# Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

October 2009

EPA 821-R-09-006

### i CONTENTS

Page

P ART 

### I: I NTRODUCTION 

### .....................................................................................................................I

1. B ACKGROUND 

### ...................................................................................................................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 Tec hnology 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 Standard s (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 Ne w 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. P UBLIC 

### C OMMENTS ON THE 

### F INAL 

### E FFLUENT 

### G UIDELINES 

### P ROGRAM 

### P LAN FOR


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

3. T HE 

### E FFLUENT 

### G UIDELINES 

### P LANNING 

### P ROCESS 

### .............................................................3-1 3.1 Goals of the ELG Planning Process.....................................................................3-1 3.2 Annual Review of Existing Efflue nt 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 Existi ng 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 Involveme nt and Schedule...............................................................3-8

3.5 The Effluent Guidelines Pl anning Process References........................................3-9

4. M ETHODOLOGY



### , D ATA 

### S OURCES



### , AND 

### L IMITATIONS 

### .......................................................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 Affecti ng Both Screening-Level Review

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

4.3 Corrections to the DMRLoads2007 Database ...................................................4-10 4.3.1 DMRLoads2007: Categoriza tion 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: Categoriza tion 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

P ART 

### II: RESULTS OF THE 2009 ANNUAL REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL

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

5. 2009 A NNUAL 

### R EVIEW OF 

### E XISTING 

### E FFLUENT 

### L IMITATIONS 

### G UIDELINES AND


### S TANDARDS AND 

### R ANKING OF 

### P OINT 

### S OURCE 

### C ATEGORIES 

### ............................................5-1

5.1 Results of the 2009 Scre ening-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 Scre ening-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. F ERTILIZER 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 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 Ca tegory 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. I NORGANIC 

### C HEMICALS 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 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 Cate gory 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 Po tential 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. N ONFERROUS 

### M ETALS 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 421) ........................................8-1 8.1 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Category Background ..................................8-1

8.1.1 Nonferrous Metals Manuf acturing 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 Manufacturi ng 2009 Screening-Level Review.........8-3

8.2.2 Nonferrous Metals Manufactur ing Category 2009 Pollutants of

Concern....................................................................................................8-3 8.3 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Cate gory Potential New Subcategories........8-5

8.4 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturi ng Category Issues Identified and

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

9. O RE 

### M INING AND 

### D RESSING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 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 Sc reening-Level Review .............................9-5 9.2.2 Ore Mining Category 2009 Pollutants of Concern ..................................9-5 9.2.3 Ore Mining Category Data Obtain ed from Permits, Permit Fact Sheets, and Permit Applications ............................................................9-13 9.3 Ore Mining Category 2009 Preliminar y 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 Identi fied and Additional Review........................9-21 9.5 Ore Mining Category References ......................................................................9-22

10. O RGANIC 

### C HEMICALS



### , P LASTICS



### , AND 

### S YNTHETIC 

### F IBERS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 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. P ETROLEUM 

### R EFINING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 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 Pote ntial 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. P ULP



### , P APER



### , AND 

### P APERBOARD 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 430) ....................................................12-1 12.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboa rd Category Background..........................................12-1 12.1.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperb oard 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 Cate gory 2009 Pollutants of Concern......12-6 12.3 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Catego ry Potential New Subcategories .............12-10 12.4 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Catego ry Issues Identified and Additional

Review .............................................................................................................12-10 12.5 Pulp and Paper Category References...............................................................12-11

P ART 

### III: D ETAILED 

### S TUDIES 

### ......................................................................................................... III

13. H EALTH 

### C ARE 

### I NDUSTRY AND 

### H OSPITALS 

### C ATEGORY 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 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 Hosp itals Category References.................................13-9

### CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

v 14. O IL AND 

### G AS 

### E XTRACTION 

### C ATEGORY 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 435) ..........................................14-1 14.1 Oil and Gas Extraction Category References ....................................................14-2

15. S TEAM 

### E LECTRIC 

### P OWER 

### G ENERATING 

### C ATEGORY 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 423) .......................15-1 15.1 Steam Electric Power Generating Category References....................................15-3

Appendix A: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIA LS FOR EAD’S SCREENING-LEVEL

ANALYSIS

Appendix B: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIA LS 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 U ndergone a Recent Rulemaking or Review ......... 5-2

5-2 Point Source Categories with One Faci lity 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 Fertiliz er Manufacturing Category................................................. 6-2

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

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

6-5 2009 Review: Fertilizer Manufacturi ng 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 Re ported 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 Manufacturi ng Point Source Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2004 and 2007 ......................................................................................... 8-3

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

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

9-1 Number of Ore Mi ning Facilities..................................................................................... 9-2

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

9-3 Ore Mining Category Sub category Applicability............................................................ 9-3

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

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

9-6 2009 Review: Ore Mining Cate gory 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 Or e 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 Subcategor ies 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 Di scharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI

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

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

12-1 Number of Pulp and Pape r Manufacturing Facilities .................................................... 12-3

12-2 Relationship Between Pulp and Paper Re gulatory 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 Di scharges 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....................................................... 3-4Part I – Introduction



# PART I: INTRODUCTIONSection 1 – Background



### 1-1 This document supports the Preliminary 2010 Efflue nt 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. B ACKGROUND



### 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 guide lines planning).

1.1 EPA’s Clean Water Act Program

EPA’s Office of Water is responsible for de veloping the programs and tools authorized under the Clean Water Act (CWA), which enables EP A and the states to pr otect and restore the Nation’s waters. These programs and tools generally rely either on water quality-based controls, such as water quality standard s 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 responsib ility for establishing, reviewing, and revising water quality standards. These st andards consist of designated uses for each water body (e.g., fishing, swimming, supporting aquatic lif e), numeric pollutant concentr ation limits (“criteria”) to protect those uses, and an an tidegradation 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, base d on current available technol ogies. These guidelines and standards are then incorporated into discharge permits as tech nology-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 li mits may require industr ial facilities to meet requirements that are more stringent than thos e in a national effluent guideline regulation. EPA notes that the various components of water qua lity-based permitting (water quality standards, water quality-based effluent limits, and total maxi mum daily loads) are in different stages of development nationally and by state, which may re sult in different leve ls of protection across states. Therefore, national categorical efflue nt limitations and standards remain a critical component of EPA’s CWA Program. Consequently, in the overall c ontext of the CWA, effluent guidelines must be viewed as one tool in the broad arsenal of tools C ongress 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 approachSection 1 – Background



### 1-2 was challenging, however, because it was very di fficult to prove that a specific discharger was responsible for decreasing the water quality of its receiving stream.

The 1972 CWA directed EPA to promulgate e ffluent guidelines that reflect pollutant

reductions that can be achieved by categories or subcategories of industrial point sources. The effluent guidelines are based on specific techno logies (including proce ss 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). Unli ke other CWA tools, effluent guidelines are national in scope and establish pollution cont rol obligations for all facilitie s that discharge wastewater within an industrial category or subcategory. In establishing these controls, EPA assesses: (1) the performance and availability of the best pollu tion control technologies or pollution prevention practices for an industrial category or subcategor y as a whole; (2) the eco nomic achievability of those technologies, which can include considerati on of costs, effluent reduction benefits, and affordability of achieving the reduction in pollutant discharge; (3) non-water-quality environmental impacts (including energy requirem ents); and (4) such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.

Creating a single national pollution contro l 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 “polluti on havens” and to set the Nation’ s sights on attaining the highest possible level of water quality. Consequently, EPA’s goal in establis hing national effluent guidelines is to assure that indus trial facilities with si milar characteristics, regardless of their location or the nature of their receiving wate r, will at a minimum meet similar effluent limitations representing the perfor mance of the best pollution c ontrol technologies or pollution prevention practices.

Unlike other CWA tools, effluent guidelines provide the opportunity to promote pollution prevention and water conservation. This may be pa rticularly 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 a nd cover discharges directly to su rface 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 pipe s 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 efflue nt limitations guidel ines and standards through six levels of control:

1. Best practicable control technol ogy currently available (BPT);

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

3. Best conventional contro l 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 po llutants directly into the wate rs of the United States (direct dischargers), the limitations and standard s promulgated by EPA are implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syst em (NPDES) permits. See CWA sections 301(a), 301(b), and 402. For sources that discharge to PO TWs (indirect dischargers), EPA promulgates pretreatment standards that appl y directly to those sources and are enforced by POTWs and state

and federal authorities. See CW A 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 Indi rect Wastewater Discharges Under NPDES

1.3.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Cu rrently Available (BPT) — CWA Sections 301(b)(1)(A) and 304(b)(1)

EPA develops effluent limitations ba sed on BPT for conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants. S ection 304(a)(4) designates th e following as conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 

### ), total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defi ned by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional c onventional pollutant on July 30, 1979. See 44 FR 44501 (July 30, 1979). EPA has identified 65 polluta nts 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 pollu tants are considered

to be nonconventional.

In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA firs t considers the total cost of applying the control technology in relation to the effluent reduc tion benefits. The Agency also considers the age of the equipment and facili ties, the processes employed and any required

1-3Section 1 – Background



### 1-4 process changes, engineeri ng aspects of the control t echnologies, non-water-quality environmental impacts (including energy requirem ents), and such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA secti on 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of th e best performances of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or other common characteri stics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of cont rol than currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency dete rmines 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 fo r 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 afte r consideration of a two-part “cost-reasonableness” test. EPA explained its methodology for the developmen t of BCT limitations in 1986. See 51 FR 24974 (July 9, 1986).

1.3.3 Best Available Technology Economica lly Achievable (BAT) — CWA Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2)

For toxic pollutants and nonconventional polluta nts, EPA promulgates effluent guidelines based on BAT. See CWA sections 301(b)(2)(C), (D), and (F). The f actors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BA T effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, pot ential process changes, non-water-quality environmental impacts, including energy requir ements, and other such factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA sec tion 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 ba sed on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility’s processes and operati ons. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a hi gher level of performance than is currently being achieved within a particular subcategory based on technology transferred fr om a different subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon pr ocess changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not comm on industry practice.

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

NSPS reflect effluent reduc tions that are achievable ba sed on the best available demonstrated control technology. New sources have the opportunity to instal l the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent cont rols attainable through the application of the best available demonstrated control technology for all polluta nts (i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In establis hing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water-quality envi ronmental 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 throu gh, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs, including wastewater conveyance and sl udge disposal. Pretreatment standards are technology-based and are analogous to BA T effluent limitations guidelines.

The General Pretreatment Regulations, whic h set forth the framework for implementing national pretreatment standard s, are found at 40 CFR Part 403.

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

Like PSES, PSNS apply to indirect discha rgers, and are designed to prevent the discharges of pollutants that pa ss through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as NSPS. Ne w indirect dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate into th eir plants the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the same f actors 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 ar e a critical element of the Nation’s clean water program and reduce the discharge of pollutants that have serious envi ronmental 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 disc harge directly to the Nation’s waters, as well as another 12,000 facilities th at 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 regulati ons, the CWA also requires EPA to review existing effluent guidelines annuall y. EPA reviews all point source categories subject to existing effluent guidelines and pretreat ment 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 fact ors to conduct this review. EPA also reviews industries consisting of direct disc harging facilities not currently s ubject to effluent guidelines to identify potential candidates for effluent guidelines rulemakings, as required by CWA section 304(m)(1)(B). Finally, EPA reviews industries consis ting entirely or almost entirely of indirect discharging facilities that are not currently subject to pretreatment standards to identify potential candidates for pretreatment standards developm ent, as required by CW A sections 304(g) and 307(b).Section 1 – Background



### 1-6 CWA section 304(m)(1)(A) requi res EPA to publish an Effluent Guidelines Program Plan every two years that establishes a sche dule for the annual review and revision, in accordance with section 304(b), of the effluent gui delines that EPA has promulgated under that section. EPA’s Preliminary 2010 Plan announces th e 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 th e review cycle ending upon the publication of th is Preliminary 2010 Plan.

EPA is coordinating its annual reviews unde r section 304(b) with publication of Plans under section 304(m) for several re asons. First, the annual review is inextricably linked to the planning effort, because the results of each a nnual 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 effl uent guidelines). Second, even though not required to do so under either section 304(b) or se ction 304(m), EPA believes that th e public interest is served by periodically presenting to the public a descript ion of each annual review (including the review process employed) and the results of the revi ew. 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 guide lines each year, Congress appears to have intended that each successive review would build upon the results of earlier reviews. Theref ore, by describing the 2009 annual review along with the preliminary 20 10 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 Perm it 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. P UBLIC 

### C OMMENTS ON THE 

### F INAL 

### E FFLUENT 

### G UIDELINES 

### P ROGRAM 

### P LAN FOR 

### 2008

EPA published its Final 2008 Effluent Guid elines Program Plan (2008 Final Plan) on September 15, 2008 (73 FRN 53218) and requested comm ents 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 E ffluent 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 focusi ng 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 an d 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 syst ems and all discharge of leachate from land-based coal combustion waste disposal.Section 3 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process



### 3-1 3. T HE 

### E FFLUENT 

### G UIDELINES 

### P LANNING 

### P ROCESS



### This section provides a general overview of the process EPA used in 2009 to identify industrial categories for potential development of new or revise d effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards (ELGs). This proce ss consisted of: (1) annu al review of existing ELGs to identify candidates for revision; (2) identification of new categories of direct dischargers for possible development of efflue nt guidelines; and (3) identification of new categories of indirect discharger s for possible development of pret reatment 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 proce ss, EPA is guided by the following goals:

• 

### Restore and maintain the chemical, phys ical, 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 Pret reatment 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 Existin g Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment

Standards

EPA uses four major factors in prioritizing existing effluent guideli nes 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 pollu tant discharges in te rms of toxic-weighted pound equivalents (TWPE), discusse d 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 technologi es, process changes, or pollution prevention

alternatives that could effectiv ely reduce the pollutants in the industrial category’s wastewater and, consequently, reduce the hazar d 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 Annua l Review of Existing ELGs

3-2Section 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 Furt her Review of Existing ELGs

3-3Section 3 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning ProcessInclude in annual review ofexisting category(see Figure3-1)Identify SIC codeswith dischargesnot subject toexisting ELGsIs the SIC codeappropriatelyconsidered a potentialnew subcategory of anexisting ELG?Begin industryidentificationDodischarges interferewith or otherwise passthrough POTWoperations?*Is the possible newcategory all or nearly allindirect dischargers?Aredischarges of toxicor nonconventionalpollutantstrivial?*Are ELGs potentiallythe appropriate tool?No identification orfurther review necessaryIdentify other tools(e.g., permit-basedsupport or guidance)Identify for possiblenew effluent guidelinesor standardsNo identificationfurther review neceStakeholder recommendationsand commentsDMR & TRIdatabase toolsYesYesNoYesYesYesNoNoNoNo*Continue further review if not enough data.



### 3-4Figure 3-3. Flow Chart of Identification of Possible New ELGsSection 3 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process



### 3-5 The third factor EPA considers is the affo rdability 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 indus try indicates that it would be difficult to implement new requi rements, EPA might conclude that it would be more costeffective to develop less expens ive approaches to reducing polluta nt 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 techno logical innovation, or opp ortunities to promote innovative approaches such as water quality trading, including with in-plant trading. This factor might also prompt EPA, during an annual review, to decide agains t identifying an existing set of effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards fo r revision where the pollu tant source is already efficiently and effectively controlled by othe r regulatory or nonregulatory programs.

3.2.2 Overview: Review of Existing Point Source Categories

EPA has established ELGs to regulate wast ewater discharges from 56 point source categories. EPA must annually review the ELGs fo r 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 prio ritized 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 id entifies existing categories for potential ELGs

revision.

3.2.2.1 Screening-Level Review

The screening-level review is the first st ep in EPA’s annual review. Section 4.0 provides details on the database methodology used in the sc reening-level review. EPA uses this step to prioritize categories for further review. In conduc ting the screening-level review, EPA considers the amount and toxicity of the pollutants in a cat egory’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 Informati on 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 TR I and DMR data (ERG, 2009). TRI and DMR data do not identify the effluent guidelin e(s) applicable to a particular facility. However, TRI includes information on a facility’s North American Indus try Classification System (NAICS) code, while DMR data includes information on a facility’s St andard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. Therefore, the first step in EPA’s screening-leve l review is to relate each SIC and NAICS code to an industrial category. 1 

### The second step is to use the in formation reported in TRI and DMR, for a specified year, to calculate the annual pol lutant discharges in pounds, including toxic,

1 For more information on how EPA related each SIC and NA ICS 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 i ndirect 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 ca lculate 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 calc ulate 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 th e most toxic pollution. 3



### EPA then ranks point source categories acco rding to their total TWPE discharges. In identifying categories for further review, EPA pr ioritizes categories acco unting for 95 percent of

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

EPA also excludes from further re view categories for which an e ffluent guidelines rulemaking is currently underway or for which effluent guide lines have been recently promulgated or revised (within the past seven years). EPA chose seven ye ars because this is the time it customarily takes for the effects of effluent guideli nes or pretreatment standards to be fully reflected in pollutant loading data and TRI reports. EPA also consid ers the number of facilities responsible for the majority of the estimated toxic-weighted polluta nt discharges associat ed with an industrial activity. Where only a few facilities in a category acc ount for the vast majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges, EPA typically does not priori tize 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 na tional effluent guidelines rulemaking because requirements can be better tailored to these few facilities, and becau se individual permitting actions may take considerably le ss time than a national rulemaking.

3.2.2.2 Further Review

Following its screening-level review of a ll point source categori es, 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 t ypically 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 th e following: (1) wastewater characteristics and pollutant sources; (2) the pollutants driving the toxic-wei ghted pollutant discharges; (3) availability of pollution preventi on 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 TW PE 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 t oxic discharge data in both TRI and DMR. Although this approach could have theoretically led to double-counting, EPA's review of the data indi cates 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 consider s costs and performance of ap plicable and demonstrated technologies, process changes, or pollution preven tion alternatives that ca n 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 usin g the second factor (Factor 3).

Types of data sources that EPA may consu lt in conducting its deta iled 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 understa nd how category facilities are permitted; (5) NPDES permits and their supporting fact sheet s; (6) EPA effluent guidelines technical development documents; (7) relevant EPA prelim inary 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 preliminar y review, EPA’s examination of a point source category and available pollution prevention and tr eatment options is less rigorous than in its

detailed studies. While EPA collects and anal yzes hazard and technology performance and cost information on categories undergoing preliminary review, it assigns a higher priority to investigating categories unde rgoing detailed studies.

3.3 Identification of New Categories for Po ssible Effluent Guidelines Development

Concurrent with its review of existing point source categories, EPA also reviews industries not currently subject to effluent guide lines to identify poten tial 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 a nd 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 categor y (i.e., “the crosswalk”). 4 

### This crosswalk identifies SIC codes and

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

also identifies SIC and NAICS codes not associated with an existing guidelin e. In addition to the crosswalk analysis, EPA relies on stakeholder comments to identi fy potential new point sources categories. Section 4.1.5 and 4.1.6 discuss the ut ility and limitations of TRI and DMR, respectively, in detail.

For each industry identified through the cr osswalk analysis or stakeholder comments,

EPA evaluates whether it c onstitutes 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 gene rally 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 te rms of products or services provided, EPA considers the industry as a poten tial 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 dete rmine if the category comprises mostly indirect dischargers or if it comp rises both direct and indirect dischargers. If a category consists largely of indirect dischargers, EPA evaluates the pass-through and interference potential of the cat egory discharges. If a category consists largely of direct dischargers, EPA evaluates the type of polluta nts discharged by fac ilities 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 “i nterfere 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 measur ed by: (1) the total annual TW PE 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 ear ly and often during it s annual reviews of existing effluent guidelines and the development of the biennial plans. This will likely maximize collection of data to inform EPA’s analys es and provide additi onal transparency and understanding of EPA’s effluent guidelines prio rities 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 pr eliminary biennial plan. In each Federal Register Notice, EPA requests stakeholder comments on specific industries and discha rges as well as any general

comments.

EPA completes an annual review of industr ial discharges each y ear, 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 re views will provide meaningful insight into EPA’s effluent guidelines and pretreatment st andards program decision-making. Additionally, by providing a single notice for these and future re views, EPA hopes to provide a consolidated source of information for the Agency’s current an d 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 Industr ial Category Discharge Data. (TBD). EPA-HQOW-2008-0517. DCN 06558.

2. U.S. EPA. 2006. Toxic Weighting Factor Devel opment 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 th e Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories

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

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



### 4-1 4. M ETHODOLOGY 

### , D ATA 

### S OURCES 

### , AND 

### L IMITATIONS



### As discussed in Section 1.0, the CWA requi res EPA to conduct an annual review of existing effluent limitations guide lines and standards (ELGs). It al so requires EPA to identify industrial categories without a pplicable ELGs. EPA’s methodology for this annual review and new point source category identification invol ves several components, as discussed in

Section 3.0.

First, EPA performs a screening-level revi ew of all point source categories subject to existing ELGs to identify categories discharg ing high levels of t oxic and nonconventional pollutants relative to other categories. Using the results of the screening-level review, EPA continues its annual review of priority categor ies to identify candidate ELGs for revision, as required by CWA sections 304(b), 3 01(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 developmen t, as required by CWA section 307(b). Finally, EPA reviews direct discharging i ndustries 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 a nd the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). This section discusses these databases, related da ta 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 Identificati on 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 pre liminary 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 fo r developing and using these tools:

• 

### Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Po tential 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 Devel opment in Support of the CWA 304(m) Planning Process (Draft TWF Development Docu ment), 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 repres ent the major industry group;

• 

### The third digit represents the industry group; and

• 

### The fourth digit repr esents the industry.

For example, major SIC code 26: Paper a nd Allied Products, include s all pulp, paper, and paperboard manufacturing operation s. Within SIC code 26, the thre e-digit SIC codes are used to distinguish the type of facility: 263 for paperb oard 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 establ ishment. PCS and ICIS-NPDES include one fourdigit SIC code, reflecting the principal activit y 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 SI C 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 Sour ce Category Crosswalk” table (Table A-1 in Appendix A).

There are some SIC codes for which EPA ha s not established national ELGs. Table A-2 in Appendix A lists the SIC codes for which fac ility discharge data are available in PCS and ICIS-NPDES, but for which EPA could not identi fy 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 participati ng 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 a nd 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 facili ty: 263 for paperboard mills, 265 for paperboard containers and boxes, etc. Within SIC code 265, th e 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 establis hment is classified according to its primary economic activity, which is determined by its principal product or group of products. An establishment may have act ivities in more than one NAICS code.

Regulations for an individual point sour ce 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 Append ix 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 EP A 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 applicab le 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 a nd methodologies to evaluate effluent discharges. Within EPA’s Offi ce 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 multip lies a mass loading of a pollutant in pounds per year (lb/yr) by a pollutant-specifi c 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 consum ption 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 a nd removed from industr ial effluent, as the benchmark pollutant. The Final TWF Developm ent 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 Develo ped During the 2009 Annual Review

During the 2009 annual review, EPA revi sed 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. Bor on 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 su mmed the estimated TWPE discharged by each facility in a point source categ ory to understand the potential hazar d of the discharges from each category. The following subsections di scuss 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, f acilities that meet certain thres holds 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 sepa rate 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 re cent 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 c ode 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 pote ntially subject to TRI reporting. EPA generally relies on facility claims rega rding the NAICS code identification.

2. Number of Employees . Facilities must have 10 or more full-time employees or their equivalent. EPA defines a “full-tim e equivalent” as a person that works 2,000 hours in the reporting year (there are several excepti ons and special

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

3. Activity Thresholds . If the facility is in a covere d NAICS code and has 10 or more full-time employee equivalents, it must c onduct an activity threshold analysis for every chemical and chemical category on th e current TRI list. The facility must determine whether it manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses each chemical at or above the appropriate activity thres hold. Reporting thresholds are not based on

the amount of release. All TRI threshol ds are based on mass, not concentration. Different thresholds apply for persiste nt bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals

than for non-PBT chemicals. Generall y, threshold quanti ties are 25,000 pounds for manufacturing and processing ac tivities 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 facili ty that manufactur es, processes, or otherwise uses 0.1 grams of dioxin and di oxin-like compounds to report it to TRI (U.S. EPA, 2000).

In TRI, facilities report a nnual loads released to the envir onment of each toxic chemical or chemical category that meets reporting requi rements. They must re port onsite releases or disposal to air, receiving str eams, land, underground wells, and several other categories. They must also report the amount of toxic chemicals in wastes transf erred 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 fo cused on the amount of chemicals facilities reported either discharging dire ctly 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. Fo r facilities transferri ng to POTWs, EPA first adjusted the TRI pollutant loads reported to be transferred to PO TWs to account for pollutant removal that occurs at the POTWs prior to discharg e to the receiving stream. Table A-6 in Appendix A lists the

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

Facilities reporting to TRI are not required to sample a nd 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 require d to indicate, by a reporting code, the basi s of their release estimate. TRI’s reporting guidance is that, for mo st 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 th e accuracy; however, EPA

allows facilities to re port 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 particular ly 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 PO TWs, not just direct discharges to surface water;

• 

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

industrial cate gories; and

• 

### TRI includes releases of many toxic chemical s, 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 employ ees) 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, es pecially at facil ities 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 reporte d as a class, not as individual compounds. Because the individual com pounds in most classes have widely varying toxic effects, the potential to xicity of chemical releases can be inaccurately estimated.

• 

### Facilities are identified by NAICS c ode, not point source category. For some NAICS codes, it may be difficult or impo ssible 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 leve l review of existing effluent guidelines since the 2003 annual re view (68 FRN 75515). Since 2002, EPA has been working to modernize PCS by creating a new da ta system called the Integrated Compliance Information System – National Pollutant Discha rge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES). In 2006, some states began transitioning their DMR repor ting from PCS to ICIS-N PDES. 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 wa s 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 wa stewater 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/mi nor classification system for industrial and municipal wastewater discharges. Major discharg es usually have the capability to impact receiving waters if not controll ed and, therefore, have received more regulatory attention than minor discharges. There are approximately 7,000 f acilities (including sewe rage 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 au thority. The permitting authority enters theSection 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 4-8 reported DMR data into PCS or ICIS-NPDES, in cluding pollutant conc entration and quantity

values and identification of a ny types of permit violations.

Minor discharges may, or may not, adversel y impact receiving wate r if not controlled. Therefore, EPA does not require DMRs for facilit ies with minor discharges. For this reason, the PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases includes data only for a limited set of mi nor 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, c onventional parameters (such as BOD 5 

### and total suspended solids [TSS]), and flow rates. Although other pollutants may be disc harged, PCS and ICISNPDES contain only data for the parameters identif ied in the facility’s NP DES permit. Facilities typically report monthly average pounds per day discharged, but also re port 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 th e 2009 annual review, EPA correct ed certain aspects of the 2007 data (see Section 4.5). EPA calcu lated annual loads for the PCS a nd ICIS-NPDES data using the

PCSLoadCalculator and the ICIS-NPDES Pollutant Load ing 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 nationa l 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 f acilities in all SIC codes.

• 

### PCS and ICIS-NPDES include data on conve ntional pollutants fo r most facilities and for the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus for many facilities. However, EPA

did not use the nutrient data beca use 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 polluta nts 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 di scharge monitoring data from minor dischargers.Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 4-9 • 

### The databases do not include data char acterizing indirect discharges from

industrial facilities to POTWs.

• 

### Many of the pollutant parameters include d in the databases are reported as a group parameter and not as individua l compounds (e.g., “Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen,” “oil and grease”). Because the individual compounds in the group parameter may have widely varying toxi c 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 cooli ng water) being discharged; however, most do not and, therefore, total flow ra tes reported to PCS and ICIS-NPDES may include stormwater and noncontact cooling water, as well as process wastewater.

• 

### Pipe identification is not al ways 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-N PDES 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 repor ted wastewater discharges 5

.

• 

### 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 ente red into the database manually, which leads to data-entry errors.

• 

### In PCS and ICIS-NPDES, data may be re ported as an average quantity, maximum quantity, average concentration, maxi mum concentration, and/or minimum concentration. For many facili ties and/or pollutants, average quantity values are not provided. In these cases, EPA is lim ited 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 review s and prioritizations of the toxic-weighted pollutant loadings discharged by industrial facilities. The combined PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases remain the only data source quantifyi ng the pounds of regulated pollutants discharged directly to surface waters of the United States.

5 ICIS-NPDES includes a data field for applicable ELGs; ho wever, 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 cale ndar years 2000, 2002, and 2004. Several of these corrections similarly apply to the 2007 DMR data . In addition, EPA revi ewed 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 th is 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 EP A uses to link between facility SIC codes and categories with existing ELGs (U.S. EPA, 2 009). Because most point source categories are not defined by SIC code, the relationship betwee n 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 onl y one category may be an over simplification. Also, many facilities have operatio ns subject to more than one point source category. Further, facilities in some categories ca nnot be identified by SIC code (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment facilities). Section 4 of the 2009 SLA Report descri bes 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 So urce Category Assignment . Many facilities have operations subject to more than one poi nt source category. For most of these facilities, EPA cannot divide the pollutan t discharges among the applicable point source categories. Two exceptions where EPA was able to assign wastewater discharges of certain chemicals to the appropriate point sour ce category include Organic Chemicals, Plastics , and Synthetic Fibers (OC PSF) /Pesticides and Metal Products and Machinery (M P&M)/Metal Finishing:

— OCPSF/Pesticides. EPA removed all pe sticide discharges from OCPSF and counted them as discharges fr om 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 a pportion pollutant loads between the MP&M and Metal Finishing Po int 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, influe nt to treatment, and intermediate points in the wastewater treatment system. Ho wever, during previous category reviews and detailed studies,

EPA identified instances of doubl e counting that resulted from including certain internal monitoring points in the loads database. For exampl e, 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 fi nal Outfall 001 and is di scharged 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 fo r Pollutant A at both the internal and final outfalls results in double counting Pollutant A discharges. EPA identif ied instances where pollutant discharges are reported for multiple monitoring locations along th e 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 correcti ons 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 prev ious annual reviews, EPA identified facility discharges that are inte rmittent 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 wa stewater discharges. EPA made these corrections

in PCSLoadCalculator2007 for the PCS data and in DMRLoadsAnalysis2007for 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 th e 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009), facilities report pollutant mass quantities, po llutant concentrations, and wast ewater flow rates to PCS and ICIS-NPDES using a variety of units. EPA’s PCS CNVRT pr ogram and the ICIS-NPDES

Convert Module convert the discha rges into standard units of kilograms per day (kg/day) for mass quantities, milligrams per liter (mg/L) for concentrations, and millions of gallons per daySection 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 reporte d flow by one million. For flows ranging from 1,300 to 5,000 MGD, EPA compared units for flow pe rmit 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 fa cilities 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 disc harges using PRAM 50092 (Mercury Total Low Level). The PRAM 50092 concentrations in th e 2004 CNVRT output ranged from 0.2 to 673 mg/L. EPA contacted the Ohio Environmental Pr otection Agency (Ohio EPA) to determine the correct reporting units for PR AM 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 ( μ g/L). Currently, all of the lim its are in nanograms per liter (ng/L).

As a result of this contact, EPA conc luded 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 con centrations between 0.5 and 800 mg /L. Based on this distribution, EPA concluded that the error for the 2004 data pe rsisted in 2007. Therefor e, EPA corrected the concentrations by dividing all co ncentrations 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 screen ing-level review. This ev aluation 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 de tail (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 revi ew steps for each stage:

• 

### ICIS-NPDES Convert Module output . EPA conducted an initi al 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 th e universe of SIC codes in the 2007 ICIS-NPDES DMRdata 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 ve rified 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 reasona bleness to identify any data quality issues, such as misreported units that the ICIS-NPDES Conv ert Module did not

correct. EPA identified seve ral wastewater flows that exceeded the reasonable range. EPA reviewed these flows and deve loped the flow correction function for the ICIS-NPDES Convert Module (descr ibed 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 IC IS-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 m onth-to-month variations;

— 1,605 corrections based on compari ng 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 with in one order of magnitude of the 2004 PCS data. However, the maximum loads a nd 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 po llutant 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 eq ualed the number of records in intermediate queries to ensure that no data were missing and that there were no duplicate data. EPA also verified th e Load Calculator routine in the ICISNPDES Pollutant Loading Tool. EPA created a query-based system and compared the annual loads calculated by th e queries to those calculated by the ICIS-NPDES Pollutant Loading Tool. The output from the queries was identicalSection 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 facili ties 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 accu racy of facilities’ discharges that had the greatest impact on total category loads and category rankings to identify possibl e 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 disc harges 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 th ose pollutant discharges with the highest toxic-weighted loads (e.g., dioxins, PCBs, and mercury). To identify possible errors in recordi ng 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 concen trations and flows that the

PCSLoadCalculator2007 and ICIS-NPDES Pollu tant Loading Tool

databases used to calculate the a nnual discharge. EPA compared these

measurements with measurements available on EPA’s Envirofacts web page. If the measurements were similar then EPA concluded that theSection 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, EP A 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 faci lities 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 info rmation 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 discharg es 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 comparis on 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 disc harges 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 accur acy 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 shoul d apply these corrections to the 2007 DMR discharges.

2. Reviewed 2007 DMR data, hand calculated a nnual pollutant loads, and compared results to loads calculated by PCSLoadCalculator2007 and the ICIS-NPDES Pollutant Loading tool, and stored in DMRLoads2007

.

3. Reviewed PCS and ICIS-NPDES pipe desc ription information available in PCS, EPA’s on-line Envirofacts data system, ICIS-NPDES supporti ng tables, or from the facility’s NPDES permit to identify monitored polluta nt 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 disc harges (e.g., storm water runoff from

non-process areas, non-contact cooling water, or wa stewater 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 cal endar 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 th is 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 Categor y 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 NAI CS code, the relationship be tween 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 asso ciating an NAICS code with only one category may be an over simplification. Also, many facili ties have operations subject to more than one point source category. Further, facilities in some categories report a variet y of NAICS codes that do not correlate directly to a point source category, precludin g 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 poi nt source category. For most of these facilities, EPA cannot divide the pollutan t discharges among the applicable point source categories. Two exceptions where EPA was able to assign wastewater discharges of certain chemicals to the appropriate point sour ce category include

OCPSF/Pesticides and MP &M/Metal Finishing:

— OCPSF/Pesticides. EPA removed all pe sticide discharges from OCPSF and counted them as discharges fr om the Pesticides Chemicals Point Source Category.

— MP&M/Metal Finishing. EPA used the methodologies described in Section 4 of the 2009 SLA Report to a pportion pollutant loads between the MP&M and Metal Finishing Po int Source Categories.

### 4-17Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and LimitationsTable 4-3. Summary ofDMRLoads2007Facility ReviewFacilityLocationPoint SourceCategoryPollutant(s) inQuestionReview FindingsAction Taken/Database CorrectionBlue Heron Paper CompanyOregon City, ORPulp andPaperboardMethylmercuryMethylmercury concentrations inPCSLoadCalculator2007are1,000 times higher than theconcentrations in Envirofacts.Envirofacts methylmercuryconcentrations are in ng/L butwere entered intoPCSLoadCalculator2007asμg/L. Facility contact verifiedunits should be ng/L.Database Change: Correctmethylmercury concentrationsCargill Fertilizer, Inc. – RivHillsboroughCounty, FLPhosphateManufacturingPhosphorousFacility reports DRID 1 (monthlyconc.) and A (annual quan.) withannual loads that do not equal.DMR is counting both DRIDsinstead of just one also. Unableto determine the correct DRID touse based on Envirofacts.NoneCF Industries –DonaldsonvilleDonaldsonville,LAFertilizerManufacturingNitrogen, AmmoniaMaximum quantities are less thanaverage quantities. Suspect thatsome average quantities shouldbe divided by 10. Envirofacts hasthe same quantities.None.Clean Harbors White CastleLLCIberville Parish,LACWTBenzidineThe permitted benzidine limit isthree orders of magnitude lowerthan the concentrations inPCSLoadCalculator2007.Facility contact said thatbenzidine was ND (Ourso, 2009).Database Change: Revisebenzidine concentrations to zeroClimax MineSummit County,COOre Mining andDressingMolybdenumThis is a molybdenum mine.Units are consistent withEnvirofacts and permit reportinglimits. Permit/fact sheet containsself-monitoring data that agreeswith the values reported to PCS(CO DPS, 2004; ClimaxMolybdenum Company, 2002).None

### 4-18Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and LimitationsTable 4-3. Summary ofDMRLoads2007Facility ReviewFacilityLocationPoint SourceCategoryPollutant(s) inQuestionReview FindingsAction Taken/Database CorrectionDoe Run Resources CoViburnum, MOOre Mining andDressingLeadThis is a lead or zinc mine basedon SIC code. Units are consistentwith Envirofacts and permitreporting limits (0.005 mg/L to0.8 mg/L).NoneDyno Nobel, Inc.Carthage, MOExplosivesManufacturingNitrogen, AmmoniaFor pram 00610, each outfallreports 6 months under DRID Band 6 months under DRID C.Flows for some months are 1,000times greater than other months.Database Change: Change DRID Band D to C for PRAM 00610 anddivide affected flows by 1,000.Envirosystems IncorporatedHampton, NHIndependentAnd StandAlone LabsCadmiumReview of fact sheet shows thatfacility incorrectly reported flowsin GPD instead of MGD forcertain months (U.S. EPARegion 1, 2006).Database Change: Correct flowsfor the affected monitoring periodsFront St. Remedial ActionKansas City, MOWasteCombustorsDioxinFacility is a superfund site, andoperated in the past as both awaste combustor and CWT.Currently treating groundwatercontaminated by organics andinorganics. Three of four dioxinconcentrations in 2007 wereabove the detection limit and theMDL. Concentrations wereprovided by permitting authority.Detected dioxin in Q2 2007 andQ3 and Q4 were ND. Lab did notanalyze wastewater for dioxin forQ1 (Auchterlonie, 2009).Database Change: Revise SIC codeto link to superfund category

### 4-19Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and LimitationsTable 4-3. Summary ofDMRLoads2007Facility ReviewFacilityLocationPoint SourceCategoryPollutant(s) inQuestionReview FindingsAction Taken/Database CorrectionGE Silicones, LLCFriendly, WVOCPSFCopperSuspected copper concentrationsunits error because the permitreporting requirements are inμg/L instead of mg/L. Facilityconfirmed the units error andprovided correct concentrationsfor 2 quarters. Data was reportedasμg/L not mg/L (Martin, Jason,2009).Future Database Change: Revisecopper concentrationsGeneral Electric – ErieErie, PAMetal FinishingMercuryFacility reported 3.3 mg/L inDecember 2007, reportedannually. Verified units in OTIS.Facility said mercury should beng/L instead of mg/L (Verderese,2009).Future Database Change: Revisemercury concentrationGolden Eagle RefineryMartinez, CAPetroleumRefiningTCDD EquivalentsTCDD Equivalentsmeasurements in database are1,000 times larger than theconcentrations in Envirofacts.The units for concentrations inEnvirofacts are in pg/L.Database Change: Correct TCDDEquivalents measurementsIMC – PhosphatesCompanyDonaldsonville,LAFertilizerManufacturingPhosphorousHighest phosphorous loads arefrom outfall 002. Loads areapproximately the same using thequantity and the concentrationcalculations. Loads also arecomparable toPCSLoads2004.NoneInnovia FilmsTecumseh, KSPlasticsMolding andFormingCarbon DisulfideOne monthly concentrationappears to be 100 times higherthan the other months in 2007and 2004. Facility contactprovided correctedconcentrations for April and Maythat were units errors (Martin,Tony, 2009).Database Change: Correct carbondisulfide concentrations

### 4-20Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and LimitationsTable 4-3. Summary ofDMRLoads2007Facility ReviewFacilityLocationPoint SourceCategoryPollutant(s) inQuestionReview FindingsAction Taken/Database CorrectionJackson CountyPascagoula, MSFertilizerManufacturingPhosphorousConcentrations in Envirofactsmatch concentrations inPCSLoadCalculator2007.NoneLAC MineralsCentral City, SDOre MiningCyanideA review of the permit and factsheet indicated that the outfallSTR is an in-stream monitoringlocation and therefore should beexcluded from the facility’s loads(LAC Minerals, 2005).Database Change: Change MLOCto Z (excluded from database)outfall STRMorgan’s Point PlantMorgan’s Point,TXOCPSFChlorineThe monthly average flow forMarch 2007 was 10,000 timeshigher than the monthlymaximum flow for that monthand the flows for the rest of theyear.Database Change: Correct March2007 flowNorthshore Mining/SilverBay PSilver Bay, MNOre Mining andDressingCopperThis is a taconite mine. Units areconsistent with Envirofacts andpermit reporting limits. Thecalculation relies on only onereported measurement when thepermit shows facility mustmonitor monthly.NonePEPCO-BenningWashington, DCSteam ElectricPowerGenerationArochlor 1260A review of OTIS data showsthat all PCBs were reported asBDL with “<” and aconcentration. The data in ICISNPDES did not include the lessthan signs. Because all monthlyvalues are BDL, using the hybridmethod all PCB loads should bezero.Database Change: Zero all PCB(PRAM codes 39508, 39504, and39496) loads

### 4-21Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and LimitationsTable 4-3. Summary ofDMRLoads2007Facility ReviewFacilityLocationPoint SourceCategoryPollutant(s) inQuestionReview FindingsAction Taken/Database CorrectionPrasa El Yunque FiltrationPlantRio Grande, PRDrinking WaterTreatmentCopperReviewof the 2007concentration data in OTISindicated that February throughAugust, November, andDecember copper concentrationswere reported inμg/L but were inthe ICIS-NPDES database asmg/L.Database Change: Revise affectedcopper concentrations by 1,000Rhone-Poulenc BasicChemicalsBaton Rouge, LAInorganicChemicalsManufacturingPhosphorus, Total(as P)A review of the facility’sdischarges and Envirofacts datashows the phosphorousconcentrations should be in pg/Lrather thanμg/L.Database Change: RevisePhosphorus, Total (As P)concentrationsSabic Innovate PlasticsOttawa, ILOCPSFHexachlorobenzeneReview of concentration data forOTIS showed that the data weremissing ‘<’ signs for everymonth reported for all parametersexcept for copper.Database Change: Zero all loadsexcept for copperSIGECO FB Cully StationNewburgh, INSteam ElectricPowerGenerationAluminumFor aluminum, the concentrationfor 10 months is 1,000 timeshigher than the Form 2C data(2006) and 2006/2008 data inOTIS. Silver, arsenic, andcadmium concentrations aresuspected units error based on theForm 2C data. Correctedconcentrations to correspond toForm 2C data (SIGECO, 1994).Database Change: Revise metalconcentrationsTampa Bay DesalTampa Bay, FLDrinking WaterTreatmentChloridePrevious review identified amismatch between flows andconcentrations. NPDES permitfact sheet indicated the flow isdiluted by 70 percent from theplant outfall to the final outfall(FL DEP, 2001).Database Change: Divide monthlyflows by 70

### 4-22Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and LimitationsTable 4-3. Summary ofDMRLoads2007Facility ReviewFacilityLocationPoint SourceCategoryPollutant(s) inQuestionReview FindingsAction Taken/Database CorrectionTosco Refinery (Rodeo)Rodeo, CAPetroleumRefiningTCDD EquivalentsTCDD equivalents measurementsin database are 1,000 times largerthan the concentrations inEnvirofacts. The units forconcentrations in Envirofacts arein pg/L.Database Change: Revise TCDDequivalents concentrationsUSA Holston Army AmmoPlant AreaKingsport, TNExplosivesManufacturingRDX, TotalFacility contact said theDecember 2007 value was RDX,Total production instead ofeffluent concentration. Contactprovided correct concentration(House, 2009).Database Change: Revise RDX,Total December 2007concentrationWestvaco Texas, L.P.Evadale, TXPulp, PaperAnd PaperboardTCDD EquivalentsConcentrations inPCSLoadCalculator2007are1,000 times larger than theconcentrations in Envirofacts.The units for concentrations inEnvirofacts are in pg/L. Facilitycontact also said all quarters wereND, even though the fourthquarter did not have a ‘<’indicator (Davis, 2009).Database Change: Revise TCDDequivalents concentrationsFuture Database Change: Add <indicator to fourth quarter 2007TCDD equivalents concentrationWise Alloys LLCMuscle Shoals,ALAluminumFormingNitrogen, NitrateTotal (as N)The facility reported two DRIDs:1 (monthly concs.) and Q(quarterly quan.). Unable todetermine the difference betweenDRIDs. Envirofacts does nothave the permit/fact sheet.NoneBDL – 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 C ode (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 thes e three regulations are not defined by NAICS codes and no NAICS code properly describes the CWT, waste combustor, or landfill services. EPA identified speci fic facilities as CW Ts during previous category reviews and assigned these CWT f acilities 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 facilitie s 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 categ orized the facilities reporting the following six NAICS codes into the CWT, Landfills, or Waste Combustors Point Source Categories based on the specif ic operations at the facility:

— 562112: Hazardous Waste Collection;

— 562211: Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal;

— 562213: Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators;

— 562219: Other Nonhazardous Waste Tr eatment and Disposal; and

— 562920: Materials Reco very 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) an d 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 pare nt metal, EPA uses the parent metal TWF to calculate TWPE for the metal and metal compound discharges. For ranking purposes, EPA combined the TWPE s for the metal a nd 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 re lease quantities are reported as

the mass of the sodium nitrite. Sodium n itrite 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 chemical s that spontaneously ignite in air. During the 2006 screening-le vel review, EPA determined that facilities were incorrectly reporting discharges of to tal 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-c onventional pollutants di scharged by industrial categories based on completeness, accurac y, reasonableness, and comparability. The Quality Assurance Project Plan for the 2009 Annual Screen ing-Level Analysis of TRI, ICIS-NPDES, and PCS Industrial Category Discharge Data describes the quality objectiv es 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 databa se. The comparison showed that for 72 percent of the point source categories or SIC code groupings, the number of facilities reporting wastewater discharg es 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 th e TWPE for their point source category. EPA compared 2007 TRI data to other av ailable information, such as PCS and ICIS-NPDES, information from EPA’s E nvirofacts 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 cat egory. EPA used engineering judgment to determine if pollutant discharges were reasonably a ssociated with the point source category.

• 

### Accuracy of Database Queries. EPA’s quality review fo r 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 determ ined that 42 percent of the pollutantsSection 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 th at most of the pollutants with a large percentage change reflected initial disc harges of small quantities. In addition, most of these pollutant discha rges resulted in small TWPEs.

4.4.4 TRIReleases2007: Facility Reviews

Table 4-4 presents EPA’s TRI facility revi ew and corrections made to the

TRIReleases2007 database. EPA reviewed the accuracy of calculated discharg es 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 faci lities reporting to TRI for reporting year 2007;

• 

### Facilities with the highest toxic-weighted discharges of individual chemicals that contribute the majority of the toxic-wei ghted discharges for all categories; and

• 

### Facilities with the highest toxic-weig hted discharges from categories that contribute the majority of the toxic-wei ghted 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 evalua te whether these corrections should be applied to TRIReleases2007

.

2. Review discharges reported to TRI fo r 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-calculat e annual pollutant loads and compare to discharges reported to TRI for reporting year 2007.

4. Contact the facility to ve rify whether the pollutant discharges are reported correctly.

4.4.5 Trends in TRI Data

EPA has identified a consistent decrease ev ery 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.

### 4-26Section 4 – Methodology, Data Sources, and LimitationsTable 4-4. Summary ofTRIReleases2007Facility ReviewFacility NameFacility LocationPoint SourceCategoryChemical(s) inQuestionReview FindingsActions Taken/DatabaseCorrectionDow Chemical CoMidland, MIOCPSFDioxin CompoundsFacility is continuing to review dioxindischarges.No change - on hold pending facilityresponse.Eastman Kodak Co KodakParkRochester, NYMetal FinishingDioxin CompoundsDetected two dioxin congeners in2007. Facility provided watercongener distribution andconcentrations (Smith, 2009).Database Change: Revise dioxin loadand distributionLNVA - North RegionalTreatment PlantBeaumont, TXCWTPACsAll PAC measurements were ND(Eastep, 2009).Database Change: Zero PACs loadChevron Products Co. Div OfChevron USA Inc.El Segundo, CAPetroleumDioxin CompoundsFacility said all congeners were ND(Tea, 2009).Database Change: Zero dioxin loadViskase CorpLoudon, TNPlasticsCarbon DisulfidePOTW receiving wastewater providedmonitoring data (Birkholz, 2009).Facility estimates are extremelyconservative (Glarrow, 2009).Database Change: Revise carbondisulfide loadBP Products North AmericaInc Toledo RefineryOregon, OHPetroleumDioxin CompoundsFacility verified dioxin load anddistribution based on historicalmeasured data (Ellet and Thurber,2009).NoneChevron Products Co.Richmond RefineryRichmond, CAPetroleumDioxin CompoundsFacility verified dioxin load anddistribution based on measuredconcentrations (O’Hare and Howell,2009b).NoneDupont Chambers WorksDeepwater, NJInorganicPACsAll PAC measurements were ND inNew Jersey DMR database (Krejci,2009).Database Change: Zero PACs loadAK Steel Corp. (RockportWorks )Rockport, INIron & SteelNitrate CompoundsFacility provided revised load.Facility previously calculated loadassuming it was a leap year (McCoy,2009).Database Change: Revise nitratecompounds loadTronox LLCHamilton, MSInorganicManganeseCompoundsFacility provided monitoring data thatverified load (Dickerson, 2009).NoneLouisiana Pigment Co LPWestlake, LAInorganicDioxin CompoundsFacility provided water congenerdistribution (Kashyap, 2009).Database Change: Revise dioxindistributionCWT – 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 reporti ng to TRI over the past six ye ars. The aggregate number of

establishments 6 

### reported to the US Economic Census increased from 2002 to 2007. No changes in reporting requirements occurred which can be at tributed to the decrease. EPA will continue to monitor this change in the future.

4.5 TRIReleases2007 Rankings and DMRLoads2007 Rankings

After incorporating the changes discusse d 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 presen ted in these tables reflect all the corrections made during the 2009 screening-level reviews. Ta bles 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 Associ ates 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 estimat e 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 th at 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 Cor p. RE: Request for carbon disulfide monitoring data for Viskase Corpor ation. (March 20). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517

DCN 06634.

4. Climax Molybdenum Company. 2002. NPDES Permit for Climax Molybdenum Company, Summit County, CO. (Decem ber 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 Te lephone Conversation between Elizabeth Sabol, ERG and Katherine Davis, Westv aco Texas, L.P. RE: Basis of TCDD equivalent concentrations reporte d 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 disc harges reported to TRI. (March 12). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06405.

8. Eastep, Jesse. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversat ion between Chris Krejci, ERG and Jesse Eastep, LNVA – No rth 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 Flor ida Department of Environmental Protection. Save our Bays, Air and Canals, Inc. vs Tampa Bay Desal and Department of Environmental Protection. (Octobe r 17). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06699.

12. Glarrow, Patrick. 2009. Notes from Te lephone Conversation between Eleanor Codding, ERG and Patrick Glarrow, Viskase Corp. RE: Carbon disulfide discharges reported to TRI by Viskas e 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 Tele phone 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 em ail conversation between Vikram Kashyap, Louisiana Pigment Co. and El eanor 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 Ex cel Sheet – DMR Data for DuPont Chambers Works. (February 12). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06637.

16. LAC Minerals. 2005. NPDES Fact Sheet: LA C 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 Silicon es LLC. RE: Basis of copper (total recoverable) concentrations reporte d in 2007 DMR. (July 1). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-

0517 DCN 06549.

18. Martin, Tony. 2009. Telephone conversati on 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 Conversat ion between Kurtis Blohm, ERG and Alan McCoy, AK Steel Corp. (Rockport Works). RE: Basis of nitrates load reported to TRI in 2007. (M arch 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. (Unkn own). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517.

22. Ourso, Lisa Jo. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversat ion 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 Oh io. (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 Sh eet: 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 Deve lopment 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 th e 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 Tele phone 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 ELGSSection 5 – 2009 Annual Review



### 5-1 5. 2009 A NNUAL 

### R EVIEW OF 

### E XISTING 

### E FFLUENT 

### L IMITATIONS 

### G UIDELINES AND


### S TANDARDS AND 

### R ANKING OF 

### P OINT 

### S OURCE 

### C ATEGORIES



### For the 2009 annual review, EPA co nducted the followi ng activities:

• 

### Updated the reviews from previous year s (i.e., revised the 2008 annual review results with new or corrected data);

• 

### Performed new research (i.e., contacted i ndustry to verify discharges, conducted literature searches, and collected additional data); and

• 

### Solicited information from stakeholde rs through comment response and other stakeholder outreach (e.g., meetings with industry trade groups).

This section presents the results of th e 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 R eview 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 fo r 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 th e 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 consider ation under the current planning cy cle. EPA subtracted the Toxic Weight Pollutant Equivalent (TWP E) loads from facili ties that produce chlorine or chlorinated hydrocarbons from the OCPSF and Inorganic Chem icals Manufacturing Point Source Category

loads. Because facilities that produce chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons are only a subset ofSection 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 pr ioritization of categories for further review 7



### .

5.1.2 Categories for Which EPA Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs

For the 2009 annual review and developmen t of category rankings, EPA excluded point source categories for which ELGs were recentl y established or revi sed 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 ge neral, EPA removes a category from further consideration during a review cycl e 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 ra nkings any categories with ELGs established, revised, or recently reviewed after August 2002. Table 5-1 lists these categories.

Removing a point source category from furthe r consideration in th e development of the rankings does not mean that EPA eliminates th e category from annual review. In cases where EPA is aware of the growth of a new segment w ithin such category, or where new concerns are identified for previously unevaluated pollutant s discharged by facilitie s in the category, EPA would apply closer scrutiny to th e discharges from the category in deciding whether to consider it further during the current revi ew cycle. For example, EPA c onducted the detailed study of the coal mining industry based on comments receive d 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 categor izable into new point source categories or subcategories. In particular, due to the high TW PE discharges EPA review ed 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 EP A 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 a ffect the prioritization of cat egories based on TWPE. For more information on industries currently undergoing rulemakings, see http://www.epa.gov/guide/industry.html.

8 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa tion, 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 particul ar, these discharges vary by:

• 

### Contaminants (e.g., metals, pesticides, dioxin);

• 

### Treatment technologies (e.g., air st ripping, 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 electroplati ng facilities, drum r ecycling facilities, mine sites, mineral processing facil ities, radium processing facilities).

Moreover, the duration and volume of these di rect discharges vary significantly due to differences in aquifer characteristics and the ma gnitude, fate, and transport of contaminants in aquifers and vadose zones. Currently at Supe rfund sites, permit writers determine technologybased effluent limits using their best professi onal judgment (BPJ). EPA selects the remedial technology and derives numerical e ffluent discharge limits. The permit must also contain more stringent effluent limitations when required to co mply 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 TW PE in the category to which they belonged. EPA investigated these facilities to determine if their discharges were representative of th e category. If they were not, EPA subtracted the facility ’s TWPE from the total categor y TWPE and recalculated the category’s ranking. EPA performed th is analysis separately for bot h of the databases. Based on EPA’s knowledge of these industries and the revi ew of the pollutant discharges for these facilities, EPA determined that all of the pollutant di scharges are represen tative 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:

### 5-4Section 5 – 2009 Annual ReviewTable 5-2. Point Source Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE DischargesPoint Source CategoryFacility with Over95% of CategoryTWPEFacilityLocationDataSourcePollutant DrivingTWPEFacilityTWPEPercent ofTotalCategoryTWPEActionTextile Mills (Part 410)Deroyal TextilesCamden, SCDMR 2007Aldrin76,46995.6%Did not remove loadfrom category TWPEIndependent and Stand AloneLabs (Potential NewCategory)Brookhaven NationalLaboratoryUpton, NYDMR 2007PCBs5,16696.5%Did not remove loadfrom category TWPECanned and PreservedSeafood Processing (Part 408)Campbell SoupCompanyNapoleon,OHDMR 2007HexavalentChromium3,12396.6%Did not remove loadfrom category TWPEPlastics Molding and Forming(Part 463)Innovia Films, IncTopeka, KSDMR 2007Carbon Disulfide24,21998.3%Did not remove loadfrom category TWPETimber Products Processing(Part 429)Stimson Lumber CoBonner MillBonner, MTDMR 2007Chlorine51,37499.7%Did not remove loadfrom category TWPESoap and DetergentManufacturing (Part 417)Stepan CompanyElwoodElwood, ILDMR 2007Hexachlorobenzene47,79599.96%Did not remove loadfrom category TWPEFerroalloy Manufacturing(Part 424)Eramet Marietta IncMarietta,OHDMR 2007Cadmium4,34999.99%Did not remove loadfrom category TWPEConstruction andDevelopment (Potential NewCategory)Aeroquip - VickersJoplin, MODMR 2007Cadmium32499.99%Did not remove loadfrom category TWPESoap and DetergentManufacturing (Part 417)Crodia IncNew Castle,DETRI 2007Bis(2-chloroethyl)Ether14,45399.1%Did not remove loadfrom category TWPETobacco Products (PotentialNew Category)Philip Morris Park 500SiteChester, VATRI 2007Chlorine4,73099.4%Did not remove loadfrom category TWPESource:TRIReleases2007_v2; andDMRLoads2007_v3.Section 5 – 2009 Annual Review



### 5-5 • 

### EPA combined the two lists of point s ource categories by adding each category’s

DMRLoads2007 TWPE and TRIReleases2007 TWPE 9



### .

• 

### EPA then ranked the point s ource 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 ab le to prioritize for further review (i.e., a detailed study or preliminary category review ) those industrial cate gories 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 Agencyconcentrated its resources on those point source categories with the highest estimates of toxicweighted pollutant discharges (based on best avai lable data), while assigning a lower priority to categories that the Agency believes are not good candidates for ELGs re vision 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, an d how the category was identified for further review, if applicable.

5.2.1 Detailed Study of Existing ELGs

EPA performed detailed studies on three po int 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 de tailed 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 ch emical 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 discharg ed but are not reported to PCS/ICIS-NPDES or TRI.

### 5-6Section 5 – 2009 Annual ReviewTable 5-3. FinalDMRLoads2007andTRIReleases2007Combined Point Source Category Rankings40 CFRPartPoint Source CategoryDMRLoads2007TWPETRIReleases2007TWPETotal TWPECumulative Percentof Total TWPERank423Steam Electric Power Generating20,374,829a541,50820,916,33772.641430Pulp, Paper And Paperboard2,726,865b459,9593,186,82383.712418Fertilizer Manufacturing1,095,0464,4621,099,50987.533414Organic Chemicals, Plastics And Synthetic Fibers413,226c574,742987,96890.964419Petroleum Refining402,506171,756574,26292.965415Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing393,52354,657448,18194.516421Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing342,74738,885381,63295.847440Ore Mining And Dressing184,45544,437228,89296.638455Pesticide Chemicals180,11724,693204,81097.359471Nonferrous Metals Forming And Metal Powders119,2448,834128,07797.7910410Textile Mills79,9342,38982,32398.0811429Timber Products Processing51,55216,30167,85298.3112417Soap And Detergent Manufacturing47,81514,58562,40198.5313444Waste Combustors38,412d4038,45198.6614445Landfills35,804d8335,88798.7915463Plastics Molding And Forming24,6268,78133,40798.9016439Pharmaceutical Manufacturing24,9377,99632,93499.0217409Sugar Processing32,5202632,54599.1318458CarbonBlackManufacturing32,37532,37599.2419436Mineral Mining And Processing26,7192,41629,13599.3420428Rubber Manufacturing11,1957,86419,05999.4121422Phosphate Manufacturing18,45925018,70999.4722464Metal Molding And Casting (Foundries)11,2716,11517,38699.5423469Electrical And Electronic Components9,3507,55116,90299.5924467Aluminum forming12,1822,70714,88999.6525437Centralized Waste Treatment10,403d3,78514,18999.6926

### 5-7Section 5 – 2009 Annual ReviewTable 5-3. FinalDMRLoads2007andTRIReleases2007Combined Point Source Category Rankings40 CFRPartPoint Source CategoryDMRLoads2007TWPETRIReleases2007TWPETotal TWPECumulative Percentof Total TWPERankNAMiscellaneousFoods And Beverages5,8426,57612,41899.7427454Gum And Wood Chemicals Manufacturing10,4785510,53299.7728411CementManufacturing8,9604529,41299.8129425Leather Tanning And Finishing87,8027,80999.8330468Copperforming2,3104,9517,26199.8631NAIndependent And Stand Alone Labs5,355305,38599.8832NATobacco Products34,7564,75999.8933407Canned And Preserved Fruits And VegetablesProcessing1,7572,9604,71799.9134424FerroalloyManufacturing4,3493404,68999.9335406Grainmills1,9842,0844,06899.9436408Canned And Preserved Seafood Processing3,2322343,46799.9537434CoalMining2,2944932,78799.9638461BatteryManufacturing1,0961,6422,73899.9739405Dairyproductsprocessing762,4022,47999.9840443PavingAnd Roofing Materials (Tars And Asphalt)1,2802491,52999.9941NAPrinting & Publishing9991101,10999.9942426GlassManufacturing35354689999.9943457ExplosivesManufacturing78514798100.0044465CoilCoating166241407100.0045435Oil & Gas Extraction256256100.0046466PorcelainEnameling11164175100.0047446PaintFormulating140140100.0048447InkFormulating2020100.0049460Hospital1515100.0050NAPhoto Processing11100.0051

### 5-8Section 5 – 2009 Annual ReviewTable 5-3. FinalDMRLoads2007andTRIReleases2007Combined Point Source Category Rankings40 CFRPartPoint Source CategoryDMRLoads2007TWPETRIReleases2007TWPETotal TWPECumulative Percentof Total TWPERank459 Photographic11 100.00 52442 Transportation Equipment Cleaning00 100.00 53Total26,719,348 2,073,457 28,792,806Source:TRIReleases2007_v2;DMRLoads2007_v3.NA – Not applicable; no existing ELGs apply to discharges.a – EPA corrected a suspected units error inDMRLoads2007_v3for FB Culley Station in Newburgh, IN (IN0002259) in the Steam Electric Power GeneratingCategory. EPA attempted to contact the facility but the facilitynever returned calls. Therefore, EPA was unable to verify thecorrection.b – For the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category, EPA contactedfacilities to verify the concentrations of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in PCS and ICISNPDES. EPA found that, for all facilities contacted, there were either units errors (e.g., reported as ng/L but in the databaseas mg/L) or missing non-detectindicators. The new Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category total TWPE is 252,163. See Section12.2.2.1for additional details on the facilities-specificcorrections.c – EPA contacted GE Silicones in Friendly, WV (WV0000094), in the OCPSF Category andidentified a units error inDMRLoads2007_v3(Martin, 2009). Thenew LBY and TWPE reported for this facility were recalculatedand are now 158 and 100.3, respectively. The new OCPSF Category total TWPE is 308,946.d – EPA also reviewed the operations of facilities reporting SIC code 4953 (Refuse Systems) and classified them into the Centralized Waste Treaters (CWT)Category (40 CFR Part 437), Landfills Category (40 CFR Part 445), and Waste Combustors Category (40 CFR Part 444). The new TWPEfor the CWT,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 Manufacturin g 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 Manufacturin g 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 aSection 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 identifica tion is not applicable, as EPA conducts a screening-level review of all categor ies 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 th e following: (1) wastewater characteristics and pollutant sources; (2) the pollutants driving the toxic-wei ghted pollutant discharges; (3) availability of pollution preventi on 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 result s and fill in data gaps. Next, EPA considers costs and performance of applicable and demonstr ated control technology, process change, or pollution prev ention alternatives that can e ffectively reduce the pollutants remaining in the industrial category's wastewat er. Last, EPA considers the affordability or economic achievability of the technology, proces s change, or pollution prevention measures

identified above.

Types of data sources that EPA may consu lt in conducting its deta iled studies include, but are not limited to: (1) the U.S. Economic Cens us; (2) TRI, PCS, and ICIS-NDPES data; (3) trade associations and reporting faci lities to verify reported releas es and facility categorization; (4) regulatory authoriti es (states and EPA regions) to unde rstand how category facilities are permitted; (5) NPDES permits and their supporti ng fact sheets; (6) EPA effluent guidelinesSection 5 – 2009 Annual Review



### 5-11 technical development documents; (7) relevant EPA preliminary data summaries or study reports; and (8) technical literature on po llutant sources and co ntrol technologies.

For more information about the Oil and Ga s Extraction Detailed Study (Coalbed Methane Industry), the Health Care Industry Detailed St udy, 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 examin es 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 EP A collects and analyzes hazard and technology-based information on ca tegories undergoing preliminary review, it assigns a higher priority to investiga ting categories undergoing detailed studies.

As shown in Table 5-4 , EPA identified for preliminary revi ew those industrial categories currently regulated by existing e ffluent 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 CF R Part 440) because during previous annual reviews, EPA has concluded that there are not sufficient data available to determine whether wastewater discharges from th e Ore Mining and Dressing Categor y 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 Manu facturing (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 prelim inary reviews of many of the categories listed

above. Table 5-5 lists these categories a nd the level of review pe rformed 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 200 7 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 aSection 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 Ca tegory Review Screening-Level Review a

419 Petroleum Refining Preliminary Catego ry 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 estimat e for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds discharges in PCS. (March 13). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06636.

2. Davis, Katherine. 2009. Notes from Te lephone Conversation between Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Katherine Davis, Westvaco Texas, L.P. RE: Basis of TCDD Equivalent Concentr ations 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) C oncentrations Reported in 2007. (July 1). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06549.

4. McCuutchen, Kate. 2009. Notes from Tele phone Conversation between Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Kate McCuutchen, Blue Heron Paper Co. RE: Basis of Methylmercury Concentr ation 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/s uperfund/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 92 83.1-2. 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 th e Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories. EPA-821-R-09-007. Washington, DC. (O ctober). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN

06557.Section 6 – Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418)



### 6-1 6. F ERTILIZER 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 418)

EPA identified the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 418) for preliminary category review as part of the Preliminar y 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. EPA previously reviewed discharges from fertilizer ma nufacturing 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 manufactu ring industry and background on 40 CFR Part 418.

6.1.1 Fertilizer Manufacturing Industry Profile

The fertilizer manufacturing industry incl udes 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 Manufacturing 10 

### ;

• 

### 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 availabl e information about pollutant loads and manufacturing operations for f acilities reporting this NAICS c ode. EPA assigned the extension

“FER” to the end of the NAICS codes of facilities that likely primarily generate wastewater regulated by the Fertilizer Manufacturing ELG s. 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 ope rations in the Fert ilizer Manufacturing Category. Because facilities report SIC codes in DMRLoads2007 , and the U.S. Economic Census and TRI report data by NAICS code, EPA recla ssified 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 associat ed with the Phosphate Manu facturing Point Source Category. EPA is choosing to correct the error in future versions of the database, beca use 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 ; D M RLoads20007_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 associat ed with the Phosphate Manu facturing Point Source Category. EPA is choosing to correct the error in future versions of the database, beca use the TWPE associated with NAICS code is negligible (total of 240 TWPE/yr). NA – Not applicable. This facility-specific NAICS code th at 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 Fert ilizer Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 418) on April 8, 1974 (39 FR 12836) for the Ba sic Fertilizer Chemicals Segment and on January 14, 1975 (40 FR 2652) for the Formulated Fe rtilizer Chemicals Segm ent. The Fertilizer Manufacturing ELGs are applicable to proce ss wastewater and contaminated nonprocess wastewater discharged from the specific subcategories listed in Table 6-2 . The seven subcategories are based on the t ype 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 thesynthetic 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 associat ed with the Phosphate Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 422). EPA is choosing to correct the error in future years of th e TRI database, because the TWPE associ ated 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 annua l 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 Catego ry 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 associat ed with the Phosphate Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 422). EPA is choosing to correct the error in future years of th e TRI database, because the TWPE associ ated with NAICS code is negligible (total of 242 TWPE).



### 6.2.2 Fertilizer Manufacturing Cate gory 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 po llutants 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 associat ed with the Phosphate Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part 422). EPA is choosing to correct the error in future years of th e TRI database, because the TWPE associ ated 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 Manufacturi ng Category pollutants of concern based on

relative TWPE. EPA focused the 2009 annual revi ew 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 a pproximately 69,000 TWPE between 2004 and 2007 in DMR. EPA did not investigat e the other top pollutants as pa rt of the 2009 annual review because the remaining TRI and DMR TWPE is su ch a small percentage (4 percent) of the

combined Fertilizer Manufact uring 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 manuf acturing (U.S. EPA, 2006). The phosphate rock is not a pure compound, but a fluorapitite mineral containing im purities of fluoride, iron, aluminum, silica, and uranium. The fluoride impurities evolve into gaseous silicon tetrafluoride (SiF 4 

### ) or gaseous hydrofluoric acid (HF) throughout the manufactur e of phosphoric acid and the processing of phosphoric acid into triple super phosphates. The gaseous fluoride compounds are collected in a wet scrubber unit, generating fluoride-contaminat ed 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 Sec tions 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 di scharges were from Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC in Uncle Sam, Louisiana. Mosaic Fertilizers’ Un cle Sam facility manufactur es phosphate fertilizer and would be subject to 40 CFR Part 418 Subpa rt A (Phosphate Subcategory). However, the applicability of Subpart A excl udes certain wet-process phosphoric acid processes from BPT, BAT, and BCT limitations that were under constr uction 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 di scharges from these facilities using best professional judgment (BPJ) (see 52 FR 28428, Ju ly 29, 1987). For a portion of the discharges

from Mosaic Fertilizers’ Uncle Sam facility, BPJ permits incor porate Subpart A requirements (LDEQ, 2003). For additional information on Mosaic Fertilizers’ Uncle Sam facility (previouslySection 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 fluor ide are restricted to a single plant whose permit basis differs from limits set fo r 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 Fertil izer Manufacturing Point Source Category discharges is largely due to the DMR-reported disc harges of fluoride. As shown in Table 6-5, the DMR discharge of fluoride accounted for 96 per cent of the 2007 TWPE. During the 2009 annual review, EPA did not obtain any information to cha nge its conclusions that have previously been made regarding the wastewater discharges from th e fertilizer manufacturi ng facilities. Therefore,

the conclusions of the Fe rtilizer Manufacturing Categor y review are as follows:

• 

### EPA verified the fluoride discharges in DMR 2007 for Mosaic Fertilizers’ Uncle Sam facility, a phosphate fertilizer manufactur er 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 conclude s 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 assi gning 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 an nual 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 Disc harge Permit and Fact Sheet NPDES LA0004847 – IMC Phosphates Company Uncl e 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 Manufac turing 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 Prior itized 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. I NORGANIC 

### C HEMICALS 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 415)

EPA identified the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (Inorgani c Chemicals) Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 415) for preliminary category review as part of the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. This indust ry was reviewed previ ously 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 EP A’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 fu rther consideration in th is review (see Table V-1, 73 FR 53218, September 15, 2008).

7.1 Inorganic Chemicals Category Background

This section provides background on the Inor ganic Chemicals Cate gory including a brief profile of the inorganic chemicals manufactur ing industry and backgr ound on 40 CFR Part 415.

7.1.1 Inorganic Chemicals Industry Profile

The inorganic chemicals manufacturing industr y 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 cons idered 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 Inorgani c Chemical Manufacturing;

• 

### 325998INORG: All Other Miscellaneous Ch emical 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 availa ble information about pollutant loads and manufacturing operations for fac ilities reporting these NAICS code s. EPA assigned the extension

“INORG” to the end of the NAICS codes of faciliti es that likely primarily generate wastewater regulated by the Inorganic Chemicals ELGs. For example, most faciliti es 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 Ca tegory. As part of the 2004 annual review, EPA

reviewed industries with SIC code s not clearly subject to existi ng ELGs. EPA concluded that theSection 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 be tween one SIC and one NAICS codes. As a result, EPA included the following NAICS codes in the 2 009 annual review of the Inorganic Chemicals Category because they contain faci lities with operations that ar e similar to the SIC codes above:

• 

### 325120: Industrial Gases;

• 

### 325131: Inorganic Pigments;

• 

### 325181: Alkalies and Chlorine;

• 

### 325188: All Other Basic Inorgani c Chemical Manufacturing;

• 

### 331311: Alumina Refining; and

• 

### 325510INORG: Paint and Coating Manufacturing.

Table 7-1 lists the seven NAICS codes with ope rations 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 recla ssified the 2007 DMR by the equivalent NAICS

code.

Table 7-1. Number of Inorganic Chem ical 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 wastew ater 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 Chem ical 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 manuf acturing industry are regulated under 40 CFR Part 415: Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category. This category consists of 67 subcategories define d 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 pollutant s regulated by subpart (U.S. EPA, 2004). The effluent guidelines for the Inorganic Chemicals Category were fi rst 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 re view of the Inorganic Chemicals Category including the screeni ng-level review and cat egory-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 TW PE contributed by the Chlor-Alkali Subcategory. EPA is currently considering revisi ons to ELGs for discharges from facilities that produce chlorine by the chlor-alka li process. Because a rulemaking for the chlor-alkali sector of the Inorganic Chemicals Category is underway, di scharges from these facilities were excluded from further consideration for the Inorgani c Chemicals Category review under the current planning cycle.

The combined DMR and TRI TWPE decr eased 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 Manufacturi ng 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 Chem icals 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: TRIRel eases2004_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 Chem icals 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 4,586Section 7 – Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415)



### 7-5 Table 7-4. 2009 Review: Inorganic Chem icals 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 Cate gory pollutant of c oncern based on relative TWPE. EPA focused the 2009 annual review on discharges of manganese and manganese compounds from 2007 TRI and polychlorinated bi phenyls (PCBs) from 2007 DMR. Discharges of manganese and manganese compounds d ecreased 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 othe r top pollutants as part of th e 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 ma jority (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). Tro nox, 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 report ed 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 th e order of magnitude of the 115,150 lbs/yr from the Tronox facility in Hamilton, MS. EPA conclude s 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 Prog ram Plan (U.S. EPA, 2006) fo r 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 Polychlo rinated 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 nucle ar reactors. Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (KY NREPC) de termined that the PCBs from the Paducah

Gaseous Diffusion Plant were fr om historical industrial a nd waste management practices associated with capacitors or transformers. Thes e 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 di scharge location for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, in 2001. The TMDL identified controls fo r limiting the addition of new PCB discharges to the stream along with activities to remediate historical PCB di scharges (U.S. EPA, 2001). EPA concludes that the PCB discharges are specific to the Paducah facilit y, 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 Ma nufacturing Point Source Category.

7.4 Inorganic Chemicals Category Issues Identified and Additional Review

The estimated toxicity of Inorganic Chemical s Category discharges is largely due to the TRI-reported discharges of manganese and ma nganese compounds and dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and DMR-reported discharges of P CBs. During the 2009 annual review, EPA did not obtain any information to change its conclusions that have previ ously been made regarding the wastewater discharges from th e inorganic chemicals manufacturing facilities. Therefore, the conclusions of the Inorganic Chem icals Category are as follows:Section 7 – Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415)



### 7-7 • 

### EPA verified the manganese discha rges reported to the 2007 TRI by Tronox, LLC, a titanium dioxide manufacturing fac ility 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 reporte d 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 assi gning 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 an nual 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 disc harges 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. N ONFERROUS 

### M ETALS 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 421)

EPA identified the Nonferrous Metals Ma nufacturing (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 revi ewed previously in each of EPA’s Preliminary and Final Effluent Guidelines Program Pl ans 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 Manufactu ring Category Background

This section provides background on the NFMM Category including a brief profile of the nonferrous metals manufacturing indus try 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, coppe r, and nickel (U.S. EPA, 2006). EPA considered the following eight NAICS codes as part of the NFMM Category:

• 

### 325188NMM: All Other Basic Inorga nic 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, a nd 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 availabl e information about pollutant loads and manufacturing operations for f acilities reporting this NAICS c ode. EPA assigned the extension

“NMM” to the end of the NAICS codes of facilitie s that likely primarily generate wastewater regulated by the NFMM ELGs. Most facili ties in NAICS 325188 are grouped under the Inorganic Chemicals Point Source Category.

Table 8-1 lists the eight NAICS codes with ope rations 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 th e 2007 DMR by the equivalent NAICS code.Section 8– Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 8-2 Table 8-1. Number of Nonferrous Met als 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 correspon d 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 NF MM Category (40 CFR Part 421) on March 8, 1984 (49 FR 8790). All 31 subcategories ha ve NSPS and PSNS standards. Fourteen subcategories do not have PSES standards; th e 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 nonconventiona l pollutants in the NFMM Category (U.S. EPA, 2004).

8.2 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturi ng Category 2009 Annual Review

This section discusses EPA’s 2009 annual re view of the NFMM Category including the screening-level review a nd category-specific review.Section 8– Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 8-3 8.2.1 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturi ng 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 Manufacturi ng 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 Ma nufacturing 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 pollutant s 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 20 04 to 2007 in both TRI and DMR. EPA did not investigate the other top pollutant s as part of the 2009 annual review because the majority of the NFMM Category TWPE is due to cadmium. Add itionally, the TWPE of other top pollutants from the NFMM Category are consistent with findi ngs in past years of review of this category, including similar facilities a nd 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 Clarks ville, Inc. in Clarks ville, Tennessee. Zinifex Clarksville, Inc. primarily produces zinc along wi th cadmium and sulfuric acid as by-products. The majority of Zinifex Clarksville, Inc.’s cadm ium discharges were fr om stormwater outfalls with monitoring only permit requirements. The faci lity’s cadmium discharg es 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 Ca tegory 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 Categor y 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 th e TRI-reported and DMR-reported cadmium and cadmium compound discharges, including facili ties dominating the TWPE, the methods used to estimate repor ted 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 assi gning 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 an nual 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 Elimin ation System Permit TN0029157- Zinifex Clarksville, Inc., Clarksv ille, 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. O RE 

### M INING AND 

### D RESSING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 440)

EPA selected the Ore Mining and Dressing (O re 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 Prelimin ary 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 Categor y warrant a detailed study. The 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan summarized the results of EPA’s previous

reviews of this industr y (U.S. EPA, 2008a).

This section describes the status and prelim inary 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 wast ewaters 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 industr y 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 consid ered the following eight NAICS codes as part of the Ore Mining Category:

• 

### 212210: Iron ore mining;

• 

### 212234: Copper ore and ni ckel 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 ope rations in the Ore Mining Category.

Because facilities re port SIC codes in DMRLoads2007 , and the U.S. Economic Census and TRI report data by NAICS code, EPA reclassified the 2007 DMR data by th e 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 fac ilities reporting to TRI is likel y 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 thre shold 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 fo r 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 re ported wastewater discha rges to TRI, most facilities are direct dischargers. Table 9-2 presents the types of disc harges 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 fo r 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 cons ists of 12 subcategories, as shown in Table

9-3 with the related SIC and NAICS codes and descriptions of th e 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, ca dmium, 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 Categor y 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-FlotationSection 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



### 9-4 Table 9-3. Ore Mining Categor y 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-S itu 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 Effluen t Limitations Gu idelines 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 over burden piles is not s ubject to effluent guidelines unless it naturally drai ns (or is intentionally diverted) to a point source and combines with “mine drainage” that is ot herwise 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 ge neral stormwater permits. 16 

### (See 65 FR 64746, Oct. 30, 2000, and 70 FR 72116, December 1, 2005.) The federal MSGP pert ains to four authorized states, federal facilities, and Indian Co untry 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 a nnual review of the Ore Mining Category including the screeni ng-level review and cat egory-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-le vel 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 availa ble, toxic weighted disc harges from ore mining facilities decreased from 2004 to 2007 by appr oximately 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 th e 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 con cern that EPA has identified fo r 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 discha rges of the above pollutants from DMR. In addition to these three metals, EPA also id entified 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 me rcury DMR 2004 TWPE). The following sections discuss the discharges of these po llutants from ore mining facilities.Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 9-5. 2009 Review: Ore MiningCategory Top TRI PollutantsPollutanta2002a2003a2004a2005a2007aAverageAnnualTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTWPEArsenic913,383823,770530,439626,600442718,924Lead2512,3782311,5422120,9302116,2912320,45216,318Cadmium1019,603914,848611,840611,90541,42211,924Silver28,23528,23528,23528,23528,2458,237Vanadium35,15638,40737,19333,86825,6886,062



### 9-6Source: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 MiningCategory Top DMR PollutantsPollutant200220042007AverageAnnual TWPERankNumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTWPERankNumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTWPERankNumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTWPELead43023,30944019,09113742,41928,273Copper9624,8748358,69024140,95018,171Molybdenum14155,1745418,7573727,76367,231Arsenic51112,70121030,92141521,95521,859Cadmium32654,55633821,05253817,17230,927Mercury12521,971128441,338a10222,023148,444Cyanide27109,01816461613928436,639Source:PCLoads2002_v4;PCSLoads2004_v4;andDMRLoads2007_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 Cate gory 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 TW PE in TRI: Newmont Lone Tree in Valmy, Nevada, and the Kennecott Smelter in Salt Lake City, Utah. These facili ties 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 othe r facilities: Kennecott Utah Copper Mine inSalt 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 Catego ry 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 reporti ng 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 C ity, Utah. These facil ities had high cadmium discharges in past years (both around 5,000 TW PE); however, in 2007 Kennecott Smelter did not report to TRI and the cadmium discharges re ported 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 cadmi um 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 num ber of ore mining facilities reporting lead discharges has remained relativ ely 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 determ ined by SIC code). A la rge number of facilities

contribute to the total lead TWPE from the Ore Mining Category. In 200 7, 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.

### 9-8Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 9-7. Arsenic Discharges Reported by Ore Mining Facilities in DMR for 2002, 2004 and 2007a200220042007Type ofMineFacility NameLocationTotalPoundsReleasedTWPETotalPoundsReleasedTWPETotalPoundsReleasedTWPEGoldTeck-Pogo Inc.Delta Junction, AKNRNRNRNR4,36317,634CopperKennecott Copper CoSalt Lake City, UT2,66010,7505,05120,4147853,172GoldLac Minerals(USA) IncLead, SD7272,51210,15329117GoldWharf Resources (USA), Inc.Lead, SD11345541166230930GoldGolden Reward Mining CoLead, SD30121271081871CopperBHP Pinto Valley OperationsMiami, AZNRNRNRNR520SilverPlatoro Mining Co & Union GoldConejos County, CO14310310GoldHomestake Mining Co-Gold DivLead, SD2128561770NRNRGoldZortman Mining Inc.Zortman, MT76307NRNRNRNRGoldZortman Mining Inc.Zortman, MT34138NRNRNRNRGoldHecla Mining CoStanley, ID936NRNRNRNRCopperPhelps Dodge CorpCottonwood, AZ27NRNRNRNRTotal3,14412,7017,65130,9215,43221,954Source:DMRLoads2007_v3,PCSLoads2004_v4; PCSLoads2002_v4.a – Includes only discharges greater than one TWPE.NR — Not reported.

### 9-9Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 9-8. Cadmium Discharges Reported by Ore Mining Facilities in DMR for 2002, 2004, and 2007a200720042002Type of MineFacility NameLocationTotalPoundsReleasedTWPETotalPoundsReleasedTWPETotalPoundsReleasedTWPELead/ZincDoe Run Resources CoViburnum, MO1613,7202205,0801353,130CopperEast Tn Zinc Co., LLCJefferson City, TN1132,6103.2976.12.250.8Lead/ZincU.S. Silver CorporationOsburn, ID1012,330NRNR1.2428.7Ferroalloy (except Alum.)Climax MineSummit County, CO88.82,05043.21,000NRNRLead/ZincDoe Run Resources CoViburnum, MO76.51,7701403,2301673,850Lead/ZincDoe Run CompanyViburnum, MO64.21,48043.19971804,160Lead/ZincDoe Run Resources CorpViburnum, MO57.11,32029.668529.1674CopperMammoth, Sutro, Keystone Et AlRedding, CA21.649910.825016371Lead/ZincDoe Run CompanyBunker, MO21.349284.21,9501,48034,200GoldLac MineralsLead, SD14.63380.1794.13NRNRGoldWharf Resources (USA)Lead, SD4.5104NRNRNRNRLead/ZincEast Tennessee Zinc Co. LLCJefferson City, TN3.8288.411.62676.41148Ferroalloy (except Alum.)Henderson Mine, Urad MinesiteClear Creek County, CO3.5281.56.771564.41102Lead/ZincCominco American IncBixby, MO2.2952.91.2428.68.15188GoldCarlton Tunnel Portal SiteVictor, CO1.9745.6NRNRNRNRGoldLondon Water TunnelPark County, CO1.4433.33.2575.21.0925.1Lead/ZincKennecott Greens Creek MiningCJuneau, AK1.3631.43.0269.91.7340.1GoldGolden Reward Mining Co.Lead, SD1.125.4NRNRNRNRLead/ZincEast Tennessee Zinc Co., LLCMascot, TN0.87620.25.951382.3554.4Lead/ZincMossy Creek Mining, LLCThorn Hill, TN0.75217.40.65915.24.59106Lead/ZincMt. Emmons/Keystone MineGunnison County, CO0.72516.81.4633.7NRNRCopperBhp Pinto Valley OperationsMiami, AZ0.53612.4NRNRNRNRGoldTeck-Pogo IncDelta Junction, AK0.50511.7NRNRNRNRFerroalloy (except Alum.)Thompson Creek MiningCompanyClayton, ID0.3768.690.1443.33NRNRLead/ZincEast Tennessee Zinc Co., LLCStrawberry Plains, TN0.2355.44NRNR2.7864.2

### 9-10Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 9-8. Cadmium Discharges Reported by Ore Mining Facilities in DMR for 2002, 2004, and 2007a200720042002Type of MineFacility NameLocationTotalPoundsReleasedTWPETotalPoundsReleasedTWPETotalPoundsReleasedTWPELead/ZincEast Tennessee Zinc Co., LLCJefferson County, TN0.1914.416.931602.6561.2Lead/ZincTeck Cominco Alaska IncKotzebue, AK0.0942.17NRNRNRNRCopperKennecott Copper CoSalt Lake City, UTNRNR2926,7502786,430Lead/ZincUplandWingsSullivan,MONRNR2.8566NRNRLead/ZincMossy Creek Mining, LLCGordonsville, TNNRNR0.2485.74NRNRGoldGold King Mines CorporationSan Juan County, CONRNR0.1924.4410.9252GoldCoeur Alaska IncJuneau, AKNRNR0.1633.77NRNRCopperPhelps DodgeChristmas, AZNRNR0.04871.13NRNRGoldZortman Mining Inc.Zortman, MTNRNRNRNR26.2605Ferroalloy (except Alum.)Hecla Mining CoMullan, IDNRNRNRNR10.2236GoldZortman Mining Inc.Zortman, MTNRNRNRNR3.0570.5Lead/ZincMossy Creek Mining, LLCNew Market, TNNRNRNRNR1.5335.4Total74317,17191121,0502,37554,882Source:DMRLoads2007_v3,PCSLoads2004_v4; PCSLoads2002_v4.a – Includes only discharges greater than one TWPE.NR – Not reported.

### 9-11Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 9-9. Lead Discharges Reported by Ore Mining Facilities in DMR for 2002, 2004, and 2007a200720042002Type of MineFacility NameLocationTotalPoundsReleasedTWPETotalPoundsReleasedTWPETotalPoundsReleasedTWPELead/ZincDoe Run Resources CoViburnum, MO6,51014,6003,8608,6401,3403,010IronNorthshore Mining/Silver Bay PSilver Bay, MN5,84013,100NRNRNRNRLead/ZincDoe Run CompanyViburnum, MO2,0704,6401,0802,4203,8208,560Lead/ZincU.S. Silver CorporationOsburn, ID1,8704,1801431.327.260.8Lead/ZincDoe Run Resources CoViburnum, MO1,4003,1407651,7101,3403,000Lead/ZincDoe Run Resources CorpViburnum, MO6901,5407021,5701,0702,400CopperKennecott Copper CoSalt Lake City, UT14933531.770.9NRNRLead/ZincDoe Run CompanyBunker, MO1433204349722,2204,980Lead/ZincKennecott Greens Creek Mining CJuneau, AK12628213630585190GoldLAC MineralsLead, SD34.4771,2502,810NRNRLead/ZincEast Tennessee Zinc Co. LLCJefferson City, TN2964.910.924.529.465.8Ferroalloy (except Alum.)Climax MineSummit County, CO20.245.30.6091.36NRNRLead/ZincJordanelle SsdWasatch County, UT18.441.2NRNRNRNRLead/ZincEast Tn Zinc Co., LLCJefferson City, TN9.8223.588.0210.523.6GoldWharf Resources (USA)Lead, SD5.4812.3NRNRNRNRLead/ZincCominco American IncBixby, MO5.2411.72.35.158.1518.3GoldCarlton Tunnel Portal SiteTeller County, CO3.217.28.6819.43.848.61Lead/ZincEast Tennessee Zinc Co., LLCStrawberry Plains, TN2.164.857.151615.334.2GoldTeck-Pogo IncDelta Junction, AK1.132.53NRNRNRNRFerroalloy (except Alum.)Henderson Mine, Urad MinesiteClear Creek County, CO1.112.494.249.491.693.79GoldGolden Reward Mining Co.Lead, SD1.112.48NRNRNRNRFerroalloy (except Alum.)Thompson Creek Mining CompanyClayton, ID1.052.340.6191.391.012.26Lead/ZincMt. Emmons/Keystone MineGunnison County, CO0.4340.972NRNRNRNRGoldBalmat Mines & MillBalmat, SDNRNR14031328.162.9IronUpland WingsSullivan,NRNR21.448NRNRLead/ZincMossy Creek Mining, LLCThornHill, TNNRNR20.445.821.448Lead/ZincMossy Creek Mining, LLCElmwood, TNNRNR12.828.7279624Lead/ZincAsarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div.Mascot, TNNRNR5.9513.39.1220.4

### 9-12Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 9-9. Lead Discharges Reported by Ore Mining Facilities in DMR for 2002, 2004, and 2007a200720042002Type of MineFacility NameLocationTotalPoundsReleasedTWPETotalPoundsReleasedTWPETotalPoundsReleasedTWPELead/ZincMossy Creek Mining, LLCGordonsville, TNNRNR3.567.97NRNRGoldLondon Mine LLCPark County, CONRNR2.866.43.718.3GoldGold King Mines CorporationSan Juan County, CONRNR0.8661.9417.839.9Lead/ZincLeadville CorporationLeadville, CONRNRNRNR154345Ferroalloy (except Alum.)Hecla Mining CoMullan, IDNRNRNRNR48.7109GoldZortmanMiningInc.Zortman,SDNRNRNRNR26.559.3GoldZortmanMiningInc.Zortman,SDNRNRNRNR19.543.7Lead/ZincAsarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div.New Market, TNNRNRNRNR9.6521.6Lead/ZincMossy Creek Mining, LLCNew Market, TNNRNRNRNR8.8119.7GoldCalais Resources Colorado, IncCaribou, CONRNRNRNR1.423.18Total18,93142,4348,51919,08010,60023,762Source: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 disc harges 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 entr y error: the facility reports mercury concentrations in ng/L, but the data in PCS were entere d in mg/L without any

conversion. The correction resulted in a redu ced estimate of mercury discharges from 3,765 lbs/yr (prior to correction) to less than one lb/yr. This corr ection reduced th e 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 coll ected readily available ore mining facility permits, permit fact sheets, and permit applicatio ns. 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 mon itoring 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 combin ation of technology- and water qualitybased limits. EPA found that water qualit y-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 fr om fact sheets for five gold mining facilities. The following metals were m easured at concentrations above the method detection limit, illust rating that these pollutant s 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 data 17 

### ); and

— Lead (100 percent of mines) (U.S. EPA, 2008a).

9.3 Ore Mining Category 2009 Preliminary Ca tegory Review Summary of Findings

EPA collected additional data as part of th e 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 ar e exempt from Part 440 because they are regulated by stormwater general permits;

• 

### Review of Waters 18 

### database to search for docum ented 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 overb urden 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 be nchmark 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, ha rdness, 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, an d more stringent benchm ark concentrations for arsenic, mercury, and selenium. Active facilities covered by the MSGP must monitor discharges from waste rock, tailings, and overb urden 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 concentr ation 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 Nationa l Mining Association, EPA revised its interpretation of applicability for wastewaters from hard rock mining operati ons. 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 a nd combines with “mine draina ge” 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 MinedTSSpHArsenicCadmium (H)CODCopper (H)IronLead (H)MercuryNickel (H)RadiumaUraniumZinc (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 XSection 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 MinedTSSpHArsenicCadmium (H)CODCopper (H)IronLead (H)MercuryNickel (H)RadiumaUraniumZinc (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 ha rdness along with the metal of concern.

* - Dissolved iron.



### Benchmark monitoring is required in the fi rst year of activity under the MSGP. If the average of the first four quarterly monitoring re sults is below the specified benchmark for all parameters, the permittee is no longer required to m onitor 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 i ndustry practices; or

• 

### Pollutant levels contributing to exceedan ces 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 western 20 

### states (listed in Table 9-13 ) with NPDES primacy and active ore mining that have established state ge neral 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 mi nes in NPDES-delegated states. Table 9-13 compares stormwater monitoring requirements be tween 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.

### 9-17Section 9 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 9-13. Comparison of MonitoringRequirements for Western States and Federal General Stormwater PermitsAnalytes to be MonitoredPermitaMonitoring Requirements TSS TDS Turbidity pH Hardness Metals Sulfates COD Nitrogen (NO 3 +NO 2 )Washington (WA DE,2008)Permittee must monitor discharges fourtimes per year until concentrations belowbenchmarks are measured for eight quarters.XXXX2008 Federal MSGP(covers Idaho and NewMexicob) (U.S. EPA,2008b)Permittee must monitor discharges four times per year in the first year of permitcoverage. If pollutant concentrations exceed benchmark values, then the permittee mustimplement additional BMPs to remedy the situation and continue to monitor four timesper year until measured concentrations are below benchmark values.XXXXXCalifornia (CA WRCB,2004)Permittee must monitor discharges three times per year.XXMontana (MO DEQ, 2007)Permittee must monitor discharges at least twice per year until all concentrations arebelow benchmarks for three consecutive sampling events.XXXXXArizonacPermittee must monitor at least once during the first year of coverage. If pollutantconcentrations exceed benchmark values,then permittee must implement additionalBMPs to remedy the situation and must continue to monitor twice per year untilmeasured concentrations are below benchmark values.XXXXXUtah (UT DEQ, 2006)Copper mining and dressing facilities must monitor their discharges four times per yearfor COD, TSS, and nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen during years 2 and 4 of permit coverage.No specifications for other types of mines.XXXNevada (NV DCNR, 2008)Permittee must monitor discharges once per year; alternatively, the permittee maysubmit a statement that these discharges will not cause exceedances of applicable WQS.XXXXXXWyoming (WY DEQ,2007)Permittee must monitor discharges once per year.XXXSouth Dakota (SD DENR,2003)Except for coal pile runoff, monitoring is not required on a routine basis.dColorado (CO DPHE,2006)Monitoring is not required on a routine basis.da – 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 continueregardless of the revisedfederal MSGP.d – State may require sampling if noncompliance with StormwaterPollution Prevention Plan is suspected or to measure the effectiveness of BMPs.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 st ringent stormwater monitoring than the Federal MSGP;

• 

### Four states did not require that metals be analyzed;

• 

### Eight states required less fr equent 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 or e mines, EPA conducted a search of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) documents. To id entify TMDL studies for this analysis, EPA

used search tools available from the Waters 21 

### 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 da tabase, 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 tool 22 

### , 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 databa se that contain the search terms “mine” or “mining” are irrelevant to the Ore Mining ELG s. For example, a TMDL document may discuss watershed impacts from coal or gr avel mining. To screen out these and other types of irrelevant documents, EPA developed the system for identi fying TMDL documents relevant to the Ore Mining ELGs discussed in the re mainder 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 anal ysis 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 trac king spreadsheet. Removing documents that did not specifically describe ore mi ning operations reduced the number of

documents for further review from 158 to 42.

3. EPA reviewed the sections containing th e 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 th e search terms “mine” and “mining” to

determine whether the document identifie d large-scale (non-recreational), active mines. Removing documents that did not sp ecifically 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 mi ning 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 de scribed impacts from mining operations that were active/recently active 23 

### at the time the studies were written. EPA reviewed in detail the

relevant information in these studie s 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 period ically according to the fluctu ating 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 relevan ce 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 concl uded 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 publicatio n), 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 st atus for the ore mining category. Conclusions about compliance status will be limited due to the incomplete information

for NPDES minors in ECHO. This da ta 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 av ailable through ECHO, PCS, and ICIS-NPDES to identify facilities in the Or e Mining Category classified as NPDES minors. For some states,

ECHO includes information on NPDES minor facil ities, including facilities that are permitted through general stormwater permits. Where possi ble, EPA will evaluate the completeness of databases used for EPA’s annual review (e.g., TR I, PCS, ICIS-NPDES) for those states that voluntarily submit data on NPDES minors to th e ECHO database. EPA is specifically using ECHO to identify NPDES minors because the annua l 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 pollu tant 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 gene ral stormwater permits, only limited stormwater monitoring data will be av ailable for some states.

9.4 Ore Mining Category Issues Identified and Additional Review

The conclusions of the Ore Mini ng Category review are as follows:

• 

### The Ore Mining Category discharges con tinue 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) fo r 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 assi gning 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 an nual 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 Disc harges 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 Envir onmental Quality (MO DEQ). 2007. General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associ ated 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 Environmen t and Natural Resources (SD DENR).

2003. General Permit for Stormwater Disc harges Associated with Industrial

Activities . Pierre, SD. (November). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06901.

8. Thomas, John. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversat ion 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 fo r 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 Priori tized Categories of Industrial Discharger s. 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 Agen cy 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 th e Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories

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

06557.

20. Utah Department of Environm ental 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 w ith Industrial Activities. Olympia, Washington. (October). EP A-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 06923.

22. Wyoming Department of Envir onmental 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. O RGANIC 

### C HEMICALS 

### , P LASTICS 

### , AND 

### S YNTHETIC 

### F IBERS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 414)

EPA identified the Organic Chemicals, Plas tics, 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 indust ry was reviewed previ ously 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 EP A’s 2009 preliminary category review of the OCPSF Category. EPA is currentl y reviewing discharges from the Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Manufacturing Segment of the OC PSF Category as part of th e Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH) effluent guidelines rulema king. 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 b ackground on 40 CFR Part 414.

10.1.1 OCPSF Industry Profile

The OCPSF industry includes many chemical i ndustries producing a wide variety of end products, such as polypropylene, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), chlorinated solvents, rubber precursors, Styrofoam additiv es, and polyester. Some OCPSF facilities are extremely complex and produce hundreds of chemical s, 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 Miscella neous Food Manufacturing;

• 

### 324199OCPSF: All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing;

• 

### 325110: Petrochemical Manufacturing;

• 

### 325120OCPSF: Industrial Gas Manufacturing;

• 

### 325132: Synthetic Organic Dye a nd Pigment Manufacturing;

• 

### 325188OCPSF: All Other Basic Inorga nic Chemical Manufacturing;

• 

### 325192: Cyclic Crude and Inte rmediate Manufacturing;

• 

### 325193: Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing;

• 

### 325199: All Other Basic Organi c Chemical Manufacturing;

• 

### 325211: Plastics Material a nd Resin Manufacturing;

• 

### 325221: Cellulosic Organi c Fiber Manufacturing;

• 

### 325222: Noncellulosic Organi c Fiber Manufacturing;

• 

### 325510OCPSF: Paint and Coating Manufacturing;

• 

### 325520: Adhesive Manufacturing;

• 

### 325611OCPSF: Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing;

• 

### 325612: Polish and Other Sani tation Good Manufacturing;

• 

### 325620: Toilet Preparation Manufacturing;

• 

### 325998: All Other Miscellaneous Ch emical 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 Reco very Facilities.

Wastewater generated by fac ilities 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 wastewat er 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 Fibe rs, 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, NE C (cyclopropane, diethylcyclohexane, naphthalene sulfonic acid);

• 

### 2891: Adhesives and Sealants;

• 

### 2899: Chemicals and Chemical Prep arations, 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 be tween one SIC and one NAICS code. As a result, EPA included the following NAICS codes in th e 2009 annual review of the OCPSF Category because they contain facilities with operations that are similar to the SIC codes above:

• 

### 311999OCPSF: All Other Miscella neous Food Manufacturing;

• 

### 325188OCPSF: All Other Basic Inorga nic Chemical Manufacturing;

• 

### 325199: All Other Basic Organi c Chemical Manufacturing;

• 

### 325222: Noncellulosic Organi c 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 wastew ater 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 Ch emical Product and Preparation Manufacturing;

• 

### 326199OCPSF: All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing;

• 

### 339999OCPSF: All Other Miscella neous 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 facil ities 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 Miscella neous 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

5Section 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); TRIReleases 2007_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 th e OCPSF Category (40 CFR Part 414) on November 5, 1987 (52 FR 42568). This category consis ts of seven subcate gories that apply to the manufacture of products a nd product groups, as shown in Table 10-2 with corresponding NAICS codes and applicability. Subparts B through H have limitations for BOD 5 

### , TSS, and pH. The regulation also includes limitations and/or pr etreatment standards for certain toxic pollutants in three additional subparts:

• 

### Subpart I — Direct Discharge Point Sour ces That Use End-of-Pipe Biological
Treatment;

• 

### Subpart J — Direct Discharge Point S ources That Do Not Use End-of-Pipe Biological Treatment; and

• 

### Subpart K — Indirect Discharge Point Sources.

Table 10-2. Applicability of Subcat egories 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 Subcat egories 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 cros swalk 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 a nd 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 contribut ed by the Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Manufacturing Segment. EPA is currently considering revisions to ELGs for discharges from facilities that produce chlorinated hydrocarbons. Because a rule making for the CCH sector of the OCPSF is underway, discharges from these facilities were excluded from further consideration for the OCPSF Category review under th e current planning cycle.

The combined DMR and TRI TWPE decr eased 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 manu facturing 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 23,008Section 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. EP A did not investigate th e other top pollutants as part of the 2009 annual review because they ar e 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 t op pollutants in detail.

10.2.2.1 OCPSF Category Dioxin Discharges in TRI

Discharges of dioxin an d dioxin-like compounds decrea sed by approximately 295,000 TWPE from TRI 2004 to TRI 2007. However, dioxi n and dioxin-like compounds contributed 69 percent of the category TRI TWPE for 2007. Approxi mately 94 percent of the dioxin and dioxinlike compound discharges are from Dow Chemical Co.’s Midland, MI faci lity. As part of the 2006 annual review, EPA contacted Dow Midland and determined th e discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds were from mo stly historical processes and waste management units that are no longer in operation at th e site. Dow stated that a very small portion of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds may be from an on-site in cinerator (U.S. EPA, 2 006). 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 μ g/L rather than mg/L (Mar tin, 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 Identifi ed and Additional Review

EPA’s estimate of the toxicity of OCPSF Poin t 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 re view, EPA did not obtain any information to change its conclusions that have previously been made regarding the wastewater discharges from the OCPSF manufacturing facilitie s. Therefore, the conclusions of the OCPSF Chemicals Category are as follows:

• 

### EPA determined there is a units e rror (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 th e 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 assi gning 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 an nual 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 Silicon es LLC. RE: Basis of copper (total recoverable) concentrations reporte d 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. Washi ngton, 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. P ETROLEUM 

### R EFINING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 419)

EPA identified the Petroleum Refining Ca tegory (40 CFR Part 419) for preliminary category review as part of the Preliminary 2010 E ffluent Guidelines Program Plan. This industry was reviewed previously in each of EPA’s Pre liminary 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 Pe troleum Refining Cate gory including a brief profile of the petroleum refining indu stry and background on 40 CFR Part 419.

11.1.1 Petroleum Refining Industry Profile

The petroleum refining industry includes faci lities that produce gasoline, kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, and lubricants through fractio nation or straight distillation of crude oil, redistillation of unfinished petroleu m 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 O il and Grease Manufacturing;

• 

### 324199: All Other Petroleum and Co al Products Manufacturing;

• 

### 325998PR: All Other Miscellaneous Ch emical 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 availabl e information about pollutant loads and manufacturing operations for f acilities reporting this NAICS c ode. 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. Mo st 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 Cate gory. As part of the 2004 annual review, EPA

reviewed industries with SIC code s not clearly subject to existi ng 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 wastew ater 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 Termin als (except petroleu m 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 be tween 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 faci lities with operations that ar e similar to the SIC codes above:

• 

### 324191: Petroleum Lubricating O il and Grease Manufacturing;

• 

### 324199: All Other Petroleum and Co al Products Manufacturing;

• 

### 325998PR: All Other Miscellaneous Ch emical 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 Petr oleum Refining Category (40 CFR Part 419) on October 18, 1982 (47 FR 46446). The five subcate gories 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 regula tions for the Petroleum Refining Category (U.S. EPA, 2004).

11.2 Petroleum Refining Category 2009 Annual Review

This subsection discusses EPA’s 2009 annual re view of the Petroleum Refining Category including the screeni ng-level review and cat egory-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 Refi ning 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 9,396Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419)



### 11-4 Table 11-3. 2009 Review: Petroleum Refi ning 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 Refi ning 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 Cate gory pollutants of concern based on relative

TWPE. EPA focused the 2009 annual review on di scharges of dioxin a nd 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 findi ngs in past years of review of this category, including similar facilities and pollutants. As a re sult, EPA does not plan to revi ew these pollutants in detail.Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419)



### 11-5 11.2.2.1 Petroleum Refining Category Di oxin 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 th e 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 di scharges of dioxin or dioxin -like compounds to TRI in 2005 and nine facilities reported discharges in TRI 2007. Of the nine re fineries reporting discharges in 2007, only five of these refineries reported dioxin discharges base d on analytical measurements (i.e., see the “Basis of Estimate” field noted as “M” in Table 11-5 ).

The BP Products North America, Inc. To ledo Refinery in Oregon, OH accounted for 44 percent of dioxin and dioxin-like compound di scharges in TRI 2007. Chevron Products Co. Richmond Refinery in Richmond, CA also contri buted 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 de termined only two facili ties detected dioxin and dioxin-like compounds above the Method 1613B mini mum level, and both of these facilities measured dioxin at the point immediately foll owing catalytic regene ration and prior to wastewater treatment during the detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004).

11.2.2.2 Petroleum Refining Category P AC Discharges in TRI and DMR

Polycyclic aromatic compound (PACs) disc harges 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 di scharges to TRI in 2005 and 36 facilities reported PAC discharges to TRI in 2007. Valero Refining in Texas C ity, TX contributed 34 percent of the PAC discharges for TRI 2007. EP A examined PAC discharges from petroleum refineries extensively for its de tailed and previous preliminary studies. From these previous studies, EPA concluded that petr oleum refinery PAC di scharges 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 ar e reported as individual compounds, rather than as PACs like in TRI. Benzo(a)pyrene is one of the individual comp ounds that are included in PACs. Benzo(a)pyrene accounted for 25 perc ent of the DMR 2007 TWPE. The majority (97 percent) of the benzo(a)pyrene discharges co me from Calcasieu Refine ry 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 dueto the TRI-reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and PACs and DMRreported discharges of benzo(a)pyrene. Duri ng 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. Theref ore, 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 refi neries 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 TR I 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 discharg es in 2007, only five of these refineries reported dioxin discharges based on analyt ical 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 re ported 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 assi gning 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 an nual 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 Prior itized 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.

### 11-8Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419)Table 11-5. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationGramsReleasedTWPEBasis OfEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimate43616-SHLCM4001CBP Products NorthAmerica Inc ToledoRefineryOregon, OH0.2941,963O0.33147,084O0.3447,795M0.3854,054M0.3651,209M94802-CHVRN841STChevron Products Co.Richmond Refinery (a,b)Richmond, CA0.3233,397M20.94121,521M1.35141,106O0.6836,798O0.7619,229O77536-DRPRK5900HShell Oil Co - DeerPark Refining LPDeer Park, TX0.1413,306M20.11410,850M0.1615,477M0.1514,581ONRNRNR74603-CNCPN1000SConocoPhillips PoncaCity RefineryPonca City,OK0.092,438O0.14111,601O0.2825,485O0.2821,901O0.4431,071O94553-SHLLL38485PShell Oil Products USMartinez RefineryMartinez, CA0.031,657M2NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR62454-MRTHNMARATMarathon AshlandPetroleum LLC IllinoisRefining DivRobinson, IL0.041,094O0.04043,314O0.043,604O0.04043,128O0.042,796O84116-CVRN2351NChevron Products Co.Salt Lake City RefinerySalt Lake City,UT0.02541M2NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR70602-CTGPTHIGHWCitgo Petroleum CorpWestlake, LA0.00269O0.00256210E0.0026231E0.0026199E0.0026179E19706-TXCDL2000WPremcor RefiningGroup IncDelaware City,DE0.00013.13O0.00009652O0.022559O0.022559ONRNRNR90245-CHVRN324WEChevron Products Co.Div Of Chevron USAInc.El Segundo,CA00M20.15816,221M0.220,533M0.3435,317M0.1111,191M00851-HSSLVLIMETHovensa LLCChristiansted,VINRNRNR2.2180,442E1.7148,653C1.185,167C0.0342,342C98221-SHLLLWESTMTesoro Refining &Marketing CoAnacortes,WANRNRNR1.9455,248M1.9554,406M1.747,382M1.645,504M70669-CNCLKOLDSPConocoPhillips LakeCharles RefineryWestlake, LANRNRNR0.53948,580O0.5448,580O0.5448,580O0.5448,580O

### 11-9Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419)Table 11-5. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationGramsReleasedTWPEBasis OfEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimate80022-CNCDN5801BSuncor EnergyCommerce CityRefineryCommerceCity, CONRNRNR0.1119,104M0.0373,333M0.0745,729E0.0956,640E08066-MBLLCBILLIValero Refining CoNew JerseyPaulsboro, NJNRNRNR0.08797,209O0.1815,838O0.0886,813O0.0886,151O39567-CHVRNPOBOXChevron Products CoPascagoula RefineryNRNRNRNR0.0994,234O0.125,217O0.0994,234O0.0863,678O00654-PHLPSPHILIChevron PhillipsChemical Puerto RicoCore Inc.Guayama, PRNRNRNR0.0054443E0.0035318E0.006461ENRNRNR46394-MCLC -2815IBp Products NorthAmerica WhitingBusiness UnitWhiting, INNRNRNRNRNRNR0.0000111.8ONRNRNRNRNRNR60434-MBLJLINTERExxonMobil Oil CorpJoliet RefineryChannahon, ILNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.000764O0.4339,602O99611-TSRLSMILE2Tesoro Alaska - KenaiRefinery (a, b)Kenai, AKNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.000646MNRNRNR07036-XXN -1400PConocoPhillips Co.Bayway RefineryLinden, NJNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.255,229M77590-MRTHNFOOTOMarathon AshlandPetroleum L.L.C.Texas City,TXNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.0044304OIndirect90748-NCLLS1660WConocoPhillips Co LaRefinery WilmingtonPlant (a)Wilmington,CANRNRNRNRNRNR0.2727,738M0.0889,015M0.2822,320MSource:TRIReleases2007_v2;TRIReleases2005_v2;TRIReleases2004_v3;TRIReleases2003_v2;TRIReleases2002_v4; Memorandum: Revisions to TWFs for Dioxinand its Congeners and Recalculated TWPEsfor 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 tothe POTW that is ultimatelydischarged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 83% removal of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds by thePOTW.The TWPEs in this table were calculated using the 2006 TWFs(the 2006 dioxin and dioxin-like compound TWFs did not change fromthe 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 – Published emission factors; and O – Otherapproaches (e.g., engineering calculations).

### 11-10Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419)Table 11-6. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationPoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimate77592TXSCTLOOP1Valero Refining - TexasLPTexas City, TX41810,624M20.512.7M0.25MNRNRNR691754M96707CHVRN91480Chevron Products Co -Hawaii RefineryKapolei, HI2606,608M22706862.6M2706863M2616629M2777041M77590MCLC24015BP Products NorthAmerican Inc. TexasCity RefineryTexas City, TX1102,796M2NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR90245CHVRN324WEChevron Products CoDiv of Chevron USAIncEl Segundo,CA81.52,011M2137.43492.3M1132882M1172974M2877287M84116CHVRN2351NChevron Products CoSalt Lake RefinerySalt Lake City,UT611,550M2601525M591500M591500M591500M70037LLNCRHIGHWConocoPhillips Co -Alliance RefineryBelle Chasse,LA43.41,103O43.81114.3M491233M34.9887M31788M60439NCLCR135THPDV Midwest RefiningLLC Lemont RefineryLemont, IL35.96914O32.1814.9MNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR74603CNCPN1000SConocoPhillips CoPonca City RefineryPonca City, OK32813O8203.3O8203O8203O8203O77590MRTHNFOOTOMarathon Petroleum CoLLCTexas City, TX31.5801M234.6879.4M29742M30768M932369M62454MRTHNMARATMarathon AshlandPetroleum LLC IllinoisRefining DivRobinson, IL24.7628O24610O28712O125O21534O70750HLLPTHWY10Valero Refining CoLouisianaKrotz Springs,LA22.4569M223584.6O22567O19483O19483O94802CHVRN841STChevron Products CoRichmond RefineryRichmond, CA16407M219482.9M19.3491M15376M14351M77017LYNDL12000Lyondell-CitgoRefining LPHouston, TX13.57345M2376.3M00MNRNRNR17429M62084SHLLLRTE11ConocoPhillips CoWood River RefineryRoxana, IL9229O11279.6O11280O10254O8.9226O70047TRNSM14902Valero Refining NewOrleans LLCNew Sarpy, LA7178O9228.8O9229O9229O9229O07036XXN1400PConocoPhillips CoBayway RefineryLinden, NJ5.6142ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR

### 11-11Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419)Table 11-6. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationPoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimate78410KCHRFSUNTIFlint Hills Resources LP- West PlantCorpus Christi,TX5.4137M210.6269.4M16412M8203M177145014M99611TSRLSMILE2Tesoro Alaska - KenaiRefineryKenai, AK5127O19482.9O18.9480O19480O19480O70051MRTHNHWY61Marathon PetroleumCorp GaryvilleGaryville, LA5127C5127.1C5127C5127CNRNRNR46268MRTHN4955RMarathon Petroleum CoLLC Indianapolis InTerminalIndianapolis,IN4.2107M2NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR19706TXCDL2000WPremcor RefiningGroup IncDelaware City,DE4102O3.486.4O4102O3.281O1.436O93420NCLSN2555WConocoPhillips CoSanta Maria RefineryArroyo Grande,CA376E2250.8O251O251O0.820O15062MNSSN345DOKoppers Inc.MonessenCoke PlantMonessen, Pa2.974ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR46394MCLC 2815IBP Products NorthAmerica WhitingWhiting, IN2.563.5O3.691.5O125O125ONRNRNR6746ONTNLC2000MNational CO-OPRefinery Assoc.McPherson, KS2.461M2NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR94804RCPRD1306CBP Richmond TerminalRichmond, CA1.1830ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR98221PGTSN600STShell Oil Products USPuget Sound RefineryAnacortes, WA125.4E1125.4O125O0.923O1.0827O62048CLRKHAWTHPermcor HartforDistribution CenterHartford, IL0.820M1NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR94553TSCCRAVONRTesoro Refining andMarketing CoMartinez, CA0.615.2M20.615.3M0.513M0.615M1.333M48458FLNTMG6065Marathon Petroleum CoLLC Flint MI TerminalMountMorrison, MI0.410.2M2NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR19061BPLCMPOSTRConocoPhillips Co.Trainer RefineryTrainer, PA0.37.62O0.13.6O0.25O0.25O0.4110O627219PHLLP2400EConocoPhillips COWichita TerminalWichita, KS0.010.25ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR53224MLWKF9343NFlint Hills Resources LP- Milwaulki TerminalMilwaulki, WI0.010.25ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR

### 11-12Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419)Table 11-6. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationPoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimate72303WLLMS1282SPremcor WestsMemphis TerminalWest Memphis,AR0.00290.074CNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR66155PHLLP2029FConocoPhillips CoKansas City TerminalKansas City,KS0.00060.014ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR76304CNCNC1214NCoconoPhillips -Wichita FallsProducts/CrudeTerminalWichita Falls,TX0.00040.011ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR44711SHLND2408GMarathon Petroleum CoLLC Ohio Refining DivCanton, OHNRNRNR1493787.1MNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR39567CHVRNPOBOXChevron Products CoPascagoula RefineryPascagoula,MSNRNRNR126.13205.1O1152923O1152923O1102796O55071SHLND100WTMarathon Petroleum CoLLC Saint Paul ParkRefinerSaint PaulPark, MNNRNRNR95.72431.1M24616MNRNRNRNRNRNR70075MRPHY2500EMurphy Oil USA IncMeraux RefineryMeraux, LANRNRNR661677.5ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR70669CNCLKOLDSPConocoPhillips Co LakeCharles RefineryWestlake, LANRNRNR411042.1O431093O511296O31788O79008PHLLPSTATEConocoPhillips CoBorger, TXNRNRNR39991.3M431093MNRNRNRNRNRNR80022CNCDN5801BSuncor EnergyCommerce CityRefineryCommerceCity, CONRNRNR19482.9O28712O531347O9229O70079MTVNR15536Motiva Enterprises LLCConvent RefineryNorco, LANRNRNR1.435.6ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR08861CHVRN1200SChevron Products CoPerth Amboy,NJNRNRNR0.615.3O0.923O0.615O0.820O78408STHWS1700NFlint Hills Resources LP- East PlantCorpus Christi,TXNRNRNR0.512.7M0.615M125MNRNRNR90749RCPRD1801EBP West Coast ProductsLLC CarsonCarson, CANRNRNR0.12.5MNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR73098KRRMC906SOWynnewood RefiningCoWynnewood,OKNRNRNRNRNRNR10254O10254O10254O70606CLCSRWESTECalcasieu Refining CoLake Charles,LANRNRNRNRNRNR251O1824626O1914855O

### 11-13Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419)Table 11-6. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationPoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimate70143TNNCL500WEChalmette Refining CoChalmette, LANRNRNRNRNRNR125O11280ONRNRNR67042TXCRF1401SFrontier El DoradoRefining CoEl Dorado, KSNRNRNRNRNRNR0.718O0.718O125O74107SNCLR902W2Sinclair Oil Corp TulsaRefineryTulsa, OKNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR18450M17437M70723TXCRFFOOTOMotiva Enterprises LLCConvent RefineryConvent, LANRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR251O2.359O59101CNCBL401SOConocoPhillips CoBillings RefineryBillings, MTNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.410M8203M42501THSMR501RESomerset Refinery IncSomerset, KYNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.082M0.010M94572NCLSNOLDHIConocoPhillips SanFrancisco RefineryRodeo, CANRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR8203M82701WYMNG740WEWyoming Refining CoNewcastle, WYNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR1.0627EIndirect48217MRTHN1300SMarathon Petroleum CoLLC Michigan RefiningDivDetroit, MI8.97228M294175.8M98184M92172M93174M1420SFTK60KATSafety-Kleen Systems,Inc Buffalo OilRecovery FactoryBuffalo, NY0.6617M2NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR79905LPSRF6500TWestern Refining Co ElPaso RefineryEl Paso, TX0.4411.2O54101O5195O55102O2445O19145TLNTC3144PSunoco, Inc (R&M)Philadelphia RefineryPhiladelphia,PA0.071.87M2NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR36611BLCHRVIADUGulf AtlanticOperations LLCChickasaw, AL0.030.67C00M00C0.0090CNRNRNR79604RDRFNNORTHDelek Marketing andSupplyAbilene, TX0.0020.056ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR76040KCHPT12550Flint Hills Resources LPFort Worth TerminalEuless, TX0.0000060.00015ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR90744TXCRF2101EShell Oil Products USLos Angeles RefineryWilmington,CANRNRNR7.313.7M7.614M1324M4380M93307KRNLRRR677Kern Oil RefiningCoBakersfield,CANRNRNR0.30.5O0.31O0.281M0.281M

### 11-14Section 11 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR 419)Table 11-6. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationPoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimate77017LYNDL12000Lyondell-CitgoRefining LPHouston, TXNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR1553928O1463718M77506CRWNC111RECrown CentralPetroleum CorpHouston RefineryPasadena, TXNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR4.6117O79905CHVRN6501TChevron El PasoRefineryEl Paso, TXNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR1.845OSource: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 of PACs by the POTW.Refineries reported basis of estimate inTRI as: M – Monitoring data/measurements; M1 – Constant monitory data/measurements; M2– Periodic monitoring data/measurements; C – Mass balance calculations;E – Published emission factors; E1 – Published emission factors; E2 – Site specificemission 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. P ULP 

### , P APER 

### , AND 

### P APERBOARD 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 430)

EPA identified the Pulp, Paper, and Paper board (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 fac ilities 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 detaile d 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, a nd paperboard manufacturing industry and background on 40 CFR

Part 430.

12.1.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry Profile

The pulp and paper manufacturi ng industry includes f acilities that manufacture pulp from wood and other fibers, produce paper and pape rboard from pulp, or convert paper and paperboard into products, such as boxes, bags, and envelopes. EPA cons idered 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 Si milar Products Manufacturing;

• 

### 322215: Nonfolding Sanitary F ood 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 Pa per Product Manufacturing.

Wastewater generated by facilities in NAICS code 321113 can be regulated under multiple categories. EPA reviewed availabl e information about pollutant loads and manufacturing operations for f acilities reporting this NAICS c ode. 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 associat ed 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 a nd 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 B oxes, Including Sanitary;

• 

### 2671: Packaging Paper and Plastics Film, Coated and Laminated;

• 

### 2672: Coated and Laminated Pape r, 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 be tween 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 faci lities with operations that ar e similar to the SIC codes above:

• 

### 322211: Corrugated and Solid Fiber Box Manufacturing;

• 

### 322212: Folding Paperboard Box Manufacturing;

• 

### 322214: Fiber Can, Tube, Drum, and Si milar Products Manufacturing;

• 

### 322215: Nonfolding Sanitary F ood 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 Pape r Product Manufacturing; and

• 

### 326112: Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing.

Table 12-1 lists the 15 NAICS codes with operati ons in the Pulp and Paper Category.

Because facilities re port SIC code in DMRLoads2007 , and the U.S. Economic Census and TRI report data by NAICS code, EPA reclassified the 2007 DMR by the equi valent 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 wastew ater 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 di scharges of polychlorinated dibenzo-(p)- dioxins and polychlorin ated dibenzofurans 28 

### from 104 bleaching pulp mills, including nine dissolving pulp mills. While meeting that oblig ation, 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 ar e 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 re port, 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 Sectio n 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 Catego ry 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 a nd 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 Catego ry 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 promul gated the Phase I ELGs at the same time as it promulgated National Emissions Standa rds for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for kraft and sulfite pulp mills (63 FR 18754). Becau se these water and air regulations were developed, analyzed, and promulgated join tly, they are called the Cluster Rules.

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

Phase Subpart Subcategory

B Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda I

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 Pa perboard from Purchased Pulp

A Dissolving Kraft III

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 (S ubpart A, Dissolving Kraft, and Subpart D, Dissolving Sulfite). EPA did not promulgate revise d ELGs addressing TCDD and TCDF for Phase III in 1998, because the a ffected companies were undertaking a multiyear laboratory study and mill trial to develop altern ative bleaching technologies. EPA anticipated

that final ELGs would be based on different technol ogies 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 thr ee operating mills in these two subcategories. As part of its 2004 and 2006 Efflue nt 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, Decem ber 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 Su lfite (Subpart D) subc ategories 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 th e 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 screeni ng-level review and cat egory-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 approxi mately 86 percent of the combined 2007

TWPE.

Table 12-3. Pulp and Paper Manufacturi ng 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 4 63). EPA will correct future versions of the database because the TWPE is negligible. d – For the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category, EPA cont acted 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 to tal 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 4 63). 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 cont acted facilities to verify the concentrations of 2,3,7,8- Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in PCS and ICIS-NPDES. EPA fo und that, for all facilities contacted, there were eitherSection 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 Categor y pollutants of con cern based on relative

TWPE. EPA focused the 2009 annual review on discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, including 2,3,7,8-tetr achlorodibenzo-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 th e 2009 annual review because the remaining combined TWPE is such a small percen tage (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 diox in 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 Jes up, 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, repor ted TCDD equivalents.

When EPA contacted Westvaco Texa s about the TCDD equivalents, th e facility contact said that all four quarterly TCDD equiva lents 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 fo r 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 incorpor ate 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 li mit 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 in corporate 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 Sp ring, 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 (Sch wartz, 2009). After the correction, EPA estimates zero pounds and zero TWPE of TCDD discharged in 2007 for Clearwater Paper Corporation.

• 

### Domtar Maine Corporation, in Baileyvill e, 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 we re 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 Ticonde roga, NY, documented that all twelve monthly TCDD concentrations in 2007 we re not detected, and the DMR data were missing the “<” (Schwartz, 2009). Af ter 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 measurem ent in 2007 (Schwartz, 2009). After the correction, EPA estimates zero pounds a nd 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 Rumf ord Center, ME, documented that all twelve monthly TCDD concentrations in 2007 were reported non-detect and missing the “<” in the database (Sch wartz, 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 discharg es 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 dioxi n-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 da ta that estimated releases of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds reported to TRI were estimated using polluta nt concentrations below the Method 1613B minimum level. Therefore, there is substantial un certainty about the magnit ude of these reported discharges. TRI-reported discharges of dioxin an d dioxin-like compounds for the Pulp and Paper Category are most likely significantly overestimate d, 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 TR I 2007. However, manganese and manganese compounds contributed 58 percent of the TRI TWPE for 2007. EPA examined reported manganese and manganese compound discharges fr om 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 fl ow rates (U.S. EPA, 2006a). Although EPA has not reviewed new discharge concen tration 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 Issu es Identified and Additional Review

The estimated toxicity of the Pulp and Pape r Category discharges is largely due to the TRI-reported discharges of manganese and ma nganese compounds and dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and DMR-reported discharges of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenz o-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 domina ting the TWPE, the methods used to estimate reported discharge, and process sources; and concentr ations discharged.Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 12-11 • 

### In future years, EPA will conti nue to analyze the DMR-reported 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and TCDD equiva lents 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 assi gning 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 an nual review of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards).

12.5 Pulp and Paper Category References

1. Davis, Katherine. 2009. Notes from Te lephone Conversation between Elizabeth Sabol, ERG and Katherine Davis, Westv aco Texas, L.P. RE: Basis of TCDD equivalent concentrations reporte d in 2007. (July 7). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517

DCN 6547.

2. McCuutchen, Kate. 2009. Notes from Tele phone Conversation between Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Kate McCuutchen, Blue Heron Paper Co. RE: Basis of Methylmercury Concentr ation 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 Docume nt for Permit Writers: Dissolving Kraft and Dissolv ing 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.

### 12-13Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilities from 2002 to 200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacilityNameLocationGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimate71635-GRGPCPAPERGeorgiaPacificCrossett Ops.Crossett, AR5.6010,043E14.878,740E5.499,850E5.499,850E4.98,867E99363-BSCSCPOBOXBoise WhitePaper LLCWallula, WA5.5810,014O0.083149O0.831,496O0.14242O0.13235O27962-WYRHSTROWBDomtar PaperCo PlymouthMillPlymouth,NC4.337,777E10.9891,770E0.911,638E0.821,470E0.741,334E71611-NTRNTFAIRFEvergreenPackagingPine Bluff,AR3.406,101O3.76,640O3.66,459O0.01832E0.01832E36916-JMSRVROUTEGeorgiaPacificConsumerProducts LPPennington,AL3.205,742E13.66,460M3.35,921M5.329,551M5.39,555M36769-MCMLLHIGHWWeyerhaeuserUSA Inc PineHillOperationsPine Hill, AL2.955,286M23.366,020E2.434,369E2.344,197ENRNRNR70791-GRGPCZACHAGeorgiaPacificConsumerProducts LLCZachary, LA2.774,974E12.774,970E2.774,974E3.3263,803E3.363,803E75504-NTRNTPOBOXInternationalPaperTexarkanaMillQueen City,TX2.684,809M20.681,220M3.876,944M2.364,235M0.11197M36545-BSCSC307WEBoise WhitePaper LLCJackson, AL2.213,965E12.13,770E2.13,768E1.983,553E2.013,615E36732-GLFSTHIGHWRock-TennMill Co LLCDemopolis,AL1.843,301E10.292524E0.32575E0.23416E0.23410E28560-WYRHSSTREEWeyerhaeuserVanceboro,NC1.713,069E11.73,050E1.743,119E1.823,257E1.62,924E

### 12-14Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilities from 2002 to 200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacilityNameLocationGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimate28456-FDRLPRIEGEInternationalPaperRiegelwoodMillRiegelwood,NC0.03043,069E10.030455E0.030555E0.030455E0.0354E17362-PHGLT228SOP. H.Glatfelter CoSpring GroveMillSpringGrove, PA1.021,830E10.9461,700E0.91,616E0.921,653E0.861,549E29512-WLLMTHWY91WeyerhaeuserCoBennettsville,SC0.861,537O0.95631,715ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR37309-BWTRSROUTEAbitibowaterCalhounOperationsCalhoun, TN0.731,319E10.871,560M0.941,690M0.911,626M0.851,528M31407-STNCN1BONNWeyerhaeuserPortWentworthPortWentworth,GA0.611,094E10.6791,220E0.691,239E0.721,284ENRNRNR12883-NTRNTSHOREInternationalPaperTiconderoga,NY0.44790M20.46826E0.46834E0.46817E0.46820E83501-PTLTC805MIPotlatch CorpLewistonIdahoLewiston, ID0.44789M20.441792E4.187,501E4.187,505E4.37,657E70775-JMSRVENDOFTembec USALLCSaintFrancisville,LA0.22400E10.48861E0.502901E0.5899E0.49873E71220-NTRNT705COInternationalPaper CoLouisianaMillBastrop, LA0.19342E10.175314E0.16280E0.22399M0.21380M31521-BRNSW14W9TBrunswickCellulose IncBrunswick,GA0.19341E10.186335E0.19335E0.19335ENRNRNR04976-SDWRRRFD3US.D. WarrenCoSkowhegan,ME0.15269E20.168302O0.17305O0.18323O0.18329O01238-KMBRLGREYLSchweitzerMauduitInternationalIncLee, MA0.14244O0.156280O0.17303O0.153275O0.15269O

### 12-15Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilities from 2002 to 200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacilityNameLocationGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimate70634-BSSTHUSHIGBoisePackaging &NewsprintLLCDeridder, LA0.12215E10.19341E0.22395E0.26467E0.31556E98421-SMPSN801POSimpsonTacoma KraftCo.Tacoma, WA0.12208E10.154277E0.135242E0.13240E0.13232E45601-MDCRP401SPP.H.Glatfelter CoChillicotheFacilityChillicothe,OH0.07118M20.055499M0.082147M0.0858154M0.099178M18629-PRCTRROUTEProcter &Gamble PaperProducts CoMehoopany,PA0.0229E10.087156E0.01222C0.01833O0.019535O98550-GRYSH23RDRGrays HarborPaper LpHoquiam,WA0.0227C0.142255C0.01222C0.01221C0.01629C63702-PRCTRPOBOXProcter &Gamble PaperProducts CoJackson, MO0.0048.80O0.00428O0.00519.2O0.00478.4O0.005911O31068-BCKYCOLDSTWeyerhaeuserCoOglethorpe,GA0.0011.79O0.0012O0.00050.9O0.00050.9O0.00061.1O39703-CLMBSCARSOColumbusCelluloseFibersColumbus,MS0.00081.44M20.00071M0.00071.3M0.00183.2M0.00173.1M54308-THPRC501EAProcter &Gamble PaperProducts CoGreen Bay,WI0.00081.00C0.00031C0.00050.9C0.00061.1C0.00071.3C37662-MDPPRPOBOXWeyerhaeuserCo KingsportPaper MillKingsport,TNNRNRNR3.456,190M3.46,101M2.54,486M2.23,894M98201-SCTTP2600FKimberlyClarkWorldwideEverett, WANRNRNR1.332,380C2.74,846C3472,778C8.21,104,866C32347-BCKYCROUTEBuckeyeFlorida LpPerry, FLNRNRNR1.322,380M1.32,330M1.272,282M1.32,303M

### 12-16Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilities from 2002 to 200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacilityNameLocationGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimate71822-NKSPPHIGHWDomtarIndustries IncAshdownMillAshdown,ARNRNRNR38.469,000M40.9673,494M401,511,611M1.83,203E98362-DSHWMMARINNippon PaperIndustriesUSA Co. Ltd.Port Angeles,WANRNRNR0.921,650M1.823,266M1.8282M1.8290M32533-CHMPN375MUInternationalPaperPensacolaMillCantonment,FLNRNRNR0.81,440E0.931,669E0.931,669E0.81,435E29442-NTRNTKAMINInternationalPaperGeorgetownMillGeorgetown,SCNRNRNR0.7531,350C0.751,351C0.771,380C0.781,395C04694-GRGPCMILLADomtarMaine CorpBaileyville,MENRNRNR0.6151,100M0.821,463MNRNRNR3.155,654E32034-TTRYNFOOTORayonierPerformanceFibers LLCFernandinaBeach, FLNRNRNR0.561,000M11,794MNRNRNR0.14251M71654-PTLTCHIGHWPotlatch CorpArkansasCity, ARNRNRNR0.204365O0.971,737O0.921,646O0.571,026O29044-NNCMPROUTEInternationalPaperEastover, SCNRNRNR0.183328O0.16282O0.16290O0.16281O54474-WYRHS200GRWeyerhaeuserRothschild,WINRNRNR0.04275M0.04886M0.12206M0.152273M98537-WYRHS700EAWeyerhaeuserPulp MillCosmopolis,WANRNRNR0.0118O0.0118O0.009317O0.01425O12502-SCHWT2424RSchweitzerMauduitInternationalIncAncram, NYNRNRNR0.0047E0.00814E0.0236O0.0236O98632-WYRHS3401IWeyerhaeuserCoLongview,WANRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.02545O0.0236O

### 12-17Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilities from 2002 to 200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacilityNameLocationGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimate98607-JMSRVNE4THFort JamesCamas LLCCamas, WANRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR1.061,902E3.586,427E97068-JMSRV4800MWest LinnPaper CoWest Linn,ORNRNRNRNRNRNR0.00611C0.354,139C0.5027.2C39120-NTRNT312LOInternationalPaper -NatchezNatchez, MSNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR1.172,099E0.811,453E36701-HMMRMRIVERInternationalPaperRiverdaleMillSelma, ALNRNRNRNRNRNR0.108194E0.12208E0.12210E36426-CNTNRHIGHWSmurfit-StoneContainerEnterprisesIncBrewton, ALNRNRNRNRNRNR2.54,486E2.23,947E2.44,306E35618-CHMPNPOBOXInternationalPaperCourtlandMillCourtland,ALNRNRNRNRNRNR0.094168E0.088158E0.072130E31558-GLMNP1000ODurangoGeorgia PaperCo.Saint Marys,GANRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR3.46,062O31520-BRNSWWEST9GeorgiaPacific Corp.BrunswickOps.Brunswick,GANRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.2360E29704-BWTRC5300CBowaterCoated &SpecialtyPapers DivCatawba, SCNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR5.58261,826M3.7217,867M28358-LPHCL1000EBuckeyeLumbertonInc.Lumberton,NCNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.11,525M23851-NNCMPHIGHWInternationalPaperFranklin MillFranklin, VANRNRNRNRNRNR2.284,086E2.274,066E2.13,760E

### 12-18Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilities from 2002 to 200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacilityNameLocationGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimate13142-SCHLLCENTEFelixSchoellerTechnicalPapers Inc.Pulaski, NYNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.001126C04462-GRTNR1KATAGreatNorthernPaper Inc.Millinocket,MENRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.03766O04239-NTRNTRILEYInternationalPaperJay, MENRNRNRNRNRNR0.0023.6M0.0236M0.02138MIndirect55744-BLNDN115SWUpm BlandinPaper CoGrandRapids, MN2.113,782E12.2614,060M23,599M2.2160M3.286M07407-MRCLP1MARKMarcal PaperMills Inc.ElmwoodPark, NJ0.161,315M20.0249945M0.0079914M0.01426M0.01222M23860-STNHP910INSmurfit-StoneContainerCorpHopewell,VA0.023412C0.221397O0.21378ONRNRNRNRNRNR32401-STNCN1EVERSmurfit-StoneContainerCorpPanama City,FL0.082146E10.0782140E0.078140E0.066119E0.078140E31702-THPRCUSROUProcter &Gamble PaperPro Ducts CoAlbany, GA0.001109O0.0019894O0.00366.4O0.00325.7O0.0047.1O55720-PTLTCNORTHSappi CloquetLLCCloquet, MN0.0478M20.0481186E0.04478E0.0410.18E0.0410.18E49443-SDWRR2400LS. D. WarrenCoMuskegon,MINRNRNR0.02394543E0.04275E0.0590E0.0354E52402-CDRRV4600CCedar RiverPaper AWeyerhaeuserBusinessCedarRapids, IANRNRNR0.46631837O0.35636ONRNRNRNRNRNR01236-FXRVR295PAFox RiverPaper CoRising PaperDivHousatonic,MANRNRNR0.0069713O0.007313O0.01222ONRNRNR

### 12-19Section 12 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 12-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges Reported by U.S. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Facilities from 2002 to 200720072005200420032002TRI IDFacilityNameLocationGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimate54308-THPRC501EAProcter &Gamble PaperProducts CoGreen Bay,WINRNRNR0.000341C0.000510.9C0.000681.2C0.000851.5C93030-PRCTR800NOProcter &Gamble PaperProducts CoOxnard, CANRNRNR0.00002140C0.00346.1C0.00020.43C0.000240.43OSource:TRIReleases2005_v2;TRIReleases2004_v3;TRIReleases2003_v2;TRIReleases2002_v4.NR – Not reported.For indirect discharges, the mass shown is the mass transferred tothe POTW that is ultimatelydischarged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 83 percent removal of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds bythe POTW.The TWPEs in this table were calculated using the 2006 TWFs(the 2006 dioxin and dioxin-like compound TWFs did not change fromthe August or December 2004 TWFs).Facilities reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M – Monitoring/datameasurements; M1 – Continuous monitoring data or measurements for the EPCRA section 313 chemical; M2 – Periodic or random monitoringdata or measurements for the EPCRA section 313 chemical; C – Mass balance calculations; E1 – Published emission factors; E2 – Site specific emission factors; and O –Other approaches (e.g., engineeringcalculations).Part III – Detailed Studies



# PART III: DETAILED STUDIESSection 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460)



### 13-1 13. H EALTH 

### C ARE 

### I NDUSTRY AND 

### H OSPITALS 

### C ATEGORY 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 460)

To date, scientists have identified nume rous pharmaceutical compounds at discernable concentrations in our nation’s rivers, lakes, a nd streams (U.S. EPA, 2008). To address this issue at the source, EPA is studying how the drugs are entering waterways and wh at factors contribute to the current situation. Towards this end, EP A initiated a study on pha rmaceutical disposal practices at health care faciliti es including hospitals, hospices, l ong-term care faci lities, health care clinics, doctor’s offices, a nd 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 unus ed pharmaceuticals is the residuals remaining in used and partially used dispensers, containe rs, and devices. In particular, the medications contained in the dispensers, containers and devices may be se wered (e.g., intravenous (IV) bags emptied into sink). 30 

### For many years, a standard practice at ma ny health care facilitie s was to dispose of unused pharmaceuticals by flushing them down the toilet or drain.

13.1 Activities for Study of Unus ed Pharmaceutical Management

For the Final 2008 Plan EPA completed an in terim technical report for the Health Care Industry (U.S. EPA, 2008). The in terim technical report focused on hospitals and long-term care facilities (LTCFs) because thes e facilities are likely responsi ble for the largest amounts of unused pharmaceuticals being disposed into sewage collection systems w ithin this industry sector. In 2005, there were about 7,000 hospita ls and 35,000 LTCFs in the United States (U.S. EPA, 2008). EPA is continuing its detailed study to investigate th e following questions:

• 

### What are the current industry practices for disposing of unused pharmaceuticals?

• 

### Which pharmaceuticals are being dispos ed of and at what quantities?

• 

### What are the options for disposing of unus ed pharmaceuticals other than down the

drain or toilet?

• 

### What factors influence disposal decisions?

• 

### Do disposal practices diffe r within industry sectors?

• 

### What BMPs could facilities implemen t to reduce the generation of unused pharmaceuticals?

• 

### What reductions in the quantities of pha rmaceuticals 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 Pla n, 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 redu ce or eliminate the discharge of unused pharmaceuticals to POTWs. EPA received 31 comme nts 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 pharm aceuticals” 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 a ssociations, pharmacists associations, reverse distributors, pharmaceutical manufacturers, indi viduals, and municipal wastewater treatment plants and their associa tions. Following publication of the first Federal Register notice for the ICR, EPA conducted th ree hour-long teleconferen ces in September 2008 with 259 stakeholders to provide an overview of the project, sc ope of the survey instrument, potential recipients, and schedule. These meetings solicited early feedback from participants to facilitate the development of a subsequent dr aft of the survey inst rument and population and sample frames. These teleconferences also iden tified 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 heal th 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 i ndustry survey, EPA has continued to study the

issue of how health care fac ilities are managing and disposing of unused pharmaceuticals and

POTW treatment effectiveness in an effort to id entify the root cause and potential solutions to address the issue of pharmaceuticals in our wate rways. 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 hospita l, 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 othe r 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 pharm aceuticals 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 repres entatives; Federal, State, and Tribal representatives; waste management and disposal companies; and other in terested parties) to obt ain the best available information on the industry and its unused pharm aceutical management practices. In total, EPASection 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460)



### 13-3 met or spoke with over 700 different people duri ng 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 sect ors (e.g., dentists, retail pharmacies).

EPA’s outreach has also identified that there is near universal intere st from stakeholders to better manage unused pharmaceuticals at health car e facilities. There is al so general interest in more quickly advancing the use of best practi ces for managing unused pharmaceuticals at health

care facilities. This considerable outreach and da ta collection has led EPA to re-consider the use of an industry survey for this sector. The su rvey would be an eff ective but pot entially timeconsuming tool for gathering facility-sp ecific 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 pr actices for unused pharmaceutical management at health care facilities. During the next year, EP A 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 opti ons health care faci lities 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 Admi nistration (DEA), establis hes a closed distribution system for controlled substances. The CS A prohibits the return of controlled substances from end-users to any pe rson except, in certain cases, a lawenforcement agent. Disposal of controlle d 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 su bstances to their supply pharmacy or

use reverse distributors. Hospitals typically are DE A 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 unope ned, 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 managementSection 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460)



### 13-4 company that is a DEA regi strant. Also, hospitals t ypically do not prescribe medication far in advance or in large quanti ties, as is often done for residents at LTCFs. As a result, the potential for pharm aceuticals to be wasted at hospitals is

reduced.

• 

### Some unused pharmaceuticals are regulate d 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 pharmaceuti cal or its sole active ingr edient is specifically listed in 40 CFR Part 261.33(e) or (f) (com monly referred to as the P or U lists, respectively); and/or (2) the waste exhi bits one or more characteristics of hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity, r eactivity, or toxicity as defined in 40 CFR Parts 261.21-24, respectively). Comm on 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 Su btitle C requirements, including many special storage, handling and transporta tion requirements. In addition, hospitals typically have pre-existi ng arrangements for disposal of unused pharmaceuticals

as hazardous waste that LTC Fs 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 pr ograms. Medicare provides health insurance to elderly and disabled Amer icans, while Medicaid provides health insurance for low income Americans, in cluding long-term care coverage. LTCFs tend to contract with long-term care pha rmacies 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 pa tient co-payment). The dispensing of 30-day or more quantities can lead to greater unused pharmaceutical waste, when prescriptions are either changed or di scontinued. Additionally, EPA identified a barrier for reuse of pharmaceuticals retu rned to LTC pharmacies that were purchased under Medicare Part D or priv ate insurance. Specifically, there is no system in place that allows the payer to give back partial credit to both the insurance provider (e.g., Medica re 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 bot h 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 epin ephrine salts are not included in the epinephrine P042 listing (since the listing only specifies epinephrine and not epinephrine sa lts); the salts, therefore, would be hazardous only if the waste epinephrine salt ex hibited one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics ( see “Scope of Hazardous Waste Lis ting P042 (Epinephrine),” Octobe r 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 di sposing of unused pharmaceuticals.

• 

### State regulations and guidance vary wide ly and influence disposal practices. State regulations on the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals and controlled substances vary widely (The Lewi n Group, 2004; APhA, 2006; ERG, 2009a). Generally, the existing guidance from the Stat es suggests that heal th care facilities limit disposal of pharmaceuticals to sewers (either by using alternative technologies/practices or limiting the type s and quantity of drugs going down the drain.) In some States (Ca lifornia and Washington), faci lities are encouraged to contact the POTW prior to this disposal of unused pharmaceuticals via the sewer. Also, many State regulations require both hospitals a nd LTCFs to destroy unused pharmaceuticals but often do not specify th e process of destruction; however, many States (33 States according to APhA , 2006) have requirements for the types of facility personnel required to c onduct and oversee the destruction.

• 

### Some States have hazardous waste regula tions that are more stringent than EPA (H2E, 2006). Some States, including Ca lifornia, 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 St ate law but not RCRA. For example, Minnesota requires that all chemotherapy drug wastes be managed as hazardous

waste.

• 

### Many States allow re-use of unconta minated pharmaceuticals (excluding controlled substances) that have been in a controlled environment, such as an automatic dispensing syst em (The Lewin Group, 2004). In its 2009 Survey of Pharmacy Law, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) provides summary statistics on the numb er of States that (1) allow drug repository/donation programs and (2) perm it the return and reuse of medications. According to NABP, 32 States allow dr ug repository/donation programs. Some of these States limit the program to specifi c 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 medi cation 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 fac ility staff and are packaged in tamper-resistant containers (NABP, 2009). State regulations for reuse of medications vary widely.

3. After getting credit from the manu facturer for the facility, reverse distributors send most creditable pharma ceuticals 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 o ff-site disposal, including controlled substances from hospitals. People ofte n think that reverse distributors are returning all of the creditable pharm aceuticals 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 di sposed 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 pha rmaceuticals would not typically fall into this category. The majority of State RM W regulations make no mention of unused pharmaceuticals and do not spec ifically prohibit health care facilities from disposing unused pharmaceuticals with th eir 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 autoclav e with their infectious RMW. This

autoclave waste was also shredded and th ere 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 wa stewater discharge to a POTW.

5. The current disposal practices identifi ed for waste pharmaceuticals depend greatly on the type of pharmaceuti cal (e.g., controlled substance, RCRA hazardous, chemotherapeutic, etc.), th e 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 combinati on 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 revers e distributor to r eceive 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 di sposed of partially-used non-pharmaceutical IV waste down the drain, such as electr olytes and total pare nteral nutrition. All facilities also disposed of partially-u sed IVs containing controlled substances (e.g., a fentanyl IV stopped midstream) do wn the drain. Some facilities disposed of any partially-used IVs down the dr ain. Other facilities disposed of chemotherapy IVs as hazardous waste instea d, using a resealable bag system and sorting containers. Some facili ties also disposed of all controlled substa nces in theSection 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 re nder 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 ma terials such as kitty litter or sand, then dispose of the waste in the general trash.

• 

### Autoclave/Steam Sterilizer

. EPA observed autoclaves in pl ace at four of the five hospitals visited. These four hospitals st erilized their medical/infectious waste using autoclaves/steam sterilizers, prior to disposing of such waste as general trash. One of these four hospitals pr ocessed their pharmaceutical waste through the autoclave/steam sterilizer, as well as their medical/infectious waste. Nurses on the hospital or LTCF patient floor woul d 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/ Me dical Waste Incinerator

. Two hospitals sent pharmaceutical waste for off-site thermal destruction (type of incinerator not specified), including nonhazardous pharmaceu tical 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 incinera tor, 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 tota l 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 (appr oximately 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 destru ction. Facilities ar e 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 hazard ous waste hauler to dispose of the pharmaceuticals. For example, small rura l hospitals often don’t have full-time pharmacists and do not use reverse distribu tors (Lewis, 2009). In the past, publicSection 13 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (40 CFR Part 460)



### 13-8 health agencies and health-related no n-government organizations guided the public to destroy unused medications by flushing them down the toilet. Many LTCFs have adopted this method for destru ction of unused controlled substances. Many LTCFs have also extended this pr actice to include flushing all unused

medications – controlled and non cont rolled substances (Leusch, 2005).

7. Best management practices, if widely implemented, have the potential to reduce the amount of unused pharmaceuti cals entering our nation’s waters from disposal. Three organizations provide guid ance in the form of BMPs to medical facilities on managing pharmaceutical waste: Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (re-named as Practice Gree nhealth), Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), and the Joint Commission (formerly the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizati ons (JCAHO)). The guidelines provided by these organizations all aim to reduce h ealth and environmental impacts due to current disposal practices of pharmaceutical waste, as discussed in Section 5.2 of

the Interim Technical Re port (U.S. EPA, 2008). Examples of model BMPs

identified to date include waste mini mization and reverse distribution systems used by hospitals in California, Minnes ota, and Washington. Waste minimization techniques include maintaining inve ntories of high-use pharmaceuticals and identifying those that are close to expiring. Short-date d pharmaceuticals are redistributed to other areas of the hosp itals where they are needed. Dispensed pharmaceuticals can also go unused at a hos pital or LTCF if th e 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 opti on of hiring revers e distributors to manage their unused and/or expired medica tion that the facility believes it could

receive credit from the manufacturer. Th e 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 th e 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-pronge d strategy is aimed at improving science, improving public understanding, identifying partne rship and stewardship opportunities, and taking regulatory action as appr opriate. 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 dr inking water. EPA is developing analytical methods to improve detection capabiliti es. EPA is conducting national studies to help direct the Agen cy’s course of action. EPA is al so partnering with government agencies, stakeholders, and the private sector , and increasing public awareness about product stewardship and pollution preventi on (Grumbles, 2008). Additionall y, the Agency is considering amending its hazardous waste regulations to add hazardous pharmaceutical wastes to theSection 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 wast es, 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 Ag ency’s Strategic Plan (2006-2011) to meet its goals of clean and safe water. 32



### 13.3 Health Care Industry and Ho spitals 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 Ma nagement 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 Safe ty, 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. Envi ron. 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 Pr otection 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 Kapla n. 2005. Memorandum to James Covington,

EPA from Jennifer Mott and Maureen Ka plan, 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 Phar macy (NABP). 2009. Survey of Pharmacy

Law.

11. The Lewin Group. 2004. CMS Review of Curre nt 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 Stud y: 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 Indus try 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. O IL AND 

### G AS 

### E XTRACTION 

### C ATEGORY 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 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 Depa rtment of Energy’s Energy Information Administration expects CBM producti on to remain an important source of domestic natural gas

over the next few decades.

CBM extraction requires removal of larg e amounts of water from underground coal

seams before CBM can be released. CBM we lls have a distinctive production history characterized by an early stage when large amo unts 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 wa ter 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 candi date 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 co nduct data collection through an information collection request (ICR) to support this deta iled study. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA obtained approval from th e 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), incl udes 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 fi nancial 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 inform ation on geographical and geologic differences in the characteristics of CBM produced waters, environmental data, curre nt regulatory controls, and availability and affordability of treatment technology options.

EPA is also conducting a litera ture 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 stat e and federal agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations; and

3. Environmentally sustainable benefi cial 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 wa ter 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 wi ll 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 understa nding 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 e xploration, stimulation, a nd 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 Kr isti Bubb, Eastern Research Group, Inc.

RE: Coalbed Methane Environmental A ssessment 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 – Pilo t 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 Me thane Development in Wyoming: A Summary of Quantity, Quality, and Ma nagement 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 Geologica l Survey. Information Pamphlet 7 (Revised). Coalbed Methane in Wyoming (2 nd 

### Revision). (Unknown). EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-1904.Section 15 – Steam Electric Power Gen erating Category (40 CFR Part 423)



### 15-1 15. S TEAM 

### E LECTRIC 

### P OWER 

### G ENERATING 

### C ATEGORY 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 423)

EPA has completed a multi-year study of th e Steam Electric Power Generating Category and, based on the results, has determined that revising the current ELG s is warranted. EPA’s decision to revise the current ELGs is largely dr iven 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 installe d. Over the course of th e study, EPA has identified technologies that are available to signif icantly 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 sa le which results primarily from a process utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal, oil, or gas) or nuc lear fuel in conjunction with wa ter 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 inte nsive review of wastewater discharges from power plants. As part of this effo rt, 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 plan ts, and issued a detail ed questionnaire that obtained information on 30 power plants using au thority 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 th e wastewater generated by air pollution control equipment;

3. Characterizing the practices used by th e industry to manage or eliminate discharges of fly ash and bottom ash wastewater; and

4. Identifying methods for managing power pl ant wastewater that allow recycling and reuse, rather than di scharge to surface waters.

Much of the information collected thus far, incl uding 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 Ca tegory: Final Detailed Study Report (U.S. EPA, 2009).

EPA's review of the wastewater characteristic s 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 th e majority of these pollutants are associated with ash handling and wet flue ga s desulfurization (FGD) systems. Other potential sources of these pollutants include coal pile r unoff, metal cleaning wastes, coal washing, leachate from landfills and wastewater impoundme nts, 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 Gen erating Category (40 CFR Part 423)



### 15-2 Samples were analyzed for metals and other po llutants, such as tota l suspended solids and nitrogen. Sampling reports for the first five episod es 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 point s 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 syst ems will increase substantially over the next decade as state and federal regulations are implem ented 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 wast ewater which can be reduced significantly with treat ment technologies.

An increasing amount of evid ence indicates that the charac teristics of coal combustion wastewater have the potential to impact human health and the e nvironment. Discharges of coal

combustion wastewater have been associated wi th fish kills, reductions in the growth and survival of aquatic organisms, behavioral a nd physiological effects in wildlife and aquatic organisms, potential impacts to human health (e.g., drinking wa ter contamination), and changes to the local habitat. Many of the pollutants commonly found in co al combustion wa stewater (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 discharg e, the effluent can contain larg e mass loads (i.e. total pounds) of pollutants. Some of the pollutants in these disc harges, although present at low concentrations, can bioaccumulate and present an increased ecologi cal 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 containi ng coal combustion wast es can contain high concentrations of pollutants and has been iden tified 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 characte ristics of wastewater from coal fired power plants, identifies the wastewater treatment technolog ies reviewed, presents an overv iew of the industry profile and predicted future trends in the use of air pollution c ontrols, 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 informa tion. 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 Pape rwork Reduction Act, 33 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.Section 15 – Steam Electric Power Gen erating 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.