Memorandum 

From: Carey A. Johnston, P.E. 

USEPA/OW/OST 

pli: (202) 566 1014 

johnston.carey@epa.gov 

Public Rccord for the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005 

DCN XXX, Section XXX 

EPA Docket Number OW-2003-0074 (www.epa.gov/edocketsl) 

March 5, 2004 

Talking Points from March 4, 2004, Meeting Between EPA Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Water and the Chlorine Chemistry Council 

On March 4, 2004, the Chlorine Chemistry Council (CCC) and Cornerstone Government 

Affairs niet with Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's Actiiig Assistant Administrator for Water. Topics 

discussed EPA's Stage 2 Disinfection By-Product Rule, chemical security at waterlwastewater 

treatment plants, EPA's dioxin reassessment, and EPA's effluent guidelines planning.' As 

documented in the record for the preliminary plan, dioxin discharges are a significant portion of 

the toxic pollutant loadings reported in EPA's Toxics Release hiventory (TRI) and Pennit 

Compliance Systent (PCS) databases for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Syiithetic Fibers 

industrial point source category (40 CFR 414). Below are the CCC talking points that relate to 

thc discussions on EPA's dioxin reassessment and effluent guidelines planning. 
DIOXIN ISSUES 

EPA's Dioxin Reassessment 

EPA's drafi, reassessment should not serve as the scientific basis for EPA 

decision-making. Thus, EPA's disclaimer langttage that currently accompanies the 

pttblicly available draft dioxin reassessment posted on EPA's website should remain in 

force. 

EPA's reassessment catulot be finalized until aRer the NAS issues its report on the 

reassessment and EPA amends the reassessment accordingly. Congress specifically 

requested an NAS revicw in the omnibus appropriations bill signed Feb. 20, 2003 by 

President Bush. The NAS review of the reassessment will address a ntimber of key 

issues, including: 

Wliether EPA's risk estimates are scientiftcally robust, 

Whether EPA lias clearly delineated all the substantial uncertainties and 

variability, 

EPA's classification of dioxin as a htiman carcinogen, 

The validating of the non-threshold linear dose-response model and the cancer 

slope factor, 

The utility of toxicity equivalence factors and the uncertainties associated with 

their ttse. 

Effluent Guidelines 

Tlie Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) industrial category shotild not be 

identified for possible efflucnt guidelines rulemakings in the final Effluent Gtiidelines Program 

Plan for 2004/2005. 

OCPSF facilities, iticluding vinyl ehloride itnonomer and ethylene diehloride facilities, do 

not "offer the most significant opportunities for redticing risks or hazards." 

OCPSF discharges of dioxin do not pose a hazard to human healtli or the environment. 
OW (2060a 

CZfL-)rA CX-" tA ZA 

CCC Meeting with Ben Grumbles, Acting AA for EPA's Office of Water 

STAGE 2 DBP RULE: 

Proposed rule overstates potential reproductive and developmental health risks. 

•"Summary" incorrectly implies strong, consistent evidence of risks. 

• Rule should include a"weight of evidence" assessment for specific reproductive and 

developmental effects. 

• Evidence for most of these effects is niixed, inconsistent or wealC. 

Final rule should not include an "illustrative calculation" of fetal losses. 

• This calculation is inconsistent with EPA's conclusion that data do not support a quantified 

risk assessment for fetal loss, or any reproductive or developmental effect. 

• EPA cherry-picks data froni selected epidemiology studies to suggest that thousands of fetal 

losses niay be prevented by the rule. 

• EPA fails to present alternative calculations, particularly one illustrating that the number of 

fetal losses may, in fact, be zero. 

• This fundamental bias violates OMB and EPA information quality guidelines. 

• The note of caution to readers is itlsufficient. A11 references to this calculation must be 

removed. 

EPA should not dismiss value of high quality studies on DBA and BDCM. 

• Christian et al. studies were desigtled in consultation with EPA and conducted in full 

compliance witth all relevant EPA guidelines. 

• NOAELs identified by Christian et al. are valid for dose response evaluations. 

• EPA statenients on DBA and BDCM toxicology should discuss high margins of exposure 

(i.e., NOAELs were observed at drinking water concentrations thousands of times higher 

thail human exposure). 
CHEMICAL SECURITY AT WATER/WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS 

EPA should include chlorine industry representatives as stakeholders in addressing 

chemical security at water treatment plants. 

• Chlorine disitifectants are critical assets for drinking water and wastewater treatment plants. 

• The chlorine industry has developed a range of resources and tools to help chlorine users 

improve safety and strengthen security. 

Water treatment plants should address chemical security issues as part of comprehensive 

vulnerability assessments and security plans. Options niust be weighed and prioritized to 

improve overall safety and security. 

Each disinfectioti technology has unique benefits, challenges, and costs. Individual plants 

evaluate these tradeoffs, and adopt disinfection systems based on the unique circumstanccs, 

needs and resources of the communities they serve. 

We will be nominating an industry representative for the Water Security Working Group of 

NDWAC. 
• The RFHEE project compliments and supports ongoing work by EPA and AMSA. EPA 

recently awarded a grant to AMSA to enhance the Vulnerability Self Assessment tool for 

wastewater and water utilities. This grant is to improve report functioris, update and 

enhance countermeasure libraries, and include an emergency response function. 
DIOXIN ISSUES 

EPA's Dioxin Reassessment 

• EPA's draft reassessment should not serve as the scientific basis for EPA decision-making. 

Thus, EPA's disclainler language that currently accompanies the publicly available draft 

dioxin reassessment posted on EPA's website should remain in force. 

• EPA's reassessment cannot be finalized until after the NAS issues its report on the 

reassessment and EPA amends the reassessment accordingly. Congress specifically 

requested an NAS review in the omnibus appropriations bill signed Feb. 20, 2003 by 

President Bush. The NAS review of the reassessment will address a number of key issues, 

including: 

Whether EPA's risk estimates are scientifically robust, 

Whether EPA has clearly delitieated all the substantial uncertainties and varriability, 

EPA's classification of dioxin as a human carcinogen, 

The validating of the non-threshold linear dose-response model and the caiicer slope 

factor, 

The utility of toxicity equivalence factors and the uncertainties associated with their use. 

Effluent Guidelines 

The Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) industrial category should not 

be identified for possible effluent guidelities rulenlakings in the final Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan for 2004/2005. 

• OCPSF facilities, including vinyl chloride moiiomer and ethylene dichloride 

facilities, do not "offer the most significant opportunities for reducing risks or 

hazards." 

• OCPSF discliarges of dioxin do not pose a hazard to human health or the 

environnient.