Technical Support Document for the 

Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan 

October 2009 

EPA 821-R-09-006
 

i

CONTENTS 

Page 

PART I: INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................I 

1. BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................1-1 

1.1 EPA’s Clean Water Act Program ........................................................................1-1 

1.2 Background on the Effluent Guidelines Program................................................1-1 

1.3 What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?...............................1-2 

1.3.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) 

— CWA Sections 301(b)(1)(A) and 304(b)(1)........................................1-3 

1.3.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) — CWA 

Sections 301(b)(2)(E) and 304(b)(4) .......................................................1-4 

1.3.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) — 

CWA Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2).............................................1-4 

1.3.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) — CWA Section 306 .......1-4 

1.3.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) — CWA 

Section 307(b)..........................................................................................1-5 

1.3.6 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) — CWA Section 

307(c) .......................................................................................................1-5 

1.4 Success of EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Program..................................................1-5 

1.5 What Are EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Planning and Review Requirements?......1-5 

1.6 Background References .......................................................................................1-6 

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN FOR 

2008..................................................................................................................................2-1 

3. THE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS .............................................................3-1 

3.1 Goals of the ELG Planning Process.....................................................................3-1 

3.2 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment 

Standards..............................................................................................................3-1 

3.2.1 Factors Considered in Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 

Pretreatment Standards ............................................................................3-1 

3.2.2 Overview: Review of Existing Point Source Categories .........................3-5 

3.3 Identification of New Categories for Possible Effluent Guidelines 

Development........................................................................................................3-7 

3.3.1 Direct Discharges.....................................................................................3-8 

3.3.2 Indirect Discharges ..................................................................................3-8 

3.4 Stakeholder Involvement and Schedule...............................................................3-8 

3.5 The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process References........................................3-9 

4. METHODOLOGY, DATA SOURCES, AND LIMITATIONS .......................................................4-1 

4.1 Data Sources and Limitations ..............................................................................4-1 

4.1.1 SIC Codes ................................................................................................4-2 

4.1.2 NAICS Codes...........................................................................................4-3 

4.1.3 Toxic Weighting Factors..........................................................................4-4 

4.1.4 Data from TRI..........................................................................................4-5 

4.1.5 Data from PCS and ICIS-NPDES............................................................4-7 
CONTENTS (Continued) 

Page 

ii

4.2 Methodology Corrections Affecting Both Screening-Level Review 

Databases ...........................................................................................................4-10 

4.3 Corrections to the DMRLoads2007 Database ...................................................4-10 

4.3.1 DMRLoads2007: Categorization of Discharges....................................4-10 

4.3.2 DMRLoads2007: Internal Monitoring...................................................4-11 

4.3.3 DMRLoads2007: Intermittent Discharges.............................................4-11 

4.3.4 DMRLoads2007: Excluded Pollutant Parameters .................................4-11 

4.3.5 DMRLoads2007: Flow Corrections.......................................................4-12 

4.3.6 DMRLoads2007: Pollutant Corrections ................................................4-12 

4.3.7 DMRLoads2007: Data Quality Review.................................................4-12 

4.3.8 DMRLoads2007: Facility Reviews........................................................4-15 

4.4 Corrections to the TRIReleases2007 Database..................................................4-16 

4.4.1 TRIReleases2007: Categorization of Discharges ..................................4-16 

4.4.2 TRIReleases2007: Pollutant Corrections...............................................4-23 

4.4.3 TRIReleases2007: Data Quality Review ...............................................4-24 

4.4.4 TRIReleases2007: Facility Reviews......................................................4-25 

4.4.5 Trends in TRI Data ................................................................................4-25 

4.5 TRIReleases2007 Rankings and DMRLoads2007 Rankings .............................4-27 

4.6 Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations References.................................4-27 

PART II: RESULTS OF THE 2009 ANNUAL REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL

CATEGORIES WITH EXISTING ELGS ..........................................................................II 

5. 2009 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND 

STANDARDS AND RANKING OF POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES ............................................5-1 

5.1 Results of the 2009 Screening-Level Review......................................................5-1 

5.1.1 Categories for Which EPA is Currently Developing or Revising 

ELGs ........................................................................................................5-1 

5.1.2 Categories for Which EPA Recently Promulgated or Revised 

ELGs ........................................................................................................5-2 

5.1.3 Discharges Not Categorizable..................................................................5-2 

5.1.4 Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE..............................5-3 

5.1.5 Results of the 2009 Screening-Level Review..........................................5-3 

5.2 Prioritization of Categories for the 2009 Annual Review ...................................5-5 

5.2.1 Detailed Study of Existing ELGs.............................................................5-5 

5.2.2 Preliminary Category Reviews ..............................................................5-11 

5.3 2009 Annual Review References.......................................................................5-12 

6. FERTILIZER MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 418)..........................................................6-1 

6.1 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Background..................................................6-1 

6.1.1 Fertilizer Manufacturing Industry Profile................................................6-1 

6.1.2 40 CFR Part 418.......................................................................................6-2 

6.2 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category 2009 Annual Review ...................................6-3 

6.2.1 Fertilizer Manufacturing 2009 Screening-Level Review ........................6-3 

6.2.2 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern..............6-4 
CONTENTS (Continued) 

Page 

iii

6.3 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Potential New Subcategories .......................6-6 

6.4 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Issues Identified and Additional 

Review .................................................................................................................6-6 

6.5 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category References....................................................6-6 

7. INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 415).......................................7-1 

7.1 Inorganic Chemicals Category Background ........................................................7-1 

7.1.1 Inorganic Chemicals Industry Profile ......................................................7-1 

7.1.2 40 CFR Part 415.......................................................................................7-3 

7.2 Inorganic Chemicals Category 2009 Annual Review..........................................7-3 

7.2.1 Inorganic Chemicals 2009 Screening-Level Review...............................7-3 

7.2.2 Inorganic Chemicals Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern....................7-4 

7.3 Inorganic Chemicals Category Potential New Subcategories .............................7-6 

7.4 Inorganic Chemicals Category Issues Identified and Additional Review ...........7-6 

7.5 Inorganic Chemicals Category References..........................................................7-7 

8. NONFERROUS METALS MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 421) ........................................8-1 

8.1 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category Background ..................................8-1 

8.1.1 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Industry Profile ................................8-1 

8.1.2 40 CFR Part 421.......................................................................................8-2 

8.2 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category 2009 Annual Review....................8-2 

8.2.1 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 2009 Screening-Level Review.........8-3 

8.2.2 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category 2009 Pollutants of 

Concern....................................................................................................8-3 

8.3 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category Potential New Subcategories........8-5 

8.4 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category Issues Identified and 

Additional Review ...............................................................................................8-5 

8.5 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category References ....................................8-5 

9. ORE MINING AND DRESSING (40 CFR PART 440).............................................................9-1 

9.1 Ore Mining Category Background.......................................................................9-1 

9.1.1 Ore Mining Industry Profile.....................................................................9-1 

9.1.2 40 CFR Part 440.......................................................................................9-3 

9.2 Ore Mining Category 2009 Annual Review ........................................................9-4 

9.2.1 Ore Mining Category 2009 Screening-Level Review .............................9-5 

9.2.2 Ore Mining Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern ..................................9-5 

9.2.3 Ore Mining Category Data Obtained from Permits, Permit Fact 

Sheets, and Permit Applications ............................................................9-13 

9.3 Ore Mining Category 2009 Preliminary Category Review Summary of 

Findings..............................................................................................................9-14 

9.3.1 Discharges Exempt from Part 440 and Covered by General Permits....9-14 

9.3.2 Surface Water Impacts from Ore Mines ................................................9-18 

9.3.3 Compliance Analysis of the Ore Mining Category................................9-21 

9.3.4 Ongoing Activities.................................................................................9-21 
CONTENTS (Continued) 

Page 

iv

9.4 Ore Mining Category Issues Identified and Additional Review........................9-21 

9.5 Ore Mining Category References ......................................................................9-22 

10. ORGANIC CHEMICALS, PLASTICS, AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS (40 CFR PART 414).............10-1 

10.1 OCPSF Category Background ...........................................................................10-1 

10.1.1 OCPSF Industry Profile .........................................................................10-1 

10.1.2 40 CFR Part 414.....................................................................................10-4 

10.2 OCPSF Category 2009 Annual Review.............................................................10-5 

10.2.1 OCPSF 2009 Screening-Level Review..................................................10-5 

10.2.2 OCPSF Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern.......................................10-6 

10.3 OCPSF Category Potential New Subcategories ................................................10-7 

10.4 OCPSF Category Issues Identified and Additional Review ..............................10-8 

10.5 OCPSF Category References.............................................................................10-8 

11. PETROLEUM REFINING (40 CFR PART 419)....................................................................11-1 

11.1 Petroleum Refining Category Background........................................................11-1 

11.1.1 Petroleum Refining Industry Profile......................................................11-1 

11.1.2 40 CFR Part 419.....................................................................................11-3 

11.2 Petroleum Refining Category 2009 Annual Review .........................................11-3 

11.2.1 Petroleum Refining 2009 Screening-Level Review ..............................11-3 

11.2.2 Petroleum Refining Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern....................11-3 

11.3 Petroleum Refining Category Potential New Subcategories .............................11-5 

11.4 Petroleum Refining Category Issues Identified and Additional Review...........11-6 

11.5 Petroleum Refining Category References..........................................................11-6 

12. PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD (40 CFR PART 430) ....................................................12-1 

12.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Background..........................................12-1 

12.1.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry Profile........................................12-1 

12.1.2 40 CFR Part 430.....................................................................................12-3 

12.2 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category 2009 Annual Review ...........................12-5 

12.2.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 2009 Screening-Level Review ................12-5 

12.2.2 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern......12-6 

12.3 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Potential New Subcategories .............12-10 

12.4 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Issues Identified and Additional 

Review .............................................................................................................12-10 

12.5 Pulp and Paper Category References...............................................................12-11 

PART III: DETAILED STUDIES......................................................................................................... III 

13. HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY AND HOSPITALS CATEGORY (40 CFR PART 460)...................13-1 

13.1 Activities for Study of Unused Pharmaceutical Management...........................13-1 

13.2 Preliminary Findings from the Health Care Industry – Unused 

Pharmaceuticals Detailed Study ........................................................................13-3 

13.3 Health Care Industry and Hospitals Category References.................................13-9 
CONTENTS (Continued) 

Page 

v

14. OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION CATEGORY (40 CFR PART 435) ..........................................14-1 

14.1 Oil and Gas Extraction Category References ....................................................14-2 

15. STEAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING CATEGORY (40 CFR PART 423) .......................15-1 

15.1 Steam Electric Power Generating Category References....................................15-3 

Appendix A: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS FOR EAD’S SCREENING-LEVEL 

ANALYSIS 

Appendix B: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 

TRIRELEASES2007 and DMRLOADS2007 

Appendix C: RESULTS OF TRIRELEASES2007_V2 AND DMRLOADS2007_V3
 

vi

LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

2-1 Comments on the Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans EPA Docket 

Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517................................................................................. 2-1 

4-1 Nomenclature and Format of NAICS and SIC Codes ..................................................... 4-3 

4-2 Revised Boron TWF ........................................................................................................ 4-4 

4-3 Summary of DMRLoads2007 Facility Review.............................................................. 4-17 

4-4 Summary of TRIReleases2007 Facility Review ............................................................ 4-26 

4-5 Number of Facilities with Data in TRI for Reporting Years 2002 Through 2007 ........ 4-27 

5-1 Point Source Categories That Have Undergone a Recent Rulemaking or Review ......... 5-2 

5-2 Point Source Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE Discharges ............. 5-4 

5-3 Final DMRLoads2007 and TRIReleases2007 Combined Point Source Category 

Rankings .......................................................................................................................... 5-6 

5-4 2009 Annual Review of Categories with Existing ELGs: Level of Review.................... 5-9 

5-5 Previous Reviews for Point Source Categories Collectively Discharging over 95 

Percent of the Total TWPE............................................................................................ 5-11 

6-1 Number of Fertilizer Manufacturing Facilities................................................................ 6-2 

6-2 Subcategories in the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category................................................. 6-2 

6-3 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2004 and 2007......... 6-4 

6-4 2009 Review: Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Top TRI Pollutants ........................... 6-4 

6-5 2009 Review: Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Top DMR Pollutants......................... 6-5 

7-1 Number of Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Facilities............................................... 7-2 

7-2 Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2004 

and 2007........................................................................................................................... 7-4 

7-3 2009 Review: Inorganic Chemicals Category Top TRI Pollutants ................................. 7-4 

7-4 2009 Review: Inorganic Chemicals Category Top DMR Pollutants............................... 7-4 

7-5 Manganese Discharges Reported by U.S. Titanium Manufacturing Facilities in 

TRI 2007 .......................................................................................................................... 7-6 
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 

Page 

vii

8-1 Number of Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Facilities................................................. 8-2 

8-2 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category TRI and DMR 

Discharges for 2004 and 2007 ......................................................................................... 8-3 

8-3 2009 Review: Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category Top TRI Pollutants............ 8-3 

8-4 2009 Review: Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category Top DMR Pollutants ......... 8-4 

9-1 Number of Ore Mining Facilities..................................................................................... 9-2 

9-2 Ore Mining Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2007 ............... 9-3 

9-3 Ore Mining Category Subcategory Applicability............................................................ 9-3 

9-4 Ore Mining Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2004 and 2007.............................. 9-5 

9-5 2009 Review: Ore Mining Category Top TRI Pollutants................................................ 9-6 

9-6 2009 Review: Ore Mining Category Top DMR Pollutants ............................................. 9-6 

9-7 Arsenic Discharges Reported by Ore Mining Facilities in DMR for 2002, 2004 

and 2007........................................................................................................................... 9-8 

9-8 Cadmium Discharges Reported by Ore Mining Facilities in DMR for 2002, 2004, 

and 2007 .......................................................................................................................... 9-9 

9-9 Lead Discharges Reported by Ore Mining Facilities in DMR for 2002, 2004, and 

2007................................................................................................................................ 9-11 

9-10 Parameters with Benchmarks Not Dependant on Hardness .......................................... 9-15 

9-11 Parameters with Benchmarks Based on Water Hardness .............................................. 9-15 

9-12 Parameters Specific to the Type of Ore Being Mined ................................................... 9-15 

9-13 Comparison of Monitoring Requirements for Western States and Federal General 

Stormwater Permits........................................................................................................ 9-17 

9-14 TMDL Studies with Information on Active and Recently Closed Ore Mines .............. 9-20 

10-1 Number of OCPSF Facilities ......................................................................................... 10-3 

10-2 Applicability of Subcategories in the OCPSF Category................................................ 10-4 

10-3 OCPSF Point Source Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2004 and 2007............. 10-6 
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 

Page 

viii

10-4 2009 Review: OCPSF Category Top TRI Pollutants .................................................... 10-6 

10-5 2009 Review: OCPSF Category Top DMR Pollutants.................................................. 10-6 

11-1 Number of Petroleum Refining Facilities...................................................................... 11-2 

11-2 Petroleum Refining Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2004 and 2007............... 11-3 

11-3 2009 Review: Petroleum Refining Category Top TRI Pollutants ................................. 11-3 

11-4 2009 Review: Petroleum Refining Category Top DMR Pollutants............................... 11-4 

11-5 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI 

in 2002–2007 ................................................................................................................. 11-8 

11-6 PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–2007............. 11-10 

12-1 Number of Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilities .................................................... 12-3 

12-2 Relationship Between Pulp and Paper Regulatory Phases and Subcategories .............. 12-4 

12-3 Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Point Source Category TRI and DMR Discharges 

for 2004 and 2007 .......................................................................................................... 12-5 

12-4 2009 Review: Pulp and Paper Category Top TRI Pollutants ........................................ 12-6 

12-5 2009 Review: Pulp and Paper Category Top DMR Pollutants...................................... 12-6 

12-6 Pulp and Paper Category Facilities with TCDD Discharges in DMR 2007.................. 12-8 

12-7 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper 

Manufacturing Facilities from 2002 to 2007 ............................................................... 12-13 
ix

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

1-1 Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges Under NPDES.................... 1-3 

3-1 Flow Chart of Annual Review of Existing ELGs ............................................................ 3-2 

3-2 Flow Chart of Further Review of Existing ELGs ............................................................ 3-3 

3-3 Flow Chart of Identification of Possible New ELGs....................................................... 3-4 
Part I – Introduction 

PART I: INTRODUCTION 
Section 1 – Background 

1-1 

This document supports the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. It presents the 

methodology used to perform the annual reviews of industrial discharges required by the Clean 

Water Act and the results of the reviews. 

1. BACKGROUND

 This section explains how the Effluent Guidelines Program fits into EPA’s National 

Water Program, describes the general and legal background of the Effluent Guidelines Program, 

and describes EPA’s process for making effluent guidelines revision and development decisions 

(i.e., effluent guidelines planning). 

1.1 EPA’s Clean Water Act Program

 EPA’s Office of Water is responsible for developing the programs and tools authorized 

under the Clean Water Act (CWA), which enables EPA and the states to protect and restore the 

Nation’s waters. These programs and tools generally rely either on water quality-based controls, 

such as water quality standards and water quality-based effluent limitations, or technology-based 

controls such as effluent guidelines and technology-based effluent limitations. 

 The CWA gives states the primary responsibility for establishing, reviewing, and revising 

water quality standards. These standards consist of designated uses for each water body (e.g., 

fishing, swimming, supporting aquatic life), numeric pollutant concentration limits (“criteria”) to 

protect those uses, and an antidegradation policy. EPA develops national criteria for many 

pollutants, which states may adopt or modify as appropriate to reflect local conditions. In a 

parallel track to water quality standards, EPA also develops technology-based effluent limitation 

guidelines and standards, based on current available technologies. These guidelines and 

standards are then incorporated into discharge permits as technology-based effluent limitations 

(U.S. EPA, 1996). While technology-based effluent limitations in discharge permits may be as 

stringent as or more stringent than water quality-based effluent limits, the effluent guidelines 

program is not specifically designed to ensure that the discharge from each facility meets the 

water quality standards of its receiving water body. For this reason, the CWA also requires states 

to establish water quality-based permit limitations, where necessary to attain and maintain water 

quality standards. These water-quality based limits may require industrial facilities to meet 

requirements that are more stringent than those in a national effluent guideline regulation. EPA 

notes that the various components of water quality-based permitting (water quality standards, 

water quality-based effluent limits, and total maximum daily loads) are in different stages of 

development nationally and by state, which may result in different levels of protection across 

states. Therefore, national categorical effluent limitations and standards remain a critical 

component of EPA’s CWA Program. Consequently, in the overall context of the CWA, effluent 

guidelines must be viewed as one tool in the broad arsenal of tools Congress provided to EPA 

and the states to protect and restore the Nation’s water quality. 

1.2 Background on the Effluent Guidelines Program 

 The 1972 CWA marked a distinct change in Congress’s efforts “to restore and maintain 

the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” See CWA § 101(a), 33 

U.S.C. § 1251(a). Prior to 1972, the CWA relied on “water quality standards.” This approach 
Section 1 – Background 

1-2 

was challenging, however, because it was very difficult to prove that a specific discharger was 

responsible for decreasing the water quality of its receiving stream. 

 The 1972 CWA directed EPA to promulgate effluent guidelines that reflect pollutant 

reductions that can be achieved by categories or subcategories of industrial point sources. The 

effluent guidelines are based on specific technologies (including process changes) that EPA 

identifies as meeting the statutorily prescribed level of control. See CWA sections 301(b)(2), 

304(b), 306, 307(b), and 307(c). Unlike other CWA tools, effluent guidelines are national in 

scope and establish pollution control obligations for all facilities that discharge wastewater 

within an industrial category or subcategory. In establishing these controls, EPA assesses: (1) the 

performance and availability of the best pollution control technologies or pollution prevention 

practices for an industrial category or subcategory as a whole; (2) the economic achievability of 

those technologies, which can include consideration of costs, effluent reduction benefits, and 

affordability of achieving the reduction in pollutant discharge; (3) non-water-quality 

environmental impacts (including energy requirements); and (4) such other factors as the 

Administrator deems appropriate. 

 Creating a single national pollution control requirement for each industrial category 

based on the best technology the industry could afford was seen by Congress as a way to reduce 

the potential creation of “pollution havens” and to set the Nation’s sights on attaining the highest 

possible level of water quality. Consequently, EPA’s goal in establishing national effluent 

guidelines is to assure that industrial facilities with similar characteristics, regardless of their 

location or the nature of their receiving water, will at a minimum meet similar effluent 

limitations representing the performance of the best pollution control technologies or pollution 

prevention practices. 

 Unlike other CWA tools, effluent guidelines provide the opportunity to promote pollution 

prevention and water conservation. This may be particularly important in controlling persistent, 

bioaccumulative, and toxic pollutants discharged in concentrations below analytic detection 

levels. Effluent guidelines also control pollutant discharges at the point of discharge from 

industrial facilities and cover discharges directly to surface water (direct discharges) and 

discharges to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) (indirect discharges). For industrial 

dischargers to POTWs, this can have the added benefit of preventing the untreated discharge of 

pollutants to groundwater from leaking sewer pipes or to surface waters due to combined sewer 

overflows. 

1.3 What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?

 The national clean water industrial regulatory program is authorized under sections 301, 

304, 306 and 307 of the CWA. 

 The CWA directs EPA to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines and standards 

through six levels of control: 

1. Best practicable control technology currently available (BPT); 

2. Best available control technology economically achievable (BAT); 

3. Best conventional control technology (BCT); 

4. New source performance standards (NSPS); 
Section 1 – Background 

5. Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES); and 

6. Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). 

For point sources that discharge pollutants directly into the waters of the United States (direct 

dischargers), the limitations and standards promulgated by EPA are implemented through 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. See CWA sections 301(a), 

301(b), and 402. For sources that discharge to POTWs (indirect dischargers), EPA promulgates 

pretreatment standards that apply directly to those sources and are enforced by POTWs and state 

and federal authorities. See CWA sections 307(b) and (c). Figure 1-1 illustrates the relationship 

between the regulation of direct and indirect dischargers. 

Figure 1-1. Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges Under NPDES 

1.3.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) — CWA Sections 

301(b)(1)(A) and 304(b)(1) 

 EPA develops effluent limitations based on BPT for conventional, toxic, and 

nonconventional pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional 

pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and 

any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator 

designated oil and grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979. See 44 FR 

44501 (July 30, 1979). EPA has identified 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic 

pollutants, of which 126 specific substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants. See 

Appendix A to Part 423, reprinted after 40 CFR Part 423.17. All other pollutants are considered 

to be nonconventional. 

 In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers the total cost of 

applying the control technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also 

considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any required 

1-3 
Section 1 – Background 

1-4 

process changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water-quality 

environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the EPA 

Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA establishes 

BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities within the 

industry of various ages, sizes, processes or other common characteristics. Where existing 

performance is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than currently in 

place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology can be practically 

applied. 

1.3.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) — CWA Sections 301(b)(2)(E) 

and 304(b)(4) 

 The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for 

conventional pollutants associated with BCT for discharges from existing industrial point 

sources. In addition to the other factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that 

EPA establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two-part “cost-reasonableness” test. EPA 

explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in 1986. See 51 FR 24974 

(July 9, 1986). 

1.3.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) — CWA Sections 

301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2) 

 For toxic pollutants and nonconventional pollutants, EPA promulgates effluent guidelines 

based on BAT. See CWA sections 301(b)(2)(C), (D), and (F). The factors considered in 

assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and 

facilities involved, the process employed, potential process changes, non-water-quality 

environmental impacts, including energy requirements, and other such factors as the EPA 

Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(2)(B). The technology must also be 

economically achievable. See CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). The Agency retains considerable 

discretion in assigning the weight it accords to these factors. In addition to end-of-pipe 

wastewater treatment, BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable through 

changes in a facility’s processes and operations. Where existing performance is uniformly 

inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved 

within a particular subcategory based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or 

category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these 

technologies are not common industry practice. 

1.3.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) — CWA Section 306 

 NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best available 

demonstrated control technology. New sources have the opportunity to install the best and most 

efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should 

represent the most stringent controls attainable through the application of the best available 

demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and 

priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost of 

achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water-quality environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. 
Section 1 – Background 

1-5 

1.3.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) — CWA Section 307(b) 

 PSES apply to indirect dischargers, and are designed to prevent the discharge of 

pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of 

POTWs, including wastewater conveyance and sludge disposal. Pretreatment standards are 

technology-based and are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines. 

 The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for implementing 

national pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR Part 403. 

1.3.6 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) — CWA Section 307(c) 

 Like PSES, PSNS apply to indirect dischargers, and are designed to prevent the 

discharges of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the 

operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers 

have the opportunity to incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated 

technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in 

promulgating NSPS. 

1.4 Success of EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Program

 The effluent guidelines program has helped reverse the water quality degradation that 

accompanied industrialization in this country. Permits developed using the technology-based 

industrial regulations are a critical element of the Nation’s clean water program and reduce the 

discharge of pollutants that have serious environmental impacts, including pollutants that: 

• Kill or impair fish and other aquatic organisms; 

• Cause human health problems through contaminated water, fish, or shellfish; and 

• Degrade aquatic ecosystems. 

 EPA has issued effluent guidelines for 56 industrial categories and these regulations 

apply to between 35,000 and 45,000 facilities that discharge directly to the Nation’s waters, as 

well as another 12,000 facilities that discharge to POTWs. These regulations have prevented the 

discharge of more than 700 billion pounds of toxic pollutants each year. 

1.5 What Are EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Planning and Review Requirements?

 In addition to establishing new regulations, the CWA also requires EPA to review 

existing effluent guidelines annually. EPA reviews all point source categories subject to existing 

effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards to identify potential candidates for revision, as 

required by CWA sections 304(b), 301(d), 304(g), and 307(b). This document explains how EPA 

uses reported discharge data and other factors to conduct this review. EPA also reviews 

industries consisting of direct discharging facilities not currently subject to effluent guidelines to 

identify potential candidates for effluent guidelines rulemakings, as required by CWA section 

304(m)(1)(B). Finally, EPA reviews industries consisting entirely or almost entirely of indirect 

discharging facilities that are not currently subject to pretreatment standards to identify potential 

candidates for pretreatment standards development, as required by CWA sections 304(g) and 

307(b). 
Section 1 – Background 

1-6 

 CWA section 304(m)(1)(A) requires EPA to publish an Effluent Guidelines Program 

Plan every two years that establishes a schedule for the annual review and revision, in 

accordance with section 304(b), of the effluent guidelines that EPA has promulgated under that 

section. EPA’s Preliminary 2010 Plan announces the schedule for the section 304(b) reviews. 

The schedule is as follows: EPA will coordinate its annual review of existing effluent guidelines 

under section 304(b) with its publication of the preliminary and final Plans under CWA section 

304(m). In other words, in odd numbered years, EPA intends to complete its annual review upon 

publication of the preliminary Plan that EPA must publish for public review and comment under 

CWA section 304(m)(2). In even numbered years, EPA intends to complete its annual review 

upon the publication of the final Plan. EPA’s 2009 annual review is the review cycle ending 

upon the publication of this Preliminary 2010 Plan. 

 EPA is coordinating its annual reviews under section 304(b) with publication of Plans 

under section 304(m) for several reasons. First, the annual review is inextricably linked to the 

planning effort, because the results of each annual review can inform the content of the 

preliminary and final Plans (e.g., by identifying candidates for ELG revision for which EPA can 

schedule rulemaking in the Plan, or by calling to EPA’s attention point source categories for 

which EPA has not promulgated effluent guidelines). Second, even though not required to do so 

under either section 304(b) or section 304(m), EPA believes that the public interest is served by 

periodically presenting to the public a description of each annual review (including the review 

process employed) and the results of the review. Doing so at the same time EPA publishes 

preliminary and final Plans makes both processes more transparent. Third, by requiring EPA to 

review all existing effluent guidelines each year, Congress appears to have intended that each 

successive review would build upon the results of earlier reviews. Therefore, by describing the 

2009 annual review along with the preliminary 2010 Plan, EPA hopes to gather and receive data 

and information that will inform its reviews for 2010 and the final 2010 Plan. 

1.6 Background References

1. U.S. EPA. 1996. U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual. Washington, DC. 

(December). EPA-833-B-96-003. Available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/

writermanual.cfm?program_id=45. 
Section 2 – Public Comments 

2-1 

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN FOR 2008

 EPA published its Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (2008 Final Plan) on 

September 15, 2008 (73 FRN 53218) and requested comments on various aspects of its analyses, 

data, and information to inform its 2009 annual review and detailed studies. The Agency 

received two comments on the 2008 Final Plan. Table 2-1 lists the commenters as well as a 

synopsis of the comments. 

Table 2-1. Comments on the Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans 

EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 

No. Commenter Name 

EPA 

Docket No. Comment Summary 

1 Deborah Goldberg 

(Earthjustice) 

0045 General comments in favor of creating ELGs for wastewater from oil 

and gas drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and extraction for all oil and 

gas exploration, rather than focusing on coalbed methane extraction. 

Recommends zero discharge of all related wastewater. 

2 Lisa Widawsky 

(Environmental 

Integrity Project) 

0046 General comments in favor of creating ELGs for toxic metals from 

coal combustion wastes at steam electric power plants. Recommends 

zero discharge from scrubber and ash transport systems as BAT 

because it has been achieved by sources in the industry. 

3 Nancy Stewart and 

Margie Parsley 

(League of Women 

Voters of Tennessee) 

0047 General comments in favor of revising the Steam Electric Power 

Generating ELGs and containment guidelines for coal-ash 

impoundments. Recommends including inspection and monitoring 

for structural integrity, capping to prevent overflows, composite 

liners to prevent seepage, monitoring for heavy metals and other 

pollutants in nearby surface waters, and phase-out of wet ash storage 

systems. 

4 Abigail Dillen 

(Earthjustice) 

0048 General comments in favor of revising the Steam Electric Power 

Generating ELGs. Recommend eliminating all pollutant discharges 

from scrubber and ash handling systems and all discharge of leachate 

from land-based coal combustion waste disposal. 
Section 3 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process 

3-1 

3. THE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS

 This section provides a general overview of the process EPA used in 2009 to identify 

industrial categories for potential development of new or revised effluent limitations guidelines 

and pretreatment standards (ELGs). This process consisted of: (1) annual review of existing 

ELGs to identify candidates for revision; (2) identification of new categories of direct 

dischargers for possible development of effluent guidelines; and (3) identification of new 

categories of indirect dischargers for possible development of pretreatment standards. Each of 

these components is illustrated in Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-3 and discussed below. 

3.1 Goals of the ELG Planning Process

 In the effluent guideline planning process, EPA is guided by the following goals: 

• Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 

Nation's waters; and 

• Provide transparent decision-making and involve stakeholders early and often 

during the planning process. 

3.2 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards

 This section describes the four factors used (Section 3.2.1) and how they are used 

(Section 3.2.2) in the annual review of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. 

3.2.1 Factors Considered in Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment 

Standards 

 EPA uses four major factors in prioritizing existing effluent guidelines or pretreatment 

standards for possible revision. 

 The first factor EPA considers is the amount and type of pollutants in an industrial 

category’s discharge, and the relative hazard posed by that discharge. Use of this factor enables 

the Agency to set priorities for rulemaking to achieve the greatest environmental and health 

benefits. EPA estimates the potential hazard of pollutant discharges in terms of toxic-weighted 

pound equivalents (TWPE), discussed in detail in Section 4.1.3. To assess the effectiveness of 

pollution control, EPA examines the removal of pollutants, in terms of pounds and TWPE. 

 The second factor EPA considers is the performance and cost of applicable and 

demonstrated wastewater treatment technologies, process changes, or pollution prevention 

alternatives that could effectively reduce the pollutants in the industrial category’s wastewater 

and, consequently, reduce the hazard to human health or the environment associated with these 

pollutant discharges. 
Section 3 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process 

Begin annual 

review of existing 

ELGs

Identify 

applicable 

SIC and 

NAICS codes 

for each point 

source 

category

Stakeholder 

recommendations 

and comments

Preliminary Results of Screening-Level 

Review = Combined TRIReleases and 

DMRLoads database rankings (Factor 1)

DMR & TRI 

database tools

When ranked by 

TWPE, does category 

contribute to top 95% 

of cumulative TWPE 

of all categories?

Are there identified 

implementation and 

efficiency issues 

(Factor 4)?

Are only a very few 

facilities responsible 

for overall category 

TWPE?

 Have ELGs been 

developed or 

revised within the 

past 7 years?

Not a priority 

category; no 

further review 

at this time

Yes

No

Not a priority 

category; no 

further review 

at this time*

Yes

No

Not a priority 

category, but 

consider 

permitting 

support for 

individual 

facilities

Yes

No

Do further review 

(see Figure 3-2)

Yes

No

Possible outcome

Further review

BPJ support

Identify for possible 

revision of existing ELGs

No action

Yes Stakeholder 

recommendations 

and comments

Not a priority category; 

no further review at this 

time

No

*If EPA is aware of new segment growth within such a category or new concerns are identified, EPA may do further review.

Are ELG revisions 

currently 

underway?

Figure 3-1. Flow Chart of Annual Review of Existing ELGs 

3-2 
Section 3 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process 

Further review

Detailed studies

Preliminary category 

review

Continue collecting data 

(all four factors)

Are discharges 

adequately controlled 

by existing 

ELGs?*

Are ELGs 

potentially the 

appropriate 

tool?

Identify other tools (e.g., 

permit-based support or 

guidance)

No further review at this 

time

Yes

No

No

*Continue further review if not enough data .

Category identified for further 

review (see Figure 3-1)

Identify for possible 

revision of ELGs

Yes

Stakeholder input

Not enough 

information

Figure 3-2. Flow Chart of Further Review of Existing ELGs 

3-3 
Section 3 – The Effluent Gu

Include in annual review 

existing category

(see Figure 3-1)

Identify SIC codes 

with discharges 

not subject to 

existing ELGs

Is the SIC code 

appropriately 

considered a potential 

new subcategory of an 

existing ELG ?

Begin industry 

identification

Do 

discharges interfere 

with or otherwise pass 

through POTW 

operations?*

Is the possible new 

category all or nearly all 

indirect dischargers ?

Are 

discharges of toxic 

or nonconventional 

pollutants 

trivial?*

Are ELGs potentially 

the appropriate tool ?

No identification or 

further review necessary

Identify other tools 

(e.g., permit-based 

support or guidance )

Identify for possib

new effluent guidel

or standards

Stakeholder recommendations 

and comments

DMR & TRI 

database tools

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

*Continue further review if not enough data.

3-4 

Figure 3-3. Flow Chart of Identification of Possible New ELGs 
Section 3 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process 

3-5 

 The third factor EPA considers is the affordability or economic achievability of the 

wastewater treatment technology, process change, or pollution prevention measures identified 

using the second factor. If the financial condition of the industry indicates that it would be 

difficult to implement new requirements, EPA might conclude that it would be more costeffective to develop less expensive approaches to reducing pollutant loadings that would better 

satisfy applicable statutory requirements. 

 The fourth factor EPA considers is an opportunity to eliminate inefficiencies or 

impediments to pollution prevention or technological innovation, or opportunities to promote 

innovative approaches such as water quality trading, including within-plant trading. This factor 

might also prompt EPA, during an annual review, to decide against identifying an existing set of 

effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for revision where the pollutant source is already 

efficiently and effectively controlled by other regulatory or nonregulatory programs. 

3.2.2 Overview: Review of Existing Point Source Categories 

 EPA has established ELGs to regulate wastewater discharges from 56 point source 

categories. EPA must annually review the ELGs for all of these categories. EPA first conducts a 

screening-level review of all categories subject to existing ELGs. EPA then conducts further 

review of categories prioritized as a result of the screening-level review. This further review 

consists of either an in-depth “detailed study” or a somewhat less detailed “preliminary category 

review.” Based on this further review, EPA identifies existing categories for potential ELGs 

revision. 

3.2.2.1 Screening-Level Review 

 The screening-level review is the first step in EPA’s annual review. Section 4.0 provides 

details on the database methodology used in the screening-level review. EPA uses this step to 

prioritize categories for further review. In conducting the screening-level review, EPA considers 

the amount and toxicity of the pollutants in a category’s discharge and the extent to which these 

pollutants may pose a hazard to human health or the environment (Factor 1). 

 EPA conducts its screening-level review with data from the Toxics Release Inventory 

(TRI) and discharge monitoring reports (DMR) contained in the Permit Compliance System 

(PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System - National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES). EPA combines the DMR data from PCS and ICIS-NPDES 

into DMRLoads database. The Quality Assurance Project Plan for the 2009 Annual ScreeningLevel Analysis of TRI and PCS Industrial Category Discharge Data describes in detail the 

quality criteria EPA used to evaluate the TRI and DMR data (ERG, 2009). TRI and DMR data 

do not identify the effluent guideline(s) applicable to a particular facility. However, TRI includes 

information on a facility’s North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, while 

DMR data includes information on a facility’s Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. 

Therefore, the first step in EPA’s screening-level review is to relate each SIC and NAICS code 

to an industrial category.1

 The second step is to use the information reported in TRI and DMR, 

for a specified year, to calculate the annual pollutant discharges in pounds, including toxic, 

 

1

 For more information on how EPA related each SIC and NAICS code to an industrial category, see Section 5.0 of 

the 2009 Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of 

Potential New Point Source Categories (U.S. EPA, 2009). 
Section 3 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process 

3-6 

nonconventional, and conventional pollutants. For indirect dischargers, EPA adjusts the facility 

discharges to account for removals at the POTW. The third step is to apply toxic weighting 

factors (TWFs)2

 to the annual pollutant discharges to calculate the total discharge of toxic and 

nonconventional pollutants (reported in units of toxic-weighted pound equivalent or TWPE). 

EPA then sums the TWPE for each facility in a category to calculate a total TWPE per category 

for that year. EPA calculates two TWPE estimates for each category: one based on data in TRI 

and one based on DMR data. EPA combined the estimated discharges of toxic and 

nonconventional pollutants calculated from TRI and DMR data to estimate a single TWPE value 

for each industrial category. EPA took this approach because it found that combining the TWPE 

estimates from TRI and DMR data into a single TWPE number offered a clearer perspective of 

the industries with the most toxic pollution.3

 EPA then ranks point source categories according to their total TWPE discharges. In 

identifying categories for further review, EPA prioritizes categories accounting for 95 percent of 

the cumulative TWPE from the combined databases (see Section 5.3). Illustrated in Figure 3-1, 

EPA also excludes from further review categories for which an effluent guidelines rulemaking is 

currently underway or for which effluent guidelines have been recently promulgated or revised 

(within the past seven years). EPA chose seven years because this is the time it customarily takes 

for the effects of effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards to be fully reflected in pollutant 

loading data and TRI reports. EPA also considers the number of facilities responsible for the 

majority of the estimated toxic-weighted pollutant discharges associated with an industrial 

activity. Where only a few facilities in a category account for the vast majority of toxic-weighted 

pollutant discharges, EPA typically does not prioritize the category for additional review. In this 

case, EPA believes that revising individual permits may be more effective in addressing the 

toxic-weighted pollutant discharges than a national effluent guidelines rulemaking because 

requirements can be better tailored to these few facilities, and because individual permitting 

actions may take considerably less time than a national rulemaking. 

3.2.2.2 Further Review 

 Following its screening-level review of all point source categories, EPA prioritizes 

certain categories for further review. The purpose of the further review is to determine whether it 

would be appropriate for EPA to identify in the final plan a point source category for potential 

effluent guidelines revision. EPA typically conducts two types of further review: detailed studies 

and preliminary reviews. EPA selects categories for further review based on the screening-level 

review and/or stakeholder input. 

 EPA’s detailed studies generally examine the following: (1) wastewater characteristics 

and pollutant sources; (2) the pollutants driving the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges; (3) 

availability of pollution prevention and treatment; (4) the geographic distribution of facilities in 

 

2

 For more information on toxic weighting factors, see Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA 

304(m) Planning Process (U.S. EPA, 2006). 3

 Different pollutants may dominate the TRI and DMR TWPE estimates for an industrial category due to the 

differences in pollutant reporting requirements between the TRI and DMR databases. The single TWPE number for 

each category highlights those industries with the most toxic discharge data in both TRI and DMR. Although this 

approach could have theoretically led to double-counting, EPA's review of the data indicates that because the three 

databases focus on different pollutants, double-counting was minimal and did not affect the ranking of the top 

ranked industrial categories. 
Section 3 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process 

3-7 

the industry; (5) any pollutant discharge trends within the industry; and (6) any relevant 

economic factors. First, EPA attempts to verify the screening-level results and to fill in data gaps 

(Factor 1). Next, EPA considers costs and performance of applicable and demonstrated 

technologies, process changes, or pollution prevention alternatives that can effectively reduce the 

pollutants remaining in the point source category’s wastewater (Factor 2). Last, EPA considers 

the affordability or economic achievability of the technology, process change, or pollution 

prevention measures identified using the second factor (Factor 3). 

 Types of data sources that EPA may consult in conducting its detailed studies include, 

but are not limited to: (1) U.S. Economic Census; (2) TRI and DMR data; (3) trade associations 

and reporting facilities to verify reported releases and facility categorization; (4) regulatory 

authorities (states and EPA regions) to understand how category facilities are permitted; (5) 

NPDES permits and their supporting fact sheets; (6) EPA effluent guidelines technical 

development documents; (7) relevant EPA preliminary data summaries or study reports; and (8) 

technical literature on pollutant sources and control technologies. 

 Preliminary reviews are similar to detailed studies and have the same purpose. During 

preliminary reviews, EPA generally examines the same factors and data sources listed above for 

detailed studies. However, in a preliminary review, EPA’s examination of a point source 

category and available pollution prevention and treatment options is less rigorous than in its 

detailed studies. While EPA collects and analyzes hazard and technology performance and cost 

information on categories undergoing preliminary review, it assigns a higher priority to 

investigating categories undergoing detailed studies. 

3.3 Identification of New Categories for Possible Effluent Guidelines Development

 Concurrent with its review of existing point source categories, EPA also reviews 

industries not currently subject to effluent guidelines to identify potential new point source 

categories. To identify possible new categories, EPA conducts a “crosswalk” analysis based on 

data in DMR and TRI. Facilities with data in DMR and TRI are identified by a four-digit SIC 

code or six-digit NAICS code (Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 provide more details on SIC and NAICS 

codes, respectively). EPA links each four-digit SIC code and six-digit NAICS code to an 

appropriate industrial category (i.e., “the crosswalk”).4

 This crosswalk identifies SIC codes and 

NAICS codes that EPA associated with industries subject to an existing guideline. The crosswalk 

also identifies SIC and NAICS codes not associated with an existing guideline. In addition to the 

crosswalk analysis, EPA relies on stakeholder comments to identify potential new point sources 

categories. Section 4.1.5 and 4.1.6 discuss the utility and limitations of TRI and DMR, 

respectively, in detail. 

 For each industry identified through the crosswalk analysis or stakeholder comments, 

EPA evaluates whether it constitutes a potential new category subject to identification in the plan 

or whether it is properly considered a potential new subcategory of an existing point source 

category. To make this determination, EPA generally looks at whether the industry produces a 

similar product or performs a similar service as an existing category. If so, EPA generally 

considers the industry to be a potential new subcategory of that category. If, however, the 

 

4

 For additional information on “the crosswalk,” see Section 4 of the 2009 Technical Support Document for the 

Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories (U.S. 

EPA, 2009). 
Section 3 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process 

3-8 

industry is significantly different from existing categories in terms of products or services 

provided, EPA considers the industry as a potential new stand-alone category subject to 

identification in the plan. 

3.3.1 Direct Discharges 

 Because the CWA has different requirements for potential new categories of direct and 

indirect dischargers, EPA examines potential new categories to determine if the category 

comprises mostly indirect dischargers or if it comprises both direct and indirect dischargers. If a 

category consists largely of indirect dischargers, EPA evaluates the pass-through and 

interference potential of the category discharges. If a category consists largely of direct 

dischargers, EPA evaluates the type of pollutants discharged by facilities in the category. 

3.3.2 Indirect Discharges 

 For potential new categories with primarily indirect dischargers, EPA evaluates the 

potential for the wastewater discharges to “interfere with, pass through, or [be] otherwise 

incompatible with” the operation of POTWs. See 33 U.S.C. § 1371(b)(1). Using available data, 

EPA reviews the types of pollutants in an industry’s wastewater. Then, EPA reviews the 

likelihood of those pollutants to pass through a POTW. For most categories, EPA evaluated the 

“pass through potential” as measured by: (1) the total annual TWPE discharged by the industrial 

sector; and (2) the average TWPE discharge among facilities that discharge to POTWs. EPA also 

assesses the interference potential of the discharge. Finally, EPA considers whether the pollutant 

discharges are already adequately controlled by general pretreatment standards and/or local 

pretreatment limits. 

3.4 Stakeholder Involvement and Schedule

 EPA’s goal is to involve stakeholders early and often during its annual reviews of 

existing effluent guidelines and the development of the biennial plans. This will likely maximize 

collection of data to inform EPA’s analyses and provide additional transparency and 

understanding of EPA’s effluent guidelines priorities identified in the biennial plans. 

 EPA’s annual reviews build on reviews from previous years, and reflect a lengthy 

outreach effort to involve stakeholders in the review process. In performing its annual reviews, 

EPA considers all public comments, information, and data submitted to EPA as part of its 

outreach activities. EPA solicits public comment at the beginning of each annual review of 

effluent guidelines and on the preliminary biennial plan. In each Federal Register Notice, EPA 

requests stakeholder comments on specific industries and discharges as well as any general 

comments. 

 EPA completes an annual review of industrial discharges each year, upon publication of 

the Preliminary and Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans. In odd-numbered years, EPA 

publishes its preliminary plan that EPA must publish for public review and comment under 

CWA section 304(m)(2). In even-numbered years, EPA publishes its final plan that incorporates 

the comments received on the preliminary plan. 
Section 3 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process 

3-9 

 EPA intends that these contemporaneous reviews will provide meaningful insight into 

EPA’s effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards program decision-making. Additionally, by 

providing a single notice for these and future reviews, EPA hopes to provide a consolidated 

source of information for the Agency’s current and future effluent guidelines and pretreatment 

standards program reviews. 

3.5 The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process References

1. ERG. 2009. Quality Assurance Project Plan for 2009 Annual Screening-Level 

Analysis of TRI and PCS Industrial Category Discharge Data. (TBD). EPA-HQOW-2008-0517. DCN 06558. 

2. U.S. EPA. 2006. Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA 304(m) 

Planning Process. Washington, DC. (June). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1634. 

3. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing 

Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories. 

EPA-821-R-09-007. Washington, DC. (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 

06557. 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-1 

4. METHODOLOGY, DATA SOURCES, AND LIMITATIONS

 As discussed in Section 1.0, the CWA requires EPA to conduct an annual review of 

existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs). It also requires EPA to identify 

industrial categories without applicable ELGs. EPA’s methodology for this annual review and 

new point source category identification involves several components, as discussed in 

Section 3.0. 

 First, EPA performs a screening-level review of all point source categories subject to 

existing ELGs to identify categories discharging high levels of toxic and nonconventional 

pollutants relative to other categories. Using the results of the screening-level review, EPA 

continues its annual review of priority categories to identify candidate ELGs for revision, as 

required by CWA sections 304(b), 301(d), 304(g), and 307(b). Part II of this report (Sections 5.0 

to 12.0) discusses the findings of EPA’s 2009 annual review. Second, EPA reviews indirect 

discharging industries not currently subject to pretreatment standards to identify potential 

candidates for pretreatment standards development, as required by CWA section 307(b). Finally, 

EPA reviews direct discharging industries not currently subject to ELGs to identify potential 

candidates for ELG development, as required by section 304(m)(1)(B) of the CWA. EPA did not 

identify for rulemaking any indirect or direct discharging industries not currently subject to 

pretreatment standards or ELGs in the 2009 annual review. 

 In performing the screening-level reviews of existing ELGs and identifying industrial 

categories without ELGs, EPA relies on DMR data and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). This 

section discusses these databases, related data sources, and their limitations. DMR data is 

contained in EPA’s Permit Compliance System (PCS) and the Integrated Compliance 

Information System for the NPDES (ICIS-NPDES). 

 EPA has developed two screening-level tools, the TRIReleases and DMRLoads databases, 

to facilitate analysis of TRI and PCS/ICIS-NPDES data. EPA has explained the creation of these 

screening-level analysis tools in the Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of 

Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories (2009 

Screening-Level Analysis (SLA) Report) (U.S. EPA, 2009). The 2009 SLA Report provides the 

detailed methodology used to process thousands of data records and generate national estimates 

of industrial effluent discharges. This section does not revisit the details of creating the database 

tools. Instead, it presents the preliminary category rankings from the TRIReleases2007_v2 and 

DMRLoads2007_v3. 

4.1 Data Sources and Limitations

 This subsection provides general information on the use of SIC and NAICS codes, toxic 

weighting factors (TWFs), TRI data, and DMR data. The following reports supplement this 

section and discuss EPA’s methodology for developing and using these tools: 

• Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent 

Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories, (U.S. 

EPA, 2009). Documents the methodology and development of the 

DMRLoads2007 and TRIReleases2007 databases, including (but not limited to) 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-2 

matching NAICS and SIC codes to point source categories and using TWFs to 

estimate toxic-weighted pound equivalents (TWPE).

• Draft Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of the CWA 304(m) 

Planning Process (Draft TWF Development Document), dated July 2005 (U.S. 

EPA, 2005). Explains how EPA developed the December 2004 TWFs. 

• Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of the CWA 304(m) Planning 

Process (Final TWF Development Document) (U.S. EPA, 2006a). Explains how 

EPA developed the April 2006 TWFs. 

4.1.1 SIC Codes 

 The SIC code system was developed to help with the collection, aggregation, 

presentation, and analysis of data from the U.S. economy (OMB, 1987). The different parts of 

the SIC code signify the following: 

• The first two digits represent the major industry group; 

• The third digit represents the industry group; and 

• The fourth digit represents the industry. 

 For example, major SIC code 26: Paper and Allied Products, includes all pulp, paper, and 

paperboard manufacturing operations. Within SIC code 26, the three-digit SIC codes are used to 

distinguish the type of facility: 263 for paperboard mills, 265 for paperboard containers and 

boxes, etc. Within SIC code 265, the four-digit SIC codes are used to separate facilities by 

product type: 2652 for setup paperboard boxes, 2653 for corrugated and solid fiber boxes, etc. 

 The SIC system is used by many government agencies, including EPA, to promote data 

comparability. In the SIC system, each establishment is classified according to its primary 

economic activity, which is determined by its principal product or group of products. An 

establishment may have activities in more than one SIC code. Some data collection organizations 

track only the primary SIC code for each establishment. PCS and ICIS-NPDES include one fourdigit SIC code, reflecting the principal activity causing the discharge at each facility. 

 Regulations for an individual point source category may apply to one SIC code, multiple 

SIC codes, or a portion of the facilities in an SIC code. Therefore, to use databases that identify 

facilities by SIC code, EPA linked each four-digit SIC code to an appropriate point source 

category, as summarized in the “SIC/Point Source Category Crosswalk” table (Table A-1 in 

Appendix A). 

 There are some SIC codes for which EPA has not established national ELGs. Table A-2 

in Appendix A lists the SIC codes for which facility discharge data are available in PCS and 

ICIS-NPDES, but for which EPA could not identify an applicable point source category. For a 

more detailed discussion, see Section 6 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009). 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-3 

4.1.2 NAICS Codes 

 In 1997, the U.S. Census Bureau introduced the NAICS code system, to better represent 

the economic structure of countries participating in the North American Free Trade Agreement 

and to respond to criticism about the SIC code system. Table 4-1 explains the nomenclature and 

format of NAICS and SIC codes. 

Table 4-1. Nomenclature and Format of NAICS and SIC Codes 

NAICS SIC 

2-digit Sector Division Letter 

3-digit Subsector Major Group 2-digit 

4-digit Industry Group Industry Group 3-digit 

5-digit NAICS Industry Industry 4-digit 

6-digit National N/A N/A 

 For example, major SIC code 26: Paper and Allied Paper Products, includes all pulp, 

paper, and paperboard manufacturing operations. Within SIC code 26, the three-digit SIC codes 

are used to distinguish the type of facility: 263 for paperboard mills, 265 for paperboard 

containers and boxes, etc. Within SIC code 265, the four-digit SIC codes are used to separate 

facilities by product type: 2652 for setup paperboard boxes, 2653 for corrugated and solid fiber 

boxes, etc. 

 In the NAICS code system the classification is more stratified: 

• 32: Manufacturing; 

— 322: Paper Manufacturing; 

• 3222: Converted Paper Product Manufacturing; 

o 322212: Folding Paperboard Box Manufacturing. 

 The NAICS system is the new system for industrial classification purposes at many 

government agencies, including EPA. As in the SIC system, each establishment is classified 

according to its primary economic activity, which is determined by its principal product or group 

of products. An establishment may have activities in more than one NAICS code. 

 Regulations for an individual point source category may apply to one NAICS code, 

multiple NAICS codes, or a portion of the facilities in an NAICS code. Therefore, to use 

databases that identify facilities by NAICS code (e.g., TRI), EPA linked each six-digit NAICS 

code to an appropriate point source category, as summarized in the “NAICS/Point Source 

Category Crosswalk” table (Table A-3 in Appendix A). This table was based on the SIC/Point 

Source Category Crosswalk table (Table A-1 in Appendix A) and the NAICS/SIC Code 

Crosswalk that EPA developed for past comparisons. 

 There are some NAICS codes for which EPA has not established national ELGs. Table 

A-4 in Appendix A lists the NAICS codes for which facility discharge data are available in TRI, 

but for which EPA could not identify an applicable point source category. For a more detailed 

discussion, see Section 6 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009). 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-4 

4.1.3 Toxic Weighting Factors 

In developing ELGs, EPA developed a wide variety of tools and methodologies to 

evaluate effluent discharges. Within EPA’s Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division 

(EAD) maintains a Toxics Database compiled from over 100 references for more than 1,900 

pollutants. The Toxics Database includes aquatic life and human health toxicity data, as well as 

physical and chemical property data. A unique Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number 

identifies the pollutants in this database. EPA calculates TWFs from these data to account for 

differences in toxicity across pollutants and to provide the means to compare mass loadings of 

different pollutants. In its analyses, EPA multiplies a mass loading of a pollutant in pounds per 

year (lb/yr) by a pollutant-specific weighting factor to derive a “toxic-equivalent” loading (lbequivalent/yr). Throughout this document, the toxic-equivalent is also referred to as toxicweighted pound equivalents, or TWPE. The Draft and Final TWF Development Documents 

discuss the use and development of TWFs in detail (U.S. EPA, 2005; U.S. EPA, 2006a). 

 EPA derives TWFs from chronic aquatic life criteria (or toxic effect levels) and human 

health criteria (or toxic effect levels) established for the consumption of fish. In the TWF method 

for assessing water-based effects, these aquatic life and human health toxicity levels are 

compared to a benchmark value that represents the toxicity level of a specified pollutant. EPA 

selected copper, a metal commonly detected and removed from industrial effluent, as the 

benchmark pollutant. The Final TWF Development Document contains details on how EPA 

developed its TWFs (U.S. EPA, 2006a). Table A-5 in Appendix A lists the TWFs for those 

chemicals in the DMRLoads2007 and TRIReleases2007 databases for which EPA has developed 

TWFs. 

4.1.3.1 New Toxic Weighting Factors Developed During the 2009 Annual Review 

 During the 2009 annual review, EPA revised the TWF for boron to reflect updated 

information. EPA did not revise any other TWFs or develop TWFs for any chemicals that had 

not previously had TWFs as part of the 2009 annual review (Abt, 2008). Table 4-2 lists the 

revised boron TWF. Boron is reported in both DMRLoads2007 and TRIReleases2007. 

Table 4-2. Revised Boron TWF 

Pollutant CAS Number Old TWF New TWF 

Boron 7440428 0.177 0.0083 

Source: Memorandum to Josh Hall, U.S. EPA from Meghan Lynch, Sue Greco, and Emily Simmons, Abt 

Associates Inc. Subject: Revised Draft – Updating the Boron TWF (Abt, 2008). 

4.1.3.2 Calculation of TWPE 

 EPA weighted the annual pollutant discharges calculated from the TRIReleases (see 

Section 4.1.5) and DMRLoads (see Sections 4.1.6) databases using EAD’s TWFs to calculate 

TWPE for each reported discharge. EPA summed the estimated TWPE discharged by each 

facility in a point source category to understand the potential hazard of the discharges from each 

category. The following subsections discuss the calculation of TWPE. 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-5 

4.1.4 Data from TRI 

 TRI is the common name for Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act. Each year, facilities that meet certain thresholds must report their releases 

and other waste management activities for listed toxic chemicals. Facilities must report the 

quantities of toxic chemicals recycled, collected and combusted for energy recovery, treated for 

destruction, or disposed. A separate report must be filed for each chemical that exceeds the 

reporting threshold. The TRI list of chemicals for reporting year 2007 includes more than 600 

chemicals and chemical categories. For the 2009 screening-level review, EPA used data for 

reporting years 2007, because they were the most recent available at the time the review began. 

 A facility must meet the following three criteria to be required to submit a TRI report for 

a given reporting year: 

1. NAICS Code Determination. The primary NAICS code determines if TRI 

reporting is required. The primary NAICS code is associated with the facility’s 

revenues, and may not relate to their pollutant discharges (73 FR 324666). Most 

facilities in NAICS codes 11, 21, 22, 31 through 33, 42, 48 through 49, 51, 54, 56 

and 81, and federal facilities are potentially subject to TRI reporting. EPA 

generally relies on facility claims regarding the NAICS code identification. 

2. Number of Employees. Facilities must have 10 or more full-time employees or 

their equivalent. EPA defines a “full-time equivalent” as a person that works 

2,000 hours in the reporting year (there are several exceptions and special 

circumstances that are well-defined in the TRI reporting instructions). 

3. Activity Thresholds. If the facility is in a covered NAICS code and has 10 or more 

full-time employee equivalents, it must conduct an activity threshold analysis for 

every chemical and chemical category on the current TRI list. The facility must 

determine whether it manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses each chemical at 

or above the appropriate activity threshold. Reporting thresholds are not based on 

the amount of release. All TRI thresholds are based on mass, not concentration. 

Different thresholds apply for persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals 

than for non-PBT chemicals. Generally, threshold quantities are 25,000 pounds 

for manufacturing and processing activities and 10,000 pounds for other use 

activities. All thresholds are determined per chemical over the calendar year. For 

example, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are considered PBT chemicals. The 

TRI reporting guidance requires any facility that manufactures, processes, or 

otherwise uses 0.1 grams of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to report it to TRI 

(U.S. EPA, 2000). 

 In TRI, facilities report annual loads released to the environment of each toxic chemical 

or chemical category that meets reporting requirements. They must report onsite releases or 

disposal to air, receiving streams, land, underground wells, and several other categories. They 

must also report the amount of toxic chemicals in wastes transferred to offsite locations, (e.g., 

POTWs, commercial waste disposal facilities). 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-6 

 For its screening-level reviews, EPA focused on the amount of chemicals facilities 

reported either discharging directly to a receiving stream or transferring to a POTW. For 

facilities discharging directly to a stream, EPA took the annual loads directly from the reported 

TRI data for calendar year 2007. For facilities transferring to POTWs, EPA first adjusted the TRI 

pollutant loads reported to be transferred to POTWs to account for pollutant removal that occurs 

at the POTWs prior to discharge to the receiving stream. Table A-6 in Appendix A lists the 

POTW removals used for all TRI chemicals reported as transferred to POTWs. 

 Facilities reporting to TRI are not required to sample and analyze waste streams to 

determine the quantities of toxic chemicals released. They may estimate releases based on mass 

balance calculations, published emission factors, site-specific emission factors, or other 

approaches. Facilities are required to indicate, by a reporting code, the basis of their release 

estimate. TRI’s reporting guidance is that, for most chemicals reasonably expected to be present 

but measured below the detection limit, facilities should use half the detection limit to estimate 

the mass released. However, for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, non-detects should be 

treated as zero. 

 TRI allows facilities to report releases as specific numbers or as ranges, if appropriate. 

Specific estimates are encouraged if data are available to ensure the accuracy; however, EPA 

allows facilities to report releases in the following ranges: 1 to 10 pounds, 11 to 499 pounds, and 

500 to 999 pounds. For its screening-level reviews, EPA used the midpoint of each reported 

range to represent a facility’s releases, as applicable. 

4.1.4.1 Utility of TRI Data 

 The data collected in TRI are particularly useful for ELG planning for the following 

reasons: 

• TRI is national in scope, including data from all 50 states and U.S. territories; 

• TRI includes releases to POTWs, not just direct discharges to surface water; 

• TRI includes discharge data from manufacturing NAICS codes and some other 

industrial categories; and 

• TRI includes releases of many toxic chemicals, not just those in facility discharge 

permits. 

4.1.4.2 Limitations of TRI 

 For purposes of ELG planning, limitations of the data collected in TRI include the 

following: 

• Small establishments (less than 10 employees) are not required to report, nor are 

facilities that do not meet the reporting thresholds. Thus, facilities reporting to 

TRI may be a subset of an industry. 

• Release reports are, in part, based on estimates, not measurements, and, due to 

TRI guidance, may overstate releases, especially at facilities with large 

wastewater flows. 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-7 

• Certain chemicals (polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs), dioxin and dioxinlike compounds, metal compounds) are reported as a class, not as individual 

compounds. Because the individual compounds in most classes have widely 

varying toxic effects, the potential toxicity of chemical releases can be 

inaccurately estimated. 

• Facilities are identified by NAICS code, not point source category. For some 

NAICS codes, it may be difficult or impossible to identify the point source 

category that is the source of the toxic wastewater releases. 

 Despite these limitations, EPA determined that the data summarized in TRIReleases2007 

were usable for the 2009 screening-level review and prioritization of the toxic-weighted pollutant 

loadings discharged by industrial categories. 

4.1.5 Data from PCS and ICIS-NPDES 

 EPA has used data reported to PCS as a part of its screening level review of existing 

effluent guidelines since the 2003 annual review (68 FRN 75515). Since 2002, EPA has been 

working to modernize PCS by creating a new data system called the Integrated Compliance 

Information System – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES). In 2006, 

some states began transitioning their DMR reporting from PCS to ICIS-NPDES. Currently 45 of 

the 71 states and territories have migrated to ICIS-NPDES. Therefore, for the 2009 annual 

review, EPA’s view of nationwide discharges was split between two sets of data. EPA created 

the database DMRLoads2007 to combine the two systems (PCS and ICIS-NPDES) and generate 

industrial category rankings for all U.S. states and territories. Both PCS and ICIS-NPDES 

automate entering, updating, and retrieving NPDES data and track permit issuance, permit limits 

and monitoring data, and other data pertaining to facilities regulated by the NPDES program 

under the CWA. 

 More than 65,000 industrial facilities and wastewater treatment plants have permits for 

wastewater discharges to waters of the United States. To provide an initial framework for setting 

permitting priorities, EPA developed a major/minor classification system for industrial and 

municipal wastewater discharges. Major discharges usually have the capability to impact 

receiving waters if not controlled and, therefore, have received more regulatory attention than 

minor discharges. There are approximately 7,000 facilities (including sewerage systems) with 

major discharges for which PCS and ICIS-NPDES have extensive records. Permitting authorities 

classify discharges as major based on an assessment of six characteristics: 

1. Toxic pollutant potential; 

2. Discharge flow: stream flow ratio; 

3. Conventional pollutant loading; 

4. Public health impact; 

5. Water quality factors; and 

6. Proximity to coastal waters. 

 Facilities with major discharges must report compliance with NPDES permit limits via 

monthly DMRs submitted to the permitting authority. The permitting authority enters the 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-8 

reported DMR data into PCS or ICIS-NPDES, including pollutant concentration and quantity 

values and identification of any types of permit violations. 

 Minor discharges may, or may not, adversely impact receiving water if not controlled. 

Therefore, EPA does not require DMRs for facilities with minor discharges. For this reason, the 

PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases includes data only for a limited set of minor dischargers if the 

states choose to include these data. 

 Parameters in PCS and ICIS-NPDES include water quality parameters (such as pH and 

temperature), specific chemicals, conventional parameters (such as BOD5 and total suspended 

solids [TSS]), and flow rates. Although other pollutants may be discharged, PCS and ICISNPDES contain only data for the parameters identified in the facility’s NPDES permit. Facilities 

typically report monthly average pounds per day discharged, but also report daily maxima and 

average pollutant concentrations. 

 For the 2009 annual review, EPA used data for reporting year 2007, to correspond to the 

data obtained from TRI. For the 2009 annual review, EPA corrected certain aspects of the 2007 

data (see Section 4.5). EPA calculated annual loads for the PCS and ICIS-NPDES data using the 

PCSLoadCalculator and the ICIS-NPDES Pollutant Loading Tool, respectively. EPA combined 

the annual loads from PCS and ICIS-NPDES into the DMRLoads2007 database. Section 2 of the 

2009 SLA Report provides details on the methodology and development of DMRLoads2007

(U.S. EPA, 2009). 

4.1.5.1 Utility of PCS and ICIS-NPDES 

 The data collected in PCS and ICIS-NPDES are particularly useful for the ELG planning 

process for the following reasons: 

• PCS and ICIS-NPDES combined are national in scope, including data from all 50 

states and 19 U.S. territories/tribes. 

• Discharge reports included in PCS and ICIS-NPDES are based on effluent 

chemical analysis and metered flows. 

• PCS and ICIS-NPDES include facilities in all SIC codes. 

• PCS and ICIS-NPDES include data on conventional pollutants for most facilities 

and for the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus for many facilities. However, EPA 

did not use the nutrient data because of data quality concerns. 

4.1.5.2 Limitations of PCS and ICIS-NPDES 

 Limitations of the data collected from PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases include the 

following: 

• The databases contain data only for pollutants a facility is required by permit to 

monitor; the facility is not required to monitor or report all pollutants actually 

discharged. 

• The databases include very limited discharge monitoring data from minor 

dischargers. 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-9 

• The databases do not include data characterizing indirect discharges from 

industrial facilities to POTWs. 

• Many of the pollutant parameters included in the databases are reported as a 

group parameter and not as individual compounds (e.g., “Total Kjeldahl 

Nitrogen,” “oil and grease”). Because the individual compounds in the group 

parameter may have widely varying toxic effects, the potential toxicity of 

chemical releases can be inaccurately estimated. 

• In some cases, the databases identify the type of wastewater (e.g., process 

wastewater, stormwater, noncontact cooling water) being discharged; however, 

most do not and, therefore, total flow rates reported to PCS and ICIS-NPDES may 

include stormwater and noncontact cooling water, as well as process wastewater. 

• Pipe identification is not always clear. For some facilities, internal monitoring 

points are labeled as outfalls, and PCS and ICIS-NPDES may double-count a 

facility’s discharge. In other cases, an outfall may be labeled as an internal 

monitoring point, and PCS and ICIS-NPDES may not account for all of a 

facility’s discharge. 

• Facilities are identified by SIC code, not point source category. For some SIC 

codes, it may be difficult or impossible to identify the point source category that 

is the source of the reported wastewater discharges5. 

• PCS and ICIS-NPDES were designed as a permit compliance tracking system and 

do not contain production information. 

• PCS and ICIS-NPDES data may be entered into the database manually, which 

leads to data-entry errors. 

• In PCS and ICIS-NPDES, data may be reported as an average quantity, maximum 

quantity, average concentration, maximum concentration, and/or minimum 

concentration. For many facilities and/or pollutants, average quantity values are 

not provided. In these cases, EPA is limited to estimating facility loads based on 

the maximum quantity. Section 4.4.2 discusses the maximum quantity issue in 

detail. 

Despite these limitations, EPA determined that the data summarized in DMRLoads2007 

were usable for the 2009 screening-level reviews and prioritizations of the toxic-weighted 

pollutant loadings discharged by industrial facilities. The combined PCS and ICIS-NPDES 

databases remain the only data source quantifying the pounds of regulated pollutants discharged 

directly to surface waters of the United States. 

 

5

 ICIS-NPDES includes a data field for applicable ELGs; however, it is not required and typically not populated. 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-10 

4.2 Methodology Corrections Affecting Both Screening-Level Review Databases

 EPA did not make any methodological changes to the screening-level review databases, 

TRIReleases2007 and DMRLoads2007 as part of the 2009 annual review. 

4.3 Corrections to the DMRLoads2007 Database

 EPA developed the DMRLoads2007 database as part of the 2009 annual review using the 

methodology explained in the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009). 

 During previous screening-level analyses, EPA identified numerous facility-specific 

corrections for PCS data reported for calendar years 2000, 2002, and 2004. Several of these 

corrections similarly apply to the 2007 DMR data. In addition, EPA reviewed the quality of the 

2007 DMR data and discharges from facilities with discharges that have the greatest impact on 

total category loads and category rankings. Table B-2 in Appendix B of this report lists all 

corrections made to the 2007 DMR data in PCSLoadCalculator2007 and in DMRLoads2007. 

4.3.1 DMRLoads2007: Categorization of Discharges 

 This section describes database corrections to categorization of facilities and pollutant 

discharges in DMRLoads2007. Section 4 of the 2009 SLA Report describes the development of 

the SIC/Point Source Category Crosswalk, which EPA uses to link between facility SIC codes 

and categories with existing ELGs (U.S. EPA, 2009). Because most point source categories are 

not defined by SIC code, the relationship between SIC code and point source category is not a 

one-to-one correlation. A single SIC code may include facilities in more than one point source 

category, and associating an SIC code with only one category may be an over simplification. 

Also, many facilities have operations subject to more than one point source category. Further, 

facilities in some categories cannot be identified by SIC code (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment 

facilities). Section 4 of the 2009 SLA Report describes the database changes, summarized below 

(U.S. EPA, 2009): 

• Facility-Level Point Source Category Assignment. For some SIC codes that 

include facilities subject to guidelines from more than one point source category, 

EPA was able to assign each facility to the category that best applied to the 

majority of its discharges. EPA reviewed information available about each facility 

to determine which point source category applied to the facility’s operations. 

• Pollutant-Level Point Source Category Assignment. Many facilities have 

operations subject to more than one point source category. For most of these 

facilities, EPA cannot divide the pollutant discharges among the applicable point 

source categories. Two exceptions where EPA was able to assign wastewater 

discharges of certain chemicals to the appropriate point source category include 

Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) /Pesticides and Metal 

Products and Machinery (MP&M)/Metal Finishing: 

— OCPSF/Pesticides. EPA removed all pesticide discharges from OCPSF 

and counted them as discharges from the Pesticides Chemicals Point 

Source Category. 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-11 

— MP&M/Metal Finishing. EPA used the methodologies described in 

Section 4 of the 2009 SLA Report to apportion pollutant loads between the 

MP&M and Metal Finishing Point Source Categories. 

4.3.2 DMRLoads2007: Internal Monitoring 

 This section describes database corrections to identify internal monitoring points in 

DMRLoads2007. As discussed in Sections 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.3.2 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. 

EPA, 2009), PCSLoadCalculator2007 and the ICIS-NPDES Load Calculator calculated loads 

only for monitoring locations that are labeled as effluent (MLOC 1 or 2 in PCS and MLOC 1, 2, 

A, B, or SC in ICIS-NPDES). As a result, the Load Calculators exclude discharges for internal 

monitoring locations such as intake water, influent to treatment, and intermediate points in the 

wastewater treatment system. However, during previous category reviews and detailed studies, 

EPA identified instances of double counting that resulted from including certain internal 

monitoring points in the loads database. For example, a facility monitors for Pollutant A at the 

effluent from its wastewater treatment system (Internal Outfall 101). Outfall 101 wastewater is 

later combined with other plant discharges at final Outfall 001 and is discharged to a receiving 

stream. The facility also monitors for Pollutant A at Final Outfall 001. Both outfalls are effluent 

monitoring points identified as MLOC 1 or MLOC 2; however, Outfall 101 is upstream of the 

final outfall. Calculating loads for Pollutant A at both the internal and final outfalls results in 

double counting Pollutant A discharges. EPA identified instances where pollutant discharges are 

reported for multiple monitoring locations along the same discharge line, and eliminated the 

discharges for the upstream monitoring locations. EPA made these corrections in 

PCSLoadCalculator2007 for the PCS data and in DMRLoadsAnalysis2007 for the ICIS-NPDES 

data. 

4.3.3 DMRLoads2007: Intermittent Discharges 

 This section describes database corrections made for intermittent discharges in 

DMRLoads2007. As described in Sections 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.3.2 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. 

EPA, 2009), in PCSLoadCalculator2007 and the ICIS-NPDES Load Calculator EPA assumes 

that all discharges in PCS and ICIS-NPDES are continuous. During previous annual reviews, 

EPA identified facility discharges that are intermittent and therefore overestimated by the Load 

Calculator. EPA calculated annual loads for these discharges based on information obtained from 

the facility on the frequency and duration of wastewater discharges. EPA made these corrections 

in PCSLoadCalculator2007 for the PCS data and in DMRLoadsAnalysis2007 for the ICISNPDES data. 

4.3.4 DMRLoads2007: Excluded Pollutant Parameters 

 This section describes database corrections made to exclude water quality parameters 

(e.g., dissolved oxygen and temperature), specific chemicals (e.g., phenol), bulk parameters (e.g., 

biochemical oxygen demand), and flow from the annual load calculation in DMRLoads20007. 

As described in Sections 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.3.2 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009), facilities 

report pollutant mass quantities, pollutant concentrations, and wastewater flow rates to PCS and 

ICIS-NPDES using a variety of units. EPA’s PCS CNVRT program and the ICIS-NPDES 

Convert Module convert the discharges into standard units of kilograms per day (kg/day) for 

mass quantities, milligrams per liter (mg/L) for concentrations, and millions of gallons per day 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-12 

(MGD) for flow rates. However, some parameters are reported in units that cannot be converted 

into kg/day or mg/L (e.g. temperature and pH). EPA excluded these parameters from the 

screening-level analysis. Table B-3 of Appendix B lists the excluded parameters. 

4.3.5 DMRLoads2007: Flow Corrections 

 This section describes database changes made to flows in the PCSLoadCalculator2007

databases that impacted EPA’s 2009 screening-level review of the DMRLoads2007 database. 

PCSLoadCalculator2007 assumes that any flow rate reported over 5,000 MGD is actually 

gallons per day (GPD), and divides the reported flow by one million. For flows ranging from 

1,300 to 5,000 MGD, EPA compared units for flow permit limits to verify the units reported in 

PCS and made corrections on a case-by-case basis. EPA determined that all flows between 1,300 

and 5,000 MGD reported by all facilities except facilities reporting SIC code 4911, Electrical 

Services, in Ohio were actually in GPD. EPA corrected 1,015 flows between 1,300 and 5,000 

MGD. 

4.3.6 DMRLoads2007: Pollutant Corrections 

 This section describes database changes made to discharges of specific pollutants 

reported to the DMR for EPA’s 2009 screening-level review in the DMRLoads2007 database. 

 During the reasonableness checks of the PCS CNVRT output, EPA identified unusually 

high mercury concentrations reported to PCS by facilities located in Ohio in the PCS CNVT 

output. These facilities reported mercury discharges using PRAM 50092 (Mercury Total Low 

Level). The PRAM 50092 concentrations in the 2004 CNVRT output ranged from 0.2 to 673 

mg/L. EPA contacted the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) to determine the 

correct reporting units for PRAM 50092 (Finseth, 2007). An Ohio EPA representative explained 

that Ohio EPA started requiring low level mercury analyses in 2002. At that time, some facilities 

had limits in micrograms per liter (μg/L). Currently, all of the limits are in nanograms per liter 

(ng/L). 

 As a result of this contact, EPA concluded that the units for the PRAM 50092 

concentrations for the 2004 PCS data should be ng/L, not mg/L. The PRAM 50092 

concentrations in the 2007 CNVRT output ranged from 0.0035 to 260,000 mg/L with greater 

than 99 percent of these concentrations between 0.5 and 800 mg/L. Based on this distribution, 

EPA concluded that the error for the 2004 data persisted in 2007. Therefore, EPA corrected the 

concentrations by dividing all concentrations for PRAM 50092 in PCSLoadCalculator2007 by 

one million. EPA did not make any corrections to the ICIS-NPDES Pollutant Loading Tool 

because Ohio 2007 DMR data are only in PCS. 

4.3.7 DMRLoads2007: Data Quality Review 

 EPA evaluated the quality of the PCS and ICIS-NPDES DMR data for use in 

DMRLoads2007 as part of the 2009 screening-level review. This evaluation considered data 

completeness, accuracy, reasonableness, and comparability. The Quality Assurance Project Plan 

for the 2009 Annual Screening-Level Analysis of TRI and PCS Industrial Category Discharge 

Data describe the quality objectives in more detail (ERG, 2009). EPA conducted quality reviews 

for four stages of the development of DMRLoads2007: PCS CNVRT program output; ICIS-
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-13 

NPDES Convert Module output; PCSLoadCalculator2007 and the ICIS-NPDES Pollutant 

Loading Tool output; and DMRLoads2007 results. The following discussion provides an 

overview of the quality review steps for each stage: 

• ICIS-NPDES Convert Module output. EPA conducted an initial quality review 

of the extracted ICIS-NPDES DMR data to evaluate its completeness, 

reasonableness, and comparability. For completeness, EPA compared the number 

of major facilities and the universe of SIC codes in the 2007 ICIS-NPDES DMR 

data to the PCS DMR data in 2004, the last complete DMR data set for ICISNPDES states. The 2007 ICIS-NPDES data had at least as many majors and SIC 

codes as PCS in 2004. Additionally, EPA verified that, while PCS 2004 had more 

parameter codes than ICIS-NPDES in 2007, all commonly reported parameters 

are present in the 2007 ICIS-NPDES DMR data. 

EPA reviewed the DMR data for reasonableness to identify any data quality 

issues, such as misreported units that the ICIS-NPDES Convert Module did not 

correct. EPA identified several wastewater flows that exceeded the reasonable 

range. EPA reviewed these flows and developed the flow correction function for 

the ICIS-NPDES Convert Module (described in Section 3.2.3 of the 2009 SLA 

Report (U.S. EPA, 2009)). This function is designed to identify data entry errors 

for flows greater than 1,000 MGD. The ICIS-NPDES Convert Module corrects all 

flows exceeding 5,000 MGD, and applies more conservative criteria to correct 

flows from 1,000 to 5,000 MGD. The ICIS-NPDES Convert Module made the 

following corrections to ICIS-NPDES wastewater flows: 

— 1,113 corrections based on month-to-month variations; 

— 1,605 corrections based on comparing flows to design flows; and 

— 142 corrections based on assuming that flows exceeding 5,000 MGD are 

reported in units of GPD. 

EPA also evaluated the comparability of the extracted 2007 ICIS-NPDES DMR 

data to the 2004 PCS data. EPA determined that most of the average loads and 

concentrations in ICIS-NPDES are within one order of magnitude of the 2004 

PCS data. However, the maximum loads and concentrations indicate that there 

may be some unreasonable values in the 2007 ICIS-NPDES DMR data. EPA 

verified the unit conversions used in the ICIS-NPDES Convert Module and for 

this reason concluded that the unreasonable flows and pollutant measurements are 

likely the result of data entry errors and are not the result of any errors in the 

ICIS-NPDES Convert Module functions. 

• Load Calculator routines. EPA’s quality review for the Load Calculator routines 

included accuracy checks for database queries on PCSLoadCalculator2007. EPA 

reviewed the programming code used to develop each query to verify the logic 

and verified that the number of records in the output table equaled the number of 

records in intermediate queries to ensure that no data were missing and that there 

were no duplicate data. EPA also verified the Load Calculator routine in the ICISNPDES Pollutant Loading Tool. EPA created a query-based system and 

compared the annual loads calculated by the queries to those calculated by the 

ICIS-NPDES Pollutant Loading Tool. The output from the queries was identical 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-14 

to that of the ICIS-NPDES Pollutant Loading Tool. In addition, EPA performed 

hand calculations to verify the accuracy of the PCSLoadCalculator2007 and 

ICIS-NPDES Load Calculator Module outputs during reviews of facility 

discharges for DMRLoads2007 results. 

• DMRLoads2007 results. EPA’s quality review of the DMRLoads2007 results 

included the following: 

— Completeness checks. EPA compared counts of dischargers in 

DMRLoads2007 to PCSLoads2004 to describe the completeness of the 

database. There were 2,027 facilities that reported a load to 

PCSLoads2004 and 2,018 facilities that reported a load to 

DMRLoads2007. Therefore, EPA determined DMRLoads2007 was 

complete. 

— Accuracy of facility discharges. EPA reviewed the accuracy of facilities’ 

discharges that had the greatest impact on total category loads and 

category rankings to identify possible calculation errors. EPA reviewed 

monthly information in PCS and ICIS-NPDES, measurement data 

available on EPA’s Envirofacts web page, and information from the 

facility’s NPDES permit. In some cases, EPA contacted facilities to verify 

the monthly measurements in their DMR. Section 4.3.8 describes EPA’s 

review of facility discharges in more detail. 

— Accuracy of category discharges. EPA reviewed the accuracy of category 

discharges by verifying that pollutant discharges in PCS and ICIS-NPDES 

were assigned to the appropriate point source category. EPA used 

engineering judgment to determine if the pollutant discharge was 

reasonably associated with the point source category. Section 4.3.1 

discusses facility-level and pollutant-level category assignments. 

— Accuracy of database queries. EPA’s quality review for the development 

of DMRLoads2007 included accuracy checks for database queries in 

DMRLoadsAnalysis2007 and DMRLoads2007. Documentation of 

accuracy checks is provided in a QC table in each Microsoft AccessTM 

database. 

— Reasonableness of pollutant loads. EPA reviewed the Load Calculator 

output (i.e., the calculated kg/year for each pollutant at each discharge 

pipe and monitoring location) for those pollutant discharges with the 

highest toxic-weighted loads (e.g., dioxins, PCBs, and mercury). To 

identify possible errors in recording units of measure, EPA identified 

calculated discharges that were orders of magnitude higher than previous 

years’ discharges or other facilities within the same category. EPA 

reviewed quantities or concentrations and flows that the 

PCSLoadCalculator2007 and ICIS-NPDES Pollutant Loading Tool 

databases used to calculate the annual discharge. EPA compared these 

measurements with measurements available on EPA’s Envirofacts web 

page. If the measurements were similar then EPA concluded that the 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-15 

output was acceptable. If the data did not match between the databases and 

Envirofacts, EPA corrected the data to match Envirofacts. When EPA was 

unsure what the correct data were, EPA contacted the facility for more 

information (see Section 4.3.8). 

— Reasonableness of facility loads. EPA identified facility discharges with 

the highest TWPE. EPA identified facilities for review whose pollutant 

discharges accounted for more than 95 percent of the TWPE for its point 

source category. EPA compared 2007 PCS and ICIS-NPDES data to other 

available information, such as information from EPA’s Envirofacts web 

page, the facility’s NPDES permit, and discussion with the facility 

contact. 

— Comparability. EPA compared DMRLoads2007 to PCSLoads2004 and 

PCSLoads2002 to identify pollutant discharges or wastewater flows that 

differ more than the year-to-year variation of other chemicals and 

facilities. EPA used this comparison to determine if quantity, 

concentration, or flow corrections were needed for facility discharges with 

the highest TWPE. If the comparison was unavailable (e.g., the pollutant 

was not previously reported) EPA contacted the facility. 

4.3.8 DMRLoads2007: Facility Reviews 

 EPA reviewed the accuracy of facility discharges that had the greatest impact on total 

category loads and category rankings in DMRLoads2007. EPA reviewed facilities with the 

highest toxic-weighted discharges of individual pollutant parameters. For the identified facilities, 

EPA used the following steps to review the accuracy of the loads calculated from PCS and ICISNPDES data: 

1. Reviewed database corrections for PCSLoads2004, PCSLoads2002, and 

PCSLoads2000 to determine whether corrections were made during previous 

reviews and evaluated whether EPA should apply these corrections to the 2007 

DMR discharges. 

2. Reviewed 2007 DMR data, hand calculated annual pollutant loads, and compared 

results to loads calculated by PCSLoadCalculator2007and the ICIS-NPDES 

Pollutant Loading tool, and stored in DMRLoads2007. 

3. Reviewed PCS and ICIS-NPDES pipe description information available in PCS, 

EPA’s on-line Envirofacts data system, ICIS-NPDES supporting tables, or from 

the facility’s NPDES permit to identify monitored pollutant discharges that are: 

— Intermittent (e.g., tidal, seasonal, or occur after a storm event); 

— Internal monitoring locations from which wastewater is combined with 

other waste streams and monitored again, resulting in double counting 

loads; and 

— Not representative of category discharges (e.g., storm water runoff from 

non-process areas, non-contact cooling water, or wastewater related to 

operations in another point source category). 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-16 

Table 4-3 presents EPA’s facility review and corrections made to the DMRLoads2007 database. 

4.4 Corrections to the TRIReleases2007 Database

 EPA developed the TRIReleases2007 database as part of the 2009 annual review using 

the methodology explained in the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009). 

 During previous screening-level analyses, EPA identified numerous facility-specific 

corrections for TRI data reported for calendar years 2002 through 2005. Several of these 

corrections similarly apply to the 2007 TRI data. In addition, EPA reviewed the quality of the 

2007 TRI data and discharges from facilities with discharges that have the greatest impact on 

total category loads and category rankings. Table B-1 in Appendix B of this report lists all 

corrections made to the 2007 TRI data. 

4.4.1 TRIReleases2007: Categorization of Discharges 

 This section describes database corrections to categorization of facilities and pollutant 

discharges in TRIReleases2007. Section 4 of the 2009 SLA Report describes the development of 

the NAICS/Point Source Category Crosswalk, which EPA uses to link between facility NAICS 

codes and categories with existing ELGs (U.S. EPA, 2009). Because most point source 

categories are not defined by NAICS code, the relationship between NAICS code and point 

source category is not a one-to-one correlation. A single NAICS code may include facilities in 

more than one point source category, and associating an NAICS code with only one category 

may be an over simplification. Also, many facilities have operations subject to more than one 

point source category. Further, facilities in some categories report a variety of NAICS codes that 

do not correlate directly to a point source category, precluding identification by NAICS code 

(e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment facilities). Section 5 of the 2009 SLA Report describes the 

database changes, summarized below (U.S. EPA, 2009): 

• Facility-Level Point Source Category Assignment. For some NAICS codes that 

include facilities subject to guidelines from more than one point source category, 

EPA was able to assign each facility to the category that best applied to the 

majority of its discharges. EPA reviewed information available about each facility 

to determine which point source category applied to the facility’s operations. 

• Pollutant-Level Point Source Category Assignment. Many facilities have 

operations subject to more than one point source category. For most of these 

facilities, EPA cannot divide the pollutant discharges among the applicable point 

source categories. Two exceptions where EPA was able to assign wastewater 

discharges of certain chemicals to the appropriate point source category include 

OCPSF/Pesticides and MP&M/Metal Finishing: 

— OCPSF/Pesticides. EPA removed all pesticide discharges from OCPSF 

and counted them as discharges from the Pesticides Chemicals Point 

Source Category. 

— MP&M/Metal Finishing. EPA used the methodologies described in 

Section 4 of the 2009 SLA Report to apportion pollutant loads between the 

MP&M and Metal Finishing Point Source Categories. 
4-17 

Section 4 – Methodology, Data 

Table 4-3. Summary of DMRLoads2007 Facility Review 

Facility Location 

Point Source 

Category 

Pollutant(s) in 

Question Review Findings 

D

Blue Heron Paper Company Oregon City, OR Pulp and 

Paperboard 

Methylmercury Methylmercury concentrations in 

PCSLoadCalculator2007 are 1,000 times higher than the concentrations in Envirofacts. Envirofacts methylmercury concentrations are in ng/L but were entered into PCSLoadCalculator2007 as μg/L. Facility contact verified units should be ng/L. 

Database methylme

Cargill Fertilizer, Inc. – Riv Hillsborough 

County, FL 

Phosphate Manufacturing 

Phosphorous Facility reports DRID 1 (monthly 

conc.) and A (annual quan.) with annual loads that do not equal. DMR is counting both DRIDs instead of just one also. Unable to determine the correct DRID to use based on Envirofacts. 

None 

CF Industries – Donaldsonville 

Donaldsonville, LA 

Fertilizer Manufacturing 

Nitrogen, Ammonia Maximum quantities are less than 

average quantities. Suspect that some average quantities should be divided by 10. Envirofacts has the same quantities. 

None. 

Clean Harbors White Castle LLC 

Iberville Parish, LA 

CWT Benzidine The permitted benzidine limit is 

three orders of magnitude lower than the concentrations in PCSLoadCalculator2007. Facility contact said that benzidine was ND (Ourso, 2009).

Database benzidine 

Climax Mine Summit County, 

CO 

Ore Mining and Dressing 

Molybdenum This is a molybdenum mine. 

Units are consistent with Envirofacts and permit reporting limits. Permit/fact sheet contains self-monitoring data that agrees with the values reported to PCS (CO DPS, 2004; Climax Molybdenum Company, 2002). 

None 
4-18 

Section 4 – Methodology, Data 

Table 4-3. Summary of DMRLoads2007 Facility Review 

Facility Location 

Point Source 

Category 

Pollutant(s) in 

Question Review Findings 

D

Doe Run Resources Co Viburnum, MO Ore Mining and 

Dressing 

Lead This is a lead or zinc mine based 

on SIC code. Units are consistent with Envirofacts and permit reporting limits (0.005 mg/L to 0.8 mg/L). 

None 

Dyno Nobel, Inc. Carthage, MO Explosives 

Manufacturing 

Nitrogen, Ammonia For pram 00610, each outfall 

reports 6 months under DRID B and 6 months under DRID C. Flows for some months are 1,000 times greater than other months. 

Database and D to C divide aff

Envirosystems Incorporated Hampton, NH Independent 

And Stand Alone Labs 

Cadmium Review of fact sheet shows that 

facility incorrectly reported flows in GPD instead of MGD for certain months (U.S. EPA Region 1, 2006). 

Database for the aff

Front St. Remedial Action Kansas City, MO Waste 

Combustors 

Dioxin Facility is a superfund site, and 

operated in the past as both a waste combustor and CWT. Currently treating groundwater contaminated by organics and inorganics. Three of four dioxin concentrations in 2007 were above the detection limit and the MDL. Concentrations were provided by permitting authority. Detected dioxin in Q2 2007 and Q3 and Q4 were ND. Lab did not analyze wastewater for dioxin for Q1 (Auchterlonie, 2009). 

Database to link to 
4-19 

Section 4 – Methodology, Data 

Table 4-3. Summary of DMRLoads2007 Facility Review 

Facility Location 

Point Source 

Category 

Pollutant(s) in 

Question Review Findings 

D

GE Silicones, LLC Friendly, WV OCPSF Copper Suspected copper concentrations 

units error because the permit reporting requirements are in μg/L instead of mg/L. Facility confirmed the units error and provided correct concentrations for 2 quarters. Data was reported as μg/L not mg/L (Martin, Jason, 2009). 

Future Dacopper co

General Electric – Erie Erie, PA Metal Finishing Mercury Facility reported 3.3 mg/L in 

December 2007, reported annually. Verified units in OTIS. Facility said mercury should be ng/L instead of mg/L (Verderese, 2009). 

Future Damercury c

Golden Eagle Refinery Martinez, CA Petroleum 

Refining 

TCDD Equivalents TCDD Equivalents 

measurements in database are 1,000 times larger than the concentrations in Envirofacts. The units for concentrations in Envirofacts are in pg/L. 

Database Equivalen

IMC – Phosphates Company 

Donaldsonville, LA 

Fertilizer Manufacturing 

Phosphorous Highest phosphorous loads are 

from outfall 002. Loads are approximately the same using the quantity and the concentration calculations. Loads also are comparable to PCSLoads2004. 

None 

Innovia Films Tecumseh, KS Plastics 

Molding and Forming 

Carbon Disulfide One monthly concentration 

appears to be 100 times higher than the other months in 2007 and 2004. Facility contact provided corrected concentrations for April and May that were units errors (Martin, Tony, 2009). 

Database disulfide c
4-20 

Section 4 – Methodology, Data 

Table 4-3. Summary of DMRLoads2007 Facility Review 

Facility Location 

Point Source 

Category 

Pollutant(s) in 

Question Review Findings 

D

Jackson County Pascagoula, MS Fertilizer 

Manufacturing 

Phosphorous Concentrations in Envirofacts 

match concentrations in PCSLoadCalculator2007. 

None 

LAC Minerals Central City, SD Ore Mining Cyanide A review of the permit and fact 

sheet indicated that the outfall STR is an in-stream monitoring location and therefore should be excluded from the facility’s loads (LAC Minerals, 2005). 

Database to Z (excloutfall ST

Morgan’s Point Plant Morgan’s Point, 

TX 

OCPSF Chlorine The monthly average flow for 

March 2007 was 10,000 times higher than the monthly maximum flow for that month and the flows for the rest of the year. 

Database 2007 flow 

Northshore Mining/Silver Bay P 

Silver Bay, MN Ore Mining and 

Dressing 

Copper This is a taconite mine. Units are 

consistent with Envirofacts and permit reporting limits. The calculation relies on only one reported measurement when the permit shows facility must monitor monthly. 

None 

PEPCO-Benning Washington, DC Steam Electric 

Power Generation 

Arochlor 1260 A review of OTIS data shows 

that all PCBs were reported as BDL with “<” and a concentration. The data in ICISNPDES did not include the less than signs. Because all monthly values are BDL, using the hybrid method all PCB loads should be zero. 

Database (PRAM c39496) lo
4-21 

Section 4 – Methodology, Data 

Table 4-3. Summary of DMRLoads2007 Facility Review 

Facility Location 

Point Source 

Category 

Pollutant(s) in 

Question Review Findings 

D

Prasa El Yunque Filtration Plant 

Rio Grande, PR Drinking Water 

Treatment 

Copper Review of the 2007 

concentration data in OTIS indicated that February through August, November, and December copper concentrations were reported in μg/L but were in 

the ICIS-NPDES database as mg/L. 

Database copper co

Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals 

Baton Rouge, LA Inorganic 

Chemicals Manufacturing 

Phosphorus, Total (as P) 

A review of the facility’s discharges and Envirofacts data shows the phosphorous concentrations should be in pg/L rather than μg/L. 

Database Phosphoruconcentra

Sabic Innovate Plastics Ottawa, IL OCPSF Hexachlorobenzene Review of concentration data for 

OTIS showed that the data were missing ‘<’ signs for every month reported for all parameters except for copper. 

Database except for 

SIGECO FB Cully Station Newburgh, IN Steam Electric 

Power Generation 

Aluminum For aluminum, the concentration 

for 10 months is 1,000 times higher than the Form 2C data (2006) and 2006/2008 data in OTIS. Silver, arsenic, and cadmium concentrations are suspected units error based on the Form 2C data. Corrected concentrations to correspond to Form 2C data (SIGECO, 1994). 

Database concentra

Tampa Bay Desal Tampa Bay, FL Drinking Water 

Treatment 

Chloride Previous review identified a 

mismatch between flows and concentrations. NPDES permit fact sheet indicated the flow is diluted by 70 percent from the plant outfall to the final outfall (FL DEP, 2001). 

Database flows by 7
4-22 

Section 4 – Methodology, Data 

Table 4-3. Summary of DMRLoads2007 Facility Review 

Facility Location 

Point Source 

Category 

Pollutant(s) in 

Question Review Findings 

D

Tosco Refinery (Rodeo) Rodeo, CA Petroleum 

Refining 

TCDD Equivalents TCDD equivalents measurements 

in database are 1,000 times larger than the concentrations in Envirofacts. The units for concentrations in Envirofacts are in pg/L. 

Database equivalen

USA Holston Army Ammo Plant Area 

Kingsport, TN Explosives 

Manufacturing 

RDX, Total Facility contact said the 

December 2007 value was RDX, Total production instead of effluent concentration. Contact provided correct concentration (House, 2009). 

Database Total Decconcentra

Westvaco Texas, L.P. Evadale, TX Pulp, Paper 

And Paperboard

TCDD Equivalents Concentrations in 

PCSLoadCalculator2007 are 1,000 times larger than the concentrations in Envirofacts. The units for concentrations in Envirofacts are in pg/L. Facility contact also said all quarters were ND, even though the fourth quarter did not have a ‘<’ indicator (Davis, 2009). 

Database equivalenFuture Daindicator TCDD eq

Wise Alloys LLC Muscle Shoals, 

AL 

Aluminum Forming 

Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (as N) 

The facility reported two DRIDs: 1 (monthly concs.) and Q (quarterly quan.). Unable to determine the difference between DRIDs. Envirofacts does not have the permit/fact sheet. 

None 

BDL – Below detection limit. CWT – Centralized waste treaters. MDL – Minimum detection limit. ND – Non-detect. OCPSF – Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers. PCB – Polychlorinated biphenyl. 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-23 

• Categories Not Identified by NAICS Code (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment, 

Waste Combustor, and Landfills). The NAICS/Point Source Category Crosswalk 

does not assign any NAICS codes to the Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) 

Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 437), Waste Combustor Point Source 

Category (30 CFR Part 444), or Landfills Category (40 CFR Part 445). 

Furthermore, the applicability of these three regulations are not defined by 

NAICS codes and no NAICS code properly describes the CWT, waste combustor, 

or landfill services. EPA identified specific facilities as CWTs during previous 

category reviews and assigned these CWT facilities a placeholder NAICS code of 

“CWT,” putting them in the CWT Point Source Category. EPA also identified 

specific facilities as waste combustors during previous category reviews and 

assigned these waste combustor facilities a placeholder NAICS code of “WC,” 

putting them in the Waste Combustor Point Source Category. The remaining 

facilities were categories as the Landfills Point Source Category. In addition, for 

the TRIReleases2007 database, EPA categorized the facilities reporting the 

following six NAICS codes into the CWT, Landfills, or Waste Combustors Point 

Source Categories based on the specific operations at the facility: 

— 562112: Hazardous Waste Collection; 

— 562211: Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal; 

— 562213: Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators; 

— 562219: Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal; and 

— 562920: Materials Recovery Facilities. 

4.4.2 TRIReleases2007: Pollutant Corrections 

 This section describes database corrections made to discharges of specific pollutants 

reported to the TRI for EPA’s 2009 screening-level review in the TRIReleases2007 database. 

• Metal Compounds. For TRI reporting, facilities may be required to report 

discharges of a metal (e.g., zinc) and its compounds (e.g., zinc compounds) on a 

single reporting form. Because the release quantity for the metal compound 

reporting is based on the mass of the parent metal, EPA uses the parent metal 

TWF to calculate TWPE for the metal and metal compound discharges. For 

ranking purposes, EPA combined the TWPEs for the metal and metal compounds 

(i.e., TWPE reported for “zinc and zinc compounds”). For more details on this 

correction, see Section 3.4.4 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009). 

• Sodium Nitrite. For TRI reporting, sodium nitrite release quantities are reported as 

the mass of the sodium nitrite. Sodium nitrite is an ionic salt that will fully 

dissociate into nitrite and sodium ions in aqueous solutions. In addition, the nitrite 

ions are unstable in water and will oxidize to nitrate. Therefore, EPA converted 

the pounds of TRI-reported sodium nitrite discharges to pounds of nitrogen in the 

discharge and used the TWF for “nitrate as N” (0.0032) to calculate TWPE for 

sodium nitrite. In addition, EPA also used the POTW removal for nitrate to 

account for the removal of sodium nitrite in POTWs. 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-24 

• Phosphorus (Yellow or White). Yellow and white phosphorus, both allotropes of 

elemental phosphorus, are hazardous chemicals that spontaneously ignite in air. 

During the 2006 screening-level review, EPA determined that facilities were 

incorrectly reporting discharges of total phosphorus (i.e., the phosphorus portion 

of phosphorus-containing compounds) as phosphorus (yellow or white) (U.S. 

EPA, 2006b). Therefore, EPA deleted all phosphorus (yellow or white) discharges 

reported to TRI for the 2009 screening-level review. 

4.4.3 TRIReleases2007: Data Quality Review 

 EPA evaluated the quality of TRI data for use in the 2009 screening-level review and 

prioritization of loadings of toxic and non-conventional pollutants discharged by industrial 

categories based on completeness, accuracy, reasonableness, and comparability. The Quality 

Assurance Project Plan for the 2009 Annual Screening-Level Analysis of TRI, ICIS-NPDES, and 

PCS Industrial Category Discharge Data describes the quality objectives in more detail (ERG, 

2009). The following discussion provides an overview of the quality review steps: 

• Completeness Checks. EPA compared counts of facilities in TRIReleases2007 to 

TRIReleases2005, TRIReleases2004, TRIReleases2003, and TRIReleases2002 to 

describe the completeness of the database. The comparison showed that for 72 

percent of the point source categories or SIC code groupings, the number of 

facilities reporting wastewater discharges changed by less than 25 percent from 

2005 to 2007. EPA also determined that most NAICS codes exhibiting a large 

percentage change did so because only a few facilities in these NAIC codes 

reported discharges (e.g., a change from one facility to three facilities is 

equivalent to a 200 percent increase). 

• Accuracy of Facility Discharges. EPA identified facilities with the highest TWPE 

loadings. EPA identified facilities for review whose pollutant discharges 

accounted for more than 95 percent of the TWPE for their point source category. 

EPA compared 2007 TRI data to other available information, such as PCS and 

ICIS-NPDES, information from EPA’s Envirofacts web page, the facilities’ 

NPDES permits, and discussion with facility contacts. 

• Accuracy of Category Discharges. EPA reviewed the accuracy of category 

discharges by verifying that pollutant discharges in TRI were assigned to the 

appropriate point source category. EPA used engineering judgment to determine 

if pollutant discharges were reasonably associated with the point source category. 

• Accuracy of Database Queries. EPA’s quality review for the development of 

TRIReleases2007 included accuracy checks for database queries in 

TRICalculations2007 and TRIReleases2007. Documentation of accuracy checks is 

provided in a QC table in each Microsoft AccessTM database. 

• Comparability. EPA compared TRIReleases2007 to TRIReleases2005, 

TRIReleases2004, TRIReleases2003 and TRIReleases2002 to identify pollutant 

discharges that differ more than the year-to-year variation of other chemicals and 

facilities. From the comparison, EPA determined that 42 percent of the pollutants 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-25 

discharged in both 2007 and 2005 had a change of less than 50 percent in the 

quantity discharged. EPA also determined that most of the pollutants with a large 

percentage change reflected initial discharges of small quantities. In addition, 

most of these pollutant discharges resulted in small TWPEs. 

4.4.4 TRIReleases2007: Facility Reviews 

Table 4-4 presents EPA’s TRI facility review and corrections made to the 

TRIReleases2007 database. EPA reviewed the accuracy of calculated discharges from facilities 

with discharges that have the greatest impact on total category loads and category rankings. EPA 

used the following criteria to select facilities for review: 

• Facilities with the highest toxic-weighted discharges of all facilities reporting to 

TRI for reporting year 2007; 

• Facilities with the highest toxic-weighted discharges of individual chemicals that 

contribute the majority of the toxic-weighted discharges for all categories; and 

• Facilities with the highest toxic-weighted discharges from categories that 

contribute the majority of the toxic-weighted discharges for all categories. 

 For the identified facilities, EPA used the following steps to review the accuracy of the 

loads calculated from TRI data. 

1. Review database corrections for TRIReleases2005, TRIReleases2004, 

TRIReleases2003, TRIReleases2002, and TRIReleases2000 to determine whether 

corrections were made during previous reviews and evaluate whether these 

corrections should be applied to TRIReleases2007. 

2. Review discharges reported to TRI for other reporting years (i.e., 2000, 2002, 

2003, 2004 and 2005) and compare to discharges reported to TRI for reporting 

year 2007. 

3. Review 2007 discharge monitoring report data in PCS and ICIS-NPDES, if 

available, to hand-calculate annual pollutant loads and compare to discharges 

reported to TRI for reporting year 2007. 

4. Contact the facility to verify whether the pollutant discharges are reported 

correctly. 

4.4.5 Trends in TRI Data 

 EPA has identified a consistent decrease every year since 2002 in the total number of 

facilities reporting to TRI and the number of facilities reporting discharges to TRI. Table 4-5

illustrates the decrease for each year since 2002. 
4-26 

Section 4 – Methodology, Data 

Table 4-4. Summary of TRIReleases2007 Facility Review 

Facility Name Facility Location 

Point Source 

Category 

Chemical(s) in 

Question Review Findings 

Ac

Dow Chemical Co Midland, MI OCPSF Dioxin Compounds Facility is continuing to review dioxin 

discharges. 

No chanresponse

Eastman Kodak Co Kodak Park 

Rochester, NY Metal Finishing Dioxin Compounds Detected two dioxin congeners in 

2007. Facility provided water congener distribution and concentrations (Smith, 2009). 

Database and distr

LNVA - North Regional Treatment Plant 

Beaumont, TX CWT PACs All PAC measurements were ND 

(Eastep, 2009). 

Database 

Chevron Products Co. Div Of Chevron USA Inc. 

El Segundo, CA Petroleum Dioxin Compounds Facility said all congeners were ND 

(Tea, 2009). 

Database 

Viskase Corp Loudon, TN Plastics Carbon Disulfide POTW receiving wastewater provided 

monitoring data (Birkholz, 2009). Facility estimates are extremely conservative (Glarrow, 2009). 

Database disulfide 

BP Products North America Inc Toledo Refinery 

Oregon, OH Petroleum Dioxin Compounds Facility verified dioxin load and 

distribution based on historical measured data (Ellet and Thurber, 2009). 

None 

Chevron Products Co. Richmond Refinery 

Richmond, CA Petroleum Dioxin Compounds Facility verified dioxin load and 

distribution based on measured concentrations (O’Hare and Howell, 2009b). 

None 

Dupont Chambers Works Deepwater, NJ Inorganic PACs All PAC measurements were ND in 

New Jersey DMR database (Krejci, 2009). 

Database 

AK Steel Corp. (Rockport Works ) 

Rockport, IN Iron & Steel Nitrate Compounds Facility provided revised load. 

Facility previously calculated load assuming it was a leap year (McCoy, 2009). 

Database compoun

Tronox LLC Hamilton, MS Inorganic Manganese 

Compounds 

Facility provided monitoring data that verified load (Dickerson, 2009). 

None 

Louisiana Pigment Co LP Westlake, LA Inorganic Dioxin Compounds Facility provided water congener 

distribution (Kashyap, 2009). 

Database distribut

CWT – Centralized waste treaters. OCPSF – Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers. PACs – Polycyclic aromatic compounds. ND – Non-detect. 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-27 

Table 4-5. Number of Facilities with Data in TRI for Reporting Years 2002 Through 2007

Reporting Year 

Number of Facilities Reporting to 

TRI 

Number of Facilities Reporting 

Discharges to TRI 

2002 24,379 8,291 

2003 23,811 8,051 

2004 23,675 7,930 

2005 23,461 7,837 

2006 22,880 7,506 

2007 21,965 6,572 

Source: TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2; 

TRIReleases2006_v1; and TRIReleases2007_v2. 

 EPA does not have sufficient information to determine the cause of the decrease in the 

number of facilities reporting to TRI over the past six years. The aggregate number of 

establishments6

 reported to the US Economic Census increased from 2002 to 2007. No changes 

in reporting requirements occurred which can be attributed to the decrease. EPA will continue to 

monitor this change in the future. 

4.5 TRIReleases2007 Rankings and DMRLoads2007 Rankings

 After incorporating the changes discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, EPA generated the 

final versions of the TRIReleases and DMRLoads databases used for the 2009 screening-level 

review: TRIReleases2007_v2 and DMRLoads2007_v3. Tables C-1 and C-2 in Appendix C 

present the category rankings by TWPE from the TRIReleases2007_v2 and DMRLoads2007_v3

databases, respectively. The category rankings presented in these tables reflect all the corrections 

made during the 2009 screening-level reviews. Tables C-3 and C-4 in Appendix C present the 

six-digit NAICS code rankings by TWPE from TRIReleases2007_v2 and the four-digit SIC code 

rankings by TWPE from DMRLoads2007_v3, respectively. Tables C-5 and C-6 in Appendix C 

present the chemical rankings by TWPE from TRIReleases2007_v2 and DMRLoads2007_v3, 

respectively. 

4.6 Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations References

1. Abt Associates. 2008. Memorandum to Josh Hall, U.S. EPA from Meghan Lynch, 

Sue Greco, and Emily Simmons, Abt Associates Inc. Subject: Revised Draft – 

Updating the Boron TWF. Cambridge, MA. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-

0517 DCN 06729. 

2. Auchterlonie, Steve. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Chris 

Krejci, ERG and Steve Auchterlonie, Front St. Remedial Action. RE: Verification 

of magnitude and basis of estimate for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 

discharges in PCS. (March 13). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06636. 

 

6

 EPA reviewed only 3-digit NAICS code industry groups that were eligible for TRI reporting. Refer to Chapter 2 of 

the 2009 SLA Report (EPA, 2009) for more detail. 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-28 

3. Birkholtz, Dave. 2009. Notes from email conversation between Eleanor Codding, 

ERG and Dave Birkholtz, Viskase Corp. RE: Request for carbon disulfide 

monitoring data for Viskase Corporation. (March 20). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 

DCN 06634. 

4. Climax Molybdenum Company. 2002. NPDES Permit for Climax Molybdenum 

Company, Summit County, CO. (December 31). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 

06633. 

5. CO DPS. 2004. Colorado Discharge Permit System. NPDES Permit: Climax 

Mine – Summit County, Colorado. (September 13). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 

DCN 05548. 

6. Davis, Katherine. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Elizabeth 

Sabol, ERG and Katherine Davis, Westvaco Texas, L.P. RE: Basis of TCDD 

equivalent concentrations reported in 2007. (July 7). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 

DCN 6547. 

7. Dickerson, Leonard. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Chris 

Krejci, ERG and Leonard Dickerson, Tronox LLC. RE: Verification of magnitude 

and basis of estimate for manganese discharges reported to TRI. (March 12). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06405. 

8. Eastep, Jesse. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Chris Krejci, 

ERG and Jesse Eastep, LNVA – North Regional Treatment Plants. RE: PACs 

discharges from CWT. (March 11). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 05949. 

9. Ellet, Allen and Neil Thurber. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between 

Kurtis Blohm, ERG and Allen Ellett and Neil Thurber, BP Products North 

America Inc. Toledo Refinery. RE: Basis of dioxin load reported to TRI in 2007. 

(March 13). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06632. 

10. ERG. 2009a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Revised Quality Assurance Project 

Plan for the 2009 Annual Screening-Level Analysis of TRI, ICIS-NPDES, and 

PCS Industrial Category Discharge Data. Chantilly, VA. (September). EPA-HQOW-2008-0517 DCN 06558. 

11. FL DEP. 2001. State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Save 

our Bays, Air and Canals, Inc. vs Tampa Bay Desal and Department of 

Environmental Protection. (October 17). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06699. 

12. Glarrow, Patrick. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Eleanor 

Codding, ERG and Patrick Glarrow, Viskase Corp. RE: Carbon disulfide 

discharges reported to TRI by Viskase Facility in Loudoun, TN. (March 10). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06634. 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-29 

13. House, Nigel. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Jessica 

Wolford, ERG and Nigel House, USA Holston Army Ammo Plant Area. RE: 

Discussion of total RDX discharges for Holston Army Ammunition Plant. (April 

13). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06696. 

14. Kashyap, Vikram. 2009. Notes from email conversation between Vikram 

Kashyap, Louisiana Pigment Co. and Eleanor Codding, ERG. RE: Response to 

EPA Questions on 2007 TRI Dioxin Water Releases – Louisiana Pigment 

Company. (May 8). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06849. 

15. Krejci, Chris. 2009. Notes from MS Excel Sheet – DMR Data for DuPont 

Chambers Works. (February 12). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06637. 

16. LAC Minerals. 2005. NPDES Fact Sheet: LAC Minerals – Central City, South 

Dakota. (April 26). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06638. 

17. Martin, Jason. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Elizabeth 

Sabol, ERG and Jason Martin, MPM Silicones LLC. RE: Basis of copper (total 

recoverable) concentrations reported in 2007 DMR. (July 1). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-

0517 DCN 06549. 

18. Martin, Tony. 2009. Telephone conversation with Tony Martin, Innovia Films 

Inc. RE: Discussion of Carbon Disulfide Discharges for Innovia Films Inc. 

(March 13). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06704. 

19. McCoy, Alan. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Kurtis Blohm, 

ERG and Alan McCoy, AK Steel Corp. (Rockport Works). RE: Basis of nitrates 

load reported to TRI in 2007. (March 13). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06629. 

20. O’Hare, Dean and Troy Howell. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation 

between Kurtis Blohm, ERG and Dean O’Hare and Troy Howell, Chevron 

Products Co. Richmond Refinery. RE: Basis of dioxin load reported to TRI in 

2007. (March 15). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06631. 

21. OMB. 1987. Office of Management and Budget. Standard Industrial 

Classification Manual. Washington, DC. (Unknown). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517. 

22. Ourso, Lisa Jo. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Chris Krejci, 

ERG and Lisa Jo Ourso, Clean Harbors White Castle LLC. RE: Verification of 

magnitude of benzidine discharges in PCS. (March 12). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 

DCN 06403. 

23. SIGECO. 1994. Form 2C: SIGECO FB Culley Station – Newburgh, IN. 

(Unknown). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0308.22. 

24. Smith, Tom. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Chris Krejci, 

ERG and Tom Smith, Eastman Kodak Co. Kodak Park. RE: Basis of estimate for 

reported TRI discharges. (March 16). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06409. 
Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-30 

25. Stuhlfauth, Gary. 2007. Notes from Telephone Conversation between TJ Finseth, 

ERG and Gary Stuhlfauth, Ohio USEPA. RE: Low level mercury discharge 

requirements on NPDES permits in Ohio. (January 22). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-

0771-0487. 

26. Tea, Shirley. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Kurtis Blohm, 

ERG and Shirley Tea, Chevron Products Co Div of Chevron USA Inc. RE: Basis 

of dioxin load reported to TRI in 2007 for El Segundo refinery. (March 13). EPAHQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06630. 

27. U.S. EPA Region 1. 2006. NPDES Fact Sheet: EnviroSystems Inc. – Hampton, 

New Hampshire. (April 11). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06635. 

28. U.S. EPA. 2000. EPCRA Section 313 Guidance for Reporting Toxic Chemicals 

Within the Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds Category. EPA-745-B-00-021. 

Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1150. 

29. U.S. EPA. 2005. Draft Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA 

304(m) Planning Process. Washington, DC. June. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-

0857. 

30. U.S. EPA. 2006a. Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA 

304(m) Planning Process. Washington, DC. (June). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-

1634. 

31. U.S. EPA. 2006b. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-2782. 

32. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing 

Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories. 

EPA-821-R-09-007. Washington, DC. (TBD). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517. DCN 

06557. 

33. Verderese, Jim. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Elizabeth 

Sabol, ERG and Jim Verderese, General Electric ERIE. RE: Basis of mercury 

concentration reported in December 2007 in DMR. (July 1). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-

0517 DCN 06548. 
Part II – Results of 2009 Annual Review 

PART II: RESULTS OF THE 2009 ANNUAL REVIEW OF 

INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES WITH EXISTING ELGS 
Section 5 – 2009 Annual Review 

5-1 

5. 2009 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND 

STANDARDS AND RANKING OF POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES

For the 2009 annual review, EPA conducted the following activities: 

• Updated the reviews from previous years (i.e., revised the 2008 annual review 

results with new or corrected data); 

• Performed new research (i.e., contacted industry to verify discharges, conducted 

literature searches, and collected additional data); and 

• Solicited information from stakeholders through comment response and other 

stakeholder outreach (e.g., meetings with industry trade groups). 

 This section presents the results of the 2009 screening-level review (Section 5.1), and 

presents the prioritization of categories for the 2009 annual review (Section 5.2). 

5.1 Results of the 2009 Screening-Level Review

 For the 2009 screening-level review, EPA combined the results of the 

TRIReleases2007_v2 and the DMRLoads2007_v3 databases, which are described in the 

Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and 

Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories (U.S. EPA, 2009). When combining the 

results of these databases, EPA made eliminated from further consideration the results for the 

following: 

• Discharges from industrial categories for which EPA is currently developing or 

revising ELGs; 

• Discharges from point source categories for which EPA has recently promulgated 

or revised ELGs; and 

• Discharges from facilities determined not to be representative of their category. 

Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.3 discuss the rationale for these decisions. The final combined 

database rankings represent the results of the 2009 screening-level review and are presented in 

Section 5.2.4. 

5.1.1 Categories for Which EPA is Currently Developing or Revising ELGs 

 EPA is currently considering revisions to ELGs for Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and 

Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR 414) and the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR 

415) Point Source Categories for facilities that produce Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 

(CCH). Because the CCH rulemaking is underway, EPA excluded discharges from these 

facilities from further consideration under the current planning cycle. EPA subtracted the Toxic 

Weight Pollutant Equivalent (TWPE) loads from facilities that produce chlorine or chlorinated 

hydrocarbons from the OCPSF and Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category 

loads. Because facilities that produce chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons are only a subset of 
Section 5 – 2009 Annual Review 

5-2 

the OCPSF and Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Categories, EPA included loads for all other 

facilities in these two categories in the prioritization of categories for further review7

. 

5.1.2 Categories for Which EPA Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs 

 For the 2009 annual review and development of category rankings, EPA excluded point 

source categories for which ELGs were recently established or revised but not yet fully 

implemented, or were recently reviewed in a rulemaking context where EPA decided to 

withdraw the proposal and select the “no action” option. In general, EPA removes a category 

from further consideration during a review cycle if EPA established, revised, or reviewed the 

category’s ELGs within seven years prior to the annual review. This seven-year period allows 

time for the ELGs to be incorporated into NPDES permits. For the 2009 annual review EPA 

excluded from the development of category rankings any categories with ELGs established, 

revised, or recently reviewed after August 2002. Table 5-1 lists these categories. 

 Removing a point source category from further consideration in the development of the 

rankings does not mean that EPA eliminates the category from annual review. In cases where 

EPA is aware of the growth of a new segment within such category, or where new concerns are 

identified for previously unevaluated pollutants discharged by facilities in the category, EPA 

would apply closer scrutiny to the discharges from the category in deciding whether to consider 

it further during the current review cycle. For example, EPA conducted the detailed study of the 

coal mining industry based on comments received on the 2006 Preliminary Plan, although the 

coal mining ELGs were revised in January 2002. 

Table 5-1. Point Source Categories That Have Undergone a Recent Rulemaking or Review 

40 CFR Part Point Source Category Date of Rulemaking

122 and 412 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) November 20, 2008 

451 Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (or Aquaculture) August 23, 2004 

432 Meat and Poultry Products September 8, 2004 

413, 433, and 438 Metal Products and Machinery 

(including Metal Finishing and Electroplating) 

May 13, 2003 

420 Iron and Steel Manufacturing October 17, 2002 

Source: “Guidelines: Final, Proposed, and Under Development” at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide. 

5.1.3 Discharges Not Categorizable 

 EPA identified discharges that are not categorizable into new point source categories or 

subcategories. In particular, due to the high TWPE discharges EPA reviewed reported discharges 

from a Superfund site (Auchterlonie, 2009).8 Direct discharges from Superfund sites, whether 

made onsite or offsite, are subject to NPDES permitting requirements (U.S. EPA, 1988a; U.S. 

EPA, 1988b). For the reasons discussed below EPA determined that these discharges do not 

 

7

 EPA is also currently revising the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) ELG (Part 412); however, the 

TWPE associated with this category is low and does not affect the prioritization of categories based on TWPE. For 

more information on industries currently undergoing rulemakings, see http://www.epa.gov/guide/industry.html. 

8

 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as 

Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. 
Section 5 – 2009 Annual Review 

5-3 

represent a point source category and excluded these TWPE from the point source category 

rankings. 

 EPA identified that discharges from Superfund sites are too varied to be categorized into 

a point source category. In particular, these discharges vary by: 

• Contaminants (e.g., metals, pesticides, dioxin); 

• Treatment technologies (e.g., air stripping, granular activated carbon, 

chemical/ultra-violet oxidation, aerobic biological reactors, chemical 

precipitation); and 

• Types of facilities causing groundwater contamination (e.g., wood treatment 

facilities, metal finishing and electroplating facilities, drum recycling facilities, 

mine sites, mineral processing facilities, radium processing facilities). 

 Moreover, the duration and volume of these direct discharges vary significantly due to 

differences in aquifer characteristics and the magnitude, fate, and transport of contaminants in 

aquifers and vadose zones. Currently at Superfund sites, permit writers determine technologybased effluent limits using their best professional judgment (BPJ). EPA selects the remedial 

technology and derives numerical effluent discharge limits. The permit must also contain more 

stringent effluent limitations when required to comply with state water quality standards. EPA 

finds that the current site-specific BPJ approach is workable and flexible within the context of a 

Superfund cleanup. 

5.1.4 Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE 

 EPA identified point source categories with significant TWPE where only one facility 

was responsible for most of the TWPE reported to be discharged (i.e., where one facility’s 

TWPE accounted for more than 95 percent of the category TWPE, but was not the only facility 

reporting discharges for the category). Table 5-2 lists these categories. EPA identified 10 

facilities that dominated the TWPE in the category to which they belonged. EPA investigated 

these facilities to determine if their discharges were representative of the category. If they were 

not, EPA subtracted the facility’s TWPE from the total category TWPE and recalculated the 

category’s ranking. EPA performed this analysis separately for both of the databases. Based on 

EPA’s knowledge of these industries and the review of the pollutant discharges for these 

facilities, EPA determined that all of the pollutant discharges are representative of the industry 

and therefore, EPA did not remove the discharges from the category. 

5.1.5 Results of the 2009 Screening-Level Review 

 After adjusting the category TWPE totals and rankings as described in Sections 5.2.1 

through 5.2.3, EPA consolidated the DMRLoads2007 and TRIReleases2007 rankings into one list 

using the following steps: 
5-4 

Section 

Table 5-2. Point Source Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE Discharge

Point Source Category 

Facility with Over 

95% of Category 

TWPE 

Facility 

Location 

Data 

Source 

Pollutant Driving 

TWPE 

Facility 

TWPE 

Percent of 

Total 

Category 

TWPE 

Textile Mills (Part 410) Deroyal Textiles Camden, SC DMR 2007 Aldrin 76,469 95.6% Independent and Stand Alone Labs (Potential New Category) 

Brookhaven National Laboratory 

Upton, NY DMR 2007 PCBs 5,166 96.5% 

Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing (Part 408) 

Campbell Soup Company 

Napoleon, OH 

DMR 2007 Hexavalent 

Chromium 

3,123 96.6% 

Plastics Molding and Forming (Part 463) 

Innovia Films, Inc Topeka, KS DMR 2007 Carbon Disulfide 24,219 98.3% 

Timber Products Processing (Part 429) 

Stimson Lumber Co Bonner Mill 

Bonner, MT DMR 2007 Chlorine 51,374 99.7% 

Soap and Detergent Manufacturing (Part 417) 

Stepan CompanyElwood Elwood, IL DMR 2007 Hexachlorobenzene 47,795 99.96% 

Ferroalloy Manufacturing (Part 424) 

Eramet Marietta Inc Marietta, 

OH 

DMR 2007 Cadmium 4,349 99.99% 

Construction and Development (Potential New Category) 

Aeroquip - Vickers Joplin, MO DMR 2007 Cadmium 324 99.99% 

Soap and Detergent Manufacturing (Part 417) 

Crodia Inc New Castle, 

DE 

TRI 2007 Bis(2-chloroethyl) 

Ether 

14,453 99.1% 

Tobacco Products (Potential New Category) 

Philip Morris Park 500 Site 

Chester, VA TRI 2007 Chlorine 4,730 99.4% 

Source: TRIReleases2007_v2; and DMRLoads2007_v3. 
Section 5 – 2009 Annual Review 

5-5 

• EPA combined the two lists of point source categories by adding each category’s 

DMRLoads2007 TWPE and TRIReleases2007 TWPE9

. 

• EPA then ranked the point source categories based on total DMRLoads2007 and 

TRIReleases2007 TWPE. 

Table 5-3 presents the combined DMRLoads2007 and TRIReleases2007 rankings. These 

are the final category rankings accounting for all corrections made to the databases during the 

2009 screening-level review and removal of any categories and discharges as discussed in 

Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.3. 

5.2 Prioritization of Categories for the 2009 Annual Review

 Based on its screening-level review, EPA was able to prioritize for further review (i.e., a 

detailed study or preliminary category review) those industrial categories whose pollutant 

discharges potentially pose the greatest hazards to human health or the environment because of 

their toxicity (i.e., categories that collectively discharge over 95 percent of the total TWPE). EPA 

also considered efficiency and implementation issues raised by stakeholders in identifying 

candidates for further review. By using this multilayered screening approach, the Agency 

concentrated its resources on those point source categories with the highest estimates of toxicweighted pollutant discharges (based on best available data), while assigning a lower priority to 

categories that the Agency believes are not good candidates for ELGs revision at this time. 

Table 5-4 lists the point source categories with existing ELGs, the level of review EPA 

performed as part of the 2009 annual review, and how the category was identified for further 

review, if applicable. 

5.2.1 Detailed Study of Existing ELGs 

 EPA performed detailed studies on three point source categories as part of its 2009 

annual review based on the results of its 2007 and 2008 annual reviews, as shown in Table 5-4. 

Because EPA data collection was not finished in 2008, EPA continued detailed studies of the 

Steam Electric Generating Category (Part 423), Oil and Gas Extraction (Part 435) (to assess 

whether to revise the limits to include coalbed methane extraction as a new subcategory), and the 

Health Care Industry (includes Hospitals (Part 460)). EPA did not identify additional categories 

for detailed study as part of the 2009 annual review. 

 

9

 EPA notes that this may result in “double-counting” of chemical discharges a facility reported to both PCS/ICISNPDES and TRI, and “single-counting” of chemicals reported in only one of the databases. Further, the combined 

databases do not count chemicals that may be discharged but are not reported to PCS/ICIS-NPDES or TRI. 
5-6 

Section 

Table 5-3. Final DMRLoads2007 and TRIReleases2007 Combined Point Source Category Ra

40 CFR 

Part Point Source Category 

DMRLoads2007

TWPE 

TRIReleases2007

TWPE Total TWPE 

Cumu

of T

423 Steam Electric Power Generating 20,374,829 a 541,508 20,916,337 430 Pulp, Paper And Paperboard 2,726,865 b 459,959 3,186,823 418 Fertilizer Manufacturing 1,095,046 4,462 1,099,509 414 Organic Chemicals, Plastics And Synthetic Fibers 413,226 c 574,742 987,968 419 Petroleum Refining 402,506 171,756 574,262 415 Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing 393,523 54,657 448,181 421 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 342,747 38,885 381,632 440 Ore Mining And Dressing 184,455 44,437 228,892 455 Pesticide Chemicals 180,117 24,693 204,810 471 Nonferrous Metals Forming And Metal Powders 119,244 8,834 128,077 410 Textile Mills 79,934 2,389 82,323 429 Timber Products Processing 51,552 16,301 67,852 417 Soap And Detergent Manufacturing 47,815 14,585 62,401 444 Waste Combustors 38,412 d 40 38,451 445 Landfills 35,804 d 83 35,887 463 Plastics Molding And Forming 24,626 8,781 33,407 439 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 24,937 7,996 32,934 409 Sugar Processing 32,520 26 32,545 458 Carbon Black Manufacturing 32,375 32,375 436 Mineral Mining And Processing 26,719 2,416 29,135 428 Rubber Manufacturing 11,195 7,864 19,059 422 Phosphate Manufacturing 18,459 250 18,709 464 Metal Molding And Casting (Foundries) 11,271 6,115 17,386 469 Electrical And Electronic Components 9,350 7,551 16,902 467 Aluminum forming 12,182 2,707 14,889 437 Centralized Waste Treatment 10,403 d 3,785 14,189 
5-7 

Section 

Table 5-3. Final DMRLoads2007 and TRIReleases2007 Combined Point Source Category Ra

40 CFR 

Part Point Source Category 

DMRLoads2007

TWPE 

TRIReleases2007

TWPE Total TWPE 

Cumu

of T

NA Miscellaneous Foods And Beverages 5,842 6,576 12,418 

454 Gum And Wood Chemicals Manufacturing 10,478 55 10,532 

411 Cement Manufacturing 8,960 452 9,412 

425 Leather Tanning And Finishing 8 7,802 7,809 468 Copper forming 2,310 4,951 7,261 

NA Independent And Stand Alone Labs 5,355 30 5,385 

NA Tobacco Products 3 4,756 4,759 

407 Canned And Preserved Fruits And Vegetables 

Processing 

1,757 2,960 4,717 

424 Ferroalloy Manufacturing 4,349 340 4,689 

406 Grain mills 1,984 2,084 4,068 408 Canned And Preserved Seafood Processing 3,232 234 3,467 

434 Coal Mining 2,294 493 2,787 

461 Battery Manufacturing 1,096 1,642 2,738 

405 Dairy products processing 76 2,402 2,479 

443 Paving And Roofing Materials (Tars And Asphalt) 1,280 249 1,529 

NA Printing & Publishing 999 110 1,109 

426 Glass Manufacturing 353 546 899 

457 Explosives Manufacturing 785 14 798 465 Coil Coating 166 241 407 

435 Oil & Gas Extraction 256 256 466 Porcelain Enameling 11 164 175 446 Paint Formulating 140 140 447 Ink Formulating 20 20 460 Hospital 15 15 

NA Photo Processing 1 1 
5-8 

Section 

Table 5-3. Final DMRLoads2007 and TRIReleases2007 Combined Point Source Category Ra

40 CFR 

Part Point Source Category 

DMRLoads2007

TWPE 

TRIReleases2007

TWPE Total TWPE 

Cumu

of T

459 Photographic 1 1 442 Transportation Equipment Cleaning 0 0 

 Total 26,719,348 2,073,457 28,792,806 

Source: TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v3. 

NA – Not applicable; no existing ELGs apply to discharges. a – EPA corrected a suspected units error in DMRLoads2007_v3 for FB Culley Station in Newburgh, IN (IN0002259) in the Steam Ele

Category. EPA attempted to contact the facility but the facility never returned calls. Therefore, EPA was unable to verify the correction

b – For the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category, EPA contacted facilities to verify the concentrations of dioxin and dioxin-like compoNPDES. EPA found that, for all facilities contacted, there were either units errors (e.g., reported as ng/L but in the database as mg/L) or indicators. The new Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category total TWPE is 252,163. See Section 12.2.2.1 for additional details on the fac

corrections. c – EPA contacted GE Silicones in Friendly, WV (WV0000094), in the OCPSF Category and identified a units error in DMRLoads200

new LBY and TWPE reported for this facility were recalculated and are now 158 and 100.3, respectively. The new OCPSF Category to

d – EPA also reviewed the operations of facilities reporting SIC code 4953 (Refuse Systems) and classified them into the Centralized W

Category (40 CFR Part 437), Landfills Category (40 CFR Part 445), and Waste Combustors Category (40 CFR Part 444). The new TW

Landfills, and Waste Combustors Categories are 30,904; 15,303; and 3,221, respectively. 
Section 5 – 2009 Annual Review 

5-9 

Table 5-4. 2009 Annual Review of Categories with Existing ELGs: Level of Review 

40 CFR 

Part Point Source Category Level of Review 

Source of 

Identification for 

Further Review 

405 Dairy Products Processing Screening-Level Review NA a

406 Grain Mills Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a

407 Fruits and Vegetable Processing Screening-Level Review NA a

408 Canned and Preserved Seafood Screening-Level Review NA a

409 Sugar Processing Screening-Level Review NA a

410 Textile Mills Screening-Level Review NA a

411 Cement Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a

412 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Screening-Level Review NA a

413 Electroplating Screening-Level Review NA a

414 Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Preliminary Review TWPE 

415 Inorganic Chemicals Preliminary Review TWPE

417 Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a

418 Fertilizer Manufacturing Preliminary Review TWPE

419 Petroleum Refining Preliminary Review TWPE 

420 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a

421 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Preliminary Review TWPE

422 Phosphate Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a

423 Steam Electric Power Generation Detailed Study TWPE 

424 Ferroalloy Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a

425 Leather Tanning and Finishing Screening-Level Review NA a

426 Glass Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a

427 Asbestos Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a

428 Rubber Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a

429 Timber Products Processing Screening-Level Review NA a

430 Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Preliminary Review TWPE 

432 Meat and Poultry Products Screening-Level Review NA a

433 Metal Finishing Screening-Level Review NA a

434 Coal Mining Screening-Level Review NA a

435 Oil and Gas Extraction Detailed Study (of Coal Bed 

Methane Operations) 

Comments 

436 Mineral Mining and Processing Screening-Level Review NA a

437 Centralized Waste Treaters Screening-Level Review NA a

438 Metal Products and Machinery Screening-Level Review NA a

439 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a

440 Ore Mining and Dressing Preliminary Review TWPE 

442 Transportation Equipment Cleaning Screening-Level Review NA a

443 Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt) Screening-Level Review NA a

444 Waste Combustors (Commercial Incinerators 

Combusting Hazardous Waste) 

Screening-Level Review NA a
Section 5 – 2009 Annual Review 

5-10 

Table 5-4. 2009 Annual Review of Categories with Existing ELGs: Level of Review 

40 CFR 

Part Point Source Category Level of Review 

Source of 

Identification for 

Further Review 

445 Landfills Screening-Level Review NA a

446 Paint Formulating Screening-Level Review NA a

447 Ink Formulating Screening-Level Review NA a

451 Aquatic Animal Production Industry Screening-Level Review NA a

454 Gum and Wood Chemicals Screening-Level Review NA a

455 Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a

457 Explosives Screening-Level Review NA a

458 Carbon Black Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a

459 Photographic Screening-Level Review NA a

460 Hospital Detailed Study (of Health 

Care Industry) 

Comments 

461 Battery Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a

463 Plastic Molding and Forming Screening-Level Review NA a

464 Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries) Screening-Level Review NA a

465 Coil Coating Screening-Level Review NA a

466 Porcelain Enameling Screening-Level Review NA a

467 Aluminum Forming Screening-Level Review NA a

468 Copper Forming Screening-Level Review NA a

469 Electrical and Electronic Components Screening-Level Review NA a

471 Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders Screening-Level Review NA a

a – For categories with only a screening-level review, the source of identification is not applicable, as EPA conducts 

a screening-level review of all categories subject to existing effluent guidelines. The “source of identification” is 

only applicable for those industries selected for further review. 

NA – Not available. 

 EPA’s detailed studies generally examine the following: (1) wastewater characteristics 

and pollutant sources; (2) the pollutants driving the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges; (3) 

availability of pollution prevention and treatment; (4) the geographic distribution of facilities in 

the industry; (5) any pollutant discharge trends within the industry; and (6) any relevant 

economic factors. First, EPA attempts to verify the screening-level results and fill in data gaps. 

Next, EPA considers costs and performance of applicable and demonstrated control technology, 

process change, or pollution prevention alternatives that can effectively reduce the pollutants 

remaining in the industrial category's wastewater. Last, EPA considers the affordability or 

economic achievability of the technology, process change, or pollution prevention measures 

identified above. 

 Types of data sources that EPA may consult in conducting its detailed studies include, 

but are not limited to: (1) the U.S. Economic Census; (2) TRI, PCS, and ICIS-NDPES data; (3) 

trade associations and reporting facilities to verify reported releases and facility categorization; 

(4) regulatory authorities (states and EPA regions) to understand how category facilities are 

permitted; (5) NPDES permits and their supporting fact sheets; (6) EPA effluent guidelines 
Section 5 – 2009 Annual Review 

5-11 

technical development documents; (7) relevant EPA preliminary data summaries or study 

reports; and (8) technical literature on pollutant sources and control technologies. 

 For more information about the Oil and Gas Extraction Detailed Study (Coalbed Methane 

Industry), the Health Care Industry Detailed Study, and the Steam Electric Generating Detailed 

Study, see Sections 13, 14, and 15 of this report, respectively. 

5.2.2 Preliminary Category Reviews 

 Preliminary category reviews are similar to detailed studies and have the same purpose. 

During preliminary reviews, EPA generally examines the same items listed above for detailed 

studies. However, EPA’s preliminary review of a category and available pollution prevention 

and treatment options is less rigorous than its detailed studies. While EPA collects and analyzes 

hazard and technology-based information on categories undergoing preliminary review, it 

assigns a higher priority to investigating categories undergoing detailed studies. 

 As shown in Table 5-4, EPA identified for preliminary review those industrial categories 

currently regulated by existing effluent guidelines that cumulatively compose more than 95 

percent of the combined DMRLoads2007 and TRIReleases2007 total TWPE. EPA also reviewed 

the Ore Mining and Dressing Category (40 CFR Part 440) because during previous annual 

reviews, EPA has concluded that there are not sufficient data available to determine whether 

wastewater discharges from the Ore Mining and Dressing Category warrant a detailed study. In 

addition to the Steam Electric Power Generating Category this list includes the following point 

source categories, along with a reference to where they are discussed in this report: 

• Fertilizer Manufacturing (Section 6.0); 

• Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (Section 7.0); 

• Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (Section 8.0); 

• Ore Mining and Dressing (Section 9.0); 

• Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (Section 10.0); 

• Petroleum Refining (Section 11.0); and 

• Pulp, Paper and Paperboard (Section 12.0). 

EPA recently conducted detailed studies or preliminary reviews of many of the categories listed 

above. Table 5-5 lists these categories and the level of review performed for its 2005 through 

2008 annual reviews. For each of these categories, because EPA’s annual review builds on 

previous reviews, EPA primarily looked at the pollutants reported in 2007 and their contribution 

to their category’s TWPE. 

Table 5-5. Previous Reviews for Point Source Categories Collectively Discharging over 95 

Percent of the Total TWPE 

40 CFR 

Part Point Source Category Level of Review for 2005/2006 

Level of Review for 

2007/2008 

414 Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and 

Synthetic Fibers 

Preliminary Category Review Preliminary Category Review

415 Inorganic Chemicals 

Manufacturing 

Preliminary Category Review Screening-Level Review a 
Section 5 – 2009 Annual Review 

5-12 

Table 5-5. Previous Reviews for Point Source Categories Collectively Discharging over 95 

Percent of the Total TWPE 

40 CFR 

Part Point Source Category Level of Review for 2005/2006 

Level of Review for 

2007/2008 

418 Fertilizer Manufacturing Preliminary Category Review Screening-Level Review a 

419 Petroleum Refining Preliminary Category Review Preliminary Category Review

420 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Detailed Study Preliminary Category Review

421 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Preliminary Category Review Screening-Level Review a 

423 Steam Electric Detailed Study Detailed Study 

435 Oil and Gas Extraction NA Detailed Study 

440 Ore Mining and Dressing Preliminary Category Review Preliminary Category Review

460 Hospitals (Health Services) NA Detailed Study 

a – EPA conducted a preliminary category review as part of the 2007 annual review, but not as part of the 2008 

annual review. 

5.3 2009 Annual Review References

1. Auchterlonie, Steve. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Chris 

Krejci, ERG and Steve Auchterlonie, Front St. Remedial Action. RE: Verification 

of magnitude and basis of estimate for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 

discharges in PCS. (March 13). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06636. 

2. Davis, Katherine. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Elizabeth 

Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Katherine Davis, Westvaco Texas, L.P. 

RE: Basis of TCDD Equivalent Concentrations Reported in 2007. (July 7). EPAHQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06547. 

3. Martin, Jason. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Elizabeth 

Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Jason Martin, MPM Silicones LLC. RE: 

Basis of Copper (Total Recoverable) Concentrations Reported in 2007. (July 1). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06549. 

4. McCuutchen, Kate. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Elizabeth 

Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Kate McCuutchen, Blue Heron Paper 

Co. RE: Basis of Methylmercury Concentration Reported in 2007 in DMR. (July). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06546. 

5. Schwartz, Jerry. 2009. Notes from email conversation between Carey Johnston, 

EPA and Jerry Schwartz, EPA. RE: Information in Response to EPA Questions 

on Data. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06700-06700A2. 

6. U.S. EPA, 1988a. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Interim Final. 

EPA-540-G-89-006. OSWER Publication 9234.1-01. Washington, DC. (August). 

Available online at: www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/pdf/540g-89006-

s.pdf. 
Section 5 – 2009 Annual Review 

5-13 

7. U.S. EPA, 1988b. Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground 

Water at Superfund Sites. OSWER Directive 9283.1-2. EPA-540-G-88-003. 

(December). Available online at: 

www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/pdf/540g-89006-s.pdf. 

8. U.S. EPA. 2008. Coal Mining Detailed Study. EPA-821-R-08-012. Washington, 

DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-1695. 

9. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing 

Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories.

EPA-821-R-09-007. Washington, DC. (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 

06557. 
Section 6 – Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418) 

6-1 

6. FERTILIZER MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 418) 

 EPA identified the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 418) for preliminary 

category review as part of the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. EPA 

previously reviewed discharges from fertilizer manufacturing facilities as part of each of EPA’s 

Preliminary and Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans from 2004 to 2007 (U.S. EPA, 2004; 

U.S. EPA, 2005; U.S. EPA, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2007). This section summarizes the 2009 annual 

review of the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category. 

6.1 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Background

 This subsection provides background on the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category including 

a brief profile of the fertilizer manufacturing industry and background on 40 CFR Part 418. 

6.1.1 Fertilizer Manufacturing Industry Profile 

 The fertilizer manufacturing industry includes facilities that produce phosphorus- and 

nitrogen-based fertilizers (U.S. EPA, 2006). EPA considered the following four NAICS codes as 

part of the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category: 

• 311225FER: Fats and Oils Refining and Blending; 

• 325312: Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing10; 

• 325311: Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing; and 

• 325314: Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing. 

 Wastewater generated by facilities in NAICS code 311225 can be regulated under 

multiple categories. EPA reviewed available information about pollutant loads and 

manufacturing operations for facilities reporting this NAICS code. EPA assigned the extension 

“FER” to the end of the NAICS codes of facilities that likely primarily generate wastewater 

regulated by the Fertilizer Manufacturing ELGs. Most facilities in NAICS 311225 are grouped 

under the Miscellaneous Foods and Beverages Potential New Point Source Category. 

Table 6-1 lists the four NAICS codes with operations in the Fertilizer Manufacturing 

Category. Because facilities report SIC codes in DMRLoads2007, and the U.S. Economic Census 

and TRI report data by NAICS code, EPA reclassified the 2007 DMR by the equivalent NAICS 

code. 

 

10 EPA identified an error in the TRIReleases2007_v02 database, and pollutant loads associated with NAICS code 

325312 are currently associated with the Phosphate Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA is choosing to 

correct the error in future versions of the database, because the TWPE associated with NAICS code is negligible 

(total of 242 TWPE/yr). 
Section 6 – Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418) 

6-2 

Table 6-1. Number of Fertilizer Manufacturing Facilities 

Number of Facilities

NAICS Code 

2002 U.S. 

Economic Census 2007 DMR a 2007 TRI b

325311 Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing 144 40 

311225FER Fats and Oils Refining and Blending NA 

58 c

1 

325312 Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing d 45 0 17

325314 Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing 534 27 52 

Total >723 85 110 

Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002) TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads20007_v3. 

a – Major and minor dischargers. Also, DMR data is reported by SIC code; therefore EPA used an NAICS to SIC 

crosswalk for comparison purposes. 

b – Releases to any media. 

c – Includes facilities that EPA determined were subject to the Fertilizer Manufacturing ELGs as part of the 2006 

annual review reporting SIC code 2874: Phosphatic Fertilizers (U.S. EPA, 2006). 

d – EPA identified an error in the TRIReleases2007_v2 database, and pollutant loads associated with NAICS code 

325312 are currently associated with the Phosphate Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA is choosing to 

correct the error in future versions of the database, because the TWPE associated with NAICS code is negligible 

(total of 240 TWPE/yr). 

NA – Not applicable. This facility-specific NAICS code that EPA assigned does not correspond to NAICS code in 

the 2002 U.S. Economic Census. 

6.1.2 40 CFR Part 418 

 EPA first promulgated ELGs for the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 

418) on April 8, 1974 (39 FR 12836) for the Basic Fertilizer Chemicals Segment and on 

January 14, 1975 (40 FR 2652) for the Formulated Fertilizer Chemicals Segment. The Fertilizer 

Manufacturing ELGs are applicable to process wastewater and contaminated nonprocess 

wastewater discharged from the specific subcategories listed in Table 6-2. The seven 

subcategories are based on the type of fertilizer produced (U.S. EPA, 2006). Discussion of the 

pollutants regulated for each subcategory can be found in Table 5-25 of the 2004 TSD (U.S. 

EPA, 2004). 

Table 6-2. Subcategories in the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category 

Subpart Title 

Related SIC 

Code(s) 

Related NAICS 

Code(s) Description 

A Phosphate 

Subcategory 

2874: Phosphatic 

Fertilizers 

325312: Phosphatic 

Fertilizer 

Manufacturing a

Manufacture of sulfuric acid by sulfur 

burning, wet-process phosphoric acid, 

normal superphosphate, triple 

superphosphate, and ammonium 

phosphate. 

B Ammonia 

Subcategory 

2873: Nitrogenous 

Fertilizers 

325311 Nitrogenous 

Fertilizer 

Manufacturing 

Manufacture of ammonia. 

C Urea 

Subcategory 

2873: Nitrogenous 

Fertilizers 

325311 Nitrogenous 

Fertilizer 

Manufacturing 

Manufacture of urea. 
Section 6 – Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418) 

6-3 

Table 6-2. Subcategories in the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category 

Subpart Title 

Related SIC 

Code(s) 

Related NAICS 

Code(s) Description 

D Ammonium 

Nitrate 

Subcategory 

2873: Nitrogenous 

Fertilizers 

325311 Nitrogenous 

Fertilizer 

Manufacturing 

Manufacture of ammonium nitrate. 

E Nitric Acid 

Subcategory 

2873: Nitrogenous 

Fertilizers 

325311 Nitrogenous 

Fertilizer 

Manufacturing 

Production of nitric acid in 

concentrations up to 68 percent. 

F Ammonium 

Sulfate 

Production 

Subcategory 

2873: Nitrogenous 

Fertilizers 

325311 Nitrogenous 

Fertilizer 

Manufacturing 

Production of ammonium sulfate by the 

synthetic process and by coke oven byproduct recovery. 

G Mixed Blend 

Fertilizer 

Production 

Subcategory 

2875: Fertilizers, 

Mixing Only 

325314 Fertilizer 

(Mixing Only) 

Manufacturing 

Production of mixed b

 and blend c

fertilizer. 

Source: Fertilizer Manufacturing Point Source Category - 40 CFR Part 418; Preliminary Review of Prioritized 

Categories of Industrial Dischargers (U.S. EPA, 2005). 

a – EPA identified an error in the TRIReleases2007_v2 database, and pollutant loads associated with NAICS code 

325312 are currently associated with the Phosphate Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 422). EPA is choosing to 

correct the error in future years of the TRI database, because the TWPE associated with NAICS code is negligible 

(total of 242 TWPE).

b – Mixed fertilizer means “a mixture of wet and/or dry straight fertilizer material, mixed fertilizer materials, fillers 

and additives prepared through chemical reaction to a given formulation.” 

c – Blend fertilizer means “a mixture of dry, straight and mixed fertilizer materials.” 

6.2 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category 2009 Annual Review

 This subsection discusses EPA’s 2009 annual review of the Fertilizer Manufacturing 

Category including the screening-level review and category-specific review. 

6.2.1 Fertilizer Manufacturing 2009 Screening-Level Review 

Table 6-3 compares the screening-level results for the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category 

from the 2004 and 2007 TRI and DMR databases. The combined DMR and TRI TWPE 

decreased from 2004 to 2007. However, the 2007 DMR TWPE accounts for approximately 99 

percent of the combined 2007 TWPE.
Section 6 – Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418) 

6-4 

Table 6-3. Fertilizer Manufacturing Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2004 and 

2007 

Fertilizer Manufacturing Category 

Year of Discharge Year of Review TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b

2004 2007 10,843 c 1,168,160 

2007 2009 4,462 1,095,046 

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2; and DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. 

b – Discharges include only major dischargers. 

c – EPA identified an error in the TRIReleases2007_v2 database, and pollutant loads associated with NAICS code 

325312 are currently associated with the Phosphate Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 422). EPA is choosing to 

correct the error in future years of the TRI database, because the TWPE associated with NAICS code is negligible 

(total of 242 TWPE). 

6.2.2 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern 

Table 6-4 compares the five chemicals with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2007_v2

and TRIReleases2004_ v3, while Table 6-5 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in 

DMRLoads2007_v3 and PCSLoads2004_v4. 

Table 6-4. 2009 Review: Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Top TRI Pollutants 

2004 a 2007 a

Pollutant Rank 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE

Nitrate Compounds 1 31 3,557 1 19 2,254 

Chlorine 5 8 1,211 2 5 653 

Mercury and Mercury Compounds 8 3 140 3 2 648 

Zinc and Zinc Compounds 7 11 158 4 5 240 

Copper and Copper Compounds 4 13 1,241 5 4 228 

Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds 2 1 1,961 NR NR NR 

Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 3 1 1,570 NR NR NR 

Fertilizer Manufacturing Category 

Total 

NA 47 b 10,843 NA 29 b 4,462 c 

Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; and TRIReleases2007_v2. 

a – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. 

b – Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 

c – EPA identified an error in the TRIReleases2007_v2 database, and pollutant loads associated with NAICS code 

325312 are currently associated with the Phosphate Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 422). EPA is choosing to 

correct the error in future years of the TRI database, because the TWPE associated with NAICS code is negligible 

(total of 242 TWPE). 

NA – Not applicable. 

NR – Not reported. 
Section 6 – Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418) 

6-5 

Table 6-5. 2009 Review: Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Top DMR Pollutants

2004 2007 

Pollutant 

Number of Facilities 

Reporting Pollutant TWPE 

Number of Facilities 

Reporting Pollutant TWPE 

Fluoride 4 1,124,712 3 1,055,300 

Cadmium 2 16,576 2 25,387 

Aluminum 1 16,747 1 10,579 

Ammonia as N 19 4,521 16 2,402 

Nitrogen, nitrate total (as N) 12 4,084 11 782 

Fertilizer Manufacturing 

Category Total 

22 a 1,168,160 19 a 1,095,046 

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; and DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 

 EPA identified the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category pollutants of concern based on 

relative TWPE. EPA focused the 2009 annual review on discharges of fluoride from 2007 DMR 

because fluoride discharges account for over 96 percent of the combined 2007 DMR and TRI 

TWPE. Fluoride discharges decreased by approximately 69,000 TWPE between 2004 and 2007 

in DMR. EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2009 annual review 

because the remaining TRI and DMR TWPE is such a small percentage (4 percent) of the 

combined Fertilizer Manufacturing Category 2007 TWPE. 

6.2.2.1 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Fluoride Discharges in DMR 

 According to the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, fluoride discharges result from 

phosphorous-based fertilizer manufacturing (U.S. EPA, 2006). The phosphate rock is not a pure 

compound, but a fluorapitite mineral containing impurities of fluoride, iron, aluminum, silica, 

and uranium. The fluoride impurities evolve into gaseous silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4) or gaseous 

hydrofluoric acid (HF) throughout the manufacture of phosphoric acid and the processing of 

phosphoric acid into triple superphosphates. The gaseous fluoride compounds are collected in a 

wet scrubber unit, generating fluoride-contaminated wastewater. Additional fluoride remains in 

the gypsum by-product as a variety of various fluoride compounds. The gypsum is combined 

with contaminated wastewater and pumped to a storage and disposal area. Wastewater is also 

generated from the storage and disposal area (U.S. EPA, 1974). For additional information about 

phosphate-based fertilizer manufacturing, see Sections 8.5.1 through 8.5.3 in the 2006 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. EPA, 2006). 

 The majority (90 percent) of the fluoride discharges were from Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC in 

Uncle Sam, Louisiana. Mosaic Fertilizers’ Uncle Sam facility manufactures phosphate fertilizer 

and would be subject to 40 CFR Part 418 Subpart A (Phosphate Subcategory). However, the 

applicability of Subpart A excludes certain wet-process phosphoric acid processes from BPT, 

BAT, and BCT limitations that were under construction either on or before April 8, 1974, at 

plants located in the state of Louisiana. As a result, Mosaic Fertilizers’ Uncle Sam facility is 

excluded from Subpart A. Permit writers limit discharges from these facilities using best 

professional judgment (BPJ) (see 52 FR 28428, July 29, 1987). For a portion of the discharges 

from Mosaic Fertilizers’ Uncle Sam facility, BPJ permits incorporate Subpart A requirements 

(LDEQ, 2003). For additional information on Mosaic Fertilizers’ Uncle Sam facility (previously 
Section 6 – Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418) 

6-6 

owned by IMC Phosphates), see Section 8.5.4 in the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 

(U.S. EPA, 2006). EPA concludes that these large discharges of fluoride are restricted to a single 

plant whose permit basis differs from limits set for the Fertilizer Category, and do not reflect the 

industry as a whole. 

6.3 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Potential New Subcategories

 During the 2009 review, EPA did not identify any additional potential new subcategories 

for the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category. 

6.4 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Issues Identified and Additional Review

 EPA’s estimate of the toxicity of Fertilizer Manufacturing Point Source Category 

discharges is largely due to the DMR-reported discharges of fluoride. As shown in Table 6-5, the 

DMR discharge of fluoride accounted for 96 percent of the 2007 TWPE. During the 2009 annual 

review, EPA did not obtain any information to change its conclusions that have previously been 

made regarding the wastewater discharges from the fertilizer manufacturing facilities. Therefore, 

the conclusions of the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category review are as follows: 

• EPA verified the fluoride discharges in DMR 2007 for Mosaic Fertilizers’ Uncle 

Sam facility, a phosphate fertilizer manufacturer in Uncle Sam, LA. This facility 

is exempt from 40 CFR Part 418, Subpart A, the permit is based on BPJ, and the 

permit includes fluoride limits. EPA concludes that this facility does not represent 

the category as a whole, because it is exempt from Part 418 (see 52 FR 28428, 

July 29, 1987). 

• The total 2007 TWPE excluding Mosaic Fertilizers’ Uncle Sam facility’s 2007 

TRI and DMR discharges is 221,768 TWPE. 

 EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision 

based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as 

TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for 

revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table V-1 in the 

Federal Register notice that presents the 2009 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and 

pretreatment standards). 

6.5 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category References

1. LDEQ. 2003. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Office of 

Environmental Services Water Discharge Permit and Fact Sheet NPDES 

LA0004847 – IMC Phosphates Company Uncle Sam Plant, Uncle Sam, LA. 

Baton Rouge, LA. (June 16). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1773. 

2. U.S. Economic Census. 2002. Available online at: 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02. 
Section 6 – Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418) 

6-7 

3. U.S. EPA. 1974. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

New Source Performance Standards for the Basic Fertilizer Chemicals Segment 

of the Fertilizer Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA-440/1-75/042-a. 

Washington, DC. (March). 

4. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA 821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2003-0074-1346 through 1352. 

5. U.S. EPA. 2005. Preliminary 2005 Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial 

Dischargers. EPA-821-B-05-004. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2004-0032-0053. 

6. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). Docket OW2004-0032-2782. 

7. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan. EPA-821-R-07-007. Washington, DC. (October). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0819. 
Section 7 – Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415) 

7-1 

7. INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 415) 

 EPA identified the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (Inorganic Chemicals) Point 

Source Category (40 CFR Part 415) for preliminary category review as part of the Preliminary 

2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. This industry was reviewed previously in each of EPA’s 

Preliminary and Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans from 2004 to 2007, except 2005 (U.S. 

EPA, 2004; U.S. EPA, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2007). 

 This section describes the results of EPA’s 2009 preliminary category review of the 

Inorganic Chemicals Category. EPA is currently reviewing discharges from the Chlor-Alkali 

Subcategory as part of the Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH) ELGs rulemaking. 

Because a rulemaking for this segment of the Inorganic Chemicals Category is underway, EPA 

excluded discharges from these facilities from further consideration in this review (see Table 

V-1, 73 FR 53218, September 15, 2008). 

7.1 Inorganic Chemicals Category Background

 This section provides background on the Inorganic Chemicals Category including a brief 

profile of the inorganic chemicals manufacturing industry and background on 40 CFR Part 415. 

7.1.1 Inorganic Chemicals Industry Profile 

 The inorganic chemicals manufacturing industry includes facilities that manufacture a 

broad class of substances encompassing those substances that do not include carbon and its 

derivatives as their principal elements. EPA considered the following seven NAICS codes as part 

of the Inorganic Chemicals Category: 

• 325120: Industrial Gases; 

• 325131: Inorganic Pigments; 

• 325181: Alkalies and Chlorine; 

• 325188: All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing; 

• 325998INORG: All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation; 

• 331311: Alumina Refining; and 

• 325510INORG: Paint and Coating Manufacturing. 

 Wastewater generated by facilities in NAICS codes 325998 and 325510 can be regulated 

under multiple categories. EPA reviewed available information about pollutant loads and 

manufacturing operations for facilities reporting these NAICS codes. EPA assigned the extension 

“INORG” to the end of the NAICS codes of facilities that likely primarily generate wastewater 

regulated by the Inorganic Chemicals ELGs. For example, most facilities in NAICS 325510 are 

grouped under the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category. 

 This list of NAICS codes includes facilities that EPA determined are potential new 

subcategories to the Inorganic Chemicals Category. As part of the 2004 annual review, EPA 

reviewed industries with SIC codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the 
Section 7 – Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415) 

7-2 

processes, operations, wastewaters, and pollutants of facilities in the following SIC codes are 

similar to those of the Inorganic Chemicals Category (U.S. EPA, 2004):11

• 2812: Alkalies and Chlorine; 

• 2813: Industrial Gases; 

• 2816: Inorganic Pigments; and 

• 2819: Industrial Inorganic Chemicals. 

As part of the 2009 annual review, EPA reclassified these SIC codes as equivalent NAICS codes 

for use with the U.S. Economic Census and 2007 TRI data that are reported by NAICS code. 

However, there is not a direct relationship between one SIC and one NAICS codes. As a result, 

EPA included the following NAICS codes in the 2009 annual review of the Inorganic Chemicals 

Category because they contain facilities with operations that are similar to the SIC codes above: 

• 325120: Industrial Gases; 

• 325131: Inorganic Pigments; 

• 325181: Alkalies and Chlorine; 

• 325188: All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing; 

• 331311: Alumina Refining; and 

• 325510INORG: Paint and Coating Manufacturing. 

Table 7-1 lists the seven NAICS codes with operations in the Inorganic Chemicals 

Category. Because facilities report SIC codes in DMRLoads2007, and the U.S. Economic Census 

and TRI report data by NAICS code, EPA reclassified the 2007 DMR by the equivalent NAICS 

code. 

Table 7-1. Number of Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Facilities 

Number of Facilities 

NAICS Code 

2002 U.S. 

Economic Census 2007 DMR a 2007 TRI b 

325120 Industrial Gases 572 82 

325131 Inorganic Pigments 81 41 

325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 631 263 

325510INORG Paint and Coating Manufacturing NA 2 

325998INORG All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product 

and Preparation 

NA 12

331311 Alumina Refining 10 

384 

6 

 

11 The tables in this section include discharge information from facilities reporting these SIC codes and the 

corresponding NAICS codes; however, these facilities contribute negligible amounts of TWPE. Consistent with the 

conclusions drawn during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004) and 2006 review (U.S. EPA, 2006), EPA found 

that large numbers of these facilities discharge no wastewater and only a small number of facilities discharge TWPE 

greater than zero. 
Section 7 – Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415) 

7-3 

Table 7-1. Number of Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Facilities 

Number of Facilities 

NAICS Code 

2002 U.S. 

Economic Census 2007 DMR a 2007 TRI b 

325181 Alkalies and Chlorine 41 10 8 

Total 1,335 394 414 

Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002); TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads20007_v3. 

a – Major and minor dischargers. Also, DMR data are reported by SIC code; therefore, EPA used an NAICS to SIC 

crosswalk for comparison purposes. 

b – Releases to any media. 

NA – Not applicable. These facility-specific NAICS codes do not correspond to NAICS codes in the 2002 U.S. 

Economic Census. 

7.1.2 40 CFR Part 415 

 Wastewater discharges for the inorganic chemicals manufacturing industry are regulated 

under 40 CFR Part 415: Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category. This 

category consists of 67 subcategories defined by the type of inorganic chemical product 

manufactured. In addition to BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS, the category includes PSES and PSNS 

limitations for at least one subcategory. Table 5-6 in the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 

contains details on the pollutants regulated by subpart (U.S. EPA, 2004). The effluent guidelines 

for the Inorganic Chemicals Category were first promulgated in 1974 and revised in 1975, 1976, 

1982, and 1986. 

7.2 Inorganic Chemicals Category 2009 Annual Review

 This section discusses EPA’s 2009 annual review of the Inorganic Chemicals Category 

including the screening-level review and category-specific review. 

7.2.1 Inorganic Chemicals 2009 Screening-Level Review 

Table 7-2 compares the Inorganic Chemicals Category TWPE for 2004 and 2007, 

calculated using TRIReleases2004_v3, PCSLoads2004_v4, TRIReleases2007_v2, and 

DMRLoads2007_v3. The table excludes the amount of TWPE contributed by the Chlor-Alkali 

Subcategory. EPA is currently considering revisions to ELGs for discharges from facilities that 

produce chlorine by the chlor-alkali process. Because a rulemaking for the chlor-alkali sector of 

the Inorganic Chemicals Category is underway, discharges from these facilities were excluded 

from further consideration for the Inorganic Chemicals Category review under the current 

planning cycle. 

 The combined DMR and TRI TWPE decreased from 2004 to 2007. However, the 2007 

DMR TWPE is higher than the 2004 DMR TWPE. The 2007 DMR TWPE accounts for 

approximately 88 percent of the combined 2007 TWPE. 
Section 7 – Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415) 

7-4 

Table 7-2. Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 

2004 and 2007 

Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Category a

Year of Discharge Year of Review TRI TWPE b DMR TWPE c

2004 2007 122,514 315,780 

2007 2009 54,657 393,523 

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Excludes the Chlor-Alkali Subcategory of the Inorganic Chemicals Category. 

b – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. 

c – Discharges include only major dischargers. 

7.2.2 Inorganic Chemicals Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern 

Table 7-3 lists the five chemicals with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2007_v2 and 

TRIReleases2004_v3, while Table 7-4 lists the five chemicals with the highest TWPE in 

DMRLoads2007_v3 and PCSLoads2004_v4. 

Table 7-3. 2009 Review: Inorganic Chemicals Category Top TRI Pollutants 

2004 a 2007 a

Pollutant Rank 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE

Manganese and Manganese 

Compounds 

1 29 67,379 1 22 14,627

Dioxin and Dioxin Like Compounds 2 5 24,966 2 5 11,568 

Mercury and Mercury Compounds 3 13 4,386 3 12 6,505 

Arsenic and Arsenic Compounds 8 4 2,120 4 3 5,481 

Nitrate Compounds 4 48 3,966 5 41 3,574

Hexachlorobenzene 5 4 3,603 8 2 1,558

Inorganic Chemicals Category Total NA 191 b 122,514 NA 141 b 54,657

Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2. 

a – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. 

b – Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 

NA – Not applicable. 

Table 7-4. 2009 Review: Inorganic Chemicals Category Top DMR Pollutants 

2004 2007 

Pollutant Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE 

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 6 1 16,173 1 1 363,489

Chlorine 3 10 40,467 2 13 10,483

Fluoride 9 9 7,444 3 8 4,586
Section 7 – Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415) 

7-5 

Table 7-4. 2009 Review: Inorganic Chemicals Category Top DMR Pollutants 

2004 2007 

Pollutant Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE 

Heptachlor NR NR NR 4 1 2,136 

Copper 5 27 29,821 5 24 2,050 

Iron 4 8 29,871 8 8 766 

Sulfide 1 2 87,918 NR NR NR 

Lead 2 14 52,423 21 9 236 

Inorganic Chemical Category Total NA 58 a 315,780 NA 51 a 393,523

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; and DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 

NA – Not applicable. 

NR – Not reported. 

 EPA identified the Inorganic Chemicals Category pollutant of concern based on relative 

TWPE. EPA focused the 2009 annual review on discharges of manganese and manganese 

compounds from 2007 TRI and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from 2007 DMR. Discharges 

of manganese and manganese compounds decreased by approximately 53,000 TWPE from TRI 

2004 to TRI 2007, while PCBs account for approximately 92 percent of the 2007 DMR TWPE. 

EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2009 annual review because the 

remaining TRI and DMR TWPE is such a small percentage (16) of the combined Inorganic 

Chemicals Category TWPE. 

7.2.2.1 Inorganic Chemicals Category Manganese and Manganese Compound 

Discharges in TRI 

 Discharges of manganese and manganese compounds decreased by approximately 53,000 

TWPE from TRI 2004 to TRI 2007. Manganese and manganese compounds contributed 35 

percent of the category TRI TWPE for 2007. The majority (55 percent) of the manganese and 

manganese compound discharges were from Tronox, LLC in Hamilton, MS. 

 EPA contacted Tronox, LLC as part of the 2009 annual review and verified the 

manganese and manganese compound discharges (Dickerson, 2009). Tronox, LLC identified the 

chloride titanium dioxide manufacturing process as the source of their manganese discharges.12

As a next step, EPA examined the manganese and manganese compound discharges from the 

other U.S. titanium dioxide manufacturing facilities, as reported to the 2007 TRI. Table 7-5 lists 

these discharges. Although seven of the nine U.S. titanium dioxide manufacturing facilities 

reported manganese discharges, none were of the order of magnitude of the 115,150 lbs/yr from 

the Tronox facility in Hamilton, MS. EPA concludes that these large discharges of manganese 

are restricted to a single plant, and do not reflect the industry as a whole. 

 

12 See Section 9.6.3 of the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. EPA, 2006) for additional information on 

the chloride method of manufacturing titanium dioxide. 
Section 7 – Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415) 

7-6 

Table 7-5. Manganese Discharges Reported by U.S. Titanium Manufacturing Facilities in 

TRI 2007 

TRI ID Facility Name 

Pounds 

Released TWPE 

39746KRRMCUSHWY Tronox (Hamilton, MS) 115,150 8,110 

44004SCMCH2426M Millennium Inorganic Chemicals (Ashtabula, OH) 36,000 2,536 

70669KRNSL3300B Louisiana Pigment Company (Westlake, LA) 23,309 1,642 

44004SCMCH2900M Millennium Inorganic Chemicals (Ashtabula, OH) 12,000 845 

19809DPNTD104HA Du Pont Edge Moor (Edgemoor, DE) 10,304 726 

39571DPNTD7685K Du Pont Delisle Plant (Pass Christian, MS) 762 54 

37134DPNTJ1DUPO Du Pont Johnsonville Plant (New Johnsonville, TN) 111 7.8 

Source: TRIReleases2007_v2. 

7.2.2.2 Inorganic Chemicals Category Polychlorinated Biphenyl Discharges in 

DMR 

 PCBs accounted for 95 percent of the 2007 DMR TWPE. PCBs were reported from only 

one facility, Department Of Energy’s Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, in McCracken County, 

KY. The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant is one of two plants in the United States that 

commercially enrich uranium for use in nuclear reactors. Kentucky Natural Resources and 

Environmental Protection Cabinet (KY NREPC) determined that the PCBs from the Paducah 

Gaseous Diffusion Plant were from historical industrial and waste management practices 

associated with capacitors or transformers. These practices resulted in PCB contamination at the 

facility, drainage ditches, and streams. KY NREPC developed a total maximum daily load 

(TMDL) for PCBs for Little Bayou Creek, the discharge location for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant, in 2001. The TMDL identified controls for limiting the addition of new PCB discharges to 

the stream along with activities to remediate historical PCB discharges (U.S. EPA, 2001). EPA 

concludes that the PCB discharges are specific to the Paducah facility, and do not reflect the 

industry as a whole. 

7.3 Inorganic Chemicals Category Potential New Subcategories

 During the 2009 review, EPA did not identify any additional potential new subcategories 

for the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category. 

7.4 Inorganic Chemicals Category Issues Identified and Additional Review

 The estimated toxicity of Inorganic Chemicals Category discharges is largely due to the 

TRI-reported discharges of manganese and manganese compounds and dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds and DMR-reported discharges of PCBs. During the 2009 annual review, EPA did not 

obtain any information to change its conclusions that have previously been made regarding the 

wastewater discharges from the inorganic chemicals manufacturing facilities. Therefore, the 

conclusions of the Inorganic Chemicals Category are as follows: 
Section 7 – Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415) 

7-7 

• EPA verified the manganese discharges reported to the 2007 TRI by Tronox, 

LLC, a titanium dioxide manufacturing facility in Hamilton, MS. This facility’s 

discharges are large compared to other titanium dioxide manufacturers, and EPA 

concludes that this facility does not represent the category as a whole. 

Further review of this category may focus on the following issues: 

• In future years, EPA may analyze the DMR-reported PCB discharges, including 

the methods used to estimate reported discharge, process sources, and 

concentrations discharged. 

 EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision 

based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as 

TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for 

revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table V-1 in the 

Federal Register notice that presents the 2009 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and 

pretreatment standards). 

7.5 Inorganic Chemicals Category References

1. Dickerson, Leonard. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Chris 

Krejci, ERG and Leonard Dickerson, Tronox LLC. RE: Verification of magnitude 

and basis of estimate for manganese discharges reported to TRI. (March 12). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06405. 

2. U.S. Economic Census. 2002. Available online at: 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02. 

3. U.S. EPA. 2001. Kentucky Division of Water. Total Maximum Daily Loads 

Development Polychlorinated biphenyls for Little Bayou Creek. McCracken, KY. 

(November). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06550. 

4. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA 821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2003-0074-1346 through 1352. 

5. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-2782. 

6. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan. EPA-821-R-07-007. Washington, DC. (October). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0819. 
Section 8– Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421) 

8-1

8. NONFERROUS METALS MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 421) 

 EPA identified the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (NFMM) Point Source Category 

(40 CFR Part 421) for preliminary category review as part of the Preliminary 2010 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan. This industry was reviewed previously in each of EPA’s Preliminary 

and Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans from 2004 to 2007, except 2005 (U.S. EPA, 2004; 

U.S. EPA, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2007). This section describes the results of EPA’s 2009 preliminary 

category review of the NFMM Category. 

8.1 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category Background

 This section provides background on the NFMM Category including a brief profile of the 

nonferrous metals manufacturing industry and background on 40 CFR Part 421. 

8.1.1 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Industry Profile 

 The nonferrous metals manufacturing industry includes facilities that smelt and refine 

metals other than steel, such as aluminum, copper, and nickel (U.S. EPA, 2006). EPA considered 

the following eight NAICS codes as part of the NFMM Category: 

• 325188NMM: All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing; 

• 331312: Primary Aluminum Production; 

• 331314: Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum; 

• 331411: Primary Smelting and Refining of Copper; 

• 331419: Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and 

Aluminum); 

• 331423: Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Copper; 

• 331492: Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal 

(except Copper and Aluminum); and 

• 331521: Aluminum Die-Casting Foundries. 

 Wastewater generated by facilities in NAICS code 325188 can be regulated under 

multiple categories. EPA reviewed available information about pollutant loads and 

manufacturing operations for facilities reporting this NAICS code. EPA assigned the extension 

“NMM” to the end of the NAICS codes of facilities that likely primarily generate wastewater 

regulated by the NFMM ELGs. Most facilities in NAICS 325188 are grouped under the 

Inorganic Chemicals Point Source Category. 

Table 8-1 lists the eight NAICS codes with operations in the NFMM Category. Because 

facilities report SIC codes in DMRLoads2007, and the U.S. Economic Census and TRI report 

data by NAICS code, EPA reclassified the 2007 DMR by the equivalent NAICS code. 
Section 8– Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421) 

8-2

Table 8-1. Number of Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Facilities 

Number of Facilities

NAICS Code 

2002 U.S. 

Economic Census 2007 DMR a 2007 TRI b

325188NMM All other Basic Inorganic Chemical 

Manufacturing 

NA c 2 1 

331312 Primary Aluminum Production 40 19 

331314 Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum 148 86 

331423 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of 

Copper 

31 18 

331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of 

Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) 

235 

82 

74 

331411 Primary Smelting and Refining of Copper 15 4 5 

331419 Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metal 

(except Copper and Aluminum) 

172 26 33 

331521 Aluminum Die-Casting Foundries 296 NA d 102 

Total 937 114 338 

Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002); TRIReleases2007_v2; and DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Major and minor dischargers. Also, DMR data are reported by SIC code; therefore, EPA used an NAICS to SIC 

code crosswalk for comparison purposes. 

b – Releases to any media. 

c – These facility-specific NAICS codes do not correspond to NAICS codes in the 2002 U.S. Economic Census. 

d – The corresponding SIC code is 3363: Aluminum Die-Castings and links to the Aluminum Forming Category (40 

CFR Part 467) and the Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders Category (40 CFR Part 471). 

NA – Not applicable. 

8.1.2 40 CFR Part 421 

 EPA first promulgated ELGs for the NFMM Category (40 CFR Part 421) on March 8, 

1984 (49 FR 8790). All 31 subcategories have NSPS and PSNS standards. Fourteen 

subcategories do not have PSES standards; the Bauxite Refining and Primary Copper Smelting 

Subcategories are limited to zero discharge of process wastewater under BPT, BAT, and NSPS; 

and EPA reserved BPT and BAT limitations for four subcategories (Secondary Indium, 

Secondary Mercury, Secondary Nickel, and Primary Rare Earth Metals). Most NFMM 

subcategories include limitations guidelines for lead, chromium, copper, arsenic, and zinc. 

Section 5.3.2 of the Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

lists the regulated priority and nonconventional pollutants in the NFMM Category (U.S. EPA, 

2004). 

8.2 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category 2009 Annual Review

 This section discusses EPA’s 2009 annual review of the NFMM Category including the 

screening-level review and category-specific review. 
Section 8– Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421) 

8-3

8.2.1 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 2009 Screening-Level Review 

Table 8-2 compares the NFMM Category TWPE for 2004 and 2007, calculated using 

TRIReleases2004_v3, PCSLoads2004_v4, TRIReleases2007_v2, and DMRLoads2007_v3. The 

combined DMR and TRI TWPE increased by approximately 10,000 TWPE from 2004 to 2007. 

The 2007 DMR TWPE accounts for approximately 90 percent of the combined 2007 TWPE. 

Table 8-2. Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category TRI and DMR 

Discharges for 2004 and 2007 

Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category 

Year of Discharge Year of Review TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b

2004 2007 52,599 321,299 

2007 2009 38,885 342,764 

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2; and DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. 

b – Discharges include only major dischargers. 

8.2.2 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern 

Table 8-3 compares the five chemicals with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2007_v2

and TRIReleases2004_v3, while Table 8-4 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in 

DMRLoads2007_v3 and PCSLoads2004_v4. 

Table 8-3. 2009 Review: Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category Top TRI Pollutants

2004 a 2007 a 

Pollutant Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE

Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds 1 9 19,752 1 7 28,699 

Lead and Lead Compounds 3 79 6,070 2 101 3,245 

Copper and Copper Compounds 6 67 3,062 3 82 2,225 

Nitrate Compounds 7 18 2,710 4 16 1,863 

Arsenic and Arsenic Compounds 9 13 1,161 5 9 632 

Manganese and Manganese Compounds 2 20 6,299 8 15 346 

Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 4 4 5,244 7 3 533 

Vanadium and Vanadium Compounds 5 2 4,267 16 1 15 

Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 

Category Total 

NA 110 b 52,599 NA 106 b 38,885 

Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; and TRIReleases2007_v2. 

a – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. 

b – Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 

NA – Not applicable. 
Section 8– Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421) 

8-4

Table 8-4. 2009 Review: Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category Top DMR 

Pollutants 

2004 2007 

Pollutant Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE 

Cadmium 3 11 44,768 1 11 165,155

Arochlor 1260 NR NR NR 2 1 28,352 

Fluoride 5 18 31,484 3 19 28,086 

Chlorine 7 9 15,475 4 12 24,181 

Silver 6 3 21,006 5 8 21,742 

Polychlorinate Biphenyls (PCB) 1 1 69,768 11 2 3,881 

Arsenic 2 10 49,305 13 7 2,910 

Molybdenum 4 6 34,924 15 5 2,519 

Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 

Category Total 

NA 36 a 321,299 NA 59 a 342,764

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; and DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 

NA – Not applicable. 

NR – Not reported. 

 EPA identified the NFMM Category pollutants of concern based on relative TWPE. EPA 

focused the 2009 annual review on discharges of cadmium from 2007 TRI and DMR because the 

combined cadmium TWPE accounts for over 50 percent of the combined 2007 DMR and TRI 

TWPE. Cadmium discharges increased from 2004 to 2007 in both TRI and DMR. EPA did not 

investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2009 annual review because the majority of the 

NFMM Category TWPE is due to cadmium. Additionally, the TWPE of other top pollutants 

from the NFMM Category are consistent with findings in past years of review of this category, 

including similar facilities and pollutants. As a result, EPA does not plan to review these 

pollutants in detail. 

 Discharges of cadmium and cadmium compounds increased by approximately 9,000 

TWPE from TRI 2004 to TRI 2007. In addition, cadmium and cadmium compounds contributed 

78 percent of the TRI TWPE for 2007. 

 Discharges of cadmium increased by approximately 120,000 TWPE from DMR 2004 to 

DMR 2007, contributing 48 percent of the DMR TWPE for 2007. The majority (94 percent) of 

the cadmium discharges were from Zinifex Clarksville, Inc. in Clarksville, Tennessee. Zinifex 

Clarksville, Inc. primarily produces zinc along with cadmium and sulfuric acid as by-products. 

The majority of Zinifex Clarksville, Inc.’s cadmium discharges were from stormwater outfalls 

with monitoring only permit requirements. The facility’s cadmium discharges did not exceed the 

permit limits for the outfall with cadmium limits (TDEC, Unknown). 
Section 8– Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421) 

8-5

8.3 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category Potential New Subcategories

 During the 2009 review, EPA did not identify any additional potential new subcategories 

for the NMM Category. 

8.4 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category Issues Identified and Additional 

Review

 The estimated toxicity of the NMM Category discharges are largely due to the TRIreported and DMR-reported discharges of cadmium and cadmium compounds. Further review of 

this category may focus on the following issues: 

• In future years, EPA may analyze the TRI-reported and DMR-reported cadmium 

and cadmium compound discharges, including facilities dominating the TWPE, 

the methods used to estimate reported discharge, process sources, and 

concentrations discharged. 

 EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision 

based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as 

TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for 

revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table V-1 in the 

Federal Register notice that presents the 2009 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and 

pretreatment standards). 

8.5 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category References

1. TDEC. Unknown. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 

Division of Water Pollutant Control. Authorization to Discharge under the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit TN0029157- Zinifex 

Clarksville, Inc., Clarksville, TN. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1176. 

2. U.S. Economic Census. 2002. Available online at: 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02. 

3. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA 821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2003-0074-1346 through 1352. 

4. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-2782. 

5. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan. EPA-821-R-07-007. Washington, DC. (October). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0819. 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-1

9. ORE MINING AND DRESSING (40 CFR PART 440) 

 EPA selected the Ore Mining and Dressing (Ore Mining) Category (40 CFR Part 440) for 

additional data collection and analysis because of the high TWPE identified in several years of 

screening-level review (see Table V-1, 70 FR 51050, August 29, 2005). This industry was 

reviewed previously in each of EPA’s Preliminary and Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans 

from 2004 to 2008 (U.S. EPA, 2004, U.S. EPA, 2005, U.S. EPA, 2006, U.S. EPA, 2007, U.S. 

EPA, 2008a). Each year, EPA has concluded that there are not sufficient data available to 

determine whether wastewater discharges from the Ore Mining Category warrant a detailed 

study. The 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan summarized the results of EPA’s previous 

reviews of this industry (U.S. EPA, 2008a). 

 This section describes the status and preliminary results of the 2009 annual review of the 

discharges associated with the Ore Mining Category. EPA’s 2009 annual review builds on the 

2008 annual review. The 2009 preliminary category review of the Ore Mining Category differs 

from those of the other categories in this year’s TSD because EPA focused on collecting 

discharge data as well as examining which wastewaters are regulated by 40 CFR Part 440 versus 

general stormwater permits. 

9.1 Ore Mining Category Background

 This subsection provides background on the Ore Mining Category including a brief 

profile of the ore mining industry and background on 40 CFR Part 440. 

9.1.1 Ore Mining Industry Profile 

 The ore mining and dressing industry includes facilities that mine, mill, or prepare 23 

separate metal ores (U.S. EPA, 2005). EPA considered the following eight NAICS codes as part 

of the Ore Mining Category: 

• 212210: Iron ore mining; 

• 212234: Copper ore and nickel ore mining; 

• 212231: Lead ore and zinc ore mining; 

• 212221: Gold ore mining; 

• 212222: Silver ore mining; 

• 212291: Uranium-radium-vanadium ore mining; 

• 212299: All other metal ore mining; and 

• 213114: Support activities for metal mining. 

Table 9-1 lists the eight NAICS codes with operations in the Ore Mining Category. 

Because facilities report SIC codes in DMRLoads2007, and the U.S. Economic Census and TRI 

report data by NAICS code, EPA reclassified the 2007 DMR data by the equivalent NAICS 

code. 

 Of the 510 ore mines in the 2002 U.S. Economic Census, only 76 (15 percent) reported to 

TRI in 2007. The low number of facilities reporting to TRI is likely a result of the following: 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-2

• Facilities in NAICS codes 212210 (Iron Ores)13, 212291 (Uranium-RadiumVanadium Ores)14, and 213114 (Metal Mining Services)15 are not required to 

report discharges to TRI; 

• Activities do not occur at some facilities in excess of reporting thresholds (25,000 

lbs for processing and manufacturing and 10,000 lbs for otherwise use of most 

TRI chemicals); and 

• Facilities do not meet employee threshold reporting requirements – many 

facilities may operate with limited staff during inactive periods. 

 As part of the 2008 annual review, EPA compared the discharges in the DMR databases 

to the threshold reporting values for TRI. From this analysis, it appears that some ore mines that 

may be meeting threshold reporting requirements are not reporting to TRI (Krejci, 2008a). 

 Of the ore mines that have historically reported wastewater discharges to TRI, most 

facilities are direct dischargers. Table 9-2 presents the types of discharges reported by facilities 

in TRIReleases2007. 

Table 9-1. Number of Ore Mining Facilities 

NAICS Code 

2002 U.S. 

Economic 

Census 2007 DMR a 2007 TRI b

212210: Iron ore mining 24 4 NR c

212234: Copper ore and nickel ore mining 33 5 20 d

212231: Lead ore and zinc ore mining 22 22 14

212221: Gold ore mining 180 10 24

212222: Silver ore mining 11 1 4

212291: Uranium-radium-vanadium ore mining 17 4 NR c

212299: All other metal ore mining 39 8 19

213114: Support activities for metal mining 184 3 NR c

Total 510 57 76

Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002); TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Major and minor dischargers. 

b – Releases to any media. 

c – Facilities in this NAICS code are not required to report to TRI. 

d – Copper and nickel ores share the same NAICS code. 

NR – Not reported. 

 

13 The Minnesota Emergency Response Commission specifically found that toxic chemical releases and transfers 

from NAICS code 212210 facilities in Minnesota were not of sufficient quantities to warrant reporting. Based on 

this information, EPA determined that NAICS code 212210 facilities should not be required to report to TRI. EPA 

may reconsider the addition of this industry segment at a future date in light of additional information (62 FR 

23859). 

14 EPA has deferred final action on TRI reporting for NAICS code 212291 until a later date. EPA received 

comments related to NAICS code 212291 and TRI reporting that raised difficult technical and policy issues which 

will require additional time to address (62 FR 23838). 

15 EPA determined that requiring NAICS code 213114 to report to TRI was not appropriate because operations in 

this category are not generally associated with threshold activities (62 FR 23838). 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-3

Table 9-2. Ore Mining Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2007 

NAICS Code 

Reported 

Only Direct 

Discharges 

Reported 

Only 

Indirect 

Discharges 

Reported Both 

Direct and Indirect 

Discharges 

Reported No 

Water 

Discharges 

212221: Gold Ores 4 1 1 18 

212222: Silver Ores 3 NR NR 1 

212231: Lead and Zinc Ores 8 NR NR 6 

212234: Copper and Nickel Ores 5 NR 1 14 

212299: All Other Metal Ore Mining 5 NR NR 9 

Source: TRIReleases2007_v2. 

NR – Not reported. 

9.1.2 40 CFR Part 440 

 EPA first promulgated ELGs for the Ore Mining Category (40 CFR Part 440) on 

December 3, 1982 (47 FR 54609). This category consists of 12 subcategories, as shown in Table 

9-3 with the related SIC and NAICS codes and descriptions of the subcategories’ applicability 

(U.S. EPA, 1982; U.S. EPA, 1988). BAT limitations are set equal to BPT levels for priority 

pollutants for this category. The priority pollutants arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, 

nickel, and zinc are regulated in at least one subcategory (U.S. EPA, 2005). None of the 

subcategories include PSES or PSNS limitations. 

Table 9-3. Ore Mining Category Subcategory Applicability 

Subpart Subcategory Title Related SIC Code(s) Related NAICS Code(s) Subcategory Applicability

A Iron Ore 1011: Iron Ores 212210: Iron Ores Iron Ore Mines and Mills using Physical or 

Chemical Separation or Magnetic & 

Physical Separation in the Mesabi Range 

B Aluminum Ore 1099: Miscellaneous 

Metal Ores, NEC 

212299: All Other Metal 

Ores 

Bauxite Mines Producing Aluminum Ore 

C Uranium, Radium, 

& Vanadium Ores 

1094: UraniumRadium-Vanadium 

Ores 

212291: Uranium-RadiumVanadium Ores Open-Pit or Underground Mines and Mills 

using Acid Leach, Alkaline Leach, or 

Combined Acid & Alkaline Leach to 

Produce Uranium, Radium, & By-product 

Vanadium 

D Mercury Ore 1099: Miscellaneous 

Metal Ores, NEC 

212299: All Other Metal 

Ores 

Open-Pit or Underground Mercury Ore 

Mines and Mills using Gravity Separation or 

Froth-Flotation 

E Titanium Ores 1099: Miscellaneous 

Metal Ores, NEC 

212299: All Other Metal 

Ores 

Titanium Ore Mines from Lode Deposits 

and Mills using Electrostatic, Magnetic & 

Physical Separation, or Flotation; Dredge 

Mines and Mills for Placer Deposits of 

Rutile, Ilmenite, Leucoxene, Monazite, 

Zircon, and Other Heavy Metals 

F Tungsten Ore 1061: Ferroalloy 

Ores, Except 

Vanadium 

212234: Copper and 

Nickel Ores 

Tungsten Mines and Mills using Gravity 

Separation or Froth-Flotation 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-4

Table 9-3. Ore Mining Category Subcategory Applicability 

Subpart Subcategory Title Related SIC Code(s) Related NAICS Code(s) Subcategory Applicability

G Nickel Ore 1061: Ferroalloy 

Ores, Except 

Vanadium 

212234: Copper and 

Nickel Ores 

Nickel Ore Mines and Mills 

H Vanadium Ore 

(Mined Alone, not 

as By-product) 

1094: UraniumRadium-Vanadium 

Ores 

212291: Uranium-RadiumVanadium Ores Vanadium Ore Mines and Mills 

I Antimony Ore 1099: Miscellaneous 

Metal Ores, NEC 

212299: All Other Metal 

Ore Mining 

Antimony Ore Mines and Mills 

J Copper, Lead, 

Zinc, Gold, Silver, 

& Molybdenum 

Ores 

1021: Copper Ores 

1031: Lead and Zinc 

Ores 

1041: Gold Ores 

1044: Silver Ores 

1061: Ferroalloy 

Ores, Except 

Vanadium 

212234: Copper and 

Nickel Ores 

212231: Lead and Zinc 

Ores 

212221: Gold Ores 

212222: Silver Ores 

212299: All Other Metal 

Ores 

Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver, & 

Molybdenum Ore Open-Pit or Underground 

Mines, except for Placer Deposits, and Mills 

using Froth-Flotation and/or Other 

Separation Techniques; Mines and Mills 

using Dump, Heap, In-Situ Leach, or VatLeach to Extract Copper from Ores or Ore 

Waste Materials; Gold or Silver Mills using 

Cyanidation; Except for Mines and Mills 

from the Quartz Hill Molybdenum Project 

in the Tongass National Forest, Alaska 

K Platinum Ore 1099: Miscellaneous 

Metal Ores, NEC 

212299: All Other Metal 

Ores 

Platinum Ore Mines and Mills 

M Gold Placer Mine 1041: Gold Ores 212221: Gold Ores Placer Deposit Gold Ore Mines, Dredges, & 

Mills using Gravity Separation 

Source: Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing 

Point Source Category (U.S. EPA, 1982); Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category Gold Placer Mine Subcategory (U.S. EPA, 

1988); Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of 

Potential New Point Source Categories (U.S. EPA, 2009). 

 Runoff from waste rock, tailings, and overburden piles is not subject to effluent 

guidelines unless it naturally drains (or is intentionally diverted) to a point source and combines 

with “mine drainage” that is otherwise subject to the effluent guidelines (65 FR 64774, October 

30, 2000). These discharges are controlled by the Federal Stormwater Multi-Sector General 

Permit (MSGP) or state general stormwater permits.16 (See 65 FR 64746, Oct. 30, 2000, and 70 

FR 72116, December 1, 2005.) The federal MSGP pertains to four authorized states, federal 

facilities, and Indian Country in Region 10; stormwater from all other facilities is regulated by 

state general stormwater permits. 

9.2 Ore Mining Category 2009 Annual Review

 This subsection discusses EPA’s 2009 annual review of the Ore Mining Category 

including the screening-level review and category-specific review. 

 

 

16 Mine sites not regulated by general stormwater permits include: (1) sites with their stormwater discharges 

regulated by an individual permit; and (2) sites without any discharge of stormwater. A facility has the option of 

obtaining an individual permit for stormwater discharges instead of requesting coverage under a general stormwater 

permit; however, in practice this is seldom done. Almost all mine sites discharge stormwater (e.g., from haul roads, 

process areas, equipment storage areas, mine waste rock). 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-5

9.2.1 Ore Mining Category 2009 Screening-Level Review 

 Although EPA recognizes that the screening-level databases do not contain data for many 

ore mines, EPA used the data available to characterize ore mining wastewater. Table 9-4 shows 

the screening-level results for the Ore Mining Category from the 2004 and 2007 TRI and DMR 

databases. Based on the data that EPA has available, toxic weighted discharges from ore mining 

facilities decreased from 2004 to 2007 by approximately 445,000 TWPE. The majority of the 

decrease in TWPE is due to North Shore Mining in Silver Bay, MN no longer reporting mercury 

discharges in DMR. 

Table 9-4. Ore Mining Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2004 and 2007 

Ore Mining Category 

Year of Discharge Year of Review TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b

2004 2007 88,001 580,831 

2007 2009 39,354 184,455 

Source: PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2; PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; 

TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. 

b – Discharges include major and minor dischargers. 

9.2.2 Ore Mining Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern 

Table 9-5 compares the five chemicals with the highest TWPE in TRI from 2002 through 

2007, while Table 9-6 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in DMR from 2002 

through 2007. 

All of the pollutants of concern that EPA has identified for the Ore Mining Category are 

metals. EPA identified the following three metals for further review, because they have been in 

the top five list of pollutants in both TRI and DMR during each year of EPA’s review: 

• Arsenic; 

• Cadmium; and 

• Lead. 

 EPA focused the 2009 annual review on discharges of the above pollutants from DMR. 

In addition to these three metals, EPA also identified mercury discharges from Northshore 

Mining Company for further review, based on the high TWPE reported for 2004 DMR (greater 

than 99 percent of the Ore Mining Category mercury DMR 2004 TWPE). The following sections 

discuss the discharges of these pollutants from ore mining facilities. 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 9-5. 2009 Review: Ore Mining Category Top TRI Pollutants 

Pollutant a 2002 a 2003 a 2004 a 2005 a 200

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Arsenic 9 13,383 8 23,770 5 30,439 6 26,600 4 Lead 25 12,378 23 11,542 21 20,930 21 16,291 23 Cadmium 10 19,603 9 14,848 6 11,840 6 11,905 4 Silver 2 8,235 2 8,235 2 8,235 2 8,235 2 Vanadium 3 5,156 3 8,407 3 7,193 3 3,868 2 

9-6 

Source: TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v3; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2007_v2.

a – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. b – All listed are pollutant compound groups – they are referred to as parent metals (e.g., arsenic/arsenic compounds). 

Table 9-6. 2009 Review: Ore Mining Category Top DMR Pollutants 

Pollutant 2002 2004 2007 

Rank 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant T

Lead 4 30 23,309 4 40 19,091 1 37 4

Copper 9 62 4,874 8 35 8,690 2 41 4

Molybdenum 1 4 155,174 5 4 18,757 3 7 2Arsenic 5 11 12,701 2 10 30,921 4 15 2Cadmium 3 26 54,556 3 38 21,052 5 38 1

Mercury 12 52 1,971 1 28 441,338 a 10 22 

Cyanide 2 7 109,018 16 4 616 13 9 

Source: PCLoads2002_v4; PCSLoads2004_v4; and DMRLoads2007_v3.

a – Total TWPE after correction for Northshore Mining Company is 245 (See Section 9.2.2.4). 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-7

9.2.2.1 Ore Mining Category Arsenic Discharges in TRI and DMR 

 The arsenic TWPE for the Ore Mining Category has remained relatively high (greater 

than 10,000) over the years of EPA’s review in both DMR and TRI, although the TRI TWPE 

decreased by 98 percent from 2005 to 2007 to a total of 427 TWPE. Prior to 2007, two facilities 

dominated the Ore Mining Category arsenic TWPE in TRI: Newmont Lone Tree in Valmy, 

Nevada, and the Kennecott Smelter in Salt Lake City, Utah. These facilities had high arsenic 

discharges in past years (both around 10,000 TWPE), but did not report to TRI in 2007. 

Table 9-7 shows arsenic discharges by facility in DMRLoads2007_v3, PCSLoads2004_v4

and PCSLoads2002_v4. In DMRLoads2007_v3, arsenic discharges from the Ore Mining 

Category are dominated by Teck-Pogo, Inc. in Delta Junction, AK that accounts for 80 percent of 

Ore Mining Category arsenic DMR 2007 TWPE. In 2002 and 2004, arsenic discharges from the 

Ore Mining Category were dominated by two other facilities: Kennecott Utah Copper Mine in 

Salt Lake City, UT, and Lac Minerals (USA) Gold Mine in Lead, SD. In 2002 and 2004, TechPogo, Inc. did not report arsenic discharges. 

9.2.2.2 Ore Mining Category Cadmium Discharges in TRI and DMR 

 The cadmium TWPE for the Ore Mining Category has decreased over the years of EPA’s 

review; however, it has remained above 10,000 in both DMR and TRI during every year except 

2007. The number of ore mining facilities reporting cadmium discharges has remained relatively 

constant over this period (Tables 9-5 and 9-6). Prior to 2007, two facilities dominated the Ore 

Mining Category cadmium TWPE in TRI: Kennecott Mine and Power Plant in Salt Lake City, 

Utah, and the Kennecott Smelter in Salt Lake City, Utah. These facilities had high cadmium 

discharges in past years (both around 5,000 TWPE); however, in 2007 Kennecott Smelter did not 

report to TRI and the cadmium discharges reported by the Kennecott Mine and Power Plant 

facility decreased by an order of magnitude (from 5,000 to 500 TWPE). 

Table 9-8 shows cadmium discharges by facility in DMRLoads2007_v3, 

PCSLoads2004_v4 and PCSLoads2002_v4. The largest number of ore mining facilities 

discharging cadmium are lead/zinc facilities (18 of 37 as determined by SIC code). A large 

number of facilities contribute to the total cadmium TWPE from the Ore Mining Category. No 

individual facilities dominate the cadmium TWPE from the Ore Mining Category. 

9.2.2.3 Ore Mining Category Lead Discharges in TRI and DMR 

 The lead TWPE for the Ore Mining Category has remained above 10,000 in DMR and 

TRI during every year of EPA’s review. The number of ore mining facilities reporting lead 

discharges has remained relatively constant over this period. 

Table 9-9 shows lead discharges by facility in DMRLoads2007_v3, PCSLoads2004_v4

and PCSLoads2002_v4. The largest number of ore mining facilities discharging lead are 

lead/zinc facilities (20 of 38 facilities as determined by SIC code). A large number of facilities 

contribute to the total lead TWPE from the Ore Mining Category. In 2007, the lead TWPE was 

dominated by two facilities in particular: Doe Run Resources in Viburnum, MO, and Northshore 

Mining/Silver Bay Mining Co. in Silver Bay, MN, which account for 65 percent of the total 

TWPE. 
9-8 

Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 9-7. Arsenic Discharges Reported by Ore Mining Facilities in DMR for 2002, 2004 and 

2002 2004 

Type of 

Mine Facility Name Location 

Total 

Pounds 

Released TWPE 

Total 

Pounds 

Released TWPE 

Gold Teck-Pogo Inc. Delta Junction, AK NR NR NR NR Copper Kennecott Copper Co Salt Lake City, UT 2,660 10,750 5,051 20,414 Gold Lac Minerals (USA) Inc Lead, SD 7 27 2,512 10,153 Gold Wharf Resources (USA), Inc. Lead, SD 113 455 41 166 Gold Golden Reward Mining Co Lead, SD 30 121 27 108 Copper BHP Pinto Valley Operations Miami, AZ NR NR NR NR Silver Platoro Mining Co & Union Gold Conejos County, CO 1 4 3 10 Gold Homestake Mining Co-Gold Div Lead, SD 212 856 17 70 Gold Zortman Mining Inc. Zortman, MT 76 307 NR NR Gold Zortman Mining Inc. Zortman, MT 34 138 NR NR Gold Hecla Mining Co Stanley, ID 9 36 NR NR Copper Phelps Dodge Corp Cottonwood, AZ 2 7 NR NR Total 3,144 12,701 7,651 30,921 

Source: DMRLoads2007_v3, PCSLoads2004_v4; PCSLoads2002_v4. a – Includes only discharges greater than one TWPE. NR — Not reported. 
9-9 

Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 9-8. Cadmium Discharges Reported by Ore Mining Facilities in DMR for 2002, 2004, an

2007 2004 

Type of Mine Facility Name Location 

Total 

Pounds 

Released TWPE 

Total 

Pounds 

Released TWPE 

Lead/Zinc Doe Run Resources Co Viburnum, MO 161 3,720 220 5,080 Copper East Tn Zinc Co., LLC Jefferson City, TN 113 2,610 3.29 76.1 Lead/Zinc U.S. Silver Corporation Osburn, ID 101 2,330 NR NR Ferroalloy (except Alum.) Climax Mine Summit County, CO 88.8 2,050 43.2 1,000 Lead/Zinc Doe Run Resources Co Viburnum, MO 76.5 1,770 140 3,230 Lead/Zinc Doe Run Company Viburnum, MO 64.2 1,480 43.1 997 Lead/Zinc Doe Run Resources Corp Viburnum, MO 57.1 1,320 29.6 685 Copper Mammoth, Sutro, Keystone Et Al Redding, CA 21.6 499 10.8 250 Lead/Zinc Doe Run Company Bunker, MO 21.3 492 84.2 1,950 Gold Lac Minerals Lead, SD 14.6 338 0.179 4.13 Gold Wharf Resources (USA) Lead, SD 4.5 104 NR NR Lead/Zinc East Tennessee Zinc Co. LLC Jefferson City, TN 3.82 88.4 11.6 267 Ferroalloy (except Alum.) Henderson Mine, Urad Minesite Clear Creek County, CO 3.52 81.5 6.77 156 Lead/Zinc Cominco American Inc Bixby, MO 2.29 52.9 1.24 28.6 Gold Carlton Tunnel Portal Site Victor, CO 1.97 45.6 NR NR Gold London Water Tunnel Park County, CO 1.44 33.3 3.25 75.2 Lead/Zinc Kennecott Greens Creek Mining 

C 

Juneau, AK 1.36 31.4 3.02 69.9 

Gold Golden Reward Mining Co. Lead, SD 1.1 25.4 NR NR Lead/Zinc East Tennessee Zinc Co., LLC Mascot, TN 0.876 20.2 5.95 138 Lead/Zinc Mossy Creek Mining, LLC Thorn Hill, TN 0.752 17.4 0.659 15.2 Lead/Zinc Mt. Emmons/Keystone Mine Gunnison County, CO 0.725 16.8 1.46 33.7 Copper Bhp Pinto Valley Operations Miami, AZ 0.536 12.4 NR NR Gold Teck-Pogo Inc Delta Junction, AK 0.505 11.7 NR NR Ferroalloy (except Alum.) Thompson Creek Mining 

Company 

Clayton, ID 0.376 8.69 0.144 3.33 

Lead/Zinc East Tennessee Zinc Co., LLC Strawberry Plains, TN 0.235 5.44 NR NR 
9-10 

Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 9-8. Cadmium Discharges Reported by Ore Mining Facilities in DMR for 2002, 2004, an

2007 2004 

Type of Mine Facility Name Location 

Total 

Pounds 

Released TWPE 

Total 

Pounds 

Released TWPE 

Lead/Zinc East Tennessee Zinc Co., LLC Jefferson County, TN 0.191 4.41 6.93 160 Lead/Zinc Teck Cominco Alaska Inc Kotzebue, AK 0.094 2.17 NR NR Copper Kennecott Copper Co Salt Lake City, UT NR NR 292 6,750 Lead/Zinc Upland Wings Sullivan, MO NR NR 2.85 66 Lead/Zinc Mossy Creek Mining, LLC Gordonsville, TN NR NR 0.248 5.74 Gold Gold King Mines Corporation San Juan County, CO NR NR 0.192 4.44 Gold Coeur Alaska Inc Juneau, AK NR NR 0.163 3.77 Copper Phelps Dodge Christmas, AZ NR NR 0.0487 1.13 Gold Zortman Mining Inc. Zortman, MT NR NR NR NR Ferroalloy (except Alum.) Hecla Mining Co Mullan, ID NR NR NR NR Gold Zortman Mining Inc. Zortman, MT NR NR NR NR Lead/Zinc Mossy Creek Mining, LLC New Market, TN NR NR NR NR Total 743 17,171 911 21,050 

Source: DMRLoads2007_v3, PCSLoads2004_v4; PCSLoads2002_v4. 

a – Includes only discharges greater than one TWPE. NR – Not reported. 
9-11 

Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 9-9. Lead Discharges Reported by Ore Mining Facilities in DMR for 2002, 2004, and 

2007 2004 

Type of Mine Facility Name Location 

Total 

Pounds 

Released TWPE 

Total 

Pounds 

Released TWP

Lead/Zinc Doe Run Resources Co Viburnum, MO 6,510 14,600 3,860 8,640 Iron Northshore Mining/Silver Bay P Silver Bay, MN 5,840 13,100 NR NR Lead/Zinc Doe Run Company Viburnum, MO 2,070 4,640 1,080 2,420 Lead/Zinc U.S. Silver Corporation Osburn, ID 1,870 4,180 14 31.3 Lead/Zinc Doe Run Resources Co Viburnum, MO 1,400 3,140 765 1,710 Lead/Zinc Doe Run Resources Corp Viburnum, MO 690 1,540 702 1,570 Copper Kennecott Copper Co Salt Lake City, UT 149 335 31.7 70.9 Lead/Zinc Doe Run Company Bunker, MO 143 320 434 972 Lead/Zinc Kennecott Greens Creek Mining C Juneau, AK 126 282 136 305 Gold LAC Minerals Lead, SD 34.4 77 1,250 2,810 Lead/Zinc East Tennessee Zinc Co. LLC Jefferson City, TN 29 64.9 10.9 24.5 Ferroalloy (except Alum.) Climax Mine Summit County, CO 20.2 45.3 0.609 1.36 Lead/Zinc Jordanelle Ssd Wasatch County, UT 18.4 41.2 NR NR Lead/Zinc East Tn Zinc Co., LLC Jefferson City, TN 9.8 22 3.58 8.02 Gold Wharf Resources (USA) Lead, SD 5.48 12.3 NR NR Lead/Zinc Cominco American Inc Bixby, MO 5.24 11.7 2.3 5.15 Gold Carlton Tunnel Portal Site Teller County, CO 3.21 7.2 8.68 19.4 Lead/Zinc East Tennessee Zinc Co., LLC Strawberry Plains, TN 2.16 4.85 7.15 16 Gold Teck-Pogo Inc Delta Junction, AK 1.13 2.53 NR NR Ferroalloy (except Alum.) Henderson Mine, Urad Minesite Clear Creek County, CO 1.11 2.49 4.24 9.49 Gold Golden Reward Mining Co. Lead, SD 1.11 2.48 NR NR Ferroalloy (except Alum.) Thompson Creek Mining Company Clayton, ID 1.05 2.34 0.619 1.39 Lead/Zinc Mt. Emmons/Keystone Mine Gunnison County, CO 0.434 0.972 NR NR Gold Balmat Mines & Mill Balmat, SD NR NR 140 313 Iron Upland Wings Sullivan, NR NR 21.4 48 Lead/Zinc Mossy Creek Mining, LLC Thorn Hill, TN NR NR 20.4 45.8 Lead/Zinc Mossy Creek Mining, LLC Elmwood, TN NR NR 12.8 28.7 Lead/Zinc Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div. Mascot, TN NR NR 5.95 13.3 
9-12 

Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 9-9. Lead Discharges Reported by Ore Mining Facilities in DMR for 2002, 2004, and 

2007 2004 

Type of Mine Facility Name Location 

Total 

Pounds 

Released TWPE 

Total 

Pounds 

Released TWP

Lead/Zinc Mossy Creek Mining, LLC Gordonsville, TN NR NR 3.56 7.97 Gold London Mine LLC Park County, CO NR NR 2.86 6.4 Gold Gold King Mines Corporation San Juan County, CO NR NR 0.866 1.94 Lead/Zinc Leadville Corporation Leadville, CO NR NR NR NR Ferroalloy (except Alum.) Hecla Mining Co Mullan, ID NR NR NR NR Gold Zortman Mining Inc. Zortman, SD NR NR NR NR Gold Zortman Mining Inc. Zortman, SD NR NR NR NR Lead/Zinc Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div. New Market, TN NR NR NR NR Lead/Zinc Mossy Creek Mining, LLC New Market, TN NR NR NR NR Gold Calais Resources Colorado, Inc Caribou, CO NR NR NR NR Total 18,931 42,434 8,519 19,08

Source: DMRLoads2007_v3, PCSLoads2004_v4: PCSLoads2002_v4. a – Includes only discharges greater than one TWPE. NR — Not reported. 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-13 

9.2.2.4 Ore Mining Category Mercury Discharges from Northshore Mining Company in 

DMR 

 From PCSLoads2004_v04, EPA had identified large discharges of mercury from the 

Northshore Mining Company taconite mine in Silver Bay, MN (U.S. EPA, 2008a). EPA 

contacted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in 2009 to obtain additional 

information about the mercury discharges. The MPCA identified a data entry error: the facility 

reports mercury concentrations in ng/L, but the data in PCS were entered in mg/L without any 

conversion. The correction resulted in a reduced estimate of mercury discharges from 3,765 

lbs/yr (prior to correction) to less than one lb/yr. This correction reduced the mercury TWPE 

from Northshore Mining Company from 441,093 to 0.12. Based on EPA’s discharge estimates 

using the corrected DMR data provided by MPCA, mercury discharges from Northshore Mining 

Company are not a priority hazard for the 2009 review (Thomas, 2009). 

9.2.3 Ore Mining Category Data Obtained from Permits, Permit Fact Sheets, and Permit 

Applications 

 As part of the 2008 annual review, EPA collected readily available ore mining facility 

permits, permit fact sheets, and permit applications. These data were useful for wastewater 

characterization and determining current permitting practices. EPA made the following findings 

(U.S. EPA, 2008a):

• EPA analyzed discharges reported to PCSLoads2004_v4 to determine if loads 

were resulting from noncompliance. EPA reviewed all discharges greater than 

4,000 TWPE, and determined that mines appear to be in compliance with permit 

limits. The permits often only required monitoring of pollutants, without setting 

limits. 

• EPA reviewed permit fact sheets to determine the basis for permit limits. When 

individual permits are in place (as opposed to general stormwater permits), the 

permitting authority usually used a combination of technology- and water qualitybased limits. EPA found that water quality-based limits are typically set for the 

following parameters: 

— Total mercury; 

— Total recoverable lead; 

— Total recoverable copper; 

— Total recoverable cadmium; and 

— Total recoverable zinc. 

• EPA analyzed permit monitoring data from fact sheets for five gold mining 

facilities. The following metals were measured at concentrations above the 

method detection limit, illustrating that these pollutants are likely present in 

wastewaters from gold mining operations: 

— Arsenic (80 percent of mines); 

— Cadmium (80 percent of mines); 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-14 

— Molybdenum (100 percent of mines with data17); and 

— Lead (100 percent of mines) (U.S. EPA, 2008a). 

9.3 Ore Mining Category 2009 Preliminary Category Review Summary of Findings

 EPA collected additional data as part of the 2009 preliminary category review of the Ore 

Mining and Dressing Category. This subsection summarizes EPA’s findings from the following 

data searches: 

• Review of ore mining discharges that are exempt from Part 440 because they are 

regulated by stormwater general permits; 

• Review of Waters18 database to search for documented surface water impacts 

resulting from wastewater from ore mines; and 

• Ongoing data collection. 

9.3.1 Discharges Exempt from Part 440 and Covered by General Permits 

 As part of the 2009 preliminary category review, EPA is evaluating the impact of 

discharges from waste rock, tailings, and overburden piles, which are not currently covered by 

effluent guidelines. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether these discharges are 

adequately controlled by state and federal multi-sector general permits (MSGPs) (See 65 FR 

64746, Oct. 30, 2000; 70 FR 72116, December 1, 2005). 

9.3.1.1 The Federal MSGP 

 The Federal MSGP establishes general benchmark values for sampling and general 

requirements to develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan, but does not establish numeric 

limits or stormwater containment/treatment requirements. The MSGP establishes benchmark 

monitoring for pollutants including TSS, pH, hardness, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, 

iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, and uranium.19

 In 2008, EPA published a new MSGP, which requires more frequent monitoring 

requirements, more frequent site inspections, and more stringent benchmark concentrations for 

arsenic, mercury, and selenium. Active facilities covered by the MSGP must monitor discharges 

from waste rock, tailings, and overburden piles for the parameters in Table 9-10 and Table 9-11, 

as well as the ore-specific parameters in Table 9-12. The parameters in Table 9-10 and Table 

9-11 are compared to the listed benchmark concentration to determine whether corrective actions 

(i.e., additional control measures) are needed. 

 

17 Only two of the five facilities reviewed monitor for molybdenum. 

18 Available online at http://www.epa.gov/waters/geoservices/index.html (Date accessed: July 7, 2009). The Waters

database provides information on waters that are listed as “impaired” according to Section 303d of the CWA. 

19 Table G-4 of the MSGP lists the types of mining wastewater covered by Part 440 and the types covered by the 

industrial MSGP. In response to litigation from the National Mining Association, EPA revised its interpretation of 

applicability for wastewaters from hard rock mining operations. Under the revised interpretation, runoff from waste 

rock, tailings, and overburden piles is not subject to effluent guidelines unless it naturally drains (or is intentionally 

diverted) to a point source and combines with “mine drainage” that is otherwise subject to the effluent guidelines 

(65 FR 64774). 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-15 

Table 9-10. Parameters with Benchmarks Not Dependant on Hardness 

Parameter Benchmark Monitoring Cutoff Concentration 

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 100 mg/L 

Turbidity 50 NTU 

pH 6.0 – 9.0 Standard Units 

Hardness No Benchmark 

Total Antimony 0.64 mg/L 

Total Arsenic 0.15 mg/ L 

Total Beryllium 0.13 mg/L 

Total Iron 1.0 mg/L 

Total Mercury 0.0014 mg/L 

Total Selenium 0.005 mg/L 

Table 9-11. Parameters with Benchmarks Based on Water Hardness 

Water Hardness Range (mg/L) 

Parameter <25 25-50 50-75 75-100 100-125 125-150 150-175 175-200 200-225 225-250 250+ 

Cadmium (mg./L) 0.0005 0.0008 0.0013 0.0018 0.0023 0.0029 0.0034 0.0039 0.0045 0.005 0.0053

Copper (mg./L) 0.0038 0.0056 0.009 0.0123 0.0156 0.0189 0.0221 0.0253 0.0285 0.0316 0.0332

Lead (mg./L) 0.014 0.023 0.045 0.069 0.095 0.122 0.151 0.182 0.213 0.246 0.262 

Nickel (mg./L) 0.15 0.2 0.32 0.42 0.52 0.61 0.71 0.8 0.89 0.98 1.02 

Silver (mg./L) 0.0007 0.0007 0.0017 0.003 0.0046 0.0065 0.0087 0.0112 0.0138 0.0168 0.0183

Zinc (mg./L) 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.23 0.25 0.26 

Table 9-12. Parameters Specific to the Type of Ore Being Mined 

Type of Ore Mined 

TSS pH Arsenic Cadmium (H) COD Copper (H) Iron Lead (H) Mercury Nickel (H) Radium aUranium Zinc (H) 

Tungsten X X X X X X X 

Nickel X X X X X X X 

Aluminum X X X 

Mercury X X X 

Iron X X * 

Platinum X X X X 

Titanium X X X X X 

Vanadium X X X X X X X 

Molybdenum X X X X X X X X 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-16 

Table 9-12. Parameters Specific to the Type of Ore Being Mined 

Type of Ore Mined 

TSS pH Arsenic Cadmium (H) COD Copper (H) Iron Lead (H) Mercury Nickel (H) Radium aUranium Zinc (H) 

Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium X X X X X X X 

Copper X X 

All metals are total metals unless otherwise specified. 

a – Total and dissolved radium. 

(H) – Permittee is required to measure hardness along with the metal of concern. 

* - Dissolved iron. 

 Benchmark monitoring is required in the first year of activity under the MSGP. If the 

average of the first four quarterly monitoring results is below the specified benchmark for all 

parameters, the permittee is no longer required to monitor for the term of the permit. If any of the 

benchmark values are exceeded, the permittee must either modify the best management practices 

(BMPs) employed at the site or show just cause for an exception. Exceptions are granted in the 

following two cases: 

• The permittee shows that further pollutant reduction is not economically feasible 

considering best industry practices; or 

• Pollutant levels contributing to exceedances of specified benchmark values are 

attributable to background levels. 

 In either case, the permittee must provide documentation to EPA that must also be 

included in the site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 

9.3.1.2 State MSGPs 

 EPA identified nine western20 states (listed in Table 9-13) with NPDES primacy and 

active ore mining that have established state general permits instead of the federal MSGP. EPA 

reviewed these state general permits to understand the level of control that state permits exhibit 

on stormwater discharges from mines in NPDES-delegated states. Table 9-13 compares 

stormwater monitoring requirements between state and federal MSGPs. 

 

20 EPA focused on western states because the majority of ore hard rock mining operations occur in the western U.S. 
9-17 

Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 9-13. Comparison of Monitoring Requirements for Western States and Federal General Storm

Analyte

Permit a Monitoring Requirements 

TSS 

TDS 

Turbidity 

pH 

Washington (WA DE, 

2008) 

Permittee must monitor discharges four times per year until concentrations below benchmarks are measured for eight quarters. 

X X 

2008 Federal MSGP 

(covers Idaho and New 

Mexico b) (U.S. EPA, 

2008b) 

Permittee must monitor discharges four times per year in the first year of permit coverage. If pollutant concentrations exceed benchmark values, then the permittee must implement additional BMPs to remedy the situation and continue to monitor four times per year until measured concentrations are below benchmark values. 

X X X 

California (CA WRCB, 

2004) 

Permittee must monitor discharges three times per year. X X 

Montana (MO DEQ, 2007) Permittee must monitor discharges at least twice per year until all concentrations are 

below benchmarks for three consecutive sampling events. 

X X 

Arizona c Permittee must monitor at least once during the first year of coverage. If pollutant 

concentrations exceed benchmark values, then permittee must implement additional BMPs to remedy the situation and must continue to monitor twice per year until measured concentrations are below benchmark values. 

X X X 

Utah (UT DEQ, 2006) Copper mining and dressing facilities must monitor their discharges four times per year 

for COD, TSS, and nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen during years 2 and 4 of permit coverage. No specifications for other types of mines. 

X 

Nevada (NV DCNR, 2008) Permittee must monitor discharges once per year; alternatively, the permittee may 

submit a statement that these discharges will not cause exceedances of applicable WQS.

X X X 

Wyoming (WY DEQ, 

2007) 

Permittee must monitor discharges once per year. X 

South Dakota (SD DENR, 

2003) 

Except for coal pile runoff, monitoring is not required on a routine basis. d

Colorado (CO DPHE, 

2006) 

Monitoring is not required on a routine basis. d

a – Ranked by likely availability of monitoring data. b – Facilities in Alaska are covered by the 2008 Federal MSGP until its state general permit is published. c – Arizona continued the 2000 Federal MSGP until the state general permit is published. Requirements from this permit continue regafederal MSGP. d – State may require sampling if noncompliance with Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is suspected or to measure the effectivene
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-18 

 During the review of state general permits, EPA identified the following issues: 

• One state, Washington, required more stringent stormwater monitoring than the 

Federal MSGP; 

• Four states did not require that metals be analyzed; 

• Eight states required less frequent sampling than what is specified in the Federal 

MSGP; and 

• Two states require no routine sampling at all. 

 EPA found that state stormwater permits are generally less restrictive than the federal 

MSGP. 

9.3.2 Surface Water Impacts from Ore Mines 

 To research surface water impacts from ore mines, EPA conducted a search of Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) documents. To identify TMDL studies for this analysis, EPA 

used search tools available from the Waters21 Web site. While these tools allowed EPA to focus 

the search on ore mine-related TMDLs, they represent an incomplete collection of TMDL 

documents. At the time of this search, the Waters tool contained 7,670 TMDL documents; 

however, EPA has anticipated that more than 36,000 TMDLs will be completed for water bodies 

that were identified as impaired as of 2001 (U.S. EPA, 2001). Because some TMDL documents 

are not available through EPA’s database, it was not feasible to do a comprehensive review of 

every TMDL document for this analysis. 

9.3.2.1 Extraction and Review of TMDL Documents Database 

 EPA used the Waters TMDL Document Search tool22, which performs text searches of 

all TMDL documents in EPA’s database. EPA searched for all documents containing the term

“mine” or “mining.” 

s 

 

 Some of the TMDL documents in EPA’s database that contain the search terms “mine” or 

“mining” are irrelevant to the Ore Mining ELGs. For example, a TMDL document may discuss 

watershed impacts from coal or gravel mining. To screen out these and other types of irrelevant 

documents, EPA developed the system for identifying TMDL documents relevant to the Ore 

Mining ELGs discussed in the remainder of this subsection. 

 The search for documents containing the terms “mine” or “mining” narrowed the 7,760 

TMDL documents available to 1,668. EPA then identified documents that contained information 

relevant to the Ore Mining ELGs. This analysis consisted of the following steps: 

1. EPA removed TMDL documents for all states expect the following states with 

major ore mining activities: 

21 Available online at http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/text_search.tmdl_search_form. Accessed on January 22nd, 

2009. 

22 Ibid. 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-19 

— Alaska — New Mexico; 

— Arizona; — Nevada; 

— California; — South Dakota; 

— Colorado; — Utah; and 

— Montana; — Washington. 

Removing TMDL documents for all states other than those listed above reduced 

the number of documents for further review from 1,668 to 158. 

2. EPA performed a text search using the terms “mine” and “mining” and 

determined if mining operations discussed in the document were ore mining 

operations. EPA removed documents that lacked detail on the type of mining 

present in the watershed from the tracking spreadsheet. Removing documents that 

did not specifically describe ore mining operations reduced the number of 

documents for further review from 158 to 42. 

3. EPA reviewed the sections containing the search terms “mine” and “mining” to 

determine whether the document identified abandoned or closed mines. EPA 

noted this information but did not remove any documents from further analysis. 

4. EPA reviewed the sections containing the search terms “mine” and “mining” to 

determine whether the document identified large-scale (non-recreational), active 

mines. Removing documents that did not specifically describe large-scale, active 

mines reduced the number of documents for further review from 42 to 9. 

5. EPA performed a text search using the terms “waste rock” and “tailing” to 

identify documents that discuss water quality impacts from waste rock and 

tailings piles. EPA identified 23 documents that discuss impacts from waste rock 

and tailings piles. 

6. EPA verified that TMDLs listed mining activities as a source of impairment. In 

cases where it was not clear that mining was a source of impairment, EPA 

removed these from further analysis. Removing documents that described ore 

mining activities but did not list them as a source of impairment reduced the 

number of documents for further review from nine to seven. 

9.3.2.2 TMDL Studies Identifying Active Ore Mining Sources 

 EPA identified seven TMDL studies that described impacts from mining operations that 

were active/recently active23 at the time the studies were written. EPA reviewed in detail the 

relevant information in these studies as part of the TMDL analysis. Table 9-14 summarizes 

information from these seven TMDL studies (Krejci, 2009). 

 

23 Ore mining operations commonly close and re-open periodically according to the fluctuating prices of the metals 

they produce. Few mines are continually operational over spans of time long enough to identify them as sources of 

impairment while they are still active. In light of these observations, ERG selected TMDL studies that included 

discussion of recently closed mines. 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-20 

Table 9-14. TMDL Studies with Information on Active and Recently Closed Ore Mines a 

TMDL Study 

Pollutants of 

Concern 

Active and 

Recently Closed 

Mines b Summary of Data Available Additional Comments 

Pinto Creek Copper • Gibson Mine 

(closed); 

• BHP Pinto 

Creek Mine 

(active); and 

• Carlota Copper 

Project (active).

Appendix A (data and figures) 

not included; some data is 

provided in the text of the report. 

None. 

French Gulch Cadmium, 

Copper, Zinc 

Zonia Mine 

(closed) 

Document includes extensive instream monitoring data for metals 

and load estimates for all stream 

segments. 

None. 

Pena Blanca Mercury St. Patrick Mine 

(closed) 

Study provides concentration data 

from sediment and fish tissue 

samples and some concentration 

data from water column samples 

The TMDL study identified 

other past mining projects 

and current exploratory 

projects, but it does not 

provide information on 

their relative potential 

mercury loads. 

Red River 

(Rio Grande 

to 

Headwaters) 

Aluminum, 

Turbidity, 

and Sediment 

Molycorp Questa 

Mine (active) 

Document includes in-stream 

monitoring data for aluminum, 

benthic macroinvertebrates, 

stream flow, turbidity, and TSS; it 

does not provide data for any 

mine sites. 

None. 

Bryant Creek Arsenic, 

Copper, Iron, 

Nickel, 

Temperature, 

Turbidity, 

TSS 

Leviathan Mine 

(closed) 

Document includes statistical 

summary of stream flow, arsenic, 

iron, turbidity, and TSS 

measurements in creek. No data 

are provided for mine sites. 

Although mining impacts 

are referenced throughout 

the TMDL document, the 

study describes only the 

Leviathan Mine. 

Lower 

Similkameen 

River 

Arsenic • Similco Mine 

(active); 

• Dankoe Mine 

(active); 

• Corona Nickel 

Plate Mine 

(active); and 

• Cadorado Mine 

(active). 

• (All in Canada) 

Document includes in-stream 

monitoring data for arsenic. No 

data are provided for mine sites.

The TMDL study 

acknowledges that active 

mining occurs in the U.S. 

portion of the Similkameen 

watershed, but it does not 

specifically mention any 

mine sites in the U.S. 

Trinity River Sediment • Deiner Mine 

(closed) 

• La Grange 

(closed) 

Study estimates sediment loads 

from major sources. 

None. 

a – Listed in order of probable relevance to the Ore Mining and Dressing ELGs. 

b – Mine status in parenthesis. “Closed” means both inactive and permanently closed. 

TSS – Total Suspended Solids. 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-21 

 Although many TMDL documents discuss water quality impacts due to historic mining, 

EPA found only a limited number of documents discussing impacts due to current mining 

operations. Based on this information, EPA concluded that discharges from active mines have 

not been a significant reason for the development of TMDLs.

9.3.3 Compliance Analysis of the Ore Mining Category 

 At this time (at this report's publication), EPA continues a compliance review for 

facilities in the Ore Mining Category with data available through Enforcement and Compliance 

History Online (ECHO). ECHO is a data system administered by EPA's Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and is available online at http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/. 

EPA plans to use ECHO data as an indicator of general compliance status for the ore mining 

category. Conclusions about compliance status will be limited due to the incomplete information 

for NPDES minors in ECHO. This data will also assist EPA in determining which - if any - of 

the pollutants controlled by the Ore Mining ELGs are commonly associated with effluent limits 

violations. 

 EPA also anticipates using information available through ECHO, PCS, and ICIS-NPDES 

to identify facilities in the Ore Mining Category classified as NPDES minors. For some states, 

ECHO includes information on NPDES minor facilities, including facilities that are permitted 

through general stormwater permits. Where possible, EPA will evaluate the completeness of 

databases used for EPA’s annual review (e.g., TRI, PCS, ICIS-NPDES) for those states that 

voluntarily submit data on NPDES minors to the ECHO database. EPA is specifically using 

ECHO to identify NPDES minors because the annual review databases have less information on 

NPDES minors. 

9.3.4 Ongoing Activities 

As part of the Ore Mining Category review, EPA continues to collect monitoring data 

from EPA’s regional offices to assess the potential hazard of stormwater discharges from ore 

mining operations. EPA will analyze available pollutant concentration data for stormwater to 

determine if discharges from the Ore Mining Category warrant further review. Based on the 

information provided by the review of state general stormwater permits, only limited stormwater 

monitoring data will be available for some states. 

9.4 Ore Mining Category Issues Identified and Additional Review

 The conclusions of the Ore Mining Category review are as follows: 

• The Ore Mining Category discharges continue to rank high according to EPA’s 

screening-level databases;

• Discharges from active mines are not a significant reason for the development of 

TMDLs; and

• There are incomplete data available (e.g., stormwater discharge data, discharge 

data for PCS/ICIS-NPDES minors) for a full analysis of the Ore Mining 

Category. 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-22 

 EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision 

based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as 

TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for 

revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(5)” in the “Findings” column in Table V-1 in the 

Federal Register notice that presents the 2009 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and 

pretreatment standards). 

9.5 Ore Mining Category References

1. California Water Resources Control Board (CA WRCB). 2004. NPDES General 

Permit Number CAS000001. Sacramento, CA. (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-

0517 DCN 06899. 

2. Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CO DPHE). 2006. 

CDPS General Permit: Stormwater Discharges Associated with Metal Mining 

Operations and Mine-Waste Remediation. Denver, CO. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2008-0517 DCN 06898. 

3. Krejci, Chris. 2008. Memorandum to Public Record for Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan 2008. RE: Status of Ore Mining Category Review. Chantilly, Va. 

(January). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 05967. 

4. Krejci, Chris. 2009. Memorandum to the Public Record for the Preliminary 2010 

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. RE: Summary of TMDL Studies Relevant to 

the Ore Mining and Dressing ELGs. (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 

06916. 

5. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MO DEQ). 2007. General 

Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Mining and with Oil and Gas 

Activities: Permit Number MTR300000. Helena, MT. (October). EPA-HQ-OW2008-0517 DCN 06900. 

6. Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (NV DCNR). 2008. 

Stormwater General Permit NVR050000. Carson City, NV. (September). EPAHQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06897. 

7. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR). 

2003. General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial 

Activities. Pierre, SD. (November). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06901. 

8. Thomas, John. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Chris Krejci, 

ERG, and John Thomas, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (May 1). EPAHQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06410. 

9. U.S. Economic Census. 2002. Available online at: 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02. 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-23 

10. U.S. EPA. 1982. Development Document for Effluent Guidelines and Standards 

for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category. EPA-440/1-82-061. 

Washington, DC. 

11. U.S. EPA. 1988. Development Document for Effluent Limitations and Guidelines 

for New Source Performance Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point 

Source Category Gold Placer Mine Subcategory. EPA-440/1-88-061. 

Washington, DC. 

12. U.S. EPA. 2001. The National Costs of Implementing TMDLs. EPA 841-D-01-

003. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06698. 

13. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA 821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2003-0074-1346 through 1352. 

14. U.S. EPA. 2005. Preliminary Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial 

Dischargers. EPA-821-B-05-004. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2004-0032-0016. 

15. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-2782 

16. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan. EPA-821-R-07-007. Washington, DC. (October). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0819. 

17. U.S. EPA. 2008a. Technical Support Document for the 2008 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-08-015 Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2006-0771-1701. 

18. U.S. EPA. 2008b. Environmental Protection Agency Authorization to Discharge 

Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – Multi-Sector 

General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity 

(MSGP). Washington, DC. (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06896. 

19. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing 

Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories. 

EPA-821-R-09-007. Washington, DC. (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 

06557. 

20. Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UT DEQ). 2006. General MultiSector Industrial Stormwater Permit. Salt Lake City, Utah. (January). EPA-HQOW-2008-0517 DCN 06902. 
Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

9-24 

21. Washington Department of Ecology (WA DE). 2008. The Industrial Stormwater 

General Permit: A NPDES and State Waste Discharge General Permit for 

Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities. Olympia, 

Washington. (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06923. 

22. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WY DEQ). 2007. Authorization 

to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity Under the Wyoming 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES). Cheyenne, WY. 

(September). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06909. 
Section 10 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR 414) 

10-1

10. ORGANIC CHEMICALS, PLASTICS, AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS (40 CFR PART 414) 

 EPA identified the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) Point 

Source Category (40 CFR Part 414) for preliminary category review as part of the Preliminary 

2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. This industry was reviewed previously in each of EPA’s 

Preliminary and Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans from 2004 to 2007 (U.S. EPA, 2004; 

U.S. EPA, 2005; U.S. EPA, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2007; U.S. EPA, 2008). 

 This section describes the results of EPA’s 2009 preliminary category review of the 

OCPSF Category. EPA is currently reviewing discharges from the Chlorinated Hydrocarbon 

Manufacturing Segment of the OCPSF Category as part of the Chlorine and Chlorinated 

Hydrocarbons (CCH) effluent guidelines rulemaking. Because a rulemaking for this segment of 

the OCPSF Category is underway, EPA excluded discharges from these facilities from further 

consideration in this review (see Table V-1, 73 FR 53218, September 15, 2008). 

10.1 OCPSF Category Background

 This subsection provides background on the OCPSF Category including a brief profile of 

the OCPSF industry and background on 40 CFR Part 414. 

10.1.1 OCPSF Industry Profile 

 The OCPSF industry includes many chemical industries producing a wide variety of end 

products, such as polypropylene, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), chlorinated 

solvents, rubber precursors, Styrofoam additives, and polyester. Some OCPSF facilities are 

extremely complex and produce hundreds of chemicals, while others are simpler, producing one 

or two end products. EPA considered the following 22 NAICS codes as part of the OCPSF 

Category: 

• 311999OCPSF: All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing; 

• 324199OCPSF: All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing; 

• 325110: Petrochemical Manufacturing; 

• 325120OCPSF: Industrial Gas Manufacturing; 

• 325132: Synthetic Organic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing; 

• 325188OCPSF: All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing; 

• 325192: Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing; 

• 325193: Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing; 

• 325199: All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing; 

• 325211: Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing; 

• 325221: Cellulosic Organic Fiber Manufacturing; 

• 325222: Noncellulosic Organic Fiber Manufacturing; 

• 325510OCPSF: Paint and Coating Manufacturing; 

• 325520: Adhesive Manufacturing; 

• 325611OCPSF: Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing; 

• 325612: Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing; 

• 325620: Toilet Preparation Manufacturing; 

• 325998: All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation 

Manufacturing; 
Section 10 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR 414) 

10-2

• 326199OCPSF: All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing; 

• 339999OCPSF: All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing; 

• 424690: Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers; and 

• 562920: Materials Recovery Facilities. 

 Wastewater generated by facilities in NAICS codes 311999, 324199, 325120, 325188, 

325510, 325611, 326199, 339999 can be regulated under multiple categories. EPA reviewed 

available information about pollutant loads and manufacturing operations for facilities reporting 

these NAICS codes. EPA assigned the extension “OCPSF” to the end of the NAICS codes of 

facilities that likely primarily generate wastewater regulated by the OCPSF ELGs. For example, 

most facilities in NAICS code 324199 are grouped under the Petroleum Refining ELGs. 

 This list of NAICS codes includes facilities that EPA determined are potential new 

subcategories to the OCPSF Category. As part of the 2004 annual review, EPA reviewed 

industries with SIC codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the 

processes, operations, wastewaters, and pollutants of facilities in the following SIC codes are 

similar to those of the OCPSF Category (U.S. EPA, 2004):24

• 2821: Plastics Materials, Synthetic and Resins, and Nonvulcanizable Elastomers; 

• 2824: Manmade Organic Fibers, Except Cellulosic; 

• 2842: Specialty Cleaning, Polishing, and Sanitation Preparations; 

• 2844: Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet Preparations (except toothpaste, gel, 

and dentifrice powders); 

• 2869: Industrial Organic Chemicals, NEC (cyclopropane, diethylcyclohexane, 

naphthalene sulfonic acid); 

• 2891: Adhesives and Sealants; 

• 2899: Chemicals and Chemical Preparations, NEC (table salt); and 

• 5169: Chemicals and Allied Products, NEC (merchant wholesalers). 

As part of the 2009 annual review, EPA reclassified these SIC codes as equivalent NAICS codes 

for use with the U.S. Economic Census and 2007 TRI data that are reported by NAICS code. 

However, there is not a direct relationship between one SIC and one NAICS code. As a result, 

EPA included the following NAICS codes in the 2009 annual review of the OCPSF Category 

because they contain facilities with operations that are similar to the SIC codes above: 

• 311999OCPSF: All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing; 

• 325188OCPSF: All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing; 

• 325199: All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing; 

• 325222: Noncellulosic Organic Fiber Manufacturing; 

• 325510OCPSF: Paint and Coating Manufacturing; 

• 325520: Adhesive Manufacturing; 

• 325611OCPSF: Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing; 

• 325620: Toilet Preparation Manufacturing; 

 

24 The tables in this section include discharge information from facilities reporting these SIC codes and the 

corresponding NAICS codes; however, these facilities contribute negligible amounts of TWPE. Consistent with the 

conclusions drawn during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004) and 2006 review (U.S. EPA, 2006), EPA found 

that large numbers of these facilities discharge no wastewater and only a small number of facilities discharge TWPE 

greater than zero. 
Section 10 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR 414) 

10-3

• 325998: All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation 

Manufacturing; 

• 326199OCPSF: All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing; 

• 339999OCPSF: All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing; and 

• 424690: Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers. 

Table 10-1 lists the number of facilities for the 22 NAICS codes with operations in the 

OCPSF Category. Because facilities report SIC codes in DMRLoads2007, and the U.S. 

Economic Census and TRI report data by NAICS code, EPA reclassified the 2007 DMR by the 

equivalent NAICS code. 

Table 10-1. Number of OCPSF Facilities 

Number of Facilities 

NAICS Code 

2002 U.S. Economic 

Census 2007 DMR a 2007 TRI b

311999OCPSF All Other Miscellaneous Food 

Manufacturing NA 2

324199OCPSF All Other Petroleum and Coal 

Products Manufacturing NA 1

325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing 56 66 

325120OCPSF Industrial Gas Manufacturing NA 2 

325132 Synthetic Organic Dye and Pigment 

Manufacturing 123 37

325188OCPSF All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical 

Manufacturing NA 1

325192 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate 

Manufacturing 37 19

325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing 72 110 

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing 685 373

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 690 354 

325222 Noncellulosic Organic Fiber Manufacturing 95 28 

325510OCPSF Paint and Coating Manufacturing NA 9 

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing 595 150 

325611OCPSF Soap and Other Detergent 

Manufacturing NA 13

325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good 

Manufacturing 604 87

325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing 867 28 

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product 

and Preparation Manufacturing 1,188 305

326199OCPSF All Other Plastics Product 

Manufacturing NA 3

339999OCPSF All Other Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing NA 2

562920 Materials Recovery Facilities 947 

817 

5 
Section 10 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR 414) 

10-4

Table 10-1. Number of OCPSF Facilities 

Number of Facilities 

NAICS Code 

2002 U.S. Economic 

Census 2007 DMR a 2007 TRI b

424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products 

Merchant Wholesalers 11,158 83 433

325221 Cellulosic Organic Fiber Manufacturing 8 3 4 

Total > 17,125 903 2,032

Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002); TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v2. 

a – Major and minor dischargers. Also, DMR data are reported by SIC code; therefore, EPA used an NAICS to SIC 

crosswalk for comparison purposes. 

b – Releases to any media. 

NA – Not applicable. These facility-specific NAICS codes do not correspond to NAICS codes in the 2002 U.S. 

Economic Census. 

10.1.2 40 CFR Part 414 

 EPA first promulgated ELGs for the OCPSF Category (40 CFR Part 414) on 

November 5, 1987 (52 FR 42568). This category consists of seven subcategories that apply to 

the manufacture of products and product groups, as shown in Table 10-2 with corresponding 

NAICS codes and applicability. Subparts B through H have limitations for BOD5, TSS, and pH. 

The regulation also includes limitations and/or pretreatment standards for certain toxic pollutants 

in three additional subparts: 

• Subpart I — Direct Discharge Point Sources That Use End-of-Pipe Biological 

Treatment; 

• Subpart J — Direct Discharge Point Sources That Do Not Use End-of-Pipe 

Biological Treatment; and 

• Subpart K — Indirect Discharge Point Sources. 

Table 10-2. Applicability of Subcategories in the OCPSF Category 

Subpart Subcategory Title Related SIC Code(s) a Subcategory Applicability 

B Rayon Fibers 2823: Cellulosic Manmade Fibers Cellulosic manmade fiber (Rayon) 

manufactured by the Viscose process.

C Other Fibers 2824: Synthetic Organic Fibers, 

Except Cellulosic 

All other synthetic fibers (except 

Rayon) including, but not limited to, 

products listed in Section 414.30. 

D Thermoplastic Resins 28213: Thermoplastic Resins Any plastic product classified as a 

thermoplastic resin including, but not 

limited to, products listed in Section 

414.40. 

E Thermosetting Resins 28214: Thermosetting Resins Any plastic product classified as a 

thermosetting resin including, but not 

limited to, products listed in Section 

414.50. 
Section 10 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR 414) 

10-5

Table 10-2. Applicability of Subcategories in the OCPSF Category 

Subpart Subcategory Title Related SIC Code(s) a Subcategory Applicability 

F Commodity Organic 

Chemicals 

2865: Cyclic Crudes and 

Intermediates, Dyes and Organic 

Pigments 

2869: Industrial Organic 

Chemicals, NEC 

Commodity organic chemicals and 

commodity organic chemical groups 

including, but not limited to, products 

listed in Section 414.60. 

G Bulk Organic 

Chemicals 

2865: Cyclic Crudes and 

Intermediates, Dyes and Organic 

Pigments 

2869: Industrial Organic 

Chemicals, NEC 

Bulk organic chemicals and bulk 

organic chemical groups including, 

but not limited to, products listed in 

Section 414.70. 

H Specialty Organic 

Chemicals 

2865: Cyclic Crudes and 

Intermediates, Dyes and Organic 

Pigments 

2869: Industrial Organic 

Chemicals, NEC 

All other organic chemicals and 

organic chemical groups including, 

but not limited to, products listed in 

the OCPSF Development Document 

(Vol. II, Appendix II-A, Table VII). 

Source: Product and Product Group Discharges Subject to Effluent Limitations and Standards for the Organic 

Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category — 40 CFR 414, Table 2-2 (U.S. EPA, 2005b). 

a – During the 2009 annual review EPA developed a crosswalk between SIC codes and NAICS codes. Because there 

is not a direct match EPA did not report NAICS codes. 

10.2 OCPSF Category 2009 Annual Review

 This subsection discusses EPA’s 2009 annual review of the OCPSF Category including 

the screening-level review and category-specific review. 

10.2.1 OCPSF 2009 Screening-Level Review 

Table 10-3 compares the OCPSF Category TWPE for 2004 and 2007, calculated using 

TRIReleases2004_v3, PCSLoads2004_v4, TRIReleases2007_v2, and DMRLoads2007_v3. The 

table excludes the amount of TWPE contributed by the Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Manufacturing 

Segment. EPA is currently considering revisions to ELGs for discharges from facilities that 

produce chlorinated hydrocarbons. Because a rulemaking for the CCH sector of the OCPSF is 

underway, discharges from these facilities were excluded from further consideration for the 

OCPSF Category review under the current planning cycle. 

 The combined DMR and TRI TWPE decreased from 2004 to 2007. The 2007 TRI TWPE 

accounts for approximately 58 percent of the combined 2007 TWPE. 
Section 10 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR 414) 

10-6

Table 10-3. OCPSF Point Source Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2004 and 2007 

OCPSF Category a

Year of Discharge Year of Review TRI TWPE b DMR TWPE c

2004 2007 957,134 608,394 

2007 2009 574,741 413,226 

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Excludes the chlorinated hydrocarbon manufacturing facilities in the OCPSF Category. 

b – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. 

c – Discharges include only major dischargers. 

10.2.2 OCPSF Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern 

Table 10-4 lists the five chemicals with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2007_v2 and 

TRIReleases2004_v3, while Table 10-5 lists the five chemicals with the highest TWPE in 

DMRLoads2007_v3 and PCSLoads2004_v4. 

Table 10-4. 2009 Review: OCPSF Category Top TRI Pollutants 

2004 a 2007 a 

Pollutant Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE 

Dioxin and Dioxin Like Compounds 1 8 693,358 1 4 397,949

Chlorine 3 15 22,921 2 13 27,542 

Hydroquinone 4 6 17,051 3 4 18,469 

Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 8 8 11,027 4 7 18,157 

Lead and Lead Compounds 20 63 2,468 5 55 16,517 

Hexachlorobenzene 2 4 84,480 26 2 627 

Nitrate Compounds 5 130 16,217 7 91 9,133 

OCPSF Category Total NA 745 b 957,134 NA 586 b 574,742

Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2. 

a – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. 

b – Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 

NA – Not applicable. 

Table 10-5. 2009 Review: OCPSF Category Top DMR Pollutants 

2004 2007

Pollutant Rank 

Number of Facilities 

Reporting Pollutant TWPE Rank 

Number of Facilities 

Reporting Pollutant TWPE 

Copper 7 92 17,062 1 88 119,475 

Hexachlorobenzene 2 13 122,529 2 13 62,671 

Chlorine 4 46 38,162 3 46 45,596 

Fluoride 5 12 28,238 4 13 35,481 

Nickel 20 54 3,477 5 58 23,008 
Section 10 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR 414) 

10-7

Table 10-5. 2009 Review: OCPSF Category Top DMR Pollutants 

2004 2007

Pollutant Rank 

Number of Facilities 

Reporting Pollutant TWPE Rank 

Number of Facilities 

Reporting Pollutant TWPE 

Aluminum 1 20 209,183 12 18 6,380 

Benzidine 3 1 63,844 NR NR NR 

OCPSF Category Total NA 202 a 608,394 NA 195 a 413,226 

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; and DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 

NA – Not applicable. 

NR – Not reported. 

 EPA identified the OCPSF Category pollutants of concern based on relative TWPE. EPA 

focused its 2009 annual review on discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from 2007 

TRI and discharges of copper from 2007 DMR. EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants 

as part of the 2009 annual review because they are consistent with findings in past years of 

review of this category, including similar facilities and pollutants. As a result, EPA does not plan 

to review the other top pollutants in detail. 

10.2.2.1 OCPSF Category Dioxin Discharges in TRI 

 Discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds decreased by approximately 295,000 

TWPE from TRI 2004 to TRI 2007. However, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds contributed 69 

percent of the category TRI TWPE for 2007. Approximately 94 percent of the dioxin and dioxinlike compound discharges are from Dow Chemical Co.’s Midland, MI facility. As part of the 

2006 annual review, EPA contacted Dow Midland and determined the discharges of dioxin and 

dioxin-like compounds were from mostly historical processes and waste management units that 

are no longer in operation at the site. Dow stated that a very small portion of the dioxin and 

dioxin-like compounds may be from an on-site incinerator (U.S. EPA, 2006). EPA continues to 

follow up with the Dow Midland facility regarding these dioxin discharges. 

10.2.2.2 OCPSF Category Copper Discharges in DMR 

 Copper accounted for 29 percent of the OCPSF Category DMR 2007 TWPE. The 

majority (87 percent) of the copper discharges were from GE Silicones, LLC in Friendly, WV. 

EPA contacted GE Silicones as part of the 2009 annual review. GE Silicones indicated that the 

copper concentration was measured in μg/L rather than mg/L (Martin, 2009). As a result, the 

discharges of copper in DMR decrease from 119,475 TWPE to 15,196 TWPE and the OCPSF 

Category 2007 DMR TWPE decreased to 308,947 TWPE. 

10.3 OCPSF Category Potential New Subcategories

 During the 2009 review, EPA did not identify any potential new subcategories for the 

OCPSF Point Source Category. 
Section 10 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR 414) 

10-8

10.4 OCPSF Category Issues Identified and Additional Review

 EPA’s estimate of the toxicity of OCPSF Point Source Category discharges is largely due 

to the TRI-reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and DMR-reported 

discharges of copper. During the 2009 annual review, EPA did not obtain any information to 

change its conclusions that have previously been made regarding the wastewater discharges from 

the OCPSF manufacturing facilities. Therefore, the conclusions of the OCPSF Chemicals 

Category are as follows: 

• EPA determined there is a units error (1,000 times larger) for the copper 

concentrations reported to the 2007 DMR by GE Silicones in Friendly, WV. 

Correcting this units error decreases the OCPSF Category 2007 TWPE to 308,947 

TWPE. 

Further review of this category may focus on the following issues: 

• In future years, EPA may analyze the TRI-reported dioxin discharges, including 

facilities dominating the TWPE, the methods used to estimate reported discharge, 

process sources, and concentrations discharged. 

 EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision 

based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as 

TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for 

revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table V-1 in the 

Federal Register notice that presents the 2009 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and 

pretreatment standards). 

10.5 OCPSF Category References

1. Martin, Jason. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Elizabeth 

Sabol, ERG and Jason Martin, MPM Silicones LLC. RE: Basis of copper (total 

recoverable) concentrations reported in 2007 DMR. (July 1). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-

0517 DCN 06549. 

2. U.S. Economic Census. 2002. Available online at: 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02. 

3. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA 821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2003-0074-1346 through 1352. 

4. U.S. EPA. 2005a. Preliminary 2005 Review of Prioritized Categories of 

Industrial Dischargers. EPA-821-B-05-004. Washington, DC. (August). EPAHQ-OW-2004-0032-0016. 
Section 10 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR 414) 

10-9

5. U.S. EPA. 2005b. Product and Product Group Discharges Subject to Effluent 

Limitations and Standards for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic 

Fibers Point Source Category. Washington, DC. (April). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-

032-2568. 

6. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). Docket OW2004-0032-2782. 

7. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan. EPA-821-R-07-007. Washington, DC. (October). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0819. 

8. U.S. EPA. 2008. Technical Support Document for the 2008 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-08-015 Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2006-0771-1701. 
Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419) 

11-1

11. PETROLEUM REFINING (40 CFR PART 419) 

 EPA identified the Petroleum Refining Category (40 CFR Part 419) for preliminary 

category review as part of the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. This industry 

was reviewed previously in each of EPA’s Preliminary and Final Effluent Guidelines Program 

Plans from 2004 to 2008 (U.S. EPA, 2004; U.S. EPA, 2005; U.S. EPA, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2007; 

U.S. EPA, 2008). This section describes the results of EPA’s 2009 preliminary category review 

of the Petroleum Refining Category. 

11.1 Petroleum Refining Category Background

 This section provides background on the Petroleum Refining Category including a brief 

profile of the petroleum refining industry and background on 40 CFR Part 419. 

11.1.1 Petroleum Refining Industry Profile 

 The petroleum refining industry includes facilities that produce gasoline, kerosene, 

distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, and lubricants through fractionation or straight distillation of 

crude oil, redistillation of unfinished petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other processes. EPA 

considered the following six NAICS codes as part of the Petroleum Refining Category: 

• 324110: Petroleum Refineries; 

• 324191: Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing; 

• 324199: All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing; 

• 325998PR: All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation 

Manufacturing; 

• 424710: Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; and 

• 486110: Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil. 

 Wastewater generated by facilities in NAICS code 325998 can be regulated under 

multiple categories. EPA reviewed available information about pollutant loads and 

manufacturing operations for facilities reporting this NAICS code. EPA assigned the extension 

“PR” to the end of the NAICS codes of facilities that likely primarily generate wastewater 

regulated by the Petroleum Refining ELGs. Most facilities in NAICS code 325998 are grouped 

under the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category. 

 This list of NAICS codes includes facilities that EPA determined are potential new 

subcategories to the Petroleum Refining Category. As part of the 2004 annual review, EPA 

reviewed industries with SIC codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the 

processes, operations, wastewaters, and pollutants of facilities in the following SIC codes are 

similar to those of the Petroleum Refining Category (U.S. EPA, 2004):25

 

25 The tables in this section include discharge information from facilities reporting these SIC codes and the 

corresponding NAICS codes; however, these facilities contribute negligible amounts of TWPE. Consistent with the 

conclusions drawn during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004) and 2006 review (U.S. EPA, 2006), EPA found 

that large numbers of these facilities discharge no wastewater and only a small number of facilities discharge TWPE 

greater than zero. 
Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419) 

11-2

• 2911: Petroleum Refining; 

• 2992: Lubricating Oils and Greases; 

• 4612: Crude Petroleum Pipelines; and 

• 5171: Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals (except petroleum sold via retail 

method). 

As part of the 2009 annual review, EPA reclassified these SIC codes as equivalent NAICS codes 

for use with the U.S. Economic Census and 2007 TRI data that are reported by NAICS code. 

However, there is not a direct relationship between one SIC and one NAICS codes. As a result, 

EPA included the following NAICS codes in the 2009 annual review of the Petroleum Refining 

Category because they contain facilities with operations that are similar to the SIC codes above: 

• 324191: Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing; 

• 324199: All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing; 

• 325998PR: All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation 

Manufacturing; 

• 424710: Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; and 

• 486110: Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil. 

Table 11-1 lists the number of facilities for the six NAICS codes with operations in the 

Petroleum Refining Category. Because facilities report SIC codes in DMRLoads2007, and the 

U.S. Economic Census and TRI report data by NAICS code, EPA reclassified the 2007 DMR by 

the equivalent NAICS codes. 

Table 11-1. Number of Petroleum Refining Facilities 

Number of Facilities 

NAICS Code 

2002 U.S. Economic 

Census 2007 DMR a 2007 TRI b

324110: Petroleum Refineries 203 160 

324199: All Other Petroleum and Coal Products 

Manufacturing 

82 

259 

38 

324191: Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease 

Manufacturing 

412 115 

325998PR: All Other Miscellaneous Chemical 

Product and Preparation Manufacturing 

NA 

50 

2 

424710: Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; 4,836 1,040 465 

486110: Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil 252 44 0 

Total 5,785 1,393 780 

Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002); TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Major and minor dischargers. Also, DMR data are reported by SIC code; therefore, EPA used an NAICS to SIC 

crosswalk for comparison purposes. 

b – Releases to any media. 

NA – Not applicable. These facility-specific NAICS codes do not correspond to NAICS codes in the 2002 U.S. 

Economic Census. 
Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419) 

11-3

11.1.2 40 CFR Part 419 

 EPA first promulgated ELGs for the Petroleum Refining Category (40 CFR Part 419) on 

October 18, 1982 (47 FR 46446). The five subcategories established all have limitations or 

standards set for BPT, BAT, BCT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS. EPA established numerical 

limitations for ammonia as nitrogen, hexavalent chromium, phenolic compounds, sulfide, and 

total chromium in at least one subcategory. Section 7 of the 2004 Technical Support Document 

provides more information on the existing regulations for the Petroleum Refining Category (U.S. 

EPA, 2004). 

11.2 Petroleum Refining Category 2009 Annual Review

 This subsection discusses EPA’s 2009 annual review of the Petroleum Refining Category 

including the screening-level review and category-specific review. 

11.2.1 Petroleum Refining 2009 Screening-Level Review 

Table 11-2 compares the Petroleum Refining Category TWPE for 2004 and 2007, 

calculated using TRIReleases2004_v3, PCSLoads2004_v4, TRIReleases2007_v2, and 

DMRLoads2007_v3. The combined DMR and TRI TWPE decreased from 2004 to 2007. The 

2007 DMR TWPE accounts for approximately 70 percent of the combined 2007 TWPE. 

Table 11-2. Petroleum Refining Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2004 and 2007 

Petroleum Refining Category 

Year of Discharge Year of Review TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b

2004 2007 669,434 818,705 

2007 2009 171,756 402,506 

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2; and DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. 

b – Discharges include only major dischargers. 

11.2.2 Petroleum Refining Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern 

Table 11-3 lists the five chemicals with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2007_v2 and 

TRIReleases2004_v3, while Table 11-4 lists the five chemicals with the highest TWPE in 

DMRLoads2007_v3 and PCSLoads2004_v4. 

Table 11-3. 2009 Review: Petroleum Refining Category Top TRI Pollutants 

2004 a 2007 a 

Pollutant Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE 

Dioxin and Dioxin Like Compounds 1 17 558,877 1 9 94,472 

Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 2 65 26,110 2 43 31,021 

Nitrate Compounds 4 63 12,497 3 44 9,396 
Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419) 

11-4

Table 11-3. 2009 Review: Petroleum Refining Category Top TRI Pollutants 

2004 a 2007 a 

Pollutant Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE 

Lead and Lead Compounds 3 108 19,947 4 86 9,386 

Nickel and Nickel Compounds 11 46 1,865 5 45 5,965 

Mercury and Mercury Compounds 5 61 11,978 6 45 5,355 

Petroleum Refining Category Total NA 325 b 669,434 NA 232 b 171,756

Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2. 

a – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. 

b – Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 

NA – Not applicable. 

Table 11-4. 2009 Review: Petroleum Refining Category Top DMR Pollutants 

2004 2007

Pollutant Rank 

Number of Facilities 

Reporting Pollutant TWPE Rank 

Number of Facilities 

Reporting Pollutant TWPE 

Benzo(a)pyrene 50 1 1.34 1 6 99,179 

Copper 15 20 2,479 2 25 81,430 

Chlorine 3 16 51,368 3 14 65,077 

Cyanide 12 13 3,308 4 21 35,965 

Chloride 9 13 8,384 5 13 31,474 

TCDD Equivalents 1 1 535,673 13 2 3,894 

Sulfide 2 71 115,724 NR NR NR 

Aluminum 4 9 34,326 6 8 20,835 

Fluoride 5 11 15,124 8 13 15,503 

Petroleum Refining 

Category Total 

NA 100 a 818,705 NA 100 a 402,506 

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; and DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 

NA – Not applicable. 

NR – Not reported. 

 EPA identified the Petroleum Refining Category pollutants of concern based on relative 

TWPE. EPA focused the 2009 annual review on discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 

and polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) from 2007 TRI and discharges of benzo(a)pyrene, 

one of the PACs, from 2007 DMR. Discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds decreased 

by approximately 464,000 TWPE from TRI 2004 to TRI 2007, while discharges of PACs 

increased by approximately 5,000 TWPE from TRI 2004 to TRI 2007. EPA did not investigate 

the other top pollutants as part of the 2009 annual review because the TWPE levels of other top 

pollutants are consistent with findings in past years of review of this category, including similar 

facilities and pollutants. As a result, EPA does not plan to review these pollutants in detail. 
Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419) 

11-5

11.2.2.1 Petroleum Refining Category Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compound 

Discharges in TRI 

 Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds TRI TWPE decreased by approximately 464,000 

TWPE from TRI 2004 to TRI 2007. However, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds still 

contributed 55 percent of the category TRI TWPE for 2007. Table 11-5, at the end of this 

section, lists all of the dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges reported to TRI from 2002 to 

2007. Fifteen facilities reported discharges of dioxin or dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2005 

and nine facilities reported discharges in TRI 2007. Of the nine refineries reporting discharges in 

2007, only five of these refineries reported dioxin discharges based on analytical measurements 

(i.e., see the “Basis of Estimate” field noted as “M” in Table 11-5). 

 The BP Products North America, Inc. Toledo Refinery in Oregon, OH accounted for 44 

percent of dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges in TRI 2007. Chevron Products Co. 

Richmond Refinery in Richmond, CA also contributed largely to the dioxin and dioxin-like 

compound discharges (35 percent). During the 2004 annual review, EPA concluded that dioxin 

and dioxin like compounds are produced during catalytic reforming and catalyst regeneration 

operations at petroleum refineries. EPA also determined only two facilities detected dioxin and 

dioxin-like compounds above the Method 1613B minimum level, and both of these facilities 

measured dioxin at the point immediately following catalytic regeneration and prior to 

wastewater treatment during the detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004). 

11.2.2.2 Petroleum Refining Category PAC Discharges in TRI and DMR 

 Polycyclic aromatic compound (PACs) discharges increased by 16 percent from TRI 

2004 to TRI 2007. Table 11-6, at the end of this section, lists the PACs reported to TRI from 

2002 to 2007. Thirty-nine facilities reported PAC discharges to TRI in 2005 and 36 facilities 

reported PAC discharges to TRI in 2007. Valero Refining in Texas City, TX contributed 34 

percent of the PAC discharges for TRI 2007. EPA examined PAC discharges from petroleum 

refineries extensively for its detailed and previous preliminary studies. From these previous 

studies, EPA concluded that petroleum refinery PAC discharges in TRI are either based on onehalf the detection limit multiplied by the flow or are estimated using emission factors. Therefore, 

there is little evidence that PACs are being discharged to surface waters in concentrations above 

the detection limit (U.S. EPA, 2004). 

 The PAC discharges contained in DMR are reported as individual compounds, rather 

than as PACs like in TRI. Benzo(a)pyrene is one of the individual compounds that are included 

in PACs. Benzo(a)pyrene accounted for 25 percent of the DMR 2007 TWPE. The majority (97 

percent) of the benzo(a)pyrene discharges come from Calcasieu Refinery Company in Lake 

Charles, LA. 

11.3 Petroleum Refining Category Potential New Subcategories

 During the 2009 review, EPA did not identify any potential new subcategories for the 

Petroleum Refinery Category. 
Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419) 

11-6

11.4 Petroleum Refining Category Issues Identified and Additional Review

 EPA’s estimate of the toxicity of Petroleum Refining Category discharges are largely due 

to the TRI-reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and PACs and DMRreported discharges of benzo(a)pyrene. During the 2009 annual review, EPA did not obtain any 

information to change its conclusions that have previously been made regarding the wastewater 

discharges from the petroleum refineries. Therefore, the conclusions of the Petroleum Refining 

Category are as follows: 

• EPA previously determined that dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are produced 

during catalytic reforming and catalyst regeneration operations at petroleum 

refineries. Most facilities reporting dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in TRI 

never detected dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in their process wastewater 

effluent. 

Of the 325 identified U.S. petroleum refineries in TRI 2004 that report TWPE 

greater than zero, 17 report discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to 

TRI in 2004. Of the 232 refineries in TRI 2007 that report TWPE greater than 

zero, nine report discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2007. 

Of the nine refineries reporting discharges in 2007, only five of these refineries 

reported dioxin discharges based on analytical measurements (i.e., see the “Basis 

of Estimate” field noted as “M” in Table 11-5). 

• Petroleum refineries report PAC discharges to TRI; however, these discharges are 

estimated either based on half the detection limit multiplied by the flow or using 

emission factors. EPA previously determined that there is little evidence that 

PACs are being discharged to surface waters in concentrations above the 

detection limit. 

Further review of this category may focus on the following issues: 

• In future years, EPA may analyze the DMR-reported benzo(a)pyrene discharges, 

including the methods used to estimate reported discharge, process sources, and 

concentrations discharged. 

 EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision 

based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as 

TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for 

revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table V-1 in the 

Federal Register notice that presents the 2009 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and 

pretreatment standards). 

11.5 Petroleum Refining Category References

1. U.S. Economic Census. 2002. Available online at: 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02. 
Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419) 

11-7

2. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA 821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2003-0074-1346 through 1352 

3. U.S. EPA. 2005. Preliminary 2005 Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial 

Dischargers. EPA-821-B-05-004. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-

0032-0053. 

4. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-2782. 

5. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan. EPA-821-R-07-007. Washington, DC. (October). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0819. 

6. U.S. EPA. 2008. Technical Support Document for the 2008 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-08-015 Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2006-0771-1701. 
11-8 

Section 11 – Petr

Table 11-5. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location 

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Basis Of 

Estimate

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Basis of 

Estimate

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Basis of 

Estimate

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Ba

Es

43616-SHLCM4001C 

BP Products North America Inc Toledo Refinery 

Oregon, OH 0.29 41,963 O 0.331 47,084 O 0.34 47,795 M 0.38 54,054 

94802-CHVRN841ST 

Chevron Products Co. Richmond Refinery (a, b) 

Richmond, CA 0.32 33,397 M2 0.94 121,521 M 1.35 141,106 O 0.68 36,798 

77536-DRPRK5900H 

Shell Oil Co - Deer Park Refining LP 

Deer Park, TX 0.14 13,306 M2 0.114 10,850 M 0.16 15,477 M 0.15 14,581 

74603-CNCPN1000S 

ConocoPhillips Ponca City Refinery 

Ponca City, OK 

0.09 2,438 O 0.141 11,601 O 0.28 25,485 O 0.28 21,901 

94553-SHLLL38485P 

Shell Oil Products US Martinez Refinery 

Martinez, CA 0.03 1,657 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

62454-MRTHNMARAT 

Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC Illinois Refining Div 

Robinson, IL 0.04 1,094 O 0.0404 3,314 O 0.04 3,604 O 0.0404 3,128 

84116-CVRN2351N 

Chevron Products Co. Salt Lake City Refinery 

Salt Lake City, UT 

0.02 541 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

70602-CTGPTHIGHW 

Citgo Petroleum Corp Westlake, LA 0.002 69 O 0.00256 210 E 0.0026 231 E 0.0026 199 

19706-TXCDL2000W 

Premcor Refining Group Inc 

Delaware City, DE 

0.0001 3.13 O 0.0000965 2 O 0.022 559 O 0.022 559 

90245-CHVRN324WE 

Chevron Products Co. Div Of Chevron USA Inc. 

El Segundo, CA 

0 0 M2 0.158 16,221 M 0.2 20,533 M 0.34 35,317 

00851-HSSLVLIMET 

Hovensa LLC Christiansted, 

VI 

NR NR NR 2.2 180,442 E 1.7 148,653 C 1.1 85,167 

98221-SHLLLWESTM 

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co 

Anacortes, WA 

NR NR NR 1.94 55,248 M 1.95 54,406 M 1.7 47,382 

70669-CNCLKOLDSP 

ConocoPhillips Lake Charles Refinery 

Westlake, LA NR NR NR 0.539 48,580 O 0.54 48,580 O 0.54 48,580 
11-9 

Section 11 – Petr

Table 11-5. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location 

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Basis Of 

Estimate

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Basis of 

Estimate

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Basis of 

Estimate

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Ba

Es

80022-CNCDN5801B 

Suncor Energy Commerce City Refinery 

Commerce City, CO 

NR NR NR 0.111 9,104 M 0.037 3,333 M 0.074 5,729 

08066-MBLLCBILLI 

Valero Refining Co New Jersey 

Paulsboro, NJ NR NR NR 0.0879 7,209 O 0.18 15,838 O 0.088 6,813 

39567-CHVRNPOBOX 

Chevron Products Co Pascagoula Refinery 

NR NR NR NR 0.099 4,234 O 0.12 5,217 O 0.099 4,234 

00654-PHLPSPHILI 

Chevron Phillips Chemical Puerto Rico Core Inc. 

Guayama, PR NR NR NR 0.0054 443 E 0.0035 318 E 0.006 461 

46394-MCLC -2815I 

Bp Products North America Whiting Business Unit 

Whiting, IN NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.000011 1.8 O NR NR 

60434-MBLJLINTER 

ExxonMobil Oil Corp Joliet Refinery 

Channahon, IL NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.0007 64 

99611-TSRLSMILE2 

Tesoro Alaska - Kenai Refinery (a, b) 

Kenai, AK NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.0006 46 

07036-XXN -1400P 

ConocoPhillips Co. Bayway Refinery 

Linden, NJ NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

77590-MRTHNFOOTO 

Marathon Ashland Petroleum L.L.C. 

Texas City, TX 

NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

Indirect 90748-NCLLS1660W 

ConocoPhillips Co La Refinery Wilmington Plant (a) 

Wilmington, CA 

NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.27 27,738 M 0.088 9,015 

Source: TRIReleases2007_v2; TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2003_v2; TRIReleases2002_v4; Memorandum: Revisions to TWFs for Dioxin and its C

for OCPSF and Petroleum Refining (Zipf, 2004). a – Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds were detected above the Method 1613B minimum level. b – Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds were sampled after the catalytic regeneration and prior to the wastewater treatment plant.

NR – Not reported. For indirect discharges, the mass shown is the mass transferred to the POTW that is ultimately discharged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 83% removal of dioxi

POTW. The TWPEs in this table were calculated using the 2006 TWFs (the 2006 dioxin and dioxin-like compound TWFs did not change from the August or December 2004 TWFs). 

Refineries reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M – Monitoring data/measurements; M2 – Periodic monitoring data/measurements; C – Mass balance calculations; E – Publish

approaches (e.g., engineering calculations). 
11-10 

Section 11 – 

Table 11-6. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–20

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE 

77592TXSCTLOOP1 

Valero Refining - Texas LP 

Texas City, TX 418 10,624 M2 0.5 12.7 M 0.2 5 M NR NR 

96707CHVRN91480 

Chevron Products Co - Hawaii Refinery 

Kapolei, HI 260 6,608 M2 270 6862.6 M 270 6863 M 261 6629 

77590MCLC24015 

BP Products North American Inc. Texas City Refinery 

Texas City, TX 110 2,796 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

90245CHVRN324WE 

Chevron Products Co Div of Chevron USA Inc 

El Segundo, CA 

81.5 2,011 M2 137.4 3492.3 M 113 2882 M 117 2974 

84116CHVRN2351N 

Chevron Products Co Salt Lake Refinery 

Salt Lake City, UT 

61 1,550 M2 60 1525 M 59 1500 M 59 1500 

70037LLNCRHIGHW 

ConocoPhillips Co - Alliance Refinery 

Belle Chasse, LA 

43.4 1,103 O 43.8 1114.3 M 49 1233 M 34.9 887 

60439NCLCR135TH 

PDV Midwest Refining LLC Lemont Refinery 

Lemont, IL 35.96 914 O 32.1 814.9 M NR NR NR NR NR 

74603CNCPN1000S 

ConocoPhillips Co Ponca City Refinery 

Ponca City, OK 32 813 O 8 203.3 O 8 203 O 8 203 

77590MRTHNFOOTO 

Marathon Petroleum Co LLC 

Texas City, TX 31.5 801 M2 34.6 879.4 M 29 742 M 30 768 

62454MRTHNMARAT 

Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC Illinois Refining Div 

Robinson, IL 24.7 628 O 24 610 O 28 712 O 1 25 

70750HLLPTHWY10 

Valero Refining Co Louisiana 

Krotz Springs, LA 

22.4 569 M2 23 584.6 O 22 567 O 19 483 

94802CHVRN841ST 

Chevron Products Co Richmond Refinery 

Richmond, CA 16 407 M2 19 482.9 M 19.3 491 M 15 376 

77017LYNDL12000 

Lyondell-Citgo Refining LP 

Houston, TX 13.57 345 M2 3 76.3 M 0 0 M NR NR 

62084SHLLLRTE11 

ConocoPhillips Co Wood River Refinery 

Roxana, IL 9 229 O 11 279.6 O 11 280 O 10 254 

70047TRNSM14902 

Valero Refining New Orleans LLC 

New Sarpy, LA 7 178 O 9 228.8 O 9 229 O 9 229 

07036XXN 1400P 

ConocoPhillips Co Bayway Refinery 

Linden, NJ 5.6 142 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 
11-11 

Section 11 – 

Table 11-6. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–20

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE 

78410KCHRFSUNTI 

Flint Hills Resources LP - West Plant 

Corpus Christi, TX 

5.4 137 M2 10.6 269.4 M 16 412 M 8 203 

99611TSRLSMILE2 

Tesoro Alaska - Kenai Refinery 

Kenai, AK 5 127 O 19 482.9 O 18.9 480 O 19 480 

70051MRTHNHWY61 

Marathon Petroleum Corp Garyville 

Garyville, LA 5 127 C 5 127.1 C 5 127 C 5 127 

46268MRTHN4955R 

Marathon Petroleum Co LLC Indianapolis In Terminal 

Indianapolis, IN 

4.2 107 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

19706TXCDL2000W 

Premcor Refining Group Inc 

Delaware City, DE 

4 102 O 3.4 86.4 O 4 102 O 3.2 81 

93420NCLSN2555W 

ConocoPhillips Co Santa Maria Refinery 

Arroyo Grande, CA 

3 76 E2 2 50.8 O 2 51 O 2 51 

15062MNSSN345DO 

Koppers Inc.Monessen Coke Plant 

Monessen, Pa 2.9 74 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

46394MCLC 2815I 

BP Products North America Whiting 

Whiting, IN 2.5 63.5 O 3.6 91.5 O 1 25 O 1 25 

6746ONTNLC2000M 

National CO-OP Refinery Assoc. 

McPherson, KS 2.4 61 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

94804RCPRD1306C 

BP Richmond Terminal Richmond, CA 1.18 30 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

98221PGTSN600ST 

Shell Oil Products US Puget Sound Refinery 

Anacortes, WA 1 25.4 E1 1 25.4 O 1 25 O 0.9 23 

62048CLRKHAWTH 

Permcor Hartfor Distribution Center 

Hartford, IL 0.8 20 M1 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

94553TSCCRAVONR 

Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co 

Martinez, CA 0.6 15.2 M2 0.6 15.3 M 0.5 13 M 0.6 15 

48458FLNTMG6065 

Marathon Petroleum Co LLC Flint MI Terminal 

Mount Morrison, MI 

0.4 10.2 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

19061BPLCMPOSTR 

ConocoPhillips Co. Trainer Refinery 

Trainer, PA 0.3 7.62 O 0.1 3.6 O 0.2 5 O 0.2 5 

627219PHLLP2400E 

ConocoPhillips CO Wichita Terminal 

Wichita, KS 0.01 0.25 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

53224MLWKF9343N 

Flint Hills Resources LP - Milwaulki Terminal 

Milwaulki, WI 0.01 0.25 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 
11-12 

Section 11 – 

Table 11-6. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–20

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE 

72303WLLMS1282S 

Premcor Wests Memphis Terminal 

West Memphis, AR 

0.0029 0.074 C NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

66155PHLLP2029F 

ConocoPhillips Co Kansas City Terminal 

Kansas City, KS 

0.0006 0.014 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

76304CNCNC1214N 

CoconoPhillips - Wichita Falls Products/Crude Terminal 

Wichita Falls, TX 

0.0004 0.011 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

44711SHLND2408G 

Marathon Petroleum Co LLC Ohio Refining Div 

Canton, OH NR NR NR 149 3787.1 M NR NR NR NR NR 

39567CHVRNPOBOX 

Chevron Products Co Pascagoula Refinery 

Pascagoula, MS 

NR NR NR 126.1 3205.1 O 115 2923 O 115 2923 

55071SHLND100WT 

Marathon Petroleum Co LLC Saint Paul Park Refiner 

Saint Paul Park, MN 

NR NR NR 95.7 2431.1 M 24 616 M NR NR 

70075MRPHY2500E 

Murphy Oil USA Inc Meraux Refinery 

Meraux, LA NR NR NR 66 1677.5 O NR NR NR NR NR 

70669CNCLKOLDSP 

ConocoPhillips Co Lake Charles Refinery 

Westlake, LA NR NR NR 41 1042.1 O 43 1093 O 51 1296 

79008PHLLPSTATE 

ConocoPhillips Co Borger, TX NR NR NR 39 991.3 M 43 1093 M NR NR 

80022CNCDN5801B 

Suncor Energy Commerce City Refinery 

Commerce City, CO 

NR NR NR 19 482.9 O 28 712 O 53 1347 

70079MTVNR15536 

Motiva Enterprises LLC Convent Refinery 

Norco, LA NR NR NR 1.4 35.6 O NR NR NR NR NR 

08861CHVRN1200S 

Chevron Products Co Perth Amboy, 

NJ 

NR NR NR 0.6 15.3 O 0.9 23 O 0.6 15 

78408STHWS1700N 

Flint Hills Resources LP - East Plant 

Corpus Christi, TX 

NR NR NR 0.5 12.7 M 0.6 15 M 1 25 

90749RCPRD1801E 

BP West Coast Products LLC Carson 

Carson, CA NR NR NR 0.1 2.5 M NR NR NR NR NR 

73098KRRMC906SO 

Wynnewood Refining Co 

Wynnewood, OK 

NR NR NR NR NR NR 10 254 O 10 254 

70606CLCSRWESTE 

Calcasieu Refining Co Lake Charles, 

LA 

NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 51 O 182 4626 
11-13 

Section 11 – 

Table 11-6. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–20

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE 

70143TNNCL500WE 

Chalmette Refining Co Chalmette, LA NR NR NR NR NR NR 1 25 O 11 280 

67042TXCRF1401S 

Frontier El Dorado Refining Co 

El Dorado, KS NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.7 18 O 0.7 18 

74107SNCLR902W2 

Sinclair Oil Corp Tulsa Refinery 

Tulsa, OK NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 18 450 

70723TXCRFFOOTO 

Motiva Enterprises LLC Convent Refinery 

Convent, LA NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 51 

59101CNCBL401SO 

ConocoPhillips Co Billings Refinery 

Billings, MT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.4 10 

42501THSMR501RE 

Somerset Refinery Inc Somerset, KY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.08 2 

94572NCLSNOLDHI 

ConocoPhillips San Francisco Refinery 

Rodeo, CA NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

82701WYMNG740WE 

Wyoming Refining Co Newcastle, WY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

Indirect 48217MRTHN1300S 

Marathon Petroleum Co LLC Michigan Refining Div 

Detroit, MI 8.97 228 M2 94 175.8 M 98 184 M 92 172 

1420SFTK60KAT 

Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc Buffalo Oil Recovery Factory 

Buffalo, NY 0.66 17 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

79905LPSRF6500T 

Western Refining Co El Paso Refinery 

El Paso, TX 0.44 11.2 O 54 101 O 51 95 O 55 102 

19145TLNTC3144P 

Sunoco, Inc (R&M) Philadelphia Refinery 

Philadelphia, PA 

0.07 1.87 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

36611BLCHRVIADU 

Gulf Atlantic Operations LLC 

Chickasaw, AL 0.03 0.67 C 0 0 M 0 0 C 0.009 0 

79604RDRFNNORTH 

Delek Marketing and Supply 

Abilene, TX 0.002 0.056 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

76040KCHPT12550 

Flint Hills Resources LP Fort Worth Terminal 

Euless, TX 0.000006 0.00015 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

90744TXCRF2101E 

Shell Oil Products US Los Angeles Refinery 

Wilmington, CA 

NR NR NR 7.3 13.7 M 7.6 14 M 13 24 

93307KRNLRRR677 

Kern Oil Refining Co Bakersfield, 

CA 

NR NR NR 0.3 0.5 O 0.3 1 O 0.28 1 
11-14 

Section 11 – 

Table 11-6. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–20

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE 

77017LYNDL12000 

Lyondell-Citgo Refining LP 

Houston, TX NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 155 3928 

77506CRWNC111RE 

Crown Central Petroleum Corp Houston Refinery 

Pasadena, TX NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

79905CHVRN6501T 

Chevron El Paso Refinery 

El Paso, TX NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

Source: TRIReleases2007_v2; TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2003_v2; TRIReleases2002_v4. 

NR – Not reported. a – For indirect dischargers, the mass shown is the mass transferred to the POTW that is ultimately discharged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 92.64% removal 

Refineries reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M – Monitoring data/measurements; M1 – Constant monitory data/measurements; M2 – Periodic monitoring data/measuremenE – Published emission factors; E1 – Published emission factors; E2 – Site specific emission factors; and O – Other approaches (e.g., engineering calculations). 

The 2002 TWPE was calculated using the December 2004 TWFs. The 2003 TWPE was calculated using the April 2006 TWFs. 
Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) 

12-1 

12. PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD (40 CFR PART 430) 

 EPA identified the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Pulp and Paper) Category (40 CFR Part 

430) for preliminary category review as part of the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA previously reviewed discharges from pulp and paper facilities as part of the 

Preliminary and Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans in 2004 and 2007 (U.S. EPA, 2004; 

U.S. EPA, 2007b). EPA also conducted a detailed study of this industry in support of the 2006 

Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. EPA, 2006a; U.S. EPA, 2006b). This section 

summarizes the results of EPA’s 2009 annual category review of the Pulp and Paper Category. 

12.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Background

 This subsection provides background on the Pulp and Paper Category including a brief 

profile of the pulp, paper, and paperboard manufacturing industry and background on 40 CFR 

Part 430. 

12.1.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry Profile 

 The pulp and paper manufacturing industry includes facilities that manufacture pulp from 

wood and other fibers, produce paper and paperboard from pulp, or convert paper and 

paperboard into products, such as boxes, bags, and envelopes. EPA considered the following 15 

NAICS codes as part of the Pulp and Paper Category:26

• 321113-1: Sawmills; 

• 322110: Pulp Mills; 

• 322121: Paper (except Newsprint) Mills; 

• 322122: Newsprint Mills; 

• 322130: Paperboard Mills; 

• 322211: Corrugated and Solid Fiber Box Manufacturing; 

• 322212: Folding Paperboard Box Manufacturing; 

• 322214: Fiber Can, Tube, Drum, and Similar Products Manufacturing; 

• 322215: Nonfolding Sanitary Food Container Manufacturing; 

• 322221: Coated and Laminated Packaging Paper Manufacturing; 

• 322222: Coated and Laminated Paper Manufacturing;

• 322224: Uncoated Paper and Multiwall Bag Manufacturing; 

• 322231: Die-Cut Paper and Paperboard Office Supplies Manufacturing; 

• 322291: Sanitary Paper Product Manufacturing; and 

• 322299: All Other Converted Paper Product Manufacturing. 

 Wastewater generated by facilities in NAICS code 321113 can be regulated under 

multiple categories. EPA reviewed available information about pollutant loads and 

manufacturing operations for facilities reporting this NAICS code. EPA assigned the extension 

“-1” to the end of the NAICS codes of facilities that likely primarily generate wastewater 

 

26 EPA identified an error in the TRIReleases2007_v2 database, and pollutant loads associated with NAICS code 

326112 are currently associated with the Pulp and Paper Category rather than the Plastics Molding and Forming 

Category (40 CFR Part 463). EPA is choosing to correct future versions of the database, because the TWPE 

associated with the NAICS code is negligible (total of 1,654 TWPE for TRI 2007). 
Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) 

12-2 

regulated by the Pulp and Paper ELGs. Most facilities in NAICS 321113 are grouped under the 

Timber Products Processing Category (40 CFR Part 429). 

 This list of NAICS codes includes facilities that EPA determined are potential new 

subcategories to the Pulp and Paper Category. As part of the 2004 annual review, EPA reviewed 

industries with SIC codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the 

processes, operations, wastewaters, and pollutants of facilities in the following SIC codes are 

similar to those of the Pulp and Paper Category (U.S. EPA, 2004):27

• 2653: Corrugated and Solid Fiber Boxes; 

• 2655: Fiber Cans, Tubes, Drums, and Similar Products; 

• 2656: Sanitary Food Containers, Except Folding; 

• 2657: Folding Paperboard Boxes, Including Sanitary; 

• 2671: Packaging Paper and Plastics Film, Coated and Laminated; 

• 2672: Coated and Laminated Paper, Not Elsewhere Classified; 

• 2674: Uncoated Paper and Multiwall Bags; and 

• 2679: Converted Paper and Paperboard Products, Not Elsewhere Classified. 

As part of the 2009 annual review, EPA reclassified these SIC codes as equivalent NAICS codes 

for use with the U.S. Economic Census and 2007 TRI data that are reported by NAICS code. 

However, there is not a direct relationship between one SIC and one NAICS code. As a result, 

EPA included the following NAICS codes in the 2009 annual review of the Pulp and Paper 

Category because they contain facilities with operations that are similar to the SIC codes above: 

• 322211: Corrugated and Solid Fiber Box Manufacturing; 

• 322212: Folding Paperboard Box Manufacturing; 

• 322214: Fiber Can, Tube, Drum, and Similar Products Manufacturing; 

• 322215: Nonfolding Sanitary Food Container Manufacturing; 

• 322221: Coated and Laminated Packaging Paper Manufacturing; 

• 322222: Coated and Laminated Paper Manufacturing; 

• 322224: Uncoated Paper and Multiwall Bag Manufacturing; 

• 322231: Die-Cut Paper and Paperboard Office Supplies Manufacturing; 

• 322299: All Other Converted Paper Product Manufacturing; and 

• 326112: Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing. 

Table 12-1 lists the 15 NAICS codes with operations in the Pulp and Paper Category. 

Because facilities report SIC code in DMRLoads2007, and the U.S. Economic Census and TRI 

report data by NAICS code, EPA reclassified the 2007 DMR by the equivalent NAICS code. 

 

27 The tables in this section include discharge information from facilities reporting these SIC codes and the 

corresponding NAICS codes; however, these facilities contribute negligible amounts of TWPE. Consistent with the 

conclusions drawn during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004) and 2006 review (U.S. EPA, 2006), EPA found 

that large numbers of these facilities discharge no wastewater and only a small number of facilities discharge TWPE 

greater than zero. 
Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) 

12-3 

Table 12-1. Number of Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilities 

NAICS Code 

2002 U.S. 

Economic Census 2007 DMR a 2007 TRI b 

322110 Pulp Mills 31 45 

322121 Paper (except Newsprint) Mills 306 135 

322122 Newsprint Mills 21 13 

322130 Paperboard Mills 203 103 

322291 Sanitary Paper Product Manufacturing 145 

336 

6 

322211 Corrugated and Solid Fiber Box Manufacturing 1,718 8 

322222 Coated and Laminated Paper Manufacturing 545 77 

322231 Die-Cut Paper and Paperboard Office Supplies 

Manufacturing 

251 1 

322299 All Other Converted Paper Product Manufacturing 580 

75 

25 

322212 Folding Paperboard Box Manufacturing 494 7 6 

322214 Fiber Can, Tube, Drum, and Similar Products 

Manufacturing 

262 4 3 

322215 Nonfolding Sanitary Food Container Manufacturing 73 8 2 

322221 Coated and Laminated Packaging Paper 

Manufacturing 

115 19 22 

322224 Uncoated Paper and Multiwall Bag Manufacturing 123 0 1 

321113-1 Sawmills NA NA 1 

Total 4,867 448 464 

Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002); TRIReleases2007_v2; and DMRLoads2007_v2. 

a – Major and minor dischargers. Also, DMR data are reported by SIC code; therefore, EPA used an NAICS to SIC 

code crosswalk for comparison purposes. 

b – Releases to any media. 

NA – Not applicable. This facility-specific NAICS code that EPA assigned does not correspond to a NAICS code in 

the 2002 U.S. Economic Census or an SIC code in DMRLoads2007.

12.1.2 40 CFR Part 430 

 Between 1974 and 1986, EPA promulgated ELGs for the Pulp and Paper Category. For 

these regulations, EPA divided the industry into 25 subcategories, based on the products made 

and processes used at the mills. 

 A 1988 legal suit obligated EPA to address discharges of polychlorinated dibenzo-(p)-

dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans28 from 104 bleaching pulp mills, including nine 

dissolving pulp mills. While meeting that obligation, EPA also reviewed ELGs for the entire 

Pulp and Paper Category. As part of that review, EPA reorganized the category into 12 

 

28 Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs) constitute a group of 

persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals. Facilities are required to report to EPA’s TRI the total mass of 17 

of these CDDs and CDFs released to the environment every year. In this report, EPA uses the term “dioxin and 

dioxin-like compounds” to refer to the total mass of the 17 CDDs and CDFs, as reported to TRI. For discharges 

from certain mills in the Pulp and Paper Category, EPA promulgated ELGs for two specific dioxins: 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran. In this report, these compounds are referred to as 

TCDD and TCDF, respectively. See Section 3.2 of the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study Report (U.S. EPA, 2006b) for 

a discussion of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. 
Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) 

12-4 

subcategories. Although the Pulp and Paper Category regulations apply to all facilities in SIC 

codes 2611, 2621, and 2631 or NAICS code 322110, 322121, 322122, and 322130, the 12 

subcategories are organized by process used and product produced and do not correspond to SIC 

codes or NAICS codes. 

 During its response to the 1988 legal suit, EPA decided to review and revise the Pulp and 

Paper Category regulations in three phases. Table 12-2 presents these three phases and the 

subcategories EPA planned to address in each phase. 

 In revising the Pulp and Paper Category regulations, EPA first addressed two 

subcategories, Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and Subpart E (Papergrade 

Sulfite), because these subparts applied to the majority of the 104 mills identified in the 1988 

suit.29 Subparts B and E became known as Phase I; EPA promulgated revised ELGs for these 

subparts on April 15, 1998 (63 FR 18504). EPA promulgated the Phase I ELGs at the same time 

as it promulgated National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for 

kraft and sulfite pulp mills (63 FR 18754). Because these water and air regulations were 

developed, analyzed, and promulgated jointly, they are called the Cluster Rules. 

Table 12-2. Relationship Between Pulp and Paper Regulatory Phases and Subcategories 

Phase Subpart Subcategory 

I B Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda 

E Papergrade Sulfite 

C Unbleached Kraft 

F Semi-Chemical 

G Groundwood, Chemi-Mechanical, and Chemi-Thermo-Mechanical 

H Non-Wood Chemical Pulp 

I Secondary Fiber Deink 

J Secondary Fiber Non-Deink 

K Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp 

II 

L Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp 

III A Dissolving Kraft 

D Dissolving Sulfite 

Note: EPA promulgated revised ELGs for Phase I, known as the Cluster Rules on April 15, 1998. EPA has not 

promulgated revised ELGs for Phase II or Phase III. 

 Eight subcategories are known as Phase II and are listed in Table 12-2. EPA has not 

revised the ELGs for these subcategories, which were promulgated between 1974 and 1986. 

 Phase III affected the two dissolving pulp subcategories (Subpart A, Dissolving Kraft, 

and Subpart D, Dissolving Sulfite). EPA did not promulgate revised ELGs addressing TCDD 

and TCDF for Phase III in 1998, because the affected companies were undertaking a multiyear 

laboratory study and mill trial to develop alternative bleaching technologies. EPA anticipated 

that final ELGs would be based on different technologies than those that served as the basis for 

 

29 The remainder of the 104 mills identified in the 1988 suit were in Subpart A, Dissolving Kraft, and Subpart D, 

Dissolving Sulfite. These two subparts became known as Phase III. 
Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) 

12-5 

the Phase I regulations. As of August 2006, there were only three operating mills in these two 

subcategories. As part of its 2004 and 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans, EPA determined 

that rather than promulgate revised ELGs for Phase III mills (see 58 FR 44078, December 17, 

1993), EPA would support NPDES permit writers individually in developing permit-specific 

effluent limitations to control TCDD and TCDF releases from these three mills (see 69 FR 

53716, September 2, 2004; 71 FR 76651–76652, December 21, 2006). In 2007, EPA developed 

and distributed to Georgia and Florida state regulatory agencies a technical document for 

NPDES permit writers in order to support the development of effluent limitations for facilities in 

the Dissolving Kraft (Subpart A) and Dissolving Sulfite (Subpart D) subcategories of the Pulp 

and Paper Category (40 CFR Part 430) (U.S. EPA, 2007a). In future annual reviews, EPA 

intends to re-evaluate each category based on the information available at the time and to 

evaluate the effectiveness of this BPJ permit-based support. 

12.2 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category 2009 Annual Review

 This section discusses EPA’s 2009 annual review of the Pulp and Paper Category 

including the screening-level review and category-specific review. 

12.2.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 2009 Screening-Level Review 

Table 12-3 compares the Pulp and Paper Category TWPE for 2004 and 2007, calculated 

using TRIReleases2004_v3, PCSLoads2004_v4, TRIReleases2007_v2, and DMRLoads2007_v3. 

The combined DMR and TRI TWPE increased from 2004 to 2007 due to the increase in DMR 

TWPE. The 2007 DMR TWPE accounts for approximately 86 percent of the combined 2007 

TWPE. 

Table 12-3. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Point Source Category TRI and DMR 

Discharges for 2004 and 2007 

Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Category 

Year of Discharge Year of Review TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b

2004 2007 668,518 164,787 

2007 2009 459,959 c 2,726,865 d

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2; and DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. 

b – Discharges include only major dischargers. 

c – Includes discharges from facilities reporting NAICS code 326112. These discharges should be associated with 

the Plastics Molding and Forming Category (40 CFR Part 463). EPA will correct future versions of the database 

because the TWPE is negligible. 

d – For the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category, EPA contacted facilities to verify the concentrations of dioxin 

and dioxin-like compounds in PCS and ICIS-NPDES. EPA found that, for all facilities contacted, there were either 

units errors (e.g., reported as ng/L but in the database as mg/L) or missing non-detect indicators. The new Pulp, 

Paper, and Paperboard Category total TWPE is 252,163. See Section 12.2.2.1 for additional details on the facilitiesspecific corrections. 
Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) 

12-6 

12.2.2 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern 

Table 12-4 compares the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2007_v2

and TRIReleases2004_v3, while Table 12-5 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in 

DMRLoads2007_v3 and PCSLoads2004_v4. 

Table 12-4. 2009 Review: Pulp and Paper Category Top TRI Pollutants 

2004 a 2007 a 

Pollutant Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE 

Manganese and Manganese Compounds 1 117 316,479 1 79 231,089 

Dioxin and Dioxin Like Compounds 2 64 177,587 2 42 86,425 

Lead and Lead Compounds 3 189 61,578 3 140 44,781 

Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 4 77 42,625 4 30 20,085 

Mercury and Mercury Compounds 8 87 8,036 5 61 14,609 

Zinc and Zinc Compounds 5 83 16,232 6 62 13,143 

Pulp and Paper Category Total NA 282 b 668,518 NA 198 b 459,959 c

Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; and TRIReleases2007_v2. 

a – Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. 

b – Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 

c – Includes discharges from facilities reporting NAICS code 326112. These discharges should be associated with 

the Plastics Molding and Forming Category (40 CFR Part 463). EPA will correct future versions of the database 

because the TWPE is negligible. 

NA – Not applicable. 

Table 12-5. 2009 Review: Pulp and Paper Category Top DMR Pollutants 

2004 2007 

Pollutant Rank 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE 

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin a 4 1 8,644 1 10 1,926,776 b 

TCDD equivalents NR NR NR 2 1 564,713 c

Aluminum 1 26 64,266 3 25 81,660 

4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol NR NR NR 4 7 25,174 

Chlorine 2 22 28,083 5 24 23,022 

Sulfide 3 1 14,071 NR NR NR 

Iron 5 12 7,736 21 13 1,375 

Pulp and Paper Category Total NA 150 d 164,787 NA 160 d 2,726,865 e

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; and DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – As part of the 2009 annual review, EPA revised the parameter grouping name for dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds. The parameter grouping in PCSLoads2004_v4 is named “dioxin,” while the parameter grouping in 

DMRLoads2007_v3 is named “2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.” 

b – For the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category, EPA contacted facilities to verify the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in PCS and ICIS-NPDES. EPA found that, for all facilities contacted, there were either 
Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) 

12-7 

units errors (e.g., reported as ng/L but in the database as mg/L) or missing non-detect indicators. The new Pulp, 

Paper, and Paperboard Category 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin TWPE is 19,827. See Section 12.2.2.1 for 

additional details on the facilities-specific corrections. 

c – EPA contacted Westvaco Texas in Evadale, TX (TX0003891) in the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category and 

identified a missing non-detect indicator causing the TCDD equivalents TWPE to be 1,000 times higher than actual 

in DMRLoads2007_v3 (Davis, 2009). The new LBY and TWPE reported for Westvaco Texas’ TCDD equivalents 

are both 0. The new TCDD equivalents TWPE is 0. 

d – Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 

e – The new Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category total TWPE is 252,163. 

NA – Not applicable. 

NR – Not reported. 

 EPA identified the Pulp and Paper Category pollutants of concern based on relative 

TWPE. EPA focused the 2009 annual review on discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds, including 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and TCDD equivalents, from 2007 

TRI and DMR and discharges of manganese and manganese compounds from 2007 TRI. EPA 

did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2009 annual review because the 

remaining combined TWPE is such a small percentage (15 percent) of the combined Pulp and 

Paper Category 2007 TWPE. 

12.2.2.1 Pulp and Paper Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Discharges 

in TRI and DMR 

 EPA reviewed 2007 TRI and DMR data on dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from pulp 

and paper facilities for the 2009 annual review. Approximately 60 percent of the total 2007 

dioxin and dioxin-like compound TWPE is from discharges in DMR. 

 Discharges of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) accounted for approximately 

73 percent of the 2007 DMR TWPE. The majority (45 percent) of the total TCDD discharges 

were from Rayonier Performance Fibers in Jesup, Georgia. Discharges of TCDD equivalents 

accounted for approximately 21 percent of the 2007 DMR TWPE. Table 12-6 includes the pulp 

and paper facilities with non-zero TCDD or TCDD equivalents TWPE in DMR 2007. 

 Only one facility, Westvaco Texas L.P., in Evadale, Texas, reported TCDD equivalents. 

When EPA contacted Westvaco Texas about the TCDD equivalents, the facility contact said that 

all four quarterly TCDD equivalents were reported below the detection limit. However, the 

database did not have the “<” for the fourth quarter (Davis, 2009). EPA will incorporate this 

change into future versions of the DMRLoads2007 database. The change will result in zero 

grams of TCDD equivalents for 2007 for Westvaco Texas. 
Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) 

12-8 

Table 12-6. Pulp and Paper Category Facilities with TCDD Discharges in DMR 2007 

NPID Facility Name (Location) a Grams Discharged TWPE 

GA0003620 Rayonier Performance Fibers (Jesup, GA) 0.56 d 862,655 d

GA0003654 Brunswick Cellulose, Inc. (Brunswick, GA) 0.41 e 630,800 e

TX0003891 Westvaco Texas, L.P. (Evadale, TX) b 0.36 f 564,713 f 

MD0021687 Upper Potomac River Comm (Westernport, MD) c 0.19 g 301,278 g 

NY0004413 International Paper Company (Ticonderoga, NY) 0.04 h 67,866 h 

AR0035823 Potlatch Forest Products Corp (Arkansas City, AR) 0.02 i 25,329 i 

ID0001163 Potlatch Corporation (Lewiston, ID) 0.01 19,827

NC0000680 Domtar Paper Company, LLC (Plymouth Town , NC) 0.007 j 10,117 j 

PA0008265 Appleton Papers Inc (Roaring Springs, PA) 0.003 k 4,330 k 

ME0001872 Domtar Maine Corporation (Baileyville, ME) 0.002 l 3,076 l 

ME0002054 Rumford Paper Company (Rumford Center, ME) 0.001 m 1,498 m 

Source: DMRLoads2007_v3. 

a – Only includes facilities reporting non-zero discharges of TCDD. 

b – Discharges reported by Westvaco Texas, L.P. are TCDD equivalents rather than TCDD. 

c – The Upper Potomac River Commission is a POTW that predominately treats discharges from Luke Paper 

Company’s pulp mill in Luke, MD. 

d – Facility indicated all quarterly TCDD concentrations were below the detection limit but the “<” signs were 

missing from the database (Schwartz, 2009). EPA will incorporate this change into future versions of the 

DMRLoads2007 database. As a result, EPA estimates 0 grams and 0 TWPE for this facility. 

e – Facility indicated all quarterly TCDD concentrations were below the detection limit but the “<” signs were 

missing from the database. (Schwartz, 2009). EPA will incorporate this change into future versions of the 

DMRLoads2007 database. As a result, EPA estimates 0 grams and 0 TWPE for this facility. 

f – Facility indicated all quarterly TCDD equivalents were below the detection limit but the “<” signs were missing 

from the database (Davis, 2009). EPA will incorporate this change into future versions of the DMRLoads2007

database. As a result, EPA estimates 0 grams and 0 TWPE for this facility. 

g – Facility documented that all monthly TCDD discharges were below the detection limit but the “<” signs were 

missing from the database (Schwartz, 2009). EPA will incorporate this change into future versions of the 

DMRLoads2007 database. As a result, EPA estimates 0 grams and 0 TWPE for this facility. 

h – Facility documented that all monthly TCDD discharges were below the detection limit but the “<” signs were 

missing from the database (Schwartz, 2009). EPA will incorporate this change into future versions of the 

DMRLoads2007 database. As a result, EPA estimates 0 grams and 0 TWPE for this facility. 

i – Facility indicated all semi-annual TCDD concentrations were below the detection limit but the “<” signs were 

missing from the database (Schwartz, 2009). EPA will incorporate this change into future versions of the 

DMRLoads2007 database. As a result, EPA estimates 0 grams and 0 TWPE for this facility. 

j – Facility documented that they switched the TCDF and TCDD concentrations in their reports. Additionally, all 

TCDF and TCDD concentrations were below the detection limit with missing “<” signs in the database (Schwartz, 

2009). EPA will incorporate this change into future versions of the DMRLoads2007 database. As a result, EPA 

estimates 0 grams and 0 TWPE for this facility. 

k – Facility documented that all monthly TCDD discharges were below the detection limit but the “<” signs were 

missing from the database (Schwartz, 2009). EPA will incorporate this change into future versions of the 

DMRLoads2007 database. As a result, EPA estimates 0 grams and 0 TWPE for this facility. 

l – Facility documented that all monthly TCDD discharges were below the detection limit but the “<” signs were 

missing from the database (Schwartz, 2009). EPA will incorporate this change into future versions of the 

DMRLoads2007 database. As a result, EPA estimates 0 grams and 0 TWPE for this facility. 

m – Facility documented that the annual TCDD discharge was reported below the detection limit but the “<” sign 

was missing from the database (Schwartz, 2009). EPA will incorporate this change into future versions of the 

DMRLoads2007 database. As a result, EPA estimates 0 grams and 0 TWPE for this facility. 
Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) 

12-9 

 EPA followed up with additional facilities regarding reported dioxin discharges and will 

incorporate these changes into future versions of the DMRLoads2007 database: 

• Appleton Papers, Inc., in Roaring Spring, PA, documented that all monthly 

TCDD concentrations were non-detect and missing the “<” in the database 

(Schwartz, 2009). After the correction, EPA estimates zero pounds and zero 

TWPE of TCDD discharged in 2007 for Appleton Papers, Inc. 

• Brunswick Cellulose, Inc., in Brunswick, GA, documented that all quarterly 

TCDD concentrations were non-detect and missing the “<” in the database 

(Schwartz, 2009). After the correction, EPA estimates zero pounds and zero 

TWPE of TCDD discharged in 2007 for Brunswick Cellulose, Inc. 

• Clearwater Paper Corporation (previously Potlatch Corporation), in Arkansas 

City, AR, documented that all quarterly TCDD concentrations were non-detect 

and missing the “<” in the database (Schwartz, 2009). After the correction, EPA 

estimates zero pounds and zero TWPE of TCDD discharged in 2007 for 

Clearwater Paper Corporation. 

• Domtar Maine Corporation, in Baileyville, ME, documented that all monthly 

TCDD concentrations were non-detect and missing the “<” in the database 

(Schwartz, 2009). After the correction, EPA estimates zero pounds and zero 

TWPE of TCDD discharged in 2007 for Domtar Maine Corporation. 

• Domtar Paper Company, LLC, in Plymouth Town, NC, documented that all 

monthly TCDD concentrations in 2007 were non-detect and missing the “<” in 

the database (Schwartz, 2009). After the correction, EPA estimates zero pounds 

and zero TWPE of TCDD discharged in 2007 for Domtar Paper Company, LLC. 

• International Paper Company, in Ticonderoga, NY, documented that all twelve 

monthly TCDD concentrations in 2007 were not detected, and the DMR data 

were missing the “<” (Schwartz, 2009). After the correction, EPA estimates zero 

pounds and zero TWPE of TCDD discharged in 2007 for the International Paper 

Company. 

• Rayonier Performance Fibers, in Jesup, GA, documented that all quarterly TCDD 

concentrations were non-detect and missing the “<” in the database (Schwartz, 

2009). After the correction, EPA estimates zero pounds and zero TWPE of TCDD 

discharged in 2007 for Rayonier Performance Fibers. 

• Rumford Mill, in Rumford Center, ME, documented that the “<” was missing in 

the database for annual TCDD measurement in 2007 (Schwartz, 2009). After the 

correction, EPA estimates zero pounds and zero TWPE of TCDD discharged in 

2007 for Rumford Mills. 
Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) 

12-10 

• Upper Potomac River Commission, in Rumford Center, ME, documented that all 

twelve monthly TCDD concentrations in 2007 were reported non-detect and 

missing the “<” in the database (Schwartz, 2009). After the correction, EPA 

estimates zero pounds and zero TWPE of TCDD discharged in 2007 for Upper 

Potomac River Commission. 

 From 2004 to 2007 TRI, reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 

decreased by approximately 91,000 TWPE. However, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 

contributed to about 22 percent of the TRI TWPE in 2007. Table 12-7, at the end of this section, 

lists all the mills that reported dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges to TRI at least once 

from 2002 to 2007. As part of the Pulp and Paper Category Detailed Study, EPA determined that 

the majority of the underlying data that estimated releases of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 

reported to TRI were estimated using pollutant concentrations below the Method 1613B 

minimum level. Therefore, there is substantial uncertainty about the magnitude of these reported 

discharges. TRI-reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds for the Pulp and Paper 

Category are most likely significantly overestimated, and thus do not accurately reflect current 

industry discharges (U.S. EPA, 2006a). 

12.2.2.2 Pulp and Paper Category Manganese and Manganese Compound 

Discharges in TRI 

 Reported discharges of manganese and manganese compounds decreased by 

approximately 85,000 TWPE from TRI 2004 to TRI 2007. However, manganese and manganese 

compounds contributed 58 percent of the TRI TWPE for 2007. EPA examined reported 

manganese and manganese compound discharges from pulp and paper facilities during the Pulp 

and Paper Detailed Study for the 2006 Plan and its previous preliminary studies. EPA obtained 

discharge data in Form 2C of NPDES permit applications for 40 mills. EPA concluded that 

typical metals discharges from pulp and paper mills were at concentrations that were too low to 

treat using end-of-pipe treatment technologies for large plant flow rates (U.S. EPA, 2006a). 

Although EPA has not reviewed new discharge concentration data, it has no new data to suggest 

that manganese concentrations are above the treatable levels. 

12.3 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Potential New Subcategories

 During the 2009 review, EPA did not identify any additional potential new subcategories 

for the Pulp and Paper Category. 

12.4 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Issues Identified and Additional Review

 The estimated toxicity of the Pulp and Paper Category discharges is largely due to the 

TRI-reported discharges of manganese and manganese compounds and dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds and DMR-reported discharges of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and TCDD 

equivalents. Further review of this category may focus on the following issues: 

• In future years, EPA may analyze the TRI-reported manganese and dioxin 

discharges, including facilities dominating the TWPE, the methods used to 

estimate reported discharge, and process sources; and concentrations discharged. 
Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) 

12-11 

• In future years, EPA will continue to analyze the DMR-reported 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and TCDD equivalents discharges, to verify that any 

estimated discharges are based on valid data. 

 EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision 

based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as 

TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for 

revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table V-1 in the 

Federal Register notice that presents the 2009 annual review of existing effluent guidelines and 

pretreatment standards). 

12.5 Pulp and Paper Category References

1. Davis, Katherine. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Elizabeth 

Sabol, ERG and Katherine Davis, Westvaco Texas, L.P. RE: Basis of TCDD 

equivalent concentrations reported in 2007. (July 7). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 

DCN 6547. 

2. McCuutchen, Kate. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Elizabeth 

Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Kate McCuutchen, Blue Heron Paper 

Co. RE: Basis of Methylmercury Concentration Reported in 2007 in DMR. (July). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06546. 

3. Schwartz, Jerry. 2009. Notes from email conversation between Carey Johnston, 

EPA and Jerry Schwartz, EPA. RE: Information in Response to EPA Questions 

on Data. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06700-06700A2. 

4. U.S. Economic Census. 2002. Available online at: 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02. 

5. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA 821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2003-0074-1346 through 1352. 

6. U.S. EPA. 2006a. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-2782. 

7. U.S. EPA. 2006b. Final Report: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Detailed Study. 

EPA-821-R-06-016. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-

2249. 

8. U.S. EPA. 2007a. Background Information Document for Permit Writers: 

Dissolving Kraft and Dissolving Sulfite Pulp Mills. EPA-821-R-07-007. 

Washington, DC. (May). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0774. 
Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) 

12-12 

9. U.S. EPA. 2007b. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan. EPA-821-R-07-007. Washington, DC. (October). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0819. 
12-13 

Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and P

Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilitie

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID 

Facility 

Name Location Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basi

Estim

71635-

GRGPCPAPER 

GeorgiaPacific 

Crossett Ops. 

Crossett, AR 5.60 10,043 E1 4.87 8,740 E 5.49 9,850 E 5.49 9,850 E 

99363-

BSCSCPOBOX 

Boise White 

Paper LLC 

Wallula, WA 5.58 10,014 O 0.083 149 O 0.83 1,496 O 0.14 242 O 

27962-

WYRHSTROWB 

Domtar Paper 

Co Plymouth 

Mill 

Plymouth, 

NC 

4.33 7,777 E1 0.989 1,770 E 0.91 1,638 E 0.82 1,470 E 

71611-

NTRNTFAIRF 

Evergreen 

Packaging 

Pine Bluff, 

AR 

3.40 6,101 O 3.7 6,640 O 3.6 6,459 O 0.018 32 E 

36916-

JMSRVROUTE 

GeorgiaPacific 

Consumer 

Products LP 

Pennington, 

AL 

3.20 5,742 E1 3.6 6,460 M 3.3 5,921 M 5.32 9,551 M 

36769-

MCMLLHIGHW 

Weyerhaeuser 

USA Inc Pine 

Hill 

Operations 

Pine Hill, AL 2.95 5,286 M2 3.36 6,020 E 2.43 4,369 E 2.34 4,197 E 

70791-

GRGPCZACHA 

GeorgiaPacific 

Consumer 

Products LLC 

Zachary, LA 2.77 4,974 E1 2.77 4,970 E 2.77 4,974 E 3.32 63,803 E 

75504-

NTRNTPOBOX 

International 

Paper 

Texarkana 

Mill 

Queen City, 

TX 

2.68 4,809 M2 0.68 1,220 M 3.87 6,944 M 2.36 4,235 M 

36545-

BSCSC307WE 

Boise White 

Paper LLC 

Jackson, AL 2.21 3,965 E1 2.1 3,770 E 2.1 3,768 E 1.98 3,553 E 

36732-

GLFSTHIGHW 

Rock-Tenn 

Mill Co LLC 

Demopolis, 

AL 

1.84 3,301 E1 0.292 524 E 0.32 575 E 0.23 416 E 

28560-

WYRHSSTREE 

Weyerhaeuser Vanceboro, 

NC 

1.71 3,069 E1 1.7 3,050 E 1.74 3,119 E 1.82 3,257 E 
12-14 

Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and P

Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilitie

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID 

Facility 

Name Location Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basi

Estim

28456-

FDRLPRIEGE 

International 

Paper 

Riegelwood 

Mill 

Riegelwood, 

NC 

0.0304 3,069 E1 0.0304 55 E 0.0305 55 E 0.0304 55 E 

17362-

PHGLT228SO 

P. H. 

Glatfelter Co 

Spring Grove 

Mill 

Spring 

Grove, PA 

1.02 1,830 E1 0.946 1,700 E 0.9 1,616 E 0.92 1,653 E 

29512-

WLLMTHWY91 

Weyerhaeuser 

Co 

Bennettsville, 

SC 

0.86 1,537 O 0.9563 1,715 O NR NR NR NR NR NR 

37309-

BWTRSROUTE 

Abitibowater 

Calhoun 

Operations 

Calhoun, TN 0.73 1,319 E1 0.87 1,560 M 0.94 1,690 M 0.91 1,626 M 

31407-

STNCN1BONN 

Weyerhaeuser 

Port 

Wentworth 

Port 

Wentworth, 

GA 

0.61 1,094 E1 0.679 1,220 E 0.69 1,239 E 0.72 1,284 E 

12883-

NTRNTSHORE 

International 

Paper 

Ticonderoga, 

NY 

0.44 790 M2 0.46 826 E 0.46 834 E 0.46 817 E 

83501-

PTLTC805MI 

Potlatch Corp 

Lewiston 

Idaho 

Lewiston, ID 0.44 789 M2 0.441 792 E 4.18 7,501 E 4.18 7,505 E 

70775-

JMSRVENDOF 

Tembec USA 

LLC 

Saint 

Francisville, 

LA 

0.22 400 E1 0.48 861 E 0.502 901 E 0.5 899 E 

71220-

NTRNT705CO 

International 

Paper Co 

Louisiana 

Mill 

Bastrop, LA 0.19 342 E1 0.175 314 E 0.16 280 E 0.22 399 M 

31521-

BRNSW14W9T 

Brunswick 

Cellulose Inc 

Brunswick, 

GA 

0.19 341 E1 0.186 335 E 0.19 335 E 0.19 335 E 

04976-

SDWRRRFD3U 

S.D. Warren 

Co 

Skowhegan, 

ME 

0.15 269 E2 0.168 302 O 0.17 305 O 0.18 323 O 

01238-

KMBRLGREYL 

Schweitzer 

Mauduit 

International 

Inc 

Lee, MA 0.14 244 O 0.156 280 O 0.17 303 O 0.153 275 O 
12-15 

Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and P

Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilitie

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID 

Facility 

Name Location Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basi

Estim

70634-

BSSTHUSHIG 

Boise 

Packaging & 

Newsprint 

LLC 

Deridder, LA 0.12 215 E1 0.19 341 E 0.22 395 E 0.26 467 E 

98421-

SMPSN801PO 

Simpson 

Tacoma Kraft 

Co. 

Tacoma, WA 0.12 208 E1 0.154 277 E 0.135 242 E 0.13 240 E 

45601-

MDCRP401SP 

P.H. 

Glatfelter Co 

Chillicothe 

Facility 

Chillicothe, 

OH 

0.07 118 M2 0.0554 99 M 0.082 147 M 0.0858 154 M 

18629-

PRCTRROUTE 

Procter & 

Gamble Paper 

Products Co 

Mehoopany, 

PA 

0.02 29 E1 0.087 156 E 0.012 22 C 0.018 33 O 

98550-

GRYSH23RDR 

Grays Harbor 

Paper Lp 

Hoquiam, 

WA 

0.02 27 C 0.142 255 C 0.012 22 C 0.012 21 C 

63702-

PRCTRPOBOX 

Procter & 

Gamble Paper 

Products Co 

Jackson, MO 0.004 8.80 O 0.0042 8 O 0.0051 9.2 O 0.0047 8.4 O 

31068-

BCKYCOLDST 

Weyerhaeuser 

Co 

Oglethorpe, 

GA 

0.001 1.79 O 0.001 2 O 0.0005 0.9 O 0.0005 0.9 O 

39703-

CLMBSCARSO 

Columbus 

Cellulose 

Fibers 

Columbus, 

MS 

0.0008 1.44 M2 0.0007 1 M 0.0007 1.3 M 0.0018 3.2 M 

54308-

THPRC501EA 

Procter & 

Gamble Paper 

Products Co 

Green Bay, 

WI 

0.0008 1.00 C 0.0003 1 C 0.0005 0.9 C 0.0006 1.1 C 

37662-

MDPPRPOBOX 

Weyerhaeuser 

Co Kingsport 

Paper Mill 

Kingsport, 

TN 

NR NR NR 3.45 6,190 M 3.4 6,101 M 2.5 4,486 M 

98201-

SCTTP2600F 

KimberlyClark 

Worldwide 

Everett, WA NR NR NR 1.33 2,380 C 2.7 4,846 C 3 472,778 C 

32347-

BCKYCROUTE 

Buckeye 

Florida Lp 

Perry, FL NR NR NR 1.32 2,380 M 1.3 2,330 M 1.27 2,282 M 
12-16 

Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and P

Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilitie

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID 

Facility 

Name Location Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basi

Estim

71822-

NKSPPHIGHW 

Domtar 

Industries Inc 

Ashdown 

Mill 

Ashdown, 

AR 

NR NR NR 38.4 69,000 M 40.96 73,494 M 40 1,511,611 M 

98362-

DSHWMMARIN 

Nippon Paper 

Industries 

USA Co. Ltd. 

Port Angeles, 

WA 

NR NR NR 0.92 1,650 M 1.82 3,266 M 1.8 282 M 

32533-

CHMPN375MU 

International 

Paper 

Pensacola 

Mill 

Cantonment, 

FL 

NR NR NR 0.8 1,440 E 0.93 1,669 E 0.93 1,669 E 

29442-

NTRNTKAMIN 

International 

Paper 

Georgetown 

Mill 

Georgetown, 

SC 

NR NR NR 0.753 1,350 C 0.75 1,351 C 0.77 1,380 C 

04694-

GRGPCMILLA 

Domtar 

Maine Corp 

Baileyville, 

ME 

NR NR NR 0.615 1,100 M 0.82 1,463 M NR NR NR 

32034-

TTRYNFOOTO 

Rayonier 

Performance 

Fibers LLC 

Fernandina 

Beach, FL 

NR NR NR 0.56 1,000 M 1 1,794 M NR NR NR 

71654-

PTLTCHIGHW 

Potlatch Corp Arkansas 

City, AR 

NR NR NR 0.204 365 O 0.97 1,737 O 0.92 1,646 O 

29044-

NNCMPROUTE 

International 

Paper 

Eastover, SC NR NR NR 0.183 328 O 0.16 282 O 0.16 290 O 

54474-

WYRHS200GR 

Weyerhaeuser Rothschild, 

WI 

NR NR NR 0.042 75 M 0.048 86 M 0.12 206 M 

98537-

WYRHS700EA 

Weyerhaeuser 

Pulp Mill 

Cosmopolis, 

WA 

NR NR NR 0.01 18 O 0.01 18 O 0.0093 17 O 

12502-

SCHWT2424R 

SchweitzerMauduit 

International 

Inc 

Ancram, NY NR NR NR 0.004 7 E 0.008 14 E 0.02 36 O 

98632-

WYRHS3401I 

Weyerhaeuser 

Co 

Longview, 

WA 

NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.025 45 O 
12-17 

Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and P

Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilitie

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID 

Facility 

Name Location Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basi

Estim

98607-

JMSRVNE4TH 

Fort James 

Camas LLC 

Camas, WA NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1.06 1,902 E 

97068-

JMSRV4800M 

West Linn 

Paper Co 

West Linn, 

OR 

NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.006 11 C 0.35 4,139 C 

39120-

NTRNT312LO 

International 

Paper - 

Natchez 

Natchez, MS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1.17 2,099 E 

36701-

HMMRMRIVER 

International 

Paper 

Riverdale 

Mill 

Selma, AL NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.108 194 E 0.12 208 E 

36426-

CNTNRHIGHW 

Smurfit-Stone 

Container 

Enterprises 

Inc 

Brewton, AL NR NR NR NR NR NR 2.5 4,486 E 2.2 3,947 E 

35618-

CHMPNPOBOX 

International 

Paper 

Courtland 

Mill 

Courtland, 

AL 

NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.094 168 E 0.088 158 E 

31558-

GLMNP1000O 

DurangoGeorgia Paper 

Co. 

Saint Marys, 

GA 

NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

31520-

BRNSWWEST9 

GeorgiaPacific Corp. 

Brunswick 

Ops. 

Brunswick, 

GA 

NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

29704-

BWTRC5300C 

Bowater 

Coated & 

Specialty 

Papers Div 

Catawba, SC NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 5.58 261,826 M 

28358-

LPHCL1000E 

Buckeye 

Lumberton 

Inc. 

Lumberton, 

NC 

NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

23851-

NNCMPHIGHW 

International 

PaperFranklin Mill 

Franklin, VA NR NR NR NR NR NR 2.28 4,086 E 2.27 4,066 E 
12-18 

Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and P

Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilitie

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID 

Facility 

Name Location Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basi

Estim

13142-

SCHLLCENTE 

Felix 

Schoeller 

Technical 

Papers Inc. 

Pulaski, NY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

04462-

GRTNR1KATA 

Great 

Northern 

Paper Inc. 

Millinocket, 

ME 

NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

04239-

NTRNTRILEY 

International 

Paper 

Jay, ME NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.002 3.6 M 0.02 36 M 

Indirect 

55744-

BLNDN115SW 

Upm Blandin 

Paper Co 

Grand 

Rapids, MN 

2.11 3,782 E1 2.261 4,060 M 2 3,599 M 2.21 60 M 

07407-

MRCLP1MARK 

Marcal Paper 

Mills Inc. 

Elmwood 

Park, NJ 

0.16 1,315 M2 0.02499 45 M 0.00799 14 M 0.014 26 M 

23860-

STNHP910IN 

Smurfit-Stone 

Container 

Corp 

Hopewell, 

VA 

0.023 412 C 0.221 397 O 0.21 378 O NR NR NR 

32401-

STNCN1EVER 

Smurfit-Stone 

Container 

Corp 

Panama City, 

FL 

0.082 146 E1 0.0782 140 E 0.078 140 E 0.066 119 E 

31702-

THPRCUSROU 

Procter & 

Gamble Paper 

Pro Ducts Co 

Albany, GA 0.001 109 O 0.001989 4 O 0.0036 6.4 O 0.0032 5.7 O 

55720-

PTLTCNORTH 

Sappi Cloquet 

LLC 

Cloquet, MN 0.04 78 M2 0.04811 86 E 0.044 78 E 0.041 0.18 E 

49443-

SDWRR2400L 

S. D. Warren 

Co 

Muskegon, 

MI 

NR NR NR 0.023945 43 E 0.042 75 E 0.05 90 E 

52402-

CDRRV4600C 

Cedar River 

Paper A 

Weyerhaeuser 

Business 

Cedar 

Rapids, IA 

NR NR NR 0.46631 837 O 0.35 636 O NR NR NR 

01236-

FXRVR295PA 

Fox River 

Paper Co 

Rising Paper 

Div 

Housatonic, 

MA 

NR NR NR 0.00697 13 O 0.0073 13 O 0.012 22 O 
12-19 

Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and P

Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilitie

2007 2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID 

Facility 

Name Location Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basi

Estim

54308-

THPRC501EA 

Procter & 

Gamble Paper 

Products Co 

Green Bay, 

WI 

NR NR NR 0.00034 1 C 0.00051 0.9 C 0.00068 1.2 C 

93030-

PRCTR800NO 

Procter & 

Gamble Paper 

Products Co 

Oxnard, CA NR NR NR 0.0000214 0 C 0.0034 6.1 C 0.0002 0.43 C 

Source: TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2003_v2; TRIReleases2002_v4. NR – Not reported. For indirect discharges, the mass shown is the mass transferred to the POTW that is ultimately discharged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 83 percent removal of 

the POTW. The TWPEs in this table were calculated using the 2006 TWFs (the 2006 dioxin and dioxin-like compound TWFs did not change from the August or December 2004 TWFs). 

Facilities reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M – Monitoring/data measurements; M1 – Continuous monitoring data or measurements for the EPCRA section 313 chemical; data or measurements for the EPCRA section 313 chemical; C – Mass balance calculations; E1 – Published emission factors; E2 – Site specific emission factors; and O – Othe

calculations). 
Part III – Detailed Studies 

PART III: DETAILED STUDIES 
Section 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460) 

13-1 

13. HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY AND HOSPITALS CATEGORY (40 CFR PART 460) 

 To date, scientists have identified numerous pharmaceutical compounds at discernable 

concentrations in our nation’s rivers, lakes, and streams (U.S. EPA, 2008). To address this issue 

at the source, EPA is studying how the drugs are entering waterways and what factors contribute 

to the current situation. Towards this end, EPA initiated a study on pharmaceutical disposal 

practices at health care facilities including hospitals, hospices, long-term care facilities, health 

care clinics, doctor’s offices, and veterinary facilities. Unused pharmaceuticals include dispensed 

prescriptions that patients do not use as well as materials that are beyond their expiration dates. 

Another potential source of unused pharmaceuticals is the residuals remaining in used and 

partially used dispensers, containers, and devices. In particular, the medications contained in the 

dispensers, containers and devices may be sewered (e.g., intravenous (IV) bags emptied into 

sink).30 For many years, a standard practice at many health care facilities was to dispose of 

unused pharmaceuticals by flushing them down the toilet or drain. 

13.1 Activities for Study of Unused Pharmaceutical Management

 For the Final 2008 Plan EPA completed an interim technical report for the Health Care 

Industry (U.S. EPA, 2008). The interim technical report focused on hospitals and long-term care 

facilities (LTCFs) because these facilities are likely responsible for the largest amounts of 

unused pharmaceuticals being disposed into sewage collection systems within this industry 

sector. In 2005, there were about 7,000 hospitals and 35,000 LTCFs in the United States (U.S. 

EPA, 2008). EPA is continuing its detailed study to investigate the following questions: 

• What are the current industry practices for disposing of unused pharmaceuticals? 

• Which pharmaceuticals are being disposed of and at what quantities? 

• What are the options for disposing of unused pharmaceuticals other than down the 

drain or toilet? 

• What factors influence disposal decisions? 

• Do disposal practices differ within industry sectors? 

• What BMPs could facilities implement to reduce the generation of unused 

pharmaceuticals? 

• What reductions in the quantities of pharmaceuticals discharged to POTWs would 

be achieved by implementing BMPs or alternative disposal methods? 

• What are the costs of current disposal practices compared to the costs of 

implementing BMPs or alternative disposal methods? 

 Since the publication of the Final 2008 Plan, EPA also reviewed comments received on 

the first Federal Register notice for the Health Care Industry Information Collection Request 

(ICR) published on August 12, 2008 (73 FRN 46903). The ICR was originally developed to 

collect technical and economic information on unused pharmaceutical management and to 

identify technologies and BMPs that reduce or eliminate the discharge of unused 

pharmaceuticals to POTWs. EPA received 31 comments and conducted outreach meetings with 

industry to obtain further comments on the survey design and instrument. 

 

30 As a point of clarification, the term “unused pharmaceuticals” does not include excreted pharmaceuticals. 
Section 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460) 

13-2 

 Commenters included hospitals and clinics, health care trade associations, pharmacists 

associations, reverse distributors, pharmaceutical manufacturers, individuals, and municipal 

wastewater treatment plants and their associations. Following publication of the first Federal 

Register notice for the ICR, EPA conducted three hour-long teleconferences in September 2008 

with 259 stakeholders to provide an overview of the project, scope of the survey instrument, 

potential recipients, and schedule. These meetings solicited early feedback from participants to 

facilitate the development of a subsequent draft of the survey instrument and population and 

sample frames. These teleconferences also identified interested stakeholders for the site 

visits/additional outreach meetings. Overall, the comments received were supportive of the 

survey. Most commenters had a number of suggestions on how to improve the survey. 

Improvements suggested were to expand the scope of sectors receiving the survey, to shorten the 

survey, and to tailor the survey to each health care sector. There were a few health care 

organizations who felt a survey was not necessary for a variety of reasons including burden to 

the facilities, that they are already practicing BMPs, or that they would favor the more immediate 

issuance of EPA guidance. 

 In addition to exploring the use of an industry survey, EPA has continued to study the 

issue of how health care facilities are managing and disposing of unused pharmaceuticals and 

POTW treatment effectiveness in an effort to identify the root cause and potential solutions to 

address the issue of pharmaceuticals in our waterways. Since the publication of the Final 2008 

Plan, EPA conducted site visits to three additional hospitals in three States, four LTCFs in three 

States, a veterinary hospital, a long-term care pharmacy, a hospice, a hematology/oncology 

clinic, and a waste management vendor facility to obtain more detailed information on how 

pharmaceuticals are managed, tracked, and disposed as well as influences on behavior (U.S. 

EPA, 2009). During each site visit, EPA collected general site information and specific unused 

pharmaceutical management and disposal information. The objectives of these site visits 

included: 

• Collect information on the amount of unused pharmaceuticals disposed; 

• Observe pharmaceutical waste management practices; 

• Identify common industry disposal practices, guidance, and regulatory 

requirements; 

• Identify challenges with the generation and disposal of unused, unwanted, and 

expired pharmaceuticals; 

• Identify BMPs and their costs; 

• Understand potential impacts of pharmaceuticals in water; and 

• Gather information about how hospitals, LTCFs, or other facilities operate. 

 Additionally, EPA contacted other types of health care facilities (e.g., medical and dental 

offices, university and prison health clinics, and veterinary clinics) to learn about their unused 

pharmaceutical disposal practices. EPA also reviewed studies on POTW pharmaceutical 

treatment effectiveness and the potential pathways for unused pharmaceuticals to be released into 

the environment (ERG, 2009). 

 In summary, since the study began in 2007 EPA has worked with a wide range of 

stakeholders (e.g., industry representatives; Federal, State, and Tribal representatives; waste 

management and disposal companies; and other interested parties) to obtain the best available 

information on the industry and its unused pharmaceutical management practices. In total, EPA 
Section 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460) 

13-3 

met or spoke with over 700 different people during the outreach and data collection activities 

from 2007 through 2009 (U.S. EPA, 2009). Based on its outreach and data gathering, the Agency 

estimates that hospitals and LTCFs have the greatest amounts of unused pharmaceuticals as 

compared with other health care sectors (e.g., dentists, retail pharmacies). 

 EPA’s outreach has also identified that there is near universal interest from stakeholders 

to better manage unused pharmaceuticals at health care facilities. There is also general interest in 

more quickly advancing the use of best practices for managing unused pharmaceuticals at health 

care facilities. This considerable outreach and data collection has led EPA to re-consider the use 

of an industry survey for this sector. The survey would be an effective but potentially timeconsuming tool for gathering facility-specific data on the management of unused 

pharmaceuticals. EPA estimates that it has gathered sufficient data from its site visits and 

outreach to begin the development of best practices for unused pharmaceutical management at 

health care facilities. During the next year, EPA will continue to work with a variety of 

stakeholders in the development of these best practices and the means for their dissemination and 

adoption. EPA expects to complete the development of these best practices for the Final 2010 

Plan. 

13.2 Preliminary Findings from the Health Care Industry – Unused Pharmaceuticals 

Detailed Study

 EPA’s seven preliminary findings on the management of unused pharmaceutical at health 

care facilities include the following: 

1. Federal regulations often impact the management of pharmaceutical waste. 

These regulations can influence the options health care facilities have for 

disposing of unused pharmaceuticals. 

• Some federal regulations may inadvertently encourage disposal of unused 

pharmaceuticals via the sewer. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), enforced 

by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), establishes a closed distribution 

system for controlled substances. The CSA prohibits the return of controlled 

substances from end-users to any person except, in certain cases, a lawenforcement agent. Disposal of controlled substances is carefully regulated to 

ensure that the substance is destroyed or rendered unrecoverable. One acceptable 

method of destruction is witnessed disposal of controlled substances in a drain or 

toilet. 

• Fewer disposal opportunities exist for LTCFs because they are often not DEA 

registrants and cannot return controlled substances to their supply pharmacy or 

use reverse distributors. Hospitals typically are DEA registrants because they 

have on-site pharmacies and they are able to use reverse distributors to manage all 

or a portion of their unused controlled substances. It is common practice for 

hospital pharmacies to return some unopened, expired packages of controlled 

substances to a reverse distributor for credit from the manufacturer and 

subsequent disposal. Hospitals can also send controlled substances that are 

considered waste (e.g., pharmaceuticals in an intravenous bag, drug samples 

brought into the hospital) to a reverse distributor or other waste management 
Section 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460) 

13-4 

company that is a DEA registrant. Also, hospitals typically do not prescribe 

medication far in advance or in large quantities, as is often done for residents at 

LTCFs. As a result, the potential for pharmaceuticals to be wasted at hospitals is 

reduced. 

• Some unused pharmaceuticals are regulated as hazardous wastes and subject to 

the nation’s hazardous waste disposal requirements. Pharmaceutical wastes may 

be hazardous waste (under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA)) if: (1) the pharmaceutical or its sole active ingredient is specifically 

listed in 40 CFR Part 261.33(e) or (f) (commonly referred to as the P or U lists, 

respectively); and/or (2) the waste exhibits one or more characteristics of 

hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity as defined in 40 

CFR Parts 261.21-24, respectively). Common pharmaceutical wastes that are 

RCRA hazardous waste when disposed of include epinephrine, nitroglycerin, 

warfarin, nicotine, and some chemotherapeutic agents.31 Health care facilities 

must determine if these wastes are RCRA hazardous wastes, and if so, must 

comply with all applicable RCRA Subtitle C requirements, including many 

special storage, handling and transportation requirements. In addition, hospitals 

typically have pre-existing arrangements for disposal of unused pharmaceuticals 

as hazardous waste that LTCFs do not have (Leusch, 2005). 

• Medicare and Medicaid requirements also influence hospital disposal practices.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency 

within the Department of Health and Human Services, administers the Medicare 

and Medicaid programs. Its primary role is to provide payment for medical 

products and services through these programs. Medicare provides health 

insurance to elderly and disabled Americans, while Medicaid provides health 

insurance for low income Americans, including long-term care coverage. LTCFs 

tend to contract with long-term care pharmacies to obtain medications. Long-term 

care (LTC) pharmacies primarily dispense a 30-day supply of medication for each 

prescription. This practice results from the policies set by Medicare, Medicaid, 

and private insurance (i.e., maximizing patient co-payment). The dispensing of 

30-day or more quantities can lead to greater unused pharmaceutical waste, when 

prescriptions are either changed or discontinued. Additionally, EPA identified a 

barrier for reuse of pharmaceuticals returned to LTC pharmacies that were 

purchased under Medicare Part D or private insurance. Specifically, there is no 

system in place that allows the payer to give back partial credit to both the 

insurance provider (e.g., Medicare Part D) and the patient (who paid a co-pay for 

the pharmaceutical). While Medicare Part D and private insurance provider 

requirements do not prohibit crediting to both parties; there is not a system in 

place for that kind of reimbursement that EPA could identify (U.S. EPA, 2009a). 

The result is that these unused medications are often disposed. 

 

31 The Agency clarified its regulation at 40 CFR 261.33, explaining that epinephrine salts are not included in the 

epinephrine P042 listing (since the listing only specifies epinephrine and not epinephrine salts); the salts, therefore, 

would be hazardous only if the waste epinephrine salt exhibited one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics 

(see “Scope of Hazardous Waste Listing P042 (Epinephrine),” October 15, 2007, RCRA Online# 14778)." 
Section 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460) 

13-5 

2. State and local regulations and guidance often require special handling of 

pharmaceutical waste. These laws and regulations can influence the options 

health care facilities have for disposing of unused pharmaceuticals. 

• State regulations and guidance vary widely and influence disposal practices.

State regulations on the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals and controlled 

substances vary widely (The Lewin Group, 2004; APhA, 2006; ERG, 2009a). 

Generally, the existing guidance from the States suggests that health care facilities 

limit disposal of pharmaceuticals to sewers (either by using alternative 

technologies/practices or limiting the types and quantity of drugs going down the 

drain.) In some States (California and Washington), facilities are encouraged to 

contact the POTW prior to this disposal of unused pharmaceuticals via the sewer. 

Also, many State regulations require both hospitals and LTCFs to destroy unused 

pharmaceuticals but often do not specify the process of destruction; however, 

many States (33 States according to APhA, 2006) have requirements for the types 

of facility personnel required to conduct and oversee the destruction. 

• Some States have hazardous waste regulations that are more stringent than 

EPA (H2E, 2006). Some States, including California, Minnesota, and 

Washington, have more stringent hazardous waste regulations that may impact 

pharmaceutical waste management. Some waste pharmaceuticals might be 

regulated as hazardous waste under State law but not RCRA. For example, 

Minnesota requires that all chemotherapy drug wastes be managed as hazardous 

waste. 

• Many States allow re-use of uncontaminated pharmaceuticals (excluding 

controlled substances) that have been in a controlled environment, such as an 

automatic dispensing system (The Lewin Group, 2004). In its 2009 Survey of 

Pharmacy Law, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) 

provides summary statistics on the number of States that (1) allow drug 

repository/donation programs and (2) permit the return and reuse of medications. 

According to NABP, 32 States allow drug repository/donation programs. Some of 

these States limit the program to specific situations (e.g., Minnesota’s program 

applies to chemotherapy agents only) or exclude controlled substances from the 

repository/donation program. 

According to NABP, 30 States permit the return and reuse of medications. As 

above, many of these States limit return and reuse activities. For example, Ohio 

allows return and reuse only if the medication is unit-dosed and not a controlled 

substance; and Oregon allows return and reuse only in “long-term care 

pharmacies where drugs have remained in the control of facility staff and are 

packaged in tamper-resistant containers (NABP, 2009). State regulations for reuse 

of medications vary widely. 

3. After getting credit from the manufacturer for the facility, reverse 

distributors send most creditable pharmaceuticals off-site for some type of 

disposal (e.g., incinerator, landfill, etc.), not back to pharmaceutical 

companies for reuse or recycling. Reverse distributors also often take non-
Section 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460) 

13-6 

creditable pharmaceutical waste for off-site disposal, including controlled 

substances from hospitals. People often think that reverse distributors are 

returning all of the creditable pharmaceuticals to the manufacturer for 

reuse/recycling or destruction. However, most creditable pharmaceuticals are in 

fact sent off-site to an incinerator (Chapman, 2003). 

4. Sometimes pharmaceuticals are being disposed with State Regulated Medical 

Waste (RMW) and sent to steam sterilizers or autoclaves. In general, EPA 

found that State RMW regulations apply to only those wastes that are considered 

to be potentially infectious. Unused pharmaceuticals would not typically fall into 

this category. The majority of State RMW regulations make no mention of unused 

pharmaceuticals and do not specifically prohibit health care facilities from 

disposing unused pharmaceuticals with their RMW. Four States specifically 

included chemotherapy agents as RMW or stated that these chemotherapy agents 

may be handled in a similar manner at RMW (ERG, 2009a). EPA visited a 

hospital in January 2009 that, in 2008, had been disposing of all of their unused 

pharmaceuticals in their on-site autoclave with their infectious RMW. This 

autoclave waste was also shredded and there was a wastewater discharge to the 

sewer from the autoclave. This is another way EPA identified that 

pharmaceuticals are being discharged to sewers from hospitals. Also, on site visits 

to hospitals and LTCFs, EPA often found that nurses would dispose of unused 

medications in RMW red bags or red sharps containers, even if that was not the 

official facility policy. RMW is often sent off-site for treatment to an autoclave or 

steam sterilizer that has a wastewater discharge to a POTW. 

5. The current disposal practices identified for waste pharmaceuticals depend 

greatly on the type of pharmaceutical (e.g., controlled substance, RCRA 

hazardous, chemotherapeutic, etc.), the form of the pharmaceutical (e.g., IV 

liquid or pill), where the waste is generated (e.g., at the pharmacy or on the 

patient floor) and whether or not the pharmaceutical is out of its original 

packaging. Facilities typically use a combination of commercial waste haulers to 

dispose of their waste and local municipal trash companies. From site visits as 

well as meetings with waste management companies, EPA observed the following 

typical disposal practices:

• Reverse Distributor. Most hospitals and LTC pharmacies send unopened expired 

or short-dated pharmaceuticals to a reverse distributor to receive credit. The 

reverse distributor then usually sends the pharmaceuticals off-site for disposal.

• Sewer/POTW. Facilities tend to dispose of partially-used intravenous (IV) 

medications from the patient floor down the drain. All facilities from outreach 

meetings and site visits contacted disposed of partially-used non-pharmaceutical 

IV waste down the drain, such as electrolytes and total parenteral nutrition. All 

facilities also disposed of partially-used IVs containing controlled substances 

(e.g., a fentanyl IV stopped midstream) down the drain. Some facilities disposed 

of any partially-used IVs down the drain. Other facilities disposed of 

chemotherapy IVs as hazardous waste instead, using a resealable bag system and 

sorting containers. Some facilities also disposed of all controlled substances in the 
Section 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460) 

13-7 

form of pills down the drain; however, many facilities implemented management 

practices to avoid such releases. These facilities would render the controlled 

substances unrecognizable by crushing them and mixing them with materials such 

as kitty litter or sand and disposing with general trash. 

• Municipal Waste Landfill. General trash and sterilized medical/infectious waste 

were disposed in municipal waste landfills. Facilities that render controlled 

substances unrecognizable by crushing them and mixing with materials such as 

kitty litter or sand, then dispose of the waste in the general trash.

• Autoclave/Steam Sterilizer. EPA observed autoclaves in place at four of the five 

hospitals visited. These four hospitals sterilized their medical/infectious waste 

using autoclaves/steam sterilizers, prior to disposing of such waste as general 

trash. One of these four hospitals processed their pharmaceutical waste through 

the autoclave/steam sterilizer, as well as their medical/infectious waste. Nurses on 

the hospital or LTCF patient floor would often put medications unused by the 

patient into the red bags or red sharps containers that would then go to the 

autoclaves/steam sterilizers.

• Thermal Destruction/ Medical Waste Incinerator. Two hospitals sent 

pharmaceutical waste for off-site thermal destruction (type of incinerator not 

specified), including nonhazardous pharmaceutical and trace chemotherapy drugs. 

Two hospitals disposed of nonhazardous pharmaceuticals in off-site medical 

waste incinerators. These hospitals also disposed of trace chemotherapeutic waste 

in medical waste incinerators.

• Hazardous Waste Landfill. One hospital sent hazardous waste to this type of 

landfill, including pharmaceutical hazardous waste.

• Hazardous Waste Incineration. Hospitals sent RCRA hazardous waste 

pharmaceuticals to this type of incinerator, including hazardous pharmaceutical 

waste and dual waste. 

 From an outreach meeting with a waste management vendor, EPA gathered some general 

statistics on the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals from health care facilities (U.S. EPA, 

2009b). Specifically, the data show that the total amount of unused pharmaceuticals at a hospital 

range from 10 – 20 pounds/bed-month total, with about 10 – 20 percent of that volume being 

hazardous waste. Also, most of the time (approximately 90 percent), unused pharmaceuticals in 

(nonhazardous) IV bags are poured down the drain. 

6. Organization size, ease and access of disposal, and cost are also factors 

influencing the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals. Some facilities use 

flushing to sewers as a primary means of disposal since it is both easy and 

complies with CSA requirements for destruction. Facilities are most likely to 

flush pharmaceuticals if they do not have an on-site pharmacy and/or do not have 

a pre-existing contract with a hazardous waste hauler to dispose of the 

pharmaceuticals. For example, small rural hospitals often don’t have full-time 

pharmacists and do not use reverse distributors (Lewis, 2009). In the past, public 
Section 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460) 

13-8 

health agencies and health-related non-government organizations guided the 

public to destroy unused medications by flushing them down the toilet. Many 

LTCFs have adopted this method for destruction of unused controlled substances. 

Many LTCFs have also extended this practice to include flushing all unused 

medications – controlled and non controlled substances (Leusch, 2005).

7. Best management practices, if widely implemented, have the potential to 

reduce the amount of unused pharmaceuticals entering our nation’s waters 

from disposal. Three organizations provide guidance in the form of BMPs to 

medical facilities on managing pharmaceutical waste: Hospitals for a Healthy 

Environment (re-named as Practice Greenhealth), Product Stewardship Institute 

(PSI), and the Joint Commission (formerly the Joint Commission on 

Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO)). The guidelines provided by 

these organizations all aim to reduce health and environmental impacts due to 

current disposal practices of pharmaceutical waste, as discussed in Section 5.2 of 

the Interim Technical Report (U.S. EPA, 2008). Examples of model BMPs 

identified to date include waste minimization and reverse distribution systems 

used by hospitals in California, Minnesota, and Washington. Waste minimization 

techniques include maintaining inventories of high-use pharmaceuticals and 

identifying those that are close to expiring. Short-dated pharmaceuticals are 

redistributed to other areas of the hospitals where they are needed. Dispensed 

pharmaceuticals can also go unused at a hospital or LTCF if the patient has an 

allergic or adverse reaction to the medication, no longer requires treatment, 

refuses treatment, or the medication expires. Hospitals and LTCFs can reduce the 

amount of pharmaceutical waste generated by limiting the amount of 

pharmaceuticals dispensed to patients and residents at one time. This can be 

accomplished by using unit dose packaging, limited quantity dispensing, 

automatic dispensing systems, and standardized medication dosages (U.S. EPA, 

2008). Hospitals and LTCFs have the option of hiring reverse distributors to 

manage their unused and/or expired medication that the facility believes it could 

receive credit from the manufacturer. The reverse distributor determines which 

medications may receive credit from the manufacturer and arranges for disposal 

of the unused medications (or in limited cases, sends the unused pharmaceuticals 

back to the manufacturer). 

 EPA is concerned about pharmaceuticals in the environment and is working on this issue 

in many different areas. Over the last few years, EPA has increased its work in a number of areas 

to better understand pharmaceuticals. EPA has an overall strategy to address the risks associated 

with emerging contaminants. This four-pronged strategy is aimed at improving science, 

improving public understanding, identifying partnership and stewardship opportunities, and 

taking regulatory action as appropriate. EPA is focused on learning more about the occurrence 

and health effects of pharmaceuticals in water. In addition, EPA is working to better understand 

what treatment technologies may remove them from wastewater and drinking water. EPA is 

developing analytical methods to improve detection capabilities. EPA is conducting national 

studies to help direct the Agency’s course of action. EPA is also partnering with government 

agencies, stakeholders, and the private sector, and increasing public awareness about product 

stewardship and pollution prevention (Grumbles, 2008). Additionally, the Agency is considering 

amending its hazardous waste regulations to add hazardous pharmaceutical wastes to the 
Section 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460) 

13-9 

universal waste system to facilitate its oversight of the disposal of pharmaceutical waste (40 CFR 

Part 273) (see RIN 2050-AG39, April 30, 2007; 72 FR 23170). The inclusion of hazardous 

pharmaceutical wastes in the universal waste rule may encourage health care facilities to manage 

all their pharmaceutical wastes as universal wastes, even wastes that are not regulated as 

hazardous but which nonetheless pose hazards. Finally, EPA has identified the issue of 

pharmaceuticals in wastewater is part of the Agency’s Strategic Plan (2006-2011) to meet its 

goals of clean and safe water.32

13.3 Health Care Industry and Hospitals Category References

1. American Pharmacies Association (APhA). 2006. Re-Distribution of 

Medications: APhA Policy Committee Background Information. (November). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0319. 

2. Chapman, Alice I., P.E. 2003. King County Pharmaceutical Reverse Distributor 

Survey Final Report. Publication Number SQG-PHARM-2(12/03), Local 

Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County. Seattle, WA. 

(December). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06520. 

3. Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). 2009. Memorandum to Samantha Lewis and 

Meghan Hessenauer, EPA, from Debra Falatko and Ellie Codding, ERG. RE: 

Pathways for Environmental Releases of Unused Pharmaceuticals. October 2009. 

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06571. 

4. Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). 2009a. Memorandum to Samantha Lewis 

and Meghan Hessenauer, EPA, from Jill Lucy, ERG. RE: Federal, State, and 

Local Regulations and Guidance for the Management of Unused Pharmaceuticals 

from Hospitals and Long-Term Care Facilities. October 2009. EPA-HQ-OW2008-0517 DCN 06499. 

5. Grumbles, Benjamin H. 2008. U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator for Water. 

Testimony Before the Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security and Water 

Quality Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee United 

States Senate. (April 15). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-1741. 

6. Hospitals for a Health Environment (H2E). 2006. Managing Pharmaceutical 

Waste: A 10-Step Blueprint for Health Care Facilities in the United States. (April 

15). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0244. 

7. Leusch, F., H. Chapman, W. Korner, S. Gooneratne, L. Tremblay. 2005. Efficacy 

of an Advanced Sewage Treatment Plant in Southeast Queensland, Australia, to 

Remove Estrogenic Chemicals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 5781-5786. (June 21). 

EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0851. 

 

32 See “2006 - 2011 EPA Strategic Plan,” http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm. 
Section 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460) 

13-10 

8. Lewis, S. 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of Phone 

Conversation with Brock Slabach of the National Rural Health Association. (May 

27). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06412. 

9. Mott, Jennifer and Maureen Kaplan. 2005. Memorandum to James Covington, 

EPA from Jennifer Mott and Maureen Kaplan, ERG. RE: Health Services 

Industry: Number of Facilities, Companies, and Small Businesses. (December 

20). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1615. 

10. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP). 2009. Survey of Pharmacy 

Law. 

11. The Lewin Group. 2004. CMS Review of Current Standards of Practice for LongTerm Care Pharmacy Services: Long-Term Care Pharmacy Primer. (December 

30). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0317. 

12. U.S. EPA. 2008. Health Services Industry Study: Management and Disposal of 

Unused Pharmaceuticals (Interim Technical Report). EPA-821-R-08-013. 

Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-1694. 

13. U.S. EPA. 2009. Health Care Industry Unused Pharmaceuticals Detailed Study 

2007-2009 Data Collection and Outreach. Washington, DC. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-

0517 DCN 06496. 

14. U.S. EPA. 2009a. Health Care Industry Study – Meeting with Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). (June 23). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 

DCN 06498. 

15. U.S. EPA. 2009b. Health Care Industry Study - Meeting with Stericycle. (April 

16). Washington, DC. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06439. 
Section 14 – Oil and Gas Extraction Category (40 CFR Part 435) 

14-1 

14. OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION CATEGORY (40 CFR PART 435) 

 Coalbed methane (CBM) extraction activities accounted for about 7 percent of the total 

U.S. natural gas production (gross withdrawals) in 2007 and are expanding in multiple basins 

across the United States. Currently, the Department of Energy’s Energy Information 

Administration expects CBM production to remain an important source of domestic natural gas 

over the next few decades. 

 CBM extraction requires removal of large amounts of water from underground coal 

seams before CBM can be released. CBM wells have a distinctive production history 

characterized by an early stage when large amounts of water are produced to reduce reservoir 

pressure which in turn encourages release of gas. This is followed by a stable stage when 

quantities of produced gas increase as the quantities of produced water decrease; and a late stage 

when the amount of gas produced declines and water production remains low (WY SGS, 2004). 

 The quantity and quality of water that is produced in association with CBM development 

varies from basin to basin, within a particular basin, from coal seam to coal seam, and over the 

lifetime of a CBM well. Pollutants often found in these wastewaters include chloride, sodium, 

sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, barium, magnesium, ammonia, and arsenic. Total dissolved 

solids and electrical conductivity are bulk parameters that States typically use for quantifying 

and controlling the amount of pollutants in CBM produced waters. 

 EPA identified the CBM sector as a candidate for a detailed study in the Final 2006 

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (see December 21, 2006, 71 FR 76656). As part of that 

announcement EPA made it clear that it would conduct data collection through an information 

collection request (ICR) to support this detailed study. In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, EPA obtained approval from the Office of Management and Budget for its 

“Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector Survey” on February 18, 2009. This approval followed two 

public comment periods on the survey (see 73 FR 4556, January 25, 2008; 73 FR 40757, July 15, 

2008) and more than two years of outreach by EPA with interested stakeholders. 

 The approved mandatory survey, conducted under the authority of Section 308 of the 

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1318), includes two questionnaires. First, a screener 

questionnaire went to all CBM operators that have three or more CBM wells, approximately 300 

operators. A detailed questionnaire will collect financial and technical data on approximately 773 

CBM projects across the country. 

 EPA will use this ICR to collect technical and economic information from a wide range 

of CBM operations. EPA plans to collect information on geographical and geologic differences 

in the characteristics of CBM produced waters, environmental data, current regulatory controls, 

and availability and affordability of treatment technology options. 

 EPA is also conducting a literature review of environmental impacts and beneficial uses 

of produced water. The literature review is being conducted in four phases focusing on: 
Section 14 – Oil and Gas Extraction Category (40 CFR Part 435) 

14-2 

1. Scientific journal articles; 

2. Documents retrieved from websites of state and federal agencies, universities, and 

non-governmental organizations; and 

3. Environmentally sustainable beneficial uses of produced water. 

Results of the first phase are included in the docket (ERG, 2009). Additionally, EPA will be 

reviewing current requirements for surface water discharge of produced water. Currently, 

regulatory controls for CBM produced waters vary from State to State and permit to permit (U.S. 

EPA, 2006; Ruckelshaus, 2005). The assessment of state permitting requirements for surface 

water discharge of produced water will examine factors such as the: 

• Number of current permits; 

• Proportion of discharges covered under individual versus general permits; 

• Types of pollutants controlled; and 

• Numeric concentration limits required. 

This assessment will give EPA a better understanding of variations and consistencies among 

states in controlling CBM produced water discharges. 

 Finally, EPA is soliciting public comment on whether it should expand its detailed study 

of CBM extraction to include all oil and gas exploration, stimulation, and extraction techniques 

that result in contamination of surface and groundwater, including hydraulic fracturing in all 

formations. 

14.1 Oil and Gas Extraction Category References

1. Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). 2009. Memorandum to Tom Born, EPA, 

from Amie Aguiar, Joanna Kind, and Kristi Bubb, Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

RE: Coalbed Methane Environmental Assessment Literature Review Search 

Results. (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06934. 

2. Johnston, Carey. 2007. U.S. EPA. Final Site Visit Report: Triwatech, LLC 

Treatment System Summary – Pilot Plant Tour Raton, New Mexico. (November 

16). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-1048. 

3. Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Final Report 

– Water Production from Coalbed Methane Development in Wyoming: A 

Summary of Quantity, Quality, and Management Options. (December). EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-2540. 

4. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-2782. 

5. WY SGS. 2004. Wyoming State Geological Survey. Information Pamphlet 7 

(Revised). Coalbed Methane in Wyoming (2nd Revision). (Unknown). EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-1904. 
Section 15 – Steam Electric Power Generating Category (40 CFR Part 423) 

15-1 

15. STEAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING CATEGORY (40 CFR PART 423) 

 EPA has completed a multi-year study of the Steam Electric Power Generating Category 

and, based on the results, has determined that revising the current ELGs is warranted. EPA’s 

decision to revise the current ELGs is largely driven by the high level of TWPE discharges from 

power plants and the expectation that these discharges will increase significantly in the next few 

years as new air pollution controls are installed. Over the course of the study, EPA has identified 

technologies that are available to significantly reduce these pollutant discharges. 

 The Steam Electric Power Generating ELGs (40 CFR Part 423) apply to a subset of the 

electric power industry, namely those facilities “primarily engaged in the generation of 

electricity for distribution and sale which results primarily from a process utilizing fossil-type 

fuel (coal, oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction with water system as the thermodynamic 

medium” (see 40 CFR Part 423.10). EPA’s most recent revisions to the ELGs for this category 

were promulgated in 1982 (see 47 FR 52290, November 19, 1982). 

 Since 2005, EPA has been carrying out an intensive review of wastewater discharges 

from power plants. As part of this effort, EPA has sampled wastewater from surface 

impoundments and advanced wastewater treatment systems, conducted on-site reviews of the 

operations at more than two dozen power plants, and issued a detailed questionnaire that 

obtained information on 30 power plants using authority granted under Section 308 of the Clean 

Water Act. EPA’s data collection efforts have been primarily focused on four target areas: 

1. Determining the pollutant characteristics of power plant wastewater; 

2. Identifying treatment technologies for the wastewater generated by air pollution 

control equipment; 

3. Characterizing the practices used by the industry to manage or eliminate 

discharges of fly ash and bottom ash wastewater; and 

4. Identifying methods for managing power plant wastewater that allow recycling 

and reuse, rather than discharge to surface waters. 

Much of the information collected thus far, including laboratory data from sampling, were made 

available to the public in an interim study report, Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source 

Category: 2007/2008 Detailed Study Report, (U.S. EPA, 2008) and the final study report, Steam 

Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report (U.S. EPA, 

2009). 

 EPA's review of the wastewater characteristics indicates that most of the toxic pollutant 

loadings for this category are associated with metals and certain other elements present in 

wastewater discharges, and that the waste streams contributing the majority of these pollutants 

are associated with ash handling and wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems. Other potential 

sources of these pollutants include coal pile runoff, metal cleaning wastes, coal washing, leachate 

from landfills and wastewater impoundments, and certain low-volume wastes. 

 Between July 2007 and October 2008, EPA conducted six sampling episodes to 

characterize untreated wastewaters generated by coal-fired power plants, including FGD 

wastewater, and fly ash and bottom ash transport water. EPA also collected samples to assess the 

effluent quality from different types of treatment systems currently in place at these operations. 
Section 15 – Steam Electric Power Generating Category (40 CFR Part 423) 

15-2 

Samples were analyzed for metals and other pollutants, such as total suspended solids and 

nitrogen. Sampling reports for the first five episodes are included in the docket for the 2008 Final 

Plan (ERG, 2008a; ERG, 2008b; ERG, 2008c; ERG, 2008d; ERG, 2008e), and the report for the 

final sampling episode is included in the docket for the Preliminary 2010 Plan (ERG, 2009). 

These reports discuss the specific sample points and analytes, the sample collection methods 

used, the field quality control samples collected, and the analytical results for the wastewater 

samples. 

 EPA expects that the use of wet FGD systems will increase substantially over the next 

decade as state and federal regulations are implemented to reduce air emissions. Metals and other 

pollutants are transferred from the flue gas to the wastewater produced by wet FGD systems. 

Based on results from the sampling and other data, EPA determined that there are unregulated 

toxic and conventional pollutants present in ash pond and FGD wastewater which can be reduced 

significantly with treatment technologies. 

 An increasing amount of evidence indicates that the characteristics of coal combustion 

wastewater have the potential to impact human health and the environment. Discharges of coal 

combustion wastewater have been associated with fish kills, reductions in the growth and 

survival of aquatic organisms, behavioral and physiological effects in wildlife and aquatic 

organisms, potential impacts to human health (e.g., drinking water contamination), and changes 

to the local habitat. Many of the pollutants commonly found in coal combustion wastewater (e.g., 

selenium, mercury, and arsenic) are known to cause environmental harm and potentially 

represent a human health risk. Although coal-fired power plants often dilute coal combustion 

wastewater with other large volume wastewater (e.g., cooling water) to reduce the pollutant 

concentrations prior to discharge, the effluent can contain large mass loads (i.e. total pounds) of 

pollutants. Some of the pollutants in these discharges, although present at low concentrations, 

can bioaccumulate and present an increased ecological threat due to their tendency to persist in 

the environment, resulting in slow ecological recovery times following exposure. In addition, 

leachate from impoundments and landfills containing coal combustion wastes can contain high 

concentrations of pollutants and has been identified as the source of ground water and surface 

water impacts. 

 Additional information about data collected and findings of the detailed study of the 

Steam Electric Power Generating industry is presented in the final study report, Steam Electric 

Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report (U.S. EPA, 2009). The 

report includes data on the characteristics of wastewater from coal fired power plants, identifies 

the wastewater treatment technologies reviewed, presents an overview of the industry profile and 

predicted future trends in the use of air pollution controls, and describes environmental impacts 

that have been linked to coal combustion wastewater. 

 EPA expects to continue data collection by conducting wastewater sampling and issuing 

a survey that will obtain detailed technical and financial information. In particular, EPA intends 

to submit an Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget this year 

for their review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 33 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 
Section 15 – Steam Electric Power Generating Category (40 CFR Part 423) 

15-3 

15.1 Steam Electric Power Generating Category References

1. Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). 2008a. Final Sampling Episode Report, 

EME Homer City Generation L.P.’s Homer City Power Plant. (August). EPAHQ-OW-2006-0771-1750. 

2. Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). 2008b. Final Sampling Episode Report, 

Ohio Power Company’s Mitchell Plant. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-

1732. 

3. Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). 2008c. Final Sampling Episode Report, 

Buckeye Power Company’s Cardinal Power Plant. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2006-0771-1737. 

4. Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). 2008d. Final Sampling Episode Report, 

Tampa Electric Company’s Big Bend Station. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-

0771-1747. 

5. Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). 2008e. Final Sampling Episode Report, 

Tennessee Valley Authority’s Widows Creek Fossil Plant. (August). EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-1733. 

6. Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). 2009. Final Sampling Episode Report Duke 

Energy Carolinas’ Belews Creek Steam Station. (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-

0517 DCN 06197. 

7. U.S. EPA. 2009. Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final 

Detailed Study Report. EPA 821-R-09-008. Washington, DC. (October). EPAHQ-OW-2007-0517 DCN 06390. 

8. U.S. EPA. 2008. Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: 

2007/2008 Detailed Study Report. EPA-821-R-08-001. Washington, DC. EPAHQ-OW-2006-0771-1699.