1

TO: Stephen DeVito, USEPA

FROM: Erik Edgar, Peter Mellott, and Susan Day

DATE: April 7, 2015

RE: Analysis of API and AFPM Comments on Dioxin Discharges from Refineries Relating to 

CWA Effluent Guideline Screening 

TRIPD requested that Abt Associates investigate the extent to which petroleum refining facilities (i.e., 

facilities classified in NAICS 324110: Petroleum Refineries) estimated or measured the quantities of 

dioxin and dioxin-like compounds (hereafter referred to as dioxin) that they reported to EPA’s TRI 

Program for each of the four most recent reporting years (RY2010 – 2013). The results of this analysis 

will assist the Agency in responding to comments from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) regarding the use of TRI data in the development 

of effluent guidelines under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for petroleum refineries. Key findings include:

 The TRI and DMR discharge data cited by API and AFPM, including toxic-weighted pound 

equivalent (TWPE), come from EPA’s 2012 and 2013 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review 

Reports.1

 Over the period of analysis, 57% of dioxin wastewater discharges reported to TRI (Form R 

Section 5.3) are derived from monitoring data, 34% are derived from other/engineering 

estimates, and less than 10% are from emission factors or mass balance calculations.2

 It appears that five facilities obtained ‘non-detect’ monitoring results for dioxin yet did not use 

1⁄2 detection limit to estimate discharge quantities (i.e., reported zero dioxin discharged with a 

monitoring basis of estimate). 

 To explore the possibility that TRI-reporting facilities routinely report estimates based on 1⁄2 the 

detection limit when using monitoring data, we identified TRI discharges (based on monitoring 

data) where reported dioxin congener quantities have small, repeating values. We identified 

five facilities that may be reporting data using the 1⁄2 detection limit guidance, suggesting that

roughly 20% of facilities reporting dioxin discharges and 2.4% of total dioxin discharges may be

using data derived from 1⁄2 detection limit estimates. 

In the following sections, we summarize the comments received from API and AFPM regarding the 

effluent guideline rulemakings (Section 1), present dioxin reporting from RY2010-2013 including basis of 

 

1 2012 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/304m/upload/2012-

Annual-Effluent-Guidelines-Review-Report.pdf

2013 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report:http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/304m/upload/2013-

Annual-Effluent-Guidelines-Review-Report.pdf

2 Analysis used the TRI RY2013 National Analysis dataset.
2

estimate codes (Section 2), and evaluate the prevalence of showing estimates based on monitoring data 

as 1⁄2 detection limit values (Section 3).

1. Background

EPA uses a combination of TRI and discharge monitoring report (DMR) data to evaluate target sectors 

and chemicals for purposes of developing new or revising existing effluent guidelines. Specifically, EPA 

uses a toxicity ranking analysis (TRA) that combines DMR and TRI data to rank industrial discharge 

categories by a toxic-weighted pound equivalent (TWPE) released.3 TWPE is calculated in a similar 

manner as the toxic equivalent (TEQ) calculated by the TRI program by multiplying the total quantity 

discharged by the chemical’s toxic weight factor (TWF) for each of the 17 dioxin congeners and then 

aggregated. The Water Office calculates TWFs using a combination of Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEF; 

from TRI), as well as bioaccumulation factors, aquatic life value and human health value. During the 

2011 Annual Review, dioxin discharges from petroleum refineries were identified as point sources

warranting further review. 

The 2014 plan indicates that EPA intends to initiate a detailed study of petroleum refineries to:

 determine whether dioxin is present at concentrations above the EPA Method 1613B Minimum 

Level (ML)4in waste water discharges, and 

 identify the specific source of the discharge (e.g., stormwater or process wastewater from 

catalytic reforming and catalyst regeneration operations). 

In their comments, API claims that the use of TRI and DMR dioxin data in screening for evaluation of 

target sectors and chemicals are inappropriate because, in the opinion of API:

1. Dioxin discharge data in TRI include ‘many estimates’ in lieu of monitoring data. API specifically 

notes EPA’s finding that one facility accounts for 65% of the TRI-derived TWP[E], and notes that

the discharge is from estimates based on the number of reformer catalyst regenerations and 

not on direct monitoring data. AFPM further notes this facility is currently closed. 5

2. Concern exists that dioxin monitoring data are incorrectly used. API specifically noted EPA’s 

comment that, based on 2010 DMR data, only one refinery reported discharging dioxin at 

concentrations above the EPA Method 1613B minimum level.

3. The DMR data for the aforementioned facility indicate that the dioxin source was aerial

deposition rather than discharge of process wastewater.

AFPM’s comments echo API’s concerns and also claim:

4. In the 2012 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report,

6 EPA presents TRI and DMR discharge 

data. AFPM indicates the TWPE is decreasing over 2004-2009. 

 

3 Toxic Weighting Factors are defined in EPA’s Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology: 

http://www.noticeandcomment.com/Toxic-Weighting-Factors-Methodology-DCN-07501-fn-56898.aspx

4 EPA Method 1613B is the standard method for monitoring dioxin in waste water, and is expected to have ML in 

the low parts per quadrillion (~ 10 ppq; 10 x 10-12).

5 Although the refinery’s identity is not explicitly stated in the AFPM comments or EPA’s documentation, it is clear 

that these discharges were from HOVENSA LLC (00851HSSLVLIMET), which was idled in early 2012 and now 

acts as a storage terminal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovensa) and did not report dioxin in RY 2013.

6 2012 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/304m/upload/2012-

Annual-Effluent-Guidelines-Review-Report.pdf
3

5. The methodology for calculating TWPE is unclear and the TWPE calculations could not be 

understood.

6. TRI is not a good source of data to gauge current discharge species and/or quantities, 

particularly for dioxin given that EPA guidance instructs the facility to report half the detection 

limit, while in fact the vast majority of DMR-related tests come back “non-detect.” For this 

reason, TRI quantities do not represent actual discharges, and therefore cannot be used for 

regulatory purposes. 7

2. TRI Dioxin Data Summary

This section provides a summary of dioxin reporting from NAICS 324110: Petroleum Refining, including a 

breakdown of basis of estimate codes. Table 1 summarizes reporting for the 17 - 22 petroleum 

refineries reporting dioxin containing wastewater discharges to TRI per year. Of these reporters, the vast 

majority have submitted speciated congener data using a Form R Schedule 1. Facilities submitting 

speciated congener data on a Form R Schedule 1 also have a weighted toxic equivalency (TEQ) value 

associated with the discharge based on the relative toxicity of the individual dioxin congeners. For the 

limited number of discharges reported without speciated congeners (i.e., no Schedule 1), TEQ values are

not calculated. Additionally, between 14 and 22 petroleum refineries reported annual wastewater 

discharges containing zero dioxin (data not shown) and between 33 and 40 facilities reporting dioxin 

annually reported that dioxin wastewater discharges were ‘not applicable’ (data not shown). Also of 

note, no dioxin discharges were reported to be as a result of stormwater runoff. 

Table 1: Summary of TRI Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Waste 

Water Discharges, Facility Count in Parenthesis

Reporting 

Year Total Releases Schedule 1 TEQ No Schedule 1

2010 3.921 g (18) 3.92 g (17) 0.2091 g (17) 0.001 g (1)

2011 4.961 g (22) 4.6 g (19) 0.2642 g (19) 0.36 g (3)

2012 5.374 g (20) 5.371 g (18) 0.2721 g (18) 0.003 g (2)

2013 3.88 g (17) 3.878 g (15) 0.1962 g (15) 0.002 g (2)

1Dioxin data submitted without speciated data on a Schedule 1 does not have a TEQ 

value assigned.

Releases by basis of estimate (BOE) code are summarized in Table 2, with discharge counts representing 

only non-zero release quantities (i.e., excluding ‘NA’ and ‘zero’). These data show that M2: ‘Periodic or 

Random Monitoring’ accounts for the majority (57.3%) of dioxin discharge quantities reported over the 

period of analysis, and that estimated quantities represent 42.7% (i.e., BOE codes ‘O: Other’8, ‘C: Mass 

Balance,’ and ‘E2: On-Site Specific Emission Factors,’ ‘E1: Published Emission Factors’).

 

7 1998 EPCRA 313 Question and Answer Document, Question 497

8 Although not directly available from TRI, the ‘O’ BOE code likely refers to estimates of dioxin discharges that are 

generated from catalytic crackers or other high temperature operations, based on the Final 2012 and Preliminary 

2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans. 
4

Table 2: TRI Dioxin Discharges Summarized by Basis of Estimate Code, Facilities Count in 

Parenthesis

Reporting 

Year

M2:

Periodic or 

Random 

Monitoring

O:

Other or 

Engineering 

Calculations

C:

Mass 

Balance

E2:

On-Site 

Specific 

Emission 

Factors

E1:

Published 

Emission 

Factors

M1:

Continuous 

Monitoring Total

2010 1.892 g (8) 1.543 g (6) 0.385 g (2) (0) 0.101 g (2) (0) 3.921 g (18)

2011 2.412 g (11) 2.184 g (8) 0.363 g (2) (0) 0.001 g (1) (0) 4.961 g (22)

2012 3.033 g (9) 1.958 g (8) (0) 0.218 g (1) 0.165 g (2) (0) 5.374 g (20)

2013 3.059 g (10) 0.402 g (4) 0.208 g (1) 0.209 g (1) 0.002 g (1) (0) 3.88 g (17)

2010-2013 

% Total 57.3% 33.6% 5.3% 2.3% 1.5% 0.0% 100%

Facilities reporting zero (‘0’) or not applicable (‘NA’) for dioxin discharges are summarized in Table 3. Of 

the 68-73 refineries annually reporting dioxin and dioxin like-compounds, 54-56 report no dioxin 

discharge by indicating either zero discharge or not applicable. Over the period of analysis, ‘zero’ dioxin 

discharge was reported 70 times: 56 using BOE code ‘O’; 10 using ‘M2’; and 4 using ‘C’. This reporting 

indicates that five facilities obtained ‘non-detect’ monitoring results for dioxin and did not use 1⁄2 

detection limit to estimate discharge quantities.9 There is also a set of 33-40 facilities that reported not 

applicable or ‘NA’ for dioxin wastewater discharges annually. Note that five facilities reported a dioxin 

discharge to one receiving waterbody and a ‘zero’ dioxin discharge to a separate receiving waterbody in 

one or more years. No facilities reported positive dioxin discharges to multiple receiving waterbodies.

Table 3: Facilities Reporting Zero or Not Applicable for Dioxin Discharges

Reporting 

Year

M2:

Periodic or 

Random 

Monitoring

O:

Other or 

Engineering 

Calculations

C:

Mass 

Balance

E2:

On-Site 

Specific 

Emission 

Factors

E1:

Published 

Emission 

Factors

M1:

Continuous 

Monitoring

Not 

Applicable Total

2010 3 18 1 0 0 0 33 55

2011 2 15 1 0 0 0 38 56

2012 3 12 1 0 0 0 40 56

2013 2 11 1 0 0 0 40 54

2010-2013 

Total 10 56 4 0 0 0 151 221

3. TRI Form Data Analysis

TRI data do not provide actual monitoring results, and as such, we cannot determine directly which

facilities have obtained ‘no-detect’ results for their dioxin discharges. Therefore, we cannot directly 

determine which facilities reported zero following relevant TRI guidance. Specifically, Question 472 in 

the 1998 Q&A10 states:

 

9 The facilities with zero dioxin discharge and monitoring basis of estimate are: 43616SHLCM4001C (RY 2012); 

62084SHLLLRTE11 (RY 2012, 2013); 94553SHLLL3485P (RY 2010); 94553TSCCRAVONR (RY 2010, 2011); 

and 98248MBLLC3901U (RY 2010-2013).

10 EPCRA Section 313 Questions and Answers, Revised 1998 Version: 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/1998qa.pdf
5

“If a covered facility has analytical data indicating the concentration of a Section 313 chemical is 

below the limits of detection and the facility has no information on the probability of the 

chemical being present in that wastestream (e.g., Superfund waste), should the facility use half 

the detection limit? What documentation will EPA require if the facility asserts that it had no 

basis for expecting the Section 313 chemical to be present?

If the facility has no information to indicate that the chemical exists in the wastestream, it may 

assume that the concentration is zero. If the facility has reason to believe that the listed toxic 

chemical is present, it may use half of the detection limit. The facility should document that it 

looked at all readily available data in making this determination.”

Likewise, we cannot determine directly which facilities have obtained ‘no-detect’ results for their dioxin 

discharges and have estimated discharge at half the detection limit. However, we performed an analysis 

to test the possibility that dioxin discharges estimated using monitoring data are based on half the 

detection limit. First, we hypothesized that facilities reporting repeated, non-zero, small values for 

multiple dioxin congeners using monitoring data may be basing their data on 1⁄2 detection limit 

estimates. In support of this hypothesis, the assumption is made that detection limits are identical 

between congeners. We then checked for repeating, non-zero values for dioxin congeners using BOE 

code ‘M2’ in reported wastewater discharges. We identified 16 such discharge reports from five facilities

over the period of analysis, separate from the facilities identified as reporting ‘zero’ dioxin discharge 

with a monitoring basis of estimate. As shown in Table 4: identical dioxin congeners quantities across

discharges reported by the five facilities are highlighted. Note that some reports have multiple sets of 

congeners with identical quantities, such as TRIFID 62454MRTHNMARAT which has four matching sets, 

identified using four different colors. While such results do not prove that the quantity is estimated 

using a 1⁄2 detection limit value as a basis, we suspect this may have occurred at these five facilities.

These repeating congeners total 0.432 grams from 2010-2013, representing 4.1% of M2 discharges and 

2.4% of all discharges over the period of analysis, which represents a small portion of total dioxin 

reporting.
6

Table 4: Dioxin Discharges with Repeating, Non-Zero Values for Congeners (repeating values for each facility-year are highlighted)

TRIFID

Reporting 

Year

BOE 

Code

Total Discharge 

(g) TEQ (g) DC 1 DC 2 DC 3 DC 4 DC 5 DC 6 DC 7 DC 8 DC 9 DC 10 DC 11 DC 12 DC 13 DC 14 DC 15 DC 16 DC 17

59101CNCBL401SO 2010 M2 0.07 0.0097756 0.0014 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.011 0.0013 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.0077

59101CNCBL401SO 2011 M2 0.12 0.0165375 0.0023 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0185 0.0022 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.013

59101CNCBL401SO 2012 M2 0.12 0.0152967 0.0021 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.0171 0.0021 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.012

59101CNCBL401SO 2013 M2 0.13 0.0172658 0.0024 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0193 0.0023 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0071 0.0135

62454MRTHNMARAT 2010 M2 0.0404 0.0077424 0.00265 0.00181 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 0.00145 0.00134 0.01395 0.00319 0.00319 0.00121 0.00121 0.00121 0.00121 0.00146 0.00146 0.002

62454MRTHNMARAT 2011 M2 0.0404 0.0077424 0.00265 0.00181 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 0.00145 0.00134 0.01395 0.00319 0.00319 0.00121 0.00121 0.00121 0.00121 0.00146 0.00146 0.002

62454MRTHNMARAT 2012 M2 0.0404 0.0077424 0.00265 0.00181 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 0.00145 0.00134 0.01395 0.00319 0.00319 0.00121 0.00121 0.00121 0.00121 0.00146 0.00146 0.002

62454MRTHNMARAT 2013 M2 0.0404 0.0077424 0.00265 0.00181 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 0.00145 0.00134 0.01395 0.00319 0.00319 0.00121 0.00121 0.00121 0.00121 0.00146 0.00146 0.002

94572NCLSNOLDHI 2013 M2 0.103 0.010536 0.00095 0.00451 0.00453 0.00463 0.00453 0.00469 0.02518 0.00093 0.00449 0.00509 0.00449 0.00449 0.00454 0.0045 0.00452 0.00458 0.0163

94802CHVRN841ST 2010 M2 0.26 0.0094422 0.0026 0.0024 0.0029 0.0027 0.0029 0.0237 0.1659 0.0015 0.0025 0.0069 0.0018 0.0019 0.0029 0.0016 0.0147 0.0038 0.018

94802CHVRN841ST 2012 M2 0.0802 0.0123296 0.0039 0.0041 0.0043 0.0061 0.0062 0.0109 0.0095 0.004 0.0028 0.0027 0.0026 0.0025 0.0039 0.0028 0.0037 0.0045 0.0057

94802CHVRN841ST 2013 M2 0.1854 0.0112191 0.0036 0.0037 0.005 0.0034 0.0032 0.0175 0.1011 0.0013 0.0025 0.0025 0.0055 0.0028 0.0031 0.0031 0.0109 0.0036 0.0126

98221SHLLLWESTM 2010 M2 0.36 0.007569 0 0 0 0 0 0.028 0.174 0 0.001 0.001 0.043 0.007 0.014 0.001 0.032 0.007 0.056

98221SHLLLWESTM 2011 M2 0.462 0.0105258 0 0 0 0 0 0.034 0.219 0 0.001 0.001 0.067 0.009 0.016 0.001 0.038 0.009 0.067

98221SHLLLWESTM 2012 M2 1.417 0.0286403 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.108 0.682 0 0.002 0.002 0.165 0.027 0.055 0.002 0.124 0.029 0.219

98221SHLLLWESTM 2013 M2 1.422 0.0287512 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.109 0.685 0 0.002 0.002 0.166 0.027 0.055 0.002 0.124 0.029 0.219
7

4. Responses to API and AFPM’s Comments

1. Part A: Dioxin discharge data in TRI include ‘many estimates’ in lieu of monitoring data. 

Response: We concur that many facilities use engineering calculations (BOE code: O) to estimate 

dioxin discharges; however, monitoring data (BOE code: M2) accounts for the majority (57%) of total 

dioxin discharges reported. 

Part B: API specifically notes EPA’s finding that one facility accounts for 65% of the TRI-derived 

TWP[E], and notes that the discharge is from estimates based on the number of reformer catalyst 

regenerations and not on direct monitoring data. AFPM further notes this facility is currently closed.

Response: We identified the top reported dioxin discharges for each year (see Table 5). These 

discharges represent between 22% (RY2011) and 37% (RY2013) of the total discharges for all 

facilities in that reporting year. The associated TEQ for these discharges represented between 11% 

(RY2012) and 32% (RY2011) of discharges for all facilities in that reporting year. While we assume 

that the top facility in RY2010 and 2011 (00851HSSLVLIMET; Hovensa LLc, Virgin Islands) is the 

facility that API identified as accounting for 65% of the TRI-derived TWPE, we were not able to 

replicate their claim.

We did, however, note potential reporting issues with this facility, as it reported the same values for 

dioxin (including TEQ) for RY 2010 – 2012 (note that it was not the top discharger in RY2012) using 

the BOE code of O: Engineering Calculations. Identical year to year reporting may indicate that 

reported releases do not reflect actual releases especially for the year where the facility was in 

operation for less than two months. We corroborated the AFPM note that refining operations 

ceased as of February 17, 2012.11

In the 2013 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report,12 EPA comments on the facility:

“The facility was contacted as part of the 2011 Annual Review. The contact stated that the 

dioxin discharges are estimated using literature values associated with dioxin formation from 

reformer catalyst regeneration. Hovensa did not analyze its wastewater for dioxin or furans; 

therefore, EPA is not certain dioxins and furans are actually present in the wastewater at 

concentrations above the Method 1613B Minimum Level. As a result, EPA concluded that 

 

11 http://www.epa.gov/region2/waste/fshovens.htm

12 The 2013 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report:

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/304m/upload/2013-Annual-Effluent-Guidelines-Review-Report.pdf

Table 5: Top Dioxin Discharges and Associated TEQ for 2010-2013

Reporting 

Year TRIFID Discharge (g) TEQ (g)

BOE

Code

2010 00851HSSLVLIMET 1.100 0.0669 O

2011 00851HSSLVLIMET 1.100 0.0669 O

2012 98221SHLLLWESTM 1.417 0.0286 M2

2013 98221SHLLLWESTM 1.422 0.0288 M2
8

although Hovensa’s estimate of releases follows TRI program guidance, it may not represent 

actual wastewater discharges”

2. The DMR data for the aforementioned facility indicate that the dioxin source was aerial deposition 

rather than discharge of process wastewater.

Response: We did not investigate the background DMR data, therefore we cannot comment on this 

claim. However, the TRI data do not indicate that there were contributions to dioxin discharge 

resulting from stormwater from Hovensa. 

3. Concern exists that dioxin monitoring data are incorrectly used. API specifically noted EPA’s comment 

that, based on 2010 DMR data, only one refinery reported discharging dioxin at concentrations 

above the EPA Method 1613B minimum level. 

Response: We did not investigate the background DMR data, therefore we cannot comment on this 

claim. 

4. In the 2012 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report, 13 EPA presents TRI and DMR discharge data. 

AFPM indicates the TWPE is decreasing over 2004-2009. 

Response: Assuming AFPM are referring to the data presented in Table 5-5 of the report (see 

below), they are correct in noting a general decrease between 2004 and 2009. Note that the TWPE 

is calculated using all TRI and DMR chemicals reported, and do not focus specifically on dioxin.

Source: 2012 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/304m/upload/2012-Annual-Effluent-GuidelinesReview-Report.pdf

 

13 2012 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/304m/upload/2012-Annual-Effluent-Guidelines-Review-Report.pdf
9

5. The methodology for calculating TWPE is unclear and the TWPE calculations could not be 

understood.

Response: We agree the TWPE calculations are not immediately apparent, and determining the 

source of the TWPE calculations was not straightforward. However, we did locate a ‘Toxic Weighting 

Factors Methodology’ in the docket for the 2011 review.

14 The TWPE calculations for dioxin are 

described in Table 5-1 from that document (see below), which aggregate Toxic Equivalency Factors 

(TEF; from TRI), bioaccumulation factors, human health value and aquatic life value to provide a 

toxic weight factor (TWF) for each congener. The TWF is multiplied by the congener mass to give 

TWPE.

Source: Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology. 2012. USEPA. Direct download link:

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=09000064810f4c24&disposition=attachmen

t&contentType=pdf

 

14 http://www.noticeandcomment.com/Toxic-Weighting-Factors-Methodology-DCN-07501-fn-56898.aspx
10

6. TRI is not a good source of data to gauge current discharge species and/or quantities, particularly for 

dioxin given that EPA guidance instructs the facility to report half the detection limit, while in fact the 

vast majority of DMR-related tests come back “non-detect.” For this reason, TRI quantities do not 

represent actual discharges, and therefore cannot be used for regulatory purpose.

Response: AFPM does not accurately convey this TRI guidance. The 1998 Q&A15 Question 497 states: 

“If a facility monitors for a toxic chemical and the measurement is below the limit of detection

of the method, can they report zero releases?

The facility must use reasonable judgment as to the presence and amount of the listed toxic

chemical based on the best readily available information. An indication that a reportable

chemical is below detection is not equivalent to stating that the chemical is not present. If the

reportable Section 313 chemical is known to be present, a concentration equivalent to half the

detection limit should be used. The facility should not estimate releases based solely on

monitoring devices, but the facility should also rely on its knowledge of specific conditions at the

plant.”

We did not investigate the background DMR data, therefore we cannot comment on the claim that 

“the vast majority of DMR-related tests comeback as non-detect”. We do agree that most refineries 

do not report dioxin discharges to TRI, either through ‘zero’ discharge, NA, or non-reporting of 

dioxin.

However, we believe that AFPM mischaracterizes the TRI guidance as we believe that most facilities

with monitoring data report accurately. Specifically, reported discharges of zero are likely accurate

if tests come back non-detect and the facility believes that the TRI chemical is not present. In

limited cases, we found repeated positive congener values, which may have been estimated using

half detection limit, representing only 2.4% of TRI reported dioxin discharges from refineries. These

facilities may be using the 1⁄2 detection limit guidance, however this does not appear to be a

widespread issue and we see no systemic issues with that reporting.

 

15 EPCRA Section 313 Questions and Answers, Revised 1998 Version: 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/1998qa.pdf