### United States

Environmental Protection Agency



# The 2011 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report

December 201 2

### This page intentionally left blank.

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

EPA- 821 -R- 12

- 001

### This page intentionally left blank.

### v CONTENTS

Page

1. B ACKGROUND 

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

1.1 Background References ................................................................................................... 1-2



### 2. P UBLIC 

### C OMMENTS ON THE 

### F INAL 

### 2010 E FFLUENT 

### G UIDELINES 

### P ROGRAM


### P LAN 

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

3. M ETHODOLOGY 

### , D ATA 

### S OURCES 

### , AND 

### L IMITATIONS 

### ................................................... 3-1

3.1 Data Sources and Limitations .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 SIC Codes ........................................................................................................... 3-2

3.1.2 NAICS Codes ..................................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.3 Toxic We ighting Factors .................................................................................... 3-4

3.1.4 Data from TRI ..................................................................................................... 3-5

3.1.5 Data from PCS and ICIS- NPDES ....................................................................... 3-7

3.2 Methodology Correction Affecting Both Toxicity Rankings Analysis Databases ........ 3-10

3.3 Corrections to the DMRLoads2009 Database ................................................................ 3-10

3.3.1 DMRLoads2009: Categorization of Discharges ............................................... 3-10

3.3.2 DMRLoads2009: Internal Monitoring .............................................................. 3-11

3.3.3 DMRLoads2009: Intermittent Discharges ........................................................ 3-11

3.3.4 DMRLoads2009: Excluded Pollutant Parameters ............................................ 3-12

3.3.5 DMRLoads2009: Pollutant Corrections ........................................................... 3-12

3.3.6 DMRLoads2009: Data Quality Review ............................................................ 3-12

3.3.7 DMRLoads2009: Facility Reviews .................................................................. 3-15

3.4 Corrections to the TRIReleases2009 Database .............................................................. 3-23

3.4.1 TRIReleases2009: Categorization of Discharges ............................................. 3-23

3.4.2 TRIReleases2009: Pollutant Corrections .......................................................... 3-24

3.4.3 TRIReleases2009: Data Quality Review .......................................................... 3-25

3.4.4 T RIReleases2009: Facility Revi ews ................................................................. 3-26

3.4.5 Trends in TRI Data ........................................................................................... 3-31

3.5 TRIReleases2009 Rankings and DMRLoads2009 Rankings ......................................... 3-31

3.6 Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations References ............................................. 3-32



### 4. A LUMINUM 

### F ORMING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 467) .................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Aluminum Forming Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis ................................... 4-1

4.2 Aluminum Forming Category Pollutants of Concern ...................................................... 4-1

4.3 Aluminum Forming Category Lead Discharges in DMR ................................................ 4-3

4.4 Aluminum Forming Category Conclusions ..................................................................... 4-5

4.5 Aluminum Forming Category References ....................................................................... 4-5



### 5. C ENTRALIZED 

### W ASTE 

### T REATMENT 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 437) .............................................. 5-1

5.1 CWT Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis .......................................................... 5-1

5.2 CWT Category Pollutants of Concern ............................................................................. 5-1

5.3 CWT Category Hexachlorobenzene Discharges in DMR ............................................... 5-3

5.4 CWT Category Conclusions ............................................................................................ 5-4

5.5 CWT Category References .............................................................................................. 5-4



### 6. C OAL 

### M INING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 434)................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Coal Mining Category Toxicity Rankings Analysis ........................................................ 6-1

6.2 Coal Mining Manufacturing Category Pollutants of Concern ......................................... 6-2

### CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

vi 6.3 Coal Mining Category Iron and Manganese Discharges in DMR ................................... 6-2

6.4 Coal Mining Pollutants Not Currently Regulated by Part 434 ........................................ 6-6

6.5 Coal Mining Category Conclusio ns ................................................................................. 6-6

6.6 Coal Mining Category References ................................................................................... 6-7



### 7. F ERTILIZER 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 418) ...................................................... 7-1

7.1 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis ............................ 7-1

7.2 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Pollutants of Concern ............................................... 7-1

7.3 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Fluoride Discharges in DMR ................................... 7-3

7.4 Fertilizer Manufacturing Categ ory Conclusions .............................................................. 7-5

7.5 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category References ................................................................ 7-6



### 8. I NORGANIC 

### C HEMICALS 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 415) .................................. 8-1

8.1 Inorganic Chemicals Category Toxicity Rankings Analysis ........................................... 8-1

8.2 Inorganic Chemicals Category Pollutants of Concern ..................................................... 8-1

8.3 Inorganic Chemicals Category Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharges in TRI ............................................................................................................ 8-4

8.4 Inorganic Chemicals Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Discharges in

TRI ................................................................................................................................... 8-5

8.5 Inorganic Chemicals Category Conclusions .................................................................... 8-8

8.6 Inorganic Chemicals Category References ...................................................................... 8-9



### 9. I RON AND 

### S TEEL 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 420) .............................................. 9-1

9.1 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Background ...................................................... 9-1

9.1.1 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Industry Profile ................................................... 9-1

9.1.2 40 CFR Part 420 ................................................................................................. 9-2

9.2 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis .................... 9-6

9.3 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Pollutants of Concern ....................................... 9-6

9.4 Iron and Steel Man ufacturing Category Cyanide Discharges in DMR ............................ 9-7

9.4.1 U .S. Steel Corporation–Clairton Works ............................................................. 9-8

9.4.2 Mountain State Carbon, LLC .............................................................................. 9-9

9.5 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Chlorine Discharges in DMR ........................... 9-9

9.5.1 ISG Sparrows Point, Inc. .................................................................................. 9-10

9.6 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Chromium Discharges in DMR ...................... 9-11

9.6.1 Arcelormittal Weirton Inc. ................................................................................ 9-11

9.7 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Fluoride Discharges in DMR ......................... 9-12

9.7.1 Arcelormittal Weirton Inc. ................................................................................ 9-12

9.8 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Aluminum Discharges in DMR ...................... 9-13

9.8.1 Ipsco Tubulars (KY) Inc. Wilder ...................................................................... 9-13

9.8.2 Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa Inc. ............................................................................. 9-14

9.8.3 Nucor Steel Decatur LLC ................................................................................. 9-15

9.9 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Conclusions .................................................... 9-16

9.10 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category References ...................................................... 9-17



### 10. L ANDFILLS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 445) .................................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Landfills Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis ................................................... 10-1

10.2 Landfills Category Pollutants of Concern ...................................................................... 10-1

10.3 Landfills Category Top Dischargers in DMR ................................................................ 10-2

10.3.1 Butler County Landfill ...................................................................................... 10-2

### CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

vii 10.3.2 Tunnel Hill Reclamation ................................................................................... 10-3

10.3.3 BFI Backridge Sanitary Landfill ....................................................................... 10-4

10.4 Landfills Category Iron Discharges in DMR ................................................................. 10-5

10.5 Landfills Category Conclusions ..................................................................................... 10-8

10.6 Landfills Category References ....................................................................................... 10-8



### 11. M EAT AND 

### P OULTRY 

### P RODUCTS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 432) ................................................. 11-1

11.1 Meat and Poultry Category Background ........................................................................ 11-1

11.1.1 Meat and Poultry Industry Profile .................................................................... 11-1

11.1.2 40 CFR Part 432 ............................................................................................... 11-2

11.2 Meat and Poultry Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis ...................................... 11-4

11.3 Meat and Poultry Category Pollutants of Concern ........................................................ 11-5

11.4 Meat and Poultry Category Nitrate Compound Discharges in TRI ............................... 11-6

11.4.1 Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. .................................................................................... 11-9

11.4.2 Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. .................................................................................... 11-9

11.4.3 Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation .................................................................. 11-9

11.4.4 Farmland Foods, Inc. ...................................................................................... 11-10

11.4.5 Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation ................................................................ 11-10

11.5 Nitrate Concentrations in the 2009 DMR Database..................................................... 11-10

11.6 Meat and Poultry Category Conclusions ..................................................................... 11-11

11.7 Meat and Poultry Category References ....................................................................... 11-12



### 12. M ETAL 

### F INISHING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 433) ........................................................................ 12-1

12.1 Metal Finishing Category Background .......................................................................... 12-1

12.1.1 Metal Finishing Industry Profile ....................................................................... 12-1

12.1.2 40 CFR Part 433 ............................................................................................... 12-2

12.2 Metal Finishing Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis ........................................ 12-3

12.3 Met al Finishing Category Pollutants of Concern ........................................................... 12-3

12.4 Metal Finishing Category Silver Discharges in DMR ................................................... 12-4

12.5 Metal Finishing Category Cyanide Discharges in DMR ............................................... 12-5

12.6 Metal Finishing Category PCB -1248 Discharges in DMR ............................................ 12-6

12.6.1 General Motors Powertrain, Tonawanda Engine Plant ..................................... 12-7

12.6.2 General Motors Powertrain

– Masse na Plant .................................................... 12-8

12.7 Metal Finishing Category Conclusions ........................................................................ 12-10

12.8 Metal Finishing Category References .......................................................................... 12-11



### 13. M INERAL 

### M INING AND 

### P ROCESSING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 436) ........................................... 13-1

13.1 Mineral Mining Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis ........................................ 13-1

13.2 Mineral Mining Category Polluta nts of Concern ........................................................... 13-1

13.3 Mineral Mining Category Cadmium Discharges in DMR ............................................. 13-3

13.3.1 Butala Sand and Gravel .................................................................................... 13-3

13.4 Mineral Mining Category Fluoride Discharges in DMR ............................................... 13-4

13.4.1 US Agri

- Chemicals Corporation

................................ ....................................... 13-5

13.4.2 Feldspar Corporation Spruce Pine Facility ....................................................... 13-5

13.5 Florida Fluoride Dischargers ......................................................................................... 13-6

13.5.1 Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Fort Green Mine Complex ......................................... 13-7

13.5.2 Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Four Corners Mine ..................................................... 13-8

13.5.3 South Fort Meade Mine .................................................................................. 13-10

13.5.4 Fluoride Wastewater Treatment...................................................................... 13-10

### CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

viii 13.6 Mineral Mining Category Chlorine Discharges in DMR ............................................. 13-11

13.7 Mineral Mining Category Conclusions ........................................................................ 13-12

13.8 Mineral Mining Category References .......................................................................... 13-13



### 14. N ONFERROUS 

### M ETALS 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 421) .................................. 14-1

14.1 NFMM Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis ..................................................... 14-1

14.2 NFMM Category Pollutants of Concern ........................................................................ 14-1

14.3 NFMM Category Mercury Discharges in DMR ............................................................ 14-2

14.4 NFMM Category Fluoride Discharges in DMR ............................................................ 14-3

14.5 NFMM Category Lead Discharges in DMR .................................................................. 14-5

14.6 NFMM Category Cadmium Discharges in DMR .......................................................... 14-7

14.6.1 Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc. .................................................................................... 14-8

14.7 NFMM Category Molybdenum Discharges in DMR .................................................... 14-9

14.8 NFMM Category Conclusions ..................................................................................... 14-11

14.9 NFMM Category References ....................................................................................... 14-13



### 15. O RGANIC 

### C HEMICALS 

### , P LASTICS 

### , AND 

### S YNTHETIC 

### F IBERS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 414) ...... 15-1

15.1 OCPSF Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis ..................................................... 15-1

15.2 OCPSF Pollutants of Concern ....................................................................................... 15-1

15.3 OCPSF Category Hexachlorobenzene Dischargers in DMR ......................................... 15-3

15.3.1 Daikin American, Inc. ....................................................................................... 15-3

15.3.2 Chevron Oronite Co., LLC, Oak Point Plant .................................................... 15-5

15.3.3 Nalco Company ................................................................................................ 15-5

15.4 OCPSF Category Conclusions ....................................................................................... 15-7

15.5 OCSPF Category References ......................................................................................... 15-8



### 16. O IL 

### & G AS 

### E XTRACTION 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 435) ............................................................. 16-1

16.1 Oil and Gas Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis .............................................. 16-1

16.2 Oil and Gas Category Pollutants of Concern ................................................................. 16-2

16.3 Oil and Gas Category Sulfide Discharges in DMR ....................................................... 16-4

16.4 Oil and Gas Category Conclusions ................................................................................ 16-6

16.5 Oil and Gas Category References .................................................................................. 16-7



### 17. O RE 

### M INING AND 

### D RESSING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 440)........................................................ 17-1

17.1 Ore Mining and Dressing Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis ......................... 17-1

17.2 Ore Mining and Dressing Category Top Facilities in DMR .......................................... 17-1

17.3 Ore Mining and Dressing Category Conclusions .......................................................... 17-4

17.4 Ore Mining and Dressing Category References ............................................................ 17-4



### 18. P ESTICIDE 

### C HEMICALS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 455) ................................................................ 18-1

18.1 Pesticide Chemicals Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis ................................. 18-1

18.2 Pesticide Chemicals Category Pollutants of Concern .................................................... 18-1

18.3 Pesticide Chemicals Category PCB Discharges in TRI ................................................. 18-3

18.4 Pesticide Chemicals Category Conclusions ................................................................... 18-4

18.5 Pesticide Chemicals Category References ..................................................................... 18-4



### 19. P ETROLEUM 

### R EFINING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 419) ................................................................ 19-1

19.1 Petroleum Refining Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis .................................. 19-1

### CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

ix 19.2 Petroleum Refining Category Pollutants of Concern ..................................................... 19-1

19.3 Petroleum Refining Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Discharges in

TRI ................................................................................................................................. 19-2

19.4 Petroleum Refining Category PAC Discharges in TRI ................................................. 19-5

19.5 Petroleum Refining Category Sulfide Discharges in DMR ........................................... 19-5

19.5.1 Sulfide Wastewater Treatment .......................................................................... 19-6

19.5.2 Biological Treatment ........................................................................................ 19-7

19.5.3 Aeration and Air Stripping ............................................................................... 19-7

19.5.4 Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation .......................................................................... 19-7

19.6 Petroleum Refining Category Chlorine Discharges in DMR ......................................... 19-8

19.7 Petroleum Refining Category Metals Discharges in DMR ............................................ 19-9

19.8 Petroleum Refining Category Conclusions .................................................................. 19-11

19.9 Petroleum Refining Category References .................................................................... 19-12



### 20. P ULP 

### , P APER 

### , AND 

### P APERBOARD 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 430) ................................................. 20-1

20.1 Pulp and Paper Toxicity Rankings Analysis .................................................................. 20-1

20.2 Pulp and Paper Category Pollutants of Concern ............................................................ 20-1

20.3 Pulp and Paper Category Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compound Discharges in TRI ........ 20-3

20.3.1 Simpson Tacoma Kraft Co., LLC ..................................................................... 20-4

20.3.2 Remaining Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Discharging Facilities ............................. 20-5

20.4 Pulp and Paper Category Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharges in

TRI ............................................................................................................................... 20-10

20.5 Pulp and Paper Category Sulfide Discharges in DMR ................................................ 20-11

20.5.1 Sulfide Formation and Treatment Options ..................................................... 20-11

20.5.2 Smurfit -Stone Container ................................................................................. 20-12

20.6 Pulp and Paper Category Aluminum Discharges in DMR .......................................... 20-13

20.6.1 International Paper .......................................................................................... 20-14

20.6.2 R emaining Aluminum Dischargers................................................................. 20-14

20.7 Pulp and Paper Category Conclusions ......................................................................... 20-15

20.8 Pulp and Paper Category References ........................................................................... 20-16



### 21. T IMBER 

### P RODUCTS 

### P ROCESSING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 429) ................................................ 21-1

21.1 Timber Products Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis ....................................... 21-1

21.2 Timber Products Category Pollutants of Concern ......................................................... 21-1

21.3 Timber Products Category Copper Discharges in DMR ............................................... 21-3

21.4 Timber Products Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges in

TRI ................................................................................................................................. 21-4

21.5 Timber Products Category Conclusions ........................................................................ 21-7

21.6 Timber Products Category References .......................................................................... 21-7



### 22. T EXTILE 

### M ILLS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 410) ............................................................................ 22-1

22.1 Textiles Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis .................................................... 22-1

22.2 Textiles Category Pollutants of Concern ....................................................................... 22-1

22.3 Textiles Category Sulfide Discharges in DMR .............................................................. 22-3

22.3.1 Mohawk Industries, Inc. ................................................................................... 22-4

22.3.2 Gold Mills, Inc. ................................................................................................. 22-7

22.4 Textiles Category Conclusions ...................................................................................... 22-8

22.5 Textiles Category References ........................................................................................ 22-8

### x LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1

- 1. Point Source Categories Collectively Discharging Over 95% of the Total TWPE

................. 1-1

Table 2 -1. Comments on the Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan EPA Docket Number:

EPA

- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 ..................................................................................................... 2-2

Table 3 -1. Nomenclature and Format of NAICS and SIC Codes .............................................................. 3-3

Table 3 -2. Summary of DMRLoads2009 Facility Review

...................................................................... 3-16

Table 3 -3. Summary of TRIReleases2009 Facility Review

..................................................................... 3-27

Table 3 -4. Number of Facilities with Data in TRI for Reporting Years 2002 Through 2009 ................. 3-31

Table 4-1. Aluminum Forming Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

................................................................................................. 4-1

Table 4 -2. Aluminum Forming Category Top DMR Pollut ants

................................................................ 4-2

Table 4 -3. Top Lead Discharging Facilities in 2008 and 2009 DMR Databases ....................................... 4-4

Table 5 -1. CWT Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

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

Table 5 -2. CWT Category Top DMR Polluta nts

....................................................................................... 5-2

Table 5 -3. 2007–2010 Monthly Hexachlorobenzene Discharges for Clean Harbors Baton Rouge as Reported in Discharge Monitoring Reports

...................................................................... 5-3

Table 6 -1. Coal Mining Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

................................................................................................................ 6-1

Table 6 -2. Coal Mining Manufacturing Category Top DMR Pollutants ................................................... 6-2

Table 6 -3. Coal Mining ELGs Subpart C Manganese and Iron Limits ..................................................... 6-3

Table 6

- 4. Top Manganese and Iron Discharging Facilities in the 2009 DMR Database

......................... 6-3

Table 6 -5. Freeman United Coal–Industry 2009 Original DMR and Corrected Flow Discharges ........... 6-4

Table 6 -6. Freeman United Coal– Industry’s 2009 Manganese and Ir on Concentrations .......................... 6-5

Table 6 -7. Freeman United Coal–Crown 2 2009 Original DMR and Corrected Flow Discharges ........... 6-6

Table 6 -8. Freeman United Coal – Crown 3 2009 Original DMR and Corrected Flow Discharges ........ 6-6

Table 7

- 1. Fertilizer Manufacturing Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses ........................................................................................ 7-1

T able 7

- 2. Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Top DMR Pollutants

......................................................... 7-2

### LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

xi Table 7 -3. Top Fluoride-Discharging Facilities in 2008 and 2009 DMR Databases

................................. 7-4

Table 8 -1. Inorganic Chemicals Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

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

Table 8 -2. Inorganic Chemicals Category Top TRI Pollutants .................................................................. 8-3

Table 8

- 3. Manganese and Manganes e Compound Discharging Facilities in the Inorganic Chemicals Category in the 2009 TRI Database

.................................................................... 8-4

Table 8

- 4. Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharges for Tronox Pigments, Inc. ...................... 8-5

Table 8 -5. Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharges for Tronox LLC ...................................... 8-5

Table 8 -6. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Discharging Facilities in the 2009 TRI Database .......... 8-6

Table 8 -7. Dioxin and Dioxin- Like C ompound Discharges for DuPont Edgemoor .................................. 8-6

Table 8 -8. 2009 Concentrations of Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds in Effluent Samples (pg/L) From DuPont Edgemoor and EPA Method 1613B Minimum Levels ....................... 8-8

Table 9 -1. Number of Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities ................................................................. 9-2

Table 9 -2. Applicability and Regulated Pollutants for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category ......... 9-3

Table 9 -3. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2009 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses .......................................................................... 9-6

Table 9 -4. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Top DMR Pollutants ................................................. 9-6

Table 9 -5. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Cyanide Dischargers in the 2009 DMR

Database

................................................................................................................................ 9-7

Table 9 -6. Operating U.S. Coke Plants as of September 1, 2011 .............................................................. 9-7

Table 9 -7. U.S. Steel’s Outfall 183 2009 Monthly Cyanide and Flow Discharge Data ............................ 9-8

Table 9 -8. Mountain State Carbon’s Outfall 205 2009 Monthly Cyanide and Flow Discharge

Data

....................................................................................................................................... 9-9

Table 9 -9. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Chlorine Dischargers in the 2009 DMR

Database

.............................................................................................................................. 9-10

Table 9 -10. ISG Sparrows Point’s Outfall 001 2009 Monthly Chlorine Discharge and Flow Data ....... 9-10

T able 9 -11. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Chromium Dischargers in the 2009 DMR

Database

.............................................................................................................................. 9-11

Table 9 -12. Arcelormittal Weirton’s 2009 Chromium Discharge and Flow Data ................................... 9-12

### LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

xii Table 9 -13. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Fluoride Dischargers in the 2009 DMR

Database

.............................................................................................................................. 9-12

Table 9 -14. Arcelormittal Weirton’s Outfall 003 2009 Monthly Fluoride Discharge and Flow

Data

..................................................................................................................................... 9-13

Table 9 -15. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Aluminum Dischargers in the 2009 DMR

Database

.............................................................................................................................. 9-13

Table 9 -16. Ipsco Tubulars’s Outfall 003 2009 Monthly Aluminum Discharge and Flow Data

............ 9-14

Table 9 -17. Nucor Steel’s Outfall 001 Tuscaloosa 2009 Aluminum Discharge and Flow Data ............ 9-15

Table 9 -18. Nucor Steel Decatur’s Outfall 002 2009 Monthly Aluminum Discharge and Flow

Data

..................................................................................................................................... 9-15

Table 10 -1. Landfills Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2009 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

.............................................................................................................. 10-1

Table 10 -2. Landfills Category Top DMR Pollutants .............................................................................. 10-2

Table 10 -3. Top Facilities Discharging Pollutants of Concern in the 2009 DMR Database ................... 10-2

Table 10 -4. Butler County Landfill 2009 Top Discharges in the DMR Database ................................... 10-3

Table 10 -5. Butler County Landfill 2009 Monthly Top Pollutant Discharge Data ................................. 10-3

Table 10 -6. Tunnel Hill Reclamation 2009 Top Discharges in the DMR Database ................................ 10-3

Table 10 -7. Tunne l Hill Reclamation 2009 Monthly Manganese Discharges for Outfall 001

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

Table 10

- 8. BFI Backridge Sanitary Landfill 2009 Discharges in the DMR Database

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

Table 10 -9. BFI Backridge Sanitary Landfill 2009 Monthly Iron Discharges ........................................ 10-5

Table 10 -10. Iron Concentrations in the 2008 and 2009 DMR Database Compared to Treatability

Concentrations .................................................................................................................... 10-7

Table 11 -1. Number of Meat and Poultry Facili ties

................................................................................ 11-2

Table 11 -2. Applicability, Regulated Pollutants, and BAT ELG Limits for the Meat and Poultry Category

.............................................................................................................................. 11-3

Table 11 -3. Meat and Poultry Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2009 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

............................................................................................... 11-5

Table 11 -4. Meat and Poultry Category Top TRI Pollutants ................................................................... 11-5

Table 11 -5. Meat and Poultry Category Nitrate Compounds Dischargers in the 20 09 TRI

Database

.............................................................................................................................. 11-7

### LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

xiii Table 11 -6. BAT Treatment Basis for the Meat and Poultry Subcategories ............................................ 11-8

Table 11 -7. Minimum, Maximum, and Median Nitrate Concentrations in the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool

................................................................................................................... 11-11

Table 12 -1. Number of Metal Finis hing Facilities

................................................................................... 12-1

Table 12 -2. Applicability, Regulated Pollutants, and ELG Limits for the Metal Finishing Category

.............................................................................................................................. 12-2

Table 12 -3. Metal Finishing Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2009 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

............................................................................................... 12-3

Table 12

- 4. Metal Finishing Category Top DMR Pollutants

................................................................... 12-3

Table 12

- 5. Metal Finishing Category Silver Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

.......................... 12-4

Table 12 -6. Eastman Kodak Park 2009 Monthly Silver and Flow Discharge Data for Outfall 001 ....... 12-4

Table 12

- 7. Metal Finishing Category Cyanide Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

...................... 12-5

Table 12 -8. Eastman Kodak Windsor 2008 and 2009 Monthly Cyanide and Flow Discharge Data

for Outfall 001 ..................................................................................................................... 12-6

Table 12

- 9. Metal Finishing Category PCB

- 1248 Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

................... 12-6

Table 12 -10. GM Tonawanda Outfall 001 2009 Monthly PCB-1248 Discharge and Flow Data ........... 12-7

Table 12 -11 GM Massena 2009 Monthly PCB-1248 Discharge and Flow Data ..................................... 12-9

Table 13

- 1. Mineral Mining Category TRI and DMR Discharges fo r the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

............................................................................................... 13-1

Table 13 -2. Mineral Mining Category Top DMR Pollutants ................................................................... 13-2

Table 13

- 3. Mineral Mining Category Cadmium Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

.................... 13-3

Table 13 -4. Butala 2009 Monthly Cadmium and Flow Discharge Data for Outfall 002 ......................... 13-4

Table 13

- 5. Mineral Mining Category Fluoride Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

...................... 13-4

Table 13 -6. Feldspar 2009 Monthly Fluoride and Flow Discharge Data for Outfall 002 ........................ 13-6

Table 13 -7. Fort Green Mine Complex 2009 Fluoride and Flow Discharge Data ................................... 13-7

Table 13 -8. Four Corners Mine 2009 Fluoride and Flow Discha rge Data

.............................................. 13-9

Table 13 -9. Four Corners Mine 2009 Flow Discharge Data .................................................................. 13-10

### LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

xiv Table 13 -10. South Fort Meade Mine 2009 Monthly Fluoride and Flow Discharge Data for

Outfall 001

........................................................................................................................ 13-10

Table 13 -11. Mineral Mining Category Chlorine Dischar gers in the 2009 DMR Database

.................. 13-11

Table 13 -12. Carmeuse 2009 Monthly Chlorine and Flow Discharge Data for Outfall 015 ................. 13-11

Table 14 -1. NFMM Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

.............................................................................................................. 14-1

Table 14 -2. 2009 NFMM Category Top DMR Pollutants ....................................................................... 14-2

Table 14

- 3. NFMM Category Top Mercury Discharging Facilities in the 2009 DMR Database

.......... 14-2

Table 14

- 4. NFMM Category Top Fluoride Discharging Facility in the 2009 DMR Database

.............. 14-3

Table 14 -5. 2009 Monthly Fluoride and Flow Discharge Data for Horsehead Corporation ................... 14-4

Table 14

- 6. NFMM Category Top Lead Discharging Facility in the 2009 DMR Database

.................... 14-5

Table 14

- 7. 2009 Monthly Lead and Flow Discharge Data for Buick Resource Recycling

.................... 14-6

Table 14

- 8. NFMM Category Top Cadmium Discharging Facilities in the 2009 DMR Database

........ 14-8

Table 14-9. 2009 Monthly Cadmium and Flow Discharge Data for Nyrstar’s Outfall 001 .................... 14-9

Table 14 -10. NFMM Category Top Molybdenum Discharging Facility in the 2009 DMR

Databases

............................................................................................................................ 14-9

Table 14 -11. 2009 Monthly Molybdenum Data for GulfChem’s Outfalls 001 and 002........................ 14-10

Table 15 -1. OCPSF Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

............................................................................................................... 15-1

Table 15

- 2. OCPSF Categ ory Top DMR Pollutants ................................................................................ 15-2

Table 15

- 3. OCPSF Category Hexachlorobenzene Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

................. 15-3

Table 15 -4. 2009 DMR Hexachlorobenzene Discharges for Daikin American, Inc. .............................. 15-4

Table 15 -5. 2008 and 2009 Hexachlorobenzene Discharge Data for Chevron Oronite Outfall 202 ....... 15-5

Table 15 -6. 2009 DMR Hexachlorobenzene Discharges for Nalco Company ........................................ 15-6

Table 16 -1. Oil and Gas Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

............................................................................................................... 16-1

Table 16 -2. Oil and Gas Category Top DMR Pollutants ......................................................................... 16-3

### LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

xv Table 16 -3. Oil and Gas Category Top Sulfide Discharging Facilities in the 2008 and 2009 DMR

Databases

............................................................................................................................ 16-5

Table 16 -4. Marathon Oil Maverick Springs’s Outfall 001 2007 Through 2009 Sulfide Discharge

Data

..................................................................................................................................... 16-6

Table 17 -1. Ore Mining Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2002 Through 2009 .......................... 17-1

Table 17

- 2. Summary of 2009 Ore Mining Facilities With Data in the DMR Database

......................... 17-2

Table 17 -3. T op Facility Discharges in the 2009 DMR and TRI Databases a



### .......................................... 17-3

Table 18 -1. Pesticide Chemicals Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

................................................................................................ 18-1

Table 18

- 2. Pesticide Chemicals Category Top TRI Pollutants

............................................................... 18-2

Table 18 -3. 2003–2010 GB Biosciences Corp. TRI PCB Discharges ..................................................... 18-3

Table 19 -1. Petroleum Refining Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2007 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

................................................................................................ 19-1

Table 19 -2. Petroleum Refining Category Top TRI Pollutants ............................................................... 19-2

Table 19 -3. Petroleum Refining Category Top DMR Pollutants ............................................................. 19-2

Table 19 -4. Summary of Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Discharges, 2004–2009 ......................... 19-3

Table 19 -5. Basis of Estimate Summary for 2009 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Discharges ..... 19-3

Table 19

- 6. Bay Area Refineries Reformer Water Results a



### ..................................................................... 19-4

Table 19

- 7. Total TRI PACs Discharges for Years 2004 –2009 .............................................................. 19-5

T able 19 -8. Petroleum Refining Category Sulfide Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database .................. 19-5

Table 19 -9. Top Sulfide Discharging Facilities ....................................................................................... 19-8

Table 19 -10. Petroleum Refining Category Chlorine Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database ............. 19-9

Table 19 -11. Premcor’s Outfall 001 2009 Monthly Chlorine and Flow Discharge Data ........................ 19-9

Table 19

- 12. DMR Metal Discharges, 2000 –2009 ................................................................................ 19-10

Table 19 -13. 2009 Petroleum Refinery Metals DMR Discharges

......................................................... 19-10

Table 19 -14. 2009 Top Petroleum Refineries Discharging Metals in DMR ......................................... 19-11

Table 19 -15. D ioxin and Dioxin- Like Discharges From Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in

2004–2009 ......................................................................................................................... 19-14

### LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

xvi Table 19

- 16. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2004 –2009 .................. 19-17

Table 20 -1. Pulp and Paper Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2007 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

............................................................................................................... 20-1

Table 20 -2. Pulp and Paper Category Top TRI Pollutants ....................................................................... 20-2

Table 20 -3. Pulp and Paper Category Top DMR Pollutants

.................................................................... 20-2

Table 20 -4. Summary of Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Discharges, 2004–2009 ......................... 20-3

Table 20 -5. Basis of Estimate Summary for 2009 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Discharges ..... 20-4

Table 20 -6. Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Co mpound Discharges in TRI for Simpson Tacoma, 2005–

2009 ..................................................................................................................................... 20-4

Table 20

- 7. Facility -Specific Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Congener Distribution

....................................... 20-5

Table 20 -8. Information on Top Pulp and Paper Category 2009 TRI Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Compound Dischargers ....................................................................................................... 20-7

Table 20 -9. 2002–2009 Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharges in TRI and DMR .......... 20-11

Table 20 -10. Pulp and Paper Category Top Sulfide Discharging Facilities in the 2009 DMR

Database

............................................................................................................................ 20-11

Table 20 -11. Sulfide Wastewater Treatment Options ............................................................................ 20-12

Table 20 -12. Smurfit-Stone Container’s Outfall 001 2009 Monthly Sulfide Discharge Data ............... 20-13

Table 20 -13. Pulp and Paper Category Aluminum Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database ............... 20-13

Table 20 -14. International Paper’s Outfall 001 2009 Monthly Aluminum Discharge Data .................. 20-14

Table 20 -15. Median Concentration of Aluminum in Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent (μg/L) ................ 20-15

Table 20 -16. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges From Pulp and Paper Category Reported to TRI

in 2004–2009..................................................................................................................... 20-18

Table 21 -1. Timber Products Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

................................................................................................ 21-1

Table 21 -2. Timber Products Category Top DMR Pollutants ................................................................. 21-2

Table 21 -3. Timber Products Category Top TRI Chemicals ................................................................... 21-2

Table 21 -4. Top Copper Discharging Facilities in the 2009 DMR Database .......................................... 21-3

Table 21 -5. Ed A rey’s 2009 DMR Copper and Flow Discharge Data .................................................... 21-4

### LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

xvii Table 21 -6. Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Compounds Discharging Facilities in the 2009 TRI Database

..... 21-5

Table 22 -1. Textiles Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

............................................................................................................... 22-1

Table 22 -2. Textiles Category Top DMR Pollutants ............................................................................... 22-2

Table 22 -3. Textiles Category Top Sulfide D ischarging Facilities in the 2009 DMR Database

............ 22-3

Table 22

- 4. Sulfide Wastewater Treatment Options

................................................................................ 22-4

Table 22 -5. Mohawk Industries 2008 and 2009 Monthly Sulfide Discharge Data for Outfall 0A1 ........ 22-6

Table 22 -6. Gold Mills 2009 Monthly Sulfide Discharge Data

............................................................... 22-7

### xviii LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 11-1. Meat and Poultry Nitrate Concentration Probability Plot ................................................. 11-11Section 1— Background



### 1

- 1 1. B ACKGROUND



### This document supports EPA’s Office of Water’s Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (Preliminary 2012 Plan) (U.S. EPA, 2013). The Preliminary 2012 Plan provides background on the CWA, the ELG planning process and review methodology and presents the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews. This document details how EPA used reported discharge data from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and discharge monitor ing reports (DMRs) to create databases and estimate the toxicity of industrial discharges.

EPA is responsible for developing the programs and tools authorized under the Clean Water Act ( CWA ), which enabl es EPA and the states to protect and restore the Nat ion’s waters. These programs and tools generally rely either on water

- quality -based controls, such as water quality standards and water-quality-based effluent limitations, or technology-based controls, such as effluent guidelines and technology- based efflu ent limitations. In addition to developing new regulations, the CWA requires EPA to review existing effluent guidelines annually . EPA reviews all point source categories subject to existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards to identify potential candidates for revision, consistent with CWA sections 304(b), 301(d), 304(g), and 307(b).

EPA has established ELGs to regulate wastewater discharges from 57 point source categories and annually review s the ELGs for these categories. EPA first conducts a toxicity rankings analysis of all categories subject to existing ELGs to prioritize the categories for further review. The Agency may then conduct another review, either an in -depth “ preliminary or detailed study” or a somewhat less detailed “preliminary category review ,” to identif y existing categories for potential ELGs revision.

Based on its toxicity rankings analysis , EPA was able to prioritize for further review (i.e.,

a preliminary or detailed study or preliminary category review) those industrial c ategories whose pollutant discharges potentially pose the greatest hazards to human health or the environment because of their toxicity (i.e., categories that collectively discharge over 95 percent of the total TWPE). Table 1-1 presents the 19 industrial categories that EPA recently identified for preliminary category review and one industrial category, Plastics Molding and Forming (40 CFR Part 463), for a preliminary study. Sections 3 through 21 of this report provide the details of

EPA’s review and conclusions for the top ranking industrial categories.

Table 1-1. Point Source Categories Collectively Discharging

Over 95% of the Total TWPE

40 CFR

Part Point Source Category Total TWPE Cumulative Percentage of Total

TWPE Rank

430 Pulp, paper and paperboard 1,240,000 20.4% 1

418 Fertilizer manufacturing 912,000 35.5% 2

419 Petroleum refining 731,000 47.5% 3

414 Organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers 687,000 58.8% 4

433 Metal f inishing 283,000 63.5% 5

435 Oil & g as e xtraction a 238,000 67.4% 6

420 Iron and steel manufacturing 230,000 71.2% 7Section 1— Background



### 1

- 2 Table 1-1. Point Source Categories Collectively Discharging

Over 95% of the Total TWPE

40 CFR

Part Point Source Category Total TWPE Cumulative Percentage of Total

TWPE Rank

445 Landfills 222,000 74.8% 8

421 Nonferrous metals manufacturing 215,000 78.4% 9

440 Ore mining and dressing 208,000 81.8% 1 0

463 Plastics molding and forming 177,000 84.7% 1 1

415 Inorganic chemicals manufacturing 124,000 86.8% 1 2

429 Timber products processing 121,000 88.8% 1 3

436 Mineral m ining and p rocessing 85,500 90.2% 1 4

432 Meat and p oultry p roducts 71,000 91.3% 1 5

434 Coal mining 66,800 92.4% 1 6

437 Centralized w aste t reatment 51,000 93.3% 1 7

455 Pesticide chemicals 45,700 94.0% 1 8

467 Aluminum forming 39,700 94.7% 19

410 Textile mills 39,100 95.3% 20

Total 6,070, 000 b

a The 2011 preliminary category review did not include the review of the shale gas extraction or coa l bed methane sectors as they are currently under review by EPA. See 76 FR 66286 (October 26, 2011) (although EPA is proposing to de list from rulemaking the coalbed methane extraction subcategory from the effluent guidelines plan ).

b T otal industry TWPE is the sum of the combined 2009 TWPE for all point source categories, not just the top 95
percent.



### 1.1 Background References

1. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.Section 2— Public Comments on the Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan



### 2

- 1 2. P UBLIC 

### C OMMENTS ON THE 

### F INAL 

### 2010 E FFLUEN T 

### G UIDELINES 

### P ROGRAM 

### P LAN



### EPA published its Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (Final 2010 Plan) on October 26, 2011 (76 FRN 27742) and requested comments on various aspects of its analyses, data, and information to inform its 2011 annual review and one detailed study. The Agency received 31 sets of comments on the Final 2010 Plan. The comment period closed November 25, 2011 but was extended until February 27, 2012 after EPA received four requests for extension.

Table 2-1 lists the commenters as well as a synopsis of the comments.Section 2— Public Comments on the Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan



### 2

- 2 Table 2-1 . Comments on the Fi nal 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan EPA Docket Number: EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517

No. Commenter Name EPA

Docket

No. Comment Summary

1 Graham Brannin (City of Tulsa, OK) 0817 Supports dental amalgam best management practices (BMPs) only, does not support numerical limits or clarification of dental offices as standard industrial users (SIUs); opposes traditional effluent guidelines to regulate discharges of unused pharmaceuticals.

2 Rosalind Volpe (Silver Nanotechnology Working Group (SNWG)) 0819 Recommend s collaborating with the EPA Office of Pesticides Programs (OPP) for information on

nanosilver.

3 Barry Russell (Independent

Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) et. Al) 0820 Requests a 60

- day comment period extension.

4 Dennis Lathem (Coalbed

Methane Association of Alabama) 0821 Requests a 60

- day comment period extension.

5 Jonathan Bridges (Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant) 0822 Recommends reconsidering moving forward with National Dental Amalgam regulations, stating that standards should apply only to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that discharge to mercury

impaired receiving waters. Notes that state and local programs already exist and it is it unnecessary to change the regulations.

6 Roger Claff (American Petroleum Institute (API)) 0823 Supports moving forward with an ELG for CBM but urges EPA to investigate non

- water quality impacts of treatment technologies and maintain collaboration with industry stakeholders. Supports moving forward with SGE pretreatmen t standards but recommends maintaining collaboration with industry

stakeholders.

7 David Snyder (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts) 0824 Supports dental amalgam BMPs because the cost of regulating dental amalgam would be high. Recommends EPA take a leading role in convening a volunteer National Amalgam Separator Review

Committee.

8 Terrie Mitchell (Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District) 0825 Supports dental amalgam BMPs only to minimize POTW burden, stating standards should apply only to POTWs that discharge to mercury

- impaired receiving waters. Provided additional information on dental amalgam discharges.

9 Luther Strange (State of Alabama Office of the Attorney General) 0826 Requests a 60

- day comment period extension.

10 Robert Aderhold (Congress of the United States, House of Representatives) 0827 Requests a 60

- day comment period extension.Section 2— Public Comments on the Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan



### 2

- 3 Table 2-1 . Comments on the Fi nal 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan EPA Docket Number: EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517

No. Commenter Name EPA

Docket

No. Comment Summary

11 Peter Berglund (Metropolitan Council Environmental Services) 0828 Recommends that EPA take a leading role in convening a volunteer National Amalgam Separator Review Committee. Provided data supporting the National Review of Amalgam Separators.

12 Kathryn Klaber (Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC)) 0829 Opposes moving forward with ELGs for SGE.

13 Cynthia A. Finley (National

Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)) 0830 Supports dental amalgam BMPs, does not support numerical limits or clarification of dental offices as SIUs; supports moving forward with an ELG for nanosilver manufacturing because EPA needs to address the problem of nanosilver and silver discharges from domestic sources; supports moving forward with an ELGs for SGE as long as the standards are scientifically and economically sound.

14 J. Dillard 0831 Recommends EPA examine electric vehicle batter manufacturing and landfills for unregulated discharges.

15 Pete Miller (Range Resources) 0832 Opposes moving forward with the ELGs for CBM because the wastewater is mostly recycled or reused. Opposes moving forward with ELGs and pretreatment standards for SGE because current regulations

and treatment methods a re sufficient and the majority of wastewater is recycled and reused.

16 Lee Fuller (Independent

Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)) 0833 Opposes moving forward with ELGs for CBM because CBM wastewaters are already regulated and an ELG is inflexible and does not account for future technological improvement. Opposes moving forward with ELGs for SGE due to the high variability of the wastewate r.

17 Eric Uram (Coalition for SafeMinds) 0834 Supports ELGs for ethyl mercury specifically, particularly for the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry.

18 John V. Corra (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality) 0835 Supports moving forward with ELGs for SGE. Opposes moving forward with ELGs for CBM because the ELG is inflexible and does not account for future technological improvement and CBM wastewaters are beneficially used in agricultural applications.

19 John Pastor (Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (SCAP)) 0836 Supports dental amalgam BMPs, states that standards should apply only to POTWs that discharge to

mercury

- impaired receiving waters.

20 Don M. Nevin (LAMNIpipe Inc.) 0837 Provided data on technology solutions for treating naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in SGE produced water.

21 Christopher T. Hall (Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati) 0838 Supports moving forward with ELGs for CBM and SGE. S upports dental amalgam BMPs, does not support numerical limits or clarification of dental offices as SIUs.Section 2— Public Comments on the Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan



### 2

- 4 Table 2-1 . Comments on the Fi nal 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan EPA Docket Number: EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517

No. Commenter Name EPA

Docket

No. Comment Summary

22 Patrick O'Neil (Geological Survey of Alabama) 0846 Provided detailed comments on the CBM Detailed Study Report.

23 Suzanne Wienke (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts) 0847 Recommends EPA look into nanosilver and silver discharges from domestic sources. Opposes ELGs for

nanosilver because local limits are sufficient.

24 John Downs (Cabot Specialty Fluids Limited) 0848 Recommends EPA consider recognizing formate brines as a unique class of green chemistry fluids and improve the hazard assessment technique so that it is sufficiently discriminating.

25 Rebecca Hammer (Natural

Resources Defense Council et al.) 0849 Recomm ends that pretreatment standards should be developed for all oil and gas wastewaters. Supports moving forward with ELGs for SGE because POTWs alone cannot sufficiently treat SGE wastewater. States that if SGE discharges to POTWs are allowed, the pretreatme nt standards should be set as stringently as possible. Recommends that ELGs for Centralized Waste Treatment facilities should be updated in order to address SGE wastewater.

26 Rayza Santiago (University of Pittsburgh Environmental Law

Clinic on behalf of Clean Water Action) 0850 Supports moving forward with ELGs for CBM and urges EPA to advance the timeline for the proposal of ELGs for CBM because treatment technologies are available. Commenter provided additional data on SGE and CBM treatment technologie s.

27 Walter Baker (Association of

Clean Water Administrators (ACWA)) 0851 Supports moving forward with ELGs for CBM. Recommends EPA develop ELGs for emerging pollutants, study the effects of all nanoparticles on the environment, reexamine the metal finishing category due to significant changes in the industry over the last few y ears, continue study of proper pharmaceutical disposal, and look into electric vehicle batter manufacturing wastewater discharges. Also recommends that EPA should not shift away from technology

- based regulations because total reliance on water quality stan dards is not effective.

28 Rob Beranek (Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.) 0852 Provides comments on the Ore Mining Preliminary Study.

29 Dennis Lathem (Coalbed

Methane Association of Alabama (CMAA)) 0853 Opposes moving forward with ELGs for CBM because CBM wastewaters are highly variable and ELGs

are not flexible.

30 Amanda E. Aspatore (National Mining Association (NMA)) 0854 Supports EPA’s decision not to move forward with revision to the Ore Mining ELGs. States that the data in the Ore Mining Preliminary Study is outdated, faulty, and misused.

31 Robert J. Lenney (Reynolds Metals Company, subsidiary of Alcoa, Inc.) 0855 Provided a petition to revise the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Potline SO2 Wet Air Pollution Control Subcategory.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 1 3. M ETHODOLOGY 

### , D ATA 

### S OURCES 

### , AND 

### L IMITATIONS



### EPA reviewed effluent discharge data to fulfill its Clean Water Act obligations, generating the preliminary rankings shown in Tabl e 1

- 1. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to conduct an annual review of existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards (ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013) . It also requires EPA to identify industrial categories without applicable ELGs. EPA’s methodology for the 2011 Annual Reviews and new point source category identification involves several components, as discussed the Preliminary 2012 Plan (U.S. EPA, 2013). This report discusses the toxicity rankings analysis and further review of point

sour ce categories subject to existing ELGs.

First, EPA performs a toxicity rankings analysis of all point source categories subject to existing ELGs to identify categories discharging high levels of toxic and nonconventional pollutants relative to other categ ories. Second, EPA identifies priority categories as possible candidate ELGs for revision, consistent with CWA sections 304(b), 301(d), 304(g), and 307(b). EPA then performs further review of the priority categories. Section 4 of the Preliminary 2012

Plan discusses the findings of EPA’s 2011 Annual R eview s (U.S. EPA, 2013). Sections 3 through 21 of this report provide more details on the individual category reviews and their

conclusions.

In performing the toxicity rankings analysis of existing ELGs , EPA generates databases

to evaluate discharge monitoring report (DMR) data, contained in EPA’s Permit Compliance System (PCS) and the Integrated Compliance Information System for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS

- NPD ES), and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). This section discusses these databases, related data sources, and their limitations.

EPA developed two toxicity rankings analysis tools, the TRIReleases and DMRLoads databases, to facilitate analysis of TRI and PCS/ICIS -NPDES data. EPA previously explained

the creation of these toxicity rankings analysis tools in the Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories (2009 Screening-Level Analysis (SLA) Report) (U.S. EPA, 2009). The 2009 SLA Report provides the detailed methodology used to process thousands of data records and generate

national estimates of industrial effluent dis charges. This section does not revisit the details of creating the database tools. Instead, it lists the methodology corrections made to the DMRLoads

and TRIReleases databases as part of EPA’s 20 11 Annual R eview s.

3.1 Data Sources and Limitations

This subsection provides general information on the use of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS ) codes, toxic weighting factors ( TWFs ), TRI data, and DMR data. The following reports supplement this

se ction and discuss EPA’s methodology for developing and using the two toxicity rankings analysis tools:

• Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories, (2009

SLA R eport) (U.S. EPA, 2009). Documents the methodology and development of

the DMRLoads2009 and TRIReleases200 9 databases, including (but not limitedSection 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 2 to) matching NAICS and SIC codes to point source categories and using TWFs to

estimate toxic -weighted pound equ ivalents (TWPE).

• Draft Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of the CWA 304(m) Planning Process (Draft TWF Development Document), dated July 2005 (U.S. EPA, 2005). Explains how EPA developed the December 2004 TWFs.

• Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of the CWA 304(m) Planning

Process (Final TWF Development Document) (U.S. EPA, 2006b). Explains how EPA developed the April 2006 TWFs.

3.1.1 SIC Codes

The SIC code system was developed to help with the collection, aggregation, presentation, and analysis of data from the U.S. economy (OMB, 1987). The different parts of the SIC code signify the following:

• The first two digits represent the major industry group;

• The third digit represents the industry group; and

• The fourth digit represents the industry.

For example, major SIC code 26 : Paper and Allied Products includes all pulp, paper, and paperboard manufacturing operations. Within SIC code 26, the three-digit SIC codes are used to distinguish the type of facility: 263 for paperboard mills, 265 for paperboard containers and boxes, etc. Within SIC code 265, the four- digit SIC codes are used to separate facilities by product type: 2652 for setup paperboard boxes, 2653 for corrugated and solid fiber boxes , etc.

The SIC system is used by many government agen cies, including EPA, to promote data comparability. In the SIC system, each establishment is classified according to its primary economic activity, which is determined by its principal product or group of products. An establishment may have activities in m ore than one SIC code. Some data collection organizations track only the primary SIC code for each establishment. PCS and ICIS

- NPDES include one fourdigit SIC code, reflecting the principal activity causing the discharge at each facility.

Regulations for an individual point source category may apply to one SIC code, multiple SIC codes, or a portion of the facilities in an SIC code. Therefore, to use databases that identify facilities by SIC code, EPA linked each four -digit SIC code to an appropriate point source category, as summarized in the “SIC/Point Source Category Crosswalk” table (Table A -1 in Appendix A ).

There are some SIC codes for which EPA has not established national ELGs . Table A -2 in Appendix A lists the SIC codes for whi ch facility discharge data are available in PCS and

ICIS -NPDES, but for which EPA could not identify an applicable point source category. For a more detailed discussion, see Section 6 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009).Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 3 3.1.2 NAICS Codes

In 1997, the U.S. Census Bureau introduced the NAICS code system, to better represent the economic structure of countries participating in the North American Free Trade Agreement and to respond to criticism about the SIC code system. Table 3-1 explains the nomenclature and

format of NAICS and SIC codes.

Table 3-1. Nomenclature and Format of NAICS and SIC Codes

NAICS SIC

2

- digit Sector Letter Division

3

- digit Subsector 2

- digit Major Group

4

- digit Industry Group 3

- digit Industry Group

5

- digit NAICS Industry 4

- digit Industry

6

- digit U.S. Industry N/A N/A



### For example, below are the SIC and NAICS code for the Folding Paperboard Box Manufacturing industry.

In the SIC code system the classification is less stratified:

• 26 : Paper and Allied Paper Products ;

— 265 : Paperboard containers and boxes;

o 2657: Folding Paperboard Boxes , Including Sanitary (except paperboard backs for blister or skin packages).

In the NAICS code system the classification is more stratified:

• 32: Manufacturing;

— 322: Paper Manufacturing;

o 3222: Converted Paper Product Manufacturing;

• 322212: Folding Paperboard Box Manufacturing.

The NAICS system is used for industrial classification purposes at many government agencies, including EPA. As in the SIC system, each establishment is classified according to its primary economic activity, which is determined by its p rincipal product or group of products. An establishment may have activities in more than one NAICS code.

Regulations for an individual point source category may apply to one NA IC S code, multiple NA IC S codes, or a portion of the facili ties in an NAI CS code. Therefore, to use databases that identify facilities by NAI CS code (e.g., TRI), EPA linked each six- digit NAICS code to an appropriate point source category, as summarized in the “NAICS/Point Source Category Crosswalk” table (Table A -3 in Appendix A). This table was based on the SIC/PointSection 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 4 Source Category Crosswalk table (Table A -1 in Appendix A) and the NAICS/SIC Code Crosswalk that EPA developed for past comparisons.

There are some NAICS codes for which EPA has not established national ELGs. Table A-4 in Appendix A lists the NAICS codes for which faci lity discharge data are available in TRI, but for which EPA could not identify an applicable point source category. For a more detailed discussion, see Section 6 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009).

3.1.3 Toxic Weighting Factors

As part of the Effluent Guidelines Program, EPA developed a wide variety of tools and methodologies to evaluate effluent discharges. EPA’s Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD) maintains a T oxics Database compiled from over 100 references for more than 1,900 pollutants. The Toxics Database includes aquatic life and human health toxicity data, as well as physical and chemical property data. Each pollutant in this database is identified by a

un ique Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number . EPA calculates TWFs from these data to account for differences in toxicity across pollutants and to provide the means to compare mass loadings of different pollutants. In its analyses, EPA multiplies a mass load ing of a pollutant in pounds per year (lb/yr) by a pollutant- specific weighting factor to derive a “toxic

- equivalent” loading (lb-equivalent/yr). Throughout this document, the toxic- equivalent is also referred to as TWPE. The Draft and Final TWF Development Documents discuss the use and development of TWFs in detail (U.S. EPA, 2005; U.S. EPA, 2006b ).

EPA derives TWFs from chronic aquatic life criteria (or toxic effect levels) and human health criteria (or toxic effect levels) established for the consumption of fish. In the TWF method for assessing water

- based effects, these aquatic life and human health toxicity levels are compared to a benchmark value that represents the toxicity level of a specified pollutant. EPA selected copper, a metal commonly detected and removed from industrial effluent, as the benchmark pollutant. The Final TWF Development Document contains details on how EPA developed its TWFs (U.S. EPA, 2006b). Table A-5 in Appendix A lists the TWFs for those

chemicals in the DMRLoads2009 and TRIRe leases2009 databases for which EPA has developed

TWFs.

3.1.3.1 New Toxic Weighting Factors Developed During the 2011 Annual

Reviews

During the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA did not revise any TWFs or develop TWFs for any chemicals that had not previously had TWFs.

3.1.3.2 Calc ulation of TWPE

EPA weighted the annual pollutant discharges calculated from the TRIReleases (see

Section 3.1.4 ) and DMRLoads (see Sections 3.1.5 ) databases using EAD’s TWFs to calculate TWPE for each reported discharge. EPA summed the estimated TWPE discharged by each facility in a point source category to understand the pot ential hazard of the discharges from each category. The following subsections discuss the calculation of TWPE.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 5 3.1.4 Data from TRI

TRI is the common name for Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right

- to

- Know Act. Each year, facilities that meet certain thresholds must report their releases and other waste manage ment activities for listed toxic chemicals. Facilities must report the quantities of toxic chemicals recycled, collected , and combusted for energy recovery, treated for destruction, or disposed of . A separate report must be filed for each chemical that exceeds the reporting threshold. The TRI list of chemicals for reporting year 2009 includes more than 650 chemicals and chemical categories. For the 20 11 toxicity rankings analysis , EPA used data for reporting year 2009 , because they were the most recent available at the time the review began.

A facility must meet the following three criteria to be required to submit a TRI report for a given reporting year:

1. NAICS Code Determination

. The primary NAICS code determines if TRI reporting is required. The primary NAICS code is associated with the facility’s revenues, and may not relate to its pollutant discharges (73 FR 324666). Certain facilities in NAICS codes 11, 21, 22, 31 through 33, 42, 48 through 49, 51, 54, 56 and 81, and federal facilities are potentially subject to TRI reporting. EPA generally relies on facility claims regarding the NAICS code identification.

2. Number of Employees

. Facilities must have 10 or more full

- time employees or

their e quivalent. EPA defines a “full-time equivalent” as a person that works 2,000 hours in the reporting year (there are several exceptions and special

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

3. Activity Thresholds

. If the facility is in a covered NAICS code and has 10 or more

full

- time employee equivalents, it must conduct an activity threshold analysis for every chemical and chemical category on the current TRI list. The facility must determine whether it manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses each chemical at or above the appropriate activity threshold. Reporting thresholds are not based on the amount of release. All TRI thresholds are based on mass, not concentration. Different thresholds apply for persistent bioaccumulative t oxic (PBT) chemicals

than for non- PBT chemicals. Generally, non- PBT chemical threshold quantities are 25,000 pounds for manufacturing and processing activities and 10,000 pounds for other use activities. All thresholds are determined per chemical over the calendar year. For example, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are considered PBT chemicals. The TRI reporting guidance requires any facility that manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses 0.1 grams of dioxin and dioxin- like compounds to report it to TRI (U.S. EPA, 2000).

In TRI, facilities report annual loads released to the environment of each toxic chemical or chemical category that meets reporting requirements. Facilities must report onsite releases or disposal to air, receiving streams, land, underground wells, and several other categories. They must also report the amount of toxic chemicals in wastes transferred to off -site locations, (e.g., POTWs, commercial waste disposal facilities).

For its toxicity rankings analysis , EPA focused on the amount of ch emicals facilities reported either discharging directly to a receiving stream or transferring to a POTW. ForSection 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 6 facilities discharging directly to a stream, EPA took the annual loads directly from the reported TRI data for calendar year 200 9. For facilities transferring to POTWs, EPA first adjusted the TRI pollutant loads reported to account for pollutant removal that occurs at the POTWs prior to discharge to the receiving stream. Table A -6 in Appendix A lists the POTW removals used for all TRI chemicals repor ted as transferred to POTWs.

Facilities reporting to TRI are not required to sample and analyze waste streams to determine the quantities of toxic chemicals released. They may estimate releases based on mass balance calculations, published emission factors, site -specific emission factors, or other approaches. Facilities are required to indicate, by a reporting code, the basis of their release estimate. TRI’s reporting guidance is that, for most chemicals reasonably expected to be present

but measured below the detection limit, facilities should use half the detection limit to estimate the mass released. However, for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, non detects should be

treated as zero.

TRI allows facilities to report releases as specific numbers or as ran ges, if appropriate. Specific estimates are encouraged if data are available to ensure the accuracy; however, EPA allows facilities to report releases in the following ranges: 1 to 10 pounds, 11 to 499 pounds, and 500 to 999 pounds. For its toxicity rankin gs analyses , EPA used the midpoint of each reported range to represent a facility’s releases, as applicable.

3.1.4.1 Utility of TRI Data

The data collected in TRI are particularly useful for ELG planning for the following

reasons:

• TRI is national in scope, including data from all 50 states and U.S.

territories/tribes ;

• TRI includes releases to POTWs, not just direct discharges to surface water;

• TRI includes discharge data from manufacturing NAICS codes and some other industrial categories; and

• TRI includes releases of many toxic chemicals, not just those in facility discharge permits.

3.1.4.2 Limitations of TRI

For purposes of ELG planning, limitations of the data collected in TRI include the following:

• Small establishments (less than 10 employees) are not required to report, nor are facilities that do not meet the reporting thresholds. Thus, facilities reporting to TRI may be a subset of an industry.

• Release reports are, in part, based on estimates, not measurements, and, due to TRI guidance, may overstate releases, es pecially at facilities with large

wastewater flows.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 7 • Certain chemicals (polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs), dioxin and dioxinlike compounds, metal compounds) are reported as a class, not as individual compounds. Because the individual compounds in most c lasses have widely varying toxic effects, the potential toxicity of chemical releases can be inaccurately estimated.

• Facilities are identified by NAICS code, not point source category. For some NAICS codes, it may be difficult or impossible to identify the point source category that is the source of the toxic wastewater releases.

Despite these limitations, EPA determined that the data summarized in TRIReleases200 9

were usable for the 20 11 toxicity rankings analysis and prioritization of the toxic- weighted pollutant loadings discharged by industrial categories.

3.1.5 Data from PCS and ICIS- NPDES

EPA has used data reported to PCS as a part of its toxicity rankings analysis of existing effluent guidelines since the 2003 Annual Reviews (68 FRN 75515). Since 2002, EP A has been working to modernize PCS by creating a new data system called ICIS -NPDES. In 2006, some states began transitioning their DMR reporting from PCS to ICIS

- NPDES. Currently 57 of the 71

s tates and t erritories /tribes have migrated to ICIS- NPDES. Ther efore, for the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA’s view of nationwide discharges was split between two sets of data. EPA created the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool to combine the two systems (PCS and ICIS- NPDES) and generate industrial category rankings for all U.S. states and territories/tribes

. EPA extracted the loads from the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool to create the DMRLoads2009 database. Both PCS and ICISNPDES automate entering, updating, and retrieving NPDES data and track permit issuance, permit limits, monitoring data, and other data pertaining to facilities regulated by the NPDES program under the CWA.

More than 65,000 industrial facilities and wastewater treatment plants have permits for wastewater discharges to waters of the United States. To provide an initial framew ork for setting permitting priorities, EPA developed a major/minor classification system for industrial and municipal wastewater discharges. Major discharges usually have the capability to impact receiving waters if not controlled and, therefore, have rece ived more regulatory attention than minor discharges. There are approximately 7,0 00 facilities (including sewerage systems) with major discharges and 15,000 facilities with minor discharges for which PCS and ICIS

- NPDES

have extensive records. Permitting au thorities classify discharges as major based on an

assessment of six characteristics (U.S. EPA, 2010):

1. Toxic pollutant potential;

2. Discharge flow: stream flow ratio;

3. Conventional pollutant loading;

4. Public health impact;

5. Water quality factors; andSection 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 8 6. Proximity to coastal waters.

Facilities with major discharges must report compliance with NPDES permit limits via monthly DMRs submitted to the permitting authority. The permitting authority enters the reported DMR data into PCS or ICIS

- NPDES , including pollutant concentration and quantity values and identification of any types of permit violations.

Minor discharges may, or may not, adversely impact receiving water if not controlled.

Facilities with minor discharges must report compliance with NPDES permit limits vi a monthly DMRs submitted to the permitting authority ; however, EPA does not require the permitting authority to enter data in the PCS and ICIS- NPDES databases . For this reason, the PCS and

ICIS

- NPDES database s include data only for a limited set of minor d ischarges (i.e., if the state or other permitting authority chooses to include these data).

Parameters in PCS and ICIS

- NPDES include water quality parameters (such as pH and temperature), specific chemicals, conventional parameters (such as biochemical oxygen demand ( BOD 5 

### ) and total suspended solids ( TSS )), and flow rates. Although other pollutants may be discharged, PCS and ICIS

- NPDES contain data only for the parameters identified in the facility’s NPDES permit. Facilities typically report monthly aver age pounds per day discharged, but also report daily maxima and average pollutant concentrations.

For the 2011 Annual R eview s, EPA used data for reporting year 2009, to correspond to

the data obtained from TRI. For the 2011 Annual R eview s , EPA corrected certain aspects of the

2009 data (see Section 3.3 ). Using the DMR Loadings Tool, EPA calculated annual loads for the

PCS and ICIS

- NPDES data and then combined the ca lculated loads for each set of data. EPA

extracted the results of the annual loads calculations in the DMRLoads2009 database. Section 2 of the 2009 SLA Report provides details on the methodology and development of

DMRLoads2009 (U.S. EPA, 2009).

3.1.5.1 Utility of PSC and ICIS

- NPDES

The data collected in the PCS and ICIS

- NPDES data systems are particularly useful for the ELG planning process for the following reasons:

• PCS and ICIS -NPDES combined are national in scope, including data from all 50

states and 21 U.S. te rritories/tribes.

• Discharge reports included in PCS and ICIS- NPDES are based on effluent chemical analysis and metered flows.

• PCS and ICIS

- NPDES include facilities in all SIC codes.

• PCS and ICIS -NPDES include data on conventional pollutants for most facili ties and for the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus for many facilities.

3.1.5.2 Limitations of PCS and ICIS- NPDES

Limitations of the data collected in the PCS and ICIS

- NPDES data systems include the following:Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 9 • The data systems contain data only for pollutants a facility is required by permit to monitor; the facility is not required to monitor or report all pollutants actually discharged.

• The data systems include limited discharge monitoring data from minor dischargers.

• The data systems do not include data characterizing indirect discharges from

industrial facilities to POTWs.

• Many of the pollutant parameters included in the data systems are reported as a group parameter and not as individual compounds (e.g., “Total Kjeldahl

Nitr ogen,” “oil and grease”). Because the individual compounds in the group parameter may have widely varying toxic effects, the potential toxicity of chemical releases can be inaccurately estimated.

• In some cases, the data systems identify the type of wastewater (e.g., process wastewater, stormwater, noncontact cooling water) being discharged; however, most do not and, therefore, total flow rates reported to PCS and ICIS- NPDES may include stormwater and noncontact cooling water, as well as process wastewater.

• Pipe identification is not always clear. For some facilities, internal monitoring points are labeled as outfalls, and PCS and ICIS-NPDES may double- count a facility’s discharge. In other cases, an outfall may be labeled as an internal monitoring point, and PCS and ICIS-NPDES may not account for all of a facility’s discharge.

• Facilities are identified by SIC code, not point source category. For some SIC codes, it may be difficult or impossible to identify the point source category that

is the source of the r eported wastewater discharges 1



### .

• PCS and ICIS

- NPDES were designed as a permit compliance tracking system and do not contain production information.

• PCS and ICIS

- NPDES data may be entered into the data systems manually, which

leads to data

- entry errors.

• In PCS and ICIS

- NPDES, data may be reported as an average quantity, maximum quantity, average concentration, maximum concentration, and/or minimum concentration. For many facilities and/or pollutants, average quantity values are not provided. In these cases, E PA is limited to estimating facility loads based on the maximum quantity. Section 3.2.3 of the 2009 SLA Report discusses the maximum quantity issue in detail (U.S. EPA, 2009).

• PCS and ICIS

- NPDES data on conventional pollutants and the nutrients nitrogen

an d phosphorus are not used because of data quality concerns.

1 ICIS

- NPDES includes a data field for applicable ELGs; however, it is not required and typically not populated.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 10 Despite these limitations, EPA determined that the data summarized in DMRLoads2009

were usable for the toxicity rankings analyses and prioritizations of the toxic-weighted pollutant loadings discharged by industrial facilities. The combined PCS and ICIS- NPDES databases remain the only data source quantifying the pounds of regulated pollutants discharged directly to

surface waters of the United States.

3.2 Methodology Correction Affecting Both Toxicity Rankings Analysis Databases

The 2009 SLA Report provides detailed information on the methodology EPA used to develop the toxicity rankings analysis databases (U.S. EPA, 2009). For the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA did not make any methodological changes to the toxicity rankings analysis databases, TRIReleases2009 and DMRLoads2009

.

3.3 Corrections to the DMRLoads2009 Database

EPA developed the DMRLoads2009 database as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews using the methodology explained in the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009) with the methodology updates described in Section 4.2.1 of the 2010 TSD (U.S. EPA, 2011).

During previous toxicity rankings analyses, EPA identified numerous facility- specific corrections for PCS and ICIS-NDPES data reported for calenda r years 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 though 2008. Several of these corrections similarly apply to the 2009 DMR data. In addition, EPA reviewed the quality of the 2009 DMR data and facilities with discharges that have the greatest impact on total category loads and categor y rankings. Table B-2 in Appendix B of this report lists all corrections made to the 200 9 DMR data in the DMR Loadings Tool.

3.3.1 DMRLoads2009: Categorization of Discharges

This sub section describes database corrections to facility categorization and pollutant discharges in DMRLoads2009 . Section 4 of the 2009 SLA Report describes the SIC/Point Source Category Crosswalk development, which EPA uses to link between facility SIC codes and categories with existing ELGs (U.S. EPA, 2009). Because most point source cate gories are notdefined by SIC code, the relationship between SIC code and point source category is not a oneto -one correlation. A single SIC code may include facilities in more than one point source category, and associating an SIC code with only one category may be an over simplification. Also, many facilities have operations subject to more than one point source category. Further, facilities in some categories cannot be identified by SIC code (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment facilities). Section 4 of th e 2009 SLA Report describes the database changes, summarized below (U.S. EPA, 2009):

• Facility -Level Point Source Category Assignment . For some SIC codes that include facilities subject to guidelines from more than one point source category,

EPA was able to assign each facility to the category that best applied to the majority of its discharges. EPA reviewed information available about each facility to determine which point source category applied to the facility’s operations.

• Pollutant- Level Point Source Ca tegory Assignment . Many facilities have operations subject to more than one point source category. For most of these facilities, EPA cannot divide the pollutant discharges among the applicable pointSection 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 11 source categories. Two exceptions where EPA was able to a ssign wastewater discharges of certain chemicals to the appropriate point source category are listed

below:

— Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)/Pesticide

Chemicals . EPA removed all pesticide discharges from the OCPSF Category and incl uded them as discharges from the Pesticide Chemicals Category.

— M etal Products and M achinery ( MP&M )/Metal Finishing. EPA used the methodologies described in Section 4 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009) to apportion pollutant loads between the MP&M and Metal Finishing Categories.

3.3.2 DMRLoads2009: Internal Monitoring

This subsection describes database corrections to identify internal monitoring points in

DMRLoads2009 . As discussed in Sections 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.3.2 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009), the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool calculated loads only for monitoring locations that are labeled as effluent. The effluent monitoring locations in the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool are:

• MLOC 1

– Effluent net discharge;

• MLOC 2 – Effluent gross discharge;

• MLOC A

– After disin fection;

• MLOC B – Before disinfection; and

• MLOC SC

– See comments.

As a result, the DMR Loadings Tool excludes discharges for internal monitoring locations such as intake water, influent to treatment, and intermediate points in the wastewater
treatment sys tem. However, during previous category reviews and detailed studies, EPA identified instances of double-counting that resulted from including certain internal monitoring points in the loads database. For example, a facility monitors for Pollutant A at the effluent from its wastewater treatment system (internal Outfall 101). Outfall 101 wastewater is later combined with other plant discharges at final Outfall 001 and is discharged to a receiving stream. The facility also monitors for Pollutant A at final Out fall 001. Both outfalls are effluent monitoring points identified as MLOC 1 or MLOC 2; however, Outfall 101 is upstream of the final outfall. Calculating loads for Pollutant A at both the internal and final outfalls double-counting Pollutant A discharges. EPA identified instances where pollutant discharges are reported for multiple monitoring locations along the same discharge line and eliminated the discharges for the upstream monitoring locations. EPA made these corrections to the 2009 data in the DMR

Loa dings Tool. A complete list of these corrections made in the DMR Loadings Tool can be

found in Table B -2 of Appendix B of this report.

3.3.3 DMRLoads2009: Intermittent Discharges

This section describes database corrections made for intermittent discharges in

DMR Loads2009 . As described in Sections 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.3.2 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009), the DMR Loadings Tool assumes that all discharges in PCS and ICIS

- NPDES are continuous (24 hours per day for all days in the monitoring period). During previous annualSection 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 12 reviews, EPA identified facility discharges that are intermittent and therefore are overestimated by the DMR Loadings Tool. EPA calculated annual loads for these discharges based on information obtained from the facility on the frequency and durat ion of wastewater discharges.

EPA made these corrections in the 2009 data in the DMR Loadings Tool.

3.3.4 DMRLoads2009: Excluded Pollutant Parameters

This section describes database corrections made to exclude selected water quality parameters and flow from the annual load calculation in 2009 DMR Loadings Tool. As described in Sections 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.3.2 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009), facilities reportpollutant mass quantities, pollutant concentrations, and wastewater flow rates to PCS and ICISNPDES using a variety of units. EPA’s PCS CNVRT program and the ICIS-NPDES Convert Module convert the discharges into standard units of kilograms per day (kg/day) for mass quantities, milligrams per liter (mg/L) for concentrations, and millions of gallons per da y (MGD) for flow rates. However, some parameters are reported in units that cannot be converted into kg/day or mg/L (e.g. , temperature, pH, fecal coliform, whole effluent toxicity). EPA excluded these parameters from the toxicity rankings analysis. Table B -3 of Appendix B lists the excluded
parameters.

3.3.5 DMRLoads2009: Pollutant Corrections

This section describes database changes made to discharges of specific pollutants reported to the DMR for EPA’s 20 11 toxicity rankings analysis in the 2009 DMR Loadings Too l.

During the reasonableness checks of the PCS CNVRT output, EPA identified unusually high mercury concentrations reported to PCS by facilities located in Ohio in the PCS CNVR T output. These facilities reported mercury discharges using PRAM 50092 (Mercury Total Low Level). The PRAM 50092 concentrations in the 2004 CNVRT output ranged from 0.2 to 673 mg/L and from 2 pg/L to 4.1 mg/L in the 2009 CNVRT output. EPA contacted the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) to determine the correct reporting units for PRAM 50092 (Stuhlfauth, 2007). An Ohio EPA representative explained that Ohio EPA started requiring low level mercury analyses in 2002. At that time, some facilities had limits in micrograms per liter (μg/L). Currently, all of the limits are in n anograms per liter (ng/L).

As a result of this contact, EPA concluded that the units for the PRAM 50092 concentrations for the 2004 PCS data should be ng/L, not mg/L. Based on the 2009 distribution of Ohio mercury concentrations, EPA concluded that the error for the 2004 data persisted in 2009. Therefore, EPA corrected the concentrations by dividing all concentrations for PRAM 50092 reported by facilities in Ohio in the DMR Pollutant Loadings Tool by one million.

3.3.6 DMRLoads2009: Data Quality Review

EPA evalua ted the quality of the PCS and ICIS -NPDES DMR data for use in

DMRLoads2009 as part of the 2011 toxicity rankings analysis . This evaluation considered data completeness, accuracy, reasonableness, and comparability. The Quality Assurance Project Plan for the 2009 Annual Screening-Level Analysis of TRI and PCS Industrial Category Discharge

Data describe the quality objectives in more detail (ERG, 2009). EPA conducted quality reviews

for three stages of the development of DMRLoads2009 : 1) PCS CNVRT and ICIS

- NPD ESSection 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 13 Convert Module outputs; 2) the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool output; and 3) DMRLoads2009 results. The following discussion provides an overview of the quality review steps for each stage:

• PCS CNVRT and ICIS

- NPDES Convert Module outputs . EPA conducted an

initia l quality review of the extracted PCS CNVRT and ICIS

- NPDES DMR data to evaluate its completeness, reasonableness, and comparability. For completeness, EPA compared the number of major facilities and the universe of

SIC codes in the 2009 DMR data to the DMR data in 2008.

EPA reviewed the DMR data for reasonableness to identify any data quality issues, such as misreported units that the PCS CNVRT and ICIS -NPDES Convert

Module did not correct. EPA identified several wastewater flows that exceeded the reasonable range. EPA reviewed these flows and developed the flow

correction function for the PCS CNVRT and ICIS -NPDES Convert Module (described in Section 3.2.3 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009)). This function is designed to identify data entry errors for flows greater than 1,000

MGD. The PCS CNVRT and ICIS -NPDES Convert Module corrects all flows exceeding 5,000 MGD and applies more conservative criteria to correct flows from 1,000 to 5,000 M GD. The PCS CNVRT and ICIS -NPDES Convert Module made the following corrections to the PCS and ICIS

- NPDES wastewater flows:

— 2,230 corrections based on month- to -month variations;

— 1,281 corrections based on comparing flows to design flows; and

— 1,186 correctio ns based on assuming that flows exceeding 5,000 MGD are reported in units of GPD.

• Load Calculator routines. EPA’s quality review for the Load Calculator routines included accuracy checks for database queries on the 2009 data in the DMR Loadings Tool . EPA r eviewed the programming code used to develop each query to verify the logic and verified that the number of records in the output table equaled the number of records in intermediate queries to ensure that no data were missing and that there were no duplicate data. In addition, EPA performed hand calculations to verify the accuracy of the Load Calculator module outputs during reviews of facility discharges for DMRLoads2009 results.

• DMRLoads2009 results. EPA’s quality review of the DMRLoads2009 results included the following:

— Completeness checks . EPA compared counts of dischargers in

DMRLoads2009 to DMRLoads2008 to confirm the completeness of the database. There were 2,036 major discharging facilities that reported a

load to DMRLoads2008 and 1,9 44 major discharging facilities that reported a load to DMRLoads2009 . There were 14,888 minor discharging facilities that reported a load to DMRLoads2008 and 15,565 minor discharging facilities that reported a load to DMRLoads2009

.

— Accuracy of facility dis charges . EPA reviewed the accuracy of facilities’ discharges that had the greatest impact on total category loads andSection 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 14 category rankings to identify possible calculation errors. EPA reviewed monitoring period data in PCS and ICIS- NPDES, measurement data available on EPA’s Envirofacts web page, and information from each facility’s NPDES permit and permit fact sheet. In some cases, EPA contacted facilities to verify the measurements in their DMR. Section

3.3.7 describes EPA’s review of facility discharges in more detail.

— Accuracy of category discharges . EPA reviewed the accuracy of category discharges by verifying that pollutant discharges in P CS and ICIS

- NPDES were assigned to the appropriate point source category. EPA used engineering judgment to determine if the pollutant discharge was reasonably associated with the point source category. Section 3.3.1 discusses facility -level and pollutant- level category assignments.

— Accuracy of database queries . EPA’s quality review for the development

of DMRLoads2009 included accuracy checks for database queries in DMRLoadsAnalysis2009 2 

### and DMRLoads2009 . Documentation of accuracy checks is provided in a QC table in each Microsoft AccessTM

database.

— Reasonableness of pollutant loads . EPA reviewed the DMR Loadings Tool’s 2009 output (i.e., the calculated kg/year for each pollutant at each discharge pipe and monitoring location) for those pollutant discharges with the highest toxic -weighted loads (e.g., dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls ( PCBs ), and mercury). To identify possible errors in recording units of measure, EPA identified calculated discharges that were orders of magnitude higher than previous years’ discharges or discharges from other facilities within the same category. EPA reviewed quantities or concentrations and flows that the DMR Loadings Tool database used to calculate the annual discharge. EPA compared these measurements with measurements available on EPA’s Envirofacts web page. If the

measurements were similar , then EPA concluded that the output was acceptable. If the data did not match between the databa ses and Envirofacts, EPA corrected the data to match Envirofacts. When EPA was unsure what the correct data were, EPA contacted the facility or permitting authority for more information (see Section 3.3.7 ).

— Reasonableness of facility loads . EPA identified facility discharges with the highest TWPE. EPA identified facilities for review whose pollutant discharges accounted for more than 95 percent of the TWPE for their point source category. EPA compared 2009 DMR data to other available information, such as information from EPA’s Envirofacts web page, and the facility’s NPDES permit and permit fact sheet. If the data did not match between the database and Envirofacts, EPA corrected the data to match Envirofacts. When EPA was unsure what the correct data were,

2 DMRLoadsAnaysis2009 is a database used to evaluate the impacts of calculation assumptions and corrects SIC Code classifications for certain facilities and certain discharges (i.e., OCSPF and Pesticide discharges). See Section 3.2 of the 2009 SLA Report for further information (U.S. EPA, 2009).Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 15 EPA contacted the facility or permitting authority for more information (see Section 3.3.7 ).

— Comparability . EPA compared DMRLoads2009 to DMRLoads2008 to identify pollutant discharges or wastewater flows that differ ed more than the year

- to

- year variation of other chemicals and facilities. EPA used this comparison to determine if quantity, concentration, or flow corrections were needed for facility discharges with the highest TWPE. If the comparison was unavailable (e.g ., the pollutant was not previously reported) EPA contacted the facility or permitting authority (see Section

3.3.7 ).

3.3.7 DMRLoads2009: Facility Reviews

EPA reviewed t he accuracy of facility discharges that had the greatest impact on total category loads and category rankings in DMRLoads2009 . EPA reviewed facilities with the highest toxic -weighted discharges of individual pollutant parameters. For the identified facilit ies,EPA used the following steps to review the accuracy of the loads calculated from PCS and ICISNPDES data:

1. Reviewed database corrections for DMRLoads2008, DMRLoads2007

, PCSLoads2004

, PCSLoads2002, and PCSLoads2000 to determine whether

corrections made during previous reviews should apply to the 2009 DMR discharges.

2. Reviewed 2009 DMR data, hand-calculated annual pollutant loads, and compared the results to loads calculated by the DMR Loading T ool and stored in

DMRLoads2009

.

3. Reviewed PCS and ICIS

- NPDES p ipe description information available in PCS,

EPA’s on -line Envirofacts data system, ICIS-NPDES supporting tables, or from the facility’s NPDES permit and permit fact sheet to identify monitored pollutant discharges that are:

— Intermittent (e.g., tidal, sea sonal, or occur after a storm event);

— Internal monitoring locations from which wastewater is combined with other waste streams and monitored again, resulting in double-counting loads; and

— Not representative of category discharges (e. g., stormwater runoff from

nonprocess areas, non contact cooling water, or wastewater related to operations in another point source category).

Table 3-2 presents EPA’s facility review and corrections made to the DMRLoads2009

database.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3-16 Table 3-2. Summary of DMRLoads2009 Facility Review

Facility Location Point Source Category Pollutant(s) in Question Review Findings Action Taken/Database

Correction

Ahlstrom Cogeneration Facility Windsor Locks, CT Pulp & Paper Chlorine Outfall 006 2009 Oct and Nov, and outfall 008 2009 Jan through Sept

chlorine concentrations are 1,000 times higher than other monthly concentrations. Outfall 006 and 008 specified chlorine concentrations were in mg/L in the DMR Loadings Tool, while Envirofacts concentrations are in ug/L. Revise specified 2009 chlorine

concentration s for outfalls 006 and 008 by dividing by 1,000.

Angola Wire Products

Inc. Angola, IN Metal Finishing Copper Outfall 001 2009 flows are greater than 2,000 MGD; however, the facility is a minor discharger. Revise 2009 flows for outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000,000.

Anniston Army Depot Anniston,

AL Metal Finishing Copper Outfall 020 Dec 2009 iron, copper, and TSS concentrations are 100 times higher than other monthly concentrations. Revise Dec 2009 iron, copper, and TSS concentrations for outfall 020 by dividing by

100.

Barton Lexa Water

Association Poplar Grove, AR Drinking Water Chlorine Facility contact identified that the 2009

flow values for outfall 101 should be reported in GPD, not MGD (Carruth, 2011). Revise 2009 flow values for outfall 101 by dividing by 1,000,000.

BASF

- Wyandotte Wyandotte,

MI OCPSF Mercury Outfall 001 2009 Jan, Mar, Jun, Jul, and Aug 2009 mercury concentrations are in the DMR Loadings Tool as mg/L, while

the concentrations in Envirofacts are in ng/L. Revise Jan, Mar, Jun, Jul, and Aug 2009 mercury

concentrations for outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000,000.

Bass Point Resort

Condos Morgan County, MO Amusement &

Recreation Services Chlorine Outfall 001 2009 flows are greater than 2,000 MGD; however, the facility is a minor discharger. Revise 2009 flows for outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000,000.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3-17 Table 3-2. Summary of DMRLoads2009 Facility Review

Facility Location Point Source Category Pollutant(s) in Question Review Findings Action Taken/Database

Correction Bayer CropSciences

Institute Institute, WV Pesticide Chemicals Carbaryl Outfall 005 Sept 2009 carbaryl quantity is 1,000 times higher than all other quantities. In 2010, facility contact identified that the 2008 carbaryl concentrations and quantities were below the detection limit at 0.003 mg/L and 2 lbs/day. 2009 concentratio ns and quantities are below the BDL values indicated by the facility contact (Smith, 2010). Revise Sept 2009 quantity by dividing by 1,000. Add BDL indicators to all 2009 carbaryl concentrations and quantities

for outfall 005.

Berwin Business

Center Festus, MO Real Estate Chlorine Outfall 001 Oct, Nov, and Dec 2009 flows are 1,000,000 times higher than other monthly flows. Revised Oct, Nov, and Dec 2009 for outfall 001 flow by dividing by 1,000,000.

Bridal Cave Devlpmnt WWTF Camdenton,

MO Miscellaneous Retail Chlorine Outfall 001 2009 flows are 1,000,000 times higher than flows reported in 2008. Revise 2009 flow for outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000,000.

Brunswick Cellulose,

Inc. Brunswick,

GA Pulp & Paper 2,3,7,8

- TCDD Facility contact confirmed that the 2009

TCDD concentration for outfall 001was below the detection limit. (Schwartz,

2011 a ). Revise Jun 2009 TCDD

concentration for outfall 001 by adding a BDL indicator.

Bulk Plant Inc Flemingsbrg #39 Fleming County, KY Petroleum Refining Benzene Facility contact identified 2009 flow as GPD, not MGD, for Outfall 001. Facility

contact verified maximum flow values and indicated that the average flow values

should be the same as the maximum (Becker, 2011). Revise 2009 flow for outfal l 001 by dividing the maximum flows by 1,000,000 and making the average and

maximum flow values the

same.

Bulk Plant Inc Grayson #266 Carter County, KY Petroleum Refining Benzene Facility contact identified 2009 flow as GPD, not MGD, for Outfall 001. Facility

contact verified maximum flow values and indicated that the average flow values

should be the same as the maximum (Becker, 2011). Revise 2009 flow for outfall 001 by dividing the maximum flows by 1,000,000 and making the average and

maximum flow v alues the

same. Butler County

Landfill Poplar Bluff,

MO Landfills Lead Facility contact identified that the 2009

lead concentrations for Outfall 001 and 002 should be reported as ug/L, not mg/L (Cozad, 2011). Revise 2009 lead

concentrations for outfalls 001 and 002 by dividing by 1,000.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3-18 Table 3-2. Summary of DMRLoads2009 Facility Review

Facility Location Point Source Category Pollutant(s) in Question Review Findings Action Taken/Database

Correction C&H Sugar Crockett, CA Sugar Processing Methylmercury Outfall 001 and 002 Oct 2009 methylmercury concentrations are 100,000 time higher than other monthly

concentrations. Revise Oct 2009 methylmercury concentrations for outfall 001 by dividing by 100,000. Cascade Pacific Pulp Halsey, OR Pulp & Paper 2,3,7,8

- TCDD Facility contact identified that all 2009 TCDD quantities for outfall 001are below

the detection limit (Schwartz, 2011 a ). Revise 2009 TCDD quantities for outfall 001 by adding BDL

indicators.

Charlotte Walters Sweetwater,

AL Automotive Dealers

& Service Stations Lead Outfall 001 2009 flows are greater than 2,000 MGD; however, the facility is a minor discharger. Flows are 1,000,000 times higher than expected from a minor discharger. Revise 2009 flows for outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000,000.

Citizens Gas & Coke Utility Indianapolis,

IN Oil & Gas Benzo(a)pyrene Dec 2009 benzo(a)pyrene concentrations for outfalls 009, 013, 014, 017, and 019 are 1,000 times higher than all other concentrations. Remaining 2009 concentrations of the correct magnitude also are reported below the detection

limit. Revise Dec 2009

benzo (a)pyrene concentrations for the specified outfalls by dividing by 1,000 and adding

a BDL indicators.

Claiborne Mill Claiborne,

AL Pulp & Paper 2,3,7,8

- TCDD Outfall 001 Jun 2009 TCDD concentration reported in Envirofacts is

the same value as the Dec 2009 concentration; however, it is missing the

BDL indicator. Revise June 2009 TCDD

concentration for outfall 001 by adding a BDL indicator.

Clean Harbors Baton Rouge, LLC Baton Rouge,

LA CWT Benzidine Facility contact identified that the Dec

2009 benzidine concentration for outfall 001 is below the dectection limit (Clark, 2011). Revise Dec 2009 benzidine

concentration for outfall 001 by adding a BDL indicator.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3-19 Table 3-2. Summary of DMRLoads2009 Facility Review

Facility Location Point Source Category Pollutant(s) in Question Review Findings Action Taken/Database

Correction

Crossett Harbor Port Crossett, AR Hotels & Other Lodging Mercury Outfall 001 Sept 2009 mercury quantity is 1,000,000 times higher than other monthly quantities and Dec 2009 mercury quantity is 1,000 times higher than all other monthly quantities. Revise Sept 2009 mercury quantity by dividing by 1,000,000 and Dec 2009 mercury quantity by dividing by 1,000.
Dana Transport Inc. Nitro, WV Trucking & Warehousing Mercury Outfall 001 2009 mercury quantities in the DMR Loadings Tool do not match the quantity calculated using the

concentration and flow data in

Envirofacts. EPA used the concentration and flow to calculate the correct quantity. Revise 2009 mercury quantities for outfall 001.

Doe Run, Fletcher

Mine/MI Viburnum,

MO Ore Mining Lead Outfall 001 Nov and Dec 2009 lead concentrations are 1,000 times higher than other monthly concentrations. Revise Nov and Dec 2009

lead concentrations for outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000.

Expo Water Park, Inc. Tulsa, OK Amusement &

Recreation Services Chlorine Outfall 001 2009 flows are greater than 2,000 MGD; however, the facility is a minor discharger. Revise 2009 flows for outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000,000.

Fisheries Development Corporation Hagerman,

ID CAAP Copper Facility contact identified that copper

concentrations should be zero for 2009 (Bogaard, 2011). Revise 2009 copper

concentrations.

Freeman United Coal

Industry Industry, IL Coal Mining Manganese Outfall 019 2009 flows are 1,000 times higher than flow dat a in previous years. Revise 2009 flow for outfall 019 by dividing by 1,000.

Holiday Motel

WWTF Cleveland,

TX Hotels & Other Lodging Chlorine Outfall 001 Feb 2009 flow is 1,000,000 times higher than other months of data. Revise Feb 2009 flow for

outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000,000.

Insulfoam Mead, NE Plastics Molding And Forming Chlorine Outfall 001 2009 flows are 1,000,000 times higher than previous years of data. Revise all 2009 flow values for outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000,000. Lost Canyon Lakes Steedman,

MO Hotels & Other Lodging Chlorine Outfall 002 Jun 2009 flow is 100 times higher than other months of data and Aug and Nov 2009 flows are 1,000,000 times higher than other months of data. Revise Jun 2009 flow by dividing by 100 and revise Aug and Nov 2009 flow by dividing by 1,000,000.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3-20 Table 3-2. Summary of DMRLoads2009 Facility Review

Facility Location Point Source Category Pollutant(s) in Question Review Findings Action Taken/Database

Correction Maplesville Lumber

Mill Maplesville,

AL Timber Products Processing Iron Outfall 008 Dec 2009 flow is 1,000 times higher than other months of data. Revise Dec 2009 flow for outfall 008 by dividing by 1,000. Marion Co Sanitary

Landfill Marion County, KY Landfills Iron Outfall 001 and 002 2009 flows are 5,500 to 16,500 MGD; however, facility is a minor discharger. Revise 2009 flows for outfalls 001 and 002 by dividing by 1,000,000. Matthews High

School OH Educational Services Ammonia as N Outfall 001 Feb, Mar, and Apr 2009 ammonia quantities and flows are 1,000,000 times higher than other months

of data. Revise Feb, Mar, and Apr

2009 ammonia quantities and flows for outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000,000. Monterey Coal Company

- Mine 2 Albers, IL Coal Mining Manganese Outfall 001 2009 flows are in Envirofacts

as MGD. The 2010 flows in Envirofacts are the same order magnitude but in

GPM. Revise 2009 flows for outfall

001.

Mountain State Carbon, LLC Follansbee,

WV Iron and Steel Manufacturing Aluminum Outfall 005 2009 aluminum concentrations, Jan through Jun, are 1,000 times higher than the remaining

2009 concentrations and more recent (2010 data). Revise Jan to Jun 2009

aluminum concentrations for outfall 005 by dividing by 1,000.

Mueller Company Albertville,

AL Metal Molding and Casting Chlorine Facility contact identified that t he June

2009 chlorine concentration for outfall 015 should be 1.35 mg/L, not 135 mg/L (Warren, 2011 a ). Revise Jun 2009 chlorine

concentration.

Palm Coast WTP #3

- Membrane C FL Drinking Water Hydrogen

sulfide Florida DEP verified the concentrations and units (LB/1000 GA) for 2009 hydrogen sulfide data for outfall 001. Facility contact also provided the conversion calculation between mg/L and LB/1000 GA (Sedano, 2011). Revise 2009 hydrogen sulfide

concentration s for outfall 001.

Rayonier

Performance Fibers Jesup, GA Pulp & Paper 2,3,7,8

- TCDD Facility contact identified that the Mar

2009 TCDD concentration for outfall

0A0 is below the detection limit (Schwartz, 2011 a ). Revise Mar 2009 TCDD

concentration for outfall 0A0 by adding BDL indicator.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3-21 Table 3-2. Summary of DMRLoads2009 Facility Review

Facility Location Point Source Category Pollutant(s) in Question Review Findings Action Taken/Database

Correction SC Dept

Corr/Wateree River Sumter, SC Justice, Public Order, & Safety Mercury Facility contact identified that the 2009 mercury concentration units for outfall 001 should be ng/L not mg/L (Stoudemire, 2011). Revise 2009 mercury

concentrations for outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000,000.

Seapac of Idaho Inc Hagerman,

ID CAAP Copper Facility contact identified that the copper concentrations are ug/L not mg/L for outfall 001 (VanTassel, 2011). Revise 2009 copper concentrations by dividing by 1,000.

Smurfit

- Stone

Container Florence, SC Pulp & Paper Sulfur Facility contact verified the 2009 sulfide

concentrations and flows for outfall 001. The sulfide discharges are due to the kraft pulping process (O'Shaughnessy, 2011). No action.

Solutia Inc Anniston, AL OCPSF PCB

- 1242 Facility contact verified the 2009 PCB

concentrations and flows for outfall 012 (Warren, 2011 b ). No action.

Special Metals Corp New Hartford, NY Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing PCB

- 1254,

PCB

- 1248,

PCB

- 1241 Outfall 001 2009 PCB concentrations are below the detection limit, but quantities

do not have BDL indicator. Jan to Jun 2009 PCB quantities are also 1,000 times higher than others. Revise 2009 PCB quantities for outfall 001 by adding BDL

indicators where concentrations are reported

below the detection limit and dividing Jan to June 2009 PCB quantities by 1,000. Sunny Acres II LLC High Ridge,

MO Real Estate Chlorine Outfall 001 2009 flows are 1,000,000 times higher than previous years of data. Revise 2009 flows for outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000,000.

The Horny Toad Lake Ozark,

MO Food Services Chlorine Outfall 001 2009 flows are 1,000,000 times higher than previous years of data. Revise 2009 flows for outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000,000.

Tiger Sunbelt

Industries Atmore, AL Inorganic Chemicals Sulfur Outfall 001 Dec 2009 average sulfur

concentration does not have a BDL indicator, but is the same value as the

maximum concentration that has a BDL

indicator. Revise Dec 2009 average

sulfur conc entration for outfall 001 by adding a BDL

indicator.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3-22 Table 3-2. Summary of DMRLoads2009 Facility Review

Facility Location Point Source Category Pollutant(s) in Question Review Findings Action Taken/Database

Correction

White mountain Apache Tribe Greer, AZ Hotels & Other Lodging Chlorine Outfall 001 flows are greater than 350 MGD; however, facility is a minor discharger. Revise June 2009 flow by dividing by 100,000, Oct 2009 flow by dividing by 100, Dec 2009 flow by dividing by 1,000. Windsong MHP

WWTF Gravois Mills, MO Real Estate Chlorine Outfall 001 2009 flows are 1,000,000 times higher than previous years of data. Revise 2009 flows for outfall 001 by dividing by 1,000,000.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 23 3.4 Corrections to the TRIReleases200 9 Database

EPA developed the TRIReleases200 9 database as part of the 20 11 Annual R eview s using the methodology explained in the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009) with the methodology updates described in Section 4.2.2 in the 2010 TSD (U.S. EPA, 2011).

During previous toxicity rankings analyses , EPA identified numerous facility- specific corrections for TRI data reported for calendar years 2002 through 2008 . Several of these corrections similarly apply to the 2009 TRI data. In addition, EPA reviewed the quality of t he

2009 TRI data for facilities with discharges that have the greatest impact on total category loads and category rankings. Table B -1 in Appendix B of this report lists all corrections made to the

2009 TRI data.

3.4.1 TRIReleases200 9: Categorization of Discharges

This section describes database corrections to categorization of facilities and pollutant discharges in TRIReleases2009 . Section 4 of the 2009 SLA Report describes the development of the NAICS/Point Source Category Crosswalk, which EPA uses to link between facility NAICS codes and categories with existing ELGs (U.S. EPA, 2009). Because most point source categories are not defined by NAICS code, the relationship between NAICS code and point source category is not a one- to

- one correlation. A single NAICS code may include facilities in more than one point source category, and associa ting an NAICS code with only one category may be an over simplification. Also, many facilities have operations subject to more than one point source category. Further, facilities in some categories report a variety of NAICS codes that do not correlate directly to a point source category, precluding identification by NAICS code (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment facilities). Section 5 of the 2009 SLA Report describes the database changes, summarized below (U.S. EPA, 2009):

• Facility

- Level Point Source Category Assignment. For some NAICS codes that include facilities subject to guidelines from more than one point source category, EPA was able to assign each facility to the category that best applied to the majority of its discharges. EPA re viewed information available about each facility to determine which point source category applied to the facility’s operations.

• Pollutant-Level Point Source Category Assignment. Many facilities have operations subject to more than one point source category. For most of these facilities, EPA cannot divide the pollutant discharges among the applicable point source categories. Below are tw o exceptions where EPA was able to assign wastewater discharges of certain chemicals to the appropriate point source
category :

— OCPSF/Pesticide Chemicals . EPA removed all pesticide discharges from

the OCPSF Category and included them as discharges from the Pesticide

Chemicals Cat egory.

— MP&M/Metal Finishing. EPA used the methodologies described in Section 4 of the 2009 SLA Report to apportion pollutant loads between the MP&M and Metal Finishing Categories.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 24 • Categories Not Identified by NAICS Code (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment, Waste Combustor, and Landfills)

. The NAICS/Point Source Category Crosswalk does not assign any NAICS codes to the Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 437), Waste Combustor Point Source Category (30 CFR Part 444), or Landfills Category (40 CFR Part 445). Furthermore, the applicability of these three regulations is not defined by NAICS codes and no NAICS code properly describes the CWT, waste combustor, or landfill services. Currently, EPA assigns all facilities reporting NAICS code 562213 (Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators) as part of the Waste Combustor Category. The remaining facilities, with NAICS codes 562211 (Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal) and 562219 (Other Nonhazardous

Waste Treatment and Disposal), are included in all three categories, which over estimates the category loads. During previous annual reviews, EPA has identified certain facilities that should be categorized as a CWT, waste combustor, or landfill. EPA assigned these facilities to the correct industrial category. As facilities continue to be reviewed due to high TWPE, EPA classifies them into the correct industrial category based on facility operations.

3.4.2 TRIReleases2009: Pollutant Corrections

This section describes database corrections made to discharges of specific pollutants reported to the TRI for EPA’s 2011 toxicity rankings analysis in the TRIReleases2009 database.

• Metal Compounds. For TRI reporting, facilities may be required to report discharges of a metal (e.g., zinc ) and its compounds (e.g., zinc compounds) on a single reporting form. Because the release quantity for the metal compound reporting is based on the mass of the parent metal, EPA uses the parent metal TWF to calculate TWPE for the metal and metal compound discharges. For ranking purposes, EPA combined the TWPEs for the metal and metal compounds (i.e., TWPE reported for “zinc and zinc compounds”). For more details on this correction, see Section 3.4.4 of the 2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009).

• Sodium Nitrite. For TRI reporting, sodium nitrite release quantities are reported as the mass of the sodium nitrite. Sodium nitrite is an ionic salt that will fully dissociate into nitrite and sodium ions in aqueous solutions. In addition, the nitrite ions are unstable in water and will oxidize to nitrate. Therefore, EPA converted the pounds of TRI-reported sodium nitrite discharges to pounds of nitrogen in the discharge and used the TWF for “nitrate as N” (0.0032) to calculate TWPE for sodium nitrite. In addition, EPA also used the POTW removal for nitrate to

account for the removal of sodium nitrite in POTWs.

• Phosphorus (Yellow or White). Yellow and white phosphorus, both allotropes of elemental phosphorus, are hazardous chemicals that spontaneously ignite in air. During the 2006 toxicity rankings analysis , EPA determined that facilities were incorrectly reporting discharges of total phosphorus (i.e., the phosphorus portion of phosphorus-containing compounds) as phosphorus (yellow or white) (U.S. EPA, 2006a). Therefore, EPA deleted all phosphorus (yellow or white) discharges reported to TRI for the 2011 toxicity rankings analysis

.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 25 3.4.3 TRIReleases2009: Data Quality Review

EPA evaluated the quality of TRI data for use in the 2011 toxicity rankings analysis and prioritization of loadings of toxic and nonconventional pollutants discharged by industrial categories based on completeness, accuracy, reasonableness, and comparability. The Quality Assurance Project Plan for the 2009 Annual Screening- Level Analysis of TRI, ICIS -NPDES, and PCS Industrial Category Discharge Data describes the quality objectives in more detail (ERG, 2009). The following discussion provides an overview of the quality review steps:

• Completeness Checks. EPA compared counts of facilities in TRIReleases200 9 to

TR IReleases200 8 , TRIReleases200 7 , TRIReleases200 5 , TRIReleases200 4,

TRIReleases200 3, TRIReleases20 20, and TRIReleases200 0 to describe the completeness of the database. The comparison showed that for 86 percent of the NAICS code groupings, the number of facil ities reporting wastewater discharges changed by less than 25 percent from 2008 to 2009. EPA also determined that most NAICS codes exhibiting a large percentage change did so because only a few facilities in these NAIC codes reported discharges (e.g., a ch ange from one facility to three facilities is equivalent to a 200 percent increase).

• Accuracy of Facility Discharges. EPA reviewed the accuracy of facilities’ discharges that had the greatest impact on total category loads and category rankings. EPA identi fied facilities for review whose pollutant discharges accounted for more than 95 percent of the TWPE for their point source category. EPA compared 2009 TRI data to other available information, such as PCS and

ICIS

- NPDES , information from EPA’s Envirofacts w eb page, the facilities’ NPDES permits and permit fact sheets , and discussion with facility contacts.

• Accuracy of Category Discharges. EPA reviewed the accuracy of category discharges by verifying that pollutant discharges in TRI were assigned to the appropriate point source category. EPA used engineering judgment to determine if pollutant discharges were reasonably associated with the point source category.

• Accuracy of Database Queries. EPA’s quality review for the development of

TRIReleases200 9 included accuracy checks for database queries in

TRICalculations2009 3 

### and TRIReleases200 9 . Documentation of accuracy checks is provided in a QC table in each Microsoft AccessTM database.

• Comparability. EPA compared TRIReleases200 9 to TRIReleases200 8,

TRIRe leases200 7, TRIReleases2005, TRIReleases2004, TRIReleases2003, TRIReleases2020, and TRIReleases2000 to identify pollutant discharges that differ more than the year

- to

- year variation of other chemicals and facilities. From the comparison, EPA determined that 63 percent of the pollutants discharged in both 2009 and 2008 had a change of less than 50 percent in the quantity discharged. EPA also determined that most of the pollutants with a large

3 TRICalculations2009 is a database EPA created to analyze raw TRI data. See Section 2.4 of the 2009 SL A Report for more detailed information (U.S. EPA, 2009).Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 26 percentage change reflected initial discharges of small quantities . In addition, most of these pollutant discharges resulted in small TWPEs.

3.4.4 TRIReleases2009: Facility Reviews

Table 3-3 presents EPA’s TRI facility review and correcti ons made to the

TRIReleases200 9 database. EPA reviewed the accuracy of calculated discharges from facilities with discharges that have the greatest impact on total category loads and category rankings. EPA used the following criteria to select facilities f or review:

• Facilities with the highest toxic

- weighted discharges of all facilities reporting to TRI for reporting year 200 9;

• Facilities with the highest toxic -weighted discharges of individual chemicals that contribute the majority of the toxic -weighted di scharges for all categories; and

• Facilities with the highest toxic

- weighted discharges from categories that contribute the majority of the toxic

- weighted discharges for all categories.

For the identified facilities, EPA used the following steps to review the accuracy of the

loads calculated from TRI data.

1. Review database corrections for TRIReleases2008, TRIReleases2007,

TRIReleases2005

, TRIReleases2004

, TRIReleases2003

, TRIReleases2002 , and

TRIReleases2000 to determine whether corrections were made during previous reviews and evaluate whether these corrections should be applied to

TRIReleases2009

.

2. Review discharges reported to TRI for other reporting years (i.e., 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008) and compare to discharges reported to TRI for reporting year 2009.

3. Review 2009 DMR data in PCS and ICIS- NPDES , if available, to hand- calculate annual pollutant loads and compare to discharges reported to TRI for reporting year 2009.

4. Contact the facility t o verify whether the pollutant discharges are reported correctly.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 27 Table 3-3. Summary of TRIReleases200 9 Facility Review

Facility Name Facility Location Point Source Category Pollutant(s) in Question Review Findings Actions Taken/Database

Correction

Cahaba Pressure

Treated Forest

Products Inc Brierfield, AL Timber Products Processing Dioxin Compounds Facility did not provide a water congener distribution

in 2009. Revise dioxin distribution based on the reported water discharges for all 17

congeners. International Paper

Pensacola Mill Cantonment, FL Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Dioxin Compounds Facility did not recognize the

dioxin distribution numbering change for the 2008 reporting period. Dioxin distribution reported

in 2009 is similar to 2008 (using reporting years’ numbering scheme). Revise dioxin distribution.

Sasol North America

Inc Lake Charles Chemical Complex Westlake, LA OCPSF Dioxin Compounds Facility contact provided dioxin compound sampling data. Facility contact stated

that distribution and load were calculated using half

the detection limit for values

that were non

- detect (Hayes, 2011). Revise dioxin load (LBY) from 0.0009 to 0.0006, and

r evise the dioxin distribution.

Suncor Energy Commerce City Refinery Commerce City, CO Petroleum Refining Dioxin Compounds Facility contact provided dioxin compound sampling data. Facility contact stated

that distribution was calculated using half the

detection limit for values

that were non

- detect (Congram, 2011). Revise dioxin distribution.

Charter Steel Risingsun Risingsun, OH Iron and Steel Zinc and Zinc Compounds Facility contact provided zinc sampling data and the average 2009 flow for the

direct and indirect outfalls.

EPA identified a conversion

error in the calculations (Bukach, 2011). Revise zinc load (LBY) from 4,570 to 4.57 for the direct discharge and 2,100,759 to 2,100 for the indirect discharge.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 28 Table 3-3. Summary of TRIReleases200 9 Facility Review

Facility Name Facility Location Point Source Category Pollutant(s) in Question Review Findings Actions Taken/Database

Correction

Mountain State Carbon, LLC Follansbee, WV Iron and Steel PACs Facility contact provided PACs sampling data. The monitoring results provide a

distribution for the PAC compounds to create a facility

- specific TWF (Smith, 2011). Revise PACs annual load (LBY) from 360 to 185.

Calculate T WPE using facility

- specific TWF.

Dupont Chambers

Works Deepwater, NJ OCPSF PACs and PCBs EPA compared the 2009

PACs load with 2009 DMR

data to determine which PAC compounds were being discharged from the facility.

The 2009 DMR data confirmed that only one PAC was detected. Facility contact also stated that only one PCB (PCB

- 1242) was

detected in sampling data (Northey, 2011). Change PACs load (LBY)

from 136 to 63.83 and PCBs load (LBY) from 0.7 to 0.18. Calculate TWPE using facility

- specific TWF.

Graftech International Holdings Inc. Columbia, TN Carbon Black Manufacturing PACs Facility contact provided PACs sampling data during

the 2010 A nnual R eview s

. The monitoring results provide a distribution for the PAC compounds to create a facility

- specific TWF (Aslinger, 2010). Calculate TWPE using facility

- specific TWF.

Abitibibowater Inc.

Coosa Pines Operations Coosa Pines, AL Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Dioxin Compounds Facility contact confirmed that the pounds released

were based on half the

detection limit and that

dioxin was not detected at the facility (Schwartz,

2011 b ). Revise dioxin load to zero.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 29 Table 3-3. Summary of TRIReleases200 9 Facility Review

Facility Name Facility Location Point Source Category Pollutant(s) in Question Review Findings Actions Taken/Database

Correction Domtar Paper Co. Bennettsville, SC Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Dioxin Compounds Facility contact confirmed that the pounds released

were based on half the

detection limit and that

dioxin was not detected at the facility (Schwartz,

2 011 b ) Revise dioxin load to zero.

Longview Fibre Paper & Packaging

Inc. Longview, WA Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Dioxin Compounds Facility contact confirmed that the pounds released

were based on half the

detection limit and that

dioxin was not detected at the facility (Schwartz,

2011 b ) Revise dioxin load to zero.

Weylchem US Inc. Elgin, SC Pesticide

Chemicals Heptachlor EPA compared the 2009 heptachlor discharges with

2009 DMR data to determine that all 2009 heptachlor

concentrations were non

detect. Revise heptachlor load to

zero.

ExxonMobil Oil Corp Joliet Refinery Channahon, IL Petroleum Refining Hexachlorobenzene Facility contact confirmed that the pounds released

were based on half the detection limit during the

2010 Annual Reviews (Noga, 2010). Revise hexchlorobenzene

load to zero.

John Morrell & Co. Sioux Falls, SD Meat and Poultry Mercury and Mercury Compounds Facility contact confirmed that the pounds released

were based on half the detection limit during the

2010 A nnual R eview s

. Facility contact confirmed

that all data were non

- detect (Draveland, 2010). Revise mercury load to zero.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 30 Table 3-3. Summary of TRIReleases200 9 Facility Review

Facility Name Facility Location Point Source Category Pollutant(s) in Question Review Findings Actions Taken/Database

Correction

ExxonMobil

Chemical Baton Rouge Chemical

Plant Baton Rouge, LA OCPSF PACs Facility contact confirmed that the pounds released

were based on half the detection limit (Graham, 2011). Revise PACs load to zero.

H. Kramer & Co. Chicago, IL Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Phosphorus (Yellow or White) Elemental phosphorus is not likely to be discharged by facilities, and is likely reported incorrectly. Revise phosphorus (yellow or white) load to zero.

Lima Refining Co. Lima, OH Petroleum Refining Phosphorus (Yellow or White) Elemental phosphorus is not likely to be discharged by facilities, and is likely reported incorrectly. Revise phosphorus (yellow or white) load to zero.

U.S. Army Pine Bluff

Arsenal Pine Bluff, AR National Security

& International

Affairs Phosphorus (Yellow or White) Elemental phosphorus is not likely to be discharged by facilities, and is likely reported incorrectly. Revise phosphorus (yellow or white) load to zero.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 31 3.4.5 Trends in TRI Data

EPA has identified a consistent decrease every year since 2002 in the total number of facilities reporting to TRI

. EPA also identified a consistent decrease in th e number of facilities reporting discharges to TRI from 2002 to 2007. However, the number of facilities reporting discharges to TRI increased from 2007 to 2009. Table 3-4 illustrates the trends since 2002.

Table 3-4 . Number of Facilities with Data in TRI for Reporting Years 2002 Through 2009

Reporting Year Number of Facilities Reporting to

TRI Number of Facilities Reporting Discharges to TRI

2002 24,379 8,291

2003 23,811 8,051

2004 23,675 7,930

2005 23,461 7,837

2006 22,880 7,506

2007 21,965 6,572

2008 21,694 6,891

2009 20,797 7,012

Source: TRIReleases2002 ; TRIReleases200 3; TRIReleases200 4; TRIReleases200 5; TRIReleases200 6;

TRIReleases200 7; TRIReleases200 8; and TRIReleases200 9.



### EPA does not have sufficient information to determine the cause of the decrease in the number of facilities reporting to TRI over the past eight years. The aggregate number of

establishments 4 

### reported to the U.S. Economic Census increased from 2002 to 2007. No changes in reporting requirements occurred that can be attributed to the decrease. EPA will continue to monitor this change in the future.

3.5 TRIReleases200 9 Rankings and DMRLoads2009 Rankings

After incorporating the changes discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 , EPA generated the

final versions of the TRIReleases and DMRLoads databases used for the 2011 toxicity rankings analysis : TRIReleases200 9_v2 and DMRLoads2009_v2 . Tables C -1 and C-2 in Appendix C present the category rankings by TWPE from the TRIReleases200 9_v2 and DMRLoads2009_v2 databases, respectively. The category rankings presented in these tables reflect all the corrections made during the 2011 toxicity rankings analyses. Tables C -3 and C-4 in Appendix C present the

six -digit NAICS code rankings by TWPE from TRIReleases20 09 _v 2 and the four-digit SIC code rankings by TWPE from DMRLoads2009_v2

, respectively. Tables C

- 5 and C -6 in Appendix C present the chemical rankings by TWPE from TRIReleases200 9_v2 and DMRLoads2009_v2

, respectively. For a summary of the final rankings and the findings of the 2011 Annual Reviews,

see Section 4 of the Preliminar y 2012 Plan (U.S. EPA, 2013).

Also

, in Table 8 -1 of the Preliminary 2012 Plan, EPA summarizes its conclusions from

the annual reviews about each of the 57 point source categories discharges (U.S. EPA, 2013).

EPA uses the following codes to describe the results for each industrial category:

4 EPA reviewed only 3

- digit NAICS code industry groups that were eligible for TRI reporting. Refer to Chapter 2 of the 2009 SLA Report (EPA, 2009) for more detail.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 32 1. Effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for this industrial category were recently revised through an effluent guidelines rulemaking, or a rulemaking is currently underway. Or, EPA recently completed a preliminary study or a detailed study, and no further action is necessary at this time.

2. Revising the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards is not the best tool for this industrial category because most of the toxi c and non-conventional pollutant discharges result from one or a few facilities in this industrial category. EPA will consider assisting permitting authorities in identifying pollution control and pollution prevention technologies for the development of technology- based effluent limitations during the development of individual permits.

3. Not identified as a priority based on data available at this time (e.g., not among industries that cumulatively comp ose 95% of discharges as measured in units of TWPE).

4. EPA intends to start or continue a detailed study of this industry in its 2012

Annual R eview s to determine whether to identify the category for effluent guidelines rulemaking.

5. EPA is continuing to assess pollutant discharges using screening- level data

because incomplete data are currently available to determine whether to conduct a detailed study or identify the category for possible revision. Additional quality review on the pollutant discharges, applicable facilities, and potential wastewater treatment optio ns needs to be reviewed prior to conducting a detailed study.

6. EPA is identifying this industry for a revision of an existing effluent guideline.

3.6 Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations References

1. Aslinger, Julia. 2010. Notes from E- mail Communication between Julia Aslinger, Center for Toxicology, and Environmental Health, LLC and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: PAC Discharge Summary.” (March 22). EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517

DCN 07253.

2. Becker, Jory, 2011. Telephone and E- mail Communication b etween Jory Becker, KY Department of Environmental Protection, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: 2009 DMR Flow and Units for Bulk Plant Flemingsburg and Grayson.” (February 24). EPA

- HA

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07694.

3. Bogaard, Dirk. 2011. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Dirk Bogaard, Water Quality Division of the Idaho Trout Company, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: 2009 DMR Copper Concentrations” (February 24). EPA- HA

- OW

2010-0824 DCN 07695.

4. Bukach, Tammy. 2011. Notes from Telephone and E- mail Communication between Tammy Bukach, Charter Steel Rising Sun, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern ResearchGroup, Inc. “RE: 2009 TRI Zinc and Zinc Compounds Discharges.” (January 21). EPAHA

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07696.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 33 5. Carruth, Darren. 2011. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Darren Carruth, Barton Lexa Water Association, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: 2009 DMR Flow Values and Units.” (January 21). EPA- HA

- OW -2010-0824 DCN

07697.

6. Clark, Billy, 2011. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Billy Clark, Clean Harbors Baton Rouge, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: 2009 DMR Benzidine Discharges” (February 24). EPA

- HA

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07698.

7. Congram, Tony. 2011. Notes from Telephone an d E

- mail Communication between Tony Congram, Suncor Energy, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: 2009 TRI Dioxin Releases and Distribution.” (January 10). EPA- HA

- OW -2010-0824 DCN

07699.

8. Cozad, Marletta. 2011. Notes from Telephone Communic ation Between Marletta Cozad, MDNR, and Kimberly Landick and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: 2009 DMR Lead Discharges for Butler County Landfill.” (February 23). EPA

- HQ

- OW

2010-0824. DCN 07531.

9. Draveland, Steve. 2010. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Steve Draveland, John Morrell & Co. and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: Basis ofMercury and Mercury Compound load reported to TRI in 2008.” (February 12). EPAHQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN 07257.

10. ERG. 2009. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for the 2009 Annual Screening- Level Analysis of TRI, ICIS -NPDES, and PCS Industrial Category Discharge Data. Chantilly, VA. (September). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2008-0517-0507.

11. Graham, George, 2011. Notes from Telephone and E- mail Communicatoin between George Graham, Exxon Mobile Baton Rouge, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. "Re: 2009 TRI PAC Discharges." (January 10). EPA- HQ

- OW -2010-0824

DCN 07693

12. Hayes, Michael. 2011. Telephone and E- mail Communication with Michael Hayes, Sasol North America, Inc. and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: 2009 TRI Dioxin Discharges.” (January 28). EPA- HA

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07700.

13. O’Shaughnessy, Niall. 2011. Email Communication with Neil O’Shaughnessy, RockTenn, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “Request for 2009 DMR Data Clarification.” (June 13). EPA- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07701.

14. Noga, Jeff. 2010. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Jeff Noga, ExxonMobil Oil Corp., and Jessica Wolford, Eastern Research Group, Inc. RE: Joilet Refinery’s hexachlorobenze discharges in 2008. (February 15). EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07303.

15. Northey, Scott. 2011. E-mail Communication with Scott Northey, Dupont Chambers Works, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: 2009 TRI Dupont PCB Discharges.” (February 28). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07702.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 34 16. Schwartz, Jerry, 2011a. E-mail Communication with Jerry Schwartz, AF&PA, and William Swietlik, U.S. EPA, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE:Request for 2009 DMR Data Clarification for Pulp and Paper Mills.” (March 8). EPAHQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07703.

17. Schwartz, Jerry, 2011b. E-mail Communication with Jerry Schwartz, AF&PA, and William Swietlik, U.S. EPA, and Elizabeth Sa bol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: Request for 2009 TRI Data Clarification for Pulp and Paper Mills.” (March 8). EPA- HQ

OW -2010-0824 DCN 07686.

18. Sedano, Monica. 2011. Telephone and E-mail Communication with Monica Sedano, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FL DEP), and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: Hydrogen Sulfide, Unionized Concentrations in DMR 2009.” (February 24). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07687.

19. Smith, Gordon. 2010. Telephone and E- mail Communication with Gordon Smit h, Bayer CropSciences, and Lauren Wingo, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: Bayer CropSciences’ 2008 DMR Pesticide Discharges.” (September 14). EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-

0517 DCN 07268.

20. Smith, Patrick, 2011. Notes from Telephone and E- mail Communication with Patrick Smith, Mountain State Carbon, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: 2009 TRI PAC Discharges”. (January 21). EPA- HA

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07688.

21. Stoudemire, Dale. 2011. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Dale Stoudemire, Bureau of Water, South Carolina DEHC, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: 2009 DMR Mercury Discharges.” (February 24). EPA- HQ

- OW -2010-

0824 DCN 07689.

22. Stuhlfauth, Gary. 2007. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Gary Stuhlfauth, Ohio USEPA, and TJ Finseth, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: Low level mercury discharge requirements on NPDES permits in Ohio.” (January 22). EPA- HQ

- OW -2006-

0771-0487.

23. U.S. EPA. 2000. EPCRA Section 313 Guidance for Reporting Toxic Chemicals Within

the Dioxins and Dioxin- Lik e Compounds Category. EPA-745-B-00- 021. Washington, DC. (December). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2003-0074-1150.

24. U.S. EPA. 2005. Draft Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA 304(m) Planning Process. Washington, DC. June. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-0857.

25. U.S. EPA. 2006a. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. EPA-821-R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-

0032-2782.

26. U.S. EPA. 2006b. Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA 304(m) Planning Process. Washington, DC. (June). EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-1634.Section 3— Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations



### 3

- 35 27. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of ExistingEffluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories. EPA821-R-09-007. Washington, DC. (October). EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517-0515.

28. U.S. EPA. 2010. U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual. Washington, DC. (September). EPA -833-K-10-001. Available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/writermanual.cfm?program_id=45

.

29. U.S. EPA. 2011. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA 820-R-10-021. EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07320.

30. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC.
(May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.

31. VanTassel, Tom. 2011. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Tom VanTassel, Water Quality Division of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: 2009 DMR Copper Concentrations” (February 24). EPA

- HA

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07690.

32. Warren, Lee. 2011a. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Lee Warren, Water Division of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: 2009 DMR Chlorine Discharges at Mueller Company” (February 24). EPA- HA

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07691.

33. Warren, Lee. 2011b. Notes from Telephone and E- mail Communication between Lee Warren, Water Division of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, and Kimberly Lan dick, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: 2009 DMR Chlorine Discharges at Solutia, Inc.” (February 24). EPA- HA

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07692.Section 4— Aluminum Forming (40 CFR Part 467 )



### 4

- 1 4. A LUMINUM 

### F ORMING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 467)

EPA selected the Aluminum Forming Category for preliminary review because it ranks high, in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in the point source category rankings. This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews associated with the Aluminum Forming Category, which focused on discharges of lead from one facility, because of its high TWPE relative to the other facilities in the Aluminum Forming Category.

4.1 Aluminum Forming Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 4-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Aluminum Forming Category from the 2006 through 2011 Annual Reviews. The combined TWPE from discharges in the discharge monitoring repo rt (DMR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) databases decreased from discharge years 2002 to 2007 and increased slightly from 2007 to 2009. The estimated 2009 DMR TWPE accounts for approximately 85 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE, similar to previous years of data.

Table 4-1. Aluminum Forming Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 T hrough 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

Year of Discharge Year of Review Aluminum Forming Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2002 2006 940

, 000 c 61

, 500 1

, 000

, 000 c

2004 2007 3

, 320 27

, 600 309

, 000

200 5 2008 3

, 260 NA NA

2007 2009 2

, 710 12

, 200 14

, 900

2008 2010 5

, 830 32

, 800 38

, 700

2009 2011 5

, 920 33

, 800 39

, 700

Sources: TRIReleas es2002_v4; PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v4; TRIReleases2008_v3; DMRLoads2008_v3; TRIReleases2009_v2; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2002 through 2007 include only major dischargers. 2008 and 2009 DMR data include both minor and major dischargers.

c In the 2006 Annual Reviews, EPA excluded the TWPE for TRI

- reported discharges of PCBs from Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation in Spokane, WA, because a) the estimated release reported to TRI appeared to be an error, b) PCBs are no longer in commerce and therefore not regulated by ELGs, and c) the PCB discharges did not represent the category as a whole. Removing the TRI TWPE, reduce d the TRI TWPE from 940,000 to 5,238 TWPE. As a result, the Aluminum Forming Category ranked 22 nd , outside the categories EPA prioritized for review. See the 2005 Annual Screening

- Level Analysis: Supporting the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Identification of Potential New Categories for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (U.S. EPA, 2005).

NA : Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005.



### 4.2 Aluminum Forming Category Pollutants of Concern

EPA’ s review of the Aluminum Forming Category focused on the 2009 DMR discharges because the 2009 DMR data dominate the category’s combined TWPE. Table 4 -2 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE based on results from the 2011 and 2010 Annual Reviews ( DMRLoads2009_v2 and DMRLoads2008_v3, respectively).Section 4— Aluminum Forming (40 CFR Part 467 )



### 4

- 2 Table 4-2. Aluminum Forming Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 200 8 DMR Data a 2009 DMR Data a

Rank Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant TWPE

Lead 1 6 28,800 1 7 24,800

Cyanide 4 8 173 2 8 6,080

Aluminum 2 17 1,950 3 17 1,490

Fluoride 3 4 1,430 4 4 1,090

Zinc Pollutant not reported in the top five 2008 DMR

reported pollutants. 5 20 124

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 5 1 93 Pollutant not reported in the top five 2009 DMR

reported pollutants.

Aluminum Forming Category Total NA 23 b 32,800 NA 23 b 33,800

Source: DMRLoads2008_v3 and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a DMR data include major and minor dischargers.

b Number of facilities reporting a TWPE of greater than zero. NA: Not applicable.Section 4— Aluminum Forming (40 CFR Part 467 )



### 4

- 3 Lead is the top DMR-reported pollutant in 2008 and 2009 contributing more than 73 percent of the 2009 DMR category TWPE. EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews because they represent less than 27 percent of the 2009 DMR TWPE for the Aluminum Forming Category.

4.3 Aluminum Forming Category Lead Discharges in DMR

Table 4-3 presents the facilities that account for the lead discharges in the 2009 and 2008

DMR databases. The majority (98 percent) of the lead discharges in the 2009 DMR database were from Alcan Rolled Products in Ravenswood, WV. The other five facili ties account for the remaining two percent. Accordingly, EPA’s review of the lead discharges in DMR focused on

Alcan Rolled Products.Section 4— Aluminum Forming (40 CFR Part 467 )



### 4

- 4 Table 4-3. Top Lead Discharging Facilities in 2008 and 2009 DMR Databases

Facility Name Facility Location 2008 a 2009 a

Pounds of

Lead Discharged Lead TWPE Percentage of

Aluminum

Forming Category ’s 2008

DMR Lead

TWPE Pounds of

Lead Discharged Lead

TWPE Percentage of

Aluminum

Forming Category ’s 2009

DMR Lead

TWPE

Alcan Rolled Products Ravenswood, WV 12,800 28,700 >99% 10,800 24,300 98%

Remaining facilities reporting lead discharges b NA 51 114 <1% 238 533 2%

Total 12,900 28,800 100% 11,100 24,800 100%

Source: DMRLoads2008_v3 and DMRLoads2009_v2.

a Major and minor dischargers.

b There are five remaining facilities that have lead discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 2 percent of the category’s lead DMR TWPE.Section 4— Aluminum Forming (40 CFR Part 467 )



### 4

- 5 As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted the West Virgini a Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP) about the lead discharges from Alcan Rolled Products.

WV DEP stated that all lead measurements for 2009 found levels below detection. WV DEP accordingly reported 5 micrograms per liter (μg/L) in their DMRs, half of lead’s minimum detection limit of 10 μg/L (Clevenger, 2011). 5 

### Based on this data, EPA determined that all the lead concentrations were below detectable levels in 2009. As described in Section 3, EPA zeroes the load when all concentrations of a spe cific pollutant are BDL for the year

. By zeroing the lead discharge for Alcan Rolled Products, the total DMR TWPE decreases from 33,800 to 9,530.

4.4 Aluminum Forming Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the Aluminum Forming Category discharges results mainly from the lead discharges of one facility (accounting for 61 percent of the category’s 2009 combined TWPE). Using data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA concludes the following:

• One facility, Alcan Rolled Products, accounted for 98 percent of the 2009 DMR lead TWPE. WV DEP indicated the facility did not detect lead but reported the

concentration as half the detection limit without the BDL indicators. Because all

the lead concentrations were non

- detect, EPA zeroed the load and TWPE in the

DMRLoads2009 database.

• Correcting the BDL indicators for lead decreases the 2009 DMR TWPE to 9,530, making the category’s 2009 combined TWPE 15,500. This change would drop the
category outside the top 95 percent that EPA prioritized for preliminary review as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health a nd the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8-1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

4.5 Aluminum Forming Category References

1. Clevenger, Renee. 2011. Notes From Telephone Communication Between Renee Clevenger, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), and

Kimber ly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: 2009 DMR Lead Discharges. (May 5). EPA- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07561.

2. U.S. EPA. 1994. Method 200.7 Determination of Metals and Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma- Atomic Emissions Spectrometry. Revision 4.4. (Cincinnati, OH). Available online at:

5 WV DEP indicated that the minimum detection limit was 10 milligrams per liter (Clevenger, 2011). EPA believes WV DEP meant 10 μg/L because the facility’s permit requires lead reported in μg/L (WV DEP, 2002) and the method detection limit for EPA Method 200.7 is 10 μg/L (U.S. EPA, 1994).Section 4— Aluminum Forming (40 CFR Part 467 )



### 4

- 6 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/bioindicators/upl oad/2007_07_10_methods_me thod_200_7.pdf. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824

. DCN 07562.

3. U.S. EPA. 2005. 2005 Annual Screening-Level Analysis: Supporting the Annual Review of Existing Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Identification of Potential New Categories for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards. (Washington, D.C). (August). EPA -821-B-05-003. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-0901.

4. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.

5. WV DEP. 2002. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. NPDES Permit: Pechiney Rolled Products, LLC, Ravenswood, WV. (December 30). EPA- HQ

- OW -2010-

0824. DCN 07563.Section 5— Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437 )



### 5

- 1 5. C ENTRALIZED 

### W ASTE 

### T REATMENT 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 437)

EPA selected the Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) Category for preliminary review because it ranks high, in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in the point source category rankings

. EPA previously reviewed discharges from the CWT Category as part of the 2007 and 2008 Annual Reviews (U.S. EPA, 2007, 2008). This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews associated with the CWT Category, which focused on discharges of hexachlorobenzene from one facility, because of its high TWPE relative to the other facilities in the CWT Category.

5.1 CWT Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 5-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the CWT Category from the 2006 through 2011 Annual Reviews. The combined TWPE from discharges in the discharge monitoring report (DMR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) databases decreased from discharge years 2004 to 2008 and increased from 2008 to 2009. The estimated 2009 DMR TWPE accounts for approximately 79 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE, similar to recent years of data.

Table 5-1. CWT Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

Year of Discharge Year of Review CWT Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2002 2006 38,100 3,420 41,500

2004 2007 7,460,000 8,730 7,470,000

200 5 2008 4,280,000 NA NA

2007 2009 3,790 30,900 34,700

2008 2010 6,850 20,300 27,200

2009 2011 10,500 40,500 51,000

Sources: TRIReleases2002_v4; PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v4; TRIReleases2008_v3; DMRLoads2008_v3; TRIReleases2009_v2; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and ac count for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2002 through 2007 include only major dischargers. 2008 and 2009 DMR data include both minor and major dischargers.

NA : Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005.



### 5.2 CWT Category Pollutants of Concern

EP A’s review of the CWT Category focused on the 2009 DMR discharges because the 2009 DMR data dominate the category’s combined TWPE. Table 5-2 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE based on results from the 2011 and 2010 Annual Reviews ( DMRLoads2009_v2 and DMRLoads2008_v3, respectively).

Hexachlorobenzene is the top DMR pollutant in 2009, contributing to more than 78 percent of the 2009 DMR category TWPE. EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews because they represent less than 22 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE for the CWT Category.Section 5— Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437 )



### 5

- 2 Table 5-2. CWT Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 200 8 DMR Data a 2009 DMR Data a

Rank Number of Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE

Hexachlorobenzene Pollutant not reported in the top five 2008 DMR

- reported pollutants. 1 1 31,400

Sulfur 2 2 3,960 2 2 3,360

Benzo(a)pyrene Pollutants not reported in the top five 2008 DMR

- reported pollutants. 3 1 1,590

PCB

- 1242 4 1 535

Chrysene 5 1 501

Chlordane 1 1 7,540

Pollutants not reported in the top five 2009 DMR

- reported pollutants. Cyanide 3 7 1,660

Silver 4 3 1,270

Acrylonitrile 5 2 1,100

CWT Category Total NA 9 b 20,300 NA 9 b 40,500

Sources: DMRLoads2008_v3 and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a DMR data include major and minor dischargers.

b Number of facilities reporting a TWPE of greater than zero. NA: Not applicable.Section 5— Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437 )



### 5

- 3 5.3 CWT Category Hexachlorobenzene Discharges in DMR

Clean Harbors Baton Rouge, LLC (Clean Harbors), in Baton Rouge, LA, accounts for all of the CWT Category’s hexachlorobenzene discharges in the 2009 DMR database. Clean Harbors reports hexachlorobenzene discharges as a quantity (i.e., pounds per day), which is calculated using the measured concentration and flow. Table 5-3 presents Clean Harbors’ monthly hexachlorobenzene quantities for 2007 through 2010. All monthly values are below the detection limit except for December 2009.

As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted the facility about the December 2009 hexachlorobenzene quantity. The facility contact stated that they had measu red hexachlorobenzene at levels below detection, but a laboratory dilution factor error had caused the detection limit to be 400 micrograms per liter (μg/L), 40 times the usual value. Because the value could thus have been anywhere between 0 and 399 μg/L, the facility reported the hexachlorobenzene quantity using the highest possible concentration (399 μg/L) and explained the laboratory’s error in its cover letter with the DMR data (Clark, 2011). The facility contact also stated that besides December 2009, hexachlorobenzene was always measured at levels below detection (Clark, 2011), as shown in Table 5-3

.

As a result, EPA determined that it was appropriate to modify the DMRLoads2009 database by adding the below detection limit (BDL) indicator to the December 2009 hexachlorobenzene discharge, which zeros the facility’s 2009 hexachlorobenzene TWPE and

decreas es the CWT Category’s 2009 combined TWPE to 19,600.

Table 5-3. 2007–2010 Monthly Hexachlorobenzene Discharges for Clean Harbors Baton Rouge as Reported in Discharge Monitoring Reports

Month Quantity (lbs/day)

2007 2008 2009 2010 a

January < 0.051 < 0.051 < 0.051 < 0.101

February < 0.05 < 0.051 < 0.05 < 0.026

March < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.039 0

April < 0.051 < 0.05 < 0.048 0

May < 0.051 < 0.05 < 0.051 0

June < 0.05 < 0.025 < 0.026 < 0.02

August < 0.05 < 0.025 No discharge 0

July < 0.05 < 0.025 < 0.05 0

September < 0.05 No discharge < 0.049 0

October < 0.05 < 0.027 < 0.027 < 0.02

November No discharge < 0.05 < 0.026 0

December < 0.05 No discharge 0.317 No discharge

Source s: Envirofacts ; DMRLoads2007_v4 ; DMRLoads2008_v3 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2.

a 2010 data were pulled from Envirofacts.Section 5— Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437 )



### 5

- 4 5.4 CWT Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the CWT Category discharges results mainly from the hexachlorobenzene discharges of one facility (accounting for 62 percent of the category’s 2009 combined TWPE). Using data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA concludes the following:

• The hexachlorobenzene discharges are from one facility, Clean Harbors Baton Rouge, LLC. The facility measured its December 2009 concentration at levels below detection but reported the quantity without the BDL indicator because a laboratory error caused the detection limit to be 400 μg/L (Clark, 2011). For toxicity rankings analysis database purposes, EPA determined that the BDL indicator should be added to the concentration, which zeros the hexachlorobenzene discharges.

• Correcting the BDL indicator for hexachlorobenzene decreases the 2009 DMR TWPE to 9,100, making the category’s 2009 combined TWPE 19,600. This change would drop the category outside the top 95 percent that EPA prioritized for preliminary review as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews.

EPA prior itizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower prio rity for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8-1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

5.5 CWT Category References

1. Clark, Billy. 2011. Notes From Telephone Communication with Billy Clark, Clean Harbors Baton Rouge, LLC, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: 2009 DMR Hexachlorobenzene Discharges. (May 5). EPA- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN

07565.

2. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA 821-R-07-007. EPA- HQ

OW -2006-0771-0819.

3. U.S. EPA. 2008. Technical Support Document for the 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA 821-R-08-015. EPA- HQ

- OW -2006-0771-1701.

4. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.Section 6— Coal Mining (40 CFR Part 434)



### 6

- 1 6. C OAL 

### M INING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 434)

EPA identified the Coal Mining Category for preliminary review be cause it continues to rank high, in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in point source category rankings. This industry was reviewed previously in EPA’s Preliminary and Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans from 2004 to 2006 (U.S. EPA, 2004, 2005, 2006). EPA also conducted a detailed study of the Coal Mining Category during the 2007 and 2008 Annual Reviews (U.S. EPA, 2008). This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews associated with the Coal Mining Category. EPA focused on discharges of manganese and iron because of their high TWPE relative to the rest of the Coal Mining Category.

6.1 Coal Mining Category Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 6-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Coal Mining Cat egory from 2006 through 2011

. The combined TWPE from discharges in the discharge monitoring report (DMR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) databases increased using 2008 data because the 2002 through 2007 DMR databases excluded minor dischargers. The DMR and TRI database

TWPE de creased from discharge year 2008 to 2009.

Table 6-1. Coal Mining Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

Year of Discharge Year of Review Coal Mining Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2002 2006 3,120 1,91 0 5,030

2004 2007 1,190 2,490 3,680

2005 2008 745 NA NA

2007 2009 493 2

, 29 0 2,780

2008 2010 1,280 76,400 77,700

2009 2011 1,010 65,800 66,800

Source s : TRIReleases2002 _v4 ; PCSLoads2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2004_v3 ; PCSLoads2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v2 ; TRIReleases2007_v2 ; DMRLoads2007_v4 ; TRIReleases2008_v3 ; DMRLoads2008_v2 ; TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2002 through 2007 only include major dischargers. 2008 and 2009 DMR data include both minor and major dischargers.

NA : Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005.



### It is important to note that discharges for the majority of coal mines are not included in the TRI or DMR databases. There are over 1,000 active coal mines in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2008). TRI contains data for facilities in certain SIC codes, including those for coal mining (1221, 1222, and 1231). However, only coal mines with at least 10 full- time employees or their equivalent, and that manufacture, use, or otherwise process certain chemicals at or above an activity threshold report to TRI (U.S. EPA, 2009). The 2008 Coal Mining Detailed Study found that only 21 coal mines had data in TRI (U.S. EPA, 2008). For DMR data, many states classify discharges from coal mines as “minor dischargers” and, as a res ult, do not enter DMR data into EPA’s ICISNPDES or PCS systems. EPA’s 2008 Detailed Study for the Coal Mining Point Source CategorySection 6— Coal Mining (40 CFR Part 434)



### 6

- 2 found that less than one-fourth of the coal mines were represented in the EPA’s DMR storage system (U.S. EPA, 2008).

6.2 Coal Mining Manufacturing Category Pollutants of Concern

EPA’s review of the Coal Mining Category focused on the 2009 DMR discharges because the 2009 DMR data dominate the category’s combined TWPE. Table 6-2 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE based on results from the 2011 and 2010 Annual Reviews ( DMRLoads2009_v2 and DMRLoads2008_v3, respectively).

Manganese and iron are the top two DMR pollutants in 2009, contributing more than 77 percent of the total category TWPE. Manganese and iron were also the top pollutants in the 2008 DMR database and were reviewed as part of the Coal Mining Detailed Study during the 2007 and 2008 Annual Reviews (U.S. EPA, 2008). EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews because they represent a small percentage (less than 23 percent) of the 2009 DMR TWPE for the Coal Mining Category.

Table 6-2. Coal Mining Manufacturing Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 200 8 DMR Data a 2009 DMR Data a

Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE

Manganese 1 46 80,900 1 57 36,000

Iron 2 133 11,900 2 151 14,600

Mercury Pollutant not reported in the top five 2009

DMR

- reported pollutants. 3 4 6,190

Sulfate 4 36 8,550 4 52 3,630

Chloride 3 33 8,810 5 48 3,360

Magnesium 5 2 1,130 Pollutant not reported in the top five 2009

DMR

- reported pollutants.

Coal Mining Category Total NA 137 b 112,000 NA 166 b 65,800

Sources: DMRLoads2008_v3 and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a DMR data include major and minor dischargers.

b Number of facilities reporting a TWPE of greater than zero. NA: Not applicable.



### 6.3 Coal Mining Category Iron and Manganese Discharges in DMR

Table 6-3 presents the Coal Mining Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) limits for manganese and iron for the Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage subcategory (Subcategory C). See Section 4 of the Coal Mining Detailed Study for additional details on the Coal Mining ELGs (U.S. EPA, 2008).Section 6— Coal Mining (40 CFR Part 434)



### 6

- 3 Table 6-3. Coal Mining ELGs Subpart C Manganese an d Iron Limits

Subpart C Manganese Limits Iron Limits

Daily Maximum (mg/L) Monthly Average (mg/L) Daily Maximum (mg/L) Monthly Average (mg/L)

BPT/BAT 4 2 7 3.5

NSPS 4 2 6 3

Source : Coal Mining Point Source Category BPT, BAT, BCT Limitations and New Source Performance

Standards

— 40 CFR Part 434.

BAT : Best available technology economical achievable.

BPT : Best practicable control technology.

NSPS : New source performance standards.



### Table 6-4 presents the facilities that account for the manganese and iron compound discharges in the 2009 DMR database. Forty- six percent of the manganese and iron discharges are from the top facility, Freeman United Coal–I ndustry. The next two facilities, Freeman United

Coal –Crown 2 and Freeman United Coal–Crown 3, account for 28 percent of the manganese and iron discharges. EPA did not investigate the remaining facilities discharging manganese and/or iron as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews.

Table 6-4. Top Manganese and Iron Discharging Facilities in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Facility

Location Pounds of Manganese and

Iron Discharged Manganese and

Iron TWPE Percentage of Coal Mining Category ’s 2009 DMR Manganese and

Iron TWPE

Freeman United Coal

– Industry Industry, IL 1,570,000 23,100 46%

Freeman United Coal

– Crown 2 Virden, IL 212,000 10,500 21%

Freeman United Coal

– Crown 3 Farmersville, IL 93,800 3,400 7%

Remaining Facilities Reporting Manganese or Iron Discharges a 1,250,000 13,600 27%

Total 3,120,000 50,600 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009_v2.

a There are 205 remaining facilities that have manganese and/or iron discharges in the 2009 DMR databa se, which account for 27 percent of the category’s manganese and iron DMR TWPE.



### Freeman United Coal– Industry

Freeman United Coal –Industry in Industry, IL, is the top manganese and iron discharging facility. Freeman United Coal –Industry discharges manganese and iron from 12 outfal ls. In reviewing the facility’s 2009 flows, EPA noted that eight of the outfalls had listed flows in 2009 that were 1,000 times greater than in other years. Because previous year’s data show a consistent difference in the order of magnitude, EPA assumed th at a units error caused the increase in flow. Assuming this to be an error, EPA corrected those eight outfalls’ flows to be on the same order of magnitude as the other four outfalls’ flow. Table 6-5 presents the original and corrected flows, along with the original and corrected iron and manganese TWPE. Using the corrected flows, theSection 6— Coal Mining (40 CFR Part 434)



### 6

- 4 facility’s iron and manganese TWPE decreases to 270 and its overall total TWPE decreases from 24,400 to 1,510.

Table 6-5. Freeman United Coal–Industry 2009 Original DMR and Corrected Flow Discharges

Outfall Original Flow (MGD) Corrected Flow (MGD) TWPE

Original

Iron Corrected

Iron Original Manganese Corrected Manganese

002 67.9 0.0679 685 1.03 9,130 13.8

003 8.61 0.00861 88.1 0.105 611 0.738

009 0.148 NC 2.05 NC 49 NC

018 0.035 NC 0.431 NC 36.1 NC

019 0.062 NC 0 NC 157 NC

24W 0.0283 NC 0.426 NC 8.31 NC

026 15.3 0.0153 326 0.391 5,640 6.80

029 8.1 0.0081 162 0.195 NA NA

030 69.9 0.0699 312 0.375 NA NA

031 30.4 0.0304 5,140 5.14 NA NA

032 4 0.004 86.3 0.086 NA NA

033 15.3 0.0153 723 2.17 NA NA

Total TWPE 7,520 12.4 15,600 272

Sources: DMRLoads2009_v2 and coal mining supporting calculations (ERG, 2011).

NA : Not a pplicable. Facility did not report m anganese discharges for these outfalls. NC: No change. EPA did not correct the flow for this outfall because the order of magnitude matched f lows from previous years.



### In addition to the flow corrections, EPA identified that some of Freeman United Coal– Industry’s manganese and iron discharges were above their proposed permit limits, which are equivalent to or more stringent than the ELGs. The proposed limits are from an October 2010 public notice on the facility’s NPDES permits (IL EPA, 2010) and may not reflect the limits in place in 2009.

Table 6-6 presents the ranges of manganese and iron concentrations, the proposed permit limits, and the percent of concentrations that are above the proposed permit li mits for each outfall. For manganese, approximately 64 percent of the monthly average concentrations and 72 percent of the daily maximum concentrations are above the proposed permit limits. For iron, approximately 8 percent of the monthly average concentrations and 2 percent of the daily maximum concentrations were above the proposed permit limits. As shown in Table 6-6

, Freeman United Coal –Industry’s manganese and iron discharges exceed the proposed permit limits. Additionally, the ranges of manganese and iron concentrations exceed the ELG limits listed for the subcategory in Table 6-3 , which are less stringent than the proposed permit limits below. Permit exceedances do not warrant the need for further regulation but rather better facility -specific compliance support.Section 6— Coal Mining (40 CFR Part 434)



### 6

- 5 Table 6-6 . Freema n United Coal –Industry’s 2009 Manganese and Iron Concentrations

Outfall Monthly Average Concentrations (mg/L) Daily Maximum Concentrations (mg/L)

Range Proposed

Permit

Limits a Percentage Above Proposed Permit

Limits Range Proposed

Permit

Limits a Percentage Above Proposed Permit

Limits

Manganese Discharges

002 0.248

– 1.76 1 38% 0.248

– 1.81 1 38%

003 0.102

– 1.04 1 10% 0.13

– 1.64 1 20%

009 0.266

– 2.69 1 67% 0.648

– 3.26 1 92%

018 1.33

– 13.6 1 100% 1.96

– 14.1 1 100%

019 0.49

– 59 1 83% 0.49

– 61 1 92%

024W 0.411

– 3.53 1 58% 0.479

– 3.53 1 58%

026 0.284

– 4.71 1 80% 0.54

– 8.6 1 90%

Manganese Discharges

for All

Outfalls 0.102

– 59 64% 0.13

– 61 72%

Iron Discharges

003 b 0.07

– 1.8 3.5 0% 0.09

– 3.33 7 0%

009 b 0.137

– 5.79 3.5 7% 0.18

– 5.79 7 0%

018 b 0.219

– 2.48 3.5 0% 0.3

– 3.69 7 0%

019 b 1.5

– 1.5 3.5 0% 1.5

– 1.5 7 0%

024W 0.091

– 4.82 3 7% 0.321

– 4.82 6 0%

026 0.198

– 3.33 3 10% 0.24

– 5.86 6 0%

029 0.376

– 2.36 3 0% 0.557

– 3.74 6 0%

030 0.093

– 1.26 3 0% 0.099

– 3.21 6 0%

031 2.31

– 11.9 3 67% 4.33

– 15.4 6 33%

032 0.381

– 1.57 3 0% 0.628

– 3.99 6 0%

033 8.13

– 8.13 3 100% 12.8

– 12.8 6 100%

Iron Discharges

for All

Outfalls 0.07

– 11.85 8% 0.09

– 15.4 2%

Source: DMRLoads2009_v2.

a The proposed permit limits are listed in the public notice for their future permit (IL EPA, 2010).

b These outfalls are permitted using the 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart C BAT limits because discharges began before July 27, 1987 (IL EPA, 2010).



### Freeman United Coal– Crown 2

Freeman United Coal –Crown 2 in Virden, IL, is the second top manganese and iron discharging fac ility. Freeman United Coal –Crown 2 discharges manganese and iron from outfall 001. As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted the facility about their 2009 flows and received corrected data from the facility contact. Table 6-7 presents the original and corrected flows, along with the original and corrected iron and manganese TWPE. Using the corrected flows, the facility’s iron and manganese TWPE decreases to 836. This will decrease the facility’s overall total TWPE from 12,100 to 961.Section 6— Coal Mining (40 CFR Part 434)



### 6

- 6 Table 6-7. Freeman United Coal–Crown 2 2009 Original DMR and Corrected Flow Discharges

Outfall Original Flow (MGD) Corrected Flow (MGD ) TWPE

Original

Iron Corrected

Iron Original Manganese Corrected Manganese

Crown 2

001 82.5 2.38 381 30.2 10,100 805

Sources: DMRLoads2009_v2 ; facility contact (Austin, 2011); and coal mining supporting calculations (ERG, 2011).



### Freeman United Coal– Crown 3

Freeman United Coal –Crown 3 in Industry, IL, is the third top manganese and iron discharging facility. Freeman United Coal –Crown 3 discharges manganese and iron from two outfalls, 001 and 002. As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted the facility about their 2009 flows and received corrected data from the facility contact. Table 6-8 presents the original and corrected flows, along with the original and corrected iron and manganese TWPE. Using the corrected flows, the facility’s iron and manganese TWPE decreases to 6.37. This will decrease the facility’s overall total TWPE from 6,230 to 11.8.

Table 6-8. Freeman United Coal – Crown 3 2009 Original DMR and Corrected Flow Discharges

Outfall Original Flow (MGD) Corrected Flow (MGD) TWPE

Original

Iron Corrected

Iron Original Manganese Corrected Manganese

Crown 3

001 0.166 116 208 0.385 2,350 5.81

002 0.042 29.5 67.6 0.175 NA NA

Total TWPE 276 0.559 2,350 5.81

Sources: DMRLoads2009_v2 ; facility contact (Austin, 2011); and coal mining supporting calculations (ERG, 2011).

NA : Not applicable. Facility did not report manganese discharges for these outfalls.



### 6.4 Coal Mining Pollutants Not Currently Regulated by Part 434

Some states and stakeholders have identified concerns with pollutants beyond those regulated in Part 434. For example, West Virginia regulates aluminum, selenium, and TDS in coal mining drainage based on state water quality criteria. The 2008 Coal Mining Detailed Study identified data on pollutants of concern not regulated by Part 434, including aluminum, cadmium, selenium, and total dissolved solids/conductivity (U.S. EPA, 2008).

6.5 Coal Mining Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the Coal Mining C ategory discharges resulted from manganese and manganese compounds and iron and iron compounds. Data collected for the 2011 Annual

R eview s demonstrate that wastewater discharge characteristics for this category are consistent with discharges from prior yea rs. Using data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA concludes the following:Section 6— Coal Mining (40 CFR Part 434)



### 6

- 7 • One facility

, Freeman United Coal

– Industry, a ccount s for 46 percent of the category’s manganese and iron 2009 DMR discharges. EPA determined that some of the facility’s outf alls had listed flows that were 1,000 times greater in 2009 than in other years. Correcting the flows results in a reduction in the facility’s TWPE from 24,400 to 1,510. Additionally, more than 64 percent of the manganese discharges and 2 percent of the iron discharges exceed the facility’s proposed permit limits, which are equivalent to or more stringent than the ELGs. Permit limit exceedances do not warrant the need for further regulation but rather better facility -specific compliance support. As new data become available, EPA will review the manganese and iron discharges from Freeman United Coal

– Industry to determine if the same conclusion applies.

• Freeman United Coal –Crown 2 and Freeman United Coal–Crown 3 account for 21 percent and 7 percent of the category’s manganese and iron 2009 DMR discharges, respectively. EPA determined that there was an error in the flows for both facilities, which the facility contact corrected. Correcting the flows for both

facilities results in a reduction in the TWPE from 12 ,100 to 961 for Freeman United Coal–Crown 2 and 6,230 to 11.8 for Freeman United Coal–Crown 3.

• Correcting the database errors identified during the 2011 Annual R eview s decreases the 2009 Coal Mining Category TWPE from 66,800 to 26,600. This change would drop the category outside the top 95 percent that EPA prioritized for preliminary review as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews.

• Based solely on the 2011 toxicity ranking analysis, the Coal Mining category would be ranked a lower priority for revision. However, the Coal Mining Category (Part 434) is under represented in the databases EPA uses in the toxicity ranking analysis. Furthermore, Part 434 currently only regulates pH, total suspended solids, iron, and manganese; while coal mine drainage also contains

elev ated levels of aluminum, selenium, and total dissolved solids.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as

TWPE. Based o n the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8 -1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

6.6 Coal Mining Category References

1. Austin, Thomas. 2011. Telephone and Email Communication with Thomas Austin, Freeman United Coal, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: 2009 DMR Flow Discharges. (June 30). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07580.

2. ERG. 2011. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Coal Mining Supporting Calculations. (July)

. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07581.

3. IL EPA . 2010. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. NPDES Permit: Springfield Coal Company, Industry, IL. (October 13). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07582.Section 6— Coal Mining (40 CFR Part 434)



### 6

- 8 4. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . EPA -821-R-04-014. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA- HQ

- OW -2003-0074-1346 through 1352.

5. U.S. EPA. 2005. Preliminary 2005 Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial Dischargers . EPA -821-B-05-004. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-

0032-0016.

6. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . EPA -821-R-06-018. Washington, D. C. (D ecember). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-

2782.

7. U.S. EPA. 2008. Coal Mining Detailed Study. EPA-821-R-08-012. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2006-0771-1695.

8. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing

Effluent Guidelines and Iden tification of Potential New Point Source Categories . EPA

821-R-09-007. Washington, DC. ( October ). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2008-0517-0515.

9. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.Section 7— Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418)



### 7

- 1 7. F ERTILIZER 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 418)

EPA selected the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category for preliminary review because it continues to rank high, in te rms of toxic -weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in the point source category rankings. EPA has reviewed facility discharges from this category in past years of review (2004–2009) (U.S. EPA, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009). The Final 2010 Plan

summarizes the results of EPA’s review of this industry in 2010 (U.S. EPA, 2011). This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews, which focused on discharges of fluoride from two facilities due to their high TWPE relative to the other facilities in the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category.

7.1 Fertil izer Manufacturing Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 7-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category from the 2006 through 2011 Annual Reviews. The combined TWPE from discharges in the discharge monitoring report (DMR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) databases decreased from discharge years 2002 to 2008 and increased slightly from 2008 to 2009. The estimated 2009 DMR TWPE accounts for approximately 99 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE, similar to previous years of data.

Table 7-1. Fertilizer Manufacturing Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

Year of Discharge Year of Review Fertilizer Manufacturing Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2002 2006 9,100 1,370,000 1,380,000

2004 2007 10,800 1,170,000 1,180,000

200 5 2008 7,300 NA NA

2007 2009 4,460 1,095,000 1,100,000

2008 2010 8,120 818,000 826,000

2009 2011 9,550 902,000 912,000

Sources: TRIReleases2002_v4 ; PCSLoads2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2004_v3 ; PCSLoads2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v2 ; TRIReleases2007_v2 ; DMRLoads2007_v4 ; TRIReleases2008_v3 ; DMRLoads2008_v3 ; TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2002 through 2007 include only major dischargers. 2008 and 2009 DMR data include both minor and major dischargers.

NA

– Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005.



### 7.2 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Pollutants of Concern

EPA’s review of the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category fo cused on the 2009 DMR discharges because the 2009 DMR data dominates the category’s combined TWPE. Table 7-2 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE based on results from the 2011 and 2010 Annual Reviews ( DMRLoads2009_v2 and DMRLoads2008_v3, respectively).Section 7— Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418)



### 7

- 2 Table 7-2. Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 200 8 DMR Data a 2009 DMR Data a

Rank Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant TWPE

Fluoride 1 3 778,000 1 3 875,000

Aluminum 3 1 13,300 2 1 16,700

Cadmium 4 1 6,710 3 2 6,580

Ammonia as nitrogen 2 27 16,000 4 24 1,700

Nitrogen Pollutant not reported in the top five 2009 DMR

reported pollutants. 5 13 605

2,4

- dichlorophenoxyacetic a cid 5 1 1,750 Pollutant not reported in the top five 2009 DMR

reported pollutants.

Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Total NA 36 b 818,000 NA 31 b 902,000

Sources: DMRLoads2008_v 3 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a DMR data include major and minor dischargers.

b Number of facilities reporting a TWPE of greater than zero.

NA

– Not applicable.Section 7— Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418)



### 7

- 3 Fluoride is the top DMR-reported pollutant in 2008 and 2009, contributing more than 99 percent of the total category TWPE. Fluoride was also the primary reason for the review using 2004 and 2007 DMR data (U.S. EPA, 2007; U.S. EPA, 2009). EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2010 or 2011 Annual Reviews because the other pollutants represent a small percentage (less than one percent) of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE for the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category.

7.3 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Fluoride Discharges in DMR

Table 7-3 presents three facilities that account for all of the fluoride discharges in the

2009 and 2008 DMR databases. The majority (9 9 percent) of the fluoride discharges in 2009 were from Mosaic Fertilizers, LLC, in Uncle Sam, LA, and IMC Phosphates in St. James, LA. The other facility, Mississippi Phosphates Corporation in Pascagoula, MS, accounts for the remaining one percent. These facilities generate wastewater -containing fluoride while manufacturing wet -process phosphoric acid, which is used in phosphatic fertilizer manufacturing (U.S. EPA, 1974). See the Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. EPA, 2006) for descriptions of the wet-process phosphoric acid process (Section 8.5.1), wastewater sources of fluoride (Section 8.5.2), and wastewater treatment of fluoride (Section 8.5.3).Section 7— Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418)



### 7

- 4 Table 7-3. Top Fluoride-Discharging Facilities in 2008 and 2009 DMR Databases

Facility Name Facility Location 2008 a 2009 a

Pounds of

Fluoride Discharged Fluoride TWPE Percentage of

Fertilizer Manufacturing Category ’s 2008

DMR Fluoride

TWPE Pounds of

Fluoride Discharged Fluoride

TWPE Percentage of

Fertilizer Manufacturing Category ’s 2009

DMR Fluoride

TWPE

Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Uncle Sam, LA 23,500,000 705,000 91% 27,200,000 816,000 93%

IMC Phosphates Co

. St James, LA 2,000,000 59,900 8% 1,500,000 46,400 5%

Mississippi Phosphates Corp

. Pascagoula, MS 452,000 13,600 1% 414,000 12,400 1%

Total 25,900,000 778,000 100% 29,200,000 875,000 100%

Source s: DMRLoads2008_v3 and DMRLoads2009_v2.

a Major and minor dischargers.Section 7— Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418)



### 7

- 5 Both of t he top facilities in the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category are phosphate fertilizer

manufacturers . Phosphate fertilizer manufacturers are subject to 40 CFR Part 418 Subpart A, “Phosphate Subcategory.” Subpart A BAT includes limits on flow- based surge capacity and pollutant discharge concentrations. The flow-based requirements (U.S. EPA, 1974) are:

• Zero discharge of wastewater except from the gypsum storage and disposal area.

• Maintenance of a surge capacity for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event (BPT) or a

25- year, 24-hour storm event (BAT) in the gypsum storage and disposal area.

• If stored wastewater reaches 50 percent of the required surge capacity, the facility

is allowed to discharge treated wastewater

.

• If stored wastewater exceeds 50 percent of the required surge capacity, the facility

is required to treat and discharge wastewater

.

• During discharge events, the facili ty is required to meet limitations for phosphorus, fluoride (25 milligrams per liter monthly average and 75 milligrams per liter daily maximum), total suspended solids, and pH.

The applicability of Subpart A excludes certain wet -process phosphoric acid processes from BPT, BAT, and BCT limitations that were under construction either on or before April 8, 1974, at plants located in t he state of Louisiana. As a result, the Mosaic Fertilizers facility in Uncle Sam (previously owned by IMC Phosphates) and the IMC Phosphates facility in St. James are excluded from Subpart A. Permit writers limit discharges from these facilities using facility

specific permitting support (see 52 FR 28428, July 29, 1987). See the Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (Section 8.5.4) for information on how discharges from these facilities are permitted (U.S. EPA, 2006).

7.4 Fert ilizer Manufacturing Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category discharges results mainly from the fluoride discharges of two facilities (accounting for 95 percent of the category’s 2009 combined TWPE), which are excluded from the Subpart A applicability. Data collected for the

2011 Annual R eview s demonstrated that wastewater discharge characteristics for this category are consistent with discharges from prior years. Using data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA concludes the following:

• The two facilities that accounted for 99 percent of the fluoride discharges, Mosaic Fertilizers’ Uncle Sam facility and IMC Phosphates’ St. James facility, are exempt from 40 CFR Part 418 Subpart A. The permit limits are based on facility

specific permitting suppo rt (U.S. EPA, 2011 ). These facilities do not represent the category as a whole because they are exempt from Part 418 (see 52 FR 28428, July 29, 1987).

• The total 2009 TWPE excluding the fluoride discharges from these t wo facilities is 16,300. This change would drop the category outside the top 95 percent that EPA prioritized for preliminary review as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews.Section 7— Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418)



### 7

- 6 EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revisio n based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8-1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

7.5 Fertilizer Manufacturing Category References

1. U.S. EPA. 1974. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Basic Fertilizer Chemicals Segment of the Fertilizer Manufacturing Point Source Category . Washington, D.C. (March). EPA-440-1-

75-042- a.

2. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (August). EPA 821-R-04-014. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2003-0074-1346 through 1352.

3. U.S. EPA. 2005. Preliminary 2005 Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial Dischargers . Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-B-05-004. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-

0032-0053.

4. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (December). EPA-821-R-06-018. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-

2782.

5. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan . Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-821-R-07-007. EPA

- HQ

OW -2006-0771-0819.

6. U.S. EPA. 2008. Technical Support Document for the 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-R-08-015. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2006-0771-1701.

7. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan . Washington, DC. (October). EPA-821-R-09-006. EPA

- HQ

OW -2008-0517-0515.

8. U.S. EPA. 2011. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (October). EPA 820-R-10-021. EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07320.

9. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.Section 8—I norganic C hemicals M anufacturing (40 CFR P art 415)



### 8

- 1 8. I NORGANIC 

### C HEMICALS 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 415)

EPA selected the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (Inorganic Chemicals) Category for preliminary review because it continues to rank high, in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in the point source category rankings. The Final 2010 Plan (U.S. EPA, 2011) summarizes the results of EPA’s 2010 review of this industry. EPA also reviewed discharges from the Inorganic Chemicals Category as part of the 2004 through 2009 Annual Reviews, except for 2008 (U.S. EPA, 2004a, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009). This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews associated with the Inorganic Chemicals Category. EPA focused on discharges of manganese and manganese compounds and dioxin and dioxin- like compounds because of their h igh TWPE relative to the rest of the Inorganic Chemicals Category.

EPA has reviewed discharges from the Chlor-Alkali Subcategory as part of the Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons e ffluent g uidelines rulemaking. Because a rulemaking for this segment of t he Inorganic Chemicals Category began in 2005, and given EPA's findings on the industry , EPA excluded discharges from these facilities from a further toxicity ranking analysis

in this year's review (see Table V -1, 76 FR 66286, October 26, 2011).

8.1 Inorganic Chemicals Category Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 8-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Inorganic Chemicals

Cat egory from the 2006 through 2011 Annual Reviews . The combined TWPE from discharges in the discharge monitoring report (DMR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) databases increased

from discharge years 2002 to 2004, and de creased from discharge year 2007 to 2009.

Table 8-1 . Inorganic Chemicals Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

Year of Discharge Year of Review Inorganic Chemicals Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2002 2006 186,000 107,000 293,000

2004 2007 123,000 316,000 439,000

2005 2008 92,100 NA NA

2007 2009 54,700 394,000 449,000

2008 2010 71,300 228,000 299,000

2009 2011 72,500 51,300 124,000

Source s : TRIReleases2002_v4 ; PCSLoads2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2004_v3 ; PCSLoads2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v2 ; TRIReleases2007_v2 ; DMRLoads2007_v4 ; TRIReleases2008_v3 ; DMRLoads2008_v2 ; TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2002 through 2007 only include major dischargers. 2008 and 2009 DMR data include both minor and major dischargers.

NA : Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005.



### 8.2 Inorganic Chemicals Category Pollutants of Concern

EPA’s review of the Inorganic Chemicals Category focused on the 2009 TRI discharges because the 2009 TRI data account for 58 percent of the category’s combined TWPE. Table 8-2Section 8—I norganic C hemicals M anufacturing (40 CFR P art 415)



### 8

- 2 lists the five pollutants with the highest TRI TWPE based on results from the 2011 and 2010 Annual Reviews ( TRIReleases2009_v2 and TRIReleases2008_v3, respectively).

The top two pollutants in the TRI database, manganese and manganese compounds and dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, account for approximately 68 percent of the category’s 2009 TRI TWPE. These two pollutants have consistently accounted for the majority of the Inorganic Chemicals Category TWPE:

• Manganese and manganese compounds have been the top TRI-reported pollutant in the 2004, 2008, and 2009 rankings databases (U.S. EPA, 2011).

• Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are the second top TRI-reported pollutant in the 2009 rankings database and were also the top TRI-reported pollutant in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2006).

EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews because the other pollutants represent less than 32 percent of the category’s 2009 TRI TWPE.Section 8—I norganic C hemicals M anufacturing (40 CFR P art 415)



### 8

- 3 Table 8-2. Inorganic Chemicals Category Top TRI Pollutants

Pollutant 200 8 TRI Data a 2009 TRI Data a

Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE

Manganese and m anganese c ompounds 1 26 38,200 1 24 35,800

Dioxin and dioxin

- like compounds Pollutants not reported in the top five 2008 TRI

reported pollutants. 2 7 13,800

Arsenic and a rsenic c ompounds 3 5 6,100 3 6 6,140

Nitrate c ompounds 4 49 5,340 4 49 3,910

Mercury and m ercury c ompounds 2 10 6,680 5 11 3,510

Polychlorinated b iphenyls (PCBs) 5 2 3,570 Pollutants not reported in the top five 2009 TRI

reported pollutants.

Inorganic Chemicals Category Total NA 16 1 b 71,300 NA 153 b 72,500

Source s : TRIReleases2007_v2 and TRIReleases2008_v3

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b Number of facilities re porting TWPE greater than zero.

NA : Not applicable.Section 8—I norganic C hemicals M anufacturing (40 CFR P art 415)



### 8

- 4 8.3 Inorganic Chemicals Category Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharges

in TRI

Table 8-3 presents the facilities that account for the manganese and manganese compound discharges in the 2009 TRI database. Two plants are responsible for 65 percent of these discharges: Tronox Pigments, Inc. (Tronox Pigments), and Tronox LLC.

Tronox Pigments and Tronox LLC both manufacture titanium dioxide (Blackmon, 2011; Freeze, 2011). Previous annual reviews hav e identified titanium dioxide manufacturers as facilities with high manganese and manganese compound discharges. EPA focused its additional review for the 2011 Annual Reviews on discharges from Tronox Pigments and Tronox LLC.

Table 8-3. Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharging Facilities in the Inorganic Chemicals Category in the 2009 TRI Database

Facility Name Facility Location Pollutant

TWPE Facility Percent of Manganese and Manganese Compounds Categ ory TWPE

Tronox Pigments, Inc. Savannah, GA 11,700 33%

Tronox LLC Hamilton, MS 11,600 32%

Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Inc.

Hawkins Point Plant Baltimore, MD 6,880 19%

DuPont Edgemoor Edgemoor, DE 2,440 7%

Remaining facilities reporting manganese and manganese compound discharges a NA 3,220 9%

Total NA 35,800 100%

Source: TRIReleases2009 _v2

.

a There are 20 remaining facilities that have manganese and manganese compound discharges in the 2009 TRI database, which account for 9 percent of the category’s manganese and manganese compound TRI TWPE. NA: Not applicable.



### 8.3.1 Tronox Pigments , Inc.

Tronox Pigments in Savannah, GA, is the top manganese and manganese compound discharging facility. As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted the facility and confirmed the manganese discharges were not reporting errors. However, Tronox representati ves stated that manganese discharges resulted from their titanium dioxide manufacturing, which was shutdown in August 2009 (Blackmon, 2011). The facility continues to operate its sulfuric acid plant (Blackmon, 2011; Tronox, 2007). As shown in Table 8-4 , Tronox Pigments’ manganese and manganese compound TWPE decreased from 2007 to 2009. Tronox Pigments did not reportmanganese and manganese compound discharges in 2010, confirming that the manganesegenerating operation has been shutdown.

Tronox Pigments also filed bankruptcy in 2009. The facility is in litigation with Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, causing many of its operations to be shutdown. Given the

shutdown of the operation that generates manganese and ongoing litigation, the facility’s operations and discharges are not likely representative of other facilities in the category (U.S. EPA, 2010).Section 8—I norganic C hemicals M anufacturing (40 CFR P art 415)



### 8

- 5 Table 8-4. Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharges for Tronox Pigments, Inc.

Year of Discharge Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharge (lbs) Manganese and Manganese Compounds TWPE

2005 466,000 32,800

2006 257,000 18,100

2007 282,000 19,900

200 8 230,000 16,100

2009 167,0 0 0 11,700

2010 NR NR

Source s : TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2006_v1; TRIReleases2008_v2 ; TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and Envirofacts

. NR

– Not r eported.



### 8.3.2 Tronox LLC

Tronox LLC in Hamilton, MS, is the second top manganese and manganese compound discharging facility in the 2009 TRI database, with 165,000 pounds discharged. EPA contacted the facility as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews and confirmed that the toxicity rankings databases accurately quantify the manganese discharges. Tronox LLC stated that the manganese discharges were higher than usual in 2009 due to unusually high stormwater runoff entering their settling ponds, which Tronox LLC considered a process upset and not representative of normal operating conditions (Freeze, 2011).

The facility contact a lso provided manganese discharge data for 2008 through 2010 and confirmed that its titanium dioxide plant generates manganese

- containing wastewater (Freeze,

2011 ). Table 8-5 presents the manganese discharges the facility provided, along with those listed

in the TRI database for the same period. T he data confirm the site’s information that the 2009 discharge is greater than in 2008 and 2010 because of the process upset. EPA concludes that the increased manganese and manganese compound discharges for 2009 were a result of a process upset and are not likely representative of other facilities in the category.

Table 8-5. Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharges for Tronox LLC

Year of Discharge Facility Provided Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharge (lb) a Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharges in TRI Database

Discharge (lb) TWPE

2008 90,400 89,400 6,300

2009 165,000 165,000 11,600

2010 124,000 124,000 8,730

Source: Facility contact (Freeze, 2011).

a Discharges are from outfalls 101 and 201. Outfall 101 carries cooling water and stormwater runoff; outfall 201 carries process water, sanitary water, and stormwater runoff from process areas.



### 8.4 Inorganic Chemicals Category Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Compound Discharges in

TRI

The second top pollutant in the 2009 TRI database is dioxin and dioxin-like compounds.

Table 8-6 presents the facilities that account for the dioxin and dioxin

- like compound dischargesSection 8—I norganic C hemicals M anufacturing (40 CFR P art 415)



### 8

- 6 in the 2009 TRI database. Eighty- six percent of these discharges are fr om one facility, DuPont Edgemoor.

Table 8-6. Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Compound Discharging Facilities

in the 2009 TRI Database

Facility Name Facility

Location Pollutant

TWPE Facility Percent of Dioxin and

Dioxin

- Like Compounds Category TWPE

DuPont Edgemoor Edgemoor, DE 11,800 86%

Remaining facilities reporting dioxin and

dioxin

- like compound discharges a NA 1,970 14%

Total NA 13,800 100%

Source: TRIReleases2009 _v2

.

a There are six remaining facilities that have dioxin and dioxin

- like compound discharges in the 2009 TRI database, which account for 14 percent of the category’s dioxin and dioxin

- like compounds TRI TWPE. NA: Not applicable.



### Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds form during the chloride- ilmenite titanium dioxide manufacturing process (U.S. EPA, 2006). The DuPont Edgemoor facility manufactures titaniumdioxide using the chloride-ilmenite process and indicated that discharges of dioxin and dioxinlike compounds had decreased since the facility installed a “PBT Unit” in 2001 to remove

additional solids. Table 8-7 presents the dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges for DuPont Edgemoor for discharge years 2002 to 2009.

Table 8-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Discharges for DuPont Edgemoor

Year of Discharge Dioxin and Dixon

- Like Compound Discharge (grams) Dioxin and Dioxin

- Like Compounds TWF a Dioxin and Dixon

- Like Compounds TWPE

2002 13.6 2,021 60.5

2003 0.708 132

, 99 4 208

2004 0.283 250

, 244 156

2005 0.135 132

, 99 4 40

2006 0.48 288

, 398 305

2007 4.89 207

, 56 8 2,240

200 8 0.57 37

, 21 9 46.8

2009 2.82 1

, 904

, 247 11,800

Sourc es: TRIReleases2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2003_v2 ; TRIReleases2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v02 ; TRIReleases2007_v2 ; TRIReleases2008_v3 ; and TRIReleases2009_v2

.

a The dioxin and dioxin

- like compounds class includes 17 individual congeners, each with its own toxic weighting factor (TWF). Facilities can report the mass of each congener in a separate field (referred to as the dioxin distribution). EPA uses the dioxin distribution to calculate a facility

- specific TWF and TWPE. Because the dioxin TWF is based on the congeners reported yearly by t he facility, it is possible to have similar amounts of dioxin and drastically different TWFs due to differences in the congener distribution.



### EPA investigated whether the 2009 dioxin release estimate was based on measurements of dioxin that are below detection limits. Often, to follow TRI guidance, facilities estimate theirSection 8—I norganic C hemicals M anufacturing (40 CFR P art 415)



### 8

- 7 releases using half the detection limit of a congener that was never det ected. For EPA’s toxicity rankings analysis purposes, this can lead to an overestimation of TWPE.

EPA has monitored dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges from DuPont Edgemoor since 2006. EPA contacted the facility as part of the 2006 Annual Reviews to determine the accuracy of the reported dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges in the 2003 TRI (Wood, 2006); the facility had indeed used half the detection limit to estimate the load for TRI reporting (U.S. EPA, 2006). Section 9.5 of the Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. EPA, 2006) presents EPA’s findings from the 2006 Annual

Reviews.

To determine if the facility’s reported 2009 dioxin load was based on non- detect values, EPA compared the results to DuPont Edgemoor’s 2003 results. Table 8-8 presents DuPont Edgemoor’s 2003 sampling results, extrapolated 2009 sampling results, and the EPA Method 1613B minimum level (U.S. EPA, 2004b). EPA used the facility’s reported 2009 congener distribution and the permit limit flow to extrapolate 2009 concentrations, also presented in Table

8-8 . DuPont Edgemoor estimated its facility load based on monitoring data, as reported to the 2009 TRI; therefore, the estimated concentrations in Table 8-8 represent valid est imates of

DuPont’s measurements.

As shown in Table 8-8 , DuPont Edgemoor only detected one of the congeners above the EPA Method 1613B minimum level in 2003: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- OCDF . Based on the estimated 2009 concentrations, only two of the calculated 2009 concentrations are above the EPA Method 1613B minimum level: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDF and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- OCDD . Both of these congeners are considered less toxic than most dioxin and dioxin- like congeners and are assigned

low TWF values. Table 8-8 shows that the amount of dioxin and dioxin-like concentrations used

for the 2009 TRI estima te are likely similar to the 2003 sampling results. That is, most likely only one or two congeners were detected. When recalculated using only those congeners likely detected, the load discharged decreases from 2.82 grams to 1.92 grams and the associated TWPE decreases from 11,800 to 193. As with the 2003 discharges, the facility’s discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are likely below the EPA Method 1613B minimum level.

Further, DuPont Edgemoor’s NPDES permit regulates the discharge of dioxins and furans by both quantity and concentration permit limits for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds:

2.2 × 10 - 10 

### pounds per day toxic equivalency (TEQ) 6 

### and 5.1 × 10 -9 

### micrograms per liter TEQ (DNREC, 2007a). The dioxin and dioxin- like compound permit limits ar e based on Delaware’s Surface Water Quality Standards (DNREC, 2007b). The permit further requires that DuPont Edgemoor prepare a pollutant minimization plan for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds that will locate pollutant sources and review process modifica tions, materials substitutions, treatment technologies, best management practices, and/or facility procedures to identify options to reduce discharges (DNREC, 2007a).

As in previous years, EPA concludes that additional study and analysis of dioxin and

diox in

- like discharges from DuPont Edgemoor is not necessary. DuPont Edgemoor has not detected most congeners of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, and the facility has likely never

6 TEQs are calculated values that allow for a comparison of the toxicity of different combinations of dioxin and

dioxin

- like compounds using a toxic equivalent factor. This factor is the ratio of the toxicity of one of the compounds to the toxicity of the two most toxic compounds, 2,3,7,8

- TCDD and 1,2,3,7,8

- PeCDD

.Section 8—I norganic C hemicals M anufacturing (40 CFR P art 415)



### 8

- 8 detected concentrations above the EPA Method 1613B minimum level. Further, the facility’s NPDES permit requires them to continue to develop better treatment of dioxin and dioxin- like compounds, and the discharge is already controlled. Finally, DuPont Edgemoor is one of the few remaining U.S. facilities that manufactures titanium diox ide. Its dioxin discharges do not represent discharges across the category as a whole.

Table 8-8. 2009 Concentrations of Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Compounds in Effluent Samples (pg/L) From DuPont Edgemoor and EPA Method 1613B Minimum Levels

Congener TWF 1613B ML (pg/L) 2003 a (pg/L) 2009 b
(pg/L)

Flow (MGY) c 1,898

Polychlorinated dibenzo

- p

- furans (CDFs)

2,3,7,8

- TCDF 43

, 819

, 553.68 10 ND ND

1,2,3,7,8

- PeCDF 7

, 632

, 640 50 ND ND

2,3,4,7,8

- PeCDF 557

, 312

, 000 50 ND ND

1,2,3,4,7,8

- HxCDF 5

, 760

, 000 50 2.675 24.8

1,2,3,6,7,8

- HxCDF 14

, 109

, 440 50 ND 40

2,3,4,6,7,8

- HxCDF 51

, 204

, 160 50 ND 0.445

1,2,3,7,8,9

- HxCDF 47

, 308

, 800 50 ND ND

1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HpCDF 85

, 760 50 18.27 132 d

1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- HpCDF 3

, 033

, 984 50 ND 0.682

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- OCDF 2

, 020.96 100 101.24 d 52

Polychlorinated dibenzo

- p

- dioxins (CDDs)

2,3,7,8

- TCDD 703

, 584

, 000 10 ND ND

1,2,3,7,8

- PeCDD 692

, 928

, 000 50 ND ND

1,2,3,4,7,8

- HxCDD 23

, 498

, 240 50 ND ND

1,2,3,6,7,8

- HxCDD 9

, 556

, 480 50 ND ND

1,2,3,7,8,9

- HxCDD 10

, 595

, 840 50 ND 0.0835

1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HpCDD 411

, 136 50 ND 6.32

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- OCDD 6

, 585.6 100 7.335 136 d

Source s: TRIReleases2009_v2 ; Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. EPA, 2006); facility contact (Wood, 2006); facility p ermit (DNREC, 200 7a ) ; and Method 1613: Tetra - T hrough

Octa

- Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope Dilution HRGC/HRMS (U.S. EPA, 2004b).

a Concentrations discharged from outfall 001, effluent from the wastewater treatment system (DNREC, 2007a).

b Concentrations calculated using the facility’s reported congener distribution in 2009 and the permit limit flow.

c Facility permit flow for outfall 001.

d Concentrations greater than Method 1613B ML.

ML: Minimum level established for EPA Method 1613B (U.S. EPA, 2004b).

ND: No data.



### 8.5 Inorganic Chemicals Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the Inorganic Chemicals Category discharges resulted from manganese and manganese compounds and dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. Data collected

for the 2011 Annual R eview s demonstrated that wastewater discharge characteristics for thisSection 8—I norganic C hemicals M anufacturing (40 CFR P art 415)



### 8

- 9 category are consistent with discharges from prior years. Using data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA concludes the following:

• Two facilities, Tronox Pigments, Inc. (Savannah, GA) and Tronox LLC (Hamilton, MS), account for 65 percent of the category’s 2009 TRI discharges of manganese and manganese compounds. Both facilities are titanium dioxide manufacturers and confirmed that the 2011 toxicity rankings databa ses accurately estimate their manganese and manganese compound discharges (Blackmon, 2011; Freeze, 2011). However, for both facilities, the 2009 discharge is not representative of typical discharges from titanium dioxide manufacturing:

— Tronox Pigments shut down its titanium dioxide process in August 2009; the facility expects this will result in a reduction in manganese and manganese compound discharges.

— Tronox LLC’s high 2009 manganese discharges resulted from process
upsets.

These facilities’ discharges are not likely representative of other facilities in the category. For this reason, EPA is not identifying these discharges as a priority

hazard at this time.

• DuPont Edgemoor accounts for 86 percent of the category’s 2009 TRI discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. The facility manufactures titanium dioxide using the chloride-ilmenite process, which produces dioxin and dioxin- like compounds. Using the facility’s reported 2009 congener distribution and the permit limit flow, EPA determined only two o f the congeners were above the EPA Method 1613B minimum level: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-

OCDD . These two congeners have low toxicity compared to other congeners, and therefore are assigned low TWFs. DuPont Edgemoor has not detected most congeners of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, and the facility has likely never

detected concentrations above the EPA Method 1613B minimum level. DuPont Edgemoor’s permit also includes dioxin and dioxin-like compound limits and requirements to develop a pollut ant m inimization p lan , controlling the discharge. As found in previous years, additional study and analysis of dioxin discharges in the Inorganic Chemicals Category is not warranted at this time.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regula tions for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8-1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

8.6 Inorganic Chemicals Category References

1. Blackmon, Joseph. 2011. Telephone and Email Communication Between Joseph Blackmon, Tronox Pigments, Inc., and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc.,Section 8—I norganic C hemicals M anufacturing (40 CFR P art 415)



### 8

- 10 Re: Request for 2009 TRI Data Clarification. (January 28). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824

DCN 07583.

2. DNREC. 2007a. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.

NPDES Permit for E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Edgemoor, DE. (January 1).

EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07584.

3. DNREC. 2007b. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.

NPDES Permit Fact Sheet : E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Edgemoor, DE. (January 1). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07585.

4. Freeze, Terry. 2011. Telephone and Email communication Between Terry Freeze, Tronox LLC, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: Request for 2009 TRI Data Clarification. (January 28). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07586.

5. Tronox. 2007. Tronox Incorporated. Savannah, Georgia, U.S. Available online at: http://www.tronox.com/about/operations/savannah.htm

. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN

07587.

6. U.S. EPA. 2004a. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan . Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-R-04-014. EPA- HQ

- OW -2003- 0074-1346 through 1352.

7. U.S. EPA. 2004b. Method 1613: Tetra- T hrough Octa -Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope Dilution HRGC/HRMS. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-

2653.

8. U.S. EPA. 2005. Preliminary 2005 Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial Dischargers . Washington, D.C. (August). EPA -821-B-05-004. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2004-

0032-0053.

9. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D. C. (December). EPA -821-R-06-018. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-

2782.

10. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan . Washington, D. C. (October). EPA -821-R-07-007. EPA

- HQ

OW -2006-0771-0819.

11. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan . Washington, D.C. (October ). EPA -821-R-09-006. EPA

- HQ

OW -2008-0517-0515.

12. U.S. EPA. 2010. Tronox Incorporated Bankruptcy Settlement

. (November 24). Available

online at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/cleanup/cercla/tronox/index.html . Date
accessed: June 2011. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07588.Section 8—I norganic C hemicals M anufacturing (40 CFR P art 415)



### 8

- 11 13. U.S. EPA. 2011. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-820-R-10-021. EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07320.

14. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.

15. Wood, Kenneth. 2006. E-mail Correspondence Between Kenneth Wood, Du Pont, and Eleanor Ku Codding, Eastern Research Group, Inc. Re: Responses to Remaining Questions from your Email of February 2 nd 

### for DeLisle and EdgeMoor Facilities. (February 13). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-2347.Section 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-1 9. I RON AND 

### S TEEL 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 420)

EPA selected the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category for preliminary review because it ranks high, in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in the point source category rankings. This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews, which focused on discharges of cyanide, chlorine, chromium, fluoride, and aluminum due to their high TWPE relative to the other pollutants in the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category.

9.1 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Background

This subsection provides the background on the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category, including a brief profile of the iron and steel manufacturing industry and background on 40 CFR

Part 420.

9.1.1 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Industry Profile

The iron and steel manufacturing industry includes facilities whose production operations discharge and introduce pollutants into surface water as well as publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).

EPA considered the following seven industrial categories as part of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category, encompassing seven North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and four Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes:

• NAICS 331111: Iron and Steel Mills (including Cokemaking Facilities)

• NAICS 331210: Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing

• NAICS 331221: Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing (Blast Furnace, Steel Works, and Rolling Mills)

• NAICS 331222: Steel Wire Drawing and Steel Nails

• The steelmaking facilities within the following NAICS Codes:

— NAICS 332618: Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing

— NAICS 332112: Nonferrous Forging (Blast Furnace, Steel Works, and Rolling Mills)

— NAICS 332813: Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring (Cold Rolled Steel)

The PCS and ICIS- NPDES systems report facilities by SIC code and the U.S. Economic Census, and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) report data by NAICS code. Because of this discrepancy, EPA reclassified the 2009 discharge monitoring report (DMR) data by the equivalent NAICS code. Table 9-1 lists the number of facilities from the U.S. Economic Census and the toxicity rankings databases for the seven industrial categories with operations in the Iron

and Steel Manu facturing Category. The U.S. Economic Census includes more facilities than the DMR toxicity rankings database: facilities may not meet TRI

- reporting thresholds, facilities maySection 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-2 discharge to a POTW, and some facilities in the U.S. Economic Census are distributors or sales facilities, not manufacturers.

Table 9-1 . Number of Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities

2007 U.S. Economic Census 2009 DMR a 2009 TRI b

Total Minor Major Total Indirect Direct Both

4,949 161 76 85 228 52 125 51

Source s : U.S. Economic Census ( 2007); TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Minor facility discharges may or may not adversely impact receiving water if not controlled. Major facility discharges have the capability to impact receiving waters if not controlled.

b Indirect facilities discharge to POTWs. Direct facilities discharge directly to surface water.



### 9.1.2 40 CFR Part 420

EPA first promulgated effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) for the Iron and Steel

Manufacturin g Category (40 CFR Part 420) in May 1982 (47 FR 23258) and last amended them in April 2002 (67 FR 64215). This category consists of 13 subcategories that apply to the manufacture of products and product groups, as shown in Table 9-2 with corresponding applicability.Section 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-3 Table 9-2 . Applicability and Regulated Pollutants for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category

Subpart Subcategory

Title Subcategory Applicability Regulated PollutantsAmmonia as NBenzo(a)pyreneChromiumCyanideLeadNaphthaleneNickelOil and GreasepHPhenols (4AAP)TetrachloroethyleneTotalResidualChlorineTotal SuspendedSolidsZinc2, 3, 7, 8-TCDF

A Cokemaking Discharges to waters of the U.S. and the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from byproduct and other cokemaking operations. X X X X X X X X

B Sintering Discharges to waters of the U.S. and the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from sintering operations conducted by heating iron

bearing wastes together with fine iron ore, limestone, and coke fines in an ignition furnace to produce an agglomerate for charging to the

blast furnace. X X X X X X X X X X

C Ironmaking Discharges to waters of the U.S. and the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from ironmaking operations in which iron ore is

reduced to molten iron in a blast furnace. X X X X X X X X X

D Steelmaking Discharges to waters of the U.S. and the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from steelmaking operations conducted in basic oxygen and electric arc furnaces. X X X X

E Vacuum Degassing Discharges to waters of the U.S. and the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from vacuum degassing operations conducted by applying a vacuum to molten steel. X X X X

F Continuous Casting Discharges to waters of the U.S. and the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from continuous casting of molten steel into

intermediate or semi

- finished steel products through water cooled molds. X X X X XSection 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-4 Table 9-2 . Applicability and Regulated Pollutants for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category

Subpart Subcategory

Title Subcategory Applicability Regulated PollutantsAmmonia as NBenzo(a)pyreneChromiumCyanideLeadNaphthaleneNickelOil and GreasepHPhenols (4AAP)TetrachloroethyleneTotalResidualChlorineTotal SuspendedSolidsZinc2, 3, 7, 8-TCDF

G Hot Forming Discharges to waters of the U.S. and the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from hot forming operations conducted in primary, section, flat, and pipe and tube mills. X X X

H Salt Bath Descaling Discharges to waters of the U.S. and the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from oxidizing and reducing salt bath descaling operations. X X X X X

I Acid Pickling Discharges to waters of the U.S. and the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, or combination acid pickling operations. X X X X X X X

J Cold Forming Discharges to waters of the U.S. and the

introduction o f pollutants into a POTW from cold rolling and cold working pipe and tube operations in which unheated steel is passed through rolls or otherwise processed. X X X X X X X X X

K Alkaline Cleaning Discharges to waters of the U.S. and the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from operations in which steel and steel products are immersed in alkaline cleaning baths to remove

mineral and animal fats or oils from the steel, and those rinsing operations which follow

immersion. X X X

L Hot Coating Discharges to waters of the U.S. and the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from operations in which steel is coated with zinc, terne metal, or other metals by the hot dip process, and associated rinsing operations. X X X X X XSection 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-5 Table 9-2 . Applicability and Regulated Pollutants for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category

Subpart Subcategory

Title Subcategory Applicability Regulated PollutantsAmmonia as NBenzo(a)pyreneChromiumCyanideLeadNaphthaleneNickelOil and GreasepHPhenols (4AAP)TetrachloroethyleneTotalResidualChlorineTotal SuspendedSolidsZinc2, 3, 7, 8-TCDF

M Other Operations Discharges to waters of the U.S. and the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from production of direct

- reduced iron and from briquetting and forging operations. X X XSection 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-6 9.2 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 9-3 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category from the 2009 through 2011 Annual R eviews. The combined DMR and

TRI TWPE has dec reased from discharge years 2008 to 2009. The estimated 2009 DMR TWPE accounts for approximately 58 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE.

Table 9-3. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2009 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

Year of Discharge Year of Review Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2007 2009 104,000 730,000 834,000

2008 2010 111,000 616,000 727,000

2009 2011 96,200 134,000 230,000

Sources: TRI Releases 2007 v2

, DMRLoads2007_v4

, TRIReleases2008_v3, DMRLoads2008_v 3;
TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2007 include only major dischargers. DMR 2008 data include both minor and major dischargers.



### 9.3 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Pollutants of Concern

EPA’s review of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category focused on the 2009 DMR discharges because the 2009 DMR data dominate the category’s combined TWPE. Table 9-4 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE based on results from the 2011 Annual R eview s (DMRLoads2009_v2) . The top five DMR-reported pollutants in 2009 contribute more than 61 percent of the total category TWPE.

Table 9-4. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Top DM R Pollutants

Pollutant 2009 DMR Data a

Rank Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant TWPE

Cyanide 1 24 27,400

Chlorine 2 29 17,200

Chromium 3 35 16,000

Fluoride 4 10 11,500

Aluminum 5 16 9,660

Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Total NA 122 b 134,000

Source: DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a DMR data include major and minor dischargers.

b Number of facilities reporting a TWPE of greater than zero.



### EPA’s additional review for the 2009 DMR database pollutants of concern, cyanide, chlorine, chromium, fluoride, and aluminum, is presented in the following subsections. EPA didSection 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-7 not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews bec ause they account for a minority (39 percent) of the 2009 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category DMR TWPE.

9.4 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Cyanide Discharges in DMR

Cyanide discharges in the 2009 DMR database account for 21 percent of the total DMR

TWPE. Table 9-5 presents the cyanide dischargers in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of cyanide from two facilities account for over 56 percent of the category’s cyanid e DMR TWPE. As a result, EPA focused its review of cyanide discharges on the top two facilities.

Table 9-5. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Cyanide Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name L ocation Cyanide Pounds Discharged Cyanide TWPE Facility Percent of Cyanide Category TWPE

US Steel Corp.

– Clairton Works Clairton, PA 9,100 10,100 37%

Mountain State Carbon, LLC Follansbee, WV 4,770 5,290 19%

Remaining facilities reporting cyanide discharges a 10,800 12,000 44%

Total 24,700 27,400 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a There are 18 remaining facilities that have cyanide discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 44 percent of the category’s cyanide DMR TWPE.



### Both of the top two facilities are cokemaking plants: plants that produce carbon- coke from coal for steelmaking. Cokemaking operations generate wastewater containing cyanide as part of the byproduct recovery process. Currently, there are 19 cokemaking plan ts in the United

States. Table 9-6 lists U.S. coke plants operating in 2011, their locations, and their range of cyanide concentrations in 2009. As shown, Mountain State Carbon has the highest cyanide concentration range.

Tab le 9-6. Operating U.S. Coke Plants as of September 1, 2011

State Facility Name City Facility Range of 2009 Cyanide Concentrations (mg/L)

Alabama ABC Coke (Drummond Company, Inc.) Tarrant 0.282

– 4.62

Walter Coke Birmingham 0.012

– 1.01

Illinois U.S. Steel Granite City 0.005(ND)

– 0.03
Gateway Energy & Coke Company Granite City NR

Indiana Indiana Harbor Coke Company East Chicago 0.003(ND)

– 0.024

ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor 0.002(ND)

– 0.004

U.S. Steel Gary NR
Michigan DTE Energy Services Ecorse NR

New York Tonawanda Coke Corp. Tonawanda NR

Ohio AK Steel Corp. Middletown NR

Middletown Coke Co. Middletown NR

ArcelorMittal Warren NR

SunCoke Co. Haverhill NRSection 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-8 Tab le 9-6. Operating U.S. Coke Plants as of September 1, 2011

State Facility Name City Facility Range of 2009 Cyanide Concentrations (mg/L)

Pennsylvania Erie Coke Corp. Erie NR

ArcelorMittal Monessen NR
DTE Energy Services Pittsburgh 1

– 2

U.S. Steel Clairton 0.789

– 2.64
Virginia Jewell Coke and Coal Vansant NR
West Virginia Mountain State Carbon Follansbee 0.62

- 6.2

Source s : ACCCI (2011), DMR Loadings Tool. NR: Not reported.



### 9.4.1 U.S. Steel Corporation–Clairton Works

U.S. Steel Corporation–Clairton Works (U.S. Steel) in Clairton, PA, discharges cyanide from its outfall 183 in wastewater from cokemaking. Table 9-7 presents U.S. Steel’s 2009 monthly cyanide and flow discharge data in the DMR Loadings Tool for outfall 183. The outfall’s cyanide limits as stated in the facility permit are 5.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or 53.5 kilograms per day (kg/day) (PADEP, 2006). As shown in Table 9-7 , the facility’s discharge data do not exceed permit limits and are below treatable levels. 7 

### Their relat ively high cyanide TWPE results from their large flow, as they historically have been the top coke producer in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2002).

Table 9

- 7 . U.S. Steel’s Outfall 183 2009 Monthly Cyanide and Flow Discharge Data

Monitoring Period
Date DMR Loadings Tool Average Cyanide Discharge (kg/day) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD) DMR Loadings Tool Average Cyanide Concentrations (mg/L)

31

- Jan

- 09 13.85 2.53 1.457

28

- Feb

- 09 13.68 2.56 1.406

31

- Mar

- 09 12.09 2.49 1.288

30

- Apr

- 09 10.58 2.17 1.255

31

- May

- 09 6.48 2 0.855

30

- Jun

- 09 6.32 2.04 0.789

31

- Jul

- 09 8.89 2.21 1.079

31

- Aug

- 09 9.39 2.16 1.167

30

- Sep

- 09 7.41 2.25 0.871

31

- Oct

- 09 11.24 2.16 1.35

30

- Nov

- 09 11.78 2.37 1.46

31

- Dec

- 09 23.95 2.38 2.643

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.

7 For the most recent 2002 effluent guideline revision, EPA established production

- based limits based on long

- term average (LTA) for best available technology economically achievable (BAT) for cyanide at 2.965 mg/L, and a variability factor of 1.49. The Clairton cyanide concentrations are less than this estimated treatability concentration.Section 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-9 9.4.2 Mountain State Carbon, LLC

Mountain State Carbon, LLC, in Follansbee, WV, discharges cyanide from its outfall 205. Mountain State Carbon discharges treated process wastewater, ground water, and stormwater from the biological treatment plant through this outfall. Table 9-8 presents Mountain State Carbon’s 2009 monthly cyanide and flow discharge data in the DMR Loadings Tool for outfall 205. A missing decimal point in the May 2009 concentration was identified an d corrected. The facility’s permit states that the cyanide limit for outfall 205 is 11.1 kg/day (WVDEP, 2008).

As shown in Table 9-8 , the November 200 9 quantity exceeds the mass

- based facility permit

limit.

Table 9-8. Mountain State Carbon’s Outfall 205 2009 Monthly Cyanide and Flow Discharge Data

Monitoring Period

Date DMR Loadings Tool Average Cyanide Discharge (kg/day) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD) DMR Loadings Tool Average Cyanide Concentrations (mg/L)

31

- Jan

- 09 7.07 0.736 2.5

28

- Feb

- 09 6.26 0.713 2.3

31

- Mar

- 09 5.53 0.743 1.9

30

- Apr

- 09 6.08 0.693 2.4

31

- May

- 09 5.44 0.683 2.2

30

- Jun

- 09 5.26 0.0667 2.1

31

- Jul

- 09 4.35 0.696 1.7

31

- Aug

- 09 3.13 0.664 1.2

30

- Sep

- 09 1.91 0.662 0.76

31

- Oct

- 09 1.65 0.69 0.62

30

- Nov

- 09 18.41 0.761 6.2

31

- Dec

- 09 6.30 0.801 2.3

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.



### For the most recent 2002 effluent guideline revision, EPA established production- based limits based on long- term average (LTA) for best available technology economically achievable (BAT) for cyanide at 2.965 mg/L. As shown in Table 9-8 , Mountain State Carbon’s cyanide discharges exceed the treatable level of cyanide for one month. EPA concludes that this one outlier month resulted in a significant amount of TWPE.

EPA f urther reviewed discharge data for this facility to see how often they exceeded their permit limits and found that the facility was not in compliance during eleven months in 2010. However, the compliance issues appear to be resolved in 2011. Therefore, EPA will continue to review this facility’s cyanide discharges in future years of review, but these discharges are not representative of typical cokemaking facility discharges.

9.5 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Chlorine Discharges in DMR

Chlorine discharges in the 2009 DMR database account for 13 percent of the total DMR

TWPE. Table 9-9 presents the chlorine dischargers in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges ofSection 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-10 chlorine from one facility account for over 51 percent of the category’s chlorine DMR TWPE. EPA focused its review of chlorine discharges on this top facility.

Table 9-9. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Chlorine Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location Chlorine

Pounds Discharged Chlorine TWPE Facility Percent

of Chlorine Category TWPE

ISG Sparrows Point, Inc. Sparrows Point, MD 17,400 8,690 51%

Remaining facilities reporting chlorine discharges a 17,000 8,500 49%

Total 34,400 17,200 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a There are 28 remaining facilities that have chlorine discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 49 percent of the category’s chlorine DMR TWPE.



### 9.5.1 ISG Sparrows Point, Inc.

ISG Sparrows Point, Inc., in Sparrows Point, MD, discharges chlorine from its outfall 001. ISG Sparrows Point discharges primarily noncontact cooling water used for con denser cooling at Pennwood Power Station through this outfall. Table 9-10 presents ISG Sparrows Point’s 2009 monthly chlorine and flow discharge data in the DMR Loadings Tool for outfall

001. As shown in Table 9-10 all of the facility’s 2009 chlorine discharges are below the permit limit of 0.2 mg/L.

Table 9-10. ISG Sparrows Point’s Outfall 001 2009 Monthly Chlorine Discharge and Flow Data

Monitoring Period

Date DMR Loadings Tool

Chlorine Concentration (mg/L) Facility Permit

- Enforceable Compliance Level Limit

—

Daily Maximum (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Jan

- 09 0.1 0.2 7

28

- Feb

- 09 0 0.2 78

31

- Mar

- 09 0 0.2 188

30

- Apr

- 09 0 .04 0.2 145

31

- May

- 09 0 0.2 143

30

- Jun

- 09 0 0.2 159

31

- Jul

- 09 0 0.2 204

31

- Aug

- 09 0.1 0.2 223

30

- Sep

- 09 0.1 0.2 176

31

- Oct

- 09 0 0.2 171

30

- Nov

- 09 0 .09 0.2 158

31

- Dec

- 09 0 0.2 204

Source s : DMR Loadings Tool and facility permit ( MDE, 2001).



### As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted the facility about its 2009 chlorine concentrations and flows from outfall 001. The facility contact confirmed that all 2009 chlorineSection 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-11 concentrations were below the permit limit and that the facility had never had a permitting issue with chlorine. The facility contact also stated that the flows are large for outfall 001 because it

carries water from the non -contact cooling system for power generation for the onsite power plant (Becker, 2011).

EPA ide ntified an error in how DMRLoads_v02 estimated the facility’s discharges. The DMR database automatically calculates the load based on 24 hours a day of discharge. Because

the flow from outfall 001 is non- contact cooling water from a power station, the faci lity is only allowed to discharge chlorine two hours per day. Therefore, the DMR database overestimated the chlorine load for this facility. With two hours of discharge per day instead of 24, ISG Sparrow’s Chlorine TWPE decreases from 8,690 to 1,320.

9.6 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Chromium Discharges in DMR

Chromium discharges in the 2009 DMR database account for 12 percent of the total

DMR TWPE. Table 9-11 pre sents the chromium dischargers in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of chromium from one facility account for over 98 percent of the category’s chromium DMR TWPE. Accordingly, EPA focused its review of chromium discharges on that facility.

Table 9-11. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Chromium Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location Chromium

Pounds Discharged Chromium

TWPE Facility Percent

of Chromium Category TWPE

Arcelormittal Weirton Inc. Weirton, WV 223,000 15,600 98%

Remaining facilities reporting chromium discharges a 4,520 316 2%

Total 228,000 16,000 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a There are 34 remaining facilities that have chromium discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 2 percent of the category’s chromium DMR TWPE.



### 9.6.1 Arcelormittal Weirton Inc.

Arcelormittal Weirton Inc . in Weirton, WV, discharges c hromium fr om three outfalls: 003, 004, and 203. Outfall 203 is an internal outfall to outfall 003, through which Arcelormittal Weirton discharges cooling water, stormwater runoff and process water. Table 9-12 presents chromium discharge data for outfalls 003, 004, and 203 for 2009. As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted the facility to confirm these discharges ; t he facility contact confirmed the discharges as listed in the table (Minda, 2011). The facility’s permit does not set limits for chromium outfall 203, though it does require monitoring. For outfall 003, the permit limits daily maximum discharge to 2.05 mg/L and monthly average discharge to 0.81 mg/L. Outfall 003 does

not exceed these limits.

The facility contact also confirmed that outfall 203 is an internal outfall to outfall 003, with water from the former undergoing a dditional treatment for chromium to meet the latter’s discharge limits (Minda, 2011). Therefore, discharges from outfall 203 should be removed fromSection 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-12 the database as double-counts, since they are also part of the discharges from outfall 003. With this correction, Arcelormittal Weirton’s TWPE includes discharges from outfall 003 and 004 and

decreases to 147.

Table 9-12 . Arcelormittal Weirton’s 2009 Chromium Discharge and Flow Data

Outfall DMR Loadings Tool Average Chromium Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD) Total Outfall

Chromium Pounds Discharged Total Outfall

Chromium TWPE

003 0.143 8.07 2,080 145

004 0.00375 2.98 24.4 1.70

203 107 1.03 221,000 a 15,500

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.

a Outfall 203 is an internal outfall. Outfall 203 undergoes additional treatment for chromium prior to discharging to Outfall 003 due to permit limitations (Minda, 2011).



### 9.7 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Fluoride Discharges in DMR

Fluoride discharges in the 2009 DMR database account for 9 percent of the total DMR

TWPE. Table 9-13 p resents the fluoride dischargers in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of fluoride from one facility account for 51 percent of the category’s fluoride DMR TWPE. Accordingly, EPA focused its review of fluoride discharges on this top facility.

Table 9-13. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Fluoride Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location Fluoride

Pounds Discharged Fluoride TWPE Facility Percent

of Fluoride Category TWPE

Arcelormittal Weirton Inc. Weirton, WV 194,000 5,810 51%

Remaining facilities reporting fluoride discharges a 189,000 5,660 49%

Total 382,000 11,500 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a There are nine remaining facilities that have fluoride discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 49 percent of the category’s fluoride DMR TWPE.



### 9.7.1 Arcelormittal Weirton Inc.

Arcelormittal Weirton Inc . in Weirton, WV, discharges fluoride fr om its outfall 003.

Arcelormittal Weirt on discharges cooling water, storm water runoff, and process water through outfall 003. The facility’s permit requires monitoring of fluoride discharges from outfall 003 but does not set fluoride limits (Minda, 2011). The Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category ELG does not regulate fluoride.

Table 9-14 presents the facility’s fluoride discharge data for 2009. The concentrations ranged from 5.6 mg/L to 14.8 mg/L. EPA det ermined that current technologies are achieving effluent fluoride concentrations between 2 mg/L and 15 mg/L (WC&E, 2006; Ionics, n.d.; GCIP,

2002 ).Section 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-13 Table 9-14. Arcelormittal Weirton’s Outfall 003 2009 Monthly Fluoride Discharge and Flow Data

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Fluoride Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Mar

- 09 10.3 6.62

30

- Jun

- 09 13.1 10.2

30

- Sep

- 09 14.8 10.3

31

- Dec

- 09 5.6 5.8

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.



### 9.8 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Aluminum Discharges in DMR

Aluminum discharges in the 2009 DMR database account for 7 percent of the total DMR

TWPE. Table 9-15 presents the aluminum dischargers in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of

aluminum from three facilities account for over 64 percent of the category’s aluminum DMR TWPE. Accordingly, EPA focu sed its review of aluminum discharges on these facilities. All three discharge stormwater; for two of them, EPA determined that the stormwater contacts either process areas, scrap storage, or finished product.

Table 9-15. Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Aluminum Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location Aluminum

Pounds Discharged Aluminum

TWPE Facility Percent

of Aluminum Category TWPE

Ipsco Tubulars (KY) Inc. Wilder Campbell County, KY 44,600 2,680 28%

Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa Inc. Tuscaloosa, AL 32,600 1,960 20%

Nucor Steel Decatur, LLC Decatur, AL 26,300 1,580 16%

Remaining facilities reporting aluminum discharges a 57,400 3,440 36%

Total 161,000 9,660 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a There are 13 remaining facilities that have aluminum discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 36 percent of the category’s aluminum DMR TWPE.



### 9.8.1 Ipsco Tubulars (KY) Inc. Wilder

Ipsco Tubulars Inc. in Campbell County, KY, discharges aluminum fr om its outfall 003,

which carries untreated stormwater runoff. Table 9-16 presents Ipsco Tubulars’ 2009 monthly aluminum and flow discharge data in the DMR Loadings Tool for outfall 003. As shown in the table, the concentration for February 2009 is two orders of magnitude larger than the

concentrations for other months.Section 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-14 Table 9-16. Ipsco Tubulars’s Outfall 003 2009 Monthly Aluminum Discharge and Flow Data

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Aluminum Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Jan

- 09 5.51 0.73

28

- Feb

- 09 182 0.73

31

- Mar

- 09 8.25 0.34

30

- Apr

- 09 3.84 0.34

31

- May

- 09 13.5 0.34

30

- Jun

- 09 5.87 0.34

31

- Jul

- 09 2.36 0.34

31

- Aug

- 09 1.45 0.34

30

- Sep

- 09 5.78 0.34

31

- Oct

- 09 1.4 0.73

30

- Nov

- 09 2.32 0.34

31

- Dec

- 09 3.04 0.34

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.



### As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted the facility about its 2009 aluminum concentrations and flows from outfall 003. The facility contact (McDaniel, 2011) confirmed that the data were correct, and also stated that an incident affected outfall 003 during February 2009, causing high concentrations of oil and grease. The incident affected all parameters in the samples taken on February 11, 2009, but by re-sampling on February 27, 2009, the oil and grease value (along with the rest of the parameters) was within permit limits. This month was an anomaly in

the data for th is outfall; the facility has experienced nothing similar since February 2009. The

incident’s cause was never identified.

As shown in Table 9-16 , in 2009 the facility’s mean effluent aluminum concentration was 19.6 mg/L for outfall 003 (untreated stormwater). In the 2002 rulemaking, EPA established production- based limitations for aluminum for steelmaking, based on two

- stage metals precipitation as BAT, which achieved an LTA of 0.229 mg/L for aluminum. The facility’s mean discharge concentration, 19.6 mg/L, is higher than this treatable level. Even excluding the February 2009 outlier in Table 9-16 , the resulting mean concentration, 4.85 mg/L, is still higher than this treatable level. For these reasons, EPA is considering facility

- specific permitting and compliance support to address this facility’s untreated stormwater discharge.

9.8.2 Nu cor Steel Tuscaloosa Inc.

Nucor Steel in Tuscaaloosa, AL, discharges aluminum fr om its outfall 001. Outfall 001 discharges “non- contact cooling water from melting, casting, rolling, and electrical substation operations and storm water associated with empl oyee parking areas, semi -finished and finished product storage, and steel mill operations” (ADEM, 2007a). Table 9-17 presents Nucor Steel

Tuscaloosa’s 2009 aluminum and flow discharge data in the DMR Loadings Tool for outfall 001.Section 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-15 Table 9-17 . Nucor Steel’s Out fall 001 Tuscaloosa 2009 Aluminum Discharge and Flow Data

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Aluminum Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Mar

- 09 24 0.67

30

- Jun

- 09 16 0.42

30

- Sep

- 09 13 0.9

31

- Dec

- 09 15 0.95

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.



### As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted the facility about its 2009 aluminum concentrations and flows from outfall 001. The facility contact confirmed the concentrations and

flows shown in Table 9- 17 . The facility contact also stated that outfall 001 has a higher flow than other outfalls because it is the facility’s primary NPDES outfall. Outfall 001 handles all of the non-contact cooling water and stormwater for the facility and previously discharged directly to a stream. Following the most recent permit change, the water from outfall 001 now discharges to a primary settling pond and then to a main tributary that leads to the ri ver (Smith and Larmore, 2011).

In the 2002 rulemaking, EPA identified that BAT for the steelmaking subcategory, twostage metals precipitation, could consistently achieve an LTA of 0.229 mg/L for aluminum, with a variability factor of 0.053. The 2009 aluminum concentrations from outfall 001 are higher than treatable levels (i.e., the waste stream could be treated and aluminum could be discharged at a much lower concentration). EPA is considering facility-specific permitting support to address

aluminum disch arges from the Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa facility. Also, the discharges for outfall 001 result in part from stormwater and non-contact cooling water, which are not regulated by

Part 420 but rather Part 122.

9.8.3 Nucor Steel Decatur LLC

Nucor Steel in Decatur, AL, discharges c hromium fr om outfall 002. Outfall 002 discharges “storm water runoff from the Scrap Yard, North and South Scrap Bays, and Slag Yards associated with the manufacture of hot rolled steel” (ADEM, 2007b). Table 9-18 presents Nucor Steel, Decatur’s 2009 aluminum and flow discharge data in the DMR Loadings Tool for

outfall 002.

Table 9-18. Nucor Steel Decatur’s Outfall 002 2009 Monthly Aluminum Discharge and Flow Data

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Aluminum Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD)

30

- Jun

- 09 2.92 4.03

31

- Dec

- 09 2.37 1.05

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.Section 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-16 As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews , EPA contacted the facility about its 2009 aluminum concentrations and flows from outfall 002. The facility contact confirmed these concentrations and flows, shown in Table 9-18 . The facility contact also stated that outfall 002 discharges to one of the ponds where stormwater from the east part of the plant along with some non- contact cooling water blowdown is collected. There is no treatment except for a pH adjustment once the water is discharged into the collection pond. The facility contact stated that the flows are high for outfall 002 because it is the primary stormwater outfall for the facility (Denton, 2011).

As shown in Table 9-18 , in 2009 the facility’s mean effluent aluminum concentration was 2.64 mg/L for outfall 002 (untreated stormwater). In the 2002 rulemaking, EPA promulgated production- based limitations for aluminum for wastewater from steelmaking. These limits were

based on two

- stage metals precipitation as BAT

, which achieved an LTA of 0.229 mg/L for aluminum, with a variability factor of 0.053. The facility’s discharge concentration is higher than

this treatable level. EPA i s considering facility

- specific permitting support to address aluminum discharges from the Nucor Steel Decatur facility.

9.9 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category Conclusions

Based on available data, the estimated toxicity of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category discharges in the toxicity rankings databases result from cyanide, chlorine, chromium, fluoride, and aluminum discharges. Data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews demonstrated that wastewater discharge characteristics for this category are consis tent with discharges from prior years. Using data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews , EPA concludes the following :

• Two facilities, US Steel Corporation –Clairton Works, and Mountain State Carbon, LLC, contribute the majority of the DMR database cyanide discharges for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category. US Steel Corporation’s cyanide discharges do not exceed the permit limitations and likely have a high load because of their flow. US Steel Corporation’s high flow is expected as it has historically been a top coke producer in the United States. Mount State Carbon’s 2009 November cyanide quantity exceeds its mass- based permit limitation. EPA further determined that the facility was not in compliance during eleven months in 2010. However, the compliance issues appeared to be resolved in 2011. Therefore, EPA will continue to review this facility’s cyanide discharges in future years, but notes that these discharges are not representative of typical cokemaking facility discharges.

• The chlorine discharges are reported by one facility, ISG Sparrows Point, Inc. Due to an overestimation in the DMR database, ISG Sparrows Point’s chlorine TWPE was corrected from 8,690 to 1,320. EPA concludes that the chlorine discharge does not represent a hazard priority.

• Database errors were also identified for discharges of chromium. After correcting these errors, the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category TWPE from chromium decreased from 16,000 to 463 and does not represent a hazard priority.

• One facility

, Arcelormittal Weirt on Inc., accounted for 51 percent of the 2009 DMR fluoride TWPE. The concentrations ranged from 5.6 mg/L to 14.8 mg/L.Section 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-17 EPA determined that current technologies are achieving effluent fluoride concentrations between 2 mg/L and 15 mg/L. Therefore, EPA does not consider these discharges a hazard priority at this time.

• Three facilities, Ipsco Tubulars Inc., Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa Inc., and Nucor Steel Decatur LLC, contribute the majority of the aluminum discharges for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category. The aluminum discharges for all three facilities result from stormwater, and all effluent aluminum concentrations exceed treatable levels. EPA is considering facility

- specific permitting support to be the most appropriate to control these facilities’ fluor ide discharges.

• Correcting the database errors identified during the 2011 Annual Reviews decreases the 2009 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category TWPE from 230,000 to 207,000. As new data becomes available, EPA will continue to review the Iron

and Steel Category discharges to determine if they are properly controlled.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as

TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8-1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs ) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

9.10 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category References

1. ACCCI. 2011. American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute. Operating U.S. & Canadian

Coke Plants. ( September 1 ). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07589.

2. ADEM. 2007a. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Draft NPDES Permit: Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa Inc., Tuscaloosa, AL. (October 10). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-

0824. DCN 07590.

3. ADEM. 2007b. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Draft NPDES

Permit: Nu cor Steel Decatur LLC, Decatur, AL

. (September 12). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-

0824. DCN 07591.

4. Becker, Russ. 2011. Notes From Telephone Communication Between Russ Becker, ISG Sparrows Point, Inc., and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: 2009

DMR Chlo rine Concentration and Flow Discharges. (August 1). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-

0824. DCN 07592.

5. Denton, Wayne. 2011. Notes From Telephone Communication Between Wayne Denton, Nucor Steel Decatur, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: 2009

DMR Aluminu m Concentration and Flow Discharges. (August 2). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-

0824. DCN 07593.Section 9— Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 42 0)



### 9-18 6. GCIP. 2002. General Chemical Industrial Products. Chapter 14 – Wastewater and Water

Treatment. Available online at: ht tp://www.genchem.com/calcium/NCh14.html . DCN

03761.

7. Ionics. n.d. “The EnChem® Process for Fluoride Removal.” Wastewater Treatment for the Microelectronics Industry . Available online at: http://www.iconics.com/pdf/TS4752EUS.pdf. DCN 03760.

8. McDaniel, Jennif er. 2011. Telephone and Email communication Between Jennifer McDaniel, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: DMR Clarification Needed for IPSCO Tubulars. (August 2). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-

0824. DCN 07594.

9. MDE. 2001. Maryland Department of the Environment. NPDES Permit: ISG Sparrows Point, Inc., Sparrows Point, MD

. (March 1). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07595.

10. Minda, Dave. 2011. Notes From Telephone Communication Between Dave Minda, Arcelormittal Weirton, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: 2009 DMR Chromium Discharges. (September 13). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07597.

11. PADEP. 2006. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Water Management Program. NPDES Permit: U.S. Steel Corporation– Clairton Works, Clairton, PA. (December 27). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07598.

12. Smith, Tyler, and Eric Larmore. 2011. Notes From Telephone Communication Between Tyler Smith and Eric Larmore, Nucor Steel–Tuscaloosa, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern

Research Gr oup, Inc., Re: 2009 DMR Aluminum Concentration and Flow Discharges. (August 2). EPA- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07600.

13. U.S. EPA. 2002. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category. Washington, DC.

EPA -821-R-02-004. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07720.

14. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.

15. WC&E. 2006. Wastech Controls & Engineering, Inc. Fluoride Wastewat er Treatment (FWT) (HF Neutralization or Fluoride Reduction. Available online at: http://www.wastechengineering.com/papers/hf.htm . DCN 03759.

16. WVDEP. 2008. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. NPDES Permit: Mountain State Carbon, Follansbee, WV. (January 15). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN

07601.Section 10

— Landfills (40 CFR Part 445 )



### 10

- 1 10. L ANDFILLS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 445)

EPA selected the Landfills Category for preliminary review because it continues to rank high, in terms of toxic -weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in the point source category rankings. The Final 2010 Plan summarizes the results of EPA’s previous review of this industry in 2010 (U.S. EPA, 2011). This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews, which focused on discharges of fluoride, boron, and metals, including copper, manganese, and iron, due to their high TWPE relative to the other pollutants in the Landfills Category and the findings from the 2010 Annual Reviews.

10.1 Landfills Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 10-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Landfills Category from the 2009 through 2011 Annual Reviews. The combined TWPE from discharges in the discharge monitoring report (DMR ) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) databases increased from discharge years 2007 to 2009. The estimated 2009 DMR TWPE accounts for approximately 99 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE, similar to previous years of data.

Table 10-1. Landfills Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2009 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

Year of Discharge Year of Review Landfills Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2007 2009 83 15,300 15,400

2008 2010 781 191,000 192,000

2009 2011 2,750 219,000 222,000

Sources: TRI Release s 2007 v2, DMRLoads2007_v4, TRIReleases2008_v3, DMRLoads2008_v 3;
TRIReleases2009_v2; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2007 include only major dischargers. DMR 2008 data include both minor and major dischargers.



### 10.2 Landfills Category Pollutants of Concern

EPA’s review of the Landfills Category focused on the 2009 DMR discharges because the 2009 DMR data dominate the category’s combined TWPE. Table 10-2 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE based on results from the 2011 and 2010 Annual Reviews ( DMRLoads2009_v2 and DMRLoads2008_v3, respectively).

The top five DMR-reported pollutants in 2009 contribute more than 87 percent of the total category TWPE. EPA determined that three facilities account for the majority of the top

five DMR -reported pollutants. EPA also continued its review of iron, the fifth top DMR-reported pollutant, as a continuation of the findings from the 2010 Annual Reviews (U.S. EPA, 2011).Section 10

— Landfills (40 CFR Part 445 )



### 10

- 2 Table 10-2. Landfills Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 2008 DMR Data a 2009 DMR Data a

Rank Number of Facilities Reporting
Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of Facilities Reporting
Pollutant TWPE
Copper Pollutants not reported in the top five 2008
DMR

- reported pollutants. 1 57 73,100

Fluoride 2 25 52,900

Boron 3 29 47,000

Manganese 3 55 15,700 4 48 18,200

Iron 2 146 31,300 5 122 7, 420

Van adium 1 11 45,400 Pollutants not reported in the top five 2009
DMR

- reported pollutants. Arsenic 4 47 15,100

Calcium 5 18 10,900

Landfills Category
Total NA 232 b 191,000 NA 201 b 219,000

Sources: DMRLoads2008_v3 and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a DMR data include major and minor dischargers.

b Number of facilities reporting a TWPE of greater than zero. NA: Not applicable.



### 10.3 Landfills Category Top Dischargers in DMR

Table 10-3 presents the top three facilities discharging the pollutants of concern for the Landfills Category in the 2009 DMR database: Butler County Landfill in Poplar Bluff, MO;

Tunnel H ill Reclamation in New Lexington, OH; and BFI Backridge Sanitary Landfill in La Grange, MO. The majority (86 percent) of the top pollutant discharges in 2009 were from these three facilities, and this section accordingly focuses on them.

Table 10-3 . Top Facilities Discharging Pollutants of Concern in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Location Top Pollutants Discharged Combined Top

Pollutant DMR

Pounds Discharged Combined Top

Pollutant DMR

TWPE

Butler County Landfill Poplar Bluff, MO Copper, Fluoride, Boron 7,340,000 169,000

Tunnel Hill Reclamation New Lexington, OH Manganese 225,000 15,700

BFI, Backridge Sanitary

Landfill La Grange, MO Iron 782,000 4,380

Total 207 ,000,000 219,000

Source: DMRLoads2009_v2.



### 10.3.1 Butler County Landfill

Table 10-4 presents the discharges in the 2009 DMR database for Butler County Landfill. Approximately 97 percent of the facility’s TWPE is from copper, fluoride, and boron discharges.Section 10

— Landfills (40 CFR Part 445 )



### 10

- 3 Table 10-4. Butler County Landfill 2009 Top Discharges in the DMR Database

Pollutant Total Pounds Total TWPE Percent of Facility Total

TWPE

Copper 115,000 72,500 41.6%

Fluoride 1,690,000 50,700 29.1%

Boron 5,530,000 46,100 26.5%

Remaining pollutants a 2,410,000 4,690 2.8%

Total 9,750,000 174,000 100%
Source: DMRLoads2009_v2.

a Remaining pollutants discharged by Butler County Landfill include sulfate, chlorides, total suspended solids, nickel, biological oxygen demand (BOD), manganese, antimony, barium, and lead.



### The copper, fluoride, and boron discharges for Butler County Landfill are from outfalls

001 and 002. Table 10-5 presents the discharge data in the DMR Loadings Tool for 2009. EPA contacted the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MO DNR) to confirm the 2009 copper discharges. MO DNR indicated that the September 2009 copper concentration for outfall 001 was 21 micrograms per liter (μg/L), not 21 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (Cozad, 2011). Because fluoride and boron concentrations from the DMR Loadings Tool were similar in order of magnitude to the original copper concentration, EPA converted the concentra tions from mg/L to μg/L. Using the corrected concentrations, the facility’s TWPE decreased from 174,000 to 4,765, a reduction of over 97 percent.

Table 10-5. Butler County Landfill 2009 Monthly Top Pollutant D ischarge Data

Outfall Pollutant Monitoring Period

Date DMR Loadings Tool Concentration (mg/L) Corrected Concentration (mg/L)

001 Copper 30

- Sep

- 09 21 0.021

002 Fluoride 30

- Sep

- 09 370 0.37

001 Boron 30

- Sep

- 09 700 0.7

002 Boron 30

- Sep

- 09 370 0.37

Sources: DMR Loadings Tool and MO DNR contact (Cozad, 2011).



### 10.3.2 Tunnel Hill Reclamation

Table 10-6 presents the discharges in the 2009 DMR database for Tunnel Hill Reclamation. All of the facility TWPE is from manganese discharges.

Table 10-6. Tunnel Hill Reclamation 2009 Top Discharges in the DMR Database

Pollutant Total Pounds Total TWPE Percent of Facility Total

TWPE Manganese 225,000 15,700 100% Total suspended solids 2,910 0 0%

Total 228,000 15,700 100% Source: DMRLoads2009_v2.Section 10

— Landfills (40 CFR Part 445 )



### 10

- 4 All of the manganese discharges for Tunnel Hill Reclamation are from outfall 001. Table

10-7 presents the 2009 discharge data from the DMR Loadings Tool for outfall 001. The DMR Loadings Tool uses the facility quantities for August through December 2009 to calculate the facility’s an nual manganese load. Because the DMR Loadings Tool prioritizes the quantity value for the calculation, the quantities reported as “NR” were not included in the load calculation. However, the facility also reported the flow and monthly manganese concentration data in the 2009 DMR data, even for reporting periods January through July, where the quantity not reported. EPA hand calculated the monthly quantities using the reported manganese concentrations and flow, also presented in Table 10 -7 . The calculated quantities are at least three orders of magnitude less than the quantities in the DMR Loadings Tool. EPA determined that the monthly quantities used to c alculate the load in the DMR Loadings Tool are incorrect. After correcting the monthly quantities, Tunnel Hill Reclamation’s manganese discharges decrease from 15,700 to 10.9 TWPE, a reduction of over 99 percent.

Table 10-7. Tunnel Hill Reclamation 2009 Monthly Manganese Discharges for Outfall 001

Monitoring Period
Date DMR Loadings Tool Data

EPA Calculated Quantity a (kg/day) Average Quantity Reported (kg/day) Average Concentration Reported (mg/L) Average Flow Reported (MGD)

31

- Jan

- 09 NR 1.7325 0.0607 0.398

28

- Feb

- 09 NR 1.33 0.1274 0.641

31

- Mar

- 09 NR 0.248 0.0635 0.060

30

- Apr

- 09 NR 0.5575 0.0926 0.195

31

- May

- 09 NR 0.6375 0.0729 0.176

30

- Jun

- 09 NR 0.346 0.0618 0.081

31

- Jul

- 09 NR 0.616 0.0638 0.149

31

- Aug

- 09 545 0.545 0.051 9 0.107

30

- Sep

- 09 315 0.315 0.0569 0.06 8

31

- Oct

- 09 1

, 594 1.594 0.0654 0.3 95

30

- Nov

- 09 654.3 0.654 0.02270 0. 056

31

- Dec

- 09 213.5 0.21 4 0.0306 0.0 25
Sources: DMR Loadings Tool and Envirofacts.

a EPA calculated the quantity using the average concentration and average flow.



### 10.3.3 BFI Backridge Sanitary Landfill

Table 10-8 presents the discharges in the 2009 DMR database for BFI Backridge Sanitary Landfill. The majority of the facility’s TWPE (over 99 percent) is from iron.

Table 10-8. BFI Backridge Sanitary Landfill 2009 Discharges in the DMR Database

Pollutant Total Pounds Total TWPE Percent of Facility Total

TWPE

Iron 782,000 4,380 >99%

Lead 1.32 2.96 <1% Remaining pollutants a 156,440 0 0%

Total 938,700 4,380 100% Source: DMRLoads2009_v2.

a Remaining pollutants discharged by BFI Backridge Sanitary Landfill include total dissolved solids, chlorides, sulfates, and BOD.Section 10

— Landfills (40 CFR Part 445 )



### 10

- 5 The iron discharges for BFI Backridge Sanitary Landfill are from outfalls 001 and 002.

Table 10-9 presents the 2009 iron discharge data in the DMR Loadings Tool and Envirofacts for outfalls 001 and 002. EPA compared the data from the DMR Loadings Tool to Envirofacts and concluded that a data entry error in September 2009 had resulted in iron concentrations 1,000 times high er than March 2009 concentrations. Using the corrected concentrations, BFI Backridge Sanitary Landfill’s discharges decreased from 4,380 to 6.9 TWPE, a reduction of over 99
percent.

Table 10-9. BFI Backridge Sanitary Landfill 2009 Monthly Iron Discharges

Outfall Monitoring Period

Date DMR Loadings Tool Average

Concentration (mg/L) Envirofacts Average Concentration (mg/L) Corrected Average

Concentration (mg/L)

001 31

- Mar

- 09 0.86 0.86 0.86

001 30

- Sep

- 09 950 NR 0.95

002 31

- Mar

- 09 1.8 1.8 1.8

002 30

- Sep

- 09 6300 NR 6.3 Sources: DMR Loadings Tool and Envirofacts. NR: Not reported. Concentrations were not in Envirofacts.



### 10.4 Landfills Category Iron Discharges in DMR

As part of the 2010 reviews of the Landfills Category, EPA compared iron discharges in the 2008 DMR database to treatable levels typical of chemical precipitation and biological

treatment. See Section 8.5 of the Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for additional information on the methodology used to review the iron concentration data, or the memorandum titled “ Methodology for Analyzing Landfill Iron Concentrations in the 2008 DMR Loadings Tool” (U.S. EPA, 2011; ERG, 2010).



### For the 2010 Annual Reviews, EPA determined that 89 percent of iron concentrations in the 2008 DMR database were within treatability concentration ranges (ERG, 2010). Because EPA was concerned about the quality of data, EPA concluded that additional review was necessary and solicited comments as part of the 2010 Final Plan. See 76 FR 66286 (October 26, 2011).

For the 2011 Annual Reviews , EPA used the same methodology to review iron concentration data for the Landfills Category. EPA determined that there were 3,232 iron concentrations in the DMR Loadings Tool for 2009 for facilities in the Landfills Category. EPA removed 0 mg/L or blank concentrations and concentrations reported below the detection limit for all reporting periods, resulting in 1,593 iron concentrations for the 2011 analysis. Because facilities report multiple concentrations for each monitoring period, EPA prioritized the selection of the average concentration and then the maximum (ERG, 2010).

Then, EPA compared the iron concentrations to the EPA Method 200.7 method detection limit (MDL) for iron to determine if the concentrations were at detectable levels. EPA excluded

the 66 iron concentrations (approximately 4 percent) that were below the MDL. EPA calculated the resulting median, average, and maximum of the remaining iron concentrations. EPASection 10

— Landfills (40 CFR Part 445 )



### 10

- 6 analyzed the median concentration rather than the average or maximum because of suspected data entry errors that would skew the average and maximum iron concentrations (ERG, 2010).

EPA then compare d the median iron concentration to available chemical precipitation and biological treatability data. EPA chose these specific wastewater treatment technologies because they were the technologies used to determine the best available technology basis used to develop limits for the RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfills. EPA used treatability data for chemical precipitation and biological treatment already established during previous annual

reviews 8 

### (U.S. EPA, 2009).

T able 10-10 presents the 2008 and 2009 median iron concentrations compared to the EPA Method 200.7 MDL and treatability concentrations for chemical precipitation and biological treatment. S imilar to the 2010 findings, Table 10-10 shows that the median concentration in landfill discharges is below the maximum concentrations achievable by chemical precipitation and biological treatment.

8 As part of the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category Detai led Study, EPA collected treatability data for chemical precipitation and biological treatment systems. Iron was included in the treatability data (U.S. EPA, 2009).Section 10

— Landfills (40 CFR Part 445 )



### 10

- 7 Table 10-10. Iron Concentrations in the 2008 and 2009 DMR Database Compared to Treatability Concentrations

Discharge Year Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant a Median

Concentration (mg/L) EPA 200.7 MDL (mg/L) Chemical Precipitation

Treatment

Concentration Range (mg/L) Biological

Treatment

Concentration Range (mg/L) Percent of

Concentrations

Above Chemical

Precipitation Range Percent of

Concentrations Above Biological

Treatment

Range

2008 146 1.21 0.03 0.019 –6 ND (0.0022)

– 23 11% 2%

2009 b 122 0.85 8% 1.5%

Source s : DMR Loadings Tool; Method 200.7 Determination of Metals and Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductivel y Couple Plasma

- Atomic Emission Spectrometry ( U.S. EPA, 1994); and 2009 Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report ( U.S. EPA, 200 9 ).

a Number of facilities reporting iron concentrations after EPA excluded outfalls with all non

- detect concentrations and concentrations reported as 0 mg/L.

b EPA used the corre cted iron concentration for BFI Backridge Sanitary Landfill in the 2009 iron median concentration.

MDL : Method detection limit.

ND : Non

- detect . Detection limit indicated in parentheses

.Section 10

— Landfills (40 CFR Part 445 )



### 10-8 The 2009 median iron concentration for all outfalls is less than the biological treatment or chemical precipitation treatability concentrations and less than the 2008 median iron concentration for all outfalls. Approximately 92 percent of the iron concentrations are below the chemical precipitation treatability ( below 6 mg/L) and 98.5 percent are below the biological treatment treatability (below 23 mg/L). The remaining iron concentrations above the chemical precipitation treatment range are reported by a total of 37 facilities, four of which are al so above the biological treatment range. EPA determined that approximately 75 percent of the facilities reporting iron concentrations above treatable levels are located in Missouri and Kentucky.

10.5 Landfills Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the Landfills Category discharges results mainly from the discharges of metals. During the 2010 Annual Reviews , EPA identified many data entry errors in

the Landfill s Category DMR data, because they are predominately minor discharges. Based on corrected discharge data, further review at this time is unnecessary. Therefore, EPA concludes the following:

• Database errors were identified for copper, fluoride, boron, manganese, and iron. Making these corrections decreases the Landfills Category TWPE by over 85 percent, from 221,000 to 32,400. With this reduction, the Landfills Category

would rank 23 rd 

### , which is outside the top 95 percent that EPA prioritized for preliminary r eview as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews.

• Ninety -two percent of iron concentrations in the 2009 DMR database are within treatability concentration ranges.

• Because the majority of 2009 DMR iron concentrations are within the treatability concentration ranges and approximately 85 percent of the TWPE was a result of database errors, EPA will continue to review the Landfills category iron discharges in future years.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision

based o n the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8 -1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

10.6 Landfills Category References

1. ERG. 2010. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Memorandum to William Swietlik, U.S. EPA, From Jessica Wolford and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: Methodology for Analyzing Landfill Iron Concentrations in the 2008 DMR Loadings Tool. (October). EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN 07277.

2. Cozad, Marletta. 2011. Notes From Telephone Communication Between Marletta Cozad, MDNR, and Kimberly Landick and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re:Section 10

— Landfills (40 CFR Part 445 )



### 10-9 2009 DMR Lead Discharges for Butler County Landfill.” (February 23). EPA

- HQ

- OW

2010-0824. DCN 07531.

3. U.S. EPA. 1994. Method 200.7 Determination of Metals and Trace Elements i n Water and Wastes by Inductively Couple Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry Revision 4.4. Washington, DC. (Unknown). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/method/files/200_7.pdf.

4. U.S. EPA. 2009. Steam Electric Power Generating Poin t Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report . EPA-821-R-008. Washington, DC. (October). EPA- HQ

- OW

2008-0517-0413.

5. U.S. EPA. 2011. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-820R-10-021. EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07320.

6. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.Section 11

— Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432 )



### 11-1 11. M EAT AND 

### P OULTRY 

### P RODUCTS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 432)

EPA selected the Meat and Poultry Products (Meat and Poultry) Category for preliminary review because it ranks high, in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in the point source category rankings. This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews

associated with the Meat and Poultry Category. EPA focused on discharges of nitrate compounds because of their high TWPE relative to the other pollutants in the Meat and Poultry Category.

11.1 Meat and Poultry Category Background

This subsection provides the background on the M eat and Poultry Category including a brief profile of the Meat and Poultry industry and background on 40 CFR Part 432.

11.1.1 Meat and Poultry Industry Profile

The meat and poultry industry includes facilities engaged in the slaughtering, dressing and packing of meat and poultry products for human consumption and/or animal food and feeds. Meat and poultry products for human consumption include meat and poultry from cattle, hogs, sheep, chickens, turkeys, ducks and other fowl as well as sausages, luncheon meats and cured, smoked or canned or other prepared meat and poultry products from purchased carcasses and

other materials. Meat and poultry products for animal food and feeds include animal oils, meat meal and facilities that render grease and tallow from animal fat, bones and meat scraps (40 CFR §432.1) EPA considered the following eight industrial categories as part of the Meat and Poultry Products Category:

• Other Animal Food Manufacturing (Meat and Poultry Products)

• Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering

• Meat Processed from Carcasses

• Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing

• Poultry Processing

• All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing (Meat and Poultry Products)

• Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken Production

• Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing

Because the sources of the discharge monitoring report (DMR) data used to develop

DMRLoads2009 report facilities by Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC ) code and the U.S. Economic Census and Toxics Report Inventory ( TRI ) report data by North American Industry

Classificati on System ( NAICS ) code, EPA reclassified the 2009 DMR data by the equivalent NAICS code. See Section 4.2.1.2 of the 2009 SLA Report for additional details (U.S. EPA, 2009). Table 11-1 lists the number of facilities from the 2007 U.S. Economic Census and the toxicity rankings databases for the eight industrial categories with operations in the Meat andSection 11

— Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432 )



### 11-2 Poultry Category. The U.S. Economic Census includes more facilities than the toxicity rankings

databases for many reasons : facilities may not meet TRI

- reporting thresholds, facilities may discharge to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW), and some facilities in the U.S.

Eco nomic Census are distributors or sales facilities, not manufacturers.

Table 11-1 also includes the number of meat and poultry facilities by major or minor discharge s tatus in the 2009 DMR database. As described in Section 2.1.5 , permitting authorities classify discharges as major or minor based on the potential impact of the discharge (U.S. EPA, 2011). In general, major discharges are expected to impact receiving water s if not controlled; minor discharges may, or may not, adversely impact receiving waters if not controlled. Also as described in 2.1.5, the PCS and ICIS- NPDES databases include data only for a limited set of minor discharges (i.e., if the state or other permitting authority chooses to include these data).

Table 11-1 shows that approximately 78 percent of the Meat and Poultry Category discharges in the 2009 DMR database are minor discharges. Table 11-1 also presents the type of discharges reported by facilities in the 2009 TRI database. The majority of the meat and po ultry facilities reporting to TRI reported direct discharges to surface waters.

Table 11-1. Number of Meat and Poultry Facilities

2007 U.S.

Economic

Census 2009 DMR 2009 TRI

Total Minor Major Total Indirect Dischargers Only Direct Dischargers Only Both

Indirect

and Direct Dischargers

6,357 189 147 42 173 64 92 17

Source: U.S. Economic Census ( 2007); TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.



### 11.1.2 40 CFR Part 432

EPA most recently updated effluent limitations guidelines ( ELGs ) for the Meat and Poultry Category (40 CFR Part 432) on September 8, 2004 (69 FR 54476). This category consists of 12 subcategories that apply to the manufacture of products and product groups , as shown in Table 11-2 with corresponding applicability , regulated pollutants, and limitations . In addition to best practicable control technology (BPT), best available technology economically achievable (BAT) , and new source performance standards (NSPS) are also included in 40 CFR

Part 432. Table 11-2 presents the BAT -based ELG limits for the Meat and Poultry Category.Section 11

— Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432 )



### 11-3 Table 11-2. Applicability, Regulated Pollutants, and BAT ELG Limits

for the Meat and Poultry Category

Subpart Subcategory

Title Subcategory Applicability Ammonia as N a Total Nitrogen a

Max Daily (mg/L) Max Monthly Average (mg/L) Max Daily (mg/L) Max Monthly Average (mg/L)

A

b Simple Slaughterhouses Process wastewater discharges resulting from production of meat carcasses by simple slaughterhouses. 8.0 4.0 194 134

B b Complex Slaughterhouses Process wastewater discharges resulting from production of meat carcasses by complex slaughterhouses. 8.0 4.0 194 134

C b Low

- processing Packinghouses Process wastewater discharges resulting from production of meat carcasses by low

- processing packinghouses. 8.0 4.0 194 134

D b High

- processing Packinghouses Process wastewater discharges resulting from production of meat carcasses by high

- processing packinghouses. 8.0 4.0 194 134

E c Small Processors Process wastewater discharges resulting from production of finished meat products (i.e.: fresh meat cuts, smoked products, canned products, hams, sausages, and luncheon meats) by a small

processor. NA NA NA NA

F d Meat Cutters Process wastewater discharges resulting from production of fresh

meat cuts (i.e.: steaks, roasts, and chops) by a meat cutter. 8.0 4.0 194 134

G d Sausage and

Luncheon Meats

Processors Process wastewater discharges resulting from production of fresh meat cuts, sausage, bologna, and other luncheon meats by a sausage and luncheon meat

processor. 8.0 4.0 194 134

H d Ham Processors Process wastewater discharges resulting from production of hams by a ham processor. 8.0 4.0 194 134

I d Canned Meats

Processors Process wastewater discharges resulting from production of canned meats by a canned meats

processor. 8.0 4.0 194 134Section 11

— Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432 )



### 11-4 Table 11-2. Applicability, Regulated Pollutants, and BAT ELG Limits

for the Meat and Poultry Category

Subpart Subcategory

Title Subcategory Applicability Ammonia as N a Total Nitrogen a

Max Daily (mg/L) Max Monthly Average (mg/L) Max Daily (mg/L) Max Monthly Average (mg/L)

J Renderers Process wastewater discharges resulting from production of meat meal, dried animal by

- product residues (tankage), animal oils, grease and tallow, and hide curing, by a renderer. 0.14 (pounds per 1000 lbs (g/kg)

of raw material) 0.07 (pounds per 1000 lbs (g/kg)

of raw material); 194 134

K e Poultry First Processing Process wastewater discharges resulting from slaughtering of poultry, further processing of poultry and rendering of material derived from slaughtered poultry. 8.0 4.0 147 103

L f Poultry Further Processing Process wastewater discharges resulting from further processing of poultry. 8.0 4.0 147 103

Source: 40 CFR §432

a Units are mg/L unless otherwise note d.

b Any existing point source subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 50 million pounds per year (in units live weight kill (LWK)) must achieve the applicable total Nitrogen and Ammonia as N BAT based limits.

c The Small Processors Subcategory d oes not have BAT based limits; however, it does have BPT and NSPS based limits for BOD5, fecal coliform, oil and gas, and TSS.

d The total Nitrogen BAT based limit only applies to facilities with more than 50 million pounds per year of final product. The A mmonia as N BAT based limit applies to all facilities.

e Any existing point source subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 100 million pounds per year (in units LWK) must achieve the applicable total Nitrogen and Ammonia as N BAT based limits.

f Any existing point source subject to this subpart that slaughters more than 7 million pounds per year (in units LWK) must achieve the applicable total Nitrogen and Ammonia as N BAT based limits. NA: Not applicable.



### 11.2 Meat and Poultry Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 11-3 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Meat and Poultry Products Category from the 2009 through 2011 Annual Reviews. The combined DMR and TRI TWPE decreased from discharge years 200 7 to 2009. The estimated 2009 TRI TWPE accounts for approximately 76 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE.Section 11

— Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432 )



### 11-5 Table 11-3. Meat and Poultry Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2009 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

Year of Discharge Year of Review Meat and Poultry Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2007 c 2009 35 ,900 53 6,000 572,000

2008 c 2010 61,600 15,700 77,300

2009 2011 53,800 17,200 71,000

Sources: TRI Releases 2007 v2, DMRLoads2007_v4, TRIReleases2008_v3, DMRLoads2008_v 3;
TRIReleases2009_v2; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2007 include only major dischargers. DMR 2008 data include both minor and major dischargers.

c EPA did not review discharges from the Meat and Poultry Category as part of the 2009 and 2010 Annual

Reviews because the category ELGs were promulgated in 2004. In general, EPA does not review discharge data

for an industrial point source category if EPA established, revised, or reviewed the category’s ELGs within

seven years of the annual review.



### 11.3 Meat and Poultry Category Pollutants of Concern

EPA’s review of th e Meat and Poultry Category focused on the 2009 TRI discharges because the 2009 TRI data dominate the category’s combined TWPE. Table 11-4 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE based on results from the 2011 Annual Reviews ( TRIReleases 2009_v2 ). The top TRI-reported pollutant in 2009, nitrate, contributes more than 87 percent of the category’s 2009 TRI TWPE. As a result, EPA’s additional review for the 2011

An nual Reviews focused on nitrate. EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews because they account for only 13 percent of the 2009 Meat and Poultry Category TRI TWPE; however, EPA did review DMR data to aid in the review of the 2009 TRI nitrate discharges.

Table 11-4. Meat and Poultry Category Top TRI Pollutants

Pollutant 2009 TRI Data a

Rank Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant TWPE

Nitrate compounds b 1 116 46,900

Chlorine 2 4 2,840

Lead and lead compounds 3 1 1,590

Mercury and mercury compounds 4 1 1,480

Ammonia 5 126 853

Meat and Poultry Category Total NA 173 c 53,800

Source: TRIReleases2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b The TRI list of chemicals within water

- dissociable nitrate compounds category and guidance for reporting includes 49 pollutants. A full list of TRI pollutants included in the “Nitrate Compounds” category is available

online at: http://www.epa.g ov/tri/guide_docs/pdf/2000/nitrates2000.pdf

.

c Number of facilities reporting a TWPE of greater than zero.Section 11

— Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432 )



### 11-6 11.4 Meat and Poultry Category Nitrate Compound Discharges in TRI

Nitrate compound discharges from meat and poultry facilities in the 2009 TRI database account for 87 percent of the category’s 2009 TRI TWPE. Table 11-5 presents the facilities that account for the nitrate compound discharges in the 2009 TRI database.Section 11

— Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432 )



### 11-7 Table 11-5. Meat and Poultry Category Nitrate Compounds Dischargers in the 2009 TRI Database

Facility Name Location Subcategory Nitrate Compound

Pounds Released Nitrate Compound TWPE Facility Percent of

Nitrate Compound Category TWPE

Tyson Fresh Meats

, Inc

. Lexington, N E B 4,990,000 3,730 7.94 %

Tyson Fresh Meats

, Inc

., Joslin I L Hillsdale, I L B 4,450,000 3,320 7.08 %

Cargill Meat Solutions Corp

. Schuyler, N E B 3,850,000 2,870 6.12 %

Smithfield Packing

, Co

., Inc

. Tar Heel Div Tar Heel, N C Undetermined 3,750,000 2,800 5.96 %

Cargill Meat Solutions Corp

. Beardstown, IL Undetermined 3,650,000 2,730 5.81 %

Lewiston Processing Plant Lewiston Woodville, N C Undetermined 3,260,000 2,440 5.19 %

Accomac Processing Plant Accomac, V A Undetermined 2,080,000 1,550 3.3 %

Farmland Foods

, Inc

. Crete, N E B 1,780,000 1,330 2.84 %

JBS Plainwell Plainwell, M I Undetermined 1,750,000 1,300 2.78 %

Cargill Meat Solutions Corp

. Wyalusing, P A B 1,670,000 1,250 2.66 %

Tyson Fresh Meats

, Inc

. Columbus Junction,

I A Undetermined 1,620,000 1,210 2.58 %

Tyson Foods

, Inc

., Blountsville Processing Plant Blountsville, A L Undetermined 1,490,000 1,110 2.37 %

Pilgrim ’ s Pride

, Corp

., Mt

. Pleasant Complex Mount Pleasant, T X Undetermined 1,390,000 1,040 2.22 %

Remaining facilities reporting nitrate compounds discharges a 27,100,000 20,300 43.2 %

Total 62,900,000 46,900 100 %

Source: TRIReleases2009_v2

.

a There are 103 remaining facilities that have nitrate compounds discharges in the 2009 TRI database, which account for approxi mately 43 percent of the category’s nitrate compounds 2009 TRI TWPE.Section 11

— Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432 )



### 11-8 Several forms of nitrogen are pollutants of concern in the meat and poultry processing wastewaters: total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia nitrogen, and nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen. Because protein is the principal component of meat and blood, meat and poultry wastewaters can contain relatively high concentrations of nitrogen. Nitrite and nitrate nitrogen compounds are usually present in process wastewater at concentrations less than 1 mg/L prior to biological treatment. Nitrite and nitrate concentrations can be higher than the reported 1 mg/L if nitrite and

nitrate salts are used for curing meat or poultry (U.S. EPA, 2002).

Nitrite and nitrate nitrogen is rarely present before aerobic biological treatment due to the lack of oxygen necessary for microbially mediated nitrification. Therefore, the principal source

of n itrite and nitrate nitrogen following treatment is nitrification. Biological treatment is often required, at least seasonally, to satisfy effluent limitations for the discharge of ammonia nitrogen to surface waters. Many NPDES permits are written with seas onal limits for ammonia because the lower pH and temperature of the receiving waters during winter reduce the toxicity of ammonia by converting it to ammonium (U.S. EPA, 2002).

The principal concern about oxidized nitrogen in the wastewater is its role in eutrophication . An additional concern is its potential for increasing ambient surface water nitrate nitrogen concentrations above the national maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg/ L in source waters used for public drinking water supplies (U.S. EPA, 2002).

The biological removal of nitrogen from wastewaters is a two -step process beginning with nitrification followed by denitrification. Under anaerobic conditions, ammonia is oxidized to nitrite, which is oxidized to nitrate in the process of nitrificati on. Following the anaerobic conditions, nitrite and nitrate are reduced microbially by denitrification, producing nitrogen gas as the principal end product (U.S. EPA, 2002). Table 11-6 lists the BAT options for the meat and poultry subcategories.

Table 11-6 . BAT Treatment Basis for the Meat and Poultry Subcategories

Subcategory Treatment Unit Processes (Pollutants Removed)

A

– D Dissolved air flotation, lagoon, nitrification, denitrification, and disinfection

E NA (no BAT limits)

F

– I Dissolved air flotation, lagoon, nitrification, denitrification, and disinfection

K Dissolved air flotation, nitrification, denitrification, and disinfection

L Dissolved air flotation, lagoon, nitrification, denitrification, and disinfection

J Dissolved air flotation, nitrification, denitrification, and disinfection
Source: Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Source Category (U.S. EPA, 2002).



### EPA determined that five out of the top 13 nitrate compound discharging facilities are complex slaughterhouses regulated by Subpart B of the Meat and Poultry ELGs. Subpart B (Complex Slaughterhouses) applies to discharges of process wastewater associated with the production of meat carcasses, in whole or in part, by complex slaughterhouses. Process wastewater includes water from animal holding areas at these facilities. By definition, a complex slaughterhouse is a slaughterhouse that provides extensive processing of the by-products of meat slaughtering (40 CFR §432.20 and §432.21). The BAT treatment basis for Subpart B is dissolved

air flo tation, lagoons, nitrification, denitrification, and disinfection (U.S. EPA, 2002). This subsection provides information on each facility’s operations and nitrate compounds discharges

in the 2009 TRI database.Section 11

— Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432 )



### 11-9 11.4.1 Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc

.

Tyson Fresh Meats, In c. (Tyson Lexington), in Lexington, NE is a complex beef cattle slaughterhouse (NDEQ, 2004a). The facility’s nitrate compound discharges account for approximately 8 percent of the 2009 TRI nitrate compound TWPE. The facility permit recognizes wastewater di scharges from two outfalls, 001 and 002. Outfall 001 discharges treated process wastewater from the slaughter of beef cattle. The process wastewater is treated by a dissolved air flotation system, two anaerobic lagoon cells, a plant with two activated slud ge basins, chlorination, dechlorination, and storage ponds for off specification wastewaters. Outfall 002 is an emergency bypass, to be used only when outfall 001 is unavailable for discharge. No discharge is allowable without prior written authorization. The facility permit does not limit nitrate discharges from outfall 001 or 002; however, it does seasonally limit ammonia (NDEQ, 2004a).

11.4.2 Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc

.

Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (Tyson Joslin), in Hillsdale, IL is a complex slaughterhouse.

Wastewater at the facility is generated from slaughtering, process and rendering, boilers, yard washing, hides cleaning/curing, tannery, tannery mean house and other facility operations (IL EPA, 2004). The facility’s nitrate compound discharges account for approxima tely 7 percent of the 2009 TRI nitrate compounds TWPE. The plant operations result in an average discharge of 3.17 MGD of treated process wastewater, boiler blowdown, sanitary waste, miscellaneous waste, stormwater and cooling water discharges from outfall 001. The facility permit does not limit nitrate discharges from outfall 001; however, it does seasonally limit ammonia (IL EPA, 2004).

The facility reports 988,000 pounds of nitrate discharged from outfall 001 in the 2009

DMR database. As shown in Table 11-5 , the facility reports 4,450,000 pounds of nitrate compounds in the 2009 TRI database, a difference of 3,460,000 pounds. Because of the

difference between the 2009 DMR and 2009 TRI data, the facility is likely overestimating the amount of nitrate compounds reported to the 2009 TRI database. It is common for facilities to include non-industrial pollutant loads, such as loads from stormwater, based on TRI reporting gui dance. Additionally, facilities often estimate TRI pollutant loadings based on inventory, production, and emission factors, not actual sampling data as in the DMR database.

11.4.3 Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation

Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation’s facility (Cargill Schuyler) in Schuyler, NE is a complex beef slaughterhouse and meat processing plant (NDEQ, 2004b). The facility’s nitrate compound discharges account for approximately 6 percent of the 2009 TRI nitrate compounds TWPE. The facility permit recognize s wastewater discharges from outfalls 001, 002, and 003. Outfall 001 discharges treated process wastewater from the beef slaughterhouse. The treatment at the plant includes a dissolved air flotation unit, anaerobic lagoon cells, a four- chambered sequence b atch reactor (an activated sludge plant), a chlorine contact basin, and dechlorination. Outfall 002 discharges non-contact cooling water from ammonia condensers for meat coolers. Outfall 003 is a land application of treated effluent discharge to various ag ricultural sites. The source of the water is the treated process wastewater stored in the wet storage lagoon cell. The facility permit does not limit nitrate discharges for outfalls 001, 002, or 003; however, it does seasonally limit ammonia (NDEQ, 2004b).Section 11

— Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432 )



### 11-10 11.4.4 Farmland Foods, Inc.

Farmland Foods, Inc. (Farmland Foods) in Crete, NE is a complex swine slaughterhouse that slaughters hogs and processes them into fresh pork products as well as smoked meat products. All byproducts are cooked down in the rendering process and the non-condensable vapors are discharged through an air scrubbing system of a water curtain vortex. The majority of process water originates from floor drains throughout the plant (i.e., drains from the kill floor, cut floor, and cleanup area) (NDEQ, 2005). The facility’s nitrate compounds discharge account for approximately 2.8 percent of the 2009 TRI nitrate compound TWPE. The facility permit recognizes wastewater discharges from outfalls 001 and 002 (NDEQ, 2005).

Outfall 001 discharges wastewater from the cut floor, kill floor, as well as cleanup wastewater, sanitary water, and non

- contact cooling water. Wastewater treatment at the facility includes screening, dissolved air flotation, two anaerobic lagoons, an anoxic tank, three aeration

basi ns, two final clarifiers (activated sludge), a chlorine contact basin and dechlorination, and a sludge holding lagoon. Outfall 002 discharges single-pass, non- contact cooling water. The facility permit does not limit nitrate discharges from outfalls 001 or 002; however, it does limit ammonia (NDEQ, 2005).

11.4.5 Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation

Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation’s facility (Cargill Wyalusing) in Wyalusing, PA is a complex slaughterhouse that butchers and packages beef meat products (PA DEP, 2004). The facility’s nitrate compounds discharges account for approximately 2.6 percent of the 2009 TRI nitrate compound TWPE. The facility permit recognizes wastewater discharges from outfall 001. Outfall 001 discharges wastewater from the complex slaugh terhouse process, the air scrubber, boiler blowdown, and sewage waters. Wastewater treatment at the facility includes screening, anaerobic lagoons, aeration, clarification, chlorination, dechlorination, sludge thickening, and sludge land application. The f acility does not limit nitrate discharges from outfall 001; however, it does seasonally limit ammonia (PA DEP, 2004).

11.5 Nitrate Concentrations in the 2009 DMR Database

EPA reviewed the 2009 DMR nitrate as nitrogen pollutant discharges to determine the

order of magnitude of the nitrate concentration discharges for meat and poultry facilities. EPA reviewed the nitrate concentrations from the 17 meat and poultry facilities that have 2009 DMR data, nine of which also report to the 2009 TRI database.

EPA compared the nitrate concentrations to the ambient surface water national MCL of 10 mg/L in source waters used for public drinking water supplies (U.S. EPA, 2002). In order to compare the nitrate concentrations, EPA determined that there were 286 nitrate concentra tions in the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool. No nitrate concentrations were reported below the detection limit; therefore, EPA used all 286 concentrations for the analysis. Because facilities report multiple concentrations for each monitoring period, EPA prioritiz ed the selection of the average concentration, then the maximum, and finally the minimum concentration. For facilities that reported nitrate quantity values, EPA back-calculated the concentrations using the quantity and the average monthly flow. Table 11-7 presents the minimum, maximum, and median nitrate concentration values evaluated in the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool.Section 11

— Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432 )



### 11-11 Table 11-7. Minimum, Maximum, and Median Nitrate Concentrations in the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool

Minimum Nitrate Concentration (mg/L) Maximum Nitrate Concentration (mg/L) Median Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)

0 147 15.6
Source: DMR Loadings Tool

.



### Figure 11 -1 presents the nitrate concentrations reported in the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool compared to the national MCL of 10 mg/L. As the figure shows, about 60 percent of the nitrate concentrations in the 2009 DMR Loading Tool are greater than the national MCL.

Figure 11 -1. Meat and Poultry Nitrate Concentration Probability Plot

11.6 Meat and Poultry Category Conclusions

T he majority of the estimated toxicity of the Meat and Poultry Category discharges

results from nitrate compound discharges. Data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews led EPA to conclude that, for the facilities that report nitrate discharges, the median nitr ate concentration was 15.6 mg/L. EPA believes some facilities have not received updated permits reflective of effluent guidelines (Part 432). As a result, EPA will continue to review nitrate compound discharges from meat and poultry facilities during its 2 012 Annual Reviews.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority forNitrate Concentrations (mg/L)

Percent of Concentrations Greater than, Equal to, or Less than the Nitrate MCL Nitrate Concentration

Nitrate MCLSection 11

— Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432 )



### 11-12 revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(5)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8 -1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

11.7 Meat and Poultry Category References

1. IL EPA, 2004. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Division of Water Pollution Control. Facility Permit for NPDES IL0003913 – Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Joslin, IL. (March 25). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07519.

2. NDEQ, 2004a. Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Fact Sheet for NPDES NE0123501 – Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Lexington, NE. (January 4). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-

0824 DCN 07520.

3. NDEQ, 2004b. Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Facility Permit for

NPDES NE0000795 – Cargill Meats Solutions Corporation, Schuyler, NE. (August 30).

EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07521.

4. NDEQ, 2005. Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Facility Permit for NPDES NE0032191 – Farmland Foods, Inc., Crete, NE. (March 1). EPA- HQ

- OW -2010-

0824 DCN 07522.

5. PA DEP, 2004. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Facility Permit for NPDES PA0111759 – Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, Wyalusing, PA (March 31). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07523.

6. U.S. Economic Census. 2007. 2007 Economic Census. Availa ble online at: http://www.census.gov/econ/census07

.

7. U.S. EPA, 2002. Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Industry Point Sourc e Category . Washington, D.C. (January). EPA-821-B-01-007.

8. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-821-R-09-007.

9. U.S. EPA. 2011. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-820-R-10-021. EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07320.

10. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.Section 12

— Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433 )



### 12-1 12. M ETAL 

### F INISHING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 433)

EPA selected the Metal Finishing Category for preliminary review because it ranks high,

in terms of toxic -weighted pound equivalents (TWPE), in the point source category rankings.

This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews associated with the Metal Finishing Category. EPA focused on discharges of silver, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and cyanide, because of their high TWPE relative to the other pollutants in the Metal Finishing Category

.

12.1 Metal Finishing Category Background

This subsection provides the background on the M etal Finishing Category , including a brief profile of the metal finishing industry and background on 40 CFR Part 433.

12.1.1 Metal Finishing Industry Profile

The Metal Finishing Category includes plants that engage in changing the surface of an object to improve its appearance and/or durability. It also includes direct discharging plants that engage in processes related to electroplating, which is the production of a thin surface coating of one metal on another by electrodeposition (U.S. EPA, 1983). The Metal Finishing Category includes 200 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes (corresponding to 178 Standard Industrial Classification, or SIC

, codes).

T he sources of the discharge monitoring report (DMR) data used to develop

DMRLoads2009 report facilities by SIC code; the U.S. Economic Census and Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI ) report data by NAICS code . Accordingly , EPA reclassified the 2009 DMR data by the equivalent NAICS code. See Section 4.2.1.2 of the 2009 SLA Report for additional details (U.S. EPA, 2009). Table 12-1 lists the number of facilities from the 2007 U.S. Economic Census

and the toxicity rankings databases for the 200 industrial categories with operations in the Metal Finishing Category. The U.S. Economic Census includes more facilities than the toxicity rankings databases for many reasons: facilities may not meet TRI

- reporting thresholds, facilities may discharge to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW), and some facilities in the U.S. Economic Census are distributors or sales facilities, not manufacturers.

Tab le 12-1 . Number of Metal Finishing Facilities

2007 U.S.

Economic Census 2009 DMR 2009 TRI

Total Minor Major Total Indirect Dischargers Only Direct Dischargers Only Both Indirect
and Direct Dischargers

166,356 858 749 109 1,970 1,382 323 265
Sources: U.S. Economic Census (2007), TRIReleases2009_v2, and DMRLoads2009_v2

.



### Table 12-1 also includes the number of metal finishing facilities by major or minor discharge status in the 2009 DMR database. As described in Section 2.1.5, permitting authorities classify discharges a s major or minor based on the potential impact of the discharge. In general, major discharges are expected to impact receiving waters if not controlled; minor discharges may or may not. Also as described in Section 2.1.5, the PCS and ICIS

- NPDES databases include data for a limited set of minor discharges (i.e., only those for which the state or other permittingSection 12

— Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433 )



### 12-2 authority chooses to include these data). Table 12-1 shows that approximately 82 percent of the Metal Finishing Category discharges in the 2009 DMR database are minor discharges. Table

12-1 also presents the type of discharges reported by facilities in the 2009 TRI database. The majority of the metal finishing facilities reporting to TRI reported indirect discharges to surface

waters.

12.1.2 40 CFR Part 433

EPA first promulgated effluent limitations guidelines ( ELGs ) for the Metal Fi nishing Category (40 CFR Part 433) on September 15, 1983 (48 FR 41409). This category consists of one subcategory (Subpart A, “Metal Finishing Subcategory ”) that applies to the manufacture of products and product groups, as shown in Table 12 -2 with corresponding applicability, regulated pollutants, and limitations . In addition to best practicable control technology (BPT), best available technology economically achieva ble (BAT) , and new source performance standards (NSPS), the category includes pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) and pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) limitations

.

Table 12-2. Appl icability, Regulated Pollutants, and ELG Limits for the Metal Finishing Category

Subpart Applicability Pollutant BAT/PSES Daily Max (Monthly Average) (mg/L) NSPS/PSNS Daily Max (Monthly Average) (mg/L) c
Subpart A

– Metal Finishing Subcategory The provisions of this subpart apply to discharges from the following six metal finishing operations on any basis material: Electroplating, Electroless Plating, Anodizing, Coating (chromating, phosphating, and coloring), Chemical Etching and Milling, and P rinted Circuit Board Manufacture. a,b,c Silver 0.43 (0.24) 0.43 (0.24)
Copper 3.38 (2.07) 3.38 (2.07)

Lead 0.69 (0.43) 0.69 (0.43)
Cyanide 1.20 (0.65) 1.20 (0.65)

Cadmium 0.69 (0.26) 0.11 (0.07)

Chromium 2.77 (1.71) 2.77 (1.71)

Nickel 3.98 (2.38) 3.98 (2.38)

Zinc 2.61 (1.48) 2.61 (1.48)
For industrial facilities with cyanide treatment, and upon agreement between a source subject to those limits and the pollution control authority, the following amenable cyanide limit may apply in place of the total cyanide limit. Cyanide

a menable to

a lkaline

c hlorination 0.86 (0.32) 0.86 (0.32)

Source: 40 CFR § 433.10.

a If any of those six operations are present, then this part applies to discharges from those operations and also to discharges from any of the following 40 process operations: c leaning, m achining, g rinding, p olishing, t umbling,

b urnishing, i mpact d eformation, p ressure d eformation, s hearing, h eat t reating, t hermal c utting, w elding, b razing,

s oldering, f lame s praying, s and b lasting, o ther a brasive j et m achining, e lectric d ischarge m achining,

e lectrochemical m achining, e lectron b eam m achining, l aser be am m achining, p lasma a rc m achining, u ltrasonic

m achining, s intering, l aminating, h ot d ip c oating, s puttering, v apor p lating, t hermal i nfusion, s alt b ath d escaling,

s olvent d egreasing, p aint s tripping, p ainting, e lectrostatic p ainting, e lectropainting, v acuum m etalizing, a ssembly,

c alibration, t esting, and m echanical p lating.

b In some cases

, effluent limitations and standards for industrial categories may be effective and applicable to wastewater discharges from the metal finishing operations listed abo ve. In such cases these part 433 limits shall not apply and the applicable industrial category regulations shall apply.

c This part does not apply to (1) m etallic platemaking and gravure cylinder preparation conducted within or for printing and publishing facilities or (2) e xisting indirect discharging job shops and independent printed circuit board manufacturers which are covered by 40 CFR part 413.)Section 12

— Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433 )



### 12-3 12.2 Metal Finishing Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 12-3 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Metal Finishing Category from the 2009 through 2011 Annual Reviews . The combined DMR and TRI TWPE decreased from discharge years 2007 to 2009. The estimated 2009 DMR TWPE accounts for approximately 69 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE.

Table 12-3. Metal Finishing Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2009 T hrough 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

Year of Discharge Year of Review Metal Finishing Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2007 c 2009 62,000 3,360,000 3,422,000

2008 c 2010 74,400 463,000 537,400

2009 2011 86,100 197,000 283,100

Sources: TRI Releases 2007 v2

, DMRLoads2007_v4

, TRIReleases2008_v3, DMRLoads2008_v 3 ; TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2007 include only major dischargers. DMR 2008 data include both minor and major dischargers.

c EPA did not review discharges from the Metal Finishing Category as part of the 2009 and 2010 Annual Reviews because the category had recently undergone review and therefore could include data entry errors.



### 12.3 Metal Finishing Category Pollutants of Concern

EPA’s review of the Metal Finishing Category focused on the 2009 DMR discharges because the 2009 DMR data dominate the category’s combined TWPE. Table 12-4 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE based on results from the 2011 Annual Reviews ( DMRLoads2009_v2 ). The top three DMR-reported pollutants in 2009 contribute more than 76 percent of the category’s 2009 DMR TWPE. As a result, EPA’s re view, presented in the following subsections, focused on the top three DMR database pollutants of concern: silver, cyanide, and PCB-1248. EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews because they account for a minority (45 percent) of the 2009 Metal Finishing Category DMR TWPE.

Table 12-4. Metal Finishing Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 2009 DMR Data a

Rank Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant TWPE

Silver 1 56 44,800

Cyanide 2 114 39,400

PCB

- 1248 3 2 24,200

Lead 4 123 17,300

Cadmium 5 65 16,900

Metal Finishing Category Total NA 360 b 142,600

Source: DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a DMR data include major and minor dischargers.

b Number of facilities reporting a TWPE of greater than zero.Section 12

— Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433 )



### 12-4 12.4 Metal Finishing Category Silver Discharges in DMR

Silver discharges from metal finishing facilities in the 2009 DMR database account for 23 percent of the category’s 2009 DMR TWPE. Table 12-5 presents the facilities that account for the silver discharges in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of silver from one facility, Eastman Kodak Company’s Kodak Park Facility, account for over 91 percent of the category’s silver DMR TWPE. Accordingly, EPA focused on this top facility.

Table 12-5. Metal Finishing Category Silver Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location Silver Pounds Discharged Silver TWPE Facility Percent

of Silver Category TWPE

Eastman Kodak Company, Kodak Park Facility Rochester, NY 2,490 41,100 91.6%

Remaining Facilities Reporting Silver Discharges a 227 3,750 8.4%

Total 2,720 44,800 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a There are 55 remaining facilities that have silver discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 8 percent of the category’s silver DMR TWPE.



### Eastman Kodak Park in Rochester, NY discharges silver via Outfall 001. Outfall 001

includes disch arges of process wastewater (including water from associated activities) and

stormwater to the Genesee River. Table 12-6 pre sents Eastman 

### Kodak Park ’s 2009 monthly silver and flow discharge data in the DMR Loadings Tool for outfall 001. 

### Table 12-6 also presents the

back

- calculated silver concentratio ns, calculated using the 2009 silver quantity and flow values.

Table 12-6. Eastman Kodak Park 2009 Monthly Silver and Flow Discharge Data for Outfall 001

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Monthly Average Silver Discharge (kg/day) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD) Back

- Calculated

Concentrations (mg/L)

31

- Jan

- 09 2.45 17 0.04

28

- Feb

- 09 1.45 18 0.02

31

- Mar

- 09 5.90 17 0.09

30

- Apr

- 09 7.26 17 0.11

31

- May

- 09 4.04 16 0.07

30

- Jun

- 09 4.54 15 0.08

31

- Jul

- 09 1.90 15 0.03

31

- Aug

- 09 1.72 18 0.03

30

- Sep

- 09 1.09 14 0.02

31

- Oct

- 09 2.59 14 0.05

30

- Nov

- 09 2.95 15 0.05

31

- Dec

- 09 1.27 16 0.02

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.Section 12

— Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433 )



### 12-5 Eastman Kodak Park ’s permit limits silver discharge to 15.8 kg/day as a monthly average and 27.2 kg/day as a daily maximum (NY DEC, 2009 ). The Metal Finishing ELG silver limits are 0.24 mg/L monthly average and 0.43 mg/L daily maximum. The BAT treatment technology options used to develop the ELG basis for the concentration based silve r limit are chemical precipitation and clarification at the final effluent (U.S. EPA, 1983). As shown in Table 12-6 , the 2009 silver quantities do not exceed the mass -based permit limitations or concentration- based ELG limitations for silver. As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA also contacted the facility

to confirm their 2009 flow data for outfall 001. Eastman Kodak Part confirmed that EPA was

estim ating the silver load with the correct flow for 2009 (Bishopp, 2011). Therefore, EPA

determined that the silver discharges are likely accurate. As new data become available, EPA will continue to review flow and silver discharges for this facility.

12.5 Metal Fi nishing Category Cyanide Discharges in DMR

Cyanide discharges from metal finishing facilities in the 2009 DMR database account for 20 percent of the category’s DMR TWPE. Table 12-7 presents the cyanide dischargers in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of cyanide from one facility, Eastman Kodak Company’s Windsor Facility (Eastman Windsor), account for 98 percent of the category’s cyanide DMR

TWPE. Accord ingly, EPA focused its review of cyanide discharges on this top facility.

Table 12-7. Metal Finishing Category Cyanide Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location Cyanide Pounds Discharged Cyanide TWPE Facility Percent of Cyanide Category TWPE

Eastman Kodak Company, Windsor Facility Windsor, CO 34,600 38,400 98%

Remaining Facilities Reporting Cyanide Discharges a 844 937 2%

Total 35,500 39,400 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a There are 113 remaining facilities that have cyanide discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 28 percent of the category’s cyanide DMR TWPE.



### Eastman Windsor in Windsor, CO discharges cyanide from outfall 001. Table 12-8

presents 

### Eastman Windsor ’s 2008 and 2009 monthly cyanide and flow discharge data in the DMR Loadings Tool and Envirofacts for outfall 001. 

### The reported monthly average cyanide

concentra tions for 2009 were 1,000 times higher than 2008 concentrations

. Due to the difference in the order of magnitude of the cyanide concentrations from 2008 to 2009, EPA determined that a unit of measurement error had occurred for all monitoring periods in 2009. Using corrected cyanide concentration data, Eastman Windsor’s cyanide discharges decrease to 37 pounds and 41 TWPE for 2009, reducing the facility’s total TWPE by over 99 percent. This reduction in TWPE decreases the Metal Finishing Category’s 2009 DMR TWPE by 38,392 TWPE, making cyanide no longer be a top pollutant of concern.Section 12

— Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433 )



### 12-6 Table 12-8. Eastman Kodak Windsor 2008 and 2009 Monthly Cy anide and Flow Discharge Data for Outfall 001

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Monthly Average Cyanide Concentration (mg/L) Envirofacts Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Jan

- 0 8 0 1.08

2 9

- Feb

- 0 8 0 0.92

31

- Mar

- 0 8 0.011 0.72

30

- Apr

- 0 8 0.02 0.86

31

- May

- 0 8 0.028 0.94

30

- Jun

- 0 8 0 1.2

31

- Jul

- 0 8 < 0.01 1.2 5

31

- Aug

- 0 8 < 0.01 1.43

30

- Sep

- 0 8 0.016 1.23

31

- Oct

- 0 8 < 0.01 1.15

30

- Nov

- 0 8 < 0.01 1.15

31

- Dec

- 0 8 0.023 0.88

31

- Jan

- 09 32 1.02

28

- Feb

- 09 27 0.89

31

- Mar

- 09 21.5 0.73

30

- Apr

- 09 < 10 0.89

31

- May

- 09 6 0.96

30

- Jun

- 09 5.5 0.89

31

- Jul

- 09 < 10 1.12

31

- Aug

- 09 6.5 1.2

30

- Sep

- 09 7.5 1.01

31

- Oct

- 09 9.5 0.87

30

- Nov

- 09 11.5 0.84

31

- Dec

- 09 9.5 1.12

Source s : DMR Loadings Tool and Envirofacts.



### 12.6 Metal Finishing Category PCB -1248 Discharges in DMR

PCB -1248 discharges in the 2009 DMR database account for 12 percent of the total DMR

TWPE. Table 12-9 presents the two metal finishing PCB -1248 dischargers in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of PCB -1248 from General Motors Powertrain’s Tonawanda Engine Plant account for over 95 percent of the category’s PCB-1248 DMR TWPE.

Table 12-9. Metal Finishing Category PCB -1248 Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location PCB

- 1248

Pounds Discharged PCB

- 1248

TWPE Facility Percent

of PCB

- 1248 Category TWPE

General Motors Powertrain

– Tonawanda Engine Plant Buffalo, NY 2.53 23,100 95%Section 12

— Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433 )



### 12-7 Table 12-9. Metal Finishing Category PCB -1248 Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location PCB

- 1248

Pounds Discharged PCB

- 1248

TWPE Facility Percent

of PCB

- 1248 Category TWPE

General Motors Powertrain

– Massena

Plant Massena, NY 0.12 1,100 5%

Total 2.65 24,200 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.



### 12.6.1 General Motors Powertrain , Tonawanda Engine Plant

The General Motors Powertrain (GM) Tonawanda Engine Plant in Buffalo, NY discharges PCB -1248 from outfall 001. Outfall 001 comprises non-contact cooling water, remediation system discharge, garage sump flow, and stormwater. The GM Tonawanda plant began operating in the 1950s. It consisted of three major operations: the engine plant, the forge facility, and the foundry complex. GM Tonawanda still operates an expanded engine plant today,

but it sold the forge facility in 1994 and shut down the foundry complex in 1984. The foundry complex and a ccompanying buildings (wastewater treatment facilities) were demolished between

1996 and 1998. PCBs at the GM Tonawanda facility were historically used in the foundry and forge facilities. The remediation system discharge at this facility includes the remo val of sand and concrete contaminated with PCBs. The demolition plan for the foundry complex included collection, treatment

, and discharge of PCB

- contaminated wastewaters that had been in contact with the foundry sand and concrete; handling and disposal of foundry sand; characterization and handling of PCB- contaminated concrete ; and completion of the project by filling the basement

with flowable fill (NY DEC, 2003b).

Table 12-10 presents GM Tonawanda’s 2009 monthly PCB-1248 concentrations and flow discharge data in the DMR Loadings Tool for outfall 001, with the permit- enforceable compliance level. GM Tonawanda’s 2009 PCB-1248 concentrations do n ot exceed the facility permit -enforceable compliance level. The 2009 flow for outfall 001 is also in compliance with the facility permit limits of 13.5 MGD monthly average and 25 MGD daily maximum. EPA determined that the data are likely accurate, and GM Tonawanda is likely discharging approximately 2.5 pounds of PCB-1248 from outfall 001 annually. However, the outfall contains remediation system discharge, which is not related to the manufacturing process but rather to cleanup of sand and concrete contaminated with PCBs from a foundry complex previously operated onsite.

Table 12-10. GM Tonawanda Outfall 001 2009 Monthly PCB-1248 Discharge and Flow Data

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool

PCB

- 1248 Concentration (μg/L) Facility Permit

Enforceable Compliance Level Limit (μg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Jan

- 09 0.095 0.3 2.84

28

- Feb

- 09 0 0.3 7.10

31

- Mar

- 09 0 0.3 5.34

30

- Apr

- 09 0 0.3 5.84Section 12

— Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433 )



### 12-8 Table 12-10. GM Tonawanda Outfall 001 2009 Monthly PCB-1248 Discharge and Flow Data

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool

PCB

- 1248 Concentration (μg/L) Facility Permit

Enforceable Compliance Level Limit (μg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD)

31

- May

- 09 0 0.3 5.14

30

- Jun

- 09 0 0.3 4.05

31

- Jul

- 09 0 0.3 8.0 9

31

- Aug

- 09 0.19 0.3 9.16

30

- Sep

- 09 0.098 0.3 8.73

31

- Oct

- 09 0.09 0.3 9.4 3

30

- Nov

- 09 0 0.3 7.84

31

- Dec

- 09 0 0.3 7.68

Source s : DMR Loadings Tool and Facility Fact Permit ( NY DEC, 2003 a).



### 12.6.2 General Motors Powertrain – Massena Plant

General Motors Powertrain Massena Plant (GM Massena) in Massena, NY discharges

PCB -1248 from three outfalls : 001, 003, and 005. Outfall 001 discharges process wastewater from aluminum casting production and sanitary wastewater, while outfalls 003 and 005

d ischarge noncontact cooling water, stormwater, and stormwater treatment discharge (NY DEC,

2010 ). The GM Massena plant was originally built in 1958 to produce aluminum cylinder heads. The plants used PCBs from 1959 to 1974 as a component of the hydraulic f luids in its die casting process. Since 1974, the GM Massena plant has continued manufacturing engine blocks without using the die casting process. In the early 1960s, a reclamation system was installed to recover used hydraulic fluid. PCB sludges were periodically landfilled in onsite areas (U.S. EPA Region 2, 2010). Stormwater and ground water from these landfills continues to be discharged but is not part of active manufacturing processes. Therefore, the PCB discharges are legacy discharges and

the facil ity is no longer using or manufacturing PCBs onsite (U.S. EPA Region 2, 2010).

Table 12-11 presents GM Massena’s 2009 monthly PCB-1248 concentrations and flow discharge data in the DMR Loadings Tool with the permit- enforceable compliance level. GM Massena’s 2009 PCB-1248 average monthly concentrations for outfalls 001 and 003 were above

the fac ility permit enforceable compliance level in July 2009, while outfall 005 PCB-1248 2009

concentrations were below the limit for all of 2009

. EPA calculated the associated TWPE with these exceedances using the monthly average concentrations and the daily ma ximum permit limit. EPA determined that the amount of TWPE associated with the July 2009 exceedances is approximately 200 TWPE. This facility appears to be exceeding its concentration -based permit

PCB -1248 concentration for outfalls 001 and 003 for the July reporting period in 2009.Section 12

— Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433 )



### 12-9 Table 12-11 GM Massena 2009 Monthly PCB-1248 Discharge and Flow Data

Monitoring

Period Date DMR Loadings Tool PCB

1248 Average Monthly Concentration (μg/L) Facility Permit

Enforceable Compliance Level Limit (μg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD)

Outfall 001

31

- Jan

- 09 0 0.3 0.138

28

- Feb

- 09 0.1 0.3 0.147

31

- Mar

- 09 0.1 0.3 0.166

30

- Apr

- 09 0.019 0.3 0.145

31

- May

- 09 0 0.3 0.074

30

- Jun

- 09 0 0.3 0.142

31

- Jul

- 09 0.56 0.3 0.102

31

- Aug

- 09 NODI C 0.3 NODI C

30

- Sep

- 09 <0.051 0.3 0.185

31

- Oct

- 09 <0.05 0.3 0.082

30

- Nov

- 09 <0.05 0.3 0.105

31

- Dec

- 09 NODI C 0.3 NODI C

Outfall 003

31

- Jan

- 09 0 0.3 0.084

28

- Feb

- 09 0.3 0.3 0.212

31

- Mar

- 09 0 0.3 0.190

30

- Apr

- 09 0.06 0.3 0.158

31

- May

- 09 0.07 0.3 0.192

30

- Jun

- 09 0.13 0.3 0.092

31

- Jul

- 09 0.79 0.3 0.202

31

- Aug

- 09 NODI C 0.3 NODI C

30

- Sep

- 09 <0.051 0.3 0.434

31

- Oct

- 09 <0.05 0.3 0.266

30

- Nov

- 09 <0.05 0.3 0.230

31

- Dec

- 09 <0.05 0.3 0.376Section 12

— Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433 )



### 12-10 Table 12-11 GM Massena 2009 Monthly PCB-1248 Discharge and Flow Data

Monitoring

Period Date DMR Loadings Tool PCB

1248 Average Monthly Concentration (μg/L) Facility Permit

Enforceable Compliance Level Limit (μg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD)

Outfall 005

31

- Jan

- 09 0 0.3 0.040

28

- Feb

- 09 0 0.3 0.038

31

- Mar

- 09 0 0.3 0.254

30

- Apr

- 09 0 0.3 0.144

31

- May

- 09 0 0.3 0.029

30

- Jun

- 09 NODI C 0.3 NODI C

31

- Jul

- 09 0.1 0.3 0.332

31

- Aug

- 09 0.09 0.3 0.365

30

- Sep

- 09 NODI C 0.3 NODI C

31

- Oct

- 09 <0.05 0.3 0.301

30

- Nov

- 09 NODI C 0.3 NODI C

31

- Dec

- 09 <0.05 0.3 0.294

Source s : DMR Loadings Tool and Facility Fact Permit (NY DEC, 2010). NODI C: The facility did not report a concentration or flow because no discharge occurred for the monitoring period.



### 12.7 Metal Finishing Category Conclusions

T he estimated toxicity of the Metal Finishing Category discharges resulted from silver, cyanide, and PCB-1248 discharges. Using d ata collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA concludes the following:

• Eastman Kodak Park ’s 2009 silver quantities and concentrations did not exceed

mass

- based permit limits or the concentration

- based ELG limits for the Metal Finishing Category. Therefore, EPA determined that the silver discharges are likely accurate. As future data becomes available, EPA wi ll continue to review flow and silver discharges for this facility.

• There are database errors for discharges of cyanide from Eastman Windsor. With

these errors corrected , the Metal Finishing Category ’s cyanide TWPE decrease s by over 97 percent, from 39,370 TWPE to 978 TWPE.

• GM Tonawanda and GM Massena facilities are discharging PCBs. The PCB discharges result from remediation systems and landfills, not metal manufacturing processes. The GM Tonawanda facility is not exceeding its concentration- based permit limits for PCB -1248. However, the GM Massena facility is exceeding the

concentration

- based permit PCB

- 1248 limit, specifically during the reporting period for July 2009. Permit limit exceedances do not warrant the need for further regulation, but they do ca ll for better facility compliance. EPA will continue to review PCB discharges from the GM facilities.Section 12

— Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433 )



### 12-11 • The amount of TWPE corresponding to the July 2009 exceedances for the GM Massena facility is 220 TWPE. In addition, the PCB discharges are not related to manufacturing processes regulated by the Metal Finishing. Therefore, these discharges do not indicate a need to consider revision of existing ELGs.

• Correcting the database errors identified during the 2011 Annual Reviews

decreases the 2009 Metal Finishing Category TWPE from 196,502 TWPE to 158,110 TWPE. The Metal Finishing Category continues to rank high due to the high number of facilities (over 1,900) in the industry. EPA will continue to review the Metal Finishing Category discharges to determine if they are properly

controlled.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, me asured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8 -1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

12.8 Metal Finishing Category References

1. Bishopp, Mary Lee. 2011. Telephone and Email Communications Between Mary Lee Bishopp, Eastman Kodak, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: Eastman Kodak Flows—2009. (August 3 ). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07534.

2. NY DEC. 2003a. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. NPDES

Permit: General Motors Powertrain—Tonawanda Engine Plant, Buffalo, NY. EPA

- HQ

OW -2010-0824. DCN 07535.

3. NY DEC. 2003b. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2003. GM Powertrain—Report . (March 27). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07536.

4. NY DEC. 200 9. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. NPDES Permit: Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN

07537.

5. NY DEC. 2 010. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. NPDES Permit: General Motors Powertrain—Massena Plant, Massena, NY. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-

0824. DCN 07538.

6. U.S. Economic Census. 2007. Available online at: http://www.census.gov/econ/census07.

7. U.S. EPA. 1983. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines New Source Performance Standards for the Metal Finishing Point Source Category. Washington, D.C. (June). EPA -440-1-83-091.

8. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Development Document for the Annual Review of Existing Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517-0515.Section 12

— Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433 )



### 12-12 9. U.S. EPA Region 2. 2010. General Motors (Central Foundry Division). New York (October 5). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07541.

10. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.Section 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 1 13. M INERAL 

### M INING AND 

### P ROCESSING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 436)

EPA selected the Mineral Mining and Processing (Mineral Mining) Category for preliminary review because it continues to rank high, in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in the point source category rankings. This industry was reviewed previously in EPA’s Final 2004 and 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans (U.S. EPA, 2004, 2011). This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews, which focused on discharges of cadmium, fluoride, and chlorine, due to their high TW PE relative to the other pollutants in the Mineral Mining Category and the 2010 Annual Reviews findings.

13.1 Mineral Mining Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 13-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Mineral Mining Category from the 2006 through 2011 Annual Reviews . The combined discharge monitoring report ( DMR ) and Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI ) TWPE decreased from discharge years 2004 to 2007, increased from discharge years 2007 to 2008, and decreased again from 2008 to 2009. The estimated 2009 DMR TWPE accounts for over 93 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE, similar to previous years of data.

Table 13-1. Mineral Mining Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

Year of Discharge Year of Review Mineral Mining Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2002 2006 2,840 50,500 53,300

2004 2007 5,390 49,300 54,700

2005 2008 6,260 NA NA

2007 2009 2,420 26,700 29,100

2008 2010 3,390 100,000 103,000

2009 2011 5,430 80,100 85,500

Source s : TRIReleases2002_v4; PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v4; TRIReleases2008_v3; DMRLoads2008_v2 ; TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2007 include only major dischargers. DMR 2008 and 2009 data include both minor and major dischargers. NA: Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005.



### 13.2 Mineral Mining Category Pollutants of Concern

EPA’s review of the Mineral Mining Category focused on the 2009 DMR discharges because the 2009 DMR data dominate the category’s combined TWPE. Table 13-2 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE based on results from the 2011 and 2010 Annual Reviews ( DMRLoads2009_v2 and DMRLoads2008_v3, respectively). The top five DMR -reported pollutants in 2009 contribute more than 87 percent of the total category TWPE.Section 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 2 Table 13-2. Mineral Mining Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 2008 DMR Data a 2009 DMR Data a

Rank Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant TWPE

Cadmium Pollutants not reported in the top five 2008 DMR

- reported pollutants. 1 6 17,600

Fluoride 2 20 28,200 2 22 15,800

Chlorine Pollutants not reported in the top five 2008 DMR

- reported pollutants. 3 13 15,000

Lead 5 12 5,940 4 12 13 ,200

Chloride 4 27 6,690 5 23 8,310

Sulfide 1 5 35,900 Pollutants not reported in the top five 2009 DMR

- reported pollutants. Ammonia as N 3 28 11,100

Mineral Mining Category

Total NA 120 b 100,000 NA 139 b 80 ,1 00

Sources: DMRLoads2008_v2 and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a DMR data include major and minor dischargers.

b Number of facilities reporting a TWPE of greater than zero. NA: Not applicable.Section 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 3 EPA’s additional review of the Mineral Mining Category’s 2009 DMR database pollutants of concern focused on cadmium, fluoride, and chlorine, presented in the following subsections. EPA continued its review of fluoride based on findings from the 2010 Annual

Revie ws. EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews because they account for a small percentage (27 percent) of the 2009 DMR TWPE for the Mineral Mining Category.

Of the pollutants of concern for the Mineral Mining Categ ory, 40 CFR Part 436 only regulates fluoride in the Industrial Sand Subcategory (Subpart D). The majority of fluoride discharges in this category are from facilities covered by the Phosphate Rock Subcategory (Subpart R), which does not regulate fluoride (U.S. EPA, 2011).

13.3 Mineral Mining Category Cadmium Discharges in DMR

Cadmium discharges in the 2009 DMR database account for 22 percent of the total DMR

TWPE Table 13-3 presents the cadmium dischargers in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of cadmium from two facilities, Butala Sand and Gravel and Doe Run Buick Mine/Mill, account for over 99 percent of the category’s cadmium DMR TWPE. Accordingly, EPA focused its review

o f cadmium discharges on these top two facilities.

Table 13-3. Mineral Mining Category Cadmium Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location Cadmium

Pounds Discharged Cadmium

TWPE Facility Percent

of Cadmium Category TWPE

Butala Sand and Gravel Salida, CO 466 10,800 61%

Doe Run Buick Mine/Mill a Viburnum, MO 291 6,720 38%

Remaining facilities reporting cadmium discharges b 4.1 93 < 1%

Total 762 17,600 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a Due to an EPA enforcement settlement, Doe Run is required to lower cadmium discharges at all Doe Run facilities in Missouri (including the Buick Mine/Mill). Because the settlement includes Doe Run’s cadmium discharges, EPA will not review the facility ’s discha rges as part of the 2011 A nnual R eview s (U.S. EPA, 2010).

b There are four remaining facilities that have cadmium discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 0.5 percent of the category’s cadmium DMR TWPE.



### 13.3.1 Butala Sand and Gravel

Butala Sand and Gravel (Butala) in Salida, CO discharges cadmium from outfall 002.

Table 13-4 presents Butala’s 2009 quarterly cadmium and flow discharge data in the DMR Loadings

To ol for outfall 002. After reviewing the flow data from the DMR Loadings Tool, EPA determined that the December 2009 flow is 1,000 times higher than the flow in preceding periods



### . Using a corrected value of 0.434 million gallons per day (MGD) for the December 2009 outfall 002 flow, Butala’s cadmium discharges are 0.92 pounds and 21.27 TWPE for 2009, reducing the facility’s total TWPE by over 99 percent. This reduction decreases the Mineral Mining Category’s 2009 DMR TWPE by 11,000, making cadmium no longer be a top pollutant of concern.Section 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 4 Table 13-4. Butala 2009 Monthly Cadmium and Flow Discharge Data for Outfall 002

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Average Cadmium Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD) Corrected Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Mar

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

30

- Jun

- 09 0.0011 0.15 0.15

30

- Sep

- 09 < 0.00062 0.439 0.439

31

- Dec

- 09 0.0014 434 0. 434

Source: DMR Loadings Tool. NODI C: The facility did not report a concentration or flow because no discharge occurred for the monitoring period.



### 13.4 Mineral Mining Category Fluoride Discharges in DMR

Fluoride discharges in the 2009 DMR database account for 20 percent of the total DMR

TWPE. Table 13-5 presents the fluoride dischargers in the 2009 DMR database. EPA focused its review of fluoride discharges on the top five facilities, which account for over 71 percent of the category’s fluoride 2009 DMR TWPE.

Table 13-5. Mineral Mining Category Fluoride Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location Fluoride

Pounds Discharged Fluoride

TWPE Facility Percent

of Fluoride Category TWPE

Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Ft. Green Mine Complex Fort Green , FL 1 30,000 3 ,900 25%

US Agri

- Chemicals, Ft. Meade Fort Meade, FL 125 ,000 3

, 76 0 24%

Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC

, Four Corners

Mine Polk County , FL 48 ,2 00 1,4 50 9%

Feldspar Corp. Spruce Pine Facility Spruce Pine, NC 37

, 00 0 1

, 110 7%

South Fort Meade Mine Nichols, FL 36 ,900 1

, 1 10 7%

Remaining facilities reporting f luoride discharges a 149,000 4,470 28%

Total 526,000 15,800 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a There are 17 remaining facilities that have fluoride discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 28 percent of the category’s cadmium DMR TWPE.



### The majority of the fluoride discharges for the Mineral Mining Category come from phosphate mines in Florida and feldspar mines in North Carolina. These fluoride discharges result from mineral mining processes that are regulated by Subparts R (Phosphate Rock) and AI (Feldspar). Neither Subpart R nor Subpart AI sets limits for fluoride (Subpart AI is reserved). EPA previously compiled information on this ca tegory from the 1976 Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Performance—Mineral Mining and Processing Industry . A summary of EPA’s review is found in Section 9.5.1 of the 2010 Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA, 2011).

The top five fluoride discharging facilities account for the majority (71 percent) of fluoride discharges in 2009. This subsection provides information on each facility’s fluorideSection 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 5 discharges from the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool and their correspon ding permit limits, if

available.

13.4.1 US Agri -Chemicals Corporation

US Agri

- Chemicals Corporation (US Agri -Chemicals) in Fort Meade, FL manufactures sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, mono-ammonium phosphate, di-ammonium phosphate, and fluosilicic acid. US Agri -Chemicals also has a lined phosphogypsum stack and an unlined process water cooling pond with a recirculation system. As of 2004, t he facility wa s working with the state to close the unlined pond. The facility’s 2004 NPDES permit also allows the facility t o construct an additional lined phosphogypsum stack. The facility treats wastewater from both ponds through a two- stage lime treatment and spray aeration process before discharge (FL DEP, 2004).

B ased on the facility’s permit and fact sheet, EPA believes t hat the facility’s operations fall within the applicability of the Fertilizer Manufacturing Effluent Limitations Guidelines, or ELGs (40 CFR Part 418) rather than the Mineral Mining ELGs (40 CFR Part 436) because the facility does not have any mining operations. Therefore, discharges from this facility should be

excluded from the 2011 Annual Reviews of the Mineral Mining Category, red ucing the category’s TWPE by 3,760.

13.4.2 Feldspar Corporation Spruce Pine Facility

The Feldspar Corporation (Feldspar) in Spruce P ine, NC is an industrial minerals processing facility. The facility produces feldspar, quartz, and mica. Outfall 001 discharges treated process wastewater to the North Toe River. The facility’s treatment system includes clarifiers, a polymer feed system, l ime for pH adjustment, vacuum filters, and an Emico clarifier/thickener to outfall 001 ( NC DENR, 2006).

The facility discharges fluoride from outfall 001. Previously, the facility treated discharges from Unimin Corporation’s Crystal Operation, and the fluor ide permit limits for the facility were 102 kilograms per day (kg/day) monthly average and 203 kg/day daily maximum. However, once Unimin began directly discharging, Feldspar’s fluoride limits were revised to 78.9 kg/day monthly average and 157 kg/day dail y maximum ( NCDENR , 2006). The North Carolina Division of Water Quality permit writer for this facility confirmed that Unim in Corporation did not start directly discharging to the North Toe River until 2010 (Nowell, 2011) ; therefore, the higher limits applied to the 2009 fluoride discharges. As presented in Table 13-6

, the 2009 average monthly quantities for outfall 001 did not exceed the monthly or maximum

mass

- based permit limitation. The facility also has a monthly average flow permit limit of 3.5

MGD f or outfall 001. As presented in Table 13-6 , the 2009 monthly average flows do not exceed

3.5 MGD.

EPA back -calculated the average and maximum 2009 fluoride concentrations, presented

in Table 13-6 , using the quantity and flow. The average and maximum calculated concentrations exceed the freshwater aquatic life water quality standard of 1.8 milligrams per liter, or mg/L (U.S. EPA, 2007). However, the facility’s permit writer stated that the North Toe River’s total

fluoride allocation had been calculate d using the water quality standard and the river’s lowest

seven

- day average flow that occurs (on average) once every 10 years . The permit writer then divided the total fluoride allocation between the five feldspar mines along the North Toe RiverSection 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 6 based on f acility design capacity to determine the mass

- based permit limits. The permit writer also stated that the North Carolina Division of Water Quality monitors fluoride concentrations using ambient monitoring stations to confirm that fluoride levels in the Nor th Toe River are below 1.8 mg/L. The permit writer confirmed that the fluoride levels did not exceed 1.8 mg/L.

Because the 2009 average fluoride quantities are below the permit limit, EPA determined that the fluoride discharges and flows are likely accurate, and the Feldspar Corporation in Spruce Pine, NC is likely discharging more than 37,000 pounds of fluoride annually. These feldspar mine fluoride discharges are geographically isolated to North Carolina, and permit writers have enacted permit limits to e nsure that fluoride levels do not exceed the water-quality- based permit limits. As a result, these discharges are being controlled and do not indicate the need for a national ELG. EPA will continue to review fluoride discharges from feldspar mines in North

Carolina.

Table 13-6. Feldspar 2009 Monthly Fluoride and Flow Discharge Data for Outfall 002

Monitoring

Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Average

2009 Fluoride Quantity ( kg/day ) DMR Loadings

Tool Maximum

2009 Fluoride Quantity ( kg/day ) Back

- Calculated Average

Fluoride

Concentration (mg/L) Back

- Calculated

Maximum

Fluoride

Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average

2009 Flow

(MGD)

31

- Jan

- 09 35.7 194 4.10 22.3 2.3

28

- Feb

- 09 50.9 140 5.87 16.2 2.29

31

- Mar

- 09 33.7 101 4.95 14.9 1.80

30

- Apr

- 09 34.9 125 5.71 20.5 1.61

31

- May

- 09 26.9 92.5 4.64 16.0 1.53

30

- Jun

- 09 59.1 123 8.78 18.3 1.7 8

31

- Jul

- 09 31.9 156 5.22 25.6 1.61

31

- Aug

- 09 59.7 125 7.79 16.3 2.02

30

- Sep

- 09 64.8 155 7.75 18.5 2.2 1

31

- Oct

- 09 55.5 124 6.48 14.4 2.26

30

- Nov

- 09 49.9 167 5.93 19.9 2.2 2

31

- Dec

- 09 50.3 112 5.65 12.6 2.35

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.



### 13.5 Florida Fluoride Dischargers

Three of the top five fluoride dischargers are phosphate mines in Florida. The fluoride permit limits for all the Florida discharges is 10.0 mg/L. The fluoride permit limits of 10 mg/L

are based on Table 62 -302.230, “Surface Water Quality Criteria,” in the Florida Administrative Code (FL DEP, 2000, 2003a, 2003b). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FL DEP) Mining and Minerals Phosphate Management contact stated that the usual fluoride concentration from the phosphate mines in Florida is approximately 3 mg/L; therefore, there has been no action to revise the state’s fluoride water quality criteria or re search new treatment technologies for fluoride discharges. The FL DEP contact also stated that it is difficult to estimate the actual discharge area of these mines because the acreage and outfalls change constantly with mining operations (Champion, 2011). A summary of each top fluoride discharger in Florida is provided below.Section 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 7 13.5.1 Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Fort Green Mine Complex

The Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Fort Green and Payne Creek Mines (Fort Green Mine Complex) in Fort Green, FL discharges fluoride from six outfalls: 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, and 006. The Fort Green Mine Complex operations include phosphate mining and beneficiation facilities, phosphatic clay settling areas, sand tailings disposal areas, and a mine water recirculation system. The mine water recirculation system discharges treated excess process wastewater, stormwater runoff, and reclaimed wastewater from the outfalls listed above. At this facility, phosphate ore is strip -mined by dragline, then slurried in a pit with high- pressure water cannons and pumped to the beneficiation plant, where the fine clays and sands are separated from the product phosphate rock. This separation is achieved by washing, screening, and double flotation. The separated clays are pumped to waste clay settling areas. Sand tailings are pumped as slurry to mined areas for use as reclamation fill. Decanted water from the clay settling areas is returned to the beneficiation plant and discharged as necessary (FL DEP, 2003a).

The facility’s wastewater treatment facilities include settling basins where mine dewatering and process -generated wastewater from the phosphate mining and beneficiation (offsite) operations and stormwater runoff are sent. The discharge consists of clarified water from the water recirculation system. All proce ss wastewater to be discharged first passes through active settling areas, where contaminants are retained with the settled clays (FL DEP, 2003a).

Table 13-7 presents the 2009 quarterly fluoride and flow discharge data from the DMR Loadings Tool, along with the daily maximum fluoride permit limit and the average design flow reported in the facility permit fact sheet (FL DEP, 2003a). The 2009 daily maximum fluoride

concentrations did not exceed the daily maximum permit limitation of 10 mg/L. The flows reported for each outfall vary compared to the facility permit fact sheet flows; however, discharges are dependent on the rainfall contributions to the system in excess of the available storage capacity and the inflow of ground water into mining cuts (FL DEP, 2003a).

Because the quarterly fluoride concentrations do not exceed permit limits, EPA determined that the fluoride discharges and f lows are likely accurate, and the Fort Green Mine Complex is likely discharging more than 128,000 pounds of fluoride annually.

Table 13-7. Fort Green Mine Complex 2009 Fluoride and Flow Discharge Data

Outfall Monitoring

Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Daily Maximum

Fluoride Concentration (mg/L) Daily Maximum

Fluoride Permit

Limit (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Monthly Flow (MGD) Facility Fact Sheet Average Flow (MGD)

001 31

- Mar

- 09 NODI C 10.0 NODI C

0.207 001 30

- Jun

- 09 NODI C 10.0 NODI C

001 30

- Sept

- 09 0.98 10.0 NODI C

001 31

- Dec

- 09 NODI C 10.0 NODI C

002 31

- Mar

- 09 NODI C 10.0 NODI C

4.273 002 30

- Jun

- 09 1.69 10.0 9.19

002 30

- Sept

- 09 1.12 10.0 25.6

002 31

- Dec

- 09 0.76 10.0 12.17

003 31

- Mar

- 09 NODI C 10.0 NODI C 0 003 30

- Jun

- 09 1 10.0 31.38Section 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 8 Table 13-7. Fort Green Mine Complex 2009 Fluoride and Flow Discharge Data

Outfall Monitoring

Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Daily Maximum

Fluoride Concentration (mg/L) Daily Maximum

Fluoride Permit

Limit (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Monthly Flow (MGD) Facility Fact Sheet Average Flow (MGD)

003 30

- Sept

- 09 NODI C 10.0 NODI C

003 31

- Dec

- 09 NODI C 10.0 NODI C

004 31

- Mar

- 09 0.67 10.0 NODI C

0 004 30

- Jun

- 09 0.62 10.0 25.43

004 30

- Sept

- 09 0.69 10.0 35.3

004 31

- Dec

- 09 0.78 10.0 37.67

005 31

- Mar

- 09 1.27 10.0 NODI C

24.89 005 30

- Jun

- 09 1.26 10.0 10.01

005 30

- Sept

- 09 1.18 10.0 49

005 31

- Dec

- 09 0.97 10.0 18.85

006 31

- Mar

- 09 1.02 10.0 NODI C

0 006 30

- Jun

- 09 NODI C 10.0 NODI C

006 30

- Sept

- 09 0.73 10.0 1.02

006 31

- Dec

- 09 0.66 10.0 0.96

Source s : DMR Loadings Tool and facility permit fact sheet (FL DEP, 2003a). NODI C: The facility did not report a concentration or flow because no discharge occurred for the monitoring period.



### 13.5.2 Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Four Corners Mine

The Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Four Corners Mine (Four Corners Mine) in Polk County, FL discharges fluoride from outfalls 001 and 002. The Four Corners Mine operations include phosphate mining and beneficiation facilities, phosphatic clay settling areas, sand tailings disposal areas, and a mine water recirculation system. The mine water recirculation system discharges treated excess process wastewater, non

- process wastewater, groundwater seepage, and stormwater runoff from the outfalls listed above. Facility ac tivities include the mining of phosphate ore. The mined ore is slurried into a pit and then pumped to the beneficiation plant, where the fine clays and sands are separated from the phosphate rock by washing, screening, and double flotation. The generated wet phosphate rock is transferred to another location for further processing. The separated clays are pumped to waste clay settling areas. Sand tailings are pumped as a slurry to mined areas for use as reclamation fill. Decanted waters from the clay

settlin g areas, ground waters from mine pits, and stormwater runoff are returned to the beneficiation plant for reuse, and excess water is discharged as necessary (FL DEP, 2003b).

The facility’s wastewater treatment facilities include settling basins where mine dewatering and process generated wastewater from the phosphate mining and beneficiation operations and stormwater runoff are sent. The discharge consists of clarified water from the water recirculation system. All process wastewater to be discharged first passes through active settling areas, where contaminants are retained with the settled clays (FL DEP, 2003b).

Table 13-8 presents the 2009 monthly discharge data for fluoride and flow from the DMR Loadings Tool. Table 13-8 also presents the daily maximum fluoride permit limit (FL DEP, 2003a). The DM R Loadings Tool 2009 monthly average fluoride concentrations data for these

outfalls did not exceed the daily maximum permit limitation of 10 mg/L.Section 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 9 Table 13-8. Four Corners Mine 2009 Fluoride and Flow Discharg e Data

Outfall Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Daily Maximum

Fluoride Concentration (mg/L) Daily Maximum

Fluoride Permit Limit (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Monthly Flow (MGD)

001 31

- Jan

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 NODI C

001 28

- Feb

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 NODI C

001 31

- Mar

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 NODI C

001 30

- Apr

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 NODI C

001 31

- May

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 18.4

001 30

- Jun

- 09 1.5 10.0 60.5

001 31

- Jul

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 55.5

001 31

- Aug

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 52

001 30

- Sep

- 09 2 10.0 50.8

001 31

- Oct

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 1.52

001 30

- Nov

- 09 NODI C 10.0 NODI C

001 31

- Dec

- 09 NODI C 10.0 NODI C

002 31

- Jan

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 NODI C

002 28

- Feb

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 NODI C

002 31

- Mar

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 NODI C

002 30

- Apr

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 NODI C

002 31

- May

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 13

002 30

- Jun

- 09 1.6 10.0 43

002 31

- Jul

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 30

002 31

- Aug

- 09 NODI 9 10.0 4.7

002 30

- Sep

- 09 1.8 10.0 11.6

002 31

- Oct

- 09 NODI C 10.0 NODI C

002 30

- Nov

- 09 NODI C 10.0 NODI C

002 31

- Dec

- 09 2.2 10.0 30

Source s : DMR Loadings Tool and facility permit fact sheet (FL DEP, 2003b). NODI C: The facility did not report a concentration or flow because no discharge occurred for the monitoring period. NODI 9: The facility did not report a concentration because of conditional monitoring.



### Table 13-9 presents the average annualized flow from each of the outfalls 001 and 002 during 2009. The total flow through these outfalls is higher than the discharges described by the facility in the 2003 permit fact sheet (total flow in 2002); however, discharges are dependent on the rainfall contributions to the system in excess of the available storage capacity and the inflow of ground water into mining cuts (FL DEP, 2003b).

Because the quarterly fluoride concentrations do not exceed permit limits, EPA determined that the fluoride discharges and flows are likely accurate, and the Four Corners Mine is likely discharging more than 48,000 pounds of fluoride annually from o utfalls 001 and 002

combined.Section 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 10 Table 13-9. Four Corners Mine 2009 Flow Discharge Data

Outfall DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MG/year) Permit Fact Sheet Flow in 2002 (MG/year)

001 14,522 3,185

002 8,048 1,183

Source s : DMR Loadings Tool and facility permit fact sheet (FL DEP, 2003b).



### 13.5.3 South Fort Meade Mine

South Fort Meade Mine in Nichols, FL discharges wastewater and stormwater from its outfall 001. South Fort Meade Mine operations include phosphate mining and beneficiation facilities, phosphatic clay settling areas, sand tailings disposal areas, and a mine water recirculation system. Facility activities include the mining and washing of phosphate ore. The mined ore is slurried into a pit and pumped to the beneficiation plant where the f ine clays and sand are separated from the phosphate rock by washing, screening, and double flotation. The generated wet phosphate rock is transported to another location for further processing. The separated clays are pumped to settling areas. Sand tailings are pumped as a slurry to mined areas

for use as reclamation fill or are stor ed above grade for later use in reclamation. Decanted waters from the clay settling areas, ground waters from mine pits, and stormwater runoff are returned to the beneficiation plant for reuse, and excess water is discharged as necessary (FL DEP, 2000).

Table 13 -10 presents the quarterly 2009 average fluoride concentration and flow data for outfall 001 in the DMR Loadings Tool. South Fort Meade Mine did not exceed the daily maximum permit limitation of 10.0 mg/L. The facility does not have a limitation on total flow.

Table 13 -10 below presents the DMR Loadings Tool 2009 monthly average total flow data for

outfall 001.

Because the quarterly fluoride concentrations do not exceed permit limits, EPA determined that the fluoride discharges and flows are likely accurate, and the South Fort Meade

Mine is like ly discharging more than 36,000 pounds of fluoride annually from outfall 001.



### Table 13-10. South Fort Meade Mine 2009 Monthly Fluoride and Flow Discharge Data for Outfall 001

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Maximum Fluoride Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Mar

- 09 NODI C NODI C

30

- Jun

- 09 1.9 1.23

30

- Sep

- 09 1.25 22.63

31

- Dec

- 09 1.57 12.59

Source: DMR Loadings Tool. NODI C: The facility did not report a concentration or flow because no discharge occurred for the monitoring period.



### 13.5.4 Fluoride Wastewater Treatment

EPA determined that the top fluoride discharging facilities have two

- stage chemical precipitation with lime treatment systems. This process is similar to that at phosphatic fertilizerSection 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 11 manufacturing facilities, which achieve fluoride concentrations of 15 mg/L or less (U.S. EPA, 1974). Current technologies are achieving fluoride concentrations at least as effective, sometimes achieving 2 mg/L effluent fluoride. U sing calcium chloride rather than lime has improved chemical precipitation , while using polymers and membrane filters has improved solids separation (WC&E, 2006; Ionics, n.d.; GCIP, 2002).

13.6 Mineral Mining Category Chlorine Discharges in DMR

Chlorine discharges in the 2009 DMR database account for 19 percent of the total DMR

TWPE. Table 13-11 lists the facilities discharging chlorine in the 2009 DMR datab ase. Discharges of chlorine from one facility, Carmeuse Lime and Stone, Inc., account for over 94 percent of the category’s chlorine DMR TWPE. As a result, EPA focused its review of cadmium discharges on that facility.

Table 13-11. Mineral Mining Category Chlorine Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location Chlorine

Pounds Discharged Chlorine TWPE Facility Percent

of Chlorine Category TWPE

Carmeuse Lime & Stone, Inc. Butler

, KY 28,400 14,200 94%

Remaining facilities reporting Chlorine discharges a 1,670 836 6%

Total 30,000 15,000 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a – There are 12 remaining facilities that have chlorine discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 6 percent of the category’s cadmium DMR TWPE.



### Carmeuse Lime and Stone, Inc. (Carmeuse) in Butler, KY discharges chlorine from

outfall 015. Table 13-12 presents Carmeuse’s 2009 monthly chlorine and flow discharge data in the DMR Loadings Tool for outfall 015. In reviewing the flow data from the DMR Loadings Tool, EPA found a unit of measurement error for the February 2009 flow, the reported flow for this month was 1,000 times higher than for other months in 2009, as presented in Table 13-12

. Using a corr ected value of 0.0011 MGD for the February 2009 outfall 015 flow, Carmeuse’s chlorine discharges are 81 pounds and 40.42 TWPE for 2009, reducing the facility’s total TWPE by over 99 percent. This reduction in TWPE decreases the Mineral Mining Category’s 2009 DMR TWPE to 40.42, making chlorine no longer a top pollutant of concern.

Table 13-12. Carmeuse 2009 Monthly Chlorine and Flow Discharge Data for Outfall 015

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool

Maximum Chlorine Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD) Corrected Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Jan

- 09 0.7 0.004 0.004

28

- Feb

- 09 11 11 0.0011

31

- Mar

- 09 5.5 0.0029 0.0029

31

- Jul

- 09 1.1 0.0031 0.0031

30

- Sep

- 09 0.7 0.0029 0.0029

31

- Oct

- 09 0.5 0.0058 0.0058

30

- Nov

- 09 75.5 0.0035 0.0035Section 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 12 Table 13-12. Carmeuse 2009 Monthly Chlorine and Flow Discharge Data for Outfall 015

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool

Maximum Chlorine Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD) Corrected Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Dec

- 09 4.86 0.004 0.004

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.



### 13.7 Mineral Mining Category Conclusions

Based on available data, the estimated toxicity of the Mineral Mining Category discharges in the toxicity rankings databases result from cadmium , fluoride, and chlorine discharges. Data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews demonstrated that wastewater discharge characteristics for this category are consistent with discharges from prior years. As in prior years,

EPA c oncludes the following:

• The fluoride discharges in the Mineral Mining Category result from phosphate and feldspar mining facilities regulated by Subpart R (Phosphate Rock) and Subpart AI ( Feldspar ; reserved), respectively. These facilities are also locate d in areas with naturally occurring fluoride compounds in the ore: Florida and North Carolina. Subparts R and AI do not regulate fluoride; however, permit limits are derived from state water quality standards.

• Feldspar Corporation likely discharged over 37,000 pounds of fluoride into the North Toe River in 2009; however, the discharge did not exceed mass-based permit limitations . Subpart AI ( Feldspar ) of the Mineral Mining Category does not currently regulate fluoride discharges. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality developed the fluoride permit limits using the state water quality standard.

The Division monitors the North Toe River’s in-stream fluoride concentration to ensure it does not exceed the water quality standard (Nowell, 2011). Because these feldspar mine fluoride discharges are geographically isolated to North Carolina and do not exceed water-quality- based permit limits, EPA will continue

to review fluoride discharges from Feldspar Corporation as new data become

available

.

• The fluoride discharges from US Agri- Chemicals’ operations were misrepresented in the toxicity rankings databases

. The Mineral Mining Category is not applicable to these operations ; rather, they fall within the Fertilizer Manufacturing Categor y (40 CFR Part 418) . EPA will reassign this facility to the
correct category and will review it s discharges in future annual reviews under the Fertilizer Manufacturing Category

.

• The three remaining Florida mines reviewed, Mosaic Fertilizer’s Fort Green Mine Complex and Four Corners Mine and South Fort Meade Mine, have fluoride

concentrations that do not exceed water -quality- based permit limitations (10 mg/L) or treatable concentrations (15 mg/L) using two

- stage chemical precipitation with lime treatment sy stems . The FL DEP permit contact stated that fluoride discharges from these phosphate mines do not approach the state waterSection 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 13 quality standard and are therefore not a concern for permit writers (Champion, 2011).

• EPA identified d atabase errors for discharges of cadmium and chlorine . After correcting these errors, the Mineral Mining Category TWPE from cadmium decreased by over 60 percent, from 17,600 to 6,740, and does not represent a hazard priority. The TWPE from chlorine decreased by over 90 percent, from 15,000 to 876, and therefore does not represent a hazard priority.

• Correcting the database errors identified during the 2011 Annual Reviews decreases the 2009 Mineral Mining Category TWPE from 80,100 to 55,200. Excluding discharges from facilities that are n ot considered part of the 2011 Annual Reviews of the Mineral Mining Category, the TWPE decreases to 44,700.

EPA will continue to review the Mineral Mining Category discharges to determine if they are properly controlled.

EPA prioritizes point source catego ries with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8 -1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

13.8 Mineral Mining Category References

1. Champion, Jacquelyn. 2011. Notes From Telephone Communications Between Jacquelyn Champion, FL DEP, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: Fluoride Discharges from Phosphate Mines in Florida. (August 26). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824.

DCN 07542.

2. FL D EP. 2000. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. NPDES Permit:

FL00 37958—Cargill Fertilizer, Inc. South Fort Meade Mine, Fort Meade, FL

. EPA

- HQ

OW -2010-0824. DCN 07553.

3. FL DEP. 2003a. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. NPDES Permit Fact

Sheet : FL0027600—Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Bradley, FL

. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824.

DCN 07543.

4. FL DEP. 2003b. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. NPDES Permit Fact Sheet: FL0036412—Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Bradley Junction, FL. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-

0824. DCN 07544.

5. FL DEP. 2004. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. NPDES Permit: US Agri -Chemicals Corporation, Fort Meade, Florida. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN

07545.

6. GCIP. 2002. General Chemical Industrial Products. Chapter 14: Wastewater and Water

Tr eatment. Available online at: http://www.genchem.com/calcium/NCh14.html. Date accessed: July 27, 2006. DCN 03761.Section 13

— Mineral Mining and Processing ( 40 CFR Part 436 )



### 13

- 14 7. Ionics. n.d. “The EnChem® Process for Fluoride Removal.” Wastewater Treatment for the Microelectronics Industry. Available online at: http://w ww.iconics.com/pdf/TS4752EUS.pdf. Date accessed: July 27, 2006. EPA- HQ

OW -2004-0032-2605.

8. NCDENR . 2006. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. NPDES Permit Fact Sheet : NC0000353—Feldspar Corporation, Spr uce Pine, NC. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07548.

9. Nowell, Jacquelyn. 2011. Notes From Telephone Communications Between Jacquelyn Nowell, NCDENR, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: Fluoride Discharges from Feldspar Corporation in North Carolina. (August 24). EPA

- HQ

- OW

2010-0824. DCN 07550.

10. U.S. EPA. 1974. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Basic Fertilizer Chemicals Segment of the Fertilizer Manufacturing Point Source Category . EPA -440/1-75/042-a. Washington, DC. (March).

11. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-R-04-014. EPA- HQ

- OW -2003-0074-1346 through 1352.

12. U.S. EPA. 2007. Numeric Criteria for Standard, Metal, and Priority Pollutants Applicable to Specific Designated Uses of the State. (August). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN

07551.

13. U.S. EPA. 2010. Civil Enforcement: Doe Run Resources Corporation Settlement. Washington, D.C. (October 8). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07552.

14. U.S. EPA. 2011. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan. Washington, D.C. ( October ). EPA -820-R-10-021. EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07320.

15. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.

16. WC&E. 2006. Wastech Controls & Engineering, Inc. Fluoride Wastewater Treatment (FWT) (HF Neutralization or Fluoride Reduction. Available online at: http://www.wastechengineering.com/papers/hf.htm. Date acces sed: July 27. EPA- HQ

OW -2004-0032-2604.Section 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 1 14. N ONFERROUS 

### M ETALS 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 421)

EPA selected the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (NFMM) Category (40 CFR Part 421) for preliminary review because it continues to rank high, in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in point source category rankings. EPA reviewed discharges from the NFMM Category as part of the 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2009 reviews (U.S. EPA, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009). This section

summarizes the results of the 20 11 

### Annual Reviews associated with the NFMM Category. EPA focused on discharges of mercury, fluoride, lead, cadmium, and molybdenum, because of their high TWPE relative to other pollutants in the NFMM Category. For further background on the NFMM Category, s ee the Technical Support Document for the 2009 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. EPA, 2009).



### 14.1 NFMM Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 14-1 compares the toxicity rankings database results for the NFMM Category from the 2006 through 2011 Annual Reviews. The combined TWPE from discharges in the discharge monitoring re p 

### ort ( 

### DMR) and Toxics Release Inventory ( 

### TRI) databases increased from

dischar ge year 2002 to 2008 and decreased from 2008 to 2009. The 2009 DMR TWPE accounts for approximately 81 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE category, which is consistent with previous years.

Table 14-1. NFMM Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

Year of Discharge Year of

Review NFMM Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2002 2006 51,800 397,000 449,000

2004 2007 52,600 321,000 374,000

2005 2008 41,800 NA NA

2007 2009 38,900 343,000 382,000

2008 2010 38,700 463,000 503,000

2009 2011 40,500 174,000 215,000

Source s: TRIReleases2002_v4; PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v4; TRIReleases2008_v3; DMRLoads2008_v2; TRIReleases2009_v2; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2002 through 2007 include only major dischargers. 2008 and 2009 DMR data include both

minor and major dischargers.

NA : Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005.



### 14.2 NFMM Category Pollutants of Concern

EPA’s review of the NFMM Category focused on the 2009 DMR discharges because the 2009 DMR data account for 81 percent of the category’s combined TWPE. Table 14-2 lists the five pollutants with the highest DMR TWPE based on results from the 2011 and 2010 Annual Reviews ( DMRLoads2009_v2 and DMRLoads2008_v2 , respectively). The top five DMRreported pollutants in 2009 contribute more than 70 percent of the category’s DMR TWPE. EPA’s additional review of the NFMM Category’s 2009 DMR database pollutants of concern focused on all top five pollutants, presented in the following subsections.Section 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 2 Table 14-2. 2009 NFMM Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 2008 DMR Database a 2009 DMR Database a

Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE

Mercury 4 6 34,500 1 4 29,100

Fluoride 5 17 26,100 2 17 24,700

Lead 1 26 183,000 3 20 24,300

Cadmium 3 15 53,400 4 11 22,900

Molybdenum Pollutants not reported in the top five

2008 DMR

- reported pollutants. 5 3 22,000

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 2 2 93,400 Pollutant s not reported in the top five

2009 DMR

- reported pollutants.

NFMM Category Total NA 51 b 463,000 NA 48 b 174,000

Source s: DMRLoads2008_v3 and DMRLoads 2009_v2

.

a DMR data include major and minor dischargers.

b Number of facilities reporting a TWPE of greater than zero. NA: Not applicable.



### 14.3 NFMM Category Mercury Discharges in DMR

Mercury discharges from NFMM facilities in the 2009 DMR database account for over 16 percent of the category’s 2009 DMR TWPE. Table 14-3 presents the facilities with mercury discharges in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of mercury from one facility, Alabama State Docks Mud Lakes (AL State Docks), account for over 99 percent of the category’s mercury DMR TWPE. As a result, EPA focused its review of mercury discharges on that facility.

Table 14-3 . NFMM Category Top Mercury Discharging Facilit ies

in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Facility Location Total Pounds Pollutant

TWPE Percent of Category's DMR Mercury TWPE

AL State Docks

– Mud Lakes Mobile, AL 249 29,10 0 > 99%

Remaining facilities reporting mercury a 0.23 26.7 < 1%

Total 249 29,100 100%

Source: DMRLoads200 9 _v2

.

a There are three remaining facilities that have mercury discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for less than 1 percent of the category’s mercury DMR TWPE.



### EPA reviewed the mercury discharges from AL State Docks as part of the 2010 Annual Reviews (see Section 7.4.2 of the Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Prog ram Plan for more information on the facility) (U.S. EPA, 2011). EPA determined that the facility’s discharges result from former aluminum ore tailings lakes, not from current manufacturing. AL State Dock’s 2009 mercury discharges are comparable to the fac ility’s 2008Section 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 3 discharges, which EPA verified as part of the 2010 Annual Reviews. Because the facility no longer operates as an aluminum ore mine and processing facility, its discharges do not warrant the need for revision of national effluent guidelines for this category. For these reasons, EPA is considering facility

- specific permitting compliance to address this facility’s mercury discharges.

14.4 NFMM Category Fluoride Discharges in DMR

Fluoride discharges from NFMM facilities in the 2009 DMR database account for approximately 14 percent of the category’s DMR TWPE. Table 14-4 presents the facilities with fluoride discharges in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of fluoride from one plant, Horsehead Corporation, account for 80 percent of the category’s fluoride DMR TWPE. As a result, EPA focused its review of fluoride discharges on the top facility.

Table 14-4. NFMM Category Top F luoride Discharging Facilit y in the 2009 DMR

Database

Facility Name Facility Location Total Pounds Pollutant

TWPE Percent of Category's DMR Mercury

TWPE

Horsehead Corporation Monaca, PA 656,000 19,700 80%

Remaining Facilities Reporting Fluoride a 166,000 4,990 20%

Total 823,000 24,700 100%

Source: DMRLoads200 9 _v2

.

a There are 16 remaining facilities that have fluoride discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 20 percent of the category’s fluoride DMR TWPE.



### Horsehead Corporation in Monaca, PA owns and operates a zinc smelter and ancillary units to produce zinc metal, zinc oxide, zinc dust, zinc sulfate, and sulfuric acid. Horsehead Corporation is a zinc smelter that is subject to 40 CFR Part 421 Subpart H (Primary Zinc Subcategory). Subpart H does not regulate fluoride discharges. From the 2009 DMR data, Horsehead Corporation is the only zinc smelter that reports fluoride discharges.

The facility discharges process wastewater through outfall 101 and noncontact cooling water through outfall 102 (PA DEP, 2001). The facility discharges the resulting commingled wastewater through outfall 001 to the Ohio River (PA DEP, 2001). The average flow for outfall 101 is 0.75 MGD, approximately 15 percent of the design flow through outfall 001 (5.1 M GD). The permit only requires monitoring for fluoride at the internal outfall 101. It does not set numerical limits and does not require monitoring of fluoride at outfall 001. Due to high levels of fluoride reported in the facility’s 2000 permit applicatio n, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection required the facility to develop a pollution reduction report and

monitor for fluoride.

As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted Horsehead to confirm the fluoride discharges. The facility contact stated that the fluoride discharges at outfall 101 were accurate. The facility contact also stated that the primary sources of fluoride in the wastewater result from the crude zinc oxide (CZO) and calcined CZO processes. Both sources are responsibl e for approximately the same amount of fluoride in the process. The CZO enters the process through the CZO clarifier system. In the process, some fluoride may dissolve in the clarifier overflow, which is sent to the facility’s wastewater treatment plant. T he CZO filter cake is then processedSection 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 4 in the sinter plant with calcine. The sinter plant generates sinter and a fume byproduct. The sinter is sent to the furnace plant, where the majority of the fluoride exits the process via discard slag. The plant also ge nerates an aqueous waste stream, which is sent to the zinc sulfide clarifier system. Similar to the CZO clarifier system, some fluoride dissolves and is sent to the wastewater treatment plant via the clarifier overflow. The wastewater treatment includes

cl arification, designed to eliminate heavy metals. However, the clarifier does not remove fluoride due to the solubility of fluoride at the clarifier’s operational pH range. Therefore, the discharge from outfall 101 contains fluoride (Swisher, 2011).

To esti mate the fluoride load at the final effluent, EPA calculated the fluoride concentrations at the final effluent, outfall 001, using the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool fluoride concentration and flow data (0.75 MGD monthly average) for outfall 101 and the design flo w (5.1 MGD) presented in the facility fact sheet for outfall 001 (PA DEP, 2001). Table 14-5 presents the 2009 DMR monthly fluoride and flow discharge d ata and the calculated fluoride concentrations at outfall 001 for Horsehead Corporation.

Treatment technologies available for fluoride discharges include two

- stage chemical precipitation with lime treatment systems, a process similar to fluoride treatment at phosphatic fertilizer manufacturing facilities. This treatment process can achieve fluoride concentrations of 15 mg/L or less (U.S. EPA, 1974). Current technologies are achieving fluoride concentrations at least as effective, sometimes achieving 2 mg/L effluent fluoride. The chemical precipitation has improved with the use of calcium chloride rather than lime, while polymers and membrane filters have improved solids separation (WC&E, 2006; Ionics, n.d.; GCIP, 2002).

The fluoride concentrations reported a t outfall 101 exceed treatable levels by an order of magnitude. Even following a 1:7 dilution, all calculated fluoride concentrations at outfall 001 exceed treatable levels, except for the calculated effluent concentration for December 2009. The

state has identified the fluoride discharge as requiring a pollutant reduction plan but did not require a numerical effluent limit for fluoride. Therefore, EPA is considering facility

- specific permitting support to address this facility’s fluoride discharges.

Table 14-5. 2009 Monthly Fluoride and Flow Discharge Data for Horsehead Corp oration

Monitoring Period

Date DMR Loadings Tool Monthly Average Fluoride

Concentration at Outfall 101 (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Monthly Average Flow for Outfall 101 (MGD) Calculated Monthly Average Concentration at Outfall 001 (mg/L)

31

- Jan

- 09 229 1.312 5 8.9

28

- Feb

- 09 261 1.071 54.8

31

- Mar

- 09 364 0.883 63.0

30

- Apr

- 09 332 0.78 50.8

31

- May

- 09 139 0.815 22.2

30

- Jun

- 09 134 0.817 21.5

31

- Jul

- 09 398 0.768 59.9

31

- Aug

- 09 448 0.704 61.8

30

- Sep

- 09 213 0.787 32.9

31

- Oct

- 09 231 0.668 30.3

30

- Nov

- 09 391 0.535 41.0Section 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 5 Table 14-5. 2009 Monthly Fluoride and Flow Discharge Data for Horsehead Corp oration

Monitoring Period

Date DMR Loadings Tool Monthly Average Fluoride

Concentration at Outfall 101 (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Monthly Average Flow for Outfall 101 (MGD) Calculated Monthly Average Concentration at Outfall 001 (mg/L)

31

- Dec

- 09 178 0.285 9.9

Source: DMR Loadings Tool

.



### 14.5 NFMM Category Lead Discharges in DMR

Lead discharges from NFMM facilities in the 2009 DMR database account for approximately 14 percent of the category’s DMR TWPE. Table 14-6 presents the facilit ies with lead discharges in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of lead from one facility, Buick Resources Recycling in Bixby, MO, account for 87 percent of the category’s lead DMR TWPE

. A ccordingly, EPA focused its review on Buick Resource Recycling.

Table 14-6. NFMM Category Top Lead Discharging Facilit y in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Facility Location Total Pounds Pollutant

TWPE Percent of Category's DMR Mercury

TWPE

Buick Resource Recycling Bixby, MO 9,470 21,200 87%

Remaining facilities reporting lead a 1,360 3,050 13%

Total 10,800 24,300 100%

Source: DMRLoads200 9 _v2

.

a There are 19 remaining facilities that have lead discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 13 percent of the category’s lead DMR TWPE.



### Buick Resource Recycling, owned by the Doe Run Company, is a secondary lead smelting plant that recycles lead

- acid batteries and other lead -bearing hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. The wastes are recycled to recover the lead

, other trace metals, sulfuric acid

, and polyethylene plastic (Doe Run, 2004). Buick Resource Recycling discharges wastewater from three outfalls, and the permit requires lead monitoring at all three. Outfall 001 discharges industrial process wastewater, pro cess stormwater, and primary treated sanitary water. Outfalls 002 and 003 discharge stormwater runoff and settling basin and storm emergency overflow.

Part 421, Subpart M, Secondary Lead Manufacturing, sets limits for lead, as well as other pollutants (e.g., 0.189 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of lead as the BAT daily maximum for battery cracking). The facility’s permit sets lead limits for outfall 001 at 0.47 kg/day monthly average and 1.17 kg/day (0.19 mg/L) daily maximum (MO DNR, 2003). The permit als o states that discharges from outfalls 002 and 003 are not authorized unless the combined flows of outfalls 001, 002, and 003 meet the limitations of outfall 001 (MO DNR, 2003).

Table 14-7 presents Buick Resource Recycling’s 2009 DMR monthly lead concentration data for outfalls 001, 002, and 003. EPA back calculated the maximum lead concentrations from the lead quantities and flow for outfalls 002 and 003. Using this methodology, EPA determined that all of the daily maximum lead quantities and back -calculated concentrations for outfalls 002 and 003 exceed the daily maximum permit limitation

. EPA’s Office of Civil Enforcement isSection 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 6 working with this facility to resolve compliance issues and Doe Run is required to lower lead discharges at all facilities in Missouri (including the Buick Resource Recycling facility) due to

an EPA enforcement settlement. Because of the settlement , EPA co nsiders this facility’s discharges as not representative of the whole category, and that the facility’s discharges are being controlled through EPA’s compliance process (U.S. EPA, 2010).

Table 14-7. 2009 Month ly Lead and Flow Discharge Data for Buick Resource Recycling

Monitoring Date DMR Loadings Tool Maximum Lead Quantity (kg/day) Back

- Calculated Maximum Lead Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Monthly Maximum Flow (MGD)

Outfall 001 a

31

- Jan

- 09 0.023 0.015 0.388

28

- Feb

- 09 0.161 0.111 0.382

31

- Mar

- 09 0.000 0.000 0.362

30

- Apr

- 09 0.152 0.077 0.52

31

- May

- 09 0.053 0.023 0.599

30

- Jun

- 09 0.372 0.174 0.565

31

- Jul

- 09 0.007 0.005 0.376

31

- Aug

- 09 0.043 0.036 0.314

30

- Sep

- 09 0.052 0.028 0.497

31

- Oct

- 09 0.075 0.030 0.658

30

- Nov

- 09 0.218 0.100 0.575

31

- Dec

- 09 0.204 0.149 0.363

Outfall 002

31

- Jan

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

28

- Feb

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

31

- Mar

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

30

- Apr

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

31

- May

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

30

- Jun

- 09 0.211 0.30 0.185

31

- Jul

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

31

- Aug

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

30

- Sep

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

31

- Oct

- 09 59.5 23.1 0.68

30

- Nov

- 09 32.1 29.7 0.28

31

- Dec

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

Outfall 003

31

- Jan

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

28

- Feb

- 09 1.68 0.602 0.74

31

- Mar

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

30

- Apr

- 09 2.73 2.41 0.3

31

- May

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

30

- Jun

- 09 25.1 8.06 0.82

31

- Jul

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI CSection 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 7 Table 14-7. 2009 Month ly Lead and Flow Discharge Data for Buick Resource Recycling

Monitoring Date DMR Loadings Tool Maximum Lead Quantity (kg/day) Back

- Calculated Maximum Lead Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Monthly Maximum Flow (MGD)

31

- Aug

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

30

- Sep

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

31

- Oct

- 09 38.5 2.118 4.81

30

- Nov

- 09 3.99 3.71 0.28

31

- Dec

- 09 NODI C NODI C NODI C

Source s : DMR Loadings Tool and facility

- provided information (Lanzafame, 2011).

a The quantities, concentrations, and flow presented for outfall 001 are for the monthly average values. NODI C: The facility did not report a concentration or flow because no discharge occurred for the monitoring period.



### 14.6 NFMM Category Cadmium Discharges in DMR

Cadmium discharges from NFMM facilities in the 2009 DMR database account for approximately 13 perc ent of the category’s DMR TWPE. Table 14-8 presents facilities with cadmium discharges in the 2009 DMR database. EPA focused its review of cadmium discharges on the top three facilities, which account for 89 percent of the category’s cadmium 2009 DMR TWPE. However, two of the top three cadmium dischargers, both Doe Run facilities in Missouri, are currently under compliance and enforcement actions with U.S. EPA’s Office of Civil Enforcement. Due to the enforcement settlement, the Doe Run Herculaneum facility is required to shut down by December 21, 2013, and the Doe Run Glover Smelter discharges are being reviewed for compliance (U.S. EPA, 2010). As a result, EPA re focus ed its review of cadmium discharges on the third facility, Nyrstar Clarksville.Section 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 8 Table 14-8. NFMM Category Top Cadmium Discharging Facilities

in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Facility Location Total Pounds Pollutant

TWPE Percent of Category's

Total DMR

Cadmium TWPE

Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc. Clarksville, TN 385 8,910 39%

Doe Run, Glover Smelter a , b Annapolis, MO 307 7,090 31%

Doe Run, Herculaneum

Smelter b Herculaneum, MO 190 4,390 19%

Remaining facilities reporting cadmium b 108 2,490 11%

Total 990 22,900 100%
Source: DMRLoads2009_v2.

a On December 1, 2003

, operations at the Doe Run Glover Smelter, a lead smelter, were placed on “care and maintenance” status. While on care and maintenance, the facility and equipment were kept operationally ready

and maintained all permits (Doe Run, 2004).

b Due to an EPA enforcement settlement, the Doe Run Herculaneum facility has not operated for several years and will be completely shut down by December 21, 2013. The results of the settlement also required Doe Run to lower cadmium discharges at all its facilities in Missouri (including Glover Smelter). Because the cadmium discharges are already being reviewed as part of the settlement, EPA will not review the facility discharges as part of the 2011 A nnual R eview s (U.S. EPA, 2010).

c There are 8 remaining facilities that have cadmium discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 11 percent of the category’s cadmium DMR TWPE.



### 14.6.1 Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc

.

Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc., in Clarksville, TN (Nyrstar) produces zinc metal from beneficiation of zinc concentrate ore by a hydrometallurgical process. As secondary products, this facility also co

- produces cadmium metal, sulfuric acid, and metallurgically valuable byproducts (TN DEC, 2005). Nyrstar discharges cadmium from its outfall 001, which discharges treated process wastewater, sanitary wastewater, and cooling water (TN DEC, 2006).

Part 421, Subpart H, Primary Zinc Manufacturing, sets limits for cadmium (e.g., 0.334 mg/kg lead as the BAT daily maximum for the zinc reduction furnace wet air pollution control). The facility’s permit limits cadmium to a monthly average of 0.798 kg/day and a daily maximum of 1.99 kg/day (TN DEC, 2006). The facility fact sheet included the corresponding concentrations for these limits: 0.317 mg/L monthly average and 0.793 mg/L daily maximum (TN DEC, 2005). The NFMM ELG limits cadmium discharges in plant wastewater to 0.494 mg/kg of cadmium produced as a monthly average and 1.23 mg/kg of cadmium produced as a daily maximum.

Treatment technologies available for cadmium discharges include two

- stage chemical precipitation with lime addition or two

- stage chemical precipitation with settling and filtering, a process similar to cadm ium treatment at centralized waste treaters and/or metal finishing manufacturing facilities. These treatment processes can achieve cadmium concentrations of 0.13 mg/L or 0.044 mg/L, respectively (ERG, 2006).

Table 14-9 presents Ny rstar’s 2009 monthly average cadmium quantity and flow data

from the DMR Loadings Tool for outfall 001. Table 14-9 also includes EPA’s back

- calculated monthly cadmium concentrations, derived using the monthly average quantity and flow. TheSection 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 9 June 2009 monthly average quantity exceeds the facility permit limit and is above the fact

sheet’s cadmium concentration basis. EPA also determined that the back

- calculated concentrations are above treatable levels. Based on these findings, these discharges do not indicate the need for revision of national effluent guidelines, but rather fa cility

- specific permitting and compliance assistance.

Table 14-9. 2009 Monthly Cadmium and Flow Discharge Data for Nyrstar’s Outfall 001

Monitoring

Date DMR Loadings Tool Average Monthly Cadmium Quantity (kg/day) DMR Loadings Tool Maximum Monthly Cadmium Quantity (kg/day) Back

- Calculated Average Cadmium Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Jan

- 09 0.358 0.372 0.19 0.51

28

- Feb

- 09 0.367 0.603 0.17 0.56

31

- Mar

- 09 0.467 0.667 0.21 0.58

30

- Apr

- 09 0.390 0.449 0.17 0.61

31

- May

- 09 0.476 0.508 0.18 0.72

30

- Jun

- 09 0.807 0.821 0.39 0.55

31

- Jul

- 09 0.372 0.404 0.16 0.63

31

- Aug

- 09 0.426 0.444 0.19 0.60

30

- Sep

- 09 0.558 0.567 0.21 0.69

31

- Oct

- 09 0.472 0.508 0.19 0.66

30

- Nov

- 09 0.512 0.825 0.21 0.63

31

- Dec

- 09 0.540 0.571 0.20 0.73

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.



### 14.7 NFMM Category Molybdenum Discharges in DMR

Molybdenum discharges from NFMM facilities in the 2009 DMR database account for approximately 12 percent of the category’s DMR TWPE. Table 14-10 presents the facilities with molybdenum discharges in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of molybdenum from one facility, GulfChem & Metallurgical Corporati on in Freeport TX, account for over 99 percent of the category’s molybdenum DMR TWPE. Accordingly, EPA focused its review on GulfChem.

Table 14-10. NFMM Category Top Molybdenum Discharging Facilit y in the 2009 DMR Databases

Facility Name Facility Location Total Pounds Pollutant

TWPE Percent of Category's DMR Mercury

TWPE

GulfChem & Metallurgical Corp Freeport, TX 110,000 22,000 > 99%

Remaining facilities reporting molybdenum a 74.6 14.9 < 1%

Total 110,000 22,000 100%
Source: DMRLoads2009_v2.

a There are two remaining facilities that have molybdenum discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for less than 1 percent of the category’s molybdenum DMR TWPE.Section 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 10 GulfChem operates a plant that recovers metals (molybdenum and vanadium) from spent refinery hydro

- desulfurizing catalysts. The plant discharges m olybdenum from its outfalls 001

and 002. Outfall 001 discharges process wastewater, cooling water, domestic sewage, an d stormwater runoff from the facility.

Part 421, Subpart T, sets limits for molybdenum from many secondary molybdenum processes (e.g., 0.000 mg/kg for molybdenum drying wet air pollution control). However, molybdenum limits for several subcategories for Part 421, Subpart T, are reserved for both BPT

and BAT:

• Leach tailings

• Molybdenum filtrate solvent extraction raffinate

• Pure grade molybdenum

The facility’s permit limits molybdenum for outfall 001 at 36.7 kg/day monthly average and 82 kg/day daily maximum. Outfall 002 is a stormwater outfall with a daily maximum molybdenum permit limit of 30 mg/L (TCEQ, 2003).

Table 14-11 presents the 2009 monthly molybdenum discharges for GulfChem from the 2009 DMR database. EPA compared the data from the DMR Loadings Tool to the publically available data in Envirofacts. EPA determined that the April 2009 concentration for outfall 002 was a data entry error, given previous months of data available in Envirofacts. Using a corrected value of 19.3 mg/L for that concentration, GulfChem’s 2009 molybdenum discharges are 39,600 pounds and 7,920 TWPE, reducing the facility’s total TWPE by over 51 percent. This reduction

decrease s the NFMM Category’s 2009 DMR TWPE by 14,100, making molybdenum no longer a top pollutant of concern.

EPA also compared the data to the facility’s permit limits and determined that the outfall 001 January, April, July, August, and December 2009 molybdenum quantities exceed the mass

based permit limits. As a result, EPA recommends facility

- specific permitting and compliance assistance to control molybdenum discharges from the GulfChem facility.

Table 14-11. 2009 Monthly Molybdenum Data for GulfChem’s Outfalls 001 and 002

Monitoring

Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Average Molybdenum

Quantities (kg/day ) a DMR Loadings Tool Average Molybdenum Concentrations (mg/L) b Corrected DMR Loadings Tool Average Molybdenum Concentrations (mg/L)

Outfall 001

31

- Jan

- 09 58.2 61.5 NA

28

- Feb

- 09 18.7 16.5 NA

31

- Mar

- 09 13.2 11.9 NA

30

- Apr

- 09 70.1 51.6 NA

31

- May

- 09 17.9 15.4 NA

30

- Jun

- 09 31.5 24.4 NA

31

- July

- 09 47.7 37.6 NA

31

- Aug

- 09 107.9 94.7 NA

30

- Sep

- 09 23.2 23.1 NASection 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 11 Table 14-11. 2009 Monthly Molybdenum Data for GulfChem’s Outfalls 001 and 002

Monitoring

Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Average Molybdenum

Quantities (kg/day ) a DMR Loadings Tool Average Molybdenum Concentrations (mg/L) b Corrected DMR Loadings Tool Average Molybdenum Concentrations (mg/L)

31

- Oct

- 09 72.7 75.1 NA

30

- Nov

- 09 12.8 12.9 NA

31

- Dec

- 09 44.6 45.7 NA

Outfall 002

31

- Jan

- 09 NODI C NODI C NA

28

- Feb

- 09 NODI C NODI C NA

31

- Mar

- 09 7.15 7 NA

30

- Apr

- 09 1

, 512 1

, 930 19.3

31

- May

- 09 3.87 16.5 NA

30

- Jun

- 09 NODI C NODI C NA

31

- July

- 09 NODI C NODI C NA

31

- Aug

- 09 NODI C NODI C NA

30

- Sep

- 09 NODI C NODI C NA

31

- Oct

- 09 21 16.6 NA

30

- Nov

- 09 32.6 23.3 NA

31

- Dec

- 09 46.6 20.8 NA

Source: DMRLoads200 9 _v2

.

a EPA calculated the average monthly quantity for outfall 002 using the average concentration (mg/L) and the flow (MGD) because the facility did not report a quantity value.

b EPA calculated the average monthly concentration for outfall 001 using the average quantity (kg/day) and the flow (MGD) because the facility did not report a co ncentration value. NODI C: The facility did not report a concentration or flow because no discharge occurred for the monitoring period.



### 14.8 NFMM Category Conclusions

Based on available data, the estimated toxicity of the NFMM Category discharges in the

toxic ity rankings databases result s from mercury, fluoride, lead, cadmium, and molybdenum discharges. Data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews demonstrated that wastewater discharge characteristics for this category are consistent with discharges from prior y ears. As in prior years, EPA concludes the following:

• The mercury discharges from the NFMM Category result from one facility, AL State Docks. EPA determined that this facility’s mercury discharges are legacy discharges from previous aluminum ore mining and processing operations that

have since been shut down. EPA believes that these discharges do not indicate the need for revision of national effluent guidelines and is considering facility

specific permitting compliance to address this facility’s mercury discharges.

• The fluoride discharges from the NFMM Category result from one facility, Horsehead Corporation. The facility contact confirmed the 2009 fluoride discharges from outfall 101. EPA determined that this facility is reporting fluorideSection 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 12 discharges fro m an internal monitoring point, prior to commingling with another outfall at the final effluent. However, EPA’s calculated concentrations at the final effluent are still higher than treatable levels achieved by two

- stage chemical precipitation with a lime treatment system. The facility contact also confirmed that the wastewater treatment does not specifically target fluoride. EPA is considering facility

- specific permitting support to address this facility’s fluoride discharges. EPA will continue to review fluoride discharges from Horsehead Corporation.

• The lead discharges result from one facility: Buick Resource Recycling, which

exceeded its maximum mass

- based lead permit limits for all reporting periods in

2009 for stormwater outfalls 002 and 003. U.S. EPA’ s Office of Civil Enforcement already identified compliance and operation problems with the Doe Run facility and is already addressing the lead discharges.

• The cadmium discharges from the NFMM Category results from three facilities, Nyrstar Clarksville, I nc. , and two Doe Run lead smelters (Glover and Herculaneum). EPA’s Office of Civil Enforcement already identified compliance and operation problems with the two Doe Run facilities and is already addressing these facilities’ discharges. Nyrstar exceeded its monthly average permit limits for one month in 2009, and the back- calculated cadmium concentrations are above treatable levels. The existing regulations already set limits for cadmium; therefore, EPA recommends facility

- specific permitting to control cadmium discharges at this facility

.

• The molybdenum discharges from the NFMM Category come from one facility, GulfChem & Metallurgical Corporation. EPA identified a database error for this facility. With it corrected, the NFMM Category’s molybdenum TWPE decreased by 64 percent, from 22,000 to 7,900; this means it is no longer a hazard priority. However, the molybdenum discharges for this facility also exceed the monthly

average mass -based permit limit for five months in 2009. Therefore, EPA

recommends fac ility

- specific permitting and compliance assistance for this facility.

• Correcting the database errors identified during the 2011 Annual Reviews

decreases the 2009 NFMM Category TWPE from 215,000 to 200,900. Excluding discharges from facilities that are closed or imminently closing, the TWPE

decreases to 168,200. As new data become available, EPA will continue to review

d ischarges from the NFMM Category to determine if the discharges are properly

controlled.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with exist ing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “( 2)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8 -1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).Section 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 13 14.9 NFMM Category References

1. Doe Run. 2004. Recycling. Available online at: http://www.doerun.com/WHATWEDO/RECYCLING/tabid/74/language/en

US/Default.aspx . Date accessed: August 11, 2011. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN

07568.

2. ERG. 2006. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Combi ned Metals Database. EPA

- HQ

- OW

2010-0824. DCN 07569.

3. GCIP. 2002. General Chemical Industrial Products. Chapter 14: Wastewater and Water Treatment. Available online at: http://www.genchem.com/calcium/NCh14.html. Date accessed: July 27, 2006. DCN 03761.

4. Ionics. n.d. The EnChem® Process for Fluoride Removal. Wastewater Treatment for the Microelectronics Industry . Available online at: http://www.iconics.com/pdf/TS4752EUS.pdf. Date accessed: July 27, 2006. DCN 03760.

5. Lanzafame, Jim. 2011. Letter Corresponden ce Between James Lanzafame, Doe Run Resource Recycling Division, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: Request for Historical DMRs. (August 17). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07577.

6. MO DNR. 2003. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. NPDES Permit: Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling, Boss, Missouri . (November 1). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824.

DCN 07547.

7. PA DEP . 2001. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection. NPDES Permit: Horsehead Corporation, Monaca, Pennsylvania . (August 2).

EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07572.

8. Swisher, David. 2011. Telephone and Email Correspondence Between David Swisher, Horsehead Corporation, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: 2009 DMR Fluoride Discharges. (August 24). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07578.

9. TCEQ. 2003. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. NPDES Permit: Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corporation, Freeport, Texas . (April 23)

. EPA

- HQ

- OW

2010-0824. DCN 07575.

10. TN DEC. 2005. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. NPDE S Permit Fact Sheet: Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc., Clarksville, Tennessee . (May 31). EPA

- HQ

OW -2010-0824. DCN 07573.

11. TN DEC. 2006. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. NPDES Permit: Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc, Clarksville, Tennessee . (June 1). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-

0824. DCN 07574.

12. U.S. EPA. 1974. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Basic Fertilizer Chemicals Segment of theSection 14

— Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)



### 14

- 14 Fertilizer Manufacturing Point Source Category. Washington, D.C. (March). EPA -440-1-

75-042- a.

13. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-R-04-014. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2003-0074-1346 through 1352.

14. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (December). EPA-821-R-06-018. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-

2782.

15. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-821-R-07-007. EPA

- HQ

OW -2006-0771-0819.

16. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan . Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-821-R-09-006. EPA

- HQ

OW -2008-0517-0515.

17. U.S. EPA. 2010. Civil Enforcement: Doe Run Resources Corporation Settlement. Washington, D.C. (October 8). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07576.

18. U.S. EPA. 2011. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan. Washington, D.C. ( October ). EPA -820-R-10-021. EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07320.

19. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.

20. WC&E. 2006. Wastech Controls & Engineering, Inc. Fluoride Wastewater Treatment (FWT): Also Known as HF Neutralization or Fluoride Reduction. Av ailable online at: http://www.wastechengineering.com/papers/hf.htm. Date accessed: July 27. DCN 03759.Section 15

— Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR Part 41 4)



### 15

- 1 15. O RGANIC 

### C HEMICALS 

### , P LASTICS 

### , AND 

### S YNTHETIC 

### F IBERS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 414)

EPA selected the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) Category for preliminary review because it continues to rank high, in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in point source category rankings. EPA reviewed discharges from the OCPSF Category as part of the 2004 through 2010 reviews (U.S. EPA, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011). This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual R eview s associated with the OCPSF Category. EPA focused on discharges of PCB-1242 and hexachlorobenzene because of their high TWPE relative to other pollutants in the OCPSF Category. For f urther background of the OCPSF Category, see the Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. EPA, 2011 ).

EPA recently reviewed discharges from the chlorinated hydrocarbon manufacturing segment of the OCPSF Category as part of the Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons effluent guidelines rulemaking. EPA i s proposing to delist chlorinated hydrocarbon manufacturing from the effluent guidelines plan and discontinue the rulemaking. Given this, these facilities were excluded from further consideration in this toxicity ranking analysis (see Table 8-1, in the Preliminary 2012 Plan (U.S. EPA, 2013) ).

15.1 OCPSF Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 15-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the OCPSF Category from the 2006 through 2011 Annual Reviews. The 2009 discharge monitoring report (DMR) TWPE accounts for approximately 79 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) TWPE, while TRI discharges dominated previous years’ combined TWPE.

Table 15-1. OCPSF Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 T hrough 2 011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Year of Discharge Year of Review OCPSF Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2002 2006 349,000 398,000 747,000

2004 2007 957,000 608,000 1,570,000

2005 2008 759,000 NA NA

2007 2009 575,000 309,000 884,000

2008 2010 137,000 512,000 649,000

2009 2011 146,000 541,000 687,000

Source: TRIReleases2002_v4 ; PCSLoads2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2004_v3 ; PCSLoads2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v2 ; TRIReleases2007_v2 ; DMRLoads2007_v4 ; TRIReleases2008_v3 ; DMRLoads2008_v2; TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2002 through 2007 include only major dischargers. DMR 2008 and 2009 data include both minor and major dischargers.

NA : Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005.



### 15.2 OCPSF Pollutants of Concern

EPA’s review of the OCPSF Category focused on the 2009 DMR discharges because the 2009 DMR data dominate the category’s combined TWPE. Table 15-2 c ompares the five.Section 15

— Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR Part 41 4)



### 15

- 2 Table 15-2. OCPSF Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 2008 DMR Data a 2009 DMR Data a

Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE

PCB

- 1242 Pollutants not reported in the top five 2008 DMR

- reported pollutants. 1 1 240,000

Hexachlorobenzene 1 11 124,000 2 9 131,000

Chlorine 2 104 77,800 3 95 75.800

Tin Pollutants not reported in the top five 2008 DMR

- reported pollutants. 4 3 16, 4 00

Fluoride 5 11 11,000

Nickel 3 68 59,500 Pollutants not reported in the top five 200 9 DMR

- reported pollutants. Copper 4 133 42,100

Fluoride 5 16 28,900

OCPSF Category Total NA 357 b 512,000 NA 319 b 541,000

Sources: DMRLoads2008_v2 and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a DMR data include major and minor dischargers.

b Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. NA: Not applicable.Section 15

— Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR Part 41 4)



### 15

- 3 pollutants with the highest TWPE in the 2009 and 2008 DMR databases ( DMRLoads2009_v2

and DMRLoads2008_v2, respectively)

.

PCB -1242 and hexachlorobenzene compose the majority (approximately 70 percent) of the 2009 DMR TWPE for the OCSPF Category. The PCB-1242 discharges in the 2009 DMR database are from only one facility, Solutia, Inc., in Anniston, AL. PCBs are no longer manufactured in the United States and are used in a limited number of products. Therefore, PCB discharges are typically legacy issues and require facility

- specific permitting support (40 CFR Part 761.50). EPA is not prioritizing the PCB discharges for review as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews because the discharges are from only one facility and PCBs are typically legacy issues.

15.3 OCPSF Category Hexachlorobenzene Dischargers in DMR

EPA’s 2011 Annual Reviews of the OCPSF Category focused on hexachlorobenzene discharges. Hexachlorobenzene discharges in the 2009 DMR database account for 24 percent of

the total DMR TWPE. Table 15-3 presents the hexachlorobenzene dischargers in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of hexachlorobenzene from three facilities account for over 90 percent of the category’s hexachlorobenzene DMR TWPE. As a result, EPA focused its review of hexachlorobenzene discharges on the top three facilities.

Table 15-3. OCPSF Category Hexachlorobenzene Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Hexachlorobenzene

Pounds Discharged Hexachlorobenzene

TWPE Facility Percent of

Hexachlorobenzene

Category TWPE

Daikin America Inc. 29.2 56,900 44%

Chevron Oronite Co., LLC, Oak Point Plant 25.6 49,800 38%

Nalco Company 6.21 12,100 9%

Remaining facilities reporting hexachlorobenzene discharges a 6.26 12,100 9%

Total 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a There are three remaining facilities that have hexachlorobenzene discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 3 percent of the category’s hexachlorobenzene DMR TWPE.



### 15.3.1 Daikin American, Inc.

Daikin American in Decatur, AL, discharges hexachlorobenzene from one outfall, outfall 001, which carries treated process wastewater from a fluorocarbon production facility ( ADEM

, 2003a). Table 15-4 presents the 2009 DMR hexachlorobenzene concentrations compared to the facility’s permit and limit from Subpart J of the OCPSF effluent limitations guideli nes, or ELGs. 9 

### The facility’s permit requires that hexachlorobenzene be reported annually as a quantity. EPA calculated the 2009 concentrations using the quantities and flow from the 2009 DMR database. EPA calculated the 2009 permit limit concentrations us ing the permit limit quantities and the flows from the facility’s permit fact sheet ( ADEM, 2003b). The facility’s fact sheet also states that the hexachlorobenzene permit limits are based on the human health criteria. Therefore,

9 See Section 12.1.2 of the Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. EPA,

201 1) for details on the OCPSF ELGs.Section 15

— Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR Part 41 4)



### 15

- 4 Table 15-4. 2009 DMR H exachlorobenzene Discharges for Daikin American, Inc.

2009 DMR Database Data Permit Limits and Fact Sheet Data

ELG Limits (mg/L) Quantity (kg /day) Flow (MGD) Calculated Concentration (mg/L) Quantity (kg /day) Flow (MGD) a Calculated Concentration (mg/L)

Daily maximum 0.0363 1.07 0.00896 0.0862 0.79 0.0288 0.794

Monthly average 0.0363 1.07 0.00896 0.0544 0.79 0.0182 0.196

Sources: Facility permit and fact sheet (ADEM, 2003a, 2003b) and DMRLoads2009_v2.

a Flow is reported only in the facility permit; this value is based on the facility’s permit fact sheet.Section 15

— Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR Part 41 4)



### 15

- 5 the permit limits are based on facility -specific permitting support rather than the OCPSF ELGs (ADEM, 2003b). As shown in Table 15 -4 , the calculated daily maximum and monthly average concentrations do not exceed the OCPSF ELG hexachlorobenzene limits or the facility- specific permit limits based on the water quality criteria for human health.

15.3.2 Chevron Oronite Co., LLC, Oak Point Plant

Chevron Oronite, Oak Point Plant, in Belle Chasse, LA, discharges hexachlorobenzene from outfall 202. This continuous, internal discharge consists of treated process wastewater and process area stormwater (LADEQ, 2009a). Table 15-5 presents the 2008 and 2009

hexachlorobenzene data for Chevron Oronite.

Table 15-5. 2008 and 2009 Hexachlorobenzene Discharge Data for Chevron

Oronite Outfall 202

Monitoring Period DMR Loadings Tool Quantity (kg/day) Flow (MGD)

31

- Dec

- 08 0.0544 1.132

31

- Dec

- 09 0.0317 2.527

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.



### EPA contacted Chevron Oronite about the 2008 DMR discharges of hexachlorobenzene as part of the 2010 Annual R eview s. Chevron Oronite indicated that all of the 2008 hexachlorobenzene quantities had been measured below the detection limit; they had therefore

used half of the detection limit to calculate the reported quantities (Sampey, 2010). A ccordingly

, EPA determined that all of the quantities in the 2008 DMR database were based on non- detect sample results and the loads and , for annual review purposes, TWPE should be zero (U.S. EPA, 2011). As shown in Table 15-5 , the 2009 hexachlorobenzene quantities are less than the 2008 quantities. The 2009 DMR data are consistent with 2008; EPA concludes that for annual review purposes, the TWPE should be zero. With this error corrected the facility ’s total TWPE decreases from 55,800 to 6,000, a reduction of over 89 percent.

15.3.3 Nalco Company

Nalc o Company discharges hexachlorobenzene from outfall 001, a continuous discharge of treated process wastewater (LADEQ, 2009b). Table 15-6 presents the 2009 DMR

hexachl orobenzene concentrations compared to the facility’s permit and limit from Subpart H of

the OCPSF ELGs. 10 

### The facility’s permit requires that hexachlorobenzene be reported annually as a quantity. EPA calculated the 2009 concentrations using the quantities and flow from the 2009 DMR database. EPA calculated the 2009 permit limit concentrations using the permit limit quantities and the estimated flow from the facility’s permit. As shown in Table 15-6 , the reported daily maximum and monthly average concentrations do not exceed the hexachlorobenzene limits in the facility’s permit or the OCPSF ELGs.

10 See Section 12.1.2 of the Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. EPA, 2011) for details on the OCPSF ELGs.Section 15

— Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR Part 41 4)



### 15

- 6 Table 15-6. 2009 DMR Hexachlorobenzene Discharge s for Nalco Company

2009 DMR Database Data Permit Limits and Fact Sheet Data

ELG Limits (mg/L) Quantity (kg /day) Flow (MGD) Calculated Concentration (mg/L) Quantity (kg /day) Flow (MGD) a Calculated Concentration (mg/L)

Daily maximum 0.0077 0.503 0.00405 0.0454 0.514 0.0233 0.028

Monthly average 0.0077 0.503 0.00405 0.0227 0.514 0.0117 0.015

Source: Facility Permits ( LADEQ, 2009b ) and DMRLoads_2009_v2

.

a Flow is reported only in the facility permit; this value is based on the facility’s permit fact sheet.Section 15

— Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR Part 41 4)



### 15

- 7 15.4 OCPSF Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the OCSPF Category discharges results from PCB -1242 and hexachlorobenzene discharges. Data collected for the 201 1 Annual R eview s demonstrated that wastewater discharge characteristics for this category are consistent with discharges from prior

years. Using data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA concludes the following:

• The PCB -1242 discharges are reported by one facility, Solutia, Inc., in Anniston, Alabama. PCBs are no longer manufactured in the United States, so PCB discharges are typically legacy issues ( 40 CFR Part 761.50 ). EPA determined that the PCB discharges are not representative of the category because they come f rom only one facility and are typically legacy issues. Therefore, the PCB discharges should be controlled using facility-specific permitting support. EPA excluded the facility’s discharges from further review.

• Three facilities, Daikin American, Inc., Chevr on Oronite, and Nalco Company, contribute the majority of the hexachlorobenzene discharges for the OCPSF Category.

• Chevron Oronite indicated that the 2008 hexachlorobenzene quantities were based

on non- detect sampling results. The facility’s 2009 hexachlor obenzene quantities are on the same order of magnitude as the 2008 values; therefore, EPA suspects that the 2009 quantities are also based on non- detect sampling results. Accordingly, EPA determined that Chevron Oronite’s 2009 hexachlorobenzene load and TWPE should be zero. Correcting this error decreases the facility’s 2009 TWPE from 55,800 to 6,000.

• The hexachlorobenzene discharges from Daikin American, Inc.

, and Nalco Company are below the ELGs and t he facilities’ permit limits. Although hexachlorobenzene is present, the discharge concentrations are an order of magnitude below the ELGs. As new data become available, EPA will review hexachlorobenzene discharges from the OCPSF Category to determine if the same conclusions apply.

• Correcting the database erro rs identified during the 2011 Annual Reviews decreases the 2009 OCPSF Category TWPE from 687,000 to 397,000. The OCSPF Category continues to rank high due to the high number of facilities (over 2,000) in the industry. As new data becomes available, EPA will continue to review the OCSPF Category discharges to determine if they are properly

controlled.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8 -1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).Section 15

— Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR Part 41 4)



### 15

- 8 15.5 OCSPF Category References

1. ADEM. 2003a. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. NPDES Permit: Daikin America, Inc., Decatur, AL. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07608.

2. ADEM. 2003b. Alabama Department of Environmental Management. NPDES Permit

Fact Sheet: D aikin America, Inc., Decatur, AL. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07609.

3. LADEQ. 2009a. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental

Services. NPDES Permit : Chevron Oronite Company, LLC, Oak Point P lant, Belle Chasse, LA

. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07610.

4. LADEQ. 2009b. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental

Services. NPDES Permit : Nalco Company, Garyville Facility, Garyville, LA. EPA

- HQ

OW -2010-0824. DCN 07611.

5. Sampey, Troy. 2010. E-mail Communication Between Troy Sampey, Chevron Oronite Co., and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: DMRs Clarification Needed for Chevron Oronite—Oak Point Plant. (July 13). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN

07296.

6. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-R-04-014. EPA- HQ

- OW -2003-0074-1346 through 1352.

7. U.S. EPA. 2005a. Preliminary 2005 Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial Dischargers . Washington, D.C. (August). EPA -821-B-05-004. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2004-

0032-0016.

8. U.S. EPA. 2005b. Product and Product Group Discharges Subject to Effluent Limitations and Standards for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category. Wash ington, D. C. (April). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2004-032-2568.

9. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D. C. (December). EPA -821-R-06-018. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-

2782.

10. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan . Washington, D. C. (October). EPA -821-R-07-007. EPA

- HQ

OW -2006-0771-0819.

11. U.S. EPA. 2008. Technical Support Document for the 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (August). EPA -821-R-08-015. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2006-0771-1701.

12. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan . Washington, D.C. (October ). EPA -821-R-09-006. EPA

- HQ

OW -2008-0517-0515.Section 15

— Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR Part 41 4)



### 15

- 9 13. U.S. EPA. 2011. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-820-R-10-021. EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07320.

14. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.Section 16

— Oil & Gas Extraction (40 CFR Part 4 35 )



### 16

- 1 16. O IL 

### & G AS 

### E XTRACTION 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 435)

EPA selected the Oil and Gas Extraction (Oil and Gas) Category for preliminary review because it ranks high, in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in point source category ranking s. The Final 2010 Plan summarizes the results of EPA’s previous review of this industry in 2010 (U.S. EPA, 2011 ). EPA also reviewed discharges from this industry, specifically the coalbed methane (CBM) sector, in 2004 and 2005 (71 FR 76644, December 21, 2006). See Section 16.2 of the Final 2010 Plan for information on EPA’s detailed study of the CBM sector (U.S. EPA, 2011). As a result of this detailed study, EPA announced in the Final 2010 Plan its intent to review discharges from the CBM segment of the Oi l and Gas Category as part of the CBM effluent guidelines rulemaking. Also announced in the Final 2010 ELG Program Plan, EPA initiat ed a rulemaking for shale gas extraction, another subcategory of the Oil and Gas Category, which includes ELGs for direct discharge but not pretreatment standards. For more information on shale gas extraction, see the Final 2010 Plan (76 FR 66286).

At this time, however, EPA is proposing to de list from rulemaking in the effluent guidelines plan the CBM extraction subcategory (see Section 4.1.1 of the Preliminary 2012 Plan for more details). EPA plans to continue to address shale gas extraction under its proposed rulemaking titled “ELG Revisions to Address Discharges from Unconventional Oil and Gas

Extraction”.

Because rulemakin gs for th e CBM and shale gas extraction segment s of the Oil and Gas Category were

, or are , currently under consideration , EPA excluded discharges from these

facilities from further consideration i n this review (see Table V -1, 76 FR 66286, October 26,

2011 ).

This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews associated with the Oil and Gas Category. EPA focused on discharges of sulfide from one facility, because of its high TWPE relative to the other facilities in the Oil and Gas Category.

16.1 Oil a nd Gas Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 16-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Oil and Gas Category from the 2006 through 2011 Annual Reviews. The combined discharge monitoring report (DMR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) TWPE increased from discharge years 2007 to 2009. Since 2007, the combined TWPE is based only on DMR data because no facilities reported water discharges to TRI for 2007 through 2009. EPA’s review of the Oil and Gas Category focused on the 2009 DMR discharges because no facilities reported water discharges to TRI in

2009.

Table 16-1. Oil and Gas Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Year of Discharge Year of Review Oil and Gas Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2002 2006 700 1.18 701

2004 2007 596 17.8 614

2005 2008 802 NA NASection 16

— Oil & Gas Extraction (40 CFR Part 4 35 )



### 16

- 2 Table 16-1. Oil and Gas Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Year of Discharge Year of Review Oil and Gas Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2007 2009 NR 255 255

2008 2010 NR 189,000 189,000

2009 2011 NR 238,000 238,000

Sources: TRIReleases2002_v4 ; PCSLoads2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2004_v3 ; PCSLoads2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v2 ; TRIReleases2007_v2 ; DMRLoads2007_v4 ; TRIReleases2008_v3 ; DMRLoads2008_v3 ; TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2002 through 2007 include only major dischargers. DMR 2008 and 2009 data include both minor and major dischargers.

NA : Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005. NR: Not reported. No facilities reported water discharges to TRI for reporting years 2007 through 2009.



### 16.2 Oil and Gas Category Pollutants of Concern

Table 16-2 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in DMR data from reporting years 2009 and 2008 ( DMRLoads2009_v2 and DMRLoads2008_v3 , respectively)

. Sulfide is the top DMR pollutant in 2009, contributing approximately 94 percent of the total category TWPE for 2009. EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews because the remaining TWPE is only six percent of the 2009 combined TWPE for the Oil and Gas Category.Section 16

— Oil & Gas Extraction (40 CFR Part 4 35 )



### 16

- 3 Table 16-2. Oil and Gas Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 2008 DMR Database a 2009 DMR Database a

Rank Number of Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE

Sulfide 1 3 170,000 1 3 224,000

Chloride 3 12 7,340 2 20 10,700

Fluoride 4 2 2,250 3 3 1,900

Arsenic Pollutant not reported in the top five 2008 DMR

- reported pollutants

. 4 1 367

Aluminum 2 2 7,550 5 3 242

Cyanide 5 2 871 Pollutant not reported in the top five 2009 DMR

- reported pollutants

. Oil and Gas Category Total NA 52 b 189,000 NA 63 b 238,000

Sources: DMRLoads2008_v 3 and DMRLoads2009_v2.

a 2008 and 2009 DMR data include major and minor dischargers.

b Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.Section 16

— Oil & Gas Extraction (40 CFR Part 4 35 )



### 16

- 4 16.3 Oil and Gas Category Sulfide Discharges in DMR

Table 16-3 presents the three facilities that have sulfide discharges in the 2008 and 2009 DMR databases. The majority (99 percent) of the sulfide TWPE results from discharges from Marathon Oil Maverick Springs in Fremont County, WY. EPA did not review sulfide discharges

from the other facilities because they account for only one percent of the Oil and Gas Category’s

sulfide TWPE.Section 16

— Oil & Gas Extraction (40 CFR Part 4 35 )



### 16

- 5 Table 16-3. Oil and Gas Category Top Sulfide Discharging Facilities in the 2008 and 2009 DMR Databases

Facility Name Facility Location 2008 2009

Pounds of

Sulfide Discharged Sulfide

TWPE Percentage of Oil and Gas Category Sulfide

200 9 DMR TWPE Pounds of

Sulfide Discharged Sulfide

TWPE Percentage of Oil and Gas Category Sulfide

200 9 DMR TWPE

Marathon Oil Maverick Springs Fremont County, WY 60,600 169,800 99% 79,700 223,200 99%

Soap Creek Oil Field St. Xavier, MT 107 300 < 1% 130 400 < 1%

Petro Gas Liquids Processing Corpus Christi, TX 5.79 16 < 1% 4 12 <1%

Total 60,700 170,000 100% 79,800 224,000 100%

Source s : DMRLoads2008_v2 and DMRLoads200 9 _v2

.Section 16

— Oil & Gas Extraction (40 CFR Part 4 35 )



### 16

- 6 The Marathon Oil Maverick Springs facility is an oil production facility , located within the exterior boundaries of the Wind River Indian Reservation. The facility’s permit fact sheet indicates that the Wyoming Department of Environmental Conservation (WDEQ) developed the permit limits based on Subparts C (“ Onshore Subcategory ”) and E (“ Agricultural and Wildlife Water Use Subcategory ” of the Oil and Gas Category (WDEQ, 2007). See Section 10.1.2 of the Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for a complete review of the Oil and Gas Category ELGs (U.S. EPA, 2011 ). The ELGs and the facility’s permit

do not set numerical limits for sulfide; however, the permit requires semi-annual effluent monitoring requirements for sulfide. Table 16 -4 presents the sulfide concentration data for Marathon Oil Maverick Springs for 2007 through 2009.

Table 16-4. Marathon Oil Maverick Springs’s Outfall 001 2007 Through 2009 Sulfide Discharge Data

Monitoring Period Date Maximum Concentration (mg/L) Flow (MGD)

31

- Dec

- 07 9.76 1.645

31

- Dec

- 08 24 1.645

30

- June

- 09 25 1.598

31

- Dec

- 09 8 1.576

Source: EPA’s Envirofacts and DMR Loadings Tool.



### EPA contacted Marathon Oil Maverick Springs to verify the 2008 sulfide discharges as part of the 2010 Annual R eview s. The facility confirmed the 2008 sulfide concentrations and flows for outfall 001, a stormwater discharge (Taylor, 2010). EPA also contacted the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), the permitting authority, to determine the impact of sulfide concentrations on the receiving stream. The permitting authority confirmed that there were no issues with the sulfide concentrations affecting the receiving stream (WDEQ, 2007). The WDEQ contact further established that water discharges from crude refiners vary with geographic location, implying that the Maverick Spring discharge differs from refiners in

other basins.

As a result, EPA concluded t hat the state is aware of Marathon Oil Maverick Springs’ sulfide discharges, and that their sulfide wastewater discharges are unique. That is, the magnitude of their sulfide discharges do es not mean that discharges from other facilities in the
category wou ld contain such sulfide levels. Because the 2009 sulfide discharges and flow are of the same order of magnitude, as shown in Table 16 -4 , EPA did not co ntact the facility to verify the 2009 data. EPA continues to conclude that the facility’s sulfide discharges are best controlled by facility -specific permitting support. For more information on the 2008 sulfide discharges from Marathon Oil Maverick Springs, see Section 10.4 of the Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. EPA, 2011 ).

16.4 Oil and Gas Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the Oil and Gas Category discharges results mainly from the sulfide discharges o f Marathon Oil Maverick Springs (accounting for 99 percent of the category’s 2009 TWPE). EPA does not believe that these sulfide discharges are representative of the Oil and Gas Category. Data collected for the 2011 Annual R eview s demonstrated thatSection 16

— Oil & Gas Extraction (40 CFR Part 4 35 )



### 16

- 7 wastewa ter discharge characteristics for this category are consistent with discharges from prior

years. Using data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA concludes the following:

• EPA contacted Marathon Oil Maverick Springs in 2010 because of their sulfide discharges. Marathon Oil Maverick Springs confirmed the 2008 sulfide concentrations and flows. The 2009 sulfide discharges and flows are the same order of magnitude as the 2008 data. Therefore, EPA believes that the 2009 discharge estimates are valid but do not represent the category as a whole. Marathon Oil’s sulfide discharges are best controlled by facility

- specific permitting support.

• The total 2009 TWPE excluding the sulfide discharges from Marathon Oil Maverick Springs is 14,800. This change would drop the category outside the top 95 percent that EPA prioritized for preliminary review as part of the 2011 Annual

Reviews.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to hum an health and the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8 -1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

16.5 Oil and Gas Category References

1. Taylor, Linda. 2010. Notes From Telephone Conversation Between Linda Taylor, Marathon Oil Maverick Springs, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: Sulfide Discharges Reported to DMR in 2008. (June 3). EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07307.

2. WDEQ. 2007. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. State of Wyoming National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Statement of Basis NPDES WY0000779—Marathon Oil Maverick Springs. Fremont County, WY. (June) EPA

- HQ

OW -2008-0517 DCN 07292.

3. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D. C. (December). EPA -821-R-06-018. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-

2782.

4. U.S. EPA. 2011. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (October). EPA 820-R-10-021. EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07320.

5. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA -HQ- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.Section 17

— Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



### 17

- 1 17. O RE 

### M INING AND 

### D RESSING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 440)

EPA selected the Ore Mining and Dressing (Ore Mining) Category for preliminary review because it ranks high, in terms of toxic -weighted pound equivalent ( TWPE ), in point source category rankings. EPA conducted a preliminary study of this category as part of the 2009

and 2010 Annual R eview s (U.S. EPA, 2009, 2011). EPA also reviewed discharges from the Ore Mining Category as part of the 2004 through 2008 Annual Reviews (U.S. EPA, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008). This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual R eview s associated with the Ore Mining and Dressing Category.

17.1 Ore Mining and Dressing Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 17-1 compares the toxicity rankings database results for the Ore Mining Category from the 2006 through 2011 reviews. Both the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and discharge monitoring report (DMR) TWPE decreased from 2008 to 2009. The estimated 2009 DMR TWPE accounts for 67 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE category, similar to previous years. EPA’s review of the Ore Mining Category focused on the 2009 DMR discharges

because the 2009 DMR data a ccount for 67 percent of the 2009 combined category TWPE.

Table 17-1. Ore Mining Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2002 Through 2009

Year of Discharge Year of

Review Ore Mining Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2002 2006 77,600 410,000 488,000

2004 200 7 88,000 581,000 669,000

2005 2008 76 ,700 NA NA

2007 20 09 39,400 184,000 223,000

2008 2010 109,000 339,000 448,000

2009 2011 68,900 139,000 208,000

Source s: PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2; PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v3; TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW r emovals.

b DMR data from 2002 through 2007 include only major dischargers. 2008 and 2009 DMR data include both minor and major dischargers.

NA : Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005.



### 17.2 Ore Mining and Dressing Category Top Facilities in DMR

In EPA’s preliminary study of the Ore Mining Category, conducted during the 2009 and 2010 Annual Reviews, EPA determined that approximately two percent of ore mining facilities in the 2007 DMR database have DMR data; see Table 2 -2 in the Ore Mining and Dressing Preliminary Study Report (U.S. EPA, 2011). Table 17-2 presents counts of the 2009 ore mining facilities in the DMR database. There are 80 ore mining facilities with DMR data in the 2009 DMR database, which accounts for less than four percent of all the facilities in the database.Section 17

— Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



### 17

- 2 Table 17-2. Summary of 2009 Ore Mining Facilities With Data in the DMR Database

ELG Subpart SIC Code and Description Facilities by Type of Discharger Number of

Facilities With

DMR Data Major Minor All

A 1011: Iron Ores 5 26 31 6

J 1021: Copper Ores 11 19 30 6

J 1031: Lead/Zinc Ores 24 17 41 21

J, M 1041: Gold Ores 13 2

, 028 2,041 24

J 1044: Silver Ores 2 29 31 4

J 1061: Ferroalloy Ores (Except Vanadium) 5 7 12 5

NA 1081: Metal Mining Services 0 4 4 1

C 1094: Uranium, Radium, Vanadium Ores 7 28 35 5

Others a 1099: Metal Ores, NEC 4 23 27 8

Total 71 2

, 181 2

, 252 80

Source: DMRLoads2009_v2.

a The other subparts include B, D, E, F, G, H, I, and K.

NEC: Not elsewhere classified.



### In addition to the findings mentioned above, EPA analyzed specific pollutant discharges and determined that only a small percentage of active mines account for the majority of category’s TWPE (U.S. EPA, 2011). Table 17-3 shows the top 14 mines in the 2009 DMR database and their corresponding 2009 TRI discharges. EPA’s review showed that the majority of the top 14 mines were reviewed in the Ore Mining Preliminary Study. For a listing of the top mines in the preliminary stu dy, see Table 6 -1 in the Ore Mining and Dressing Preliminary Study Report (U.S. EPA, 2011). In addition, EPA’s review showed that the majority of the pollutants and loads were the same as those reviewed in the Ore Mining Preliminary Study.

Because the discharge data from these mines was consistent with the data from the Preliminary Study, EPA draws a similar conclusion. As shown in Table 17-3 , these 14 top mines represent less than one percent of the total number of ore mining facilities (from Table 17-2 ) and almost 80 percent of the cat egory’s 2009 combined TWPE. They differ in location and mine type, showing no trend toward a particular type of mine. Given that a small percentage of active mines account for the majority of category’s TWPE, as in the 2010 preliminary study findings,

EPA determined that high TWPE discharges are best addressed through facility- specific permitting, compliance, and enforcement support rather than by a revision of 40 CFR Part 440 (U.S. EPA, 2009).Section 17

— Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



### 17

- 3 Table 17-3. Top Facility Discharges in the 2009 DMR and TRI Databases a

Facility Name Facility Location Mine Type b TWPE Total Percentage of Ore Mining and Dressing Category’s

2009 TWPE Facility

Total DMR

TWPE Facility

Total TRI

TWPE Facility

Total

TWPE

Teck

- Pogo Inc. Delta Junction, AK Gold ores 33,000 NR 33,000 15.9%

Climax Mine Climax, CO Ferroalloy ores (except vanadium) 28,500 NR 28,500 13.7%

Kennecott Copper Co. Magna, UT Copper ores 19,800 15,600 35,400 17.0%

Doe Run, Viburnum Mine #35 Viburnum, MO Lead/zinc ores 12,400 NR 12,400 6.0%

Doe Run, Fletcher Mine/MI Viburnum, MO Lead/zinc ores 11,300 9,610 20,910 10.1%

Doe Run, Viburnum Div Viburnum, MO Lead/zinc ores 7,370 NR 7,370 3.5%

Doe Run, Brushy Cr Mine/M Viburnum, MO Lead/zinc ores 4,780 4,560 9,340 4.5%

Balmat Mines & Mill Gouverneur, NY Lead/zinc ores 4,530 709 5,240 2.5%

Mammoth, Sutro, Keystone Et Al Redding, CA Copper ores 2,150 NR 2,150 1.0%

Alcoa Arkansas Remediation Bauxite, AR Metal ores, NEC 1,960 NR 1,960 0.9%

Homestake Mining Company Lead, SD Gold ores 1,720 NR 1,720 0.8%

Northshore Mining/Silver Bay Silver Bay, MN Iron ores 1,700 NR 1,700 0.8%

Anschutz

— Madison Mine Fredericktown, MO Lead/zinc ores 1,510 NR 1,510 0.7%

Doe Run, West Fork Unit Bunker, MO Lead/zinc ores 1,330 NR 1,330 0.6%

Remaining facilities with Ore Mining Category discharges c NA NA 7,110 38,400 45,500 21.9%

Total NA 139,000 68,900 208,000 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009_v2 and TRIReleases2009_v2.

a The 2009 DMR data includes both m ajor and minor dischargers.

b Mine type was based on the SIC code the facility reported.

c There are 62 remaining facilities with ore mining discharges that account for approximately 22 percent of the category’s 2009 combined TWPE. NA: Not applicable. NR: Not reported. Facility does not have discharges in TRI.

NEC: Not elsewhere classified.Sectio n 17

— Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



### 17

- 4 17.3 Ore Mining and Dressing Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the Ore Mining Category discharges results mainly from less than 1 percent of ore mines (accounting for almost 79 percent of the category’s 2009 combined TWPE). Data collected for the 2011 Annual R eview s demonstrated that wastewater discharge characteristics for this category are consistent with discharges from the 2010 preliminary study. Using data collec ted for the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA concludes the following:

• Over 78 percent of the category’s 2009 combined category TWPE is from discharges from 14 facilities. These facilities are varied in location and mine type.

• EPA determined that these facilities a re best managed through facility

- specific permitting, compliance, and enforcement support.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment , measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(2)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8 -1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

17.4 Ore Mining and Dressing Category References

1. U.S. EPA. 2004 Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA 821-R-04-014. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2003-0074-1346 through 1352.

2. U.S. EPA. 2005. Preliminary 2005 Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial Dischargers . Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-B-05-004. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-

0032-0053.

3. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program

Pl an . Washington, D.C. (December). EPA-821-R-06-018. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-

2782.

4. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA 821-R-07-007. EPA

- HQ

OW -2006-0771-0819.

5. U.S. EPA. 2008. Technical Support Document for the 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA 821-R-08-015. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2006-0771-1701.

6. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan . Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-821-R-09-006. EPA

- HQ

OW -2008-0517-0515.

7. U.S. EPA. 2011. Ore Mining and Dressing Preliminary Study Report . Washington, D.C. (December). EPA -821-R-08-012. EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN 07369.Sectio n 17

— Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



### 17

- 5 8. U.S. EPA. 2011. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (October). EPA 820-R-10-021. EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07320.

9. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.Section 18

— Pesticide Chemicals (40 CFR Part 455 )



### 18

- 1 18. P ESTICIDE 

### C HEMICALS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 455)

EPA selected the Pesticide Chemicals Category for preliminary review because it continues to rank high, in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in the point source category rankings. EPA reviewed discharges from the Pesticide Chemicals Category as part of the 2005, 2006, and 2007 Annual Reviews (U.S. EPA, 2005, 2006, 2007). This section

summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews associated with the Pesticide Chemicals Category. EPA focused on discharges of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from one facility due to its high TWPE relative to the other facilities in the Pesticide Chemicals Category.

18.1 Pesticide Chemicals Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 18-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Pesticide Chemicals Category from the 2006 through 2011 Annual Reviews. The combined TWPE from discharges in the discharge monitoring r eport (DMR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) databases decreased from discharge years 2002 to 2009. The estimated 2009 TRI TWPE accounts for approximately 78 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE, as in the 2002 and 2004 discharge years.

Table 18-1. Pesticide Chemicals Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Year of Discharge Year of Review Pesticide Chemicals Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2002 2006 554,000 50,300 605,000

2004 2007 518,000 102,000 621,000

200 5 2008 31,400 NA NA

2007 2009 24,700 180,000 205,000

2008 2010 35,500 81,500 117,000

2009 2011 35,700 10,000 45,700

Sources: TRIReleases2002_v4 ; PCSLoads2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2004_v3 ; PCSLoads2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v2 ; TRIReleases2007_v2 ; DMRLoads2007_v4 ; TRIReleases2008_v3 ; DMRLoads2008_v3 ; TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2002 through 2007 include only major dischargers. 2008 and 2009 DMR data include both minor and major dischargers.

NA : Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005.



### 18.2 Pesticide Chemicals Category Pollutants of Concern

EPA’s review of the Pesticide Chemicals C ategory focused on the 2009 TRI discharges because the 2009 TRI data dominate the category’s combined TWPE. Table 18-2 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE based on results from the 2011 and 2010 Annual Reviews ( TRIReleases2009_v2 and TRIReleases2008_v3, respectively ).

PCB is the top TRI-reported pollutant in 2009, contributing more than 36 percent of the 2009 TRI category TWPE. EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2011

Annual Reviews.Section 18

— Pesticide Chemicals (40 CFR Part 455 )



### 18

- 2 Table 18-2. Pesticide Chemicals Category Top TRI Pollutants

Pollutant 200 8 TRI Data 2009 TRI Data

Rank Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant TWPE

PCBs Pollutant not reported in the top five 2008 TRI

reported pollutants. 1 1 13,000

Dichlorvos 2 1 6,930 2 1 6,930

Diazinon 4 4 3,110 3 2 3,330

Carbaryl 5 5 2,800 4 2 2,800

Dioxin and dioxin

- like compounds Pollutant not reported in the top five 2008

- TRI reported pollutants. 5 1 1,440

Bifenthrin 1 2 12,700 Pollutant not reported in the top five 2009 TRI

reported pollutants. Dinitrobutyl phenol 3 3 3,370

Pesticide Chemicals Category Total NA 73 a 35,500 NA 62 a 35,700

Sources: TRIReleases2008_v3 and TRIReleases2009_v2

.

a Number of facilities reporting a TWPE of greater than zero. NA: Not applicable.Section 18

— Pesticide Chemicals (40 CFR Part 455 )



### 18

- 3 18.3 Pesticide Chemicals Category PCB Discharges in TRI

GB Biosciences Corp. in Houston, TX, manufactures chlorophenol in a process that creates PCBs as a byproduct (King, 2011). The facility accounts for all of the Pesticide Chemicals Category’s PCB discharges in the 2009 TRI dat abase. Table 18-3 presents GB Biosciences’ PCB discharges for 2003 through 2010; note that the 2009 discharges are three orders of magnitude larger than previous years’ discharges.

Table 18-3. 2003–2010 GB Biosciences Corp. TR I PCB Discharges

Year Total PCB Pounds Released Total PCB TWPE

2003 0.0004 13.6

2004 0.001 34.0

2005 0.0004 13.6

2006 0.0006 20.4

2007 0.0008 27.2

2008 0.0008 27.2

2009 0.382 13,000

2010 a 0.000765 26.0

Source s : Envirofacts; TRIReleases2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v2 ; TRIReleases2007_v2 ; TRIReleases2008_v3 ; and TRIReleases2009_v2

.

a 2010 data were pulled from Envirofacts.



### As part of the 2011 Annual R eview s , EPA contacted GB Biosciences about its PCB discharge in the 2009 TRI. The facility contac t identified a reporting error: the 0.382 pounds reported to TRI should have been reported as 0.382 grams.

In addition, t he facility had estimated its PCB discharges in 2009 TRI using results from sampling by the University of Houston, done as part of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ ’s ) PCB total maximum daily load (TMDL) development for the Houston Ship Channel and Upper Galveston Bay. 11 

### All of the facility’s 2009 PCB sample concentration s were below detection limits , which is consistent with its previous and 2010 results. ( The facility has

detected PCBs in its sludge, which it disposes of offsite. ) However, the University of Houston

measured 0.71 nanograms per liter ( ng/L ) of PCBs in a sample of the facility’s wastew ater. The facility used the 0.71 ng/L result and the 2009 flow rate to calculate its 2009 TRI PCB discharges. The facility contact suspected that the University of Houston’s PCBs results differ

from the facility’s because of method variations (King, 2011).

As a result, EPA determined that the reported 2009 TRI discharge from GB Biosciences overestimates the actual discharge. The facility used the sampling result from the TMDL study and did not factor in the non-detect values measured throughout the year. Be cause all of the

11 TCEQ began developing the TMDL for PCBs as a re sult of seafood consumption advisories for various species of fish, issued by the Texas Department of State Health Services after PCBs were detected in the fish tissue beginning in 2001 (HGAC, 2011; TCEQ, 2010). TCEQ analyzed effluent samples from 20 different sampling sites in 2009 around the Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay areas. GB Biosciences was the only pesticide manufacturing facility sampled (Parsons, 2009). TCEQ reported the effluent PCB concentration from GB Biosciences to be

between 0.136 and 0.300 ng/L. Other facilities included in the TMDL development sampling had effluent PCB concentrations between 0.136 and 3.214 ng/L (Parsons, 2010).Section 18

— Pesticide Chemicals (40 CFR Part 455 )



### 18

- 4 facility’s 2009 data are non

- detect, EPA is zeroing the PCB TWPE for GB Biosciences. Additionally, the TMDL study will ensure that any actual PCB discharges are controlled sufficiently. Correcting this discharge will result in the total ca tegory TWPE decreasing from 45,700 to 32,700.

18.4 Pesticide Chemicals Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the Pesticide Chemicals Category discharges results mainly from the PCB discharges of one facility (accounting for 28 percent of the category’s 2009 combined TWPE). Using data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA concludes the following:

One facility, GB Biosciences, accounts for all of the 2009 TRI PCB discharges. The facility reported the TRI PCB discharges in grams instead of pounds. Ad ditionally, the facility used a sample collected by the University of Houston as part of the TCEQ TMDL study to calculate its 2009 PCB discharges as reported to TRI. However, the facility has a long history of testing for PCBs and finding concentrations below levels of detection (King, 2011). EPA determined that the 2009 TRI discharge for GB Biosciences overestimates the actual discharge and zeroed the facility’s PCB discharges for toxicity ranking purposes.

The total 2009 category TWPE after correcting the units and amount of the PCB discharge from GB Biosciences is 32,700. This change would drop the category outside the top 95 percent that EPA prioritized for preliminary review as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews.

EPA prioritizes point source categories wit h existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8 -1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

18.5 Pesticide Chemicals Category References

1. HGAC. 2011. Houston-Galveston Area Council. Houston Ship Channel and Upper Galveston Bay: TMDL Project for Dioxin and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Fish

Tissue. (April 14). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07612.

2. King, Stephanie. 2011. Telephone Communication Between Stephanie King, GB Biosciences, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: 2009 TRI PCB Discharges. (May 10). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07613.

3. Parsons. 2009. Total Maximum Daily Load for PCBs in the Houston Ship Channel. University of Houston. (July 14). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07614.

4. Parsons. 2010. Total Maximum Daily Load for PCBs in the Houston Ship Channel + Survey and Snapshot of PCBs and Dioxin in the Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay System. University of Houston. (June 23). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07615.Section 18

— Pesticide Chemicals (40 CFR Part 455 )



### 18

- 5 5. TCEQ. 2010. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Total Maximum Daily Load Program. Improving Water Quality in the Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay, Thirteen TMDLs for PCBs. (March). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07616.

6. U.S. EPA. 2005. Preliminary 2 005 Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial Dischargers. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-B-05-004. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-

0032-0053.

7. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan. Washington, D.C. (December). E PA -821-R-06-018. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-

2782.

8. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-821-R-07-007. EPA

- HQ

OW -2006-0771-0819.

9. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.Section 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-1 19. P ETROLEUM 

### R EFINING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 419)

EPA selected t he Petroleum Refining Category for preliminary review because it ranks high, in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in the point source category rankings. EPA reviewed discharges from the Petroleum Refining Category as part of the 2004– 2009 Annual Reviews (U.S. EPA, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009). EPA also conducted a detailed study of this industry i n support of the 2004 Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. EPA, 2004). This section describes the results of EPA’s 2011 preliminary category review of the Petroleum Refining Category. The review focused on discharges of dioxin and dioxin- like compounds and polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and sulfide, chlorine, and metals discharges from discharge monitoring reports (DMR), because of their high TWPE relative to other pollutants in the Petroleum Refining Category.

19.1 Petroleum Refining Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 19-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Petroleum Refining Category fro m the 2007 through 2011 Annual Reviews. The combined TWPE from discharges in the DMR and TRI databases decreased from discharge years 2004 to 2007, increased from 2007 to 2008, and then decreased from 2008 to 2009. The estimated 2009 TRI TWPE accounts for approximately 60 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE.

Table 19-1 . Petroleum Refining Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2007 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Year of Discharge Year of Review Petroleum Refining Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2004 200 7 669,000 819,000 1,490,000

2005 2008 628,000 NA NA

2007 200 9 172,000 403,000 5 75 ,000

2008 2010 410,000 680,000 1,090,000

2009 2011 436,000 295,000 731,000

Sources: TRIReleases2004_v3; PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v4; TRIReleases2008_v3; DMRLoads2008_v3; TRIReleases2009_v2; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs ) and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2004 through 2007 include only major dischargers. 2008 and 2009 DMR data include both minor and major dischargers.

NA : Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005.



### 19.2 Petroleum Refining Category Pol lutants of Concern

EPA’s review of the Petroleum Refining Category focused on the 2009 TRI and DMR discharges because the category’s combined TWPE is not dominated by either the 2009 TRI or

DMR data. Table 19-2 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2008_v3

and TRIReleases2009_v2

. Table 19-3 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in
DMRLoads2007_v3 and DMRLoads2009_v2 . The top TRI pollutant, dioxin and dioxin- like compounds, contributes more than 72 percent of the total TRI TWPE. The top DMR pollutants, sulfide and chlorine, contribute more than 61 percent of the total DMR TWPE.Section 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-2 Table 19-2. Petroleum Refining Category Top TRI Pollutants

Pollutant 2008 a 2009 a

Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE

Dioxin and dioxin

- like compounds 1 20 300,000 1 19 315,000

Polycyclic aromatic compounds 2 62 33,700 2 63 35,000

Mercury and mercury compounds 3 62 18,800 3 68 22,600

Lead and lead compounds 5 107 11,300 4 113 16,700

Nitrate compounds 4 65 18,200 5 66 14,600

Petroleum Refining Category Total NA 298 b 410,000 NA 280 b 436,000

Source s : TRIReleases200 8 _v3 and TRIReleases200 9 _v2.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.



### Table 19-3. Petroleum Refining Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 2008 2009

Rank Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of Facilities Reporting Pollutant TWPE

Sulfide 1 77 203,000 1 73 136,000

Chlorine 3 22 132,000 2 23 45,700

Chloride 4 15 39,000 3 14 16,800

Aluminum Pollutants not reported in the top five 2008

DMR

- reported pollutants. 4 12 14,200

Selenium 5 23 12,200

Benzene 2 86 150,000 Pollutants not reported in the top five 2009

DMR

- reported pollutants. Toluene 5 55 31,900

Petroleum Refining Category Total NA 248 a 680,000 NA 249 a 295,000

Source s : DMRLoads2008 _v3 and DMRLoads200 9 _v 2.

a Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. NA: Not applicable.



### The following subsections discuss EPA’s additional review for the 2009 TRI and DMR database pollutants of concern: dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, sulfide, chlorine, and metals. EPA also reviewed the TRI PAC discharges and confirmed that there is little evidence that PACs are being discharged to surface waters in concentrations above the detection limit, previously concluded during the 2004 Annual Reviews (U.S. EPA, 2004). EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews.

19.3 Petroleum Refining Category Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Compound Discharges in TRI

Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds contribute 72 percent of the total 2009 TRI TWPE and increased by approximately 15,000 TWPE from reporting years 2008 to 2009. EPA previously determined that refineries produce dioxin and dioxin-like compounds during catalytic reforming and catalyst regeneration operations (U.S. EPA, 2004). Table 19-4 summarizes theSection 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-3 number of facilities and total TWPE for discharge years 2004 through 2009 and demonstrates the large increase in estimated TWPE. Table 19-15 , at the end of this section, presents the petroleum refineries that reported dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges to TRI in 2009 and shows that the majority of this increase results from a single facility.

Table 19-5 summarizes the 2009 basis of estimates reported by the 19 refineries discharging dioxin in 2009 by type of estimate. Of the 19 refineries reporting dioxin and dioxinlike compound disch arges to TRI in 2009, only nine of these refineries reported dioxin discharges based on analytical measurements , the other refineries never measured for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds.

Table 19-4. Summary of Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Discharges, 2004–2009

Year of Discharge

2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Number of facilities 19 20 9 15 17

Total TWPE 315,000 300,000 94,500 516,000 559,000

Source s : TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2007_v2; TRIReleases2008_v3; and TRIReleases2009_v2

.



### Table 19-5. Basis of Estimate Summary for 2009 Dioxin and

Dioxin- Like Compound Discharges

Basis of Estimate

M1 or M2 C E1 or E2 O

Number of facilities 9 2 3 5

Source: TRIReleases2009_v2.

M1: continuous monitoring data or measurements M2: periodic or random monitoring data or measurements
C: mass balance calculations, such as calculation of the amount of the toxic chemical in streams entering and leaving process equipment

E1 : published emission factors

E2: site

- specific emission factors O: other approaches, such as engineering calculations



### Hovensa LLC in Christiansted, VI, accounts for 65 percent of the category’s dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges in TRIReleases2009_v03 . As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted the facility about its dioxin and dioxin -like compound discharg es. The facility contact stated that the dioxin discharges are estimated using literature values associated with dioxin formation from reformer catalyst regeneration. The facility indicated that the increase in dioxin discharges from 2008 to 2009, shown in Table 19-15 , was due to the number of times the facility regenerated the reformer catalyst, once in 2008 compared to three times in 2009. The facility contact stated that the number of regenerations required in a given year could vary between zero and three, depending on different operating factors (Vernon, 2011). The facility used the dioxin distributions given in the Dioxins and Refineries: Analysis in the San Franc isco Bay Area report (CBE, 2000) to estimate the dioxin load and distribution, presented in Table

19-6 . The source of these dioxin distributions is the 1996 EPA Preli minary Data Summary for the Petroleum Refining Category.Section 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-4 Table 19-6 . Bay Area Refineries Reformer Water Results a

Dioxin Congener TWF Chevron Richmond Tosco Avon Tosco Rodeo b

Concentration (pg/L) Distribution (%) Concentration (pg/L) Distribution (%) Concentration (pg/L) Distribution (%)

2,3,7,8

- TCDD 703,584,000 170 0.206 BD 0 22 0.289

1,2,3,7,8

- PeCDD 692,928,000 730 0.886 BD 0 85 1.12

1,2,3,4,7,8

- HxCDD 23,498,240 740 0.898 8,700 0.39 90 1.18

1,2,3,6,7,8

- HxCDD 9,556,480 920 1.12 15,700 0.703 90 1.18

1,2,3,7,8,9

- HxCDD 10,595,840 440 0.534 16,900 0.757 190 2.5

1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HpCDD 411,136 2,640 3.2 55,900 2.5 890 11.7

OCDD 6,586 1,170 1.42 68,400 3.06 1,400 18.4

2,3,7,8

- TCDF 43,819,554 3,350 4.07 5,300 0.237 150 1.97

1,2,3,7,8

- PeCDF 7,632,640 9,150 11.1 44,000 1.97 120 1.58

2,3,4,7,8

- PeCDF 557,312,000 4,600 5.58 111,500 4.99 180 2.37

1,2,3,4,7,8

- HxCDF 5,760,000 14,700 17.8 128,500 5.76 340 4.47

1,2,3,6,7,8

- HxCDF 14,109,440 5,800 7.04 131,000 5.87 240 3.15

2,3,4,6,7,8

- HxCDF 47,308,800 1,320 1.6 25,000 1.12 190 2.5

1,2,3,7,8,9

- HxCDF 51,204,160 1,700 2.06 177,000 7.93 230 3.02

1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- HpCDF 85,760 17,200 20.9 599,000 26.8 970 12.8

1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- HpCDF 3,033,984 7,500 9.1 566,000 25.4 520 6.84

OCDF 2,021 10,250 12.4 279,500 12.5 1,900 25

Total TWF 45,900,000 34,900,000 28,300,000

Source: Dioxins and Refineries report ( CBE, 2000 ).

a Dioxin sampling occurred on wastewater directly exiting the reformer catalyst regenerators.

b Tosco Rodeo is now ConocoPhillips Rodeo.

BD: Below detection.Section 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-5 As new data becomes available, EPA will review dioxin discharges for the Petroleu m Refining Category to determine if the same conclusions apply.

19.4 Petroleum Refining Category PAC Discharges in TRI

PACs discharges contribute 8 percent of the total 2009 TRI TWPE and increased by approximately 1,300 TWPE from reporting years 2008 to 2009. Table 19- 16

, presented at the end of this section, lists the petroleum refineries that reported PACs to TRI in 2009. Exxon Mobil Oil Corp.’s Joliet Refinery in Channahon, IL, contributed 26 percent of the PAC discharges for TRI 2009. Table 19-7 presents the total PAC discharges from years 2004 through 2009, which have remained consi stent.

Table 19-7. Total TRI PACs Discharges for Years 2004–2009

2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

TWPE 35,000 33,700 31,000 34,300 26,100

Source s : TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2007_v2; TRIReleases2008_v3; and TRIReleases2009_v2

.



### EPA examined PAC discharges from petroleum refineries extensively for its previous detailed and preliminary category reviews. From these previous studies, EPA concluded that the petroleum refinery PAC discharges reported to TRI are either (1) based on half the detection limit multiplied by the flow or (2) estimated using emission factors.

Therefore, there is little evidence that PACs are being discharged to surface waters in concentrations above the detection limit (U.S. EPA, 2004). As shown in Table 19-7 , the TWPE is consistent from discharge year 2004 to 2009 and, therefore, EPA’s previous conclusions from the detailed study are still accurate.

19.5 Petroleum Refining Category Sulfide Discharges in DMR

Sulfide discharges in the 2009 DMR database account for 46 percent of the category’s

total DMR TWPE. Table 19-8 presents the top sulfide dischargers in the 2009 DMR database. The majority (54 percent) of the sulfide discharges are from four facilities; EPA focused the further review of the category’s sulfide discharges on these facilities.

Table 19-8. Petroleum Refining Category Sulfide Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location Sulfide Pounds Discharged Sulfide TWPE Facility Percent of Sulfide Category

TWPE

Beaumont Refinery Beaumont, TX 15,900 44,400 32%

Texas City Refinery Texas City, TX 4,270 12,000 9%

Exxon Company USA Baton Rouge Baton Rouge, LA 3,710 10,400 8%Section 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-6 Table 19-8. Petroleum Refining Category Sulfide Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location Sulfide Pounds Discharged Sulfide TWPE Facility Percent of Sulfide Category

TWPE

Citgo Petroleum Corporation Lake Charles, LA 2,490 6,980 5%

Remaining facilities reporting sulfide discharges a 22,300 62,600 46%

Total 48,700 136,000 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a There are 69 remaining facilities that have sulfide discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 46 percent of the category’s sulfide DMR TWPE.



### Sulfide is an anion of sulfur in its lowest oxidation state of minus 2 (S 2- 

### ). The dianion S 2-


### exists only in strongly alkaline aqueous solutions. Such solutions can form by dissolution of H 2 

### S

or alkali metals su ch as lithium sulfide, sodium sulfide, and potassium sulfide in the presence of excess hydroxide ions. The ion S 2− 

### is exceptionally basic

, with an acid dissociation constant (pK

a 

### ) greater than 14. Sulfide does not exist in appreciable concentrations even in highly alkaline water. Instead, sulfide combines with protons to form HS − 

### , which is variously called H 2 

### S ion. At still lower pH values (<7), HS − 

### converts to H 2 

### S, as shown by the equation below. At a pH of 5, nearly 100 percent of sulfide is present as H 2 

### S.

H 2 

### S  HS - 

### + H + 

### and HS - 

###  S - 

### + H + 

### (Eq. 19-1)

Sulfides are moderately strong reducing agents. They react with oxygen in the air in elevated temperatures to form higher

- valence sulfur salts, such as sulfates and sulfur dioxide

. Aqueous solutions of transition metals cations react with sulfides to precipitate solid metal sulfide salts. The metal sulfide salts typically have very low solubility in water.

Sulfides are constituents of many industrial wastes su ch as those from tanneries, paper mills, chemical plants, and gas works (U.S. EPA, 1986). Sulfides discharged to neutral receiving waters can be reduced to hydrogen disulfide (H 2 

### S), an extremely toxic, odiferous, and corrosive gas. Minute concentrations (2 micrograms per liter) of H 2 

### S impart an objectionable odor and taste to water, making it unfit for municipal consumption (U.S. EPA, 1974).

The Petroleum Refining Category effluent limitations guideline (ELG) does set limits for sulfide; however, they are production based limits. Therefore, EPA did not compare the ELG production based limits to the concentration and quantity discharges from the top sulfide discharging facilities. Sources of sulfide in the Petroleum Refining Category include crude desalting, crude distillation, and cracking processes (U.S. EPA, 1982).

19.5.1 Sulfide Wastewater Treatment

The following discusses various treatment options for sulfide in industrial wastewaters. Although the options presented below have the ability to remove sulfide from wastewater, the actual effluent concentrations attainable are a function of treatment syst em design, which is beyond the scope of this section (Briggs, 2011). In addition to wastewater treatment, substituting sulfur dyes in the dyeing processes is another way textile mills can reduce sulfide discharges (U.S. EPA, 1982).Section 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-7 19.5.2 Biological Treatment

Bi ological treatment, the treatment basis for the BAT limits, treats industrial effluent streams by either aerobic or anaerobic processes (U.S. EPA, 1974). It involves bacteria that stabilize wastes by decomposing them to form harmless inorganic solids (Durai and Rajasimman, 2011).

EPA identified two recent studies on industrial waste with high sulfide concentrations:

• The first study (Camper and Bott, 2006) investigated a viscose rayon plant, where

one- and two- stage biological treatment was used for influen t with high levels of reduced sulfur compounds (i.e., sulfide) and organic contaminants . The study showed that about 99 percent of the influent sulfide can be biologically oxidized

to sulfate. This resulted in effluent sulfide concentrations less than 2.5 mg/L.

• The second study (Durai and Rajasimman, 2011) concerned a tannery. It showed

that pretreatment for aerobic units and post- treatment for anaerobic units

, including oxidation of sulfide by air using activated carbon as a catalyst,

eliminat es sulfide in the wastewater effluent.

19.5.3 Aeration and Air Stripping

Aeration is a common method for removal of dissolved gasses such as H 2 

### S. Aeration processes are, generally, used in two types of water applications: air stripping, the process in which gas is removed from water, and aeration, the process in which air or oxygen is transferred to water. Henry’s Law describes the tendency of a constituent to transfer from the liquid to the gas phase at equilibrium. The Henry’s Law constant is the ratio of the equilibrium con centration of a particular contaminant in air to its concentration in water. Thus, a higher Henry’s Law constant indicates a greater tendency of species to volatilize. Compounds with Henry’s Law constants above 10 atmospheres per mole fraction are readily air strippable. Because the Henry’s Law constant for sulfide ion is very low, it is not published; however, the Henry’s Law constant

for H 2 

### S is 468 at 20 o 

### C, which indicates that sulfide must first be converted to H 2 

### S by the addition of acid to pH 5 or below. High temperature and turbulence promotes gas transfer by reducing

thickness of film at air

- water interface. The efficiency of aeration depends almost entirely on the

amount of surface contact between the air and water. Method of aeration can be classifi ed into four general categories: waterfall, bubble, mechanical, and pressure aeration (Briggs, 2011).

The effectiveness of aeration for removing sulfide depends upon the aeration method selected, the pH of the water (which dictates the applicable Henry’s law constant), design factors such as air to water ratio, flow and loading rate, available area of mass transfer, temperature, and algae production. The major drawback to aeration is that H 2 

### S is not destroyed, but is instead transferred to an air emission ( Briggs, 2011).

19.5.4 Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation

Hydrogen peroxide (H 2 

### O 2 

### ) controls sulfide by oxidation to either elemental sulfur or sulfate ion depending on the pH of the wastewater. Hydrogen peroxide oxidation of sulfide has been demonstrated at both industrial facilities and municipal wastewater treatment plants. At neutral or slightly acid pH conditions, the product of sulfide oxidation is predominatelySection 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-8 elemental sulfur

, which appea rs as a yellow colloid (if H 2 

### O 2 

### is underdosed) or a white colloid (with complete oxidation). Colloidal elemental sulfur can be removed from the wastewater following H 2 

### O 2 

### oxidation by flocculation with an anionic polymer and filtration. The reaction

below shows the oxidation of H 2 

### S to elemental sulfur under neutral or slightly acid conditions (Briggs, 2011).

H 2 

### S + H 2 

### O 2 

###  S 0 

### + H 2 

### O (Eq. 19-2)

It is not unusual for system efficiencies to approach 100 percent, particularly when the concentrations of other oxidizable substances (e.g., thiosulfate) are low, and when the reaction is accelerated by a catalyst such as ferric iron . In the presence of enough ferric iron, 99 percent of

H 2 

### S can be removed from wastewater (Briggs, 2011). Under alkaline conditions (pH > 9.2 ), sulfide is converted to sulfate by H 2 

### O 2 

### as shown by the reaction below.

S 2- 

### + 4H 2 

### O 2 

###  SO 4 2- 

### + 4H 2 

### O H 2 

### O (Eq. 19-3)

It is not unusual for system efficiencies to approach 100 percent , provided that the H 2 

### O 2 

### is added in a controlled fashion and the reaction medium is thoroughly mixed. This is due to the faster reaction brought about by the increased reactivity of H 2 

### O 2 

### at alkaline pH. Consequently, as the pH increases above 9 or 10, there is generally little b enefit to catalyzing the reaction . At a pH 9, sulfide can be oxidized to sulfate in 15 minutes. Since sulfate is very soluble in water, no additional wastewater processing (e.g., filtration) is required following peroxide oxidation (Briggs, 2011).

Table 19-9 presents discharge data for the top four facilities discharging sulfide and their permit limits. The majority of discharges for all four facilities are below or near treatable levels (Briggs, 2011). EPA determined that sulfide discharges do not represent a hazard priority at this

time.

Table 19-9 . Top Sulfide Discharging Facilities

Facility Name Location Outfall Reported

Concentration Range (mg/L) Reported Quantity Range (kg/day) Flow (MGD) Permit

Limits (lbs/day) Beaumont Refinery Beaumont, TX 001 0.02

– 4.8 NR 11

– 14 NA Texas City Refinery Texas City, TX 001 0

– 0.05 0

– 2.93 0

– 15.44 NA

005 0

– 0.05 0

– 3.73 0

– 19.96

006 0.04

– 0.10 1.82

– 3.73 9.79

– 15.44 NA Exxon Company

USA Baton Rouge,

LA 001 0.044

– 0.257 2.27

– 13.2 13.5

– 14.1 NA

Citgo Petroleum Corporation Lake Charles,

LA 001 0.00624

– 0.0208 0.10

– 0.30 1.09

– 1.92 17.6

003 0.0262

– 0.268 3.0

– 19.0 8.49

– 11.5 21.8 Source: DMR Loadings Tool. NR: Not reported. NA: Not applicable.



### 19.6 Petroleum Refining Category Chlorine Discharges in DMR

Chlorine discharges in the 2009 DMR database account for 15 percent of the category’s

total DMR TWPE. Table 19-10 presents the chlorine discharges in the 2009 DMR database. Discharges of chlorine from one facility, Premcor DCR, account for 75 percent of the category’sSection 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-9 chlorine DMR TWPE. Accordingly, EPA focused its review of chlorine discharges on that facility.

Table 19-10. Petroleum Refining Category Chlorine Dischargers

in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location Chlorine

Pounds Discharged Chlorine TWPE Facility Percent

of Chlorine Category TWPE

Premcor DCR Delaware City, DE 68,700 34,400 75%

Remaining facilities reporting chlorine discharges a 22,700 11,400 25%

Total 91,500 45,700 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a There are 22 remaining facilities that have chlorine discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 25 percent of the category’s chlorine DMR TWPE.



### Premcor DCR in Delaware City, DE, discharges chlorine from its outfall 001. Premcor’s refinery shut down at the end of 2009 (Valero, 2009). On June 1, 2010, PBF Energy acquired the refinery and it started back up in May 2011 (Seba, 2011). Table 19-11 presents Premcor’s 2009 monthly chlorine and flow discharge data from the DMR Loadings Tool. As Table 19-11 shows, three concentrations are above the detection limit; however, the concentration values reported are

t he same as in months that are below the detection limit (BDL). As a result, EPA suspects that the BDL indicators are missing from these 2009 concentrations. With a BDL indicator added for January, February, and April 2009 discharges, the facility’s chlorin e TWPE decreases to zero.

Table 19-11 . Premcor ’s Outfall 001 2009 Monthly Chlorine and Flow Discharge Data

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Average Chlorine Discharge (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Jan

- 09 0.1 298

28

- Feb

- 09 0.2 299

31

- Mar

- 09 <0.1 241

30

- Apr

- 09 0.1 177

31

- May

- 09 <0.1 356

30

- Jun

- 09 <0.1 409

31

- Jul

- 09 <0.2 419

31

- Aug

- 09 <0.1 403

30

- Sep

- 09 <0.1 391

31

- Oct

- 09 <0.1 316

30

- Nov

- 09 <0.1 270

31

- Dec

- 09 <0.1 106

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.



### 19.7 Petroleum Refining Category Metals Discharges in DMR

Petroleum refinery wastewater contains a number of metals. The major source of metals in refinery wastewater is crude petroleum. Pipe corrosion, catalyst additives, other refi nery rawSection 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-10 materials, cooling water biocide, and supply water also contribute metals to refinery wastewater (U.S. EPA, 2004 ).

Table 19-12 presents the DMR metals disch arges from discharge years 2000 to 2009. During the 2004 Annual Reviews, EPA concluded that 10 metals are most commonly found in discharges from petroleum refineries (U.S. EPA, 2004). Table 19-13 lists these metals, along with the number of facilities reporting each metal in 2009 and the total 2009 pollutant TWPE.

T able 19-14 presents the top 98 percent of facilities that are discharging metals with the metals they discharged. The Petroleum Refining Category ELG does set limits for chromium; however, they are prod uction based limits. Therefore, EPA did not compare the ELG production based limits to the concentration and quantity discharges from the top chromium discharging facilities.

Table 19-12 . DMR Metal Discharges, 2000–2009

2009 2008 2007 2004 2000

Total Metals TWPE 66,300 56,300 134,000 63,700 33,500

Source s : PCSLoads2000; PCSLoads2004_v3; DMRLoads2007_v4; DMRLoads2008_v3; and DMRLoads2009_v2.



### Table 19-13. 2009 Petroleum Refinery Metals DMR Discharges

Metal 2000 2009

Number of

Facilities Reporting

Metals a Number of Facilities Reporting Non

- Zero

TWPE Total

Metal

TWPE Number of

Facilities Reporting

Metals a Number of Facilities Reporting Non

- Zero

TWPE Total

Metal

TWPE

Aluminum 7 6 7,830 17 12 14,200

Arsenic 18 10 5,770 46 13 4,560

Chromium 99 61 553 124 54 178

Copper 26 18 712 87 46 4,650

Lead 28 11 1,575 167 47 8,620

Mercury 16 7 1,910 59 21 7,950

Nickel 17 13 480 57 22 448

Selenium 23 18 9,040 52 23 12,200

Vanadium 3 3 1,120 2 2 11,800

Zinc 39 32 1,110 96 54 1,680

T otal 104 77 30,100 253 117 66, 3 00

Source: PCSLoads2000_v3 and DMR Loadings Tool.

a This number includes all facilities reporting metal concentrations.Section 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-11 T able 19-14. 2009 Top Petroleum Refineries Discharging Metals in DMR

Facility Name Location Total Metal

TWPEAluminumArsenicChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSeleniumVanadiumZinc

Trainer Oil Refinery Trainer, PA 15,100 X X X X X

BP Products Whiting Refinery Whiting, IN 13,800 X X X X X

Suncor Energy (USA) Inc. Commerce City,

CO 7,510 X X X X X X X X

Sunoco, Inc. Philadelphia, PA 4,690 X X X

Flint Hills Resources LP Pine Bend, MN 3,780 X X

El Segundo Refinery El Segundo, CA 3,470 X X X X X X X

Motiva Enterprises, LLC Norco, LA 2,430 X

Phillips 66 Company, Sweeny Old Ocean, TX 2,290 X X X

Tosco Refinery Rodeo, CA 1,990 X X X X X X X X

Ergon

– West Virginia Inc. Newell, WV 1,770 X X X X

Delek Refining, LTD. Tyler, TX 1,280 X X

Catlettsburg Refining LLC Boyd County, KY 1,100 X X X X

ConocoPhillips Company

– Lake Charles Westlake, LA 901 X X X X

Martinez Refinery Martinez, CA 792 X X X X X

Valero Memphis Refinery Memphis, TN 755 X X X

Borger Refinery Borger, TX 488 X X X

The Premcor Refining Group Port Arthur, TX 443 X X

Lion Oil Co El Dorado, AR 392 X X X X

Source: DMR Loadings Tool.



### EPA does not have enough information to determine if the metals discharges present a hazard. EPA intends to collect information on the concentrations of metals in the discharges and to compare these to treatability concentration s in the 2012 planning year.

19.8 Petroleum Refining Category Conclusions

EPA’s estimate of the toxicity of Petroleum Refining Category discharges is largely dueto the TRI-reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and PACs and DMRreported discharges of sulfides, chlorine, and metals. Using data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA concluded the following:

• EPA previously determined that refineries form dioxin and dioxin- like compounds during catalytic reforming and catalyst regeneration operations. One facility, Hovensa, accounts for 65 percent of the category’s dioxin and dioxin- like compound discharges in TRI 2009. The increase in discharge of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from this facility was due to an increase in the number of catalyst regenerations. To complete its review, EPA requires additional information on other refinery dioxin discharge. EPA will continue to review theSection 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-12 remaining dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges during its 2012 Annual

Reviews.

• PAC discharges have remained consistent from 2004 to 2009, so EPA’s conclusions from the detailed study still apply. As a result, EPA does not consider these PAC discharges from the Petroleum Refining Category a hazard priority at

this time.

• Four facilities account for 54 percent of the DMR sulfide discharges for the Petroleum Refining Category. The majority of discharges for all four facilities are below or near treatable levels. EPA does not consider these sulfide discharges from the Petroleum Refining Category a hazard pr iority at this time.

• One facility, Premcor, accounts for 75 percent of the DMR chlorine discharges for the Petroleum Refining Category. EPA suspects missing BDL indicators in the data. With this error corrected, the facility TWPE decreases to zero.

• Petrol eum refinery wastewater contains a number of metal pollutants. To complete its review, EPA requires additional information to evaluate the discharge hazards associated with metals and will continue reviewing the discharges during its 2012 Annual Reviews.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a l ower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(5)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8 -1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

19.9 Petroleum Refining Category References

1. Briggs, Mark. 2011. Sulfide Treatment Technologies Memorandum. Eastern Research Group. (July 15). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07617.

2. Camper, Ian, and Charles Bott. 2006. Improvement of an Industrial Wastewater Treatment System at a Former Viscose Rayon Plant

— Resulti ng From Two- State Biological Leachate Treatability Testing. Water Environment Foundation. EPA

- HQ

- OW

2010-0824. DCN 07505.

3. CBE. 2000. Communities for a Better Environment. Dioxins and Refineries: Analysis in the San Francisco Bay Area. Report No. 2000-2. (August). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824

DCN 07618.

4. Durai, G, and M Rajasimman. 2011. Biological Treatment of Tannery Wastewater— A Review. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 4 (1): 1-17. (January 17). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07506.

5. Seba, Erwin. 201 1. UPDATE 1

- PBF Restarts Delaware City Crude Unit —Sources. Reuters. (June 23). Available online at:Section 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-13 http://www.reuters.com/article /2011/06/23/refinery-operations-pbf- delawarecity

idUSWEN466320110623?feedType=RSS

. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07619.

6. U.S. EPA. 1974. Development Document for Effluent Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Textile Mills Point Source Categor y. Washington, D.C. (June). EPA -440-1-79-022b.

7. U.S. EPA. 1982. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA -821-R- 04 -014.

8. U.S. EPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. Washington, D.C. (May). EPA-440-5-

86-0010.

9. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-R-04-014. EPA- HQ

- OW -2003-0074-1346 through 1352

10. U.S. EPA. 2005. Preliminary 2005 Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial Dischargers. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-B-05-004. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-

0053.

11. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, D.C. (December). EPA -821-R-06-018. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-

2782.

12. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-821-R-07-007. EPA- HQ

OW -2006-0771-0819.

13. U.S. EPA. 2008. Technical Support Document for the 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-R-08-015. EPA- HQ

- OW -2006-0771-1701.

14. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA -821-R-09-006. EPA- HQ

OW -2008-0517-0515.

15. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.

16. Valero. 2009. Valero Marketing and Supply Company. Valero to Permanently Close

Delawar e City Refinery to Strengthen Financial Position. (November 20). Available

online at: http://www.valero.com/NewsRoom/Pages/PR_20091120_0.aspx. EPA- HQ

OW -2010-0824 DCN 07620.

17. Vernon, Kent. 2011. Telephone and Email Communication Between Kent Vernon, Hovensa, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: Request for 2009 TRI Data Clarification. (January 10). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07621.Section 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-14 Table 19-15. Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Discharges From Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2004 –2009

Facility Name Location Comments 2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Grams

Released TWPE Basis o f

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate

Hovensa, LLC Christiansted,

VI No DMR data; TWPE is driving

force for 08

– 09 change in discharge 1.65 205,07

3 O 0.55 12,848 O NR NR NR 2.2 180,44

2 E 1.7 148,653 C

Chevron

Pr oducts Co.

Richmond Refinery Richmond,

CA DMR TWPE is zero; grams is driving force for

08

– 09 change in discharge 0.25 20,621 M2 0.65 84,423 M2 0.32 33,397 M2 0.94 121,52

1 M 1.35 141,106 O

Valero Refining Co, Oklahoma

Valero

Ardmore Refinery Ardmore, OK No DMR data; new to report in

2009 0.18053 16,463 C NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Conoco Phillips Co, Billings Refinery Billings, MT No DMR data; TWPE is driving

force for 08

– 09 change in discharge 0.08 16,169 M2 0.091 3,125 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

C hevron

Products Co.

Div of Chevron

USA Inc. El Segundo,

CA DMR TWPE is zero; grams is driving force for

08

– 09 change in discharge 0.599 13,283 M2 0.8912 81,266 M2 0 0 M2 0.158 16,221 M 0.2 20,533 M

Marathon

Ashland

Petroleum

LLC

, Illinois Refining Div Robinson, IL No DMR data; grams is driving

force for 08

– 09 change in discharge 0.0404 12,622 M2 0.0405 28,571 O 0.04 1,094 O 0.0404 3,314 O 0.04 3,604 O

Chevron

Products Co. Salt Lake City Refinery Salt Lake City, UT No DMR data; new to report in

2009 0.097 12,611 E1 NR NR NR 0.02 541 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR

Shell Oil Co.,

Deer Park Refining LP Deer Park,

TX No DMR data; TWPE is driving

force for 08

– 09 change in discharge 0.1003 8,532 M2 0.1303 3,044 M2 0.14 13,306 M2 0.114 10,850 M 0.16 15,477 MSection 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-15 Table 19-15. Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Discharges From Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2004 –2009

Facility Name Location Comments 2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Grams

Released TWPE Basis o f

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate

Chevron Products Co., Pascagoula Refinery Pascagoula,

MS No DMR data; grams is driving

force for 08

– 09 change in discharge 0.07265 3,595 O 0.03709 4,592 O NR NR NR 0.099 4,234 O 0.12 5,217 O

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co Anacortes,

WA No DMR data; grams is driving

force for 08

– 09 change in discharge 0.41 2.905 M2 0.519 12,124 O NR NR NR 1.94 55,248 M 1.95 54,406 M

Conoco Phillips, San

Francisco Refinery Rodeo, CA DMR TWPE is zero; grams is driving force for

08

– 09 change in discharge 0.062320

5 2,276 C 0.16818 15,610 C NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

BP Products

North America Inc, Toledo Refinery Oregon, OH DMR TWPE is zero; grams is driving force for

08

– 09 change in discharge 0.481 785 M2 0.264 6,167 O 0.29 41,963 O 0.331 47,084 O 0.34 47,795 M

Citgo Petroleum Corp Westlake, LA No DMR data; TWPE is driving

force for 08

– 09 change in discharge 0.00128 126 E1 0.00257 60 E1 0.002 69 O 0.00256 210 E 0.0026 231 E

Conoco Phillips, Santa Maria Facility Refinery Arroyo Grande, CA No DMR data; grams is driving

force for 08

– 09 change in discharge 0.0675 26 M2 0.0133 311 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

BP Products

North

American Whiting Whiting, IN No DMR data; grams is driving

force for 08

– 09 change in discharge 0.000015 8 O 0.000013 12 O NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.000011 1.8 O

Premcor Refining Group, Inc. Delaware City, DE No DMR data; new to report in

2009 0.000036

3 4 O NR NR NR 0.0001 3.13 O 0.000097 2 O 0.022 559 OSection 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-16 Table 19-15. Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Discharges From Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2004 –2009

Facility Name Location Comments 2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Grams

Released TWPE Basis o f

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate

Suncor Energy Commerce City Refinery Commerce City, CO No DMR data; grams is driving

force for 08

– 09 change in discharge 0.35 4 E1 0.35 8,176 E1 NR NR NR 0.111 9,104 M 0.037 3,333 M

Conoco Phillips,

Ferndale Refinery Ferndale,

WA No DMR data; grams is driving

force for 08

– 09 change in discharge 0.2251 3 M2 0.2284 25,883 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Martin Operating Ptnr

LP Smackover,

AR No DMR data; grams is driving

force for 08

– 09 change in discharge 0.0005 0.1 O 0.00005 1 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Source s : TRIReleases2009_v2; TRIReleases2008_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2; TRIReleases2005_v2; and TRIReleases2004_v3.

NR : Not reported. For indirect discharges, the mass shown is the mass transferred to the POTW that is ultimately discharged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated

83% removal of dioxin and dioxin

- like compounds by the POTW. Refineries reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M (m onitoring data/measurements ) ; M2 (p eriodic monitoring data/measurements ) ; C (m ass balance

calculations ) ; E (p ublished emission factors ) ; and O (o ther approaches , such as engineering calculations).Section 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-17 Table 19-16 . PAC Discharges from Petroleum Re fineries Reported to TRI in 2004 –2009

Facility Name Location 2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate

Exxon Mobil Oil Corp Joliet Refinery Channahon, IL 358 9,099 M2 337 8,566 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Chevron Products Co

– Hawaii Refinery Kapolei, HI 264.1 6,713 M2 250 6,354 M2 260 6,608 M2 270 6,862.6 M 270 6,863 M

Flint Hills Resources LP

– West

Plant Corpus Christi,

TX 103.1 2,620 M2 4.8 122 M2 5.4 137 M2 10.6 269.4 M 16 412 M

Chevron Products Co. Pascagoula Refinery Pascagoula,

MS 85.9 2,183 O 88.8 2,257 O NR NR NR 126.1 3,205.1 O 115 2,923 O

Conoco Phillips Co

– Bayway Refinery Linden, NJ 75.3 1,914 O 13.8 351 O 5.6 142 O NR NR NR NR NR NR

BP Products North America Inc., Toledo Refinery Oregon, OH 68 1,728 M2 78 1,983 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Marathon Petroleum Co. LLC, Saint Paul Park Refinery Saint Paul Park

MN 49 1,245 C 51 1,296 C NR NR NR 95.7 2,431.1 M 24 616 M

PDV Midwest Refining LLC, Lemont Refinery Lemont, IL 37.91 964 M2 38.58 981 O 35.96 914 O 32.1 814.9 M NR NR NR

ConocoPhillips Co

– Alliance Refinery Belle Chasse,

LA 32.3329 822 M2 NR NR NR 43.3 1,103 O 43.8 1114.3 M 49 1,233 M

Marathon Petroleum Co, LLC Texas City, TX 30.2 768 M2 31.4 798 M2 31.5 801 M2 34.6 879.4 M 29 742 M

Lake Charles Carbon Co. Lake Charles,

LA 28.2 717 O 12.7 323 O NR NR NR 7.2 183 M NR NR NR

Chevron Products Co, Div of

Chevron USA Inc. El Segundo,

CA 27 686 M2 34.2 869 M2 81.5 2,011 M2 137.4 3,492.3 M 113 2,882 M

Flint Hills Resources LP

– East

Plant Corpus Christi,

TX 26.2 666 M2 0.6 15 M2 NR NR NR 0.5 12.7 M 0.6 15 M

Motiva Enterprises, LLC Port Arthur,

TX 25 635 O 22 559 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC, Illinois Refining Div Robinson, IL 24 610 O 24.5 623 O 24.7 628 O 24 610 O 28 712 O

Lyondell

- Citgo Refining LP Houston, TX 20.71 526 M2 62.59 1,591 M2 13.57 345 M2 3 76.3 M 0 0 M

Valero Refining Co, Louisiana Krotz Springs,

LA 20.5 521 M2 20.7 526 M2 22.4 569 M2 23 584.6 O 22 567 O

ConocoPhillips Co, Wood River Refinery Roxana, IL 13 330 O 10 254 O 9 229 O 11 279.6 O 11 280 OSection 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-18 Table 19-16 . PAC Discharges from Petroleum Re fineries Reported to TRI in 2004 –2009

Facility Name Location 2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate

Wynnewood Refining Co. Wynnewood,

OK 13 330 M2 12 305 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR 10 254 O

Valero Refining New Orleans

LLC New Sarpy, LA 7.4138 188 O 7.767 197 O 7 178 O 9 228.8 O 9 229 O

ConocoPhillips Co., Lake Charles Refinery Westlake, LA 5.88 149 O 39.4 1,001 O NR NR NR 41 1,042.1 O 43 1,093 O

Exxon Mobil Corp, Everett

Terminal Everett, MA 5.2 132 O 5.5 140 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Premcor Refining Group Inc. Delaware City,

DE 5 127 O 5 127 O 4 102 O 3.4 86.4 O 4 102 O

Tesoro Alaska

– Kenai Refinery Kenai, AK 5 127 O 5 127 O 5 127 O 19 482.9 O 18.9 480 O

Marathon Petroleum Corp Garyville Garyville, LA 5 127 M2 5 127 M2 5 127 C 5 127.1 C 5 127 C

ConocoPhillips San Francisco Refinery Rodeo, CA 4 102 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Chevron Products Co, Richmond Refinery Richmond, CA 3.7 94 M2 18 458 M2 16 407 M2 19 482.9 M 19.3 491 M

ConocoPhillips Co, Santa Maria Refinery Arroyo Grande,

CA 3.7 94 E2 3 76 E2 3 76 E2 2 50.8 O 2 51 O

BP Products North America Whiting Whiting, IN 3.5 89 O 1.4 36 O 2.5 63.5 O 3.6 91.5 O 1 25 O

Premcor Hartford Distribution

Center Hartford, IL 2.7 69 M1 1.2 31 M1 0.8 20.3 M1 NR NR NR NR NR NR

Exxon Mobil Refining & Supply Baton Rouge Refinery Baton Rouge,

LA 2 51 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Suncor Energy Commerce City Refinery Commerce City, CO 2 51 O 2 51 O NR NR NR 19 482.9 O 28 712 O

Tesoro Refining & Marketing

Co. Anacortes, WA 1 25 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Koppers Inc. Monessen Coke

Plant Monessen, PA 1 25 O 4.7 119 O 2.9 74 O 3.2 322 O NR NR NR

Shell Oil Products US Puget Sound Refinery Anacortes, WA 1 25 E1 0.9 23 E1 1 25.4 E1 1 25.4 O 1 25 O

Global Cos LLC, South

Portland Terminal South Portland,

ME 0.874 22 M2 0.08 2 M2 NR NR NR 1.3 33.04 M NR NR NRSection 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-19 Table 19-16 . PAC Discharges from Petroleum Re fineries Reported to TRI in 2004 –2009

Facility Name Location 2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate

Tesoro Refining and Marketing

Co. Martinez, CA 0.7 18 M2 0.8 20 M2 0.6 15.2 M2 0.6 15.3 M 0.5 12 M

Triram Connecticut, LLC Portland, CT 0.59 15 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Chevron Products Co, Salt Lake City Refinery Salt Lake City,

UT 0.56 14 M2 0.53 13 M2 61 1,550 M2 60 1,525 M 59 1,500 M

National Co

- op Refinery Assoc. McPherson, KS 0.4 10 M2 1 25 M2 2.4 61 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR

Martin Product Sales, LLC Beaumont, TX 0.26 7 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Global South Terminal, LLC Revere, MA 0.25 6 O 0.3 8 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Sprague Searsport Terminal Searsport, ME 0.22336 6 C 0.643 16 C NR NR NR 35.5 902 C NR NR NR

Flint Hills Resources LP,

McFarland Terminal McFarland, WI 0.21 5 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

ConocoPhillips Co. Trainer Refinery Trainer, PA 0.2 5 O NR NR NR 0.3 7.62 O 0.1 3.6 O 0.2 5 O

Valero Refining, Texas LP, Corpus Christi West Plant Corpus Christi,

TX 0.15 4 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Sprague River Road Terminal Newington, NH 0.10837 3 C 0.0944 2 C NR NR NR 0.115 2.9 C NR NR NR

Global Revco Terminal, LLC Revere, MA 0.105 3 O 0.42 11 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Sprague, South Portland South Portland,

ME 0.10361 3 C 0.13 3 C NR NR NR 0.147 3.72 C NR NR NR

Chevron Products Co. Perth Amboy,

NJ 0.1 3 O 0.2 5 O NR NR NR 0.6 15.3 O 0.9 23 O

Conoco Phillips Co. Pipeline,

Pasadena Terminal Pasadena, TX 0.1 3 O 0.171 4 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

BP West Coast Products LLC

Carson Carson, CA 0.1 3 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.1 2.5 M NR NR NR

Sprague, Quincy Quincy, MA 0.0885 2 E2 0.1457 4 E2 NR NR NR 1.575 40.02 O NR NR NR

Exxon Mobil Oil Corp, Des

Plaines Terminal Arlington Heights, IL 0.05 1 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

Exxon Mobil Oil Corp, East

Providence Terminal East Providence, RI 0.04 1 O 1.5 38 O NR NR NR 1.6 40.67 O NR NR NR

Sprague, Providence Providence, RI 0.01155 0 C 0.2804 7 C NR NR NR 5.81 148 C NR NR NR

Conoco Phillips Co, Gulf Coast

Lubes Plant Sulphur, LA 0.01 0 O 0.0045 0 O NR NR NR 0 0 O NR NR NRSection 19

— Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)



### 19-20 Table 19-16 . PAC Discharges from Petroleum Re fineries Reported to TRI in 2004 –2009

Facility Name Location 2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Pounds

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate

Premcor West Memphis

Terminal West Memphis,

AR 0.0038 0 C 0.0039 0 C 0.0029 0.074 C NR NR NR NR NR NR

Metro Terminals Corp Brooklyn, NY 0.003 0 O 0.003 0 O NR NR NR 0.008 0.203 O NR NR NR

Indirect

Marathon Petroleum Co LLC Michigan Refining Div Detroit, MI 100.7 188 M2 8.7584 223 M2 8.97 228 M2 94 175.8 M 98 184 M

Western Refining Co El Paso Refinery El Paso, TX 48 90 O 4.4896 114 O 0.44 11.2 O 54 101 O 51 95 O

Safety

- Kleen Systems, Inc. Buffalo Oil Recovery Factory Buffalo, NY 3.68 7 M2 0.2944 7 M2 0.66 17 M2 1.2 2.24 M NR NR NR

Sunoco, Inc (R&M) Philadelphia Refinery Philadelphia,

PA 3 6 M2 0.2208 6 M2 0.07 1.87 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR

Source s : TRIReleases2009 _v2 ; TRIReleases2008_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2; TRIReleases2005_v2; and TRIReleases2004_v3.

NR : n ot reported. Refineries reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M (m onitoring data/measurements ) ; M1 (c ons tant monitory data/measurements); M2 (p eriodic monitoring

data/measurements ) ; C (m ass balance calculations ) ; E (p ublished emission factors ) ; E1 (p ublished emission factors ) ; E2 (s ite

- specific emission factors ) ; and O (o ther approaches , such as engineering

calculations ).Section 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-1 20. P ULP 

### , P APER 

### , AND 

### P APERBOARD 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 430)

EPA identified the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Pulp and Paper) Category (40 CFR Part 430) for preliminary review because it continues to rank high, in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE), in point source category rankings. EPA previously reviewed discharges from pulp and paper facilities as pa rt of the Preliminary and Final Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan s in 2004–2010 (U.S. EPA, 2004, 2006a, 2007, 2008, 2009a, 2011). During its 2006 Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan reviews, EPA also conducted a detailed study of this industry (U.S. EPA, 2006b). This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews associated with the Pulp and Paper Category. The review focused on discharges of dioxin and dioxin- like compounds and manganese and manganese-like compounds from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and sulfide and aluminum discharges from discharge monitoring reports (DMR), because of their high TWPE relative to other pollutants in the Pulp and Paper Category.

20.1 Pulp and Paper Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 20-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Pulp and Paper Category from the 2007 through 2011 Annual Reviews. The combined TWPE from discharges in

the DMR and TRI databases increased from 2008 to 2009. The estimated 2009 TRI TWPE accounts for approximately 77 percent of the combined 2009 category TWPE.

Table 20-1 . Pulp and Paper Category TRI and DMR Discharges for 2007 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Year of Discharge Year of Review Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total

200 4 200 7 669,000 165,000 833,000

200 7 200 9 460,000 c 2,730,000 3,190,000 d

2008 2010 523,000 348,000 871,000

2009 2011 956,000 287,000 1,240,000

Source s : TRIReleases2004_v3; PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v4; TRIReleases2008_v3; DMRLoads2008_v3; TRIReleases2009_v2; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2004 through 2007 include only major dischargers. 2008 and 2009 DMR data include both minor and major dischargers.

c Includes discharges from facilities reporting NAICS code 326112. These discharges should be associated with the Plastics Molding and Forming Category (40 CFR Part 463). EPA has corrected future versions of the

database to reflect this change

. d During the 2009 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted facilities to verify the concentrations of dioxin and dioxin

like compounds in PCS and ICIS

- NPDES and found that for all facilities contacted, there were either unit errors (e.g., measurements reported in ng/L but in the database as mg/L) or missing non

- detect indicators. After corrections, the new 2009 category total TWPE was 712,000.



### 20.2 Pulp and Paper Category Pollutants of Concern

EPA’s review of the Pulp and Paper Category focused on the 2009 TRI and DMR discharges beca use both contribute to the category’s combined TWPE. Table 20-2 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2008_v3 and TRIReleases2009_v2

. Table 20-3 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in DMRLoads2007_v3 and DMRLoads2009_v2

.Section 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-2 The top TRI pollutants, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and manganese and ma nganese compounds, contribute more than 83 percent of the total TRI TWPE. The top DMR pollutants, sulfide and aluminum, contribute more than 73 percent of the total DMR TWPE.

Table 20-2. Pulp and Paper Category Top TRI Pollutants

Pollutant 2008 a 2009 a

Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE

Dioxin and dioxin

- like compounds 3 49 36,500 1 51 494,000

Manganese and manganese compounds 1 117 308,000 2 115 298,000

Lead and lead compounds 2 185 63,800 3 181 61,100

Mercury and mercury compounds Pollutant not reported in the top

five 2008 TRI

- reported pollutants. 4 87 16,300

Polycyclic aromatic compounds 5 34 19,300 5 27 15,900

Zinc and zinc compounds 4 90 21,200 Pollutant not reported in the top five

2009 TRI

- reported pollutants.

Pulp and Paper Category Total NA 250 b 523,000 NA 250 b 956,000

Source s : TRIReleases2008_v3 and TRIReleases2009_v2.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.

NA

– Not applicable.



### Table 20-3. Pulp and Paper Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 2008 2009

Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE

Sulfide 2 2 116,000 1 3 147,000

Aluminum 3 26 68,800 2 32 63,100

2,3,7,8

- tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 1 5 118,000 3 3 26,100

Chlorine 4 33 16,800 4 34 17,900

Mercury Pollutant not reported in the top

five 2008 DMR

- reported pollutants. 5 16 10,100

Iron 5 14 5,970 Pollutant not reported in the top five

2009 DMR

- reported pollutants.

Pulp and Paper Category Total NA 158 a 348,000 NA 157 a 287,000

Source s : DMRLoads2008_v3 and DMRLoads2009_v2.

a Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. NA: Not applicable.



### EPA’s additional review for the Pulp and Paper Category focused on the 2009 TRI and DMR database pollutants of concern, dioxin and dioxin- li ke compounds, manganese andSection 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-3 manganese compounds, sulfide, and aluminum, presented in the following subsections. EPA did not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews.

20.3 Pulp and Paper Category Dioxin and Dioxin- like Compound Dis charges in TRI

Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds contribute 52 percent of the total 2009 TRI TWPE and increased by nearly 14 times from reporting years 2008 and 2009. Table 20-4 summarizes the number of facilities and total TWPE for discharge years 2004 through 2009. Table 20-16

,presented at the end of this section, lists the pulp and paper mills that reported dioxin and dioxinlike compound discharges to TRI in 2009. Table 20 -4 demonstrates the large increase in

estimated TWPE. Table 20-16 shows that the majority of this increase results from a single facility.

Table 20-5 summarizes the 2009 basis of estimates reported by the 51 paper mills discharging dioxin in 2009 by type of estimate. Of the 51 pulp and paper mills reporti ng dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges in 2009, only 15 reported discharges based on analytical

measurements , the majority never measured for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds.

To determine why dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharge estimates had significantly

increased from 2008 to 2009 , EPA followed the revised methodology from the 2006 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Detailed Study (U.S. EPA, 2006b). The revised methodology was used to estimate the TWPE of reported releases of di oxin and dioxin-like compounds. EPA used the

actual dis tribution of wastewater effluent measurement data provided by individual mills. If such data were not available, EPA used the dioxin congener distribution of the mill discharges used to develop the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement ( NCASI ) SA RA Handbook

emission factor.

Table 20-4. Summary of Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Discharges, 2004–2009

Year of Discharge

2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Number of facilities 51 49 42 56 64

Total TWPE 494,000 36,500 86,400 147,000 178,000

Source s : TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2007_v2; TRIReleases2008_v3; and TRIReleases2009_v2

.Section 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-4 Table 20-5. Basis of Estimate Summary for 2009 Dioxin and

Dioxin- Like Compound Discharges

Basis of Estimate

M1 or M2 C E1 or E2 O

Number of facilities a 15 7 23 8 Source: TRIReleases2009_v2.

a There are a total of 51 pulp and paper mills that report dioxin discharges to the 2009 TRI database. The counts above include basis of estimates for plants that have both indirect and direct discharges, which may account for double counting of facilities.

M1: C ontinuous monitoring data or measurements

M2: P eriodic or random monitoring data or measurements

C: M ass balance calculations, such as calculation of the amount of the toxic chemical in streams entering and leaving process equipment

E1 : P ublished emission factors

E2: S ite

- specific emission factors

O: O ther approaches, s uch as engineering calculations



### The following sections discuss the top dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharger, Simpson Tacoma Kraft Co., LLC (Simpson Tacoma), in Tacoma, WA, and the remaining dioxin and dioxin-like compound dischargers. Simpson Tacoma accounts for 46 percent of the category’s 2009 TRI dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges and therefore is presented separately.

20.3.1 Simpson Tacoma Kraft Co., LLC

Table 20-6 presents dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges for Simpson Tacoma from 2005 through 2009. As shown in Table 20-6 , the TWPE increased by more than 228,000 from 2008 to 2009. As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) about the 2009 TRI dioxin discharges. AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest, pulp, paper, paperboard, and wood products industry. AF&PA stated that the congener distributions for reporting years 2005 through 2007 were based only on sampling of two dioxin congeners (2,3,7,8- tetrachlo rodibenzo-p-dioxin and 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzofuran). In recent years, the facility has performed full congener testing, which resulted in detections of other congeners (Schwartz, 2011). The full congener testing was fully incorporated into the TRI database in 2009, which is demonstrated by the increase in TWPE.

Table 20-7 presents the facility -specific dioxin and dioxin-like congener distribution for 2008

and 2009.

Table 20-6. Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Compound Discharges in TRI for Simpson Tacoma, 2005–2009

Dioxin Compounds 2009 2008 2007 200 6 200 5

Pounds r eleased 0.005 0.004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003

TWPE 229,000 243 207 218 276

Source s : TRIReleases 2005 v02; TRIReleases 2006 v01; TRIReleases 2007 v2; TRIReleases2008_v3; and TRIReleases2009_v2

, AF&PA Contact (Schwartz, 2011).Section 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-5 Table 20-7 . Facility

- Specific Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Congener Distribution

Congener

Number Chemical Name TWF 200 8

Distribution (%) 2009

Distribution (%)

1 Tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 2,3,7,8

- 703,584,000 0 0

2 Pentachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8

- 692,928,000 0 0

3 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,4,7,8

- 23,498,240 0 3.20

4 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,6,7,8

- 9,556,480 0 5.31

5 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8,9

- 10,595,840 0 4.22

6 Heptachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- 411,136 14.7 20.22

7 Octachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 6,586 85.3 40.23

8 Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8

- 43,819,554 0 1.25

9 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8

- 7,632,640 0 3.69

10 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,7,8

- 557,312,000 0 7.34

11 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8

- 5,760,000 0 2.57

12 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,6,7,8

- 14,109,440 0 3.11

13 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8,9

- 47,308,800 0 0

14 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,6,7,8

- 51,204,160 0 4.14

15 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- 85,760 0 0

16 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- 3,033,984 0 0

17 Octachlorodibenzofuran 2,021 0 4.73

Total TWF 66,100 46,200,000

Source: AF&PA contact ( Schwartz

, 2011)

.



### 20.3.2 Remaining Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Discharging Facilities

The next 19 facilities account for 52 percent of the dioxin and dioxin-like compound TRI TWPE. As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted AF&PA and NCASI about the dioxin and dioxin-like discharges from 19 pulp and paper mills. NCASI is a nonprofit research institute funded by North American forest products industry, including pulp and paper facilities. Many of the companies that fund NCASI are also members of AF&PA. This information request resulted in the findings presented in Table 20-8 . Four facilities provided revisions to their dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges, which EPA will incorporate into future versions of the
TRIReleases2009_v2 database:

• Boi se White Paper in Wallula, WA, documented revisions to its original TRI data. The revisions has ceased to report a “quantity treated on -site” due to a previously incorrect assumption, is using actual dioxin test results instead of published

emission factor s for effluent and primary sludge, and has corrected a formula for calculating the emissions from the recovery boilers that caused the value to be off by a factor of 10. The facility also documented using half the detection limit for

BDL results. Since the BDL results were non -detect, a “<” should have been incorporated into the database instead of using half the limit (Wiegand, 2011). EPA incorporated these changes and estimates 2.30 grams and 156,000 TWPE of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds discharged in 2009 for Boise White Paper.

• The Georgia -Pacific Naheola Mill in Pennington, A L, documented an error in its original TRI data: the grams released to water and the grams released to land were transposed (Wiegand, 2011). After correcting this error, EPA esti mates 3.6 gramsSection 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-6 and 10,800 TWPE of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds discharged in 2009 for Georgia

- Pacific.

• Clearwater Paper Corp. in Arkansas City, AR, documented an error in the reported octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin discharges—an incorrect conversion from picograms to grams (Wiegand, 2011). After the correction, EPA estimates 1.83 grams and 3,240 TWPE of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds discharged in 2009 for Clearwater Paper Corp.

• Abitibowater Calhoun Operations in Calhoun, TN, documented that all dioxin congeners were non-detect and missing the “<” in the database (Wiegand, 2011). After the correction, EPA estimates zero pounds and zero TWPE of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds discharged in 2009 for Abitibowater Calhoun Operations.Section 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-7 Table 20-8. Information on Top Pulp and Paper Category 2009 TRI Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Compound Dischargers

Name Location Grams of

Dioxin Discharged TWPE Data Verification Discharge Calculation Methodology Bleaching Process Description

Boise White Paper, LLC Wallula,

WA Revised: 2.30 Original: 0.21 Revised: 156,000 Original: 13,800 Provided data showing reporting errors; therefore

EPA revised database Based on effluent sampling, using half the detection limit

for BDL results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

Kimberly

Clark Everett, WA 0.419 55,300 Confirmed data Based on mass balances using historical congener data, using half the detection

limit for BDL results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

S.D. Warren

Co. Skowhegan,

ME 0.184 37,900 Confirmed data Based on May 2002 final effluent sampling data using 0 for BDL results, corrected

for the annual flow No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

Rayonier

Performance

Fibers Fernandina Beach, FL 5.20 37,800 Confirmed data Based on quarterly measurements, using 0 for

BDL results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study; uses hypochlorite periodically as a viscosity modifier in the bleaching process

Clearwater Paper Corp. Lewiston,

ID 0.4 15,500 Confirmed data Based on effluent sampling, using half the detection limit

for BDL results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

Georgia

Pacific,

Naheola Mill Pennington,

AL Revised: 3.6 Original: 2 Revised: 10,800 Original: 8,490 Provided data showing reporting errors; therefore

EPA revised database Based on NCASI release

factors No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study; portion of post

- converting tissue broke receives hypochlorite

treatment

International Paper Franklin,

VA 2.14 10,400 Confirmed data Based on NCASI release factors, using 0 for BDL

results Switched from ozone to

chlorine dioxide for bleaching in 2006

Georgia

Pacific Crossett, AR 5.09 8,990 Confirmed data Based on NCASI release

factors No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed StudySection 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-8 Table 20-8. Information on Top Pulp and Paper Category 2009 TRI Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Compound Dischargers

Name Location Grams of

Dioxin Discharged TWPE Data Verification Discharge Calculation Methodology Bleaching Process Description

Nippon Paper

Industries Port Angeles,

WA 0.035 8,370 Confirmed data Based on 2006 final effluent sampling , using half the

detection limit for BDL

results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

Evergreen Packaging Pine Bluff,

AR 3.21 5,690 Confirmed data Based on NCASI release factors, using 0 for BDL

results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

Procter & Gamble Paper

Products Mehoopany,

PA 0.02 4,520 Confirmed data Based on dioxin congener tool calculations, using 0 for

BDL results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

Boise White Paper Jackson, MS 2.28 4,030 Confirmed data Based on effluent sampling

for TCDD and NCASI release factors, using 0 for

BDL results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

Rock

- Tenn

Mill Co. Demopolis,

AL 2.17 3,840 Confirmed data Based on effluent sampling

for TCDD and NCASI release factors, using 0 for

BDL results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

International Paper Riegelwood,

NC 0.07 3,510 Confirmed data Based on 2000 final effluent sampling , using 0 for BDL

results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

Clearwater Paper Corp. Arkansas City, AR Revised: 1.83 Original: 0.456 Revised: 3,240 Original: 3,220 Provided data showing reporting errors; therefore

EPA revised database Based on effluent sampling

for TCDD and TCDF and NCASI release factors, using

0 for BDL results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

Weyerhauser Vanceboro,

NC 1.36 2,720 Confirmed data Based on effluent sampling

for OCDD and NCASI release factors, using 0 for

BDL results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

Georgia

Pacific Corp. Palatka, FL 1.40 2,480 Confirmed data Based on NCASI release factors, using 0 for BDL

results Replaced the brown stock

washers and installed an oxygen delignification
systemSection 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-9 Table 20-8. Information on Top Pulp and Paper Category 2009 TRI Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Compound Dischargers

Name Location Grams of

Dioxin Discharged TWPE Data Verification Discharge Calculation Methodology Bleaching Process Description

Domtar Paper

Co. Plymouth,

NC 3.48 2,370 Confirmed data Based on effluent sampling

for TCDD and TCDF and NCASI release factors, using

0 for BDL results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

Abitibowater

Calhoun Operations Calhoun, TN Revised: 0 Original: 0.685 Revised: 0 Original: 24,900 Provided data showing all congeners were BDL;
therefore EPA revised

database Based on October 2000 sampling and annual flow, using 0 for BDL results No change since the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study

Source s: NCASI contact (Wiegand, 2011); TRIReleases2009_v2

.Section 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-10 As part of the 2006 Pulp and Paper Detailed Study, EPA determined that the vast majority of data underlying the estimated releases of dioxin and dioxin- like compounds reported to TRI (both NCASI data and facility-specific data) are based on pollutant concentrations below the Method 1613B minimum levels. Therefore, the TRI-reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds for this category do not accurately reflect current industry discharges (U.S. EPA, 2006b).

As part of the 2011 Annual R eview s, EPA collected data on bleach plant changes because the bleaching process generates dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. Paper companies can significantly reduce their dioxin generation by switching from elemental chlorinati on (using chlorine gas) to using elemental -chlorine free bleaching by using chlorine dioxide. Table 20-8 lists bleach plant changes provided by NCASI. Of the faciliti es contacted , none change d their bleaching process es in ways expected to significantly reduce dioxin generation, such as switching to elemental chlorine free bleaching (e.g., chlorine dioxide). One plant changed from ozone to chlorine dioxide; however, NCASI data show no significant change in dioxin generation would result (NCASI, 2005). Based on these data, EPA concludes that there have not

been recent significant bleaching process changes in the pulp and paper industry.

As shown in Table 20-8 , the pulp and paper industry continues to use NCASI release

factors or facility

- specific sampling data to calculate dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges in the pulp and paper industry. EPA gathered some facility

- specific data and was in contact with AF&PA and NCASI to confirm the facility

- specific data for all of the facilities

listed in Table 20-8 . Upon completion of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA collected all data necessary to determine if the conclusions reached in the 2006 Pulp and Paper Detailed Study are still applicable from AF&PA , NCASI, and specific pulp mills (U.S. EPA, 2006b). EPA will review the data and conclude its review of dioxin discharges in its 2012 Annual Reviews.

20.4 Pulp and Paper Category Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharges in TRI

Manganese and manganese compound discharges in the 2009 TRI database account for 31 percent of the total TRI TWPE. Each facility accounts for less than 5 percent of the TWPE;

no outliers exist in the TRI database.

As part of the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study, EPA determined the manganese and manganese compounds are present in the intake water and may be contaminants in process

chemicals. Table 20-9 shows the manganese and manganese compound discharges in the TRI and DMR databases from 2002 to 2009. EPA examined reported manganese and manganese compound discharges from pulp and paper facilities during the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study for the 2006 Plan and its previous preliminary studies. EPA obtained discharge data in Form 2C of NPDES permit applications for 40 mills. EPA concluded that typical metal discharges from pulp and paper mills were at concentrations too low to treat using end-of- pipe treatment technologies for large plant flow rates (U.S. EPA, 2006b). Although EPA has not reviewed new discharge concentration data, it has no new data to suggest that manganese concentrations are

above the treatable levels. As shown in Table 20-9 , the TWPE is consistent from discharge year 2002 to 2009 and, therefore, EPA’s previous conclusions from the detailed study are still accurate: manganese and manganese compound discharges in the pulp and paper category are

below treatable levels.Section 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-11 Table 20-9. 2002–2009 Manganese and Manganese Compound Discharges in TRI and DMR

Discharge Year Review Year TRI Data DMR Data

Number of Dischargers Total TWPE Number of Dischargers Total TWPE

2002 2006 112 304,000 4 287

2004 2007 117 316,000 5 5,190

2007 2009 79 231,000 5 3,210

2008 2010 117 308,000 3 3,040

2009 2011 115 298,000 3 2,960

Source s: TRIReleases2002; PCSLoads2002; TRIReleases2004_v3; PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v4; TRIReleases2008_v3; DMRLoads2008_v3; TRIReleases2009_v2; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.



### 20.5 Pulp and Paper Category Sulfide Discharges in DMR

Table 20-10 presents the top sulfide dischargers in the 2009 DMR database. The majority (92 percent) of the sulfide discharges were from one facility, Smurfit-Stone Container in Florence, SC. EPA focused the sulfide discharges review on this facility.

Table 20-10. Pulp and Paper Category Top Sulfide Discharging Facilities

in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Facility Location Pounds of Sulfide Discharged Sulfide TWPE Percentage of Pulp and Paper Category 2009

DMR Sulfide

TWPE

Smurfit

- Stone Container Florence, SC 48,400 135,000 92%

Remaining facilities reporting sulfide discharges a 4,040 11,300 8%

Total 52,400 147,000 100%

Source: DMRLoads200 9 _v2

.
a There are two remaining facilities that have sulfide discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for 8 percent of the category’s sulfide DMR TWPE.



### 20.5.1 Sulfide Formation and Treatment Options

Sulfides are constituents of many industrial wastes such as those from tanneries, paper mills, chemical plants, and gas works (U.S. EPA, 1986). Sulfides discharged to neutral receiving waters can be reduced to hydrogen disulfide (H 2 

### S), an extremely toxic, odiferous, and corrosive gas. Minu te concentrations (2 micrograms per liter) of H 2 

### S impart an objectionable odor and taste to water, making it unfit for municipal consumption (U.S. EPA, 1974).

Sulfide is an anion of sulfur in its lowest oxidation state of minus 2 (S 2- 

### ). The dianion S 2-



### ex ists only in strongly alkaline aqueous solutions. Such solutions can form by dissolution of H 2 

### S or alkali metals such as lithium sulfide, sodium sulfide, and potassium sulfide in the presence of excess hydroxide ions. The ion S 2− 

### is exceptionally basic

, wi th an acid dissociation constant (pK

a 

### ) greater than 14. Sulfide does not exist in appreciable concentrations even in highly alkaline water. Instead, sulfide combines with protons to form HS − 

### , which is variously called H 2 

### S ion. AtSection 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-12 still lower pH values (<7) , HS − 

### converts to H 2 

### S, as shown by the equation below. At a pH of 5, nearly 100 percent of sulfide is present as H 2 

### S.

H 2 

### S  HS - 

### + H + 

### and HS - 

###  S - 

### + H + 

### (Eq. 20-1)

Sulfides are moderately strong reducing agents. They react with oxygen in the air in elevated temperatures to form higher

- valence sulfur salts, such as sulfates and sulfur dioxide

. Aqueous solutions of transition metals ca tions react with sulfides to precipitate solid metal sulfide salts. The metal sulfide salts typically have very low solubility in water.

Table 20-11 presents availabl e sulfide treatment options in the pulp and paper industry (see Section 18.5 for more details). Although these treatment options can remove sulfide from wastewater, the actual effluent concentrations attainable are a function of treatment system design (Briggs, 2011).

Table 20-11 . Sulfide Wastewater Treatment Options

Technology Name Treatability
Concentrations Description
Biological treatment Up to 99 percent
sulfide removal Treats industrial effluent streams by either aerobic or anaerobic processes. The treatment involves bacteria decomposing waste to form harmless inorganic solids. Studies show that approximately 99 percent of the influent sulfide concentration can be biolog ically
oxidized to sulfate.

Aeration and air stripping Up to 100 percent sulfide
removal Aeration involves removal of dissolved gasses such as H 2 S from water, and is generally used in two types of water applications: air stripping and aeration. The effectiveness of aeration for removing sulfide depends on the aeration method selected, the pH of the water, design factors, flow and loading rate, available area of mass transfer, temperature, and algae production. The major drawback to
aeration is that H 2 S is not destroyed but converted to an air
emission.

Hydrogen peroxide
oxidation Up to 100 percent sulfide
removal This process controls sulfide by oxidation to either elemental sulfur or sulfate ion by hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ) addition, depending on
th e pH of the wastewater. It can approach 100% efficiency if H 2 O 2 is added in a controlled fashion and the reaction medium is thoroughly mixed. No additional wastewater processing is required following peroxide oxidation because sulfate is very soluble in

wa ter.

Sources: ERG sulfide treatment technologies memo ( Briggs, 2011); “Biological Treatment of Tannery Wastewater” article (Durai and Rajasimman, 2010).



### 20.5.2 Smurfit

- Stone Container

Sulfide discharges from Smurfit-Stone, in Florence, SC, account for approximately 47 percent of the DMR TWPE for the Pulp and Paper Category. All of Smurfit-Stone’s sulfide discharges are from outfall 001. Table 20-12 presents the sulfide discharge concentrations in the DMR Loadings Tool. The facility’s permit includes monitoring and reporting requirements for sulfide, but there are no sulfide numeric limits in the permit (O’Shaughnessy, 2011). The Pulp and Paper Category effluent limitations guideline does not regulate sulfide.Section 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-13 As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted AF&PA about Smurfit-Stone’s sulfide discharges. The contact stated that the facility’s kraft p ulping process uses sodium- based alkaline pulping solution (liquor). This solution consists of sodium sulfide and sodium hydroxide in 10 percent solution. This is the primary source of sulfides in the wastewater. The wastewater

is treated in the mill’s was tewater treatment ponds before being discharged, but the facility does not have any specific treatment technologies in place for sulfide treatment (O’Shaughnessy, 2011).

Although the 2009 sulfide concentrations are not regulated by the facility’s permit, t he concentrations are below or near treatable levels (Briggs, 2011). EPA concludes that sulfide discharges do not represent a hazard priority at this time.

Table 20-12. Smurfit -Stone Container’s Outfall 001 2009 Monthly Sulfide Discharge Data

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Sulfide Concentrations (mg/L) Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Jan

- 0 9 <1 14.9

28

- Feb

- 09 4 16.8

31

- Mar

- 09 <1 8.3

30

- Apr

- 09 1.1 14.1

31

- May

- 09 0.79 20.8

30

- Jun

- 09 1.2 13.2

31

- Jul

- 09 1.9 17.5

31

- Aug

- 09 1.34 11.1

30

- Sep

- 09 <0.38 12.6

31

- Oct

- 09 0.72 14

30

- Nov

- 09 0.51 11.6

31

- Dec

- 09 <0.38 8.6
Source: DMR Loadings Tool.



### 20.6 Pulp and Paper Category Aluminum Discharges in DMR

Aluminum discharges from pulp and paper mills in the 2009 DMR database account for 22 percent of the total DMR TWPE. Table 20-13 presents the category’s aluminum disc hargers in the 2009 database. The following sections discuss the top aluminum discharger, International Paper –Texarkana, in Texarkana, TX, (International Paper), and the remaining aluminum discharges in DMRLoads2009_v2 . International Paper accounts for 57 percent of the category’s 2009 DMR aluminum discharges and therefore is discussed separately.

Table 20-13. Pulp and Paper Category Aluminum Dischargers in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Location Aluminum Pounds Discharged Aluminum TWPE Facility Percent
of Aluminum Category TWPE
International Paper

– Texarkana Texarkana, TX 600,000 36,000 57%
Remaining facilities reporting aluminum discharges a 452,000 27,130 43%

Total 1,050,000 63,100 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009 _v2

.

a There are 31 remaining facilities that have aluminum discharges in the 2009 TRI database, which account for 43 percent of the category’s aluminum DMR TWPE.Section 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-14 20.6.1 International Paper

EPA investigated the load estimation for International Paper to eliminate any errors. All of International Paper’s aluminum discharges are reported at outfall 001. Table 20-14 presents the 2009 outfall 001 aluminum concentrations and average flows from the DMR Loadings Tool. The DMR Loadings Tool estimates discharges using available concentration and flow data for each month. For months of missing data, the DMR Loading Tool estimates the load based on

other months’ data. Facilities can differentiate months of zero discharge with a “no discharge,” or NODI, code. When facilities do not report discharges, the Loading Tool first determines if no discharge, or NODI, was reported. When a NODI code is omitted, the DMR Loading Tool estimates the discharge for the missing month(s). See Section 3 of the EPA’s 2009 SLA report for more information on NODI codes (U.S. EPA, 2009b). Table 20-14 shows that the facility did not report data or NODI codes for April through December 2009, causing the DMR Loadings tool to overestimate the discharge. After the correction, the facility’s aluminum TWPE decreases from 36,000 to 9,000.

Table 20-14. International Paper’s Outfall 001 2009 Monthly Aluminum Discharge Data

Monitoring Period Date DMR Loadings Tool Aluminum Concentrations (mg/L) Average Flow (MGD)

31

- Jan

- 0 9 NODI C NODI C

28

- Feb

- 09 NODI C NODI C

31

- Mar

- 09 3.57 162.5

30

- Apr

- 09 NR NODI C

31

- May

- 09 NR NODI C

30

- Jun

- 09 NR NODI C

31

- Jul

- 09 NR NODI C

31

- Aug

- 09 NR NODI C

30

- Sep

- 09 NR NODI C

31

- Oct

- 09 NR NODI C

30

- Nov

- 09 NR NODI C

31

- Dec

- 09 NR NODI C
Source: DMR Loadings Tool. NR: Not reported. NODI C: The facility did not report a concentration or flow because no discharge occurred for the monitoring period.



### 20.6.2 Remaining Aluminum Dischargers

The remaining 3 1 pulp and paper facilities account for 43 percent of the 2009 aluminum DMR TWPE for the Pulp and Paper Category. Table 20-15 presents the median aluminum concentration from the 2002 and 2009 DMR data for pulp and paper mills. The 2006 Pulp and Paper Category Detailed Study used the 2002 data (U.S. EPA, 2006b).

As part of the Pulp and Paper Detailed Study, EPA determined that aluminum compounds are present in the intake water and may be contaminants in process chemicals. EPA

also determine d that aluminum concentrations are below treatable levels for end -of-pipe treatment technologies suitable for large effluent flows (U.S. EPA, 2006b). As shown in Table

20-15 , the aluminum median effluent concentration has decreased since 2002. Therefore, EPA’sSection 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-15 previous conclusions from the detailed study are still accurate: aluminum discharges in pulp and paper effluent are below treatable levels.

Table 20-15 . Median Concentration of Aluminum in Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent (μg/L)

Method Minimum Level (μg/L) PCS 2002 Median (Mill Count) (μg/L) DMR 2009 Median (Mill Count) (μg/L)

50 1,147 (8) 290 (31)

Sources: PCSLoads2002 and DMRLoads2009 _v2

.



### 20.7 Pulp and Paper Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the Pulp and Paper Category discharges results mainly from

TRI -reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin- like compounds and manganese and manganese compounds and DMR-reported discharges of sulfide and aluminum. Using data collected for the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA concludes the following:

• Dioxin and dioxin -like compounds contribute 52 percent of the total 2009 TRI TWPE and increased by more than 14 times from reporting years 2008 to 2009.One facility, Simpson Tacoma, accounts for 46 percent of the dioxin and dioxinlike discharges. A change in congener testing caused the increase in TWPE for this facility. The majority of the remaining facilities with dioxin and dioxin

- like compounds discharges base their calculations on NCASI release factors or facility -specific sampling data. In EPA’s 2006 Pulp and Paper Detailed Study,

data showed that the estimated releases of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds reported to TRI are based on pollutant concentrations below the Method 1613B minimum levels. Concentrations below the minimum level may not be accurate, and the measurements may not accurately reflect industry discharges. E PA collected data from AF&PA, NCASI, and specific pulp mills (U.S. EPA, 2006b). EPA will review the data and conclude its review of dioxin discharges in its 2012

Annual Reviews.

• Each facility discharging manganese and manganese compounds accounts for less than 5 percent of the manganese and manganese compound discharges to TRI; no outliers exist in the TRI database. EPA’s 2006 Pulp and Paper Detailed Study concluded that metals concentrations in pulp and paper mill discharges were

below treatable levels. Th e 2009 TRI data are consistent with the 2006 data; therefore EPA concludes that concentrations in pulp and paper wastewater are

below treatable levels.

• Sulfide discharges contribute 52 percent of the total DMR TWPE. One facility,

Smurfit -Stone in Florence, SC, accounts for 92 percent of the sulfide DMR

TWPE. The sulfide concentrations for Smurfit- Stone are below or near treatable levels and therefore do not represent a hazard priority at this time.

• Aluminum discharges contribute 22 percent of the total DMR TWPE. One facility, International Paper in Texarkana, T X, accounts for 57 percent of the

aluminum DMR TWPE. After correcting an error, the TWPE for this facilitySection 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-16 decreases from 36,000 to 9,000. The total 2009 TWPE for the Pulp and Paper Category decreases from 1,240,000 to 1,213,000. The remaining facilities account for 43 percent of the aluminum DMR TWPE. EPA found that aluminum is not a pollutant of concern because it is detected at concentrations below treatable levels with end-of-pipe treatment technol ogies suitable for large effluent flows.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is marked with “(5)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8 -1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

20.8 Pulp and Paper Category References

1. Briggs, Mark. 2011. Sulfide Treatment Technologies Memorandum. Eastern Research Group. (July 15). EPA- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07616.

2. Durai, G., and M. Rajasimman. 2011. Biological Treatment of Tannery Wastewater— A

Review . Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 4 (1): 1-17. (January 17). EPA- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07506.

3. NCASI. 2005. Handbook of Chemical - Specific Information for SARA Section 303 Form R Reporting. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-0500.

4. O’Shaughnessy, Niall. 2011. Email Correspondence Between Niall O’Shaughnessy,

Smurfit -Stone, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: Request for 2009 DMR Data Clarification. (June). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07645.

5. Schwartz, Jerry. 2011 . Email Correspondence Between Jerry Schwarz, American Forest and Paper Association, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: Clarification of Dioxin Data. (February). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07646.

6. U.S. EPA. 1974. Development Document for Effluent Guidelines and New SourceStandards for the Textile Mills Point Source Category. Washington, D.C. (June). EPA440-1-79-022b.

7. U.S. EPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986 . Washington, D.C. (May). EPA-440-5-

86-0010.

8. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-R-04-014. EPA- HQ

- OW -2003-0074-1346 through 1352.

9. U.S. EPA. 2006a. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan . Washington, D. C. (December). EPA -821-R-06-018. EPA- HQ -OW-2004-

0032-2782.Section 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-17 10. U.S. EPA. 2006b. Final Report: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Detailed Study

. Washington, D. C. (December). EPA -821-R-06-016. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-2249.

11. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan . Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-821-R-07-007. EPA- HQ

OW -2006-0771-0819.

12. U.S. EPA. 2008. Technical Support Document for the 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (August). EPA -821-R-08-015. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2006-0771-1701.

13. U.S. EPA. 2009a. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan . Washington, D.C. (October ). EPA -821-R-09-006. EPA

- HQ

OW -2008-0517-0515

14. U.S. EPA. 2009b. Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of ExistingEffluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories. EPA821-R-09-007. Washington, DC. (October). EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517-0515

15. U.S. EPA. 2011. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (October ). E PA 820-R-10-021. EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07320.

16. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.

17. Wiegand, Paul. 2011. Email Correspondence Between Paul Wiegand, National Council

for Air and Stream Improvement, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: Pulp and Paper TRI Questions. (August). EPA- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07647.Section 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-18 Table 20-16. Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Discharges From Pulp and Paper Category Reported to TRI in 2004–2009

TRI ID Facility Name Location 2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Grams

Released TWPE Basis o f

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate

98421

- SMPSN

801PO Simpson Tacoma

Kraft Co. Tacoma, WA 2.243 228,696 M2 NR NR NR 0.12 208 E1 0.154 277 E 0.135 242 E

98201

- SCTTP

2600F Kimberly

- Clark

Worldwide Everett, WV 0.419 55,269 C 0.487 874 C NR NR NR 1.33 2,380 C 2.7 4,846 C

04976

- SDWRR

RFD3U S.D. Warren Co. Skowhegan,

ME 0.184 37,877 E2 0.187 335 E2 0.15 269 E2 0.168 302 O 0.17 305 O

32034

- TTRYN

FOOTO Rayonier

Performance Fibers, LLC Fernandina Beach, FL 5.197 37,842 M1 0.66 1,184 M1 NR NR NR 0.56 1,000 M 1 1,794 M

37309

- BWTRS

ROUTE Abitibowater

Calhoun Operations Calhoun, TN 0.6854 24,888 E1 0.6875 1,234 E1 0.73 1,319 E1 0.87 1,560 M 0.94 1,690 M

83501

- PTLTC

805MI Clearwater Paper Corp, Idaho Pulp & Paperboard Lewiston, ID 0.4 15,465 M2 0.4 718 M2 0.44 789 M2 0.441 792 E 4.18 7,501 E

99363

- BSCSC

POBOX Boise White Paper

LLC Wallula, WA 0.20886 13,745 O 0.205513 369 O 5.58 10,014 O 0.083 149 O 0.83 1,496 O

23851

- NNCMP

HIGHW International Paper

- Franklin

Mill Franklin, VA 2.1364 10,440 E1 1.3677 2,454 E1 NR NR NR NR NR NR 2.28 4,086 E

71635

- GRGPC

PAPER Georgia

- Pacific Crossett Ops. Crossett, AR 5.0851 8,993 E1 5.327 77 E1 5.6 10,043 E1 4.87 8,740 E 5.49 9,850 E

36916

- JMSRV

ROUTE Georgia

- Pacific

Consumer

Products LP Pennington,

AL 2 8,488 E1 3.44 50 E1 3.2 5,742 E1 3.6 6,460 M 3.3 5,921 M

98362

- DSHWM

MARIN Nippon Paper

Industries USA

Co. Ltd. Port Angeles,

WA 0.034969 8,367 M2 0.03689 66 M2 NR NR NR 0.92 1,650 M 1.82 3,266 M

71611

- NTRNT

FAIRF Evergreen Packaging Pine Bluff,

AR 3.2139 5,684 O 3.3431 49 O 3.4 6,101 O 3.7 6,640 O 3.6 6,459 O

18629

- PRCTR

ROUTE Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co Mehoopany,

PA 0.020003 4,517 E1 0.018 32 E1 0.02 29 E1 0.087 156 E 0.012 22 CSection 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-19 Table 20-16. Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Discharges From Pulp and Paper Category Reported to TRI in 2004–2009

TRI ID Facility Name Location 2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Grams

Released TWPE Basis o f

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate

36545

- BSCSC

307WE Boise White Paper

LLC Jackson, AL 2.2812 4,032 E1 2.3119 34 E1 2.21 3,965 E1 2.1 3,770 E 2.1 3,768 E

36732

- GLFST

HIGHW Rock

- Tenn Mill

Co LLC Demopolis,

AL 2.1694 3,838 E1 1.9993 29 E1 1.84 3,301 E1 0.292 524 E 0.32 575 E

28456

- FDRLP

RIEGE International Paper Riegelwood

Mill Riegelwood,

NC 0.0663 3,507 E1 0.0304881 55 E1 0.0304 54 E1 0.0304 55 E 0.0305 55 E

71654

- PTLTC

HIGHW Clearwater Paper Corp, Arkansas City Arkansas City, AR 0.456 3,222 O 0.984 1,766 O NR NR NR 0.204 365 O 0.97 1,737 O

28560

- WYRHS

STREE Weyerhaeuser Vanceboro,

NC 1.35604 2,715 E1 1.657323 24 E1 1.71 3,069 E1 1.7 3,050 E 1.74 3,119 E

32078

- GRGPC

STATE Georgia

- Pacific Corp, Palatka Palatka, FL 1.4041 2,483 E1 1.4 20 E1 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

27962

- WYRHS

TROWB Domtar Paper Co Plymouth Mill Plymouth,

NC 3.4794 2,373 E1 4.2028 7,541 E1 4.33 7,777 E1 0.989 1,770 E 0.91 1,638 E

75504

- NTRNT

POBOX International Paper Texarkana

Mill Queen City,

TX 1.552 1,752 M2 1.302 19 M2 2.68 4,809 M2 0.68 1,220 M 3.87 6,944 M

32533

- CHMPN

375MU International Paper Pensacola

Mill Cantonment,

FL 2.309 1,568 E1 0.88 1,579 E1 NR NR NR 0.8 1,440 E 0.93 1,669 E

37662

- MDPPR

POBOX Weyerhaeuser Co Kingsport Paper

Mill Kingsport,

TN 0.83272 1,473 E1 0.8617 1,546 O NR NR NR 3.45 6,190 M 3.4 6,101 M

32347

- BCKYC

ROUTE Buckeye Florida Lp Perry, FL 0.123152 1,141 M2 1.221887 18 M2 NR NR NR 1.32 2,380 M 1.3 2,330 M

63702

- PRCTR

POBOX Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co Jackson, MO 0.005099 802 O 0.0051 0 O 0.004 8.8 O 0.0042 8 O 0.0051 9.2 OSection 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-20 Table 20-16. Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Discharges From Pulp and Paper Category Reported to TRI in 2004–2009

TRI ID Facility Name Location 2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Grams

Released TWPE Basis o f

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate

31521

- BRNSW

14W9T Brunswick

Cellulose Inc Brunswick,

GA 0.2271 309 E1 0.218 391 E1 0.19 341 E1 0.186 335 E 0.19 335 E

29442

- NTRNT

KAMIN International Paper Georgetown

Mill Georgetown,

SC 0.6383 214 C 0.683 1,225 C NR NR NR 0.753 1,350 C 0.75 1,351 C

31545

- TTRYN

SAVAN Rayonier

Performance Fibers, Jesup Mill Jesup, GA 0.00023 191 O 0.0003 1 O NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

70634

- BSSTH

USHIG Boise Packaging & Newsprint LLC Deridder, LA 0.0893 156 E1 0.1455 261 E1 0.12 215 E1 0.19 341 E 0.22 395 E

3676W

NTRNT

76HIG International Paper, Pine Hill

Mill Pine Hill, AL 3.0065 116 E1 3.02814 44 E2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

49829

- MDPBL

COUNT Escanaba Paper

Co. Escanaba, MI 0.890943 85 M2 5.612 81 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

54308

- THPRC

501EA Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co Green Bay,

WI 0.000300 83 C 0.0006 0 C 0.0008 1 C 0.0003 1 C 0.0005 0.9 C

17362

- PHGLT

228SO P. H. Glatfelter Co Spring Grove

Mill Spring Grove, PA 1.0633 70 E1 1.105 1,983 E1 1.02 1,830 E1 0.946 1,700 E 0.9 1.616 E

12883

- NTRNT

SHORE International Paper Ticonderoga,

NY 0.4166 62 M2 0.4223 758 M2 0.44 790 M2 0.46 826 E 0.46 834 E

36426

- CNTNR

HIGHW Smurfit

- Stone

Container Enterprises Inc Brewton, AL 3.0053 44 M2 3.0053 44 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR 2.5 4,486 E

18653

- PPTLB

MAINS Cascades Tissue Group PA Inc,

Ransom Mill Ransom, PA 0.0179 32 C 0.0153 27 C 0.0179 32 C NR NR NR NR NR NR

29704

- BWTRC

5300C Bowater Coated & Specialty Papers

Div Catawba, SC 2.161 31 M2 1.9695 29 C NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

31407

- STNCN

1BONN Weyerhaeuser

Port Wentworth Port Wentworth,

GA 1.273 18 E1 1.3648 2,449 E1 0.61 1,094 E1 0.679 1,220 E 0.69 1,239 ESection 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-21 Table 20-16. Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Discharges From Pulp and Paper Category Reported to TRI in 2004–2009

TRI ID Facility Name Location 2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Grams

Released TWPE Basis o f

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate

29044

- NNCMP

ROUTE International Paper Eastover, SC 0.119 2 M2 0.1077 193 M2 NR NR NR 0.183 328 O 0.16 282 O

54474

- WYRHS

200GR Weyerhaeuser Rothschild,

WI 0.063972 1 M2 0.0633 114 M2 NR NR NR 0.042 75 M 0.048 86 M

98607

- JMSRV

NE4TH Fort James Camas

LLC Camas, WA 0.0025 0.2311 E1 0.0034 6 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

70791

- GRGPC

ZACHA Georgia

- Pacific

Consumer

Products LLC Zachary, LA 0.00163 0.0237 M2 10 2,337 E1 2.77 4,974 E1 2.77 4,970 E 2.77 4,974 E

31068

- BCKYC

OLDST Weyerhaeuser Co Oglethorpe,

GA 0.0011 0.0160 O 0.001 2 O 0.001 1.79 O 0.001 2 O 0.0005 0.9 O

Indirect

07407

- MRCLP

1MARK Marcal Paper

Mills Inc. Elmwood Park, NJ 0.379098 1,273 M2 0.1699 2.468 M2 0.16 1,315 M2 0.02499 45 M 0.00799 14 M

29681

- WRGRC

803NO Sealed Air Corp, Cryovac Div. Simpsonville,

SC 0.011185 989 O NR NR NR 0.0187 1,654 O NR NR NR NR NR NR

32401

- STNCN

1EVER Smurfit

- Stone Container Corp Panama City,

FL 0.074799 256 E1 NR NR NR 0.082 146 E1 0.0782 140 E 0.078 140 E

54308

- THPRC

501EA Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co Green Bay,

WI 0.000850 234 C NR NR NR 0.00081 0.997 C 0.00034 1 C 0.00051 0.9 C

31702

- THPRC

USROU Procter & Gamble Paper Pro Ducts

Co Albany, GA 0.000663 111 O NR NR NR 0.001 109 O 0.001989 4 O 0.0036 6.4 O

55744

- BLNDN

115SW Upm Blandin Paper Co Grand Rapids, MN 2.19 59.33 E2 2.379 175.7 E2 2.11 3,782 E1 2.261 4,060 M 2 3,599 M

93030

- PRCTR

800NO Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co Oxnard, CA 0.000134 20.27 C NR NR NR 0.00016 0.45 C 0.000021

4 0 C 0.0034 6.1 C

23860

- STNHP

910IN Smurfit

- Stone Container Corp Hopewell,

VA 0.000045 1.239 C NR NR NR 0.221 397 C 0.21 378 O NR NR NRSection 20

— Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



### 20-22 Table 20-16. Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Discharges From Pulp and Paper Category Reported to TRI in 2004–2009

TRI ID Facility Name Location 2009 2008 2007 2005 2004

Grams

Released TWPE Basis o f

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate Grams

Released TWPE Basis of

Estimate

55720

- PTLTC

NORTH Sappi Cloquet

LLC Cloquet, MN 0.04131 0.5998 M2 NR NR NR 0.04 78 M2 0.04811 86 E 0.044 78 E

63702

- PRCTR

POBOX Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co Jackson, MO 0.000000

238 0.027 E1 NR NR NR 0.00392 9 O NR NR NR NR NR NR

Source s : TRIReleases2009_v2; TRIReleases2008_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2; TRIReleases2005_v2; and TRIReleases2004_v3.

NR : Not reported. For indirect discharges, the mass shown is the mass transferred to the POTW that is ultimately discharged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 83
percent removal of dioxin and dioxin

- like compounds by the POTW. The TWPEs in this table were calculated using the 2006 TWFs (the 2006 dioxin and dioxin

- like compound TWFs did not change from the August or December 2004 TWFs). Refineries reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M (m onitoring data/measurements ), M2 (p eriodic monitoring data/measurements ), C (m ass balance

calculations ), E (p ublished emission factors ), and O (o ther appro aches , such as engineering calculation).Section 21

— Timber Products Processing (40 CFR Part 429)



### 21

- 1 21. T IMBER 

### P RODUCTS 

### P ROCESSING 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 429)

EPA selected the Timber Products Processing (Timber Products) Category for preliminary review because it ranks high, in terms of toxic -weighted pound equivalents (TWPE), in the point source category rankings. EPA reviewed discharges from the Timber Products Category as part of the 2004 Annual Reviews (U.S. EPA, 2004). This section summarizes the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews associated with the Timber Products Category. EPA focused on discharges of copper from discharge monitoring reports (DMR) and dioxin and dioxin- like compounds from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) because of their high TWPE relative to the other pollutants in the Timber Produc ts Category.

21.1 Timber Products Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 21-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis review results for the Timber Products Category from the 2006 through 2011 Annual Reviews. The combined TWPE from discharges in the DMR and TRI databas es increased from discharge year 2002 to 2008 and decreased from 2008 to 2009. The 2009 DMR TWPE accounts for approximately 75 percent of

the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE.

Table 21-1. Timber Products Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2006 T hrough 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Year of Discharge Year of Review Timber Products Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2002 2006 48,000 1,100 49,100

2004 2007 63,900 443 64,300

2005 2008 51,500 NA NA

2007 2009 16,300 51,600 67,900

2008 2010 27,300 295,000 322,000

2009 2011 29,700 91,200 121,000

Sources: TRIReleases2002_v4; PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2 ; TRIReleases2007_v2; DMRLoads2007_v4; TRIReleases2008_v3; DMRLoads2008_v3; TRIReleases2009_v2; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2002 through 2007 include only major dischargers. 2008 and 2009 DMR data include both minor and major dischargers. NA: Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005.



### 21.2 Timber Products Category Pollutants of Concern

Table 21-2 lists the top five pollutants with the highest TWPE in the 2009 and 2008 DMR databases, based on results from the 2011 and 2010 Annual R eviews ( DMRLoads2009_v2

and DMRLoads2008_v3, respectively). Copper is the top DMR-reported pollutant in 2009, contributing more than 87 percent of the 2009 DMR TWPE. EPA did not investigate the other top DMR pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews because they represent less than 13 percent of the 2009 DMR TWPE for the Timber Products Category.Section 21

— Timber Products Processing (40 CFR Part 429)



### 21

- 2 Table 21-2. Timber Products Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 200 8 DMR Data a 2009 DMR Data a

Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE

Copper 1 24 267,000 1 16 79,700

Iron

Pollutant not reported in the top five 2009 DMR reported pollutants. 2 4 7,930

Manganese 3 2 886

Ammonia as N 4 17 768

Magnesium 5 4 371

Arsenic 2 13 9,670

Pollutant not reported in the top five 2009 DMR reported pollutants. p

- Chloro

- m

- cresol 3 2 2,970

Benzo(a)pyrene 4 4 2,930

Pentachlorophenol 5 7 2,590

Timber Processing Category Total NA 66 b 295,000 NA 55 b 91,200

Sources: DMRLoads2008_v3 and DMRLoads2009_v2.

a DMR data include major and minor dischargers.

b Number of facilities reporting a TWPE of greater than zero. NA: Not applicable.



### Table 21-3 lists the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in the 2009 and 2008 TRI

database s ( TRIReleases2009_v2 and TRIReleases2008_v3 , respectively). Dioxin and dioxin- like compounds are the top TRI-reported pollutant in 2009, contributing more than 72 percent of the 2009 TRI TWPE. EPA did not investigate the other top TRI pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews because they represent less than 28 percent of the 2009 TRI TWPE for the Timber Products Category.

Table 21-3 . Timber Products Category Top TRI Chemicals

Pollutant 200 8 TRI Data a 2009 TRI Data a

Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE

Dioxin and dioxin

- like Compounds 1 19 17,000 1 20 21,500

Arsenic and arsenic

- like Compounds 2 18 4,810 2 18 2,830

Polycyclic aromatic compounds Pollutants not reported in the top five 200 9

TRI

- reported pollutants. 3 33 1,410

Creosote 3 9 2,350 4 3 1,020

Copper and copper compounds 4 31 1,240 5 24 1,000

Pentachlorophenol 5 15 705 Pollutants not reported in the top five

2008 TRI

- reported pollutants.Section 21

— Timber Products Processing (40 CFR Part 429)



### 21

- 3 Table 21-3 . Timber Products Category Top TRI Chemicals

Pollutant 200 8 TRI Data a 2009 TRI Data a

Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE

Timber Processing Category Total NA 122 b 27,300 NA 101 b 29,700

Source s : TRIReleases2009_v2 and TRIReleases2008_v3

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.

NA : Not applicable.



### 21.3 Timber Products Category Copper Discharges in DMR

Table 21-4 presents the top facilities with copper discharges in the 2009 DMR database. EPA focused its review of copper discharges on the Ed Arey & Sons, Inc., facility in Buckhannon, WV. The facility accounts for more than 99 percent of the copper discharges in the 2009 DMR data. The remaining 15 timber products facilities with copper discharges account for less than 1 percent of the total Timber Products 2009 DMR copper TWPE.

Table 21-4. Top Copper Discharging Facilities in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Pounds of Copper Discharged Copper

TWPE Percentage of Timber

Products Category ’s 2009

DMR Copper TWPE

Ed Arey & Sons Inc. 126,000 79,400 >99%

All other copper dischargers in the Timber Products Category a 561 353 <1%

Total 127,000 79,800 100%

Source : DMRLoads2009_v2.

a The re are 15 remaining facilities that have copper dischargers in the 2009 DMR database, which account for

less than 1 percent of the category’s copper DMR TWPE.



### Ed Arey discharges copper through three outfalls, 001, 002, and 003. Table 21-5 presents Ed Arey’s copper concentration and flow discharge data from the 2009 DMR database. EPA compared the 2009 DMR concentration and flow data to 2008 and 2009 flow data from

Envirofacts. The 2008 October flows in Envirofacts show an error with the unit of measurement

for the flows at all of t he facility’s outfalls; the flows in the 2009 DMR database were 1,000,000 times higher than 2008 flow data values in Envirofacts. Using the corrected flows, Ed Arey’s copper discharges are 0.1 pounds and 0.06 TWPE for 2009, reducing the facility’s total TW PE by 99 percent. This reduction in TWPE decreases the Timber Products Category’s 2009 DMR TWPE by 79,400.Section 21

— Timber Products Processing (40 CFR Part 429)



### 21

- 4 Table 21-5. Ed Arey’s 2009 DMR Copper and Flow Discharge Data

Outfall Monitoring Period

Date Maximum Concentration (mg/L) DMR Loadings Tool Flow (MGD) Corrected Flow (MGD)

001 30

- Apr

- 2009 0.25 235 0.000235

001 31

- Oct

- 2009 0.01 160 0.00016

002 30

- Apr

- 2009 0.02 215 0.000215

002 31

- Oct

- 2009 0.02 140 0.00014

003 30

- Apr

- 2009 0.02 245 0.000245

003 31

- Oct

- 2009 0.06 180 0.00018
Sources: EPA’s Envirofacts and DMR Loadings Tool.



### 21.4 Timber Products Category Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Compounds Discharges in TRI

As part of the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA contacted the trade association for timber products facilities, the Treated Wood Council, and the trade association for pentachlorophenol manufacturers, the Pentachlorophenol Task Force (PTF), to confirm the dioxin discharges and distributions reported in the 2009 TRI database. EPA had previously contacted the Treated Wood Council to collect information on dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges as part of the 2004 Annual Reviews; in 2004, the Treated Wood Council identified the source of the dioxin and dioxin-like discharges as the pentachlorophenol used in the wood preservation process (U.S. EPA, 2004). The PTF confirmed that the top reporting facilities are still using pentachlorophenol in their processes. The PTF reported that some facilities have dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges due to groun dwater remediation activities; however, the majority of the reported

releases are associated with stormwater runoff from the finished -products storage yards (Wilkinson, 2011).

The PTF also provided information on all 20 Timber Products dioxin and dioxin- li ke compound discharging facilities. Table 21-6 presents the timber products facilities with dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges in the 2009 TRI database and th e resulting changes made to the pounds and TWPE as a result of the PTF information (Wilkinson, 2011 ).

The Treated Wood Council provides TRI industry reporting guidance, including a congener distribution, to the timber facilities to properly estimate dioxin and dioxin- like compound discharges from their facility. These estimates are based on pentachlorophenol composition, which as a result of manufacturing can include dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. The Treated Wood Council indicated that the TRI reporting guidance was updated based on 2008 pentachlorophenol composition data. Facilities then estimate or measure effluent pentachlorophenol and use the congener distribution from the pentachlorophenol sampling to calculate the dioxin and dioxin-like compound di scharges. The PTF recognizes that this may be a conservative approach given that the water solubility for pentachlorophenol is many orders of magnitude higher than the water solubility of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds (Wilkinson, 2011).Section 21

— Timber Products Processing (40 CFR Part 429)



### 21

- 5 Table 21-6. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharging Facilities in the 2009 TRI Database

Facility Name Location Pounds of

Dioxin and

Dioxin

- Like Compounds

Released a Dioxin and

Dioxin

- Like Compounds

TWPE Revised Dioxin

and Dioxin

- Like

Compounds

TWPE Summary of Change from Pentachlorophenol

Task Force

Electric Mills Wood Preserving

LLC Scooba, MS 0.130 8,230 1,530 Facility determined that an error had been made during computation of releases. The stormwater discharge from a 28

- acre drainage area was counted twice and there was a data entry error.

Amended 2009 TRI data show a release of 0.024 pounds. Accordingly, EPA revised the pounds

and TWPE.

Cahaba Pressure Treated Forest

Products Inc Brierfield, AL 0.060 3,760 3,760 No change.

Huxford Pole & Timber Co Inc Huxford, AL 0.037 2,320 2,320 No change.

Baldwin Pole Mississippi Wiggins, MS 0.029 1,860 1,860 No change.

Koppers Inc Grenada, MS 0.025 1,620 1,620 No change.

William C Meredith Co Inc East Point, GA 0.022 1,400 1,400 No change.

Colfax Treating Co LLC Pineville, LA 0.011 714 714 No change.

T R Miller Mill Co Inc Brewton, AL 0.009 607 607 No change.

Koppers Inc Florence, SC 0.011 553 553 No change.

Louisiana

- Pacific Corp Roaring River,

NC 0.00002 285 0 Facility’s TRI

- reported releases are based on a

one

- time analysis for chlorinated dioxins/furans required by the facility’s NPDES permit. The

results were all below the detection limits and the facility used half the detection limit to report releases. Accordingly, EPA zeroed the dioxin pounds and TWPE.

Baldwin Pole & Piling Co Inc Bay Minette, AL 0.001 80.1 80.1 No change.

Mcfarland Cascade Pole & Lumber

Co Tacoma, WA 0.0005 27.8 27.8 No change.

Mcfarland Cascade Pole & Lumber

Co Eugene, OR 0.0004 24.9 0 Facility performed analyses for chlorinated dioxins/furans in 2009, for which the all results

were non

- detect. Accordingly, EPA zeroed the dioxin pounds and TWPE.Section 21

— Timber Products Processing (40 CFR Part 429)



### 21

- 6 Table 21-6. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharging Facilities in the 2009 TRI Database

Facility Name Location Pounds of

Dioxin and

Dioxin

- Like Compounds

Released a Dioxin and

Dioxin

- Like Compounds

TWPE Revised Dioxin

and Dioxin

- Like

Compounds

TWPE Summary of Change from Pentachlorophenol

Task Force

Bell Lumber & Pole Co New Brighton,

MN 0.0001 4.52 4.52 No change.

Brooks Manufacturing Co Bellingham, WA 0.0001 3.82 3.82 No change.

Craftmaster Manufacturing Inc Wysox, PA 0.0000002 3.45 3.45 No change.

J H Baxter & Co Eugene, OR 0.00007 1.95 1.95 No change.

Oeser Co Bellingham, WA 0.00005 1.54 1.54 No change.

Atlantic Wood Industries Inc Vidalia, GA 0.00005 1.54 1.54 No change.

Permapost Products Inc Hillsboro, OR 0.00001 0.16 0.16 No change.

Total 0.338 21,500 14,500 NA

Source s: TRIReleases2009_v2

, the Pentachlorophenol Task Force l etter (Wilkinson , 2011), 2011 Timber Data Review and Revised Calculations, (ERG, 2011).

a D ischarges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. NA: Not applicable.Section 21

— Timber Products Processing (40 CFR Part 429)



### 21

- 7 21.5 Timber Products Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the Timber Products Category discharges results mainly from the copper discharges in DMR from one plant (accounting for 87 percent of the category’s 2009 DMR TWPE) and dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges in TRI (accounting for 72 percent of the category’s 2009 TRI TWPE). EPA concludes the following:

• EPA identified database errors for the flows from Ed Arey & Sons, Inc. With these errors corrected, the Timber Products Category’s 2009 copper DMR TWPE

decr eased by 99 percent, from 79,700 to 300.

• EPA contacted the Treated Wood Council and PTF to confirm discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from timber products facilities. The PTF identified reporting errors for three of these dischargers (Wilkinson, 2011). Withthese errors corrected, the Timber Products Category’s 2009 dioxin and dioxinlike compounds TRI TWPE decreased by 32 percent, from 21,500 to 14,500.

• The PTF stated that the industry reporting guidance for dioxin and dioxin- like compounds is based on the amount of pentachlorophenol measured or estimated in the wastewater and the dioxin and dioxin-like compound distribution in the pentachlorophenol. Additionally, all the wood preserving facilities are using the industry TRI reporting guidance t o estimate releases, the majority of which are

from stormwater runoff from finished -products storage yards (Wilkinson, 2011). EPA does not recommend revising the Timber Products effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) because the dioxin and dioxin- like comp ound discharges are dominated by stormwater, which the ELGs do not cover.

• The Timber Products Category’s 2009 combined TWPE after incorporating database corrections would be 34,600. This change would drop the category outside the top 95 percent that EPA pr ioritized for preliminary review as part of

the 2011 Annual Reviews.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the environment, measured as

TWPE. Ba sed on the above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category a lower priority for revision (i.e., it is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 8

- 1 in the Preliminary 2012 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

21.6 Timber Products Category References

1. ERG. 2011. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Preliminary Category Review— Facility Data and Revised Calculations for Ed Arey & Sons, Inc . (April). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824.

DCN 07511.

2. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-R-04-014. EPA

- HQ

- OW -2003-0074-1346 through 1352.Section 21

— Timber Products Processing (40 CFR Part 429)



### 21

- 8 3. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.

4. Wilkins on, John. 2011. Letter Between John Wilkinson, Pentachlorophenol Task Force, and Jessica Gray, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: Timber Products Sector 2009 TRI: Chlorinated Dioxin/Furan Reporting. (July 22). EPA- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07512.Section 22 —T extile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)



### 22-1 22. T EXTILE 

### M ILLS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 410)

The Textile Mills (Textiles) Category continues to rank high, in terms of toxic

- weighted pound equivalents (TWPE), in the point source category rankings. This industry was reviewed previously in EPA’s Preliminary and Final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans and the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. EPA, 2005, 2006, 2007). This section summarizes the 2011 Annual Reviews associated with the Textiles Category. EPA focused on discharges of sulfide because of its high TWPE relative to the other pollutants in the Textiles Category.

22.1 Textiles Category 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Table 22-1 compares the toxicity rankings analysis results for the Textiles Category from the 2006 through 2011 Annual R eviews. The combined TWPE from discharges in the discharge monitoring reports (DMR ) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) databases increased from discharge years 2007 to 2008 and decreased from discharge years 2008 to 2009. The estimated 2009 DMR TWPE accounts for approximately 95 percent of the combined 2009 DMR and TRI TWPE, similar to previous years.

Table 22-1 . Textiles Category TRI and DMR Discharges for the 2 006 Through 2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Year of Discharge Year of Review Textiles Category

TRI TWPE a DMR TWPE b Total TWPE

2002 2006 3,710 123,000 127,000

2004 2007 3,040 123,000 126,000

2005 2008 3,040 NA NA

2007 2009 2,390 79,900 82,300

2008 2010 2,750 247,000 250,000

2009 2011 1,910 37,200 39,100

Source s : TRIReleases2002_v4 ; PCSLoads2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2004_v3 ; PCSLoads2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v2 ; TRIReleases2007_v2 ; DMRLoads2007_v4 ; TRIReleases2008_v3 ; DMRLoads2008_v2 ; TRIReleases2009_v2 ; and DMRLoads2009_v2

.

a Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.

b DMR data from 2002 through 2007 include only major dischargers. 2008 and 2009 DMR data include both minor and major dischargers.

NA : Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate DMR data for 2005.



### 22.2 Textiles Category Pollutants of Concern

The Textiles Category review focused on the 2009 DMR discharges because the 2009 DMR data dominate the category’s combined TWPE. Table 22-2 lists the five pollutants wit h the highest TWPE based on results from the 2011 and 2010 DMR databases ( DMRLoads2008_v2

and DMRLoads2009 _v2 , respectively ). Sulfide is the top DMR pollutant in discharge year 2009, contributing approximately 88 percent of the category’s 2009 combined TWPE. Accordingly, the rest of the Textiles Category review focuses on the sulfide discharges from the 2009 DMR

database.Section 22 —T extile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)



### 22-2 Table 22-2. Textiles Category Top DMR Pollutants

Pollutant 200 8 a 200 9 a

Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE Rank Number of

Facilities Reporting

Pollutant TWPE

Sulfide 4 25 30,100 1 18 34,500

Hydrogen sulfide

Pollutant not reported in the top five 2008 DMR

- reported pollutants. 2 1 2,020

Chlorine 2 14 269

Copper 4 11 134

Ammonia as N 5 34 77.8

Mercury 1 3 135,000

Pollutant not reported in the top five 2009 DMR

- reported pollutants. Aluminum 2 3 34,300

Toxaphene 3 1 32,800

Aldrin 5 1 9,500

Textiles Category Total NA 77 b 247,000 NA 56 b 37,200

Sources: DMRLoads2008_v3 and DMRLoads2009_v2.

a DMR data include major and minor dischargers.

b Number of facilities reporting a TWPE of greater than zero. NA: Not applicable.Section 22 —T extile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)



### 22-3 22.3 Textiles Category Sulfide Discharg es in DMR

Table 22-3 presents the top sulfide discharge rs in the 2009 DMR database. The majority (61 percent) of the sulfide discharges were from the top two discharg ing facilities, Mohawk Industries, Inc., in Lyerly, GA and Gold Mills, Inc. in Pine Grove, PA. Accordingly, EPA focused the Textiles Category review on these two facilities.

Table 22-3. Textiles Category Top Sulfide Discharging Facilities

in the 2009 DMR Database

Facility Name Facility Location Pounds of Sulfide Discharged Sulfide TWPE Percentage of Textiles Category

2009 DMR Sulfide

TWPE

Mohawk Industries, Inc. Lyerly, GA 4,990 14,000 40.6%

Gold Mills, Inc. Pine Grove, PA 2,490 6,980 20.2%

Remaining facilities reporting sulfide discharges in the Textiles Category a 5,120 13,500 39.2%

Total 12,600 34,500 100%

Source: DMRLoads200 9 _v2.

a There are 15 remaining facilities that have sulfide discharges in the 2009 DMR database, which account for approximately 40 percent of the category’s sulfide DMR TWPE.



### Sulfide is an anion of sulfur in its lowest oxidation state of minus 2 (S 2- 

### ). The dianion S 2-


### exists only in strongly alkaline aqueous solutions. Such solutions can form by dissolution of H 2 

### S or alkali metals such as lithium sulfide, sodium sulfide, and potassium sulfide in the presence of excess hydroxide ions. The ion S 2− 

### is exceptionally basic with an acid dissociation constant (pK

a 

### ) greater than 14. Sulfide does not exist in appreciable concentrations even in highly alkaline water. Instead, sulfide combines with protons to form HS − 

### , which is variously called H 2 

### S ion. At still lower pH values (<7), HS − 

### converts to H 2 

### S, as shown by the equation below. At a pH of 5, nearly 100 percent of sulfide is present as H 2 

### S.

H 2 

### S  HS - 

### + H + 

### and HS - 

###  S - 

### + H + 

### (Eq. 22-1)

Sulfides are moderately strong reducing agents. They react with oxygen in the air in elevated temperatures to form higher

- valenc e sulfur salts, such as sulfates and sulfur dioxide

. Aqueous solutions of transition metals cations react with sulfides to precipitate solid metal sulfide salts. The metal sulfide salts typically have very low solubility in water.

Organic sulfur and sulfides are in the wastewater of textile mills mainly from the dying operation (U.S. EPA, 1974). In the 2009 DMR database, 17 facilities report sulfide discharges. EPA evaluated the monthly sulfide concentrations for all those reported above the detection limit and determined the average and median sulfide concentrations to be 1.36 and 0.35 mg/L, respectively. The sulfide concentrations range from below the detection limit to 26 mg/L.

Sulfid es discharged to neutral receiving waters can be reduced to hydrogen disulfide (H 2 

### S), an extremely toxic, odiferous, and corrosive gas. Minute concentrations (2 μg/L) of H 2 

### S impart an objectionable odor and taste to water, making it unfit for municipal consumption (U.S. EPA, 1974). The National Water Quality Criteria also determined that sulfide concentrationsSection 22 —T extile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)



### 22-4 greater than 2 μg/L would constitute a long-term hazard for fish and other aquatic life (U.S. EPA, 1986). Because of the proven toxicity of sulfides, sulfide was listed as a primary pollutant

for BPT in the Development Document for Effluent Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Textile Mills Point Source Category (1974 TDD).

Table 22-4 presents available sulfide treatment options in the textiles industry (see

Section 19.5 for more details). Although these treatment options can remove sulfide from wastewater, the actual effluent concentrations attainable are a function of treatment system design (Briggs, 2011).

Table 22-4 . Sulfide Wastewater Treatment Options

Technology Name Treatability

Concentrations Description

Biological treatment Up to 99 percent

sulfide removal Treats industrial effluent streams by either aerobic or anaerobic processes. The treatment involves bacteria decomposing waste to form harmless inorganic solids. Studies show that approximately 99 percent of the influent sulfide concentration can be biolog ically

oxidized to sulfate.

Aeration and air stripping Up to 100 percent sulfide

removal Aeration involves removal of dissolved gasses such as H 2 S from water, and is generally used in two types of water applications: air stripping and aeration. The effectiveness of aeration for removing sulfide depends on the aeration method selected, the pH of the water, design factors, flow and loading rate, available area of mass transfer, temperature, and algae production. The major drawback to

aeration is that H 2 S is not destroyed but converted to an air

emission.

Hydrogen peroxide

oxidation Up to 100 percent sulfide

removal This process controls sulfide by oxidation to either elemental sulfur or sulfate ion by hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ) addition, depending on

th e pH of the wastewater. It can approach 100% efficiency if H 2 O 2 is added in a controlled fashion and the reaction medium is thoroughly mixed. No additional wastewater processing is required following peroxide oxidation because sulfate is very soluble in

wa ter.

Sources: ERG sulfide treatment technologies memo (Briggs, 2011); “Biological Treatment of Tannery Wastewater” article (Durai and Rajasimman, 2010).



### 22.3.1 Mohawk Industries, Inc.

Sulfide discharges from Mohawk Industries, Inc., in Lyerly, GA account for approximately 18 percent of the DMR TWPE for the Textiles Category. A ll of Mohawk

Industries’ sulfide discharges are from its outfall 0A 1. Table 22-5 presents the sulf ide discharge quantities from DMR data. From these reported quantities, EPA calculated the sulfide concentrations for reporting years 2008 and 2009 using the average quantity and flow from the DMR Loadings Tool. As part of the 2010 Annual Reviews, EPA cont acted Mohawk Industries and confirmed the 2008 sulfide quantities and that the permit limit for sulfide is 24.2 pounds per day (lb/day). Mohawk Industries also stated that sulfide in the wastewater may come from boiler

treatment chemicals and wastewater treatment chemicals used to treat intake water for hardness (Wood, 2010).Section 22 —T extile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)



### 22-5 The Textiles Category, Subpart F (Carpet Finishing) does regulate sulfide; however, it is a production-based limit of 0.08 pounds of sulfide per 1,000 pounds of product. Although the 2009 sulfide quantities are below the mass

- based permit and calculated ELG limits , EPA ’s calculated sulfide concentrations, which range from 1.17 mg/L to 1.44 mg/L, are greater than treatability concentrations achieved by biological treatment, aeration and stripping, and hydrogen peroxide oxidation (up to 100 percent sulfide removal). The back- calculated concentrations are also greater than the Gold Book Water Quality Standards (2 μg/L) for sulfides (H 2 

### S).

As part of the 2011 review, EPA contacted the facil ity permit writer with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division to discuss sulfide discharges at the facility. The permit writer stated that the permit limits are based on the ELG production

- based limits because Georgia does not have a water quality s tandard for sulfide. The permit writer stated that no further investigation of sulfide discharges has been done at this time (Noell, 2011). Therefore, EPA is considering facility

- specific permitting support to address sulfide discharges at this facility.Section 22 —T extile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)



### 22-6 Table 22-5 . Mohawk Industries 2008 and 2009 Monthly Sulfide Discharge Data for Outfall 0A1

Pollutant Monitoring

Period Date 2008 2009

DMR Loadings

Tool Average

Quantity (lb / day ) Calculated

Sulfide

Concentrations (mg/L) Average Flow (MGD) DMR Loadings

Tool Average

Quantity (lb / day ) Calculated

Sulfide

Concentrations (mg/L) Average Flow (MGD)

Sulfide 31

- Jan 13.4 1.2 1.32 14.90 1.41 1.26

Sulfide 30

- Apr 18.3 1.3 1.66 15.1 1.44 1.2 6

Sulfide 31

- Jul 16.8 1.9 1.03 10.7 1.17 1. 1

Sulfide 31

- Oct 6.24 1.1 0.723 13.4 1.33 1.21

Source: DMR Loadings Tool ( http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/ ).Section 22 —T extile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)



### 22

- 7 22.3.2 Gold Mills, Inc.

Gold Mills, Inc., in Pine Grove, PA discharges sulfide from its outfall 001, which receives wastewater from dyeing and finishing processes (PA DEP, 2004)

. Table 22-6 p resents
the 2009 sulfide discharge d ata in the DMR Loadings Tool and the calculated concentrations. EPA calculated the sulfide concentrations using the average quantity and flow provided in the DMR Loadings Tool.

For outfall 001, the facility permit average monthly sulfide limit is 15.8 lbs/day and the maximum daily limit is 31.6 lbs/day. The Textiles Category, Subpart E (Knit Fabric Finishing) does regulate sulfide; however, it is a production-based limit of 0.2 pounds of sulfide per 1,000 pounds of product. The sulfide quantities are 45 percent lower than the permit limits and do not

exceed the calculated ELG mass -based limit; however, the calculated concentrations, which range from 2.43 to 3.03 mg/L, are greater than treatability concentrations achieved by biological treatment, aeration and stripping, and hydrogen peroxide oxidation (up to 100 percent sulfide removal). The back

- calculated concentrations are also greater than the Gold Book Water Quality Standards (2 μg/L) for sulfides (H 2 

### S).

As part of th e 2011 review, EPA contacted the facility permit writer with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to discuss sulfide discharges at the facility. The permit writer stated that the permit limits are based on the ELG production

- based

limits because Pennsylvania does not have a water quality standard for sulfide. The permit writer stated that sulfide discharges have not been investigated further at this time (Hastings, 2011). Therefore, EPA is considering facility

- specific permitting support to address sulfide discharges at this facility.

Table 22-6. Gold Mills 2009 Monthly Sulfide Discharge Data

Outfall Pollutant Monitoring Period

Date DMR Loadings

Tool Average Quantity ( lb / day ) Calculated Sulfide

Concentrations (mg/L) Average Flow (MGD)

001 Sulfide 31

- Jan

- 09 7.82 3.03 0.309

001 Sulfide 28

- Feb

- 09 8.85 2.95 0.359

001 Sulfide 31

- Mar

- 09 7.81 2.84 0.329

001 Sulfide 30

- Apr

- 09 6.75 2.72 0.297

001 Sulfide 31

- May

- 09 6.74 2.96 0.273

001 Sulfide 30

- Jun

- 09 6.74 2.92 0.277

001 Sulfide 31

- Jul

- 09 6.41 2.86 0.269

001 Sulfide 31

- Aug

- 09 6.58 2.81 0.281

001 Sulfide 30

- Sep

- 09 6.75 2.55 0.317

001 Sulfide 31

- Oct

- 09 6.50 2.43 0.32

001 Sulfide 30

- Nov

- 09 5.80 2.77 0.251

001 Sulfide 31

- Dec

- 09 5.40 2.55 0.254

Source: DMR Loadings Tool ( http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/ ).Section 22 —T extile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)



### 22

- 8 22.4 Textiles Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the Textile s Category discharges result mainly from sulfide discharges from two facilities

. Data collected for the 2011 Annual R eview s demonstrated that

wastewater discharge characteristics for this category are consistent with discharges from prior years. As in prior years, EPA concludes the following :

• Sulfides can be treated using biological treatment, aeration and stripping, and hydrogen peroxide oxidation. Air stripping is an effective treatment, but the H 2 

### S is discharged to the atmosphere. Hydrogen peroxide oxidation and biological treatment are two efficient treatment technologies. Hydrogen pero xide oxidation at pH levels above 9.2 produces sulfate, but the pH must be raised to achieve treatment, then lowered to near neutral prior to surface discharge.

• Sulfide discharges from Mohawk Industries in Lyerly, GA and Gold Mills in Pine Grove, PA are both below the permit limit production -based quantities; however,

the back

- calculated concentrations for these facilities are higher than treatability levels using biological treatment in combination with air oxidation (using activated carbon) or hydrogen peroxide oxidation. These back- calculated concentrations are also above recommended national water quality criteria levels.

• Sulfide discharges in the Carpet Finishing and Knit Fabric subcategories result from the dyeing process. The Textiles 1974 TDD states that biological treatment

is sufficient to treat sulfides in wastewater. More recent studies suggest that biological treat ment in combination with air oxidation using activated carbon or hydrogen peroxide oxidation can completely eliminate sulfide from effluent wastewater. Because the facilities in this subcategory could reduce sulfide discharges via additional treatment or t he use of sulfide- free dyes, EPA is considering facility -specific permitting support to control sulfide discharges.

EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human h ealth and the environment, measured as TWPE. Based on the above conclusions, this category is similar to the EPA “lower priority for

revision” conclusion (i.e., this category is marked with “( 2)” in the “Findings” column in Table

8- 1 in the Preliminary 201 2 Plan that presents the 2011 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs) (U.S. EPA, 2013).

22.5 Textiles Category References

1. Briggs, Mark. 2011. Sulfide Treatment Technologies Memorandum. Eastern Research Group. (July 15). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07616.

2. Durai, G, and M Rajasimman. 2011. Biological Treatment of Tannery Wastewater

— A Review. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 4 (1): 1-17. (January 17). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07506.

3. Hastings, Mary. 2011. Telephone and Email Communication Between Mary Hastings, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and Elizabeth Sabol, EasternSection 22 —T extile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)



### 22

- 9 Research Group, Inc., Re: 2009 DMR Sulfide Discharges. (September 6). EPA

- HQ

- OW

2010-0824. DCN 07509.

4. Noell, Bill. 2011. Telephone Communication Between Bill Noel, Georgia Environmental Protection Division, and Elizabeth Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: 2009 DMR Sulfide Discharges. (September 19). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07510.

5. PA DEP. 2004 . Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. NPDES Permit: Gold Mills, Inc., Pine Grove, PA. (August 30). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824. DCN 07507.

6. U.S. EPA. 1974. Development Document for Effluent Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Textile Mills Point Source Category. Washington, D.C. (June). EPA-440-1-79.

7. U.S. EPA. 1982. Development Document for Effluent Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Textile Mills Point Source Category. Washington, D.C. (September). EPA -440-1-79-022b.

8. U.S. EPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. Washington, D.C. (May). EPA-440-5-

86-0010.

9. U.S. EPA. 2005. Preliminary 2005 Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial Dischargers. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-821-B-05-004. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-

0016.

10. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, D.C. (December). EPA-821-R-06-018. EPA- HQ

- OW -2004-0032-

2782.

11. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA-821-R-07-007. EPA- HQ

OW -2006-0771-0819.

12. U.S. EPA. 2011. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, D.C. (October). EPA 820-R-10-021. EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN

07320.

13. U.S. EPA, 2013. Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. Washington, DC. (May). EPA

- HQ

- OW -2010-0824 DCN 07684.

14. Wood, Denise. 2010. Telephone and E-mail Communication Between Denise Wood, Mohawk Industries, and Elizabeth Sabol and Lauren Wingo, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Re: DMR Clarification Needed for Mohawk Industries Oak River Plant and Lyerly Plant. (September 2). EPA- HQ

- OW -2008-0517 DCN 07309.