United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

The 2011 Annual Effluent Guidelines 

Review Report

December 2012 
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. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 1-1

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

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE FINAL 2010 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM 

PLAN ................................................................................................................................ 2-1

3. METHODOLOGY, DATA SOURCES, AND LIMITATIONS ................................................... 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 Weighting 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 TRIReleases2009: Facility Reviews ................................................................. 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. ALUMINUM FORMING (40 CFR PART 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. CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT (40 CFR PART 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. COAL MINING (40 CFR PART 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 Conclusions ................................................................................. 6-6

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

7. FERTILIZER MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 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 Category Conclusions .............................................................. 7-5

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

8. INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 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. IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 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 Manufacturing 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. LANDFILLS (40 CFR PART 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. MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS (40 CFR PART 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. METAL FINISHING (40 CFR PART 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 Metal 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 – Massena Plant .................................................... 12-8

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

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

13. MINERAL MINING AND PROCESSING (40 CFR PART 436) ........................................... 13-1

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

13.2 Mineral Mining Category Pollutants 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. NONFERROUS METALS MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 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. ORGANIC CHEMICALS, PLASTICS, AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS (40 CFR PART 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. OIL & GAS EXTRACTION (40 CFR PART 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. ORE MINING AND DRESSING (40 CFR PART 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. PESTICIDE CHEMICALS (40 CFR PART 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. PETROLEUM REFINING (40 CFR PART 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. PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD (40 CFR PART 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 Remaining Aluminum Dischargers................................................................. 20-14

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

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

21. TIMBER PRODUCTS PROCESSING (40 CFR PART 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. TEXTILE MILLS (40 CFR PART 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 Pollutants ................................................................ 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 Pollutants ....................................................................................... 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 Iron 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

Table 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 Manganese 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 Compound 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

Table 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. Tunnel 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 Facilities ................................................................................ 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 2009 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 Finishing 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 for 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 Discharge 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 Dischargers 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 Category 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. Top Facility Discharges in the 2009 DMR and TRI Databasesa

 .......................................... 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 Resultsa

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

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

Table 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. Dioxin 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 Compound 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 Arey’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 Discharging 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 ................................................. 11-11
Section 1—Background 

1-1

1. BACKGROUND

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 monitoring 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 enables EPA and the states to protect and restore the Nation’s waters. 

These programs and tools generally rely either on water-quality-based controls, such as water 

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

such as effluent guidelines and technology-based effluent 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 reviews 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 identify 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 categories 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 finishing 283,000 63.5% 5

435 Oil & gas extractiona 238,000 67.4% 6

420 Iron and steel manufacturing 230,000 71.2% 7
Section 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% 10

463 Plastics molding and forming 177,000 84.7% 11

415 Inorganic chemicals manufacturing 124,000 86.8% 12

429 Timber products processing 121,000 88.8% 13

436 Mineral mining and processing 85,500 90.2% 14

432 Meat and poultry products 71,000 91.3% 15

434 Coal mining 66,800 92.4% 16

437 Centralized waste treatment 51,000 93.3% 17

455 Pesticide chemicals 45,700 94.0% 18

467 Aluminum forming 39,700 94.7% 19

410 Textile mills 39,100 95.3% 20

Total 6,070,000b

a The 2011 preliminary category review did not include the review of the shale gas extraction or coalbed methane 

sectors as they are currently under review by EPA. See 76 FR 66286 (October 26, 2011) (although EPA is 

proposing to delist from rulemaking the coalbed methane extraction subcategory from the effluent guidelines 

plan). 

b

 Total 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. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE FINAL 2010 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN

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 Final 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 Recommends 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 mercuryimpaired 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 pretreatment 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 Final 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 are 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 wastewater. 

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. Supports 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 Final 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 Recommends 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 pretreatment 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 technologies.

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 years, 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 standards 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. METHODOLOGY, DATA SOURCES, AND LIMITATIONS

EPA reviewed effluent discharge data to fulfill its Clean Water Act obligations, 

generating the preliminary rankings shown in Table 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 

source 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 categories. 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 Reviews (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-NPDES), 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 discharges. 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 2011 Annual Reviews. 

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 

section 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 Report) (U.S. EPA, 2009). Documents the methodology and development of 

the DMRLoads2009 and TRIReleases2009 databases, including (but not limited 
Section 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 equivalents (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 agencies, 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 more 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 which 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 principal 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 NAICS code, 

multiple NAICS codes, or a portion of the facilities in an NAICS code. Therefore, to use 

databases that identify facilities by NAICS 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/Point 
Section 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 facility 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 Toxics 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

unique 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 loading 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 TRIReleases2009 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 Calculation 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 potential 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 management 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 2011 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 equivalent. 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 toxic (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 chemicals facilities 

reported either discharging directly to a receiving stream or transferring to a POTW. For 
Section 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 2009. 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 reported 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 ranges, 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 rankings 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, especially 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 classes 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 TRIReleases2009 

were usable for the 2011 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, EPA 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 

states and territories/tribes have migrated to ICIS-NPDES. Therefore, 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 framework 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 received more regulatory attention than 

minor discharges. There are approximately 7,000 facilities (including sewerage systems) with 

major discharges and 15,000 facilities with minor discharges for which PCS and ICIS-NPDES 

have extensive records. Permitting authorities 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; and
Section 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 via monthly 

DMRs submitted to the permitting authority; however, EPA does not require the permitting 

authority to enter data in the PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases. For this reason, 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). 

Parameters in PCS and ICIS-NPDES include water quality parameters (such as pH and 

temperature), specific chemicals, conventional parameters (such as biochemical oxygen demand 

(BOD5) 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 average pounds per day discharged, but also 

report daily maxima and average pollutant concentrations. 

For the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA used data for reporting year 2009, to correspond to 

the data obtained from TRI. For the 2011 Annual Reviews, 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 calculated 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. territories/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 facilities 

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 

Nitrogen,” “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 reported wastewater discharges1

. 

• 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, EPA 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 

and 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 calendar 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 category rankings. Table B-2 in Appendix B 

of this report lists all corrections made to the 2009 DMR data in the DMR Loadings Tool.

3.3.1 DMRLoads2009: Categorization of Discharges 

This subsection 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 categories are not 

defined 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 oversimplification. 

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 the 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 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 
Section 3—Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations

3-11

source categories. Two exceptions where EPA was able to assign 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 included them as discharges from the Pesticide Chemicals 

Category.

— Metal Products and Machinery (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 disinfection; 

• 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 system. 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 Outfall 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 

Loadings 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 

DMRLoads2009. 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 annual 
Section 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 duration 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 report 

pollutant 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 day (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 2011 toxicity rankings analysis in the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool.

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 CNVRT 

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 nanograms 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 evaluated 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-NPDES 
Section 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 

initial 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 MGD. 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 corrections 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 reviewed 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 1,944 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 discharges. EPA reviewed the accuracy of facilities’ 

discharges that had the greatest impact on total category loads and 
Section 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 PCS 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 

DMRLoadsAnalysis20092

 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 databases 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 differed 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 the 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 facilities, 

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 Tool and stored in 

DMRLoads2009. 

3. Reviewed PCS and ICIS-NPDES pipe 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, seasonal, 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, noncontact 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 

concentrations 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 concentrations 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, 

2011a). 

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 outfall 

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 values 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, 2011a). 

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 CoalIndustryIndustry, IL Coal Mining Manganese Outfall 019 2009 flows are 1,000 times 

higher than flow data 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 the June 

2009 chlorine concentration for outfall 

015 should be 1.35 mg/L, not 135 mg/L 

(Warren, 2011a). 

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 

concentrations 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, 2011a). 

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, 2011b). 

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 concentration 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 TRIReleases2009 Database

EPA developed the TRIReleases2009 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 4.2.2 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 the 

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 TRIReleases2009: 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 associating an NAICS code with only one category 

may be an oversimplification. 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 reviewed 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 two 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 Category.

— 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 TRIReleases2009 to 

TRIReleases2008, TRIReleases2007, TRIReleases2005, TRIReleases2004, 

TRIReleases2003, TRIReleases2020, and TRIReleases2000 to describe the 

completeness of the database. The comparison showed that for 86 percent of the 

NAICS code groupings, the number of facilities 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 change 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 identified 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 web 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 

TRIReleases2009 included accuracy checks for database queries in 

TRICalculations20093 and TRIReleases2009. Documentation of accuracy checks 

is provided in a QC table in each Microsoft AccessTM database.

• Comparability. EPA compared TRIReleases2009 to TRIReleases2008, 

TRIReleases2007, 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 SLA 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 corrections made to the 

TRIReleases2009 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 for review:

• Facilities with the highest toxic-weighted discharges of all facilities reporting to 

TRI for reporting year 2009; 

• Facilities with the highest toxic-weighted discharges of individual chemicals that 

contribute the majority of the toxic-weighted discharges 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 to verify whether the pollutant discharges are reported 

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

3-27

Table 3-3. Summary of TRIReleases2009 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 

revise 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 TRIReleases2009 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 TWPE 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 Annual Reviews. 

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, 

2011b).

Revise dioxin load to zero.
Section 3—Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations

3-29

Table 3-3. Summary of TRIReleases2009 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, 

2011b)

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, 

2011b)

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 nondetect.

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 Annual Reviews. 

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 TRIReleases2009 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 the 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; TRIReleases2003; TRIReleases2004; TRIReleases2005; TRIReleases2006; 

TRIReleases2007; TRIReleases2008; and TRIReleases2009.

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 

establishments4 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 TRIReleases2009 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: TRIReleases2009_v2 and DMRLoads2009_v2. Tables C-1 and C-2 in Appendix C 

present the category rankings by TWPE from the TRIReleases2009_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 TRIReleases2009_v2 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 TRIReleases2009_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 Preliminary 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 toxic 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 compose 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 Reviews 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 options 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 between 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-OW2010-0824 DCN 07695. 

4. Bukach, Tammy. 2011. Notes from Telephone and E-mail Communication between 

Tammy Bukach, Charter Steel Rising Sun, and Kimberly Landick, Eastern Research 

Group, 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 and 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 Communication 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-OW2010-0824. 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 of 

Mercury 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 Sabol, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “RE: 

Request for 2009 TRI Data Clarification for Pulp and Paper Mills.” (March 8). EPA-HQOW-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 Smith, 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-Like 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 Existing 

Effluent 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 Landick, 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. ALUMINUM FORMING (40 CFR PART 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 report (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 Through 

2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

Year of Discharge Year of Review

Aluminum Forming Category

TRI TWPEa DMR TWPEb Total TWPE

2002 2006 940,000c 61,500 1,000,000c

2004 2007 3,320 27,600 309,000

2005 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: 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. 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, reduced the TRI TWPE 

from 940,000 to 5,238 TWPE. As a result, the Aluminum Forming Category ranked 22nd, 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

2008 DMR Dataa 2009 DMR Dataa

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 DMRreported pollutants.5 20 124

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

5 1 93 Pollutant not reported in the top five 2009 DMRreported pollutants.

Aluminum Forming Category Total NA 23b 32,800 NA 23b 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 facilities 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

2008a 2009a

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 dischargesb 

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 Virginia 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 specific 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 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). 

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 

Kimberly 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/upload/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. CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT (40 CFR PART 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb Total TWPE

2002 2006 38,100 3,420 41,500

2004 2007 7,460,000 8,730 7,470,000

2005 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 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.

5.2 CWT Category Pollutants of Concern

EPA’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

2008 DMR Dataa 2009 DMR Dataa

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 9b 20,300 NA 9b 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 measured 

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 

decreases 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 2010a

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

Sources: 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 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). 

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-HQOW-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. COAL MINING (40 CFR PART 434) 

EPA identified the Coal Mining Category for preliminary review because 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 Category 

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 decreased 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb Total TWPE

2002 2006 3,120 1,910 5,030

2004 2007 1,190 2,490 3,680

2005 2008 745 NA NA

2007 2009 493 2,290 2,780

2008 2010 1,280 76,400 77,700

2009 2011 1,010 65,800 66,800

Sources: 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 result, do not enter DMR data into EPA’s ICISNPDES or PCS systems. EPA’s 2008 Detailed Study for the Coal Mining Point Source Category 
Section 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

2008 DMR Dataa 2009 DMR Dataa

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 137b 112,000 NA 166b 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 and 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–Industry. 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 Dischargesa 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 database, 

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 outfalls. 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 that 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, the 
Section 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 applicable. Facility did not report manganese discharges for these outfalls. 

NC: No change. EPA did not correct the flow for this outfall because the order of magnitude matched flows 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 limits 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. Freeman United Coal–Industry’s 2009 Manganese and Iron Concentrations 

Outfall

Monthly Average Concentrations (mg/L) Daily Maximum Concentrations (mg/L)

Range

Proposed 

Permit 

Limitsa 

Percentage Above 

Proposed Permit 

Limits Range

Proposed 

Permit 

Limitsa 

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

003b 0.07–1.8 3.5 0% 0.09–3.33 7 0%

009b 0.137–5.79 3.5 7% 0.18–5.79 7 0%

018b 0.219–2.48 3.5 0% 0.3–3.69 7 0%

019b 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 facility. 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 Category discharges resulted from manganese 

and manganese compounds and iron and iron compounds. Data collected for the 2011 Annual 

Reviews demonstrate 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: 
Section 6—Coal Mining (40 CFR Part 434)

6-7

• One facility, Freeman United Coal–Industry, accounts for 46 percent of the 

category’s manganese and iron 2009 DMR discharges. EPA determined that some 

of the facility’s outfalls 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 Reviews 

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 

elevated 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 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). 

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. (December). 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 Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories. EPA821-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. FERTILIZER MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 418) 

EPA selected the Fertilizer Manufacturing 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 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 Fertilizer 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb Total TWPE

2002 2006 9,100 1,370,000 1,380,000

2004 2007 10,800 1,170,000 1,180,000

2005 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 focused 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

2008 DMR Dataa 2009 DMR Dataa

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 DMRreported pollutants.5 13 605

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

5 1 1,750 Pollutant not reported in the top five 2009 DMRreported pollutants.

Fertilizer Manufacturing Category Total NA 36b 818,000 NA 31b 902,000

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.
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 (99 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

2008a 2009a

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%

Sources: DMRLoads2008_v3 and DMRLoads2009_v2. a Major and minor dischargers.
Section 7—Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418)

7-5

Both of the 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 facility 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 the 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 facilityspecific 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 Fertilizer 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 Reviews 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 facilityspecific permitting support (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 two 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 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). 

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-HQOW-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-HQOW-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—Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415)

8-1

8. INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 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 high 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 effluent guidelines rulemaking. Because a rulemaking for this 

segment of the 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

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 increased 

from discharge years 2002 to 2004, and decreased 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb 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

Sources: 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 8-2
Section 8—Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 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—Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415)

8-3

Table 8-2. Inorganic Chemicals Category Top TRI Pollutants 

Pollutant

2008 TRI Dataa 2009 TRI Dataa

Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE

Manganese and manganese compounds 1 26 38,200 1 24 35,800

Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds Pollutants not reported in the top five 2008 TRIreported pollutants.2 7 13,800

Arsenic and arsenic compounds 3 5 6,100 3 6 6,140

Nitrate compounds 4 49 5,340 4 49 3,910

Mercury and mercury compounds 2 10 6,680 5 11 3,510

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 5 2 3,570 Pollutants not reported in the top five 2009 TRIreported pollutants.

Inorganic Chemicals Category Total NA 161b 71,300 NA 153b 72,500

Sources: TRIReleases2007_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.
Section 8—Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 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 have 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 

Category 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 dischargesa 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 representatives 

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 report 

manganese 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—Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 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

2008 230,000 16,100

2009 167,000 11,700

2010 NR NR

Sources: TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2006_v1; TRIReleases2008_v2; TRIReleases2009_v2; and Envirofacts. 

NR – Not reported.

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 also 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. The 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 discharges 
Section 8—Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415)

8-6

in the 2009 TRI database. Eighty-six percent of these discharges are from 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 dischargesa 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 titanium 

dioxide 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 TWFa

Dioxin and Dixon-Like 

Compounds TWPE

2002 13.6 2,021 60.5

2003 0.708 132,994 208

2004 0.283 250,244 156

2005 0.135 132,994 40

2006 0.48 288,398 305

2007 4.89 207,568 2,240

2008 0.57 37,219 46.8

2009 2.82 1,904,247 11,800

Sources: 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 the 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 their 
Section 8—Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415)

8-7

releases using half the detection limit of a congener that was never detected. 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 estimates 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 estimate 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 are 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 modifications, 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 

dioxin-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—Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 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 dioxide. 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)

2003a 

(pg/L)

2009b

(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 132d

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 3,033,984 50 ND 0.682

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF 2,020.96 100 101.24d 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 136d

Sources: TRIReleases2009_v2; Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (U.S. 

EPA, 2006); facility contact (Wood, 2006); facility permit (DNREC, 2007a); and Method 1613: Tetra- Through 

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 Reviews demonstrated that wastewater discharge characteristics for this 
Section 8—Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 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 databases 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 of 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 pollutant minimization plan, 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 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). 

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—Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 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- Through 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-HQOW-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-HQOW-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—Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 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 2nd for DeLisle and EdgeMoor Facilities. 

(February 13). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2347. 
Section 9—Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420) 

9-1 

9. IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 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 Manufacturing Category. The U.S. Economic Census includes more facilities than the 

DMR toxicity rankings database: facilities may not meet TRI-reporting thresholds, facilities may 
Section 9—Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420) 

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 DMRa 2009 TRIb

Total Minor Major Total Indirect Direct Both

4,949 161 76 85 228 52 125 51

Sources: 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 

Manufacturing 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 420) 

9-3 

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

Subpart

Subcategory 

Title Subcategory Applicability

Regulated Pollutants

Ammonia as N Benzo(a)pyreneChromiumCyanideLeadNaphthaleneNickelOil and GreasepHPhenols (4AAP)TetrachloroethyleneTotal 

Residual 

ChlorineTotal Suspended SolidsZinc 2, 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 ironbearing 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 X 
Section 9—Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420) 

9-4 

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

Subpart

Subcategory 

Title Subcategory Applicability

Regulated Pollutants

Ammonia as N Benzo(a)pyreneChromiumCyanideLeadNaphthaleneNickelOil and GreasepHPhenols (4AAP)TetrachloroethyleneTotal 

Residual 

ChlorineTotal Suspended SolidsZinc 2, 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 of 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 X 
Section 9—Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420) 

9-5 

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

Subpart

Subcategory 

Title Subcategory Applicability

Regulated Pollutants

Ammonia as N Benzo(a)pyreneChromiumCyanideLeadNaphthaleneNickelOil and GreasepHPhenols (4AAP)TetrachloroethyleneTotal 

Residual 

ChlorineTotal Suspended SolidsZinc 2, 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 X 
Section 9—Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420) 

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 Reviews. The combined DMR and 

TRI TWPE has decreased 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb 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_v3; 

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 Reviews 

(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 DMR Pollutants

Pollutant

2009 DMR Dataa

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 122b 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 did 
Section 9—Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420) 

9-7 

not investigate the other top pollutants as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews because 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 cyanide 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 Location

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 dischargesa 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 plants 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. 

Table 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 NR
Section 9—Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420) 

9-8 

Table 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

Sources: 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 relatively 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 420) 

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 and 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 2009 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 further 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 of 
Section 9—Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420) 

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 dischargesa 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 condenser 

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

Sources: 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 chlorine 
Section 9—Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420) 

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 identified 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 facility 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 presents 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 dischargesa 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 chromium from 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; the 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 additional treatment for chromium to meet the latter’s 

discharge limits (Minda, 2011). Therefore, discharges from outfall 203 should be removed from 
Section 9—Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420) 

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 presents 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 dischargesa 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 from its outfall 003. 

Arcelormittal Weirton 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 determined 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 420) 

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 focused 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 dischargesa 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 from 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 420) 

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 this 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 Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa Inc. 

Nucor Steel in Tuscaaloosa, AL, discharges aluminum from its outfall 001. Outfall 001 

discharges “non-contact cooling water from melting, casting, rolling, and electrical substation 

operations and storm water associated with employee 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 420) 

9-15 

Table 9-17. Nucor Steel’s Outfall 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 river (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 discharges 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 chromium from 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 420) 

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 is 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 consistent 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 Weirton 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 420) 

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’ fluoride 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: Nucor 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 Chlorine 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 Aluminum Concentration and Flow Discharges. (August 2). EPA-HQ-OW-2010-

0824. DCN 07593. 
Section 9—Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420) 

9-18 

6. GCIP. 2002. General Chemical Industrial Products. Chapter 14 – Wastewater and Water 

Treatment. Available online at: http://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, Jennifer. 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 Group, 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 Wastewater 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. LANDFILLS (40 CFR PART 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb 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 Releases 2007 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 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 Dataa 2009 DMR Dataa

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

Vanadium 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 232b 191,000 NA 201b 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 Hill 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 pollutantsa 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 concentrations 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 Discharge 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 annual 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 calculate 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 

Quantitya (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 0.0519 0.107

30-Sep-09 315 0.315 0.0569 0.068

31-Oct-09 1,594 1.594 0.0654 0.395

30-Nov-09 654.3 0.654 0.02270 0.056

31-Dec-09 213.5 0.214 0.0306 0.025

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 pollutantsa 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 higher 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. EPA 
Section 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 compared 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 

reviews8 (U.S. EPA, 2009). 

Table 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. Similar 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 Detailed 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 

Pollutanta 

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%

2009b 122 0.85 8% 1.5%

Sources: DMR Loadings Tool; Method 200.7 Determination of Metals and Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively 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, 2009).

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 corrected 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 also 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 Landfills 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 23rd, which is outside the top 95 percent that EPA prioritized for 

preliminary review 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 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). 

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-OW2010-0824. DCN 07531. 

3. U.S. EPA. 1994. Method 200.7 Determination of Metals and Trace Elements in 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 Point Source Category: Final 

Detailed Study Report. EPA-821-R-008. Washington, DC. (October). EPA-HQ-OW2008-0517-0413. 

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. MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS (40 CFR PART 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 Meat 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 

Classification 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 and 
Section 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. 

Economic 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 status 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 waters 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 poultry 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 Na Total Nitrogena

Max 

Daily

(mg/L)

Max 

Monthly 

Average

(mg/L)

Max Daily

(mg/L)

Max 

Monthly 

Average

(mg/L)

Ab Simple 

Slaughterhouses

Process wastewater discharges 

resulting from production of meat 

carcasses by simple 

slaughterhouses.

8.0 4.0 194 134 

Bb Complex 

Slaughterhouses

Process wastewater discharges 

resulting from production of meat 

carcasses by complex 

slaughterhouses.

8.0 4.0 194 134 

Cb Low-processing 

Packinghouses

Process wastewater discharges 

resulting from production of meat 

carcasses by low-processing 

packinghouses.

8.0 4.0 194 134 

Db High-processing 

Packinghouses

Process wastewater discharges 

resulting from production of meat 

carcasses by high-processing 

packinghouses.

8.0 4.0 194 134 

Ec 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 

Gd 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 

Hd 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 4.0 194 134 
Section 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 Na Total Nitrogena

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 

Ke 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 

Lf 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 noted. 

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 does 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 Ammonia 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 2007 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb Total TWPE

2007 c 2009 35,900 536,000 572,000

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_v3; 

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 the 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 

(TRIReleases2009_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 

Annual 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 Dataa

Rank

Number of Facilities 

Reporting Pollutant TWPE

Nitrate compoundsb 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 173c 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.gov/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, NE B 4,990,000 3,730 7.94 %

Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Joslin IL Hillsdale, IL B 4,450,000 3,320 7.08 %

Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. Schuyler, NE B 3,850,000 2,870 6.12 %

Smithfield Packing, Co., Inc. Tar Heel Div Tar Heel, NC 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, NC Undetermined 3,260,000 2,440 5.19 %

Accomac Processing Plant Accomac, VA Undetermined 2,080,000 1,550 3.3 %

Farmland Foods, Inc. Crete, NE B 1,780,000 1,330 2.84 %

JBS Plainwell Plainwell, MI Undetermined 1,750,000 1,300 2.78 %

Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. Wyalusing, PA B 1,670,000 1,250 2.66 %

Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.

Columbus Junction, 

IA Undetermined 1,620,000 1,210 2.58 %

Tyson Foods, Inc., Blountsville Processing Plant Blountsville, AL Undetermined 1,490,000 1,110 2.37 %

Pilgrim’s Pride, Corp., Mt. Pleasant Complex Mount Pleasant, TX Undetermined 1,390,000 1,040 2.22 %

Remaining facilities reporting nitrate compounds dischargesa 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 approximately 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 nitrite 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 seasonal 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 nitrification. 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 flotation, 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, Inc. (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 discharges 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 sludge 

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 approximately 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 

guidance. 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 recognizes 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 batch 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 agricultural 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 

basins, 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 slaughterhouse 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 facility 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 concentrations 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 prioritized 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

The 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 nitrate 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 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 lower priority for Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)

Percent of Concentrations Greater than, Equal to, or Less than the Nitrate MCL

Nitrate Concentration

Nitrate MCL
Section 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. Available 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 Source 

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. METAL FINISHING (40 CFR PART 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 Metal 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).

The 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. 

Table 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 as 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 permitting 
Section 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 Finishing 

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 achievable (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. Applicability, 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 Printed 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 

amenable to 

alkaline 

chlorination 

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: cleaning, machining, grinding, polishing, tumbling, 

burnishing, impact deformation, pressure deformation, shearing, heat treating, thermal cutting, welding, brazing, 

soldering, flame spraying, sand blasting, other abrasive jet machining, electric discharge machining, 

electrochemical machining, electron beam machining, laser beam machining, plasma arc machining, ultrasonic 

machining, sintering, laminating, hot dip coating, sputtering, vapor plating, thermal infusion, salt bath descaling, 

solvent degreasing, paint stripping, painting, electrostatic painting, electropainting, vacuum metalizing, assembly, 

calibration, testing, and mechanical plating. 

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 above. 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) metallic platemaking and gravure cylinder preparation conducted within or for 

printing and publishing facilities or (2) existing 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 Through 

2011 Toxicity Rankings Analyses

Year of Discharge Year of Review

Metal Finishing Category

TRI TWPEa DMR TWPEb Total TWPE

2007c 2009 62,000 3,360,000 3,422,000

2008c 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_v3;

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 review, 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 Dataa

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 360b 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 Dischargesa 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 discharges of process wastewater (including water from associated activities) and 

stormwater to the Genesee River. Table 12-6 presents 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 concentrations, 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 silver 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 

estimating 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 Finishing 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. Accordingly, 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 Dischargesa 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 

concentrations 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 Cyanide 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-08 0 1.08

29-Feb-08 0 0.92

31-Mar-08 0.011 0.72

30-Apr-08 0.02 0.86

31-May-08 0.028 0.94

30-Jun-08 0 1.2

31-Jul-08 < 0.01 1.25

31-Aug-08 < 0.01 1.43

30-Sep-08 0.016 1.23

31-Oct-08 < 0.01 1.15

30-Nov-08 < 0.01 1.15

31-Dec-08 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

Sources: 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 accompanying 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 removal 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 not 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 PermitEnforceable 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 5.84
Section 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 PermitEnforceable 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 8.09

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 9.43

30-Nov-09 0 0.3 7.84

31-Dec-09 0 0.3 7.68

Sources: DMR Loadings Tool and Facility Fact Permit (NY DEC, 2003a).

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 

discharge 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 fluids 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 facility 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 facility 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 maximum 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 PCB1248 Average Monthly 

Concentration (μg/L)

Facility PermitEnforceable 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 0.376
Section 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 PCB1248 Average Monthly 

Concentration (μg/L)

Facility PermitEnforceable 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

Sources: 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

The estimated toxicity of the Metal Finishing Category discharges resulted from silver, 

cyanide, and PCB-1248 discharges. Using data 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 will 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 decreases 

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 call 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, 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). 

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-HQOW-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. 2009. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. NPDES 

Permit: Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824. DCN 

07537. 

5. NY DEC. 2010. 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. MINERAL MINING AND PROCESSING (40 CFR PART 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 TWPE 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb 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

Sources: 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 Dataa 2009 DMR Dataa

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 

Ammonia as N 3 28 11,100 pollutants.

Mineral Mining Category 

Total

NA 120b 100,000 NA 139b 80,100

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 

Reviews. 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 Category, 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 

TWPETable 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 

of 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/Milla Viburnum, MO 291 6,720 38%

Remaining facilities reporting cadmium dischargesb 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 discharges as part of the 2011 Annual Reviews (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 

Tool 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 130,000 3,900 25%

US Agri-Chemicals, Ft. Meade Fort Meade, FL 125,000 3,760 24%

Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Four Corners 

Mine Polk County, FL 48,200 1,450 9%

Feldspar Corp. Spruce Pine Facility Spruce Pine, NC 37,000 1,110 7%

South Fort Meade Mine Nichols, FL 36,900 1,110 7%

Remaining facilities reporting fluoride dischargesa 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 category 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 fluoride 
Section 13—Mineral Mining and Processing (40 CFR Part 436) 

13-5

discharges from the 2009 DMR Loadings Tool and their corresponding 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, the facility was working 

with the state to close the unlined pond. The facility’s 2004 NPDES permit also allows the 

facility to 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). 

Based on the facility’s permit and fact sheet, EPA believes that 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, reducing the 

category’s TWPE by 3,760. 

13.4.2 Feldspar Corporation Spruce Pine Facility 

The Feldspar Corporation (Feldspar) in Spruce Pine, 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, lime for pH adjustment, vacuum filters, and an Emico 

clarifier/thickener to outfall 001 (NCDENR, 2006). 

The facility discharges fluoride from outfall 001. Previously, the facility treated 

discharges from Unimin Corporation’s Crystal Operation, and the fluoride 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 daily maximum (NCDENR, 2006). The North 

Carolina Division of Water Quality permit writer for this facility confirmed that Unimin

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 for 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 calculated 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 River 
Section 13—Mineral Mining and Processing (40 CFR Part 436) 

13-6

based on facility 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 North 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 ensure 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 1.78

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 2.21

31-Oct-09 55.5 124 6.48 14.4 2.26

30-Nov-09 49.9 167 5.93 19.9 2.22

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 research 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 process 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 flows 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 31.38
Section 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

Sources: 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 activities 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 

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, 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 DMR 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 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)

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

Sources: 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 outfalls 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

Sources: 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 fine 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 stored 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 likely 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 fertilizer 
Section 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. Using 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 database. 

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 dischargesa 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 corrected 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 0.0035
Section 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 concludes 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 located 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 Category (40 CFR Part 418). EPA will reassign this facility to the 

correct category and will review its 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 systems. The FL DEP permit contact stated that 

fluoride discharges from these phosphate mines do not approach the state water 
Section 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 database 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 not 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 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). 

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 DEP. 2000. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. NPDES Permit: 

FL0037958—Cargill Fertilizer, Inc. South Fort Meade Mine, Fort Meade, FL. EPA-HQOW-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 

Treatment. 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://www.iconics.com/pdf/TS4752EUS.pdf. Date accessed: July 27, 2006. EPA-HQOW-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, Spruce 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-OW2010-0824. 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 accessed: July 27. EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-2604. 
Section 14—Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)

14-1

14. NONFERROUS METALS MANUFACTURING (40 CFR PART 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 2011 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, see 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 report (DMR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) databases increased from 

discharge 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb 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

Sources: 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 Databasea 2009 DMR Databasea

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 Pollutants not reported in the top five 

2009 DMR-reported pollutants.

NFMM Category Total NA 51b 463,000 NA 48b 174,000

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.

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 Facilities 

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 29,100 > 99%

Remaining facilities reporting mercurya 0.23 26.7 < 1%

Total 249 29,100 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009_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 

Program 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 facility’s 2008 
Section 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 Fluoride Discharging Facility 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: DMRLoads2009_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 MGD). 

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 application, 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 responsible 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. The CZO filter cake is then processed 
Section 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 generates 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 

clarification, 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 estimate 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 flow 

(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 data 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 at 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 Corporation 

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 58.9

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 41.0
Section 14—Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)

14-5

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

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 facilities 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. 

Accordingly, EPA focused its review on Buick Resource Recycling.

Table 14-6. NFMM Category Top Lead Discharging Facility 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 leada 1,360 3,050 13%

Total 10,800 24,300 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009_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, process 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 also 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 is 
Section 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 considers 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 Monthly 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 001a

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 C
Section 14—Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)

14-7

Table 14-7. 2009 Monthly 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

Sources: 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 percent 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 refocused 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 Smeltera, b Annapolis, MO 307 7,090 31%

Doe Run, Herculaneum 

Smelterb Herculaneum, MO

190 4,390 19%

Remaining facilities reporting cadmiumb 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 Annual Reviews (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 cadmium 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 Nyrstar’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. The 
Section 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 facility-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 Corporation 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 Facility 

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 molybdenuma 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 molybdenum from its outfalls 001 

and 002. Outfall 001 discharges process wastewater, cooling water, domestic sewage, and 

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 

decreases 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 massbased 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 NA
Section 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: DMRLoads2009_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 concentration 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 

toxicity rankings databases results 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 years. 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 facilityspecific 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 fluoride 
Section 14—Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421)

14-12

discharges from 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, Inc., 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 facility-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 

discharges from the NFMM Category to determine if the discharges 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 “(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/enUS/Default.aspx. Date accessed: August 11, 2011. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824. DCN 

07568. 

2. ERG. 2006. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Combined Metals Database. EPA-HQ-OW2010-0824. 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 Correspondence 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-OW2010-0824. DCN 07575. 

10. TN DEC. 2005. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. NPDES 

Permit Fact Sheet: Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc., Clarksville, Tennessee. (May 31). EPA-HQOW-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 the 
Section 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-HQOW-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-HQOW-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. Available 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 414) 

15-1

15. ORGANIC CHEMICALS, PLASTICS, AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS (40 CFR PART 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 Reviews 

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 further 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 is 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 Through 2011 

Toxicity Rankings Analysis 

Year of Discharge Year of Review

OCPSF Category

TRI TWPEa DMR TWPEb 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 compares the five.
Section 15—Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR Part 414) 

15-2

Table 15-2. OCPSF Category Top DMR Pollutants 

Pollutant

2008 DMR Dataa 2009 DMR Dataa

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 16,400

Fluoride 5 11 11,000

Nickel 3 68 59,500

Pollutants not reported in the top five 2009 DMR-reported 

pollutants. Copper 4 133 42,100

Fluoride 5 16 28,900

OCPSF Category Total NA 357b 512,000 NA 319b 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 414) 

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 dischargesa 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 guidelines, 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 using 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, 

2011) for details on the OCPSF ELGs.
Section 15—Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR Part 414) 

15-4

Table 15-4. 2009 DMR Hexachlorobenzene 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 414) 

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 Reviews. 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). Accordingly, 

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 

Nalco Company discharges hexachlorobenzene from outfall 001, a continuous discharge 

of treated process wastewater (LADEQ, 2009b). Table 15-6 presents the 2009 DMR 

hexachlorobenzene 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 414) 

15-6

Table 15-6. 2009 DMR Hexachlorobenzene Discharges 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 414) 

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 2011 Annual Reviews 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 from 

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., Chevron 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 hexachlorobenzene 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 the 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 errors 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 414) 

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: Daikin 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 Plant, 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-HQOW-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. Washington, 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-HQOW-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-HQOW-2008-0517-0515. 
Section 15—Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR Part 414) 

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 435) 

 16-1

16. OIL & GAS EXTRACTION (40 CFR PART 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 rankings. 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 Oil and Gas Category as 

part of the CBM effluent guidelines rulemaking. Also announced in the Final 2010 ELG 

Program Plan, EPA initiated 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 delist 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 rulemakings for the CBM and shale gas extraction segments of the Oil and Gas

Category were, or are, currently under consideration, EPA excluded discharges from these 

facilities from further consideration in 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 and 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb Total TWPE

2002 2006 700 1.18 701

2004 2007 596 17.8 614

2005 2008 802 NA NA
Section 16—Oil & Gas Extraction (40 CFR Part 435) 

 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb 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 435) 

 16-3

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

Pollutant

2008 DMR Databasea 2009 DMR Databasea

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 52b 189,000 NA 63b 238,000

Sources: DMRLoads2008_v3 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 435) 

 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 435) 

 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 

2009 DMR TWPE

Pounds of 

Sulfide 

Discharged

Sulfide 

TWPE

Percentage of Oil and 

Gas Category Sulfide 

2009 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%

Sources: DMRLoads2008_v2 and DMRLoads2009_v2. 
Section 16—Oil & Gas Extraction (40 CFR Part 435) 

 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 Reviews. 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 that 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 does not mean that discharges from other facilities in the 

category would 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 contact 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 of 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 Reviews demonstrated that 
Section 16—Oil & Gas Extraction (40 CFR Part 435) 

 16-7

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: 

• 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 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). 

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-HQOW-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. ORE MINING AND DRESSING (40 CFR PART 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 Reviews (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 Reviews 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 account 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb Total TWPE

2002 2006 77,600 410,000 488,000

2004 2007 88,000 581,000 669,000

2005 2008 76,700 NA NA

2007 2009 39,400 184,000 223,000

2008 2010 109,000 339,000 448,000

2009 2011 68,900 139,000 208,000

Sources: 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 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.

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 

Major Minor All DMR Data

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

Othersa 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 study, 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 category’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 Databasesa 

Facility Name Facility Location Mine Typeb 

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 

dischargesc 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 major 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. 
Section 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 Reviews demonstrated that wastewater discharge 

characteristics for this category are consistent with discharges from the 2010 preliminary study. 

Using data collected 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 are 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 

Plan. 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-HQOW-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-HQOW-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. 
Section 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. PESTICIDE CHEMICALS (40 CFR PART 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 report (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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb Total TWPE

2002 2006 554,000 50,300 605,000

2004 2007 518,000 102,000 621,000

2005 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 Category 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

2008 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 TRIreported 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 TRIreported pollutants. Dinitrobutyl phenol 3 3 3,370

Pesticide Chemicals Category Total NA 73a 35,500 NA 62a 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 database. 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. TRI 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

2010a 0.000765 26.0

Sources: 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 Reviews, EPA contacted GB Biosciences about its PCB 

discharge in the 2009 TRI. The facility contact identified a reporting error: the 0.382 pounds 

reported to TRI should have been reported as 0.382 grams. 

In addition, the 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 concentrations 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 wastewater. 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. Because all of the 

 

11 TCEQ began developing the TMDL for PCBs as a result 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 category 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. Additionally, 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 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). 

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 2005 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). EPA-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-HQOW-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. PETROLEUM REFINING (40 CFR PART 419) 

EPA selected the 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 in 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 from 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb Total TWPE

2004 2007 669,000 819,000 1,490,000

2005 2008 628,000 NA NA

2007 2009 172,000 403,000 575,000

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 Pollutants 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

2008a 2009a

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 298b 410,000 NA 280b 436,000

Sources: 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.

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 248a 680,000 NA 249a 295,000

Sources: DMRLoads2008_v3 and DMRLoads2009_v2. 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 the 
Section 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 discharges 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

Sources: 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 discharges. 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 Francisco 

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 Preliminary 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 Resultsa

Dioxin Congener TWF

Chevron Richmond Tosco Avon Tosco Rodeob

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 Petroleum 

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 consistent.

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

Sources: 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 dischargesa 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 (S2-). The dianion S2- 

exists only in strongly alkaline aqueous solutions. Such solutions can form by dissolution of H2S 

or alkali metals such as lithium sulfide, sodium sulfide, and potassium sulfide in the presence of 

excess hydroxide ions. The ion S2− is exceptionally basic, with an acid dissociation constant 

(pKa) 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 H2S ion. At 

still lower pH values (<7), HS−

 converts to H2S, as shown by the equation below. At a pH of 5, 

nearly 100 percent of sulfide is present as H2S.

H2S  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 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 (H2S), an extremely toxic, odiferous, and corrosive 

gas. Minute concentrations (2 micrograms per liter) of H2S 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 system 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 

Biological 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 influent 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, 

eliminates sulfide in the wastewater effluent.

19.5.3 Aeration and Air Stripping 

Aeration is a common method for removal of dissolved gasses such as H2S. 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 concentration 

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 H2S is 468 at 20o

C, which indicates that sulfide must first be converted to H2S 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 classified 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 H2S is not destroyed, but is instead 

transferred to an air emission (Briggs, 2011). 

19.5.4 Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation 

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) 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 predominately 
Section 19—Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)

19-8 

elemental sulfur, which appears as a yellow colloid (if H2O2 is underdosed) or a white colloid 

(with complete oxidation). Colloidal elemental sulfur can be removed from the wastewater 

following H2O2 oxidation by flocculation with an anionic polymer and filtration. The reaction 

below shows the oxidation of H2S to elemental sulfur under neutral or slightly acid conditions 

(Briggs, 2011). 

H2S + H2O2  S0 + H2O (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 

H2S can be removed from wastewater (Briggs, 2011). Under alkaline conditions (pH > 9.2), 

sulfide is converted to sulfate by H2O2 as shown by the reaction below. 

S2- + 4H2O2  SO4

2- + 4H2O H2O (Eq. 19-3) 

It is not unusual for system efficiencies to approach 100 percent, provided that the H2O2

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 H2O2 at alkaline pH. Consequently, as 

the pH increases above 9 or 10, there is generally little benefit 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’s 
Section 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 dischargesa 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 

the 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 chlorine 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 refinery raw 
Section 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 discharges 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. 

Table 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 production 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

Sources: 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 

Metalsa 

Number of Facilities 

Reporting Non-Zero 

TWPE

Total 

Metal 

TWPE

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Metalsa 

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

Total 104 77 30,100 253 117 66, 300

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 

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

Facility Name Location

Total Metal 

TWPE

AluminumArsenicChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSeleniumVanadiumZinc

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 concentrations in the 2012 planning year. 

19.8 Petroleum Refining Category Conclusions

EPA’s estimate of the toxicity of Petroleum Refining Category discharges is largely due 

to 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 the 
Section 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 priority 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.

• Petroleum 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 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). 

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—Resulting From Two-State 

Biological Leachate Treatability Testing. Water Environment Foundation. EPA-HQ-OW2010-0824. 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. 2011. 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-delawarecityidUSWEN466320110623?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 Category. 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-HQOW-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-HQOW-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 

Delaware City Refinery to Strengthen Financial Position. (November 20). Available 

online at: http://www.valero.com/NewsRoom/Pages/PR_20091120_0.aspx. EPA-HQOW-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 of 

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 

Products 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

Chevron 

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 M
Section 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 of 

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 O
Section 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 of 

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

Sources: 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 (monitoring data/measurements); M2 (periodic monitoring data/measurements); C (mass balance 

calculations); E (published emission factors); and O (other approaches, such as engineering calculations).
Section 19—Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)

19-17 

Table 19-16. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries 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 O 
Section 19—Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)

19-18 

Table 19-16. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries 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 NR
Section 19—Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)

19-19 

Table 19-16. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries 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 NR
Section 19—Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)

19-20 

Table 19-16. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries 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

Sources: TRIReleases2009_v2; TRIReleases2008_v3; TRIReleases2007_v2; TRIReleases2005_v2; and TRIReleases2004_v3.

NR: not reported.

Refineries reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M (monitoring data/measurements); M1 (constant monitory data/measurements); M2 (periodic monitoring 

data/measurements); C (mass balance calculations); 

E (published emission factors); E1 (published emission factors); E2 (site-specific emission factors); and O (other approaches, such as engineering 

calculations). 
Section 20—Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)

20-1 

20. PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD (40 CFR PART 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 part of the Preliminary and Final Effluent Guidelines Program 

Plans 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 TWPEa DMR TWPEb Total

2004 2007 669,000 165,000 833,000

2007 2009 460,000c 2,730,000 3,190,000d

2008 2010 523,000 348,000 871,000

2009 2011 956,000 287,000 1,240,000

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 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 dioxinlike 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 because 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 manganese 

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

2008a 2009a

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 250b 523,000 NA 250b 956,000

Sources: 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 158a 348,000 NA 157a 287,000

Sources: 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-like compounds, manganese and 
Section 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 Discharges 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 reporting 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 dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. EPA used the 

actual distribution 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) SARA 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

Sources: 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 facilitiesa 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: 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 

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-tetrachlorodibenzo-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 2006 2005

Pounds released 0.005 0.004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003

TWPE 229,000 243 207 218 276

Sources: 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

2008 

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: 

• Boise 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 factors 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, AL, 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 estimates 3.6 grams 
Section 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

KimberlyClarkEverett, 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

GeorgiaPacific, 

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

GeorgiaPacific Crossett, AR 5.09 8,990 Confirmed data Based on NCASI release 

factors

No change since the Pulp and 

Paper Detailed Study
Section 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

GeorgiaPacific 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 

system
Section 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

Sources: 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 Reviews, 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 chlorination (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 facilities contacted, none changed their 

bleaching processes 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

Sources: 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 dischargesa 4,040 11,300 8%

Total 52,400 147,000 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009_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 (H2S), an extremely toxic, odiferous, and corrosive 

gas. Minute concentrations (2 micrograms per liter) of H2S 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 (S2-). The dianion S2- 

exists only in strongly alkaline aqueous solutions. Such solutions can form by dissolution of H2S 

or alkali metals such as lithium sulfide, sodium sulfide, and potassium sulfide in the presence of 

excess hydroxide ions. The ion S2− is exceptionally basic, with an acid dissociation constant 

(pKa) 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 H2S ion. At 
Section 20—Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)

20-12 

still lower pH values (<7), HS− converts to H2S, as shown by the equation below. At a pH of 5, 

nearly 100 percent of sulfide is present as H2S.

H2S  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 cations react with sulfides to precipitate solid metal 

sulfide salts. The metal sulfide salts typically have very low solubility in water.

Table 20-11 presents available 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 biologically 

oxidized to sulfate. 

Aeration and air stripping Up to 100 

percent sulfide 

removal

Aeration involves removal of dissolved gasses such as H2S 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 H2S 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 (H2O2) addition, depending on 

the pH of the wastewater. It can approach 100% efficiency if H2O2

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 

water. 

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 pulping 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 wastewater 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, the 

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-09 <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 dischargers 

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 dischargesa 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-09 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 31 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 determined 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’s 
Section 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. EPA 

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. The 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, TX, accounts for 57 percent of the 

aluminum DMR TWPE. After correcting an error, the TWPE for this facility 
Section 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 technologies 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 Source 

Standards 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-HQOW-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-HQOW-2008-0517-0515 

14. U.S. EPA. 2009b. Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing 

Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories. EPA821-R-09-007. Washington, DC. (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517-0515 

15. 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. 

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 of 

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-

SMPSN801PO

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-

SCTTP2600F

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-

SDWRRRFD3U

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-

TTRYNFOOTO

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-

BWTRSROUTE

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-

PTLTC805MI

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-

BSCSCPOBOX

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-

NNCMPHIGHW

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-

GRGPCPAPER

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-

JMSRVROUTE

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-

DSHWMMARIN

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-

NTRNTFAIRF

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-

PRCTRROUTE

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 C
Section 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 of 

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-

BSCSC307WE

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-

GLFSTHIGHW

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-

FDRLPRIEGE

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-

PTLTCHIGHW

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-

WYRHSSTREE

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-

GRGPCSTATE

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-

WYRHSTROWB

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-

NTRNTPOBOX

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-

CHMPN375MU

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-

MDPPRPOBOX

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-

BCKYCROUTE

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-

PRCTRPOBOX

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 O
Section 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 of 

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-

BRNSW14W9T

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-

NTRNTKAMIN

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-

TTRYNSAVAN

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-

BSSTHUSHIG

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

3676WNTRNT76HIGInternational 

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-

MDPBLCOUNT

Escanaba Paper 

Co. 

Escanaba, MI 0.890943 85 M2 5.612 81 M2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

54308-

THPRC501EA

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-

PHGLT228SO

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-

NTRNTSHORE

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-

CNTNRHIGHW

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-

PPTLBMAINS

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-

BWTRC5300C

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-

STNCN1BONN

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 E
Section 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 of 

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-

NNCMPROUTE

International 

Paper

Eastover, SC 0.119 2 M2 0.1077 193 M2 NR NR NR 0.183 328 O 0.16 282 O

54474-

WYRHS200GR

Weyerhaeuser Rothschild, 

WI

0.063972 1 M2 0.0633 114 M2 NR NR NR 0.042 75 M 0.048 86 M

98607-

JMSRVNE4TH

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-

GRGPCZACHA

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-

BCKYCOLDST

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-

MRCLP1MARK

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-

WRGRC803NO

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-

STNCN1EVER

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-

THPRC501EA

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-

THPRCUSROU

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-

BLNDN115SW

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-

PRCTR800NO

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-

STNHP910IN

Smurfit-Stone 

Container Corp

Hopewell, 

VA

0.000045 1.239 C NR NR NR 0.221 397 C 0.21 378 O NR NR NR
Section 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 of 

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-

PTLTCNORTH

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-

PRCTRPOBOX

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

Sources: 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 (monitoring data/measurements), M2 (periodic monitoring data/measurements), C (mass balance 

calculations), E (published emission factors), and O (other approaches, such as engineering calculation).
Section 21—Timber Products Processing (40 CFR Part 429)

21-1

21. TIMBER PRODUCTS PROCESSING (40 CFR PART 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 Products 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 databases 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 Through 

2011 Toxicity Rankings Analysis 

Year of Discharge Year of Review

Timber Products Category

TRI TWPEa DMR TWPEb 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 Reviews (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

2008 DMR Dataa 2009 DMR Dataa

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 

databases (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

2008 TRI Dataa 2009 TRI Dataa

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 2009

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

2008 TRI Dataa 2009 TRI Dataa

Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE Rank

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant TWPE

Timber Processing 

Category Total

NA 122b 27,300 NA 101b 29,700

Sources: 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 Categorya 561 353 <1%

Total 127,000 79,800 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009_v2. a There 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 the 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 TWPE 

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 groundwater 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-like 

compound discharging facilities. Table 21-6 presents the timber products facilities with dioxin 

and dioxin-like compound discharges in the 2009 TRI database and the 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 discharges. 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 

Releaseda 

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 

Releaseda 

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

Sources: TRIReleases2009_v2, the Pentachlorophenol Task Force letter (Wilkinson, 2011), 2011 Timber Data Review and Revised Calculations, (ERG, 2011). a

 Discharges 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 

decreased 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). With 

these 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 to 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 compound 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 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 and the environment, measured as 

TWPE. Based 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. Wilkinson, 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—Textile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)

22-1 

22. TEXTILE MILLS (40 CFR PART 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 Reviews. 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 2006 Through 2011 

Toxicity Rankings Analysis

Year of Discharge Year of Review

Textiles Category

TRI TWPEa DMR TWPEb 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

Sources: 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 with 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—Textile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)

22-2 

Table 22-2. Textiles Category Top DMR Pollutants 

Pollutant

2008a 2009a

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 77b 247,000 NA 56b 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—Textile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)

22-3 

22.3 Textiles Category Sulfide Discharges in DMR

Table 22-3 presents the top sulfide dischargers in the 2009 DMR database. The majority 

(61 percent) of the sulfide discharges were from the top two discharging 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 Categorya 5,120 13,500 39.2%

Total 12,600 34,500 100%

Source: DMRLoads2009_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 (S2-). The dianion S2- 

exists only in strongly alkaline aqueous solutions. Such solutions can form by dissolution of H2S 

or alkali metals such as lithium sulfide, sodium sulfide, and potassium sulfide in the presence of 

excess hydroxide ions. The ion S2− is exceptionally basic with an acid dissociation constant (pKa) 

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 H2S ion. At 

still lower pH values (<7), HS−

 converts to H2S, as shown by the equation below. At a pH of 5, 

nearly 100 percent of sulfide is present as H2S.

H2S  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-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.

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.

Sulfides discharged to neutral receiving waters can be reduced to hydrogen disulfide 

(H2S), an extremely toxic, odiferous, and corrosive gas. Minute concentrations (2 μg/L) of H2S 

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 concentrations 
Section 22—Textile 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 biologically 

oxidized to sulfate. 

Aeration and air stripping Up to 100 

percent sulfide 

removal

Aeration involves removal of dissolved gasses such as H2S 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 H2S 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 (H2O2) addition, depending on 

the pH of the wastewater. It can approach 100% efficiency if H2O2

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 

water. 

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. All of Mohawk 

Industries’ sulfide discharges are from its outfall 0A1. Table 22-5 presents the sulfide 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 contacted 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—Textile 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 (H2S). 

As part of the 2011 review, EPA contacted the facility 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 standard 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—Textile 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 1.26

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—Textile 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 presents 

the 2009 sulfide discharge data 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 (H2S). 

As part of the 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—Textile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)

22-8

22.4 Textiles Category Conclusions

The estimated toxicity of the Textiles Category discharges result mainly from sulfide 

discharges from two facilities. 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 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 H2S 

is discharged to the atmosphere. Hydrogen peroxide oxidation and biological 

treatment are two efficient treatment technologies. Hydrogen peroxide 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 treatment 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 the 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 health 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 2012 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, Eastern 
Section 22—Textile Mills (40 CFR Part 410)

22-9

Research Group, Inc., Re: 2009 DMR Sulfide Discharges. (September 6). EPA-HQ-OW2010-0824. 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-HQOW-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.