Z

United States Environmental Protection Agency



# Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan s

September 2014This page intentionally left blank.

# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of W ater (4303T) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

EPA

- 820

- R

- 14

- 001This page intentionally left blank.TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

P ART I: I NTRODUCTION AND B ACKGROUND ............................................................................ I

1. I NTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1

2. B ACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 The C lean Water Act and the Effluent Guidelines Program ................................ 2-1
2.2 Effluent Guidelines Review and Planning Process .............................................. 2-3
2.2.1 Annual Revi ew Process ........................................................................... 2-4 2.2.2 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans ........................................................ 2-10 2.3 Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Overvi ew ............ 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) a nd 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

P ART II: F INAL 2012 E FFLUENT G UIDELINES P ROGRAM P LAN

............................................ II

3. 2012 E FFLUENT G UIDELINES P LANNING P ROCESS AND M ETHODOLOGY .................... 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 Contin ued 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. R ESULTS OF THE 2011 AND 2012 A NNUAL R EVIEWS ..................................................... 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

i vTABLE 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. F INAL 2012 P LAN 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

P ART III: P RELIMINARY 2014 E FFLUENT G UIDELINES P ROGRAM P LAN

............................ III

6. S UMMARY OF F INDINGS FROM THE 2013 A NNUAL R EVIEW AND EPA’ S P RELIMINARY 2014 E FFLUENT G UI DELINES P ROGRAM P LAN ............................................ 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. S UMMARY T ABLE OF F INDINGS FOR E XISTING G UIDELINE C ATEGORIES FROM

THE 2011, 2012 AND 2013 A NNUAL R EVIEWS ....................................................................... 7-1

P ART IV: R EFERENCES FOR F INAL 2012 AND P RELIMINARY 2014 E FFLUENT G UIDELINES P ROGRAM P LANS

.............................................................................................. IV

8. R EFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 8-1

vLIST OF TABLES

Page

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

Table 3

- 2. TRI and DMR Data Utilit y 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 O F FIGURES

Page

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

Figure 2-2. Odd- Yea r 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

v i

# P ART 

# I: I NTRODUCTION AND 

# B ACKGROUND

ISection 1

—

Introduction

1. I NTRODUCTION

T h is document presents the Final 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (“Final 201 2 Plan ”) and the Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (“Prel iminary 2014 Plan”)

, both of which were prepared pursuant to C lean W ater 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 identif y any new or existing industrial categor ies selected for effluent guidelin es rulemaking s, 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, 201 4a ), 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 sep arated into three parts:

• Introduction and B ackground. This section provides an overview of the Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Plans. It also prov i des background on the CWA and the effluent guidelines program planning process and requirements.

• Final 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

. The Final 2012 Plan p resents 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 a nd 2013 Annual Reviews, and solicits public comment and input on those proposed actions.

1

- 1Section 2

—

Background

2. B ACKGROUND

This section explains how the Effluent Guidelines Program fits into EPA’s National Water Program, describes the general and legal background of the Efflu ent G uidelines Program, and summarizes EPA’s pr ocess for making effluent guidelines revision and development decisions (i.e., effluent guideline s planning).

2.1 The Clean Water Act and the Effluent Guidelines Program

The Clean Water Act (CWA ) is based on the p rinciple 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 type s of controls: (1) water

- quality

- based controls, based on water quality standards

, and (2) technology

- based controls

, b ased on effluent limitations guidelines and standards

. The CWA gives states the primary responsibility for establishing, reviewing, and r evising 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 crit eria, 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 condit ions.

EPA is responsible for developing technology

- based effluent limitation s guidelines and

s tandards (ELGs), based on current ly available technologies for controlling industrial wastewater discharges

. Permitting authorities ( s tates authorized to adminis ter the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and EPA in the few states that are not authorized) then must incorporate t hese guidelines and standards into discharge permits as technology

- based effluent limitations where ap plicable (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 e nsure that the discharge s 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 qualit y standards . Water

- quality

- based limits may require industrial facilities to meet requirements that are more stringent than those in a national effluent guideline regulation.
I n the overall context of the CWA, effluent guidelines must be viewed as one tool in the broad er set of tools and authorities Congress provided to EPA and the states to restore and maintain the quality of the n ation’s water s

. The 1972 CWA marked a distinct change in Congress’s efforts “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, an d biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (s ee 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 spec ific discharger , or combination of dischargers, was responsible for decreasing the water q uality of its receiving stream.

2

- 1Section 2— Background

The 1972 CWA directed EPA to promulgate effluent guidelines that reflect pollutant reductions that can be achieved by categories or su bcategories 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 pre scribed level of control (s ee 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 industr ial 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- wat er -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 c an 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 efflu ent guidelines is to ens ure 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 sur face water (direct discharges) and discharges to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) (indirect discharges).

The E ffluent 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 n ation’s clean water program and reduce the discharge of pollutants that have serious environmental impacts, including pollutants that:

• Kill or impair fish and other aqu atic 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 ind ustrial categories are described at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/industry.cfm) ; t hese regulations apply to between 35,000 and 45,000 facilities that discharge directly to the n ation’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.

2-2Section 2— Background

2.2 Effluent Guidelines Review and Planning Process

In addition to establishing new regulations, t he 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 ent irely 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 n ation ’ 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 f irst 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 he alth 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 pollutan ts 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 t reatment 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 reduc e 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 r eview s, to decide against revising an existing set of effluent guid elines or pretreatment standards where the pollutant source is already efficiently and effectively controlled by other regulatory or non-regulatory programs.

2-3Section 2— Background

2.2.1 Annual Review Process

Beginning in 2011, EPA revis ed its annual review process to include an odd- and even

year 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 screen s 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 Toxi cs Release Inventory (TRI) data to rank industrial discharge categories by toxic-weighted pound equivalents ( TWPE) released

. Figure 2-1 details 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).

I n the even years, EPA review s 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 Further more , EPA recognizes the need to consider in the screening phase the availability of treatment technologies, process changes, or pollution

prevention practices that can reduce the identified hazards . Specifically, in its even

- year reviews, EPA is target ing 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 pr evention 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 -y ear 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 discharg e 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 appropria te 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 Se ptember 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

.

2-4Section 2— Background

Section 2.2.1.1 and Section 2.2.1.2 , respectively ), which may eventually lead to a n ew 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 de pending 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 dis charges

, (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 a nd fill in data gaps . Next, EPA considers costs andperformance of applicable and demonstrated technologies, process changes, or pollutionprevention alternatives that can effectively reduce the pollutants in the point source category’s

waste water . 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 industr ia l 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 technolog ies

, assess economic ac hievability, 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 list ed 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.

2-5Section 2

—

Background

Figure 2-1. Odd

- Year An nual Review of Existing ELGs

2-6Section 2

—

Background

Figure 2-2. Odd

- Year Identification of Possible New ELGs

2-7Section 2

—

Background

Figure 2

- 3

. Even

- Year Annual Review of Existing ELGs and I dentifi cation of Possible New ELGs

2

- 8Section 2

—

Background

Figure 2

- 4

. Further Review of Industrial Categories Identified During Odd

- and Even

- Year Annual Reviews

2

- 9Section 2

—

Background

2.2.2 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan s
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 work s to coordinate its annual reviews of ex isting effluent guidelines under section 304( b) with its publication of Preliminary and Final P lan s under CWA section 304(m). As a result, Final Plan s present the compilation of the odd

- and even

- year reviews and public comments received on the Preliminar y 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 fro m 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 reas ons. First, the a nnual r eview s are inextricably linked to the planning effort because the results of each year of review can inform the content of the
P reliminary and F inal P lans ( e.g

. , by identifying candidates for effluent guidelines revision

, or by iden tifying 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 a nnual

r eview s (including the review process use d) and the results of the review s . Doing s o at the same time as publishing the P reliminary and F inal Plans makes both processes more transparent

. Third, by requiring EPA to review all existi ng 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 indust rial regulatory program is authorized under sections 30 1, 304, 306, and 307 of the CWA. The CWA directs EPA to promulgate categorical regulations through six levels of control:

1. Best p racticable c ontrol t echnology c urrently a vailable (BPT); 2. Best available control technolo gy 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 p oint 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 so urces that discharge to POTWs (indirect dischargers), EPA promulgates pretreatment standards that apply directly to those sources and are enforced by POTWs and state

2

- 10Section 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

. R egulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges

2.3.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Curre ntly 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 s ection 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional pollutants: biochemical ox ygen demand (BOD 5 ), 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 (s ee 44 FR 4450 1). 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 co nsidered 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 an d 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

- 11Section 2

—

Background

perfor mance is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of control than currently in place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that th e technology can be applied practically

.

2.3.2 Best Conventional Pollution Control Technology (BCT)

— CWA Se ctions 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 spec ified 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 (s ee 51 FR 24974

, July 9, 1986).

2.3.3 B est 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 fa ctors 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 b ased on technology transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies ar e not common industry practice.

2.3.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

— CWA Section 306

N SPS 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 repres ent 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 take s into consideration t he 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 an d are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs, including wastewater conveyance and sludge disposal. Pretreatment standards are technology

based and are ana logous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines. See CWA section 301(b)(1)(A).

2

- 12Section 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 pro mulgating NSPS.

2

- 13

# P ART 

# II : F INAL 

# 2012 E FFLUENT 

# G UIDELINES 

# P ROGRAM 

# P LAN

IISection 3— 2012 Annual Review Methodology

3. 2012 E FFLUENT G UIDELINES P LANNING P ROCESS AND M ETHODOLOGY

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 foradditional 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.

3-1Section 3

—

2012 Annual Review Methodology

3.1.3 Additional Data Sources and New Supporting Analyses

F or 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 Re lated 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 s ources 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 mor e 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 f or 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 combi nation 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 fr om 74 publicl y owned treatment works (POTWs )

. See Section 6.1 of the 2012 Annual Review Report for details on the speci fi c 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 review ed 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

- 2Section 3

—

2012 Annual Review Methodology

Report for details on the speci fi c methodologies and analyses EPA employed for its review of OPPT’s CAPs (U.S EPA, 20 14a ).

3.1.3.3 Identification of Waste water 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 control s , they may result in the generation of unregulated industrial waste water 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 Ha zardous 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 speci fi c methodologies and analyses EPA employed for its review of federal air regulations (U.S EPA, 2014a ).

3.1.3.4 Review of TRI Indus try 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 speci fi c methodologies and analyses E PA 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 dis charges 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 R eport for details on the speci fi c methodologies and analyses EPA employed for its review of analytic al 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 perfor mance 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

- 3Section 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 r emove 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 tha t 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 speci fi c methodologies and analyses EPA employed for its review of industrial wastewater treatm ent 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 Review s the following:

• Discharges from industrial ca tegories 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 Rev is ed 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 a s 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 w hich 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 NPDE S permits. Table 3

- 1 lists the categories EPA excluded from the 2011 and 2012 reviews due to this seven

- year period.

3

- 4Section 3

—

2012 Annual Review Methodology

Table 3

- 1

. Point Source Categories That Have Undergone Recent Rul emaking 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 co nsider 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 in to 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 so urce 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 201 2 Annual Review involve d several components, as discussed in Section 3.1 , including continued preliminary category reviews of select ed point source categories

, an evaluation of additional data sources and new supporting analyses , and an assessment of public comments and other stakeholder input

.

EPA ident ified 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 Qualit y 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.

• D ata pro vided 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

- 5Section 3— 2012 Annual Review Methodology

• Steam Detailed Study Report (DSR).

• Targeted Nation al 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 Method s.

• 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 G round 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 ex isting 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 dat a 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. E PA evaluate d existing data for reliability based on the f ollowing 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.

3-6Section 3

—

2012 Annual Review Methodology

• Waste stream, parameters, units, and detection limits (when appropriate) are clearly characterized.
During the revie w 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 artic les 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 no t 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 t he 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 qual ity 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 categorize s and calculate s pollutant loadings using the SIC and NAICS codes and toxic weighting factors (TWFs) in conjunction with DMR a nd 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 catego ry 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 categor y 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

- 7Section 3

—

2012 Annual Review Methodology

Table 3

- 2 . TRI and DMR Data Utility and Limitatio ns

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, n ot 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 requireme nts 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 under

estimate releases Limited discharge data on mi nor b 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 discharge d 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 c lear
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 year s 2000, 2002, 2004, a nd 2006

– 20 11

. 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, 2012 a ).

3

- 8Sec tion 4

—

Results of the 2011 and 2012 Annual Review

4. R ESULTS OF THE 2011 AND 2012 A NNUAL R EVIEW S

This section briefly summarizes t he 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 supp o r t 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), Pet roleum 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 sta keholder 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 guide lines and pretreatment standards. Public comments received on EPA’s prior reviews and Plans helped the Agency prioritize its analys e s of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. This section presents a summary of the comments received on th e Preliminary 2012 Plan.

EPA published its Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (Preliminary 2012 Plan) and provided a 6 0

- day pub li c 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:

• Coalb ed methane and shale gas extraction (17 comments)

• Chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbon (3 comments)

• Oil and gas co astal 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

- 1Sec tion 4

—

Results of the 2011 and 2012 Annual Review

• Other ( 1 comment)

For coalbed methane extraction (CBM extr action ), EPA received 13 comments from industry representatives and county government supporting the delisting of CBM extraction for three main reasons:

• A dditional 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.

E nvironmental groups commented that EPA should move forward with developing regulations for CBM extraction because EPA should not rely solel y on economic considerations. The environmental groups suggest that changes in gas production process es , 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 varia tions o f 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 G uidelines Program Plan. One company provided a comment correct ing EPA’s classification of their facility in EPA’s Chlorine and Chlorinated H y drocarbon Data Collection and Analysis Summary report.

Two commenters, one environmental organization and one triba l 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 G eneral 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 sea food 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 organiz ation

, representing a number of state s , 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 incorpor ate 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

- 2Sec tion 4

—

Results of the 2011 and 2012 Annual Review

One industry trad e 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, 20 1 4a ). 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 Select ed Point Source Categories

During the 20 11 Annual Review , EPA identified three point source categories for which further review is appropriate : Meat and Poultry P ro ducts (40 CFR Part 432); Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419); and Pulp, Paper, and P aperboard (40 CFR Part 430). EPA continued revi ew of these categories as part of the 2012 Annual Review (U.S EPA, 2014a )

. Below are the findings from the se 2012 continued category reviews.

• Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432). EPA completed further review of Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI) report ed 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, iden tified 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 dioxin

like 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 concentrati ons (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 treat ed pro cess wastewater

. EPA has not yet determine d 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 d ischarges, 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 re cent 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

- 3Sec tion 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 Analys es

EPA identified additional data sources and conducted six new analyses as part of the 2012 Annual Review (U.S. EPA, 201 4a )

. Below are the findings from these new analyses

.

• Identification of Industrial Pollutants in Sewage Sludge

. EPA’s review of the
Tar geted National Sewage Sludge Survey (TNSSS) , combined with available indirect discharge data from TRI identified the M etal F inishing point source category (40 CFR Part 433) as potentially discharging high concentrations of metals, particularly chromium , ni ckel, 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 dataset s , EPA could not identify for further review any new pollutants of concern or wa stewater 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 pollut ants 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 po llutants 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 i dentified s ix chemicals or classes of chemical s that are currently produced and have known or potential wastewater discharges : Benzidine dyes, Bisphenol A (BPA), Hexabromocyclododecane (HB CD), Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates, Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs), and Phthalates. Another class of c hemicals, sho r t

- 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 Di phenyl Diisocyanate (MDI) and Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI) , do not have significant wastewater discharges

. However, EPA identified that t he hydrolysis byproducts of TDI and MDI, toluene diamine and methyl diphenyl diamine, may be present in industrial wastew ater

. 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 re garding this analysis.

4

- 4Sec tion 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,

comm ercial, 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 u nder 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 develo pments 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, aci d 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 Chemical s 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 us ing these methods in its Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule ( UCMR ) to evaluate PFCs and 1,4

- dioxane in drinking water. EPA has identified industrial wastewater discharge s 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 techno logies 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 petroleu m 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

- 5DRAFT

- predecisiona/Confidential Section 5

—

Final 2012 Plan Decisions

5. F INAL 2012 P LAN DECISIONS

This s ection presents EPA’s final decisions on actions proposed in the Preliminary 2012 Plan ( 78 FR 48159)

. Preliminary results of the 2013 Annual Review and p roposed actions resulting from both the 2012 and 2013 Annual Review s are presented in Preliminary 2014 Plan ( see Part III of this document ).

5.1 Industr ies for Which EPA Is No Longer Undergoing an ELG Rulemaking

Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH) M anufacturing:

In prior year reviews, EPA considered revisions to effluent limitations guidelines and stand ards ( ELGs ) for the Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR 414) and Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR 415) p oint s ource c ategories 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 E LG rulemaking for t he 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) manufac turing se gment of the organic chemicals industry for possible revision because preliminary analysis showed that the se gment discharged significant quantities of toxic weighted pound

- equivalents

. In addition, because many chlorine manufacturers are co

- locat ed with vinyl chloride manufacturing and because these facilities discharge significant quantities of TWPEs, EPA also selected the chlorine manufacturing se gment of the inorganic chemicals industry for possible revision

. Also, polyvinyl chloride ( PVC ) manu facturers were considered to be part of the vinyl chloride manufacturing se gment due to frequent co

- location.

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

measure dioxins being generated and discharged in the waste water 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

.

A fter 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

. Alth ough 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 hydrocar bon manufacturing facilities that manufacture vinyl

5

- 1DRAFT

- 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 f acilities with significant dioxin discharges through permitting rather than

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

. Coalbed Methane (CBM) Extraction I ndustry:

In its Final 2010 ELG Plan, EPA also indicated it was initiati ng 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 e xtraction 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 comme nts 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 quanti ty 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 Sect or, 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 technolog y 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 ex isting 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 fo r 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, a nd 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 t he 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

- 2DRAFT

- 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 o n 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 r eviewing 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 sit es, 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, limitatio ns 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 An alysis.

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 a re 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 regulato ry 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 indirec t 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 E LGs, 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 ba sed on water quality standards are also required to be included in the permits in

5

- 3DRAFT

- 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 authorit y from making the determination on a site

- specific basis that a technology is available and economically achievable upon which to base technology

- based limitatio ns 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 n ot 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 pro posal 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

- OW

2010

- 0824, available at www.regulations.gov

.

5.2 Industr ies 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, a nd Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430) a nd 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 M anufacturing:

For Meat and Poultry Products, EPA determined that a majority of the top nitrate compound dischargers are in compliance with t he 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 gui delines revisions.

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard M anufacturing :

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 . T herefore, 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 E valuation of Pass

- Through and Interference of Toxic a nd 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 approv ed pretreatment programs must develop local limits to

5

- 4DRAFT

- 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 a pproximately 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 s tandards,” 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 pol lutants 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 trea tment 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) th at 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) th erefore 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 indus trial 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 ind irect 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

- 5DRAFT

- predecisiona/Confidential Section 5

—

Final 2012 Plan Decisions

(1) the total annual TWPE discharged by the industrial sector and (2) the average TWPE dischar ged 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 disc hargers. 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 po unds 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 M etal
F inishing P oint S ource C ategory (40 CFR Part 433) as potentially discharging high

concen trations of metals, particularly chromium , nickel, and zinc , to POTWs. These metals could transfer to sewage sludge and impact its beneficial use.

5.4 Indust ries for Which EPA is Currently Undergoing an ELG R ulemaking

E PA 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 al ready 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 dentist s’ 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 4 35) to address disc harges 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 extrac tion.

5.4.1 EPA’s C urrent S chedule for ELG A ctions

Steam Electric Power Generation:

- Proposed Rule June 7

, 2013

- Final Rule September 201 5

5

- 6DRAFT

- 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 T echnology 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 te chnology 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 rece ive any public comment or stakeholder input on this solicitation.

5

- 7DRAFT

- predecisiona/Confidential 

# P ART 

# III : P RELIMINARY 

# 201 4 E FFLUENT 

# G UIDELINES 

# P ROGRAM 

# P LAN

IIISection 6

—

Findings of the 2013 Annual Review and Preliminary 2014 Plan

6. S UMMARY OF F INDINGS FROM THE 2013 A NNUAL R EVIEW AND EPA’ S P RELIMINARY 201 4 E FFLUENT G UIDELINES P ROGRAM P LAN

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 (T RA) to identify and rank categories with pollutant discharges that may pose a substantial hazard to human healt h 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 2 103 TRA, EPA relie d 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 prioritize d for further review those indus trial 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 support s the proposed actions presented in this Preliminar y 2014 Plan

.

T he f ul l results of the 2013 Annual Review are published in the 2013 Annual Review Report

. The 2013 Annual Review Repor t detail s the TRA methodology, data sources and limitations, facility

- specific data errors and corrections , and specific fin dings 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 Fibers a 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 Ref ining 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 Manufacturing a 82,900 1,170,000 1,250,000 68.4 % 6

418 Fertilizer Ma nufacturing 6,670 599,000 606,000 73.1 % 7

415 Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing a 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

- 1DRAFT

- 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 Processi ng 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 9 3.4 % 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 Categor ies 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 Propos ed 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 C entralized W aste T reat ment (CWT) f acilities

. 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 ad equate 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 w astewater 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 surfac e 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 thei r 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

- 2DRAFT

- predecisiona/Confidential Section 6

—

Findings of the 2013 Annual Review and Preliminary 2014 Plan

type, financial characteristic s 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 control s, as well as a changes in feedstock, may result in an increased discharge of metals from petroleum refineri es, 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 concentr ations 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 wh ether petroleum refining warrant s 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

cate gory (40 CFR Part 433) . EPA’s review of Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey ( TNSSS ) data indicates that the se 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 d atabase 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) C hemical A ction P lan (CAP) chemical s with the highest likelihood of industrial wastewater discharges. C hemical s 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 Tolue ne Diisocyanate (TDI) and Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate (MDI), respectively

. EPA plans to work with OPPT regarding the chemical s

6

- 3DRAFT

- 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 pursu e 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 continu e 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 wastewat er 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 analyti cal 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 ingr edients that are manufactured in the U.S. and if they are present in industrial wastewater discharge s. EPA is requesting public comment and input on these actions and next steps related to specific industries or targeted pollutants and solicits any availab le 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 th e 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 discharge s of n anosilver as well as other nanomaterials

. H owever, 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

was tewater hazards and discharges associated with the manufacture of nanomaterials and their

use in manufactur ing or formulating other products

.

6

- 4DRAFT

- predecisiona/Confidential Section 7

—

Summary Tables

7. S UMMARY T ABLE OF F INDINGS FOR E XISTING G UIDELINE C ATEGORIES FROM THE 2011, 2012 AND 2013 A NNUAL R EVIEWS

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 g uidelines 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 comp o se 95% of discharges as measured in units of TWPE in the 2011 and 2013 Annual Review s , (2) EPA did not identify durin g 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 continu e to conduct, a preliminary category review of the pollutant discharges from this category

. 5. EPA intends to start or continue either a n in

- depth category study of this industry in its 20 14 A nnual R eview s 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

. Summa ry 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 B attery 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

- 1DRAFT

- predecisiona/Confidential Section 7

—

Summary Tables

Table 7

- 1

. Summa ry 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 Chemicals a 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)

3 8 Oil and Gas Extraction b 435 ( 1 ) and ( 3 )

39 Ore Mining and Dressing 440 (2)

40 Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers a 414 (1) , (2), and (3)

41 Paint Formulating 446 (3)

42 Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt) 443 (3)

43 Pestici de Chemicals 455 (3)

44 Petroleum Refining 419 (5)

45 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 439 (3)

46 Phosphate Manufacturing 422 (3)

7

- 2DRAFT

- predecisiona/Confidential Section 7

—

Summary Tables

Table 7

- 1

. Summa ry 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 Paperboar d 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 Equipmen t Cleaning 442 (3)

5 8 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 (CC H) manufacturing sector, which includes facilities currently regulated by the OCPSF and Inorganic Chemical s effluent guidelines. The second code (“(3)”) indicates that the remainder of the facilities in these two categories do not represent a hazard priori ty 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 secon d 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

# P ART 

# IV: R EFERENCES FOR 

# F INAL 

# 2012 AND 

# P RELIMINARY 

# 2 014 E FFLUENT 

# G UIDELINES 

# P ROGRAM 

# P LANS

IVSection 8— References

8. R EFERENCES

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 o f 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). Ava ilable 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 . EPA

821-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. EP A. 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 Co albed 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