SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan 15
January 2023
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821-R-22-004
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
-------
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. Summary of Public Comments Received on Preliminary Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan 15 3-1
4. Summary of Annual Review Activities 4-1
5. Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies 5-1
5.1 DMR Pollutant Load Rankings Analysis 5-1
5.1.1 Data, Methodology, and Analysis Considerations 5-1
5.1.2 Data Quality Review and Corrections 5-2
5.1.3 Results of the DMR Pollutant Load Rankings Analysis 5-3
5.2 Leather Tanning and Finishing Point Source Category (40 CFR part 425) 5-6
5.3 Paint Formulating Point Source Category (40 CFR part 446) 5-7
5.4 Plastics Molding and Forming Point Source Category (40 CFR part 463) 5-10
5.5 Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies Reviews 5-12
5.6 ELG Planning Tools 5-12
5.6.1 Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology Database 5-12
5.6.2 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards Database 5-13
5.7 Environmental Justice 5-13
6. Ongoing ELG Studies 6-1
6.1 Electrical and Electronic Components Point Source Category (40 CFR part 469) 6-1
6.2 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Point Source Category (40 CFR part 412) 6-2
6.3 PFAS Industrial Sources and Discharge Studies 6-3
6.3.1 Airports 6-4
6.3.2 Textile Mills Point Source Category (40 CFR part 410) 6-7
6.3.3 Landfills Point Source Category (40 CFR part 445) 6-12
6.3.4 Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR part 430) 6-13
6.3.5 POTW Influent PFAS Study 6-19
7. Ongoing ELG Rulemakings 7-1
7.1 Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (40 CFR part 423) 7-1
7.2 Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category (40 CFR part 432) 7-1
7.3 Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category: PFAS
Manufacturers and Formulators (40 CFR part 414) 7-3
7.4 Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) Point Source
Categories 7-3
8. References for Plan 15 8-1
li
-------
List of Appendices, Tables & Figures
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A—Response to Remand of ELG Plan 14 in Food and Water Watch V. EPA (No. 21-
71084 9th Cir.)
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2-1. Statutorily Prescribed Levels of Control 2-2
Table 3-1. Summary of Public Comments Received on Preliminary Plan 15 3-2
Table 5-1. 2021 Annual Review Discharge Ranking Results 5-3
Table 6-1. System Type and Airport Count 6-5
Table 6-2. Textile Mills Effluent PFAS Concentrations 6-10
Table 6-3. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Effluent PFAS Concentrations 6-17
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 6-1. DOD and FAA Schedule for Replacing AFFF 6-6
in
-------
1—Executive Summary
1. Executive Summary
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA publishes Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
(ELGs), which are national industry-specific wastewater regulations based on the performance of
demonstrated wastewater treatment technologies (i.e., "technology-based limitations"). The effluent
limitations guidelines apply to discharges from industrial facilities to water bodies (referred to as "direct
discharges"). Pretreatment standards apply to discharges from industrial facilities to publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) (referred to as "indirect discharges"). CWA Section 304(m) contains
provisions requiring EPA to annually review the guidelines and standards and revise them if appropriate.
The CWA also requires EPA to biennially publish a plan that establishes a schedule for annual reviews,
revisions, and promulgation of any guidelines not previously established for industrial categories. This
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 (Plan 15) fulfills these CWA requirements and thus furthers the
national work toward restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
nation's waters.
Through its Effluent Guidelines Program Plans, EPA seeks to provide transparent decision-making with
the benefit of stakeholder input throughout the planning process. EPA published and requested public
comments on Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 (Preliminary Plan 15) on September 14,
2021 (86 FR 51155). Plan 15 provides a summary of the comments received on Preliminary Plan 15 as
well as updates on EPA's reviews of industrial wastewater discharges and treatment technologies. Plan
15 also presents EPA's 2021 annual review of effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards, including
the initial results from its preliminary review of the Plastics Molding and Forming (40 CFR part 463),
Leather Tanning (40 CFR part 425), and Paint Formulating (40 CFR part 446) Categories. With this
Plan 15, EPA continues to focus on and evaluate the extent and nature of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) discharges and assess opportunities for limiting those discharges from multiple
industrial categories, as outlined in EPA's 2021 Strategic Roadmap.
Plan 15 announces that EPA, pending resource availability, intends to initiate one new rulemaking and
several new studies. After collecting and analyzing data, as described throughout this Plan, EPA has
determined that revisions to the effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for the
Landfills Category (40 CFR part 445) are warranted, considering PFAS found in landfill leachate. EPA
also intends to expand the detailed study of the Textile Mills Category (40 CFR part 410) to gather
information on the use and treatment of PFAS in this industry and associated PFAS discharges. For this
expanded study, EPA intends to use a mandatory questionnaire issued to a nationally representative
sample of textile mills. Plan 15 also announces EPA's intent to initiate a POTW Influent Study of PFAS,
which will focus on collecting nationwide data on industrial discharges of PFAS to POTWs, including
categories recently reviewed. EPA intends to undertake this study to both verify sources of PFAS
wastewater and to discover new PFAS wastewater sources. Finally, Plan 15 announces EPA's intent to
undertake a detailed study of the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Category (40 CFR
part 412), which will focus on collecting further information to enable the Agency to make an informed,
reasoned decision whether to undertake rulemaking to revise the ELG for CAFOs.
Plan 15 also announces that EPA is not pursuing further action for the Electrical and Electronic
Components (E&EC) Category (40 CFR part 469) at this time but will continue monitoring this category
for PFAS discharge data through the POTW Influent Study. EPA will also continue to monitor PFAS
use and discharges from the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category (40 CFR part 430) and airports.
1-1
-------
1—Executive Summary
Finally, Plan 15 provides updates of four ongoing rulemakings:
• Steam Electric Power Generating Category rulemaking (see Section 7.1 for additional
details) to strengthen certain wastewater pollution discharge limitations for coal power plants
that use steam to generate electricity.
• Meat and Poultry Products Category rulemaking to address nutrient discharges (see Section
7.2 for additional details).
• Organic Chemicals, Plastics & Synthetic Fibers Category rulemaking to address PFAS
discharges (see Section 7.3 for additional details).
• Metal Finishing Category and Electroplating Category rulemakings to address PFAS
discharges (see Section 7.4 for additional details).
The Agency intends to undertake the actions outlined in this Plan and summarized above. The
commencement and pace of these activities will depend on the agency's Fiscal Year 2023 appropriations
and operating plan.
1-2
-------
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 ELGs (i.e., the effluent guidelines planning process).
2.1 The Clean Water Act and the Effluent Guidelines Program
The CWA focuses on two types of controls for point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States: (1) technology-based controls, based on ELGs or, in the absence of applicable ELGs, best
professional judgement (BPJ) of permit writers, 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 by facilities 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 limitations or pretreatment standards that represent the performance of
the "best" pollution control technologies, regardless of their location or the nature of the 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, although technology-based
ELGs in discharge permits may be as stringent as or even more stringent than necessary to meet water
quality standards, where this is not the case, the CWA requires EPA and authorized states to establish
water-quality-based effluent limitations as stringent as necessary to meet water quality standards.2 Thus,
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 webpage for more information.3 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 ELGs that include technology-based limitations for conventional, toxic, and
nonconventional pollutants in accordance with six statutorily prescribed levels of control (Table 2-1).
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
The limitations are based on the performance of specific technologies, but the regulations do not require
a specific control 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 (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 At the direction of Congress, EPA has identified
65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic, among which EPA has designated 126 specific
substances 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)).
EPA 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)). EPA 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 industrial facilities for both direct and indirect dischargers.
For existing direct dischargers, i.e., those that discharge into waters of the United States, 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,
EPA has combined rulemakings for effluent limitations and guidelines into a single rulemaking and
referred to the resulting rule as an "ELG." Similarly, EPA consolidates its review of effluent limitations
required under Section 301(d) and its review of effluent limitations guidelines under Section 304(b) into
an annual review of the 59 promulgated ELGs.12
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. EPA, 527 F.3d 842, 849 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing EPA's processes of combining the reviews
required under Sections 301(d) and 304(b)).
2-3
-------
2—Background
For indirect dischargers, i.e., those that 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 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
standards,18 it does not require EPA to make a "yes" or "no" determination every year on whether to
revise the guidelines and standards. See Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 14 (Plan 14, U.S. EPA,
2021a) Section 2.3 for further discussion of EPA's annual obligations. Further, where EPA initiates
rulemaking revising ELGs, the CWA confers discretion on EPA as to the timing for that rulemaking
(U.S. EPA, 2022o).
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.
Plan 15 describes ongoing planning activities, including projects EPA initiated as part of its 2021 annual
review and details EPA's effluent guidelines planning efforts, including preliminary category reviews,
category studies, and ELG rulemakings. For additional details, see EPA's 2021 Annual Review of
Industrial Wastewater Discharges (U.S., EPA, 2022a) and 2021 Preliminary Review of Industrial Point
Source Categories (U.S. EPA, 2022b).
13 See CWA Section 307(b); 33 U.S.C. 1317(b).
14 See CWA Section 304(g); 33 U.S.C. 1314(g).
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—Summary of Preliminary Plan 15 Public Comments
3. Summary of Public Comments Received on Preliminary Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan 15
On September 14, 2021, EPA published Preliminary Plan 15 for a 30-day public comment period (86 FR
51155). EPA received over 34,000 public comment letters on Preliminary Plan 15, the majority of which
were submitted as part of four different mass-mail campaigns that supported the agency's review of and
actions on PFAS and the meat and poultry industry. Apart from the mass-mail campaigns, EPA received
67 public comments.
EPA received comments on most of the topics presented in Preliminary Plan 15. Table 3-1 includes a
summary of the major comments discussed in the public submissions and is generally organized by
topic. See EPA's Response to Comments for the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 for all comment
responses (U.S. EPA, 2022c).
3-1
-------
3—Summary of Preliminary Plan 15 Public Comments
Table 3-1. Summary of Public Comments Received on Preliminary Plan 15
Topic
Summary
Commenter Types
(Count by Type)
ELG Planning
• EPA should prioritize the ELG program and reconsider its approach for reviewing and revising ELGs.
• EPA needs to annually review industrial discharges and revise ELGs to meet the goals of the CWA. Despite progress
made by the agency, less than half of waterways assessed for impairments have been determined to be safe and clean.
• Over two thirds of the industrial regulations are 30 years old. EPA has not applied upgrades in treatment technologies to
lower limits for the categories after many were originally established in the 1970s and 1980s. EPA should streamline its
approaches by applying data and knowledge collected about current technologies when considering wastewater
treatment upgrades (or issues) common among multiple industries (e.g., nutrients).
• EPA should manage pollutants at the source, reducing burdens on POTWs that receive industrial discharges.
• EPA ELG planning tools should be more transparent. In its analyses, EPA should consider toxicity of contaminants in
its rankings analyses in addition to reviewing EPA's Contaminant Candidate List (CCL).
• ELG planning should consider innovative approaches for complying with NPDES requirements and further advancing
the goals of the CWA.
• EPA should establish the strongest possible standards to protect waters, which are essential to communities (e.g.,
drinking water and business development).
• Commenters generally agree with the limitations outlined by EPA on the 2020 cross-category concentration analysis,
though one commenter noted that evaluating loads is also flawed because it does not consider permit limits or water
quality at the industry level.
• EPA should annually review and publish summaries of industry technology updates, characterization data, and
clarifications on applicability to help with implementation of ELGs, specifically older regulations.
• Commenters support the use of membrane technologies, both economical and versatile, in combination with
chemical/physical treatment and/or biological treatment.
Env. Organization (6)
Federal Agency (1)
Industry Trade Assoc. (5)
State Govt. (1)
Environmental
Justice
• EPA should consider multiple environmental justice indicators in its annual reviews and look beyond EJ Screen, as that
tool does not provide a risk analysis and does not consider multiple enviromnental indicators at one time. EPA should
consider the following in its proposed analyses: expanding the geographic proximity from wastewater discharge point,
considering cumulative impacts (both environmental and from multiple dischargers in an area), measuring impaired
water bodies, evaluating compliance within a geographic location, evaluating water bodies for downstream impacts,
assessing impacts of fish consumption advisories on tribal and low-income communities, and considering impacts on
Indigenous communities and sacred lands and waters.
• EPA's proposed environmental justice methodology may not capture all environmental justice and inequity
considerations.
• EPA should consider enviromnental justice in the planning process and in regulation development.
• Commenters stated specific enviromnental justice concerns with refineries, facilities discharging PFAS, fertilizer
manufacturing facilities, slaughterhouses, and CAFOs.
• EPA should consider prioritizing industries that are not currently regulated and are located in communities with
enviromnental justice concerns.
Env. Organization (8)
Federal Agency (1)
Industry Trade Assoc. (2)
Private Citizen (2)
State Govt. (1)
3-2
-------
3—Summary of Preliminary Plan 15 Public Comments
Table 3-1. Summary of Public Comments Received on Preliminary Plan 15
Topic
Summary
Commenter Types
(Count by Type)
PFAS -
General
• Commenters stated PFAS are extremely persistent in the environment and the human body, and many have been
linked at very low doses to serious health harms.
• Recent action by EPA falls short of what is needed to sufficiently address industrial discharges of PFAS both in terms
of scope and urgency. Commenters urged EPA to curb industrial releases of the toxic "forever chemicals" known as
PFAS.
• EPA should promulgate PFAS ELGs and pretreatment standards for multiple industry sectors at once and include all
those that contribute to PFAS discharges.
• EPA should set deadlines for the development of new standards to address industrial discharges of PFAS.
• Commenters support the U.S. House of Representative's bipartisan legislation that requires EPA to set PFAS standards
for nine industry categories within four years.
• EPA should finalize a PFAS Road Map that shifts responsibility for PFAS discharges to polluters. EPA is encouraged
to: require the disclosure of PFAS and use of technology to control discharges, set a PFAS drinking water standard,
quickly set nationwide standards to restrict industrial releases of PFAS, designate PFAS as hazardous substances, end
needless uses of PFAS, and ensure that PFAS wastes are properly disposed.
• Commenters support EPA actions in issuing a regulatory determination under the Safe Drinking Water Act for
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), proposing to expand monitoring of PFAS in
drinking water, developing new analytical methods, providing more funding for local communities, restoring scientific
integrity to EPA's review of PFAS, taking steps to close PFAS loopholes, and demanding more data from polluters.
• Commenters varied in their opinion on the classification of PFAS. Some stated that PFAS are too broad of a class to
promulgate regulations collectively, while others stated that PFAS must be addressed as a class, not as one chemical at
a time. Some commenters encouraged EPA to delineate exact which chemical is being regulated and transition to using
CAS Registry numbers when referring to compounds in the PFAS family.
• Some commenters noted that PFAS burdens environmental justice communities.
• EPA should conduct PFAS-specific screening across all industrial categories and incorporate Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) data into the analysis to reduce data gaps due to the lack of a part 136 PFAS surface water analytical method.
• EPA should develop PFAS discharge prioritization guidance for states.
• EPA must push state agencies to incorporate teclinology-based limits into state issued permits through case-by-case
analyses, as required by the CWA, and provide guidance to states for conducting these analyses.
• Some commenters stated that legacy and current use of PFAS should be addressed in analyses and in the development
of regulations.
• EPA should clarify whether stonnwater practices and PFAS concentrations in stonnwater were limiting factors in the
agency's analysis.
• EPA should include reverse osmosis and granulated activated carbon in teclinology-based regulations for PFAS.
Env. Organization (7)
Federal Agency (3)
Industry (4)
Industry Trade Assoc. (4)
Private Citizen (6)
State Govt. (1)
3-3
-------
3—Summary of Preliminary Plan 15 Public Comments
Table 3-1. Summary of Public Comments Received on Preliminary Plan 15
Topic
Summary
Commenter Types
(Count by Type)
PFAS -
Analytical
Methods
• EPA should validate and finalize Draft Method 1633 and develop methods to detect total organic precursors (TOP) and
total organic fluorine (TOF).
• In addition to Draft Method 1633, EPA should develop recommended sampling techniques/guidance.
• PFAS data analyzed by EPA for Preliminary Plan 15 predates a draft method; one commenter was unaware of any
other ELG that has been developed based on sampling data absent a single reference analytical method.
• Once an analytical method is developed, it will take time to build laboratory capacity. Commenters are unaware of
other ELGs that have faced this capacity issue.
• Commenters noted that EPA should consider whether or not analytical methods are available for the specific chemical
being regulated, as EPA's Draft Method 1633 is only applicable to 40 PFAS.
Env. Organization (2)
Industry (1)
Industry Trade Assoc. (2)
Private Citizen (1)
PFAS -
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics and
Synthetic
Fibers
(OCPSF)
• Some commenters support the revision of the OCPSF ELG and agree that it is warranted.
• EPA's announced rulemaking should consider the wide variety of facilities and operations captured in the category and
specifically define impacted facilities.
• Some commenters stated that PFAS fonnulators, including those not currently regulated, should be considered when
developing ELG.
• One state commented that their sampling program lias not identified OCPSF facilities as sources of discharges to
POTWs or surface waters. However, there are data that suggest that some facilities may have PFAS discharges
associated with the storage of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). This state also stated that there are 29 chemical
manufacturers in the state that are not categorically covered under OCSPF; some are sources of PFAS, and these
manufacturers should be considered as part of the rulemaking.
• One commenter stated that EPA should review the wastewater characterization data and identify any pretreatment in
order to effectively characterize treatment. EPA should also consider collecting paired influent-effluent data across
treatment technologies.
• One commenter stated that EPA should further study PFAS fonnulators and agreed that these facilities should not be
regulated at this time.
Env. Organization (2)
Industry (1)
Industry Trade Assoc. (2)
State Govt. (1)
PFAS - Metal
Finishing and
Electroplating
• Commenters supported the proposed rulemaking for the Metal Finishing Category and stated that EPA should consider
specific regulatory language (e.g., a subcategory or paragraph) for chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing.
• EPA should also consider expanding the scope to identify the presence of PFAS at all metal finishers, including
electroplaters.
• One commenter stated that the EPA PFAS report should be updated to include perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) data
from the Region 5 PFAS Electroplater Study for chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing operations.
Env. Organization (3)
Industry (1)
State Govt. (1)
3-4
-------
3—Summary of Preliminary Plan 15 Public Comments
Table 3-1. Summary of Public Comments Received on Preliminary Plan 15
Topic
Summary
Commenter Types
(Count by Type)
PFAS - Textile
Mills
• One coimnenter stated that textile mills are known dischargers of PFAS.
• EPA should issue Section 308 letters to require data collection for PFAS in discharges.
• EPA should make data collected in the study publicly available on EPA's website and publish a separate detailed study
report on its findings.
Env. Organization (1)
Industry (1)
Industry Trade Assoc. (1)
PFAS -
Landfills
• The Landfill ELG should include pretreatment standards, as leachate is a significant source of PFAS and other
compounds released to POTWs.
• EPA's study should cover active and closed landfills.
• The current methods EPA is evaluating for the treatment of PFAS from leachate have not been proven to be viable for
full-scale implementation (or economically feasible).
• Landfills are not the users of PFAS; they are the receivers. As such industry believes that there are opportunities for
them to minimize discharges of PFAS. However, industry maintains that the most effective approach to controlling
PFAS would be to eliminate it at the source. Minimization techniques should be evaluated as part of the detailed study.
• EPA's review of landfills should account for different landfill profiles and, therefore, different wastewater
characterization.
• Two commenters stated that they welcome the opportunity to share information on the data requested as part of
Preliminary Plan 15.
• One commenter expressed interest in collaborating with EPA to conduct further research and study leaching
characteristics and evaluate applicable treatment technologies.
Env. Organization (2)
Industry (3)
Industry Trade Assoc. (1)
State Govt. (1)
PFAS - Other
Industries
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
• A commenter stated that EPA should continue its study on the use and discharge of PFAS at pulp and paper mills.
• States expressed concern about indirect discharges of PFAS from legacy PFAS (e.g., in recycled fibers) even though
the industry will phase out direct application of PFAS in new products in 2024.
• Pulp and paper sites have contaminated ground water and soils that contribute to impacted ground and surface water
(via old paper sludge land application sites).
• EPA should consider working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to evaluate PFAS in the food packaging
industry.
• EPA should consider monitoring PFAS in paper mill intake water to determine if it is a relevant source of PFAS.
• One commenter stated that the pulp and paper industry phased out the use of long-chain PFOA and PFOS
approximately 10 years ago and has almost completed its transition of intentional short-chain PFAS in its
manufacturing process.
Env. Organization (2)
Industry (2)
Industry Trade Assoc. (2)
State Govt. (2)
3-5
-------
3—Summary of Preliminary Plan 15 Public Comments
Table 3-1. Summary of Public Comments Received on Preliminary Plan 15
Topic
Summary
Commenter Types
(Count by Type)
Leather Tanning and Finishing
• EPA should consider PFAS limitations for this category due to data indicating contaminated ground water and
stormwater associated with these sites.
Plastics Molding and Forming
• EPA should prioritize this industry sector in its ongoing PFAS research, collect data from the industry, and determine
if updated ELG are necessary to address PFAS.
Paint Formulating
• EPA should collect data from the industry to determine if updated ELG are necessary to address PFAS.
• A commenter also noted that because paints are flammable, sites may be outfitted with AFFF.
E&EC
• The use of PFAS in electronics is well documented. EPA should complete its detailed study and should update the
public in Plan 15.
Airports/AFFF
• EPA should continue studying the use of AFFF at airports and consider expanding the scope of facilities identified as
having a stockpile of AFFF.
• EPA should include more firefighting solutions other than PFAS-free firefighting foam.
• One state commented that no new ELG for airports were required at this time because it found no current impairments
resulting from PFAS storage, loading, or use at airports in Wyoming.
Petroleum
Refining
• A commenter stated that EPA should complete a thorough review of the petroleum refining ELG, including an
assessment of BAT and limits for other pollutants discharged by the industry.
• Over the course of a multi-year review, EPA failed to consider or answer the questions needed to determine if revision
to the existing ELG is warranted.
• Current ammonia discharge monitoring report (DMR) data suggest that the ammonia limits (established in 1974) no
longer represent BAT.
• EPA should promulgate concentration- or mass-based limitations so that larger refineries are held to similar standards
as smaller refineries.
• EPA should consider nitrates, selenium, mercury, nickel, and PFAS (including legacy contamination from the use of
AFFF).
Env. Organization (1)
Oil and Gas/
Centralized
• EPA should continue to study Oil and Gas Extraction/Centralized Waste Treatment ELG, specifically for PFAS as
there is evidence that PFAS are used in oil and gas production and potentially oil recovery operations and that
centralized waste treatment facilities are a source of PFAS to POTWs.
Env. Organization (2)
State Govt. (1)
3-6
-------
3—Summary of Preliminary Plan 15 Public Comments
Table 3-1. Summary of Public Comments Received on Preliminary Plan 15
Topic
Summary
Commenter Types
(Count by Type)
Waste
Treatment
• EPA should set national standards for produced water in order to help states set appropriate standards and ensure water
quality.
• One commenter expressed support for EPA's decision not to make changes to Section 437 (to allow for more
flexibility for increased discharge of produced water to centralized waste treatment facilities).
• EPA should engage with stakeholders on a more robust study of produced water discharges to determine if revised
ELGs are needed.
Fertilizer Mfg.
• EPA should review the Fertilizer Manufacturing ELG. EPA has overlooked details about discharges that impact
communities with enviromnental justice concerns and pollute climate, air, and surface water in its decision not to
continue review of the category as announced in the Preliminary Plan 15.
• EPA should develop ELGs for three categories of fertilizer manufacturing plants: manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer
ingredients, manufacture of phosphorus fertilizer ingredients, and plants that mix nitrogen and phosphorus ingredients
with others for finished fertilizer products.
• One commenter stated that EPA's most recent review was insufficient to determine whether the existing ELG and
pretreatment standards are appropriate.
• EPA's cross-category concentration analysis was not grounded in CWA requirements; EPA should have compared
fertilizer manufacturing concentrations to actual permit limits required by the ELG.
• One commenter stated that pollutants from fertilizer manufacturing and the application of fertilizer products impact
human health and the enviromnent.
Env. Organization (1)
Steam Electric
• EPA should consider limitations, or mitigation strategies, for bromides to help protect sources of drinking water.
• EPA must set zero discharge requirements for bottom ash transport water and flue gas desulfurization wastewater.
• EPA should target the discharges associated with legacy wastewater.
• One commenter stated that EPA should propose revised standards sooner than the announced Fall 2022 timeline.
• One commenter agreed with EPA's 2020 rulemaking decision not to establish membrane technology as BAT and
supports the 2020 Rule.
• One state commented that it does not show any impairments from steam electric power plants; therefore, they do not
support a revised rulemaking and welcome the opportunity to meet with EPA to discuss.
Env. Organization (3)
Industry Trade Assoc. (2)
State Govt. (2)
3-7
-------
3—Summary of Preliminary Plan 15 Public Comments
Table 3-1. Summary of Public Comments Received on Preliminary Plan 15
Topic
Summary
Commenter Types
(Count by Type)
Meat and
Poultry
Products (MPP)
• One coimnenter stated that it is collaborating with EPA to update and clearly define the list of facilities that are
captured under the applicability of the ELG as part of the detailed study effort referenced in Plan 14 (86 FR 1960).
• EPA should strengthen the ELG for MPP as soon as possible, as available technology for these wastewaters has
improved.
• One commenter indicated that the MPP industry lias caused interference and pass through at POTWs.
• EPA can use existing DMR data, information on BAT nutrient removal technologies from industry (or best
performers), and information on nutrient removal technologies from POTWs to revise MPP ELG.
Env. Organization (3)
Industry Trade Assoc. (3)
Private Citizen (1)
State Govt. (2)
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
(CAFOs)
• One commenter urged EPA to review the ELG for the CAFOs industry based on assertions that: EPA has factual
evidence that demonstrates the inadequacy of the current ELG, current wastewater management practices are no longer
BAT, and EPA's current rankings methodology (based solely on DMR data) does not accurately characterize pollutant
impacts.
Env. Organization (1)
3-8
-------
4—Summary of Annual Review Activities
4. Summary of Annual Review Activities
This section presents EPA's 2021 annual review activities. These review activities include review of
discharge monitoring report (DMR) data and ranking of pollutant load discharged across all existing
ELGs, comprised of industries with existing ELGs and some industries that are not currently regulated
by ELGs. EPA has taken the following actions as part of its 2021 annual review:
• Conducted a rankings analysis (as a follow-on of the cross-category concentration analysis
conducted for the 2020 annual review and described in Preliminary Plan 15) of point source
categories based on pollutant load data reported on 2019 DMRs (see Section 5.1). EPA used
2019 DMR data for the 2021 annual review because they were the most recent and complete
set of industrial wastewater discharge data available when the rankings analysis began.
• Conducted preliminary category reviews of three point source categories to assess discharges
of PFAS and other regulated and unregulated pollutants to determine whether the categories
warrant further review and study: Leather Tanning and Finishing (40 CFR part 425), Paint
Formulating (40 CFR part 446), and Plastics Molding and Forming (40 CFR part 463) (see
Sections 5.2 through 5.4). EPA used 2020 DMR and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data for
these preliminary category reviews because they were the most recent and complete set of
industrial wastewater discharge data available when the category reviews began.
• 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 5.5).
• Continued to compile wastewater treatment technology information in the Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Technology (IWTT) Database and populate the information into the
IWTT web application for public use (see Section 5.6.1).
In Preliminary Plan 15, EPA announced that it was initiating a detailed study for one point source
category: Landfills (40 CFR part 445). See Section 6.3.3 for information on EPA's next steps regarding
this category.
EPA also explained in Preliminary Plan 15 that it was considering how best to incorporate equity and
environmental justice considerations into the ELG planning process. As a component of the preliminary
reviews for the Leather Tanning and Finishing, Paint Formulating, and Plastics Molding and Forming
Categories, EPA compiled publicly available socioeconomic data for census block groups where
facilities discharging to surface water or POTWs are located to evaluate the impact of potential
discharges and help further prioritize the categories for review and study. Specifically, EPA evaluated
the following indicators: the percentile of people of color, low income, life expectancy at birth,
unemployment rate, less than high school education, and linguistically isolated relative to the U.S.
median value (50th percentile). For an entire category, EPA calculated the percentage of facilities
located in census block groups that had one or more socioeconomic indicators greater than the national
80th percentile, consistent with the EJScreen methodology for highlighting communities that may require
closer attention. See EPA's 2021 Preliminary Review of Industrial Point Source Categories for more
details on the specific analyses performed as part of the preliminary category reviews (U.S. EPA,
2022b). Section 5.7 describes this methodology in more detail.
4-1
-------
4—Summary of Annual Review Activities
As required by the CWA, EPA reviewed all point source categories as part of its annual review. Given
EPA's current priorities and available resources, the agency will continue to focus on the categories
identified in EPA's PFAS Strategic Roadmap that are likely discharging PFAS, in addition to the other
point source categories discussed in this Plan. Categories not discussed in detail in Plan 15 are not
priorities for further study or rulemaking at this time. EPA will continue to review all point source
categories while preparing the next plan.
The 2021 annual review and the information presented here in Plan 15 build on EPA's previous annual
reviews, including the 2020 annual review and ELG planning process described in Preliminary Plan 15
(U.S. EPA, 2021b). EPA will present its 2022 annual review as part of Preliminary Plan 16 and expects
to expand its rankings analyses to include additional metrics such as size of the industry, average
volume of wastewater discharged, age of regulations, current ELG requirements and technology basis,
presence of PFAS in industrial wastewater discharges, discharges to impaired waters, and demographics
data associated with the location of industrial dischargers.
EPA also received petitions for rulemaking that in part request changes to the ELG for CAFOs and
Plastic Manufacturers and is carefully reviewing those petitions.19'20
19 Food & Water Watch, et al. "Petition to Revise the Clean Water Act Regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations." Submitted 8 March 2017. Food & Water Watch filed a mandamus action in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit asking the court to order EPA to respond to the petition. As of the time of signature of Plan 15, EPA and Food
& Water Watch have entered into the Court's mediation program to address the mandamus action.
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 CFR 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.
4-2
-------
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 sources and limitations of
the data used to complete the reviews. This section also presents findings and next steps for the
associated planning activities.
5.1 DMR Pollutant Load Rankings Analysis
As part of its 2021 annual review of the ELGs, EPA used DMR data to rank categories by total annual
pollutant load discharged. This rankings analysis provides a mechanism for prioritizing specific point
source categories for further review. The following subsections discuss the data sources and
methodology of the DMR pollutant load rankings analysis, describe factors that EPA considered in its
review, and summarize the results of the review. For additional details on the DMR pollutant load
rankings analysis, see EPA's 2021 Annual Review of Industrial Wastewater Discharges (U.S. EPA,
2022a).
5.1.1 Data, Methodology, and Analysis Considerations
For this analysis, EPA evaluated available industrial wastewater discharge data reported on facilities'
2019 DMRs, which was the most current DMR data set available at the time the rankings analysis was
conducted. Facilities that discharge wastewater to "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's Water Pollutant
Loading Tool compiles the ICIS-NPDES data into a web-based platform that calculates and presents
facility pollutant discharges in pounds per year or by monitoring period, as described in Section 3 of the
Technical Users Background Document for the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Loading
Tool (U.S. EPA, 2012) and summarized in EPA 's 2021 Annual Review of Industrial Wastewater
Discharges (U.S. EPA, 2022a).
As a first step, EPA downloaded data from the Water Pollutant Loading Tool21 and established a
crosswalk to relate individual facility and subsequent parameter-level data to the most appropriate point
source category or potential point source category, primarily based on the facility's reported Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) or North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and the
reported parameter. These links enabled EPA to analyze discharges within and across point source
categories.
21 Water Pollutant Loading Tool Resources: https://echo.epa.gov/trends/loading-tool/resources (see "Effluent Guidelines
(ELG) Crosswalks (used only for Top Industrial Dischargers of Toxic Pollutants)")- EPA uses the "NPDES ID and Parameter
Code to Point Source Category" crosswalk for its annual review analyses.
5-1
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
EPA then downloaded the following 2019 DMR data for each facility from the Water Pollutant Loading
Tool into a static database to preserve the integrity of the data and facilitate subsequent analyses (ERG,
2021a):
• NPDES permit number.
• Parameter name and code.
• Pollutant name and code.
• Average concentration in milligrams per liter (mg/L).
• Maximum concentration (mg/L).
• Total load discharged for 2019 in pounds per year (lb/year).
• Wastewater flow for 2019 (million gallons per day).
EPA used 2019 data for this review because they comprised the most recent and complete set of
industrial wastewater discharge data available when EPA began the review.
Using the point source category crosswalk, EPA linked all records to a point source category using the
NPDES permit number and the parameter and then summed the annual load across pollutants to the
facility level and, subsequently, to the point source category level. EPA then ranked point source
categories from highest to lowest pounds of discharge in 2019. Section 5.1.3 of this report presents the
results of the 2021 rankings analysis (based on the 2019 DMR data).
5.1.2 Data Quality Review and Corrections
For this analysis, EPA evaluated completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness of the downloaded 2019
data as follows.
Completeness. EPA assessed completeness of the data sets by comparing the volume of the 2019
downloaded ICIS-NPDES data to data from a similar analysis conducted in 2017 to ensure that there
was no discrepancy that would indicate an incomplete download of the data. EPA identified a 1 percent
increase in the total count of facilities reporting data, as new facilities or pollutants are typically added
each year as permits are developed or revised.
Accuracy and reasonableness. For the top ten point source categories in the pollutant load rankings,22
EPA identified outliers (where a few facilities form most of the point source category load) and
determined if any of the data were a result of data entry errors (e.g., unit errors, such as data entered as
"2.7 grams" instead of "2.7 milligrams").
For identified facility outliers, EPA used the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)
effluent charts23 to investigate and determine if the outlier data resulted from reporting errors. These
effluent charts graph facilities' submitted monitoring data from all years, allowing EPA to identify
whether the data are consistent over time. EPA identified potential data errors where the facility effluent
22 Note that EPA did not review data from facilities in categories where ELGs were promulgated or revised in the past seven
years.
23 ECHO: https://echo.epa.gov.
5-2
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
data were unexpectedly different from year to year and/or month to month (higher or lower) by an order
of magnitude or more and reported these potential errors through its Integrated Error Correction Process
(IECP), via the error report feature built into ECHO'S website. In instances where the IECP confirmed
the error, EPA recalculated the annual pollutant loads and reran the rankings. For additional details on
the identified outliers and data corrections, see EPA's 2021 Annual Review of Industrial Point Source
Categories (U.S. EPA, 2022a).
5.1.3 Results of the DMR Pollutant Load Rankings Analysis
Table 5-1 presents the 2021 annual review discharge rankings using 2019 DMR data. The rankings
include the 2019 aggregated annual loads for each point source category (ranked from highest to
lowest), the percentage of the total load the point source category comprises, and the number of facilities
in each point source category that reported data greater than zero in 2019.
The rankings analysis provides a mechanism for EPA to review discharges from industrial categories
and potentially prioritize specific point source categories for further review. EPA's recommendation to
further prioritize categories also considers other aspects such as stakeholder input and Administration
priorities. As described in this Plan, EPA continues to focus on and evaluate the extent and nature of
PFAS discharges and assess opportunities for limiting those discharges from multiple industrial
categories, as outlined in EPA's PFAS Strategic Roadmap. Specifically, as identified in the agency's
PFAS Strategic Roadmap, EPA conducted a preliminary review of three point source categories to
assess discharges of PFAS and other regulated and unregulated pollutants to determine whether the
categories warrant further review and study: Leather Tanning and Finishing (40 CFR part 425), Paint
Formulating (40 CFR part 446), and Plastics Molding and Forming (40 CFR part 463) (see Sections 5.2
through 5.4). For the three preliminary category reviews, EPA used 2020 DMR and TRI data, as these
data were publicly available during the agency's review (see Section 1 of EPA's 2021 Preliminary
Review of Industrial Point Source Categories for a description of the data sources, uses, and limitations
(U.S. EPA, 2022b)).
The results of the pollutant load rankings analysis, presented in Table 5-1, did not present any findings
that altered EPA's decision on prioritization for industrial category reviews targeting PFAS at this time.
EPA may choose to prioritize reviews of these categories differently in the future.
Table 5-1. 2021 Annual Review Discharge Ranking Results
40 ( I K
Piirl
Point Source ('silicon Nsiiih*
201«J DM K
Anniiiil l.oiids
(IhAciir)
IVrcenliiiic of
Tulsil l.u;i(l
( ii inn hit i\o
Percenliiiio of
Total l.(i;i(l
l-'iicililics
Reporting
l)isch;ir;ic'N
(.rciiKT lliiiu /.oi (i
414
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and
Synthetic Fibers3
120,000,000,000b
72%
72%
609
423
Steam Electric Power Generating3
14,600,000,000
9%
81%
808
N/A
Drinking Water Treatment
5,830,000,000
3%
84%
2,022
435
Oil and Gas Extraction
3,130,000,000b
2%
86%
489
419
Petroleum Refining
3,040,000,000
2%
88%
642
433
Metal Finishing3
2,510,000,000b
2%
90%
638
5-3
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
Table 5-1. 2021 Annual Review Discharge Ranking Results
40 CFR
Part
Point Source Category Name
2019 DMR
Annual Loads
(lb/year)
Percentage of
Total Load
Cumulative
Percentage of
Total Load
Facilities
Reporting
Discharges
Greater than Zero
434
Coal Mining
2,380,000,000
1%
91%
1,674
415
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
2,310,000,000
1%
92%
229
436
Mineral Mining and Processing
2,020,000,000
1%
94%
1,324
430
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard'
1,640,000,000
1%
95%
233
420
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
1,320,000,000
1%
95%
145
432
Meat and Poultry Products3
l,030,000,000b
1%
96%
296
445
Landfills3
690,000,000
<1%
96%
247
438
Metal Products and Machinery
674,000,000
<1%
97%
836
405
Dairy Products Processing
590,000,000
<1%
97%
118
440
Ore Mining and Dressing
537,000,000
<1%
97%
91
449
Airport Deicing
496,000,000
<1%
98%
79
N/A
Miscellaneous Foods and Beverages
463,000,000
<1%
98%
159
444
Waste Combustors
379,000,000
<1%
98%
25
460
Hospital
360,000,000
<1%
98%
237
463
Plastics Molding and Forming3
345,000,000
<1%
99%
120
451
Concentrated Aquatic Animal
Production
278,000,000
<1%
99%
306
454
Gum and Wood Chemicals
Manufacturing
247,000,000
<1%
99%
12
408
Canned and Preserved Seafood
Processing
225,000,000
<1%
99%
99
407
Canned and Preserved Fruits and
Vegetables Processing
145,000,000
<1%
99%
81
N/A
Unassigned Waste Facility
131,000,000
<1%
99%
178
N/A
Food Service Establishments
121,000,000
<1%
99%
172
429
Timber Products Processing
117,000,000
<1%
99%
271
455
Pesticide Chemicals
109,000,000
<1%
99%
31
437
Centralized Waste Treatment
103,000,000
<1%
100%
15
421
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
101,000,000
<1%
100%
56
418
Fertilizer Manufacturing
89,400,000
<1%
100%
59
422
Phosphate Manufacturing
85,900,000
<1%
100%
18
409
Sugar Processing
84,600,000
<1%
100%
34
411
Cement Manufacturing
80,000,000
<1%
100%
507
442
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
75,900,000
<1%
100%
127
N/A
Independent and Stand-alone Labs
51,600,000
<1%
100%
37
439
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
43,400,000
<1%
100%
56
464
Metal Molding and Casting
(Foundries)
35,200,000
<1%
100%
48
406
Grain Mills
33,000,000
<1%
100%
32
410
Textile Mills3
27,600,000
<1%
100%
58
5-4
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
Table 5-1. 2021 Annual Review Discharge Ranking Results
40 CFR
Part
Point Source Category Name
2019 DMR
Annual Loads
(lb/year)
Percentage of
Total Load
Cumulative
Percentage of
Total Load
Facilities
Reporting
Discharges
Greater than Zero
443
Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars
and Asphalt)
20,800,000
<1%
100%
91
457
Explosives Manufacturing
14,600,000
<1%
100%
15
428
Rubber Manufacturing
14,100,000
<1%
100%
82
N/A
Printing & Publishing
8,640,000
<1%
100%
12
426
Glass Manufacturing
7,050,000
<1%
100%
42
469
Electrical and Electronic
Components
6,020,000
<1%
100%
9
471
Nonferrous Metals Forming and
Metal Powders
5,970,000
<1%
100%
56
450
Construction and Development
5,170,000
<1%
100%
182
424
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
4,380,000
<1%
100%
11
467
Aluminum Forming
3,350,000
<1%
100%
21
425
Leather Tanning and Finishing1
2,520,000
<1%
100%
3
417
Soap and Detergent Manufacturing
1,710,000
<1%
100%
14
468
Copper Forming
759,000
<1%
100%
18
458
Carbon Black Manufacturing
639,000
<1%
100%
8
412
Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations3
325,000
<1%
100%
18
N/A
Industrial Laundries
177,000
<1%
100%
3
446
Paint Formulating3
131,000
<1%
100%
20
427
Asbestos Manufacturing
53,300
<1%
100%
1
461
Battery Manufacturing
47,100
<1%
100%
7
447
Ink Formulating
33,900
<1%
100%
5
N/A
Tobacco Products
19,200
<1%
100%
2
465
Coil Coating
1,250
<1%
100%
3
459
Photographic
6.90
<1%
100%
1
Total
167,000,000,000
-
-
-
a - EPA is currently monitoring, reviewing, or studying this category or conducting a rulemaking for this category,
b - 2019 DMR Annual Load may be overestimated due to outliers in the underlying data. EPA submitted the outliers via the
error report feature built into ECHO'S website but has not identified a correction at this time.
5-5
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
5.2 Leather Tanning and Finishing Point Source Category (40 CFR part 425)
EPA announced the Leather Tanning and Finishing Category (40 CFR part 425) for preliminary review
in EPA's PFAS Strategic Roadmap. EPA initiated a preliminary review of this category to gather
additional information on discharges associated with PFAS, among other pollutants.
Leather tanning and finishing refers to processes that convert animal hides or skins into leather. In 1982,
EPA promulgated ELG for this industry, which cover wastewater generated from beamhouse, tanyard,
and retan and wet-finish process steps. EPA established production-based limitations for direct
dischargers and concentration-based limitations for indirect discharges for nine subcategories (U.S.
EPA, 1982). The ELG include limitations for BODs, oil and grease, total suspended solids (TSS), total
chromium, pH, and sulfide. As part of this preliminary category review, EPA evaluated U.S. census data
and 2020 DMR and TRI data to assess the size of the industry and corresponding pollutant loads. The
census data showed that the number of leather tanning and finishing facilities has been decreasing
steadily since 2000 and that most tanneries are small operations with fewer than 20 employees.
PFAS are used in leather manufacturing to improve the efficiency of the tanning process. PFAS can also
be applied to leather to provide water and oil repellence, stain resistance, and oil release (Gliige et al.,
2020). PFAS discharges were not reported from this industry in either 2020 DMR or TRI data because
the category is not currently required to report discharges in NPDES permits or based on current TRI
reporting criteria. Therefore, EPA evaluated the available PFAS data from the Michigan Department of
Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (MI EGLE),24 which collected PFAS data as part of a state
sampling effort separate from NPDES permit (i.e., DMR) and TRI reporting requirements. The MI
EGLE data set captured four leather tanning facilities in the sampling effort. Three out of four leather
tanning facilities in Michigan had detectable quantities of PFAS in their effluent. The highest
concentration detected was 83 ppt of PFOS. MI EGLE did not identify leather tanneries as a high
priority source of PFAS or PFOA compared to other industries identified during their ongoing study;
however, they did identify some inactive tanneries that used PFAS in the past as contaminated sites (MI
EGLE, 2020a; U.S. EPA, 2022d).
Three leather tanning facilities reported DMR data in 2020; one facility accounted for over 90 percent of
the DMR discharges. Because EPA determined that one facility contributed to the majority of the loads,
EPA did not prioritize DMR data for further pollutant-specific reviews. Over 99 percent of the total
2020 TRI loads were reported as indirect releases to POTWs. The top pollutant contributing to over 90
percent of the indirect load was ammonia.
Ammonia accounts for 93 percent of the 2020 TRI indirect loads. Research indicates that ammonia is
generated during two steps in the leather tanning process: (1) the soaking and unhairing step (during
which the proteins removed can convert to ammonia) and (2) the deliming step (where ammonia comes
from the addition of ammonia salts, ammonium chloride, and ammonium sulfate). Because facilities
report total estimated releases to TRI (i.e., total pounds per year) and there are no corresponding
concentration data available in TRI, EPA reviewed the ammonia concentrations collected as part of the
24 See the MI EGLE Industrial Pretreatment Program (IFF) PFAS Initiative website for more information.
5-6
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
1982 rulemaking. In 1982, EPA collected effluent samples from 31 tanneries across all nine subparts;
ammonia concentrations ranged from 1 mg/L to 680 mg/L.
The regulation of ammonia was considered during the 1982 rulemaking, specifically the potential
substitution of Epsom salts for ammonia during the deliming process. EPA did not promulgate
pretreatment standards in 1982 because this substitution was determined to be cost prohibitive. As part
of this review, EPA compared the 1982 ammonia concentrations to inhibition thresholds for ammonia at
POTWs. An inhibition threshold is a concentration range at which a pollutant in a POTW's wastewater
or sludge causes operational problems for biological treatment processes. Based on the available
documentation, ammonia concentrations observed during the 1982 rulemaking were generally lower
than 2004 inhibition thresholds for ammonia based on activated sludge (480 mg/L) and anaerobic
digestion (1,500 mg/L to 8,000 mg/L), suggesting that ammonia discharges are not causing impacts to
POTW operations (U.S. EPA, 2022b).
EPA evaluated facilities for environmental justice concerns including whether they are located in census
block groups (i.e., communities) that have higher demographic metrics than the national average (50th
percentile). The 2-factor demographic index considers the average of people of color and low-income
populations, and the 5-factor index considers low income, education less than a high school degree,
linguistic isolation, unemployment, and life expectancy. The communities surrounding leather tanning
and finishing facilities are on average at the 53rd percentile for the 2-factor demographic index and at the
70th percentile for the 5-factor index. Four facilities are in census block groups in the 80th percentile or
higher for one or both indices, and overall, these facilities are in communities with higher-than-average
demographic indicators.
EPA is not prioritizing the Leather Tanning and Finishing Category for further review or ELG revision
at this time. EPA recommends that state and local permitting authorities consider applying water-
quality-based effluent limitations, as appropriate, to address any potential issues with direct discharging
facilities within this category. During this review, EPA has not identified any data that suggest
discharges from leather tanning facilities to POTWs are impacting POTW operations at this time. The
PFAS data EPA reviewed are limited; however, EPA expects to review additional data in the coming
years as a result of the POTW Influent Study (Section 6.3.5), updated TRI reporting requirements for
PFAS, and NPDES permit monitoring requirements for federally-issued permits.25 These data will help
EPA identify any significant sources of these chemicals in future reviews.
5.3 Paint Formulating Point Source Category (40 CFR part 446)
EPA announced the Paint Formulating Category (40 CFR part 446) for preliminary review in EPA's
PFAS Strategic Roadmap. The PFAS Strategic Roadmap identifies the ELG program as a potential
method for restricting PFAS discharges from industrial wastewater sources as a key action (U.S. EPA,
2021d). EPA initiated a preliminary review of the Paint Formulating Point Source Category to gather
additional information on discharges associated with PFAS, among other pollutants.
25 See EPA's April 2022 memorandum and December 2022 memorandum, detailing the agency's intention to address PFAS
discharges in NPDES permits and through the pretreatment program and monitoring programs. In addition to reducing PFAS
discharges, this will also provide data to inform ELG planning and actions.
5-7
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
In 1975, EPA promulgated ELG for this industry, which captured the discharges resulting from the
production of paint and coatings. EPA organized the ELG into three subcategories based on the base and
the technique used for equipment washing (U.S. EPA, 1975):
• Subcategory A. Oil-Base Solvent Wash Paint Manufacture.
• Subcategory B. Oil-Base Caustic Wash Paint Manufacture.
• Subcategory C. Water-Base Paint Manufacture.
EPA established zero discharge regulations for BPT, BAT, NSPS, and PSNS for Subcategory A and
reserved26 PSES for Subcategory A. EPA reserved the Subcategory B regulation and planned to
reevaluate Subcategory C for promulgation at a later date. Resin manufacture is covered under 40 CFR
part 414: Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers.
As part of this preliminary category review, EPA evaluated 2019 U.S. Census data and 2020 DMR and
TRI data to learn more about the size of the industry, discharge practices, and corresponding pollutant
loads. The count of facilities from the 2019 U.S. Census and 2020 DMR and TRI data suggests that the
proportion of direct and indirect discharges within the industry remains similar to 1975 and that most
discharges of process wastewater are indirect discharges (U.S. EPA, 2022b). Census data suggest that
much of the industry is comprised of small establishments (i.e., less than 20 employees).
EPA's limited literature search identified that PFAS are used in paint, coating, and varnish
manufacturing. A 2022 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, Per-
and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Alternatives in Coatings, Paints and Varnishes (CPVsj, Report on
the Commercial Availability and Current Uses, identified that the majority of PFAS in coatings, paints,
and varnishes are fluoropolymers and, to a lesser degree, short-chain PFAS used in household paints.
The PFAS function as levelling, wetting, and anti-blocking agents and provide protective properties for
increased durability and weatherability, as well as repellency for anti-stick and anticorrosive
applications (OECD, 2022; Gliige et al., 2020). These properties allow paints to apply smoothly and
evenly and prevent damage to the surfaces they cover and the paints themselves. Several resources
indicated that there are viable PFAS alternatives for paint including polyurethane, polyethylene, and
polyvinylchloride (OECD, 2022). EPA did not identify any PFAS discharge data from this industry in
either 2020 DMR or TRI because these facilities are not currently required to report discharges in
NPDES permits or based on current TRI reporting criteria. Therefore, EPA evaluated the available
PFAS data from MI EGLE,27 which collected PFAS data as part of a state sampling effort separate from
NPDES permit (i.e., DMR) and TRI reporting requirements (U.S. EPA, 2022d). Based on state-provided
data, EPA found six facilities with available PFAS discharge data, four of which had detectable
quantities of PFAS in their effluent. PFOS and PFOA had the highest average concentrations at 6.05 ppt
and 0.15 ppt, respectively. EPA expects that the POTW Influent Study (Section 6.3.5) which EPA
intends to initiate will provide further information on any PFAS discharges from indirect dischargers in
this industry.
26 "Reserved" refers to a placeholder within the Code of Federal Regulations. The agency may "reserve" certain ELGs to
indicate that it may develop ELGs at a later date.
27 See the MI EGLE Industrial Pretreatment Program (IFF) PFAS Initiative website for more information.
5-8
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
To understand current discharges of non-PFAS pollutants, EPA reviewed 2020 DMR and TRI data for
the Paint Formulating Category. From the 2020 DMR data, EPA identified 18 facilities with NPDES
permits. EPA found that all effluent limits in the 18 discharge permits were associated with stormwater
or other noncontact process wastewater outfalls, which is to be expected as the regulations for
Subcategory A (Oil-Base Solvent Wash Paint Manufacture) require zero discharge of pollutants from
process wastewater. EPA reviewed pollutants reported to 2020 TRI, which provides available data on
indirect discharges. EPA focused the review on solvents and metals, which make up the majority of the
indirect discharges reported to TRI. Solvents are used as a volatile vehicle that film-forming binders and
pigments are dissolved into, and they provide different properties to paints. Metals in the paint industry
are used as biological inhibitors, driers, and pigments. From the review of TRI data, EPA found:
• Solvents such as glycols, and others, have been used historically and are currently used in the
paint formulating industry.
• Zinc is a prominent metal discharged from the paint industry, as it was during the 1975
review.
• Lead have been phased out of the industry since the 1975 review (U.S. EPA, 1975).
EPA evaluated facilities for environmental justice concerns including whether they are located in census
block groups (i.e., communities) that have higher demographic metrics than the national average (50th
percentile). The 2-factor demographic index considers the average of people of color and low-income
populations, and the 5-factor index considers low income, education less than a high school degree,
linguistic isolation, unemployment, and life expectancy. Paint formulating facilities are located in
communities that are on average at the 51st percentile for the 2-factor demographic index and at the 59th
percentile for the 5-factor demographic index. These facilities have similar demographic indicators to
the national average.
EPA is not prioritizing the Paint Formulating Category for further review or ELG revision at this time.
Based on the available data, revisions to the ELG 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, as
appropriate, to address any potential issues with solvents, or other pollutants in discharges from this
category. EPA intends to continue to monitor the use, discharge, and treatment of PFAS from paint
formulating facilities as part of the POTW Influent PFAS Study (Section 6.3.5), updated TRI reporting
requirements for PFAS, and NPDES permit monitoring requirements for federally-issued permits and
state-issued permits as more states include monitoring for PFAS in permits.28 These data will help EPA
identify any significant sources of these chemicals in future reviews and understand the
subcategorization of current facility discharges, in particular indirect discharges.
28 See EPA's April 2022 memorandum and December 2022 memorandum, detailing EPA's intention to address PFAS
discharges in NPDES permits and through the pretreatment program and monitoring programs. In addition to reducing
PFAS discharges, this will also provide data to inform ELG planning and actions.
5-9
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
5.4 Plastics Molding and Forming Point Source Category (40 CFR part 463)
EPA announced the Plastics Molding and Forming Category (40 CFR part 463) for preliminary review
in EPA's PFAS Strategic Roadmap. EPA initiated a preliminary review of the Plastics Molding and
Forming Category to gather additional information on discharges associated with PFAS, among other
pollutants.
In 1984, EPA promulgated ELG for this industry, which capture processes that blend, mold, form, or
otherwise process plastic materials into intermediate or final plastic products. Specifically, the ELG
cover process water that contacts plastic material, product, or the surfaces of shaping equipment used to
mold or form plastic materials. EPA organized the ELG into three subcategories based on the pollutant
characteristics of the process water (U.S. EPA, 1984):
• Subcategory A. Contact Cooling and Heating Water. This includes process water that comes
into contact with plastic materials or plastic products during heat transferring processes.
• Subcategory B. Cleaning Water. This includes process water used to clean the surface of an
intermediate or final plastic product, including water used in the detergent wash cycle or
rinse cycles. It also includes water that comes into contact with shaping equipment surfaces
(i.e., molds and mandrels) that have been in contact with plastic material for the purpose of
cleaning equipment surfaces.
• Subcategory C. Finishing Water. This includes process water used to finish plastic products
such as carry-away waste plastic materials or product lubrication. It includes water used to
machine or assemble intermediate or final plastic products.
EPA established BPT, BAT, and NSPS for BODs, oil and grease, TSS, and pH and reserved29 PSES and
PSNS regulations for phthalates (U.S. EPA, 1984). The applicability of the Plastics Molding and
Forming Point Source Category (40 CFR part 463.1) overlaps with others, including the Metal Finishing
(40 CFR part 433), Electroplating (40 CFR part 413), and Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers (40 CFR part 414).
As part of this preliminary category review, EPA evaluated U.S. census data and 2020 DMR and TRI
data to learn more about the size of the industry and corresponding pollutant loads. EPA did not identify
any PFAS discharge data in DMR or TRI because the category is not currently required to report
discharges in NPDES permits or based on current TRI reporting criteria. Therefore, EPA evaluated
available PFAS data from MI EGLE30 and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources31, which
collected PFAS data as part of a state sampling effort separate from NPDES permit (i.e., DMR) and TRI
reporting requirements (U.S. EPA, 2022d; U.S. EPA, 2022e). EPA also met with one manufacturer to
further understand PFAS discharges associated with the industry (U.S. EPA, 2022f).
PFAS are used in the plastics molding and forming industry for their hydrophobic and oleophobic
properties and low surface tension, which are desirable in plastics (Gliige et al., 2020). These properties
29 "Reserved" refers to a placeholder within the Code of Federal Regulations. The agency may "reserve" certain ELGs to
indicate that it may develop ELGs at a later date.
30 See the MI EGLE Industrial Pretreatment Program (IFF) PFAS Initiative website for more information.
31 See the Wisconsin DNR PFAS initiatives website for more information.
5-10
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
may help with improving polymer extrusion and reducing imperfections on the mold. Based on the state-
provided data, EPA found five facilities with available PFAS discharge data, three of which had
detectable quantities of PFAS in their effluent. PFOS, PFOA, and perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) had
the highest average concentrations at 13 ppt, 4 ppt, and 1 ppt, respectively.
EPA reviewed the top-ranking DMR and TRI pollutants in the 2020 data. Based on an initial review of
the 2020 DMR data, EPA found that 98 percent of the annual loads were associated with stormwater
(which is covered under general permits for stormwater associated with industrial activity) and not
captured in the applicability of this ELG. Excluding stormwater discharges, EPA identified the
following pollutants for review:
• Regulated pollutants: TSS, oil and grease, BODs, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, di-n-butyl
phthalate, and dimethyl phthalate.
• Unregulated pollutants: chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic carbon (TOC),
nitrogen compounds, and N,N-Dimethylformamide.
As part of its review, EPA found:
• Reported average concentrations of TSS, oil and grease, and BOD5 were an order of
magnitude below the current ELG.
• Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, and dimethyl phthalate regulations are
reserved under the current ELG; bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate discharges are similar to those
reported in 1984, and phthalate discharges reported on 2020 DMRs are lower than the
existing regulations for other categories.
• COD, TOC, and ammonia concentrations were found to be generally lower than 1984
observations.
• The extent of the use of N,N-Dimethylformamide is not currently known, but the data
suggest that only a small subset of facilities release this pollutant. For these reasons, EPA did
not review discharges of this pollutants further.
EPA evaluated facilities for environmental justice concerns including whether they are located in census
block groups (i.e., communities) that have higher demographic metrics than the national average (50th
percentile). The 2-factor demographic index considers the average of people of color and low-income
populations, and the 5-factor index considers low income, education less than a high school degree,
linguistic isolation, unemployment, and life expectancy. Communities surrounding plastics molding and
forming facilities are on average at the 43rd percentile for the 2-factor demographic index and at the 55th
percentile for the 5-factor demographic index. Plastics molding and forming facilities overall have
demographic indicators similar to the national average.
EPA is not prioritizing the Plastics Molding and Forming Category for further review or ELG revision at
this time. Based on the available data, revisions to the ELG 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, as appropriate, to address any potential issues with phthalates or other pollutants in discharges
5-11
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
from this category. EPA intends to continue to monitor discharges from this category, specifically for
PFAS. The PFAS data EPA reviewed are limited; however, EPA expects to review additional data in the
coming years as a result of the POTW Influent Study (Section 6.3.5), updated TRI reporting
requirements for PFAS, and NPDES permit monitoring requirements for federally-issued permits and
state permits as more states include monitoring for PFAS in permits.32 These data will help EPA identify
any significant sources of these chemicals in future reviews.
5.5 Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies Reviews
EPA continued its industrial wastewater treatment technology review, initially described in Preliminary
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 14 (Preliminary Plan 14) (see Section 3.6 of Preliminary Plan 14,
U.S. EPA, 2019a). As described in Preliminary Plan 15, EPA summarized its key findings to date for
four treatment technologies in the memorandum "Key Findings for EPA's Industrial Wastewater
Treatment Technology Reviews" (ERG, 2021b) and in the preliminary review for suspended growth
systems (activated sludge) and membranes (ERG, 2021c; ERG, 202Id). As part of ongoing treatment
technology reviews, EPA is currently reviewing ion exchange and granular activated carbon and the
corresponding applications for industrial wastewater discharges.
5.6 ELG Planning Tools
EPA continued to maintain the IWTT Database and the ELG Database. These databases, described in
more detail below, are used to supplement EPA's ongoing category reviews by:
• Identifying pollutants with ELGs for specific point source categories.
• 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 2021 Preliminary Review of Industrial Point Source Categories for a description of the
specific analyses performed as part of the preliminary category reviews (U.S. EPA, 2022b).
5.6.1 Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology Database
IWTT is an online database that contains wastewater treatment technology performance data from 34
industrial point source categories and removal performance data for 205 individual pollutant parameters.
As part of maintaining the IWTT database, EPA continually collects industrial wastewater treatment
performance information to populate the database and makes the information available to the public
through the IWTT web application.33 As described in Preliminary Plan 15, 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 (WEFTEC). EPA also screened references identified through the Multi-Industry Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) Study - 2021 Preliminary Report (U.S. EPA, 2021c). During the 2022 annual
reviews, EPA intends to populate IWTT with these references. EPA also intends to continue to review
32 See EPA's April 2022 memorandum and December 2022 memorandum, detailing EPA's intention to address PFAS
discharges in NPDES permits and through the pretreatment program and monitoring programs. In addition to reducing PFAS
discharges, this will also provide data to inform ELG planning and actions.
33 See https://www.epa.gov/eg/indnstrial-wastewater-treatinent-techiiology-cb-itabase-iwtt.
5-12
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
and identify references from conferences, including 2021 and 2022 WEFTEC and the 2022 International
Water Conference. IWTT currently contains performance data for 58 different treatment technologies,
some of which may be components of a larger treatment system.
5.6.2 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards Database
As discussed in Plan 14, EPA has compiled information on its ELGs for the 59 different point source
categories34 into a consolidated ELG Database in order to reference and query ELGs, long-term average
data, and technology bases as part of ongoing category reviews. 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 database captures information from the CFR35 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, PSNS).
• Applicability of the ELGs, including definitions of any regulated subcategories.
• Wastestreams 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.
5.7 Environmental Justice
As part of Preliminary Plan 15, EPA solicited public comment on how best to incorporate equity and
environmental justice considerations into the ELG planning process. Specifically, EPA proposed using
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.
As part of the preliminary category reviews completed and discussed in this Plan (see Sections 5.2
through 5.4), EPA developed a methodology that evaluates demographic data within census block
groups, corresponding to the geographic locations of facilities within point source categories. The
methodology maps facilities within a category and indicates which categories are at the 80th percentile or
greater for a selected demographic metric:
• Standard two-metric (people of color and low income).
• Five-metric (low income, education, linguistic isolation, unemployment, and life
expectancy).
34 See EPA's Industrial Effluent Guidelines webpage for a list of the 59 point source categories.
35 See the eCFR.
5-13
-------
5—Reviews of Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Treatment Technologies
EPA may explore using additional metrics to evaluate environmental justice concerns in future category
reviews, including impairment status (and impairment cause(s)) under Assessment, Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking and Implementation System (ATTAINS); facility contacts, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit status, greenhouse gas releases, and demographic
percentiles. EPA may also consider whether a facility is located in a disadvantaged community based on
the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) methodology and the count of disadvantaged
categories for each facility (e.g., climate change, clean energy/energy efficiency, clean transit). The
results for each preliminary category review are presented in EPA's 2021 Preliminary Review of
Industrial Point Source Categories (U.S. EPA, 2022b).
5-14
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
6. Ongoing ELG Studies
This section summarizes the status of EPA's ongoing ELG studies.
6.1 Electrical and Electronic Components Point Source Category (40 CFR part 469)
The purpose of this detailed study was to determine if the Electrical and Electronic Components
(E&EC) ELG (40 CFR part 469) warrant further review or possible revision. As part of the 2015 annual
review, EPA initiated a preliminary review of the E&EC Category in response to stakeholder comments
received during a 2014 National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) conference regarding
the applicability of the ELG to the manufacture of sapphire crystals. Additional information collected
during the 2016 annual review focused on 40 CFR 469 Subpart A (Semiconductors). Following this
review, EPA determined that further review of the category was appropriate and began a detailed study
related to Subparts A, B (Electronic Crystals), C (Cathode Ray Tubes), and D (Luminescent Materials)
to further characterize the industry profile.
As part of this study, 34 different permitting authorities (EPA regions, state, and local) from 19 states
provided information. The study identified 104 facilities permitted according to requirements in CFR
part 469. As when the rule was originally issued, the general distribution of facilities subject to each
subpart remained the same, with most being permitted under Subpart A, followed by Subpart B, and
only a few for Subparts C and D. While manufacturing activities have remained similar, manufacturing
technologies have evolved to produce ever smaller and more complex devices that are faster and more
energy efficient. This has required a corresponding evolution in the equipment, chemicals, and
components used in the manufacturing process.
Over 95 percent of the permitted facilities are indirect dischargers sending their wastewater to a local or
regional wastewater treatment facility. For the most part, the discharges from these indirect facilities are
a small fraction of the total received by the wastewater treatment facility, although for a few of the
larger facilities the discharge can account for 10 to 20 percent of the incoming flow. While most
facilities are indirect dischargers, many also have a solvent management plan to collect and ship their
organic solvents off site for processing to keep them from being discharged in their wastewater.
The composition of the wastestream has changed through the years as technologies have changed. In
1983, when the current ELG rule was written, chlorinated solvents and strong acids for the etching
process were used in this industry. Over the years the chlorinated solvents have been replaced, and the
industry is no longer using the original regulated solvents. At present, over 70 different elements (some
added an atom at a time) from the periodic table are used by the industry as a whole, but the specific
number and composition varies from facility to facility. Strong acids remain, but etching is achieved
through the use of cold plasmas generated from a variety of gases. PFAS have been used for some time,
with PFOA and PFOS being recently phased out and other PFAS replacing them. PFAS as a class of
chemicals is difficult to eliminate from the production process as their chemical and physical properties
are difficult to replicate with non-PFAS compounds.
The wastewater treatment systems being utilized are similar to those available in 1983—pH adjustment,
chemical precipitation, filtration, and activated carbon finishing. Each facility also employs
ultrapurification processes to produce high-quality water to meet their exacting requirements. A growing
6-1
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
number of E&EC facilities also utilize this equipment to conserve water, reclaiming water used in their
production process that originally would have been discharged after a single use. This wastewater is
considerably cleaner than that supplied by the local drinking water provider and easier to purify.
The ELG regulation (40 CFR part 469), in conjunction with locally employed discharge limits, has for
the most part been effective in limiting the discharge of pollutants from these facilities. While the
regulation could be modified to remove subsections that are no longer relevant and clarify certain
sections that can be confusing for permit writers, the review of monitoring data from these facilities
(U.S. EPA, 2022p) does not demonstrate a need to revise the existing regulation at this time. EPA
intends to continue to monitor discharges of PFAS from this category. The PFAS data EPA reviewed are
limited; however, EPA expects to review additional data in the coming years as a result of the POTW
Influent Study (Section 6.3.5), updated TRI reporting requirements for PFAS, and NPDES permit
monitoring requirements for federally-issued permits and state permits as more states include monitoring
for PFAS in permits.36 These data will help EPA identify any significant sources of these chemicals in
future reviews.
6.2 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Point Source Category (40 CFR part 412)
CAFOs are facilities that confine and maintain large numbers of animals for specified periods of time
(40 CFR 122.23 defines CAFOs in precise terms). The CAFOs ELG regulate two parts of CAFOs: the
"production area" and the "land application area." The production area is the area that includes the
animal confinement area, manure storage areas, raw materials storage area, and waste containment areas
(40 CFR 122.23(b)(8)). The land application area is the land under the control of a CAFO owner or
operator to which manure, litter, and process wastewater from the production area is or may be applied
(40 CFR 122.23(b)(3)).
The existing CAFOs ELG impose substantial and detailed requirements on both the production area and
land application area. The ELG requirements for the production area prohibit the discharge of manure,
litter, and process wastewater from the production area to waters of the United States, with only one
exception (40 CFR 412.31(a)). Under this exception, the ELG allow discharges from the production area
where those discharges are caused by precipitation and where the production area is designed to contain
all manure, litter, and process wastewater from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event (40 CFR 412.31(a)(1)
defines this exemption in precise terms).37
The ELG requirements for the land application area prohibit discharges unless those discharges qualify
as "agricultural stormwater," which the CWA expressly excludes from regulation (33 USC 502(14)).
EPA interprets "agricultural stormwater" to include any precipitation-related discharges of manure,
litter, and process wastewater from the land application areas if the manure, litter, and process
wastewater has been applied to the land application area in accordance with a site-specific "nutrient
management plan" that ensures appropriate agricultural utilization of the nutrients in the manure, litter,
36 See EPA's April 2022 memorandum and December 2022 memorandum, detailing EPA's intention to address PFAS
discharges in NPDES permits and through the pretreatment program and monitoring programs. In addition to reducing PFAS
discharges, this will also provide data to inform ELG planning and actions.
37 The ELG allow CAFOs to request site-specific alternatives to the containment requirements if those alternatives result in
discharge amounts that are equal to or less than the containment requirements (40 CFR 412.31(a)(2) defines these alternative
requirements in precise terms).
6-2
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
or process wastewater (40 CFR 122.23(e)). A nutrient management plan addresses the form, source,
amount, timing, and method of application of nutrients on each field to achieve crop production goals
while minimizing the transport of nutrients to surface waters (40 CFR 412.4(c)(1)). The application rates
for manure, litter, and process wastewater must be established in accordance with technical standards
established by each state (see 40 CFR 123.36; 412.4(c)(2)). The ELG also require CAFOs to comply
with certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to both the production area and the land
application area (40 CFR 412.4(b), (c)).
EPA has concluded that it needs to gather additional information to inform a decision as to whether
rulemaking to revise the ELG is warranted. See Appendix A for discussion of the agency's rationale for
this decision and the information EPA plans to gather as part of its detailed study.
6.3 PFAS Industrial Sources and Discharge Studies
As part of the statutorily required ELG planning process, EPA's Office of Water examined readily
available public information about PFAS discharges. The Preliminary Plan 14 and a supporting report,
The EPA's Review of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Industrial Wastewater Discharge,
both published in October 2019, describe the review activities and findings of the initial examination
and identify several industries with facilities that are likely to be discharging PFAS in their wastewater
(U.S. EPA, 2019a; U.S. EPA, 2019b). In 2019, EPA determined that further data collection and study
were necessary to inform decisions about how best to address industrial PFAS discharges and initiated
the Multi-Industry PFAS Study. The Multi-Industry PFAS Study focused on data collection and review
of PFAS manufacture, use, control, and discharge by specific point source categories that EPA
determined were likely to be discharging PFAS in their wastewater. The objectives of the Multi-Industry
PFAS Study were to: 1) examine specific industrial categories and facilities manufacturing, using, or
discharging PFAS; 2) collect, compile, and review information and data on PFAS in industrial
discharges; 3) use compiled data to characterize PFAS types and concentrations discharged in industrial
wastewater; and 4) assess availability and feasibility of control practices and treatment technologies
capable of reducing or eliminating PFAS in wastewater discharges.
In September 2021, EPA published the Multi-Industry PFAS Study - Preliminary 2021 Report which
discussed information and data EPA collected on PFAS manufacture, use, control, and discharge by five
point source categories: OCPSF; Metal Finishing; Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard; Textile Mills; and
airports (U.S. EPA, 2021c). In Preliminary Plan 15, also published in September 2021, EPA announced
the following actions based on the information and data collected during the Multi-Industry PFAS Study
(U.S. EPA, 2021b):
• Initiate rulemaking to revise limitations for the OCPSF Point Source Category to address
PFAS discharges from PFAS manufacturers.
• Initiate rulemaking to revise limitations for the Metal Finishing and Electroplating Point
Source Categories to address PFAS discharges from chromium finishing operations.
• Initiate detailed studies of PFAS discharges from the Textile Mills and Landfills Point
Source Categories.
6-3
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
• Continue to monitor the anticipated reduction of PFAS use and discharge by pulp and paper
mills and airports through the ELGs annual review process.
Sections 6.3.1 to 6.3.4 discuss information and data EPA has collected and reviewed since September
2021 on PFAS use, control, and discharge from textile mills, landfills, pulp and paper mills, and airports,
respectively. Section 6.3.5 discusses a new study EPA intends to initiate to continue studying PFAS
discharges to POTWs. See Section 7 for additional information on ongoing rulemakings to address
PFAS discharges from the OCPSF and Metal Finishing and Electroplating Categories.
6.3.1 Airports
Based on information and data EPA collected as part of the Multi-Industry PFAS Study, EPA
documented that aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) has been, and continues to be, used by airports in
the United States to prevent, extinguish, and control flammable liquid-based fires. There are different
types of firefighting foams, not all of which contain PFAS, but all historically and currently
manufactured AFFF products contain PFAS as an active ingredient. EPA determined that 14 CFR part
139 airports38 are currently required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to use only
firefighting foams that conform to military specification (MILSPEC) MIL-PRF-24385: "Fire
Extinguishing Agent, Aqueous Film-Forming Foam" and that no fluorine-free foams currently meet this
standard. Therefore, the 500+ FAA-certified airports in the United States will continue to use PFAS-
containing firefighting foam formulations until a fluorine-free foam is approved for use. EPA
determined these airports may have historically generated and discharged PFAS-containing wastewater
(i.e., water contaminated with AFFF) from live-fire firefighting training, firefighting equipment testing,
and emergency response activities. EPA announced in Preliminary Plan 15 that it would continue to
review airports to further understand the potential for discharge of PF AS-containing wastewater from
facilities that use AFFF and to monitor the industry's anticipated phase out of AFFF.
While developing ELG Plan 15, EPA collected additional data on AFFF use and wastewater
management from 14 CFR part 139 airports from the FAA. EPA met with the FAA in March 2022 to
discuss updates related to the FAA's efforts to reduce, and eventually eliminate, use and release of
PF AS-containing AFFF (U.S. EPA, 2022g). In recent years, both the FAA and the United States
Department of Defense (DOD) have taken voluntary actions to curb the release of AFFF during
nonemergency exercises (i.e., training and testing), replace legacy AFFF firefighting foams which
contain long-chain PFAS, and fund development of fluorine-free foams.
As part of the FAA's guidance on minimizing potential environmental impact from AFFF during testing
and firefighting training, the FAA recommends 14 CFR part 139 airports install testing devices for
firefighting equipment that eliminate release of AFFF during mandatory periodic testing of firefighting
foam system performance, and the FAA is no longer requiring these airports to use AFFF during live
firefighting testing. As of March 2022, the FAA has approved and is funding four different types of
testing devices for firefighting equipment that do not require dispensing AFFF when airports conduct
periodic equipment testing and training: Eco-Logic System from E-One, NoFoam System, Oshkosh Eco
38 Regulation at .1.4 CFR part .1.39 requires the FAA to issue airport operating certifications to airports that: 1) serve scheduled
and unscheduled air carrier aircraft with more than 30 seats; 2) serve scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft with more
than nine seats but less than 31 seats; or 3) the FAA Administrator requires to have a certificate. Most commercial service
airports are 14 CFR part 139 certified.
6-4
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
EFP (Electronic Foam Proportioning) System, and Rosenbauer FIXMIX 2.0E Input-Based
Proportioning Test System (FAA, 2021a). The FAA extended the program funding the testing devices
for firefighting equipment at 14 CFR part 139 airports until November 2023, an additional two years
beyond the original program end date (FAA, 2021b). As of March 2022, the FAA has stated that more
than half of the 518 certified airports have adopted these procedures and equipment, eliminating the
release of AFFF except for during actual emergency response (U.S. EPA, 2022g). See Table 6-1 for a
breakdown of system type and airport count.
Table 6-1. System Type and Airport Count
System Type
14 CFR part 139
Airport Count
Eco-Logic System from E-One
156
NoFoam System
92
Oshkosh ECO EFP System & Oshkosh ECO EFP vehicles retrofitted
91
Rosenbauer FIXMIX 2.0E Input-Based Proportioning Test System
33
Total 14 CFR part 139 Airports (as of May 2022)
518
In April 2020, the DOD amended MILSPEC MIL-PRF-24385 to specify that AFFF with the lowest
demonstratable concentrations of PFOS and PFOA should be used in the interim before a suitable
PF AS-free foam is available for use. As of June 2022, all firefighting foam formulations that meet
MILSPEC MIL-PRF-24385 contain less than 800 parts-per-billion of PFAS. The DOD has issued
guidance and best management practices to control and capture AFFF releases in the event of an actual
emergency response. The DOD is developing guidance to address cleanup and disposal of existing
AFFF stockpiles and residuals in firefighting equipment (U.S. EPA, 2022g).
The FAA, the DOD, and firefighting foam manufacturers are collaboratively researching PF AS-free
foam alternatives to identify formulations that are more environmentally friendly and that provide an
equivalent level of performance as the current MILSPEC MIL-PRF-24385. As of July 2022, the FAA
has studied 36 fluorine-free foams (11 commercially available, 25 manufacturer prototypes) and
conducted more than 500 fire suppression tests at the FAA Technical Center as part of their MILSPEC
development and firefighting foam research program (U.S. EPA, 2022g). On July 2022, the FAA
released its report on evaluating commercially available fluorine-free foams, which do not contain
PFAS, to determine if any fluorine-free foam can be considered a suitable replacement for AFFF for use
on aviation fuel fires. The FAA's full findings can be found in the Fluorine-free Foam Testing report
which concludes that none of the fluorine-free foam candidates consistently had an equivalent
extinguishing performance to AFFF (FAA, 2022).
Only the DOD is authorized to update MILSPECs. On June 2, 2022, the DOD published draft
MTLSPF.C MTL-PRF-XX727 ("Fire Extinguishing Agent, Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Liquid Concentrate,
For Land-Based, Fresh Water Applications") for PF AS-free firefighting foam, a significant step in the
process for meeting the deadline of publishing a new fluorine-free foam MILSPEC by January 31, 2023,
6-5
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
as required by the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).39 The FA A plans to adopt and
require use of PFAS-free firefighting foams compliant with the new MILSPEC once it is published. The
FAA expects that it will take 14 CFR part 139 airports approximately two to five years to transition from
procurement and use of AFFF to the new PF AS-free firefighting foams. The FAA is targeting
completion of this transition by January 2025, or as soon as possible thereafter. The FAA notes that
there will be a lot of competition between military sites, airports, and industrial facilities for the limited
initial supply of PF AS-free firefighting foam product. Figure 6-1, provided to EPA by the FAA,
illustrates the DOD and FAA schedule to replace AFFF with PFAS-free foams along with relevant
NDAA deadlines.
Figure 6-1. DOD and FAA Schedule for Replacing AFFF
At this time, the FAA has not determined whether to require exclusive use of fluorine-free firefighting
foams or to permit 14 CFR part 139 airports to use existing AFFF stockpiles once a final fluorine-free
firefighting foam MILSPEC is published and adopted. The FAA states that this will be heavily
dependent on how many foams meet the new MILSPEC, and there could be supply issues if there is
only one qualifying foam. Similarly, the FAA does not plan on issuing guidance to address cleanup and
disposal of existing AFFF stockpiles and residuals in firefighting equipment (U.S. EPA, 2022g).
Based on this information, EPA is not prioritizing a rulemaking on this category at this time. EPA will
continue to review airports to further understand the potential for discharge of PFAS-containing
wastewater from facilities that use AFFF and to monitor the industry's transition to fluorine-free foam.
EPA intends to provide updates on these activities in subsequent ELG program plans.
39 The 2020 NDAA requires the Secretary of the Navy to publish new specifications for PFAS-free firefighting foams by
January 2023, the DOD to cease procurement of PFAS-containing products by October 2023, and the DOD to cease use of
AFFF at all military installations by October 2024, with limited exceptions.
6-6
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
6.3.2 Textile Mills Point Source Category (40 CFR part 410)
Based on information and data EPA collected as part of the Multi-Industry PFAS Study, EPA-
documented PFAS have been, and continue to be, used by textile mills in the United States to impart
outdoor gear, clothing, household fabrics, carpets, and other textile products with water, oil, soil, and
heat resistance; to improve cleanability of oil- and water-based stains; as a wetting or antifoaming agent
when dyeing and bleaching; and as a breathable moisture barrier to wind and rain. EPA determined that
most textile mills are not monitoring PFAS; however, limited discharge sampling data available
indicated that PFAS may be present (U.S. EPA, 2021c). EPA announced in Preliminary Plan 15 that it
would initiate a detailed study of wastewater discharges from the Textile Mills Point Source Category to
continue collecting and reviewing information and data on wastewater discharges of PFAS from textile
mills that historically or currently use PFAS.
Since September 2021, EPA has collected additional data on PFAS use and discharge from textile mills
from technical literature, textile manufacturing companies, EPA regions, and state and local wastewater
regulatory authorities. New information and data collected and reviewed by EPA since publication of
Preliminary Plan 15 is summarized below.
EPA conducted outreach to six state agencies or local wastewater treatment coordinators to discuss
available data on use, control, discharge of PFAS from textile mills to state waters and POTWs, and to
obtain state-level lists of permitted textile mills (U.S. EPA, 2022d; U.S. EPA, 2022e; U.S. EPA, 2022h;
U.S. EPA, 2022i; U.S. EPA, 2022j; U.S. EPA, 2022k). EPA met with W.L. Gore & Associates in
December 2021 to discuss PFAS use and discharges associated with performance textile manufacturing.
EPA determined that the company's textile mills use PFAS chemistry in the manufacture of textile
products, but all wastewater generated from these processes is captured and transferred offsite for
incineration (i.e., zero discharge of these process wastewaters) (U.S. EPA, 2022f). EPA attempted to
meet with representatives of two industry trade associations - the National Council of Textile
Organization (NCTO) and the Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI) - and their member companies to collect,
on a voluntary basis, information on the use and discharge of PFAS by textile mills; however, EPA has
been unsuccessful in arranging such a meeting.
EPA assessed the number and location of textile mills, characterized their manufacturing and discharge
practices, and identified pollutant control practices and technologies currently in place using national
EPA data sets (e.g., ECHO, DMR, TRI), state-submitted lists of permitted textile mills, and Davison's
2022 Textile Blue Book (an industry directory for textile mills, dyers, finishers, and suppliers)
(Davison's Publishing, 2022). Based on these data sources, EPA estimates the national population of
textile mills, dyers, and finishers in the United States is over 2,100 facilities.
To supplement limited available data, in November 2021 EPA used the authority granted in CWA
Section 308 to require nine textile manufacturing companies complete a survey to obtain information
related to PFAS use and import, PFAS in industrial wastewater discharges, wastewater treatment of
PF AS-containing industrial wastewater, and other information necessary for EPA's study of the
category. EPA sent the request to Brookwood Companies, Elevate Textiles, Milliken & Co., Mohawk
Industries, Mount Vernon Mills, Sage Automotive Interiors, Shaw Industries Group, Tex Tech
Industries, and W.L. Gore & Associates on November 30, 2021. EPA received timely responses from
6-7
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
these nine companies by February 2022, providing information on 92 of their facilities. An anonymized
summary of the responses is below:40
• 19 of 92 textile mills (21 percent) reported that they used PFAS in textile manufacturing in
2020, and responses led EPA to conclude that two additional facilities likely used PFAS in
their textile manufacturing. Responses indicated that side-chain fluorinated polymers and/or
fluoropolymer coatings are used for oil, water, and stain resistance.
• 18 of the 19 textile mills (95 percent) that reported PFAS use also reported either permanent
closure by 2026 or the intention to reduce or eliminate PFAS use by the end of 2026, through
product replacement or using alternative surface treatment technologies.
• Most textile mills that reported using PFAS generate and discharge wastewater from the
associated operations. Only two of these textile mills treat their effluent wastewater and
operate wastewater treatment systems demonstrated to be effective at removing or
eliminating PFAS in wastewater (e.g., granulated activated carbon).
• More than half of the textile mills that responded to the data request discharge their process
wastewater to a POTW. The existing ELG for the Textile Mills Point Source Category do not
establish pretreatment standards for any pollutant.
EPA continued to evaluate the available data on types and concentrations of PFAS in wastewater
discharged from textile mills. As described in Preliminary Plan 15, EPA previously identified a state
permitting authority data source containing PFAS monitoring data for textile mill effluent (MI EGLE,
2020b). EPA has since collected analytical data from four additional data sources that meet EPA's
acceptance criteria for inclusion in analyses for characterizing PFAS discharges in industrial wastewater
discharges:41
• Michigan EGLE 2022 PFAS monitoring results for direct and indirect discharging facilities
(U.S. EPA, 2022d).
• North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 2019 PFAS monitoring order for one
textile mill (NC DEQ, 2022).
• Merrimack, New Hampshire, Wastewater Treatment Facility PFAS monitoring results for
one textile mill (U.S. EPA, 2022k).
• PFAS monitoring results submitted by five textile mills as part of the response to EPA's
November 2021 PFAS data request.
EPA included 358 PFAS sample results representing 10 facilities from the combined five data sources in
its analysis characterizing PFAS in textile mill effluent. Table 6-2 presents the average, minimum, and
maximum concentrations for each PFAS observed in effluent from the 10 textile mills. As illustrated in
the table, EPA estimated the average concentrations for short-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids
40 The sampled population is not statistically representative of the industry. EPA selected companies likely to be using PFAS
and discharging process wastewater to complete the PFAS data request.
41 EPA's acceptance criteria are presented in the memorandum "Development of the PFAS Wastewater Characterization
Analytical Database" (ERG, 2022a).
6-8
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
(PFCAs) and short-chain fluorotelomers were generally higher relative to perfluoroalkane sulfonic acids
(PFSAs) and long-chain PFCAs. Average PFAS concentrations in textile mill wastewater are lower than
average PFAS concentrations observed in effluent from PFAS manufacturers, chromium finishing
facilities, and landfills.
6-9
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
Table 6-2. Textile Mills Effluent PFAS Concentrations
PFAS Subgroup
Analytea'b
Facilities
with Data
Quantified
Detections/Total
Sample Results
Concentration
Range (ppt)c
Average
Concentration
(pptr
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
7
8/14
ND - 343
32.7
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
7
9/14
ND - 1360
176
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
7
10/14
ND - 2340
227
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
7
10/14
ND - 383
66.1
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
10
17/29
ND - 1400
80.5
Perfluoroalkyl
carboxylic acids
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
7
10/14
ND - 65.9
6.27
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
7
10/14
ND - 96.1
6.10
(PFCAs)
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)
7
5/14
ND - 22.6
1.36
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
7
4/14
ND - 19.4
0.757
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrA)
7
1/14
ND-0.307
0.0439
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA)
7
0/14
ND
ND
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
4
0/4
ND
ND
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid (PFODA)
4
0/4
ND
ND
Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)
7
3/14
ND - 3
0.362
Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
7
1/14
ND - 1.2
0.171
Perfluoroalkane sulfonic
acids (PFSAs)
Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)
7
5/14
ND - 386
11.5
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
7
3/14
ND - 7.32
0.383
Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)
10
17/29
ND - 600
39.4
Perfluorononane sulfonic acid (PFNS)
7
0/14
ND
ND
Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (PFDS)
7
0/14
ND
ND
Perfluoroalkane
sulfonamides (FASAs)
Perfluorooctane sulfonamide (PFOSA)
3
5/10
ND - 10.3
1.21
Fluorotelomer sulfonic
acids (FTSAs)
4:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTSA)
2
0/7
ND
ND
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA)
2
7/7
84 - 264
188
8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTSA)
2
3/7
ND - 5.48
0.643
N-Alkyl perfluoroalkane
sulfonamido acetic acids
(FASAAs)
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamido acetic acid
(NMeFOSAA)
3
3/10
ND - 20.7
7.61
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamido acetic acid
(NEtFOSAA)
3
8/10
ND - 98.8
19.0
6-10
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
Table 6-2. Textile Mills Effluent PFAS Concentrations
PFAS Subgroup
Analytea'b
Facilities
with Data
Quantified
Detections/Total
Sample Results
Concentration
Range (ppt)c
Average
Concentration
(pptr
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
ether carboxylic acids
(PFECAs)
Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)
1
0/1
ND
ND
Sources: ERG, 2022b.
Abbreviations: ND - nondetection; ppt - parts-per-trillion (equivalent to nanograms per liter).
a - This table presents data for all PFAS listed in the draft EPA Method 1633 analyte list for which sample results are available and meet EPA's acceptance criteria.
EPA also collected data for perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS).
b -The table identifies short-chain PFCAs (<7 carbons) and short-chain PFSAs (<5 carbons) in blue text, while long-chain PFCAs (>8 carbons) and long-chain PFSAs
(>6 carbons) are designated in red text.
c - In this analysis, EPA treated all nondetection results as zero for the purpose of estimating concentrations. All concentration values were rounded to three significant
figures.
6-11
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
EPA intends to expand this detailed study, pending resource availability, to allow for additional data
collection and outreach for this industry through the use of a mandatory, nationally representative
questionnaire.
6.3.3 Landfills Point Source Category (40 CFR part 445)
As described in Preliminary Plan 15, EPA initiated a detailed study of wastewater discharges from the
Landfills Point Source Category (40 CFR part 445), focusing on PFAS discharges in landfill leachates.
This was a result of the Landfills preliminary category review based on public comments received on
Preliminary ELG Plan 14 identifying landfill leachate effluent as a source of PFAS discharges to surface
waters and POTWs. The goals of this study were to understand the total number and location of landfills
discharging leachate across the United States, characterize PFAS in leachate effluent from regulated
landfills, and identify current wastewater treatment technologies and management practices at regulated
landfills. EPA used information collected from the study to evaluate whether the ELG for the Landfills
Point Source Category should be revised.
Since September 2021, EPA has collected publicly available information to construct a picture of the
industry's facilities, discharge practices, and control practices/technologies currently in place, including
their effectiveness for PFAS removal. EPA also collected information to begin determining whether
pollutants in landfill leachate pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with POTW
operations; to identify documented environmental or human health impacts associated with landfill
discharges and exposure to PFAS, and to determine the proximity of landfill leachate discharges to
CWA Section 303(d) impaired waters and communities with environmental and demographic
characteristics of concern. EPA evaluated information from the following EPA data sources:
• ECHO database.
• RCRAInfo database.
• ICIS-NPDES Permit database.
• DMR data available via EPA's Water Pollutant Loading Tool.
• Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP).
• TRI database.
EPA Office of Water conducted outreach and engagement with other EPA offices, EPA regional offices,
states, trade associations representing public and privately held landfills, and the Environmental
Research and Education Foundation (EREF). EPA conducted outreach to six state agencies to discuss
impacts of landfill leachate discharges on PFAS management in state waters and POTWs, and to obtain
state level lists of permitted landfills (U.S. EPA, 2022d; U.S. EPA, 2022e; U.S. EPA, 2022h; U.S. EPA,
2022i; U.S. EPA, 2022j; U.S. EPA, 20221).
EPA also engaged with industry stakeholders including the National Waste and Recycling Association
(NWRA), the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), and the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) to understand their perspectives and
provide them with an opportunity to share insights on the industry. EPA additionally met with two
privately-owned landfill operating companies in the United States, Waste Management and Republic
Services, to further understand their operations and PFAS management practices.
6-12
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
EPA also collected analytical data from over 200 RCRA Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste Landfills to
characterize PFAS concentrations and species distributions in landfill leachate and gathered information
from published literature, including journal articles and federal and state reports.
The following summarizes the study findings to date:
• In the 2000 Landfills ELG technical development document, EPA estimated there were 1,662
landfills that collect landfill-generated wastewater, comprising approximately 16 percent of
landfills nationwide. A majority of the landfills subject to ELG (81 percent) are RCRA
Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste Landfills (EPA, 2000).
• In 2000, EPA established BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS limitations for landfills that directly
discharge wastewater to surface waters; EPA did not establish pretreatment standards (PSES
and PSNS) for landfills that indirectly discharge via POTWs (see 65 FR 3048, January 19,
2000).
• Landfills are essential utilities and the ultimate destination of many discarded consumer and
industrial products containing PFAS. PFAS presence in landfill leachate is caused by the use
and disposal of products manufactured with PFAS.
• EPA evaluated discharge data from over 200 landfills from across the country and found
PFAS present in the leachate at over 95 percent of the landfills. PFAS detections included 63
different PFAS with average concentrations for an individual compound as high as 14,000
parts-per-trillion (ppt) (ERG, 2022c).
• Landfill leachate, while a challenging matrix, is likely able to be treated by typical PFAS
treatment technologies such as granular activated carbon, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis.
• EPA estimates that approximately 13,200,000 individuals live within one mile of a landfill.
In these communities, the average median income is $48,100 and on average 31 percent of
the population belongs to a minority group. EPA calculated the state percentiles of all
landfill-proximal census block groups for demographic and environmental indicators
available through EJScreen. The median percentile for all indicators exceeded the state
average except for the percentage of the population under five years old and for ozone levels.
At least two environmental indicators exceed the 80th percentile in 45 percent of these
communities.
Based on information and data collected through the Landfill Leachate Detailed Study, the development
of effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for landfills that discharge their leachate is warranted.
Therefore, EPA intends to revise the existing Landfills Point Source Category (40 CFR part 445) ELG
to address PFAS discharge from these landfills pending resource availability. Once EPA develops the
schedule for this rulemaking, it will be published in EPA's Regulatory Agenda.
6.3.4 Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source Category (40 CFR part 430)
As described in EPA's Multi-Industry PFAS Study, PFAS have been, and continue to be, used by pulp,
paper, and paperboard facilities in the United States as a coating or additive to provide water, oil, and
grease resistance to food contact papers and other specialty paper products. EPA collected data from one
trade association and eight major companies from this category. Based on these data, EPA determined
6-13
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
that only a small subset of facilities were actively applying PFAS, the production of paper products
containing PFAS at these facilities was less than 0.1 percent of the industry's overall production, and the
industry is planning to eliminate use of PFAS by end of 2023.
EPA announced in Preliminary Plan 15 that it would continue to review the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Point Source Category to further understand the potential for wastewater discharges of PFAS from
facilities that historically or currently use PFAS and to monitor the industry's anticipated phase-out of
PFAS. While developing ELG Plan 15, EPA has collected additional data on PFAS use and discharge
from pulp, paper, and paperboard facilities from the United States Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), a trade association, paper manufacturing companies, and state regulatory authorities. New
information and data collected by EPA since publication of Preliminary Plan 15 are summarized below.
In April 2022, EPA met with the FDA to discuss use of PFAS as food contact substances. All food
contact substances must be authorized by the FDA prior to marketing and typically come through the
Food Contact Substance Notification Program, under which the FDA reviews available migration,
exposure, and human health risk data to ensure a food contact substance is safe for its intended use prior
to approving it for use on the market. Manufacturers of chemicals authorized as a food contact
substances are permitted to market and sell these chemicals to food contact paper and packaging
producers, who use them in products with food contact applications. Since the 1960s, the FDA has
authorized several PFAS for use as food contact substances including certain long-chain PFAS (PFOA
and PFOS have never been authorized) and more recently short-chain fluorotelomer PFAS and
polyfluorinated polymers. FDA provided EPA with a list of all effective Food Contact Notifications
containing PFAS that the FDA had authorized, as of July 2022, as grease-proofing agents used in food
contact paper and paperboard. EPA determined that, as of July 2022, FDA had authorized 35 effective
Food Contact Notifications containing PFAS submitted by ten manufacturing companies; however, the
manufacturers had voluntarily ceased nearly half of these Food Contact Notifications for introduction
into interstate commerce and delivery (FDA, 2022). FDA states that three manufacturers have agreed to
a complete market phase-out of PFAS containing or degrading to 6:2 FTOH by December 31, 2023. The
market phase-out is a response to FDA research that raised questions about human health risks for 6:2
FTOH.42 While companies are permitted to use other authorized PFAS-based food contact substances,
the FDA expects that most manufacturers will seek to replace PFAS with authorized nonfluorinated
replacements in response to public pressure and consumer demand for PFAS-free chemistries in food
contact paper and packaging (U.S. EPA, 2022m). These expectations are consistent with EPA's findings
that pulp, paper, and paperboard companies plan to eliminate PFAS use by end of 2023 and transition to
non-PFAS chemistries for oil and grease resistance in food contact paper and packaging.
EPA continued to conduct outreach and collect data on PFAS use and phase-out from this industry. In
March 2022, the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), a national trade association for the
forest, pulp, and paper industry whose 39 member companies represent about 87 percent of pulp, paper,
and paper-based packaging and tissue production capacity in the United States, inquired to its member
companies regarding ongoing PFAS use in pulp, paper, and paperboard manufacture and transition to
PF AS-free chemicals. These data indicated that most AF&PA member companies that previously
42 Additional information on authorized uses of PFAS in food contact applications and this voluntary phase-out is available
on the FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/food/chemical-contaminants-food/authorized-uses-pfas-food-contact-
applications
6-14
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
reported PFAS use in calendar year 2020 have since ceased all PFAS use at their pulp, paper, and
paperboard facilities. As of July 2022, EPA is aware of five pulp and paper mills in the United States, all
operated by Ahlstrom-Munksjo, that continue to use PFAS. All five of these facilities are expected to
complete phase-out of all PFAS-based production by the end of 2023. PFAS use by AF&PA member
companies remains limited to food contact substances authorized by the FDA. EPA determined that all
companies that have joined AF&PA since September 2021 do not intentionally add PFOA, PFOS, or
any other PFAS in pulp, paper, or paperboard products (U.S. EPA, 2022n).
To respond to public comments on Preliminary Plan 15, EPA gathered information regarding whether
the recycle of PF AS-treated paper products may result in the transfer, and ultimately discharge, of PFAS
in wastewater. Based on AF&PA data, EPA estimates that 78 percent of the approximately 340 pulp and
paper mills operating in the United States use recovered fiber in the manufacture of pulp, paper, and
paperboard products. However, the service life of PF AS-treated food contact paper and packaging is
brief and the recycle rates for these products is low. EPA determined less than 15 percent of the United
States population had access to recycling for direct contact foodservice paper and packaging in 2021
and, therefore, most food contact paper and packaging is thrown in the trash at the point of use (U.S.
EPA, 2022n). Further, most member companies are targeting paper products that are as close as possible
to virgin material for recycle (i.e., not products previously treated with PFAS). Some recovered fiber
mills have zero tolerance for food contamination and will not accept any food contact papers and
packaging for recycle. Because the production of PF AS-treated paper products is low (and continues to
decrease) and most recovered fiber is not generated from PF AS-treated paper products, it is unlikely that
recovered fiber facilities would be a significant source of PFAS discharges. Based on pulp and paper
mill effluent data collected by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), EPA
determined that PFAS concentrations in effluent from mills using virgin pulp and mills using recovered
fiber are low and that these data also show no significant difference in type or quantity of PFAS between
the two types of facilities (U.S. EPA, 2022n; ERG, 2022b).
EPA continued to evaluate the available data on types and concentrations of PFAS in wastewater
discharged from pulp, paper, and paperboard facilities. As described in Preliminary Plan 15, EPA
previously identified three state permitting authority data sources containing PFAS monitoring data for
pulp and paper mill effluent (MI EGLE, 2020b; MI EGLE, 2020c; VT DEC, 2020; U.S. EPA, 202le).
EPA has since collected analytical data from four additional data sources that meet EPA's acceptance
criteria for inclusion in analyses for characterizing PFAS in industrial wastewater discharges:43
• Michigan EGLE 2022 PFAS monitoring results for direct and indirect discharging facilities
(U.S. EPA, 2022d).
• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2020 investigative order PFAS monitoring data
for 40 industrial facilities and 78 POTWs (U.S. EPA, 2022e).
• New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services submission of PFAS sample results
from the state's Environmental Monitoring Database (U.S. EPA, 20221).
43 EPA's acceptance criteria are presented in the memorandum "Development of the PFAS Wastewater Characterization
Analytical Database" (ERG, 2022a).
6-15
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
• AF&PA data submission of NCASI-collected effluent samples for six unidentified pulp and
paper mills (U.S. EPA, 2022n).
EPA included 4,664 PFAS sample results representing 52 facilities from the combined seven data
sources in its analysis characterizing PFAS in pulp, paper, and paperboard facility effluent. Table 6-3
presents the average, minimum, and maximum concentrations for each PFAS observed in effluent from
the 52 pulp, paper, and paperboard facilities. As illustrated in the table, EPA estimated the average
concentrations for short-chain PFCAs were generally higher relative to PFSAs and long-chain PFCAs.
Despite the phase-out of long-chain PFAAs, some pulp, paper, and paperboard facilities still report
detectable levels of PFOA and PFOS in their wastewater.
6-16
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
Table 6-3. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Effluent PFAS Concentrations
PI-AS Suh^i'diip
AiisiIj IC1"1'
l;icili(ks with l);il;i
Qiiiinlillcd
Dokclions/ 1 oliil
Siimplo Results
( (IIKTIIII'illioil
Riiniio (ppl)'
A\er;iiie
( oiKTiilriilion (ppl)'
Perfluoroalkyl
carboxylic acids
(PFCAs)
Pert
luorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
26
32/43
ND - 638
38.5
Pert
luoropentanoic acid (PFPcA)
26
33/43
ND - 246
22.7
Pert
liiorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
26
41/43
ND - 640
33.1
Pert
luoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
26
39/43
ND - 206
15.2
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
52
168/229
ND - 680
22.2
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
38
34/57
ND - 52.6
4.08
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
26
15/43
ND - 19.7
0.969
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)
26
9/43
ND - 15.3
0.423
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
26
6/43
ND - 20.3
0.469
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrA)
26
5/43
ND - 24.9
0.503
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA)
26
6/43
ND - 23
0.465
Perfluorohexadecanoic acid (PFHxDA)
3
0/7
ND
ND
Perfluorooctadecanoic acid (PFODA)
3
2/7
ND - 14.6
2.91
Perfluoroalkane sulfonic
acids (PFSAs)
Pcrfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)
38
36/57
ND - 254
4.84
Perfliioropeiitane sulfonic acid (PFPeS)
25
4/42
ND - 1.43
0.122
Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)
38
32/57
ND - 59
1.98
Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS)
23
4/40
ND - 0.28
0.03
Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)
52
161/231
ND - 810
16.1
Perfluorononane sulfonic acid (PFNS)
25
1/42
ND - 2.17
0.022
Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (PFDS)
26
3/43
ND - 5.17
0.117
Perfluoroalkane
sulfonamides (FASAs)
Perfluorooctane sulfonamide (PFOSA)
25
1/42
ND - 17.5
0.7
Fluorotelomer sulfonic
acids (FTSAs)
4:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTSA)
23
0/33
ND
ND
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA)
24
19/36
ND - 284
8.7
8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTSA)
24
6/36
ND-0.821
0.119
Perfluoroalkane
sulfonamido ethanols
(FASEs),
perfluoroalkane
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamide
(NMePFOSA)
18
0/22
ND
ND
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamide
(NEtPFOSA)
18
0/22
ND
ND
6-17
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
Table 6-3. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Effluent PFAS Concentrations
PFAS Subgroup
Analytea'b
Facilities with Data
Quantified
Detections/ Total
Sample Results
Concentration
Range (ppt)c
Average
Concentration (ppt)c
sulfonamido acetic acids
(FASAAs), and N-Alkyl
FASAAs
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamido
ethanol (NMeFOSE)
18
2/22
ND - 6.62
0.459
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamido
ethanol (NEtFOSE)
18
0/22
ND
ND
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamido
acetic acid (NMeFOSAA)
26
12/43
ND - 12
1.56
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamido
acetic acid (NEtFOSAA)
26
20/44
ND - 46
4.31
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
ether carboxylic acids
(PFECAs)
Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
(HFPO-DA)
20
10/25
ND - 3.14
0.392
4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid
(DONA)
17
0/17
ND
ND
Sodium dodecafluoro-3H-4, 8-
dioxanonanoate (NaDONA)
2
0/6
ND
ND
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
ether sulfonic acids
(PFESAs)
9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-1 -
sulfonic acid (9C1-PF30NS/F-53B Major)
16
0/16
ND
ND
ll-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-
sulfonic acid (llCl-PF30udS/F-53B
Minor)
16
0/16
ND
ND
Sources: ERG, 2022b.
Abbreviations: ND - nondetection; ppt - parts-per-trillion (equivalent to nanograms per liter).
A - This table presents data for all PFAS listed in draft EPA Method 1633 analyte list for which sample results are available and meet EPA's acceptance criteria. EPA
also collected data for 10:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTSA) and perfluorododecane sulfonic acid (PFDoS).
B -The table identifies short-chain PFCAs (<7 carbons) and short-chain PFSAs (<5 carbons) in blue text, while long-chain PFCAs (>8 carbons) and long-chain PFSAs
(>6 carbons) are designated in red text.
C - In this analysis, EPA treated all nondetection results as zero for the purpose of estimating concentrations. All concentration values are rounded to three significant
figures.
6-18
-------
6—Ongoing ELG Studies
Based on this information, EPA is not prioritizing a rulemaking on the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point
Source Category at this time. EPA will continue to review this category with particular attention to
understanding the potential for legacy discharges from these facilities after the industry's transition to
PFAS-free additives. EPA intends to provide updates on these activities in subsequent ELG program
plans.
6.3.5 POTW Influent PFAS Study
EPA's PFAS Strategic Roadmap identifies the unique challenges posed by PFAS contamination and
states its approach includes a "deeper focus to preventing PFAS from entering the environment in the
first place—a foundational step to reducing the exposure and potential risks of future PFAS
contamination." EPA's PFAS Strategic Roadmap and Preliminary Plan 15 further discuss the ubiquitous
nature of PFAS and the paucity of PFAS monitoring data from industrial sources. EPA has reviewed the
readily available PFAS monitoring data to date and continues to look for additional sources of PFAS.
For many industries, PFAS monitoring of effluent discharges has not yet been conducted. These
characterization data would fill a crucial data gap in the agency's efforts to establish technology-based
limits for PFAS. Pending resource availability, EPA intends to initiate a POTW Influent PFAS Study,
which will focus on collecting nationwide data on industrial discharges of PFAS to POTWs. This
includes indirect discharges from categories recently reviewed and categories identified but for which
insufficient PFAS monitoring data exists.
EPA's intent is to partner with wastewater treatment facilities to conduct this national sampling effort.
Recent improvements to analytical methods; including Draft EPA Method 1633, which measures 40
PFAS in a number of environmental matrices, and Draft EPA Method 1621, which measures Adsorbable
Organic Fluorine (AOF) (a surrogate for the presence of PFAS), in wastewater. EPA plans to collect
samples of PFAS and AOF from industrial sources upstream of POTWs, before mixing and dilution
from other wastestreams make it difficult to identify the source of the PFAS. As part of initiating this
effort, EPA intends to develop an Information Collection Request (ICR) and a sampling strategy
providing more details about the POTW Influent PFAS Study.
6-19
-------
7—Ongoing ELG Rulemaking
7. Ongoing ELG Rulemakings
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 for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category 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. The legal challenges to the 2015 ELG for flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
wastewater and bottom ash (BA) transport water have been held in abeyance since EPA commenced its
reconsideration rulemaking, which EPA completed in August 2020. The 2020 Rule established revised
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 ELG 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.
Subsequent to the 2020 Rule, on July 26, 2021, EPA announced it was initiating a new supplementary
rulemaking 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 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 CWA) as part of the
new rulemaking. While the agency pursues this new supplementary rulemaking, the current regulations
are being 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 is securing progress made
by the 2015 and 2020 rules while the agency considers more stringent requirements.
EPA continues to work on the new supplementary rulemaking announced in July 2021, including
continuing to analyze information and data, such as performance data and costs related to various
pollution control technologies for treating and controlling steam electric wastewaters. EPA anticipates
signing a notice of proposed rulemaking by early 2023.
7.2 Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category (40 CFR part 432)
EPA initially promulgated the MPP ELG in 1974 and amended the regulations in 2004. The current
regulation covers wastewater directly discharged by meat and poultry slaughterhouses and further
processors as well as independent Tenderers. The technology basis for existing non-small direct
dischargers includes biological treatment with partial denitrification. The current MPP ELG does not
include pretreatment standards for any facilities indirectly discharging process wastewater. In the
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 14 (January 2021), EPA announced a detailed study of the MPP
Category. The MPP Category ranked among the top two industrial categories in EPA's cross-industry
review of nutrients in industrial wastewater. During the study, EPA evaluated publicly available data for
7-1
-------
7—Ongoing ELG Rulemaking
direct discharging facilities, which make up a small portion of the industry, and data from POTWs. The
record indicated that in addition to having high nutrient discharges, indirect discharging MPP facilities
may be causing problems for POTWs. In addition, the data showed that some MPP facilities are already
removing nutrients and achieving effluent concentrations below the current ELG requirements. In
Preliminary Program Plan 15, EPA summarized the detailed study, indicated that a revision to the ELG
may be appropriate, and stated that EPA would be initiating a rulemaking to revise the MPP ELG.
A survey of the current MPP industry is critical for the rulemaking process and necessary for EPA to
determine what revisions may be appropriate. Data collection activities will provide a robust data set
that characterizes wastewater generation, treatment, and discharge from MPP facilities. As part of the
rulemaking process, EPA processed and received Office of Management and Budget approval in June
2022 for an ICR to collect financial and engineering data from MPP facilities. With input from
stakeholders, EPA's Office of Water has developed a short, census questionnaire and a more detailed
questionnaire that was sent to facilities in fall 2022. EPA is currently administering both of these
questionnaires to facilities engaging in meat and poultry processing, including those currently regulated
under 40 CFR part 432 and facilities that discharge wastewater directly to waters of the United States,
indirectly discharge wastewater, or do not discharge wastewater. EPA is administering both
questionnaires via a web-based platform, Qualtrics Survey Software (Qualtrics). Based on data primarily
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service and ICIS-NPDES, EPA
estimates the MPP industry has between 7,000 and 8,000 facilities. Because no one data source collects
information from all MPP facilities, the exact number is unknown, and the survey questionnaires will
help determine the number of facilities. In addition, EPA has conducted site visits of facilities that
represent meat and poultry processors across current effluent guidelines subcategories, including those
that treat process wastewater with high-level treatment technologies.
EPA intends to select up to 10 facilities for multiday sampling to fill any data gaps remaining from the
questionnaire data collection. The purpose of the multiday sampling is to characterize pollutants in raw
wastewaters prior to treatment, as well as to document wastewater treatment plant performance.
Selection of facilities for multiday sampling will be based on an analysis of information collected during
the site visits, as well as the following criteria:
• The facility performs meat and/or poultry slaughtering and/or further processing operations
representative of MPP facilities.
• The facility uses in-process treatment and/or end-of-pipe treatment technologies that EPA
may consider for technology option selection.
• Compliance monitoring data for the facility indicates that it is among the better performing
treatment systems or that it employs a wastewater treatment process for which EPA sought
data for option selection.
EPA intends to propose this regulation in December 2023.
7-2
-------
7—Ongoing ELG Rulemaking
7.3 Organic Chemicals. Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category: PFAS
Manufacturers and Formulators (40 CFR part 414)
EPA announced in Preliminary Plan 15 and in the PFAS Strategic Roadmap that it will revise the ELG
for the OCPSF Point Source Category (40 CFR part 414) to address wastewater discharges of PFAS
from PFAS manufacturing facilities. Based on information and data collected, EPA determined that
PFAS have been, and continue to be, manufactured and used by PFAS manufacturing facilities in the
United States.
In December 2021, EPA delivered a data request under Section 308 of the CWA to obtain information
and data from the industry that will provide a robust data set that characterizes wastewater generation,
treatment, and discharge from PFAS manufacturing facilities. In addition, EPA has conducted virtual
site visits of facilities that manufacture PFAS and treat the process wastewater with advanced
wastewater treatment technologies.
Based on data collected from outreach and the Section 308 questionnaire, EPA sampled wastewater at a
number of facilities in 2022. The purpose of the sampling was to characterize pollutants in raw
wastewaters prior to treatment, as well as to document wastewater treatment performance. Selection of
facilities for sampling is based on an analysis of information collected during the site visits and the
responses to the data request. Pending resource availability, EPA intends to publish a proposed rule in
the spring of 2024 and intends to continue to evaluate the need to develop regulations to address PFAS
discharges from PFAS formulators/processors.
7.4 Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) Point Source
Categories
EPA announced in Preliminary Plan 15 and in the PFAS Strategic Roadmap that it will revise the ELG
for the Metal Finishing and Electroplating Point Source Categories (40 CFR part 433 and part 413,
respectively) to address wastewater discharges of PFAS. Based on data collected to date, EPA has
identified facilities conducting operations that use or may have used hexavalent chromium, including
chromium electroplating, chromium anodizing, chromate conversion coating, and chromic acid etching
(referred to as chrome finishing facilities), as the most significant source of PFAS in the Metal Finishing
and Electroplating Point Source Categories. Existing data demonstrate that these facilities have
concentrations of PFOS in their effluent that is, on average, several orders of magnitude higher than
metal finishing and electroplating facilities that do not conduct chrome finishing.
PFAS are present in wastewater from chrome finishing facilities primarily due to the use of PFAS
containing chemical fume suppressants to mitigate emissions and inhalation exposure of hexavalent
chromium. A revision to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
phased out the use of PFOS in 2015; however, PFOS is still detected in wastewater from facilities that
have used PFOS-based chemical fume suppressants in the past. As a result of the phase-out, many
facilities switched to a chemical fume suppressant containing a different PFAS: 6:2 fluorotelomer
sulfonic acid (6:2-FTSA). This has been detected at high levels in the wastewater from chrome finishing
facilities that use it.
EPA has learned that: (1) it is possible to successfully mitigate hexavalent chromium emissions using
commercially available chemical fume suppressants that do not contain any PFAS; (2) many facilities
7-3
-------
7—Ongoing ELG Rulemaking
could switch their operations to using trivalent chromium, which does not require the use of chemical
fume suppressants; (3) a number of facilities are successfully using granular activated carbon to treat
PFOS in wastewater to meet water quality limitations and granular activated carbon may be effective for
other PFAS in metal finishing and electroplating wastewater; and (4) other technologies exist or are in
development that may be able to treat PFAS in wastewater from chrome finishing facilities, including
membranes, ion exchange, and PFAS destruction techniques.
Pending available resources, EPA intends to collect the data necessary to revise these ELGs, which will
include conducting a survey of the industry and analysis of wastewater samples in the coming year. EPA
intends to publish a proposed rule by the end of 2024.
7-4
-------
8—References for Plan 15
8. References for Plan 15
1. Davison's Publishing. Davison's Publishing Co. LLC. 2022. List of Textile Mills, Dyers, &
Finishers - Davison's 2022 Textiles Blue Book. DCN PFAS00868.
2. ERG. 2021a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2019 DMR Database. (September). EPA-HQ-
OW-2021-0547-0271.
3. ERG. 2021b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Key Findings from Preliminary Treatment
Reviews: Nutrient Removal. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547. DCN 11105.
4. ERG. 2021c. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Preliminary Technology Review: Suspended
Growth Wastewater Treatment Systems. (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547. DCN
11023.
5. ERG. 202Id. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Preliminary Technology Review: Membrane
Wastewater Treatment Systems. (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547. DCN 11024.
6. ERG. 2022a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Memorandum: Development of the PFAS
Wastewater Characterization Analytical Database (October 2022). DCN PFAS00844.
7. ERG. 2022b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. PFAS Wastewater Characterization Analytical
Database (October 2022). DCN PFAS00843.
8. ERG. 2022c. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Landfill Leachate PFAS Data and Results
Summary from the PFAS Wastewater Characterization Analytical Database (October
2022). DCN PFAS00845.
9. FAA. 2021a. United States Federal Aviation Administration. National Part 139 CertAlert
No 21-01: Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Testing at Certificated Part 139 Airports.
(June 1). EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547-0216. DCN PFAS00045.
10. FAA. 2021b. United States Federal Aviation Administration. Program Guidance Letter 21-
01: Extension of Eligibility for Stand-Alone Acquisition of Input-based Testing Equipment
and Truck Modification. (October 5). DCN PFAS00931A5.
11. FAA. 2022. United States Federal Aviation Administration. Fluorine-Free Foam Testing
Report. (July 28). DCN PFAS00874. Available online at
https://www.airporttech.to.faa.gov/Prodiicts/Airport-Safetv-Papers-Publications/Airport-
Safety-Detail/fluorine-free-foam-testing
12. FDA. 2022. United States Food and Drug Administration. Inventory of Effective Food
Contact Substance (FCS) Notifications. Available online at
https://www.fda.gov/food/packaging-food-contact-siibstances-fcs/inventorv-etYective-food-
contact-substance-fcs-notifications
13. Gliige et al. 2020. Gliige, J., Scheringer, M., Cousins, I., DeWitt, J., Goldenman, G.,
Herzke, D., Lohmann, R., Ng, C., Trier, X., Wang, Z. An overview of the uses of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). (30 October 2020). Environmental Sciences: Processes
& Impacts, 22, 2345-2373. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547-0297. DCN PFAS00104. Available
online at https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EM00z
8-1
-------
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8—References for Plan 15
MI EGLE. 2020a. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy.
Michigan Industrial Pretreatment Program (IPP) PFAS Initiative: Identified Industrial
Sources of PFOS to Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. (August 2020). EPA-HQ-
OW-2021-0547-0403. DCN PFAS00161.
MI EGLE. 2020b. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. PFAS
Effluent Sample Results for Indirect Discharge Facilities. (January 24). EPA-HQ-OW-
2021-0547-0402. DCN PFAS00160.
MI EGLE. 2020c. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. PFAS
Effluent Sample Results for Direct Discharge Facilities. (January 24). EPA-HQ-OW-2021-
0547-0401. DCN PFAS00159.
NC DEQ. 2022. 2019 PFAS Investigation Order Results for Lear Corporation Textile Mill
in Wilmington, North Carolina (NPDES No. NC0002305). (February 25). DCN
PFAS00879.
OECD, 2022. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Alternatives in Coatings, Paints
and Varnishes (CPVs): Report on the Commercial Availability and Current Uses.
(January). DCN 11133.
U.S. EPA. 1975. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Oil
Base Solvent Wash Subcategories of the Paint Formulating and the Ink Formulating Point
Source Category. (July). DCN 11134.
U.S. EPA. 1982. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Leather Tanning and Finishing
Point Source Category (EPA 440/1-82/016). (November). DCN 11183.
U.S. EPA. 1984. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Plastics Molding and Forming
Point Source Category (December). DCN 11136.
U.S. EPA. 2000. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Development Document
for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source
Category. (January). EPA-821-R-99-019. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547. PFAS00183.
U.S. EPA. 2012. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Users
Background Document for the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Loading
Tool. (January). EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0058. Available online at:
https://echo.epa.gov/trends/loading-tool/water-pollution-
Search/results/?s=546008a2bc3d6f6e2fd0ce45cb789d7d35c77c40.
U.S. EPA 2019a. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Preliminary Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan 14. (October). EPA-821-R-19-005. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0618-
0572. Available online at https://www.epa.gov/eg/effliient-giiidelines-plan-14-dociiments.
U.S. EPA. 2019b. United States Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA'sReview of
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Industrial Wastewater Discharge. (October
1). EPA-821-R-19-006. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547-0359. DCN PFAS00129.
8-2
-------
8—References for Plan 15
26. U.S. EPA. 2021a. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan 14. (January). EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0618-0658.
27. U.S. EPA. 2021b. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Preliminary Effluent
Guidelines Program Plan 15. (September). EPA-821-R-21-003. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547-
0367. Available online at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/ow-prelim-
elg-pla: 38.pdf
28. U.S. EPA. 2021c. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Multi-Industry Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Study - 2021 Preliminary Report. (September). EPA-
82l-R-21-004. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547-0361. DCN PFAS00001. Available online at
https://www.epa.gOv/svstem/files/documents/2 /multi-industry-pfas-
studv_preliminarv~2021~report_508_2021.09.08.pdf
29. U.S. EPA. 2021d. United States Environmental Protection Agency. PFAS Strategic
Roadmap: EPA's Commitments to Action 2021-2024. (October 18). DCN PFAS00866.
Available online at https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-strategic-roadmap-epas-commitments-
action-2021-2024.
30. U.S. EPA. 2021e. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Notes from Meeting
with Georgia-Pacific, LLC and American Forest and Paper Association. (July 9). EPA-HQ-
OW-2021-0547-0283. DCN PFAS00080.
31. U.S. EPA. 2022a. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's 2021 Annual
Review of Industrial Wastewater Discharges (November). EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547. DCN
11139.
32. U.S. EPA. 2022b. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2021 Preliminary
Review of Industrial Point Source Categories. (November). EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547.
DCN 11137.
33. U.S. EPA. 2022c. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Response to Comments
for the Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15. (November). EPA-HQ-OW-
2021-0547. DCN 11138.
34. U.S. EPA. 2022d. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Notes from January 11,
2022 Meeting with Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, & Energy. (April
25). DCN PFAS00924.
35. U.S. EPA. 2022e. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Notes from January 10,
2022 Meeting with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR). (April 6).
DCN PFAS00915.
36. U.S. EPA. 2022f. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Notes from December
8, 2021 Meeting with W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc (Gore). (January 13). DCN
PFAS00853.
37. U.S. EPA. 2022g. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Notes from March 15,
2022 Meeting with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (July 19) DCN
PFAS00931.
8-3
-------
8—References for Plan 15
38. U.S. EPA. 2022h. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Notes from November
19, 2021 Meeting with Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM).
(March 17). DCN PFAS00847.
39. U.S. EPA. 2022i. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Notes from March 4,
2022 Meeting with Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR). (May 6). DCN
PFAS00905.
40. U.S. EPA. 2022j. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Notes from January 21,
2022 Meeting with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). (April 6). DCN
PFAS00890.
41. U.S. EPA. 2022k. United States Environmental Protection Agency. May 2022 Email
Correspondence with Merrimack Wastewater Treatment Facility. (May 26). DCN
PFAS00881.
42. U.S. EPA. 20221. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Notes from January 5
2022 Meeting with New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES).
(February 22). DCN PFAS00854.
43. U.S. EPA. 2022m. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Notes from April 25,
2022 Meeting with the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). (July 7). DCN PFAS00911.
44. U.S. EPA. 2022n. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Notes from April 28,
2022 and May 23 Meetings with American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA).
(August 10). DCN PFAS00938.
45. U.S. EPA. 2022o. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2022 The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Obligations Under Clean Water Act Section 304(m).
(November). EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547. DCN 11196.
46. U.S. EPA. 2022p. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Electrical & Electronic
Components (40 CFR Part 469) Detailed Study Report. (November). EPA-HQ-OW-2021-
0547. DCN 11197.
47. VT DEC. 2020. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Poly- and
Perfluoroalkyl Substances at Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Landfill Leachate: 2019
Summary Report. (January 30). EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0547-0313. DCN PFAS00120.
Available online at
https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/wmp/SolidWaste/Dociiments/02.03.20_PFAS%20in
%20LF%20and%20WWTF%20Final%20Report.pdf
8-4
-------
Appendix A—Response to Remand ofELGPlan 14 in Food and Water Watch V. EPA (No. 21-71084 9th Cir.)
Appendix A—Response to Remand of ELG Plan 14 in Food and Water Watch V.
EPA (No. 21-71084 9th Cir.)
-------
Appendix A—Response to Remand ofELGPlan 14 in Food and Water Watch V. EPA (No. 21-71084 9th Cir.)
A.l Background
CAFOs are facilities that confine and maintain large numbers of animals for a specified period of time.
40 CFR 122.23 (defining CAFOs in precise terms). The CAFOs ELG regulates two parts of CAFOs:
the "production area" and the "land application area." The production area is the area that includes the
animal confinement area, manure storage areas, raw materials storage area, and waste containment
areas. 40 CFR 122.23(b)(8). The land application area is the land under the control of a CAFO owner
or operator to which manure, litter, and process wastewater from the production area is or may be
applied. 40 CFR 122.23(b)(3).
In Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 14, EPA stated that it was not appropriate at that time to revise the
effluent guidelines for the CAFOs industrial point source category. This determination with respect to
CAFOs was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Food and Water Watch v.
U.S. EPA, (9th Cir. No. 21-71084). On February 25, 2022, the court granted EPA's motion for remand
of that decision. This Plan responds to that remand.
A.2 Existing CAFOs ELG
The existing CAFOs ELG imposes substantial and detailed requirements on both the production area
and land application area. The ELG requirements for the production area prohibit the discharge of
manure, litter, and process wastewater from the production area to waters of the United States, with only
one exception. 40 CFR 412.31(a). Under this exception, the ELG allows discharges from the
production area where those discharges are caused by precipitation and where the production area is
designed to contain all manure, litter, and process wastewater from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event. 40
CFR 412.31(a)(1) (defining this exemption in precise terms).
The ELG requirements for the land application area prohibit discharges unless those discharges qualify
as "agricultural stormwater," which the Clean Water Act expressly excludes from regulation. 33 USC
502(14). EPA interprets "agricultural stormwater" to include any precipitation-related discharges of
manure, litter, and process wastewater from the land application areas if the manure, litter, and process
wastewater has been applied to the land application area in accordance with a site-specific "nutrient
management plan" that ensures appropriate agricultural utilization of the nutrients in the manure, litter,
or process wastewater. 40 CFR 122.23(e). A nutrient management plan addresses the form, source,
amount, timing, and method of application of nutrients on each field to achieve crop production goals
while minimizing the transport of nutrients to surface waters. 40 CFR 412.4(c)(1). The application
rates for manure, litter, and process wastewater must be established in accordance with technical
standards established by each state. See 40 CFR 123.36; 412.4(c)(2).
The ELG also requires CAFOs to comply with certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related
to both the production area and the land application area. 40 CFR 412.4(b), (c).
A.3 Information to Determine Whether to Undertake Rulemaking to Revise the CAFOs ELG
A decision whether to undertake rulemaking to revise the CAFOs ELG is informed by understanding the
extent to which the current ELG is controlling pollutant discharges from CAFOs, and, if not, the extent
to which revisions to the ELG could result in improved water quality protection. Understanding the
potential effectiveness of ELG revisions requires up-to-date information about the extent to which
A-l
-------
Appendix A—Response to Remand ofELGPlan 14 in Food and Water Watch V. EPA (No. 21-71084 9th Cir.)
CAFOs are discharging to "waters of the United States," technologies that are available and
economically achievable for controlling CAFOs discharges, and implementation issues associated with
currently applicable standards. EPA has decided to gather additional information and conduct a detailed
study on these issues in order to be able to make an informed decision as to whether to undertake
rulemaking.
A.4 Information Gathering and Study
EPA intends to gather information about many aspects of implementation of the existing CAFOs ELG
and discharges from the production area and land application area. This information will help shed light
on the appropriateness of ELG revision in light of the statutory standards for effluent guidelines,
including that they reflect the best available technology economically achievable, after consideration of
factors specified in the Act.
First, EPA intends to identify the extent to which CAFOs discharge into "waters of the United States."
As commenters on Preliminary Plan 15 noted, EPA's data about discharges of pollutants from CAFOs is
sparse; indeed, its preliminary analysis was only able to analyze monitoring data from sixteen reporting
CAFOs. EPA intends to gather information about discharges from the production area to appropriate
characterize whether manure, litter, and process wastewater flows off land application areas. EPA has
reviewed many studies addressing impacts of CAFOs on surrounding communities and the environment,
but little data is available demonstrating the impacts of CAFOs specifically on "waters of the United
States," particularly considering the agricultural stormwater exemption. EPA also intends to assess
whether any discharges from CAFOs are concentrated in particular regions or states, or whether they are
widespread nationally. Understanding the nature and frequency of discharges is critical to understanding
the extent to which potential revision of the ELG could yield significant pollutant reductions.
In addition, EPA plans to gather information about new technologies and practices for reducing
discharges from the production area and land application area. EPA will consider whether these
technologies may be technologically available and economically achievable for the CAFOs point source
category. See 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2). EPA lacks a sufficient understanding of technologies and
practices that may have developed since its 2003 and 2008 rules, including their effectiveness at
reducing discharges of pollutants beyond what is already required in the CAFOs ELG, the applicability
of these technologies in a variety of situations, any secondary impacts they may have on farm
production, and their cost to CAFOs owners and operators. EPA also intends to study the financial
health of the agriculture industry as a whole and by sector, to the extent possible. Given the statute's
requirement that any ELG revision be technologically available and economically achievable, EPA
believes it should have a greater understanding of the availability, effectiveness, and economic
achievability of new technologies.
This information is important for EPA to be able to make an informed, reasoned decision regarding the
effectiveness of the existing ELG and whether emerging alternatives to existing requirements may be
technologically available and economically achievable and may better protect water quality. EPA will
evaluate other issues related to the CAFOs ELG in addition to the issues highlighted above, and the
focus of the detailed study will evolve as EPA gathers information.
A-2
-------
Appendix A—Response to Remand ofELGPlan 14 in Food and Water Watch V. EPA (No. 21-71084 9th Cir.)
A.5 Conclusion
For the reasons provided above, EPA has determined that gathering additional information and
conducting a detailed study of the CAFOs ELG is a necessary next step for evaluating whether revisions
to the ELG are warranted. Completing this study before determining whether to revise the ELG also
reflects EPA's careful evaluation of the Agency resources that would need to be committed to a
rulemaking, due to the large number of environmental priorities that EPA has concluded need to be
addressed through rulemaking. Typical ELG rulemakings take several years, 3 full-time employees,
and a million dollars per year in contractor support. As noted above, EPA promulgated the CAFOs
ELG in 2003 and revisions in 2008 - these rulemakings and associated litigation spanned approximately
11 years. Thus, a decision to undertake rulemaking has significant implications for the Agency's
allocation of its resources. EPA has concluded that the information that will be collected is the
appropriate course of action to make an informed, reasoned determination whether the potential
environmental benefits of undertaking rulemaking justify devoting the significant resources that are
required for such a rulemaking.
In deciding to gather information and conducting a detailed study prior to making a decision whether to
undertake such a rulemaking, the Agency has also considered the substantial resources that it has
committed to revising ELG for other industrial sectors and that undertaking rulemaking for CAFOs at
this time could divert resources from these efforts. For example, EPA has undertaken rulemaking to
control, for the first time, discharges of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from certain
manufacturers and processors. See Section 7.3 and the Multi-Industry PFAS Study - 2021 Preliminary
Report. EPA has also recently determined that it will undertake rulemaking to improve control of
discharges from meat and poultry slaughterhouses. See Section 7.2. EPA is also now engaged in
rulemaking for part of the power industry sector. See Section 7.1. EPA is undertaking those
rulemakings because it had sufficient information to determine that revising those ELG would advance
protection of quality of the nation's waters and, in the absence of such information with regard to
CAFOs, has determined not to divert resources from those efforts.
For the reasons described above, EPA has determined that collecting further information and conducting
a detailed study will enable the Agency to make an informed, reasoned decision whether to undertake
rulemaking to revise the ELG for CAFOs.
A-3
------- |