DRAFT

A STRATEGY FOR 

NATIONAL CLEAN WATER 

INDUSTRIAL REGULATIONS

Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, 

and New Source Performance Standards 

November 2002 
EPA-821-R-02-025 

Office of Science and Technology 

Engineering and Analysis Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction 

I. Background Information 

A. What is the Effluent Guidelines Program?

B. Genesis of Effluent Guideline Regulations as One Arm of the

Nation’s Clean Water Program 

C. Contribution of the Effluent Guidelines Program to Improving

the Nation’s Water Quality

D. Contribution of the Water Quality Program to Improving the

Nation’s Water Quality

E. Addressing the Remaining Challenges

II. Planning for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations

A. Statutory Requirements for Program Planning 

B. Litigation on Program History

C. Effluent Guidelines Task Force Recommendations on Planning

D. Outreach in Plan Development

III. A National Plan For Clean Water Industrial Regulations

A. Key Factors for Selecting Industrial Categories for Effluent

Guideline Development or Revision

B. Information to Evaluate the Key Factors

C. Proposed Planning Process

D. Schedule for the Proposed Annual Review Process

E. Biennial Effluent Guidelines Plan Draft Strategy 

F. Solicitation of Stakeholder Recommendations

IV. Glossary

APPENDICES 

1. Table of Industries Covered by National Clean Water Industrial

Regulations

2. Section 304(m) Requirements

DRAFT Page 1 November 5, 2002 
Introduction 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed this draft National 

Strategy in order to provide interested stakeholders – industry, academia, 

equipment manufacturers, States, POTWs, environmental interest groups, and 

members of the public – the chance to consider how national industrial 

technology-based regulations (known as effluent guidelines) can best meet the 

needs of the broader national clean water program in the years ahead. 

This draft National Strategy outlines a process for developing a biennial 

plan that is designed to meet both the statutory requirements that are specified in 

sections 304(b), 304(g), 304(m), 306(b), and 307(b) of the Clean Water Act, as 

well as the water quality challenges of the 21st century. EPA used the following 

overarching goals to guide development of this Strategy: 

- Reduce Risk to Human Health and the Environment 

- Provide Transparent Decision-making 

This draft National Strategy is divided into three major sections: 

I. Background that describes the history, intent, and contributions of the 

effluent guidelines program; 

II. Description of the Clean Water Act planning requirements, program 

litigation history, recommendations from the Effluent Guidelines Task 

Force, and suggestions from participants at a public meeting EPA held in 

April 2001 to develop potential planning processes; 

III. Presentation of EPA’s current thinking on the process it plans to follow in 

developing a biennial plan for the program and the criteria EPA expects to 

use in assessing the need to develop and/or revise effluent guidelines for 

specific industrial categories. 

DRAFT Page 2 November 5, 2002 
EPA looks forward to receiving public comments on this draft National 

Strategy and plans to review comments and prepare a revised, final Strategy early 

next year. 

I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

EPA’s Office of Water is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act 

(or “CWA”), which provides EPA and the States with a variety of programs and 

tools to protect and restore the Nation’s waters. These programs and tools 

generally rely either on water quality-based controls, such as water quality 

standards and water quality-based permit limitations, or technology-based controls 

such as effluent guidelines and technology-based permit limitations. Permits 

developed using the technology-based industrial regulations have been a critical 

element of the Nation’s clean water program for the past thirty years, and have 

helped EPA and the States substantially reduce industrial water pollution during 

that time. 

The CWA gives States the primary responsibility for establishing, 

reviewing, and revising water quality standards. These consist of designated uses 

for each waterbody (e.g., fishing, swimming, supporting aquatic life), numeric 

pollutant concentration limits (“criteria”) to protect those uses, and an 

antidegradation policy. EPA develops national criteria for many pollutants, which 

states may adopt or modify as appropriate to reflect local conditions. While 

technology-based permits may, in fact, result in meeting State water quality 

standards, the effluent guidelines program is not specifically designed to ensure 

that the discharge from each facility meets the water quality standards for that 

particular waterbody. For this reason, the CWA also requires States to establish 

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

water quality standards, that require industrial facilities to meet requirements that 

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

Consequently, in the overall context of the CWA, effluent guidelines must be 

viewed as one tool in the broad arsenal of tools Congress provided to EPA and the 

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

This section of the draft National Strategy describes the key concepts behind 

the national effluent guidelines program, the genesis of this program as one arm of 

DRAFT Page 3 November 5, 2002 
the Nation’s clean water program, and the contribution of the program in 

improving the Nation’s water quality. 

A. What is the Effluent Guidelines Program? 

The effluent guidelines program is 

one component of the Nation’s clean 

water program, established by the 1972 

Clean Water Act. The national clean 

water industrial regulatory program is 

authorized under sections 301, 304, 306 

and 307 of the CWA and is founded on six 

core concepts. 

First, the program is designed to 

address specific industrial categories. To date, EPA has promulgated effluent 

guidelines that address 55 categories --- ranging from manufacturing industries 

such as petroleum refining to service industries such as centralized waste 

treatment. (See Appendix 1.) These regulations apply to between 35,000 and 

45,000 facilities that discharge directly to the Nation’s waters, as well as another 

12,000 facilities that discharge into publicly owned treatment works or “POTWs”. 

Second, national effluent guideline regulations typically specify the 

maximum allowable levels of pollutants that may be discharged by facilities within 

an industrial category or subcategory. While the limits are based on the 

performance of specific technologies, they do not generally require the industry to 

use these technologies, but rather allow the industry to use any effective 

alternatives to meet the numerical pollutant limits. 

Third, each facility within an industrial category or subcategory must 

generally comply with the applicable discharge limits — regardless of its location 

within the country or on a particular water body. See CWA section 307(b) and (c); 

and CWA section 402(a)(1). The regulations, therefore, constitute a single, 

standard, pollution control obligation for all facilities within an industrial category 

or subcategory. 

DRAFT Page 4 November 5, 2002 
Fourth, in establishing national effluent guidelines for pollutants, EPA must 

conduct a critical assessment of (1) the performance of the best pollution control 

technologies or pollution 

prevention practices that are 

available for an industrial category 

or subcategory as a whole; and (2) 

the economic achievability of that 

technology, which can include 

consideration of costs, benefits, 

and affordability of achieving the 

reduction in pollutant discharge. 

Fifth, national regulations 

apply to three types of facilities 

within an industrial category: existing facilities that discharge directly to surface 

waters (i.e., direct discharges); existing facilities that discharge to POTWs (indirect 

dischargers); and newly constructed facilities (new sources) that discharge to 

surface waters either directly or indirectly. 

Finally, the CWA requires EPA to conduct an annual review of existing 

effluent guidelines and, if appropriate, to revise these regulations to reflect changes 

in the industry and/or changes in available pollution control technologies. 

B. Genesis of Effluent Guideline Regulations as One Arm of 

the Nation’s Clean Water Program 

During the Clean Water Act debates in Congress in 1971 and 1972, there 

was general agreement about what was needed: reduce pollution levels in the 

Nation’s waters. However, there was less agreement on how this could be 

accomplished. 

Most State water pollution control efforts at that time focused on developing 

ambient, site-specific, pollution controls that were intended to meet a specific 

public health or environmental goal for an individual water body. This process had 

drawbacks: it was slow, complex, and the State-established goals for water body 

DRAFT Page 5 November 5, 2002 
health varied widely across the

country. Consequently, the 1972

CWA represents

a delicate balance between supporters

of a newer approach (e.g.,

technology-based standards such as

effluent guidelines) and the earlier

State/locally-led efforts (e.g., Statedetermined ambient water quality

standards).

“...the Committee bill makes a sharp break 

with present practice – for the beginning point 

is not the degree of pollution considered 

tolerable, but the elimination of polluting 

discharges to the extent that available 

technology allows.” 

– Senator John Sherman Cooper; 1972 

The debate over the need for national industrial regulations focused on a 

number of issues. First, some members of Congress were concerned that 

individual States might establish different standards for water quality than those in 

other States in an effort to attract industrial development and economic growth to 

their State. The willingness of one State to have lower water quality might then 

create a “race to the bottom” as other States felt compelled to meet or even 

undercut the less protective and less costly control requirements of their neighbors. 

Creating a single national pollution control requirement for each industrial 

category based on the best technology the industry could afford was seen as a way 

to reduce the potential creation of “pollution havens” and to set the country’s sights 

on attaining the highest possible level of water quality. 

Second, some members of Congress were concerned that relying only on 

water quality standards to protect water quality might create the potential for States 

to manage their waters in ways that allowed pollution to reach the maximum 

allowable levels for a given use (e.g., recreation, fishing). This could create risk of 

“This legislation represents a major change 

in the basic philosophy governing our 

attempts to eliminate water pollution. In 

altering our approach from standards of 

water quality to controls based on effluent 

limitations, we are starting down a new road, 

one that will reach the same goal but by a 

more direct and precise route.” 

–Senator Jennings Randolph; 1972 

impairment to these waters as a result 

of unexpected new pollution loadings, 

noncompliance with established 

limits, and/or unusual conditions in 

the water body. By requiring that 

industrial dischargers comply with 

effluent limits based on the best 

available technology economically 

achievable, the CWA would provide 

more pollution control than was 

DRAFT Page 6 November 5, 2002 
“The committee recommends the change to effluent 

limits as the best available mechanism to control 

water pollution. With effluent limits, the 

Administrator can require the best control 

technology: He need not search for a precise link 

between pollution and water quality.” 

“With this recommendation, the committee intends 

no criticism of the States...nor of the State officials 

whose programs are superior in many respects to the 

Federal water pollution control program. To the 

contrary, it is the committee’s intent to restore the 

balance of Federal-State effort in the program as 

contemplated by the 1965 and 1966 acts.” 

– Senator Edmund S. Muskie; 1972 

necessary to meet the water 

quality standards in some water 

bodies. This “margin of 

safety” would, in turn, help 

protect water bodies from 

unexpected changes in 

conditions, keep waters away 

from the brink of 

nonattainment, and provide 

additional capacity to support 

industrial and economic 

growth. 

Third, in the early 1970's 

the scientific information 

concerning the human health 

and environmental effects of pollutants was limited. Congress directed EPA to 

develop this information and provide it to the States (see section 304(a) of the 

CWA). In doing so, however, Congress recognized that EPA’s effort to 

understand the health and environmental effects of many pollutants would take 

time and States would need additional time to adopt this information into water 

quality standards. Therefore, Congress required national regulations for industrial 

categories containing discharge limits based on treatment capabilities of available 

technology. These limits could be in place sooner than water quality standards and 

would address far more pollutants than could be addressed in water quality 

standards. 

Fourth, some Members of 

Congress feared that pollutant specific 

numerical standards that identified 

allowable levels of a pollutant in a water 

body could not account for the 

interactive effects of the pollutant on the 

aquatic life in the water body, which can 

be either negative or positive. Where 

the effect is negative, even compliance 

with water quality standards for all the 

“...the intent is that effluent limitations 

applicable to point sources be as uniform 

as possible. The Administrator is expected 

to be precise in his guidelines so as to 

assure that similar characteristics 

regardless of their location or the nature 

of the water in which the discharge is 

made, will meet similar effluent 

limitations.” 

–Senator Edmund Muskie; 1972 

DRAFT Page 7 November 5, 2002 
individual pollutants in a water body will not protect the designated use. In some 

cases, this problem could be mitigated by implementing more stringent pollutant 

limits based on treatment capability. Furthermore, treatment technologies tend to 

control multiple pollutants simultaneously. 

Finally, there was concern that, in the case of industrial dischargers to 

POTWs (i.e, indirect dischargers), controls on the POTW alone could not guard 

against shifts of pollutants to other environmental media. In the case of the 

industrial dischargers, for example, pollutants are piped to POTWs for treatment 

along with conventional sewage prior to discharge to water bodies. However, 

some pollutants may not actually reach the treatment plant because they may leak 

from sewer pipes to groundwater or may be released to surface waters prior to 

treatment as a result of overflows of sanitary sewers or of combined storm and 

sanitary sewers. 

A related concern is that pollutants may be removed from the effluent 

discharged to a water body by becoming part of the sewage sludge from the 

treatment plant. Much of this sludge is applied to land and pollutants can then run 

off into water bodies. (Note that Congress amended the Clean Water Act in 1987 

to provide for the development of standards for sewage sludge similar to those for 

water quality.) 

What was Congress’ solution? — A melding of two approaches, the newer 

national approach (i.e., technology-based standards known as effluent guidelines) 

and existing State/local efforts (e.g., State-determined ambient water quality 

standards). 

C. Contribution of the Effluent Guidelines Program to 

Improving the Nation’s Water Quality 

In the thirty years since Congress passed the 1972 Clean Water Act, the 

quality of the Nation’s waters has improved dramatically, and the Nations’s water 

programs have matured and expanded. The national effluent guidelines program 

has been an important tool, and has helped improve water quality by reducing the 

discharge of pollutants that kill or impair aquatic organisms, degrade aquatic 

DRAFT Page 8 November 5, 2002 
ecosystems, or cause human health problems through ingestion of contaminated 

water, fish, or shellfish. 

National effluent guidelines are implemented through the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which is responsible for 

preventing the discharge of almost 700 billion pounds of pollutants each year.1 Of 

this total, over 1 billion pounds are toxic pollutants such as heavy metals, over 470 

billion pounds are nonconventional pollutants such as nutrients and salts, and 

almost 220 billion pounds are conventional pollutants such as suspended solids. 

These pollutants include chemicals known to cause or contribute to cancer, impact 

reproductive health, hinder mental and motor development in children, impact the 

central nervous system, and damage major organs such as the liver and kidney. 

Effluent guidelines control these pollutants regardless of whether EPA has 

developed a water quality criteria or whether a State has adopted a numeric water 

quality standard based on that criteria. Development of water quality criteria by 

EPA and adoption/modification of these criteria by the States is a significant and 

lengthy effort. To date, EPA has published criteria documents for over 160 

pollutants, approximately one-third of the pollutants examined for control through 

the effluent guidelines program. 

D. Contribution of the Water Quality Program to Improving 

the Nation’s Water Quality 

In addition to the technology-based effluent guidelines program, EPA and 

the States implement a wide range of water-quality based programs also designed 

to protect and restore the Nation’s waters. Many of these programs are used in 

tandem with effluent guidelines, and can augment and complement the benefits 

gained by the technology-based program. 

For example, water quality standards and criteria are the regulatory and 

scientific foundation for the Nation’s water quality-based programs. Water quality 

standards – consisting of designated uses for waters, water quality criteria to 

protect the uses, and antidegradation policies – serve the dual purposes of 

1

Based on a review of effluent guideline development documents. 

DRAFT Page 9 November 5, 2002 
establishing water quality goals for specific water bodies and providing the 

regulatory basis for establishing certain treatment controls and strategies. 

All states, territories, and authorized Indian tribes now have water quality 

standards in place under the CWA. EPA provides guidance to these jurisdictions 

for adopting scientifically defensible water quality standards, and reviews and 

approves those standards. In addition, EPA has promulgated water quality 

standards for specific pollutants in 18 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of 

Columbia. (Under the CWA, EPA must adopt water quality standards in cases 

where it determines they are necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Act.) EPA has 

also issued national numeric water quality criteria guidance for 165 pollutants, 101 

of which are priority toxic pollutants. 

Several key provisions of the CWA are linked to water quality standards. 

For example, water quality standards are used to assess impairments in U.S. 

waters, to establish targets and load reductions needed in impaired waters through 

total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and to set limits on pollutants through 

enforceable NPDES permits where technology-based limits are insufficient to 

protect water quality. 

The States and EPA have controlled over 48,000 individual industrial 

facilities through the issuance of individual NPDES permits, and controlled 

thousands more through general permits. Over 70 percent of our rivers, 68 percent 

of our estuaries and 60 percent of our lakes now meet applicable water quality 

standards. Fish are coming back, habitats are recovering, and many miles of 

formerly contaminated beaches are now safe for swimmers. 

E. Addressing the Remaining Challenges 

Though there has been considerable progress in improving the quality of the 

Nation’s waters, we still have not achieved water quality objectives in many water 

bodies. Under EPA and State permit programs, industrial discharge restrictions – 

in the form of technology-based and water-quality based effluent limitations – have 

contributed to great improvements. However, significant sources of pollutants 

remain. Many of these pollutants come from sources that are not related to 

industrial discharges, such as non-point source runoff from agricultural lands, 

DRAFT Page 10 November 5, 2002 
stormwater flows from cities, seepage into ground water from nonpoint sources, 

and the loss of critical habitats such as wetlands. 

EPA is committed to developing science, methods, models and other tools to 

better identify, assess and quantify risks caused from exposure to chemical and 

biological contaminants. In the short term, EPA will vigorously implement legal 

requirements to ensure we maintain the gains in water quality made over the last 

three decades. One facet of EPA’s overall approach to resolving the remaining 

water quality problems is the continued implementation of the national effluent 

guidelines program to address water quality problems associated with industrial 

dischargers. 

EPA is proposing a process to establish priorities that is predicated on 

selecting opportunities for the greatest risk reduction using the best programs and 

tools available. EPA intends to characterize and compare risks based on sound, 

reliable data and sound analysis. Further, EPA intends to establish priorities and to 

make choices in consultation with the public and regulated communities based on 

the potential to cost-effectively reduce levels of risk to public health and the 

environment. 

In this draft National Strategy, EPA proposes a decision-making process and 

identifies the key factors EPA expects to consider as it evaluates the need to revise 

existing effluent guidelines or to develop new effluent guidelines. In making these 

decisions, EPA also intends to consider other factors suggested by the public, as 

appropriate. 

DRAFT Page 11 November 5, 2002 
II. Planning For National Clean Water Industrial 

Regulations 

In the early years of clean water programs, EPA focused on establishing 

national regulations for core industrial categories. In the mid-1970's, work on 

several categories was set aside as EPA shifted its focus to further control toxic 

pollutants — first as the result of litigation, then in compliance with the 1977 

amendments to the Clean Water Act. In 1987, Congress again amended the CWA 

to, among other things, establish a formal planning process for the effluent 

guidelines program. This new provision, section 304(m), reiterated EPA’s 

mandatory duty to annually review existing effluent guidelines for potential 

revision and clarified EPA’s duty to identify categories of sources discharging 

toxic or nonconventional pollutants for which no effluent guidelines exist. EPA’s 

first attempt to comply with the new planning provision resulted in litigation by the 

Natural Resources Defense Council and Public Citizen, Inc. for failure to comply 

with section 304(m). EPA entered into a consent decree in 1992 that has governed 

the program for the past decade. EPA anticipates that it will soon fulfill its 

commitments under the provisions of that consent decree. The Agency is now 

considering how it will comply with the 304(m) planning requirements in the 

future. 

This section of the draft National Strategy reviews the 304(m) planning 

requirements and summarizes the litigation and implementation of those 

requirements to date. It then describes the planning-related recommendations of 

the Effluent Guidelines Task Force, as well as the recommendations of an invited 

group of experts who participated in a public meeting convened by EPA in April 

2001 to provide their ideas on how best to conduct this planning effort. 

A. Statutory Requirements for Program Planning 

The Clean Water Act requires that EPA periodically review existing effluent 

guidelines, pretreatment standards, and standards of performance for new sources 

and to revise them “if appropriate” or, in the case of new source performance 

standards, “as technology and alternatives change.” See CWA sections 301(d), 

304(b), 304(g)(1), 306(b)(1)(B). In addition, the CWA requires EPA to 

promulgate effluent guidelines for new categories of dischargers under certain 

DRAFT Page 12 November 5, 2002 
circumstances. See CWA section 304(m)(1)(B) and (C). (See the inset box below 

for section 304(m) requirements, and Appendix 2 for a summary of other CWA 

provisions regarding the review, revision, and promulgation of effluent guidelines 

regulations.) 

B. Litigation on Program Planning 

On October 30, 1989, the 

Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Inc. and Public Citizen, Inc. filed an 

action against EPA in which they 

alleged, among other things, that EPA 

had failed to comply with Clean Water 

Act section 304(m). The plaintiffs and 

EPA eventually agreed to a settlement 

of that action in a consent decree 

entered on January 31, 1992. 

The consent decree, which has 

been modified several times, 

established a schedule by which EPA 

was to propose and take final action on 

both the revision of existing effluent 

guidelines and the promulgation of new 

effluent guidelines. It also established 

a schedule by which EPA was to 

conduct preliminary studies of several 

industries. Under the decree, EPA was 

directed to use the studies as well as 

other available information to select the 

categories for which EPA would issue 

new or revised rules. 

Clean Water Act Section 304(m) 

Schedule for Review of Guidelines 

“(1) Publication: Within 12 months after 

February 4, 1987, and biennially thereafter, the 

Administrator shall publish in the Federal 

Register a plan which shall ----

“(A) establish a schedule for the annual 

review and revision of promulgated 

effluent guidelines, in accordance with 

subsection (b) of this section; 

(B) identify categories of sources 

discharging toxic or nonconventional 

pollutants for which guidelines under 

subsection (b)(2) of this section and 

section 1316 of this title have not 

previously been published; and 

(C) establish a schedule for promulgation of 

effluent guidelines for categories 

identified in subparagraph (B), under 

which promulgation of such guidelines 

shall be no later than 4 years after 

February 4, 1987, for categories 

identified in the first published plan or 3 

years after the publication of the plan for 

categories identified in later published 

plans.” 

“2) Public Review: The Administrator shall 

provide for public review and comment on the 

Finally, the consent decree provided that section 304(m) plans issued 

subsequent to the decree which are consistent with its terms shall satisfy EPA’s 

obligations to publish such plans on a biennial basis. 

DRAFT Page 13 November 5, 2002 
Since 1992, EPA has promulgated new or revised effluent guidelines for ten 

industrial categories. Based on a review of technical support documents, EPA 

estimates these regulations prevent the discharge of over 1 billion pounds of 

pollutants a year to waters of the U.S., including over 6 million pounds of toxic 

pollutants, almost 600 million pounds of nonconventional pollutants, and almost 

490 million pounds of conventional pollutants. EPA notes that these reductions, 

while significant, represent less than one percent of the total loadings reductions 

projected for all effluent guidelines as implemented through the NPDES program 

(see page 8). This suggests that, rather than continuing to focus on high volume 

discharges, the Agency shift its focus to addressing remaining risks. 

In preparation for the 2004 biennial plan (which will be EPA’s first section 

304(m) plan developed independently of the consent decree), EPA has begun to 

explore the process by which it will conduct the annual review of effluent 

guidelines as required by statute. EPA has also begun to identify the factors it 

expects to consider when deciding whether or not to promulgate new or revised 

effluent guidelines. 

C. Effluent Guidelines Task Force Recommendations on 

Planning 

Under the consent decree, EPA was required to establish an Effluent 

Guidelines Task Force to make recommendations for improving the effluent 

guidelines program. Consequently, in 1992, EPA created a Task Force consisting 

of members appointed by the Agency from industry, citizen groups, State and local 

governments, the academic and scientific communities, and EPA’s Office of 

Research and Development. 

The Task Force has held public meetings since 1993, and has submitted a 

number of reports to the Agency making recommendations for improving national 

clean water industrial regulations. Some of these recommendations are relevant to 

the 304(m) planning process and are discussed below. 

In 1995, the Task Force prepared a report titled The Effluent Guideline 

Program: Selection Criteria for Preliminary Industry Studies. The report, among 

other things, recommended that the Agency use certain information sources and 

DRAFT Page 14 November 5, 2002 
criteria to select industries for further study. This report and other Task Force 

reports are available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/taskforce/. 

First, the Task Force recommended that EPA begin its screening process by 

consulting with pretreatment control authorities, States authorized to implement the 

NPDES, industry, and professional/trade associations regarding their 

recommendations regarding revisions of existing effluent guidelines and targeting 

industries for new guidelines. 

They specifically recommended that EPA obtain feedback from these 

stakeholders regarding their satisfaction with the effluent guidelines both in terms 

of ease of administration and effectiveness. They recommended coordination with 

the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) as part of their 

national pretreatment coordinator’s meetings, and with planned conferences 

sponsored by the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 

Administrators (ASIWPCA), Water Environment Federation (WEF), American 

Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), Air and Waste Management Association 

(AWMA), and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 

The Task Force also recommended that EPA use, as a gross screening tool, 

lists of facilities discharging into water quality-impaired receiving waters. The 

Task Force noted the lack of cause-and-effect relationship between an industrial 

category discharging into an impaired water body and that impairment, but thought 

that such categories of industries should advance through the preliminary screening 

phase. 

The Task Force further recommended that EPA review its National 

Sediment Quality Survey to target, on a national basis, industrial dischargers which 

potentially contribute to sediment contamination, recognizing limitations in the 

sources of information for this inventory. 

In addition, the Task Force recommended that EPA use the Toxic Release 

Inventory (TRI) to screen industries, but urged EPA to take into consideration the 

fact that the TRI includes pollutant releases associated with treatment chemicals 

and pollutants which are compatible with municipal sewage treatment plant 

processes, that it sometimes contains imprecise information on listed chemical 

releases and transfers based on approximate estimates, and that it provides 

DRAFT Page 15 November 5, 2002 
incomplete coverage of pollutants and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)2 

codes. 

Finally, the Task Force recommended that EPA use the Permit Compliance 

System (PCS), which contains data on the discharges of NPDES-permitted 

facilities, to the extent possible, given its data limitations. Specifically, the Task 

Force encouraged EPA to evaluate whether compliance monitoring of whole 

effluent toxicity (WET) could be used to identify high priority source categories. 

The Task Force also addressed the issue of the criteria EPA should use to prioritize 

industrial categories for preliminary study. These recommendations do not directly 

address whether or not a new or revised effluent guideline would be appropriate, 

but rather present a series of factors to be weighed by the Agency in determining 

whether further study of the category is warranted. (See box.) 

2

Establishments are assigned a primary SIC Code on the basis of principal product or 

service rendered. The RSEI model can sort based on 2-, 3-, or 4-digit SIC codes. North 

American Industry Classification Codes (NAICS) will not be incorporated into the TRI until 

reporting year 2004.) 

DRAFT Page 16 November 5, 2002 
Criteria Recommended by the 

Effluent Guidelines Task Force 

Heed any legal mandates (statutory or judicial) to perform specific studies. 

Continue to utilize a measure of toxicity (specifically a metric known as total toxic pounds equivalent 

(TTPE), which normalizes the toxicity of pollutant discharges to that of copper, e.g., 10 TTPE has the 

toxicity of 10 pounds of copper). 

Give priority to selecting industries not covered by existing effluent guidelines that are highly ranked in 

terms of TTPE discharged. 

Consider both the number of facilities and total wastewater discharge flow, thereby focusing on those 

categories that collectively have the greatest potential for significant impacts. 

Consider alternative control approaches, such as guidance for the local control authority or State permit 

writer, for categories with few facilities or de minimis flow. 

Consider categories which have not implemented pollution prevention as a higher priority than those 

which have. 

Give, to the extent practicable, priority to industries targeted for regulations by other media programs. 

These should provide efficiencies to government and industry, as well as an improved opportunity to 

explore pollution prevention approaches that minimize the potential for shifting discharges from one 

environmental medium to another. 

Give priority to selecting service industries for preliminary study. (At the time the Task Force made this 

recommendation, there were several “service industries” that had been identified as part of the Consent 

Decree: industrial laundries, transportation equipment cleaning facilities, centralized waste treatment 

facilities, landfills, and industrial hazardous waste combustors.) 

Consider the investment cycles of industrial categories so that pollution control can be considered in the 

early stage of investment planning. 

D. Outreach in Plan Development 

In 2000, EPA discussed with the Effluent Guidelines Task Force the need to 

develop a process to meet the statutory planning requirements in a way that 

supports the national water program’s needs and priorities. The Task Force 

recommended that EPA sponsor a workshop of experts who would be able to 

suggest data sources and screening criteria for EPA’s consideration. Based on 

those recommendations, EPA sponsored an Effluent Guidelines Planning 

Workshop on April 2 and 3, 2001 in Baltimore, Maryland. Workshop participants 

included regulatory authorities, industry representatives, technology experts, 

academia, and environmental advocacy representatives. 

DRAFT Page 17 November 5, 2002 
EPA asked attendees to explore approaches for both the annual review of 

existing effluent guidelines and the identification of new industries for potential 

effluent guidelines development. The ideas advanced during the workshop varied 

considerably. 

Many of the suggestions relied heavily on obtaining data and input from a

wide variety of stakeholders – industry, academia, equipment manufacturers,

States, POTWs, environmental interest groups, and members of the public –

and using it to rank relative risks to human health and the environment. 

Some suggestions started with identifying water quality problems and then

trying to identify categories of industry that contribute to them.

Some suggestions started with reviewing each industrial category to

determine the cumulative toxicity (measured as TTPE) of each category’s

discharges.

Other suggestions focused on tracking changes that have occurred in the

industry since the effluent guideline was last revised (in the case of existing

regulations) or tracking new production processes for industries that are not

regulated by an effluent guideline.

One suggestion proposed using the selection process as an incentive to

encourage industries to implement voluntary pollution reduction efforts —

by giving lowest priority to industries that have reduced their pollutant

loadings the most in recent years. 

Another suggestion addressing innovative approaches focused on in-plant

trading of pollutant discharges as a possible incentive to encourage

reductions in overall discharges.

The processes suggested by 

individuals at this workshop, the 

associated selection criteria, and the 

discussions at the workshop helped inform 

the structure of the draft National Strategy 

published here today. A summary of the 

meeting, ideas generated in preparation for 

DRAFT Page 18 November 5, 2002 
the meeting, and a list of attendees is included in the record. This information is 

also available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/plan.html. 

To supplement the results of the workshop, the Office of Water (OW) 

solicited additional information from a variety of sources, both within EPA and in 

the States. OW participated in teleconferences with EPA Regional Pretreatment 

Coordinators, EPA Water Quality Permit Specialists, and the NPDES Regional 

Program Managers. EPA solicited State concerns at these discussions, as well as 

directly in phone interviews with a number of representatives from State 

environmental protection departments. 

III. A NATIONAL PLAN FOR CLEAN WATER 

INDUSTRIAL REGULATIONS 

This draft National Strategy sets forth a planning process to review national 

effluent guidelines and establish priorities to address the water quality challenges 

of the 21st century. In developing this process, EPA was guided by two major 

goals: 

- Reduce risk to human health and the environment 

- Provide transparent decision-making 

This section of the draft National Strategy describes the planning process, 

including a discussion of the key factors EPA believes are appropriate in 

determining the need to develop new or revise existing effluent guideline 

regulations, and the type of information that EPA expects to consider when 

deciding whether to begin effluent guideline regulation development or revision. 

This section then presents the proposed review process itself. It describes 

how EPA intends to evaluate readily available information on potential risk to 

human health or the environment, to solicit input from a wide variety of 

stakeholders on this and other appropriate factors, to gather additional information 

on the industrial categories that most warrant further study, to evaluate whether 

effluent guidelines are the most efficient approach to achieving environmental 

DRAFT Page 19 November 5, 2002 
improvements in those categories, and to present the results to the public. EPA 

plans to screen and select industrial categories for regulation based on the latest 

methodologies and information available. All appropriate information will be 

placed in the public record at the time the Agency publishes each proposed and 

final biennial plan. Finally, this section describes new information and procedures 

EPA would like to develop to better support this proposed planning process in the 

future. 

A. Key Factors for Selecting Industrial categories for 

Effluent Guideline Development or Revision 

EPA has established effluent guidelines for 55 categories of industry (See 

Appendix 1) and has subsequently assessed, and promulgated as appropriate, 

revisions to these categories. For most of these categories, these regulations 

achieve 90 to 99 percent reduction in pollutant discharge when compared to 

uncontrolled, untreated wastes, based on a review of technical support documents. 

EPA anticipates that as we work with stakeholders to gather and analyze data in 

our review process, effluent guidelines will be only one of many tools and 

mechanisms to resolve remaining environmental problems. The review process 

being proposed today is designed not only to assess whether effluent guideline 

development or revision is the appropriate tool to reduce risk, but also to identify 

what other tools may be more efficient and effective to achieve our clean water 

goals. 

In developing the review process described in this draft National Strategy, 

EPA first examined the Clean Water Act (CWA) provisions regarding review, 

promulgation, or revision of effluent guidelines (See Appendix 2). EPA then 

reviewed its past bases for making final regulatory decisions - including decisions 

not to regulate new industrial categories or revise existing regulations. EPA found 

that the mere existence of technologies that perform better than the current industry 

norm is less of an indicator of the ultimate need for a new or revised effluent 

guideline than the extent to which the industry is controlling pollutants that pose a 

risk to human health or the environment. This is particularly true in the case of 

industrial categories currently regulated by effluent guideline regulations. 

Revision of Existing Effluent Guidelines 

DRAFT Page 20 November 5, 2002 
Based upon a review of past actions, EPA has identified four major factors 

that could lead EPA to conclude that a revision of an existing effluent guideline 

would be necessary and appropriate. These factors are derived from sections 

301(b)(2) and 304(b) of the CWA, which specify the factors EPA must consider 

when selecting the best available technology economically achievable for an 

industrial category. In addition, section 304(b) authorizes EPA to consider other 

factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. 

Just as EPA can rely on these statutory factors in selecting or rejecting 

technologies, EPA is similarly authorized to consider these factors prior to 

initiating a rulemaking to revise existing effluent guidelines, e.g., to examine 

whether the current technology basis for the guideline remains the best available 

technology economically achievable for that industry category. Indeed, Section 

304(m)(1)(A) of the CWA specifically refers to Section 304(b) in connection with 

the effluent guidelines planning process. 

EPA will also consider additional factors as it deems appropriate in the 

context of each biennial plan. Prior to making a decision regarding whether to 

initiate an effluent guidelines rulemaking, EPA expects to consider not only the 

factors described below but also any other factors it determines to be appropriate at 

that time in the context of each biennial plan. 

First, EPA believes that the 

revision of an effluent guideline should 

be dependent upon the extent to which 

the pollutants remaining in an industry 

category’s discharge pose a substantial 

risk to human health or the 

environment. 

Second, the revision should also 

be dependent on EPA’s identification 

of an applicable and demonstrated 

technology, process change, or 

pollution prevention alternative that can 

effectively reduce the pollutants 

remaining in the industry category’s 

EXISTING EFFLUENT GUIDELINES: 

Major Factors EPA Expects to Consider 

- The extent to which the industry category is 

discharging pollutants that pose a risk to 

human health or the environment. 

- The identification of an applicable and 

demonstrated technology, process change, or 

pollution prevention approach that would 

substantially reduce the remaining risk. 

- The cost, performance, and affordability of the 

technology, process change, or pollution 

prevention approach that would substantially 

reduce that risk. 

- Implementation/efficiency considerations (see 

box below). 

DRAFT Page 21 November 5, 2002 
wastewaters and thereby substantially reduce 

the remaining risk to human health or the 

environment associated with those pollutants. 

The third factor encompasses the cost, 

performance, and affordability of the 

technology, process change, or pollution 

prevention measures identified using the 

second factor. If the cost of the improvement 

is too great in comparison to the human health 

or environmental benefits associated with the 

pollutant reductions achieved, or if the 

financial condition of the industry category 

indicates significant difficulties to achieve the 

reductions, EPA would be reluctant to select 

the effluent guideline for revision. In this 

case, Agency resources would be more 

effectively spent developing other more 

Examples of 

Implementation/Efficiency 

Considerations 

- Has the industry changed such that 

the existing effluent guidelines are 

inappropriate or inadequate? 

- Is there confusion on the part of the 

permitting authority and/or industry 

as to whether or not the existing 

effluent guideline should be applied, 

and if so, how it should be applied? 

- Are there issues with regard to 

implementation, performance 

monitoring, or enforceability? 

- Is the current effluent guideline a 

barrier to the use of newer, more 

effective technologies with multimedia benefits? 

efficient, less costly approaches to reducing pollutant loadings. 

The fourth factor incorporates implementation and efficiency considerations. 

Under this factor, EPA would consider whether existing effluent guidelines could 

be revised, for example, to eliminate inefficiencies or impediments to technological 

innovation, or to promote innovative approaches such as water quality trading, 

including within-plant trading. This factor might also prompt EPA to decide not to 

revise an effluent guideline for an industry category where the pollutant source is 

already being addressed by another regulatory program, such as TMDLs, or by 

non-regulatory programs that may more effectively address the problem. While 

EPA has not tied this factor directly to risk, the Agency hopes that any efficiencies 

resulting from revisions relating to this factor would allow permitting authorities 

and industry to devote their resources to other areas posing greater risk to human 

health and the environment. See the box for some examples of 

implementation/efficiency considerations. 

The following three scenarios illustrate how the first two factors would be 

considered. Under the first scenario, the industry category discharges pose no risk 

to human health or the environment. In this scenario, the ability to substantially 

DRAFT Page 22 November 5, 2002 
reduce risk does not exist. In the absence of information indicating otherwise, 

EPA would likely conclude that effluent guideline revision for this category is 

unnecessary. 

Under the second scenario, the industry category discharge poses some risk 

to human health or the environment, but EPA has not identified a technology, 

process change, or pollution prevention approach that would substantially reduce 

that risk. In this scenario, there is no technology basis to justify a revision to the 

effluent guideline for that category at the current time. However, the risk to human 

health or the environment would signal that the Agency resources could effectively 

be spent supporting development of improved technologies. The greater the 

human health or the environmental harm, the higher priority EPA would place on 

supporting technology development. 

Under the third scenario, the industry category poses risk to human health or 

the environment, and EPA has identified a technology, process change or pollution 

prevention approach that would substantially reduce human health or 

environmental risk beyond current performance. Here, a variety of metrics could 

be used to evaluate human health or environmental risk ranging from estimates of 

risk based on loadings and exposures to information on geographic concentration 

and distribution of potential loading reductions. In this scenario, EPA would 

probably proceed with preliminary development of an effluent guideline revision 

in order to determine whether the third (economic) factor, discussed above, also 

supported a revision. 

Promulgation of Effluent Guidelines for New Industrial Categories 

As part of its planning obligations under the CWA, EPA must assess the 

need for effluent guidelines for industrial categories that presently are not subject 

to technology-based limitations on a case-by-case basis. See CWA section 

304(m)(1)(B). EPA has identified four major factors that could lead EPA to 

conclude that national effluent guidelines regulations would be necessary and 

appropriate for such industrial categories. 

These factors are nearly identical to the factors discussed above with respect 

to the revision of existing effluent guidelines, and are derived from the same 

statutory bases. In addition, the factors reflect Congress’ expectation that EPA will 

DRAFT Page 23 November 5, 2002 
address “significant amounts” of toxic pollutant discharges through national 

technology-based regulations. See S. Rep. No. 50, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985); 

WQA87 Leg. Hist. 31. 

As with the decision whether to revise existing effluent guidelines, the first 

factor EPA expects to consider is the extent to which the industry category is 

discharging pollutants that pose a risk to human health or the environment. As a 

threshold consideration, EPA does not believe that it is necessary, nor was it 

Congress’s intent, to develop a national effluent guideline regulation for categories 

of sources that are not likely to pose a significant risk to human health or the 

environment. See S. Rep. No. 50, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985); WQA87 Leg. Hist. 

31. 

In determining whether discharges from an industrial category pose a 

significant risk, EPA expects to consider both the total amount of pollutants 

discharged by the industrial category, and the toxicity of that discharge. In the case 

of indirect dischargers, EPA expects to consider both the interaction of the 

discharge with the POTW treatment system (i.e., whether the discharge interferes 

with POTW operation and performance) and the nature of the discharge to the 

environment (i.e., the amount of those pollutants expected to pass through the 

POTW treatment system). 

Additionally, the number of facilities in the industrial category can also play 

a role in this determination. Establishing a national effluent guideline for one or 

two facilities, or for a category of facilities that are all located in one State, may not 

be appropriate (unless growth in the industrial category is anticipated). Rather, 

EPA might work with State and local regulatory agencies to ensure that discharges 

from these sources are adequately addressed through technology-based effluent 

limitations or local limitations calculated on the basis of best professional 

judgement, without an over-arching national regulation. 

Under the second factor, EPA would expect to consider whether there is a 

demonstrated, applicable technology, process change, or pollution prevention 

approach that could control pollutants that pose a risk to human health or the 

DRAFT Page 24 November 5, 2002 
environment beyond current industry 

performance. EPA would expect to 

determine current industry performance 

based on each facility’s current set of 

permit limits (if applicable), which can 

vary considerably from one facility to the 

next. 

As with the decision whether to 

revise existing effluent guidelines, the third 

factor is the cost, performance, and 

affordability of the technology, process 

change, or pollution prevention measures 

identified using the second factor. EPA’s 

past experience shows that the analysis of 

the costs associated with treatment 

technologies, pollution prevention 

activities, or process changes, as well as 

NEW EFFLUENT GUIDELINES: 

Major Factors EPA Expects to Consider 

- The extent to which the industry category 

is discharging pollutants that pose a risk to 

human health or the environment. 

- The identification of an applicable and 

demonstrated technology, process 

change, or pollution prevention approach 

beyond current industry performance that 

could control pollutants to reduce the risk. 

- The cost, performance, and affordability of 

a demonstrated technology, process 

change, or pollution prevention approach 

beyond current industry performance that 

could control pollutants to reduce the risk. 

- Implementation/efficiency considerations 

(see box above). 

the analysis of the financial condition of the industry category, are important 

factors in determining whether an available measure is “best” or “economically 

achievable.” 

The fourth factor that EPA expects to consider in selecting industrial 

categories for national effluent guidelines regulation incorporates implementation 

and efficiency considerations. This factor, for example, might prompt EPA to 

decide not to develop an effluent guideline for an industry category where the 

pollutant source is already being addressed by another regulatory program, such as 

TMDLs, or non-regulatory programs that may more effectively address the 

problem. 

EPA may also consider additional factors when deciding whether to initiate 

a national effluent guidelines rulemaking for an industrial category presently 

regulated on a case-by-case basis. Prior to making such a decision, EPA expects to 

consider not only the factors described above but also any other factors it 

determines to be appropriate in the context of each biennial plan. 

DRAFT Page 25 November 5, 2002 
B. Information to Evaluate the Key Factors 

In order to consider the factors presented above, EPA expects it would need 

to analyze the following types of information. The list below is based on the 

recommendations of the Effluent Guidelines Task Force and the suggestions put 

forth by participants in the Effluent Guidelines Planning Workshop. 

The estimated environmental impact (human health or ecological risk) posed 

by the industry category. 

The estimated number of facilities in the category (or subcategory), as well 

as the overall structure, including the size of firms (small businesses versus 

large corporations), direct versus indirect discharges, and geographic 

concentration. 

Information on the current practices for control of wastewater pollutants, 

including estimates of pollutant loadings (total and toxic pound-equivalent). 

Information on any technology, process change, or pollution prevention 

approach that can substantially reduce the discharge of pollutants. 

The projected incremental reduction in loadings beyond current levels using 

the approach or approaches identified above. 

The estimated cost to the industry category as a whole to implement the 

suggested approach. 

The estimated cost of the approach to the industry category with respect to 

the incremental reduction in pollutant loadings (i.e., cost reasonableness or 

cost effectiveness). 

The cost to sales ratio associated with the approach for an average facility. 

The projected environmental or human health benefits associated with the 

approach. 

DRAFT Page 26 November 5, 2002 
Other information relevant in making decisions (such as potential for 

multimedia benefits, the relationship of projected benefits to costs, and any 

requests for clarification/revision by regulators or stakeholders). 

EPA management expects to use this information and other information 

submitted by the public to determine if effluent guideline development or revision 

is appropriate. EPA plans to screen and select industrial categories for regulation 

based on the latest methodologies and information available. All appropriate 

information will be placed in the public record at the time the Agency publishes 

each proposed and final biennial plan. 

The Agency intends to make its decision-making process more transparent to 

interested parties. To do this, EPA would make summaries of this information (as 

well as the supporting information and analyses) available for any industries for 

which EPA has completed this assessment at the time it proposes and/or finalizes 

the biennial plan. 

C. Proposed Planning Process 

The Effluent Guidelines Task Force and participants in the Effluent 

Guidelines Planning Workshop noted that there is no single, aggregated source of 

the information needed to evaluate the key factors. They suggested a variety of 

approaches for review. All of these approaches included a cursory screening effort 

of all industries followed by further study of a subset of categories that most 

warrant further examination. EPA has followed that general approach in this 

planning document. 

EPA believes that such an approach to the review of existing effluent 

guidelines and new industrial categories is consistent with Congress’ intent for 

EPA to perform an annual review. EPA also believes it is good practice to conduct 

a broad screening review and then focus resources on performing detailed review 

and analysis for industries that are most likely to pose the greatest human health or 

environmental risk. 

DRAFT Page 27 November 5, 2002 
Solicitation of Stakeholder Recommendations 

As recommended by the Effluent Guidelines Task Force, the Agency 

believes that an important first step in the planning process is to consult with 

NPDES authorized states, pretreatment control authorities, and professional 

associations to obtain their recommendations pertaining to revising existing 

effluent guidelines and identifying industries for new guidelines. These 

stakeholders can help to identify water quality concerns related to industrial 

categories as well as changes in industry which affect the administration and 

effectiveness of existing regulations. EPA intends to use a variety of mechanisms 

to solicit input from these stakeholders, coordinating with major organizations to 

use regularly planned conferences and meetings to the maximum extent possible. 

EPA recognizes that there are other stakeholders who may have concerns or 

data indicating the need for new or revised regulations. Many of these 

stakeholders are not represented by a major organization, and would need to be 

provided a more direct opportunity to provide input to the Agency. EPA intends to 

use two mechanisms to obtain their recommendations. First, EPA plans to publish 

in the Federal Register a notice indicating its intention to develop a biennial plan, 

and seeking comment and supporting information from the public on industrial 

categories for which there is a need for development or revision of effluent 

guideline regulations. Second, EPA plans to use its internet web-site to provide a 

more convenient forum for information exchange with a broader audience. 

Initial Screening and Review 

Although the many suggestions EPA received from stakeholders for 

conducting an annual review varied significantly in detail, each involved an initial 

screen of readily available information followed by a more detailed review of a 

subset of industrial categories. EPA’s proposed planning process includes this 

step. Accordingly, EPA’s annual review of existing guidelines would consist of an 

evaluation of readily available-screening level data to create an initial list of 

potential categories that warrant further examination. In addition to the 

information obtained from the stakeholder outreach in step one, this review would 

include an evaluation of data available to EPA through databases and literature. 

This review and the information sources are discussed in more detail below. 

DRAFT Page 28 November 5, 2002 
Stakeholders suggested three distinct approaches for the initial screening 

steps: 

1) Examine the human health and environmental impact of individual 

categories – then focus on the categories with the greatest impact, 

working with knowledgeable stakeholders to identify technology, 

process change, or pollution prevention advances that may help to 

substantially reduce risk from those industrial categories. 

2) Track technological advances in the areas of process engineering, 

pollution prevention, and treatment – then focus on the industrial 

categories for which those advances could substantially reduce risk to 

human health or the environment. 

3) Work with industry and State and local governments to identify 

regulatory revisions that are warranted due to implementation and 

efficiency considerations – then focus on revisions that will improve 

the ease of administering the effluent guideline, or remove barriers to 

alternative technologies with greater multi-media benefits. 

The Agency sees value in all of these approaches. First, it makes sense for 

the EPA to focus resources on reducing risks from identified water quality impacts, 

identifying industrial categories causing the greatest human health and 

environmental harm, and identifying technologies that can significantly reduce this 

harm. This focus is also consistent with another EPA role: promoting the 

development of new technologies to solve environmental problems. 

Second, by tracking trends in the industry, EPA will be more proactive in 

preventing water quality problems as growth in an industry category occurs or as 

new processes are implemented. By working with industry as it changes, EPA can 

play a vital role in ensuring that protection of water quality is considered in the 

development of new production processes. This will prevent the impairment of 

water quality due to industrial growth and economic expansion. 

Third, EPA sees value in taking steps to improve the ease of administering 

effluent guidelines (an implementation/efficiency factor), or to remove barriers to 

new approaches, such as water quality trading, or technologies with greater multiDRAFT Page 29 November 5, 2002 
media benefits. For example, the "water bubble" is a regulatory flexibility 

mechanism included in the Iron and Steel regulation at 40 CFR 420.03 to allow for 

intra-plant trading of conventional and toxic pollutants between outfalls at any 

single steel mill. The bubble has been used at some facilities to realize cost 

savings and/or to facilitate compliance. Most of the time, these improvements can 

be accomplished through guidance, technical assistance, and training. However, 

EPA has found regulatory revision to be necessary in some instances. By working 

with permitting authorities, industry, and the public to identify and resolve these 

considerations, the effluent guidelines program will be implemented more 

effectively with less confusion and lower costs, and provide greater environmental 

protection. 

Evaluate Human Health and Environmental Impacts 

There are a number of tools (models, databases, and reports) that EPA may 

utilize to evaluate human health and environmental impacts. Several of these are 

discussed in the sections that follow. However, this is not an exhaustive list, and 

the Agency intends to consider all available resources as appropriate. 

Human Health: One of the criteria included in this step is the likelihood of 

risk to humans, i.e., adverse human health impacts resulting from exposure to 

pollutant discharges associated with a source category. Human exposure can occur 

through drinking water, fish ingestion, and contact recreation, although not all 

exposures to pollutants are damaging to human health. EPA plans to estimate 

relative contributions to human health impacts using existing screening models and 

data. As these models are refined and databases are expanded, and as new ones 

become available, EPA will incorporate these improvements into this screening 

process. EPA plans to screen and select industrial categories for regulation based 

on the latest methodologies and information available. All appropriate information 

will be placed in the public record at the time the Agency publishes each proposed 

and final biennial plan. 

One of the readily available tools to assess the relative risk of specific source 

categories is EPA’s Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model. 

RSEI is a multimedia, screening-level tool for examining toxic chemical releases 

from several perspectives. RSEI uses fate and transport modeling to estimate 

DRAFT Page 30 November 5, 2002 
surrogate doses3

 associated with reported TRI chemical discharges to air and water 

pathways. It then weights these estimates using each chemical’s toxicity via 

inhalation or ingestion, and the size of the populations exposed to each chemical. 

Based upon these estimates, industrial categories, chemicals, geographic areas, and 

facilities can be ranked by relative risk associated with human health effects. 

Currently, the primary database providing chemical release and transfer 

information to the RSEI model is the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). EPA 

recognizes that there are limitations associated with the discharge information 

reported to the TRI. For example, some specific industries are not required to 

report to TRI. For other industries, only some facilities report to TRI. 

Furthermore, much of the release information reported to TRI is estimated (rather 

than measured), and only ranges of releases are provided in some instances. The 

RSEI model is not restricted to TRI reporting, however, and EPA may elect to use 

a different primary database or supplement the TRI information with other release 

data in the future. 

RSEI is able to provide a ranking of relative risk for all facilities reporting to 

TRI. It can also be used to rank groups of facilities, such as all facilities under the 

same Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, by relative risk. SIC codes are 

one way to identify an industrial source category. In addition to the limitations 

discussed above, the results of this approach must be reviewed carefully to 

determine if highly ranked categories are either the result of many facilities, which 

could indicate that an examination of the category is warranted, or the result of few 

facilities with large discharges, which may indicate reporting errors, site-specific 

problems, or a general lack of information on a particular source category. 

Environmental Impacts: Another criterion considered in this screening step 

is the likelihood of adverse ecological impacts resulting from pollutant discharges 

associated with a source category. EPA will estimate relative contributions to 

ecological impacts using the relative hazard and the quantity of those pollutants 

being discharged by each source category. There are a number of data sources that 

may provide this type of information. EPA plans to screen and select industrial 

3

Surrogate dose is a measure related to the amount of chemical contacted by an individual 

per kilogram body weight per day. To estimate the surrogate dose, an exposure evaluation is 

conducted for each relevant emissions and exposure pathway and then combined with human 

exposure assumptions to estimate the magnitude of the surrogate dose. 

DRAFT Page 31 November 5, 2002 
categories for regulation based on the latest methodologies and information 

available. All appropriate information will be placed in the public record at the 

time the Agency publishes each proposed and final biennial plan. 

To begin, the Agency plans to review information on existing river and 

stream impairments and attempt to identify the sources responsible for those 

impairments. The reports generated under CWA sections 303(d) and 305(b) 

provide information on water quality impairments, and the pollutants and sources 

of pollutants associated with these impairments. Most of the information is based 

on data collected and evaluated by the States, tribes, and other jurisdictions. As 

with TRI, EPA recognizes that there are limitations associated with using this 

information as a screening tool. First, not all of the Nation’s waters are assessed, 

and those that are assessed are based on a variety of data sources (e.g., ambient 

monitoring, water quality modeling, and land use data). Each State uses its own 

approach for evaluating and reporting on waters, and only limited data are 

currently available on sources of the impairments. 

EPA is beginning work to link sources of pollutants with impaired waters. 

This effort will link the facilities discharging pollutants as identified in the Permit 

Compliance System (PCS) database with impaired water bodies identified using 

the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). PCS contains information on facilities 

that have been issued direct discharge permits to discharge wastewater into waters 

of the U.S. Generally, it includes information for all major dischargers and 

POTWs, but each State uses its discretion in determining whether to include 

information for minor dischargers. For regulated pollutants, PCS includes permit 

restrictions and the actual wastewater discharge monitoring. 

The information on impairments (identified initially using 303(d) and 305(b) 

reports) will be traced upstream to potential sources using the NHD which contains 

digital spatial data about surface water features including streams and rivers. EPA 

hopes that the NHD and other ongoing research efforts will allow it to better 

understand the fate and transport of pollutant discharges and their upstream 

sources. In addition to the limitations of State reporting practices discussed above, 

the results of this analysis must be reviewed carefully, in order to verify input data 

and identify water-body specific anomalies. 

DRAFT Page 32 November 5, 2002 
Future information sources currently under development for ecological 

impacts include EPA’s Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results 

(WATERS) tool. EPA envisions that the data sources in WATERS would 

supplement the information reported under 303(d) and 305(b), especially since 

these reports are only generated biannually.4 WATERS unites water quality 

information previously available only on individual State agency homepages with 

information from several EPA websites. 

State and Federal water quality managers, as well as interested citizens, can 

use WATERS to quickly identify the status of individual water bodies of interest to 

them. It can also be used to generate summary reports on all waters of a State. The 

next release of WATERS (July 2002) will include information on nutrients, 

drinking water intakes, recreational beaches, no discharge zones, water quality 

monitoring stations, and water quality assessments from section 305(b) of the 

CWA. 

Another source of information is data generated by the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) under its National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. 

Under NAWQA, USGS scientists collect and interpret data about water chemistry, 

hydrology, land use, stream habitat, and aquatic life in more than 50 major river 

basins and aquifers covering nearly all 50 states. National summary reports, 

published under the signature title "The Quality of Our Nation's Waters," describe 

water quality from a national perspective. 

The first report in this series covers nutrients and pesticides. Subsequent 

reports may address such topics as radon and arsenic in ground water, industrial 

chemicals in streams and ground water, and stream ecology. These reports will 

provide information based on actual monitoring data that the EPA can use in 

determining pollutants causing ecological impacts and their potential sources. The 

Agency plans to analyze these reports and the data on which they are based as part 

of its evaluation of the ecological impacts criterion. EPA intends to utilize USGS 

models, such as the SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed Attributes 

(SPARROW) model (designed for regional interpretation of water-quality 

monitoring data), to support its analysis of USGS data. The Agency plans to try to 

4

EPA notes that listing requirements for 303(d) and 305(b) are currently being revised 

through development of the Watershed Rule. 

DRAFT Page 33 November 5, 2002 
identify the potential sources of these impacts in a manner similar to the approach 

described for 303(d) and 305(b) data above (i.e., by tracing the impacts upstream 

using georeferenced data on potential sources). 

Technology Advances and Process Changes 

EPA plans to conduct a screening level analysis of changes in industry, and 

advances in analytical method techniques, treatment technology, and pollution 

prevention practices by evaluating readily available information. For example, 

EPA plans to regularly review trade journals, participate in professional 

conferences, review Department of Commerce and Department of Energy project 

reports on industrial technologies with potential environmental benefits or resource 

efficiencies, and consult with permit writers, pretreatment coordinators, industry 

representatives and the public. 

Since much of the information that is readily available on technology 

advancements is anecdotal, EPA is considering an effluent guidelines planning 

questionnaire that would be distributed to specific industrial categories and State 

regulators to expand on the available data. This questionnaire would be sent to 

those industrial categories that EPA has identified as discharging pollutants that 

pose a risk to human health and the environment but for which data on available 

treatment technologies and pollution prevention practices are lacking. EPA would 

use data collected in these questionnaires to assess the key factors for selecting 

industrial categories for effluent 

guideline development or revision (See 

section III.A). EPA is also soliciting 

information on other sources of up-todate systematic information on 

technology use in industry. 

In addition, EPA, together with 

Vanderbilt University, is holding a 

technology conference entitled 

“Industrial Wastewater and Best 

Available Treatment (BAT) 

Technologies: Performance Reliability, 

and Economics” in February, 2003. 

Specific Topics of EPA/Vanderbilt’s 

Technology Conference Include: 

- Performance and Reliability of Existing and 

Alternative Technologies 

- New and Innovative Wastewater Treatment 

Technologies 

- Pollution Prevention Techniques and 

Process Alternatives to Reduce or Modify 

Pollutant Loads 

- Modeling and Optimization of Wastewater 

Treatment Technologies 

- Cost Analyses for Wastewater Treatment 

and Pollution Prevention Technologies 

DRAFT Page 34 November 5, 2002 
Representatives of academia, government, and industry are invited to examine and 

discuss industry trends and technology advances. Participants will have the 

opportunity to provide and obtain information on state of the art techniques for 

improving their water pollution control activities. EPA anticipates this conference 

will be a good source of relevant, up-to-date information on technology advances, 

pollution prevention techniques, and process changes. EPA will use the lessons 

learned through this conference to plan periodic conferences to inform future 

section 304(m) plans, as appropriate. 

Implementation/Efficiency Considerations 

Another criterion to identify categories for which revised or new guidelines 

may be needed is the existence of problems in either implementation of, 

compliance with, or enforcement of existing effluent guidelines. In addition, EPA 

will consider information on innovative approaches to pollutant and risk reduction, 

such as in-plant trading. Sources of this information include State and regional 

pretreatment coordinators, permit writers, industry representatives, and concerned 

citizens. EPA will use the results of the early stakeholder outreach in step one to 

determine which categories should be examined further for possible effluent 

guideline revision. 

Second-Level Screening of Industries for Further Investigation 

EPA envisions that the outcome of its initial screening process will be 

several discrete lists of industrial categories. EPA plans to use the following 

criteria to help establish priorities among these categories for further study. EPA 

plans to screen and select industrial categories for regulation based on the latest 

methodologies and information available. All appropriate information will be 

placed in the public record at the time the Agency publishes each proposed and 

final biennial plan. 

Effluent Guidelines Currently Under Development 

EPA suspects that in any given year, the categories for which new or revised 

effluent guideline development is currently underway will appear on the lists of 

categories generated in the initial screening step. Since rulemaking is already 

DRAFT Page 35 November 5, 2002 
underway, study is part of that rulemaking process and covered in the rulemaking 

schedule portion of the section 304(m) plan. EPA is currently developing effluent 

guidelines for several categories. Table 1 below lists these categories: 

Table 1: Guidelines Currently Under Development/Revision 

Industry Category Code of Federal Regulations 

Metal Products and Machinery 40 CFR 438 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 40 CFR 412 

Meat and Poultry Products 40 CFR 432 

Construction and Development 40 CFR 450 

Aquatic Animal Production 40 CFR 451 

Pulp and Paper Phase III 40 CFR 430 

Effluent Guidelines Promulgated Within the Past Seven Years 

Similar to categories for which effluent guidelines are currently under 

development, EPA suspects that many categories with effluent guidelines that have 

recently been promulgated, but not yet implemented, will appear on the lists of 

categories generated in the screening step. In these instances, unless EPA has 

information indicating that the specific sources that are driving the identification 

were not addressed by the new guidelines, further study of these categories would 

not be a priority. In general, EPA would probably remove categories for which 

effluent guidelines have been promulgated within the past seven years from the 

lists, and not consider them for further study at that time. A seven-year time frame 

takes into account the lag time that occurs as effluent guidelines are implemented. 

In addition, there are unlikely to be dramatic changes in the industry category 

during the first seven years after promulgation of a new or revised guideline. In 

cases where EPA is aware of the growth of a new segment within a source 

DRAFT Page 36 November 5, 2002 
category5

, effluent guidelines may be appropriate and EPA would continue to list 

the subcategory for further consideration. 

Voluntary Loadings Reductions by Industry 

One of the participants in the Effluent Guidelines Planning Workshop 

suggested that EPA consider creating an incentive for industrial categories to 

reduce pollutant loadings on their own. This participant suggested that EPA not 

revise or develop effluent guidelines for source categories that demonstrate 

continual improvement through voluntary effluent reductions. 

EPA agrees that voluntary efforts should be encouraged and rewarded, 

especially where those voluntary reductions have been widely adopted within an 

industry and have led to significant reductions in pollutant discharges. EPA may 

choose not to revise an existing effluent guideline or develop a new effluent 

guideline for an industrial category that has demonstrated that significant progress 

is being made through voluntary industry effort to reduce risk to human health and 

the environment. 

EPA proposes to use information in the PCS system to identify categories 

for which loadings have decreased over the past 5 years. As explained previously, 

PCS provides discharge monitoring data for a subset of facilities that have been 

issued direct discharge permits to discharge wastewater into waters of the U.S. 

The system can be used to sort loadings (in pounds per year) of a large number of 

pollutants by SIC code. The Agency will also adjust these loadings to reflect 

relative toxicity using the Toxic Weighting Factors (TWFs) it has developed to 

assess the loadings reductions and cost effectiveness of effluent guidelines. EPA 

plans to review these total and toxicity-adjusted loadings profiles to identify 

industries that show the greatest decrease in loadings over the past five years. 

EPA recognizes that there are limitations associated with the discharge 

information reported to the PCS. For example, PCS only contains discharge 

monitoring data from facilities with individual permits. For some industries, PCS 

only contains discharge monitoring data for a subset of facilities (for example, 

5

One example is the newly promulgated subcategory for synthetic based fluids under the 

oil and gas extraction point source category. 

DRAFT Page 37 November 5, 2002 
major discharges). PCS may not contain information on all of the pollutants of 

concern because it only contains information on pollutants currently regulated in a 

facility’s discharge permit. In addition to the limitations discussed above, the 

results of this analysis must be reviewed carefully to verify input data and identify 

any anomalies in the results. 

EPA also recognizes that this methodology may identify industrial 

categories with load reductions due primarily to production decreases. Similarly, 

this methodology may retain for further consideration industrial categories with 

voluntary pollutant reductions that are masked from notice due to production 

increases. Despite these limitations, the Agency believes that this is an acceptable 

screening approach. The Agency expects to review PCS data in conjunction with 

industry-level production data as a way to address these issues. 

EPA also intends to evaluate decreases in water loadings of pollutants 

relative to possible increases in release of these same pollutants to other 

environmental media, for example, volatilization to air or land disposal of sludge. 

To help supplement PCS and other data, EPA will consider general trends in 

pollutant discharge using the RSEI model, and will evaluate census data and 

economic changes in industry categories. EPA will compare the results from all of 

these sources to the information gathered from outreach to State and local 

governments, industry, the public, and citizen’s groups. 

There are a number of voluntary pollution prevention programs sponsored 

by EPA and industry groups that may also be a source of information on industrywide pollutant loadings. In many instances, these programs foster pollutant 

reductions to air and land, as well as water. 

Further Investigation 

Once EPA has completed the screening level steps explained above, it would 

need to prioritize the remaining industries for further study. The number of 

categories for which EPA will be able to conduct further study may vary from year 

to year depending upon known sources of information, known complexity of the 

industry category, and available resources. 

DRAFT Page 38 November 5, 2002 
EPA expects to give highest priority for further study to industrial categories 

that appear to present the greatest human health or environmental risk based upon 

the screening level data. EPA plans to screen and select industrial categories for 

regulation based on the latest methodologies and information available. All 

appropriate information will be placed in the public record at the time the Agency 

publishes each proposed and final biennial plan. 

EPA acknowledges that the screening-level data that forms the basis for our 

priority-setting will likely be only preliminary. We anticipate that some studies, 

once started, may be discontinued based upon further information indicating that 

effluent guideline development or revision is not appropriate. 

During this phase, EPA intends to continue to collect and analyze as much 

information as possible on all of the relevant factors listed in Section III.B above 

(pages 26 and 27). The Agency will also consider using proxy data where 

necessary and available. 

In the first stage of in-depth study, EPA would work to validate and expand 

on the basic information collected on each category during the initial screening 

step. EPA also would begin identifying data gaps that need to be filled, in order to 

allow the consideration of the relevant factors presented in Section III.B. In order 

to ensure that the best possible data are made available during the study phase, 

EPA would work closely with stakeholders, including industry, States and local 

governments, academia, environmental groups, and members of the public to 

gather and analyze the relevant information. 

Decision on Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking Activities 

After considering the results of the studies, EPA would then determine 

whether development or revision of an effluent guideline is appropriate. Final 

determinations would be presented in the next biennial effluent guidelines plan. If 

EPA determines that developing a new or revised effluent guideline is not 

appropriate, EPA would attempt to identify other Agency actions that may be 

appropriate to address any remaining risk. Such action may include the issuance of 

compliance or permitting guidance, technical assistance to the States or industry, or 

a voluntary partnership to support broader environmental goals. For example, EPA 

DRAFT Page 39 November 5, 2002 
may determine that a targeted program to implement comprehensive 

Environmental Management Systems is a more efficient approach to dealing with 

certain types of environmental issues. 

D. Schedule for the Proposed Annual Review Process 

Schedule for Annual Review Process 

Solicitation of Stakeholder 

Recommendations 

February through April, and at other times in 

concert with national conferences 

Screening (1st and 2nd level 

screening) 

April through August, annually 

Further investigation of 

industries selected for further 

study 

September until completed 

Conduct Outreach Meetings As needed to identify data sources, present 

available data, and verify accuracy 

Decision on Effluent 

Guidelines Rulemaking 

Activities 

Prior to publication of biennial Effluent 

Guidelines Plan (based upon studies completed 

to date) 

E. Biennial Effluent Guidelines Plan 

EPA intends to publish and seek comment on a draft biennial plan for 

2004/2005 that describes the results of the annual review process: 1) the outcomes 

of both stages of the screening process, 2) EPA’s tentative selection of industrial 

categories for further study, and 3) the rationale for this selection of industrial 

categories for further study. In addition, the notice would summarize additional 

information collected and analyzed on specific industrial categories beyond the 

initial screening step, and would identify current data gaps. 

DRAFT Page 40 November 5, 2002 
During the public comment period, EPA intends to hold outreach meetings 

to discuss its findings with interested parties. Verifying its findings at this point in 

the process will enable EPA to “reality-check” the results of its analyses and also 

identify potential oversights or errors. EPA also plans to use these meetings as an 

opportunity to solicit additional information to fill in data gaps, and to identify 

partners for further data collection efforts. 

After considering comment on the draft plan, EPA will publish a biennial 

Effluent Guidelines Plan that describes EPA’s decisions and summarizes key 

information supporting those decisions. The Plan will include a schedule for any 

guidelines that will be developed/revised. Because the study phase may take 

longer for some industrial categories than others, this plan will indicate a schedule 

for the completion of studies that have not yet been completed. 

F. Solicitation of Stakeholder Recommendations 

EPA is aware that a broad range of stakeholders is interested in this draft 

Strategy, including members of industry, environmental groups, academia, and the 

general public. In addition to welcoming comments from our stakeholders on the 

draft Strategy as a whole, there are several specific issues discussed in the draft 

document about which EPA requests comments. 

Key Factors for Evaluating Existing Effluent Guidelines: EPA identified 

four major factors, derived from sections 301(b)(2) and 304(b) of the CWA, that 

could lead EPA to conclude that a revision of an existing effluent guideline would 

be appropriate: 1) the extent to which the industry category is discharging 

pollutants that pose a risk to human health or the environment; 2) the 

identification of an applicable and demonstrated technology, process change, or 

pollution prevention approach that would substantially reduce the remaining risk; 

3) the cost, performance, and affordability of the technology, process change, or 

pollution prevention approach that would substantially reduce that risk; and 4) 

implementation and efficiency considerations, such as whether revising a guideline 

is the most effective approach for reducing the risk. In addition, section 304(b) 

authorizes EPA to consider other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. 

EPA requests comments on its proposed use of these factors, and invites the public 

to suggest additional or different factors. 

DRAFT Page 41 November 5, 2002 
The Agency is also interested to receive comments on whether each of the 

four factors identified above should be ranked, and if so, whether different weights 

should be applied to each. EPA also requests suggestions as to the information the 

Agency should use to prioritize industrial categories that pass both the primary and 

secondary screening reviews described in the draft Strategy. 

Key Factors for Developing New Effluent Guidelines: EPA identified four 

major factors that could lead EPA to conclude that new national effluent guidelines 

regulations would be necessary and appropriate for industrial categories. These 

factors are identical to the factors discussed above with respect to the revision of 

existing effluent guidelines, and are derived from the same statutory bases. (The 

main difference is than an industry category with no existing guideline in place 

may have greater variation in current discharges and pollutant reduction 

technologies in place. This depends on what technology-based limits permit 

writers have established using best professional judgment and what limits they 

have established to protect water quality.) These factors reflect Congress’ 

expectation that EPA will address “significant amounts” of toxic pollutant 

discharges through national technology-based regulations. S. Rep. No. 50, 99th 

Cong., 1st Sess. 24-25 (1985). EPA requests comments on its proposed use of 

these factors and invites the public to identify other or different factors for EPA’s 

consideration. 

The Agency is also interested to receive comments on whether each of these 

factors should be ranked, and if so, whether different weights should be applied to 

each. EPA also requests suggestions as to the information the Agency should use 

to prioritize industrial categories that pass both the primary and secondary 

screening reviews described in the draft Strategy. 

Sources of Water Quality Impairments: An impaired water is one that does 

not achieve the water quality standards adopted by a State, Tribe, or EPA under 

CWA section 303(c). Building on ongoing work by EPA, States, Tribes, and 

others, the Agency is working to identify links between industrial sources of 

pollutants with pollutants identified as the causes of impairments in impaired 

waters. This effort links the categories of facilities discharging pollutants as 

identified in Agency’s Permit Compliance System (PCS) database with types of 

impairments of water bodies identified using the U.S. Geological Survey’s 

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and State and Tribal reported data from the 

DRAFT Page 42 November 5, 2002 
reports generated under CWA sections 303(d) and 305(b). (Section 303(d) 

requires States to develop lists of waterbodies for which technology-based 

limitations and other requirements are not sufficient to ensure attainment of water 

quality standards. Section 305(b) requires States to report to EPA every other year 

on the quality of their waters.) EPA requests suggestions on other sources of 

relevant information, particularly data relating to facilities that discharge to 

publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). 

Voluntary Loading Reductions: EPA is considering an incentive for 

industrial categories to reduce pollutant loadings through voluntary programs. A 

stakeholder suggested that EPA not develop effluent guidelines for source 

categories that demonstrate continual improvement through voluntary effluent 

reductions. EPA agrees that voluntary efforts should be encouraged and rewarded, 

and is proposing that source categories that have accomplished voluntary pollutant 

discharge reductions should be given a lower priority for new or revised effluent 

guidelines. 

EPA is also considering whether to indicate a quantitative voluntary 

reduction goal that source categories seeking a deferral of consideration for new or 

revised guidelines should try to achieve. EPA is considering a goal, suggested by a 

stakeholder, of a 10 percent reduction in total load, or in toxic-equivalent load over 

a five-year period (the standard permit term). EPA emphasizes that the goal would 

not be binding on either the Agency or the industry; EPA would retain the 

discretion to decide whether to develop an effluent guideline. EPA would consider 

voluntary load reductions on an industry-by-industry basis in making its planning 

decisions (and may make decisions irrespective of the general, non-binding goal). 

The Agency requests comment on this entire issue. EPA also invites comment on 

whether a different general goal, such as a 25 percent reduction in total or toxicequivalent load, would be more appropriate. 

EPA proposes to use information in the PCS system to identify categories 

for which loadings have decreased over the past 5 years, but requests suggestions 

on alternative sources of this information. EPA also invites comment on how it 

might assess voluntary pollutant reductions in industrial categories with increased 

production over five years. Finally, EPA invites comment on ways to evaluate 

claims of decreases in water loadings of toxicity relative to possible increases in 

DRAFT Page 43 November 5, 2002 
release of these emissions to other environmental media, for example volatilization 

to air or land disposal of sludge. 

Technology Innovation, Market-based Incentives, and Multi-media 

Pollutant Reduction: In addition to the above discussion of voluntary loading 

reductions, EPA seeks comment on others ways the Agency might structure the 

effluent guidelines program to encourage and reward technology innovation. EPA 

invites stakeholders to suggest industry categories for which development or 

revision of an effluent guideline may provide an opportunity for multi-media 

pollutant reduction. EPA also seeks comment on the role of market-based 

incentives, including pollutant trading, in the effluent guidelines program. 

In addition, EPA encourages comments on the extent to which the Agency 

should consider multi-media pollutant reduction opportunities in deciding which 

guidelines to develop or revise. For example, should the Agency assign greater 

weight to revising a guideline that has the opportunity to reduce the loading of 100 

million pounds of nutrients into surface waters impaired by nutrient pollution, or 

one that might reduce nutrient loading by 80 million pounds but also reduce 

noxious odors and emissions of greenhouse gases? 

Level of Effort Devoted to Effluent Guidelines: Since Congress passed the 

1972 Clean Water Act, EPA has promulgated effluent guidelines that address over 

50 industry categories. These regulations apply to between 35,000 and 45,000 

facilities that discharge directly to the nation's waters, as well as another 12,000 

facilities that discharge into publicly owned treatment works. These regulations 

are responsible for preventing the discharge of almost 700 billion pounds of 

pollutants each year. 

In addition to the technology-based effluent guidelines program, EPA and 

the States implement a wide range of water-quality based programs also designed 

to protect and restore the Nation’s waters. For example, the water quality 

standards adopted by all States, Territories and 20 authorized Tribes are the 

regulatory and scientific foundation for the Nation’s water quality-based programs. 

Water quality standards are used to assess impairments in U.S. waters, to establish 

targets and load reductions needed in impaired waters through total maximum 

daily loads (TMDLs), and to set limits on pollutants through enforceable NPDES 

permits where technology-based limits are insufficient to protect water quality. 

DRAFT Page 44 November 5, 2002 
Under EPA and State permit programs, industrial discharge restrictions – in 

the form of technology-based and water-quality based effluent limitations – have 

controlled over 48,000 individual industrial facilities through the issuance of 

individual NPDES permits, and controlled thousands more through general 

permits. Fish are coming back, habitats are recovering, and many miles of 

formerly contaminated beaches are now safe for swimmers. However, we have not 

achieved water quality objectives in many water bodies. Many of the remaining 

pollutants come from sources that are not related to industrial discharges, such as 

non-point source runoff from agricultural lands, stormwater flows from cities, 

seepage into ground water from nonpoint sources, and loss of critical habitats such 

as wetlands. 

One facet of EPA’s overall approach to resolving the remaining water 

quality problems is the continued implementation of the national effluent 

guidelines program to address water quality problems associated with industrial 

dischargers. As EPA moves forward to address the remaining water quality 

problems, EPA invites comment on whether it should devote the same, less, or 

greater resources to the effluent guidelines program as it has in the past. 

DRAFT Page 45 November 5, 2002 
IV. Glossary 

Clean Water Act (CWA) : The primary federal law that protects our Nation’s 

waters, including lakes, rivers, wetlands, and coastal areas. It is codified in 33 

U.S.C. section 1251, et seq. 

Consent Decree: Equivalent to a court order. The consent decree under which 

EPA developed most of its effluent guidelines since 1992 was filed on January 31, 

1992, in the case presently entitled Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. 

Whitman, Civ. No. 89-2980 (RCL) (D.D.C.). The consent decree has been 

amended several times since 1992. It defines EPA’s obligations under Clean 

Water Act section 304(m) during the pendency of the decree. 

Criteria: See “Water Quality Criteria” below. 

Environmental Management System (EMS): An EMS is a set of processes and 

practices that enable an organization to reduce its environmental impacts and 

increase its operating efficiency. It is a continual cycle of planing, implementing, 

reviewing and improving the processes and actions that an organization undertakes 

to meet its business and environmental goals. For more information, see EPA’s 

web site at http://www.epa.gov/ems/. 

Impairment: Condition in which applicable water quality standards are not being 

met. The water body often is degraded and in need of restoration. Water quality 

impairment is often indicated by excursions of numeric water quality criteria, 

which are a component of water quality standards. Numeric water quality criteria 

provide quantitative targets for particular parameters such as total suspended 

solids. Water quality impairment may also be identified as an inability to meet a 

narrative water quality criterion or an inability to support a designated use. 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): A permit program 

under Clean Water Act section 402 that controls water pollution by regulating 

point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. 

National Sediment Quality Survey (NSQS): A biennial report to Congress titled 

"The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the 

United States, National Sediment Quality Survey" presents the results of a national 

DRAFT Page 46 November 5, 2002 
survey to identify areas in the United States where available data indicate direct or 

indirect exposure to the sediment could be associated with adverse effects to 

aquatic life and/or to human health. The first National Sediment Quality Survey 

report was released in 1997, and the first update to the report is expected to be 

released in 2002. 

Nonattainment: See “Impairment” above. 

Permit Compliance System (PCS): The Permit Compliance System is a national 

computerized management information system that automates entry, updating, and 

retrieval of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) data and 

tracks permit issuance, permit limits and monitoring data, and other data pertaining 

to facilities regulated under NPDES. PCS was developed in 1974 and resides on a 

mainframe computer at EPA's National Computer Center (NCC) at Research 

Triangle Park (RTP) in North Carolina. PCS records water-discharge permit data 

on more than 64,000 facilities nationwide. 

POTW: Publicly owned treatment works. Accepts the wastewater of industrial 

facilities and commercial businesses, as well as conventional sewage. The POTW 

collects and treats this wastewater to remove pollutants before discharging it to 

surface water. 

Risk: The possibility of suffering loss, such as loss of human health or loss of 

functioning in an ecosystem. Risk can be assessed by evaluating the potential 

exposure to a substance (through contact with or drinking water containing that 

substance) and the hazard posed by that substance (harmful health or ecological 

effects). 

Sewage sludge: The solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the 

treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is 

not limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in primary, secondary, or 

advanced wastewater treatment processes; and a material derived from sewage 

sludge. Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage 

sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator or grit and screenings generated during 

preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. See 40 C.F.R. 

section 503.9(w). 

DRAFT Page 47 November 5, 2002 
Standards: See “Water Quality Standards” below. 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code: A number code representing a 

category within the Standard Industrial Classification System, which is 

administered by the Statistical Policy Division of the U.S. Office of Management 

and Budget. The system was established to classify all industries in the U.S. 

economy. A two-digit code designates each major industry group, which is coupled 

with successive digits refining the degree of specialization of the industrial 

facilities down to the seven-digit level. SIC codes are gradually being replaced by 

the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

Toxic Release Inventory (TRI): A publicly available EPA database that contains 

information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities 

reported annually by certain covered industry groups as well as federal facilities. 

This inventory was established under the Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and expanded by the Pollution Prevention 

Act of 1990. 

Water Quality Criteria: Constituent concentrations, levels, or narrative statements, 

representing a quality of water that supports a particular use. See 40 C.F.R. section 

131.3(b). 

Water Quality Standards: Provisions under State or Federal law that consist of a 

designated use or uses for the waters of the United States, and water quality criteria 

for such waters based upon such uses. Water quality standards are to protect the 

public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of 

the Clean Water Act. See 40 C.F.R. section 131.3(i). Water quality standards also 

include antidegradation provisions. See 40 C.F.R. section 131.12. 

Whole effluent toxicity (WET): The aggregate toxic effect of an effluent or 

receiving (ambient) water measured directly with standardized test organisms. The 

Agency-approved WET methods are specified at 40 CFR section 136.3, Table IA. 

These WET methods use test organisms that are representative of freshwater, 

marine, and estuarine vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants to directly measure the 

acute or short-term chronic adverse effects of an aqueous test sample on those test 

organisms. 

DRAFT Page 48 November 5, 2002 
Appendix 1

Industries Covered by National Clean Water Industrial Regulations

Industry Category 

40 CFR 

part 

First 

prom. 

Reviewed 

Limitations and Standards 

1974 1986 

1995 

BPT, BCT, NSPS, PSNS 

1974 1986 

1995 

BPT, BCT, NSPS 

1974 1986 

1995 

BPT, BCT, NSPS 

1974 1986 

1995 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS 

1982 1983 

1996 1 

BPT, BAT, NSPS 

1974 1986 

1995 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS 

1974 1975 

1995 

1999 2 

2001 3 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS 

1981 1986 PSES 

1987 1993 BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

1982 1984 

1996 4 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

1974 1975 

1995 

BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS 

1974 1987 

1995 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS 

1982 1985 

1996 5 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Iron and steel manufacturing 420 1982 1984 

1995 6 

2002 7 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Dairy products processing 405 1974 1986

1995

Grain mills manufacturing 406 

Fruits and vegetable processing 407 

Canned and preserved seafood 408 

Sugar processing 409 

Textile mills 410 

Cement manufacturing 411 

Feedlots 412 

Electroplating 413 

Organic chemicals, plastics 

and synthetic fibers 

414 

Inorganic chemicals 415 

Soaps and detergents 

manufacturing 

417 

Fertilizer manufacturing 418 

Petroleum refining 419 

BPT, BCT, NSPS 

DRAFT Page 49 November 5, 2002 
Industry Category 

40 CFR 

part 

First 

prom. 

Reviewed 

Limitations and Standards 

Nonferrous metals manufacturing 421 1984 1990 BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Phosphate manufacturing 422 1974 1979 BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS 

Steam electric power generation 423 1982 1983 

1996 8 

BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Ferroalloy manufacturing 424 1974 1986 

1995 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS 

Leather tanning and finishing 425 1982 1996 BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Glass manufacturing 426 1974 1986 

1995 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS 

Asbestos manufacturing 427 1974 1979 

1995 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS 

Rubber manufacturing 428 1974 1975 

1995 

BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS 

Timber products processing 429 1981 1981 

1991 9 

BPT, BAT, NSPS 

Pulp, paper and paperboard 430 1998 1999 BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, 

PSNS, BMP 

Builder’s paper and board mills10 431 

Meat products 432 1974 1986 

1995 

2002 3 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, 

Metal finishing 433 1983 1986 

1994 11 

2001 3 

BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Coal mining 434 1985 1985 

2002 7 

BPT, BAT, NSPS 

Oil and gas extraction 435 1979 1989 12 

1997 

2001 7 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Mineral mining and processing 436 1975 1979 

1995 

BPT, NSPS 

Centralized waste treatment 437 2000 2000 BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

DRAFT Page 50 November 5, 2002 
Industry Category 

40 CFR 

part 

First 

prom. 

Reviewed 

Limitations and Standards 

Pharmaceutical manufacturing 439 1983 1989 13

1999

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

1982 1988 BPT, BAT, NSPS, BMP 

Transportation equipment cleaning 442 2000 1989 14 

2000 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Paving and roofing materials 443 1975 1975 

1995 

BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS 

Waste combustors 444 2000 2000 BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Landfills 445 2000 2000 BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS 

Paint formulating 446 1975 1975 

1989 15 

1995 

BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS 

Ink formulating 447 1975 1975 

1995 

BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS 

Gum and wood chemicals 454 1976 1976 

1995 

BPT 

Pesticide chemicals manufacturing, 

formulating and packaging 

455 1978 1989 16 

1998 

BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Explosives 457 1976 1976 

1995 

BPT 

Carbon black manufacturing 458 1978 1978 

1995 

BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS 

Photographic 459 1976 1976 

1997 17 

BPT 

Hospitals 460 1976 1989 18 

1995 

BPT 

Battery manufacturing 461 1984 1986 BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Plastic molding and forming 463 1984 1985 BPT, BCT, NSPS 

Metal molding and casting 464 1985 1986 BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Ore mining and dressing 440 

DRAFT Page 51 November 5, 2002 
Industry Category 

40 CFR 

part 

First 

prom. 

Reviewed 

Limitations and Standards 

Coil coating 465 1983 1985 BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Porcelain enameling 466 1982 1985 BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Aluminum forming 467 1983 1988 BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Copper forming 468 1983 1986 BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Electrical and electronic 

components 

469 1983 1985 BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

Nonferrous metals forming and 

metal powders 

471 1985 1989 BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS 

1. Preliminary study (EPA-821-R-96-014)

2. Preliminary study (EPA-821/R-99-002)

3. Proposed revisions for some subcategories.

4. Preliminary study (EPA-821/R-96-016)

5. Preliminary study (EPA-821/R-96-015)

6. Preliminary study (EPA-821/R-95-037)

7. Promulgated revisions for some subcategories.

8. Preliminary study (EPA-821-Z-96-010)

9. Preliminary study (EPA-440/1-91-023)

10. 40 CFR 431 has been deleted.

11. Preliminary study (EPA-821/R-94-006)

12. Preliminary study (EPA-440/1-89-105)

13. Preliminary study (EPA-440/1-89-084)

14. Preliminary study (EPA-440/1-89-104)

15. Preliminary study (EPA-440/1-89-050)

16. Preliminary study (EPA-440/1-89-060e)

17. Preliminary study (EPA-821/R-97-003)

18. Preliminary study (EPA-440/1-89-060n)

DRAFT Page 52 November 5, 2002 
Appendix 2

Section 304(m) Requirements

Clean Water Act - Section 304(m) [33 USC 1314(m)]: 

(m) Schedule for review of guidelines. 

(1) Publication. ---

Within 12 months after the date of the enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987, and 

biennially thereafter, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a plan which shall -

(A) establish a schedule for the annual review and revision of promulgated effluent 

guidelines, in accordance with subsection (b) of this section; 

(B) identify categories of sources discharging toxic or nonconventional pollutants for 

which guidelines under subsection (b)(2) of this section and section 306 have not 

previously been published; and 

(C) establish a schedule for promulgation of effluent guidelines for categories identified 

in subparagraph (B), under which promulgation of such guidelines shall be no later than 

4 years after such date of enactment for categories identified in the first published plan or 

3 years after the publication of the plan for categories identified in later published plans. 

(2) Public review. ---

The Administrator shall provide for public review and comment on the plan prior to final 

publication. 

Clean Water Act - Section 304(b) [33 USC 1314(b)]: 

(b) Effluent limitation guidelines. 

For the purpose of adopting or revising effluent limitations under this act the Administrator 

shall, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, 

publish within one year of enactment of this title, regulations, providing guidelines for effluent 

limitations, and, at least annually thereafter, revise, if appropriate, such regulations. Such 

regulations shall -

(1)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and 

biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree of effluent reduction attainable through 

the application of the best practicable control technology currently available for classes 

and categories of point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works); and 

(B) specify factors to be taken into account in determining the control measures and 

practices to be applicable to point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works) 

within such categories or classes. Factors relating to the assessment of best practicable 

control technology currently available to comply with subsection (b)(1) of section 301 of 

this Act shall include consideration of the total cost of application of technology in 

relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application, and shall 

DRAFT Page 53 November 5, 2002 
also take into account the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, 

the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques, process 

changes, non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and 

such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate; 

(2)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and 

biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree of effluent reduction attainable through 

the application of the best control measures and practices achievable including treatment 

techniques, process and procedure innovations, operating methods, and other alternatives 

for classes and categories of point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works); 

and 

(B) specify factors to be taken into account in determining the best measures and 

practices available to comply with subsection (b)(2) of section 301 of this Act to be 

applicable to any point source (other than publicly owned treatment works) within such 

categories or classes. Factors relating to the assessment of best available technology 

shall take into account the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process 

employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control 

techniques, process changes, the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, non-water 

quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and such other factors as 

the Administrator deems appropriate; 

(3) identify control measures and practices available to eliminate the discharge of 

pollutants from categories and classes of point sources, taking into account the cost of 

achieving such elimination of the discharge of pollutants; and 

(4)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and 

biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree of effluent reduction attainable through 

the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology (including measures 

and practices) for classes and categories of point sources (other than publicly owned 

treatment works); and 

(B) specify factors to be taken into account in determining the best conventional 

pollutant control technology measures and practices to comply with sub-section (b)(2) of 

section 301 of this Act to be applicable to any point source (other than publicly owned 

treatment works) within such categories or classes. Factors relating to the assessment of 

best conventional pollutant control technology (including measures and practices) shall 

include consideration of the reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of 

attaining a reduction in effluents and the effluent reduction benefits derived and the 

comparison of the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from the discharge from 

publicly owned treatment works to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from 

a class or category of industrial sources, and shall take into account the age of equipment 

and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects of the application 

of various types of control techniques, process changes, non-water quality environmental 

impact (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator 

deems appropriate. 

DRAFT Page 54 November 5, 2002