Z

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plans

September 2014
This page intentionally left blank.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water (4303T)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

EPA-820-R-14-001
This page intentionally left blank. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................ I

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1

2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 The Clean Water Act and the Effluent Guidelines Program ................................ 2-1

2.2 Effluent Guidelines Review and Planning Process .............................................. 2-3

2.2.1 Annual Review Process ........................................................................... 2-4

2.2.2 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans ........................................................ 2-10

2.3 Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Overview ............ 2-10

2.3.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) 

— CWA Sections 301(b)(1)(A) and 304(b)(1) ...................................... 2-11

2.3.2 Best Conventional Pollution Control Technology (BCT) — CWA 

Sections 301(b)(2)(E) and 304(b)(4) ..................................................... 2-12

2.3.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) — 

CWA Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2) ........................................... 2-12

2.3.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) — CWA Section 306 ..... 2-12

2.3.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) — CWA 

Section 307(b) ........................................................................................ 2-12

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

307(c) ..................................................................................................... 2-13

PART II: FINAL 2012 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN ............................................ II

3. 2012 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY .................... 3-1

3.1 Summary of the 2012 Annual Review Methodology .......................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Public Comments on the Preliminary 2012 Plan and Stakeholder 

Input ......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Continued Review of Selected Point Source Categories ......................... 3-1

3.1.3 Additional Data Sources and New Supporting Analyses ........................ 3-2

3.2 Categories Excluded from EPA’s 2012 Annual Review ..................................... 3-4

3.2.1 Categories for Which EPA has Recently Considered Developing or 

Revising ELGs or has Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs ............. 3-4

3.2.2 Discharges Not Categorizable .................................................................. 3-5

3.3 Data Quality Assurance and Limitations ............................................................. 3-5

3.3.1 Additional Data Sources Supporting New Analyses ............................... 3-6

3.3.2 DMR and TRI Data .................................................................................. 3-7

4. RESULTS OF THE 2011 AND 2012 ANNUAL REVIEWS ..................................................... 4-1

4.1 Summary of Results from the 2011 Annual Review ........................................... 4-1

4.2 Findings from the 2012 Annual Review .............................................................. 4-1

4.2.1 Findings from Public Comments and Stakeholder Input ......................... 4-1

iv 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

4.2.2 Findings from Continued Review of Selected Point Source 

Categories ................................................................................................ 4-3

4.2.3 Findings from Additional Hazard Data Sources Supporting New 

Analyses ................................................................................................... 4-4

5. FINAL 2012 PLAN DECISIONS .......................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Industries for Which EPA Is No Longer Undergoing an ELG Rulemaking ....... 5-1

5.2 Industries Previously Identified for Further Review for Which EPA is 

Taking No Action ................................................................................................ 5-4

5.3 Potential Indirect Dischargers for Pretreatment Standards .................................. 5-4

5.3.1 Evaluation of Pass-Through and Interference of Toxic and NonConventional Pollutants Discharged to POTWs ...................................... 5-4

5.4 Industries for Which EPA is Currently Undergoing an ELG Rulemaking .......... 5-6

5.4.1 EPA’s Current Schedule for ELG Actions .............................................. 5-6

5.5 Results of Solicitation for Innovation and Technology in the Effluent 

Guidelines Program ............................................................................................. 5-7

PART III: PRELIMINARY 2014 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN ............................ III

6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM THE 2013 ANNUAL REVIEW AND EPA’S

PRELIMINARY 2014 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN ............................................ 6-1

6.1 Findings from EPA’s 2013 Annual Review ........................................................ 6-1

6.2 Proposed Actions for the Preliminary 2014 Plan ................................................. 6-2

6.3 Additional Actions for the 2014 Annual Review ................................................ 6-4

7. SUMMARY TABLE OF FINDINGS FOR EXISTING GUIDELINE CATEGORIES FROM

THE 2011, 2012 AND 2013 ANNUAL REVIEWS....................................................................... 7-1

PART IV: REFERENCES FOR FINAL 2012 AND PRELIMINARY 2014 EFFLUENT

GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLANS .............................................................................................. IV

8. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 8-1

v 
LIST OF TABLES

Page 

Table 3-1. Point Source Categories That Have Undergone Recent Rulemaking or Review ....... 3-5

Table 3-2. TRI and DMR Data Utility and Limitations............................................................... 3-8

Table 6-1. Results of EPA’s 2013 Toxicity Ranking Analysis ................................................... 6-1

Table 7-1. Summary of Findings from EPA’s 2011, 2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews of 

Existing Industrial Categories ................................................................................... 7-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Page 

Figure 2-1. Odd-Year Annual Review of Existing ELGs ............................................................ 2-6

Figure 2-2. Odd-Year Identification of Possible New ELGs ....................................................... 2-7

Figure 2-3. Even-Year Annual Review of Existing ELGs and Identification of Possible 

New ELGs ................................................................................................................ 2-8

Figure 2-4. Further Review of Industrial Categories Identified During Odd- and EvenYear Annual Reviews ............................................................................................... 2-9

Figure 2-5. Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges ................................... 2-11

vi
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

I 
Section 1—Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION 

This document presents the Final 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (“Final 2012 

Plan”) and the Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (“Preliminary 2014 Plan”), 

both of which were prepared pursuant to Clean Water Act (CWA) section 304(m). It also 

provides a summary of EPA’s review of effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards, 

consistent with CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 304(m), and EPA’s evaluation of 

indirect discharges without categorical pretreatment standards to identify potential new 

categories for pretreatment standards under CWA section 307(b). From these reviews, the Plans 

identify any new or existing industrial categories selected for effluent guidelines rulemakings,

and provide a schedule for such rulemakings. In addition, the Plans present any new or existing 

categories selected for further review and analysis.

Both Plans are supported by EPA’s 2012 Annual Review (U.S. EPA, 2014a), which 

builds on prior reviews, including EPA’s 2011 Annual Review (U.S. EPA, 2012a), and includes 

additional hazard data sources and supporting analyses aimed at identifying new pollutants of 

concern and identifying wastewater discharges in industrial categories not currently regulated by 

effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs). EPA’s 2011 and 2012 Annual Review 

Reports are a part of the Annual Review record and can be found at 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/304m/index.cfm. The Preliminary 2014 Plan is 

also supported by the findings of EPA’s 2013 Annual Review, which are presented as part of the 

Preliminary 2014 Plan.

This document is separated into three parts: 

• Introduction and Background. This section provides an overview of the Final 2012 

and Preliminary 2014 Plans. It also provides background on the CWA and the 

effluent guidelines program planning process and requirements.

• Final 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. The Final 2012 Plan presents the 

methodology for EPA’s 2012 Annual Review, findings and follow-up to the 2011 

Annual Review, and review and findings from additional data sources and new 

analyses conducted as part of EPA’s 2012 Annual Review. The Final 2012 Plan also 

summarizes and incorporates stakeholder input and public comments received on the 

Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan and presents EPA’s final 

decisions on actions proposed in the Preliminary 2012 Plan. 

• Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. The Preliminary 2014 Plan 

presents the results of EPA’s 2013 Annual Review. It also presents EPA’s new

actions, investigations and proposed decisions, based primarily on the findings of the 

2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews, and solicits public comment and input on those 

proposed actions.

1-1
Section 2—Background

2. BACKGROUND

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

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

and summarizes EPA’s process for making effluent guidelines revision and development 

decisions (i.e., effluent guidelines planning).

2.1 The Clean Water Act and the Effluent Guidelines Program

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is based on the principle of cooperative federalism, with 

distinct roles for both EPA and the states, in which the goal is to restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. To that end, the Act is 

generally focused on two types of controls: (1) water-quality-based controls, based on water 

quality standards, and (2) technology-based controls, based on effluent limitations guidelines and 

standards.

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

water quality standards. Water quality standards consist of designated uses for each water body 

(e.g., fishing, swimming, supporting aquatic life), criteria that protect the designated uses 

(numeric pollutant concentration limits and narrative criteria, for example, “no objectionable 

sediment deposits”), and an antidegradation policy. EPA develops recommended national criteria 

for many pollutants, pursuant to CWA section 304(a), which states may adopt or modify as 

appropriate to reflect local conditions. 

EPA is responsible for developing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and 

standards (ELGs), based on currently available technologies for controlling industrial wastewater 

discharges. Permitting authorities (states authorized to administer the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and EPA in the few states that are not 

authorized) then must incorporate these guidelines and standards into discharge permits as 

technology-based effluent limitations where applicable (U.S. EPA, 2010). 

While technology-based effluent limitations in discharge permits are sometimes as 

stringent as, or more stringent than, necessary to meet water quality standards, the effluent 

guidelines program is not specifically designed to ensure that the discharges from each facility 

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

requires authorized states to establish water-quality-based effluent limitations, where necessary 

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

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

In the overall context of the CWA, effluent guidelines must be viewed as one tool in the broader 

set of tools and authorities Congress provided to EPA and the states to restore and maintain the 

quality of the nation’s waters.

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 section 101(a), 

33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). Before 1972, the CWA focused principally on water quality standards. This 

approach was challenging, however, because it was very difficult to determine where a specific 

discharger, or combination of dischargers, was responsible for decreasing the water quality of its 

receiving stream.

2-1
Section 2—Background

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

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

the implementation of available treatment and prevention technologies. The effluent guidelines 

are based on specific technologies (including process changes) that EPA identifies as meeting the 

statutorily prescribed level of control (see CWA sections 301(b)(2), 304(b), 306, 307(b), and 

307(c)). Unlike other CWA tools, effluent guidelines are national in scope and establish 

pollution-control obligations for all facilities that discharge wastewater within an industrial 

category or subcategory. In establishing these controls, under the direction of the statute, EPA 

assesses, for example, (1) the performance and availability of the best pollution-control 

technologies or pollution-prevention practices for an industrial category or subcategory as a 

whole; (2) the economic achievability of those technologies, which can include consideration of 

the affordability of achieving the reduction in pollutant discharge; (3) the cost of achieving 

effluent reductions; (4) non-water-quality environmental impacts (including energy 

requirements); and (5) such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate.

Creating a single national pollution-control requirement for each industrial category 

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

the potential creation of “pollution havens” and to set the nation’s sights on eliminating the 

discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. Consequently, EPA’s goal in establishing national 

effluent guidelines is to ensure that industrial facilities with similar characteristics, regardless of 

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

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

prevention practices.

In addition to establishing technology-based effluent limits, effluent guidelines provide 

the opportunity to promote pollution prevention and water conservation. This may be particularly 

important in controlling persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic pollutants discharged in 

concentrations below analytic detection levels. Effluent guidelines and standards also control 

pollutant discharges from industrial facilities and cover discharges directly to surface water 

(direct discharges) and discharges to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) (indirect 

discharges). 

The Effluent Guidelines Program has helped reverse the water quality degradation that 

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

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

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

• Kill or impair fish and other aquatic organisms;

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

• Degrade aquatic ecosystems.

EPA has promulgated effluent guidelines for 58 industrial categories (see Table 7-1

below, also all 58 industrial categories are described at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/industry.cfm); these regulations apply to between 

35,000 and 45,000 facilities that discharge directly to the nation’s waters, as well as another 

12,000 facilities that discharge to POTWs. The regulations have prevented the discharge of more 

than 700 billion pounds of toxic pollutants each year.

2-2
Section 2—Background

2.2 Effluent Guidelines Review and Planning Process 

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

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

guidelines and pretreatment standards to identify potential candidates for revision, consistent 

with CWA sections 304(b), 301(d), and 304(g). EPA also reviews industries consisting of directdischarging facilities not currently subject to effluent guidelines to identify potential candidates 

for effluent guidelines rulemakings, pursuant to CWA section 304(m)(1)(B). Finally, EPA 

reviews industries consisting entirely or almost entirely of indirect-discharging facilities that are 

not currently subject to pretreatment standards to identify potential candidates for pretreatment 

standards development under CWA sections 307(b). 

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

• Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s 

waters; and

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

the planning process. 

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

standards for possible revision. These factors were developed in EPA’s draft National Strategy, 

described at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/strategy/fs.cfm. 

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. Using this factor enables 

the Agency to prioritize rulemakings to achieve significant environmental and health benefits. 

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

demonstrated wastewater treatment technologies, process changes, or pollution prevention 

alternatives that could effectively reduce the concentrations of pollutants in the industrial 

category’s wastewater and, consequently, reduce the hazard to human health or the environment 

associated with these pollutant discharges.

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

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

using the second factor. If the financial condition of the industry indicates that it would not be 

affordable to implement expensive and stringent new requirements, EPA might conclude a less 

stringent, less expensive approach to reduce pollutant loadings would better satisfy applicable 

statutory requirements.

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

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

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

might also prompt EPA, during annual reviews, to decide against revising an existing set of 

effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards where the pollutant source is already efficiently and 

effectively controlled by other regulatory or non-regulatory programs. 

2-3
Section 2—Background

2.2.1 Annual Review Process

Beginning in 2011, EPA revised its annual review process to include an odd- and evenyear annual-review cycle, which was reflected in the 2011 and 2012 Annual Reviews. This 

approach more cohesively and comprehensively addresses the factors laid out in EPA’s draft 

National Strategy. In the odd-year reviews, EPA screens industrial dischargers through a toxicity 

ranking analysis (TRA) that identifies and ranks those categories whose pollutant discharges 

pose a substantial hazard to human health and the environment. For the TRA, EPA relies on 

discharge monitoring report (DMR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data to rank industrial 

discharge categories by toxic-weighted pound equivalents (TWPE) released. Figure 2-1details 

how EPA uses the TRA to identify existing ELGs that may warrant revision. Figure 2-2 shows 

how EPA addresses new categories that may warrant regulation, as identified from the TRA. See 

Section 3 of the Preliminary 2012 Plan for further details on EPA’s odd-year annual review 

process and methodology (78 FR 48159). 

In the even years, EPA reviews additional hazard data sources and conducts alternate 

analyses to enhance the identification of industrial categories for which new or revised ELGs 

may be appropriate, beyond those that traditionally rank high in the TRA. This is consistent with 

the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recommendation that EPA’s annual review 

approach include additional industrial hazard data sources to augment its screening-level review 

of discharges from industrial categories.1 Furthermore, EPA recognizes the need to consider in 

the screening phase the availability of treatment technologies, process changes, or pollutionprevention practices that can reduce the identified hazards. Specifically, in its even-year reviews, 

EPA is targeting new data sources that will provide information on other considerations not 

previously captured as part of the TRA, including, but not limited to: 

• Industrial process changes.

• Emerging contaminants of concern. 

• Advances in treatment technologies and pollution prevention practices.

• Availability of new, more sensitive analytical methods. 

• Other hazard data and information not captured through the TRA and/or suggested 

by stakeholders or from public comments. 

Figure 2-3 illustrates the even-year review process. See Section 3 of this Final 2012 Plan 

for details on the methodology used specifically for EPA’s 2012 Annual Review. 

EPA also conducts a more detailed preliminary category review of those industrial 

discharge categories that rank highest in terms of TWPE (i.e., pose the greatest hazard to human 

health and the environment) in the TRA or are identified as warranting further review during the 

even-year analyses. If EPA determines that further review is appropriate for an industrial 

category, EPA may complete a preliminary or detailed study of the point source category (see 

1 GAO’s recommendations for the review of additional hazard data sources were published in GAO’s September 

2012 report, Water Pollution: EPA Has Improved Its Review of Effluent Guidelines but Could Benefit from More 

Information on Treatment Technologies, available online at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/647992.pdf. 

2-4

 
Section 2—Background

Section 2.2.1.1 and Section 2.2.1.2, respectively), which may eventually lead to a new or revised 

guideline. 

2.2.1.1 Preliminary Category Reviews 

For the industrial categories with the highest hazard potential identified in the TRA, or 

identified as a priority from any of the even-year review analyses, EPA may conduct a 

preliminary category review, particularly if it lacks sufficient data to determine whether 

regulatory action would be appropriate, as illustrated in Figure 2-4. EPA will complete 

preliminary category reviews as part of the odd- or even-year review cycle depending on the 

industrial categories warranting review at that time. In its preliminary category reviews EPA 

typically examines the following: (1) wastewater characteristics and pollutant sources, (2) the 

pollutants driving the toxic-weighted pollutant discharges, (3) availability of pollution prevention 

and treatment, (4) the geographic distribution of facilities in the industry, (5) any pollutant 

discharge trends within the industry, and (6) any relevant economic factors. First, EPA attempts 

to verify the toxicity ranking results and fill in data gaps. Next, EPA considers costs and 

performance of applicable and demonstrated technologies, process changes, or pollutionprevention alternatives that can effectively reduce the pollutants in the point source category’s 

wastewater. Finally, and if appropriate based on the other findings, EPA considers the 

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

prevention measure identified using the second factor. These assessments provide an additional 

level of quality assurance on the reported pollutant discharges and number of facilities that 

represent the majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharge. 

During a preliminary category review, EPA may consult data sources including, but not 

limited to: (1) the U.S. Economic Census, (2) TRI and DMR data, (3) trade associations and 

reporting facilities that can verify reported releases and facility categorization, (4) regulatory 

authorities (states and EPA regions) that can clarify how category facilities are permitted, (5) 

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

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

technical literature on pollutant sources and control technologies.

2.2.1.2 Preliminary and Detailed Studies

After conducting the preliminary category reviews, as shown in Figure 2-4, EPA may 

next conduct either a preliminary or detailed study of an industrial category. Typically these 

studies profile an industry category, gather information about the hazards posed in its wastewater 

discharges, gather information about availability and cost of treatment and pollution prevention 

technologies, assess economic achievability, and investigate other factors in order to determine if 

it would be appropriate to identify the category for possible effluent guidelines revision. During 

preliminary or detailed studies, EPA typically examines the factors and data sources listed above 

for preliminary category reviews. However, during a detailed study, EPA’s examination of a 

point source category and available pollution prevention and treatment options is generally more 

rigorous than the analyses conducted during a preliminary category review or a preliminary 

study and may include primary data collection activities (such as industry questionnaires and 

wastewater sampling and analysis) to fill data gaps. 

2-5
Section 2—Background

Figure 2-1. Odd-Year Annual Review of Existing ELGs

2-6 
Section 2—Background

Figure 2-2. Odd-Year Identification of Possible New ELGs

2-7 
Section 2—Background

Figure 2-3. Even-Year Annual Review of Existing ELGs and Identification of Possible New 

ELGs

2-8
Section 2—Background

Figure 2-4. Further Review of Industrial Categories Identified During Odd- and Even-Year 

Annual Reviews

2-9
Section 2—Background

2.2.2 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans

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

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

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

section. EPA’s 2012 Annual Review Report presents the results of the section 304(b) reviews

(U.S. EPA, 2014a).

Under the even- and odd- year annual-review approach described above in Section 2.2.1,

EPA works to coordinate its annual reviews of existing effluent guidelines under section 304(b) 

with its publication of Preliminary and Final Plans under CWA section 304(m). As a result, Final 

Plans present the compilation of the odd- and even- year reviews and public comments received 

on the Preliminary Plan. EPA may initiate, continue, or complete preliminary category reviews

or in-depth studies during the odd- or even-year reviews, depending upon when it identifies a 

category warranting further review. Additionally, EPA may publish the conclusions from these 

studies as part of the Preliminary or Final Plan, based on when during the planning cycle the 

study or review is completed. 

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

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

planning effort because the results of each year of review can inform the content of the 

Preliminary and Final Plans (e.g., by identifying candidates for effluent guidelines revision, or by 

identifying point source categories for which EPA has not promulgated effluent guidelines). 

Second, even though it is not required to do so under either section 304(b) or section 304(m), 

EPA believes it can serve the public interest by periodically describing to the public the annual 

reviews (including the review process used) and the results of the reviews. Doing so at the same 

time as publishing the Preliminary and Final Plans makes both processes more transparent. 

Third, by requiring EPA to review all existing effluent guidelines each year, Congress appears to 

have intended for each successive review to build upon the results of earlier reviews. 

2.3 Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Overview

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 categorical regulations 

through six levels of control: 

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

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

3. Best conventional control technology (BCT);

4. New source performance standards (NSPS);

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

6. Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

For point sources that discharge pollutants directly into the waters of the U.S. (direct 

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

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

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

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

2-10
Section 2—Background

and federal authorities. See CWA sections 307(b) and (c). Figure 2-5 illustrates the relationship 

between the regulation of direct and indirect dischargers.

Figure 2-5. Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44501). EPA has identified 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as toxic pollutants, of which 

126 specific substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants. See Appendix A to Part 

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

nonconventional.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NSPS

• Conventional Pollutants

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)

BPT

• Conventional Pollutants

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)

BCT

• Conventional Pollutants

BAT

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)

New 

Sources

Existing 

Sources

Direct Dischargers

PSNS

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)

PSES

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)

Indirect Dischargers

2-11
Section 2—Background

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

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

practically.

2.3.2 Best Conventional Pollution Control Technology (BCT) — CWA Sections 

301(b)(2)(E) and 304(b)(4)

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

conventional pollutants associated with BCT for discharges from existing industrial point 

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

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

explained its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in 1986 (see 51 FR 24974, 

July 9, 1986).

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

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

For toxic pollutants and nonconventional pollutants, EPA promulgates effluent guidelines 

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

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

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

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

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

economically achievable. See CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). In addition to end-of-pipe wastewater 

treatment, BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a 

facility’s processes and operations. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT 

may reflect a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved within a particular 

subcategory based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may 

be based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies are not 

common industry practice.

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

NSPS reflect effluent reductions based on the best available demonstrated control 

technology. New sources have the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production 

processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most 

stringent controls attainable through the application of the best available demonstrated control 

technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In 

establishing NSPS, EPA takes into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and 

any non-water-quality environmental impacts and energy requirements. See CWA section 

306(b)(1)(B).

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

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

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

including wastewater conveyance and sludge disposal. Pretreatment standards are technologybased and are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines. See CWA section 301(b)(1)(A).

2-12
Section 2—Background

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

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

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

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

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

operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as NSPS. See CWA section 307(c). 

New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate into their plants the best available 

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

considers in promulgating NSPS.

2-13
PART II: FINAL 2012 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES 

PROGRAM PLAN

II
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology

3. 2012 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

This section provides a summary of the process EPA used in its 2012 Annual Review to 

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

guidelines and standards (ELGs) and the data sources and limitations used to complete this 

review. In future even-year reviews, EPA intends to use this same process. This process consists

of: 

• Considering public comments on the Preliminary Plan and other stakeholder input. 

• Continuing any ongoing preliminary category reviews (e.g., collecting more data, 

contacting permit writers, evaluating available treatment technology information) of 

specific point source categories that EPA identified for additional review in the oddyear review. 

• Identifying and evaluating additional data sources and conducting supporting 

analyses to:

— identify new wastewater discharges or pollutants not previously regulated; 

and 

— identify wastewater discharges that industry can more effectively treat or 

eliminate.

3.1 Summary of the 2012 Annual Review Methodology 

This section provides a brief summary of the methodology EPA used for its 2012 Annual 

Review. For more information and details on EPA’s 2012 Annual Review methodology and 

analyses see Part II (Sections 3 through 6) of EPA’s 2012 Annual Review Report (U.S EPA, 

2014a).

3.1.1 Public Comments on the Preliminary 2012 Plan and Stakeholder Input 

For the 2012 Annual Review, EPA considered public comments and stakeholder input 

received on the Preliminary 2012 Plan. See Section 4.2.1 for a summary of the public comments 

and stakeholder input received. For a detailed listing of the organizations that provided public 

comment and stakeholder input see DCN 07979. 

3.1.2 Continued Review of Selected Point Source Categories

EPA also continued its review of three point source categories that EPA identified as 

warranting further review in the Preliminary 2012 Plan (78 FR 48159): Meat and Poultry 

Products (40 CFR Part 432); Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419); and Pulp, Paper, and 

Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430). EPA’s continued review consisted of collecting additional 

discharge data from permit writers, publicly available data sources (e.g., DMR Loading Tool), 

trade associations, and specific facility contacts to confirm the discharges reported in the TRA

databases. Additionally, EPA collected information on available treatment technologies for 

specific industrial categories to compare current discharges to discharge levels that are treatable 

with available technologies. 

3-1 
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology

3.1.3 Additional Data Sources and New Supporting Analyses

For the 2012 Annual Review, EPA explored additional data sources and conducted six 

new analyses (described briefly below) to supplement the toxicity rankings analysis (TRA) 

conducted as part of the 2011 Annual Review (U.S EPA, 2012a). These analyses included:

• Identification of Industrial Pollutants in Sewage Sludge

• Review of Chemical Action Plans

• Identification of Wastewater Discharges Related to Air Pollution Control Not 

Currently Covered by ELGs

• Review of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Industry Sectors Expansion

• Review of Analytical Methods 

• Review of Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies

EPA identified and prioritized these data sources and analyses based on (1) the likelihood 

that they would assist in identifying unregulated industrial discharges, (2) their utility in 

identifying new wastewater treatment technologies or pollution prevention alternatives, and (3) 

how well the data represent the activity of an industrial category. EPA’s goals in selecting these 

specific analyses were to identify new wastewater discharges or pollutants not previously 

regulated and to identify wastewater discharges that can be eliminated or treated more 

effectively.

EPA documented the data quality and usability of each source, analyzed how the data 

could be used to improve the characterization of industrial wastewater discharges (concentration 

and quantity of pollutants, wastewater treatment available for new industries/concentrations), and 

prioritized the findings for further review. 

3.1.3.1 Identification of Industrial Pollutants in Sewage Sludge

EPA reviewed the Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey (TNSSS), conducted by 

EPA’s Office of Water (OW), in combination with indirect discharges from the 2009 TRI 

database, to examine pollutants discharged to POTWs and determine how those pollutants might 

interfere with beneficial use of sewage sludge. The TNSSS measured contaminant concentrations 

in sewage sludge from 74 publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). See Section 6.1 of the

2012 Annual Review Report for details on the specific methodologies and analyses EPA 

employed for its review of the TNSSS data (U.S EPA, 2014a).

3.1.3.2 Review of Chemical Action Plans

EPA reviewed data and information from the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

(OPPT’s) available chemical action plans (CAPs), published between 2009 to 2011, to identify 

new pollutants or wastestreams that might warrant regulation. Under the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA), OPPT has developed CAPs for 10 classes of chemicals that potentially 

create health and/or environmental hazards when manufactured in or imported into the U.S.

Subsequently (Feb. 2012), OPPT modified its approach for evaluating existing chemicals under 

TSCA and began the Work Plan Chemicals initiative. See Section 6.2 of the 2012 Annual Review 

3-2
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology

Report for details on the specific methodologies and analyses EPA employed for its review of 

OPPT’s CAPs (U.S EPA, 2014a).

3.1.3.3 Identification of Wastewater Discharges Related to Air Pollution Control 

Not Currently Covered by ELGs 

EPA reviewed federal air regulations to determine if, through the prescription of wet air 

pollution controls, they may result in the generation of unregulated industrial wastewater 

discharges or changes to currently regulated wastewater streams (containing new pollutants of 

concern). Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA controls emissions of air pollutants through 

several programs, including New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). EPA focused its review on NSPS and 

NESHAP rules promulgated or revised after 1990 to evaluate their potential impact on 

wastewater discharges from industries with older ELGs that were promulgated prior to the 

enactment of the air regulations. See Section 6.3 of the 2012 Annual Review Report for details on 

the specific methodologies and analyses EPA employed for its review of federal air regulations 

(U.S EPA, 2014a).

3.1.3.4 Review of TRI Industry Sectors Expansion

In June 2011, EPA’s Office of Environmental Information (OEI) initiated a rulemaking 

to add or expand the coverage of TRI for six industries, including phosphate mining, iron ore 

mining, solid waste combustors and incinerators, large dry cleaning facilities, bulk petroleum 

storage, and steam generating facilities. EPA reviewed the proposed expansion of TRI to 

evaluate whether new hazard data were available for these industries (that was used as a basis for 

the expansion proposal). EPA also evaluated whether the identified industrial sectors represent 

new or unregulated wastewater discharges that are not adequately regulated by ELGs. See 

Section 6.4 of the 2012 Annual Review Report for details on the specific methodologies and 

analyses EPA employed for its review of TRI industry sector expansion data (U.S EPA, 2014a).

3.1.3.5 Review of Analytical Methods

EPA reviewed analytical methods recently developed or revised by the Agency to help 

identify unregulated pollutants in industrial wastewater discharges and to identify changes to 

existing analytical methods that provide for increased sensitivity that would allow EPA to 

identify previously undetected pollutants or strengthen existing requirements for regulated 

pollutants. EPA focused its review on recent updates to the wastewater analytical methods listed 

in 40 CFR Part 136 as well as drinking water methods developed by EPA’s Office of Ground 

Water and Drinking Water and Office of Research and Development. See Section 6.5 of the 

2012 Annual Review Report for details on the specific methodologies and analyses EPA 

employed for its review of analytical methods (U.S EPA, 2014a).

3.1.3.6 Review of Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies

EPA has initiated a review of relevant literature to document the performance of new and 

improved industrial wastewater treatment technologies. EPA plans to capture these performance 

data in a searchable industrial wastewater treatment technology (IWTT) database. EPA intends 

to use the IWTT database in its screening process in future annual reviews to quantify the 

3-3
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology

effectiveness of technologies for removing pollutants of concern from specific industrial 

wastewater discharges. EPA is focusing its initial efforts on collecting and reviewing 

performance data for technologies that remove metals and that treat wastewater discharge

pollutants from the Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419), Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433), 

and Electroplating (40 CFR Part 413) point source categories. EPA’s recent reviews of these 

categories suggest that discharges of metals and other potentially hazardous pollutants are of 

increasing concern. See Section 6.6 of the 2012 Annual Review Report for details on the specific 

methodologies and analyses EPA employed for its review of industrial wastewater treatment 

technologies (U.S EPA, 2014a).

3.2 Categories Excluded from EPA’s 2012 Annual Review

Consistent with its previous annual reviews, EPA eliminated from further consideration 

during its 2011 and 2012 Annual Reviews the following:

• Discharges from industrial categories for which EPA recently considered developing 

or revising ELGs, or for which EPA has recently promulgated or revised ELGs 

(within the past seven years).

• Discharges from facilities that require a NPDES permit but do not fall into an

existing or new point source category or subcategory (e.g., Superfund sites).

• Discharges from facilities determined not to be representative of their category.

3.2.1 Categories for Which EPA has Recently Considered Developing or Revising ELGs 

or has Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs

EPA did not consider as part of its 2011 and 2012 Annual Reviews industrial categories 

for which it has recently considered developing or revising ELGs because it has thoroughly 

reviewed these categories separately from the annual review process. These categories include 

Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR 414) and Inorganic 

Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR 415) point source categories for facilities that produce 

chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons (CCH), as well as the coalbed methane extraction 

industry. See Section 5 of this Plan for details on EPA’s determinations related to these 

categories.

Similarly, EPA excluded from its 2011 and 2012 Annual Reviews point source 

categories for which ELGs were recently established or revised but are not yet fully 

implemented, or were recently reviewed in a rulemaking context, but for which EPA decided to 

withdraw the proposal or select the “no action” option. In general, EPA removed an industrial 

point source category from further consideration during a review cycle if EPA established, 

revised, or reviewed the category’s ELGs within seven years prior to the Annual Reviews. This 

seven-year period allows time for the ELGs to be incorporated into NPDES permits. Table 3-1

lists the categories EPA excluded from the 2011 and 2012 reviews due to this seven-year period. 

3-4
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology

Table 3-1. Point Source Categories That Have Undergone Recent Rulemaking or Review

40 CFR Part Point Source Category Date of Rulemaking

450 Construction and Development December 1, 2009

122 and 412 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) November 20, 2008

449 Airport Deicing May 16, 2012

EPA also did not consider as part of its 2011 or 2012 Annual Reviews industrial 

categories for which it is currently engaged in a rulemaking process. These include steam electric 

power generation, dental amalgam, and oil and gas extraction, specifically shale gas extraction.

See Section 5.2 of this Final 2012 Plan for details on the rulemaking status for these categories.

3.2.2 Discharges Not Categorizable

In its 2011 Annual Review, EPA identified discharges that are not categorizable into 

existing or new point source categories or subcategories (U.S. EPA, 2012a). In particular, EPA 

reviewed high TWPE discharges from a Superfund site (Auchterlonie, 2009). Direct discharges 

from Superfund sites, whether made onsite or offsite, are subject to NPDES permitting 

requirements (U.S. EPA, 1988a, 1988b). For the reasons discussed in the Preliminary 2012 Plan 

(78 FR 48159), EPA determined that these discharges do not fall into a single point source 

category and excluded these TWPE from the point source category rankings. EPA continued to 

exclude these discharges in its 2012 Annual Review.

3.3 Data Quality Assurance and Limitations

EPA’s methodology for the 2012 Annual Review involved several components, as 

discussed in Section 3.1, including continued preliminary category reviews of selected point 

source categories, an evaluation of additional data sources and new supporting analyses, and an 

assessment of public comments and other stakeholder input. 

EPA identified and used the following data sources as part of the six new analyses

conducted for the 2012 Annual Review:

• Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)/Online Tracking Information 

System (OTIS).

• Supporting documentation to the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) Regulations: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

• Conference proceedings, water-related journals, industry-specific organization 

literature.

• Data provided by trade association contacts.

• State regulatory agency data.

• Data obtained directly from industry.

• Purdue University Calumet Water Institute-Argonne National Laboratory Task Force 

(Purdue-Argonne Task Force) Report.

3-5
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology

• Steam Detailed Study Report (DSR).

• Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey (TNSSS).

• EPA, state, and local government representative data and information. 

• EPA Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW), and 

Office of Research and Development (ORD) Analytical Methods. 

• EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPT) program data 

sources: Chemical Action Plans (CAPs), Significant New Use Rule (SNUR).

• Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Sectors 

Expansions Rulemaking Data.

• Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) data sources: OPPT PFOA Stewardship Program, 

Long-Chain Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs) public docket. 

• Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) Drinking Water 

Treatability Database.

In addition, as in previous annual reviews, EPA continued to use TRI and DMR data 

from the DMR Loading Tool during the 2012 Annual Review. This section discusses these data 

sources and their limitations.

3.3.1 Additional Data Sources Supporting New Analyses

For its 2012 Annual Review, EPA used existing data to support the six new analyses of 

the impact of industrial discharges on the environment. These analyses relied on published 

literature identified during review of materials related to the targeted analyses. EPA obtained the 

existing data from publications and databases available from other EPA offices, 

www.regulations.gov, and other websites, as well as directly from industry and regulators 

(including EPA representatives). EPA considered the accuracy, reliability, and representativeness 

of data sources to assess their usability as follows.

Accuracy. EPA assumed that the underlying data and information contained in state and 

federal reports, selected conference proceedings, and peer-reviewed journal articles were 

accurate. That is, EPA assumed that data from these sources were of sufficient quality to 

identify characteristics of industrial discharges and that known analytical methods were 

used for any pollutant measurements. 

Reliability. EPA evaluated existing data for reliability based on the following factors: 

• The scientific work is clearly written, so that all assumptions and methodologies can 

be identified. 

• The variability and uncertainty (quantitative and qualitative) in the information or in 

the procedures, measures, methods, or models are evaluated and characterized.

• The assumptions and methodologies are consistently applied throughout the analysis 

as reported in the source. 

3-6 
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology

• Waste stream, parameters, units, and detection limits (when appropriate) are clearly 

characterized.

During the review of existing literature, EPA encountered sources that contained limited 

documentation of actual measurements, and instead provided qualitative discussion. For 

example, numerous media articles state that perfluorinated chemicals cause cancer, but the 

articles do not cite the source for the statement, do not provide numerical measurements of 

cancer incidence (increased risk), and do not provide amounts of exposure (such as mg/kg). In 

addition, many of articles from industry publications and conferences do not describe the 

analytical methods used to measure pollutant concentrations, but that the detection limits are 

consistently provided when measured concentrations are reported at or below detection. These 

data sources represented a lower level of reliability than peer-reviewed literature, but provided 

useful information for capturing the full range of environmental impacts associated with 

industrial discharges. 

Representativeness. EPA evaluated existing data for use in qualitative analyses based on 

whether the data provide a national perspective and are relevant to and representative of the 

industry to which the data are applied. 

For more information on the quality assurance activities supporting the 2012 Annual 

Review, including a summary of EPA’s data quality and utility evaluation for the additional data 

sources, see Appendix B of the 2012 Annual Review Report (U.S EPA, 2014a).

3.3.2 DMR and TRI Data

EPA has previously explained its use of DMR and TRI data in the Technical Support 

Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential 

New Point Source Categories (2009 Screening-Level Analysis (SLA) Report) (U.S. EPA, 2009). 

The 2009 SLA Report provides the detailed methodology used to process thousands of data 

records and generate national estimates of industrial effluent discharges. 

EPA relies on outputs from the DMR Loading Tool,

2 which categorizes and calculates

pollutant loadings using the SIC and NAICS codes and toxic weighting factors (TWFs) in 

conjunction with DMR and TRI discharge data. In its analyses, EPA multiplies a mass loading of 

a pollutant in pounds per year (as reported in the DMR Loading Tool) by a pollutant-specific 

TWF to derive a “toxic-weighted pound equivalent” loading. (Throughout this document, the 

toxic-weighted pound equivalent is referred to as TWPE.) For more information on TWFs, see 

EPA’s Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology (U.S. EPA, 2012b). EPA also classifies each 

facility reporting discharges into a particular industrial point source category based on the 

applicable SIC or NAICS codes for that facility. TRI includes information on a facility’s NAICS 

code, while DMR data include information on a facility’s SIC code. EPA then sums the TWPE 

for each facility classified in a point source category to calculate a total TWPE per category for a 

given year. Table 3-2 describes the utility and limitations of the DMR and TRI data.

2 The DMR Loading Tool is located at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/. The tool is maintained by EPA’s Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Compliance. 

3-7

 
Section 3—2012 Annual Review Methodology

Table 3-2. TRI and DMR Data Utility and Limitations

TRI DMR

Utility of Data

National scope National scope

Includes releases to POTWs, not just direct dischargers 

to surface waters

Discharge reports are based on effluent chemical 

analysis and metered flows

Includes releases of many toxic chemicals, not just those 

on the facility permit

Includes facilities in any SIC code

Includes discharge data from manufacturing NAICS 

codes and some other industrial categories

Limitations of Data

Small establishments and those that don’t meet reporting 

requirements are not included in the database

Data systems contain data only for pollutants in the 

facility permit

Some releases are based on estimates due to TRI 

reporting guidance, some facilities may over- or underestimate releases

Limited discharge data on minorb discharges

Certain chemicals are reported as class, not individual 

compounds,a which can inaccurately estimate the 

toxicity of chemical releases

Data systems do not include data characterizing indirect 

discharges from industrial facilities to POTWs

Facilities are identified by NAICS codes, not point 

source category

Facilities do not always report duration of discharges, 

which may overestimate toxic releases based on the 

assumption that discharges are continuous

TRI only requires facilities to report certain chemicals; 

therefore, all pollutants discharged from a facility may 

not be captured

Some data systems do not identify the type of 

wastewater discharged, which may include stormwater 

or non-contact cooling water; pipe identification is not 

always clear

Facilities are identified by SIC codes, not point source 

category

Data may contain errors from manual data entry

Facilities do not always provide average concentrations 

or quantities, which results in an overestimation if only 

maximum values are used

a Chemicals reported as a class include polycyclic aromatic compounds, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, metal 

compounds. 

b EPA developed a major/minor classification system for industrial and municipal wastewater discharges. The 

distinction was made initially to assist EPA and states in setting priorities for permit issuance and reissuance.

Facilities with minor discharges must report compliance with NPDES permit limits via monthly DMRs 

submitted to the permitting authority; however, EPA does not require the permitting authority to enter data in 

the PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases. (U.S. EPA, 2010)

The DMR and TRI data EPA used have been evaluated and corrected during previous 

toxicity ranking analyses reported for calendar years 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006–2011. For a 

detailed list of all corrections made to the 2009 DMR data, see Section 3.3.7 and 3.3.4, 

respectively, in EPA’s 2011 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2012a).

3-8
Section 4—Results of the 2011 and 2012 Annual Review

4. RESULTS OF THE 2011 AND 2012 ANNUAL REVIEWS

This section briefly summarizes the results of EPA’s 2011 Annual Review and presents 

new findings from its 2012 Annual Review. 

4.1 Summary of Results from the 2011 Annual Review

EPA published results of its 2011 Annual Review (U.S. EPA, 2012a), which consisted of 

the odd-year TRA, in support of the Preliminary 2012 Plan (78 FR 48159). From the 2011 

Annual Review, EPA determined that additional review for three point source categories was 

appropriate, as announced in the Preliminary 2012 Plan: Pulp, Paper and Paperboard (40 CFR 

Part 430), Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419), and Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 

432). EPA continued to review these categories in the 2012 Annual Review. 

4.2 Findings from the 2012 Annual Review 

For the 2012 Annual Review, EPA evaluated public comments and stakeholder input 

received on the Preliminary 2012 Plan and continued its review of the three point source

categories identified during the 2011 Annual Review as warranting additional review. 

Additionally, EPA identified additional data sources and conducted six new analyses to 

supplement the toxicity rankings analysis.

4.2.1 Findings from Public Comments and Stakeholder Input

EPA’s annual review process considers information provided by the public and 

stakeholders regarding new or revised effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards. 

Public comments received on EPA’s prior reviews and Plans helped the Agency prioritize its 

analyses of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. This section presents a 

summary of the comments received on the Preliminary 2012 Plan.

EPA published its Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (Preliminary 2012 

Plan) and provided a 60-day public comment period starting on August 7, 2013 (see 78 FRN 

48159). The Docket supporting this Final Plan includes a complete set of the comments 

submitted, as well as the Agency’s responses (see DCN 07979). 

EPA received comments on the Preliminary 2012 Plan from 19 organizations 

representing industry, six environmental groups, one state representing organization, one 

publicly owned treatment works group, one tribal government, and one county government.

Comments addressed the following subject areas: 

• Coalbed methane and shale gas extraction (17 comments)

• Chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbon (3 comments)

• Oil and gas coastal subcategory (2 comments)

• Alaska offshore seafood processors (2 comments)

• Dental amalgam (1 comment)

• Effluent limitation guidelines and standards (ELGs) and Plan process in general (1 

comment)

4-1
Section 4—Results of the 2011 and 2012 Annual Review

• Other (1 comment)

For coalbed methane extraction (CBM extraction), EPA received 13 comments from 

industry representatives and county government supporting the delisting of CBM extraction for 

three main reasons:

• Additional costs would further reduce the feasibility of production, due to the 

declining economics of the industry.

• CBM extraction production and discharges are declining.

• Discharges are already effectively permitted.

Environmental groups commented that EPA should move forward with developing 

regulations for CBM extraction because EPA should not rely solely on economic considerations. 

The environmental groups suggest that changes in gas production processes, gas demand, and 

wastewater treatment costs could change EPA’s conclusions. The environmental groups also 

noted there are environmental impacts from CBM extraction discharges that need to be 

addressed. One commenter provided information summarizing several ongoing Department of 

Energy projects related to CBM extraction and potential new produced water treatment 

technologies. The new technologies are variations of desalination and reverse osmosis systems. 

These studies have not yet been completed.

For chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbon (CCH), two industry trade groups supported 

the delisting for the reasons EPA presented in the Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program 

Plan. One company provided a comment correcting EPA’s classification of their facility in 

EPA’s Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Data Collection and Analysis Summary report.

Two commenters, one environmental organization and one tribal government, asked EPA 

to remove the exemption for Cook Inlet, Alaska from the zero discharge requirements in the oil 

and gas coastal ELGs. 

One industry trade group requested that EPA revise the requirements under the Alaska 

Offshore Seafood Processors General Permit AK-G2-4000. Additionally, two industry trade 

groups petitioned EPA to initiate a rulemaking to add a subpart to the Canned and Preserved 

Seafood Processing point source category, adding ELGs for discharges resulting from the 

processing of seafood on mobile seafood processing vessels.

For Dental Amalgam, one POTW group requested that EPA take clear action on the draft 

dental amalgam separator rule and expressed support for dropping it from consideration if EPA 

did take such action. 

One organization, representing a number of states, suggested improvements to the ELGs 

and 304m process in general, including using additional data sources to consider improved 

hazard data and advances in treatment technology. The commenter suggested that EPA 

incorporate information from other EPA offices and states into the ELG program. The 

commenter also stated that the metal finishing category should be re-examined because there 

have been significant changes in the industry over the last few years.

4-2
Section 4—Results of the 2011 and 2012 Annual Review

One industry trade group expressed support for EPA’s conclusion that pulp and paper 

mills present a low risk and that the ELGs should be a lower priority for revision. A more 

detailed summary table of the comments can be found in the 2012 Annual Review Report (U.S. 

EPA, 2014a). EPA carefully considered all public comments and information submitted in 

developing the Final 2012 Plan. A comment response document is also available at (DCN 

07979).

4.2.2 Findings from Continued Review of Selected Point Source Categories

During the 2011 Annual Review, EPA identified three point source categories for which 

further review is appropriate: Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432); Petroleum Refining 

(40 CFR Part 419); and Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430). EPA continued review 

of these categories as part of the 2012 Annual Review (U.S EPA, 2014a). Below are the findings 

from these 2012 continued category reviews.

• Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432).EPA completed further review of 

Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI) reported nitrate discharges and found that the 

majority of the top nitrate compound dischargers are in compliance with the Part 432 

total nitrogen limitations or are receiving new permits to meet Part 432 total nitrogen 

limitations. Therefore, EPA concludes that nitrate discharges from meat and poultry 

products facilities are decreasing due to the 2004 Part 432 effluent guidelines 

revisions. 

• Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419). EPA further reviewed discharges of dioxin 

and dioxin-like compounds and metals, identified as pollutants of concern in the 

TRA for the Petroleum Refining category. For dioxins, EPA found that one facility’s 

reported discharges contributed to the majority (65 percent) of the dioxin and dioxinlike compound TRI TWPE, however this facility’s reported discharges are estimated 

(based on the number of reformer catalyst regenerations) and not directly measured.

From the 2010 DMR data for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds EPA only identified 

one refinery reporting discharging detectable concentrations (above the Method 

1613B Minimum Level (ML)), though available data indicates this facility’s dioxin 

discharges result largely from stormwater contaminated via aerial deposition, not the 

discharge of treated process wastewater. EPA has not yet determined whether dioxin 

is being discharged at concentrations above the 1613B Minimum Level (ML) or 

identified the primary source of the discharge (e.g., stormwater or process 

wastewater from catalytic reforming and catalyst regeneration operations).

For metals discharges, EPA reviewed DMR data from 76 refineries from across the 

country and identified metals present in most petroleum refineries’ effluent 

discharges that exceeded comparable treatability data for metals removals achieved 

by more recent technologies. EPA continued its examination of the petroleum 

refining category in 2013.

• Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430). EPA further reviewed 

discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and found that the majority of 

estimated releases reported to TRI were based on pollutant concentrations below the 

4-3
Section 4—Results of the 2011 and 2012 Annual Review

Method 1613B ML. EPA concluded that dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from 

pulp and paper facilities are not a hazard priority at this time.

4.2.3 Findings from Additional Hazard Data Sources Supporting New Analyses

EPA identified additional data sources and conducted six new analyses as part of the 

2012 Annual Review (U.S. EPA, 2014a). Below are the findings from these new analyses. 

• Identification of Industrial Pollutants in Sewage Sludge. EPA’s review of the 

Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey (TNSSS), combined with available 

indirect discharge data from TRI identified the Metal Finishing point source category 

(40 CFR Part 433) as potentially discharging high concentrations of metals, 

particularly chromium, nickel, and zinc, to publically owned treatment works 

(POTWs). These metals could transfer to sewage sludge and impact its beneficial 

use. Based on the TNSSS and 2009 TRI datasets, EPA could not identify for further 

review any new pollutants of concern or wastewater discharges from industrial 

categories not currently regulated by ELGs. EPA focused its review on the pollutants 

in the TNSSS with discharge information available in TRI since TRI provided a 

means to link industrial wastewater sources to the pollutants found in POTW sludge.

See Section 6.1 of the 2012 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2014a) for more 

information regarding this analysis.

• Review of Chemical Action Plans. EPA reviewed data and information from the 

OPPT’s available CAPs to identify new pollutants or waste streams that might 

warrant regulation. OPPT developed CAPs for 10 classes of chemicals that 

potentially create health and/or environmental hazards when manufactured in or 

imported into the U.S. If these potentially hazardous chemicals are currently 

produced and/or used in the U.S. and have the potential to be discharged in 

wastewater from manufacture and/or use, these wastewater discharges may warrant 

regulation. 

From review of the CAPs, EPA identified six chemicals or classes of chemicals that 

are currently produced and have known or potential wastewater discharges:

Benzidine dyes, Bisphenol A (BPA), Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), 

Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates, Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs), and 

Phthalates. Another class of chemicals, short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs)

are no longer manufactured in the U.S., but they have been used in metal working 

and have the potential to be discharged in wastewater from this industry. 

Additionally, two of the chemicals, Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate (MDI) and

Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI), do not have significant wastewater discharges.

However, EPA identified that the hydrolysis byproducts of TDI and MDI, toluene 

diamine and methyl diphenyl diamine, may be present in industrial wastewater.

One chemical category is being phased out of U.S. commerce; EPA does not intend 

to pursue further review for Penta, Octa, and Decabromodiphenyl Ethers (PBDEs).

See Section 6.2 of the 2012 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2014a) for more 

information regarding this analysis.

4-4
Section 4—Results of the 2011 and 2012 Annual Review

• Identification of Wastewater Discharges Related to Air Pollution Control Not 

Currently Regulated by ELGs. EPA identified new and revised air regulations that 

likely result in the generation of new wastestreams that contain metals at petroleum 

refineries. EPA also identified three air regulations that may result in an unregulated 

wastewater discharge: regulations for brick and structural clay product 

manufacturing; industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers; and industrial, 

commercial, and institutional steam generating units. In addition, EPA identified 13 

industries with existing ELGs, for which new air regulations may result in the 

discharge of new or additional pollutants. See Section 6.3 of the 2012 Annual Review 

Report (U.S. EPA, 2014a) for more information regarding this analysis.

• Review of TRI Industry Sectors Expansion. The TRI sector expansion rulemaking 

is still under development. Available information suggests that selenium discharges 

from phosphate mines (regulated under 40 CFR Part 136) may be a new wastewater 

pollutant of concern. See Section 6.4 of the 2012 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 

2014a) for more information regarding this analysis.

• Review of Analytical Methods. EPA reviewed recent analytical method 

developments included in the 2012 Method Update Rule and identified that there are 

reduced detection limits for some metals and additions of new methods for detecting 

other pollutants of concern from industrial wastewater discharges, including: free 

cyanide, acid mine drainage, nonylphenol, and bisphenol A. 

In addition, EPA identified several pesticides measured by some of the approved 

pesticide analytical methods (listed in 40 CFR Part 136) that do not currently have 

effluent limits under the Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing, Formulating, and 

Packaging ELGs (40 CFR Part 455).

EPA also reviewed OGWDW and ORD drinking water analytical methods and 

identified two relatively new methods developed by ORD to measure concentrations 

of PFCs and 1,4-dioxane. OGWDW is using these methods in its Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) to evaluate PFCs and 1,4-dioxane in 

drinking water. EPA has identified industrial wastewater discharges for both PFCs 

and 1,4-dioxane.

See Section 6.4 of the 2012 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2014a) for more 

information regarding this analysis.

• Review of Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technologies. EPA has initiated a 

review of scientific literature reporting the performance of new and improved 

industrial wastewater treatment technologies and plans to capture these performance 

data in a searchable industrial wastewater treatment technology (IWTT) database. As 

a first step, EPA is identifying and reviewing industrial wastewater treatment 

technology performance data related to petroleum refining, metal finishing, and 

electroplating industries (and metals removal in general). See Section 6.5 of the 2012 

Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2014a) for more information regarding the 

findings from this analysis.

4-5
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions

5. FINAL 2012 PLAN DECISIONS

This section presents EPA’s final decisions on actions proposed in the Preliminary 2012 

Plan (78 FR 48159). Preliminary results of the 2013 Annual Review and proposed actions 

resulting from both the 2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews are presented in Preliminary 2014 Plan 

(see Part III of this document).

5.1 Industries for Which EPA Is No Longer Undergoing an ELG Rulemaking

Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH) Manufacturing:

In prior year reviews, EPA considered revisions to effluent limitations guidelines and 

standards (ELGs) for the Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR 

414) and Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR 415) point source categories for facilities 

that produce chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons (CCH). EPA proposed to discontinue a

revised ELG for facilities that produce chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons (CCH) in the 

preliminary 2012 plan, and after considering public comments, EPA has decided not to move 

forward with a rulemaking for this industry.

EPA began an ELG rulemaking for the CCH Manufacturing Industry in March 2005,

after issuing the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (69 FR 53705). In the 2004 Effluent 

Guidelines Program plan, EPA selected the vinyl chloride (a type of chlorinated hydrocarbon) 

manufacturing segment of the organic chemicals industry for possible revision because 

preliminary analysis showed that the segment discharged significant quantities of toxic weighted 

pound-equivalents. In addition, because many chlorine manufacturers are co-located with vinyl 

chloride manufacturing and because these facilities discharge significant quantities of TWPEs, 

EPA also selected the chlorine manufacturing segment of the inorganic chemicals industry for 

possible revision. Also, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) manufacturers were considered to be part of 

the vinyl chloride manufacturing segment due to frequent co-location.

As part of the initial industry assessment, both industry and EPA collected samples to 

measure dioxins being generated and discharged in the wastewater at CCH facilities. First, EPA 

completed 13 site visits to determine sampling possibilities at facilities with potential BAT 

wastewater treatment technology. Ultimately, four sampling episodes were completed by EPA. 

Additionally, 12 sampling episodes were completed by the Vinyl Chloride Producers (VCP) as 

part of the voluntary plan established in February 2007 as an alternative to completing an EPA 

questionnaire or further EPA sampling. EPA designed the sampling plans for each of the 12 

facilities. 

After thoroughly reviewing all of the dioxin sampling data and evaluating public 

comments received on the Preliminary 2012 Plan, EPA has decided not to move forward with the 

development of effluent limitations guidelines for the CCH manufacturing industry. Very low 

TWPE annual discharges were calculated for all PVC manufacturers for which data were 

available. Similarly, very low TWPE annual discharges were calculated for all but one of the 

chlorine manufacturing facilities for which data were collected. Although the chlorinated 

hydrocarbon manufacturers that manufacture vinyl chloride discharge a maximum of 1.1 million 

TWPEs, one facility accounts for the vast majority of this TWPE and the associated discharge of 

dioxins. Also, almost all chlorinated hydrocarbon manufacturing facilities that manufacture vinyl 

5-1
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions

chloride already have wastewater treatment technology that would potentially represent "best 

available technology" for the industry. EPA therefore has determined that it would be best to 

address the few facilities with significant dioxin discharges through permitting rather than 

through the development of national effluent guidelines (U.S. EPA, 2012c).

Coalbed Methane (CBM) Extraction Industry:

In its Final 2010 ELG Plan, EPA also indicated it was initiating rulemakings to revise 

ELGs for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 135) to address 

discharges from coalbed methane and shale gas extraction. In the 2012 Preliminary Plan, EPA 

proposed to delist the coalbed methane extraction (CBM extraction) industry from the effluent 

guidelines plan and to discontinue the rulemaking. EPA proposed to delist the CBM extraction 

industry from the effluent guidelines plan based on new information regarding the declining 

economic viability of CBM extraction production at a national level, which affects the economic 

achievability of controls for the CBM extraction industry as a whole. The reduced economic 

viability of CBM extraction production results from declining natural gas prices, due in large 

part to the increased extraction of natural gas from other sources, such as shale formations. (U.S. 

EPA, 2013a; U.S. EPA, 2013b). The initial decision to identify this industry for rulemaking was 

based on the results of a detailed industry study and comments from the public indicating at that 

time that CBM extraction was a growing industry and that treatment technologies were available 

to address pollutants discharged by the industry. However, since initiating the rulemaking, more 

recent data on the quantity and projected levels of CBM extraction production and CBM 

extraction production economics indicate otherwise. After reviewing financial data pertaining to 

this industry collected through the Detailed Questionnaire for the Coalbed Methane Extraction 

Sector, and natural gas price projections through 2040 from the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration (EIA), wastewater quality/quantity data and the cost of available wastewater 

treatment options, EPA was not able to identify a wastewater treatment technology that would be 

economically achievable for this industrial subcategory as a whole. Although potential treatment 

technologies exist, are demonstrated, and may be affordable for some sites, these technologies do 

not appear to be economically achievable for the CBM extraction industry as a whole due, in 

part, to the decrease in gas prices as a result of the recent boom in development of shale gas 

resources. EPA’s analysis found that the cost of treatment technologies would likely lead to 

early shutdown of existing wells, with associated loss of CBM extraction gas production to 

society; in addition, EPA's analysis found that new CBM extraction wells may not be 

economically viable for a substantial period into the future, and that imposing an additional cost 

for new treatment technologies at this time would further extend the time in which new CBM

extraction wells could become economically viable. 

EPA received comments on its proposal to delist the CBM extraction industry from 

industry, environmental groups, and a local government official. In general, environmental 

groups opposed EPA’s proposal primarily because CBM extraction discharges may have 

negative impacts; these comments argued that EPA’s decision should not be driven by costs to 

the industry and/or the associated economic impacts. These commenters did not disagree with 

the EIA projections of natural gas prices that underlie EPA’s economic analyses; rather, they 

focused on the inherent uncertainty in predicting gas prices. They assert that because of the 

uncertainty, EPA should not base decisions on it. They also noted that the potential for CBM 

5-2
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions

extraction development remains, and increases in demand could once again shift the projections 

for this subcategory. 

Others supported EPA’s proposal based on the declining economic condition of the 

industry since EPA’s announcement and previous data collection, and/or provided additional 

company-specific information regarding the effect of gas prices on the company’s current and 

projected operation. 

After reviewing all of the comments and its rulemaking record, EPA concludes that it did 

not receive any data or information to alter its former findings. EPA concludes that while 

effective technologies exist, are demonstrated, and may be affordable for some sites, these 

technologies are not economically achievable for the CBM extraction industry as a whole. This 

applies to existing and new CBM extraction wells based on current and future economic 

conditions. See “Economic Analysis for Existing and New Projects in the Coalbed Methane 

Industry” (U.S. EPA, 2013a). 

EPA’s decision to delist the CBM extraction industry based on economic achievability is 

appropriate. Indeed, the statute specifically provides that for toxic and non-conventional 

pollutants, limitations be based on the “best available technology economically achievable,” thus 

requiring a consideration of economic achievability in establishing effluent limitation guidelines 

based on BAT. CWA Section 301(b)(2)(A), 33.U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). If EPA 

is unable to identify an available technology that is economically achievable for the industry as a 

whole, EPA does not have a basis for establishing effluent guidelines for this industry. 

Generally, the EPA determines economic achievability on the basis of the projected effect of cost 

of compliance with BAT limitations and pretreatment standards on the overall industry and 

subcategory financial conditions, as discussed in the Economic Analysis. Similarly, in 

establishing NSPS and PSNS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the “cost of achieving 

the effluent reductions” (CWA section 306(b)(1)(B), 33. U.S.C. 1316(b)(1)(B)), and EPA 

appropriately conducted a barrier to entry analysis in considering such costs, as discussed in the 

Economic Analysis. 

EPA is not mandated to make decisions on perfect information, but rather on the best 

information and data available to the Agency. Therefore, while the EPA acknowledges that EIA 

projections of natural gas prices are uncertain, EIA’s projections are regarded as high quality, 

unbiased projections from a credible government source. The commenters did not provide any 

other sources of natural gas price projections. EPA continues to find that EIA’s projections 

provide a sufficient basis for its regulatory determinations. Additionally, EPA did not receive 

any information or data to refute its other data sources or its economic analyses. Rather, the 

Agency received additional data that supports its analysis. 

EPA is not suggesting that direct and indirect wastewater discharges associated with 

CBM extraction may not have negative environmental impacts and do not ever need to be 

controlled. On the contrary, EPA notes that in establishing NPDES permits, permitting 

authorities, in the absence of applicable ELGs, must establish technology-based effluent limits 

on a case-by-case basis using best professional judgment (BPJ), considering the same factors that 

EPA would consider in establishing an effluent guideline (40 CFR 125.3(c)(2)). Additional 

limitations based on water quality standards are also required to be included in the permits in 

5-3
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions

certain circumstances to protect water quality should specific facilities’ discharges be found to 

cause, or have the reasonable potential to cause, violations of state water quality standards. 

Nothing in the record for today’s decision precludes a permitting authority from making the 

determination on a site-specific basis that a technology is available and economically achievable 

upon which to base technology-based limitations using BPJ. In fact, EPA’s record demonstrates 

that on a site-specific basis, technologies are already being employed to control pollutant 

discharges associated with CBM extraction. The record demonstrates that at this time, these 

requirements should not be established on a uniform basis across the entire industry, but should 

instead continue to be appropriately established on a site-specific BPJ basis. 

The data that EPA evaluated to come to this decision, including public comments 

received on its proposal to delist the coalbed methane extraction industry in the Preliminary 2012 

Plan, are available for review in the Federal Data Management System Docket EPA-HQ-OW2010-0824, available at www.regulations.gov. 

5.2 Industries Previously Identified for Further Review for Which EPA is Taking No 

Action

In the Preliminary 2012 Plan (78 FR 48159), EPA announced its continued review of

dioxin and dioxin-like compounds for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) and 

nitrate discharges for the Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432) point source categories. 

Based on the findings from the 2012 Annual Review (U.S. EPA, 2014a) related to these 

categories, EPA has concluded that no further review of these discharges is warranted and is 

taking no further action related to these categories at this time. 

Meat and Poultry Products Manufacturing:

For Meat and Poultry Products, EPA determined that a majority of the top nitrate 

compound dischargers are in compliance with the Part 432 total nitrogen limitations or are 

receiving new permits to meet Part 432 total nitrogen limitations. Therefore, EPA concludes that 

nitrate discharges from meat and poultry products facilities are decreasing due to the 2004 Part 

432 effluent guidelines revisions.

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing:

For Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard, EPA determined that a majority of the estimated dioxin

and dioxin-like compound releases reported to TRI were based on pollutant concentrations below 

the Method 1613B ML. Therefore, EPA concluded that dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from 

pulp and paper facilities are not a hazard priority at this time.

5.3 Potential Indirect Dischargers for Pretreatment Standards

5.3.1 Evaluation of Pass-Through and Interference of Toxic and Non-Conventional 

Pollutants Discharged to POTWs

All indirect dischargers are subject to general pretreatment standards (40 CFR 403), 

including a prohibition on discharges causing “pass-through” or “interference” (See 40 CFR 

403.5). All POTWs with approved pretreatment programs must develop local limits to 

5-4
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions

implement the general pretreatment standards. All other POTWs must develop such local limits 

where they have experienced pass-through or interference and such a violation is likely to recur. 

There are approximately 1,500 POTWs with approved pretreatment programs and 13,500 small 

POTWs that are not required to develop and implement pretreatment programs.

In addition, EPA establishes technology-based national regulations, termed “categorical 

pretreatment standards,” for categories of industry discharging pollutants to POTWs that may 

pass through, interfere with, or otherwise be incompatible with POTW operations (Clean Water 

Act section 307(b)). Generally, categorical pretreatment standards are designed such that 

wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of 

treatment. EPA has promulgated such pretreatment standards for 35 industrial categories.

One of the tools traditionally used by EPA in evaluating whether pollutants pass through 

a POTW is a comparison of the percentage of a pollutant removed by POTWs with the 

percentage of the pollutant removed by discharging facilities applying the best available control 

technology economically achievable (BAT). Pretreatment standards for existing sources are 

technology-based and are analogous to BAT ELGs. In most cases, EPA has concluded that a 

pollutant passes through the POTW when the median percentage removed nationwide by 

representative POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment requirements) is less than the median 

percentage removed by facilities complying with BAT effluent limitations guidelines for that 

pollutant.

This approach to the definition of “pass-through” satisfies two competing objectives set 

by Congress: (1) that standards for indirect dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct 

dischargers and (2) that the treatment capability and performance of POTWs be recognized and 

taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from indirect dischargers.

The term “interference” means a discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a 

discharge or discharges from other sources, both (1) inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment 

processes or operations, or its sludge processes, use, or disposal and (2) therefore is a cause of a 

violation of any requirement of the POTW’s NPDES permit (including an increase in the 

magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of sewage sludge use or disposal in 

compliance with applicable regulations or permits. See 40 CFR 403.3(k). To determine the 

potential for interference, EPA generally evaluates the industrial indirect discharges in terms of: 

(1) the compatibility of industrial wastewaters and domestic wastewaters (e.g., type of pollutants 

discharged in industrial wastewaters compared to pollutants typically found in domestic 

wastewaters); (2) concentrations of pollutants discharged in industrial wastewaters that might 

cause interference with the POTW collection system, the POTW treatment system, or biosolids 

disposal options; and (3) the potential for variable pollutant loadings to interfere with POTW 

operations (e.g., batch discharges or slug loadings from industrial facilities interfering with 

normal POTW operations).

If EPA determines that a category of indirect dischargers causes pass-through or 

interference, EPA will then consider the BAT and BPT factors (including “such other factors as 

the Administrator deems appropriate”) specified in section 304(b) to determine whether to 

develop pretreatment standards for these activities. Examples of “such other factors” include a 

consideration of the magnitude of the hazard posed by the pollutants discharged as measured by: 

5-5
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions

(1) the total annual TWPE discharged by the industrial sector and (2) the average TWPE 

discharged among facilities that discharge to POTWs. Additionally, EPA would consider 

whether other regulatory tools (e.g., use of local limits under Part 403) or voluntary measures 

would better control the pollutant discharges from this category of indirect dischargers. For 

example, EPA relied on a similar evaluation of “pass-through potential” in its prior decision not 

to promulgate national categorical pretreatment standards for the Industrial Laundries industry. 

See 64 FR 45071 (August 18, 1999). EPA noted in this 1999 final action that, “While EPA has 

broad discretion to promulgate such (national categorical pretreatment) standards, EPA retains 

discretion not to do so where the total pounds removed do not warrant national regulation and 

there is not a significant concern with pass through and interference at the POTW.” See 64 FR 

45077 (August 18, 1999).

During the 2012 Annual Review, EPA’s review of the Targeted National Sewage Sludge 

Survey (TNSSS), combined with available indirect discharge data from TRI, identified the Metal 

Finishing Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 433) as potentially discharging high 

concentrations of metals, particularly chromium, nickel, and zinc, to POTWs. These metals 

could transfer to sewage sludge and impact its beneficial use. 

5.4 Industries for Which EPA is Currently Undergoing an ELG Rulemaking

EPA is currently undergoing a rulemaking that would revise ELGs for the Steam Electric 

(40 CFR 423) Point Source Category. Because the Steam Electric rulemaking is underway, EPA 

excluded discharges from these facilities from analysis under the 2011 and 2012 Annual 

Reviews since a guideline was already underway. 

EPA also has been undergoing a rulemaking to develop potential pretreatment 

requirements for discharges of mercury from the dental industry. Based on information 

submitted in prior annual reviews (2004, 2006, and 2008), commenters raised concerns about 

discharges of mercury from dentists facilities and urged EPA to consider establishing effluent 

guidelines and pretreatment standards for such discharges. EPA announced the dental amalgam 

rulemaking to regulate mercury discharges from dentists’ offices in the Final 2010 Plan.

EPA also indicated in its Final 2010 ELG Plan (76 FR 66286) that it was initiating two 

separate rulemakings to potentially revise ELGs for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source 

Category (40 CFR Part 435) to address discharges from coalbed methane and shale gas 

extraction. As discussed above, after proposing not to go forward with a rulemaking pertaining to 

the coalbed methane extraction industry and considering public comments on this proposal, EPA 

has decided to delist the coalbed methane extraction industry from the effluent guidelines plan. 

However, EPA is continuing the rulemaking to potentially revise the ELGs for the Oil and Gas 

Extraction Point Source Category to address pretreatment standards for shale gas extraction.

5.4.1 EPA’s Current Schedule for ELG Actions 

Steam Electric Power Generation:

-Proposed Rule June 7, 2013

-Final Rule September 2015

5-6
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

Section 5—Final 2012 Plan Decisions

Dental Amalgam:

-Proposed Rule September 2014

-Final Rule March 2016

Unconventional Extraction in the Oil and Gas Industry

-Proposed Rule (Shale Gas Extraction) October 2014

5.5 Results of Solicitation for Innovation and Technology in the Effluent Guidelines 

Program

Innovation and technology have played key roles in improving the strength of the U. S. 

economy while at the same time vastly improving public health and the environment. The U. S. 

leads the way in the environmental technology arena that has become a worldwide market of 

over $800 billion. The environmental technology sector employs about 1.7 million Americans.

EPA solicited public comments in the Preliminary 2012 Plan to provide the public with 

an opportunity to advance the dialogue about ways EPA can foster innovative technologies while 

fulfilling its obligations under Sections 304(m), 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b) of the Clean 

Water Act. EPA sought public input and comment on the following questions and related 

themes:

• Are there new, innovative pollution control or pollution prevention technologies that 

can be used by any of the existing 58 categories of industry with effluent limitations 

guidelines?

• Are there innovative manufacturing approaches that can be used by industries to 

reduce or prevent their wastewater discharges?

• How can EPA's effluent limitations guidelines program enhance technology transfer 

to catalyze and harness innovation to solve industrial wastewater problems, both now 

and in the future? 

• How can EPA better foster consideration of innovative technologies through the 

effluent guidelines planning process?

EPA did not receive any public comment or stakeholder input on this solicitation.

5-7
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

PART III: PRELIMINARY 2014 EFFLUENT 

GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN

III
Section 6—Findings of the 2013 Annual Review and Preliminary 2014 Plan

6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM THE 2013 ANNUAL REVIEW AND EPA’S PRELIMINARY

2014 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN 

This section presents a summary of the findings from EPA’s 2013 Annual Review and

EPA’s Preliminary 2014 Plan. EPA developed the Preliminary 2014 Plan based on information 

gathered as part of EPA’s 2011, 2012, and 2013 Annual Reviews, including information from

stakeholders and public comment received on the Preliminary 2012 Plan. EPA is requesting 

public comment on the Preliminary 2014 Plan, particularly on the potential actions and next 

steps related to the specific industries or target pollutants identified. EPA will consider public 

comment as it develops the Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan.

6.1 Findings from EPA’s 2013 Annual Review

In its 2013 Annual Review, consistent with the odd-year review methodology, EPA

conducted a toxicity ranking analysis (TRA) to identify and rank categories with pollutant 

discharges that may pose a substantial hazard to human health and the environment (see Section 

3 of the Preliminary 2012 Plan (78 FR 48159) for details on the odd-year annual review 

methodology). For the 2103 TRA, EPA relied on 2011 discharge monitoring report (DMR) and 

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data to rank industrial discharge categories by toxic-weighted 

pound equivalents (TWPE) released. From the data, EPA prioritized for further review those

industrial categories accounting for 95 percent of the cumulative combined DMR and TRI 

TWPE. The results of the TRA are presented in Table 6-1 below. The TRA is the basis of EPA’s 

2013 Annual Review and supports the proposed actions presented in this Preliminary 2014 Plan.

The full results of the 2013 Annual Review are published in the 2013 Annual Review 

Report. The 2013 Annual Review Report details the TRA methodology, data sources and 

limitations, facility-specific data errors and corrections, and specific findings from EPA’s

preliminary category reviews of each of the categories identified in the table below (U.S. EPA, 

2014b). 

Table 6-1. Results of EPA’s 2013 Toxicity Ranking Analysis

40 

CFR 

Part Point Source Category TRI TWPE

DMR 

TWPE

Total 

TWPE

Cumulative 

Percentage 

of Total 

TWPE Rank

414

Organic Chemicals, Plastics And 

Synthetic Fibersa 148,000 1,540,000 1,690,000 13.1% 1

430 Pulp, Paper And Paperboard 651,000 1,030,000 1,690,000 26.3% 2

419 Petroleum Refining 681,000 752,000 1,430,000 37.4% 3

NA Drinking Water Treatment 1,640 1,380,000 1,390,000 48.2% 4

440 Ore Mining And Dressing 1,230,000 110,000 1,340,000 58.6% 5

420 Iron And Steel Manufacturinga 82,900 1,170,000 1,250,000 68.4% 6

418 Fertilizer Manufacturing 6,670 599,000 606,000 73.1% 7

415 Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturinga 327,000 142,000 469,000 76.7% 8

421 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 42,900 383,000 426,000 80% 9

455 Pesticide Chemicals 374,000 19,300 393,000 83.1% 10

6-1
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

Section 6—Findings of the 2013 Annual Review and Preliminary 2014 Plan

Table 6-1. Results of EPA’s 2013 Toxicity Ranking Analysis

40 

CFR 

Part Point Source Category TRI TWPE

DMR 

TWPE

Total 

TWPE

Cumulative 

Percentage 

of Total 

TWPE Rank

409 Sugar Processing 430 373,000 374,000 86% 11

433 Metal Finishing 51,700 265,000 317,000 88.5% 12

451

Concentrated Aquatic Animal 

Production NA 292,000 292,000 90.7% 13

434 Coal Mining 564 189,000 189,000 92.2% 14

432 Meat And Poultry Products 39,100 119,000 158,000 93.4% 15

429 Timber Products Processing 32,300 98,600 131,000 94.5% 16

435 Oil & Gas Extraction NA 106,000 106,000 95.3% 17

Total TWPE for Categories in Top 95% 3,670,000 8,570,000 12,300,000

Total TWPE for All Point Source Categories 3,920,000 8,930,000 12,900,000

Source: DMRLTOutput2011_v1 and TRILTOutput2011_v1.

NA: Not Applicable.

a Categories with a subcategory currently under review or recently reviewed.

6.2 Proposed Actions for the Preliminary 2014 Plan

Based on public comments and other input received on the Preliminary 2012 Plan, EPA’s 

review of new data sources and information, and the supporting analyses conducted in its 2012 

Annual Review, and the TRAs conducted in 2011 and 2013, EPA is proposing the following 

actions:

• Study of Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities. EPA plans to conduct a 

detailed study of CWT facilities accepting oil and gas extraction wastewater. 

Although discharges from CWT facilities are regulated under 40 CFR Part 437, the 

current regulations may not provide adequate controls for oil and gas extraction 

wastewaters. As EPA noted in the Final 2010 ELG Plan and again in the 

Preliminary 2012 ELG Plan, when injection is not a viable option for oil and gas 

extraction wastewater disposal, operators may transfer this wastewater to a CWT 

facility. In some cases, the CWT facility treats the oil and gas wastewater so that it 

can be re-used in subsequent extractions. Others treat the wastewater and 

subsequently discharge it to a publically owned treatment works (POTW) or to 

surface waters. Many CWT facilities do not have treatment for some pollutants 

present in oil and gas wastewaters (e.g., TDS, radionuclides) enabling these 

pollutants to pass through the treatment system which may result in discharge to a 

POTW or surface water. Based on more recent information collected by EPA, the 

trend of sending oil and gas wastewaters to CWT facilities is increasing. Therefore, 

EPA and some States are concerned about the transfer of oil and gas wastewaters to 

CWT facilities and their subsequent discharge. EPA expects, as part of the study, to 

collect data on the extent of CWT facilities accepting oil and gas extraction 

wastewater, available treatment technologies (and their associated costs), discharge 

6-2
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

Section 6—Findings of the 2013 Annual Review and Preliminary 2014 Plan

type, financial characteristics of these CWT facilities, and the environmental impacts 

of discharges from these CWTs.

• Study of Petroleum Refineries. EPA plans to initiate a detailed study of Petroleum 

Refineries (40 CFR Part 419). EPA’s continued category review of petroleum 

refining (40 CFR Part 419) toxic weighted discharges and review of new and revised 

air regulations indicates that implementation of wet air-pollution controls, as well as 

a changes in feedstock, may result in an increased discharge of metals from 

petroleum refineries, potentially at concentrations above treatable levels. In addition, 

EPA has determined that further review of dioxin and dioxin-like compound 

discharges from petroleum refineries is appropriate to determine whether dioxin is 

being discharged at concentrations above the 1613B Minimum Level (ML) and to 

identify the primary source of the discharge (e.g., stormwater or process wastewater 

from catalytic reforming and catalyst regeneration operations). Specifically, EPA 

expects to use the study to determine whether petroleum refining warrants new or 

revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs).

• Continued Preliminary Category Review of Metal Finishing. EPA plans to 

continue a preliminary categorical review of the Metal Finishing point source 

category (40 CFR Part 433). EPA’s review of Targeted National Sewage Sludge 

Survey (TNSSS) data indicates that these facilities may be potentially discharging 

high concentrations of metals, particularly chromium, nickel, and zinc, to publically 

owned treatment works (POTWs). These metals could transfer to sewage sludge and 

impact its beneficial use. Additionally EPA intends to consider changes that have 

occurred in the metal finishing chemistry which may result in changes in pollutant 

discharge characteristics.

• Continued Population and Use of IWTT Database. EPA plans to continue to 

collect industrial wastewater treatment technology data for the industrial wastewater 

treatment technology (IWTT) database for use in future annual reviews. EPA expects 

to use this database to identify whether specific industrial categories warrant further 

review for new or revised ELGs, based on the range of available treatment 

technology performance. As a specific next step, in its detailed study of petroleum 

refining and continued categorical review of metal finishing, EPA plans to use the 

data it has collected regarding the performance of treatment technologies that have 

been applied to treat petroleum refining and metal finishing wastewaters, 

respectively.

• Continued Review of CAPs Chemicals. EPA plans to continue its review of the

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT’s) Chemical Action Plan (CAP)

chemicals with the highest likelihood of industrial wastewater discharges. 

Chemicals may include Benzidine dyes, Bisphenol A (BPA),

Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates, 

Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs), Phthalates, Short-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins 

(SCCPs), and Toluene Diamine and Methyl Diphenyl Diamine, which are hydrolysis 

byproducts of Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI) and Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate 

(MDI), respectively. EPA plans to work with OPPT regarding the chemicals

6-3
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

Section 6—Findings of the 2013 Annual Review and Preliminary 2014 Plan

reviewed and available data to characterize their presence in industrial wastewater 

discharges. 

EPA does not intend to pursue further review of Penta, Octa, and 

Decabromodiphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) because they are being phased out of U.S. 

commerce or do not have significant wastewater discharges. 

• Continued Review of Air Regulations. EPA plans, in future annual reviews, to 

continue its review of industries for which air regulations may result in an 

unregulated wastewater discharge.

• Continued Review of TRI Sectors Expansion. EPA plans to review available TRI 

sector expansion data in future annual reviews to determine if new wastewater 

hazard data are available and should be considered. Selenium discharges from 

Phosphate Mines may be a new pollutant of concern.

• Continued Review of Analytical Methods. EPA identified several pesticides

measured by some of the approved pesticide analytical methods that do not currently 

have effluent limits under the Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing, Formulating, and 

Packaging ELGs (40 CFR Part 455). In future annual reviews EPA plans to evaluate 

whether any of the unregulated pesticides have active ingredients that are 

manufactured in the U.S. and if they are present in industrial wastewater discharges.

EPA is requesting public comment and input on these actions and next steps related to 

specific industries or targeted pollutants and solicits any available data and information the 

public and stakeholders may have to help inform these actions. 

6.3 Additional Actions for the 2014 Annual Review

In the Final 2010 Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) Plan (76 FR 66286), EPA

solicited data and information from the public and all interested stakeholders on wastewater 

discharges of nanosilver. In response to the solicitation, EPA received comments supporting an 

EPA investigation into the potential environmental and human health risks from wastewater

discharges of nanosilver as well as other nanomaterials. However, commenters provided little or 

no data or information regarding such potential risks. 

As a part of its 2014 Annual Review of industrial wastewater discharges, EPA will report 

on a methodology and interim findings of its investigation into the environmental toxicity and 

industrial wastewater discharge of nanomaterials. In support of that investigation, EPA requests 

public comment and stakeholder input relative to any information or data available on the 

wastewater hazards and discharges associated with the manufacture of nanomaterials and their 

use in manufacturing or formulating other products. 

6-4
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

Section 7—Summary Tables

7. SUMMARY TABLE OF FINDINGS FOR EXISTING GUIDELINE CATEGORIES FROM THE 

2011, 2012 AND 2013 ANNUAL REVIEWS

Table 7-1 summarizes the findings from EPA’s 2011, 2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews of 

existing point source categories. EPA uses the following codes to describe its findings and 

potential next steps for each industrial category:

1. Effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for this industrial category were 

recently promulgated or revised through an effluent guidelines rulemaking, or a 

rulemaking is currently underway. Or, EPA recently completed a preliminary 

study or a detailed study, and no further action is warranted at this time.

2. Revising the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards is not the best 

tool to control toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges because most 

discharges result from one or a few facilities in this industrial category. EPA will 

consider assisting permitting authorities in identifying pollution-control and 

pollution-prevention technologies for the development of technology-based 

effluent limitations during the development of individual permits. 

3. Not identified as a priority based on data available at this time because (1) the

category was not among industries that cumulatively compose 95% of discharges 

as measured in units of TWPE in the 2011 and 2013 Annual Reviews, (2) EPA 

did not identify during the 2011 and/or 2013 preliminary category reviews that 

revisions to the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards are 

warranted, or (3) EPA did not identify during the 2012 Annual Review that 

revisions to the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards are 

warranted.

4. EPA intends to start, or continue to conduct, a preliminary category review of the

pollutant discharges from this category. 

5. EPA intends to start or continue either an in-depth category study of this industry 

in its 2014 Annual Reviews to determine whether to identify the category for 

effluent guidelines rulemaking.

6. EPA is identifying this industry for a potential revision of an existing effluent 

guideline.

Table 7-1. Summary of Findings from EPA’s 2011, 2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews of 

Existing Industrial Categories

No. Industry Category (listed alphabetically) 40 CFR Part Findings

1 Airport Deicing 449 (1)

2 Aluminum Forming 467 (3)

3 Asbestos Manufacturing 427 (3)

4 Battery Manufacturing 461 (3)

5 Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetable Processing 407 (3)

6 Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing 408 (3)

7 Carbon Black Manufacturing 458 (3)

8 Cement Manufacturing 411 (3)

7-1
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

Section 7—Summary Tables

Table 7-1. Summary of Findings from EPA’s 2011, 2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews of 

Existing Industrial Categories

No. Industry Category (listed alphabetically) 40 CFR Part Findings

9 Centralized Waste Treatment 437 (5)

10 Coal Mining 434 (3)

11 Coil Coating 465 (3)

12 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) 412 (1)

13 Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production 451 (3)

14 Construction and Development 450 (1)

15 Copper Forming 468 (3)

16 Dairy Products Processing 405 (3)

17 Electrical and Electronic Components 469 (3)

18 Electroplating 413 (4)

19 Explosives Manufacturing 457 (3)

20 Ferroalloy Manufacturing 424 (3)

21 Fertilizer Manufacturing 418 (3)

22 Glass Manufacturing 426 (3)

23 Grain Mills 406 (3)

24 Gum and Wood Chemicals 454 (3)

25 Hospitals 460 (1)

26 Ink Formulating 447 (3)

27 Inorganic Chemicalsa 415 (1) and (3)

28 Iron and Steel Manufacturing 420 (3)

29 Landfills 445 (3)

30 Leather Tanning and Finishing 425 (3)

31 Meat and Poultry Products 432 (3)

32 Metal Finishing 433 (4)

33 Metal Molding and Casting 464 (3)

34 Metal Products and Machinery 438 (3)

35 Mineral Mining and Processing 436 (3)

36 Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders 471 (3)

37 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 421 (2)

38 Oil and Gas Extractionb 435 (1) and (3)

39 Ore Mining and Dressing 440 (2)

40 Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibersa 414 (1), (2), and (3)

41 Paint Formulating 446 (3)

42 Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt) 443 (3)

43 Pesticide Chemicals 455 (3)

44 Petroleum Refining 419 (5)

45 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 439 (3)

46 Phosphate Manufacturing 422 (3)

7-2
DRAFT- predecisiona/Confidential

Section 7—Summary Tables

Table 7-1. Summary of Findings from EPA’s 2011, 2012 and 2013 Annual Reviews of 

Existing Industrial Categories

No. Industry Category (listed alphabetically) 40 CFR Part Findings

47 Photographic 459 (3)

48 Plastic Molding and Forming 463 (3)

49 Porcelain Enameling 466 (3)

50 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 430 (3)

51 Rubber Manufacturing 428 (3)

52 Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing 417 (3)

53 Steam Electric Power Generating 423 (1)

54 Sugar Processing 409 (3)

55 Textile Mills 410 (2)

56 Timber Products Processing 429 (3)

57 Transportation Equipment Cleaning 442 (3)

58 Waste Combustors 444 (3)

a Codes (“(1”) and “(3)”) are used for this category. The first code (“(1)”) refers to the recent effluent guidelines 

rulemaking, and subsequent delisting for the Chlorinated and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH) manufacturing 

sector, which includes facilities currently regulated by the OCPSF and Inorganic Chemicals effluent guidelines. 

The second code (“(3)”) indicates that the remainder of the facilities in these two categories do not represent a 

hazard priority at this time.

b Codes (“(1)” and “(3)”) are used for this category. The first code (“(1)”) refers to the ongoing effluent 

guidelines rulemaking for shale gas extraction and EPA’s review of the coalbed methane extraction sector of the

industry. The second code (“(3)”) refers to category discharges of the oil and gas extraction industry, excluding 

coalbed methane and shale gas extraction, that do not represent a hazard priority at this time.

7-3
PART IV: REFERENCES FOR FINAL 2012 AND 

PRELIMINARY 2014 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES 

PROGRAM PLANS

IV
Section 8—References

8. REFERENCES

1. Auchterlonie. Steve. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Steve 

Auchterlonie, Front St. Remedial Action, and Chris Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

“RE: Verification of magnitude and basis of estimate for dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds discharges in PCS.” (March 13). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517-0076. 

2. U.S. EPA. 1988a. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Interim Final. EPA540-G-89-006. OSWER Publication 9234.1-01. Washington, DC. (August). Available

online at: www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/pdf/540g-89006-s.pdf. 

3. U.S. EPA. 1988b. Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at 

Superfund Sites. OSWER Directive 9283.1-2. EPA-540-G-88-003. (December). 

Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/540g-88003-

s.pdf. 

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

Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories. EPA821-R-09-007. Washington, DC. (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517-0515. 

5. U.S. EPA. 2010. U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual. Washington, D.C. 

(September). EPA-833-K-10-001. Available online at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/writermanual.cfm?program_id=45. 

6. U.S. EPA. 2012a. 2011 Annual Review Report. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-821-

R-12-001. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824. DCN 07685. 

7. U.S. EPA. 2012b. Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology. Washington, DC. (March). 

EPA-HQ-OW-820-R-12-005. DCN 07501.

8. U.S. EPA. 2012c. Memorandum to the Record, Subj: Chlorine and Chlorinated 

Hydrocarbon Data Collection and Analysis Summary. (February). EPA-HQ-OW-2010- 

0824. DCN CCH00653. 

9. U.S. EPA. 2013a. Economic Analysis for Existing and New Projects in the Coalbed 

Methane Industry. Washington, DC. (July). EPA 820-R-13-006. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-

0824. DCN CBM00680. 

10. U.S. EPA. 2013b. Technical Development Document for the Coalbed Methane (CBM)

Extraction Industry. Washington, DC. (April). EPA 820-R-13-009. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-

0824. DCN CBM00669. 

11. U.S. EPA. 2014a. The 2012 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report. Washington D.C. 

(September). EPA-821-R-14-004. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824. DCN 07933. 

12. U.S. EPA. 2014b. The 2013 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report. Washington, DC. 

(September). EPA-821-R-14-003. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170. DCN 07972. 

8-1