# Techni c al Support Document for the 2008

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

© 2008 The Omaha World-Herald.



# August 2008

EP A -821-R-08-015

# Photograp h of pills in a box, center top, is reprinted with permi ssion from The Omaha

World-Herald, copyright 2008.

# i CONTENTS

Page

P ART 

# I: I NTRODUCTION 

# .....................................................................................................................I

1.0 B ACKGROUND 

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

1.1 EPA’s Clean Water Act Program ........................................................................1-1

1.2 Background on the Effluent Guidelines Program ................................................1-1

1.3 What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards? ...............................1-2

1.3.1 Best Practicable Control Technol ogy Currently Available (BPT) —

CWA Sections 301(b)(1 )(A) and 304(b)(1) .............................................1-3

1.3.2 Best Conventional Pollutant C ontrol Technology (BCT) — CWA

Sections 301(b)(2 )(E) and 304(b)(4) .......................................................1-4

1.3.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) — CWA

Sections 301(b)(2 )(A) and 304(b)(2) .......................................................1-4

1.3.4 New Source Performance Standa rds (NSPS) — CWA Section 306 .......1-4

1.3.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existi ng Sources (PSES) — CWA Section

307(b) .......................................................................................................1-4

1.3.6 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) — CWA Section

307(c) .......................................................................................................1-5

1.4 Success of EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Program..................................................1-5

1.5 What Are EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Planning and Review Requirements? ......1-5

1.6 Background References .......................................................................................1-6

2.0 P UBLIC 

# C OMMENTS ON THE 

# F INAL 

# E FFLUENT 

# G UIDELINES 

# P ROGRAM 

# P LAN FOR 

# 2006

AND 

# P RELIMINARY 

# E FFLUENT 

# G UIDELINES 

# P ROGRAM 

# P LAN FOR 

# 2008 ............................2-1

3.0 T HE 

# E FFLUENT 

# G UIDELINES 

# P LANNING 

# P ROCESS 

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

3.1 Goals of the ELG Planning Process .....................................................................3-1

3.2 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Gu idelines and Pretreatment Standards ....3-1

3.2.1 Factors Considered in Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and

Pretreatment Standards ............................................................................3-1

3.2.2 Overview: Review of Exis ting Point Source Categories .........................3-5

3.3 Identification of New Categories of Dir ect Dischargers for Possible Effluent

Guidelines Development ......................................................................................3-7

3.4 Identification of New Categor ies of Indirect Discharg ers for Possible Effluent

Guidelines Development ......................................................................................3-8

3.5 Stakeholder Involvement and Schedule ...............................................................3-8

3.6 The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process References ........................................3-9

4.0 M ETHODOLOGY



# , D ATA 

# S OURCES



# , AND 

# L IMITATIONS 

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

4.1 Data Sources and Limitations ..............................................................................4-1

4.1.1 SIC Codes ................................................................................................4-2

4.1.2 Toxic Weighting Factors ..........................................................................4-3

4.1.3 Calculation of TWPE ...............................................................................4-4

4.1.4 Data from TRI ..........................................................................................4-4

4.1.5 Data from PCS .........................................................................................4-6

# CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

ii 4.2 Methodology Corrections Affecting Both Screening-Level Review Databases .4-9

4.3 Corrections to the TRIReleases2004 Database ....................................................4-9

4.4 Corrections to the PCSLoads2004 Database .......................................................4-9

4.5 Corrections to the TRIReleases2005 Database ....................................................4-9

4.5.1 TRIReleases2005: Categorization of Discharges ....................................4-9

4.5.2 TRIReleases2005: Pollutant Corrections...............................................4-11

4.5.3 TRIReleases2005: Data Quality Review ...............................................4-12

4.5.4 TRIReleases2005: Facility Reviews ......................................................4-13

4.6 TRIReleases2004 and TRIReleases2005 Rankings and PCSLoads2004

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

4.7 Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations References .................................4-17

P ART 

# II: R ESULTS OF THE 

# 2008 A NNUAL 

# R EVIEW OF 

# I NDUSTRIAL 

# C ATEGORIES WITH 

# E XISTING



# ELG S



# ............................................................................................................................... ....II

5.0 2008 A NNUAL 

# R EVIEW OF 

# E XISTING 

# E FFLUENT 

# L IMITATIONS 

# G UIDELINES AND



# S TANDARDS AND 

# R ANKING OF 

# P OINT 

# S OURCE 

# C ATEGORIES 

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

5.1 Summary of the Results from the 2007 Annual Review .....................................5-1

5.2 Results of the 2008 Sc reening-Level Review ......................................................5-1

5.2.1 Facilities for Which EPA Is Curren tly Developing or Revising ELGs ...5-2

5.2.2 Categories for Which EPA Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs .....5-2

5.2.3 Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE ..............................5-3

5.2.4 Results of the 2008 Sc reening-Level Review ..........................................5-5

5.3 Prioritization of Categorie s for the 2008 Annual Review ...................................5-5

5.3.1 Detailed Study of Existing ELGs ...........................................................5-11

5.3.2 Preliminary Review ...............................................................................5-11

5.4 2008 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards and Ranking of Point Source Categories References ........................5-13

6.0 C ENTRALIZED 

# W ASTE 

# T REATMENT 

# (40 CFR P ART 

# 437) ..................................................6-1

6.1 CWT Category Background ................................................................................6-1

6.1.1 CWT Industry Profile ..............................................................................6-1

6.1.2 40 CFR Part 437 .......................................................................................6-2

6.2 CWT Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews ..........................6-3

6.3 CWT Category 2004 through 2008 Pollutants of Concern ..................................6-4

6.4 CWT Category Pesticide Discharges ...................................................................6-4

6.4.1 Pesticide Discharges for Vopak L ogistics Services — Deer Park, TX ...6-8

6.4.2 Pesticides Discharges for DuPont Chambers Works — Deepwater, NJ .6-8

6.5 CWT Category Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Discharges ..........................6-10

6.6 CWT Category Conclusions ..............................................................................6-11

6.7 CWT Category References ................................................................................6-12

# CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

iii 7.0 O RGANIC 

# C HEMICALS 

# P LASTICS AND 

# S YNTHETIC 

# F IBERS 

# (40 CFR P ART 

# 414) .................7-1

7.1 OCPSF Category Background .............................................................................7-1

7.1.1 OCPSF Industry Profile ...........................................................................7-1

7.1.2 40 CFR Part 414 .......................................................................................7-4

7.2 OCPSF Category 2004 Through 2008 Sc reening-Level Reviews .......................7-5

7.3 OCPSF Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern .............................7-5

7.4 OCPSF Category Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Discharges in TRI ............................7-8

7.5 OCPSF Category Hexachlorobenzene Discharges in TRI and PCS ..................7-12

7.6 OCPSF Category Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Discharges in TRI ...........7-14

7.7 OCPSF Category Aluminum Discharges in PCS ..............................................7-15

7.8 OCPSF Category Benzidine Discharges in PCS ...............................................7-16

7.9 OCPSF Category Conclusions ...........................................................................7-17

7.10 OCPSF Category References .............................................................................7-18

8.0 O RE 

# M INING AND 

# D RESSING 

# (40 CFR P ART 

# 440).............................................................8-1

8.1 Ore Mining Category Background .......................................................................8-1

8.1.1 Ore Mining Industry Profile .....................................................................8-1

8.1.2 40 CFR Part 440 .......................................................................................8-4

8.2 Ore Mining Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews ................8-5

8.3 Ore Mining Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern ......................8-6

8.4 Ore Mining Category Mercury Compounds Discharges .....................................8-9

8.5 Ore Mining Category Arsenic Compounds Discharges .......................................8-9

8.6 Ore Mining Category Faci lity Identification .....................................................8-10

8.7 Comparison of Discharges to Part 440 ELGs and Permit Limits ......................8-13

8.8 Permit Analysis ..................................................................................................8-15

8.8.1 Effluent Limits Comparison ..................................................................8-15

8.8.2 Review of Permit Monitoring Data ........................................................8-16

8.9 Ore Mining Category Conclusions ....................................................................8-18

8.10 Ore Mining Category References ......................................................................8-18

9.0 P ETROLEUM 

# R EFINING 

# (40 CFR P ART 

# 419)......................................................................9-1

9.1 Petroleum Refining Category Background ..........................................................9-1

9.1.1 Petroleum Refining Industry Profile ........................................................9-1

9.1.2 40 CFR Part 419 .......................................................................................9-4

9.2 Petroleum Refining Category 2004 Th rough 2008 Screening-Level Reviews ...9-4

9.3 Petroleum Refining Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern ..........9-5

9.4 Petroleum Refining Category Dioxi n and Dioxin-Like Discharges ....................9-5

9.4.1 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Chevron —

Richmond, CA .........................................................................................9-8

9.4.2 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Hovensa —

Christiansted, VI ......................................................................................9-9

9.4.3 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Tesoro —

Anacortes, WA .......................................................................................9-10

9.4.4 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Tesoro —

Martinez, CA ..........................................................................................9-11

9.5 Petroleum Refining Category Polycyc lic Aromatic Compounds Discharges ...9-11

# CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

iv 9.6 Petroleum Refining Category Conclusions ........................................................9-12

9.7 Petroleum Refining Category References ..........................................................9-16

10.0 P ULP



# , P APER



# , AND 

# P APERBOARD 

# (40 CFR P ART 

# 430) ....................................................10-1

10.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Background ..........................................10-1

10.1.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry Profile ........................................10-1

10.1.2 40 CFR Part 430 .....................................................................................10-4

10.2 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Cate gory 2005 Through 2008 Screening-Level

Reviews ..............................................................................................................10-5

10.3 Pulp and Paper Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern ...............10-6

10.4 Pulp and Paper Category Dioxi n and Dioxin-Like Discharges .........................10-9

10.5 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Metals Discharges ..............................10-10

10.6 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboa rd Category Conclusions ........................................10-10

10.7 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboa rd Category References ..........................................10-11

11.0 W ASTE 

# C OMBUSTORS 

# (40 CFR P ART 

# 444) .....................................................................11-1

11.1 Waste Combustors Category Background .........................................................11-1

11.1.1 Waste Combustors Industry Profile .......................................................11-1

11.1.2 40 CFR Part 444 .....................................................................................11-2

11.2 Waste Combustors Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews ...11-3

11.3 Waste Combustors Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern .........11-3

11.4 Waste Combustors Category Pesticide Discharges ...........................................11-6

11.4.1 Pesticide Discharges for Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX ...................11-7

11.4.2 Pesticides Management at Von Ro ll America – East Liverpool, OH ....11-9

11.4.3 Pesticides Management at Ross In cineration Services – Grafton, OH 11-10

11.5 Waste Combustors Category Conclusions .......................................................11-10

11.6 Waste Combustors Category References .........................................................11-11

P ART 

# III: D ETAILED STUDIES 

# ......................................................................................................... III

12.0 C OAL 

# M INING 

# C ATEGORY 

# (P ART 

# 434)............................................................................12-1

12.1 Summary of Public Comments ..........................................................................12-1

12.2 Key Definitions ..................................................................................................12-2

12.3 Applicability of 40 CFR Part 434 Manganese Effluent Limits .........................12-2

12.4 Key Findings Concerning Public Comments .....................................................12-3

12.4.1 Bond Forfeitures ....................................................................................12-3

12.4.2 Potential Environmental Impacts ...........................................................12-4

12.4.3 Surrogate Removal of Metals through Manganese Treatment ..............12-4

12.4.4 Effectiveness of Passive Treatment Systems .........................................12-4

12.5 EPA 2008 Decision on Revising Pa rt 434 Effluent Guidelines .........................12-5

12.6 Introduction References.....................................................................................12-5

13.0 H EALTH 

# S ERVICES 

# I NDUSTRY AND 

# H OSPITALS 

# C ATEGORY 

# (P ART 

# 460) .........................13-1

13.1 Dental Mercury ..................................................................................................13-2

13.2 Unused Pharmaceuticals ....................................................................................13-4

13.3 Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category References ...........................13-9

# CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

v 14.0 O IL AND 

# G AS 

# E XTRACTION 

# C ATEGORY 

# (P ART 

# 435) .......................................................14-1

14.1 Oil and Gas Extraction Category References ....................................................14-2

15.0 S TEAM 

# E LECTRIC 

# P OWER 

# G ENERATING 

# C ATEGORY 

# (P ART 

# 423) ....................................15-1

15.1 Steam Electric Power Generating Category References ....................................15-3

Appendix A: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIA LS FOR EAD’S SCREENING-LEVEL

ANALYSIS

Appendix B: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIA LS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF

TRIRELEASES2005

Appendix C: RESULTS OF TRIRELEASES2004_V3, TRIRELEASES2005_V2, AND

PCSLOADS2004_V4

# vi LIST OF TABLES

Page

2-1 Comments on the Preliminary 2008 and Final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plans EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 .................................................. 2-2

4-1 Newly Developed TWFs in 2007 .................................................................................... 4-4

4-2 Summary of TRIReleases2005 Facility Review ............................................................ 4-14

5-1 Point Source Categories That Have U ndergone a Recent Rulemaking or Review ......... 5-3

5-2 Point Source Categories with One Faci lity Dominating the TWPE Discharges ............. 5-4

5-3 Final PCS 2004 and TRI 2004 Combined Point Source Category Rankings.................. 5-6

5-4 Final TRI 2005 Rankings................................................................................................. 5-8

5-5 2008 Annual Review of Categories with Existing ELGs: Level of Review.................... 5-9

5-6 Previous Reviews for Point Source Cate gories Reviewed as Part of the 2008 Annual

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

6-1 Number of Facilities Identified as CWTs ........................................................................ 6-1

6-2 Centralized Waste Treatme nt Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in

TRI 2004 and 2005 .......................................................................................................... 6-2

6-3 Part 437 Subcategories a nd Regulated Pollutants............................................................ 6-2

6-4 CWT Category Screening-Level Results......................................................................... 6-3

6-5 2008 Review: CWT Category Po llutants of Concern...................................................... 6-5

6-6 Summary of CWT Pesticid e Facility Contacts ................................................................ 6-7

6-7 Pesticide Discharges from Vopak Logistics Services Reported to TRI .......................... 6-8

6-8 Pesticide Discharges from DuPont Chambers Works Reported to TRI .......................... 6-9

6-9 Estimates of Pesticide Discharges from DuPont Chambers Works Based on Sampling

Data........................................................................................................................... ..... 6-10

6-10 PAC Discharges from L NVA North Regional Treatment Pl ant Reported to TRI ........ 6-10

6-11 Pesticides Treatability Data ........................................................................................... 6-1 4

7-1 Number of Facilities in OCPSF SIC Codes..................................................................... 7-2

7-2 OCPSF Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Repor ted in TRI 2004 and 2005 ...... 7-3

# LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

vii 7-3 Applicability of Subcategor ies in the OCPSF Category.................................................. 7-4

7-4 OCPSF Screening-Level Results ..................................................................................... 7-5

7-5 2008 Review: OCPSF Category Po llutants of Concern .................................................. 7-6

7-6 2006 Review: OCPSF Category Po llutants of Concern .................................................. 7-7

7-7 OCPSF Facilities Reporting Di oxin Releases to TRI...................................................... 7-9

7-8 OCPSF Facilities Reporting HCB Releases to TRI....................................................... 7-12

7-9 OCPSF Facilities Reporting Discharges of HCB to PCS in 2002 or 2004.................... 7-13

7-10 OCPSF Facilities Reporting PAC Releases to TRI ....................................................... 7-15

7-11 OCPSF Facilities Reporting Aluminum to PCS ............................................................ 7-16

7-12 Monthly Benzidine Concentrations and Loads for Rohm & Haas, Bristol, PA ............ 7-16

8-1 Number of Facilities in Ore Mining SIC Codes .............................................................. 8-2

8-2 Ore Mining Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005 8-3

8-3 Ore Mining Category Sub category Applicability............................................................ 8-4

8-4 Ore Mining Category Scr eening-Level Results............................................................... 8-6

8-5 2008 Review: Ore Mining Categor y Pollutants of Concern............................................ 8-7

8-6 2006 Review: Ore Mining Categor y Pollutants of Concern............................................ 8-8

8-7 Flow and Mercury Concentrations for Northshore Mining Company............................. 8-9

8-8 2006 Review: Arsenic Discharges in PCSLoads2004_v4 and PCSLoads2002_v4 from

Facilities in the Ore Mining Category ........................................................................... 8-11

8-9 2006 Review: Arsenic Discharg es Reported to TRI from Faci lities in the Ore Mining

Category....................................................................................................................... .. 8-12

8-10 Compliance Status of High TWPE Discharges ............................................................. 8-14

8-11 NPDES Permits by Mine Type...................................................................................... 8-15

8-12 Average Metals Concentrations (in mg/L) for Ore Mines with Self-Monitoring Data . 8-17

8-13 Summary Statistics of Effluent Li mits for Ore Mining Facilities.................................. 8-20

8-14 Ore Mining Category Ma ster Facility List..................................................................... 8-25

# LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

viii 9-1 Number of Facilities in Pe troleum Refining SIC Codes.................................................. 9-2

9-2 Petroleum Refining Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004

and 2005....................................................................................................................... .... 9-3

9-3 Petroleum Refining Category Screening-Level Results .................................................. 9-4

9-4 2008 Review: Petroleum Refining Ca tegory Pollutants of Concern ............................... 9-6

9-5 2006 Review: Petroleum Refining Ca tegory Pollutants of Concern ............................... 9-7

9-6 Detected Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compound Congeners for Chevron .......................... 9-9

9-7 TCDD Equivalents Monitored in 2004.......................................................................... 9-11

9-8 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Disc harges from Petroleum Refi neries Reported to TRI in

2002–2005...................................................................................................................... 9-14

9-9 PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refi neries Reported to TRI in 2002–2005............... 9-17

10-1 Number of Facilities in Pulp and Paper SIC Codes....................................................... 10-2

10-2 Pulp and Paper Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and

2005........................................................................................................................... ..... 10-3

10-3 Relationship Between Pulp and Paper Re gulatory Phases and Subcategories .............. 10-5

10-4 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Screening-Level Results.................................................. 10-6

10-5 2008 Review: Pulp and Paper Category Pollutants of Concern .................................... 10-7

10-6 2006 Review: Pulp and Paper Category Pollutants of Concern .................................... 10-8

10-7 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Disc harges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in

2002–2005.................................................................................................................... 10 -12

11-1 Number of Facilities in Waste Combustors Category ................................................... 11-2

11-2 Waste Combustors by Type of Disc harge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005 ................. 11-2

11-3 Applicability of Subcategories in the Waste Combustor Category ............................... 11-3

11-4 Waste Combustors Category Screening-Level Results ................................................. 11-3

11-5 2008 Review: Waste Combustors Cate gory Pollutants of Concern .............................. 11-5

11-6 Sampling Data Summary from Wa ste Combustors Rulemaking .................................. 11-6

11-7 Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX TR I-Reported Pesticide Discharge........................... 11-7

# LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

ix 11-8 Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX Wastewater Sampling Data ...................................... 11-8

11-9 Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX 2006 Discharges Estimated from Sampling Data for

Toxaphene and Hexachlorobenzene .............................................................................. 11-9

11-10 Summary of Waste Combustor Pe sticide Facility Contacts ........................................ 11-13

# x LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1-1 Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Di scharges Under NPDES.................... 1-3

3-1 Flow Chart of Annual Review of Existing ELGs ............................................................ 3-2

3-2 Flow Chart of Further Review of Existing ELGs ............................................................ 3-3

3-3 Flow Chart of Identification of Possible New ELGs....................................................... 3-4

## Part I – Introduction



# PART I: INTRODUCTION

## Section 1.0 – Background



# 1-1 This document supports the Final 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. It presents the

methodology used to perform the annual reviews of industrial discharges required by the Clean

Water Act and the results of the reviews.

1.0 B ACKGROUND



# This section explains how the Effluent Guid elines Program fits into the Clean Water Act

(CWA) Program, describes the general and le gal background of the Effluent Guidelines

Program, and describes EPA’s process for making effluent guidelines revision and development

decisions (i.e., effluent guideline planning).

1.1 EPA’s Clean Water Act Program

EPA’s Office of Water is responsible for de veloping the programs and tools authorized

under the CWA, which provides EPA and the states with a variety of programs and tools to

protect and restore the Nation’s waters. These pr ograms 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 guidelin es and technology-based

effluent limitations.

The CWA gives states the primary responsib ility for establishing, reviewing, and revising

water quality standards. These consist of de signated uses for each water body (e.g., fishing,

swimming, supporting aquatic life), nu meric pollutant concentration limits (“criteria”) to protect

those uses, and an antidegradation policy. EPA de velops national criteria for many pollutants,

which states may adopt or modify as appropriate to reflect local conditions. In a parallel track to

water quality standards, EPA also develops t echnology-based effluent limitation guidelines and

standards, which are factor-based regulations that provide effluent limits based on current

available technologies. These limitations and stan dards are then incorporated into discharge

permits as technology-based effluent limitations (U.S. EPA, 1996). While technology-based

effluent limitations in discharge permits may be as stringent as or more stringent than water

quality-based effluent limits, the effluent guide lines program is not specifically designed to

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

water body. For this reason, the CWA also requires states to estab lish water quality-based permit

limitations, where necessary to attain and maintain water quality standards that require industrial

facilities to meet requirements that are more stri ngent than those in a national effluent guideline

regulation. EPA notes that the various compone nts of water quality-based permitting (water

quality standards, water quality-based effluent limits, and total maximum daily loads) are in

different stages of development nationally and by state, which may result in different levels of

protection across states. Therefore, national categorical effluent limitations and standards remain

a critical component of EPA’s CWA Program. Consequently, in th e overall contex t of the CWA,

effluent guidelines must be viewed as one tool in the broad arsenal of tools Congress provided to

EPA and the states to protect and restore the Nation’s water quality.

1.2 Background on the Effluent Guidelines Program

The 1972 CWA marked a distinct change in Congress’s efforts “to restore and maintain

the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” See CWA § 101(a), 33

U.S.C. § 1251(a). Prior to 1972, the CWA relied on “water quality standards.” This approach

## Section 1.0 – Background



# 1-2 was challenging, however, because it was very di fficult to prove that a specific discharger was

responsible for decreasing the water quality of its receiving stream.

Since 1972, the CWA has directed EPA to prom ulgate effluent guide lines that reflect

pollutant reductions that can be achieved by cat egories or subcategorie s of industrial point

sources. The effluent guidelines are based on specific technologies (including process changes)

that EPA identifies as meeting the statutorily pr escribed level of control. See CWA sections

301(b)(2), 304(b), 306, 307(b), and 307(c). Unlike other CWA tool s, effluent guidelines are

national in scope and establish pollution control obliga tions for all facilities that discharge

wastewater within an industrial category or s ubcategory. In establishing these controls, EPA

assesses: (1) the performance and availability of the best pollution control technologies or

pollution prevention practices that are available for an industrial category or subcategory as a

whole; (2) the economic achievability of those technologies, which can in clude consideration of

costs, effluent reduction benefits, and affordability of achieving the reduction in pollutant

discharge; (3) non-water-quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements); and (4)

such other factors as the Ad ministrator deems appropriate.

Creating a single national pollution contro l requirement for each industrial category

based on the best technology the industry could afford was seen by Congress as a way to reduce

the potential creation of “polluti on havens” and to set the Nation’ s sights on attaining the highest

possible level of water quality. Consequently, EPA’s goal in establis hing national effluent

guidelines is to assure that indus trial facilities with si milar characteristics, regardless of their

location or the nature of their receiving wate r, will at a minimum meet similar effluent

limitations representing the perfor mance of the best pollution c ontrol technologies or pollution

prevention practices.

Unlike other CWA tools, effluent guidelines also provide the oppor tunity to promote

pollution prevention and water cons ervation. This may be particular ly important in controlling

persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic pollutants discharged in concentrations below analytic

detection levels. Effluent guidelin es also control pollutant discha rges at the point of discharge

from industrial facilities and cover discharges directly to surface water (direct discharges) and

discharges to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) (indirect discharges). For industrial

dischargers to POTWs, this can have the added benefit of preventing the untreated discharge of

pollutants to groundwater from leaking sewer pipe s or to surface waters due to combined sewer

overflows.

1.3 What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?

The national clean water industrial regulatory program is authorized under sections 301,

304, 306 and 307 of the CWA.

The CWA directs EPA to promulgate efflue nt limitations guidel ines and standards

through six levels of control: BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. Fo r point sources that

discharge pollutants directly into the waters of the United States (d irect dischargers), the

limitations and standards promulgated by EPA are implemented through National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) perm its. See CWA sections 301(a), 301(b), and 402.

For sources that discharge to POTWs (indirect dischargers), EPA promulgates pretreatment

standards that apply directly to those sources and are enforced by POTWs and state and federal

## Section 1.0 – Background



# authorities. See CWA sections 307 (b) and (c). Figure 1- 1 illustrates the relationship between the

regulation of direct and indirect dischargers.

NSPS

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics) 

### PSNS

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)



### PSES

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics) 

### BCT

• Conventional Pollutants 

### BAT

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)



### BPT

• Conventional Pollutants

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics) 

## Direct

Dischargers Indirect

Dischargers

New

Sources

Existing

Sources NSPS

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics) 

### PSNS

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)



### PSES

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics) 

### BCT

• Conventional Pollutants 

### BAT

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)



### BPT

• Conventional Pollutants

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics) 

## Direct

Dischargers Indirect

Dischargers

New

Sources

Existing

Sources



# Figure 1-1. Regulations of Direct and Indi rect Wastewater Discharges Under NPDES

1.3.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Cu rrently Available (BPT) — CWA Sections

301(b)(1)(A) and 304(b)(1)

EPA develops effluent limitations ba sed on BPT for conventional, toxic, and

nonconventional pollutants. S ection 304(a)(4) designates th e following as conventional

pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 

# ), total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and

any additional pollutants defi ned by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator

designated oil and grease as an additional c onventional pollutant on July 30, 1979. See 44 FR

44501 (July 30, 1979). EPA has identified 65 polluta nts and classes of pollutants as toxic

pollutants, of which 126 specific substances have been designated priority toxic pollutants. See

Appendix A to Part 423, reprinted after 40 CFR Part 423.17. All other pollu tants are considered

to be nonconventional.

In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA firs t considers the total cost of

applying the control technology in relation to the effluent reduc tion benefits. The Agency also

considers the age of the equipment and facili ties, the processes employed and any required

process changes, engineeri ng aspects of the control t echnologies, non-water-quality

environmental impacts (including energy requirem ents), and such other factors as the EPA

Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA secti on 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA establishes

BPT effluent limitations based on the average of th e best performances of facilities within the

industry of various ages, sizes, processes or other common characteri stics. Where existing

performance is uniformly inadequate, BPT may reflect higher levels of cont rol than currently in

1-3

## Section 1.0 – Background



# 1-4 place in an industrial category if the Agency dete rmines that the technology can be practically

applied.

1.3.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) — CWA Sections 301(b)(2)(E)

and 304(b)(4)

The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for

conventional pollutants associated with BCT fo r discharges from existing industrial point

sources. In addition to the other factors specified in section 304( b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that

EPA establish BCT limitations afte r consideration of a two-part “cost-reasonableness” test. EPA

explained its methodology for the developmen t of BCT limitations in 1986. See 51 FR 24974

(July 9, 1986).

1.3.3 Best Available Technology Economica lly Achievable (BAT) — CWA Sections

301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2)

For toxic pollutants and nonconventional polluta nts, EPA promulgates effluent guidelines

based on BAT. See CWA sections 301(b)(2)(C), (D), and (F). The f actors considered in

assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BA T effluent reductions, the age of equipment and

facilities involved, the process employed, pot ential process changes, non-water-quality

environmental impacts, including energy requir ements, and other such factors as the EPA

Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA sec tion 304(b)(2)(B). The technology must also be

economically achievable. See CWA section 301(b )(2)(A). The Agency retains considerable

discretion in assigning the weight it accords to these factors. BAT limitations may be based on

effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility’s processes and operations. Where

existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher level of performance

than is currently being achieved within a par ticular subcategory based on technology transferred

from a different subcategory or category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal

controls, even when these technologi es are not common industry practice.

1.3.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) — CWA Section 306

NSPS reflect effluent reduc tions that are achievable ba sed on the best available

demonstrated control technology. New sources have the opportunity to instal l the best and most

efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should

represent the most stringent cont rols attainable through the application of the best available

demonstrated control technology for all polluta nts (i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and

priority pollutants). In establis hing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost of

achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water-quality envi ronmental impacts and energy

requirements.

1.3.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) — CWA Section 307(b)

PSES apply to indirect dischargers, and are designed to prevent the discharge of

pollutants that pass throu gh, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of

POTWs, including sludge disposal methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards are technologybased and are analogous to BAT ef fluent limitations guidelines.

## Section 1.0 – Background



# 1-5 The General Pretreatment Regulations, whic h set forth the framework for implementing

national pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR Part 403.

1.3.6 Pretreatment Standards for New So urces (PSNS) — CWA Section 307(c)

Like PSES, PSNS apply to indirect discha rgers, and are designed to prevent the

discharges of pollutants that pa ss through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the

operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the same time as NSPS. Ne w indirect dischargers

have the opportunity to incorporate into th eir plants the best available demonstrated

technologies. The Agency considers the same f actors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in

promulgating NSPS.

1.4 Success of EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Program

The effluent guidelines program has helped reverse the water quality degradation that

accompanied industrialization in this country. Permits developed using the technology-based

industrial regulations ar e a critical element of the Nation’s clean water program and reduce the

discharge of pollutants that have serious envi ronmental impacts, including pollutants that:

• 

# Kill or impair fish and other aquatic organisms;

• 

# Cause human health problems through contaminated water, fish, or shellfish; and

• 

# Degrade aquatic ecosystems.

EPA has issued effluent guidelines for 56 industrial categories and these regulations

apply to between 35,000 and 45,000 facilities that disc harge directly to the Nation’s waters, as

well as another 12,000 facilities th at discharge to POTWs. These regulations have prevented the

discharge of more than 1.2 billion pounds of toxic pollutants each year.

1.5 What Are EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Planning and Review Requirements?

The CWA also requires EPA to annually re view existing efflue nt guidelines. EPA

reviews all point source categories subject to existing effluent guideli nes and pretreatment

standards to identify potential candidates for revision, as required by CWA sections 304(b),

301(d), 304(g), and 307(b). EPA also reviews industri es consisting of direct discharging facilities

not currently subject to effluent guidelines to id entify potential candidates for effluent guidelines

rulemakings, as required by CWA section 304 (m)(1)(B). Finally, EPA reviews industries

consisting entirely or almost entirely of indire ct discharging facilities that are not currently

subject to pretreatment standa rds to identify potential candidate s for pretreatment standards

development, as required by CWA sections 304(g) and 307(b). CWA section 304(m) requires

EPA to publish an effluent guidelines program plan every two years. As part of the development

of this plan, the public is provi ded an opportunity to comment on a “preliminary” plan before it

is finalized. EPA publishes the preliminary plan on a two-year schedule followed by the final

effluent guidelines program plan in the succeeding years. The preliminary plan is published in

odd-numbered years and the final plan is published in even-numbered years.

## Section 1.0 – Background



# 1-6 1.6 Background References

1. U.S. EPA. 1996. U.S. EPA NPDES Perm it Writers’ Manual . Washington, DC.

(December). EPA-833-B-96-003. Available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/

writermanual.cfm?program_id=45.

## Section 2.0 – Public Comments



# 2-1 2.0 P UBLIC 

# C OMMENTS ON THE 

# F INAL 

# E FFLUENT 

# G UIDELINES 

# P ROGRAM 

# P LAN FOR 

# 2006

AND 

# P RELIMINARY 

# E FFLUENT 

# G UIDELINES 

# P ROGRAM 

# P LAN FOR 

# 2008

EPA published its Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (2008 Preliminary

Plan) on October 30, 2007 (72 FRN 61335) and re quested comments on various aspects of its

analyses, data, and information to inform its 2008 annual review and four detailed studies.

Comments EPA received on the 2006 Final Pl an and on the 2008 Preliminary Plan are

located in EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 (available at

http://www.regulations.gov). Commenters’ names a nd issues they raised during these comment

periods are listed in this section.

The Agency received 36 comments on the 2006 Final Plan and 2008 Preliminary Plan

from a variety of commenters including industry and industry trade associ ations, municipalities

and sewerage agencies, environmental groups, and other advocacy groups, private citizens,

federal agencies, and state government agencies. Stakeholders’ suggestions played a significant

role in both the 2007 and 2008 annual reviews. Tabl e 2-1 lists all the co mmenters as well as a

synopsis of the comments.

# 2-2Section 2.0 – Public CommentsTable 2-1. Comments on the Preliminary 2008 andFinal 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program PlansEPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771No.Commenter NameEPAE-Docket No.Comment Summary1Gregory E. ConradInterstate Mining CompactCommission (IMCC)0002General comments in favor of the Coal Mining Detailed Study. Recommends that EPA focus on areview of manganese effluent guidelines and not focus on those pollutants not currently regulated bythe Coal Mining Effluent Guidelines(e.g., sulfates, chlorides and TDS).2William J. WalshPepper Hamilton, LLP(American DentalAssociation)0003 (also see0837)General comments on the Health Services Detailed Study. Recommends that EPA collect more data andconduct additional analyses before requiring the universal and mandatory use of amalgam separators.3Beverly B. HeadMetropolitan Sewer Districtof Greater Cincinnati, Ohio0004Provides information for the Health Services Detailed Study. States that, “the District's history with theHealth Services Industry is that this group generally complies with all local limits for metals andorganics. However, pH noncompliance does occur and appears to be tied to integrated laundries andlaboratories serving the industry.”4Joseph Pizarchik,Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection,Bureau of Mining andReclamation0005General comments in favor of the Coal Mining Detailed Study. States that, “if the current standards arenot necessary for protection of public health and the environment, they are posing an undue burden onThe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and anyone else who is responsible for treating mine drainage.”5David J. Knight P.E.,Southwest Regional Office,Water Quality Program,Washington StateDepartment of Ecology0823General comments providing data and recommendations for multiple industrial categories.Recommends the review of discharges from the following industries: boilers and cooling towers, foodprocessing (brewing beer and wine), petroleum refining, steam electric andelectrical and electronics.Recommends using WET testing instead of TWFs and supports pretreatment standards for hospitals.6Allen Gilliam, PretreatmentCoordinator, ArkansasDepartment ofEnvironmental Quality0824Provided information on analternative pharmaceuticals disposal technology: non-incineration pyrolysistechnology for destruction of unused pharmaceuticals in Western Canada (vendor is Phase SeparationSolutions Inc.).7Nancy Busen, City ofBentonville, ARLab/PretreatmentSupervisor0825Expressed needfor hospice and home health care disposal programs.8Elizabeth Aldridge andDonna Hill, UWAG0826Requested extension to comment period.

# 2-3Section 2.0 – Public CommentsTable 2-1. Comments on the Preliminary 2008 andFinal 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program PlansEPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771EPANo.Commenter NameE-Docket No.Comment Summary9 Gus Changaris, EXP0827 Provided informationon pharmaceutical return-for-credit programs, wastedisposal needs of pharmacyUnused Pharmaceuticalsfacilities, the need to remove unused pharmaceuticals from waste streams, example BMPs, andCorp.controlled substance/reverse distribution problems.10 Martina Nelson, P.E. and0828 Provided data on wastewater for several industries, including: dental, healthcare, and CWT.Leo Hermes, P.E.,Recommended that EPA consider: eliminating Part 413 (Electroplating) and regulate under Part 433Metropolitan Council(Metal Finishing); revise Part 403 so that NonSignificant Categorical Industrial Users (NSCIUs) areEnvironmental Servicessubject to POTW Local Limits only (exempt fromcategorical pretreatmentstandards), establish PSES(MCES)for Metal Molding and Casting (Zinc Category). Provided general comments on plan approach: preferguidance over new ELGs. Recommends no review of indirect discharges (which are covered by locallimits); recommends focusing on non-point sources.11 Bruce E. Cunha RN MS0829 Provided data related to unused pharmaceuticaldisposal: costs, BMPs, take-back programs, communityCOHN-S, Manager,"clean sweep" programs, and state regulations.Employee Health, Safety,and InfectionPrevention/Control,Marshfield Clinic,Marshfield, WI12 Roger E. Claff, P.E.,0831 Provides several recommendations: commends use of QAPP for TRI and PCS databases; recommendsAmerican Petroleumassessment and documentation of treatment technologies; study, not regulation of, industries with highInstitute (API)TWPE; consideration of concentrations in additionto loading, in terms of TWPE; minimization ofworkload for CBM questionnaire.13 Louis Kollias, Metropolitan0832 Provides informationon their history of unusedpharmaceutical disposal.Water Reclamation Districtof Greater Chicago14 Donna Hill, UWAG 0833 Requestedextension to comment period.15 Linda Eichmiller,0834 Recommends considering the effects ofnutrients and treatment technologies.ASIWPCA16 Mark Taratoot, Corvallis,0835 Provides feedback on how the DEA andlaw enforcement affect disposal practices.OR Public WorksDepartment17 Thomas W. Curtis, AWWA 0836 Recommends how to identify new industries for pretreatment regulations: focus on nutrients andpathogens and clarify role of planning process.

# 2-4Section 2.0 – Public CommentsTable 2-1. Comments on the Preliminary 2008 andFinal 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program PlansEPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771EPANo.Commenter NameE-Docket No.Comment Summary18 William Walsh, Pepper0837 (also seeProvides information from the ADA on dental amalgam: BMPs, regulations, history, voluntaryHamilton LLP0003)programs, industry profile, costs and effectiveness of technologies, and amalgam separator(American Dentaleffectiveness and use.Association)19 Stan Dempsey, Jr.,0840, 0842,Recommends that EPA “right size” the CBM survey toreduce burden, involve and collect data fromColorado Petroleum0858state agencies, and consider basin-specific differences in technology and reuse.Association (CPA)20 Michael P. Walls0843, 0859 Provided recommendations on EPA’s review methodology and specific comments on industries:support continued evaluation of TWF determination;TRI/PCS databases overestimate discharges fromOCPSF; no further review needed for CWTs/WasteCombustors; and no regulation is needed for cogeneration facilities.21 Will Perry and Kathleen0844 Provided data on unused pharmaceuticals: generation rates, disposalmethods, hazardous wasteKlein, Public Health/Seattlemanagement, leachate, return/take-back programs, and residential consumer issues.& King County22 Janet Gillaspie — Executive0845 Provided data on dental amalgam and unusedpharmaceuticals: BMPs, state/local regulations, voluntaryDirector, Oregonprograms, effectiveness, pass through, pharmaceutical disposal concerns, and disposal methods.Association of Clean WaterAgencies (ACWA)23 Beryl B. Fletcher, Oregon0846 Provided data on dental amalgam: BMPs, performance of BMPs, recycling resources, and mercuryDental Associationcollection events.24 Christopher Sproul,0847, 0854 Restated issues in the ongoing litigation ofOur Children’s Earth Foundation, et al. v. U.S. EPA.Attorney for EcologicalRights Foundation and OurChildren’s EarthFoundation25 Christopher Sproul,0848 Concurred with Ecological Rights Foundation and Our Children’s Earth Foundation comments.Environmental Advocates26 Cynthia A. Finley,0849 Provided data on dental mercury: removals at POTWs, content in effluent/biosolids, technologyNACWAeffectiveness, and cost/benefits.Also commented that pretreatment standards are not preferred.27 Paul Chu, EPRI0850 Provided data related to discharges from steam electric facilities: IGCC facilities information,environmental assessments/inputs information (TRUE Model), TRUE multimedia risk assessmentmodel, and case studies.

# 2-5Section 2.0 – Public CommentsTable 2-1. Comments on the Preliminary 2008 andFinal 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program PlansEPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771EPANo.Commenter NameE-Docket No.Comment Summary28 Michael Garvin, PhRMA 0851 Provided data on unused pharmaceuticals: disposal practices, barriers preventing the reduction ofunused pharmaceuticals to POTWs orsurface water, efforts with the DEA, BMPs, and fate of unusedpharmaceuticals that go to landfills.29 Charlotte A. Smith,0852 Provided data on the driving force of disposal practices in hospitals, state regulations and programs,PharmEcology Associates,work with the DEA, and BMPs.LLC30 Liz Aldridge, UWAG 0853, 0862 Provided comments on EPA’s ongoing detailed study of the steam electric industry.31 Sheila Lockwood,0855 Provided data on dental amalgam: links to regulations, data on mercury reductions in biosolids fromEnvironmental Health andamalgam separators, and education and outreach materials. Also provided data on unusedSafety Coordinatorpharmaceuticals: links to guidance, BMPs, dischargeauthorization programs, and trial medicine takeUniversity of Washingtonback programs.Seattle, WA32 Diana Klemans, The0856 Recommended regulation of phosphorus discharges from POTWs and national categorical pretreatmentMichigan Department ofstandards for unused pharmaceuticalsand other personal care products.Environmental Quality33 Larry Lamperti, City of0857 Provided data on BMPs: City’s effluent mercury before and after BMPs, POTW implementation costs,Corvallis, ORand example BMPs.34 Christie True, King County0860 Provided comments on dental amalgam and unused pharmaceuticals: does not support nationalWater Treatment Divisionpretreatment standards; supportsvoluntary initiatives; andprovides data on success of their programs.35 Thomas P. Uva,0861 Provided data on dental amalgam BMPs. Also does not recommend any new federal categoricalNarragansett Baypretreatment standards because local limits suffice.Commission (NBC)36 Paul Martyn, LA County 1059 Supported EPA studying health services dental amalgam and unused pharmaceuticals: need foramalgam separators and take-back programs for unused pharmaceuticals.

## Section 3.0 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process



# 3-1 3.0 T HE 

# E FFLUENT 

# G UIDELINES 

# P LANNING 

# P ROCESS



# This section provides a general overview of the process EPA uses to identify industrial

categories for potential devel opment of new or revised effl uent limitations guidelines and

pretreatment standards (ELGs) in 2007 and 2008. This process consists of: (1) annual review of

existing ELGs to identify candidates for revision; (2) identification of ne w categories of direct

dischargers for possible devel opment of effluent guidelines; and (3) identification of new

categories of indirect discharger s for possible development of pret reatment standards. Each of

these components is illustrated in Figu res 3-1 through 3-3 and discussed below.

3.1 Goals of the ELG Planning Process

In the effluent guideline planning process, EPA is guided by the following goals:

• 

# Restore and maintain the chemical, phys ical, and biological integrity of the

Nation's waters; and

• 

# Provide transparent decision-making and involve stakeholders early and often

during the planning process.

3.2 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pret reatment Standards

This section describes the four factors used (Section 3.2.1) and how they are used

(Section 3.2.2) in the annual review of existing e ffluent guidelines and pretreatment standards.

3.2.1 Factors Considered in Review of Existin g Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment

Standards

EPA uses four major factors in prioritizing existing effluent guideli nes or pretreatment

standards for possible revision.

The first factor EPA considers is the amount and type of pollutants in an industrial

category’s discharge, and the relative hazard posed by that discharge. This enables the Agency to

set priorities for rulemaking to achieve the gr eatest environmental and health benefits. EPA

estimates the toxicity of pollu tant discharges in terms of toxic-weighted pound equivalents

(TWPE), discussed in detail in Section 4.1.3. To assess the effectiveness of pollution control,

EPA examines the removal of pollutants, in terms of pounds and TWPE.

The second factor EPA considers is the performance and cost of applicable and

demonstrated wastewater treatment technologi es, process changes, or pollution prevention

alternatives that could effectiv ely reduce the pollutants in the industrial category’s wastewater

and, consequently, reduce the hazar d to human health or the environment associated with these

pollutant discharges.

## Section 3.0 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process



# Figure 3-1. Flow Chart of Annua l Review of Existing ELGs

3-2

## Section 3.0 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process

Further Review

- Detailed studies

- Preliminary review

- Continue collecting data (all

four factors)

Are discharges

adequately controlled

by existing ELGs?*

Are ELGs

potentially the

appropriate

tool?

Identify other tools (e.g.,

permit-based support or

guidance) No further review at this time Yes

No

No

*Continue further review if not enough data. Category identified for further

review (see Figure 3-1)

Identify for possible revision of

ELGs Yes Stakeholder input Not enough

information



# Figure 3-2. Flow Chart of Furt her Review of Existing ELGs

3-3Section 3.0 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning ProcessStakeholder recommendationsand commentsIs the SIC codeIdentify SIC codesInclude in annual review ofexisting category(see Figure 3-1)with dischargesnot subject toexisting ELGsappropriatelyconsidered a potentialnew subcategory of anexisting ELG?Begin industryidentificationDodischarges interferewith or otherwise passthrough POTWoperations?*Is the possible newcategory all or nearly allindirect dischargers?Aredischarges of toxicor nonconventionalpollutantstrivial?*Are ELGs potentiallythe appropriate tool?No identification orfurther review necessaryIdentify other tools(e.g., permit-basedsupport or guidance)Identify for possiblenew effluent guidelinesor standardsYesPCS & TRIdatabase toolsYesYesYesNoNoNoNo*Continue further review if not enough data.YesNo identification orfurther review necessaryNo



# 3-4Figure 3-3. Flow Chart of Identification of Possible New ELGs

## Section 3.0 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process



# 3-5 The third factor EPA considers is the affo rdability or economic achievability of the

wastewater treatment technology, process change , or pollution prevention measures identified

using the second factor. If the financial condition of the indus try indicates that it would be

difficult to implement new requi rements, EPA might conclude that it would be more costeffective to develop less expens ive approaches to reducing polluta nt loadings that would better

satisfy applicable statutory requirements.

The fourth factor EPA considers is an opportunity to eliminate inefficiencies or

impediments to pollution prevention or techno logical innovation, or opp ortunities to promote

innovative approaches such as water quality trading, including with in-plant trading. This factor

might also prompt EPA, during an annual review, to decide agains t identifying an existing set of

effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards fo r revision where the pollu tant source is already

efficiently and effectively controlled by othe r regulatory or nonregulatory programs.

3.2.2 Overview: Review of Existing Point Source Categories

EPA has established ELGs to regulate wast ewater discharges from 56 point source

categories. EPA must annually review the ELGs for all of these categories. EPA first does a

screening-level review of all categories subject to existing ELGs. EPA then conducts further

review of categories prio ritized as a result of the screening- level review. This further review

consists of either an in-depth “detailed study” or a somewhat less detailed “preliminary category

review.” Based on this further review, EPA id entifies existing categories for potential ELGs

revision.

3.2.2.1 Screening-Level Review

The screening-level review is the first st ep in EPA’s annual review. Section 4.0 provides

details on the database methodology used in the sc reening-level review. EPA uses this step to

prioritize categories for further review. In conduc ting the screening-level review, EPA considers

the amount and toxicity of the pollutants in a cat egory’s discharge and the extent to which these

pollutants pose a hazard to human hea lth or the environment (Factor 1).

EPA conducts its screening-level review with data from the Toxics Release Inventory

(TRI) and Permit Compliance System (PCS). The Quality Assurance Project Plan for the 2007

Annual Screening-Level Analysis of TRI and PCS Industrial Category Discharge Data describes

the quality objectives EPA used with the TRI and PCS data in more detail (ERG, 2007a). TRI

and PCS do not list the effluent gui deline(s) applicable to a part icular facility. However, they

both include information on a facili ty’s Standard Industrial Classi fication (SIC) code. Therefore,

the first step in EPA’s screenin g-level review is to assign ea ch SIC code to an industrial

category. 1 

# EPA then uses the information reported in TRI and PCS, for a specified year, in

combination with toxic weighting factors (TWFs) 2 

# to calculate the total discharge of toxic and

nonconventional pollutants (reported in units of toxic-weighted pound equivalent or TWPE) for

each facility in a category for that year. For in direct dischargers, EPA adjusts this facilityspecific value to account for removals at the PO TW. EPA then sums the TWPE for each facility

1 

## For more information on EPA’s assign ment of each SIC code to an industri al category, see Section 5.0 of the 2005

Annual Screening-Level Analysis Report (U.S. EPA, 2005).

2 

## For more information on Toxic Weighting Factors, s ee Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA

304(m) Planning Process (U.S. EPA, 2006).

## Section 3.0 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process



# 3-6 in a category to calculate a total TWPE per cat egory for that year. EPA calculates two TWPE

estimates for each category: one based on data in TRI and one based on data in PCS. EPA

combined the estimated discharges of toxic a nd nonconventional pollutant s calculated from the

TRI and PCS databases to estimate a single TW PE value for each industrial category. EPA took

this approach because it found that combini ng the TWPE estimates from the TRI and PCS

databases into a single TWPE number offered a clearer perspective of the industries with the

most toxic pollution. 3



# EPA then ranks point source categories acco rding to their total TWPE discharges. In

identifying categories for further review, EPA pr ioritizes categories acco unting for 95 percent of

the cumulative TWPE from the combined databa ses (see Section 5.3). EPA also excludes from

further review categories for whic h effluent guidelines had been re cently promulgated or revised

(within the past seven years), or for which an effluent guidelines rulemaking is currently

underway. EPA chose seven years because this is th e time it customarily takes for the effects of

effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards to be fully reflected in pollutant loading data and

TRI reports. EPA also considers th e number of facilities respons ible for the majority of the

estimated toxic-weighted pollutant discharges as sociated with an indus trial activity. Where only

a few facilities in a category account for the vast majority of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges,

EPA typically does not prioritize the category for additional review. In this case, EPA believes

that revising individual permits may be more effective in addre ssing the toxic-weighted pollutant

discharges than a national effluent guidelines rulemaking because requirements can be better

tailored to these few facilities, and because in dividual permitting actions may take considerably

less time than a national rulemaking.

3.2.2.2 Further Review

Following its screening-level review of a ll point source categori es, EPA prioritizes

certain categories for further review. The purpose of the further review is to determine whether it

would be appropriate for EPA to identify in the final plan a point source category for potential

effluent guidelines revision. EPA t ypically conducts two types of further review: detailed studies

and preliminary reviews. EPA selects categories for further review based on the screening-level

review and/or stakeholder input.

EPA’s detailed studies generally examine th e following: (1) wastewater characteristics

and pollutant sources; (2) the pollutants driving the toxic-wei ghted pollutant discharges; (3)

availability of pollution preventi on and treatment; (4) the geographic distribution of facilities in

the industry; (5) any pollutant discharge trends within the industry; and (6) any relevant

economic factors. First, EPA attempts to verify the screening-level results and to fill in data gaps

(Factor 1). Next, EPA consider s costs and performance of ap plicable and demonstrated

technologies, process changes, or pollution preven tion alternatives that ca n effectively reduce the

pollutants remaining in the point source category’ s wastewater (Factor 2). Last, EPA considers

3 

## Different pollutants may dominate the TRI and PCS TWPE estimates for an industrial category due to the

differences in pollutant reporting requirements between the TRI and PCS databases. The single TWPE number for

each category highlights those industries with the most t oxic discharge data in both TRI and PCS. Although this

approach could have theoretically led to double-counting, EPA's review of the data indicates that because the two

databases focus on different pollutants, double-counting was minimal and did not affect the ranking of the top

ranked industrial categories.

## Section 3.0 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process



# 3-7 the affordability or economic achievability of the technology, process change, or pollution

prevention measures identified usin g the second factor (Factor 3).

Types of data sources that EPA may consu lt in conducting its deta iled studies include,

but are not limited to: (1) U.S. Economic Census; (2) TRI and PCS data; (3) trade associations

and reporting facilities to verify reported releases and facility categorization; (4) regulatory

authorities (states and EPA regions) to understa nd how category facilities are permitted; (5)

NPDES permits and their supporting fact sheet s; (6) EPA effluent guidelines technical

development documents; (7) relevant EPA prelim inary data summaries or study reports; and (8)

technical literature on pollutant so urces and control technologies.

Preliminary reviews are similar to detailed studies and have the same purpose. During

preliminary reviews, EPA generally examines the same factors and data sources listed above for

detailed studies. However, in a preliminar y review, EPA’s examination of a point source

category and available pollution prevention and tr eatment options is less rigorous than in its

detailed studies. While EPA collects and anal yzes hazard and technology performance and cost

information on categories undergoing preliminary review, it assigns a higher priority to

investigating categories unde rgoing detailed studies.

3.3 Identification of New Categories of Di rect Dischargers for Possible Effluent

Guidelines Development

Concurrent with its review of existing point source categories, EPA also reviews

industries not currently subject to effluent gui delines to identify pot ential new point source

categories. To identify possible new categories, EPA conducts a “crosswalk” analysis based on

data in PCS and TRI. Facilities with data in PCS and TRI are iden tified by a four-digit SIC code

(Section 4.1.1 provides more deta ils on SIC codes). As with ex isting sources, EPA links each

four-digit SIC code to an appropriate industrial category (i.e., “the crosswalk”). 4 

# This crosswalk

identifies SIC codes that EPA associated with industries subject to an existing guideline. The

crosswalk also identifies SIC code s not associated with an existi ng guideline. In addition to the

crosswalk analysis, EPA relies on stakeholder co mments and data in identifying potential new

point sources categories. TRI and PCS have onl y limited data on discha rges on potential new

categories or subcategories. Section 4.1 discusse s the utility and limitations of TRI and PCS in

detail.

For each industry identified through the cr osswalk analysis or stakeholder comments,

EPA evaluates whether it c onstitutes a potential new category subject to identification in the plan

or whether it is properly considered a potential new subcategory of an existing point source

category. To make this determination, EPA gene rally looks at whether the industry produces a

similar product or performs a similar service as an existing category. If so, EPA generally

considers the industry to be a potential new subcategory of that category. If, however, the

industry is significantly different from existing categories in te rms of products or services

provided, EPA considers the industry as a poten tial new stand-alone category subject to

identification in the plan.

4 

## For additional information on “the crosswalk,” see Section 5.0 of the 2005 Annual Screening-Level Analysis

Report (U.S. EPA, 2005).

## Section 3.0 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process



# 3-8 Because the CWA specifies different requireme nts for potential new categories of direct

and indirect dischargers, EPA examines potential new categories to determine if the category

comprises mostly indirect dischargers or if it comp rises both direct and indirect dischargers. If a

category consists largely of indirect dischargers, EPA evaluates the pass-through and

interference potential of the categ ory (see Section 3.4). If a category includes direct dischargers,

EPA evaluates the type of polluta nts discharged by the category.

EPA does not identify in the plan industries fo r which conventional pollu tants, rather than

toxic or nonconventional pollutant s, are the pollutants of concern. Also, even where toxic and

non-conventional pollutants are pres ent in the discharge, EPA does not identify the industry in

the plan if such pollutants are present only in tr ivial amounts and thereby pr esent an insignificant

hazard to human health and the environment.

Further, EPA would likely not identify an i ndustrial sector as a ca ndidate point source

category for an effluent guidelines rulemaking wh en: (1) the industrial ca tegory is currently the

subject of an effluent guidelines rulemaking ef fort (e.g., Airport Deici ng Operations, Drinking

Water Treatment Facilities); or (2) direct discha rges from point sources within the industrial

sector are not subject to the CWA permitting re quirements (e.g., direct discharges from

silviculture operations).

Finally, EPA does not necessarily identify in the plan all potential new categories subject

to identification. Rather, EPA ma y exercise its discretion to id entify only those potential new

categories for which it believes an ELG would be an appropriate tool — and rely on other CWA

tools (e.g., water quality-based efflue nt limitations or assistance to permit writers in establishing

site-specific technology-based effl uent limitations) when such other mechanisms would be more

effective and efficient.

3.4 Identification of New Categories of I ndirect Dischargers for Possible Effluent

Guidelines Development

For potential new categories with primarily indirect discharges, EPA evaluates the

potential for the wastewater to “interfere with, pass through, or [be] otherwise incompatible

with” the operation of POTWs. See 33 U.S.C. § 1371(b)(1). Usi ng available data, EPA reviews

the types of pollutants in an industry’s wastewater. Then, EPA reviews the likelihood of those

pollutants to pass through a PO TW. For most categories, EPA evaluated the “pass through

potential” as measured by: (1) th e total annual TWPE discharged by the industrial sector; and (2)

the average TWPE discharge among facilities that discharge to POTWs. EPA also assesses the

interference potential of the disc harge. Finally, EPA considers wh ether the pollutant discharges

are already adequately controlled by general pretreatment standa rds and/or local pretreatment

limits. In particular, EPA reviewed the pollutant discharges and potential technology options for

dental amalgam and unused pharmaceutical manage ment in the Health Services Industry, which

is composed of nearly all indirect dischargers (see Section 12.2).

3.5 Stakeholder Involvement and Schedule

EPA’s goal is to involve stakeholders ear ly and often during it s annual reviews of

existing effluent guidelines and the development of the biennial plans. This will likely maximize

## Section 3.0 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process



# 3-9 collection of data to inform EPA’s analys es and provide additi onal transparency and

understanding of EPA’s effluent guidelines prio rities identified in the biennial plans.

EPA’s annual reviews build on reviews from previous years, and reflect a lengthy

outreach effort to involve stakeholders in the review process. In performing its annual reviews,

EPA considers all public comments, information, and data submitted to EPA as part of its

outreach activities. EPA solicits public comment at the beginning of each annual review of

effluent guidelines and on the pr eliminary biennial plan. In each Federal Register Notice, EPA

requests stakeholder comments on specific industries and discha rges as well as any general

comments.

EPA completes an annual review of industr ial discharges each y ear, upon publication of

the Preliminary and Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plans. In odd-numbered years, EPA

publishes its preliminary plan that EPA must publish for public review and comment under

CWA section 304(m)(2). In even-numbered years, EPA publishes its final plan that incorporates

the comments received on the preliminary plan.

EPA intends that these coincident reviews will provide meaningful insight into EPA’s

effluent guidelines and pretreatment standard s program decision-making. Additionally, EPA is

using an annual publication schedule to most effi ciently serve the public as these annual notices

will serve as the “one-stop shop” source of in formation on the Agency’s current and future

effluent guidelines and pret reatment standards program.

3. 6 The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process References

1. ERG. 2007. Quality Assurance Project Plan for 2007 Annual Screening-Level Analysis

of TRI and PCS Industrial Category Disc harge Data. (March 19). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-

0771-0208.

2. U.S. EPA. 2005. 2005 Annual Screening-Leve l Analysis: Supporting the Annual Review

of Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Identification of New

Point Source Categories for Effluent Li mitations and Standards. EPA-821-B-05-003.

Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0901.

3. U.S. EPA. 2006. Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA 304(m)

Planning Process. Washington, DC. (June). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1634.

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-1 4.0 M ETHODOLOGY



# , D ATA 

# S OURCES



# , AND 

# L IMITATIONS



# As discussed in Section 1.0, the CWA requi res EPA to conduct an annual review of

existing effluent limitations guide lines and standards (ELGs). It al so requires EPA to identify

unregulated industrial categories. EPA’s method ology for this annual review and unregulated

category identification involves several co mponents, as discussed in Section 3.0.

First, EPA performs a screening-level revi ew of all point source categories subject to

existing ELGs to identify categories discharg ing high levels of t oxic and nonconventional

pollutants relative to other categories. Using the results of the screening-level review, EPA

continues its annual review of priority categor ies to identify candidate ELGs for revision, as

required by CWA sections 304(b), 301(d), 304( g), and 307(b). The findings of EPA’s 2008

annual review are discussed in Part II (Sect ions 5.0 to 11.0). Second, EPA reviews indirect

discharging industries not currently subject to pretreatment standards to identify potential

candidates for pretreatment standards developmen t, as required by CWA section 307(b). Finally,

EPA reviews direct discharging i ndustries not currently subject to ELGs to identify potential

candidates for ELG development, as required by section 304(m)(1)(B) of the CWA. EPA did not

identify for rulemaking any indirect or direct discharging industries not currently subject to

pretreatment standards or ELGs in the 2008 annual review.

In performing the screening-level reviews of existing ELGs and identifying unregulated

industrial categories, EPA relies on data from the Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Toxics

Release Inventory (TRI). This se ction discusses these databases, related data sources, and their

limitations.

EPA has developed two screening-level tools, the TRIReleases and PCSLoads databases,

to facilitate analysis of TRI and PCS. EPA previously explaine d the creation of these screeninglevel analysis tools in 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 (2005 SLA Report), dated August

2005 (U.S. EPA, 2005b). Additionally, the Technical Support Document for the Preliminary

2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (2008 Preliminary Plan TS D), dated October 2007 (U.S.

EPA, 2007), describes updated methodology for the development of the TRIReleases and

PCSLoads databases. The 2005 SLA Report and 2008 Pre liminary Plan TSD provide the detailed

methodology used to process thousands of data records and generate national estimates of

industrial effluent discharges. Th is section does not re visit the details of creating the database

tools. Instead, it lists the met hodology corrections made to the PCS and TRI databases after

EPA’s 2007 annual review. It also presents the preliminary category rankings from

TRIReleases2004_v3

, TRIReleases2005_v2 , and PCSLoads2004_v4

.

4.1 Data Sources and Limitations

This subsection provides general information on the use of SIC codes, TWFs, TRI data,

and PCS data. The following reports supplement this section and discuss EPA’s methodology for

developing and using these tools:

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-2 • 

# 2005 Annual Screening-Level Analysis: Suppor ting the Annual Review of Existing

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Identification of New Point

Source Categories for Effluent Limitations and Standards (2005 SLA Report),

dated August 2005 (U.S. EPA, 2005b). Documents the methodology and

development of the PCSLoads2002 and TRIReleases2002 databases, including

(but not limited to) matching SIC codes to point source categories and using

TWFs to estimate TWPE.

• 

# Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

(2006 TSD), dated December 2006 (U.S. EP A, 2006b). Explains and documents

methodology corrections made to the TRI and PCS databases after EPA’s 2005

and 2006 annual reviews.

• 

# Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines

Program Plan (2008 Preliminary Plan TSD), dated October 2007 (U.S. EPA,

2007). Explains and documents methodology corrections made to the TRI and

PCS databases for EPA’s 2007 annual review.

• 

# Draf t Toxic Weighting Factor Devel opment in Support of the CWA 304(m)

Planning Process (Draft TWF Development Docu ment), dated July 2005 (U.S.

EPA, 2005a). Explains how EPA developed its TWFs.

• 

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

Process (Final TWF Development Document) (U.S. EPA, 2006a). Explains how

EPA developed the April 2006 TWFs.

4.1.1 SIC Codes

The SIC system was developed to help with the collection, aggreg ation, presentation, and

analysis of data from the U.S. economy (O MB, 1987). The SIC code is formatted in the

following way:

• 

# The first two digits repres ent the major industry group;

• 

# The t hird digit represents the industry group; and

• 

# The fourth digit repr esents the industry.

For example, major SIC code 10: Metal Mining, includes all metal mining operations.

Within SIC code 10, four-digit SI C codes are used to separate mines by metal type: 1011 for iron

ore mining, 1021 for copper ore mining, 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

(e.g., the economic census) track onl y the primary SIC code for each establishment. TRI allows

reporting facilities to identify their primary SIC code and up to five additional SIC codes. PCS

includes one four-digit SIC code, reflecting the principal activity causing the discharge at each

facility. For a given facilit y, the SIC code in PCS may di ffer from the primary SIC code

identified in TRI.

Regulations for an individual point source category may apply to one SIC code, multiple

SIC codes, or a portion of the facilities in an SI C code. Therefore, to use databases that identify

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-3 facilities by SIC code, EPA linked each four-digit SIC code to an appropriate point source

category, as summarized in the “SIC/Point Sour ce Category Crosswalk” table (Table A-1 in

Appendix A).

There are some SIC codes for which EPA ha s not established national ELGs. Some of

these SIC codes were reviewed because they were identified through stakeholder comments or

other factors. Table A-2 in Appendix A lists the SIC codes for which facility discharge data are

available in TRI and/or PCS, but for which EPA could not iden tify an applicable point source

category. For a more detailed discussion, see Section 5.5 of the 2005 SLA Report (U.S. EPA,

2005b).

4.1.2 Toxic Weighting Factors

In developing ELGs, EPA developed a vari ety of tools and methodologies to evaluate

effluent discharges. Within EPA’s Office of Water, the Engineering and Analysis Division

(EAD) maintains a Toxics Database, compiled from over 100 references, that contain aquatic life

and human health toxicity data, as well as phys ical/chemical property data, for more than 1,900

pollutants. The pollutants in this database are identified by a unique Chemical Abstracts Service

(CAS) number. EPA calculates TWFs from these data to account for diff erences in toxicity

across pollutants and to provide the means to compare mass loadings of different pollutants on

the basis of their toxic potential. In its analys es, EPA multiplies a mass loading of a pollutant in

pounds per year (lb/yr) by a polluta nt-specific weighting factor to derive a “toxic-equivalent”

loading (lb-equivalent/yr). The deve lopment of TWFs is discussed in detail in the Draft and Final

TWF Development Documents (U.S. EPA, 2005a; U.S. EPA, 2006a).

EPA derives TWFs from chronic aquatic life criteria (or toxic effect levels) and human

health criteria (or toxic eff ect levels) established for the consumption of fish. In the

establishment of 304(a) water qua lity criteria for carcinogenic subs tances, EPA's goal is to set

the human health risk level at 10 -6 

# (i.e., protective to a le vel allowing 1 in 1,000,000 excess

lifetime cancer cases over backgr ound). In the TWF method for a ssessing water-based effects,

these toxicity levels are compared to benchm ark values. EPA selected copper, a toxic metal

commonly detected and removed fr om industry effluent, as the benchmark pollutant. The Final

TWF Development Document contains details on how EPA developed its TWFs (U.S. EPA,

2006a). Table A-3 in Appendix A lists th e TWFs for those chemicals in the TRIReleases and

PCSLoads databases for which EPA has developed TWFs.

4.1.2.1 New Toxic Weighting Factors Develo ped During the 2007 Annual Review

During the 2007 annual review, EPA revised the TWF for one chemical (reflecting

updated information on the underlying data) and developed new TWFs for chemicals that had

not previously had TWFs. Table 4-1 lists the newly developed TWFs. The only pollutants with

new TWFs in EPA’s databases ( TRIReleases and PCSLoads ) are picloram acid (TGAI) and

potassium picloram (K-salt). However, only one facility reports picloram acid (TGAI) and

potassium picloram (K-salt) in TRIReleases2005 , while these pollutants are not in the

PCSLoads2004 database.

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-4 Table 4-1. Ne w l y Developed TWFs in 2007

Po lluta nt CA S Number TWF

Piclo r am triiso p r op ano l am in e salt

(TI PA ) 6 753 475 0

. 0 028 5

No ny l p hen ol 25 1 54

- 52 -3 0. 84 8

Oct y l phe nol 27 1 93

- 28 -8 0. 29 5

Al ky phe n o l et ho xy l a t e s 68 9 8 7

- 90 -6 2. 80

Pi cl oram aci d ( T GA I) 19 1 8

- 0 2- 01 0. 01 0 3

Pot a ssi um pi cl oram (K -sal t ) 25 4 5

- 6 0- 0 0. 00 4 36

Source: Toxic Weighting Factors Developed for the Proposed 2008 Effluent Guidelines Plan (ERG, 2007b).



# 4.1.3 Calculation of TWPE

EPA weighted the annual pollutant discharges calculated from the TRI (see Section 4.1.4)

and PCS (see Section 4.1.5) databases using EAD’s TWFs to calculate TWPE for each reported

discharge. EPA summed the estimated TWPE disc harged by each facility in a point source

category to understand the potential hazard of th e discharges from each category. The following

subsections discuss the calculation of TWPE.

4.1.4 Data from TRI

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

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Each year, facilities that meet certain thresholds must report their

releases and other waste manageme nt activities for listed toxic chem icals. Facilities must report

the quantities of toxic chemicals recycled, colle cted 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 years 2004 and 2005 includes more

than 600 chemicals and chemical categories. For the 2007 and 2008 screening-level reviews,

EPA used data for reporting years 2004 and 2005, b ecause 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. SIC Code Determination. Facilities in SIC codes 20 through 39, facilities in 16

additional SIC codes outside that range, 5 

# and federal facilitie s are subject to TRI

reporting. EPA generally relies on facil ity claims regarding the SIC code

identification. The primary SIC code determines TRI reporting.

2. Numbe r of Employees. Facilities must have 10 or more full-time employees or

their equivalent. EPA defines a “full-tim e equivalent” as a person that works

2,000 hours in the reporting year (there are several excepti ons and special

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

3. Activity Thresholds. If the facility is in a cove red SIC code and has 10 or more

full-time employee equivalents, it must c onduct an activity threshold analysis for

5 

## The 16 additional SIC codes are 1021, 1031, 1041, 1044, 1061, 1099, 1221, 1222, 1231, 4911, 4931, 4939, 4953,

5169, 5171, and 7389.

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-5 every chemical and chemical category on th e 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 threshol ds are based on mass, not concentration.

Different thresholds apply for persiste nt bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals

than for non-PBT chemicals. Generall y, threshold quanti ties are 25,000 pounds

for manufacturing and processing ac tivities 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 facili ty that manufactur es, processes, or

otherwise uses 0.1 grams of dioxin and di oxin-like compounds to report it to TRI

(U.S. EPA, 2000).

In TRI, facilities report a nnual loads released to the envir onment of each toxic chemical

or chemical category that meets reporting requi rements. They must re port onsite releases or

disposal to air, receiving str eams, land, underground wells, and several other categories. They

must also report the amount of toxic chemicals in wastes transf erred to offsite locations, (e.g.,

POTWs, commercial waste disposal facilities).

For its screening-level reviews, EPA fo cused on the amount of chemicals facilities

reported either discharging dire ctly to a receiving stream or transferring to a POTW. For

facilities discharging directly to a stream, EPA took the annual loads directly from the reported

TRI data for calendar years 2004 and 2005. For faci lities transferring to POTWs, EPA first

adjusted the TRI pollutant loads reported to be transferred to POTWs to account for pollutant

removal that occurs at the POTWs prior to di scharge to the receiving stream. Table A-4 in

Appendix A lists the POTW removals used for all TRI chemicals reporte d as transferred to

POTWs.

Facilities reporting to TRI are not required to sample a nd 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 require d to indicate, by a reporting code, the basi s of their release

estimate. TRI’s reporting guidance is that, for mo st 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 th e accuracy; however, EPA

allows facilities to re port releases in the following ranges: 1 to 10 pounds, 11 to 499 pounds, and

500 to 999 pounds. For its screening-level reviews, EPA used the midpoint of each reported

range to represent a facility ’s releases, as applicable.

4.1.4.1 Utility of TRI Data

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

reasons:

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-6 • 

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

• 

# TRI includes releases to PO TWs, not just direct discharges to surface water;

• 

# TRI inc ludes discharge data from ma nufacturing SIC codes and some other

industrial cate gories; and

• 

# TRI includes releases of many toxic chemical s, not just those in facility discharge

permits.

4.1.4.2 Limitations of TRI

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

following:

• 

# Small establishments (less than 10 employ ees) are not required to report, nor are

facilities that don’t meet the reporting thresholds. Thus, f acilities reporting to TRI

may be a subset of an industry.

• 

# Release reports are, in part, based on estimates, not measurements, and, due to

TRI guidance, may overstate releases, es pecially at facilities with large

wastewater flows.

• 

# Cert ain chemicals (polycyclic aromatic compounds [PACs], dioxin and dioxinlike compounds, metal compounds) are reporte d as a class, not as individual

compounds. Because the individual com pounds in most classes have widely

varying toxic effects, the potential to xicity of chemical releases can be

inaccurately estimated.

• 

# 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 toxic wastewater releases.

Despite these limitations, EPA determined that the data summarized in TRIReleases2004

and TRIReleases2005 were usable for the 2007 and 2008 screening-level reviews and

prioritization of the toxic-weight ed pollutant loadings discharged by industrial categories. The

TRI database remains the only data source for national estimates of industrial wastewater

discharges of unregulated pollutants.

4.1.5 Data from PCS

PCS is a computerized information manageme nt system maintained by EPA’s Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). It was created to track permit, compliance,

and enforcement status of facilities regulat ed by the NPDES program under the CWA. Among

other things, PCS houses discharg e data for these facilities.

More than 65,000 industrial facilities and wa stewater 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/mi nor classification system for industrial and

municipal wastewater discharges. Major discharges almost always have the capability to impact

receiving waters if not controll ed and, therefore, have received more regulatory attention than

minor discharges. There are approximately 6,400 f acilities (including sewe rage systems) with

major discharges for which PCS has extensive reco rds. Permitting authorities classify discharges

as major based on an assessment of six characteristics:

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-7 4. Toxic pollutant potential;

5. Discharge flow: stream flow ratio;

6. Conventional pollutant loading;

7. Public health impact;

8. Water quality factors; and

9. Proximity to coastal waters.

Facilities with major discharges must report compliance with NPDES permit limits via

monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted to the permitting authority. The

permitting authority enters the reported DMR data into PCS, including pollutant concentration

and quantity values and identification of any types of permit violations.

Minor discharges may, or may not, adversel y impact receiving wate r if not controlled.

Therefore, EPA does not require DMRs for facilit ies with minor discharges. For this reason, the

PCS database includes data only for a limited set of minor dischargers when the states choose to

include these data.

Parameters in PCS include water quality parameters (such as pH and temperature),

specific chemicals, conventional parameters (such as BOD 5 

# and total suspended solids [TSS]),

and flow rates. Although other pollutants may be discharged, PCS contains only data for the

parameters identified in the facility’s NPDES pe rmit. Facilities typically report monthly average

pounds per day discharged, but also report daily maxima and aver age pollutant concentrations.

For the 2007 annual review, EPA used data for reporting year 2004, to correspond to the

data obtained from TRI. For th e 2008 annual review, EPA correct ed certain aspects of the 2004

data in response to comments (see Section 4.2 ). EPA did not use data for reporting year 2005

because, based on comparisons of 2000, 2001, and 2002 PCS data for certain industrial

categories, 2005 discharges were not likely to change significantly from 2004, and also because

the creation of the PCSLoads database is labor-intensive. EPA used a mainframe computer

program, called the Effluent Data Statistics (E DS) System, to calculate annual loads using PCS

data for 2000 and 2002 discharges. For the 2007 annual review, however, EPA used the

PCSLoadCalculator instead of EDS to calculate a nnual loads using PCS data for 2004

discharges. EPA used the PCSLoadCalculator because it allows EPA more flexibility and

control over the annual load calcu lations and provides more transparent documentation of the

calculation routine. Section 6.0 of the 2008 Prel iminary Plan TSD provides details on the

methodology and development of PCSLoads2004 (U.S. EPA, 2007).

4.1.5.1 Utility of PCS

The data collected in PCS are particularly useful for the ELG planning process for the

following reasons:

• 

# PCS is national in scope, including data from all 50 states and U.S. territories.

• 

# Discharge reports included in PCS are based on effluent chemical analysis and

metered flows.

• 

# PCS inc ludes facilities in all SIC codes.

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-8 • 

# PCS includes data on conventional polluta nts for most facilities and for the

nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus for many facilities. However, EPA did not use

the nutrient data because of data quality concerns.

4.1.5.2 Limitations of PCS

Limitations of the data collected in PCS include the following:

• 

# PCS contains data only for pollutants a f acility is required by permit to monitor;

the facility is not required to monitor or report all pollutants actually discharged.

• 

# Some states do not submit all DMR data to PCS, or do not submit the data in a

timely fashion.

• 

# PCS includes very limited discharge mon itoring data from minor dischargers.

• 

# PCS does not include data characterizing indirect discharges from industrial

facilities to POTWs.

• 

# Some of the pollutant parameters in cluded in PCS are reported as a group

parameter and not as indivi dual compounds (e.g., “Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen,” “oil

and grease”). Because the individual com pounds in the group parameter may have

widely varying toxic effects, the potential toxicity of chemical releases can be

inaccurately estimated.

• 

# In some cases, the PCS database identifie s the type of wastewater (e.g., process

wastewater, stormwater, noncontact cooli ng water) being discharged; however,

most do not and, therefore, total flow rates reported to PCS may include

stormwater and noncontact cooling wate r, as well as process wastewater.

• 

# Pipe identification is not al ways clear. For some facilities, internal monitoring

points are labeled as outfalls, and PCS ma y double-count a facility’s discharge. In

other cases, an outfall may be labeled as an internal monitoring point, and PCS

may not account for all of a facility’s discharge.

• 

# Facilities provide SIC code informati on for only the primary operations, even

though data may represent other operations as well. In addition, some facilities do

not provide information on applicable SIC codes.

• 

# 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 repor ted wastewater discharges.

• 

# PCS was designed as a permit compliance tracking system and does not contain

production information.

• 

# PC S data may be entered into the databa se manually, which leads to data-entry

errors.

• 

# In PCS, data may be reported as an average quantity, maximum quantity, average

concentration, maximum concentration, a nd/or minimum concentration. For many

facilities and/or pollutants, average quantity values are not provided. In these

cases, EPA is limited to estimating facil ity loads based on the maximum quantity.

Section 4.4.2 discusses the maximum quantity issue in detail.

Despite these limitations, EPA determined that the data summarized in PCSLoads2004

were usable for the 2007 and 2008 screening-leve l reviews and prioritizations of the toxicweighted pollutant loadings di scharged by industrial facilities . The PCS database remains the

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-9 only data source quantifying the pounds of regulat ed pollutants discharged directly to surface

waters of the United States.

4.2 Methodology Corrections Affecting Both Screening-Level Review Databases

EPA did not make any methodological changes to the screening-level review databases,

TRIReleases2004

, PCSLoads2004 , and TRIReleases2005 , as part of the 2008 annual review.

4.3 Corrections to the TRIReleases2004 Database

EPA did not make any corrections to the TRIReleases2004_v3 database as part of the

2008 annual review.

4.4 Corrections to the PCSLoads2004 Database

For the 2008 annual review, EPA updated the PCSLoads2004 database. The 2008

Preliminary Plan TSD provides details on the methodology for developing the PCSLoads2004

database (U.S. EPA, 2007). This secti on describes the changes made to the PCSLoads2004

database after publication of the 2007 Preliminary Plan.

EPA identified only one corre ction to the database duri ng the 2008 annual review. The

discharges of hexachlorobenzene were incorrec tly classified as BHC, another pollutant, and

linked to the TWF for BHC. The PCSLoads2004_v3 database corrects this error.

4.5 Corrections to the TRIReleases2005 Database

EPA developed the TRIReleases2005 database as part of the 2008 annual review using

the methodology explained in the 2005 SLA Report and 2008 Preliminary Plan TSD (U.S. EPA,

2005b; U.S. EPA, 2007).

During previous screening-level analyses, EPA identified numerous facility-specific

corrections for TRI data reported for cale ndar years 2002, 2003, and 2004. Several of these

corrections similarly apply to the 2005 TRI data . In addition, EPA reviewed the quality of the

2005 TRI data and discharges from facilities with discharges that have the greatest impact on

total category loads and category rankings. Table B-1 in Appendix B of th is report lists all

corrections made to the 2005 TRI data.

4.5.1 TRIReleases2005: Categorization of Discharges

This section describes database corrections to categorization of facilities and pollutant

discharges in TRIReleases2005 . Section 5 of the 2005 SLA Report describes the development of

the SIC/Point Source Category Crosswalk, which EP A uses to link between facility SIC codes

and categories with existing ELGs (U.S. EPA, 2 005). Because most point source categories are

not defined by SIC code, the relationship betwee n SIC code and point source category is not a

one-to-one correlation. A single SIC code may include facilities in more than one point source

category, so associating an SIC c ode with only one category may be an over simplification. Also,

many facilities have operations subject to more th an one point source categor y. Further, facilities

in some categories cannot be identified by SIC code (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-10 facilities). The database changes, summarized below, are described in detail in Section 5 of the

2005 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2005b):

• 

# 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 a pplied to the facility’s operations. EPA

assigned the following SIC code s to point source categorie s at the facility level:

— SIC 2048 (Prepared Feed and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowl,

Except Dogs and Cats). Facility discha rges are assigned to either the Grain

Mills Manufacturing, Meat and Poul try Products, or Pharmaceutical

Manufacturing point source categories.

— SIC 2819 (Industrial Inorganic Chemical s, NEC). Facility discharges are

assigned to either the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing, Nonferrous

Metals Manufacturing, or Phos phate Manufacturing point source

categories.

— SIC 2874 (Phosphatic Fertilizers). Faci lity discharges are assigned to

either the Phosphate Manufacturing or Fertilizer Manufacturing point

source categories.

— SIC code changes for specific industri es. Facility discha rges are assigned

to the following point source categories:

▪ Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Poin t Source Category phases (see the

2005 SLA Report [U.S. EPA, 2005b]);

▪ Chlorine or chlorinate hydrocar bon (CCH) manufacturing facilities

in the Organic Chemicals, Plas tics, and Synthetic Fibers or

Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Categories (see

the 2005 SLA Report [U.S. EPA, 2005b]); and

▪ Porcelain Enameling Point S ource Category (see the 2006 TSD

[U.S. EPA, 2006b]).

• 

# Pollutant-Level Point Source Category Assignment. Many facilities have

operations subject to more than one poi nt source category. For most of these

facilities, EPA cannot divide the pollutan t discharges among the applicable point

source categories. Two exceptions where EPA was able to assign wastewater

discharges of certain chemicals to the appropriate point sour ce category include

Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synt hetic Fibers (OC PSF)/Pesticides and

MP&M/Metal Finishing:

— OCPSF/Pesticides. EPA removed all pe sticide discharges from OCPSF

and counted them as discharges fr om the Pesticides Chemicals Point

Source Category.

— MP&M/Metal Finishing. EPA used the methodologies described in

Section 5 of the SLA Report to appo rtion pollutant loads between the

MP&M and Metal Finishing Po int Source Categories.

• 

# Categories Not Identified by SIC Code (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment, Waste

Combustor, and Landfills)

. The SIC/Point Source Category Crosswalk does not

assign any SIC codes to the Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) Point Source

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-11 Category (40 CFR Part 437), Waste Com bustor Point Source Category (30 CFR

Part 444), or Landfills Category (40 CFR Pa rt 445). Furthermore, the applicability

of these three regulations is not defined by SIC codes and no SIC code properly

describes the CWT, waste combustor, or landfill services. However, some

facilities in these categor ies report under SIC 4953: Refuse Systems. EPA

identified specific facilities as CWTs during previous category reviews and

assigned these CWT facilities a placeholde r SIC code of “CWT,” putting them in

the CWT Point Source Category. EPA also identified specific facilities as waste

combustors during previous category revi ews and assigned these waste combustor

facilities a placeholder SIC code of “WC, ” putting them in the Waste Combustor

Point Source Category. The remaining fac ilities were categories as the Landfills

Point Source Category. In addition, for the TRIReleases2005 database, EPA

categorized the facilities reporting SIC code 4953 into the CWT, Landfills, or

Waste Combustors Point Source Categories based on the specific operations at the

facility.

4.5.2 TRIReleases2005: Pollutant Corrections

This section describes database corrections made to discharges of specific pollutants

reported to the TRI for EPA’s 2008 screening-level review in the TRIReleases2005 database.

• 

# Metal Compounds. For TRI reporting, facilities may be required to report

discharges of a metal (e.g., zinc) an d 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 pare nt metal, EPA uses the parent metal

TWF to calculate TWPE for the metal and metal compound discharges. For

ranking purposes, EPA combined the TWPE s for the metal a nd metal compounds

(i.e., TWPE reported for “zinc and zinc compounds”). For more details on this

correction, see Section 3.4.4 of the 2005 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2005b).

• 

# Sodium Nitrite. For TRI reporting, sodium nitrite re lease quantities are reported as

the mass of the sodium nitrite. Sodium n itrite 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 chemical s that spontaneously ignite in air.

During the 2006 screening-le vel review, EPA determined that facilities were

incorrectly reporting discharges of to tal phosphorus (i.e., the phosphorus portion

of phosphorus-containing compounds) as phosphorus (yellow or white).

Therefore, EPA deleted all phosphorus (yel low or white) discharges reported to

TRI for the 2008 screening-level review.

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-12 4.5.3 TRIReleases2005: Data Quality Review

EPA evaluated the quality of TRI data for use in the 2008 screening-level review and

prioritization of loadings of toxic and non-c onventional pollutants di scharged by industrial

categories based on completeness, accurac y, reasonableness, and comparability. The Quality

Assurance Project Plan for the 2007 Annual Screen ing-Level Analysis of TRI and PCS Industrial

Category Discharge Data describes the quality objectives in more detail (ERG, 2007a). The

following discussion provides an overv iew of the quality review steps:

• 

# Completeness Checks. EPA compared counts of facilities in TRIReleases2005 to

TRIReleases2004

, TRIReleases2003 , and TRIReleases2002 to describe the

completeness of the database. The compar ison showed that fo r 74 percent of the

SIC codes, the number of facilities reporting wastewater discharges changed by

less than 25 percent from 2004 to 2005. EPA al so determined that most SIC codes

exhibiting a large percentage change did so because only a few facilities in these

SIC 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 identified facilities with the highest TWPE

loadings. EPA identified facilities for review whose pollutant discharges

accounted for more than 95 percent of th e TWPE for their point source category.

EPA compared 2005 TRI data to other av ailable information, such as PCS,

information from EPA’s Envirofacts We b page, the facilities’ NPDES permits,

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 cat egory. EPA used engineering judgment to determine

if pollutant discharges were reasonably a ssociated with the point source category.

• 

# Accu racy of Database Queries. EPA’s quality review fo r the development of

TRIReleases2005 included accuracy checks for database queries in

TRICalculations2005 and TRIReleases2005 . Documentation of accuracy checks is

provided in a QC table in each Microsoft Access database.

• 

# Comparability. EPA compared TRIReleases2005 to TRIReleases2004

, TRIReleases2003 , and TRIReleases2002 to identify pollutant discharges that

differ more than the year-to-year variati on of other chemicals and facilities. From

the comparison, EPA determined that 59 percent of the pollutants discharged in

both 2005 and 2004 had a change of less than 50 percent in the quantity

discharged. EPA also determined that most of the large percentage change

reflected initial discharges of small quanti ties. In addition, most of these pollutant

discharges resulted in small TWPEs.

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-13 4.5.4 TRIReleases2005: Facility Reviews

Table 4-2 presents EPA’s TRI facility review and corrections made to the

TRIReleases2005 database. EPA reviewed the accuracy of calculated discharg es 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 faci lities reporting to

TRI for reporting year 2005;

• 

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

contribute the majority of the toxic-wei ghted discharges for all categories; and

• 

# Facilities with the highest toxic-weig hted discharges from categories that

contribute the majority of the toxic-wei ghted 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 TRIReleases2004

, TRIReleases2003

, TRIReleases2002 , and TRIReleases2000 to determine whether corrections were

made during previous review s and evaluate whether these corrections should be

applied to TRIReleases2005

. 2. Review discharges reported to TRI fo r other reporting years (i.e., 2000, 2002,

2003, and 2004) and compare to discharges reported to TRI for reporting year

2005.

3. Review 2005 discharge monito ring report data in PCS, if available, to handcalculate annual pollutant loads and comp are to discharges reported to TRI for

reporting year 2005.

4. Contact the facility to ve rify whether the pollutant discharges are reported

correctly.

4.6 TRIReleases2004 and TRIReleases2005 Rankings and PCSLoads2004 Rankings

After incorporating the changes discusse d in Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5, EPA generated

the final versions of the TRI and PCS databa ses used for the 2008 sc reening-level review:

TRIReleases2004_v3, PCSLoads2004_v4 , and TRIReleases2005_v2 . Tables C-1, C-2, and C-3 in

Appendix C present the category rankings by TWPE from the TRIReleases2004_v3

, TRIReleases2005_v2 , and PCSLoads2003_v4 databases, respectivel y. The category rankings

presented in these tables reflect all the co rrections made during the 2007 and 2008 screeninglevel reviews. Tables C-4 through C-6 in Appendi x C present the four-digit SIC code rankings

by TWPE from the TRIReleases2004_v3

, TRIReleases2005_v2 , and PCSLoads2004_v4

databases, respectively. Tables C-7 through C-9 in Appendix C present the chemical rankings by

TWPE from the TRIReleases2004_v3

, TRIReleases2005_v2

, PCSLoads2004_v4 databases,

respectively.

# 4-14Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data Sources, and LimitationsTable 4-2. Summary ofTRIReleases2005Facility ReviewPoint SourceChemical(s) inActions Taken/DatabaseFacility NameFacility LocationCategoryQuestionReview FindingsCorrectionADM Decatur,ILGrainMillsChlorine Facility reported dischargingNo changes made61,099 TWPE of chlorine. Facilityreported that the chlorinedischarge in TRI is erroneous, andthe facility is currently working tore-submit their Form R forchlorine.Cahaba Pressure TreatedBrierfield, AL Timber DioxinFacility reported a dioxinChanged dioxin distribution toForest Productscongener distribution usingthe industry-provided dioxinoutdated industry guidance. Baseddistribution for SIC code 2491.on information collected in 2008.Dow Chemical Co FreeportFreeport, TX PesticidePicloram Facility reported picloram load toChanged the picloram TWPEFacilityChemicalsbe 99% picloram salt and 1%from 333,000 to 700, usingpicloram acid. Based onTWFs for the two forms ofinformation collected in 2006.picloram.Du Pont Memphis Plant Shelby, TN InorganicDioxin AndThe facility provided the dioxinChanged the dioxin and dioxinChemicalsDioxin-Likeand dioxin-like compoundslike compound load andCompoundsanalytical data, which includeddistribution based on the revisedmeasurements in a blank samplemeasurement data.with greater than or equal valuesfor several congeners. Contactsmade during the 2006 categoryreview.

# 4-15Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data Sources, and LimitationsTable 4-2. Summary ofTRIReleases2005Facility ReviewPoint SourceChemical(s) inActions Taken/DatabaseFacility NameFacility LocationCategoryQuestionReview FindingsCorrectionDuPont Chambers Works Deepwater, NJ PesticideHexachloro-Based on contact regarding 2005Changed the SIC code for theChemicalsbenzenedata, over 99% ofhexachlorobenzene discharge tohexachlorobenzene on site comesCWT.from outside contracts associatedwith the CWT.Eastman Kodak Co KodakRochester, NY Metal Finishing Dioxin AndThe facility calculates the dioxinChanged the dioxin distributionParkDioxin-Likeand dioxin-like compoundto reflect detection ofCompoundsdischarge based on the measuredoctachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin only.concentration in the effluent fromthe treatment plant and the totalplant flow rate. In 2005, thefacility detected only onecongener(octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin)three times in their wastewatereffluent. Based on contact made in2008.ExxonMobil ChemicalBaton Rouge, LA OCPSF PolycyclicFacility used 1/2 the detectionChanged the PACs load to zero.Baton Rouge ChemicalAromaticlimit for PACs in their 2000 TRIPlantCompoundsestimate. ERG contacted thefacility about the TRI 2004 PACsdischarge. Facility stated that itmeasured for all PACs everymonth and all were less thandetection limit.International Paper CoCamden, TX Timber Dioxin and Dioxin-Facility reported an erroneousChanged dioxin distributionCamden ComplexLike Compoundsdioxin congener distributionbased on a facility-guidedoriginating from a spreadsheetrevision of the dioxinerror. Based on informationcalculations.collected in 2008.Tronox Pigments IncSavannah, GA InorganicDioxin AndThe facility provided data thatChanged dioxin and dioxin-like(Formerly Kerr-McGee)ChemicalsDioxin-Likeshows all concentrations ofcompounds load to zero.Compoundsdioxins and furan congeners in thewater were below detection limit.Based on communications withfacility for 2006 review.

# 4-16Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data Sources, and LimitationsTable 4-2. Summary ofTRIReleases2005Facility ReviewPoint SourceChemical(s) inActions Taken/DatabaseFacility NameFacility LocationCategoryQuestionReview FindingsCorrectionTronox Pigments IncSavannah, GA InorganicManganese Facility reported discharge ofNo changes made.(formerly Kerr-McGee)Chemicalsmanganese based on samplingdata from 2002 and the total plantflow rate in 2005. However, as aresult of ceasing operation of thesulfate process mid-year in 2005,manganese discharges wereexpected to decrease significantly.Various facilitiesVariousPhosphorusElemental phosphorus is not likelyChanged phosphorus yellow andcategories(Yellow Or White)to be discharged by facilities, andwhite load to zero.is likely reported incorrectly.Based on calls to a couple offacilities regarding 2002 data.Viskase CorpLoudon, TN Plastics Carbon Disulfide Facility reported a carbonChanged the carbon disulfidedisulfide discharge using anload based on monitoring dataanomalous data point collected infor 2005.2004. Based on informationcollected from pretreatmentcoordinator in 2008.

## Section 4.0 – Methodology, Da ta Sources, and Limitations



# 4-17 4.7 Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations References

1. ERG. 2007a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Quality Assurance Project Plan for 2007

Annual Screening-Level Analys is of TRI and PCS Industria l Category Discharge Data.

Chantilly, VA. (March 19). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0208.

2. E RG. 2007b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. T oxic Weighting Factors Developed for the

Proposed 2008 Effluent Guidelines Plan. Chantilly, VA. (September). EPA-HQ-OW2006-0771-0781.

3. O MB. 1987. Office of Management and Budget. Standard Industrial Classification

Manual . Washington, DC. (Unknown).

4. U .S. EPA. 2000. EPCRA Section 313 Guidan ce for Reporting Toxic Chemicals Within

the Dioxins and Dioxin-Li ke Compounds Category. EPA-745-B-00-021. Washington,

DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1150.

5. U.S. EPA. 2005a. Draft Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA

304(m) Planning Process. Washingt on, DC. June. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0857.

6. U.S. EPA. 2005b. 2005 Annual Screening- Level Analysis: Supporting the Annual

Review of Existing Effluent Limitations Guid elines and Standards and Identification of

New Point Source Categories for Effluent Limitations and Standards. EPA-821-B-05-

003. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0901.

7. U.S. EPA. 2006a. Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA 304(m)

Planning Process. Washington, DC. (June). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1634.

8. U.S. EPA. 2006b. Technical Support Docu ment for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-06-018. Washingt on, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-

0032-2782.

9. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Docume nt for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent

Guidelines Program Plan. EPA-821-R-07- 007. Washington, DC. (October). EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-0819.

## Part II – Results of the 2008 Annual Review



# PA RT II: RESULTS OF THE 2008 ANNUAL REVIEW OF

INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES WITH EXISTING ELGS

## Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual Review



# 5-1 5.0 2008 A NNUAL 

# R EVIEW OF 

# E XISTING 

# E FFLUENT 

# L IMITATIONS 

# G UIDELINES AND



# S TANDARDS AND 

# R ANKING OF 

# P OINT 

# S OURCE 

# C ATEGORIES



# Fo r the 2008 annual review, EPA conducted the follo wing activities:

• 

# U pdated the reviews from previous year s (i.e., revised the 2007 annual review

results with new or corrected data);

• 

# Performed new research: contacted indus try to verify discharges, conducted

literature searches, and collected additional data; and

• 

# Solicited information from stakeholde rs through comment response and other

stakeholder outreach (e.g., meetings with industry trade groups).

Thi s section summarizes the results from the 2008 annual review (Section 5.1), presents

the results of the 2008 screening-level review (S ection 5.2), and presents the prioritization of

categories for the 2008 annual review (Section 5.3).

5.1 Summary of the Results from the 2007 Annual Review

EPA published its 2007 annual review of exis ting ELGs as part of the Preliminary 2008

Plan on October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61335). In th e 2007 annual review, EPA identified 12 point

source categories that represent the bulk of the estimated toxic discharges (as measured by

TWPE) from existing industrial po int source categories. EPA ranke d each point source category

by the amount of toxic pollutant s in its discharge (as measured by TWPE) and identified the

CWT and Steam Electric Power Generating (Steam Electric) Categories as the two categories

with the highest TWPE (accounting for more than 50 percent of the total TWPE). EPA identified

nine additional categories with potentially high TWPE discharge estimates (accounting for more

than 45 percent of existing point source categor y TWPE). EPA conducted a “detailed study” of

the Steam Electric Category and “preliminary cate gory reviews” of the 11 other categories based

on the results of the 2007 screen ing-level review and stakeholder comments. Based on the

findings from the detailed studies and prelim inary category reviews, EPA identified four

categories for detailed study in 2008: Steam Electri c (Part 423), Coal Mini ng (Part 434), Oil and

Gas Extraction (Part 435) (to asse ss whether to revise the limits to include Coal Bed Methane

extraction as a new subcategory), and the Health Care Industry (i ncluding Hospitals (Part 460)).

I n view of the annual nature of its reviews of existing ELGs, EPA believes that each

annual review can and should influence succeedi ng annual reviews (e.g., by indicating data gaps,

identifying new pollutants or pollution reducti on technologies, or otherwise highlighting

industrial categories for more deta iled scrutiny in subsequent year s). EPA used the findings, data

and comments on the 2007 annual review to inform its 2008 annual review. The 2007 review

built on the previous reviews by continuing to use the screening methodology and incorporating

some refinements to assigning discharges to categories. EPA made similar refinements to

assigning discharges to categor ies for the 2008 annual review.

5.2 Results of the 2008 Screening-Level Review

F or the 2008 screening-level review, EPA used the combined results of the

TRIReleases2004_v3 and the PCSLoads2004_v4 databases and th e results of the

TRIReleases2005_v2 database, discussed in Section 4.6 of this document. When combining the

## Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual Review



# 5-2 results of the 2004 databases, EPA adjusted th e rankings for the following: discharges from

industrial categories for which EP A is currently developing or re vising ELGs, discharges from

point source categories for which EPA has recently promulgated or revised ELGs, and

discharges from facilities determined not to be representative of their categories. Sections 5.2.1

through 5.2.3 discuss the rationale for these decisions. EPA made the same adjustments to the

final ranking using the TRIReleases2005_v2 database. The final combined database rankings

represent the results of the 2008 screening-level review and are presented in Section 5.2.4.

5.2.1 Facilities for Which EPA Is Currently Developing or Revising ELGs

EPA is currently considering revision s to ELGs for OCPSF (40 CFR 414) and the

Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR 415) Point Source Categories for facilities that

produce CCH. 6 

# Because the CCH rulemaking is underwa y, EPA excluded discharges from these

facilities from further consider ation under the current planning cy cle. EPA subtracted the TWPE

loads from facilities that produce chlorine or chlorinated hydrocarbons from the OCPSF and

Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Ca tegory loads. Because facilities that produce

chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons are only a subset of the OCPSF and Inorganic Chemicals

Manufacturing Categories, EPA included loads for al l other facilities in these two categories in

its prioritization of categ ories for further review.

5.2.2 Categories for Which EPA Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs

For the 2008 annual review and developmen t of category rankings, EPA excluded point

source categories for which ELGs were recentl y established or revi sed but not yet fully

implemented, or were recently reviewed in a ru lemaking context, but EPA decided to withdraw

the proposal or select the “no act ion” option. This seven-year pe riod allows time for the ELGs to

be incorporated into NPDES permits. In gene ral, EPA removed an industrial point source

category from further considera tion during the current review cycle if EPA had established,

revised, or reviewed the category’s effluent guidelines after A ugust 2001 (i.e., seven years prior

to August 2008, the expected publication of the Final 2008 Pl an). For the 2009 and 2010 annual

reviews EPA will exclude any categories with ELGs established or revised after August 2002

and August 2003, respectively. Table 5-1 lists these categories.

Removing a point source category from furthe r consideration in th e development of the

rankings does not mean that EPA eliminates th e category from annual review. In cases where

EPA is aware of the growth of a new segment w ithin such category, or where new concerns are

identified for previously unevaluated pollutant s discharged by facilitie s in the category, EPA

would apply closer scrutiny to th e discharges from the category in deciding whether to consider

it further during the current revi ew cycle. For example, EPA c onducted the detailed study of the

coal mining industry based on comments receive d on the 2006 Preliminary Plan, although the

coal mining ELGs were revised in January 2002.

6 

## EPA is also currently revising ELGs for the following industries: Concentration Animal Feeding Operations and

Construction and Development; however, the TWPE associated with these categories is lo w and does not affect the

prioritization of categories based on TWPE. For more information on industries currently undergoing rulemakings,

see http://www.epa.gov/guide/industry.html.

## Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual Review



# 5-3 Table 5-1. Point Source Categories That H ave Undergone a Recent Rulemaking or

Review

40 CFR Part

Number Point Source Category Date of Rulemaking

451 Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (or Aquaculture) August 23, 2004

432 Meat and Poultry Products September 8, 2004

413, 433, and 438 Metal Products and Machinery (including Metal Finishing and May 13, 2003

Electroplating)

122, 123, and 412 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) February 12, 2003

420 Iron and Steel Manufacturing October 17, 2002

434 Coal Mining (Coal Remining and Western Alkaline Coal Mining) January 23, 2002

Source: “Guidelines: Final, Proposed, and Under Development” at h ttp://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide (U.S.

EPA, 2006a).



# 5.2.3 Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE

EPA identified point source categories with significant TWPE where only one facility

was responsible for most of the TWPE reported to be discharged (i.e., where one facility’s

TWPE accounted for more than 95 percent of the category TWPE, but was not the only facility

reporting discharges for the category). Table 5- 2 lists these categories. EPA identified seven

facilities that dominated the TW PE in the category to which they belonged. EPA investigated

these facilities to determine if their discharges were representative of th e category. If they were

not, EPA subtracted the facility ’s TWPE from the total categor y TWPE and recalculated the

category’s ranking. EPA performed this analysis separately for each of the three databases.

Three facilities in the TRI 2004 and TRI 2005 databases accounted for more than 95

percent of the category TWPE for th e categories with significant TWPE:

• 

# Vopak Logistics Services USA Inc.;

• 

# Clean Harbors Deer Park LP; and

• 

# Dow Freeport Co., Freeport Facility.

EPA reviewed these facilities’ discharges and de termined that they are representative of the

respective categories and should be included in the category totals.Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual ReviewTable 5-2. Point Source Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE DischargesPoint SourceCategoryFacilitywithOver95%of CategoryTWPECity, StateDataSourcePollutant DrivingTWPEFacilityTWPE% ofTotalCategoryTWPEActionCentralized WasteTreaters(Part 437)Vopak LogisticsServices USAInc.Deer Park,TXTRI 2004Diazinon7,029,35494.2%Didnot remove loadfromcategoryTWPEPesticide Chemicals (Part455)Dow Freeport Co.,Freeport FacilityFreeport,TXTRI 2004Picloram492,10894.9%Did notremoveloadfromcategoryTWPETRI2004Benzidine242,54799.9%Didnot remove loadfromcategoryTWPE



# 5-4Waste Combustors(Commercial IncineratorsCombusting HazardousWaste) (Part444)Clean HarborsDeerPark LPDeer Park,TXTRI2005Toxaphene51,85999.3%DidnotremoveloadfromcategoryTWPESource:TRIReleases2004_v3;TRIReleases2005_v2.

## Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual Review



# 5-5 5.2.4 Results of the 2008 Screening-Level Review

After adjusting the category TWPE totals and rankings as described in Sections 5.2.1

through 5.2.3, EPA consolidated the 2004 PCS and TR I rankings into one se t using the following

steps:

• 

# EPA combined the two lists of point s ource categories by adding each category’s

PCS TWPE and TRI TWPE. EPA noted that this may result in “double-counting”

of chemicals a facility re ported to both PCS and TRI, and “single-counting” of

chemicals reported in only one of the da tabases. The combined databases do not

count chemicals that may be discharged but are not reported to PCS or TRI.

• 

# EPA then ranked the point source categor ies based on total PCS and TRI TWPE.

Table 5-3 presents the combined PCS 2004 and TRI 2004 rankings. These are the final

category rankings accounting for all corrections made to the databases during the 2007 and 2008

annual reviews and removal of any categories and discharges as disc ussed in Sections 5.2.1

through 5.2.3.

Table 5-4 presents the final rankings for TRI 2005 excluding the categories for which

EPA is currently developing or revising ELGs, categories for which EPA recently promulgated

or revised ELGs, and discharges from facilities that dominate the category TWPE, but are not

representative of the category. F our of the top five categories by TWPE from the combined TRI

and PCS 2004 data (Table 5-3) ar e in the top five categories from the TRI 2005 data (Table 5-4),

with only the Fertilizer Cate gory not represented at th e top of TRI 2005 rankings.

5.3 Prioritization of Categories for the 2008 Annual Review

Based on its screening-level review, EPA was ab le to prioritize for further review (i.e., a

detailed study or preliminary category review ) those industrial cate gories 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). EPA

also considered efficiency and implementation issues raised by stakeholders in identifying

candidates for further review. By using this multilayered screening approach, the Agency

concentrated its resources on those point source categories with the highest estimates of toxicweighted pollutant discharges (based on best avai lable data), while assigning a lower priority to

categories that the Agency believes are not good candidates for ELGs re vision at this time.

Table 5-5 lists the point sour ce categories with existing ELG s, the level of review EPA

performed as part of the 2008 annual review, an d how the category was identified for further

review, if applicable.

# 5-6Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual ReviewTable 5-3. Final PCS 2004 and TRI 2004 Combined Point Source Category Rankings40 CFRPCS 2004Cumulative Percent ofPartPoint Source CategoryTRI 2004 TWPETWPETotal TWPETotal TWPERank437 Centralized Waste Treaters7,460,703 8,731 7,469,434 39.9% 1423 Steam Electric Power Generation791,179 2,410,093 3,201,27257.0%2419 Petroleum Refining669,434 818,705 1,488,139 64.9% 3414 Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic957,134 490,290 1,447,424 72.7% 4Fibers418 Fertilizer Manufacturing10,843 1,168,160 1,179,003 79.0% 5430 Pulp, Paper and Paperboard668,518164,787 833,30683.4%6440 Ore Mining and Dressing88,001580,831 668,83287.0%7455 Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing518,385102,256 620,64190.3%8415 Inorganic Chemicals122,514 309,022 431,536 92.6% 9421 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing52,599321,299 373,89894.6%10444 Waste Combustors (Commercial242,888 9,087 251,975 95.9% 11Incinerators Combusting Hazardous Waste)410 Textile Mills3,043 123,392 126,435 96.6% 12463 Plastic Molding and Forming72,65710,766 83,42397.1%13422 Phosphate Manufacturing1,064 74,218 75,282 97.5% 14429 Timber Products Processing63,885443 64,32897.8%15436 Mineral Mining and Processing5,38749,315 54,70298.1%16454 Gum And Wood Chemicals6,31146,446 52,75798.4%17458 Carbon Black Manufacturing48,60348,603 98.6% 18467 Aluminum Forming3,318 27,580 30,897 98.8% 19439 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing10,706 13,255 23,962 98.9% 20464 Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries)19,1474,746 23,89399.1%21471 Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal10,033 11,599 21,632 99.2% 22Powders411 Cement Manufacturing898 17,461 18,359 99.3% 23424 Ferroalloy Manufacturing11,327 6,431 17,758 99.4% 24468 Copper Forming10,573 3,644 14,217 99.4% 25469 Electrical and Electronic Components7,6934,890 12,58399.5%26

# 5-7Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual ReviewTable 5-3. Final PCS 2004 and TRI 2004 Combined Point Source Category Rankings40 CFRPCS 2004Cumulative Percent ofPartPoint Source CategoryTRI 2004 TWPETWPETotal TWPETotal TWPERank409 Sugar Processing200 11,919 12,118 99.6% 27425 Leather Tanning and Finishing8,8327059,53799.6%28445 Landfills152 9,087 9,239 99.7% 29407 Fruits and Vegetable Processing6,3922,457 8,84999.7%30461 Battery Manufacturing2,441 5,169 7,610 99.8% 31428 Rubber Manufacturing5,695 1,667 7,362 99.8% 32406 Grain Mills Manufacturing4,3362,427 6,76399.8%33417 Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing6,156806,23699.9%34426 Glass Manufacturing2,822 2,707 5,529 99.9% 35NA Tobacco Products5,159 2 5,161 99.9% 36405 Dairy Products Processing3,710413,75199.9%37NA Printing and Publishing1772,190 2,367100.0%38457 Explosives93 2,273 2,366 100.0% 39443 Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and612 1,313 1,924 100.0% 40Asphalt)408 Canned and Preserved Seafood1988281,027100.0%41435 Oil and Gas Extraction59618613100.0%42NA Independent and Stand Alone Labs205269474100.0%43466 Porcelain Enameling2477 254 100.0% 44NA Construction and Development—231231100.0%45446 Paint Formulating210— 210 100.0% 46465 Coil Coating167— 167 100.0% 47447 Ink Formulating42— 42 100.0% 48460 Hospital—14 14 100.0% 49Total 11,905,2856,820,84918,726,133Source:TRIReleases2004_v3;PCSLoads2004_v4.NA — Not applicable; no existing ELGs apply to discharges.

## Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual Review



# 5-8 Table 5-4. Final TRI 2005 Rankings

40 CFR Part Point Source Category Total Pounds

Released, all

Chemicals TWPE

437 Centralized Waste Treatment 724,164 4,282,304

423 Steam Electric Power Generating 2,880,742 851,876

414 Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 35,350,810 758,964

430 Pulp, Paper and Paperboard 22,479,514 639,419

419 Petroleum Refining 17,930,959 627,618

415 Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing 7,795,516 92,146

440 Ore Mining and Dressing 399,164 76,673

444 Waste Combustors 4,541 52,251

429 Timber Products Processing 50,751 51,469

458 Carbon Black Manufacturing 509 47,095

421 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 3,892,225 41,771

455 Pesticide Chemicals 1,416,983 31,417

454 Gum and Wood Chemicals Manufacturing 14,807 24,746

463 Plastics Molding and Forming 1,759,032 22,294

464 Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries) 238,902 13,814

471 Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders 1,476,557 13,058

425 Leather Tanning and Finishing 410,478 12,240

439 Pharmaceutical Manufact uring 1,930, 453 11,849

468 Copper Forming 99,219 9,728

424 Ferroalloy Manufacturing 205,459 8,353

418 Fertilizer Manufacturing 4,972,723 7,307

503 Miscellaneous Foods and Beverages 5,851,557 6,670

436 Mineral Mining and Processing 2,414,860 6,262

NA Tobacco Products 181,8 18 5,836

469 Electrical and Electronic Components 4,728,033 5,766

407 Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Processing 4,728,033 5,766

406 Grain Mills 6,186,932 5,139

405 Dairy Products Processing 1,721,519 4,877

428 Rubber Manufacturing 5,754,217 4,344

467 Aluminum Forming 677,583 4,305

410 Textile Mills 556,449 3,256

461 Battery Manufacturing 754,748 3,037

417 Soap and Detergent Manufacturing 54,406 2,578

501 Drinking Water Treatment 105,492 2,155

426 Glass Manufacturing 28,622 1,987

411 Cement Manufacturing 186,900 958

435 Oil and Gas Extraction 62,242 802

443 Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt) 4,351 677

422 Phosphate Manufacturing 269 515

## Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual Review



# 5-9 Table 5-4. Final TRI 2005 Rankings

Total Pounds

Released, all

40 CFR Part Point Source Category Chemicals TWPE

446 Paint Formulating 36,345 368

465 Coil Coating 124,571 331

409 Sugar Processing 5,333 181

408 Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing 205,929 180

NA Printing and Publishing 190,618 145

Source: TRIReleases2005_v2

. NA — Not applicable; no existing ELGs apply to discharges.



# Table 5-5. 2008 Annual Review of Categories with Existing ELGs: Level of Review

40 CFR Part Point Source Category Level of Review Source of

Identification for

Further Review

405 Dairy Products Processing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 406 Grain Mills Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 407 Fruits and Vegetable Processing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 408 Canned and Preserved Seafood Screening-Level Review NA a



## 409 Sugar Processing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 410 Textile Mills Screening-Level Review NA a



## 411 Cement Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 412 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Screening-Level Review NA a



## 413 Electroplating Screening-Level Review NA a



## 414 Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic

Fibers Preliminary Review TWPE

415 Inorganic Chemicals Screening-Level Review NA a



## 417 Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 418 Fertilizer Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 419 Petroleum Refining Preliminary Review TWPE

420 Iron and Steel Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 421 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 422 Phosphate Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 423 Steam Electric Power Generation Detailed Study TWPE

424 Ferroalloy Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 425 Leather Tanning and Finishing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 426 Glass Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 427 Asbestos Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 428 Rubber Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 429 Timber Products Processing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 430 Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Preliminary Review TWPE

432 Meat and Poultry Products Screening-Level Review NA a

## Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual Review



# 5-10 Table 5-5. 2008 Annual Review of Categories with Existing ELGs: Level of Review

40 CFR Part Point Source Category Level of Review Source of

Identification for

Further Review

433 Metal Finishing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 434 Coal Mining Detailed Study Comments

435 Oil and Gas Extraction Detailed Study (of Coal Bed

Methane Operations) Comments

436 Mineral Mining and Processing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 437 Centralized Waste Treater s Preliminary Review TWPE

438 Metal Products and Machinery Screening-Level Review NA a



## 439 Pharmaceutical Manufacturin g Screening-Level Review NA a



## 440 Ore Mining and Dressing Preliminary Review TWPE

442 Transportation Equipment Cleaning Screening-Level Review NA a



## 443 Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and

Asphalt) Screening-Level Review NA a



## 444 Waste Combustors (Commercial Incinerators

Combusting Hazardous Waste) Preliminary Review TWPE

445 Landfills Screening-Level Review NA a



## 446 Paint Formulating Screening-Level Review NA a



## 447 Ink Formulating Screening-Level Review NA a



## 451 Aquatic Animal Production Industry Screening-Level Review NA a



## 454 Gum and Wood Chemicals Screening-Level Review NA a



## 455 Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 457 Explosives Screening-Level Review NA a



## 458 Carbon Black Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 459 Photographic Screening-Level Review NA a



## 460 Hospital Detailed Study (of Health

Care Industry) Comments

461 Battery Manufacturing Screening-Level Review NA a



## 463 Plastic Molding and Forming Screening-Level Review NA a



## 464 Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries) Screening-Level Review NA a



## 465 Coil Coating Screening-Level Review NA a



## 466 Porcelain Enameling Screening-Level Review NA a



## 467 Aluminum Forming Screening-Level Review NA a



## 468 Copper Forming Screening-Level Review NA a



## 469 Electrical and Electronic Components Screening-Level Review NA a



## 471 Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders Screening-Level Review NA a



## a — For categories with only a screening-level review, the source of identification is not applicable, as EPA

conducts a screening-level review of all categories subject to existing ef fluent guidelines. The “source of

identification” is only applicable for th ose industries selected for further review.

NA — Not available.

## Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual Review



# 5-11 5.3.1 Detailed Study of Existing ELGs

EPA performed detailed studies on four point source categories as part of its 2008 annual

review based on the results of its 2007 screening-level review. EP A continued a detailed study of

the Steam Electric Category (Part 423) because EPA data collection is not complete. Also, the

Steam Electric Category ranked second in combined TWPE rankings. EPA also identified Coal

Mining (Part 434), Oil and Gas Extr action (Part 435) (to assess whet her to revise the limits to

include coalbed methane extraction as a new s ubcategory), and the Heal th Services Industry

(includes Hospitals (Part 460)) as detailed st udies for the 2007 and 2008 annual reviews based on

comments on the 2006 Preliminary Plan.

EPA did not select the CWT Category (Part 437 ) as a detailed study because the category

had been excluded from previous screening-le vel reviews due to the ELG being recently

promulgulated (December 22, 2000). EPA determined it would conduct a preliminary review of

the CWT Category before to conducting a detailed study.

EPA’s detailed studies generally examine th e following: (1) wastewater characteristics

and pollutant sources; (2) the pollutants driving the toxic-wei ghted pollutant discharges; (3)

availability of pollution preventi on and treatment; (4) the geographic distribution of facilities in

the industry; (5) any pollutant discharge trends within the industry; and (6) any relevant

economic factors. First, EPA attempts to verify the screening-level result s and fill in data gaps.

Next, EPA considers costs and performance of ap plicable and demonstrated technology, process

change, or pollution prevention alternatives that can effectively reduce the pollutants remaining

in the industrial category's wastewater. Last, EPA considers the affordability or economic

achievability of the technology, process change , or pollution prevention measures identified

above.

Types of data sources that EPA may consu lt in conducting its deta iled studies include,

but are not limited to: (1) the U.S. Economi c Census; (2) TRI and PCS data; (3) trade

associations and reporting facilities to verify repo rted releases and facility categorization; (4)

regulatory authorities (states and EPA regions ) to understand how cat egory facilities are

permitted; (5) NPDES permits and their supporti ng fact sheets; (6) EPA effluent guidelines

technical development documents; (7) relevant EPA preliminary data summaries or study

reports; and (8) technical literature on po llutant sources and co ntrol technologies.

For more information about the Steam Elect ric Detailed Study, Coal Mining Detailed

Study, Oil and Gas Extraction Detailed Study (Coalb ed Methane Industry), and Health Services

Industry Detailed Study, see Part III of this report (U.S. EPA, 2008a; U.S. EPA, 2008b; U.S.

EPA, 2008c; U.S. EPA, 2008d).

5.3 .2 Preliminary Review

Preli minary reviews are similar to detailed studies and have the same purpose. During

preliminary reviews, EPA generally examines th e same items listed above for detailed studies.

However, EPA’s preliminary review of a cat egory and available pollution prevention and

treatment options is less rigorous than its detailed studies. Wh ile EPA collects and analyzes

hazard and technology-based information on ca tegories undergoing preliminary review, it

assigns a higher priority to investiga ting categories undergoing detailed studies.

## Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual Review



# 5-12 For its 2008 annual review, EPA selected ca tegories for preliminary review based on

TWPE in the 2004 PCS and TRI and 2005 TRI data bases. In 2007, EPA reviewed the categories

accounting for the top 95 pe rcent of total PCS 2004 and TRI 2004 combined TWPE, and

identified 11 point source categ ories for preliminary review (U.S . EPA, 2007). Of those 11 point

source categories, EPA identified six for continued preliminary review as part of the 2008 annual

review (72 FRN 61335). 7 

# These categories account for a pproximately 64 percent of the

cumulative PCS 2004 and TRI 2004 combined TWPE. The six preliminary reviews identified are

listed below, along with a reference to wh ere they are discussed in this report:

• 

# CWT (Section 6.0);

• 

# OCPSF(Section 7.0);

• 

# Ore Mining and Dressing (Section 8.0);

• 

# Petroleum Refining (Section 9.0);

• 

# Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Section 10.0); and

• 

# Waste Combustors (Section 11.0).

EPA recently conducted detailed studies or pr eliminary reviews of many of the categories

listed above. Table 5-6 lists thes e categories and the level of re view EPA performed for its 2003

through 2006 annual reviews. For each of these categories, because EPA’s annual review builds

on previous reviews, EPA primarily looked at the pollutants reported in 2004 and 2005 and their

contribution to their category’s TWPE. EPA then compared these more recent results to its

previous studies and reviews. EPA excluded CW T (40 CFR Part 437) and Waste Combusters (40

CFR Part 444) from further review in 2003 th rough 2006, because EPA applies less scrutiny to

industrial categories with promulgated effluent gui delines or pretreatment standards within the

past seven years (see Section 5.2.2).

Table 5-6. Previous Review s for Point Source Categories Review ed as Part of the 2008

Annual Rev i ew

40 C F R

Part Point Source Cate gor y L e vel o f Revi e w for

20 0 3/ 2 00 4 L e vel o f Revi e w for

20 0 5/ 2 00 6 L e vel o f Revi e w for

20 0 7/ 2 00 8

423 Stea m Electric Preliminary Category

Rev i ew Detailed St u d y Detailed St u d y

43 4 C o al M i ni n g NA Prel i m i n ary C a t e go ry

Rev i ew Detailed St u d y

43 5 Oi l an d Gas E x t r act i on

(Coalbe d Met h ane) NA Prelimin ary Categ o ry

Rev i ew Detailed St u d y

4 6 0 Ho sp itals (Health Serv ices) NA Prelimin ary Categ o ry

Rev i ew Detailed St u d y

41 9 Pet rol e u m R e fini n g Det a i l e d St udy Prel i m i n ary C a t e go ry

Rev i ew Prelimin ary Categ o ry

Rev i ew

414 OCPSF Detailed St udy Prelim inary Category

Rev i ew Prelimin ary Categ o ry

Rev i ew

43 0 Pul p , Pa pe r, a n d

Pape rb oar d Prelimin ary Categ o ry

Rev i ew Detailed St u d y Prelimin ary Categ o ry

Rev i ew

7 

## EPA has identified that no further review is necessary at this time (72 FRN 61335).

## Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual Review



# 5-13 Table 5-6. Previous Reviews for Point Source Categories Reviewed as Part of the 2008

Annual Review

40 CFR Level of Review for Level of Review for Level of Review for

Part Point Source Category 2003/2004 2005/2006 2007/2008

440 Ore Mining and Dressing Preliminary Category Preliminary Category Preliminary Category

Review Review Review

437 Centralized Waste Treaters NA a 

## NA a 

## Preliminary Category

Review

444 Waste Combustors NA a 

## NA a 

## Preliminary Category

Review

a — Centralized Waste Treaters and Wast e Combustors were not reviewed in 2003 through 2 006 because the

regulations were promulgated in 2000.

N A — Not applicable.



# 5.4 2008 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and

Ranking of Point Source Categories References

1. U.S. EPA. 2006a. Guidelines: Final, Pr oposed, and Under Development. “Industrial

Waters Pollution Control.” Available onlin e at: http://www.epa.gov/ waterscience/guide.

2. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782.

3. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document for the Preliminary 2008 Effluent

Guidelines Program Plan . EPA-821-R-07-007. Washingt on, DC. (October). EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-0819.

4. U.S. EPA. 2008a. Coal Mining Detailed Study . EPA-821-R-08-012 Washington, DC.

(August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05517.

5. U.S. EPA. 2008b. Health Services Industry De tailed Study: Dental Amalgam . EPA-821-

R-08-014 Washington, DC. (August) . EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05518.

6. U.S. EPA. 2008c. Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Management and Disposal of

Unused Pharmaceuticals (Interim Technical Report) . EPA-821-R-08-013 Washington,

DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05519.

7. U.S. EPA. 2008d. Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: 2007/2008

Detailed Study Report . EPA-821-R-08-011 Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW2006-0771 DCN 05516.

## Section 6.0 – Centralized Wast e Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)



# 6-1 6.0 C ENTRALIZED 

# W ASTE 

# T REATMENT 

# (40 CFR P ART 

# 437)

EPA selected the Centralized Waste Treatme nt (CWT) Category for a preliminary review

from its 2007 annual review because it ranked high, in terms of TWPE, in point source category

rankings (see Tables 5-3 and 5- 4 for the most recent point so urce category rankings). EPA began

the preliminary review of this industry in 2007 and published the result s as part of the 2008

Preliminary ELG Plan (72 FR 61335). As part of the 2008 annual review, EPA continued the

preliminary review by investiga ting possible pesticide discharg es from the CWT Category. EPA

has determined that no further review of pe sticide discharges from the CWT Category is

necessary at this time.

6.1 CWT Category Background

This subsection provides background on the CWT Category, including a brief profile of

the CWT industry and background on 40 CFR Part 437.

6.1.1 CWT Industry Profile

The CWT industry includes facilities th at treat and/or recover hazardous or nonhazardous industrial waste, wastewater, or used material from other manufacturing facilities.

Many of the wastes received by CWT facilities contain very high pollutant concentrations

compared to manufacturing facilities’ wastes a nd can often be difficult to treat. EPA identified

CWT facilities by the primary SIC codes in the PC S and TRI databases, as described in Section

4.5 of this document. The SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems, includes CWT facilities but also

includes landfills and commercial waste combustors, whose wastewater discharges are regulated

by 40 CFR Parts 444 and 445 (the Waste Combustors and Landfills Categories, respectively).

EPA reviewed all of the fac ilities reporting SIC code 4953 to identify the facilities that

are in the CWT Category rather than the Waste Combustors and Landfills Categories. Table 6-1

presents the number of facilities identified as CWTs during its review of other categories.

Table 6-1. Number of Facilities Identified as CWTs

2004 PCS a 

## 2004 TRI b 

## 2005 TRI b



## 4 36 c 

## 36 c



## Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v2

.

a — Major and minor dischargers.

b — Releases to any media.

c — These counts include two waste combustor facilities, wh ich will be corrected in future TRI databases. EPA

contacted facilities and found that two facilities initially id entified as CWT facilities are actually waste combustors.

These facilities contribute negligible TWPE (approximately 95 TWPE for 2005) and therefore, have no impact on

the overall category TWPE or rankings. These changes are further discussed in Section 11.0, “Waste Combustors”.



# CWTs discharge directly to surface water as well as to POTWs. Table 6-2 presents the

types of discharges reported by facilities in the 2004 and 2005 TRI databases. The majority of

CWTs reporting to TRI reporte d discharging indirectly.

## Section 6.0 – Centralized Wast e Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)



# 6-2 Table 6-2. Centralized Waste Treatment Ca tegory Facilities by Type of Discharge

Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005

TRI 2004 a 

## TRI 2005 a



## Reported Reported Reported Reported

Reported Only Both Direct Reported Reported Only Both Direct Reported No

Only Direct

Discharges Indirect

Discharges and Indirect

Discharges No Water

Discharges Only Direct

Discharges Indirect

Discharges and Indirect

Discharges Water

Discharges

8 17 6 5 7 18 5 6

Source: TRIReleases2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v2.

a — These counts include two waste combustor facilities, wh ich will be corrected in future TRI databases. EPA

contacted facilities and found that two facilities initially id entified as CWT facilities are actually waste combustors.

These facilities contribute negligible TWPE (approximately 95 TWPE for 2005) and therefore, have no impact on

the overall category TWPE or rankings. These changes are further discussed in Section 11.0, “Waste Combustors”.



# 6.1.2 40 CFR Part 437

EPA first promulgated ELGs for the CWT Category (40 CFR Part 437) in 2000 (65 FR

81241), with amendments made in 2003 (68 FR 71014) . This category is divided into four

subcategories based on type of waste received, shown in Table 6-3. The technology basis for the

final rule varies by type of waste the facility is treating:

• 

# Two-stage chemical precipitation and filtration for metal-bearing wastes;

• 

# Emulsion breaking, two-stage gravity sepa ration and dissolved air flotation for

oily wastes; and

• 

# Equalization and biological tr eatment for organic wastes.

To ensure that combined wastes are treated, not simply co-diluted, facilities that elect to

comply with Subpart D, Multiple Wastestreams, must certify that an equivalent treatment system

is installed and properly desi gned, maintained, and operated.

Table 6-3 lists the pollutants regulated by Part 43 7. Pesticides are not regulated in any

subcategory, as discussed in Section 6-4 of this document.

Table 6-3. Part 437 Subcategorie s and Regulated Pollutants

Subpart Name Subpart Applicability Regulated Pollutants

A: Metals The discharge of wastewater from a CWT facility that Oil and Grease, pH, TSS,

Treatment and results from the treatment of, or recovery of metals from, Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium,

Recovery both metal-bearing wastes received from off-site and other

CWT wastewater associated with the treatment of, or

recovery of metal-bearing wastes. Chromium, Cobalt, Copper,

Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Silver,

Tin, Titanium, Vanadium, and

Zinc

B: Oils Treatment

and Recovery The discharge of wastewater from a CWT facility that

results from the treatment or recovery of oil from both oily

wastes received from off-site and other CWT wastewater

associated with the treatment of , or recovery of oily wastes. Oil and Grease, pH, TSS,

Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium,

Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Mercury,

Tin, Zinc, Bis(2-ethylhexyl)

Phthalate, Butylbenzyl

Phthalate, Carbazole, n-Decane,

Flouranthene, and n-Octadecane

## Section 6.0 – Centralized Wast e Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)



# 6-3 Table 6-3. Part 437 Subcategorie s and Regulated Pollutants

Subpart Name Subpart Applicability Regulated Pollutants

C: Organics The discharge of wastewater from a CWT facility that BOD5, pH, TSS, Copper, Zinc,

Treatment and results from the treatment of, or recovery of organic Acetone, Acetophenone, 2-

Recovery material from both organic wast es received from off-site

and other CWT wastewater asso ciated with the treatment

of, or recovery of organic wastes. Butanone, o-Cresol, p-Cresol,

Phenol, Pyridine, and 2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol

D: Multiple

Wastestreams The discharges of wastewater from a CWT facility that

treats wastes subject to more than one of the previous

Subparts must comply with either provisions of this subpart

or the applicable provisions of Subpart A, B, or C. The

provisions of this subpart are applicable to that portion of

wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment

facility that results from mixing any combination of treated

or untreated waste otherwise su bject to Subpart A, Subpart

B, or Subpart C of this part only if a facility requests the

permit writer or control authority to develop Subpart D

limitations (or standards) and establishes that it provides

equivalent treatment as defined in §437.2(h). BOD5, Oil and Grease, pH,

TSS, Antimony, Arsenic,

Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt,

Copper, Cyanide, Lead,

Mercury, Nickel, Silver, Tin,

Titanium, Vanadium, and Zinc,

Acetone, Acetophenone, Bis(2-

ethylhexyl) phthalate, 2-

Butanone, Carbazole, o-Cresol,

p-Cresol, n-Decane,

Flouranthene, n-Octadecane,

Phenol, Pyridine, and 2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol

Source: 40 CFR Part 437; D evelopment Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the

Centralized Waste Treatment Industry (U.S. EPA, 2000).



# 6.2 CWT Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews

The CWT Category was excluded from prev ious annual reviews because the ELG had

been promulgated recently (December 22, 2000). Tabl e 6-4 shows the screening-level results for

the CWT Category from the TRI and PCS databases composed between 2002 and 2005. Both the

2004 TRI and PCS TWPEs increased compared to previous years. However, the 2005 TRI

TWPE decreased compared to the 2004 TRI TW PE. The increase in TWPE from the 2002 and

2003 data sources to the 2004 and 2005 data sources could result from permit modifications that

incorporate the limitations from the promulgated ELGs.

Table 6-4. CWT Category Screening-Level Results

Year of Review Year of Data Source Centralized Waste Treatment Category a



## TRI TWPE b 

## PCS TWPE

2005 2002 38,123 3,423

2006 2003 65,250 NA

2007 2004 7,460,703 8,731

2008 2005 4,282,304 NA

S ource: PCSLoads2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2003_v2; PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3 ;

TRIReleases2005_v2

.

a — Direct and indirect water releases only.

b — This table includes the TWPE from two waste combustor facilities, which will be corrected in future databases.

EPA contacted facilities and found that two facilities initially identified as CWT facilities are actually waste

combustors. These facilities contribute negligible TWPE an d therefore, have no impact on the overall category

TWPE or rankings. These changes are further discussed in Section 11.0, Waste Combustors.

NA — Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate PCS data for 2003 and 2005.

## Section 6.0 – Centralized Wast e Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)



# 6-4 6.3 CWT Category 2004 through 2008 Pollutants of Concern

Table 6-5 shows the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2004_v3

, TRIReleases2005_v2 , and PCSLoads2004_v3 for the CWT Category. Because EPA did not

conduct preliminary reviews of the CWT Cate gory in 2005 and 2006, EPA did not identify the

pollutants with the highest TWPE from the 2002 and 2003 TRI databases or the 2002 PCS

database.

The CWT Category TWPE in 2004 PCS are si gnificantly lower than the TRI 2004 or

2005 TWPE. Therefore, EPA focused the additional review on the TRI-re ported pollutants that

account for the majority of the category TWPE.

Pesticides, including diazinon, malathion, and heptachlor, are the top TRI-reported

pollutants in 2004 and 2005, contributing more than 92 percent of the total category TWPE for

both 2004 and 2005. Polycyclic aromatic compounds (P ACs) in TRI are the pollutant with the

third highest TWPE in TRI 2004 and TRI 2005. EPA’ s additional review for the pollutants of

concern is presented in the following sections:

• 

# Section 6.4: Pesticides from TRI; and

• 

# Section 6.5: PACs from TRI.

6.4 CWT Category Pesticide Discharges

EPA reviewed discharges of pesticides from CWTs because they ranked high, in terms of

TWPE, in the PCS and TRI databases. For the 200 8 preliminary review, EPA contacted facilities

and collected additional discharge data to determine the following:

1. That pesticide discharges were based on actual discharges, not estimated based on

concentrations of pesticides below analytical minimum levels.

2. Whether CWTs had an increased receipt of pesticide waste as a result of

regulation of wastewater from the pe sticides formulating, packaging, and

repackaging (PFPR) industry (U.S. EPA, 1996).

3. Pesticide treatment effectiveness, using data from EPA’s Pesticides Chemicals

ELG rulemaking (U.S. EPA, 1996). Table 6-10 at the end of this section

summarizes EPA’s treatment efficiency da ta from the Pesticides Formulators,

Packagers, and Re-packagers (PFPR) rulemaking.

# 6-5Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)Table 6-5. 2008 Review: CWT Category Pollutants of Concernb, dbPCS 2004aTRI 2004TRI 2005Number ofNumber ofNumber ofFacilitiesFacilitiesFacilitiesReportingReportingReportingTotalPollutantPollutantTotal PoundsTWPEPollutantTotal PoundsTWPEPollutantPoundsTWPEZinc 3103,5964,857Sulfide 2 9122,555Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2004Pollutants are not in the top five TRICadmium 1 21493reported pollutants.2005 reported pollutants.Barium 2 155,451309Arsenic 2 44176Diazinon 110,2826,398,17015,8413,634,709Malathion 110,283575,93115,840327,077PACs 12,600261,71612,400241,584Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2004Heptachlor 1976,76712.420,471reported pollutants.Chlordane135 69,763 Pollutant is not in the top five TRI 2005reported pollutantsAcrylonitrilePollutant is not in the top five TRI 20041 16,289 37,126reported pollutantsCWT Category Total 4c10,465,007,382 8,730 5c18,835,213 7,460,703 5c724,164 4,282,304Source:PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2.a —Discharges include only major dischargers.b —Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.c —Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.d —This table includes the TWPE from two waste combustor facilities,which will be corrected in future databases. EPA contacted facilities and found that twofacilities initially identified as CWT facilities are actually waste combustors. These facilities contribute negligible TWPE and therefore, have no impact on theoverall category TWPE or rankings. These changes are further discussed in Section 11.0, “Waste Combustors”.PACs —Polycyclic aromatic compounds.

## Section 6.0 – Centralized Wast e Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)



# 6-6 40 CFR Part 437 does not include limitations or standards for pesticides. At the time of

the rulemaking, EPA collected samples at two CW T facilities and analyzed the samples for the

entire spectrum of chemical compounds for which EPA had approved analytical methods. This

included pesticides and herbicides. EPA found that pesticides/herbicides were only found in low

concentrations (U.S. EPA, 1994). However, EP A did not analyze the samples for diazinon or

malathion

— 

# the two pesticides with the highest TWPE in the 2004 and 2005 TRI databases for

the CWT Category. As of December 31, 2004, it is unlawful to sell outdoor, non-agricultural

diazinon products in the United States. It is, however, legal for consumers to use diazinon

products, provided they follow all label directio ns and precautions (U.S. EPA, 2007). Because

some CWT facilities are permitte d to accept hazardous waste, CW T facilities may receive waste

diazinon for some time even though it is no longer sold in the United States.

Discharges of pesticide ch emicals in the TRI 2004 and 2005 databases account for the

majority of the total category’s TWPE. EPA examin ed discharges of pesticides from CWTs for

the preliminary review of this category. EPA c ontacted five facilities about their pesticide

discharges reported to TRI in 2004 and 2005, pr esented in Table 6-6. EPA identified two

facilities for additional review of their TRI-reported pesticide di scharges because they account

for all of the CWT Category pesticide TWPE:

• 

# Vopak Logistics Services

— 

# Deer Park, TX (Section 6.4.1); and

• 

# DuPont Chambers Works

— 

# Deepwater, NJ (Section 6.4.2).

Table 6-6 summarizes findings from EPA’s contacts to CWTs regarding pesticides

reports to TRI. EPA found that only one CWT facility, DuPont Chambers Works, detected

pesticides in water discharges from CWT operations.

EPA found that CWTs report pe sticide releases to TRI based on wast e characterization

reports provided by their clients rather than wa stewater monitoring data. Waste characterization

reports include a list of all possi ble contaminants in a delivered waste stream with an estimated

concentration range for each contaminant. Some CWTs require testing of a fraction of influent

wastes (e.g., 10 percent of all influent wa stewater) to verify the accuracy of waste

characterization reports.

CWTs use either the midpoint or the maximu m concentration of each constituent in their

waste characterization reports to estimate what is being treated at the facility. The facility may

calculate a pollutant loading which is then re duced by a removal efficiency or destruction

efficiency to account for the pollutants remove d during treatment. Although this method of

estimation is appropriate for TRI reporting, it does not accurately reflect wastewater discharges.

Of the facilities contacted, four facilities had test ed for pesticides in their wastewater. Only one

of these facilities re ported detecting pesticides during sampling.

# 6-7Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)Table 6-6. Summary of CWT Pesticide Facility ContactsFacility NameCityFacility TWPEfrom TRI 2005Facility ReceivesPesticides?Facility DetectedPesticides?CommentsVopak LogisticsServices USA Inc.Deer Park, TX4,000,309YesNoVopak reports releases of a variety of pesticides, includingdiazinon (3,634,700 TWPE). Facility contact believes thatdiazinon and malathion were incorrectly reported on FormRs for 2004 and 2005. Contact believes these wastes wentto the injection facility, but their manifests were labeledimproperly. Form 2c of the NPDES Permit Application(submitted by facility) indicates that the facility did notsample for pesticides. Facility stopped receiving outsidewaste shipments in June 2006 (Krejci, 2008b).LNVA —NorthRegional TreatmentPlantBeaumont, TX245,555NoNoFacility does not receive pesticides from any of its clients.Facility estimates pesticide discharges based on quarterlySARA sampling data, which is non-detect for all PACsaccording to EPA Test Method SW846 8270C (Krejci,2008a).Dupont ChambersWorksDeepwater, NJ26,129YesNoFacility submitted eight or nine Form R's for pesticides for2001 to 2004 and submitted 14 in 2005. Facility detectedboth endrin and heptachlor once from 2004 to 2007 (Krejci,2008c).CWM ChemicalServices LLCModel City, NY9,193YesNoFacility reportedone pesticide to TRI which was sent to theon-site landfill. The facility has tested landfill leachate inthe past and has not detected the chemical of concern. Noother pesticides have been received at the facility (Krejci,2008e).Clean HarborsBaton Rouge LLCBaton Rouge, LA0aYesNoThe facility does comprehensive pesticides sampling everysix months and has never detected any pesticide above thedetection limit. The facility does not currently receive anyknown pesticides (Krejci, 2008d).Source:TRIReleases2005_v2; E-mail communication with Jesse Eastep, LNVA – North Regional Treatment Plant, Beaumont, TX (Krejci, 2008a); Notes fromtelephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Rino Wong and Tony Vundick, Vopak LogisticsServices, Deer Park, TX(Krejci, 2008b); E-mail communication with Scott Northey, DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ (Krejci, 2008c); Notes from telephone conversationbetween Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Bill Clark, Clean Harbors, Baton Rouge, LA (Krejci, 2008d); Notesfrom telephone conversationbetween Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Jill Banaszak, CWM Chemical Services, Model City, NY (Krejci, 2008e).a —Facility reports zeropounds released or transferred to surfacewater in the TRI.

## Section 6.0 – Centralized Wast e Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)



# 6-8 6.4.1 Pesticide Discharges for Vopak Logistics Services — Deer Park, TX

The pesticide discharges from Vopak Logi stics Services (Vopak) in Deer Park, TX,

contribute approximately 6,970,000 TWPE to TRI 2004 and 6,980,000 TWPE to TRI 2005.

Table 6-7 shows pesticide di scharges reported to TRI fr om Vopak for 2002 through 2005.

Table 6-7. Pesticide Discharges from Vopa k Logistics Services Reported to TRI

2004 2005

Pollutant Total Pounds TWPE Total Pounds TWPE

Diazinon 10,281.9 6,398,170 5,841 3,634,708

Malathion 10,283.3 575,931 5,840 327,078

Total 6,970,000 3,960,000

Source: TRIReleases2005_v2 ; TRIReleases2004_v3

.



# Based on information provided by the fac ility, EPA believes that Vopak is not

discharging pesticides to surface water. EP A contacted Vopak as part of the 2007 and 2008

annual reviews to verify the company’s es timation methodology for TRI and inquire about

pesticides sampling data (MacQueen, 2007; Krejci , 2008b). EPA will correct future versions of

its TRIReleases databases to reflect the findings that the Vopak facility is not discharging

pesticides to surface water.

Vopak estimates pesticide discharges for TRI based on client-provided waste

characterization reports and removal efficiency estimates for its wastewater treatment system,

following TRI guidelines. Vopak has not analyzed for pesticides in its wastewater. In June 2006,

Vopak stopped receiving commercial waste shipment s and currently only treats wastes from the

co-located Vopak Terminal facility. The Vopak Terminal facil ity is a storage warehouse for bulk

chemical products and generates wash down wate r that the CWT treats. Because Vopak stopped

receiving outside waste shipments at the CWT facility, the facility no long er receives pesticides.

Vopak expects that they will likely not report pes ticide releases to TRI in the future (Krejci,

2008b).

Furthermore, Vopak identified a possible erro r in how pesticide re leases were reported.

Vopak disposes of wastewater either by injection into a deep well or through a biological

wastewater treatment train that discharges to surface water. After EPA contacts, the facility

examined its estimates and found that pesticide wastes were likely se nt to the deep well injection

facility, not discharged to surface water. The f acility concluded that pesticide discharges were

mistakenly reported as surface water releases in stead of deep well injections in TRI since 2004

(Krejci, 2008b).

6.4.2 Pesticides Discharges for DuPont Chambers Works — Deepwater, NJ

The pesticide discharges from the DuPont Chambers Works facility, in Deepwater, NJ,

contribute approximately 918,320 TWPE (2004) and 26,160 TWPE 8 

# (2005) in the TRI

8 

## EPA changed reported hexachlorobenzene discharges from 80,923 to 0 TWPE based on non-detect results from

sampling episode.

## Section 6.0 – Centralized Wast e Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)



# 6-9 databases. Table 6-8 shows pesticide discharges reported to TRI from the DuPont Chambers

Works facility for 2002 through 2005.

Table 6-8. Pesticide Discharges from Du Pont Chambers Works Reported to TRI

2002 2003 2004 2005

Pollutant Total

Pounds TWPE Total

Pounds TWPE Total

Pounds TWPE Total

Pounds TWPE

Atrazine NA NA 2,709 2,820 4,340 4,520 3,521 3,670

Chlordane 13 20,300 14 27,900 35 69,800 1 1,990

Heptachlor 1 4,090 4 34,100 9 76,800 2.4 20,500

Hexachlorobenzene 25 18,100 25 48,700 39 76,000 0 a 

## 0

Total 42,500 114,000 227,000 26,100

Source: TRIReleases2005_v2

.

a — EPA changed value based on non-detect results from sampling episode.

NA — Not applicable.



# EPA contacted DuPont Chambers Works as part of the 2005 annual review regarding

chlordane, heptachlor, and pendimethalin disc harges (Johnston, 2005), and as part of the 2008

annual review regarding hexachlorobenzene discha rges (Krejci, 2008c). Discharges of pesticide

chemicals in the TRI 2004 and 2005 databases ac count for the majority of the total CWT

Category’s TWPE. DuPont Chambers Works indicated that the pesticide discharges result from

the treatment of wastewater from outside facilit ies at the DuPont Chambers Works wastewater

treatment plant (Johnston, 2005). This contact prompted EPA to reclassify the pesticide

discharges from the facility as regulated by the CWT ELGs.

DuPont Chambers Works estimates pesticide discharges for TRI based on the maximum

concentration in client-provided waste charact erization reports and its estimated treatment

removals. The facility has analyzed untreated and treated wastewater for pesticides in the

following events (Krejci, 2008c):

• 

# In 2006, DuPont Chambers Works analyzed the untreated wastewater from three

delivery trucks. Hexachlorobenzene wa s not detected in these samples.

• 

# In 2005, the facility analyzed wastewater at an internal monitoring point prior to

tertiary treatment system. Hex achlorobenzene was not detected.

For the 2005 TRI, the facility reported 18 pounds of hexachlorobenzene based on the

client-provided waste characterization reports (Krejci, 2008c). Because the only sampling event

for hexachlorobenzene in 2005 returned a non-detect result, EPA corrected the

TRIReleases2005_v02 database, denoting the hexachlorobe nzene release as zero pounds per

year.

Based on information provided by the facili ty, EPA believes that DuPont Chambers

Works is overestimating the pesticide releases it reported to TRI. In calculating these releases,

DuPont Chambers Works assumes that pesticides are present in its influent at the maximum

possible concentration, and that some fraction of the pesticide waste is discharged (based on

destruction efficiencies). According to DMR data for reporting years 2004 to 2007 (available

through the New Jersey Department of Envir onmental Protection [NJ DEP] Web-site), the

## Section 6.0 – Centralized Wast e Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)



# 6-10 facility has detected both endrin and heptachlo r in its wastewater at least once (NJDMR, 2008).

The facility had not detected any of the ot her pesticides it reports to TRI (chlordane,

pendamethalin, and hexachlorobenzene) from 2004 through 2007. Table 6-9 shows EPA’s

estimates of annual loads based on sampling data from DMRs that DuPont Chambers Works

submitted to NJ DEP. Based on the annual loads calculated using the sampling data, EPA

estimates discharges of zero TWPE for chlo rdane and hexachlorobe nzene and 508 TWPE for

heptachlor. For future versions of the TRIReleases databases, EPA will consider these data and

may make additional database changes to accurately reflect the DuPont Chambers Works

discharges.

Table 6-9. Estimates of Pesticide Discharges from DuPont Chambers Works Based on

Sampling Data

Annual Load (lb/yr) a



## Pollutant Total

Pounds

Reported

to TRI TWPE Conc. Range in

Residual Sludge

(mg/kg) Assuming

Conc. BDL

Is 0 Assuming

Conc. BDL

Is 1⁄2 DL Assuming

Conc. BDL

Is DL Revised

TWPE b



## Atrazine c 

## 3,521 3,670 NR NA NA NA 3,670

Chlordane 1 1,990 <0.00035

— <1.6 0.000 0.332 0.665 0

Heptachlor 2.4 20,500 <.000010

— 0.159 0.046 0.060 0.073 508

Hexachlorobenzene 0 0 <0.38 — <0.84 0.000 0.038 0.762 0

Source: TRIReleases2005_v2 ; Discharge Monitoring Report Data for Du Pont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ

downloaded from the NJ DMR data system (NJDMR, 2008).

a — EPA used the quarterly pesticide residual sludge load (mg/kg) and the total suspended solids load (kg/day) to

determine the annual pesticide load.

b — Revised TWPE uses EPA’s methodology. When all the concentrations are reported below the detection limit

the annual pounds are zero. When one or more concentr ations are above the detection limit the annual pounds

assume the concentration is half the detection limit for the non-detect concentrations.

c — EPA has not estimated the revised TWPE for atrazine due to a lack of sampling data.

BDL — Below detection limit.

Conc. — Concentration.

DL — Detection limit.

NR — Not reported.



# 6.5 CWT Category Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Discharges

After pesticide chemicals, PACs are the larg est contributor to the TWPE discharges from

TRI 2004 and 2005 for the CWT Category. The PAC di scharges are reported by one facility,

LNVA North Regional Treatment Plant (LNVA) in Beaumont, TX. Table 6-10 shows PAC

discharges reported to TRI from LNVA for 2004 through 2005. No PA C discharges were

reported from this facility prior to 2004.

Table 6-10. PAC Discharges from LNVA Nort h Regional Treatment Plant Reported to

TRI

2004 2005

Pollutants Total Pounds TWPE Total Pounds TWPE

PACs 2,600 261,176 2,4 00 241,584

Sou rce: TRIReleases2005_v2 ; TRIReleases2004_v3

.

## Section 6.0 – Centralized Wast e Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)



# 6-11 E PA contacted LNVA in 2005 regarding the facility’s PAC discharges. LNVA treats

industrial waste from the ExxonMobil refinery and chemical plant, PD Glycol, Peak Sulfur, and

Elf Atochem. The facility stated that it had never detected any PACs above detection limits in its

wastewater and that it currently uses half the de tection limit multiplied by total plant flow for

TRI reporting (Wolford, 2005). EPA contacted LNVA again in 2008; the facility reported that it

had still not detected any PACs in its effluent above the method detection limit for EPA Method

SW846 8270C (Krejci, 2008). In future versions of the TRI database, EPA will correct the

discharges of PACs from this faci lity to denote zero pounds per year.

6.6 CWT Category Conclusions

D uring the 2008 Annual Review, EPA used information gathered from TRI and PCS

databases and facility contacts to conclude that no further review of discharges from CWTs is

necessary at this time. The conclusions of the CWT Category review are as follows:

• 

# TRI-reported discharges of pesticides account for the majority of the CWT

Category’s TWPE. EPA determined that pesticide releases from the CWT

facilities contributi ng significant portions of th e category TWPE (Vopak and

DuPont Chambers Works) are estimated us ing waste characterization reports from

clients and treatment efficiencies, rather than actual sampling data.

• 

# O nly one CWT facility that EPA contacted detected pesticides in its discharges:

DuPont Chambers Works, which detected endrin and heptachlor at least once in

its effluent between 2004 and 2007. Base d on the information collected from

DuPont Chambers Works, the amount of pes ticides discharged to surface water is

less than the amounts reported to TRI. Instead of the 26,129 TWPE 9 

# for TRI

2005, EPA believes the actual pesticide di scharges from DuPont Chambers

Works were approximately 4,178 TWPE.

• 

# TRI-reported discharges of PACs are the third highest ranking pollutant in terms

of TWPE in the TRI 2004 and 2005 databa ses, which all result from reports by

one CWT facility, LNVA. LNVA estimates PAC discharges based on half the

detection limit multiplied by the flow. The facility has never detected PACs in its

discharges above the de tection limit. In future versions of the TRIReleases

databases, EPA will correct the TRI databases, denoting the discharge as zero

pounds per year.

• 

# E PA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential

revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the

environment, measured as toxic-weight ed equivalents (or TWPE). Based on the

above conclusions, EPA is assigning this category a lower priority for revision

(i.e., this category is marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” colu mn in Table V-1 in

the accompanying Federal Register notice th at presents the 2008 annual review of

effluent guidelines and pr etreatment standards).

9 

## EPA changed reported DuPont Chambers Works hexachlo robenzene discharges from 80,923 to 0 TWPE based on

non-detect results from sampling episode in TRIReleases2005 . This TWPE includes the revisions to the

hexachlorobenzene.

## Section 6.0 – Centralized Wast e Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)



# 6-12 6. 7 CWT Category References

1. Johnston, Carey. 2005. U.S. EPA. E-mail co mmunication with Ken Wood, DuPont.

“Chambers Works Pesticides Discharg es TRI in 2002.” EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN

05976.

2. Krejci, Christopher. 2008a. Eastern Resear ch Group, Inc. E-mail communication with

Jesse Eastep, LNVA

— 

# North Regional Treatment Plant, Beaumont, TX. “PACs

Discharges from LNVA.” (Apr il 1). EPA-HQ-OW- 2006-0771 DCN 05949.

3. Krejci, Christopher. 2008b. Eastern Res earch Group, Inc. Notes from telephone

conversation between Christopher Krejci, Ea stern Research Group, Inc. and Rino Wong

and Tony Vundick, Vopak Logistics Services, Deer Park, TX. “Pesticides Receipt and

Possible Discharge from Vopak Logistic s.” (March 31). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN

05952.

4. Krejci, Christopher. 2008c. Eastern Resear ch Group, Inc. E-mail communication with

Scott Northey, DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ. “Pesticides Receipt and

Possible Discharge from DuPont Chambers Works.” (April 1). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771

DCN 05950.

5. Krejci, Christopher. 2008d. Eastern Res earch Group, Inc. Notes from telephone

conversation between Christopher Krejci, Ea stern Research Group, Inc. and Bill Clark,

Clean Harbors, Baton Rouge, LA. “Pesticides Receipt and Possible Discharge from Clean

Harbors Baton Rouge.” (March 24). EPA-HQ-OW- 2006-0771 DCN 05953.

6. Krejci, Christopher. 2008e. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone

conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Jill

Banaszak, CWM Chemical Services, Model C ity, NY. “Pesticides Receipt and Possible

Discharge from CWM Chemical Services .” (March 21). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN

05948.

7. MacQueen, Casey. 2007. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone

conversation between Casey MacQueen, East ern Research Group, Inc., and Rino Wong,

Vopak Logistics Services. “Vopak estimation met hods used to report direct discharges to

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in 2 004.” (January 11). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0442.

8. NJDMR. New Jersey Discharge Monitori ng Report. 2008. Discharge Monitoring Report

Data for DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ downloaded from the NJ DMR data

system. Available online at: http://datam ine2.state.nj.us/dep/DEP_OPRA/index2.html.

Date accessed: April 14, 2008. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05970.

9. U.S. EPA. 1996. Technical Development Document for the Pesticides Formulating,

Packaging, and Re-packaging Effl uent Limitations Guidelin es, Pretreatment Standards,

and New Source Performance Standards . EPA-821-R-96-019. Washington, DC.

(September 30).

## Section 6.0 – Centralized Wast e Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)



# 6-13 10. U.S. EPA. 2000. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry . EPA-821-R-00-020.

Washington, DC. (December). Available online at: http://e pa.gov/guide/cwt/

final/develop/index.html. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2223.

11. U.S. EPA. 2007. Diazinon: Phase Out of a ll Residential Uses of the Insecticide.

Washington, DC. (July 24). Available on line at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/

factsheets/chemicals/diazinon-fact sheet.htm. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05977.

12. U.S. EPA. 1994. Draft Pesticides Formulators, Pa ckagers, and Repackagers Treatability

Database Report . EPA-821-R-93-016. (April). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05978.

13. Wolford, Jessica. 2005. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone conversation

between Jessica Wolford, Eastern Resear ch Group, Inc. and Jesse Eastep, LNVA

— 

# North Regional Treatment Plant, Beaumont, TX. “LNVA PACs Discharges in TRI

2003.” EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1115.

# 6-14Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)Table 6-11. Pesticides Treatability DataPesticideStructural GroupPesticideMfr BATTechnologyHydrolysisHalf-Life(Min.) or%Rem.SourceCarbonSaturationLoading (g/g)or %Rem.SourceChemicalOxidation%Rem.Source65.5% (b,d)EPASampling86.2% (d)Other14.80%EPASampling4800(b)Other0.2159(e)Other17,700(b)Other0.04(c)EPA Bench Study2760(b)EPABenchStudy99.99%(d)EPASampling731Extrapolated0.168(d)EPA Bench StudyAtrazineS-TriazineHD,BO0.014,0.13(g)EPA Bench Study>5,000,000(b)Other99.9%(c)Other>99.5%Other0.25,0.38(g)OtherChlordaneTricyclicNM860.065Other5EPABenchStudy95.2% (d)EPASampling706 (b)Other93.2%(d)EPA Sampling706 (b)EPABenchStudy0.14,0.49(g)EPA Bench Study0.147(c)EPA Bench StudyDiazinonPhosphorothioateAC84.8%(d)EPASampling1400(b)Other1.22, 0.95(g)Other65%EPABenchStudy0.014Other>70%EPA Bench StudyHeptachlorTricyclicRA>99.5%Other300,000(b)Other0.26,0.49(g)Other>99.5%(f)Other>99%OtherHaxachlorobenzeneaLindaneAC0.0195(c)Other

# 6-15Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437)Table 6-11. Pesticides Treatability DataPesticideStructural GroupPesticideMfr BATTechnologyHydrolysisHalf-Life(Min.) or%Rem.SourceCarbonSaturationLoading (g/g)or %Rem.SourceChemicalOxidation%Rem.Source0.257Other0.025Other60(b)EPA BenchStudy>98.8% (f)Graph<30EPABenchStudy>98.3% (d)EPASampling99.90%Other0.26,0.22(g)EPA Bench StudyMalathionPhosphorodithioateHD87.5%(f)Other5,000,000(b)Other0.0034,0.399(g)90thToxapheneBicyclicAC0.042OtherSource: Draft Pesticides Formulators,Packagers, and Repackagers TreatabilityDatabase Report (U.S. EPA, 1994).a —Transferred from Lindane based on experimental data.b —Hydrolysis conditions other than pH 12 and 60°Cc —Data include multiple runs at varying design and operating conditions; value given is for best treatability performanced —Data include multiple runs at similar design and operating conditions; average performance value is given.e — Value given is for total chlorotriazine pesticides. Data for individual pesticides are not available.f — Multiple data points from the document listed in table for the same PAI because document provided data from different sources.g — Values given are Freundlich isotherm parametersK in grams PAI per gram carbon and 1/n (unitless).NM86 — Not produced in United States in 1986.RA — Rain adsorption.AC — Activated carbon.HD — Hydrolysis.BO — Biological oxidation.

## Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers



# 7-1 7.0 O RGANIC 

# C HEMICALS 

# P LASTICS AND 

# S YNTHETIC 

# F IBERS 

# (40 CFR P ART 

# 414)

EPA selected the OCPSF Category (40 CFR Pa rt 414) for preliminary review because it

continues to rank high, in terms of TWPE, in point source categor y rankings (see Tables 5-3 and

5-4 for the point source category rankings). EPA pr eviously performed a detailed study of this

industry, published as part of the 2004 Final ELG Plan (69 FR 53705). EPA has also reviewed

discharges from OCPSF facilities as part of its annual reviews since 2004. Each year, including

this year of review, EPA has concluded that wastewater from OCPSF f acilities does not warrant

a more detailed review at this time.

EPA is currently reviewing discharges fr om the Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Manufacturing

Segment of the OCPSF Category as part of the CCH effluent guidelines rulemaking. Because a

rulemaking for this segment of the OCPSF Ca tegory is underway, EPA excluded discharges

from these facilities from further consider ation in this review (see Table V-1, 70 FR 61335,

October 30, 2007).

7.1 OCPSF Category Background

This subsection provides background on the OCPSF Category, including a brief profile of

the OCPSF industry and b ackground on 40 CFR Part 414.

7.1.1 OCPSF Industry Profile

The OCPSF Category includes many chemical in dustries producing a wide variety of end

products, such as polypropylene, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), chlorinated

solvents, rubber precursors, styrofoam additiv es, and polyester. Some OCPSF facilities are

extremely complex and produce hundreds of chemical s, while others are simpler, producing one

or two end products. Facilities in the following five SIC codes c ould perform operations covered

by the OCPSF ELGs:

• 

# 2821: Plastic Materials, Synthetic Re sins, and Nonvulcanizable Elastomers;

• 

# 2823: Cellulosic and Other Man-Made Fibers;

• 

# 2824: Synthetic Organic Fi bers, Except Cellulose;

• 

# 2865: Cyclic Crudes and Intermediates, and Organic Dyes and Pigments; and

• 

# 2869: Industrial Organic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC).

In addition, EPA is considering including operati ons from five other SIC codes as potential new

subcategories of the OCPSF Category. 10



# Table 7-1 presents the number of facilities in the five SIC codes that compose the OCPSF

industry. Because the U.S. Economic Census re ports data by NAICS code, and TRI and PCS

10 

## EPA reviews industries with SIC codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes,

operations, wastewaters, and po llutants of facilities in the SIC codes 2842, 2844, 2891, 2899, and 5169 (listed in

Table 7-1) are similar to those of the OCPSF Category (U.S. EPA, 2004). The tables in this section include

discharge information from the potentia l new subcategories; however, these facilities contribute negligible amounts

of TWPE. Consistent with the conclusions drawn during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004) and 2006 review

(U.S. EPA, 2006), EPA found that large numbers of th ese facilities discharge no wastewater and only a small

number of facilities discharge TWPE greater than zero.

## Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers



# 7-2 report data by SIC code, EPA reclassified the 200 2 U.S. Economic Census by the equivalent SIC

code.

OCPSF facilities discharge directly to surf ace water as well as to POTWs. Table 7-2

presents the types of discharges reported by f acilities in the 2004 and 2005 TRI databases. The

majority of facilities reporting to TRI reporte d no water discharges, but facilities may be

discharging pollutants in wastewater at levels below the TRI-reporting thresholds.

Table 7-1. Number of Facilities in OCPSF SIC Codes

SIC 2002 U.S.

Economic

Census 2004 PCS a 

## 2004 TRI b 

## 2005 TRI b



## 2821: Plastic Materials, Synthetic Resins, and

Nonvulcanizable Elastomers 688 144 383 380

2823: Cellulosic and Other Man-Made Fibers 8 3 4 5

2824: Synthetic Organic Fibers, Except Cellulosic 94 10 38 35

2865: Cyclic Crudes and

Dyes and Pigments Intermediates, and Organic 217 36 87 84

2869: Industrial Organic Chemicals, NEC 3,215 219 471 476

OCPSF Category Total c 

## 4,222 412 983 980

Potential New Subcategories

2842: Specialty Cleaning, Polishing, and Sanitation

Preparations 604 0 137 455

2844: Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other Toilet

Preparations 1,586 11 39 138

2891: Adhesives and Sealants 585 14 174 38

2899: Chemicals and Chemical Preparations, NEC 3,582 56 329 173

5169: Chemicals and Allied Products 54,314 0 444 327

Potential New Subcategories Total 60,671 81 1,123 1,131

Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002); PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3 ;

TRIReleases2005_v2

. a — Major and minor dischargers.

b — Releases to any media.

c — Excludes the potential new subcategories.

NEC — Not elsewhere classified.

# 7-3Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals,Plastics, and Synthetic FibersTable 7-2. OCPSF Category Facilities by Typeof Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005TRI 2004TRI 2005Reported ReportedReported ReportedReportedOnlyBoth DirectReported ReportedOnlyBoth DirectReportedOnly DirectIndirectand IndirectNo WaterOnly DirectIndirectand IndirectNo WaterSIC CodeDischargesDischarges DischargesDischarges DischargesDischarges DischargesDischarges2821: Plastic Materials, Synthetic62 92 18 211 65 92 16 207Resins, and Nonvulcanizable Elastomers2823: Cellulosic and Other Man-Made2 0 1 1 3 0 1 1Fibers2824: Synthetic Organic Fibers, Except9 14 2 13 7 12 4 12Cellulosic2865: Cyclic Crudes and Intermediates,19 28 4 36 18 28 5 33and Organic Dyes and Pigments2869: Industrial Organic Chemicals,106 128 26 211 106 118 28 224NECOCPSF Category Totala198 262 51 472 199 250 54 477Potential New Subcategories2842: Specialty Cleaning, Polishing, and1 38 0 98 9 34 1 411Sanitation Preparations2844: Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other0 23 0 16 1 39 0 98Toilet Preparations2891: Adhesives and Sealants3 22 1 148 0 20 0 182899: Chemicals and Chemical14 88 8 219 4 24 0 145Preparations, NEC5169: Chemicals and Allied Products 8 36 1 399 15 83 9 220Potential New Subcategories Total26 207 10 880 29 200 10 892Source:TRIReleases2004_v3;TRIReleases2005_v2.a — Excludes the potential new subcategories.NEC — Not elsewhere classified.

## Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers



# 7-4 7.1.2 40 CFR Part 414

EPA first promulgated ELGs for th e OCPSF Category (40 CFR Part 414) on

November 5, 1987 (52 FR 42568). This category consists of eight subcategorie s that apply to the

manufacture of products and pr oduct groups, as shown in Table 7-3 with the corresponding SIC

codes and applicability. Subparts B through H have limitations for BOD 5 

# , TSS, and pH. The

regulation also includes limitati ons and/or pretreatment standard s for certain toxic pollutants in

three additional subparts:

• 

# Subpart I — Direct Discharge Point Sour ces That Use End-of-Pipe Biological

Treatment;

• 

# Subpart J — Direct Discharge Point S ources That Do Not Use End-of-Pipe

Biological Treatment; and

• 

# Subpart K — Indirect Discharge Point Sources.

Table 7-3. Applicability of Subcat egories in the OCPSF Category

Subpart Subpart Name Applicable SIC Code(s) Subpart Applicability

B Rayon Fibers 2823: Cellulosic Manmade

Fibers Cellulosic manmade fiber (Rayon) manufactured

by the Viscose process.

C Other Fibers 2823: Cellulosic Manmade

Fibers 2824: Synthetic Organic

Fibers, Except Cellulosic All other synthetic fibers (except Rayon)

including, but not limited to, products listed in

Section 414.30.

D Thermoplastic

Resins 28213: Thermoplastic Resins Any plastic product classified as a thermoplastic

resin including, but not limited to, products listed

in Section 414.40.

E Thermosetting

Resins 28214: Thermosetting Resins Any plastic product classified as a thermosetting

resin including, but not limited to, products listed

in Section 414.50.

F Commodity

Organic

Chemicals 2865: Cyclic Crudes and

Intermediates, Dyes and

Organic Pigments 2869:

Industrial Organic Chemicals,

NEC Commodity organic chemicals and commodity

organic chemical groups including, but not limited

to, products listed in Section 414.60.

G Bulk Organic

Chemicals 2865: Cyclic Crudes and

Intermediates, Dyes and

Organic Pigments 2869:

Industrial Organic Chemicals,

NEC Bulk organic chemicals and bulk organic chemical

groups including, but not limited to, products

listed in Section 414.70.

H Specialty

Organic

Chemicals 2865: Cyclic Crudes and

Intermediates, Dyes and

Organic Pigments 2869:

Industrial Organic Chemicals,

NEC All other organic chemical s and organic chemical

groups including, but not limited to, products

listed in the OCPSF Development Document (Vol.

II, Appendix II-A, Table VII).

Source: Product and Product Group Discharges Subject to Effluent Limitations and Standards for the Organic

Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category — 40 CFR 414, Table 2-2 (U.S. EPA, 2005).

NEC



# — Not elsewhere classified.

## Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers



# 7-5 7.2 OCPSF Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews

Over the years of EPA review, from 2004 through 2008, the TWPE associated with

OCPSF facilities has increased. Table 7-4 show s the screening-level results for the OCPSF

industry from the 2002 through 2005 TRI and PCS databases. The TRI TWPE increased

significantly from 2002 to 2003 and then decrea sed from 2003 to 2005. However, the 2005 TRI

TWPE is still more than double the TRI TWPE for 2002. The PCS TWPE has increased about 23

percent from 2002 to 2004.

Table 7-4. OCPSF Screening-Lev el Results

OCPSF Category a 

## Potential New Subcategory for the

OCPSF Category d



## Year of Review Year of Data

Source TRI TWPE b 

## PCS TWPE c 

## TRI TWPE b 

## PCS TWPE c



## 2005 2002 349, 429 397,951 12,153 17,252

2006 2003 1,021,401 NA 4,161 NA

2007 e 

## 2004 957,134 608,394 3,578 3,121

2008 2005 758,964 NA 19,215 NA

Source: PCSLoads2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2003_v2; PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3 ;

TRIReleases2005_v2

. a — Includes TWPE from the potential new subcategory.

b — Direct and indirect water releases only.

c — Major dischargers only.

d — EPA reviews industries with SIC c odes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes,

operations, wastewaters, and po llutants of facilities in the SIC codes 2842, 2844, 2891, 2899, and 5169 (listed in

Table 7-1) are similar to those of the OCPSF Category (U.S. EPA, 2004). The tables in this section include

discharge information from the potentia l new subcategories; however, these facilities contribute negligible amounts

of TWPE. Consistent with the conclusions drawn during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004) and 2006 review

(U.S. EPA, 2006), EPA found that large numbers of th ese facilities discharge no wastewater and only a small

number of facilities discharge TWPE greater than zero.

e — EPA corrected the PCS TWPE during the 2008 annual review because EPA determined that hexachlorobenzene

(HCB) loads were linked to the incorrect pollutant TWF in PCSLoads2004_v3 . As a result, the OCPSF Category

TWPE increased from 490,000 to 608,000 lb-eq/yr from the 2007 annual review to the 2008 annual review.

NA — Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate PCS data for 2003 and 2005.



# 7.3 OCPSF Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern

Table 7-5 shows the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2004

, TRIReleases2005 , and PCSLoads2004 . For comparison purposes, Table 7-6 provides similar

information from the 2006 Final ELG Plan (71 FR 76644) using TRIReleases2002

, TRIReleases2003 , and PCSLoads2002

.

# 7-6Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals,Plastics, and Synthetic FibersTable 7-5. 2008 Review: OCPSF Category Pollutants of ConcernaPCS 2004bTRI 2004cTRI 2005cPollutantNumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotal PoundsTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotalPoundsTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotalPoundsTWPEHexachlorobezened1362.9122,52944384,480Aluminum203,233,568209,183Benzidine12363,844Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2004reported pollutants.Pollutants are not in the top five TRI2005 reported pollutants.Chlorine4674,95238,1622145,01822,9212059,39130,240Fluoride12806,79328,238Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2004reported pollutants.Pollutants are not in the top five TRI2005 reported pollutants.Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeCompounds80.527693,35870.388503,240Hydroquinone613,38317,051Pollutants are not in the top five TRI2005 reported pollutants.Nitrate Compounds13021,719,79516,21712826,662,57619,908PACs1046346,620AcrylonitrilePollutants are not in the top five PCS 2004reported pollutants.Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2004reported pollutants.288,49119,353OCPSF Category Total228e3,800,000,000608,000754e35,300,000957,00068e35,400,000759,000Source:PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2.a — This table presents the top five pollutants composing the category TWPE, including the potential new subcategory SIC codes.However, the potential newsubcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE.b — Discharges include only major dischargers.c — Discharges include transfers toPOTWs and account for POTW removals.d — EPA corrected the PCS TWPE during the 2008 annual review because EPA determined that hexachlorobenzene (HCB) loads were linked to the incorrectpollutant TWF inPCSLoads2004_v3. As a result, the OCPSF Category TWPE increased from 490,000 to 608,000 lb-eq/yr from the 2007 annual review to the2008 annual review.e — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.PACs — Polycyclic aromatic compounds.

# 7-7Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals,Plastics, and Synthetic FibersTable 7-6. 2006 Review: OCPSF Category Pollutants of ConcernaPCS 2002bTRI 2002cTRI 2003cPollutantNumberofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotal PoundsTWPENumberofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotalPoundsTWPENumberofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotalPoundsTWPEHexachlorobenzene1353103,42043059,27243261,656Chlorine58106,27854,1132556,95428,9992255,81028,416Fluoride14910,27031,859Benzo(a)pyrene1628828,990Copper10033,62921,348Pollutants arenot inthe topfiveTRI 2002reportedpollutants.Pollutants arenot inthe topfiveTRI2003reportedpollutants.Dioxin andDioxin-likeCompounds80.019115,13260.440703,572Nitrate Compounds13144,533,70233,252Hydroquinone613,51317,217Pollutants arenot inthe topfiveTRI2003reportedpollutants.PACs1067567,964PCBsPollutants arenot inthe topfivePCS 2002reportedpollutants.Pollutants arenot inthe topfiveTRI 2002reportedpollutants.20.81227,627OCPSF CategoryTotal232d978,243,371397,951791d53,973,135349,429762d37,904,3151,021,401Source:PCSLoads2002_v4;TRIReleases2002_v4;TRIReleases2003_v2.a — This table presents the top five pollutants composing the category TWPE, including the potential new subcategory SIC codes.However, the potential newsubcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE.b — Discharges include only major dischargers.c — Discharges include transfers toPOTWs and account for POTW removals.d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.PACs — Polycyclic aromatic compounds.PCBs — Polychlorinated biphenyls.

## Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers



# 7-8 EPA identified the OCPSF pollutants of concern based on relative TWPE. Dioxin and

dioxin-like compounds have the highest TWPE in the TRI databases from 2002 to 2005,

contributing more than 65 percent of the total category TWPE for both 2004 and 2005. The TRIreported discharges of hexachlorobenzene (H CB) decreased from 2004 to 2005; in 2005, HCB

was no longer a top pollutant in terms of TWPE. However, the TR I-reported discharges of PACs

increased from 2004 to 2005 in TRI. For PCS, HCB is the top pollutant discharged in terms of

TWPE in 2002 and 2004. Other top pollutants in 2004 are aluminum and benzidine. Aluminum

and benzidine were not listed top pollutants in 2002. EPA performed additional review for the

pollutants of concern:

• 

# Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from TRI (Section 7.8);

• 

# PACs from TRI (Section 7.9);

• 

# HCB from TRI and PCS (Section 7.10);

• 

# Aluminum from PCS (Section 7.11); and

• 

# Benzidine from PCS (Section 7.12).

EPA did not perform additional review of othe r top TRI pollutants because their relative

contributions in the 2004 and 2005 databases account for less than 34 percent of the combined

OCPSF Category TWPE. EPA did not perform additional review of the other top PCS pollutants

because TRI TWPE dominates the PCS TWPE for the OCPSF Category.

7.4 OCPSF Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges in TRI

EPA has reviewed discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds each year for the

OCPSF Category since 2004. For the 2008 annual review, EPA reviewed information about

facilities that reported discha rges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to TRI to determine

potential process sources and methods used to es timate reported discharges. The results of the

2008 annual review show that dioxin and dioxin- like compounds continue to rank high in terms

of TRI TWPE. PCS dioxin and dioxin-lik e compounds TWPE, however, has decreased

significantly from the 2005 annual review.

Table 7-7 shows the OCPSF facilities that re ported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like

compounds to TRI from 2002 to 2005 and how the fac ilities estimated discharges of dioxin and

dioxin-like compounds (based on contact with the facilities) (ERG, 2006). One facility, BP

Solvay Polyethylene in Deer Par k, TX contributes more than 95 percent of the total dioxin and

dioxin-like compound TRI TWPE for the OCSPF Ca tegory from 2003 to 2005. In addition to the

facilities presented in Table 7-7, EPA identified tw o new facilities reporti ng wastewater releases

of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds for 2004 and 2005:

• 

# CIBA Specialty Chemicals Corp, St. Gabriel, LA; and

• 

# Nation Ford Chemical Co, Fort Mill, SC.

Combined, these two facilities contribute less than 200 TWPE (<0.05 percent) of the OCPSF

Category total TWPE for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. Therefore, EPA did not contact

these facilities to gather info rmation on their basis of estimate or process sources of dioxin and

dioxin-like compounds for the 2008 annual review.

# 7-9Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals,Plastics, and Synthetic FibersTable 7-7. OCPSF Facilities Reporting Dioxin Releases to TRIFacility Name(Facility Location)TRI 2002DioxinTWPETRI 2003DioxinTWPETRI 2004DioxinTWPETRI 2005DioxinTWPEBasis ofEstimateWas DioxinDetected?FindingsAtofina (Total)Petrochemicals Inc.(La Porte, TX)57,489799799799TCEQsamplingepisode in1999TCEQ detected1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD, OCDD,and OCDF (TCEQ,2003)TCEQ sampled at the final outfall for the facility’sNPDES permit and providedone concentration thatrepresented a mixture ofdioxin congeners. Facilitymultiplies this concentration by the total wastewater flowfor the outfall. Facility continues to use the TCEQ dioxinnumber every year for their TRI reports.BP SolvayPolyethylene N.A.(Innovene)(Deer Park, TX)NR678,344657,253480,414TCEQsamplingepisode in2002TCEQ detected1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD, OCDD,and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF (TCEQ,2003)TCEQ sampled at the final outfall for the facility’sNPDES permit and providedone concentration thatrepresented a mixture ofdioxin congeners. Facilitymultiplies this concentration by the total wastewater flowfor the outfall. Facility continues to use the TCEQ dioxinnumber every year for their TRI reports.Celanese AcetateCelco Plant(Narrows, VA)941NRNRNRWorst-casescenarioengineeringestimateNoFacility uses dissolving-grade wood pulp as a rawmaterial. Celanese had reviewed a study that looked at thedioxin content of wood pulp andits potential to end up instormwater. Wastewater monitoring data for Celanese’sForm 2C application showsall nondetects for dioxin.Celanese stopped reporting waterreleases of dioxin to TRIin 2004.Cytec Industries Inc.(Wallingford, CT)13,4605,9828,973NREngineeringestimateNot monitoredDioxin water release was based on an engineering estimatefor the operation of an incinerator that was used to dry outbiosolids. This incineratoris no longer in operation andsite did not report dioxin to TRI for 2005.Dow Chemical Co.Midland Ops.(Midland, MI)25,502NR6,5426,852Routinemonitoringconducted byfacilityYes —Reported allcongeners except1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF, and1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD to TRI for2002/2003.Dioxin sources include historical process and wastemanagement units no longer inoperation at the site. Avery small amount may also come from an on-siteincinerator. The TRI dioxin water release is a TM 17 valuethat sums the average congener concentrations fromsamples collected throughoutthe year. Dow uses EPAMethod 1613B to analyze for dioxin and sets allconcentrations that are below the detection limit to zero.DuPont ChambersWorks(Deepwater, NJ)3340.580NRNREngineeringestimateNot monitoredA contaminated ferric chloride additive used for solidssettling in the wastewater treatment plant was the dioxinsource. Du Pont used information from the vendor on thedioxin composition of the contaminated ferric chloride toestimate their TRI releases. The site has since stoppedusing ferric chloride for settling. The dioxin releaseincluded in the TRI 2004 database will be zero.

# 7-10Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals,Plastics, and Synthetic FibersTable 7-7. OCPSF Facilities Reporting Dioxin Releases to TRITRI 2002 TRI 2003 TRI 2004 TRI 2005Facility NameDioxin Dioxin Dioxin DioxinBasis ofWas Dioxin(Facility Location)TWPE TWPE TWPE TWPEEstimateDetected?FindingsLyondell Chemical219 NR NR NR RoutineYes – Did notA small amount of dioxin is produced by an on-siteCo. (Westlake, LA)monitoringreport ahazardous waste incinerator scrubber. The bulk of theconducted bydistribution to TRIdioxin enters the plant with the source water from thefacilityfor 2002.Sabine River. The site monitors the intake and finaleffluent for dioxin, then calculates a balance to report whatis discharged. The balance is reported to TRI.Sasol N.A. Inc.3.26 NR NR NR RoutineYes – ReportedFacility formerly operateda chlorination process that(Baltimore, MD)monitoring1,2,3,4,6,7,8-generated dioxin. They began sampling processconducted byHpCDD andwastewater and final effluent in 2001 and detected tracefacilityOCDD to TRI foramounts of OCDD. The dioxin release reported to TRI2002.was based on this single detected congener (concentrationwas just above the detection limit). The site stoppedmonitoring for dioxin in 2003 when the chlorinationprocess was shut down. They no longer report dioxinwater releases to TRI.Sasol N.A. Inc.17,183 4,479 4,479 4,479 SamplingYes — ReportedFacility receives wastewater from the Georgia Gulf LakeLake Charlesresults from17 congeners toCharles VCM plant. The VCM process wastewater is theChemical ComplexstudiesTRI for 2002/2003.source of dioxin.(Westlake, LA)conductedover the yearsShell Chemical Co.NR 13,967 15,152 10,529 TCEQTCEQ detected 10TCEQ sampled at the outfall for the facility’s chemicalDeer Park (Deersamplingdioxin congenersplant and provided dioxin congener concentration data forPark, TX)episode in(TCEQ, 2003)17 dioxin congeners. Facility multiplies this concentration2003by the total wastewater flow for the outfall. Facilitycontinues to use the TCEQ dioxin number every year fortheir TRI reports. Facility treats wastewater for anOxyVinyls EDC/VCM plant, which is a large source ofdioxins in their wastewater. Facility has also identifiedother process sources that are small contributors of dioxin.OCPSF Category115,132 703,572 693,358 503,240TotalSource:TRIReleases2002_v4;TRIReleases2003_v2;Telephone conversations with various OCPSF facility representatives and Meghan Kandle of EasternResearch Group, Inc.(ERG, 2006).NR – Not reported.TCEQ – Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.TM-17 – Total mass of 17 dioxin and dioxin-like congeners.EDC – Ethylene dichloride.VCM – Vinyl chlorine monomer.

## Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers



# 7-11 According to Texas Commission on Environm ental Quality (TCEQ) sampling at three

facilities, dioxin and dioxin-like compound discha rges contribute 99 percent of the dioxin and

dioxin-like compounds TWPE for 2002. TCEQ c onducted the sampling to support the total

maximum daily load (TMDL) study for the H ouston Ship Channel, which was placed on the

Section 303(d) list after the Texa s Department of Health issued a seafood consumption advisory

for catfish and blue crabs in the upper portion of the Galveston Bay and Houston Ship Channel

in September 1990. The purpose of the study is to develop a TMDL for dioxin in the Houston

Ship Channel, including upper Galveston Bay, a nd to develop a plan for managing dioxin and

dioxin-like compounds to correct existing water quality impairments and maintain good water

quality. TCEQ analyzed effluent from the fo llowing facilities for dioxin and dioxin-like

compounds: Albermarle, Atofina, Beechnut MUD, BP Solvay, Clean Harbors, Dow DP, DuPont,

Equistar, Exxon, GB Biosciences, Newport M UD, OxyVinyls Battleground, OxyVinyls Deer

Park, OxyVinyls La Porte, Rohm & Haas, She ll Chemical, Shell Refinery, Valero, Vopak, and

several POTWs.

From 1999 to 2003 TCEQ conducted sampling at the facilities’ outfalls at Atofina, Shell,

and BP Solvay and detected dioxin and dioxin- like compounds. The faci lities use the dioxin

congener concentrations measured by TCEQ to estimate the releases of dioxin and dioxin-like

compounds that they report to TRI. Each f acility updates its TRI re leases each year by

multiplying the same dioxin concentration by the f acility’s annual flow. Therefore, increases in

TRI-reported releases of dioxin a nd dioxin-like compounds from year to year reflect increases in

wastewater flow and not necessarily increases in dioxin discharges.

Based on the information in Table 7-7, EPA id entified the following sources of dioxin in

OCPSF wastewater:

• 

# Historical Processes. Three facilities, Cytec Industries, Dow Chemical, and Sasol

Baltimore, MD, reported dioxin to TRI based on processes that are no longer in

operation. Sasol Baltimore has not reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like

compounds to TRI since 2002.

• 

# Raw Materials. Two facilities, DuPont Chambers Works and Celanese Acetate,

estimated discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds based on

contamination of raw materials. Celane se’s estimate was based on theoretical

contamination of wood pulp, and DuP ont’s estimate was based on actual

contamination of ferric chloride. Celanese stopped reporting discharges of dioxin

and dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2003, and DuPont stopped reporting dioxin

and dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2004 (U.S. EPA, 2006).

• 

# Vinyl Chloride Wastewater. Two facilities, Sasol Lake Charles, LA and Shell

Deer Park, TX, treat wastewater from nearby vinyl chloride monomer plants,

which are the major source of the diox in and dioxin-like compounds that the

facility reports to TRI. EPA is reviewi ng production of vinyl chloride monomer as

part of the CCH rulemaking effort.

• 

# Wet Air Pollution Controls. One facility, Lyondell, stated that an onsite

incinerator is the source of dioxin and dioxin-like com pounds that was reported to

TRI for 2002. The facility stated that the amount of dioxin and dioxin-like

compounds discharged by the incinerato r scrubber is small (only 219 TWPE in

Table 7-7). Lyondell has not reported discharges of di oxin and dioxin-like

compounds to TRI since 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2006).

## Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers



# 7-12 • 

# No Process Source Identified. Facility contacts at Atofina and BP Solvay could

not identify a potential process source for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds

that TCEQ detected at their outfalls.

7.5 OCPSF Category Hexachlorobenzene Discharges in TRI and PCS

EPA reviewed TRI and PCS data on HCB disc harges from OCPSF facilities for the 2008

annual review: four facilities in TRI and 14 facilities in PCS. Tables 7-8 and 7-9 list the HCB

data for the TRI (2004 and 2005) and PCS (2002 and 2004) databases.

Table 7-8 presents the facilities that repor ted wastewater releases of HCB to TRI for 2004

or 2005. HCB discharges ranked second in term s of 2004 TRI TWPE for the OCPSF Category.

One facility, DuPont Chambers Works, contribut ed 90 percent of the total HCB TWPE for the

OCSPF Category. EPA contacted the f acility and determined that th e HCB discharges were from

CWT operations at the plant. Therefore, EP A categorized DuPont Chambers Works’ HCB

discharges in the CWT Category. As a result, HCB discharges decreased 98 percent from 2004

to 2005. Based on TRI data, HCB is not discharg ed at significant TWPE as a result of OCPSF

operations.

Table 7-8. OCPSF Facilities Reporting HCB Releases to TRI

Facility Name Location 2004 2005

Total Pounds

Released a 

## TWPE Total Pounds

Released a 

## TWPE

Clariant Lsm Florida Inc Gainesville, FL 0.0157 30.6 NR NR

DuPont Chambers Works Deepwater, NJ 39.0 75,961 NR NR

Solutia Inc Delaware River Plant Bridgeport, NJ 4.00 7,791 0.500 974

Sun Chemical Corp. Cincinnati, OH 0.358 697 0.371 722

Total 43.4 84,480 0.871 1,696

Source: TRIReleases2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2003_v2

. a — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.



# Table 7-9 shows the OCPSF facilities with HCB discharges in PCS for 2002 or 2004. The

HCB TWPE is evenly distribu ted across facilities in the 2002 PCS database for the OCPSF

Category. In the 2004 PCS database, DuPont de Nemours, Carneys Point, NJ, accounts for 60

percent of the HCB TWPE for the OCPSF Category.

EPA reviewed monthly DMR data for 2002 a nd 2004 and calculated the average detected

HCB concentration for each facility. Based on this review, EPA believes that HCB loads in PCS

may be calculated from concentrations that ar e below the detection limit. According to EPA

Method 1625, the method detection limit for HCB is 10 μ g/L. Concentrations for HCB range

from 0.04 to 12, and all but one are less than or equal to the method detection limit.

# 7-13Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals,Plastics, and Synthetic FibersTable 7-9. OCPSF Facilities Reporting Discharges of HCB to PCS in 2002 or 2004NPDES IDFacility NameFacility LocationAverage 2002HCBConcentration(μg/L)2002 Poundsof HCBDischarged2002HCBTWPEAverage 2004HCBConcentration(μg/L)2004Pounds ofHCBDischarged2004HCBTWPENJ0005100E I Dupont De Nemours & CoCarneys PointNRNRNR0.670a3874,728WV0000868Flexsys America LPNitro2.51019,5372.507.5114,620WV0002496Ripplewood Phosphorus U.S.LLCGallipolis Ferry4.13a7.214,0245.007.2014,024WV0001112Sunoco, Inc. (R & M)Kenova105.410,5185.003.607,012DE0020001Metachem Products, LLCbDelaware City3.183.256,33510.01.683,272NJ0005045FERRO CORPLogan TwpNRNRNR0.683a1.673,246AL0002097Honeywell International IncFairfield4.01a0.598212.7a1.082,104PA0012769Rohm and Haas CompanyBristol BoroNRNRNR0.8000.9201,791WV0004740Crompton CorporationMorgantown0.550.367010.5500.5401,052WV0022047Crompton CorporationMorgantown0.550.03670.10.5000.180351FL0002313Air Prod & Chem EscamPensacolSanta Rosa CountyNRNRNRNC0.0900175WV0000841GE PlasticsWashingtonNRNRNR0.007500.0540105WV0004588Koppers Industries IncFollansbee0.50.367010.0500.025750LA0038890Nalco CompanyGaryville4.75a6.4812,621NRNRNRSC0002798Invista S.A.R.L./SpartanburgSpartanburg107.9515,493NRNRNRSC0003557Honeywell Nylon LLC/ColumbiaColumbia5.00a8.2816,127NRNRNRWV0001279E I Dupont De Nemours & CoParkersburg0.042.885,609NRNRNRWV0005169Bayer Materialscience, LLCNew Martinsville0.050.36701NRNRNROCPSF Category Total53.1103,42063122,529a— Concentration was back-calculated using monthly mass and flow data.b—Facility is no longer active.NR — Not Reported. HCB discharges were not included in PCS for the reporting year.NC — Not Calculated. No flow information was included in PCS to back calculate the concentration.

## Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers



# 7-14 7.6 OCPSF Category Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Discharges in TRI

EPA has reviewed wastewater releases of PACs as part of th e OCSPF Category since

2004, with the exception of the 2007 annual review because of TWPE in the TRI databases.

PACs were not identified as a pollutant of concern during the 2007 annual review based on the

2004 TRI and PCS databases. Table 7-10 lists the OCPSF fa cilities that reported discharges of

PACs to TRI from 2002 to 2005.

In 2004, EPA reviewed the coal tar refi ning sector of the OCPSF Category based on

discharges of PACs reported to TRI for 2000. EPA identified three U.S. coal tar refining

companies (10 facilities) operating in 2000: Honeyw ell International, Inc. , Koppers Industries,

Inc., and Reilly Industries, Inc. Seven of these facilities continue to report discharges of PACs to

TRI and are listed in Table 7-10. Since 2000, Honeywell, Inc. has closed all three of its coal tar

refining operations, and Reilly Tar & Chemical Co mpany has closed its Cleveland, OH facility.

As of 2004, six facilities owned by two companies continued to re fine coal tar in the United

States. EPA’s review of the coal tar industry concluded that the industry was declining, and that

the PAC discharges were at concentrations n ear or at treatable le vels. As a result, EPA

determined that, based on the information availa ble in 2004, it was not appropr iate to select coal

tar refining sector of the OCPSF Category for possible effluent guidelines revision.

In addition to coal tar refiners, Table 7-10 lists five facilities that reported releases of

PACs to TRI from 2002 to 2005:

• 

# DSM Chemicals in Augusta, GA, produces caprolactam

— 

# a raw material for the

production of nylon-6, cyclohexanone, ammonium sulphate for fertilizer use, and

polyester resins for the powd er coating industry (DSM, 2006);

• 

# DuPont Chambers Works in Deep Water, NJ produces fluorochemicals,

elastomers, and hytrel polyeste r elastomer (U.S. EPA, 2004);

• 

# DuPont Washington Works in Washingt on, WV produces polymer products for

the automotive industry including Delrin®, Crastin®, Rynite®, Zytel®,

Butacite®, Dymetrol®, Hytr el® and Teflon® (DuPont, 2008);

• 

# Neutrogena in Los Angeles, CA pack ages toiletries and soaps (Food & Drug

Packaging, 2004); and

• 

# Sasol NA in Baltimore, MD produces commodity and specialty chemicals for

soaps, detergents and personal care products (Sasol, 2006).

DSM Chemicals in Augusta, GA, contributed more than 90 percent of the PACs TWPE

for 2003, but did not report PAC discharges fo r 2002. The PAC discharges from DSM chemicals

have decreased from 2003 to 2005. EPA contacted DSM Chemicals to discuss the basis of

estimate for the 2003 TRI-reported PAC discharg es (Connell, 2006). DSM confirmed that the

TRI-reported discharge is based on measured concentrations of three PACs congeners:

benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)an thracene, and indeno-1,2,3-c-pyrene. The facility samples for

PACs and other priority pollutant s once per year. Prior to 2003, th e sampling did not include data

on PACs concentrations. DSM suspect s that the Number 2 fuel oil used at the site is the source

of PACs in their wastewater.

The large increase in PAC releases from 2004 to 2005 results from increased releases

reported by DuPont Chambers Works and new rel eases reported by DuPont Washington Works.

## Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers



# 7-15 Combined, these facilities cont ribute more than 80 percent of the 2005 PACs TWPE for the

OCPSF Category (but less than 5 percent of the OCPSF Category’ s total TWPE). EPA obtained

2006 TRI data to review the trends in PAC disc harges from the two DuPont facilities. EPA

found that DuPont Chambers Works’ PAC re leases decrease by 87 percent and DuPont

Washington Works’ PAC releases decrea sed by 52 percent from 2005 to 2006. EPA will

continue to monitor increased reports of PAC di scharges from these and other OCPSF facilities,

but EPA concludes that no further re view is warranted at this time.

Table 7-10. OCPSF Facilities Reporting PAC Releases to TRI

Facility Name Facility Location 2002

PAC

TWPE a 

## 2003

PAC

TWPE a 

## 2004

PAC

TWPE a 

## 2005

PAC

TWPE a



## DSM Chemicals North America Inc. Augusta, GA NR 61,503 3,359 3,331

DuPont Chambers Works Deepwater, NJ 1,510 3,221 6,100 17,414

DuPont Washington Works Washington, WV NR NR NR 20,233

Honeywell International, Inc. b 

## Birmingham, AL 604 604 101 40

Honeywell International, Inc. b 

## Ironton, OH 705 NR NR NR

Koppers Inc. b 

## Cicero, IL 4.22 4.45 3.48 227

Koppers Industries, Inc. Follansbee Tar Plant b 

## Follansbee, WV 403 403 1,309 5,234

Koppers Industries, Inc. Woodward Tar Plant b 

## Dolomite, AL 1,268 2,013 NR NR

Neutrogena Corp. Los Angeles, CA 0.963 0.0741 0.148 0.148

Reilly Industries, Inc. b 

## Granite City, IL 119 148 148 133

Reilly Industries, Inc. b 

## Lone Star, TX NR 37.0 7.41 7.41

Sasol N.A., Inc. Baltimore, MD NR 30.2 NR NR

Total 4,613 67,964 11,027 46,620

Source: TRIReleases2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2003_v2

. Italics denote facilities no longer in operation.

a 

# — Discharges include transfers to PO TWs and account for POTW removals.

b



# — Facility is a coal tar refiner and was included in EPA’s detailed study of the OCPSF Category for the 2004

Plan.

NR



# — Not reported. Facility did not report PAC releases for reporting year.



# 7.7 OCPSF Category Aluminum Discharges in PCS

Aluminum was the top PCS pollutant in te rms of TWPE for the OCSPF Category based

on 2004 data. EPA had not identified aluminum as a top pollutant for the OCSPF Category in

previous reviews. Table 7-11 presen ts the facilities that reported discharges of aluminum to PCS

for 2004. As shown in the table, one facility, GE Silicones LLC, contributes 98 percent of the

aluminum TWPE for the OCPSF Category. EPA obt ained GE Silicones’ permit information to

verify reporting units for total recoverable aluminum and flow. GE Silicones’ permit includes

only monitoring requirements for aluminum and does not have a permit limit. EPA will monitor

this facility’s aluminum discharges during future OCPSF Category reviews.

## Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers



# 7-16 Table 7-11. OCPSF Facilities Reporting Aluminum to PCS

NPID Name City Total Pounds 2005 TWPE

WV0000094 GE Silicones LLC Friendly 3,183,201 205,925

AL0000205 3M Co Decatur Plant Decatur 10,421 674

WV0022047 Crompton Corporation Morgantown 8,850 572

SC0001783 Celanese Acetate LLC/Celriver Rock Hill 7,467 483

TX0006033 BP Solvay Polyethylene North A Deer Park 5,267 341

TX0005061 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Th Beaumont 4,023 260

WV0004740 Crompton Corporation Morgantown 3,268 211

WV0000787 Cytec Industries Willow Island 2,871 186

WV0001279 E I DuPont De Nemours & Co Washington 2,130 138

TX0007048 Lubrizol Corporation, The Deer Park 1,689 109

AR0035386 Eastman Chemical Company, Arka Batesville 1,470 95.1

TX0069493 Lyondell Chemical Company Channelview 724 46.8

SC0003581 Milliken/Dewey Plant Inman 465 30.1

PA0000507 Eastman Chemical Resins Inc Jefferson 435 28.2

TX0119792 Equistar Chemicals, L.P. Deer Park 398 25.7

MI0000761 Flint Ink-Cdr-Holland Holland 348 22.5

NY0005801 Schenectady International, Inc Rotterdam Junction 306 19.8

TX0074276 Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) Houston 104 6.71

NY0002470 Buffalo Color Corp Buffalo /C/ 78 5.08

WV0004588 Koppers Industries Inc Follansbee 54.0 3.49

Total 3,233,568 209,183

Source: PCSLoads2004_v03

.



# 7.8 OCPSF Category Benzidine Discharges in PCS

Benzidine discharges ranked second in term s of TWPE for PCS pollutants for the OCPSF

Category. EPA reviewed the benzidine discharg es and found that they were reported by one

facility, Rohm & Haas, Bristol, PA. Table 7-12 presents the monthl y concentration and load data

for benzidine that EPA used to calculate the annu al load of 23 pounds per year. As shown in the

table, all reported benzidine measurements were nondetect except for March 2004. For this

month, the benzidine concentration is the same as for other months that were reported as

nondetects. Therefore, EPA believes that the si ngle benzidine detect for 2004 may be a dataentry error and that the total benz idine load for 2004 should be zero.

Table 7-12. Monthly Benzidine Concentrations and Loads for Rohm & Haas, Bristol, PA

Month Average Load

(kg/day) Maximum

Load (kg/day) Average

Concentration

(mg/L) Maximum

Concentration

(mg/L) Average

Flow

(MGD) Maximum

Flow

(MGD)

1/31/2004 <0.0120 <0.0200 <0.005 <0.005 0.993 1.446

2/29/2004 <0.0179 <0.0179 <0.0054 <0.0054 0.984 1.312

3/31/2004 0.0220 0.0220 0.0055 0.0055 0.989 1.144

4/30/2004 <0.0196 <0.0196 <0.0055 <0.0055 0.94 1.148

## Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers



# 7-17 Table 7-12. Monthly Benzidine Concentrations and Loads for Rohm & Haas, Bristol, PA

Month Average Load

(kg/day) Maximum

Load (kg/day) Average

Concentration

(mg/L) Maximum

Concentration

(mg/L) Average

Flow

(MGD) Maximum

Flow

(MGD)

5/31/2004 <0.0177 <0.0177 <0.0055 <0.0055 0.974 1.144

6/30/2004 <0.0153 <0.0153 <0.0054 <0.0054 0.93 1.147

7/31/2004 <0.0567 <0.0567 <0.013 <0.013 1.019 1.551

8/31/2004 <0.0459 <0.0459 <0.013 <0.013 0.886 1.047

9/30/2004 <0.0161 <0.0161 <0.0054 <0.0054 0.894 1.65

10/31/2004 <0.0543 <0.0543 <0.013 <0.013 0.826 1.164

11/30/2004 <0.330 <0.0330 <0.013 <0.013 0.778 1.028

12/31/2004 <0.0474 <0.0474 <0.013 <0.013 0.775 1.097

S ource: PCSLoadCalculator2004

.



# 7 .9 OCPSF Category Conclusions

D uring the 2008 Annual Review, EPA did notobtain any information to change its

conclusions that have previously been made regarding the wastewater discharges from the

OCPSF facilities. Therefore, the conclusions of the OCPSF category review are as follows:

• 

# The OCPSF Category was selected for deta iled review because of high TWPE in

the 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 annual reviews.

• 

# Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds is the hi ghest ranking pollut ant in terms of

TWPE in the TRI databases from 2002 to 2005. EPA contacted the facilities that

reported discharges of dioxi n and dioxin-like compounds inprevious reviews, and

maintains its findings from these review s: none of these facilities operate a

manufacturing process that is a ma jor source of dioxin and dioxin-like

compounds. Facilities that did identify a process source of diox in and dioxin-like

compounds have stopped operating th e dioxin-generating process.

• 

# N inety percent of the HCB TWPE in TRIReleases2004_v3 result from one

facility, DuPont Chambers Works. This f acility stated that the HCB discharges

were related to CWT operations at the f acility. EPA classified the discharges in

the CWT Category. As a result, the HCB TRI TWPE decreased 98 percent from

2004 to 2005.

• 

# HCB is the top pollutant, in terms of TW PE, in PCS for the OCPSF Category for

the 2005 annual review. EPA reviewed mont hly concentrations of HCB in PCS

for 2004 and 2002 and found that almost all concentrations were equal to or

below the method detection limit for HCB. Therefore, EPA believes that the PCS

HCB loads are based on non-detects, a nd will follow up with any necessary

corrections in future PCS databases.

• 

# PACs also rank high in terms of TRI TWPE for the OCSPF Category. The

majority of the TRI TWPE for 2005 is from two facilities. Future OCPSF

category review by EPA could focus on veri fication of PAC rel eases reported to

TRI, including method of estimation, effl uent concentrations, and review of

process sources.

• 

# Aluminum is the top pollutan t, in terms of TWPE, in PCSLoads2004_v4 . One

facility contributes 98 percent of the al uminum TWPE for 2005. EPA verified the

## Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers



# 7-18 annual load calculation and re porting units for the alum inum discharges, and EPA

will continue to monitor this facility’s aluminum discharges during future OCPSF

Category reviews.

• 

# B enzidine is the second highest pollutant in PCSLoads2004_v4 based on TWPE.

The sole benzidine discharge in PCSLoads2004_v4 is reported by one facility.

EPA believes that the PCS loads are ba sed on nondetect values and should be

zero. EPA will follow up with any necessary corrections in future PCS databases.

• 

# EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential

revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the

environment, measured as TWPE. Ba sed on the above conclusions, EPA is

assigning this category with a lower prior ity for revision (i.e., this category is

marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” co lumn in Table V-1 in the accompanying

Federal Register notice that presents the 2008 annual review of effluent guidelines

and pretreatment standards).

7.10 OCPSF Category References

1. Connell, Beth. 2006. Telephone conversation with Beth Connell of DSM Chemicals,

Augusta, GA, and Meghan Kandle of Eastern Research Group, Inc. “PACs Discharges

reported to TRI for 2003.” (A ugust 4). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2561.

2. DSM. 2006. DSM in the United States. Available online at:

http://www.dsm.com/en_US/html/about/locatio n_finder.htm. Date accessed: June 21.

EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2565.

3. DuPont. 2008. DuPont Washington Work s Web Site. Avai lable online at:

http://www2.dupont.com/Washington_Works/ en_US/products.html. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-

0771 DCN 05955.

4. ERG. 2006. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Tele phone conversations with various OCPSF

facility representatives and Meghan Kandle of Eastern Rese arch Group, Inc. “Basis of

Estimation for Dioxin Releases Repo rted to TRI.” EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2563.

5. Food and Drug Packaging. 2004. “Top 25 Personal Care Packagers.” Food and Drug

Packaging . (July). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2566.

6. Sasol. 2006. Sasol North America, Inc. Br istol Borough, PA Baltimore, MD. Available

online at: http://www.sasolbaltimore.com. Date accessed: June 21. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-

0032-2567.

7. TCEQ. 2003. Texas Commission on Environmen tal Quality. Total Maximum Daily Load

Program. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Dioxin s in the Houston Ship Channel. Final

Report . (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2569.

8. U .S. Census, 2002. U.S. Economic Census. Available online at:

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02.

## Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers



# 7-19 9. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . EPA-821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1346

through 1352.

10. U.S. EPA. 2005. Product and Product Group Discha rges Subject to Effluent Limitations

and Standards for the Organic Chemicals, Pl astics, and Synthetic Fibers Point Source

Category — 40 CFR 414. Washington, DC . (April). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2568.

11. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782.

## Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



# 8-1 8.0 O RE 

# M INING AND 

# D RESSING 

# (40 CFR P ART 

# 440)

EPA selected the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 440) for

preliminary review because it con tinues to rank high, in terms of TWPE, in point source category

rankings (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4 for the point source categor y rankings). EPA has reviewed

discharges from ore mining facil ities as part of its annual re views since 2004. Each year, EPA

has concluded that there is not sufficient data available to determine whether wastewater

discharges from the Ore Mining and Dressing (O re Mining) Category wa rrant a detailed study.

EPA plans to continue reviewing the Ore Mini ng Category during the 2009 Annual Review and

collect additional data from state and regional contacts.

8.1 Ore Mining Category Background

This subsection provides background on the Ore Mining Category, including a brief

profile of the ore mining industr y and background on 40 CFR Part 440.

8.1.1 Ore Mining Industry Profile

The ore mining and dressing industry includes facilities that mine, mill, or prepare 23

separate metal ores (U.S. EPA, 2005). This industry is divided into nine SI C codes, as shown in

Table 8-1. The following SIC codes are not required to report discharges to TRI:

• 

# 1011: Iron Ores;

• 

# 1081: Metal Mining Services; and

• 

# 1094: Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ores.

Because the U.S. Economic Census repor ts data by NAICS code, and TRI and PCS

report data by SIC code, EPA reclassified the 2002 U.S. Economic Census data by equivalent

SIC code. The facilities in SIC code 1081 subj ect to the Ore Mining ELGs do not translate

directly to a NAICS code, and EPA could not dete rmine the number of faci lities in the 2002 U.S.

Economic Census for SIC code 1081.

Of the almost 400 ore mines in the 2002 U.S. Economic Census, only 73 (18 percent)

reported to TRI in 2005, because facilities in SIC codes 1011, 1081, and 1094 are not required to

report discharges to TRI.

Of the 35 ore mines reporting wastewater disc harges in TRI, only one mine (a gold mine)

reported having indirect discharg es. Table 8-2 presents the ty pes of discharges reported by

facilities in the 2004 and 2005 TRI databases.

## Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



# 8-2 Table 8-1. Number of Facilities in Ore Mining SIC Codes

SIC Code 2002 U.S.

Economic

Census 2004 PCS a 

## 2004 TRI b 

## 2005 TRI b



## 1011: Iron Ores 24 8 NR d 

## NR d



## 1021: Copper Ores 33 15 20 22

1031: Lead and Zinc Ores 22 28 11 9

1041: Gold Ores 180 25 30 28

1044: Silver Ores 11 5 3 2

1061: Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vanadium 72 6 7 5

1081: Metal Mining Services NA c 

## NR NR d 

## NR d



## 1094: Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ores 17 17 NR d 

## NR d



## 1099: Miscellaneous Metal Ores, NEC 39 11 7 7

Total >398 92 78 73

Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002); PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3 ;

TRIReleases2005_v2

. a — Major and minor dischargers.

b — Releases to any media.

c — Poor bridging between SIC codes and NAICS code s. Number of facilities could not be determined.

d — Facilities in this SIC code are not required to report to TRI.

NR — Not reported.

NA — Not applicable.

NEC — Not elsewhere classified.

# 8-3Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-2. Ore Mining Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005SIC CodeTRI 2004TRI 2005ReportedOnly DirectDischargesReportedOnlyIndirectDischargesReportedBoth Directand IndirectDischargesReportedNo WaterDischargesReportedOnly DirectDischargesReportedOnlyIndirectDischargesReportedBoth Directand IndirectDischargesReportedNo WaterDischarges1011: IronOresNRaNRaNRaNRaNRaNRaNRaNRa1021:Copper Ores50015600161031:LeadandZincOres900280011041:GoldOres71022600221044:SilverOres100210011061: Ferroalloy Ores, ExceptVanadium300430021081: Metal Mining ServicesNRaNRaNRaNRaNRaNRaNRaNRa1094: Uranium-Radium-Vanadium OresNRaNRaNRaNRaNRaNRaNRaNRa1099:MiscellaneousMetalOres,NEC30043004Total281049270046Source:TRIReleases2004_v3;TRIReleases2005_v2.a — Facilities in this SIC code arenot required to report to TRI.NR — Not reported.NEC — Not elsewhere classified.

## Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



# 8-4 8.1.2 40 CFR Part 440

EPA first promulgated ELGs for the Ore Mining Category (40 CFR Part 440) on

December 3, 1982 (47 FR 54609). This category cons ists of 12 subcategories, as shown in

Table 8-3 with the related SIC codes and descript ions of the subcategories’ applicability (U.S.

EPA, 1982; U.S. EPA, 1988). BAT limitations are se t equal to BPT levels for priority pollutants

for this category. The priority pollutants arsenic, cadmium, coppe r, lead, mercury, nickel, and

zinc are regulated in at least one subcategor y (U.S. EPA, 2005). None of the subcategories

include PSES or PSNS limitations.

Table 8-3. Ore Mining Categor y Subcategory Applicability

Subpart Subcategory Title Related SIC Code(s) Subcategory Applicability

A Iron Ore 1011: Iron Ores Iron ore mines and mills using physical or chemical

separation or magnetic and physical separation in the

Megabit Range

B Aluminum Ore 1099: Miscellaneous

Metal Ores, NEC Bauxite mines producing aluminum ore

C Uranium, Radium,

and Vanadium Ores 1094: Uranium-RadiumVanadium Ores Open-pit or underground mines and mills using acid

leach, alkaline leach, or combined acid and alkaline

leach to produce uranium, radium, and byproduct

vanadium

D Mercury Ore 1099: Miscellaneous

Metal Ores, NEC Open-pit or underground mercury ore mines and mills

using gravity separation or froth-flotation

E Titanium Ores 1099: Miscellaneous

Metal Ores, NEC Titanium ore mines from lode deposits and mills using

electrostatic, magnetic, and physical separation or

flotation; dredge mines and mills for placer deposits of

rutile, ilmenite, leucoxene, monazite, zircon, and other

heavy metals

F Tungsten Ore 1061: Ferroalloy Ores,

Except Vanadium Tungsten mines and mills using gravity separation or

froth-flotation

G Nickel Ore 1061 : Ferroalloy Ores,

Except Vanadium Nickel ore mines and mills

H Vanadium Ore

(Mined Alone, not as

By-product) 1094: Uranium-RadiumVanadium Ores Vanadium ore mines and mills

I Antimony Ore 1099: Miscellaneous

Metal Ores, NEC Antimony ore mines and mills

J Copper, Lead, Zinc,

Gold, Silver, and

Molybdenum Ores 1021: Copper Ores

1031: Lead and Zinc

Ores

1041: Gold Ores

1044: Silver Ores

1061: Ferroalloy Ores,

Except Vanadium Copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, and molybdenum ore

open-pit or underground mines, except for placer

deposits, and mills using froth-flotation and/or other

separation techniques; mines and mills using dump,

heap, in situ leach, or vat- leach to extract copper from

ores or ore waste materials; gold or silver mills using

cyanidation; except for mines and mills from the

Quartz Hill Molybdenum Project in the Tongass

National Forest, Alaska

K Platinum Ore 1099: Miscellaneous

Metal Ores, NEC Platinum ore mines and mills

## Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



# 8-5 Table 8-3. Ore Mining Categor y Subcategory Applicability

Subp art Subc ate g ory Title Related SIC Code(s ) Subc ate g ory Applicability

M Gol dPlace r M i ne 1041: Gold Ores Placer deposit gol d ore m i nes

, dre dges

, a n d mills

usi n g gra v i t y s e parat i o n

Source:

Point Source Category (U.S. EPA, 1982); Development Document for Effluen t Limitations Gu idelines and

Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category Gold Placer Mine Subcategory (U.S. EPA,

1988).

NEC — Not elsewhere classified.



# Runoff from waste rock and overburden piles is not subject to effl uent guidelines unless

it naturally drains (or is inte ntionally diverted) to a point source and combines with “mine

drainage” that is otherwise s ubject to the effluent guideline s (65 FR 64774, October 30, 2000).

These discharges are controlled by the Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGP). 11



# (See 65 FR 64746, Oct. 30, 2000, and 70 FR 72116, December 1, 2005.) The MSGP includes

very general benchmark values for sampling and general requirements to develop a stormwater

pollution prevention plan, but does not esta blish numeric limits or stormwater

containment/treatment requirements. The MSGP establishes benchmark monitoring for

pollutants including TSS, pH, hardness, arseni c, beryllium, cadmium, copper, iron, lead,

manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, and uranium. 12 

## Developme nt Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing



# Commenters on previous effluent guidelines program plans have requested that EPA

reverse its decision to exclude di scharges from waste rock and overburden piles from the Part

440 applicability definition of “mine drainage.” Specifically, commenter s suggested that EPA

conduct a rulemaking to address discharges from waste rock piles, over burden piles, and other

sources of water pollution at mine sites that are not currently covered by Part 440. See 63 FR

47285 (September 4, 1998).

8.2 Ore Mining Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews

Over the years of EPA review, from 2004 through 2008, the TWPE associated with

facilities in the Ore Mining Category has increased slightly. Table 8-4 shows the screening-level

results for the Ore Mining Category from th e 2002 through 2005 TRI and PCS databases. Both

the 2004 TRI and PCS TWPEs increased compared to previous years. Also, the 2005 TRI TWPE

increased compared to 2002, but de creased compared to 2003 and 2004.

11 

## Mine sites not regulated by the MSGP include: (1) sites with their stormwater discharges regulated by an

individual permit; and (2) sites without any discharge of stormwater. A facility has the option of obtaining an

individual permit for stormwater discharges instead of requesting coverage under the MSGP; however, in practice

this is seldom done. The current MSGP expires this year , but EPA intends to reissue it. Almost all mine sites

discharge stormwater (e.g., from haul roads, pro cess areas, equipment storage areas, mine waste rock).

12 

## Table G-4 of the MSGP lists what wastewaters from mining activities are covered by Part 440 and what

wastewaters are to be covered by th e industrial MSGP. In response to litigation from the National Mining

Association, EPA revised its interpretation of applicability for wastewaters from hard rock mining operations. Under

the revised interpretation, runoff from waste rock and overb urden piles is not subject to effluent guidelines unless it

naturally drains (or is intentionally diverted) to a point source and combines with “mine drainage” that is otherwise

subject to the effluent guidelines (65 FR 64774, October 30, 2000).

## Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



# 8-6 Table 8-4. Ore Mining Category Screening-Level Results

Year of Review Year of Discharge Ore Mining Category

TRI TWPE a 

## PCS TWPE b



## 2005 2002 70,214 410,266

2006 2003 77,649 NA

2007 2004 88,001 580,831

2008 2005 76,673 NA

Source: PCSLoads2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2003_v2; PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3 ;

TRIReleases2005_v2

. a – Direct and indirect water releases only.

b – Major and minor dischargers.

NA – Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate PCS data for 2003 and 2005.



# 8.3 Ore Mining Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern

Table 8-5 shows the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2004_v3

, TRIReleases2005_v2 , and PCSLoads2004_v4 for the Ore Mining Category. For comparison

purposes, Table 8-6 provides similar informa tion from the 2006 Final ELG Plan (71 FR 76644)

using TRIReleases2002_v4

, TRIReleases2003_v2 , and PCSLoads2002_v4

.

EPA identified the ore mining pollutants of concern based on relative TWPE. Mercury is

the pollutant with the highest TWPE in the PCS database from 2004, contributing more than 65

percent of the total category TWPE for 2004. Arsenic TWPE increa sed by more than 50 percent

in PCSLoads and TRIReleases from 2002 to 2004. However, the cadmium, cyanide, and

molybdenum TWPE decreased from 2002 to 2004 a nd 2005. The decrease in the cyanide TWPE

for the Ore Mining Category between 2002 and 2004 is also the result one facility, Zortman

Mining Inc. in Zortman, MT. The decreases in the cadmium and molybde num TWPE for the Ore

Mining Category between 2005 and 2006 annual re views and the 2007 and 2008 annual reviews

are also the result of one facility for each pol lutant. EPA performed additional review for the

pollutants of concern:

• 

# Mercury from PCS (Section 8.4); and

• 

# Arsenic from PCS and TRI (Section 8.5).

EPA did not perform additional review of other top pollutants because their relative

contributions in the 2004 and 2005 databases account for less than 25 percent of the combined

Ore Mining Category TWPE.

To evaluate pollutants of concern, EPA also reviewed ore mining PCS and TRI data for

completeness. As seen in Table 1, the TRI and PCS databases contain discharge data for less

than 25 percent of ore mines in the U.S. Census . EPA collected data to supplement the TRI and

PCS data, estimating pollutant discharges for th e portion of the ore mini ng industry that is not

included in the PCS and TRI databases (Section 8.7).

# 8-7Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-5. 2008 Review: Ore Mining Category Pollutants of ConcernbbPCS 2004aTRI 2004TRI 2005Number ofNumber ofNumber ofFacilitiesFacilitiesFacilitiesReportingReportingReportingPollutantPollutantTotal PoundsTWPEPollutantTotal PoundsTWPEPollutantTotal PoundsTWPEMercury283,768 441,338 Pollutants are not in the top five TRIPollutants are not in the top five TRI2004 reported pollutants.2005 reported pollutants.Arsenic and Arsenic10 7,651 30,921 5 7,532 30,439 6 6,582 26,600CompoundsCadmium and Cadmium38 911 21,052 6 51211,840 6 515 11,905CompoundsLead and Lead Compounds 408,523 19,091 21 9,344 20,930 21 7,273 16,291Molybdenum493,117 18,757 Pollutants are not in the top five TRIPollutants are not in the top five TRI2004 reported pollutants.2005 reported pollutants.Silver And Silver Compounds2500 8,235 2500 8,235Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2004Vanadium And Vanadium3 205,500 7,193 3 110,500 3,868reported pollutants.CompoundscccOre Mining Category Total 492,158,293,854 580,831 29550,088 88,001 27399,163 76,673Source:PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2.a — Discharges include only major dischargers.b — Discharges include transfers toPOTWs and account for POTW removals.c — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.

# 8-8Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-6. 2006 Review: Ore Mining Category Pollutants of Concern2002 PCSa2002 TRIb2003 TRIbPollutantNumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotal PoundsReleasedTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotal PoundsReleasedTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotal PoundsReleasedTWPEMolybdenum4770,329155,174Cyanide7109,018121,764Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2002reported pollutants.Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2003reported pollutants.Cadmium andCadmiumCompounds262,36054,5561084819,603964214,878Lead and LeadCompounds3010,40623,309255,52612,378235,15311,542Arsenic andArsenicCompounds113,14312,70193,31213,38385,88223,770Silver and SilverCompounds25008,23525008,235Vanadium andVanadiumCompoundsPollutants are not in the top five PCS 2002reported pollutants.3147,3105,1563240,2008,407Ore MiningCategory Total50c702,310,349410,26635c462,06170,21432c597,19677,649Source:PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2.a — Discharges include only major dischargers.b — Discharges include transfers toPOTWs and account for POTW removals.c — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.

## Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



# 8-9 8.4 Ore Mining Category Mercury Compounds Discharges

EPA reviewed discharges of mercury in PCSLoads2004_v4 because mercury accounts

for over 75 percent of the category TWPE from that database. EPA determined that over 99

percent (441,093 TWPE) of the mercury in PCSLoads2004_v4 results from Northshore Mining

Company in Silver Bay, MN.

EPA collected additional information on this fa cility’s discharges, including the facility’s

NPDES permit and available discharge informati on. The facility’s permit does not set limits for

mercury discharges, and Part 440 Subpart A (I ron Ore mines) set ELGs for only iron, total

suspended solids, and pH. The permit does require that mercury be monitored in the facility’s

wastewater. Table 8-7 shows the mine’s flow rates and mercury concentrations from

PCSLoads2004_v4

.

Table 8-7. Flow and Mercury Concentrations for Northshore Mining Company

Total Mercury

Date Flow (MGD) Concentration (mg/L) Permit Limit

March 31, 2004 3.26 Non-detect

Monitoring Only June 30, 2004 3.56 Non-detect

September 30, 2004 4.13 0.0005

December 31, 2004 3.58 0.7

Source: PCSLoads200_v4.



# Northshore Mining Company mines and proces ses taconite (iron or e) to produce iron

(Northshore Mining Company, 2006). The Minnesot a Department of Natural Resources has

linked the processing of taconite to elevated mercury levels in Minnesota’s surface waters

(MDNR, 2003). Possible sources of mercury in wastewater discharg es from taconite processing

include the following (U.S. EPA, 1995):

• 

# Blowdown from wet air polluti on control equipment controlling emissions from

crushing and beneficiation;

• 

# Blowdown from wet air polluti on control equipment controlling emissions from

induration furnaces;

• 

# Blowdown from wet air polluti on control equipment controlling emissions from

the top gas stack; and

• 

# Mine drainage.

EPA plans to contact this facility as pa rt of the 2009 Annual Re view to review the

facility’s mercury discharges.

8.5 Ore Mining Category Arsenic Compounds Discharges

The arsenic TWPE for the Ore Mining Category increased over the years of EPA’s

review in both PCS and TRI, although the TR I TWPE decreased slig htly between 2004 and

2005. The increases in arsenic discharges do not result from newly re ported discharges, but

rather increased discharges from the same facilities.

## Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



# 8-10 Table 8-8 shows arsenic discharg es by facility reported in PCSLoads2002_v4 and

PCSLoads2004_v4 . In PCSLoads2004_v4 , arsenic discharges from the Ore Mining Category are

dominated by two facilities: Kennecott Utah Co pper Mine in Salt Lake City, UT, and Lac

Minerals (USA) Gold Mine in Lead, SD. Alt hough eight of the 10 facilities reporting arsenic

discharges to PCS during years of review are gold mini ng facilities, the top arsenic discharge in

the Ore Mining Category comes from Kennecott C opper Mine in Salt Lake City, UT. Arsenic

discharges from this facility contributed 85 and 66 percent of the category arsenic TWPE in

PCSLoads2002_v4 and PCSLoads2004_v4 , respectively.

Table 8-9 shows arsenic discharges by f acility reported to TRI from 2002 through 2005.

In TRI, arsenic discharges from the Ore Mini ng Category are dominated by three facilities: the

Newmont Lone Tree Mine in Valmy, NV, the Ke nnecott Utah Copper Mine in Salt Lake City,

UT, and the Kennecott Utah Copper Smelter and Re finery in Magna, UT. Of the 11 facilities

reporting arsenic discharges to TRI from 2002 through 2005, six are gold mining facilities.

Based on the results shown in Tables 8- 8 and 8-9, EPA intends to review arsenic

discharges as part of the 2009 annual review. EPA pl ans to review discharges from facilities with

the majority of the TWPE: copper mines. EPA also plans to review gold mi ne arsenic discharges,

because the majority of facilities with arsenic discharges are gold mines.

8.6 Ore Mining Category Facility Identification

EPA received comments on prev ious effluent guidelines pr ogram plans stating that

discharges from facilities in the Ore Mining Ca tegory may not be adequately quantified in the

PCS and TRI databases and that th ese discharges can significantly affect water quality (Johnston,

2003). As part of the 2007 review, EPA reviewed facility information to better understand the

portion of the industry that is not incl uded in the PCS and TRI databases.

EPA compared the facilities in the PCS and TRI databases to the USGS Mineral

Yearbook to identify facilities that could be disc harging but are not in EPA’s databases. Because

facilities in Subparts A (Iron Or e) and J (Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver, and Molybdenum

Ores) contribute the majority of the category TWPE, EPA focused on identifying facilities in

these subcategories. Table 8-14 at the end of this section lists all of the facilities that EPA

identified during the 2007 category review with discharges applicable to 40 CFR Part 440. EPA

identified 57 facilities that are not included in the PCS and TRI database s but are in the USGS

Mineral Yearbook.

# 8-11Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-8. 2006 Review: Arsenic Discharges inPCSLoads2004_v4andPCSLoads2002_v4from Facilities in the Ore MiningCategorya20042002Type ofMineFacility NameLocationMaximum ArsenicConcentration inPCSLoads2004_v4(mg/L)Total PoundsReleasedTWPETotal PoundsReleasedTWPECopperKennecott Copper CoSalt Lake City, UT0.7265,05120,4142,66010,750GoldLac Minerals (USA) IncLead, SD0.0072,51210,153727GoldWharf Resources (USA), Inc.Lead, SD0.13641166113455GoldGolden Reward Mining CoLead, SD0.0212710830121GoldHomestake Mining Co-Gold DivLead, SD0.0111770212856SilverPlatoro Mining Co & Union GoldConejos County, CO0.09231014GoldZortman Mining Inc.Zortman, MTNRNRNR76307GoldZortman Mining Inc.Zortman, MTNRNRNR34138GoldHecla Mining CoStanley, IDNRNRNR936CopperPhelps Dodge CorpCottonwood, AZNRNRNR27Total7,65130,9213,14312,700Source:PCSLoads2004_v4: PCSLoads2002_v4.a — Includes only discharges greaterthan one TWPE from PCS Majors.NR —Not reported

# 8-12Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-9. 2006 Review: Arsenic Discharges Reported to TRI from Facilities in the Ore Mining Categorya2005200420032002TotalTotalTotalTotalType ofPoundsPoundsPoundsPoundsMineFacility NameLocationReleasedTWPEReleasedTWPEReleasedTWPEReleasedTWPEGold Newmont Mining Corp. Lone TreeValmy, NV3,400 13,741 3,000 12,124 2,900 11,720 2,000 8,083MineCopper Kennecott UtahCopper Smelter &Magna, UT2,400 9,699 3,400 13,741 2,100 8,487 750 3,031Refy.Copper Kennecott Utah Copper MineSalt Lake City,750 3,031 1,100 4,445 750 3,031 250 1,010Concentrators & Power PlantUTFerroalloy Thompson Creek Mining Co. Clayton, ID 15 61 15 61 15 61 15 61Lead/Zinc Pend OreilleMetaline Falls,12 48 NR NR NR NR NR NRWAGold Pogo MinePogo Mine, AK5 20 NR NR NR NR NR NRLead/Zinc Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co. Juneau, AK NR NR NR NR 7 28 10 40Gold Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. Elko, NVNR NR NRNR NR NR 19 77Gold Newmont Mining Corp. Twin CreeksGolconda, NVNR NR 17 69 9 36 52 210MineGold Getchell Gold Corp.Golconda, NV NR NR NR NR 1 3 0.3 1Gold Homestake MineLead, SDNR NR NR NR 100 404 215 869Total6,582 26,600 7,532 30,440 5,882 23,770 3,312 13,383Source:TRIReleases2005_v2: TRIRelease2004_v3; TRIReleases2003_v2;TRIReleases2002_v4.a — Does not include facilities reporting to SIC Codes 1011, 1081, and 1094. Facilities classified under these SIC codes are not required to report to TRI.NR — Not reported.

## Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



# 8-13 EPA reviewed technical reports on the or e mining industry collected by the Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assistance to determine if any large ore mines with a history of

non-compliance are not reporting to PCS and TRI da tabases. These reports contain a variety of

sampling data for groundwater and surface wate r near ore mine sites, but do not provide

wastewater discharge data. EPA ve rified that all of the major s ites identified in the technical

reports as currently operational are included in PCS and TRI databases.

EPA also reviewed why some facilities in the PCS databases do not report to TRI

(Section 8.7.1). EPA compared the discharges in the PCS databases to the threshold reporting

values for TRI. From this analysis, some ore mines that meet threshold reporting requirements

are not reporting to TRI (Krejci, 2008a).

8.7 Comparison of Discharges to Part 440 ELGs and Permit Limits

EPA analyzed top pollutant disc harges (larger than 4,000 TWPE) in PCSLoads2004_v4

and compared them to permit limits for the appr opriate outfalls the in permits gathered through

OTIS. 13 

# Table 8-10 lists the discharg es analyzed and the applicable permit limit for each

discharge. EPA analyzed seven discharges from three facilities and found the following:

• 

# EPA reviewed the Northshore mercury di scharges separately (see Table 8-7).

These discharges contribute 76 percent of the category TWPE. The facility’s

permit requires that mercury be monitore d in the wastewater but does not set a

numerical limit.

• 

# None of the discharges reviewed by EP A exceeded effluent limits; however, the

facilities were only required to monitor fo r the pollutants (i.e., the permit did not

require numerical limitations for the pollu tants). These discharges accounted for

27 percent 14 

# of the category TWPE in PCSLoads2004_v4

.

• 

# Three of the 11 pollutant discharges reviewed by EPA were reported in

concentrations above the detection limit but below the permit limit.

• 

# One of the 11 pollutant discharges reviewed by EPA did not exceed effluent

limits because the pollutant of concern was not detected in the facility’s

wastewater.

13 

## EPA has not obtained a permit for Kennecott Copper in Salt Lake City, Utah.

14 

## Including the mercury discharges from Northshore Mini ng Company, pollutant discharges where a facility was

only required to monitor for the pollutant in question represent 85 percent of the Ore Mining Category TWPE.

# 8-14Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-10. Compliance Statusof High TWPE DischargesNameLocationParameterOutfall(s)Max. Conc. InPCSLoads2004_v4(mg/L)PermittedLimit (mg/L)TotalTWPECumulativeTWPEComplianceStatusFluoride, Total16.7Monitor Only8,5268,526Monitor OnlyClimaxMolybdenumCompanySummitCounty, COMolybdenum,Total12.42Monitor Only18,22918,229Monitor OnlyCadmium, TotalRecoverable1,2,3,4BDLaMonitor Only5,0805,080BDL10.2070.2642,667InCompliance30.304Monitor Only5,732Monitor OnlyDoe Run,Viburnum Mine#35Viburnum, MOLead, TotalRecoverable40.005MonitorOnly2458,644Monitor OnlyAluminum, TotalRecoverable1,2,3,4,STR1.27aMonitor Only10,85210,852Monitor Only30.005Monitor Only10,119Monitor OnlyArsenic, TotalRecoverableSTR0.005MonitorOnly3410,153Monitor Only20.0050.32,782InComplianceLac Minerals(USA) IncLead, SDCopper, TotalRecoverable30.0050.31,9874,769In ComplianceSource:PCSLoads2004_v4; NPDES Permits (Krejci, 2008b).a — Maximum concentration reported at any of the permitted outfalls.BDL — Below Detection Limit

## Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



# 8-15 8.8 Permit Analysis

EPA reviewed permits downloaded from the Online Tracking Information System

(OTIS) and compared effluent limits across states for similar mine types. OTIS is a data system

developed by EPA to monitor compliance with permits under multiple EPA programs. OTIS also

contains electronic permits for 28 of the 115 or e mining facilities that EPA identified as having

NPDES permits. EPA compared permit limits for the 28 permits and analyzed the selfmonitoring data included with 16 of the permits. For facilities w ith available permits, Table 8-11

lists the mine type and associated permit ID.

EPA analyzed the permits to determine the basis for effluent limits used by permitting

authorities and to evaluate th e level of control of ore mini ng discharges provided by NPDES

(Section 8.8.1). EPA analyzed the av ailable monitoring data to inve stigate any trends in reported

discharges (Section 8.8.2).

Table 8-11. NPDES Permits by Mine Type

Type of Mine Permit ID Type of Mine Permit ID

Bauxite AR0000582 Lead MO0001848

Copper AZ0000035 Lead, Zinc AK0038652

UT0022403 CO0041467

Gold AK0049514 ID0000175

AK0050571 MO0100226

AK0053341 AK0043206

CO0024562 Lead, Zinc, Silver, Gold ID0025402

CO0038954 Molybdenum WY0026689

CO0043648 Uranium TN0001732

ID0026468 Zinc TN0001759

ID0027022 TN0004227

SD0025852 TN0027677

SD0025933 TN0060127

SD0026883

SD0026905



# 8 .8.1 Effluent Limits Comparison

T able 8-12 at the end of this section summar izes effluent limits for wastewater from the

Ore Mining Category. The table presents minimum, average, and maximum effluent limits for

monthly average and daily maximum concentrati ons, summarized by mine type. All of the data

in the tables below were gathered from the 28 pe rmits and associated permit fact sheets that EPA

compiled during the category review.

In a ddition to compiling permit limits, EPA used information from permit fact sheets to

determine the basis for each permit limit. Permit writers based some limits on ELGs set by EPA,

and others on water quality. For metals discharg es, EPA found that water quality-based limits are

typically set for the following parameters:

## Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



# 8-16 • 

# Total mercury;

• 

# Total recoverable lead;

• 

# Total recoverable copper;

• 

# Total recoverable cadmium; and

• 

# Total recoverable zinc.

8.8.2 Review of Permit Monitoring Data

EPA compiled data from the 12 permits that included self-monitoring data in the permit

facts sheets. These data included various metals concentrations and other conventional pollutants

as well as flow data. EPA analyzed the mon itoring data to analyze trends in metals

concentrations by type of mine. EPA identified mine type by the information in the permit fact

sheets. Table 8-13 summarizes the data by maximu m and average metals concentrations for each

mine type. Gold mines monitored for the most analytes; EPA focused the analysis on the gold

mine discharges, finding that:

• 

# Only one gold mine (City and Borough of Juneau Mine in Juneau, AK) detected

mercury (<0.00006 mg/L, which is below the Subpart J ELGs of 0.001 mg/L

monthly average, 0.002 mg/L daily maximum).

• 

# Four of the five gold mines with mo nitoring data measured arsenic at

concentrations above detection (on av erage). Part 440 Subpart J does not limit

arsenic.

• 

# Four of the five gold mines monitoring for cadmium detect it above the lower

detection limit. For these four facilities , maximum recorded concentrations range

from 0.00026 to 0.0031 mg/L, which is below the Subpart J ELGs (0.05 mg/L

monthly average, 0.1 mg/L daily maximum).

• 

# Cyanide, which contributed 122,000 to the Ore Mining Category TWPE in

PCSLoads2004_v4 , is only monitored at one of the 12 mines reviewed — a

molybdenum mine. It was detected at concentrations from 0.00524 to 0.04 mg/L.

Part 440 Subpart J does not limit cyanide.

• 

# Molybdenum, which contributed 155,000 to the Ore Mining Category TWPE in

PCSLoads2002_v4 , is only monitored at two of the 12 mines reviewed (one

copper and one molybdenum). It was detected from 1.313 to 2.76 mg/L. Part 440

Subpart J does not limit molybdenum.

• 

# All of the five mines monitoring lead (four gold mines and one lead/zinc mine)

detected it above the detection limit on average. Part 440 Subpart J limits lead

concentrations in wastewater discharg es to 0.3 mg/L monthly average and 0.6

mg/L daily maximum. One mine detected lead at 3.59 mg/L, but all other mines

detected it at less than 0.385 mg/L.

# 8-17Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-12. Average Metals Concentrations (in mg/L) for Ore Mines with Self-Monitoring Dataa, bParameterCopper Mines(1)Gold Mines(5)Lead, Zinc Mines (2)Molybdenum Mines (1)Zinc Mines (3)Avg ConcMax ConcAvg ConcMax ConcAvg ConcMax ConcAvg ConcMax ConcAvg ConcMax ConcAluminumNR281.919NRNRNRNRNRNRArsenicNDND0.0370.22NRNRNRNRNRNRCadmiumNRND0.000940.00800.000500.00080NRNRNRNRCopperNR0.530.20120.00400.00900.00350.0600.00570.018CyanideNRNRNRNRNRNR.005240.040NRNRIronNR330.0351.370.0300.46NRNRNRNRFluorideNR3.0NRNRNRNR4.49.2NRNRLeadNRND0.000470.0030.0010.00040NRNRNRNRMagnesiumNR360NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRManganeseNR3.00.685.550.651.560.752.7NRNRMercuryNRNDND0.00060NDNDNRNRNDNDMolybdenumNR0.050NRNRNRNR1.312.8NRNRNickelNRND0.0139750.064NRNRNRNRNRNRSilverNRNR0.000340.00050ND0.0001300.000070NRNRZincNR0.280.0100.0400.110.140.0710.900.251.1Source: NPDES Permit Fact Sheets (Krejci, 2008b).a — EPA determined the type of ore being mined or processed using information from permit fact sheets.b — Concentrations below the detection limit are specified at the detection limit for summarization.( ) — Number of similar mines.ND — Non-detect.NR — Not reported.

## Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



# 8-18 8. 9 Ore Mining Category Conclusions

The conclusions of the Ore Mini ng Category review are as follows:

• 

# The high TWPE ranking for the Ore Mini ng Category in the 2008 annual review

was due to discharges of mercury from one facility: Northshore Mining Company

in Silver Bay, MN. The facility’s NPDE S permit does not set limits for mercury,

but requires quarterly monitoring, whic h shows detections of mercury at 0.005

and 0.7 mg/L ( PCSLoads2004_v4 ). The facility mines and processes taconite,

which can be associated with mercury discharges (MDNR, 2003). In addition, the

facility generates power in a co-located power plant.

• 

# P ollutants without effluent limits for whic h ore mining facilities are only required

to monitor contributed approximately 85 percent of the category TWPE: 76

percent of TWPE from mercury discharges from Northshore and 9 percent of the

category TWPE from other facilities in PCSLoads2004_v4

.

• 

# EPA obtained facility info rmation for 398 facilities. PCSLoads2004_v4 and

TRIReleases2004_v3 represent only 73 facilities (18 percent).

• 

# EP A intends to continue its review of arsenic discharges from copper and gold

mines in the 2009 annual review.

8.1 0 Ore Mining Category References

1. Finseth, TJ. 2007. Telephone conversation wi th Nancy Smith of Northshore Mining

Company, Silver Bay, MN. “Molybdenum and Mercury Discharges from Outfall 010

during 2004.” EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0489.

2. Johnston, Carey. 2003. U.S. EPA. Memorandum to Public Record for the Effluent

Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005. “Des cription and Results of EPA Methodology

to Synthesize Screening-level Results for the CWA 304(m) Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan for 2004/2005.” (December 23). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-0420.

3. Krejci, Chris. 2008a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Memorandum to Public Record for

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 2008. “S tatus of Ore Mining Category Review.”

(January 4, 2008). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05967.

4. Krejci, Chris. 2008b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Memorandum to Public Record for

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 2008. “N PDES Permits Collected for the 2008 Ore

Mining Category Preliminary Review (Par t 440).” (April 30, 2008). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-

0771 DCN 05975.

5. Mineral Policy Center. 1996. Six Mines Six Mishaps . (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-

0771 DCN 05974.

6. Minnesota Department of Na tural Resources (MDNR). 2003. Mercury and Mining in

Minnesota. St. Paul, MN. (October) . EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05968.

## Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)



# 8-19 7. Northshore Mining Company. 2006. Nort hshore Mining Comments Re: MCPA

Implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule. St. Paul, MN. (July). EPA-HQ-OW2006-0771 DCN 05966.

8. U.S. Census. 2002. U.S. Economic Census. Available online at:

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02.

9. U.S. EPA. 1982. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category . EPA-440/1-82/061.

Washington, D.C.

10. U.S. EPA. 1988. Development Document for Effluent Limitations and Guidelines for New

Source Performance Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category

Gold Placer Mine Subcategory . EPA-440/1-88-061. Washington, D.C.

11. US. EPA. 1995. AP 42, Fifth Edition: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,

Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources . Washington, DC. (January). Available

online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/.

12. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . EPA-821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (A ugust). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1346 to

1352.

13. U.S. EPA. 2005. Preliminary Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial Discharger s.

EPA-821-B-05-004. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0053.

14. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782.

# 8-20Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining FacilitiesAverage Monthly Concentration(mg/L)MaximumDaily Concentration(mg/L)Type ofMineaRegulated ParameterELG MonthlyAverage(mg/L)MinAvgMaxELG DailyMaximum(mg/L)MinAvgMaxAluminum,Total11112222BauxiteIron,Total0.50.50.50.51111Aluminum, TotalRecoverableNA0.980.980.98NA0.750.750.75Lead, TotalRecoverable0.30.0290.0290.0290.60.010.030.05Mercury, TotalRecoverable0.0010.000050.000050.000050.0020.0020.0020.002CopperZinc,TotalRecoverable0.750.750.750.751.50.380.941.5Aluminum, TotalRecoverableNA0.0710.0710.071NA0.140.140.14Arsenic, TotalRecoverableNA0.050.634.4NA0.11.28.8Cadmium,Dissolved0.00620.0240.050.10.10.10.1Cadmium,TotalRecoverable0.050.00010.0260.050.00020.0530.1Chromium, TotalRecoverableNA0.0080.00930.011NA0.00160.0140.016Copper, Dissolved0.0290.0730.150.050.140.3Copper, PotentiallyDissolved0.00360.0310.0590.00480.0510.098Copper, TotalRecoverable0.150.00190.0820.150.30.00380.160.3Iron, TotalRecoverableNA0.86.423NA1.61346GoldLead,Dissolved0.30.30.30.30.60.60.60.6

# 8-21Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining FacilitiesAverage Monthly Concentration(mg/L)MaximumDaily Concentration(mg/L)Type ofMineaRegulated ParameterELG MonthlyAverage(mg/L)MinAvgMaxELG DailyMaximum(mg/L)MinAvgMaxLead, PotentiallyDissolved0.000550.0150.030.010.470.92Lead, TotalRecoverable0.30.00050.150.30.60.00090.320.6Manganese,DissolvedNA3.83.83.8NA5.95.95.9Manganese,TotalRecoverableNA0.050.050.05NA0.0730.0730.073Mercury,Total9.8E-060.000240.0010.0020.000020.000550.002Mercury, TotalRecoverable0.0010.0000120.000780.0010.00140.00190.002Nickel, TotalRecoverableNA0.0130.281.5NA0.0260.563Silver, PotentiallyDissolvedNA6.9E-060.00040.0008NA0.000190.0110.021Silver, TotalRecoverableNA0.00020.00360.02NA0.00040.0030.013WADCyanideNA0.00430.0260.08NA0.00810.0250.066Zinc, Dissolved0.60.680.751.51.51.5Zinc, PotentiallyDissolved0.540.540.540.60.60.6Zinc,Total0.000330.000330.000330.000360.000360.00036GoldZinc, TotalRecoverable0.750.0180.420.751.50.0370.841.5Cadmium,Dissolved0.0570.0570.0570.0940.0940.094Cadmium,TotalRecoverable0.050.0120.0120.0120.10.0190.0190.019LeadChromium,DissolvedNA0.170.170.17NA0.280.280.28

# 8-22Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining FacilitiesAverage Monthly Concentration(mg/L)MaximumDaily Concentration(mg/L)Type ofMineaRegulated ParameterELG MonthlyAverage(mg/L)MinAvgMaxELG DailyMaximum(mg/L)MinAvgMaxCopper, TotalRecoverable0.150.0290.070.0840.30.0470.050.051Cyanide, amen. tochlorinationNA0.00120.00120.0012NA0.0220.0220.022Lead, TotalRecoverable0.30.180.20.260.60.30.330.42Mercury,Total0.0011.2E-061.2E-061.2E-060.0022.4E-062.4E-062.4E-06Zinc,Dissolved0.990.990.991.61.61.6LeadZinc, TotalRecoverable0.750.340.340.341.50.560.560.56Cadmium,DissolvedNA0.0160.0430.057NA0.0250.0710.094Cadmium,TotalRecoverableNA0.00070.00110.002NA0.00180.00220.0034Chlorine, TotalResidualNA2.22.22.2NA3.63.63.6Copper,Dissolved0.0340.0340.0340.0560.0560.056Copper, PotentiallyDissolved0.00860.0180.0280.0130.0270.044Copper, TotalRecoverable0.150.0000210.0150.0510.30.0000420.0330.084Cyanide,TotalNA0.0040.0040.004NA0.0090.0090.009Lead,Dissolved0.0230.0230.0230.60.0370.0370.037Lead, PotentiallyDissolved0.30.00260.00550.0090.0670.140.23Lead, TotalRecoverable0.30.00810.0980.260.60.020.160.43Lead, ZincMercury,Total0.0010.000010.000220.0010.0020.000020.000640.002

# 8-23Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining FacilitiesAverage Monthly Concentration(mg/L)MaximumDaily Concentration(mg/L)Type ofMineaRegulated ParameterELG MonthlyAverage(mg/L)MinAvgMaxELG DailyMaximum(mg/L)MinAvgMaxSilver, TotalRecoverableNA0.00160.00230.0033NA0.00270.00390.0056Zinc, PotentiallyDissolved0.150.260.381.50.150.260.38Lead, ZincZinc, TotalRecoverable0.750.0710.290.750.190.591.5Cadmium,TotalRecoverable0.050.050.050.050.10.10.10.1Copper, TotalRecoverable0.150.110.110.110.30.30.30.3Lead, TotalRecoverable0.30.30.30.30.60.60.60.6Mercury,Total0.0010.0010.0010.0010.0020.0020.0020.002Lead, Zinc,Silver, GoldZinc,TotalRecoverable0.750.50.50.51.5111Cadmium,TotalRecoverable0.050.00350.00930.0240.10.00520.0150.035Chromium, TotalRecoverableNA0.020.020.02NA0.040.040.04Copper, TotalRecoverable0.150.0150.0520.150.30.0220.0990.3Lead, TotalRecoverable0.30.00830.0210.0640.60.0120.0340.094Mercury,TotalNA0.0000180.000120.00032NA0.0000370.000220.00061Selenium, TotalRecoverableNA0.0110.0420.11NA0.0170.0580.15MolybdenumSilver, TotalRecoverableNA0.0060.0060.006NA0.0120.0120.012MolybdenumZinc,TotalRecoverable0.50.140.330.7510.210.621.5Uranium,Total22224444UraniumZinc,Total0.50.50.50.51111

# 8-24Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining FacilitiesAverage Monthly Concentration(mg/L)MaximumDaily Concentration(mg/L)Type ofMineaRegulated ParameterELG MonthlyAverage(mg/L)MinAvgMaxELG DailyMaximum(mg/L)MinAvgMaxCadmium,Total0.050.0070.0250.050.10.0330.0770.1Copper,Total0.150.0620.120.150.30.10.230.3Lead,Total0.30.0240.120.30.60.60.60.6Mercury,Total0.0010.000570.0010.0020.00160.00190.002ZincZinc,Total0.750.50.660.751.50.761.21.5Source: NPDES Permits (Krejci, 2008b).a — EPA determined the type of ore being mined or processed atthe facilities above using information from permit fact sheets.

# 8-25Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility ListPCS 2004SICCode(s)aNPDES IDTRI IDNameCityStateZipIn USGS2005?In DBMajor?In TRI2004?10311044AK003865299752-RDDGP-90MILTeckComincoAlaskaIncKotzebueAK49920YYYY1031AK004320699801-KNNCT-13401Kennecott GreensCrkMiningCoJuneauAK41730YYYY1041AK0049514Juneau, City & BoroughOfJuneauAK41730YY1041AK0050571CoeurAlaskaIncJuneauAK41730YY1041AK0053341Teck-PogoIncDeltaJunctionAK22650YY1011AL0071111Tuscaloosa Steel MobileDriMobileAL56000YN1021AZ000003585237-SRCNC-HWY17Asarco,IncHaydenAZ37370YYY1021AZ0020389Resolution CopperSuperiorAZ83250YY1021AZ002040185539-BHPCP-HWY6085539-BHPCP-HWY6ABHP CopperMiamiAZ52540YYYY1021AZ0020516Phelps DodgeChristmasAZ16320YY10211061AZ002226886321-CYPRS-1MAINPhelps DodgeBagdad,IncBagdadAZ05550YYYY1021AZ002270585540-PHLPS-4521UPhelpsDodge Morenci, IncMorenciAZ54020YYYY1021AZ0024112Carlota Copper CompanyMiami /T/AZ52540YY1021AZ0024546Phelps DodgeCorpYavapai CountyAZ97100YY1021CA0081876MiningRemedialRecoveryCoReddingCA63540YY1061CO000023080468-CLMXM-19302ClimaxMolybdenumCompanyGrand CountyCO38210YYY1061CO0000248ClimaxMolybdenumCompanySummitCountyCO86960YY1031CO0000591Res-AsarcoJoint VentureLakeCountyCO53110YY1044CO0000710Homestake MiningCompanyMineral CountyCO62350YY1041CO002456280860-CRPPL-2755SCripple Crk&VictorGoldMiningTeller CountyCO87510YY1041CO0027529GoldKingMinesCorporationSanJuanCountyCO80310YY

# 8-26Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility ListSICCode(s)aNPDES IDTRI IDNameCityStateZipIn USGS2005?PCS 2004In TRI2004?In DBMajor?1041CO0032751Calais Resources Colorado,IncBoulderCO08820Y1031CO0035394Climax MolybdenumCompanyGunnison CountyCO40870YY1041CO0037206Walker RubyCo.Trust MiningOuray CountyCO68050Y1041CO0038334London MineLlcPark CountyCO69950YY1044CO0038954Platoro Mining Co&UnionGoldConejos CountyCO18750YY1061CO004146780438-CLMXM-9MILEClimax Molybdenum Co.Clear Creek CountyCO16580YYY1041CO0043168Hunter GoldMining, Inc.Gilpin CountyCO36210Y1041CO0043648Cripple Creek & Victor GoldTeller CountyCO87510YYY1041CO0045756Specie Ridge Holding Co.,Inc.Dolores CountyCO24490Y1041CO0046167New CardinalLlcBoulder CountyCO08830Y1031ID0000027Coeur SilverValley IncOsburnID67500YY1044ID0000159Sunshine Precious Metals IncOsburnID67500Y1031ID0000167Hecla MiningCoMullanID61750Y1031ID0000175Hecla MiningCoMullanID61750YY1061ID0025259Noranda MiningIncCobaltID18700Y1061ID002540283227-THMPS-SQUAWThompson Creek Mining CoClaytonID17750YYYY1044ID0025429Coeur SilverValley IncWallaceID93750Y1041ID0026468Hecla MiningCoStanleyID85500YY1041ID0027022Meridian Beartrack CoSalmonID80250YY1011LA0103284American IronReductionConventLA70723NN1011MI0000094Empire Iron MiningPartnershipPalmerMI72900YY1021MI0006114Copper Range CoWhite PineMI98830YN1011MI0038369Tilden MiningCoIshpemingMI47700YY

# 8-27Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility ListPCS 2004SICCode(s)aNPDES IDTRI IDNameCityStateZipIn USGS2005?In DBMajor?In TRI2004?1011MI0045063NationalSteel-DoberMineCpxStambaugh TwpMI89350YN1011MN0046981NorthshoreMiningCo;CliffsMnBabbittMN05000YY1011MN0055301NorthshoreMining/SilverBay PSilverBayMN86750YY1031MO0000086DoeRun,ViburnumDivViburnumMO81260YY1011MO0000574UplandWingsSullivanMO77100YY1031MO000184863629-BRSHY-HWYKKDoe Run,Brushy CrMine/MViburnumMO81260YYYY1031MO000185663629-FLTCH-HWYTTDoe Run,Fletcher Mine/MilViburnumMO81260YYYY1031MO0001872Cominco, MagmontMineBixbyMO06780YY1031MO0100218Doe Run,WestForkUnitBunkerMO11280YY1031MO0100226Doe Run,ViburnumMine#35ViburnumMO81260YY10211061MT000019159701-MNTNR-600SHMontanaResourcesButteMT12240YYY1021MT0024716Stillwater MiningCompanyNyeMT61920YN1041MT0025020Montana Gold&SapphiresIncLewisAnd ClarkCounMT49400YY1041MT0030015M &W Milling& RefiningIncVirginia CityMT88020Y1031MT0030031AsarcoInc (MikeHorse)LewisAndClark CounMT49400Y1041MT0030252TvxMineral Hill MineJardineMT43920Y1044MT0030279NorandaMineralsCorpLincoln CountyMT50300Y1021MT0030287Revett SilverCompanyNoxonMT61740YN1021NM002043588043-CHNMN-210COChinoMines Co-HurleyHurleyNM42000YYY1061NM0022306MolycorpInc - QuestaQuestaNM69930YYY1041NM0028711PegasusGoldCorporationSanta Fe CountyNM78970Y1031NY0001791Balmat Mines& MillBalmat N YNY04600YY

# 8-28Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility ListSICCode(s)aNPDES IDTRI IDNameCityStateZipIn USGS2005?PCS 2004In TRI2004?In DBMajor?1031NY0109126Pierrepont MinePierrepont ManorNY65400Y1041SC0040479Haile Gold MineKershawSC45300Y1041SC0041378Kennecott/Ridgeway GoldMineRidgewaySC74400Y1041SD0000043SD002593357754-HMSTK-630ESHomestake Mining Co-GoldDivLeadSD49680YY1041SD002585257754-WHRFR-TROJAWharf Resources (Usa), Inc.LeadSD49680YYYY1041SD0026883Lac Minerals (Usa) IncLeadSD49680YY1041SD0026905Golden Reward Mining CoLeadSD49680YY1031TN0001732Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div.Jefferson CityTN44400YY1031TN0001741Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div.New MarketTN62160YY1031TN0001759Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div.MascotTN55560YY1031TN0004227Mossy Creek Mining, LlcElmwoodTN28440YY1031TN0027677Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div.Jefferson CountyTN44410YY1031TN0029360Mossy CreekMining, LlcGordonsvilleTN36120YY1031TN0057029Mossy Creek Mining, LlcNew MarketTN62160YY1031TN006012737881-SVGZN-RTE13Mossy Creek Mining, LlcThorn HillTN85200YYY1031TN0061468Asarco, Inc. Tn Mines Div.Jefferson CityTN44400YY1031TN0064289Mossy Creek Mining, LlcCarthageTN13920Y1021UT000005184006-KNNCT-8362WKennecott Copper CoSalt Lake CityUT77880YYYY1031UT0022403Jordanelle Special ServiceDisHeber /City/UT35360YY1031UT0025259Lexco, Inc. (E)VernalUT91800Y1011WV0044903Reiss VikingFairmontWV26940YN103108857-BLNDR-1JAKEBlonder Tongue LabsOld BridgeNJY106119720-MRCNM-301PIAmerican Minerals Inc.New CastleDEY102144095-SKLDC-34580Skrl Die Casting IncEastlakeOHY104159638-MNTNT-5MILEApollo Gold Corp. MontanaTunnelsJefferson CityMTYY

# 8-29Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility ListPCS 2004SICCode(s)aNPDES IDTRI IDNameCityStateZipIn USGS2005?In DBMajor?In TRI2004?104159759-GLDNS-453MOGolden Sunlight Mines IncWhitehallMTY106162982-MRCNM-FERREAmerican Minerals Inc.RosiclareILY103163638-SWTMM-HIGHWDoe Run Resources Corp.Sweetwater Mine/MillEllingtonMOYY103165440-BCKMN-HWYKKBuick Mine/MillBossMOY106179922-MRCNM-3666DAmerican Minerals IncEl PasoTXY104483846-LCKYF-I90EXHecla Mining Co LuckyFriday Mine UnitMullanIDYY102183873-SLVRV-LAKEGCoeur Silver Valley IncWallaceIDY102184006-KNNCT-12300Kennecott Utah Copper MineConcentrators & Power PlantCoppertonUTY104184006-KNNCT-8200SKennecott Barneys CanyonMining CoBingham CanyonUTYY102185532-NSPRT-POBOXPhelps Dodge Miami IncClaypoolAZYY102185603-PHLPS-36WHWPhelps Dodge Mining CoCopper Queen BranchBisbeeAZ2004Y1021106185614-CYPRS-6200WPhelps Dodge Sierrita IncGreen ValleyAZ2004YY102185629-SRCNC-4201WAsarco Inc. Mission ComplexPima CountyAZYY102185653-SLVRB-25000Silver Bell Mining LlcMaranaAZ2004Y102186401-QTRLM-16MILEquatorial Mineral Park IncKingmanAZ2004Y106188031-MRCNM-2010FAmerican Minerals IncDemingNMY102188065-PHLPS-HWY90Phelps Dodge Tyrone IncTyroneNMYY104189045-SMKYV-1SMOKSmoky Valley CommonOperationRound MountainNVY104189316-RBYHL-INTERRuby Hill MineEurekaNVY102189319-BHPCP-7MILERobinson Nevada Mining CoRuthNVY104189406-KNNCT-55MILKennecott Rawhide MiningCoFallonNVYY104189414-GTCHL-28MINPlacer Turquoise Ridge IncGolcondaNVY

# 8-30Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility ListSICCode(s)aNPDES IDTRI IDNameCityStateZipIn USGS2005?PCS 2004In TRI2004?In DBMajor?104189414-KNSNY-60MILNewmont Midas OperationsMidasNVYY104189414-NWMNT-35MILNewmont Mining Corp TwinCreeks MineGolcondaNVYY104189415-SMRLD-28LUCEsmeralda MineHawthorneNVY104189418-FLRDC-EXIT1Florida Canyon Mining IncImlayNVY104489419-CRRCH-180EXCoeur Rochester IncLovelockNVYY104189438-GLMSM-3MILEGlamis Marigold Mining CoValmyNVYY104189438-NWMNT-EIGHTNewmont Mining CorpTrenton Canyon MineValmyNVY104189438-NWMNT-STONENewmont Mining Corp LoneTree MineValmyNVYY104189801-JRRTT-50MILQueenstake Resources Ltd.Jerritt Canyon MineElkoNVYY104189803-BLDMN-70MILPlacer Dome Inc. BaldMountain MineElkoNVYY104189803-BRRCK-27MILBarrick Goldstrike Mines IncElkoNVY104189820-BTTLM-COPPENewmont MiningCorporation-Copper CanyonFacilityBattle MountainNVY104489820-CHBYM-1MCCONewmont Mining CorpMccoy/Cove MineBattle MountainNVY104189821-CRTZG-STARACortez GoldMinesCrescent ValleyNVY104189822-NWMNT-25MILNewmont Mining CorpCarlin North AreaCarlinNVY104189822-NWMNT-6MAILNewmont Mining CorpCarlin South AreaCarlinNVY104192227-NWMNT-6502EWestern Mesquite Mines IncBrawleyCAYY104193554-GLMSR-27850Glamis RandMineRandsburgCAY104193562-CRBRG-WINGACr Briggs CorpTronaCAYY102197828-PRKSB-331GOParks BronzeEnterpriseORY

# 8-31Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility ListSICCode(s)aNPDES IDTRI IDNameCityStateZipIn USGS2005?PCS 2004In TRI2004?In DBMajor?104199118-CHBYN-2400WK2MineCurlewWAY103199153-PNDRL-1382PTeck Cominco American Inc.Pend OreilleMetaline FallsWAYY104199166-KTTLR-363FIKinross Gold Corp. KETTLERIVER OPERATIONSMILLRepublicWAYY104199707-FRTKN-1FORAFORT KNOX MINEFairbanksAKY104199712-TRNRT-1TWINTRUE NORTHMINEFairbanksAKY103199752-RDDGP-13MILDELONG MOUNTAINTRANSPORTATIONFACILITY PORT SITEKotzebueAKY1041Kinross Gold Corp. FortKnoxFairbanks CountyAKY1021ASARCO Inc. RayPinal CountyAZY1021ASARCO Inc. Silver BellPima CountyAZY1021BHP Copper Co. PintoValleyGila CountyAZY1041LKA International GoldenWonderHinsdale CountyCOY1061Phelps Dodge Corp.HendersonCleak Creek CountyCOY1044Silver Valley ResourcesCorp. GalenaShoshone CountyIDY1031Doe Run Resources Corp.BuickIron CountyMOY1031Doe Run Resources Corp.Viburnum (#29 and #35)Iron CountyMOY1031Doe Run Resources Corp.Viburnum (#38 and #35)Iron CountyMOY1041Placer Dome Inc. GoldenSunlightJefferson CountyMTY

# 8-32Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440)Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility ListSICCode(s)aNPDES IDTRI IDNameCityStateZipIn USGS2005?PCS 2004In TRI2004?In DBMajor?10211061Phelps Dodge Corp. ChinoGrant CountyNMY1041Barrick Gold Corp. BetzePostEureka CountyNVY1041Barrick Gold Corp. MeikleElko CountyNVY1041Jipangu Inc. Florida CanyonPershing CountyNVY1041Jipangu Inc. StandardPershing CountyNVY1041Kinross Gold Corp. SmokyValley Common OperationNye CountyNVY1041Newmont Mining Corp. MuleCanyonLander CountyNVY1041Newmont Mining Corp.Turquoise RidgeHumboldt CountyNVY1041Placer Dome Inc. CortezLander CountyNVY1044Kinross GoldMountainCorp. RoundNye CountyNVY1044Newmont Mining Corp.Eastern Nevada OperationsElko CountyNVY10211061Quadra Mining Ltd.RobinsonWhite Pine CountyNVY10211061Kennecott Utah Copper Corp.Bingham CanyonSalt Lake CountyUTYSource:PCSLoads2004_v3;TRIReleases2004_v4.a — EPA determined SIC codes by the mineral type listed in the USGS Minerals Yearbook.

## Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re fining (40 CFR Part 419)



# 9-1 9.0 P ETROLEUM 

# R EFINING 

# (40 CFR P ART 

# 419)

EPA selected the Petroleum Refining Category (40 CFR Part 419) for preliminary review

because it continues to rank hi gh, in terms of TWPE, in point source category rankings (see

Tables 5-3 and 5-4 for the point source category rankings). EPA pr eviously performed a detailed

study of this industry, publishe d as part of the 2004 Final ELG Plan (69 FR 53705). EPA has

also reviewed discharges from petroleum refine ries as part of its annual reviews since 2004.

Each year, including this year of review, EPA has concluded that wastewater from petroleum

refiners is not a hazard priority at this time.

9.1 Petroleum Refining Category Background

This subsection provides background on the Petroleum Refining Category including a

brief profile of the petroleum refining industry and background on 40 CFR Part 419.

9.1.1 Petroleum Refining Industry Profile

The petroleum refining industry includes faci lities that produce gasoline, kerosene,

distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, and lubricants through fractio nation or straight distillation of

crude oil, redistillation of unfinished petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other processes. This

industry is represented by one SIC code 2911, Petroleum Refining; however, EPA includes

operations from four other SIC c odes as part of the review of the Petroleum Refining Category,

considered potential new subcategories. 15



# Table 9-1 presents the number of facilities in the SIC codes that compose the petroleum

refining industry. Because the U.S. Economic Census reports data by NAICS code, and TRI and

PCS report data by SIC code, EPA reclassified the 2002 U.S. Economic Census by the

equivalent SIC code. The facilities in SIC code 5171 do not correlate directly to a NAICS code

and therefore EPA could not determine the numbe r of facilities in th e 2002 U.S. Economic

Census for SIC code 5171.

Petroleum refineries discharge directly to surface water as well as to POTWs. Table 9-2

presents the types of discharges reported by f acilities in the 2004 and 2005 TRI database. The

majority of petroleum refineries reporting to TRI reported discha rging directly. The majority of

facilities reporting to TRI in SIC codes classi fied as potential new s ubcategories reported no

water discharges, but facilities ma y be discharging pollutants in wa stewater at levels below the

TRI-reporting threshold.

15 

## EPA reviews industries with SIC codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes,

operations, wastewaters, and pollutants of facilities in the SIC codes 2992, 2999, 4612, and 5171 (listed in

Table 9-1) are similar to those of the Petroleum Refining Category (U.S. EPA, 2004). The tables in this section

include discharge information from the potential new subcat egories; however, these facilities contribute negligible

amounts of TWPE. Consistent with the conclusions draw n during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004) and

2006 review (U.S. EPA, 2006), EPA found that large number s of these facilities discharge no wastewater and only a

small number of facilities discharge TWPE greater than zero.

## Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re fining (40 CFR Part 419)



# 9-2 Table 9-1. Number of Facilities in Petroleum Refining SIC Codes

SIC 2 002 U

. S.

E c on omi c

Censu s 2 004 PC S a 

## 2 004 TRI b 

## 2 005 TRI b



## 29 1 1: Pet r ol eu m R e fi ni ng 19 9 14 4 16 4 15 9

Pote nti a l New Subc ate g orie s

29 9 2 : L u b ri cat i ng Oi l s a n d G reases 40 7 21 13 0 12 9

29 9 9 : P r o d u ct s o f Pet r ol eum and C o al

, NEC 74 22 30 35

46 1 2 : C r ude P e t rol eum Pi pel i n es 27 1 28 0 0

5 171 : Petro l eum Bu lk Statio ns and Term in al s NA c 

## 48 1 54 0 52 3

Pote nti a l New Subc ate g orie s Total >752 552 700 687

Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002); PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3 ;

TRIReleases2005_v2

. a — Major and minor dischargers.

b — Releases to any media.

c — Poor bridging between SIC codes and NAICS code s. Number of facilities could not be determined.

NA — Not applicable.

NEC — Not elsewhere classified.

# 9-3Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)Table 9-2. Petroleum Refining Category Facilitiesby Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005TRI 2004TRI 2005SIC CodeReportedOnly DirectDischargesReportedOnlyIndirectDischargesReportedBoth DirectandIndirectDischargesReportedNo WaterDischargesReportedOnly DirectDischargesReportedOnlyIndirectDischargesReportedBoth DirectandIndirectDischargesReportedNo WaterDischarges2911: Petroleum Refining9221163590231630Potential New Subcategories2992: Lubricating Oils and Greases716510271661002999: Products of Petroleum and Coal, NEC60024700284612:CrudePetroleumPipelines000000005171: Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals12920133781341913357Potential New Subcategories Total14236185041483519485Source:TRIReleases2004_v3;TRIReleases2005_v2.NEC — Not elsewhere classified.

## Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re fining (40 CFR Part 419)



# 9-4 9.1.2 40 CFR Part 419

EPA first promulgated ELGs for the Petr oleum Refining Category (40 CFR Part 419) on

October 18, 1982 (47 FR 46446). The five subcate gories established all have limitations or

standards set for BPT, BAT, BCT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS. EPA established numerical

limitations for ammonia as nitrogen, hexavalent chromium, phenolic compounds, sulfide, and

total chromium in at least one subcate gory. Section 7 of the 2004 TSD provides more

information on the existing regulations for the Petroleum Refining Category (U.S. EPA, 2004).

9.2 Petroleum Refining Category 2004 Th rough 2008 Screening-Level Reviews

Over the years of EPA review, from 2004 through 2008, the TWPE associated with

petroleum refineries has increase d. Table 9-3 shows the screening- level results for the Petroleum

Refining Category including the potential ne w subcategory SIC codes from the 2002 through

2005 TRI and PCS databases. Both the 2004 TRI a nd PCS TWPEs have increased compared to

previous years. Also, the 2005 TRI TWPE incr eased compared to 2002 and 2003, but decreased

compared to 2004. However, the largest incr ease in TWPE is in PCS from 2002 to 2004.

Table 9-3. Petroleum Refining Ca tegory Screening-Level Results

Year of Review Year of Data

Source Petroleum Refining Category a 

## Potential New Subcategory for the

d 

## Petroleum Refining Category

TRI TWPE b 

## PCS TWPE c 

## TRI TWPE b 

## PCS TWPE c



## 2005 2002 467,009 165,076 3,922 445

2006 2003 498,367 NA 2,570 NA

2007 2004 669,434 818,705 2,592 7,944

2008 2005 627,618 NA 3,116 NA

Source: PCSLoads2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2003_v2 ; PCSLoads2004_v4 ; TRIReleases2004_v3 ;

TRIReleases2005_v2

. a — Includes TWPE from the potential new subcategory.

b — Direct and indirect water releases only.

c — Major and minor dischargers.

d — EPA reviews industries with SIC c odes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes,

operations, wastewaters, and pollutants of facilities in the SIC codes 2992, 2999, 4612, and 5171 (listed in

Table 9-1) are similar to those of the Petroleum Refining Category (U.S. EPA, 2004). The tables in this section

include discharge information from the potential new subcat egories; however, these facilities contribute negligible

amounts of TWPE. Consistent with the conclusions draw n during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004) and

2006 review (U.S. EPA, 2006), EPA found that large number s of these facilities discharge no wastewater and only a

small number of facilities discharge TWPE greater than zero.

NA — Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate PCS data for 2003 and 2005.

## Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re fining (40 CFR Part 419)



# 9-5 9.3 Petroleum Refining Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern

Table 9-4 shows the five pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2004_v3

, TRIReleases2005_v2 , and PCSLoads2004_v3 for the Petroleum Refining Category. For

comparison purposes, Table 9-5 provides similar information from the 2006 Final ELG Plan (71

FR 76644) using TRIReleases2002_v4

, TRIReleases2003_v2 , and PCSLoads2002_v4 . With the

exception of dioxin and dioxin- like compounds, the pollutants of concern and their relative

contribution to the category’s total TWPE rema in the same. That is, the TWPE from the top

pollutants in TRIReleases and PCSLoads from 2002 through 2005 generally remain the same,

except for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. The 2004 and 2006 TSDs discuss EPA’s

conclusions for pollutants other than dioxin a nd dioxin-like compounds (U.S. EPA, 2004; U.S.

EPA, 2006). Section 9.4 discusses EPA’s review of discharges of di oxin and dioxin-like

compounds from petroleum refineries, while secti on 9.5 discusses EPA’s review of discharges of

polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) from petroleum refineries.

9.4 Petroleum Refining Category Diox in and Dioxin-Like Discharges

The increase in the overall TWPE for the Pe troleum Refining Category is largely due to

increases of dioxin and dioxin-lik e compounds, as reflected in th e TRI and PCS databases. The

discharges of dioxin and dioxin- like compounds are from the petr oleum refineries (SIC code

2911), not facilities in the pot ential new subcategories of the Petroleum Refining Category.

Therefore, this section focuses on discharg es of dioxin and dioxi n-like compounds from

petroleum refineries only.

EPA examined discharges of dioxin a nd dioxin-like compounds from petroleum

refineries extensively for its de tailed and previous preliminary studies. From these studies, EPA

concluded that (U.S. EPA, 2004):

Dioxin and dioxin like compounds are produced during catalytic reforming and catalyst

regeneration operations at petroleum refiner ies. Of the 163 petroleum refineries, 17

reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-li ke compounds to TRI. Of the 17 refineries

reported discharges in 2002, only five reported discharges based on analytical

measurements. Only two of th ese facilities detected diox in and dioxin-like compounds

above the Method 1613B minimum level and both of these facilities measured dioxin at

the point immediately following catalyti c regeneration and prior to wastewater

treatment.

# 9-6Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)Table 9-4. 2008 Review: Petroleum Refining Category Pollutants of ConcernaPCS 2004bTRI 2004cTRI 2005cPollutantNumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotal PoundsTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotalPoundsTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotalPoundsTWPEDioxin and Dioxin-LikeCompounds10.000761535,673170.0157558,877150.0148516,064Sulfide7141,309115,724Chlorine16100,88851,368Aluminum9530,61634,326Fluoride11432,12315,124Pollutants are not in the top five TRI2004 reported pollutants.Pollutants are not in the top five TRI2005 reported pollutants.PACs651,02726,110631,35134,343Lead and Lead Compounds1088,90519,9471207,50216,803Nitrate Compounds6316,737,28012,4976116,308,45312,177Mercury and MercuryCompoundsPollutants are not in the top five PCS 2004reported pollutants.6110211,9786710011,715Petroleum RefiningCategory Total113d1,717,808,018818,705325d18,835,213669,434331d17,930,959627,618Source:PCSLoads2004_v4;TRIReleases2004_v3;TRIReleases2005_v2.a — This table presents the top five pollutants composing the category TWPE, including the potential new subcategory SIC codes.However, the potential newsubcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE.b — Discharges include only major dischargers.c — Discharges include transfers toPOTWs and account for POTW removals.d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.PACs — Polycyclic aromatic compounds.

# 9-7Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)Table 9-5. 2006 Review: Petroleum Refining Category Pollutants of ConcernaPCS 2002bTRI 2002cTRI 2003cPollutantNumberofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotal PoundsTWPENumberofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotalPoundsTWPENumberofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotalPoundsTWPESulfide7729,85183,626Chlorine1745,01122,918Fluoride12406,60914,231Silver776912,669Selenium177,5608,477Pollutants arenot inthe topfiveTRI 2002reportedpollutantsPollutants arenot inthe topfiveTRI2003reportedpollutantsDioxinandDioxin-LikeCompounds160.0114296,024180.0123374,030PACs613,30985,642591,29132,825Mercury andMercuryCompounds6812414,4656611012,912LeadandLeadCompounds975,64412,6431169,88222,136Nitrate CompoundsPollutants arenot inthe topfivePCS 2002reportedpollutants6216,796,41712,5416115,706,67011,728Petroleum RefiningCategory Total118d7,606,670,158165,076352d18,412,828467,009343d17,314,282498,367Source:PCSLoads2002_v4;TRIReleases2002_v4;TRIReleases2003_v2.a — This table presents the top five pollutants composing the category TWPE, including the potential new subcategory SIC codes.However, the potential newsubcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE.b — Discharges include only major dischargers.c — Discharges include transfers toPOTWs and account for POTW removals.d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.PACs — Polycyclic aromatic compounds.

## Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re fining (40 CFR Part 419)



# 9-8 Table 9-8, at the end of this section, li sts all of the dioxin and dioxin-like compound

discharges reported to TRI from 2002 to 2005. Th e 2004 and 2005 data show the same trend that

was seen in the previous review s. Seventeen facilitie s reported discharges of dioxin or dioxinlike compounds to TRI in 2004 and 15 facilities re ported discharges of dioxin or dioxin-like

compounds to TRI in 2005. The 2004 PCS data incl ude dioxin discharges from one facility,

Tesoro in Martinez, CA. EPA reviewed the diox in and dioxin-like compound discharges in the

TRI and PCS databases for the following four faci lities, with newly repor ted, increased, and/or

high TWPE associated with discharges of dioxin and dioxi n-like compounds:

• 

# Chevron – Richmond, CA;

• 

# Hovensa LLC – Christiansted, VI;

• 

# Tesoro – Anacortes, WA; and

• 

# Tesoro – Martinez, CA.

For discharges reported to TR I, as with the previous de tailed and preliminary study, new

or increased dioxin and dioxin- like compound discharges are base d on estimates rather than

wastewater monitoring data. The dioxin and dioxin-like discharges in the PCSLoads2004_v3

database from the Tesoro refinery in Martinez, CA, are from stormwater sources, not petroleum

refining processes, and are be ing investigated by the San Francisco Region Water Quality

Control Board (SF RWQCB). In the following su bsections, EPA discusses its findings on the

four facilities listed above.

9.4.1 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Disc harges for Chevron — Richmond, CA

The dioxin and dioxin-like compound discha rges from Chevron Products, in Richmond,

CA, contribute approximately 140,000 TWPE to TRI 2004 and 120,000 TWPE to TRI 2005.

EPA contacted Chevron, which estimated discharg es of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds based

on semi-annual analysis of its effluent discharge. Table 9-6 presents the concentrations of the

dioxin and dioxin-like compounds that were detected, with the lowe r calibration limit (LCL), for

the 2003 and 2004 samples. In the four sampling episodes the following di oxin and dioxin-like

congeners were detected above the LCL: octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD): 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-

heptachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF): a nd octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF). The

facility measured most dioxin and dioxin-like compounds at concentrations below the method

detection limit (DL) and LCL. The DL and LCL can change with instrument, analyst, and

matrix, and therefore may vary for each sample . The DL and LCL are different from the Method

1613B minimum level (ML). EPA sets the ML as the lowest concentration of an analyte that can

be reliably measured within specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory

operating conditions. The ML is always greater th an the DL and LCL. Chevron calculated the

quantities (g/year) of dioxin a nd dioxin-like compounds reported to TRI, by using half the DL

for sample concentrations measured below the DL and half of the LCL for sample concentrations

measured above the DL but below the LCL, based on EPA’s TRI guidance (Lizarraga, 2007).

Of the TWPE from dioxin and dioxin- like compounds in the Chevron Richmond

wastewater discharges, the detected congeners accounted for 350 of the 37,000 TWPE in

TRIReleases2003 and 69,000 of the 141,000 TWPE in TRIReleases2004 . In 2004, Chevron

detected 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzof uran (not detected in 2003) , which accounted for most of

the increase in TWPE from 2003 to 2004. The TWPE from dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in

TRIReleases2005 decreased compared to the 2004 TWPE ; however, the 2005 TWPE is still

## Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re fining (40 CFR Part 419)



# 9-9 larger than the 2002 and 2003 TWPEs. Chevron not ed that the only process identified where

conditions exist for dioxin formation and subsequent capture in the process wastewater is

regeneration of two semi-re generative catalytic reformer s’ catalyst (Lizarraga, 2007).

Table 9-6. Detected Dioxin and Dioxin- Like Compound Congeners for Chevron

Di o xi n and Di oxi n

Like Comp ou nd

Conge n er M e thod 1 613B

Minimum

L e vel (p g/ L ) Sample Date Concentration

(pg/L ) Lower

Ca libra ti o n

Limit (p g/L) Com ments

5/ 6/ 0 3 5. 88 23

11/ 10/ 03 4. 17 26 Al so det ect ed i n

th e Metho d

B l ank

5/ 5/ 0 4 3. 29 23 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8- H pC D D 50

11/ 5/ 0 4 12 .3 23

5/ 6/ 0 3 24 .8 17 Ab o v e t h e LC L

11/ 10/ 03 23 .8 26 Al so det ect ed i n

th e Metho d

B l ank; Ab o v e

the LCL

5/ 5/ 0 4 22 .6 17 Ab o v e t h e LC L OC D D 10 0

11/ 5/ 0 4 31 .3 17 Ab o v e t h e LC L

1, 2, 3, 7, 8- PeC DF 50 11/ 5/ 0 4 8. 34 24

2, 3, 4, 7, 8- PeC DF 50 11/ 5/ 0 4 5. 68 21

11/ 10/ 03 1. 11 19 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8- H x C DF 50

11/ 5/ 0 4 23 .2 26

5/ 6/ 0 3 1. 76 26 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8- H x C DF 50

11/ 5/ 0 4 12 .7 26

1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9- H x C DF 50 11/ 5/ 0 4 3. 81 29

5/ 6/ 0 3 6. 10 28

5/ 5/ 0 4 1. 12 28 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8- H pC DF 50

11/ 5/ 0 4 34 .4 28 Ab o v e t h e LC L

1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9- H pC DF 50 11/ 5/ 0 4 11 .6 26

5/ 6/ 0 3 10

. 0 17

5/ 5/ 0 4 4. 4 2 17 OCDF 10 0

11/ 5/ 0 4 3 0 .2 17 Ab o v e t h e LC L

Source: Letter to Jan Matuszko of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, from Tery A. Lizarraga, Chevron

Products Company, Richmond, CA (Lizarraga, 2007).

LCL — Lower calibration limit.



# 9.4.2 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discha rges for Hovensa — Christiansted, VI

The dioxin and dioxin-like compound discha rges from Hovensa LLC, in Christiansted,

VI, contribute approximately 149,000 TWPE (2004) and 180, 000 TWPE (2005) in the TRI

databases. These values are approximately two or ders of magnitude larg er than the facility

TWPE from TRIReleases2002 . Hovensa has not analyzed their wastewater for dioxin and dioxinlike compounds.

## Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re fining (40 CFR Part 419)



# 9-10 Hovensa is reporting increased discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in part

because they changed how they estimate dioxi n formation (U.S. EPA, 2004). Prior to 2003,

Hovensa estimated dioxin and dioxin-like compound emissions to air based on an EPA factor of

136 ng/(bbl/yr × catalytic reforming regeneration events). Hovensa then multiplied the estimated

air emissions by a factor of 101.01 to estimate the dioxin and dioxin-lik e compounds discharges

to water. After attending a TRI workshop in 2003 which presented a case study of a petroleum

refinery, Hovensa began reporting 0.55 grams of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds for each

regeneration event during th e year (U.S. EPA, 2004).

The increase in estimated dioxin likely resu lted from the change in how discharges are

estimated, as well as an increased number of re generations. Based on the facility’s reported 2.2

grams of dioxin and dioxin-like discharges reported to TRI in 2005, EPA assumes that the

facility performed four regene rations during 2005 (Antoine, 2 007). Similarly, based on the 1.7

grams of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds re ported to TRI in 2004, EPA assumes that the

facility performed three regenerations duri ng 2005. The increased numbers of regeneration

events are likely due to increased production.

9.4.3 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discha rges for Tesoro — Anacortes, WA

The dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharg es from Tesoro Northwest, in Anacortes,

WA, contribute approximately 54,000 TWPE to TRI 2004 and 55,000 TWPE to TRI 2005.

These values reflect about a 15 percent increase over the discharges contained in the 2002 and

2003 TRI databases. EPA analyzed a nd studied dioxin discharge data fr om this facility as part of

its previous detailed study and found th e following information (U.S. EPA, 2004):

The Tesoro Northwest Refinery (Anacortes, WA ) sampled its effluent on two occasions,

during batch discharges of treated wastewat er generated during the regeneration of

catalytic reformer spent ca talyst. Each sample was analyzed by two independent

analytical laboratories. Tesoro Northwest detected between 6 and 11 dioxin congeners in

its final effluent. However, two compounds we re present in the corresponding laboratory

blank. Several other compounds were detected below the lower calibration limit (LCL).

OCDF and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- HpCDF were detected at about the method minimum level by

both laboratories and in both samples. The mo st toxic dioxin forms (2,3,7,8 -TCDD and

2,3,7,8-TCDF) were not detected in any sample s. The refinery has not done an additional

study to identify the sources of dioxin in its fin al effluent. At this point, because the dioxin

concentrations in the upstream source (catal ytic reformer regeneration wastewaters) are

also high, EPA assumes the spent caustic /wash water from catalytic reformer

regeneration is the source of the dioxins in the final effluent. These effluent measurements

equate to 29.9 to 196 TWPE (low value a ssumes nondetects equal zero and high value

assumes nondetects equal the detection limit).

EPA believes that the discharges of di oxin and dioxin-like co mpounds continue to

increase due to increases in production, and that the majority of the TWPE reported to TRI is

based on values below the LCL and/or minimum level.

## Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re fining (40 CFR Part 419)



# 9.4.4 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Tesoro — Martinez, CA

The dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges from the Tesoro refinery in Martinez,

CA, contribute approximately 535,000 TWPE in PCSLoads2004_v3 . The 2000 and 2002

versions of the PCSLoads databases, do not include discha rges of dioxin and dioxin-like

compounds from Tesoro Martinez (i.e., no discharges greater than zero). Tesoro Martinez reports

monitors TCDD equivalents rath er than dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. Table 9-7 presents

the monitoring data for 2004.

Table 9-7. TCDD Equivalen ts Monitored in 2004

Sample Date Concentration Reported (pg/L)

7/31/2004 140.0 a



## Source: PCSLoadCalculator2004_AK_DC.

a — The Method 1613b method limit for 2,3,7,8-TCDD is 10 pg/L.



# EPA analyzed and studied dioxin discharge data from this facility as part of its previous

detailed study (U.S. EPA, 2004):

In 1997, the Tesoro (Martinez, CA) refinery completed an extensive study to find the

source of dioxin in its wastewaters. The study determined that stormwater is the largest

source of dioxin in the final effluent (50 percent) with the coke pond and clean canal

forebay as the second largest (45 percent). The refinery reported that the wastewater

treatment plant (i.e., treated process wastewat er) contributed 2 percent of the dioxins in

the final effluent. The facility collected and analyzed two samples of fully treated process

wastewater for this study. The analytical results were 0.000 pg/L TCDD-equivalents and

0.012 pg/L TCDD-equivalents. These concentra tions equate to 12.8 lb-equivalents. In

comparison, the calculated TCDD-equivalents of the concentrations detected in the final

effluent in 2000 were 0.00028, 0.30, and 0.09 pg/L.

The majority of the refinery’s discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds result

from stormwater because the soil at the refinery is contaminated with dioxin and dioxin-like

compounds. The SF RWQCB is working with Tesoro to reduce dioxin discharges to the San

Francisco Bay (SF RWQCB, 2005).

EPA believes that because the discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are from

stormwater, not a petroleum refining process, and the SF RWQCB are working with Tesoro, the

discharges do not warrant additional review.

9.5 Petroleum Refining Category Polycycl ic Aromatic Compounds Discharges

PACs are the second largest contributor to the TWPE discharges from TRI 2004 and

2005 for the Petroleum Refining Category. The PAC di scharges contained in PCS are reported as

individual compounds, and therefor e, are not a combined category of pollutants. None of the

individual PACs were among the top pollutants di scharged from petroleum refineries in PCS

2004. EPA examined reported PAC discharges from petroleum refining facilities extensively for

its detailed and previous preliminary studies. Fr om these previous studies, EPA concluded that

(U.S. EPA, 2004):

9-11

## Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re fining (40 CFR Part 419)



# 9-12 Petroleum refineries report PACs discharges to TRI; however, these discharges are

either based on one-half the de tection limit multiplied by the flow or are estimated using

emission factors. Out of 39 dischargers that reported PACs, EPA has verified only three

petroleum refineries that measured PACs in th eir final effluent. Of these, two discharge

indirectly to POTWs and recei ve additional treatment prior to discharge to surface

waters and the third reported PAC discharges re presenting 81 TWPE. Therefore, this is

little evidence that PACs are be ing discharged to surface wate rs in concentrations above

the detection limit.

Table 9-9, at the end of this section, list s the PACs reported to TRI from 2002 to 2005.

The PACs in the TRI databases increased from 26,000 TWPE in 2004 to 34,000 TWPE in 2005;

however, the TWPE in TRIReleases2005 is still lower th an the TWPE from TRIReleases2002

. Thirty-eight facilities reported PAC discharges to TRI in 2004 and 39 facilities reported PAC

discharges to TRI in 2005. Using the 2004 and 2005 TRI-reported data, EPA did not identify any

additional petroleum refineries that measured PACs in their final effluent; therefore, EPA draws

the same conclusion that was reac hed in the previous studies.

9.6 Petroleum Refining Category Conclusions

During the 2008 Annual Review, EPA did notobtain any information to change the

conclusions that have previously been made regarding the wastewater discharges from the

petroleum refineries. Therefore, the conclusions of the petroleum refining category review are as

follows:

• 

# EPA previously determined that dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are produced

during catalytic reforming and catalyst regeneration operations at petroleum

refineries. Most facilities never detect ed dioxin and dioxin- like compounds in

their process wast ewater effluent.

Of the 164 identified U.S. petroleum refi neries (SIC code 2911) in TRI 2004, 17

report discharges of dioxin and diox in-like compounds to TRI in 2004 and 15

report discharge of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2005. Of the 17

refineries reporting discharges in 2004 and 2005, only seven of these refineries

reported dioxin discharges based on analyt ical measurements (i.e., see the “Basis

of Estimate” field noted as “M” in Table 9-8). Only three of these facilities

detected dioxin and dioxin-like compounds above the Method 1613B minimum

level and two of these f acilities measured dioxin at the point immediately

following catalytic regeneration and prior to wastewater treatment.

• 

# In PCSLoads2004_v3 , one facility had measurable discharges of dioxin and

dioxin-like compounds: the Tesoro refinery in Martinez, CA. The majority of the

dioxin discharge, in terms of TWPE, result s from stormwater runoff from an area

with contaminated soil. The facility’s di oxin discharges are not representative of

petroleum refining process wastewater. In addition, the SF RWQCB is working

with the facility to reduce the diox in discharged from this facility.

## Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re fining (40 CFR Part 419)



# 9-13 • 

# Petroleum refineries report PAC discharges to TRI; however, these discharges are

either based on half the detection limit multiplied by the flow or estimated using

emission factors. Out of 39 dischargers that reported PACs to TRI in 2005, EPA

has verified only three petroleum refineri es that measured PACs in their final

effluent. Of these, two discharge indi rectly to POTWs and receive additional

treatment prior to discharge to surface waters and the third reported PAC

discharges representing 81 TW PE. Therefore, there is little evidence that PACs

are being discharged to surface waters in concentrations above the detection limit.

• 

# EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential

revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the

environment, measured as TWPE. Ba sed on the above conclusions, EPA is

assigning this category with a lower prior ity for revision (i.e., this category is

marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” co lumn in Table V-1 in the accompanying

Federal Register notice that presents the 2008 annual review of effluent guidelines

and pretreatment standards).

# 9-14Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)Table 9-8. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–2005TRI IDFacility NameLocation2005200420032002GramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimate00851-HSSLVLIMETHovensa LLCChristiansted,VI2.2180,442E1.7148,653C1.185,167C0.0342,342C94802-CHVRN841STChevron Products Co.RichmondRefinery (a,b)Richmond,CA0.94121,521M1.35141,106O0.6836,798O0.7619,229O98221-SHLLLWESTMTesoro Refining &Marketing CoAnacortes,WA1.9455,248M1.9554,406M1.747,382M1.645,504M70669-CNCLKOLDSPConocophillips LakeCharles RefineryWestlake, LA0.53948,580O0.5448,580O0.5448,580O0.5448,580O43616-SHLCM4001CBp Products NorthAmerica Inc ToledoRefineryOregon, OH0.33147,084O0.3447,795M0.3854,054M0.3651,209M90245-CHVRN324WEChevron Products Co.Div Of Chevron USAInc.El Segundo,CA0.15816,221M0.220,533M0.3435,317M0.1111,191M74603-CNCPN1000SConocophillips PoncaCity RefineryPonca City,OK0.14111,601O0.2825,485O0.2821,901O0.4431,071O77536-DRPRK5900HShell Oil Co - DeerPark Refining LPDeer Park, TX0.11410,850M0.1615,477M0.1514,581ONRNRNR80022-CNCDN5801BSuncor EnergyCommerce CityRefineryCommerceCity, CO0.1119,104M0.0373,333M0.0745,729E0.0956,640E08066-MBLLCBILLIValero Refining CoNew JerseyPaulsboro, NJ0.08797,209O0.1815,838O0.0886,813O0.0886,151O39567-CHVRNPOBOXChevron Products CoPascagoula RefineryPascagoula,MS0.0994,234O0.125,217O0.0994,234O0.0863,678O62454-MRTHNMARATMarathon AshlandPetroleum LLC IllinoisRefining DivRobinson, IL0.04043,314O0.043,604O0.04043,128O0.042,796O00654-PHLPSPHILIChevron PhillipsChemical Puerto RicoCore Inc.Guayama, PR0.0054443E0.0035318E0.00596461ENRNRNR70602-CTGPTHIGHWCitgo Petroleum CorpWestlake, LA0.00256210E0.0026231E0.0026199E0.0026179E19706-TXCDL2000WPremcor RefiningGroup IncDelawareCity, DE0.00009652O0.022559O0.022559ONRNRNR46394-MCLC -2815IBp Products NorthAmerica WhitingBusiness UnitWhiting,INNRNRNR0.0000111.8ONRNRNRNRNRNR

# 9-15Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)Table 9-8. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–2005TRI IDFacility NameLocation2005200420032002GramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimate60434-MBLJLINTERExxonMobil Oil CorpJoliet RefineryChannahon, ILNRNRNRNRNRNR0.000764O0.4339,602O99611-TSRLSMILE2Tesoro Alaska - KenaiRefinery (a,b)Kenai,AKNRNRNRNRNRNR0.000646MNRNRNR07036-XXN -1400PConocophillips Co.Bayway RefineryLinden,NJNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.255,229M77590-MRTHNFOOTOMarathon AshlandPetroleum L.L.C.Texas City,TXNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.0044304OIndirect90748-NCLLS1660WConocophillips Co LaRefinery WilmingtonPlant (a)Wilmington,CANRNRNR0.2727,738M0.0889,015M0.2822,320MSource:TRIReleases2005_v2;TRIReleases2004_v3;TRIReleases2003_v2;TRIReleases2002_v4; Memorandum: Revisions to TWFs for Dioxin and itsCongeners and Recalculated TWPEs for OCPSF andPetroleum Refining (Zipf, 2004).a — Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds were detected above the Method 1613B minimum level.b — Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds were sampled after the catalytic regeneration and prior to the wastewater treatment plant.NR — Not reported.For indirect discharges, the mass shown is the mass transferred tothe POTW that is ultimatelydischarged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 83% removal of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds by thePOTW.The TWPEs in this table were calculated using the 2006 TWFs(the 2006 dioxin and dioxin-like compound TWFs did not change fromthe August or December 2004 TWFs).Refineries reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M — Monitoring data/measurements; C — Mass balance calculations; E — Publishedemission factors; and O — Other approaches (e.g., engineering calculations).

## Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re fining (40 CFR Part 419)



# 9-16 9.7 Petroleum Refining Category References

1. Antoine, Kathleen. 2007. E-mail communicatio n with Kathleen Antoine of Hovensa

LLC, Christiansted, VI, and Jan Matuszko of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“Reported TRI Dioxins.” (Apr il 30). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0449.

2. Lizarraga, Tery A. 2007. Letter to Jan Matu szko of U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, from Tery A. Lizarraga, Ch evron Products Company, Richmond, CA.

“Response to Information Request Regarding 2003 and 2004 Dioxin Discharges to

Water.” (July 30). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05956.

3. SF RWQCB. 2005. San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. Fact Sheet for

NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Require ments for Tesoro Refining & Marketing

Company Golden Eagle Refinery NPDE S CA0004961. Oakland, CA. (Unknown). EPAHQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05965.

4. U.S. Census. 2002. U.S. Econom ic Census. Available online at:

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02.

5. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . EPA-821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1346

through 1352.

6. U.S. EPA. 2006. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan. EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC . (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782.

7. Zipf, Lynn. 2004. U.S. EPA. Memorandum to 304(m) Record, EPA Docket Number

OW-2004-0074 from Lynn Zipf, EPA and Jan Matuszko, EPA. “Revisions to TWFs for

Dioxin and its Congeners and Recalculated TWPEs for OCPSF and Petroleum Refining.”

(August 10). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1006.

# 9-17Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)Table 9-9. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–20052005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationPoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimate96707CHVRN91480Chevron Products Co -Hawaii RefineryKapolei, HI270.06862.6M270.06863.0M2616629.0M2777041.0M44711SHLND2408GMarathon PetroleumCo LLC Ohio RefiningDivCanton, OH149.03787.1MNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR90245CHVRN324WEChevron Products CoDiv of Chevron USAIncEl Segundo, CA137.43492.3M113.02882.0M1172974.0M2877287.0M39567CHVRNPOBOXChevron Products CoPascagoula RefineryPascagoula, MS126.13205.1O115.02923.0O1152923.0O1102796.0O55071SHLND100WTMarathon PetroleumCo LLC Saint PaulPark RefinerSaint Paul Park,MN95.72431.1M24.0616.0MNRNRNRNRNRNR70075MRPHY2500EMurphy Oil USA IncMeraux RefineryMeraux, LA66.01677.5ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR84116CHVRN2351NChevron Products CoSalt Lake RefinerySalt Lake City,UT60.01525.0M59.01500.0M591500.0M591500.0M70037LLNCRHIGHWConocoPhillips Co -Alliance RefineryBelle Chasse, LA43.81114.3M49.01233.0M34.9887M31788M70669CNCLKOLDSPConocoPhillips CoLake Charles RefineryWestlake, LA41.01042.1O43.01093.0O511296.0O31788O79008PHLLPSTATEConocoPhillips CoBorger, TX39.0991.3M43.01093.0MNRNRNRNRNRNR77590MRTHNFOOTOMarathon PetroleumCo LLCTexas City, TX34.6879.4M29.0742.0M30768M932369M60439NCLCR135THPDV Midwest RefiningLLC Lemont RefineryLemont, IL32.1814.9MNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR62454MRTHNMARATMarathon AshlandPetroleum LLC IllinoisRefining DivRobinson, IL24.0610.0O28.0712.0O125O21534O70750HLLPTHWY10Valero Refining CoLouisianaKrotz Springs,LA23.0584.6O22.0567.0O19483O19483O80022CNCDN5801BSuncor EnergyCommerce CityRefineryCommerce City,CO19.0482.9O28.0712.0O531347.0O9229O94802CHVRN841STChevron Products CoRichmond RefineryRichmond, CA19.0482.9M19.3491.0M15376M14351M99611TSRLSMILE2Tesoro Alaska - KenaiRefineryKenai, AK19.0482.9O18.9480.0O19480O19480O

# 9-18Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)Table 9-9. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–20052005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationPoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimate62084SHLLLRTE11ConocoPhillips CoWood River RefineryRoxana, IL11.0279.6O11.0280.0O10254O8.9226O78410KCHRFSUNTIFlint Hills ResourcesLP - West PlantCorpus Christi,TX10.6269.4M16.0412.0M8203M1771.045014.0M70047TRNSM14902Valero Refining NewOrleans LLCNew Sarpy, LA9.0228.8O9.0229.0O9229O9229O74603CNCPN1000SConocoPhillips CoPonca City RefineryPonca City, OK8.0203.3O8.0203.0O8203O8203O70051MRTHNHWY61Marathon PetroleumCorp GaryvilleGaryville, LA5.0127.1C5.0127.0C5127CNRNRNR46394MCLC 2815IBP Products NorthAmerica WhitingWhiting, IN3.691.5O1.025.0O125ONRNRNR19706TXCDL2000WPremcor RefiningGroup IncDelaware City,DE3.486.4O4.0102.0O3.281O1.436O77017LYNDL12000Lyondell-CitgoRefining LPHouston, TX3.076.3M0.00.0MNRNRNR17429M93420NCLSN2555WConocoPhillips CoSanta Maria RefineryArroyo Grande,CA2.050.8O2.051.0O251O0.820O70079MTVNR15536Motiva EnterprisesLLC Convent RefineryNorco, LA1.435.6ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR98221PGTSN600STShell Oil Products USPuget Sound RefineryAnacortes, WA1.025.4O1.025.0O0.923O1.0827O08861CHVRN1200SChevron Products CoPerth Amboy, NJ0.615.3O0.923.0O0.615O0.820O94553TSCCRAVONRTesoro Refining andMarketing CoMartinez, CA0.615.3M0.513.0M0.615M1.333M77592TXSCTLOOP1Valero Refining -Texas LPTexas City, TX0.512.7M0.25.0MNRNRNR691754.0M78408STHWS1700NFlint Hills ResourcesLP - East PlantCorpus Christi,TX0.512.7M0.615.0M125MNRNRNR19061BPLCMPOSTRConocoPhillips Co.Trainer RefineryTrainer, PA0.13.6O0.25.0O0.25O0.4110O90749RCPRD1801EBP West CoastProducts LLC CarsonCarson, CA0.12.5MNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR42501THSMR501RESomerset Refinery IncSomerset, KYNRNRNRNRNRNR0.082M0.010M59101CNCBL401SOConocoPhillips CoBillings RefineryBillings, MTNRNRNRNRNRNR0.410M8203M67042TXCRF1401SFrontier El DoradoRefining CoEl Dorado, KSNRNRNR0.718.0O0.718O125O

# 9-19Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419)Table 9-9. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–20052005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationPoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimatePoundsReleasedTWPEBasis ofEstimate70143TNNCL500WEChalmette Refining CoChalmette, LANRNRNR1.025.0O11280ONRNRNR70606CLCSRWESTECalcasieu Refining CoLake Charles, LANRNRNR2.051.0O1824626.0O1914855.0O70723TXCRFFOOTOMotiva EnterprisesLLC Convent RefineryConvent, LANRNRNRNRNRNR251O2.359O73098KRRMC906SOWynnewood RefiningCoWynnewood, OKNRNRNR10.0254.0O10254O10254O74107SNCLR902W2Sinclair Oil Corp TulsaRefineryTulsa, OKNRNRNRNRNRNR18450M17437M82701WYMNG740WEWyoming Refining CoNewcastle, WYNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR1.0627E94572NCLSNOLDHIConocoPhillips SanFrancisco RefineryRodeo, CANRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR8203MIndirect48217MRTHN1300SMarathon PetroleumCo LLC MichiganRefining DivDetroit, MI94.0175.8M98.0184.0M92172M93174M79905LPSRF6500TWestern Refining CoEl Paso RefineryEl Paso, TX54.0101.0O51.095.0O55102O2445O90744TXCRF2101EShell Oil Products USLos Angeles RefineryWilmington, CA7.313.7M7.614.0M1324M4380M93307KRNLRRR677Kern OilRefining CoBakersfield, CA0.30.5O0.31.0O0.281M0.281M36611BLCHRVIADUGulf AtlanticOperations LLCChickasaw, AL0.00.0M0.00.0C0.0090CNRNRNR77506CRWNC111RECrown CentralPetroleum CorpHouston RefineryPasadena, TXNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR4.6117O77017LYNDL12000Lyondell-CitgoRefining LPHouston, TXNRNRNRNRNRNR1553928.0O1463718.0M79905CHVRN6501TChevron El PasoRefineryEl Paso, TXNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR1.845OSource:TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2003_v2;TRIReleases2002_v4.NR — Not reported.For indirect dischargers, the mass shown is the mass transferred tothe POTW that is ultimatelydischarged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 92.64% removal of PACs by the POTW.Refineries reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M — Monitoring data/measurements; C — Mass balance calculations; E — Publishedemission factors; and O — Other approaches (e.g., engineering calculations).The 2002 TWPE was calculated using the December 2004 TWFs.The 2003 TWPE was calculated using the April 2006 TWFs.

## Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



# 10-1 10.0 P ULP



# , P APER



# , AND 

# P APERBOARD 

# (40 CFR P ART 

# 430)

EPA selected the Pulp, Paper, and Paper board (Pulp and Paper) Category (40 CFR Part

430) for preliminary review because it continue s to rank high, in terms of TWPE, in the point

source category rankings (see Ta bles 5-3 and 5-4 for the point source category rankings). EPA

conducted a detailed study of this industry in support of the 2006 Final ELG Plan (71 FR 76644).

EPA has also reviewed discharges from pulp and paper mills as part of its annual reviews since

2004. Each year, including this ye ar of review, EPA has concl uded that wastewater from pulp

and paper mills does not warrant a mo re detailed review at this time.

10.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Background

This subsection provides background on the Pulp and Paper Category including a brief

profile of the industry and background on 40 CFR Part 430.

10.1.1 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry Profile

The pulp and paper industry includes facilitie s that manufacture pulp from wood and

other fibers, produce paper and paperboard fr om pulp, or convert it from paper products.

Facilities in the following three SIC code s could perform operations covered by existing

regulations for the Pulp and Paper Category:

• 

# 2611: Pulp Mills;

• 

# 2621: Paper Mills; and

• 

# 2631: Paperboard Mills.

A facility may be identified under more than one SIC code, such as integrated facilities that

manufacture pulp on site for the production of pa per products. In addition, EPA is considering

including operations from five other SIC codes as potential new subcategories of the Pulp and

Paper Category. 16



# Table 10-1 presents the number of facilitie s in the SIC codes that compose the pulp and

paper industry. Because the U.S. Economic Cens us reports data by NAICS code, and TRI and

PCS report data by SIC code, EPA reclassified the 2002 U.S. Economic Census by the

equivalent SIC code.

Pulp and paper manufacturers discharge wastewat er directly to surface water as well as to

POTWs. Table 10-2 presents th e types of discharges reported by facilities in the 2004 and 2005

TRI databases. The majority of pulp and pa per manufacturers repo rting to TRI reported

discharging directly. The majority of facilities reporting to TR I in SIC codes classified as

potential new subcategories re ported no water discharges.

16 

## EPA reviews industries with SIC codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes,

operations, wastewaters, and po llutants of facilities in the SIC codes 2653, 2655, 2656, 2657, 2671, 2672, 2674, and

2679 (listed in Table 10-1) are similar to those of the Pulp and Paper Category (U.S. EPA, 2004). The tables in this

section include discharge information from the potential ne w subcategories; however, these facilities contribute

negligible amounts of TWPE. Consistent with the conclusions drawn during the 2004 detailed study (U.S. EPA,

2004) and 2006 review (U.S. EPA, 2006a), EPA found that large numbers of these facilities discharge no

wastewater and only a small number of facilities discharge TWPE greater than zero.

## Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



# 10-2 Table 10-1. Number of Facilities in Pulp and Paper SIC Codes

SIC Code 2002 U.S.

Economic

Census 2004 PCS a 

## 2004 TRI b 

## 2005 TRI b



## 2611: Pulp Mills 32 84 73 73

2621: Paper Mills 329 133 140 140

2631: Paperboard Mills 199 55 96 96

Pulp and Paper Category Total c 

## 560 272 309 309

Potential New Subcategories

2653: Corrugated and Solid Fiber Boxes 1,719 7 18 16

2655: Fiber Cans, Tubes, Drums, and Similar Products 261 2 1 0

2656: Sanitary Food Containers, Except Folding 72 3 2 2

2657: Folding Paperboard Boxes, Including Sanitary 490 1 5 2

2671: Packaging Paper and Plastics Film, Coated and

Laminated 391 7 44 44

2672: Coated and Laminated Paper, NEC 541 0 87 79

2674: Uncoated Paper and Multiwall Bags 123 0 3 2

2679: Converted Paper and Paperboard Products, NEC 869 4 25 27

Potential New Subcategories Total 4,466 24 185 172

Source: U.S. Economic Census, 2002 (U.S. Census, 2002); PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2004_v3 ;

TRIReleases2005_v2

. a — Major and minor dischargers.

b — Releases to any media.

c — Excludes the potential new subcategories.

NEC — Not elsewhere classified.

# 10-3Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 10-2. Pulp and Paper Category Facilities byType of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005TRI 2004TRI 2005SIC CodeReportedOnly DirectDischargesReportedOnlyIndirectDischargesReportedBoth DirectandIndirectDischargesReportedNo WaterDischargesaReportedOnly DirectDischargesReportedOnlyIndirectDischargesReportedBoth DirectandIndirectDischargesReportedNo WaterDischargesa2611:PulpMills65413663042621: Paper Mills782273374188402631: Paperboard Mills472731950302142653: Corrugated and Solid Fiber Boxes01017020142655: Fiber Cans, Tubes, Drums, andSimilar Products000000002656: Sanitary Food Containers, ExceptFolding020001102657: Folding Paperboard Boxes,Including Sanitary020301012671: Packaging Paper and Plastic Film,Coated and Laminated01043010432672: Coated and Laminated Paper, NotElsewhere1170691150632674:UnciatedPaperandMultiwallBags020102002679: Converted Paper and PaperboardProducts, Not Elsewhere Classified0302202025Potential New Subcategories Total19181112101917511204Source:TRIReleases2004_v3;TRIReleases2005_v2.a — Facilities reporting no wastewater discharges may be discharging chemicals to water that do not meet TRI reporting thresholds. TRI thresholds are based onthe amount of chemical used or manufactured at the site.

## Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



# 10-4 10.1.2 40 CFR Part 430

Between 1974 and 1986, EPA promulgated ELGs for the Pulp and Paper Category. For

these regulations, EPA divided the industry into 25 subcategories, based on the products made

and processes used at the mills.

A 1988 legal suit obligated EPA to address di scharges of polychlorinated dibenzo-(p)-

dioxins and polychlorin ated dibenzofurans 17 

# from 104 bleaching pulp mills, including nine

dissolving pulp mills. While meeting that oblig ation, EPA also reviewed ELGs for the entire

Pulp and Paper Category. As part of that review, EPA reorganized the category into 12

subcategories. Although the Pulp and Paper Catego ry regulations apply to all facilities in SIC

codes 2611, 2621, and 2631, the 12 subcategories ar e organized by process used and product

produced and do not correspond to SIC codes.

During its response to the 1988 legal suit, EPA decided to review and revise the Pulp and

Paper Category regulations in three phases. Table 10-3 presents thes e three phases and the

subcategories EPA planned to address in each phase.

In revising the Pulp and Paper Catego ry regulations, EPA first addressed two

subcategories, Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and Subpart E (Papergrade

Sulfite), because these subparts applied to the majority of the 104 mills identified in the 1988

suit. 18 

# Subparts B and E became known as Phase I; EPA promulgated revised ELGs for these

subparts on April 15, 1998 (63 FR 18504). EPA promul gated the Phase I ELGs at the same time

as it promulgated National Emissions Standa rds for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for

kraft and sulfite pulp mills. Because these water and air regulations were developed, analyzed,

and promulgated jointly, they are called the Cluster Rules.

17 

## Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs) constitute a group of

persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals. Facilities ar e required to report to EPA’s TRI the total mass of 17

of these CDDs and CDFs released to the environment every year. In this re port, EPA uses the term “dioxin and

dioxin-like compounds” to refer to the total mass of the 17 CDDs and CDFs, as reported to TRI. For discharges

from certain mills in the Pulp and Paper Category, EPA promulgated ELGs for two specific dioxins: 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran. In this report, these compounds are referred to as

TCDD and TCDF, respectively. See Section 3.2 of the detailed study report (71 FR 76644) for a discussion of

dioxin and dioxin-like compounds.

18 

## The remainder of the 104 mills identified in the 1988 suit were in Subpart A, Dissolving Kraft, and Subpart D,

Dissolving Sulfite. These two subparts became known as Phase III.

## Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



# 10-5 Table 10-3. Relationship Between Pulp and Paper Regulatory Phases and Subcategories

Phase Subpart Subcategory

B Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda I

E Papergrade Sulfite

C Unbleached Kraft

F Semi-Chemical

G Groundwood, Chemi-Mechanical , and Chemi-Thermo-Mechanical

H Non-Wood Chemical Pulp

I Secondary Fiber Deink

J Seco ndary Fiber Non-Deink

K Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp II

L Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven and Pa perboard from Purchased Pulp

A Dissolving Kraft III

D Dissolving Sulfite

Note: EPA promulgated revised ELGs for Phase I, known as the Cluster Rules on April 15, 1998. EPA has not

pr omulgated revised ELGs for Phase II or Phase III.



# Eight subcategories are known as Phase II and are listed in Table 10-3. EPA has not

revised the ELGs for these subcategories, which were promulgated between 1974 and 1986.

Phase III affected the two dissolving pulp subcategories (S ubpart A, Dissolving Kraft,

and Subpart D, Dissolving Sulfite). EPA did not promulgate revise d ELGs addressing TCDD

and TCDF for Phase III in 1998, because the a ffected companies were undertaking a multiyear

laboratory study and mill trial to develop altern ative bleaching technologies. EPA anticipated

that final ELGs would be based on different technol ogies than those that served as the basis for

the Phase I regulations. As of August 2006, there were only thr ee operating mills in these two

subcategories. As part of its 2004 and 2006 Efflue nt Guidelines Program Plans, EPA determined

that rather than promulgate revised ELGs for Phase III mills (see 58 FR 44078, December 17,

1993), EPA would support NPDES permit writers individually in developing permit-specific

effluent limitations to control TCDD and TCDF releases from these three mills (see 69 FR

53716, September 2, 2004; 71 FR 76651–76652, Decem ber 21, 2006). In 2007, EPA developed

and distributed to Georgia and Florida state regulatory agencies a technical document for

NPDES permit writers in order to support the development of effluent limitations for facilities in

the Dissolving Kraft (Subpart A) and Dissolving Su lfite (Subpart D) subc ategories of the Pulp

and Paper Category (40 CFR Part 430) (see EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0774). In future annual

reviews, EPA intends to re-evaluate each categor y based on the information available at the time

and to evaluate the effectiveness of this BPJ permit-based support.

10.2 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category 2005 Through 2008 Screening-Level

Reviews

Over the years of EPA review, from 2004 through 2008, the TWPE associated with

wastewater discharges from pulp and paper mill s has decreased. Table 10-4 shows the screeninglevel results for the pulp and paper industry from the 2002 thr ough 2005 TRI and PCS databases.

The TRI TWPE increased from 2002 to 2003 and then decreased significantly from 2003 to

2004. The PCS TWPE has decreased by 88 percent from 2002 to 2004.

## Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



# 10-6 Table 10-4. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Screening-Level Results

Pulp and Paper Category a 

## Potential New Subcategories for

the Pulp and Paper Category d



## Year of Review Year of Pollutant

Discharge TRI TWPE b 

## PCS TWPE c 

## TRI TWPE b 

## PCS TWPE c



## 2005 2002 1,950,000 1,540,000 563 0

2006 2003 2,880,000 NA 865 NA

2007 2004 669,000 165,000 73.3 0

2008 2005 639,000 NA 39.2 NA

Source: PCSLoads2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2003_v2; PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2004_v3 ;

TRIReleases2005_v2

. a — Includes TWPE from the potential new subcategories.

b — Direct and indirect water releases only.

c — Major and minor dischargers.

d — EPA reviews industries with SIC c odes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes,

operations, wastewaters, and po llutants of facilities in the SIC codes 2653, 2655, 2656, 2657, 2671, 2672, 2674, and

2679 (listed in Table 9-1) are similar to those of the Pulp and Paper Category (U.S. EPA, 2006b). The tables in this

section include discharge information from the potential ne w subcategories; however, these facilities contribute

negligible amounts of TWPE.

NA — Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate PCS data for 2003 and 2005.



# 10.3 Pulp and Paper Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern

Table 10-5 shows the five polluta nts with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2004

, TRIReleases2005 , and PCSLoads2004 . For comparison purposes, Table 10-6 provides similar

information from the 2006 Final ELG Plan (71 FR 76644) using TRIReleases2002

, TRIReleases2003 , and PCSLoads2002 . With the exception of di oxin and dioxin-like compounds,

the TWPE from the top pollutants in TRIReleases and PCSLoads from 2002 through 2005 and

their relative contribution to the category’s tota l TWPE generally remain the same. The Pulp and

Paper Final Detailed Study Repor t discusses EPA’s conclusions a bout discharges of manganese

and aluminum (U.S. EPA, 2006a).

# 10-7Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 10-5. 2008 Review: Pulp and Paper Category Pollutants of ConcernaPCS 2004bTRI 2004cTRI 2005cPollutantNumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotal PoundsTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotalPoundsTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotal PoundsTWPEManganese And ManganeseCompoundsPollutants are not in the top five PCS2004 reported pollutants.1174,490,000316,0001174,470,000315,000Dioxin And Dioxin-LikeCompounds10.0118,640640.219178,000570.181147,000Aluminum26993,00064,300Chlorine2255,20028,100Sulfide15,02014,100Iron121,380,0007,740Pollutants are not in the top five TRI2004 reported pollutants.Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2005reported pollutants.Lead And Lead Compounds18927,50061,60019627,30061,200Polycyclic AromaticCompounds771,27042,600761,19040,100Zinc And Zinc CompoundsPollutants are not in the top five PCS2004 reported pollutants.83346,00016,20088371,00017,400Pulp, Paper, andPaperboard Category Total150d2,340,000,000165,000282d23,200,000669,000276d22,500,000639,000Source:PCSLoads2004_v3;TRIReleases2004_v3;TRIReleases2005_v2.a — This table presents the top five pollutants composing the category TWPE, including the potential new subcategory SIC codes.However, the potential newsubcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE.b — Discharges include only major dischargers.c — Discharges include transfers toPOTWs and account for POTW removals.d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.

# 10-8Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 10-6. 2006 Review: Pulp and Paper Category Pollutants of Concerna2002PCSb2002TRIc2003TRIcPollutantNumberofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotal PoundsReleasedTWPENumberofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotalPoundsReleasedTWPENumberofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotal PoundsReleasedTWPEDioxin andDioxin-likeCompounds10.0021,366,677610.1451,469,101600.2162,387,924Aluminum291,425,30892,205Pollutantsarenotinthetopfive TRI2002reportedpollutants.Pollutants arenot inthe topfiveTRI 2003reportedpollutants.Chlorine2547,10523,9841234,44217,5371128,55514,539Sulfide12,4426,841Pollutantsarenotinthetopfive TRI2002reportedpollutants.Pollutants arenot inthe topfiveTRI 2003reportedpollutants.Mercury15586,83874627,25177617,196Copper448,6575,496Pollutantsarenotinthetopfive TRI2002reportedpollutants.114,5902,914Manganese and ManganeseCompounds1124,312,307303,7291134,317,774304,114Lead and LeadCompounds18629,57166,24018025,44957,006Polycyclic AromaticCompounds791,34145,146761,31344,190ZincPollutants arenot inthe topfivePCS 2002reportedpollutants.72309,69414,520Pollutantsarenotinthetopfive TRI2003reportedpollutants.Pulp and PaperCategoryTotal181d3,980,000,0001,537,056293d19,399,5041,952,130281d21,105,9262,879,522Source:PCSLoads2002_v4;TRIReleases2002_v4;TRIReleases2003_v2.a — This table presents the top five pollutants composing the category TWPE, including the potential new subcategory SIC codes.However, the potential newsubcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE.b — Discharges include only major dischargers.c — Discharges include transfers toPOTWs and account for POTW removals.d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.

## Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



# 10-9 10.4 Pulp and Paper Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges

The decrease in the overall TWPE for the Pulp and Paper Category is due to a recent

decrease in reported discharges of the most toxic of the dioxin and dioxin-like congeners.

However, according to PCS and TRI data, the total quantity of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds

released from the industry has not decreased in recent years.

Th e decrease in TWPE is related to the diffe rences in toxicity of the dioxin congeners.

EPA accounts for the differences in the relative toxicity of each congener by using a standard

congener distribution developed by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement from

mill effluent sampling data (Matuszko, 2006). EPA uses the congener distribution to calculate

the TWF applied to dioxin and dioxin-like compound releases in the pulp and paper category.

EP A examined discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from pulp and paper

manufacturers extensively dur ing the detailed study (2005–2006) and previous preliminary

studies. EPA determined that the dioxin and di oxin-like compounds discharges reported to TRI

did not reflect the actual quantity discharged, because the majority of the estimated releases of

dioxin and dioxin-like compounds re ported to TRI were based on pollutant concentrations below

the Method 1613B minimum levels (MLs), includ ing the congener-specific measurement data

that NCASI used to develop an emission factor for wastewater discha rges (U.S. EPA, 2006b).

Ta ble 10-7, at the end of this section, lists all mills that reported dioxin and dioxin-like

compound discharges to TRI from 2002 to 2005. The 2004 and 2005 data show the same trend

that was seen in previous reviews. Forty-seve n facilities reported discharges of dioxin and

dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2004 and 59 faciliti es that reported discharges of dioxin or

dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2005. Alt hough the TWPE of dioxin and dioxin-like

compounds discharges decrea sed from 1,470,000 in 2002 to 147,000 in 2005, the total quantity

of dioxin and dioxin-like co mpounds discharged increased from 65.77 to 82.10 grams. The

decrease in TWPE is a direct result of lower re ported discharges for the more toxic congeners.

One facility, Weyerhaeuser Co. in Bennettsville, SC, reported discharges of dioxin and dioxinlike compounds (0.956 grams) to TRI in 2005 but did not previously report discharges.

The 2004 PCS data include dioxin discharges from only one facility, Bowater Newsprint

Calhoun Operations in McMinn County, TN. In addition to reporting 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-d ioxin (TCDD) the facility

reports “dioxin” discharges to the state of Tennessee. None of the reported parameters

representing dioxin and dioxin- like compounds were detected in 2004 except “dioxin,” which

was detected only once.

Due to its large TWPE, EPA reviewed the di oxin and dioxin-like compound discharges in

the TRI database for Domtar Industries in Ashdown, AR. In 2005, disc harges of dioxin and

dioxin-like compounds from this mill contributed mo re than 10 percent of the Pulp and Paper

Category’s TRI TWPE. EPA contacted the facility in 2005 to verify the increase in dioxin and

dioxin-like compound discharges in TRI 2002 and TRI 2003 (1.8 grams to 40 grams) (Lange,

2005). The TRI 2004 and TRI 2005 reported dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges are

similar to the TRI 2003 data.

## Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



# 10-10 EPA determined that Domtar reported incr eased discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like

compounds in 2003 because they ch anged how they estimate dioxin discharges. Prior to 2003,

Domtar estimated dioxin and dioxin-like compound di scharges based on total plant flow rate and

NCASI emission factor of 105.7 picograms (pg) of dioxin and dioxin-lik e compounds per liter.

In 2003, the mill sampled for dioxins and dioxin-li ke compounds at the bleach plant monitoring

location and used the measured concentration (506.5 pg of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds per

liter) in place of the NCASI emission factor. Domt ar also said that significant change in plant

flow rate occurred between 2002 and 2003. EPA assu mes Domtar is using the same method to

report dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharg es in TRI 2004 and TRI 2005. EPA concluded

that the new method of estimating releases of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from Domtar

Ashdown is likely more accurate, and therefore ma de no changes to the facility’s releases.

Despite the increase in dioxin and dioxin -like compounds discharged from Domtar

Ashdown, TWPE associated with dioxin and diox in-like compounds for the entire Pulp and

Paper Category has decreased. This decrease is due to lower reported discharges of the more

toxic congeners.

10.5 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Metals Discharges

Meta ls are the second largest contributor to Pulp and Paper Category TWPE discharges

from TRI 2004 and 2005. Of the 639,000 TWPE reported to TRI in 2005, manganese contributes

147,000 TWPE and lead contributes 61,200 TWPE. Thes e releases are similar to those observed

in TRI 2002 to 2004.

Alum inum contributes 64,300 of the 165,000 TWPE reported to PCS in 2004 and 92,200

TWPE of the 1,537,076 TWPE reported to PCS in 2002.

EPA examined reported metals discharges from pulp and paper facil ities during the Pulp

and Paper Detailed Study (2005–2006) and its previous preliminary studies. EPA obtained

discharge data in Form 2c of NPDES permit applications for 40 mills. EPA concluded that

typical metals discharges from pulp and paper mills were at concentrations too low to be

treatable using end-of-pipe trea tment technologies for large plan t flow rates (U.S. EPA, 2006a).

The data from the current review do not lead to any new conclusions.

10.6 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Conclusions

During the 2008 Annual Review, EPA did notobtain any information to change the

conclusions that have previously been made re garding the wastewater discharges from the pulp

and paper mills. Therefore, the conclusions of the Pulp and Paper Category review are as

follows:

• 

# EPA previously determined that dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are produced

during bleaching of papergrade chemical pulp using chlorine and chlorine

containing compounds.

• 

# EPA has observed a decrease in the TWPE discharged of dioxin and dioxin-like

compounds in PCS and TRI databases. This decrease is due to reductions in the

reported discharges of the most toxic dioxin and dioxin-like compounds.

## Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)



# 10-11 • 

# Based on the findings of the detailed study, aluminum and manganese are not

currently pollutants of concern because they were detected at concentrations not

considered treatable 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. Ba sed on the above conclusions, EPA is

assigning this category with a lower prior ity for revision (i.e., this category is

marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” co lumn in Table V-1 in the accompanying

Federal Register notice that presents the 2008 annual review of effluent guidelines

and pretreatment standards).

10.7 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category References

1. Lange, Bryan. 2005. Telephone conversation with William Betrand and Holly Harvey of

Domtar, Ashdown, AR. “Domtar Ashdown Dioxi n Discharges in TRI 2003.” (November

9). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1486.

2. Matuszko, Jan; Bicknell, Betsy; and Lange , Bryan. 2006. Memorandum to Public Record

for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. “Calculation of a Category-Specific

Toxic Weighting Factor for “Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds” Reported Released to

EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) by Pulp, Paperboard and Paper Mills.”

(12 September) EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2393.

3. U.S. Census. 2002. U.S. Economic Census. Available online at:

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02.

4. U.S. EPA. 2004. Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan . EPA-821-R-04-014. Washington, DC. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1346

through 1352.

5. U.S. EPA. 2006a. Final Report: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard . EPA-821R-06-016.

Washington, DC. (November). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2249.

6. U.S. EPA. 2006b. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines

Program Plan . EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC . (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-

0032-2782.

7. U.S. EPA. 2007. Background Information Do cument for Permit Writers: Dissolving

Kraft and Dissolving Sulfite Pulp Mills. EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-0774.

# 10-12Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2002–20052005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimate71822-NKSPP-HIGHWDomtarIndustries IncAshdown MillAshdown, AR38.469,000M40.9673,494M401,511,611M1.83,203E71635-GRGPC-PAPERGeorgia-PacificCrossett Ops.Crossett, AR4.878,740E5.499,850E5.499,850E4.98,867E71611-NTRNT-FAIRFInternationalPaperPine Bluff,AR3.76,640O3.66,459O0.01832E0.01832E36916-JMSRV-ROUTEFort JamesOperating CoPennington,AL3.66,460M3.35,921M5.329,551M5.39,555M37662-MDPPR-POBOXWeyerhaeuserCo KingsportPaper MillKingsport, TN3.456,190M3.46,101M2.54,486M2.23,894M36769-MCMLLHIGHWWeyerhaeuserUSA Inc PineHill OperationsPine Hill, AL3.366,020E2.434,369E2.344,197ENRNRNR70791-GRGPC-ZACHAGeorgia-PacificCorp PortHudsonOperationsZachary, LA2.774,970E2.774,974E3.3263,803E3.363,803E36545-BSCSC-307WEBoise WhitePaper LLCJackson, AL2.13,770E2.13,768E1.983,553E2.013,615E28560-WYRHS-STREEWeyerhaeuserVanceboro,NC1.73,050E1.743,119E1.823,257E1.62,924E98201-SCTTP-2600FKimberly-ClarkWorldwideEverett, WA1.332,380C2.74,846C3472,778C8.21,104,866C32347-BCKYC-ROUTEBuckeye FloridaLpPerry, FL1.322,380M1.32,330M1.272,282M1.32,303M27962-WYRHSTROWBWeyerhaeuserCo PlymouthPlymouth, NC0.9891,770E0.911,638E0.821,470E0.741,334E29512-WLLMTHWY91WeyerhaeuserCoBennettsville,SC0.95631,715ONRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR17362-PHGLT-228SOP. H. GlatfelterCo Spring GroveMillSpring Grove,PA0.9461,700E0.91,616E0.921,653E0.861,549E98362-DSHWMMARINNippon PaperIndustries USACo. Ltd.Port Angeles,WA0.921,650M1.823,266M1.8282M1.8290M

# 10-13Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2002–20052005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimate37309-BWTRS-ROUTEBowaterNewsprintCalhounOperationsCalhoun, TN0.871,560M0.941,690M0.911,626M0.851,528M32533-CHMPN-375MUInternationalPaper PensacolaMillCantonment,FL0.81,440E0.931,669E0.931,669E0.81,435E29442-NTRNT-KAMINInternationalPaperGeorgetown MillGeorgetown,SC0.7531,350C0.751,351C0.771,380C0.781,395C75504-NTRNT-POBOXInternationalPaper TexarkanaMillQueen City,TX0.681,220M3.876,944M2.364,235M0.11197M31407-STNCN-1BONNWeyerhaeuserCoPortWentworth,GA0.6791,220E0.691,239E0.721,284ENRNRNR04694-GRGPC-MILLADomtar MaineCorpBaileyville,ME0.6151,100M0.821,463MNRNRNR3.155,654E32034-TTRYN-FOOTORayonierPerformanceFibers LLCFernandinaBeach, FL0.561,000M11,794MNRNRNR0.14251M70775-JMSRV-ENDOFTembec USALLCSaintFrancisville,LA0.48861E0.502901E0.5899E0.49873E12883-NTRNT-SHOREInternationalPaperTiconderoga,NY0.46826E0.46834E0.46817E0.46820E83501-PTLTC-805MIPotlatch CorpIdaho Pulp &Paperboard &CpdLewiston, ID0.441792E4.187,501E4.187,505E4.37,657E36732-GLFST-HIGHWRock-Tenn MillCo LLCDemopolis,AL0.292524E0.32575E0.23416E0.23410E71654-PTLTC-HIGHWPotlatchCorpArkansas City,AR0.204365O0.971,737O0.921,646O0.571,026O70634-BSSTH-USHIGBoise Packaging& NewsprintLLCDeridder, LA0.19341E0.22395E0.26467E0.31556E31521-BRNSW-14W9TBrunswickCellulose IncBrunswick,GA0.186335E0.19335E0.19335ENRNRNR

# 10-14Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2002–20052005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimate29044-NNCMP-ROUTEInternationalPaperEastover, SC0.183328O0.16282O0.16290O0.16281O71220-NTRNT-705COInternationalPaper CoLouisiana MillBastrop, LA0.175314E0.16280E0.22399M0.21380M04976-SDWRR-RFD3US.D. Warren CoSappi Fine PaperN.A.Skowhegan,ME0.168302O0.17305O0.18323O0.18329O01238-KMBRL-GREYLSchweitzerMauduitInternational IncLee, MA0.156280O0.17303O0.153275O0.15269O98421-SMPSN-801POSimpson TacomaKraft Co.Tacoma, WA0.154277E0.135242E0.13240E0.13232E98550-GRYSH-23RDRGrays HarborPaper LpHoquiam, WA0.142255C0.01222C0.01221C0.01629C18629-PRCTR-ROUTEProcter &Gamble PaperProducts CoMehoopany,PA0.087156E0.01222C0.01833O0.019535O99363-BSCSC-POBOXBoise WhitePaper LLCWallula, WA0.083149O0.831,496O0.14242O0.13235O45601-MDCRP-401SPMw CustomPapers LLCChillicothe,OH0.055499M0.082147M0.0858154M0.099178M54474-WYRHS-200GRWeyerhaeuserRothschild,WI0.04275M0.04886M0.12206M0.152273M28456-FDRLP-RIEGEInternationalPaperRiegelwood MillRiegelwood,NC0.030455E0.030555E0.030455E0.0354E98537-WYRHS-700EAWeyerhaeuserPulp MillCosmopolis,WA0.0118O0.0118O0.009317O0.01425O63702-PRCTR-POBOXProcter &Gamble PaperProducts CoJackson, MO0.00428O0.00519.2O0.00478.4O0.005911O12502-SCHWT-2424RSchweitzerMauduitInternational IncAncram, NY0.0047E0.00814E0.0236O0.0236O31068-BCKYC-OLDSTWeyerhaeuserCoOglethorpe,GA0.0012O0.00050.9O0.00050.9O0.00061.1O

# 10-15Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2002–20052005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimate39703-CLMBS-CARSOColumbus Pulp& PaperComplexColumbus,MS0.00071M0.00071.3M0.00183.2M0.00173.1M54308-THPRC-501EAProcter &Gamble PaperProducts CoGreen Bay,WI0.00031C0.00050.9C0.00061.1C0.00071.3C98632-WYRHS-3401IWeyerhaeuserCoLongview,WANRNRNRNRNRNR0.02545O0.0236O98607-JMSRV-NE4THFort JamesCamas LLCCamas, WANRNRNRNRNRNR1.061,902E3.586,427E97068-JMSRV-4800MWest Linn PaperCoWest Linn,ORNRNRNR0.00611C0.354,139C0.5027.2C39120-NTRNT-312LOInternationalPaper - NatchezNatchez, MSNRNRNRNRNRNR1.172,099E0.811,453E36701-HMMRMRIVERInternationalPaper RiverdaleMillSelma, ALNRNRNR0.108194E0.12208E0.12210E36426-CNTNR-HIGHWSmurfit-StoneContainerEnterprises IncBrewton, ALNRNRNR2.54,486E2.23,947E2.44,306E35618-CHMPNPOBOXInternationalPaper CourtlandMillCourtland, ALNRNRNR0.094168E0.088158E0.072130E31558-GLMNP-1000ODurangoGeorgia PaperCo.Saint Marys,GANRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR3.46,062O31520-BRNSW-WEST9Georgia-PacificCorp. BrunswickOps.Brunswick,GANRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.2360E29704-BWTRC-5300CBowater Coated& SpecialtyPapers DivCatawba, SCNRNRNRNRNRNR5.58261,826M3.7217,867M28358-LPHCL-1000EBuckeyeLumberton Inc.Lumberton,NCNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.11,525M23851-NNCMPHIGHWInternationalPaper-FranklinMillFranklin, VANRNRNR2.284,086E2.274,066E2.13,760E

# 10-16Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2002–20052005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimate13142-SCHLL-CENTEFelix SchoellerTechnical PapersInc.Pulaski, NYNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.001126C04462-GRTNR-1KATAGreat NorthernPaper Inc.Millinocket,MENRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR0.03766O04239-NTRNT-RILEYInternationalPaperJay, MENRNRNR0.0023.6M0.0236M0.02138MIndirect55744-BLNDN-115SWUpm BlandinPaper CoGrand Rapids,MN2.2614,060M23,599M2.2160M3.286M52402-CDRRV-4600CCedar RiverPaper AWeyerhaeuserBusinessCedar Rapids,IA0.46631837O0.35636ONRNRNRNRNRNR23860-STNHP-910INSmurfit-StoneContainer CorpHopewell, VA0.221397O0.21378ONRNRNRNRNRNR32401-STNCN-1EVERSmurfit-StoneContainer CorpPanama City,FL0.0782140E0.078140E0.066119E0.078140E55720-PTLTC-NORTHSappi CloquetLLCCloquet, MN0.0481186E0.04478E0.0410.18E0.0410.18E07407-MRCLP-1MARKMarcal PaperMills Inc.ElmwoodPark, NJ0.0249945M0.0079914M0.01426M0.01222M49443-SDWRR-2400LS. D. Warren CoMuskegon, MI0.02394543E0.04275E0.0590E0.0354E01236-FXRVR-295PAFox River PaperCo Rising PaperDivHousatonic,MA0.0069713O0.007313O0.01222ONRNRNR31702-THPRC-USROUProcter &Gamble PaperPro Ducts CoAlbany, GA0.0019894O0.00366.4O0.00325.7O0.0047.1O54308-THPRC-501EAProcter &Gamble PaperProducts CoGreen Bay,WI0.000341C0.000510.9C0.000681.2C0.000851.5C

# 10-17Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430)Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-LikeDischarges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2002–20052005200420032002TRI IDFacility NameLocationGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimateGramsDischargedTWPEBasis ofEstimate93030-PRCTR-800NOProcter &Gamble PaperProducts CoOxnard, CA0.00002140C0.00346.1C0.00020.43C0.000240.43OSource:TRIReleases2005_v2;TRIReleases2004_v3;TRIReleases2003_v2;TRIReleases2002_v4.NR — Not reported.For indirect discharges, the mass shown is the mass transferred tothe POTW that is ultimatelydischarged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 83 percent removal of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds bythe POTW.The TWPEs in this table were calculated using the 2006 TWFs(the 2006 dioxin and dioxin-like compound TWFs did not change fromthe August or December 2004 TWFs).Facilities reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M — Monitoring data/measurements; C — Mass balance calculations; E — Publishedemission factors; and O — Other approaches (e.g., engineering calculations).

## Section 11.0 – Waste Combus tors (40 CFR Part 444)



# 11-1 11.0 W ASTE 

# C OMBUSTORS 

# (40 CFR P ART 

# 444)

EPA selected the Waste Combustors Categor y (40 CFR Part 444) for preliminary review

because it ranks high, in terms of TWPE, in point source category rankings (see Tables 5-3 and

5-4 for the point source category rankings). EPA previously performed a preliminary review of

this industry, published as part of the 2008 Preliminary ELG Plan (72 FR 61335). As part of the

2008 annual review, EPA investigated possible pest icide discharges from the Waste Combustors

Category. EPA has identified that no further re view of pesticide discharges from the CWT

Category is necessary at this time.

11.1 Waste Combustors Category Background

This subsection provides background on th e Waste Combustors Category including a

brief profile of the waste combustors industry and background on 40 CFR Part 444.

11.1.1 Waste Combustors Industry Profile

The waste combustors industry includes faciliti es that recover energy from or dispose of

wastes (both hazardous and non-hazardous) by incineration. This industry is represented by one

SIC code: 4953 Refuse Systems. However, this SIC code also includes operations from the

Centralized Waste Treatment (C WT) Category, regulated under 40 CFR Part 437 (see Section

6.0) and the Landfill Category, regulated under 40 CFR Part 445.

EPA reviewed all of the facili ties reporting SIC code 4953 to id entify those that are in the

Waste Combustors Category rather than the CWT and Landfill Categories. Using information

from other preliminary studies, Internet sear ches, and company Web sites, EPA identified

facilities reporting a primary SIC code of 4953 that should be classi fied in the Waste Combustors

Category. Table 11-1 presents the number of facilities in the Wa ste Combustor Category based

on EPA’s review.

After finalizing its screening-level database TRIReleases2005_v02 , EPA learned that two

facilities in the CWT Category in TRIReleases2005_v02 are actually waste combustors. These

two facilities contribute less than 0.2 percent of either category’s total TWPE in

TRIReleases2005_v02. Therefore, in the TRIReleases2005_v02 database, the discharges from

these facilities are included as part of the CWT Category; howe ver, EPA included their discharge

information in certain tables of this section to augmen t the 2008 review of waste combustors. For

future versions of the TRIReleases databases, EPA will classify these facilities as part of the

Waste Combustors Category.

Waste combustors discharge directly to surf ace water as well as to offsite wastewater

treatment plants. EPA has identified two waste combustors that send wastewater to offsite

wastewater treatment plants. Table 11-2 presents the types of disc harges reported by facilities in

the 2004 and 2005 TRI database. Table 11-2 include s the two facilities that are currently

included in the CWT Category but are waste combustors.

## Section 11.0 – Waste Combus tors (40 CFR Part 444)



# 11-2 Table 11-1. Number of Facilities in Waste Combustors Category

2004 PCS a 

## 2004 TRI b 

## 2005 TRI b



## 6 8 c 

## 8 c



## Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v2

. a — Major and minor dischargers.

b — Releases to any media.

c — After finalizing TRIReleases2005_v02 , EPA identified two facilities in th e CWT Category that are waste

combustors. These two facilities contribute negligible TW PE and do not affect overa ll rankings. Therefore, EPA

included these two facilities in the CWT Category in the TRIReleases2005_v02 database; however, EPA included

their discharge information in this table because they are waste combustors. For future versions of the TRIReleases

databases, EPA will classify these facilities as part of the Waste Combustors Category.



# Table 11-2. Waste Combustors by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005 a



## TRI 2004 TRI 2005

Reported

Only Direct

Discharges Reported

Only

Indirect

Discharges Reported

Both Direct

and

Indirect

Discharges Reported

No Water

Discharges Reported

Only Direct

Discharges Reported

Only

Indirect

Discharges Reported

Both Direct

and

Indirect

Discharges Repo rted

No Water

Discharges

3 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 b



## Additional Facilities Identified with Discharges App licable to the Waste Combustors Category During the

2008 Preliminary Review a



## 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

Source: TRIReleases2004_v3 ; TRIReleases2005_v2.

a — After finalizing TRIReleases2005_v02 , EPA identified two facilities in th e CWT Category that are waste

combustors. These two facilities contribute negligible TW PE and do not affect overa ll rankings. Therefore, EPA

included these two facilities in the CWT Category in the TRIReleases2005_v02 database; however, EPA included

their discharge information in this table because they are waste combustors. For future versions of the TRIReleases

databases, EPA will classify these facilities as part of the Waste Combustors Category.

b — EPA identified one facility that sends wastewater to an off-site wastewater treatment plant, but reports null

values to TRI for pollutants transferred off-site.



# 11.1.2 40 CFR Part 444

EPA first promulgated ELGs for the Wast e Combustors Category (40 CFR Part 444) on

January 27, 2000 (65 FR 4381). The Waste Combustors ELGs apply to wastewater discharges

from hazardous waste combustors, except cement kilns, regulated as “incinerators” or “boilers

and industrial furnaces” under the Resource Conservation and Recove ry Act. The rule applies

solely to commercial facilities (i.e., facilities that accept wast es from off-site for fee or

remuneration). At the time of promulgation, EPA estimated that the rule would apply to eight

facilities (U.S. EPA, 2000).

Table 11-3 lists the pollutants regulated by Part 444. Pesticid es are not regulated in any

subcategory, as disc ussed in Section 11-4.

## Section 11.0 – Waste Combus tors (40 CFR Part 444)



# 11-3 Table 11-3. Applicability of Subcategor ies in the Waste Combustor Category

Subpart Name Subpart Applicability Regulated Pollutants

A: Commercial

Hazardous Waste

Combustor

(CWHC) The discharge of wastewater from a CHWC facility

including any thermal unit, except a cement kiln, if the

thermal unit burns RCRA haza rdous wastes received from

off-site for a fee or other remuneration in the following

circumstances. The thermal un it is a commercial hazardous

waste combustor if the off-site wastes are generated at a

facility not under the same corporate structure or subject to

the same ownership as the thermal unit. TSS, pH, Arsenic, Cadmium,

Chromium, Copper, Lead,

Mercury, Silver, Titanium, and

Zinc

Source: 40 CFR Part 444; Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for

Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors (U.S. EPA, 2000).



# 11.2 Waste Combustors Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews

The Waste Combustors Category was exclude d from previous annual reviews because

EPA recently promulgated the ELGs (January 27 , 2000). Table 11-3 shows the screening-level

results for the Waste Combustors Category fr om the 2002 through 2005 TRI and PCS databases.

The TRI TWPE has increased significantly from 2002 to 2004 reporting years, although it

decreased again from 2004 to 2005. The largest in crease in TWPE is in TRI from 2003 to 2004.

Table 11-4. Waste Combustors Category Screening-Level Results

Waste Combustors Category a,d



## Year of Review Year of Data Source TRI TWPE b 

## PCS TWPE c



## 20 05 2002 179,672 170

2006 2003 78,705 NA

2007 2004 242,879 155

2008 2005 52,202 NA

Source: PCSLoads2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2002_v4 ; TRIReleases2003_v2; PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3 ;

TRIReleases2005_v2

. a — After finalizing TRIReleases2005_v02 , EPA identified two facilities includ ed in the CWT Category that are

waste combustors. These two facilities contribute negligible TWPE and are not included in this table. For future

versions of the TRIReleases databases, EPA will classify these facilities as part of the Waste Combustors Category.

b — Direct and indirect water releases only.

c — Major and minor dischargers.

NA — Not applicable. EPA did not evaluate PCS data for 2003 and 2005.



# 11.3 Waste Combustors Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern

Table 11-5 shows the five polluta nts with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2004_v3

, TRIReleases2005_v2 , and PCSLoads2004_v4 for the Waste Combustors Category. Because EPA

did not conduct preliminary re views of the Waste Combustors Category in 2005 and 2006, EPA

did not identify the pollutants with the highe st TWPE from the 2002 and 2003 TRI databases or

the 2002 PCS database. The Waste Combustors Ca tegory TWPE in PCS for 2004 is significantly

lower than the TRI TWPE for 2004 or 2005. Theref ore, EPA focused the additional review on

the TRI-reported pollutants.

## Section 11.0 – Waste Combus tors (40 CFR Part 444)



# 11-4 Discharges of pesticide chemicals in TRIReleases2004_v3 and TRIReleases2005_v2

account for the majority of the total category’s TWPE. The pesticide chemicals are benzidine,

toxaphene, hexachlorobenzene, and chlordane. Benz idine is the most significant pesticide release

reported to TRI, in terms of TWPE, by the Wast e Combustors Category. Benzidine is reported

by only one facility in 2004, Clean Harbors De er Park, and no fac ilities in 2005. Relative

contributions of other pesticid es reported in 2004 and 2005 to TR I remain the same. Section 11.4

presents EPA’s review of pesticide disc harges from waste combustor facilities.

# 11-5Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)Table 11-5. 2008 Review: Waste Combustors Category Pollutants of ConcernPCS 2004bTRI 2004cTRI 2005cPollutantNumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotalPoundsTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotalPoundsTWPENumber ofFacilitiesReportingPollutantTotalPoundsTWPECopper29057Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total (As N)18,62220Zinc240819Nickel116218Chromium117313Pollutants are not in the top five TRI2004 reported pollutants.Benzidine167187,680Pollutants are not in the top five TRI2005 reported pollutants.Toxaphene1134,52011.1534,520Hexachlorobenzene1611,90116.6312,913Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds11383,187Pollutants are not in the top five TRI2005 reported pollutants.Silver and Silver Compounds21402,30421302,141Mercury and Mercury Compounds28.33976ChlordanePollutants are not in the top five PCS2004 reported pollutants.Pollutants are not in the top five TRI2004 reported pollutants.10.26518Waste Combustors Category Total2d944,7701553d5,088242,8793d4,26552,202Source:PCSLoads2004_v4;TRIReleases2004_v3;TRIReleases2005_v2.a — After finalizingTRIReleases2005_v02, EPA identified two facilities included in the CWT Category that are waste combustors. These two facilitiescontribute negligible TWPE and are not included in this table. For future versions of theTRIReleasesdatabases, EPA will classify these facilities as part of theWaste Combustors Category.b — Discharges include only major dischargers.c — Discharges include transfers toPOTWs and account for POTW removals.d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero.

## Section 11.0 – Waste Combus tors (40 CFR Part 444)



# 11-6 11.4 Waste Combustors Category Pesticide Discharges

EPA reviewed discharges of pesticides fr om waste combustors because they ranked high,

in terms of TWPE, in the PC S and TRI databases. For the 2008 preliminary review, EPA

contacted facilities and collected additional discharge data to determine the following:

1. Whether pesticide discharges reported to TRI were based on actual discharges,

not estimated based on concentrations of pesticides below analytical minimum

levels.

2. Whether waste combustors had an increased receipt of pesticide waste as a result

of regulation of wastewater from the pesticides formulating, packaging, and

repackaging (PFPR) industry.

3. Pesticides treatment effectiveness, using data from EPA’s Pesticides Chemicals

ELG rulemaking (U.S. EPA, 1996). Table 6-6 in Section 6 of this document

summarizes EPA’s treatment efficien cy data from the PFPR rulemaking.

The Waste Combustors ELGs (40 CFR Part 444) do not include limitations or standards

for pesticides. At the time of the rulemaking, EP A collected grab samples of untreated industrial

waste combustor scrubber blowdown water at 12 hazardous waste combus tor facilities (U.S.

EPA, 2000). Table 11-6 summarizes pesticide sampling data from the Waste Combustors

rulemaking. Among other pollutants, EPA analyzed these wastewater samples for pesticides and

herbicides. EPA found that pesticides/herbicides were generally only found, if at all, in low

concentrations. EPA analyzed the waste combusto r samples for the top three pollutants driving

the TWPE (benzidine, toxaphene, and he xachlorobenzene); none were detected.

Table 11-6. Sampling Data Summary from Waste Combustors Rulemaking

Po lluta nt Minimum

Lev e l ( μ g/ L ) Number of

Obser v atio

ns Number of

Detec t s Mea n

( μ g/ L ) Min.

( μ g/ L ) Ma x. ( μ g/ L )

At razi ne 10 14 1 13 .8 8. 9 35 .6

Di chl o r pr op 1 11 5 7. 2 1. 0 47 .0

Di n ose b 1 11 2 1. 2 0. 5 4. 5

2, 4- D 1 11 2 2. 5 1. 0 8. 9

No n- Detects

B e nzi d i n e 50 27 0

Di azi no n 2 11 0

En dri n 0 14 0

He pt ac hl o r 0 14 0

Hexac h l o r obe n zene 10 27 0

To xap h e n e 5 14 0 No t Ap p licab le

Source: Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Gu idelines and Standards for Commercial

Hazardous Waste Combustors (U.S. EPA, 2000).



# Discharges of pesticide chemicals in the TRIReleases databases for 2004 and 2005

account for the majority of the total category TW PE. EPA examined discharges of pesticides

from waste combustors extensively for the prel iminary review of this category. EPA contacted

## Section 11.0 – Waste Combus tors (40 CFR Part 444)



# 11-7 facilities that reported high-TWPE pesticide di scharges (greater than 50,000 TWPE) or large

quantities of pesticides treated on site (greater than 100,000 pounds ). Table 11-7 at the end of

this section summarizes EPA’s fi ndings from each of these calls.

Overall, of the six facilities EPA contact ed, five use waste characterization reports

provided by offsite facilities deliv ering untreated waste for TRI re porting. These facilities use

removal efficiency estimates to account for the qu antity of pesticides re moved by their treatment

processes. Only one facility, Clean Harbors De er Park, estimates pes ticide discharges using

monthly sampling data. This facility has no pesticide detections on record 19 

# and estimates

pesticide discharges using half of the met hod detection limit for non-detect values. In the

following subsections, EPA discusses details of its findings on three facilities:

• 

# Clean Harbors (formerly Safety Kleen) — Deer Park, TX;

• 

# Von Roll America — East Liverpool, OH; and

• 

# Ross Incineration Services — Grafton, OH.

Based on the information collected by contactin g the facilities, the amount of pesticides

discharged to surface water is less than the am ounts reported to TRI and PCS. In addition, the

pesticide discharges result from discharges from landfills, which will be corrected in future

versions of the databases.

11.4.1 Pesticide Discharges for Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX

The pesticide discharges from Clean Harbors in Deer Park, TX, cont ribute approximately

235,000 TWPE to TRI 2004 and 48,300 TWPE to TRI 2005. Table 11-7 shows pesticides

discharges reported to TRI from the facility for 2004 to 2005.

Table 11-7. Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX TRI-Reported Pesticide Discharge

TRIReleases2004 TRIReleases2005

Pollutant Total Pounds

Released a 

## TWPE Total Pounds

Released a 

## TWPE

Aldrin 0.02 223 0.02 223

Benzidine 66.61 187,680 NR NR

Chlordane 0.26 518 0.26 518

Heptachlor 0.02 171 0.02 171

Hexachlorobenzene 6.11 11,901 6.63 12,913

Toxaphene 1.15 34,520 1.15 34,520

Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2

. a — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals.



# EPA contacted Clean Harbors in 2007 and 2008 about their pesticide discharges reported

to TRI (Finseth, 2007; Krejci, 2008a). Clean Harbor s incinerates all of the waste they receive.

They also have two onsite landfil ls where they dispose of ash fr om the incinerator, filter cake

from the wastewater treatment plant, and c onstruction debris. The landfills are permitted for

19 

## The facility contact stated that pesticides might have been detected in the past, and that any detections of

pesticides in the facility’s wastewater would result fr om the leachate discharged from the onsite landfill.

## Section 11.0 – Waste Combus tors (40 CFR Part 444)



# 11-8 direct disposal of offsite wastes , but Clean Harbors typically incine rates all of its wastes prior to

sending waste to the landfill. The wastewater treatment plant treats quench water from the

incinerators’ venturi scrubbers and landfill leachate. Clean Harbors reports pesticide discharges

using monthly wastewater sampling data from th e onsite wastewater treatment plant. According

to the point of contact, any pesticides detected in the facility’s wastew ater would depend on the

type of waste being inci nerated at that time.

EPA obtained wastewater sampling data for toxaphene and hexachlorobenzene for all of

2006 from Clean Harbors Deer Park. Neither to xaphene nor hexachlorobenzene was detected

during the 12 months of sampling. For non-detect re sults, Clean Harbors Deer Park uses half of

the detection limit for their TRI reporting. Table 11-8 presents th e monitoring data provided by

Clean Harbors.

Table 11-8. Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX Wastewater Sampling Data

Sampling Date Hexachlorobenzene Toxaphene

Detected? Concentration ( μ g/L) Detected? Concentration ( μ g/L)

January-06 N 1.5 N 0.26

February-06 N 1.5 N 0.26

March-06 N 1.5 N 0.26

April-06 N 1.5 N 0.26

May-06 N 1.5 N 0.26

June-06 N 1.5 N 0.26

July-06 N 1.5 N 0.26

August-06 N 1.5 N 0.26

September-06 N 1.5 N 0.26

October-06 N 1.5 N 0.26

November-06 N 1.5 N 0.26

December-06 N 1.5 N 0.26

Source: Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Kevin

Ho nohan, Clean Harbors, Deer Park, TX (Krejci, 2008a).



# The facility contact stated that pesticides ha ve been detected in the facility’s wastewater

in the past; however, the facility does not have any record of th ese detections. Personnel believe

that any detection of pesticides in the fac ility’s wastewater would result from the leachate

discharged from the onsite landfi lls. Therefore, the facility has no record of pes ticide detection,

and any pesticide discharges would be covered by Part 445, the Landfills Point Source Category

effluent guidelines (Krejci, 2008a).

Table 11-9 shows estimated pe sticide release amounts, base d on the facility’s sampling

results in Table 11-8. EPA estimated the loads under three different scenarios:

1. Assuming non-detect concentrations are equal to the detection limit;

2. Assuming non-detect concentrations are equal to half the detection limit; and

3. Assuming non-detect con centrations are zero.

## Section 11.0 – Waste Combus tors (40 CFR Part 444)



# 11-9 The table also shows the values reported to TR I, for comparison purposes. Based on the facility

sampling data showing all concentrations below detection, the facility’s 2006 loads were likely

less than 5,500 TWPE (toxaphene) a nd 14,700 TWPE (hexachlorobenzene).

Table 11-9. Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX 2006 Discharges Estimated from Sampling

Data for Toxaphene and Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobenzene Toxaphene

Detection Limit Scenario lbs/yr TWPE/yr lbs/yr TWPE/yr

Value Reported to the 2006 TRI 5.7 11,099 1 30,017

Assume Non-Detects= MDL 5.63 10,963 0.98 29,417

Assume Non-Detects = 1⁄2 × MDL 2.82 5,491 0.49 14,709

Assume Non-Detects = 0 0 0 0 0

So urce: Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Kevin

Honohan, Clean Harbors, Deer Park, TX (Krejci, 2008a).



# 11.4.2 Pesticides Management at Von Roll America – East Liverpool, OH

Th e pesticide discharges fr om Von Roll America in East Liverpool, OH, contribute

negligible pesticide TWPE to TRI in 2004 a nd 2005 (331 TWPE and 330 TWPE, respectively).

However, the facility report ed treating approximately 1,000,0 00 pounds of pesticide waste by

incineration each year from 2003 to 2005.

EP A contacted the facility in 2008 to determ ine the source of the f acility’s wastewater

discharges and to discuss pesticide management at the facility (Krejci, 2008b). According to the

point of contact, blowdown from the incinerato r’s wet scrubber system is neutralized and

recycled to the scrubber. Estimates of pestic ide discharges reported to TRI are based on

stormwater discharges, rather than process wast ewater. In addition, the tr eatment process for the

scrubber blowdown creates a powdered residual waste that the facility refers to as “ash.” The ash

is sent off site to landfill di sposal, after being tested accordin g to Land Disposal Restriction

(LDR) standards (40 CFR Part 268). The LDR standa rds require that the f acility test for all

pollutants on the underlying hazard ous constituents list, including a variety of pesticides. The

facility has never detected any pestic ides in its waste ash (Krejci, 2008b).

Vo n Roll America estimates the discharges re ported to TRI using waste characterization

reports submitted by clients in conjunction with peri odic testing of waste received to verify the

characterization reports. The facili ty has not tested its wastewater for pesticides (Krejci, 2008b).

EP A also collected information, where availa ble, on increased receip t of pesticide waste

receipt resulting from the PFPR ELGs. The PFP R ELGs, Part 455 Subpart C, was promulgated

in 1996 and requires zero discha rge of process wastewater fro m PFPR manufacturing (U.S. EPA,

1996). As a result of the zero discharge requireme nt, PFPR facilities may send their wastewater

off site, including to incinerato rs. According to the point of contact, the facility received

pesticides consistently until 2007, when the overa ll pesticide receipt increased by approximately

25 percent (Krejci, 2008b). Therefore, the increase in pesticides rece ipt does not appear to result

from the PFPR ELGs.

## Section 11.0 – Waste Combus tors (40 CFR Part 444)



# 11-10 11.4.3 Pesticides Management at Ross Inci neration Services – Grafton, OH

Ross Incineration Services in Grafto n, OH, reported treating over 120,000 pounds of

pesticide wastes annually to TRI from 2003 to 2005. EPA contacted the facility in 2008 because

of the large quantity of pesticides incinerated on site (Krejci, 2008c).

Ross Incineration Services operates an in cinerator with a wet scrubber system for

disposal of commerci al wastes. The facility sends wastewater from the wet scrubber system to an

offsite wastewater treatment plant. The facility tests the wastewater delivered to the treatment

plant on a quarterly basis for a vari ety of pollutants, but has never detected any pesticides since it

began sampling in the early 1990s (Krejci, 2008c).

EPA also collected information, where availa ble, on increased receip t of pesticide waste

resulting from the PFPR ELGs. The PFPR ELGs, Part 455 Subpart C, was promulgated in 1996

and requires zero discharge of process wastew ater from PFPR manufacturing (U.S. EPA, 1996).

As a result of the zero discharge requirements , PFPR facilities may send their wastewater off

site, including to incinerators. According to the point of contact, Ross Incineration Services has

seen a recent increase in pesticid es receipt at the facility, a lthough the increased pesticides

receipt may result from an overall incr ease in total waste re ceived (Krejci, 2008c).

11.5 Waste Combustors Category Conclusions

During the 2008 Annual Review, EPA used information gathered from TRI and PCS

databases and facility contacts to conclude that no further review of the Waste Combustor

Category is necessary at this ti me. The conclusions of the Wast e Combustor Category review are

as follows:

• 

# TRI-reported discharges of pesticides account for the majority of the Waste

Combustors Category’s TWPE. EPA determ ined that pesticide releases from

waste combustors (with the exception of Clean Harbors Deer Park) are generally

estimated using waste characterization reports from clients and treatment

efficiency data, rather than actual sa mpling data. Clean Harbors Deer Park

estimates discharges based on sampling data , and no pesticides were detected in

2006. Based on the facility sampling data showing all concentrations below

detection, the facility’s 2 006 loads were likely less than 5,500 TWPE (toxaphene)

and 14,700 TWPE (hexachlorobenzene). In addition, the facility believes any

pesticides detected in the wastewater result from landfill leachate, not

incineration.

• 

# EPA did not identify any facilities that det ected pesticides in the wastewater from

their waste combustion operations. The c ontact at Clean Harbors Deer Park, the

highest ranking facility in terms of overall TWPE, stated that pesticides were

detected in the past, but no records are av ailable for those detections. The facility

contact also stated that any pesticide discharge results from one of the onsite

landfills. As a result, no pesticide discha rge results would be regulated by Part

444, Waste Combustors. In future versions of the TRI databases, EPA will correct

pesticide discharges from this facili ty, classifying the discharge under the

Landfills Point Source Category.

## Section 11.0 – Waste Combus tors (40 CFR Part 444)



# 11-11 • 

# EPA contacted six waste combustor faci lities. Of these, five used waste

characterization reports provided by offsite f acilities delivering untreated waste to

estimate releases for TRI reporting. Two of the six facilities had tested for

pesticides in their wastewater and one facility had tested for pesticides in its

wastewater treatment residuals. None of the facilities had any detections of

pesticides on record.

• 

# EPA prioritizes point source categories with existing regulations for potential

revision based on the greatest estimated toxicity to human health and the

environment, measured as TWPE. Ba sed on the above conclusions, EPA is

assigning this category with a lower prior ity for revision (i.e., this category is

marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” co lumn in Table V-1 in the accompanying

Federal Register notice that presents the 2008 annual review of effluent guidelines

and pretreatment standards).

11.6 Waste Combustors Category References

1. Finseth, TJ. 2007b. Eastern Research Group, In c. Notes from telephone conversation

between TJ Finseth, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Cr aig Elam, Clean Harbors.

“Clean Harbors direct pesticide discharges re ported to Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in

2004.” (May 1). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0445.

2. Krejci, Christopher. 2008a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone

conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Kevin

Honohan, Clean Harbors, Deer Park, TX. “C lean Harbors Deer Park Pesticides

Discharges in TRI.” (March 17). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05973.

3. Krejci, Christopher. 2008b. Eastern Res earch Group, Inc. Notes from telephone

conversation between Christopher Krejci, Ea stern Research Group, Inc., and Steve Lorah,

Von Roll America, East Liverpool, OH. “Pes ticides Treatment at Von Roll America.”

(March 13). EPA-HQ- OW-2006-0771 DCN 05942.

4. Krejci, Christopher. 2008c. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone

conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Jeffrey

Lynch, Ross Incineration Services, Graf ton, OH. “Pesticides Treatment at Ross

Incineration Services.” (March 27). EPA-HQ-OW- 2006-0771 DCN 05944.

5. Krejci, Christopher. 2008d. Eastern Res earch Group, Inc. Notes from telephone

conversation between Christopher Krejci , Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Dan

Duncan, ONYX Environmental Services (aka Veolia Environmental Services), Port

Arthur, TX. “Pesticides Recei pt and Possible Discharge at ONYX Port Arthur.” (March

25). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05941.

6. Krejci, Christopher. 2008e. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone

conversation between Christopher Krejci, Ea stern Research Group, Inc., and Dan Robley,

Terris, LLC (aka Clean Harbors El Dorado) , El Dorado, AR. “Pesticides Receipt and

Possible Discharge at Terris.” (A pril 9). EPA-HQ -OW-2006-0771 DCN 05943.

## Section 11.0 – Waste Combus tors (40 CFR Part 444)



# 11-12 7. Krejci, Christopher. 2008f. Eastern Res earch Group, Inc. Notes from telephone

conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Dennis

Warchol, ONYX Environmental Services In cineration Services (aka Veolia

Environmental Services), Sauget, IL. “Pes ticides Receipt and Possible Discharge at

ONYX Sauget.” (March 27) . EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05945.

8. U.S. EPA. 1996. Technical Development Document for the Pesticides Formulating,

Packaging, and Re-packaging Effl uent Limitations Guidelin es, Pretreatment Standards,

and New Source Performance Standards . EPA-821-R-96-019. Washington, DC.

(September 30).

9. U.S. EPA. 2000. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Standards for Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors . EPA-821-R-99-020.

Washington, DC. (January). Available online at:

http://epa.gov/guide/chwc/ final/technical.html.

# 11-13Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)Table 11-10. Summary of Waste Combustor Pesticide Facility ContactsFacilityPesticides DetectedFacility TWPEReceivesin TreatedFacility NameCityfrom TRI 2005Pesticides?Wastewater?CommentsClean HarborsDeer Park,51,858.58 Yes YesFacility tests for a variety of pesticides as required by their TexasDeer Park LPTXPollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permit. Facilitysubmitted sampling data for 2006 which does not reveal anypesticide detections. Facility contact believes pesticides have beendetected in the past, but the contacthas no record of this. Also, anypesticides detected at permitted outfalls result from landfill leachate(Krejci, 2008a).Von RollEast329.95 YesNo Facility does not discharge process wastewater from incinerators —America IncLiverpool,it is treated and recycled. Residualsare sent to an off-site landfill.OHPesticides receipt at the facility in 2007 was approximately 25%above normal levels (Krejci, 2008b).OnyxPort Arthur,94.51 YesNo Facility disposes of scrubber blowdown by deep-well injection.EnvironmentalTXFacility has not seen a noticeable increase in pesticides receipt inServices LLCarecent years (Krejci, 2008d).Teris LLC El Dorado,13.58 YesNo Facility samples approximately 10 percent of their influent forARvarious chemicals, including pesticides. Facility frequently detectspesticides in the incoming waste shipments, but does not dischargeany wastewater. Incinerator uses a dry emissions control system(baghouse). For TRI reporting, the facility uses wastecharacterization profiles provided by clients (Krejci, 2008e).OnyxSauget, IL0.73 YesNo Facility does not generate wastewater (incinerator emissions flowEnvironmentalthrough a dry scrubber). Facility has not seen an increase inServicesapesticides receipt in recent years. Facility estimates the quantitiesreported to TRI based on waste characterization reports provided byclients (Krejci, 2008f).

# 11-14Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444)Table 11-10. Summary of Waste Combustor Pesticide Facility ContactsFacility NameCityFacility TWPEfrom TRI 2005FacilityReceivesPesticides?Pesticides Detectedin TreatedWastewater?CommentsRossGrafton, OHNAYesNoFacility does not discharge process wastewater from incinerators.IncinerationScrubber blowdown is sent to anoff-site wastewater treatmentServices Incfacility. The facility tests for a variety of pesticides on a quarterlybasis, and has not detected any since they first began testing in theearly 1990s. The facility generally uses waste characterizationreports in conjunction with emissions factors to calculate releasesfor TRI reporting. Pesticides receipt at the facility has definitelyincreased in recent years, buttotal waste received has alsoincreased. It is unclear how much the pesticides fraction of totalwaste has increased (Krejci, 2008c).Source: Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Kevin Honohan, Clean Harbors, Deer Park, TX(Krejci, 2008a); Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Steve Lorah, Von Roll America, EastLiverpool, OH (Krejci, 2008b); Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., andJeffrey Lynch, RossIncineration Services, Grafton, OH (Krejci, 2008c); Notes fromtelephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and DanDuncan, ONYX Environmental Services (aka Veolia Environmental Services), Port Arthur, TX (Krejci, 2008d); Notes from telephoneconversation betweenChristopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Dan Robley, Terris, LLC (aka Clean Harbors El Dorado), El Dorado, AR (Krejci, 2008e); Notes fromtelephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern ResearchGroup, Inc., and Dennis Warchol, ONYX Environmental Services Incineration Services(aka Veolia Environmental Servcices), Sauget, IL (Krejci, 2008f).a— EPA included these two facilities in the CWT Category but learned from facility contacts that they are waste combustors. These two facilities are included inthis table because they are waste combustors, butTRIReleases2005_v02classifies them as CWTs. They contributenegligible TWPE and do not affect overallrankings; therefore, EPA did not correctTRIReleases_v02. For future versions of theTRIReleasesdatabases, EPA will classify these facilities as part of theWaste Combustor Category.NA — Not applicable. Ross Incineration ServicesInc does not report water discharges to TRI.

## Part III – Detailed Studies



# PART III: DETAILED STUDIES

## Section 12.0 – Coal Mining Category (Part 434)



# 12-1 1 2.0 C OAL 

# M INING 

# C ATEGORY 

# (P ART 

# 434)

The p urpose of this report is to summarize th e analytical approach, research activities,

and findings of the Coal Mining Detailed Study th at EPA conducted to evaluate the comments

received from a public interest group and from st ates and industry urging revisions to pollutant

limitations in the Coal Mining E ffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) (40 CFR

Part 434) (see 71 FR 76644-76667, Decembe r 21, 2006; 72 FR 61342-61343, October 30, 2007).

To facilitate this study, EPA identified da ta sources, developed a methodology for

estimating treatment costs and discharge loads, and initiated data collection activities in

consultation with the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, state agencies in West Virginia

and Pennsylvania, and the Office of Surface Mi ning, Reclamation, and Enforcement within the

U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. EPA, 2007). EPA’s analysis focused primarily on

Pennsylvania and West Virginia because acid mine drainage (AMD) from coal mining,

commonly containing mangane se, is most prevalent in these two states.

EPA als o evaluated the technology basis for the existing Coal Mining ELGs rulemakings:

chemical precipitation and settli ng (U.S. EPA, 1976). EPA evaluate d the current application of

this technology, treatment costs, and pollutant discharge loads (see Sections 6.1, 7.0, and 8.0,

respectively). EPA reviewed scientific literature and participated in discussions with state

regulatory personnel in order to a ssess the potential effects of ma nganese discharges to surface

water and to determine whether other pollutants in coal mining discharges are of concern (see

Section 9.0). EPA also addressed the question of whether coal mining companies are forfeiting

bonds because of the cost of manganese treat ment by examining bonding requirements, past

bond forfeiture rates, and future potentia l bond forfeiture rates (see Section 10.0).

12.1 S ummary of Public Comments

The public interest group, the Environmenta l Law and Policy Center (ELPC), asked EPA

to place more stringent contro ls on total dissolved solids (TDS) (e.g., sulfat es and chlorides),

mercury, cadmium, manganese, and selenium in coal mining discharges. ELPC referenced a

study by EPA Region 5 on potential a dverse impacts of the discharg e of sulfates on aquatic life

(EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2614 through 2617).

The Int erstate Mining Compact Commi ssion, which represents mining regulatory

agencies in 28 states, state mine permitting ag encies in Pennsylvania and Virginia, two

Pennsylvania coal mining companies, and a Penns ylvania coal mining trade association, asked

EPA to remove the current ma nganese limitations stating:

1. Manganese treatment doubles or triples overall treatment costs resulting in the

forfeiture of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) bonds;

2. Manganese treatment is unnecessary to protect aquatic lif e and there are no

widespread toxicity problems from discharges of manganese;

3. Manganese treatment sometimes results in environmental harm because mining

operators must add excessive chemi cals to meet the discharge limits;

4. EP A should reconsider its rationale for setting manganese limits to ensure

surrogate removal of other metals because data show that other metals occur only

in low concentrations; and

## Section 12.0 – Coal Mining Category (Part 434)



# 12-2 5. Manganese limits discourage the use of passive treatment technologies which are

more environmentally beneficial than active treatment because the limits are

overly stringent.

Indi vidual state and industry commenters cited the following factors in support of their

comments:

1. States enacted more stringent coal mi ning reclamation bonding requirements after

the promulgation of SMCRA to control water discharges from mines undergoing

reclamation;

2. Studies support their contenti on that manganese is not ha rmful to aquatic life at

levels above the current effluent limits; and

3. Active treatment with chemical additions is perceived to possibly complicate

permit compliance and cause environmental harm.

12.2 Key Definitions

Pr oper understanding of the following terms is essential to understa nding EPA’s response

to the public commenters. The following terms are from 40 CFR Part 434 Subpart A – General

Provisions:

• 

# Acid or ferruginous mine drainage. Mine drainage which, before any treatment,

either has a pH of less than 6.0 or a tota l iron concentration e qual to or greater

than 10 mg/L (40 CFR 434.11(a)).

• 

# A ctive mining area. The area, on and beneat h land, used or disturbed in activity

related to the extraction, removal, or rec overy of coal from its natural deposits.

This term excludes coal preparation plants , coal preparation plant associated areas

and post-mining areas (40 CFR 434.11(b)).

• 

# Alkaline, mine drainage. Mine drainage which, before any treatment, has a pH

equal to or greater than 6.0 and total ir on concentration of less than 10 mg/L (40

CFR 434.11(c)).

• 

# Bond release. The time at which the appr opriate regulatory au thority returns a

reclamation or performance bond based upon its determination that reclamation

work (including, in the case of unde rground mines, mine sealing and

abandonment procedures) has been satisfa ctorily completed (40 CFR 434.11(d)).

• 

# P ost-mining area. (1) A reclamation area or (2) The underground workings of an

underground coal mine after the extraction, removal, or recovery of coal from its

natural deposit has ceased and prio r to bond release (40 CFR 434.11(k)).

• 

# Reclamation area. The surface area of a coal mine which has been returned to

required contour and on which re-vegetati on (specifically, seeding or planting)

work has commenced (40 CFR 434.11(l)).

12.3 Applicability of 40 CFR Part 434 Manganese Effluent Limits

It is important to note that EPA has prom ulgated manganese effluent limits only for the

following subset of coal mining operati ons as codified in 40 CFR Part 434:

## Section 12.0 – Coal Mining Category (Part 434)



# 12-3 1

. Active surface and underground mining areas with acid or ferruginous mine

drainage discharges (Subpart C – Acid or Ferruginous Mine Drainage); and

2

. Underground post-mining areas with aci d or ferruginous mine drainage

discharges (Subpart E – Post Mining Areas).

T here are no national manganese effluent limits for surface post-mining areas with AMD, nor for

any surface or underground alkaline mine drainage discharges. There are no national manganese

effluent limits for AMD that may develop afte r SMCRA bond release has been granted, nor are

there national manganese effluent limits for AMD from abandoned coal mines.

1 2.4 Key Findings Concerning Public Comments

The following is a summary of key findings of the Coal Mining Detailed Study in

response to comments received from stakeholders . The findings are discussed in more detail

throughout the remainder of the study.

1 2.4.1 Bond Forfeitures

EPA clarified states’ comments regard ing the costs of EPA’s 40 CFR Part 434

manganese limits. In their initial public comments , state commenters did not distinguish the costs

of manganese removal among the three phases of coal mining: active mining areas, post-mining

areas, and post-bond release areas. This is importa nt because the Part 434 manganese limits only

apply to a subset of coal mining phases. EPA cl arified through discussion s with state agencies

that states are most concerned about the cost of manganese treatment at post-mining areas where

bonds cannot be released because effluent mangane se concentrations in the discharges exceed

the permit limits. States expressed a concern that operators at such mines may default on their

bonds rather than renew their bonds as required ev ery five years. States indicate that reduced

manganese treatment costs at such mines may decrease the number of potential bond forfeitures

(Codding, 2006). EPA, however, is not able to addr ess this issue through revisions to Part 434

because there are no manganese limits for surface post-mining areas. EPA’s review of state data

indicates that manganese limits in permits for discharges from surface post-mining areas are

derived by state permit writers from state manganese water quality standards or from site specific

best professional judgment (BPJ) technology-ba sed effluent limits. There are, however,

manganese limits for underground post-mining areas with AMD which are adequate and to

which no changes are warranted at this time. See Section 4.1 for additional information on the

applicability of Part 434 and water quality stan dards and Section 5.2.1 for additional information

on the manganese water quality-based limits.

E PA found that manganese removal does double or triple treatment costs, but for active

surface and underground mining areas with AMD (regulated by Part 434 Subpart C Acid or

Ferruginous Mine Drainage) a nd post-mining areas of underground mines with AMD (regulated

by Subpart E Post-Mining Areas) manganese treatment technology is available (see Section 6.0),

economically achievable (see 42 FR 23180-21390, Ap ril 26, 1977), and compliance rates with

permit limits derived from the Part 434 mana gement limits are high (see Section 5.2).

Base d on information received from Penns ylvania and West Virginia, EPA concluded

that only a small percentage of coal mine bond forfeitures are due to the cost of manganese

treatment. Overall, EPA found that there is little potential for future bond forfeitures on SMCRA

## Section 12.0 – Coal Mining Category (Part 434)



# 12-4 permits that have been granted during the past five years or will be granted in the future.

Similarly, EPA believes that curre nt trends will continue, making it unlikely that companies will

forfeit bonds on permits that will be issued in the future. EPA’s analysis indicates that forfeitures

are largely a legacy of the first decade of SMCRA implementation during the 1980s and early

1990s. In particular, SMCRA requires a Probable Hydrologic Consequence (PHC) analysis prior

to approval of the SMCRA permit in order to id entify regional hydrologic impacts associated

with the coal mining and reclamation operation. Th e PHC is a determination of baseline quality

and quantity of ground water and surface water and the impact the proposed mining will have on

these baseline conditions. When potential advers e impacts are identified (e.g., AMD) through use

of the PHC, appropriate prot ection, mitigation, and rehabilita tion plans are developed and

included in mining and reclamation permit requireme nts. If the potential adverse impacts cannot

be sufficiently mitigated the SMCRA permit may be denied. The ultimate goal of using the PHC

in the SMCRA permit review is to prevent AM D after land reclamation is complete and the

SMCRA bond is released. PHC analytical techni ques have evolved over time due to increasing

knowledge. The current methods for PHC analysis are more advanced and can adequately predict

AMD formation, where as in the past predictions were not as accurate. Based on the

advancements in the PHC analysis, Pennsylva nia Department of Environmental Protection

anticipates that less than one percent of recently SMCRA permitted mines will develop AMD

after reclamation and bond releas e. See Section 10.0 for additiona l information on the reasons for

bond forfeitures.

1 2.4.2 Potential Environmental Impacts

D ue to data limitations, EPA was able to c onduct only a very limited analysis of potential

impacts from TDS (e.g., sulfates and chlorides), mercury, cadmium, manganese, and selenium in

order to respond to comments that more stringent controls on these pollutants may be warranted.

EPA reviewed readily available literature and analyzed mine drainage information provided by

Pennsylvania and West Virginia in order to better understand the potentia l for human health and

aquatic life effects of these pol lutants. EPA found limited information concerning documented

environmental impacts. The discharge data prov ided by OSMRE and the states was difficult to

use for the purpose of assessing potential impacts because of the small sample sizes for certain

pollutants and inconsistencies acros s data sets due to different collection purposes. EPA’s review

of potential impacts is discussed in Section 9.0 of this report.

12.4.3 Surrogate Removal of Metals through Manganese Treatment

EPA reviewed the technical development documents and federal register notices

supporting the Coal Mining ELGs and did not id entify any discussion regarding promulgating

manganese effluent guidelines to ensure surroga te removal of other metals. EPA’s review of

these documents showed that EPA’s rationale fo r requiring manganese control for a subset of

coal mines was to address drinking wate r organoleptic effects (U.S. EPA, 1976).

12.4.4 Effectiveness of Passive Treatment Systems

EPA reviewed the cost and performance of passive treatment systems and concluded that

they are less expensive than active treatment syst ems, but they generally do not perform as well

as active treatment systems. See Section 6.2 for more information.

## Section 12.0 – Coal Mining Category (Part 434)



# 12-5 12.5 EPA 2008 Decision on Revising Part 434 Effluent Guidelines

Based on its review of the available data and the findings describe d above, EPA is not

proposing revisions to the polluta nt limitations in the coal mi ning effluent guidelines (40 CFR

Part 434). As with all industrial discharges, EPA will continue to examine discharges from coal

mines in future annual reviews to determine if existing effluent guidelin es are appropriate and

sufficient.

12.6 Introduction References

1. Codding, Ellie. 2006. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032. “RE: Draft

Meeting Minutes for 6/15/06 Conferen ce Call with Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement.” (June 26). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2517.

2

. U.S. EPA. 1976. Development Document fo r Interim Final Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and New Source Performance Sta ndards for the Coal Mining Point Source

Category. EPA 440/1-76/057-a. (May). Washington, D.C. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771

DCN 06117.

3. U.S. EPA. 2007. Detailed Study Plan for the Coal Mining Point Source Category (Part

434) . (September). Washington, D.C. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0011.

## Section 13.0 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)



# 13-1 13.0 H EALTH 

# S ERVICES 

# I NDUSTRY AND 

# H OSPITALS 

# C ATEGORY 

# (P ART 

# 460)

E PA identified the Health Services Industry as a candidate for a deta iled study in the final

2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (71 FR 76656, December 21, 2006). The Health Services

Industry includes establishments engaged in va rious aspects of human health (e.g., hospitals,

hospices, long-term care facilities, dentists) and animal health (e.g., veterinarians). Health

services establishments fall under SIC major group 80 “Health Services” and industry group 074

“Veterinary Services.” According to the 2002 U.S. Economic Census, there are over 475,000

facilities in the Health Servi ces Industry (U.S. Census, 2005). EP A is including the following

sectors within the Heal th Services Industry in its deta iled study (70 FR 51054, August 29, 2005):

• 

# Offices and Clinics of Dentists;

• 

# Doctors and Mental Health Practitioners;

• 

# Nursing and Personal Care Facili ties (long-term care facilities);

• 

# Hospitals, Hospices and Clinics;

• 

# Medical Laboratories and Diagnostic Centers; and

• 

# Veterinary Care Services.

As discussed below, EPA is focusing on two main issues for these sectors within this industry.

All these sectors require services to be de livered by trained profe ssionals for the purpose

of providing health care and soci al assistance for individuals or animals. These entities may be

free standing or part of a hospi tal or health system and may be privately or publicly owned. The

services can include diagnostic, preventative , cosmetic, and curative health services.

The vast majority of establishments in the health services industries are not subject to

categorical limitations and standards. In 1976, EPA promulgated 40 CFR 460, which only

applies to direct discharging hospitals. Part 460 did not establish pret reatment standards for

indirect discharging facilities.

In evaluating the health serv ices industries to date, EPA has found little re adily available

information from EPA databases. Both EPA’s Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Toxics

Release Inventory (TRI) contain sparse informa tion on health care service establishments. For

2002, PCS only has data for two faci lities that are considered “maj or” sources of pollutants, and

only Federal facilities in th e healthcare industry are re quired to report to TRI.

Based on preliminary information, major polluta nts of concern in discharges from health

care service establishments include solvents , mercury, pharmaceuticals, and biohazards (e.g.,

items contaminated with blood) (U.S. EPA, 2005). The majority of the mercury originates from

the following sources: amalgam used in dental facilities and medical equipment, laboratory

reagents, and cleaning s upplies used in healthca re facilities (Fairfax, 2006; Johnston, 2005). EPA

found little to no quantitative information on wastew ater discharges of pollutants of emerging

concern such as pharmaceuticals but was able to identify some information on biohazards (OH

EPA, 1993).

As described above, the Health Servi ces Industry is expansive and contains

approximately half a million facilities. Because of the size and diversity of this category and

other resource constraints, EPA decided to focus its detailed study on certain types of

## Section 13.0 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)



# 13-2 dischargers. EPA selected its focus areas, for th e most part, to respond to stakeholder concerns.

The focus areas are:

• 

# Dental mercury : EPA focused its evaluation on mercury discharges from the

offices and clinics of dentists due to the potential hazard and bioaccumulative

properties associated with mercury.

• 

# Unused pharmaceuticals : EPA is focusing its evaluation on the management of

unused or leftover pharmaceuticals from h ealth service facil ities due to the

growing concern over the discharge of pharmaceuticals into water and the

potential environmental effects.

13.1 Dental Mercury

The Agency notes that it has an overall interest in mercury reduction and on July 5, 2006,

issued a report titled, “EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury,” (U.S. EPA, 2006a). Among other things,

EPA’s report highlights mercury sources and descri bes progress to date in addressing mercury

sources. As part of the 2008 Health Services Industry detailed study, EPA researched the

following questions/topics for the 2008 final plan as they relate to disposal of mercury into

municipal sewer systems:

• 

# What are current industry practices regarding the me rcury disposal? To what

extent are each of these practices applied? What factors drive current practices?

• 

# Are there federal, state, or local requ irements or guidance for disposal of

mercury? What are these requirements?

• 

# How are control authorities currently cont rolling (or not controlling) disposal of

mercury via wastewater?

• 

# To what extent do POTWs report pass thr ough or interference problems related to

mercury discharges?

• 

# What technologies are available: (1) as alternatives to wastewater disposal; and

(2) to control pollutant discharges. Is there any qualitative or quantitative

information on their efficiency?

• 

# What Best Management Practices (BMPs) ar e used as alternatives to wastewater

disposal and/or to control discharges and is there a ny qualitative or quantitative

information on their efficiency?

• 

# Is there any quantitative or qualitative information on th e costs associated with

identified technologies and/or BMPs?

Across the United States, many States and municipal wastewater treatment plants

(publicly owned treatment works [POTWs]) are wo rking toward the goal of reducing discharges

of mercury into collection systems. Many studies have been conducted in an attempt to identify

the sources of mercury entering these collection systems. Acco rding to the 2002 Mercury Source

Control and Pollution Prevention Program Final Re port prepared for the Na tional Association of

Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), dental clinics are the main source of mercury discharges to

POTWs. The American Dental Association (ADA) estimated in 2003 that up to 50 percent of

mercury entering POTWs was contributed by dental offices (Vandeven, 2005).

EPA estimates there are approximately 160,000 dentists working in 120,000 dental

offices that use or remove amalgam in the United States – almost all of which discharge their

## Section 13.0 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)



# 13-3 wastewater exclusively to POTWs. Mercury in dent al wastewater originates from waste particles

associated with the placement and removal of amalgam fillings. Most dental offices currently use

some type of basic filtration system to redu ce the amount of mercury solids passing into the

sewer system. However, BMPs and the installati on of amalgam separators, which generally have

a removal efficiency of 95 percent, have been shown to reduce discharges even further. A recent

study funded by NACWA (Larry Walker Associates , 2002) concluded that the use of amalgam

separators results in reductions in POTW in fluent concentrations and biosolids mercury

concentrations. Use of amalgam separators doe s not always result in reductions in POTW

effluent, however, since most amalgam particle s are removed with biosolids. Mercury that

partitions to wastewater sludge may be incinerated or disposed to a landfill.

States, Regions, and localities have imple mented mandatory and voluntary programs to

reduce dental mercury discharges. Specifically, 11 states and at le ast 19 localities have

mandatory pretreatment programs that require th e use of dental mercury amalgam separators

(U.S. EPA, 2008a). Additionally, at least 20 POTWs have voluntary programs to reduce mercury

discharges from dental offices. Success rates fo r these voluntary programs vary greatly, and are

usually higher when there is a mandatory “second phase” to the voluntary program. EPA

Region 5 published guidance for permitting dental mercury discharges (U.S. EPA, 2004). The

ADA has also adopted and published BMPs fo r its members. On October 2, 2007, the ADA

updated its BMPs to include the use of amalga m separators (ADA, 2007). The document titled

Health Services Industry De tailed Study: Dental Amalgam , compiles the information EPA has

collected to date on existing gui dance and requirements for dent al mercury (U.S. EPA, 2008a).

In 2007 and 2008, EPA focused its efforts on collecting and compiling information on

current mercury discharges from dental offi ces, BMPs, and amalgam separators. For amalgam

separators, EPA looked at the frequency with whic h they are currently us ed; their effectiveness

in reducing discharges to POTWs; and the cap ital and annual costs as sociated with their

installation and opera tion (U.S. EPA, 2008a). EPA also conducted a POTW pass-through

analysis on mercury for the industry.

EPA received comments from 32 stakehol ders on the preliminary 2008 Effluent

Guidelines Program Plan. Most commenters we re from pretreatment programs that provided

useful information on their mandatory and voluntary pretreatment programs that include the use

of amalgam separators. EPA used this information to update its final report on management and

best practices for the control of dental mercury (U.S. EPA, 2008a). ADA and NACWA

commented that although they do not support deve lopment of national pretreatment standards,

they are willing to work with one another and EPA to increase the use of amalgam separators by

dental facilities. EPA is exploring options with ADA and NACWA to promote the use of

amalgam separators.

I n response to mercury water quality and po llution prevention concer ns, there is progress

at the State and local level as amalgam sepa rators and other BMPs are increasingly being

mandated by States and local governments. ADA’s recently revised BMPs will likely help in

convincing dentists to install amalgam separators and employ other BMPs to recover dental

amalgam and prevent the discharge of mercury to POTWs. This will he lp POTWs reduce the

amount of mercury in their bios olids and the potential for mercury emissions when biosolids are

incinerated. Additionally, due to mercury-free fillings and impr oved overall dental health, the

use of mercury in dentis try is decreasing in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2008a).

## Section 13.0 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)



# 13-4 At this time EPA is not identifying this se ctor for an effluent guidelines rulemaking. As

previously noted above, indus trial categories de monstrating signifi cant progress through

voluntary efforts to reduce hazard to human heal th or the environment associated with their

effluent discharges are a lower pr iority for effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards revision,

particularly where such reductions are achieved by a significant majority of individual facilities

in the industry. As an example, in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan EPA relied

on a national voluntary partnership program for the industrial laundries sector as a factor in not

identifying the industrial laundries sector for an effluent guidelines rulemaking (Section 19.9 of

U.S. EPA, 2006b). In future annual reviews, EP A will continue to examine the percentage of

dentists using amalgam separators and their effectiveness at recovering dental amalgam and

reducing mercury discharges to POTWs. EPA no tes ADA’s recent positive st ep in revising their

BMPs to include the recommendation for dentists to use amalgam separators. In particular, EPA

will examine whether a significant majority of de ntists are utilizing amalgam separators. After

such examination, EPA may re-evaluate its current view not to initiate an effluent guidelines

rulemaking for this sector.

13 .2 Unused Pharmaceuticals

To date, scientists have identified more than 160 pharmaceutical compounds at

discernable concentrations in our nation’s rivers, lakes, and st reams (Section 3 of U.S. EPA,

2008b). EPA is very concerned about these findings. To address this issue at the source, EPA is

studying how the drugs are enteri ng our waterways and what fact ors contribute to the current

situation. Towards this end, EPA initiated a study on pharmaceutical disposal practices at health

care facilities, such as hospitals, hospices, long-term care f acilities, and vete rinary hospitals.

Unused pharmaceuticals include dispensed prescr iptions that patients do not use as well as

materials that are beyond th eir expiration dates. Anothe r potential source of unused

pharmaceuticals is the residuals remaining in used and partially used dispensers, containers, and

devices. Many of these dispensers, containers, an d devices are bulky and are likely not disposed

to the sewer as they could create blockages in the sewer; however, some might be sewered (e.g.,

medical patches). As a point of clarification, the term “unused pharmaceuticals” does not include

excreted pharmaceuticals.

For many years, a standard practice at many health care facilities was to dispose of

unused pharmaceuticals by flushing them down th e toilet or drain. Through this study, EPA

seeks to investigate the following questions:

• 

# What are the current industry practices for disposing of unused pharmaceuticals?

• 

# Which pharmaceuticals are being dispos ed of and at what quantities?

• 

# What are the options for disposing of unused pharmaceuticals other than down the

drain or toilet?

• 

# What factors influence disposal decisions?

• 

# Do disposal practices diffe r within industry sectors?

• 

# W hat BMPs could facilities implemen t to reduce the generation of unused

pharmaceuticals?

## Section 13.0 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)



# 13-5 • 

# W hat reductions in the quantities of pha rmaceuticals discharged to POTWs would

be achieved by implementing BMPs or alternative disposal methods?

• 

# What are the costs of current disposal practices compared to the costs of

implementing BMPs or alternative disposal methods?

In a related effort, EPA also seeks to determine the effectiveness with which POTWs can

remove pharmaceuticals from incoming sewage. U pon completion of the health services study,

EPA hopes to understand what factors contribute to unused pharmaceutical disposal methods at

health service faciliti es and which disposal methods repr esent best practices to minimize

environmental impacts.

To date, EPA has completed an interim study of the health services industry (U.S. EPA,

2008b). To gather data for the study, EPA completed site visits to two hospitals and a

pharmaceutical reverse distributor; investigated secondary data sources such as existing

institutional surveys on disposal practices ; and conducted a series of meetings and

teleconferences with other Federal agenci es and health care stakeholder groups.

The study focused on hospitals and long-term care facilities (LTCFs) because these

facilities are likely responsible for the larges t amounts of unused pharmaceuticals being disposed

into sewage collection system s within this industry sect or. In 2005, there were about 7,000

hospitals and 35,000 LTCFs in the Un ited States (U.S. EPA, 2008b).

EPA’s preliminary findings include:

• 

# Hospitals and long-term care facilities have limited disposal options for unused

pharmaceuticals. Limitations include Federal re gulations, state regulations, nonregulatory factors such as ease of disposal and costs, and difficulties encountered

during implementation of pharmaceutical take-back programs.

• 

# So me federal regulations may inadverte ntly encourage disposal of unused

pharmaceuticals via the sewer. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), enforced

by the Drug Enforcement Admi nistration (DEA), establis hes a closed distribution

system for controlled substances. The CS A prohibits the return of controlled

substances from end-users to any pe rson except, in certain cases, a lawenforcement agent and CSA registrants. Disposal of controlled substances by

CSA registrants is carefully regulated to en sure that the substance is destroyed or

rendered unrecoverable. One acceptable me thod of destruction is witnessed

disposal of controlled substa nces in a drain or toilet.

• 

# Some unused pharmaceuticals are regulated as hazardous wastes and subject to

the nation’s hazardous wast e disposal requirements. Pharmaceutical wastes may

be hazardous waste (under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA)) if they are: (1) the pharmaceutical or its sole active ingredient is

specifically listed in 40 CFR part 261.33(e) or (f) (commonly referred to as the P

or U lists, respectively); and/ or (2) the waste exhibits one or more characteristics

of hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity as defined in 40

CFR parts 261.21-24, respectively). Common pharmaceutical wastes that are

RCRA hazardous waste when disposed of include epinephrine, nitroglycerin,

## Section 13.0 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)



# 13-6 warfarin, nicotine, and some chemotherapeutic agents. 20 

# Healthcare facilities

must determine if these wastes are RCRA hazardous wastes, and if so, must

comply with all applicable RCRA Su btitle C requirements, including many

special handling and tran sportation require ments.

• 

# St ate regulations vary widely and influence disposal practices. State regulations

of the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals and controlled substances vary widely

(The Lewin Group, 2004; APhA, 2006). Ma ny state regulations require both

hospitals and LTCFs to destroy unused pharmaceuticals but often do not specify

the process of destruction; however, many states (33 states according to APhA,

2006) have requirements for the types of facility personnel required to conduct

and oversee the destruction. Some states have hazardous waste regulations that

are more stringent than EPA (AAEVT, 2006). For example, some wastes are

regulated as hazardous under state law but not RCRA (Table 4-1 of U.S. EPA,

2008b). State regulations for reuse of medi cations vary widely. Many states allow

re-use of uncontaminated pharmaceuticals (excluding controlled substances) that

have been in a controlled environment, such as an automatic dispensing system

(The Lewin Group, 2004). At least five st ates strictly prohibit hospitals and

LTCFs from reusing pharmaceuticals entire ly. These states include Arizona,

Kentucky, Mississippi, New Me xico, and Texas. California allows county health

departments to collect unused pharmaceu ticals from LTCFs, wholesalers, and

manufacturers and redistribute them for dispensing to the uninsured poor. Some

State Medicare and Medicai d requirements often dete r LTCFs from donating or

redistributing their unused medications (Hessanauer, 2007).

• 

# Medicare and Medicaid requirements also influence hospital disposal practices.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency

within the Department of Health and Human Services, administers the Medicare

and Medicaid programs. Medicare provi des health insurance to elderly and

disabled Americans, while Medicaid pr ovides health insurance for low income

Americans, including long-term care c overage (CMS, Unknown). In a March 22,

2006 letter, CMS provided guidance to State Medicaid programs encouraging

states to require LTCFs to return unused medications to pharmacies and to ensure

Medicaid is repaid for unused treatmen ts when nursing home patients die, are

discharged, or have their prescriptions changed. In a ddition, some state Medicaid

programs require LTC pharmacies to accept returned unused pharmaceuticals

(excluding controlled substances) from LTCFs. The LTC pharmacy then credits

Medicaid for the unused doses. However, LTC pharmacies typical ly receive little

payment for these return services and have not found them to be cost effective.

For example, when a pharmacy takes back a previously dispensed medication for

disposal, it must pay to have the medicat ion destroyed, but it is not compensated

for this service (The Lewin Group, 2004). Therefore, few LTC pharmacies

participate in these programs.

• 

# Or ganization size, ease of disposal and cost are al so factors influencing the

disposal of unused pharmaceuticals. Some facilities use flushing to sewers as a

primary means of disposal since it is both easy and complies with CSA

20 

## The Agency clarified its regulation at 40 CFR 261.33, explaining that epin ephrine salts are not included in the

epinephrine P042 listing (since the listing only specifies epinephrine and not epinephrine sa lts); the salts, therefore,

would be hazardous only if the waste epinephrine salt ex hibited one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics

(Hale, 2007).

## Section 13.0 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)



# 13-7 requirements for destruction. Facilities are most likely to flush pharmaceuticals if

they do not have an on-site pharmacy and/ or do not have a pr e-existing contract

with a hazardous waste hauler to dis pose of the pharmaceuticals. In the past,

public health agencies and health-rela ted non-government organizations guided

the public to destroy unused medications by flushing them down the toilet. Many

LTCFs have adopted this method for destru ction of unused controlled substances.

Many LTCFs have also extended this pr actice to include flushing all unused

medications – controlled and non cont rolled substances (Garvin, 2007).

• 

# Logistics for disposing of unused pharmaceu ticals at hospitals are different from

long-term care facilities. Hospitals typically have on-site pharmacies. It is

common practice at hospitals to retu rn some unused pharmaceuticals to the

hospital pharmacy and then on to the ma nufacturer for credit or disposal.

However, this option extends only to t hose pharmaceuticals for which the hospital

can receive credit and does not include unused pharmaceuticals that are

considered waste ( e.g. , pharmaceuticals in an intravenous bag, drug samples

brought into the hospital). Also, hospitals typically do not prescribe medication

far in advance or in large quantities. As a result, the potential for pharmaceuticals

to be wasted is reduced. In addition, hospitals typically have pre-existing

arrangements for disposal of unused pharmaceuticals as hazardous waste (Garvin,

2007).

• 

# Wi despread implementation of best management practices may reduce the

number and quantity of unused pharmaceutic als entering in our nation’s waters

from disposal. Three organizations provide guid ance in the form of BMPs to

medical facilities on managing pharmaceutical waste: Hospitals for a Healthy

Environment (H2E), Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), and Joint Commission

on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizat ions (JCAHO). The guidelines provided

by these organizations all aim to reduce h ealth and environmental impacts due to

current disposal practices of pharmaceutical waste, as discussed in Section 5.2 of

the Health Services Industry Detaile d Study: Management and Disposal of

Unused Pharmaceuticals (Interim Technical Report) (U.S. EPA, 2008b).

Examples of model BMPs identified to date include waste minimization and

reverse distribution systems used by hos pitals in California, Minnesota, and

Washington. Waste minimization technique s include maintaining inventories of

high-use pharmaceuticals and identifying t hose that are close to expiring. Shortdated pharmaceuticals are redistributed to ot her areas of the hospitals where they

are needed. Also, dispensed pharmaceutical s can go unused at a hospital or LTCF

if the patient has an allergic or adve rse reaction to the medication, no longer

requires treatment, refuses treatment, or the medication expires. Hospitals and

LTCFs can reduce the amount of pharmaceu tical waste generated by limiting the

amount of pharmaceuticals dispensed to pati ents and residents at one time. This

can be accomplished by using unit dose packaging, limited quantity dispensing,

automatic dispensing systems and standardized medication dosages, as discussed

in Section 5.2 of the Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Management and

Disposal of Unused Pharmaceutic als (Interim Technical Report) (U.S. EPA,

2008b). Hospitals and LTCFs have the opti on of hiring reverse distributors to

manage their unused and/or expired medica tion that the facility believes could be

returned to the manufacturer or wholes aler for credit. The reverse distributor

determines which medications may be returned to the manufacturer or wholesaler

## Section 13.0 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)



# 13-8 for credit and arranges for disposal of unused medications that are waste.

However, there are CSA limitations for reverse distributo rs and controlled

substances. In most cases, reverse distributors cannot handle controlled

substances.

EPA is concerned about pharmaceuticals in th e environment and is working on this issue

in many different areas. Over the last few years, EPA has increased its work in a number of areas

to better understand pharmaceuticals. EPA has an overall strategy to address the risks associated

with emerging contaminants. This four-pronge d strategy is aimed at improving science,

improving public understanding, identifying partne rship and stewardship opportunities, and

taking regulatory action as appropriate. We are focused on learning more about the occurrence

and health effects of pharmaceuticals in water. In addition, we are working to better understand

what treatment technologies may remove them from wastewater and dr inking water. We are

developing analytical methods to improve detection capabiliti es. We are conducting national

studies and surveys to help direct our course of action. We are also partnering with government

agencies, stakeholders, and the private sector , and increasing public awareness about product

stewardship and pollution preventi on (Grumbles, 2008). Additionall y, the Agency is considering

amending its hazardous waste regulations to add hazardous pharmaceutical wastes to the

universal waste system to facilitate its oversight of the disposal of pharmaceutical waste (40 CFR

273) (72 FR 23170, April 30, 2007). In addition, th e inclusion of hazardous pharmaceutical

wastes in the universal waste rule will also enco urage health care faciliti es to manage all their

pharmaceutical wastes as universal wastes, even wa stes that are not regulated as hazardous but

which nonetheless pose hazards. Finally, EPA has identified the issue of pharmaceuticals in

wastewater is part of the Agency’s Strategic Pl an (2006-2011) to meet its goals of clean and safe

water. 21



# EPA continues to study the issue of how hea lth care facilities are managing and disposing

of unused pharmaceuticals and POTW treatment effectiveness in an effort to identify the root

cause and potential solutions to address the issu e of pharmaceuticals in our waterways. Over the

coming year, EPA will need to gather more technical and economic information on unused

pharmaceutical management in the Health Servi ces Industry. To aid its decision-making, EPA

intends to submit an Information Collection Re quest (ICR) to the Office of Management and

Budget for their review and approval under th e Paperwork Reduction Act, 33 U.S.C. 3501, et

seq., in the 2009 annual review. EPA will use th is ICR to collect te chnical and economic

information on unused pharmaceutical management and identify technologies and BMPs that

reduce or eliminate the discharge of unused pharmaceuticals to POTWs. In designing this

industry survey EPA expects to work closely with industry representatives from hospitals,

hospices, long-term care facilities, veterinary hospitals and other affected stakeholders. EPA has

published a separate Federal Register notice for this ICR and solicits comment on the potential

scope of this ICR (73 FR 46903, August 12, 2008).

EPA also plans to conduct additional site vi sits to facilities to obtain more detailed

information on how pharmaceuticals are managed, track ed, and disposed as well as influences on

behavior. In addition, EPA is consid ering collecting data from other t ypes of health care facilities

(e.g., medical and dental offices, university and prison health clin ics, and veterinary clinics).

21 

## See “2006 - 2011 EPA Strategic Plan,” http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm.

## Section 13.0 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)



# 13-9 EPA is also reviewing studies on POTW effectiveness. EPA remains very concerned about this

issue and plans to expedite completion of this study.

13. 3 Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category References

1. AAEVT. 2006. American Association of Equi ne Veterinary Technicians. “News and

Events Web-site.” (October 19). Availabl e online at: www.aaevt.org/news_events.htm.

Date accessed: July 10, 2007. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0322.

2. ADA. 2007. American Dental Associ ation. “ADA Updates Environmental

Recommendations for Handling Waste. ” (October 2). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0211.

3. APhA. 2006. American Pharmacists Associat ion. “Re-Distribution of Medications:

APhA Policy Committee Background Inform ation.” (November). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-

0771-0319.

4. CMS. Unknown. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Ce nters for Medicare

and Medicaid Services. “CMS Programs a nd Information Web-site.” Baltimore, MD.

Available online at: www.cms.hhs.gov/default.asp. Date accessed: October 3, 2007.

EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0548.

5. Fairfax. Fairfax County Government. 2006. Energy Resource Recovery Facility Website. Fairfax, VA. (August 28). Available online at:

www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/trash/dispomsf.ht m. Date accessed: August 31, 2006.

EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2391.

6. Garvin, M.G. 2007. Comments on the Prelimin ary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program

Plan. (December 21). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0851.

7. Grumbles, Benjamin H. 2008. Testimony of Benjamin H. Grumbles Assistant

Administration for Water Environmental Prot ection Agency Before the Transportation

Safety, Infrastructure Security and Water Quality Subcommittee of the Environment and

Public Works Committee United States Senate. (April 15). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771

DCN 06111.

8. Hale, Matt. 2007. Director, U. S. EPA Office of Solid Waste. Memorandum to RCRA

Division Directors: EPA Regi ons I – X. “Subject: Scope of Hazardous Waste Listing

P042 (Epinephrine).” Washington, D.C. (October 15). Available online at:

http://www.epa.gov/region1/healthcare/ pdfs/EpiMemo_Final.pdf. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-

0771 DCN 05862.

9. Hessanauer, Meghan. 2007. U.S. EPA. Memo randum to Public Record for the 2008

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771

(www.regulations.gov). “Subject: H ealth Services Outreach M eeting with the Center for

Excellence in Assisted Living (CEAL) Advi sory Council (18 October 2007) – Final.”

(December 17). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 DCN 05961.

## Section 13.0 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460)



# 13-10 10. Johnston, Carey. 2005. U.S. EPA. Memorandum to Public Record for the 2006 Effluent

Guidelines Program Plan EPA Docket Number OW-2004-0032 (www.epa.gov/edockets).

“RE: Industry Sectors Being Evaluated unde r Proposed “Health Services Industry”

Category.” (August 4). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0038.

11. Larry Walker Associates. 2002. Mercury Source Control and Pollution Prevention

Program Evaluation: Final Report . Prepared for: Association of Metropolitan Sewerage

Agencies. (July). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0434.

12. OH EPA. State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Blood in the Sewer

System: Does it Pose a Health Risk? Fact Sheet 0105. Columbus, OH. (January). EPAHQ-OW-2006-0771-0533.

13. The Lewin Group. 2004. CMS Review of Current Standards of Practice for Long-Term

Care Pharmacy Services: Long-Term Care Pharmacy Primer . Prepared for: Centers for

Medicare and Medicaid Services . (December 30). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0317.

14. U.S. Census. 2005. U.S. Economic Census. Establishment and Firms Size: 2002

(Including Legal Form of Organization). “R eceipts/Revenue Size of Establishments for

the United States: 2002.” 2002 Economic Census, Health Care and Social Assistance.

Subject Series. EC02-62SS-SZ. (November). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1615.

15. U.S. EPA. 2008a. Health Services Industry De tailed Study: Dental Amalgam . EPA-821-

R-08-014. Washington, D.C. (Augu st). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05518.

16. U.S. EPA. 2008b. Health Services Industry De tailed Study: Management and Disposal of

Unused Pharmaceuticals (Interim Technica l Report). EPA-821-R-08-013. Washington,

D.C. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05519.

17

. U.S. EPA. 2006a. EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury . EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0013.

Washington, D.C. (June). Available onlin e at: www.epa.gov/mercury/roadmap/htm.

EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1612.

18. U .S. EPA. 2006b. Technical Support Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines

Program Plan . EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, D.C. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-

0032-2782, Section 19.9

19. U.S. EPA. 2005. EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project: Profile of the

Healthcare Industry . EPA/310-R-05-002. Washington, D. C. (February). EPA-HQ-OW2004-0032-0729.

20. U.S. EPA. 2004. Region 5 NPDES Programs Br anch. “Mercury Pollutant Minimization

Program Guidance.” Chicago, IL. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0460.

21. Vandeven, Jay and Steve McGinnis. 2005. E nviron International Corporation. “An

Assessment of Mercury in the Form of Amal gam in Dental Wastew ater in the United

States.” Water, Air, and Soil Pollutio n (2005) 164:349-366. (March 4). EPA-HQ-OW2006-0771-0222.

## Section 14.0 – Oil and Gas Extraction Category (Part 435)



# 14-1 14.0 O IL AND 

# G AS 

# E XTRACTION 

# C ATEGORY 

# (P ART 

# 435)

EPA identified the coalbed methane (CBM) sect or as a candidate for a detailed study in

the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (71 FR 76656, December 21, 2006). As part of

that announcement EPA made it clear that it would conduct data collection through an

information collection request (ICR) to suppor t this detailed study. In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act EPA must seek Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval

for an ICR. EPA also provided notice of this ICR in the preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines

Program Plan (72 FR 61343, October 30, 2007) and in two separate Federal Register notices (73

FR 4556, January 25, 2008; 73 FR 40757, July 15, 2008). EPA is conducting this detailed study

and data collection to determine whether it would be appropriate to initiate an effluent guidelines

and limitations (ELGs) rulemaking to control pol lutants discharged in coalbed methane (CBM)

produced water.

CBM extraction requires removal of larg e amounts of water from underground coal

seams before CBM can be released. CBM we lls have a distinctive production history

characterized by an early stage when large amo unts of water are produced to reduce reservoir

pressure which in turn encourages release of gas. This is followed by a stable stage when

quantities of produced gas increase as the quantities of produced water decrease; and a late stage

when the amount of gas produced declines and water production remains low (De Bruin, et al,

2001). The quantity and quality of water that is produced in association with CBM development

varies from basin to basin, within a particular basin, from coal seam to coal seam, and over the

lifetime of a CBM well.

Pollutants often found in these wastewat ers include chloride, sodium, sulfate,

bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, bari um, magnesium, ammonia, and arsenic. Total dissolved solids

(TDS) and electrical conductivity (EC) are bulk parameters that States typically use for

quantifying and controlling the amount of pollutants in CBM produced waters.

Co ntrolling the sodicity of the CBM produced waters is equally important in preventing

environmental damage. Sodicity is often quantifie d as the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), which

is expressed as the ratio of sodi um ions to calcium and magnesium ions. Sodicity is an important

factor in controlling the produced water’s suitability for irrigation as sodic soils are subject to

severe structural degradation and restrict plant performance th rough poor soil-water and soil-air

relations. All of these dissolved inorganic pa rameters can potentially affect environmental

impacts as well as potential benefi cial uses of CBM produced water.

Impacts to surface water from discharges of CBM produced waters can be severe

depending upon the quality of the CBM produced wate rs. These discharges have variable effects

depending on the biology of the receiving stream. Some waterbodies and watersheds may be able

to absorb the discharged water while others are sensitive to CBM produced water discharges. For

example, large lakes or rivers with sufficient dilu tion capacity or marine wa ters are less sensitive

to saline discharges than smaller receivi ng water bodies. Discharge of these CBM produced

waters may also cause erosion and in some cases irreversible soil damage from elevated TDS

concentrations and SAR values. This may limit futu re agricultural and livestock uses of the water

and watershed.

## Section 14.0 – Oil and Gas Extraction Category (Part 435)



# 14-2 Currently, regulatory controls for CBM produ ced waters vary from State to State and

permit to permit (De Bruin, et al, 2001). There is very limited permit information (e.g., effluent

limits, restrictions) in EPA’s Permit Compliance System and Toxics Release Inventory for this

industrial sector. Consequently, EPA is gathering additional in formation from State National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit programs and industry on the current regulatory

controls across the different CBM basins.

CB M extraction activities account ed for about 10 percent of the total U.S. natural gas

production in 2006 and are expanding in multiple basins across the United States. Currently, the

Department of Energy’s Energy Information Admi nistration expects CBM production to remain

an important source of domestic natu ral gas over the next few decades.

As discussed in Section 3.2.1, EPA’s review of existing ELGs considers four factors:

1. Pollutants discharged in an industrial category’s effluent;

2. Current and potential pollution prev ention and control technology options;

3. Category growth and economic consid erations of technology options; and

4. Implementation and efficiency consider ations of revising existing effluent

guidelines or publishing new effluent guidelines.

EPA will use the CBM ICR to collect technical a nd economic information from a wide range of

CBM operations to address these factors in greater detail (e.g., ge ographical and geologic

differences in the characteristics of CBM pr oduced waters, environmental data, current

regulatory controls, availability and affordability of treatment technology options). Response to

EPA’s questionnaire is mandatory for recipients and EPA will administer the questionnaire using

its authority under Section 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1318.

In 2007 and 2008, EPA worked with a ra nge of stakeholders (e.g., industry

representatives; Federal, State, and Tribal repr esentatives; public inte rest groups and landowners;

and water treatment experts) to obtain inform ation on the industry and its CBM produced water

management practices. EPA’s outreach started with teleconferences and th en continued with a

series of meetings and site vi sits in the major CBM basins. In total, EPA contacted over 700

people in eight states during more than 60 outr each and data collection activities in 2007 and

2008 (e.g., meetings, teleconferences, site visi ts) (Johnston, 2008; U.S. EPA, 2008a). EPA also

solicited public comment through two separate Fede ral Register notices on the draft survey and

supporting statement (73 FR 4556, January 25, 20 08; 73 FR 40757, July 15, 2008). This outreach

helped the development of the ICR as EPA incorporated data, comments, and suggestions from

industry and other stakeholders into the questionnaire. EPA inte nds to distribute the two-phased

questionnaire to industry within a few months of OMB approval (see Section 5(d) of U.S. EPA,

2008b). EPA will process the survey data it collects and plans to present preliminary results on

available and affordable technology options in the preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines

Program Plan.

14.1 Oil and Gas Extraction Category References

1. De Bruin, R.H. R.M. Lyman, R. W. Jones, and L.W. Cook. 2001. Coalbed Methane in

Wyoming Information Pamphlet 7 (revised). Wyoming State Geological Survey. EPAHQ-OW-2004-0032-1904.

## Section 14.0 – Oil and Gas Extraction Category (Part 435)



# 14-3 2. Johnston, Carey A. U.S. EPA. 2008. Memorandum to Public Record for the 2008

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0661

(www.regulations.gov). “Index of Record It ems Supporting Coalbed Methane Extraction

Sector Survey: Updated [DCN 0576 8].” (June 27). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-1124.

3. U.S. EPA. 2008a. Coalbed Methane Detailed Study: 2007 Data Collection and Outreach

. (January 25). Washington, D.C. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0977.

4. U.S. EPA. 2008b. Supporting Statement: Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector

Questionnaire Information Collection Request Supporting the U.S. EPA Clean Water Act

Section 304(b) Effluent Guidelines Annual Reviews. (June). Wash ington, D.C. EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-1119.

## Section 15.0 – Steam Electric Power Generating Category (Part 423)



# 15-1 15. 0 S TEAM 

# E LECTRIC 

# P OWER 

# G ENERATING 

# C ATEGORY 

# (P ART 

# 423)

The Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines and Limitations (ELGs) (40

CFR 423) apply to a subset of the electric power industry, namely those facilities “primarily

engaged in the generation of elect ricity for distribution and sale which results primarily from a

process utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal, oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction with a thermal

cycle employing the steam water system as the thermodynamic medium” (see 40 CFR 423.10).

EPA’s most recent revisions to the ELGs for this category were promulgated in 1982 (see 47 FR

52290, November 19, 1982).

EPA has focused efforts for the 2007/2008 Detailed Study for the Steam Electric Power

Generating Category on certain di scharges from coal-fired power plants. The study sought to:

1. Characterize the mass and concentrations of pollutants in wastewater discharges

from coal-fired steam electric facilities; and

2

. Identify the pollutants that comprise a significant portion of the category’s TWPE

discharge estimate and the co rresponding industrial operation.

E PA’s previous annual reviews have indicated that the toxic-weight ed loadings for this category

are predominantly driven by the metals present in wastewater discharg es, and that the waste

streams contributing the majority of these metals are associated with as h handling and wet flue

gas desulfurization (FGD) systems (U.S. EPA, 2 006). Other potential sources of metals include

coal pile runoff, metal/chemical cleaning wastes , coal washing, and certain low volume wastes.

EPA is continuing to collect data for the detailed study through facility inspections, wastewater

sampling, a data request that was sent to a limite d number of companies, and various secondary

data sources (U.S. EPA, 2008c).

E PA’s data collection efforts are primarily focused on coal-fired power plants, with

particular interest in FGD wastewater treatment, the management of ash sluice water, and water

reuse opportunities. EPA’s site visit program ga thers information on the types of wastewaters

generated by coal-fired steam el ectric power plants, as well as the methods of managing these

wastewaters to allow for recycle, reuse, or disc harge. EPA conducted site visits at 16 coal-fired

power plants and is continuing to identify poten tial site visit candidates to assess FGD systems

using different scrubber designs or sorbents, and facilities operating or planning to install

different types of treatment and water reuse op tions, including facilitie s achieving zero liquid

discharge from their wet FGD operations.

B etween July and October of 2007, EPA conducted five sampling episodes to

characterize untreated wastewaters generated by coal-fired power plants, including FGD

scrubber purge, fly ash sluice, bottom ash sluice, and combined fly- and bottom ash sluice. EPA

also collected samples to assess the effluent qua lity from different types of treatment systems

currently in place at these operations. Samples co llected during the five episodes were analyzed

for metals and other pollutants , such as total suspended soli ds and nitrogen. Site-specific

sampling episode reports are in the docket for the 2008 Plan (ERG, 2008a; ERG, 2008b; ERG,

2008c; ERG, 2008d; ERG, 2008e). These reports disc uss the specific sample points and analytes,

the sample collection methods used, the fiel d quality control samples collected, and the

analytical results for the wastewater samples.

## Section 15.0 – Steam Electric Power Generating Category (Part 423)



# 15-2 E PA is continuing to identify potential sampling candidates to evaluate additional types

of FGD wastewater treatment systems, includi ng advanced biological metals removal processes

and chemical precipitation systems. EPA plans to conduct wastewater sa mpling at one or more

additional plants in 2008 or early 2009.

E PA also collected facility-specific info rmation using a data request conducted under

authority of CWA Section 308 (U.S . EPA, 2007). In May 2007, EPA di stributed this data request

to nine companies that operate a number of coal -fired power plants with wet FGD systems. The

data request complements the wastewater samp ling effort as it requested facility-specific

information about wastewaters, and identifies ma nagement practices, for facilities not included

in EPA's sampling program. EPA received responses in August and October 2007 and

characterized operations at 30 coal-fired power plants. EPA conducted technical reviews of the

data received and resolved questions with the individual companies before entering the

information into a database (U.S. EPA, 2008a; U.S. EPA, 2008c). The data request collected

information on selected wastewat er sources, air pollution controls , wastewater management and

treatment practices, water reuse/recycle, and treatment system capital and operating costs.

T he Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) provide d EPA with a database that contains

selected National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Form 2C data for 86 coal-fired plants

operated by UWAG’s member companies, namely t hose plants that operate wet FGD systems or

wet fly ash sluice systems. The da tabase provides facility inform ation, data on facility outfalls,

process flow diagrams, wastewater treatment info rmation, and intake and e ffluent characteristics.

Data are provided for the FGD, ash sluice, and coal pile runoff wastestreams (Aldridge, 2008;

UWAG, 2008).

E PA is also in the process of contacti ng vendors and conducting lit erature searches to

collect additional information on wastewater treatment technology options and wastewater reuse

opportunities for particular waste streams. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is

conducting bench- and pilot-scal e tests on FGD wastewater tr eatment technologies, including

chemical precipitation, ion exchange, and biological metals removal.

EPA intends to continue its detailed re view of the Steam Electric Power Generating

Category in the 2009 and 2010 annual reviews of effl uent guidelines. Wastewater sampling at a

facility operating a treatment system of inte rest was delayed by near ly one year due to

operational conditions at the plan t. In addition, several other pl ants recently began operating a

new generation of FGD wastewater treatment technology that promis es to achieve substantially

better pollutant reductions of metals and nutrients than EPA has evaluated to date. EPA believes

it is important to evaluate the performance of th ese technologies, as well as the processes being

investigated by EPRI, prior to concluding the detailed study. As noted above, EPA has not yet

completed its wastewater sampling activities. The UWAG Form 2C database was recently

delivered to EPA; however, EPA has not had sufficient time to fu lly evaluate this data. The

database provides substantial information on wa stewater generation and wastewater management

and treatment practices for a large number of plants. EPA believes it is important to take

additional time to evaluate the Form 2C data , in concert with EPA’ s sampling data and the

responses to EPA’s data request. EPA also in tends to continue inve stigating water reuse

opportunities to assess the de gree to which they may yield polluta nt reductions for discharges of

ash sluice and FGD wastewater.

## Section 15.0 – Steam Electric Power Generating Category (Part 423)



# 15-3 15.1 Steam Electric Power Generating Category References

1. Aldridge, Elizabeth. Hunton and Williams. 2008. Letter from Ms. Elizabeth Aldridge,

Hunton and Williams, to Mr. Ron Jordan, U.S. EPA. RE: Completion of UWAG Form

2C Database. (June 6). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05861.

2. ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2008a. Fi nal Sampling Episode Report, EME Homer

City Generation L.P.’s Homer City Power Plant. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771

DCN 05823.

3. ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2008b. Fina l Sampling Episode Report, Ohio Power

Company’s Cardinal Power Plant. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05836.

4. ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2008c. Fi nal Sampling Episode Report, Ohio Power

Company’s Mitchell Plant. (Augus t). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05834.

5. ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2008d. Final Sampling Episode Report, Tampa

Electric Company’s Big Bend Stati on. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05816.

6. ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2008e. Fi nal Sampling Episode Report, Tennessee

Valley Authority’s Widows Creek Fossil Plant. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN

05844.

7. U.S. EPA. 2008a. Confidential Business Information Version of the Data Request

Database for the Steam Electric Power Gene rating Industry. (June 12). Washington, D.C.

EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05755.

8. U.S. EPA. 2008b. Non-Confidential Business In formation Version of the Data Request

Database for the Steam Electric Power Gene rating Industry. (June 12). Washington, D.C.

EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 5754.

9. U.S. EPA. 2008c. Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: 2007/2008

Detailed Study Report. EPA-821-R-08-011. (August). Washington, D.C. EPA-HQ-OW2006-0771 DCN 05516.

10. U.S. EPA. 2007. Steam Electric Detailed St udy: Summary Paper for the Preliminary

2008 Effluent Guidelines Plan. EPA-821-R- 07-008. (October). Washington, D.C. EPAHQ-OW-2006-0771-0417.

11. U.S. EPA. 2006. Interim Detailed Study Repor t for the Steam Electric Power Generating

Point Source Category. EPA-821-R-06-015. (November). Washington, D.C. EPA-HQOW-2004-0032-2781

12. UWAG. Utility Water Act Group. 2008. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System Form 2C Database, June 2008. (June). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN

05861A01.