1

EPA’s Monitoring Proposal for Manufacturing, Processing, and Formulating Sites

8/02/2012

Charge: To develop an understanding of the sources of and pathways to environmental 

concentrations of D4/D5 in environmental media and biota associated with industrial releases 

from siloxane manufacturing (M), processing (P), and formulating (F) sites.

Monitoring Objective: A sampling strategy should collect monitoring data from the 

appropriate media at appropriate locations in order to characterize the range of environmental 

concentrations of D4/D5 around the M, P, F sites. This sampling should also provide 

information on the effects of several variables on these concentrations. These variables include 

production and/or throughput volumes of D4/D5, separation technologies, configuration of onsite WWTP and their various treatment efficiencies, plant activity (M, P, F) and geographical 

location. With these data, an understanding can be developed of the environmental 

concentrations of D4/D5 around M, P, F sites to support a national risk assessment for D4 and 

D5.

EPA’s Proposal: Four of the thirteen M, P, F sites associated with the SEHSC directly

discharge their wastewater from the site into rivers (see Table 1 below). Seven of the thirteen 

sites indirectly discharge (via a POTW) their wastewater into various water bodies (see Table 2 

below). EPA agrees with the SEHSC that the four direct discharge sites should be monitored. 

Additionally, EPA proposes that all the indirect discharge sites be monitored in order to 

accomplish the stated charge unless there is a scientific basis for excluding monitoring at a 

facility.

Tables 1 and 2 below identify the direct and indirect discharge sites EPA proposes to monitor. 

Table 1. Direct Discharge Sites

Activity

Company Facility City, State D4 D5 Discharge

Receiving Water 

Body

Dow Corning Carrollton Plant Carrollton, KY M,F M,F Direct Ohio River

Momentive Waterford Plant Waterford, NY M,F,P M,F,P Direct Hudson River

Sistersville Plant Friendly, WV P P Direct Ohio River

Wacker 

Chemical

Wacker 

Chemical Adrian, MI P P Direct River Raisin
2

Table 2. Indirect Discharge Sites

Activity

Company Facility City, State D4 D5 Discharge

On-site 

WWTP

Configuration

POTW

Location & 

Configuration

Receiving 

Water 

Body

Bluestar

Silicones Ventura Plant Ventura, CA P F,P Indirect TBD TBD TBD

Dow 

Corning

Greensboro 

Plant

Greensboro, 

NC F,P F Indirect TBD TBD TBD

Auburn Plant Auburn, MI F F Indirect TBD TBD TBD

Healthcare

Industries 

Mtrls Hemlock, MI F F Indirect TBD TBD TBD

Midland Plant Midland, MI P P Indirect TBD TBD TBD

Elizabethtown 

Plant

Elizabethtown, 

KY P P Indirect TBD TBD TBD

Evonik 

Goldschmidt

Hopewell 

Plant Hopewell, VA P P Indirect TBD TBD TBD

Shin-Etsu 

Silicones

Shin-Etsu 

Silicones Akron, OH -- F None TBD TBD TBD

Shincor 

Silicones Akron, OH P -- None TBD TBD TBD

Rationale for EPA’s Proposal to Include the Thirteen Direct and Indirect Discharge Sites: 

The environmental releases of D4/D5 from both these direct and indirect discharge M, P, F sites

depend upon a number of factors as stated in the monitoring objective. In order to accomplish 

the charge stated above, the effect of these factors on the sites’ releases of D4/D5 to a POTW 

and/or to a water body need to be understood, and this is only feasible if all the thirteen direct 

and indirect discharge sites are monitored.