of seafood processors based on location and species processed. Seafood processors with 2019
DMR data fall into five distinct geographic areas: the Pacific Northwest, the Gulf Coast, American
Samoa, New England, and Southeast Atlantic. As part of this review, EPA reviewed the 2019 DMR
concentration data for regulated pollutants and for top-ranking pollutants.
EPA compared the 2019 DMR concentration data for seafood processors for each regulated pollutant to
available effluent data in IWTT for different treatment technologies. EPA found that BOD5 and TSS
concentrations are currently higher than effluent concentrations associated with biological, membrane,
and chemical treatment technologies, as documented in IWTT, and are generally located in Alaska and
the Gulf Coast. To learn more about these discharges, EPA contacted Alaska Department of
Conservation (DEC) and Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Alaska DEC
confirmed that BOD5 limits, along with TSS and O&G, are included in permits for processors classified
as remote due to water quality standards. Alaska DEC also confirmed that the processors are able to
meet permit limits. The majority of facilities on the Gulf Coast, specifically Mississippi and Louisiana,
are shrimp processors. According to MDEQ, BOD5 limits were added to these permits to comply with
NSPS limitations following damage from Hurricane Katrina and reclassification of the processors as
new sources. MDEQ reports some noncompliance among shrimp processors after implementation of the
NSPS limitations.
The top-ranking pollutants from EPA's cross-category concentration analysis include phosphorus,
nitrogen, total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and ammonia as N. When broken down by region, the top
discharging facilities were in American Samoa and the Gulf Coast. EPA reviewed facility permits and
fact sheets, then contacted EPA Region 9 and MDEQ to gather additional information about these
discharges. EPA Region 9 is reviewing the two tuna canneries in American Samoa associated with the
5-12
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
top-ranking nutrient concentrations and is requiring the canneries to monitor for any potential pollutants
that are being discharged in order to appropriately characterize the wastewater and apply permit
limitations where needed. Per MDEQ, nutrient discharges are monitored due to TMDLs in the
Mississippi delta and surrounding waters. MDEQ recently began requiring nutrient monitoring for all
seafood processors, regardless of receiving water characteristics. In Louisiana, only four of the 55
seafood processors in the 2019 DMR report nutrients data. Given the similar seafood processing and
receiving waters, nutrient discharges from Louisiana seafood processors may be similar to those in
Mississippi.
Mercury and zinc are being discharged by the same two canneries in American Samoa that EPA
reviewed for nutrient discharges. Based on conversations with Region 9, they are monitoring both the
mercury and zinc discharges and will apply permit limitations if they are determined to be necessary to
meet applicable water quality standards.
EPA is discontinuing review of this category at this time because the issues identified are being
addressed at the regional and state levels, which is more appropriate than proposing revisions to the
ELGs. EPA recommends that state and local permitting authorities consider applying water-quality
based effluent limits or best professional judgement on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate, to address
any other potential issues with pollutants in discharges from this category
5.5 Sugar Processing (40 CFR Part 409)
EPA reviewed the Sugar Processing Category because it ranked high in the 2020 cross-category
concentration analysis for nutrients, bicarbonate, chlorine, copper, lead, mercury, and sodium (U.S.
EPA, 2021c). The Sugar Processing ELGs were published in three parts: beet sugar processing (1974),
cane sugar refining (1974), and raw cane sugar processing (1975):
• Subcategory A applies to beet sugar processors. The BPT and BCT regulations include limits for
BODs, TSS, fecal coliform, temperature, and pH. BAT requirements include a limit for
temperature and NSPS requirements are zero discharge. There are no limitations for PSES or
PSNS. The limits are based on technology options including extensive recycle and reuse of
wastewater during beet processing operations.
• Subcategories B and C apply to cane sugar processors. The BPT, BCT, and NSPS regulations
include limits for BOD5, TSS, and pH. There are no limitations for BAT, PSES, or PSNS.
Technology at the time of the ELGs for the control and treatment of cane sugar wastewaters
consisted primarily of process control (recycling of water, prevention of sucrose entrainment in
barometric refinery and reuse condenser cooling water, recovery of sweet waters), impoundage
(land retention), and disposal of process water to municipal sewer systems.
• Subcategories D through H apply to raw cane processors. The BPT and BCT regulations include
limits for BOD5, TSS, and pH or are set to zero discharge. There are no limitations for BAT,
PSES, NSPS, or PSNS. EPA identified in-process practices, biological treatment, and surface
impoundment as the technology bases for BPT and BCT.
EPA reviewed the 2019 DMR concentration data for both regulated pollutants and top-ranking
pollutants. EPA compared the 2019 DMR TSS and BOD5 concentration data for the Sugar Processing
Category to effluent data for different treatment technologies available in IWTT. EPA found that current
discharge concentrations of both TSS and BOD5 from Sugar Processing facilities are within the range of
the effluent concentrations in IWTT.
5-13
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
For the top-ranking pollutants, EPA found that the facility with the highest reported concentrations for
multiple pollutants had reached a settlement agreement with the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (CDPHE). Per that agreement, the facility is currently expanding its wastewater
treatment facility (expected to be completed by the end of 2021) to include biological treatment.
The remaining facilities reporting concentrations of the top-ranking pollutants are, for the most part, beet
sugar processors. Ammonia concentrations are expected in the barometric condenser wastewater from
these facilities due to the higher nitrogen content of beets relative to sugar cane. EPA compared the 2019
DMR discharge concentrations to the underlying concentration data collected during the time of the
rulemaking and effluent concentration data in IWTT. Aside from the concentrations associated with the
facility in Colorado, EPA's comparison suggested that 2019 DMR Sugar Processing ammonia
concentrations are similar to those cited during the rulemaking and are comparable to effluent ammonia
concentrations reported in IWTT.
Bicarbonate, sodium, mercury, lead, and copper concentrations may be associated with the
manufacturing processes and equipment maintenance. These requirements are included in permits based
on water quality criteria and these facilities are not exceeding the permit limitations. Chlorine discharges
are associated with disinfection processes at these facilities.
EPA is not prioritizing sugar processing for further review or ELG revision at this time. Based on the
available data, revisions to the ELGs are unlikely to result in significant pollutant discharge reductions
relative to the other point source categories discussed in this Plan. EPA recommends that state and local
permitting authorities consider applying water-quality-based effluent limits or best professional
judgment on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate, to address any potential issues with bicarbonate,
ammonia, mercury, or other pollutants in discharges from this category.
5.6 Soap and Detergent Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 417)
EPA reviewed the Soap and Detergent Manufacturing (Soap and Detergent) Category because it ranked
high in the 2020 cross-category concentration analysis for 19 pollutants (U.S. EPA, 2021c). The top-
ranking pollutants include:
- 1,1 -Di chl oroethy 1 ene
- 1,2-Dichloroethane
- Acenaphthylene
- Anthracene
- Benz[a]anthracene
- Benzo(b)fluoranthene
- Benzo[a]pyrene
- Benzo[k]fluoranthene
- Carbon tetrachloride
- Chromium
- Chrysene
- Fluoranthene
- Fluorene
- Foaming agents
- Methylene chloride
- Phenanthrene
- Pyrene
- Toluene
- Vinyl chloride
The Soap & Detergent ELGs, promulgated in 1974 and 1975, apply to facilities that manufacture soap,
synthetic organic detergents, and inorganic alkaline detergents. Soap & Detergent subcategories are
broadly divided into soap manufacturing (eight subcategories) and detergent manufacturing (11
subcategories). EPA defines soap manufacturing as the production of alkaline metal salts of fatty acids
derived from natural fats and oils. EPA defines detergent manufacturing as the production of sulfated
and sulfonated cleaning agents from manufactured raw materials, primarily petroleum derivatives.
Shampoo, shaving products, and synthetic glycerin manufacturers, as well as specialty cleaners,
polishing, and sanitation preparations, are not included in this category.
5-14
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
The BAT limitations for BOD5, COD, TSS, and O&G are based on best management practices and
process improvements that reduce total effluent discharge volume. Foaming agents, or methylene blue
activated surfactants (MBAS), are anionic surfactants that EPA identified as a pollutant of concern
during the 1975 rulemaking due to their potential contribution to foaming in streams and biological
effects from surface effects or toxicity. Anionic surfactants are tested separately from other non-ionic
surfactants, which are captured by proxy through BOD5 and COD monitoring. Limitations for anionic
surfactants are only applicable to the detergent manufacturing subcategories. EPA based these
limitations on recycling process water, intermittent release of accumulated wash water, and secondary
biological treatment for larger operations.
EPA compared the BOD5, COD, TSS, and O&G 2019 DMR concentration data to available effluent
data in IWTT for different treatment technologies. EPA found that current discharge concentrations of
these pollutants are within the range of the effluent concentrations available in IWTT.
Based on further review of the top-ranking pollutants, EPA found that the two facilities reporting 16 of
the top 19 pollutants are misclassified as Soap & Detergent facilities in EPA's rankings analyses and
should be categorized under 40 CFR Part 414 (Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers).
Based on permit reviews, the facility operations both fall under the applicability of 40 CFR Part 414 and
the permit bases for these discharges are cited as 40 CFR Part 414.
For the remaining top-ranking pollutants, foaming agents, toluene, and methylene chloride, EPA
compared 2019 DMR concentration data to effluent concentrations in IWTT and water quality
standards. EPA found that the 2019 DMR concentrations are within the range of the IWTT and
benchmark data evaluated.
EPA did not prioritize soap and detergent manufacturing for further review or ELG revision. Based on
the available data discussed above, revisions to the ELGs are unlikely to result in significant pollutant
discharge reductions relative to the other point source categories discussed in this Plan. EPA
recommends that state and local permitting authorities consider applying water-quality-based effluent
limits or best professional judgement on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate, to address any potential
issues with pollutants in discharges from this category.
5.7 Landfills (40 CFR Part 445)
EPA initiated a preliminary review of the Landfills Category based on comments received on Plan 14.
Public comments identified landfill leachate as a source of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
to surface water, groundwater, and POTWs. PFAS are a family of thousands of synthetic organic
chemicals that resist natural breakdown, accumulate in the environment and in organisms, and are
associated with negative human health impacts. EPA conducted the Landfills Category preliminary
review in coordination with the PFAS industrial sources and discharges study (Section 6.4), which
investigated PFAS discharges from five additional industrial categories (U.S. EPA, 202Id).
EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS limitations for two subcategories, Subpart A (Hazardous
Waste Landfills) and Subpart B (Non-Hazardous Waste Landfills) in a rulemaking in 2000. Subpart A
covers Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfills which
are used specifically for the disposal of hazardous waste. Subpart B covers RCRA Subtitle D Non-
Hazardous Waste Landfills, which include municipal solid waste (MSW), industrial waste, construction
and demolition (C&D) debris, and coal combustion residual (CCR) landfills. EPA identified
equalization, chemical precipitation, biological treatment, and multimedia filtration and equalization,
biological treatment, and multimedia filtration as the treatment basis for the Subpart A and Subpart B
5-15
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
limitations, respectively. EPA did not establish pretreatment standards for indirect discharges from
landfills.
As part of the preliminary category review, EPA evaluated the 2019 DMR concentration data for
conventional pollutants and the 14 top-ranking pollutants identified in the 2020 cross-category
concentration analysis (Section 5.1). The top-ranking pollutants include:
Acetone
Ammonia, as NH3
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorine, total residual
Chromium, trivalent
Magnesium
Manganese
Naphthalene
Potassium
Residue, total filterable
- Sodium
- Sulfide
- Thallium
- Total Kj el dahl Nitrogen
For the 2000 rulemaking, EPA investigated and conducted sampling for 11 of the 14 top-ranking
pollutants. EPA did not evaluate Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen; residue, total filterable; or total residual
chlorine in this effort. Acetone, carbon tetrachloride, and thallium were not detected in EPA's sampling
effort and were not further investigated during the rulemaking. EPA established BPT, BAT, and NSPS
limitations for ammonia discharges in Subparts A and B. EPA established BPT, BAT, and NSPS
limitations for chromium and naphthalene in limitations in Subpart A only.
EPA compared the BODs and TSS 2019 DMR concentration data to available effluent data in IWTT for
different treatment technologies. EPA found that current discharge concentrations of these pollutants are
within the range of the effluent concentrations available in IWTT.
As part of its study of PFAS industrial sources and discharges, EPA gathered analytical data published
in peer-reviewed literature and state sampling efforts to define PFAS sources at landfills and quantify
PFAS concentrations observed in landfill leachate. EPA identified several sources of PFAS in landfills,
including PFAS-treated textiles, paper, and packaging materials, C&D waste, and industrial waste from
PFAS-related manufacturing processes. PFAS are detected in landfill leachate regardless of waste type
or landfill age and have been quantified in concentrations ranging from less than 1 nanogram per liter
(ng/L) to over 8,000 ng/L (U.S. EPA, 2021c).
EPA began gathering data to develop a profile of the landfills industry using facility data from EPA's
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database and industry breakdowns defined in the
2000 Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills
Point Source Category (U.S. EPA, 2000). Based on the 2000 rulemaking data, a majority of hazardous
waste landfills subject to Subpart A of the ELGs are direct dischargers and a majority of non-hazardous
waste landfills subject to Subpart B of the ELGs are indirect dischargers that collect and send
wastewater to POTWs. Further research will continue gathering information to estimate the current
scope of the industry and their generation and collection of landfill wastewater. See the "Preliminary
Category Review Report" (U.S. EPA, 2021c) for further details.
In addition, EPA began investigating treatment technologies at landfills. For the 2000 rulemaking, the
technology basis includes equalization, chemical precipitation, biological treatment, and multimedia
filtration for Subpart A and equalization, biological treatment, and multimedia filtration for Subpart B.
Survey data from the 2000 rulemaking indicate that indirect dischargers typically send wastewater
directly to POTWs without pretreatment as it is not required. Indirect dischargers are not subject to
pretreatment standards under Part 445 but may have pretreatment in place to meet state or local
5-16
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
requirements. Some landfills may achieve zero discharge through deep well injection, incineration,
evaporation, land application, and recirculation (U.S. EPA, 2000). EPA is collecting data (e.g., literature
articles, studies) on new pollutant control practices and wastewater treatment technologies being
implemented at landfills to address PFAS contamination in leachate. Moreover, EPA is reviewing
literature sources gathering data to characterize the impact of landfill leachate on PFAS influent and
effluent concentrations in POTW.
The preliminary review results show that further research is needed to address limited data availability
including the following:
• Current size and scope of the landfills industry that generates and collects landfill wastewater.
• Analytical data for PFAS discharges from landfills nationwide, particularly direct discharge data
on PFAS concentrations other than perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic
acid (PFOS).
• Profile of indirect discharging landfills including the amount of wastewater they discharge and
their impact on POTW influent and effluent PFAS concentrations.
• Current wastewater control practices and treatment technologies in place at landfills and whether
there are landfills currently implementing PFAS treatment for leachate.
For this industry category, EPA will continue gathering information addressing areas with limited data
by proceeding with a detailed study.
5.8 Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies Reviews
EPA continued its industrial wastewater treatment technology review, initially described in Preliminary
Plan 14 (see Section 3.6 of Preliminary Plan 14, U.S. EPA, 2021a). EPA has the following goals for the
technology reviews:
• Enhance EPA's ability to identify and prioritize industries for further study based on wastewater
treatment technology availability, capabilities, and performance in order to understand the range
of wastewater characteristics that are treatable and to what level with a given technology. For
example, which point source categories might be able to use a technology successfully and
which might not.
• Inform industry studies and rulemakings based on advances/changes in wastewater treatment
technologies.
• Consolidate wastewater treatment technology background information for future reference and
use.
• Collect preliminary information and data on treatment technology costs, where available.
• Investigate the potential for technology transfer from one point source category to others.
EPA's methodology for treatment technology reviews consists of a three-phase approach to identify and
prioritize for further review technologies that can inform its ELG planning process. The three phases
are: (1) technology screening; (2) preliminary technology review; and (3) technology study.
As identified in Plan 14, EPA selected suspended growth systems (activated sludge), membrane
bioreactors (MBR), moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR), and treatment based on membranes alone for
preliminary technology reviews. EPA continued its preliminary review of these four technologies,
collecting additional data from IWTT, targeted literature searches, and treatment technology
5-17
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
conferences, where applicable. EPA reviewed these data sources to update information on the treatment
removal mechanisms, potential for industrial wastewater applicable, and pollutants targeted for removal.
EPA will gather additional information on the use of membranes for industrial wastewater treatment as a
technology review. For example, EPA contacted several membrane treatment vendors to understand the
potential application for membranes in wastewater treatment across industrial sectors. To support this
effort, EPA solicits comment on the capabilities, performance, and costs of membrane treatment
technologies for industrial wastewater.
EPA summarized its current key findings to date for the four treatment technologies mentioned in this
section in the Key Findings for EPA's Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology Reviews
memorandum (ERG, 2021a) and the preliminary review for suspended growth systems (activated
sludge) and membranes (ERG, 2021b and 2021c).
5.9 ELG Planning Tools
EPA continued to populate the IWTT Database and the ELG Database. These databases, described in
more detail below, were used to supplement EPA's preliminary category reviews for the 2020 annual
review by:
• Estimating the percent of pollutants with ELGs for a specific point source category included in
the cross-category concentration analyses (see Section 5.1).
• Comparing current discharge concentrations to effluent data in IWTT and long-term average
data, limitation data, and technology bases in the ELG Database.
See EPA's 2020 Preliminary Category Review Report for a description of the specific analyses
performed as part of the preliminary category reviews (U.S. EPA, 2021c).
5.9.1 Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology Database
EPA continued to collect industrial wastewater treatment performance information to populate the
IWTT Database and made the information available to the public through the IWTT web application.23
EPA identified and screened additional references across a broad range of industries from key technical
conferences on wastewater treatment, including the 2019 and 2020 Water Environment Federation's
Technical Exhibit and Conference. EPA also screened references identified through the Study of Per-
and Polyfluoroalkyl Industrial Sources and Discharges (U.S. EPA, 202Id). The IWTT database
currently contains performance data for 58 different treatment technologies, some of which may be
components of a larger treatment system. The IWTT database contains wastewater treatment technology
performance data from 34 industrial PSCs and removal performance data for 205 individual pollutant
parameters.
5.9.2 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards Database
As discussed in Plan 14, EPA has compiled information on its ELGs for the 59 different PSCs24 into a
consolidated ELG Database. EPA has now made the information publicly available through the ELG
Database web application. Users of this tool can search for information within and across ELGs. The
23 See https://www.epa.gov/eg/indnstrial-wastewater-treatinent-techiiology-cb-itabase-iwtt.
24 See EPA's Industrial Effluent Guidelines webpage (https://www.epa.gov/eg/indnstrial-efflnent-giiidelines') for a list of the
59 point source categories.
5-18
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
database captures information from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),25 as well as from the
technical development documents supporting promulgated rules. The ELG Database includes the
following information:
• Regulations promulgated (e.g., BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS).
• Applicability of the ELGs, including definitions of any regulated subcategories.
• Waste streams or process operations associated with each regulation.
• Pollutant limitations.
• CFR references to best management practices, monitoring requirements, and narrative
limitations.
• Rule history, including promulgation and revision dates.
• Technology bases for the underlying regulations.
5.10 Environmental Justice
EPA is considering how best to incorporate equity and environmental justice considerations into the
ELG planning process. Specifically, EPA is evaluating the use of EJSCREEN, the agency's mapping
and screening tool that combines demographic and environmental indicator information, to assess the
proximity and potential impact of industrial discharges on underserved and underrepresented
populations. EJSCREEN includes 11 EJ indexes26 which geographically relate (by Census block group)
demographic data, including percent low-income, percent people of color, less than high school
education, linguistic isolation, and different age groups, and environmental indicator data for air, lead
paint, noise, and waste/wastewater. The index is calculated for each Census block group based on how
much the local demographics are above the national average.
In this preliminary stage, EPA plans to evaluate the wastewater discharge indicator index, which
provides an indication of stream proximity and toxic concentrations that may be associated with
industrial wastewater discharges and related demographics data27; however, EPA may consider
additional air and waste indicators (e.g., particulate matter). EPA may use the EJ wastewater indexes to
supplement its screening-level analysis across or within specific point source categories. As this effort is
preliminary and still under development, EPA solicits comments from the public on the specific
analyses and data sources it might use in its screening-level reviews to account for environmental
justice.
25 See https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?S] 7a295bbc0feaae8ea6b4b85da954&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab 02.tpl.
26 See hUesT/wwwemjggW^
27 The Wastewater discharge indicator is calculated from EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model,
https://www.era.gov/eiscreen/overview-environiiiental-indicators-eiscreen.
5-19
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
6. Ongoing ELG Studies
This section summarizes the status of EPA's ongoing ELG studies.
6.1 Detailed Study of Electrical and Electronic Components Category (40 CFRPart 469)
As the result of the 2015 Annual Review (U.S. EPA, 2016), EPA decided to conduct a detailed study of
the Electrical & Electronic Components Category (40 CFR Part 469). The E&EC ELG was issued in
1983 and has not been revised. The intent of the study is to determine whether, in light of changes
implemented and innovations achieved by this industry, revisions to the existing ELGs are warranted.
As part of the detailed study of the E&EC industry, EPA has identified a population of facilities that are
subject to the current regulation. EPA obtained discharge permits and monitoring data from over 100
such facilities, which, taken together, provide information on treatment technologies being used and the
concentrations of contaminants in the facilities' wastestreams. EPA has used these data to develop a
profile of the regulated community. EPA has conducted five site visits, all of which yielded valuable
information regarding manufacturing techniques, chemicals used, and changes to the industry since the
1983 rule was issued. EPA has held discussions with regulatory authorities in at least 11 states to discuss
regulatory concerns related to this ELG.
EPA is in the process of finalizing a study report to document this review. EPA will evaluate next steps
after the report is complete and will provide an update on this study in the upcoming Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan 15.
6.2 Study of Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 432)
As described in ELG Program Plan 14, EPA initiated a detailed study of wastewater discharges from the
Meat and Poultry Products Category (40 CFR Part 432). This was a result of the cross-industry review
of nutrients in industrial wastewater and of the Meat and Poultry Products (MPP) Preliminary Category
Review. The MPP industry includes facilities that slaughter and/or further process meat and poultry
and/or perform rendering operations. A goal of this study was to gain a more complete understanding of
the total number of facilities, the locations of the facilities across the United States, the sizes of the
facilities, the characteristics of their processes and their wastewater, and current wastewater treatment
technologies used to evaluate whether the ELG should be revised.
To date, EPA has collected publicly available information from various sources to construct a picture of
the industry's facilities, discharge practices, control technologies currently in place, and the
effectiveness of nutrient removal. This information was also used to identify candidates for site visits, to
identify other treatment technologies that may be available to the industry to treat their wastewater
beyond the current ELG requirements, to identify documented environmental or human health impacts
associated with MPP facilities, and to determine the proximity of MPP wastewater discharges to
impaired waters, and communities with environmental and demographic characteristics of concern.
EPA evaluated industry directories from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety
Inspection Service (FSIS), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Renderers
Association to obtain a list of facilities potentially included in the MPP industry. To further develop this
list, EPA has also evaluated information from POTW Annual Reports, EPA's ICIS-NPDES database,
and EPA's TRI database.
EPA recognizes that it is important to engage with the water sector and agricultural and meat processing
stakeholders early in the process. Therefore, EPA conducted outreach and engagement with EPA
6-1
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
Offices, Regions and States, clean water organizations, and other Federal Agencies, such as the USDA
and the FDA.
EPA reached out to the clean water organizations that represent the POTWs, the National Rural Water
Association (NRWA) and National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) to get a better
understanding of POTW impacts by MPP facilities. EPA also engaged with Industry Stakeholders such
as US Poultry and Egg Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, North American Meat
Institute and National Pork Producers Council to understand their perspectives and gain insights into the
industry. EPA also met with community and environmental groups to understand their perspectives and
those of the communities living near MPP facilities and using the waters downstream from MPP
discharges.
The following summarizes the findings to date:
• The MPP industry discharges the highest phosphorus levels and second highest nitrogen levels of
all industrial categories, these pollutants are at concentrations that can be reduced with current
wastewater treatment technology, the discharges are from numerous facilities across the industry,
and some facilities are already removing nutrients, achieving effluent concentrations well below
the limitations in the existing MPP ELGs.
• The existing ELGs apply only to about 300 of the estimated 7,000 MPP facilities nationwide.
The ELGs only apply to facilities that directly discharge wastewater to surface waters; they do
not include pretreatment standards for facilities that indirectly discharge via publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs).
• In addition to concern about the discharge of effluents directly into the Nation's waters, EPA is
also concerned about pollutants in wastewater discharged through sewers flowing to POTWs.
Data indicate that MPP facilities are causing problems for POTWs that receive MPP wastewater
via indirect discharges. For example, a review of 200 indirect MPP facilities shows that 73% of
the POTWs receiving MPP wastewater have violation(s) of permit limits for pollutants found in
MPP wastewater. Pollutants include nitrogen, phosphorus, TSS, BOD, oil and grease, chloride,
total residual chlorine, coliform bacteria (e.g., E. coli), and metals. Of the more than one hundred
corresponding POTW discharge permits reviewed, only 45% have nitrogen limits and only 15%
have phosphorus limits, which indicates that many POTWs may not be removing much of the
nutrient load discharged to POTWs from MPP industrial users.
• National ELGs and pretreatment standards can help ensure make sure people in all areas in the
vicinity of industrial direct and indirect discharges receive the same degree of protection from
environmental and health hazards, and equal access to the decision-making process to have a
healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. To address Environmental Justice
considerations, EPA conducted screening analyses of areas with MPP facilities and found 74%
of MPP facilities that directly discharge wastewater to surface waters are within one mile of
census block groups with demographic or environmental characteristics of concern.28 This
indicates that such facilities may be disproportionately impacting communities of concern.
28 Characteristics of concern in this analysis are defined as demographic or environmental indexes above the 80th percentile
in a state based on data available in the 2020 release of EJSCREEN. Census block groups with one or more indexes above
this threshold were considered communities of concern.
6-2
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
• Data also show that 120 of approximately 300 direct discharge facilities discharge to waters
listed as impaired under section 303(d) of the CWA, and over 40 percent of TN and TP load is
discharged to waters impaired for algal growth, ammonia, nutrients and/or oxygen depletion.
• In addition to nutrients, the DMR data indicate that MPP facilities discharge 63 unique
pollutants and 17 metals.
The data reviewed to date indicates that a revision of the ELG may be appropriate. As such, EPA is
concluding its study and is initiating a rulemaking to revise the Meat and Poultry Products Category
ELGs, as appropriate. EPA solicits public input on this announcement.
6.3 Study of Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewater Management
In Final ELG Program Plan 14, EPA announced that it was initiating rulemaking to revise definitions in
the Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) ELGs (40 CFR Part 437) to increase flexibility for CWT
facilities that treat and discharge produced water from oil and gas extraction. EPA indicated plans to
propose revising 40 CFR Part 437 to expand the beneficial use of treated produced waters by allowing,
under certain circumstances, the discharge of produced waters from CWT facilities and from POTWs.
EPA indicated that these revisions would allow more flexibility in the discharge and management of
treated produced waters for use in agricultural, reuse for oil recovery, and other uses to alleviate water
scarcity.
After further consideration, EPA intends to take no further action on oil and gas extraction wastewater
management and will not move forward with revisions to the CWT ELGs at this time. The agency has
determined that the current regulations provide sufficient flexibility for managing produced waters at the
national level at this time. EPA is aware that several states are conducting technical evaluations of the
management, treatment, and regulation of produced water discharges in their states. EPA will continue
to monitor and evaluate state-level activities and may re-visit regulatory changes to address produced
water discharges if industry practices change.
6.4 Study of Per- and Polvfluoroalkvl Industrial Sources and Discharges
Along with Preliminary Plan 15, EPA is publishing the Multi-Industry Per- andPolyfluoroalkyl
Substances (PFAS) Study - 2021 Preliminary Report (U.S. EPA, 202Id). The report presents the results
to date of EPA's study of industrial PFAS manufacturing, use, treatment, and discharge to surface water
and POTWs. The report focuses on five PSCs: organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers (OCPSF);
metal finishing; pulp, paper, and paperboard; textile mills; and commercial airports. As part of the
detailed study, EPA collected facility-specific information such as the types of PFAS compounds
discharged, discharge concentrations, treatment methods, and facility flow rates. This information was
primarily collected through outreach to stakeholders, including company representatives and trade
associations, state, regional, and local wastewater regulatory authorities, treatment technology vendors,
and non-governmental organizations.
While there has been significant study in recent years of the presence of PFAS in the environment, and
the presence of PFAS in drinking water, there has been relatively little study of the discharges of PFAS
to surface water and POTWs. As a result, there is limited information about PFAS discharges, including
the types of PFAS compounds discharged, concentrations of PFAS discharged, and the significant
sources of PFAS discharges. EPA solicits comment on the information and data regarding these five
point source categories that EPA has collected to date. EPA has evaluated the following information to
inform decisions about how best to address industrial PFAS discharges:
6-3
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
6.4.1 PFAS Manufacturers and Formulators
Based on information and data collected, EPA determined that PFAS have been and continue to be
manufactured and used by PFAS manufacturer facilities, a subset of facilities regulated under the
OCPSF ELG (40 CFR Part 414), in the U.S. The types and quantities of PFAS manufactured and used
varies by facility and have changed over time. Through outreach to industry and data collection, EPA
identified six OCPSF facilities that currently manufacture PFAS in the U.S. through electrochemical
fluorination, fluorotelomerization, or other processes. The PFAS feedstocks may be further processed on
site or transferred to other facilities where they are blended, converted, or integrated with other materials
to produce new commercial or intermediate products, such as plastic, rubber, resins, coatings, and
cleaning products. EPA identified eight additional OCPSF facilities that use PFAS feedstocks to
formulate other products. EPA has not developed a comprehensive list of all PFAS manufacturers and
formulators in the U.S. and considers it probable that there are many more OCPSF facilities using PFAS
that EPA has not yet identified.
EPA determined that the manufacture or formulation of PFAS may generate wastewaters containing
PFAS. EPA verified that PFAS, including legacy long-chain PFAS and short-chain replacement PFAS,
are present in wastewater discharges from OCPSF facilities to surface waters and POTWs. EPA
estimated the types and quantity of PFAS present in wastewater discharges from these facilities using
available sampling data. For both PFAS manufacturers and formulators, average concentrations of short-
chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and perfluoroalkane sulfonic acids (PFSAs) were
generally higher relative to long-chain PFCAs and PFSAs. EPA identified two OCPSF facilities that
have reduced effluent concentrations of PFAS using granulated activated carbon (GAC) treatment.
On March 17, 2021, after publishing the January 2021 Final Plan 14, EPA published an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM): "Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category," which provided for public
review of and comment on the information and data regarding PFAS manufacturers and formulators that
EPA has collected to date. EPA requested public comment on the collected information and data and
solicited additional information and data regarding manufacturers and formulators of PFAS and the
presence and treatment of PFAS in discharges from these facilities. Comments on the ANPRM were due
to EPA on or before May 17, 2021. These comments, along with data and information received in
response to the ANPRM, will inform the development of wastewater discharge requirements for these
facilities.
Based on the information collected through the Preliminary Multi-Industry PFAS Study, EPA has
determined that the development of effluent guidelines and standards for PFAS manufacturers is
warranted. EPA therefore plans to revise the existing OCPSF ELGs (40 CFR Part 414) to address PFAS
discharges from facilities manufacturing PFAS. Additionally, EPA will continue to evaluate the need to
develop regulations to address PFAS discharges from PFAS formulators. EPA solicits public input on
this announcement.
6.4.2 Metal Finishing
Based on information and data EPA has collected since it began studying PFAS in industrial wastewater,
EPA determined that PFAS have, and continue to be, used by metal finishing facilities in the United
States. EPA identified chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing operations (collectively
referred to as "chromium electroplating facilities") as the most significant source of PFAS in the metal
finishing point source category due to their use of PFAS-based mist/fume suppressants to control toxic
hexavalent chromium emissions. EPA determined that the use of PF AS-based mist/fume suppressants
6-4
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
may generate PFAS-containing wastewaters. EPA verified that PFAS, including legacy long-chain
PFAS and short-chain replacement PFAS, are present in wastewater discharges from chromium
electroplating facilities to surface waters and POTWs. EPA did not identify any chromium electroplating
facilities with PFAS effluent limitations or pretreatment standards in their wastewater discharge permits.
Most chromium electroplating facilities are not monitoring for PFAS and may continue to discharge
PFAS to POTWs or surface waters. EPA identified several Michigan chromium electroplating facilities
that have reduced effluent concentrations of PFAS using GAC treatment.
Based on the information collected through the Preliminary Multi-Industry PFAS Study, EPA has
determined that the development of effluent guidelines and standards for chromium electroplating
facilities is warranted. EPA therefore plans to revise the existing Metal Finishing ELGs (40 CFR Part
433) to address PFAS discharges from chromium electroplating facilities. EPA solicits public input on
this announcement.
6.4.3 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Based on information and data EPA collected for the Preliminary Multi-Industry PFAS Study, EPA
determined that PFAS have been and continue to be used by U.S. pulp, paper, and paperboard facilities.
However, only a small subset of facilities are actively applying PFAS to paper products. Information
EPA has collected indicates that the industry phased out the use of PFOA and PFOS approximately a
decade ago but continues to use FDA-approved short-chain PFAS in limited quantities for the
manufacture of food contact packaging and specialty paper products. The industry is expected to
transition to PF AS-free technologies and eliminate all application of PFAS in their U.S. pulp and
papermaking operations by 2024. This schedule coincides with an FDA agreement with chemical
manufacturers to voluntarily phase out use of PFAS that contain or may degrade to 6:2 fluorotelomer
alcohol (6:2 FTOH) in food contact applications by 2024.
EPA did not identify any pulp, paper, and paperboard facilities with PFAS effluent limitations or
pretreatment standards in their wastewater discharge permit and determined that only a small fraction of
facilities monitor for PFAS. Although industry reports the application of PFAS to pulp, paper, and
paperboard products is typically a dry or closed-loop process and may not generate a wastewater stream,
EPA determined that PFAS, including legacy long-chain PFAS and short-chain replacement PFAS, are
present in wastewater discharges from pulp, paper, and paperboard facilities to surface waters and
POTWs. The presence of PFOA, PFOS, and other long-chain perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) may be due
to legacy issues or degradation of other more complex PFAS.
EPA will continue to study this point-source category with particular attention to understanding the
potential for legacy discharges from these facilities after the industry's transition to PF AS-free additives.
EPA solicits public input on additional data and information regarding PFAS use and discharge from the
pulp and paper manufacturing industry that should be reviewed as part of this study. EPA intends to
provide updates on these activities in subsequent ELG program plans.
6.4.4 Textile and Carpet Manufacturers
Based on information and data EPA collected for the Preliminary Multi-Industry PFAS Study, EPA
determined that PFAS have been and continue to be used by textile and carpet manufacturers, a subset a
subset of facilities regulated under the Textile Mills ELGs (40 CFR Part 410), in the U.S. EPA's review
of PFAS use and discharge by the textile mills point source category is largely based on publicly
available information and literature. EPA attempted to meet with industry trade associations and
companies to collect, on a voluntary basis, information on the use and discharge of PFAS for textile and
6-5
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
carpet mills. The industry trade associations and companies that EPA contacted, however, declined to
meet with EPA or provide information. Based on a small number of sample results, EPA determined that
PFAS, including legacy long-chain PFAS, are present in wastewater discharges from textile mills to
POTWs. Most textile mills are not monitoring for PFAS and may be discharging PFAS to POTWs or
surface waters.
EPA plans to continue to study textile and carpet manufacturers in a separate detailed study. EPA will
continue to collect and review information and data on the use, treatment, and discharge of PFAS from
these industries. EPA intends to provide updates on these activities in subsequent ELG program plans.
6.4.5 Commercial Airports
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2018 (enacted October 5, 2018)
mandates that the FAA can no longer require the use of PFAS-based aqueous film-forming foam
(AFFF) by Part 139 airports no later than three years from the date of enactment (October 4, 2021). As a
result, the FAA has approved, encourages use of, and in some cases funds four different types of AFFF
testing equipment that do not require dispensing AFFF when airports conduct periodic equipment testing
and training (FAA, 2021). The FAA has also built a research testing facility and has conducted over 400
tests in an effort to find a new fluorine-free alternative firefighting extinguishing agent. (FAA, 2019)
Historically, the FAA required that commercial airports certified under 14 CFR Part 139 purchase only
firefighting foams that conform to military specification (Mil-Spec) MIL-PRF-24385 for performance
and procurement (FAA, 2006). In May 2019, the DOD amended Mil-Spec MIL-PRF-24385 to remove
the requirement that AFFF must contain PFAS. As of July 2021, all firefighting foam formulations that
meet MIL-PRF-24385 contain less than 800ppb of PFAS. The FAA and the DOD are continuing to
collaborate on research and to test fluorine-free alternatives that provide the same level of safety
currently offered by Mil-Spec MIL-PRF-24385.
Based on this information, EPA determined that commercial airports may generate PFAS-containing
wastewater from live-fire firefighting training, emergency response activities, and accidental leaks from
stockpiles of AFFF. The volume of PFAS released to the environment can vary depending on the
activity, types of controls employed by the airport, and type and volume of AFFF released.
EPA is not prioritizing a rulemaking on this category at this time, however EPA will continue to study
commercial airport use of AFFF that contains PFAS. EPA solicits public input on additional data and
information regarding AFFF use and discharge that should be reviewed as part of this study. EPA
intends to provide updates on these activities in subsequent ELG program plans.
6-6
-------
7—Ongoing ELG Rulemaking
1. Ongoing ELG Rulemaking
This section summarizes the status of EPA's ongoing ELG rulemaking efforts.
7.1 Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 423)
EPA promulgated new ELG's for the Steam Electric Power Generating PSC in 2015 and revised them in
2020. The rules are subject to legal challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Fourth
Circuits, respectively. The legal challenges to the 2015 ELGs for flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
wastewater and bottom ash (BA) transport water have been held in abeyance since EPA commenced the
2020 rulemaking. EPA completed its reconsideration rulemaking for FGD wastewater and BA transport
water in August 2020, establishing effluent limitations for FGD wastewater and BA transport water.
Meanwhile, the Court proceeded to hear claims on aspects of the 2015 rule that were not the subject of
EPA's reconsideration rulemaking. On April 12, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
struck down as unlawful aspects of the 2015 ELGs pertaining to effluent limitations for "legacy"
wastewater and combustion residual leachate. The Court vacated those portions of the 2015 ELG rule
and remanded them to the agency.
On July 26, 2021, EPA announced that it is initiating a rulemaking process to strengthen certain
wastewater pollution discharge limitations for coal power plants that use steam to generate electricity.
EPA undertook a science-based review of the 2020 Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule under
Executive Order 13990, finding that there are opportunities to strengthen certain wastewater pollution
discharge limitations. For example, treatment systems using membranes have advanced since the 2020
rule's issuance and continue to rapidly advance as an effective option for treating a wide variety of
industrial pollution, including from steam electric power plants. EPA expects this technology to
continue advancing and the agency will evaluate its availability (as defined in the Clean Water Act) as
part of the new rulemaking. While the agency pursues this new rulemaking process for coal power
plants, the current regulations will be implemented and enforced. These requirements provide significant
environmental protections relative to a 1982 rule that was previously in effect. The 2015 and 2020 rules
are leading to better control of water pollution from power plants while reducing the cost of controls
such as biological treatment systems and membrane treatment systems. The agency's approach will
secure progress made by the 2015 and 2020 rules while the agency undertakes a new rulemaking to
consider more stringent requirements.
EPA intends to publish a proposed rule in the fall of 2022.
7-1
-------
8—References for Preliminary Plan 15
8. References for Preliminary Plan 15
1. ERG. 2021a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Key Findings from Preliminary Treatment
Reviews: Nutrient Removal. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547. DCN 11105.
2. ERG. 2021b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Preliminary Technology Review: Suspended
Growth Wastewater Treatment Systems. (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547. DCN
11023.
3. ERG. 2021c. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Preliminary Technology Review: Membrane
Wastewater Treatment Systems. (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547. DCN 11024.
4. FAA, 2006. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
Order 5280.5C: Airport Certification Program Handbook. (8 September 2006). Available
online at https://www.faa.gov/dociimentlibrarv/media/order/5280.5c.PDF. DCN
PFAS00039.
5. FAA, 2019. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
Evaluation of Input-Based Foam Proportioner Testing Systems. (27 June 2019). DOT-
FAA-TC-19-26. DCN PFAS00042.
6. FAA, 2021. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
National Part 139 CertAlert 21-01: Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Testing at
Certified Part 139 Airports. (1 June 2021). DCN PFAS00045.
7. U.S. EPA, 2017. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Alaskan Seafood
Processing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) Memo to the Record
(Docket Identification Number EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0652). (May). EPA-HQ-OW-2013-
0652-0313.
8. U.S. EPA. 2021a. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan 14. (January). EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0618-0658.
9. U.S. EPA. 2021b. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA'sReview of
Industrial Wastewater Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Data for Preliminary Plan 15.
(September). EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547. DCN 11103.
10. U.S. EPA. 2021c. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2020Preliminary
Review of Industrial Point Source Categories. (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547.
DCN 11104.
11. U.S. EPA. 202Id. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Multi-Industry Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Study - 2021 Preliminary Report. (September). EPA-
HQ-OW-2021-0547. DCN PFAS00001.
8-1
------- |