Technical Support Document for the 2008 

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 

© 2008 The Omaha World-Herald. 

August 2008 

EPA-821-R-08-015
Photograph of pills in a box, center top, is reprinted with permission from The Omaha 

World-Herald, copyright 2008. 
 

i

CONTENTS 

Page 

PART I: INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................I 

1.0 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................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 Technology Currently Available (BPT) — 

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

1.3.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control 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 Standards (NSPS) — CWA Section 306 .......1-4 

1.3.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing 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 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN FOR 2006

AND PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN FOR 2008 ............................2-1 

3.0 THE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS .............................................................3-1 

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

3.2 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines 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 Existing Point Source Categories.........................3-5 

3.3 Identification of New Categories of Direct Dischargers for Possible Effluent 

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

3.4 Identification of New Categories of Indirect Dischargers 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 METHODOLOGY, DATA SOURCES, AND LIMITATIONS .......................................................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 

PART II: RESULTS OF THE 2008 ANNUAL REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES WITH EXISTING 

ELGS ...................................................................................................................................II 

5.0 2008 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND 

STANDARDS AND RANKING OF POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES ............................................5-1 

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

5.2 Results of the 2008 Screening-Level Review......................................................5-1 

5.2.1 Facilities for Which EPA Is Currently 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 Screening-Level Review..........................................5-5 

5.3 Prioritization of Categories 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 CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT (40 CFR PART 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 Logistics 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 ORGANIC CHEMICALS PLASTICS AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS (40 CFR PART 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 Screening-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 ORE MINING AND DRESSING (40 CFR PART 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 Facility 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 PETROLEUM REFINING (40 CFR PART 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 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews ...9-4 

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

9.4 Petroleum Refining Category Dioxin 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 Polycyclic 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 PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD (40 CFR PART 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 Category 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 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges.........................10-9 

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

10.6 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Conclusions........................................10-10 

10.7 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category References..........................................10-11 

11.0 WASTE COMBUSTORS (40 CFR PART 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 Roll America – East Liverpool, OH....11-9 

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

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

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

PART III: DETAILED STUDIES ......................................................................................................... III 

12.0 COAL MINING CATEGORY (PART 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 Part 434 Effluent Guidelines.........................12-5 

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

13.0 HEALTH SERVICES INDUSTRY AND HOSPITALS CATEGORY (PART 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 OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION CATEGORY (PART 435) .......................................................14-1 

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

15.0 STEAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING CATEGORY (PART 423) ....................................15-1 

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

Appendix A: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS FOR EAD’S SCREENING-LEVEL 

ANALYSIS 

Appendix B: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS 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 Undergone a Recent Rulemaking or Review ......... 5-3 

5-2 Point Source Categories with One Facility 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 Categories Reviewed as Part of the 2008 Annual 

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

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

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

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

6-3 Part 437 Subcategories and Regulated Pollutants............................................................ 6-2 

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

6-5 2008 Review: CWT Category Pollutants of Concern...................................................... 6-5 

6-6 Summary of CWT Pesticide 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 LNVA North Regional Treatment Plant Reported to TRI ........ 6-10 

6-11 Pesticides Treatability Data ........................................................................................... 6-14 

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

7-2 OCPSF Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2005 ...... 7-3 
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 

Page 

vii

7-3 Applicability of Subcategories in the OCPSF Category.................................................. 7-4 

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

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

7-6 2006 Review: OCPSF Category Pollutants of Concern .................................................. 7-7 

7-7 OCPSF Facilities Reporting Dioxin 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 Subcategory Applicability............................................................ 8-4 

8-4 Ore Mining Category Screening-Level Results............................................................... 8-6 

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

8-6 2006 Review: Ore Mining Category 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 Discharges Reported to TRI from Facilities 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 Limits for Ore Mining Facilities.................................. 8-20 

8-14 Ore Mining Category Master Facility List..................................................................... 8-25 
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 

Page 

viii

9-1 Number of Facilities in Petroleum 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 Category Pollutants of Concern ............................... 9-6 

9-5 2006 Review: Petroleum Refining Category 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 Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 

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

9-9 PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries 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 Regulatory 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 Discharges 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 Discharge 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 Category Pollutants of Concern .............................. 11-5 

11-6 Sampling Data Summary from Waste Combustors Rulemaking .................................. 11-6 

11-7 Clean Harbors — Deer Park, TX TRI-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 Pesticide Facility Contacts ........................................ 11-13 
x

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

1-1 Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges 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 BACKGROUND

 This section explains how the Effluent Guidelines Program fits into the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) Program, describes the general and legal 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 developing 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 programs and tools generally rely either on water 

quality-based controls, such as water quality standards and water quality-based effluent 

limitations, or technology-based controls such as effluent guidelines and technology-based 

effluent limitations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

available technologies. These limitations and standards 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 guidelines 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 establish water quality-based permit 

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

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

regulation. EPA notes that the various components 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 the overall context of the CWA, 

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

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

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 difficult 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 promulgate effluent guidelines that reflect 

pollutant reductions that can be achieved by categories or subcategories of industrial point 

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

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

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

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

wastewater within an industrial category or subcategory. 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 include 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 Administrator deems appropriate. 

 Creating a single national pollution control 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 “pollution havens” and to set the Nation’s sights on attaining the highest 

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

guidelines is to assure that industrial facilities with similar characteristics, regardless of their 

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

limitations representing the performance of the best pollution control technologies or pollution 

prevention practices. 

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

pollution prevention and water conservation. This may be particularly important in controlling 

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

detection levels. Effluent guidelines also control pollutant discharges 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 pipes 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 effluent limitations guidelines and standards 

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

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

limitations and standards promulgated by EPA are implemented through National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. 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 Indirect Wastewater Discharges Under NPDES 

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

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

 EPA develops effluent limitations based on BPT for conventional, toxic, and 

nonconventional pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional 

pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, and 

any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator 

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

44501 (July 30, 1979). EPA has identified 65 pollutants 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 pollutants are considered 

to be nonconventional. 

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

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

considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any required 

process changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water-quality 

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

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

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

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

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

1-3 
Section 1.0 – Background 

1-4 

place in an industrial category if the Agency determines 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 for 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 after consideration of a two-part “cost-reasonableness” test. EPA 

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

(July 9, 1986). 

1.3.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) — CWA Sections 

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

 For toxic pollutants and nonconventional pollutants, EPA promulgates effluent guidelines 

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

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

facilities involved, the process employed, potential process changes, non-water-quality 

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

Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA section 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 particular subcategory based on technology transferred 

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

controls, even when these technologies are not common industry practice. 

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

 NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best available 

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

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

represent the most stringent controls attainable through the application of the best available 

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

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

achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water-quality environmental 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 through, 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 effluent limitations guidelines. 
Section 1.0 – Background 

1-5 

 The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for implementing 

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

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

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

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

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

have the opportunity to incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated 

technologies. The Agency considers the same factors 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 are a critical element of the Nation’s clean water program and reduce the 

discharge of pollutants that have serious environmental 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 discharge directly to the Nation’s waters, as 

well as another 12,000 facilities that 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 review existing effluent guidelines. EPA 

reviews all point source categories subject to existing effluent guidelines 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 industries consisting of direct discharging facilities 

not currently subject to effluent guidelines to identify 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 indirect discharging facilities that are not currently 

subject to pretreatment standards to identify potential candidates 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 provided 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 Permit 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 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN FOR 2006

AND PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN FOR 2008

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

Plan) on October 30, 2007 (72 FRN 61335) and requested 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 Plan 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 and 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 associations, 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. Table 2-1 lists all the commenters as well as a 

synopsis of the comments. 
2-2 

Sectio

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

EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 

No. Commenter Name 

EPA 

E-Docket No. Comment Summary 

1 Gregory E. Conrad 

Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) 

0002 General comments in favor of the Coal Mining Detailed Study. Recommends 

review of manganese effluent guidelines and not focus on those pollutants not the Coal Mining Effluent Guidelines (e.g., sulfates, chlorides and TDS). 

2 William J. Walsh 

Pepper Hamilton, LLP (American Dental Association) 

0003 (also see 

0837) 

General comments on the Health Services Detailed Study. Recommends that Econduct additional analyses before requiring the universal and mandatory use 

3 Beverly B. Head 

Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati, Ohio 

0004 Provides information for the Health Services Detailed Study. States that, “the 

Health Services Industry is that this group generally complies with all local limorganics. However, pH noncompliance does occur and appears to be tied to inlaboratories serving the industry.” 

4 Joseph Pizarchik, 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mining and Reclamation 

0005 General comments in favor of the Coal Mining Detailed Study. States that, “if 

not necessary for protection of public health and the environment, they are posThe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and anyone else who is responsible for tr

5 David J. Knight P.E., 

Southwest Regional Office, Water Quality Program, Washington State Department of Ecology 

0823 General comments providing data and recommendations for multiple industria

Recommends the review of discharges from the following industries: boilers aprocessing (brewing beer and wine), petroleum refining, steam electric and ele

Recommends using WET testing instead of TWFs and supports pretreatment s

6 Allen Gilliam, Pretreatment 

Coordinator, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

0824 Provided information on an alternative pharmaceuticals disposal technology: n

technology for destruction of unused pharmaceuticals in Western Canada (venSolutions Inc.). 

7 Nancy Busen, City of 

Bentonville, AR Lab/Pretreatment Supervisor 

0825 Expressed need for hospice and home health care disposal programs. 

8 Elizabeth Aldridge and 

Donna Hill, UWAG 

0826 Requested extension to comment period. 
2-3 

Sectio

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

EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 

EPA 

No. Commenter Name E-Docket No. Comment Summary 

9 Gus Changaris, EXP 0827 Provided information on pharmaceutical return-for-credit programs, waste disp

Unused Pharmaceuticals facilities, the need to remove unused pharmaceuticals from waste streams, exaCorp. controlled substance/reverse distribution problems. 

10 Martina Nelson, P.E. and 0828 Provided data on wastewater for several industries, including: dental, healthca

Leo Hermes, P.E., Recommended that EPA consider: eliminating Part 413 (Electroplating) and reMetropolitan Council (Metal Finishing); revise Part 403 so that Non Significant Categorical Industri

Environmental Services subject to POTW Local Limits only (exempt from categorical pretreatment sta

(MCES) for Metal Molding and Casting (Zinc Category). Provided general comments o

guidance over new ELGs. Recommends no review of indirect discharges (whilimits); recommends focusing on non-point sources. 

11 Bruce E. Cunha RN MS 0829 Provided data related to unused pharmaceutical disposal: costs, BMPs, take-ba

COHN-S, Manager, "clean sweep" programs, and state regulations. Employee Health, Safety, and Infection Prevention/Control, Marshfield Clinic, Marshfield, WI 

12 Roger E. Claff, P.E., 0831 Provides several recommendations: commends use of QAPP for TRI and PCS 

American Petroleum assessment and documentation of treatment technologies; study, not regulation Institute (API) TWPE; consideration of concentrations in addition to loading, in terms of TW

workload for CBM questionnaire. 

13 Louis Kollias, Metropolitan 0832 Provides information on their history of unused pharmaceutical disposal. 

Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 

14 Donna Hill, UWAG 0833 Requested extension to comment period. 15 Linda Eichmiller, 0834 Recommends considering the effects of nutrients and treatment technologies. 

ASIWPCA 

16 Mark Taratoot, Corvallis, 0835 Provides feedback on how the DEA and law enforcement affect disposal pract

OR Public Works Department 

17 Thomas W. Curtis, AWWA 0836 Recommends how to identify new industries for pretreatment regulations: focu

pathogens and clarify role of planning process. 
2-4 

Sectio

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

EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 

EPA 

No. Commenter Name E-Docket No. Comment Summary 

18 William Walsh, Pepper 0837 (also see Provides information from the ADA on dental amalgam: BMPs, regulations, h

Hamilton LLP 0003) programs, industry profile, costs and effectiveness of technologies, and amalg

(American Dental effectiveness and use. Association) 

19 Stan Dempsey, Jr., 0840, 0842, Recommends that EPA “right size” the CBM survey to reduce burden, involve 

Colorado Petroleum 0858 state agencies, and consider basin-specific differences in technology and reuse

Association (CPA) 

20 Michael P. Walls 0843, 0859 Provided recommendations on EPA’s review methodology and specific comm

support continued evaluation of TWF determination; TRI/PCS databases overeOCPSF; no further review needed for CWTs/Waste Combustors; and no regul

generation facilities. 

21 Will Perry and Kathleen 0844 Provided data on unused pharmaceuticals: generation rates, disposal methods, 

Klein, Public Health/Seattle management, leachate, return/take-back programs, and residential consumer is& King County 

22 Janet Gillaspie — Executive 0845 Provided data on dental amalgam and unused pharmaceuticals: BMPs, state/lo

Director, Oregon programs, effectiveness, pass through, pharmaceutical disposal concerns, and Association of Clean Water Agencies (ACWA) 

23 Beryl B. Fletcher, Oregon 0846 Provided data on dental amalgam: BMPs, performance of BMPs, recycling res

Dental Association collection events. 

24 Christopher Sproul, 0847, 0854 Restated issues in the ongoing litigation of Our Children’s Earth Foundation, 

Attorney for Ecological Rights Foundation and Our Children’s Earth Foundation 

25 Christopher Sproul, 0848 Concurred with Ecological Rights Foundation and Our Children’s Earth Found

Environmental Advocates 

26 Cynthia A. Finley, 0849 Provided data on dental mercury: removals at POTWs, content in effluent/bios

NACWA effectiveness, and cost/benefits. Also commented that pretreatment standards a

27 Paul Chu, EPRI 0850 Provided data related to discharges from steam electric facilities: IGCC faciliti

environmental assessments/inputs information (TRUE Model), TRUE multimemodel, and case studies. 
2-5 

Sectio

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

EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 

EPA 

No. Commenter Name E-Docket No. Comment Summary 

28 Michael Garvin, PhRMA 0851 Provided data on unused pharmaceuticals: disposal practices, barriers preventi

unused pharmaceuticals to POTWs or surface water, efforts with the DEA, BMpharmaceuticals that go to landfills. 

29 Charlotte A. Smith, 0852 Provided data on the driving force of disposal practices in hospitals, state regu

PharmEcology Associates, work with the DEA, and BMPs. LLC 

30 Liz Aldridge, UWAG 0853, 0862 Provided comments on EPA’s ongoing detailed study of the steam electric ind31 Sheila Lockwood, 0855 Provided data on dental amalgam: links to regulations, data on mercury reduct

Environmental Health and amalgam separators, and education and outreach materials. Also provided data Safety Coordinator pharmaceuticals: links to guidance, BMPs, discharge authorization programs, University of Washington back programs. Seattle, WA 

32 Diana Klemans, The 0856 Recommended regulation of phosphorus discharges from POTWs and nationa

Michigan Department of standards for unused pharmaceuticals and other personal care products. 

Environmental Quality 

33 Larry Lamperti, City of 0857 Provided data on BMPs: City’s effluent mercury before and after BMPs, POTW 

Corvallis, OR and example BMPs. 

34 Christie True, King County 0860 Provided comments on dental amalgam and unused pharmaceuticals: does not 

Water Treatment Division pretreatment standards; supports voluntary initiatives; and provides data on su

35 Thomas P. Uva, 0861 Provided data on dental amalgam BMPs. Also does not recommend any new f

Narragansett Bay pretreatment standards because local limits suffice. 

Commission (NBC) 

36 Paul Martyn, LA County 1059 Supported EPA studying health services dental amalgam and unused pharmac

amalgam separators and take-back programs for unused pharmaceuticals. 
Section 3.0 – The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process 

3-1 

3.0 THE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS

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

categories for potential development of new or revised effluent 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 new categories of direct 

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

categories of indirect dischargers for possible development of pretreatment standards. Each of 

these components is illustrated in Figures 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, physical, 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 Pretreatment 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 effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. 

3.2.1 Factors Considered in Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment 

Standards 

 EPA uses four major factors in prioritizing existing effluent guidelines 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 greatest environmental and health benefits. EPA 

estimates the toxicity of pollutant 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 technologies, process changes, or pollution prevention 

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

and, consequently, reduce the hazard 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 Annual 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 Further Review of Existing ELGs 

3-3 
Section 3.0 – The Effluent Gu

Stakeholder recommendations 

and comments

Is the SIC code Identify SIC codes Include in annual review of 

existing category

(see Figure 3-1)

with discharges 

not subject to 

existing ELGs

appropriately 

considered a potential 

new subcategory of an 

existing ELG ?

Begin industry 

identification

Do 

discharges interfere 

with or otherwise pass

through POTW 

operations?*

Is the possible new 

category all or nearly all 

indirect dischargers ?

Are 

discharges of toxic 

or nonconventional 

pollutants 

trivial?*

Are ELGs potentially 

the appropriate tool ?

No identification or 

further review necessary

Identify other tools

(e.g., permit-based 

support or guidance )

Identify for possible 

new effluent guidelines 

or standards

Yes

PCS & TRI 

database tools

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

*Continue further review if not enough data.

Yes 

No

3-4 

Figure 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 affordability 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 industry indicates that it would be 

difficult to implement new requirements, EPA might conclude that it would be more costeffective to develop less expensive approaches to reducing pollutant 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 technological innovation, or opportunities to promote 

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

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

effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for revision where the pollutant source is already 

efficiently and effectively controlled by other regulatory or nonregulatory programs. 

3.2.2 Overview: Review of Existing Point Source Categories 

 EPA has established ELGs to regulate wastewater 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 prioritized 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 identifies existing categories for potential ELGs 

revision. 

3.2.2.1 Screening-Level Review 

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

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

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

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

pollutants pose a hazard to human health 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 guideline(s) applicable to a particular facility. However, they 

both include information on a facility’s Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. Therefore, 

the first step in EPA’s screening-level review is to assign each 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 indirect dischargers, EPA adjusts this facilityspecific value to account for removals at the POTW. EPA then sums the TWPE for each facility 

 

1

 For more information on EPA’s assignment of each SIC code to an industrial 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, see 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 category 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 and nonconventional pollutants calculated from the 

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

this approach because it found that combining 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 according to their total TWPE discharges. In 

identifying categories for further review, EPA prioritizes categories accounting for 95 percent of 

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

further review categories for which effluent guidelines had been recently 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 the 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 the number of facilities responsible for the majority of the 

estimated toxic-weighted pollutant discharges associated with an industrial 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 addressing the toxic-weighted pollutant 

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

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

less time than a national rulemaking. 

3.2.2.2 Further Review 

 Following its screening-level review of all point source categories, 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 typically 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 the following: (1) wastewater characteristics 

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

availability of pollution prevention 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 considers costs and performance of applicable and demonstrated 

technologies, process changes, or pollution prevention alternatives that can 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 toxic 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 using the second factor (Factor 3). 

 Types of data sources that EPA may consult in conducting its detailed 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 understand how category facilities are permitted; (5) 

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

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

technical literature on pollutant sources 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 preliminary review, EPA’s examination of a point source 

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

detailed studies. While EPA collects and analyzes hazard and technology performance and cost 

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

investigating categories undergoing detailed studies. 

3.3 Identification of New Categories of Direct Dischargers for Possible Effluent 

Guidelines Development

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

industries not currently subject to effluent guidelines to identify potential 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 identified by a four-digit SIC code 

(Section 4.1.1 provides more details on SIC codes). As with existing 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 codes not associated with an existing guideline. In addition to the 

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

point sources categories. TRI and PCS have only limited data on discharges on potential new 

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

detail. 

 For each industry identified through the crosswalk analysis or stakeholder comments, 

EPA evaluates whether it constitutes 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 generally 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 terms of products or services 

provided, EPA considers the industry as a potential 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 requirements 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 comprises both direct and indirect dischargers. If a 

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

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

EPA evaluates the type of pollutants discharged by the category. 

 EPA does not identify in the plan industries for which conventional pollutants, rather than 

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

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

the plan if such pollutants are present only in trivial amounts and thereby present an insignificant 

hazard to human health and the environment. 

 Further, EPA would likely not identify an industrial sector as a candidate point source 

category for an effluent guidelines rulemaking when: (1) the industrial category is currently the 

subject of an effluent guidelines rulemaking effort (e.g., Airport Deicing Operations, Drinking 

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

sector are not subject to the CWA permitting requirements (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 may exercise its discretion to identify 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 effluent limitations or assistance to permit writers in establishing 

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

effective and efficient. 

3.4 Identification of New Categories of Indirect 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). Using 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 POTW. For most categories, EPA evaluated the “pass through 

potential” as measured by: (1) the 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 discharge. Finally, EPA considers whether the pollutant discharges 

are already adequately controlled by general pretreatment standards and/or local pretreatment 

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

dental amalgam and unused pharmaceutical management 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 early and often during its 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 analyses and provide additional transparency and 

understanding of EPA’s effluent guidelines priorities 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 preliminary biennial plan. In each Federal Register Notice, EPA 

requests stakeholder comments on specific industries and discharges as well as any general 

comments. 

 EPA completes an annual review of industrial discharges each year, 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 standards program decision-making. Additionally, EPA is 

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

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

effluent guidelines and pretreatment 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 Discharge Data. (March 19). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-

0771-0208. 

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

of Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines 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. 

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, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-1 

4.0 METHODOLOGY, DATA SOURCES, AND LIMITATIONS 

 As discussed in Section 1.0, the CWA requires EPA to conduct an annual review of 

existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs). It also requires EPA to identify 

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

category identification involves several components, as discussed in Section 3.0. 

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

existing ELGs to identify categories discharging high levels of toxic and nonconventional 

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

continues its annual review of priority categories 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 (Sections 5.0 to 11.0). Second, EPA reviews indirect 

discharging industries not currently subject to pretreatment standards to identify potential 

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

EPA reviews direct discharging industries 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 section 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 explained 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 TSD), 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 Preliminary Plan TSD provide the detailed 

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

industrial effluent discharges. This section does not revisit the details of creating the database 

tools. Instead, it lists the methodology corrections made to the 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, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-2 

• 2005 Annual Screening-Level Analysis: Supporting 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. EPA, 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. 

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

Planning Process (Draft TWF Development Document), 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, aggregation, presentation, and 

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

following way: 

• The first two digits represent the major industry group; 

• The third digit represents the industry group; and 

• The fourth digit represents the industry. 

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

Within SIC code 10, four-digit SIC 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 only 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 facility, the SIC code in PCS may differ 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 SIC code. Therefore, to use databases that identify 
Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data 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 Source Category Crosswalk” table (Table A-1 in 

Appendix A). 

 There are some SIC codes for which EPA has 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 identify 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 variety 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 physical/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 differences 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 analyses, EPA multiplies a mass loading of a pollutant in 

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

loading (lb-equivalent/yr). The development 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 effect levels) established for the consumption of fish. In the 

establishment of 304(a) water quality criteria for carcinogenic substances, EPA's goal is to set 

the human health risk level at 10-6 (i.e., protective to a level allowing 1 in 1,000,000 excess 

lifetime cancer cases over background). In the TWF method for assessing water-based effects, 

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

commonly detected and removed from 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 the TWFs for those chemicals in the TRIReleases and 

PCSLoads databases for which EPA has developed TWFs. 

4.1.2.1 New Toxic Weighting Factors Developed 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, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-4 

Table 4-1. Newly Developed TWFs in 2007 

Pollutant CAS Number TWF 

Picloram triisopropanolamine salt 

(TIPA)

6753475 0.00285

Nonylphenol 25154-52-3 0.848 

Octylphenol 27193-28-8 0.295

Alky phenol ethoxylates 68987-90-6 2.80 

Picloram acid (TGAI) 1918-02-01 0.0103

Potassium picloram (K-salt) 2545-60-0 0.00436 

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 discharged by each facility in a point source 

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

subsections discuss the calculation of TWPE. 

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 management activities for listed toxic chemicals. Facilities must report 

the quantities of toxic chemicals recycled, collected and combusted for energy recovery, treated 

for destruction, or disposed of. A separate report must be filed for each chemical that exceeds the 

reporting threshold. The TRI list of chemicals for reporting 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, because they were the most recent available at 

the time the review began. 

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

a given reporting year: 

1. SIC Code Determination. Facilities in SIC codes 20 through 39, facilities in 16 

additional SIC codes outside that range,5

 and federal facilities are subject to TRI 

reporting. EPA generally relies on facility claims regarding the SIC code 

identification. The primary SIC code determines TRI reporting. 

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

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

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

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

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

full-time employee equivalents, it must conduct 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, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-5 

every chemical and chemical category on the current TRI list. The facility must 

determine whether it manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses each chemical at 

or above the appropriate activity threshold. Reporting thresholds are not based on 

the amount of release. All TRI thresholds are based on mass, not concentration. 

Different thresholds apply for persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals 

than for non-PBT chemicals. Generally, threshold quantities are 25,000 pounds 

for manufacturing and processing activities and 10,000 pounds for other use 

activities. All thresholds are determined per chemical over the calendar year. For 

example, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are considered PBT chemicals. The 

TRI reporting guidance requires any facility that manufactures, processes, or 

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

(U.S. EPA, 2000). 

 In TRI, facilities report annual loads released to the environment of each toxic chemical 

or chemical category that meets reporting requirements. They must report onsite releases or 

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

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

POTWs, commercial waste disposal facilities). 

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

reported either discharging directly 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 facilities 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 discharge to the receiving stream. Table A-4 in 

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

POTWs. 

 Facilities reporting to TRI are not required to sample and analyze waste streams to 

determine the quantities of toxic chemicals released. They may estimate releases based on mass 

balance calculations, published emission factors, site-specific emission factors, or other 

approaches. Facilities are required to indicate, by a reporting code, the basis of their release 

estimate. TRI’s reporting guidance is that, for most chemicals reasonably expected to be present 

but measured below the detection limit, facilities should use half the detection limit to estimate 

the mass released. However, for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, non-detects should be 

treated as zero. 

 TRI allows facilities to report releases as specific numbers or as ranges, if appropriate. 

Specific estimates are encouraged if data are available to ensure the accuracy; however, EPA 

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

500 to 999 pounds. For its 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 particularly useful for ELG planning for the following 

reasons: 
Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-6 

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

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

• TRI includes discharge data from manufacturing SIC codes and some other 

industrial categories; and 

• TRI includes releases of many toxic chemicals, 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 employees) are not required to report, nor are 

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

may be a subset of an industry. 

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

TRI guidance, may overstate releases, especially at facilities with large 

wastewater flows. 

• Certain chemicals (polycyclic aromatic compounds [PACs], dioxin and dioxinlike compounds, metal compounds) are reported as a class, not as individual 

compounds. Because the individual compounds in most classes have widely 

varying toxic effects, the potential toxicity of chemical releases can be 

inaccurately estimated. 

• Facilities are identified by 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-weighted 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 management system maintained by EPA’s Office of 

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

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

other things, PCS houses discharge data for these facilities. 

 More than 65,000 industrial facilities and wastewater treatment plants have permits for 

wastewater discharges to waters of the United States. To provide an initial framework for setting 

permitting priorities, EPA developed a major/minor classification system for industrial and 

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

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

minor discharges. There are approximately 6,400 facilities (including sewerage systems) with 

major discharges for which PCS has extensive records. Permitting authorities classify discharges 

as major based on an assessment of six characteristics: 
Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data 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, adversely impact receiving water if not controlled. 

Therefore, EPA does not require DMRs for facilities 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 BOD5 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 permit. Facilities typically report monthly average 

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

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

data obtained from TRI. For the 2008 annual review, EPA corrected 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 (EDS) 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 annual loads using PCS data for 2004 

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

control over the annual load calculations and provides more transparent documentation of the 

calculation routine. Section 6.0 of the 2008 Preliminary 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 includes facilities in all SIC codes. 
Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-8 

• PCS includes data on conventional pollutants 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 facility 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 monitoring data from minor dischargers. 

• PCS does not include data characterizing indirect discharges from industrial 

facilities to POTWs. 

• Some of the pollutant parameters included in PCS are reported as a group 

parameter and not as individual compounds (e.g., “Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen,” “oil 

and grease”). Because the individual compounds in the group parameter may have 

widely varying toxic effects, the potential toxicity of chemical releases can be 

inaccurately estimated. 

• In some cases, the PCS database identifies the type of wastewater (e.g., process 

wastewater, stormwater, noncontact cooling water) being discharged; however, 

most do not and, therefore, total flow rates reported to PCS may include 

stormwater and noncontact cooling water, as well as process wastewater. 

• Pipe identification is not always clear. For some facilities, internal monitoring 

points are labeled as outfalls, and PCS may 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 information 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 reported wastewater discharges. 

• PCS was designed as a permit compliance tracking system and does not contain 

production information. 

• PCS data may be entered into the database manually, which leads to data-entry 

errors. 

• In PCS, data may be reported as an average quantity, maximum quantity, average 

concentration, maximum concentration, and/or minimum concentration. For many 

facilities and/or pollutants, average quantity values are not provided. In these 

cases, EPA is limited to estimating facility loads based on the maximum quantity. 

Section 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-level reviews and prioritizations of the toxicweighted pollutant loadings discharged by industrial facilities. The PCS database remains the 
Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-9 

only data source quantifying the pounds of regulated 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 section describes the changes made to the PCSLoads2004

database after publication of the 2007 Preliminary Plan. 

 EPA identified only one correction to the database during the 2008 annual review. The 

discharges of hexachlorobenzene were incorrectly 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 calendar 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 this 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 EPA uses to link between facility SIC codes 

and categories with existing ELGs (U.S. EPA, 2005). Because most point source categories are 

not defined by SIC code, the relationship between 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 code with only one category may be an over simplification. Also, 

many facilities have operations subject to more than one point source category. Further, facilities 

in some categories cannot be identified by SIC code (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment 
Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data 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 applied to the facility’s operations. EPA 

assigned the following SIC codes to point source categories at the facility level: 

— SIC 2048 (Prepared Feed and Feed Ingredients for Animals and Fowl, 

Except Dogs and Cats). Facility discharges are assigned to either the Grain 

Mills Manufacturing, Meat and Poultry Products, or Pharmaceutical 

Manufacturing point source categories. 

— SIC 2819 (Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, NEC). Facility discharges are 

assigned to either the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing, Nonferrous 

Metals Manufacturing, or Phosphate Manufacturing point source 

categories. 

— SIC 2874 (Phosphatic Fertilizers). Facility discharges are assigned to 

either the Phosphate Manufacturing or Fertilizer Manufacturing point 

source categories. 

— SIC code changes for specific industries. Facility discharges are assigned 

to the following point source categories: 

▪ Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category phases (see the 

2005 SLA Report [U.S. EPA, 2005b]); 

▪ Chlorine or chlorinate hydrocarbon (CCH) manufacturing facilities 

in the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers or 

Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Categories (see 

the 2005 SLA Report [U.S. EPA, 2005b]); and 

▪ Porcelain Enameling Point Source Category (see the 2006 TSD 

[U.S. EPA, 2006b]). 

• Pollutant-Level Point Source Category Assignment. Many facilities have 

operations subject to more than one point source category. For most of these 

facilities, EPA cannot divide the pollutant discharges among the applicable point 

source categories. Two exceptions where EPA was able to assign wastewater 

discharges of certain chemicals to the appropriate point source category include 

Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)/Pesticides and 

MP&M/Metal Finishing: 

— OCPSF/Pesticides. EPA removed all pesticide discharges from OCPSF 

and counted them as discharges from the Pesticides Chemicals Point 

Source Category. 

— MP&M/Metal Finishing. EPA used the methodologies described in 

Section 5 of the SLA Report to apportion pollutant loads between the 

MP&M and Metal Finishing Point 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, Data Sources, and Limitations 

4-11 

Category (40 CFR Part 437), Waste Combustor Point Source Category (30 CFR 

Part 444), or Landfills Category (40 CFR Part 445). Furthermore, the applicability 

of these three regulations is not defined by SIC codes and no SIC code properly 

describes the CWT, waste combustor, or landfill services. However, some 

facilities in these categories report under SIC 4953: Refuse Systems. EPA 

identified specific facilities as CWTs during previous category reviews and 

assigned these CWT facilities a placeholder SIC code of “CWT,” putting them in 

the CWT Point Source Category. EPA also identified specific facilities as waste 

combustors during previous category reviews and assigned these waste combustor 

facilities a placeholder SIC code of “WC,” putting them in the Waste Combustor 

Point Source Category. The remaining facilities 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) and its compounds (e.g., zinc compounds) on a 

single reporting form. Because the release quantity for the metal compound 

reporting is based on the mass of the parent metal, EPA uses the parent metal 

TWF to calculate TWPE for the metal and metal compound discharges. For 

ranking purposes, EPA combined the TWPEs for the metal and metal compounds 

(i.e., TWPE reported for “zinc and zinc compounds”). For more details on this 

correction, see Section 3.4.4 of the 2005 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2005b). 

• Sodium Nitrite. For TRI reporting, sodium nitrite release quantities are reported as 

the mass of the sodium nitrite. Sodium nitrite is an ionic salt that will fully 

dissociate into nitrite and sodium ions in aqueous solutions. In addition, the nitrite 

ions are unstable in water and will oxidize to nitrate. Therefore, EPA converted 

the pounds of TRI-reported sodium nitrite discharges to pounds of nitrogen in the 

discharge and used the TWF for “nitrate as N” (0.0032) to calculate TWPE for 

sodium nitrite. In addition, EPA also used the POTW removal for nitrate to 

account for the removal of sodium nitrite in POTWs. 

• Phosphorus (Yellow or White). Yellow and white phosphorus, both allotropes of 

elemental phosphorus, are hazardous chemicals that spontaneously ignite in air. 

During the 2006 screening-level review, EPA determined that facilities were 

incorrectly reporting discharges of total phosphorus (i.e., the phosphorus portion 

of phosphorus-containing compounds) as phosphorus (yellow or white). 

Therefore, EPA deleted all phosphorus (yellow or white) discharges reported to 

TRI for the 2008 screening-level review. 
Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data 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-conventional pollutants discharged by industrial 

categories based on completeness, accuracy, reasonableness, and comparability. The Quality 

Assurance Project Plan for the 2007 Annual Screening-Level Analysis of TRI and PCS Industrial 

Category Discharge Data describes the quality objectives in more detail (ERG, 2007a). The 

following discussion provides an overview 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 comparison showed that for 74 percent of the 

SIC codes, the number of facilities reporting wastewater discharges changed by 

less than 25 percent from 2004 to 2005. EPA also 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 the TWPE for their point source category. 

EPA compared 2005 TRI data to other available information, such as PCS, 

information from EPA’s Envirofacts Web 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 category. EPA used engineering judgment to determine 

if pollutant discharges were reasonably associated with the point source category. 

• Accuracy of Database Queries. EPA’s quality review for the development of 

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 variation 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 quantities. In addition, most of these pollutant 

discharges resulted in small TWPEs. 
Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data 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 discharges from facilities 

with discharges that have the greatest impact on total category loads and category rankings. EPA 

used the following criteria to select facilities for review: 

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

TRI for reporting year 2005; 

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

contribute the majority of the toxic-weighted discharges for all categories; and 

• Facilities with the highest toxic-weighted discharges from categories that 

contribute the majority of the toxic-weighted discharges for all categories. 

 For the identified facilities, EPA used the following steps to review the accuracy of the 

loads calculated from TRI data. 

1. Review database corrections for TRIReleases2004, TRIReleases2003, 

TRIReleases2002, and TRIReleases2000 to determine whether corrections were 

made during previous reviews and evaluate whether these corrections should be 

applied to TRIReleases2005. 

2. Review discharges reported to TRI for 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 monitoring report data in PCS, if available, to handcalculate annual pollutant loads and compare to discharges reported to TRI for 

reporting year 2005. 

4. Contact the facility to verify whether the pollutant discharges are reported 

correctly. 

4.6 TRIReleases2004 and TRIReleases2005 Rankings and PCSLoads2004 Rankings

 After incorporating the changes discussed in Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5, EPA generated 

the final versions of the TRI and PCS databases used for the 2008 screening-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, respectively. The category rankings 

presented in these tables reflect all the corrections made during the 2007 and 2008 screeninglevel reviews. Tables C-4 through C-6 in Appendix 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. 
4-14 

Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data 

Table 4-2. Summary of TRIReleases2005 Facility Review 

Point Source Chemical(s) in Ac

Facility Name Facility Location Category Question Review Findings 

ADM Decatur, IL Grain Mills Chlorine Facility reported discharging No chan

61,099 TWPE of chlorine. Facility reported that the chlorine discharge in TRI is erroneous, and the facility is currently working to re-submit their Form R for chlorine. 

Cahaba Pressure Treated Brierfield, AL Timber Dioxin Facility reported a dioxin Change

Forest Products congener distribution using the indu

outdated industry guidance. Based distribuon information collected in 2008. 

Dow Chemical Co Freeport Freeport, TX Pesticide Picloram Facility reported picloram load to ChangeFacility Chemicals be 99% picloram salt and 1% from 33

picloram acid. Based on TWFs finformation collected in 2006. picloram

Du Pont Memphis Plant Shelby, TN Inorganic Dioxin And The facility provided the dioxin Change

Chemicals Dioxin-Like and dioxin-like compounds like com

Compounds analytical data, which included distribu

measurements in a blank sample measurewith greater than or equal values for several congeners. Contacts made during the 2006 category review. 
4-15 

Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data 

Table 4-2. Summary of TRIReleases2005 Facility Review 

Point Source Chemical(s) in Ac

Facility Name Facility Location Category Question Review Findings 

DuPont Chambers Works Deepwater, NJ Pesticide Hexachloro- Based on contact regarding 2005 Change

Chemicals benzene data, over 99% of hexachl

hexachlorobenzene on site comes CWT. from outside contracts associated with the CWT. 

Eastman Kodak Co Kodak Rochester, NY Metal Finishing Dioxin And The facility calculates the dioxin ChangePark Dioxin-Like and dioxin-like compound to reflec

Compounds discharge based on the measured octachlo

concentration in the effluent from the treatment plant and the total plant flow rate. In 2005, the facility detected only one congener (octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) three times in their wastewater effluent. Based on contact made in 2008. 

ExxonMobil Chemical Baton Rouge, LA OCPSF Polycyclic Facility used 1/2 the detection ChangeBaton Rouge Chemical Aromatic limit for PACs in their 2000 TRI 

Plant Compounds estimate. ERG contacted the 

facility about the TRI 2004 PACs discharge. Facility stated that it measured for all PACs every month and all were less than detection limit. 

International Paper Co Camden, TX Timber Dioxin and Dioxin- Facility reported an erroneous ChangeCamden Complex Like Compounds dioxin congener distribution based o

originating from a spreadsheet revision error. Based on information calculatcollected in 2008. 

Tronox Pigments Inc Savannah, GA Inorganic Dioxin And The facility provided data that Change(Formerly Kerr-McGee) Chemicals Dioxin-Like shows all concentrations of compou

Compounds dioxins and furan congeners in the 

water were below detection limit. Based on communications with facility for 2006 review. 
4-16 

Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data 

Table 4-2. Summary of TRIReleases2005 Facility Review 

Point Source Chemical(s) in Ac

Facility Name Facility Location Category Question Review Findings 

Tronox Pigments Inc Savannah, GA Inorganic Manganese Facility reported discharge of No chan(formerly Kerr-McGee) Chemicals manganese based on sampling 

data from 2002 and the total plant flow rate in 2005. However, as a result of ceasing operation of the sulfate process mid-year in 2005, manganese discharges were expected to decrease significantly.

Various facilities Various Phosphorus Elemental phosphorus is not likely Change

categories (Yellow Or White) to be discharged by facilities, and white lo

is likely reported incorrectly. Based on calls to a couple of facilities regarding 2002 data. 

Viskase Corp Loudon, TN Plastics Carbon Disulfide Facility reported a carbon Change

disulfide discharge using an load basanomalous data point collected in for 20052004. Based on information collected from pretreatment coordinator in 2008. 
Section 4.0 – Methodology, Data 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 Analysis of TRI and PCS Industrial Category Discharge Data. 

Chantilly, VA. (March 19). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0208. 

2. ERG. 2007b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Toxic Weighting Factors Developed for the 

Proposed 2008 Effluent Guidelines Plan. Chantilly, VA. (September). EPA-HQ-OW2006-0771-0781. 

3. OMB. 1987. Office of Management and Budget. Standard Industrial Classification 

Manual. Washington, DC. (Unknown). 

4. U.S. EPA. 2000. EPCRA Section 313 Guidance for Reporting Toxic Chemicals Within 

the Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds Category. EPA-745-B-00-021. Washington, 

DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1150. 

5. U.S. EPA. 2005a. Draft Toxic Weighting Factor Development in Support of CWA 

304(m) Planning Process. Washington, 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 Guidelines 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 Document for the 2006 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. EPA-821-R-06-018. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-

0032-2782. 

9. U.S. EPA. 2007. Technical Support Document 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 

PART II: RESULTS OF THE 2008 ANNUAL REVIEW OF 

INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES WITH EXISTING ELGS 
Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual Review 

5-1 

5.0 2008 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND 

STANDARDS AND RANKING OF POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES

 For the 2008 annual review, EPA conducted the following activities: 

• Updated the reviews from previous years (i.e., revised the 2007 annual review 

results with new or corrected data); 

• Performed new research: contacted industry to verify discharges, conducted 

literature searches, and collected additional data; and 

• Solicited information from stakeholders through comment response and other 

stakeholder outreach (e.g., meetings with industry trade groups). 

 This section summarizes the results from the 2008 annual review (Section 5.1), presents 

the results of the 2008 screening-level review (Section 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 existing ELGs as part of the Preliminary 2008 

Plan on October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61335). In the 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 point source categories. EPA ranked each point source category 

by the amount of toxic pollutants 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 category TWPE). EPA conducted a “detailed study” of 

the Steam Electric Category and “preliminary category reviews” of the 11 other categories based 

on the results of the 2007 screening-level review and stakeholder comments. Based on the 

findings from the detailed studies and preliminary category reviews, EPA identified four 

categories for detailed study in 2008: Steam Electric (Part 423), Coal Mining (Part 434), Oil and 

Gas Extraction (Part 435) (to assess whether to revise the limits to include Coal Bed Methane 

extraction as a new subcategory), and the Health Care Industry (including Hospitals (Part 460)). 

 In view of the annual nature of its reviews of existing ELGs, EPA believes that each 

annual review can and should influence succeeding annual reviews (e.g., by indicating data gaps, 

identifying new pollutants or pollution reduction technologies, or otherwise highlighting 

industrial categories for more detailed scrutiny in subsequent years). 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 categories for the 2008 annual review. 

5.2 Results of the 2008 Screening-Level Review

 For the 2008 screening-level review, EPA used the combined results of the 

TRIReleases2004_v3 and the PCSLoads2004_v4 databases and the 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 the rankings for the following: discharges from 

industrial categories for which EPA is currently developing or revising 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 revisions 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 underway, EPA excluded discharges from these 

facilities from further consideration under the current planning cycle. EPA subtracted the TWPE 

loads from facilities that produce chlorine or chlorinated hydrocarbons from the OCPSF and 

Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category 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 all other facilities in these two categories in 

its prioritization of categories for further review. 

5.2.2 Categories for Which EPA Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs 

 For the 2008 annual review and development of category rankings, EPA excluded point 

source categories for which ELGs were recently established or revised but not yet fully 

implemented, or were recently reviewed in a rulemaking context, but EPA decided to withdraw 

the proposal or select the “no action” option. This seven-year period allows time for the ELGs to 

be incorporated into NPDES permits. In general, EPA removed an industrial point source 

category from further consideration during the current review cycle if EPA had established, 

revised, or reviewed the category’s effluent guidelines after August 2001 (i.e., seven years prior 

to August 2008, the expected publication of the Final 2008 Plan). 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 further consideration in the development of the 

rankings does not mean that EPA eliminates the category from annual review. In cases where 

EPA is aware of the growth of a new segment within such category, or where new concerns are 

identified for previously unevaluated pollutants discharged by facilities in the category, EPA 

would apply closer scrutiny to the discharges from the category in deciding whether to consider 

it further during the current review cycle. For example, EPA conducted the detailed study of the 

coal mining industry based on comments received 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 low 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 Have 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 http://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 TWPE in the category to which they belonged. EPA investigated 

these facilities to determine if their discharges were representative of the category. If they were 

not, EPA subtracted the facility’s TWPE from the total category 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 the 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 determined that they are representative of the 

respective categories and should be included in the category totals. 
Section 5

Table 5-2. Point Source Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE Discharge

Point Source Category

Facility with Over 

95% of Category

TWPE City, State

Data

Source

Pollutant Driving

TWPE 

Facility

TWPE

% of Total

Category 

TWPE 

Centralized Waste Treaters

(Part 437)

Vopak Logistics 

Services USA Inc.

Deer Park, TX 

TRI 2004 Diazinon 7,029,354 94.2% 

Pesticide Chemicals (Part 

455)

Dow Freeport Co.,

Freeport Facility 

Freeport, 

TX 

TRI 2004 Picloram 492,108 94.9% 

TRI 2004 Benzidine 242,547 99.9% 

5-4 

Waste Combustors 

(Commercial Incinerators 

Combusting Hazardous Waste) (Part 444)

Clean Harbors Deer 

Park LP 

Deer Park, TX 

TRI 2005 Toxaphene 51,859 99.3% 

Source: 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 TRI rankings into one set using the following 

steps: 

• EPA combined the two lists of point source categories by adding each category’s 

PCS TWPE and TRI TWPE. EPA noted that this may result in “double-counting” 

of chemicals a facility reported to both PCS and TRI, and “single-counting” of 

chemicals reported in only one of the databases. 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 categories 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 discussed 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. Four of the top five categories by TWPE from the combined TRI 

and PCS 2004 data (Table 5-3) are in the top five categories from the TRI 2005 data (Table 5-4), 

with only the Fertilizer Category not represented at the top of TRI 2005 rankings. 

5.3 Prioritization of Categories for the 2008 Annual Review

 Based on its screening-level review, EPA was able to prioritize for further review (i.e., a 

detailed study or preliminary category review) those industrial categories whose pollutant 

discharges potentially pose the greatest hazards to human health or the environment because of 

their toxicity (i.e., categories that collectively discharge over 95 percent of the total TWPE). 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 available data), while assigning a lower priority to 

categories that the Agency believes are not good candidates for ELGs revision at this time. 

 Table 5-5 lists the point source categories with existing ELGs, the level of review EPA 

performed as part of the 2008 annual review, and how the category was identified for further 

review, if applicable. 
5-6 

Section 5

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

40 CFR PCS 2004 Cumulative P

Part Point Source Category TRI 2004 TWPE TWPE Total TWPE Total TW

437 Centralized Waste Treaters 7,460,703 8,731 7,469,434 39.9% 423 Steam Electric Power Generation 791,179 2,410,093 3,201,272 57.0% 419 Petroleum Refining 669,434 818,705 1,488,139 64.9% 414 Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic 957,134 490,290 1,447,424 72.7% 

Fibers 

418 Fertilizer Manufacturing 10,843 1,168,160 1,179,003 79.0% 430 Pulp, Paper and Paperboard 668,518 164,787 833,306 83.4% 440 Ore Mining and Dressing 88,001 580,831 668,832 87.0% 455 Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing 518,385 102,256 620,641 90.3% 415 Inorganic Chemicals 122,514 309,022 431,536 92.6% 421 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 52,599 321,299 373,898 94.6% 

444 Waste Combustors (Commercial 242,888 9,087 251,975 95.9% 

Incinerators Combusting Hazardous Waste) 

410 Textile Mills 3,043 123,392 126,435 96.6% 463 Plastic Molding and Forming 72,657 10,766 83,423 97.1% 422 Phosphate Manufacturing 1,064 74,218 75,282 97.5% 429 Timber Products Processing 63,885 443 64,328 97.8% 

436 Mineral Mining and Processing 5,387 49,315 54,702 98.1% 

454 Gum And Wood Chemicals 6,311 46,446 52,757 98.4% 

458 Carbon Black Manufacturing 48,603 48,603 98.6% 467 Aluminum Forming 3,318 27,580 30,897 98.8% 439 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 10,706 13,255 23,962 98.9% 464 Metal Molding and Casting (Foundries) 19,147 4,746 23,893 99.1% 471 Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal 10,033 11,599 21,632 99.2% 

Powders 

411 Cement Manufacturing 898 17,461 18,359 99.3% 424 Ferroalloy Manufacturing 11,327 6,431 17,758 99.4% 468 Copper Forming 10,573 3,644 14,217 99.4% 469 Electrical and Electronic Components 7,693 4,890 12,583 99.5% 
5-7 

Section 5

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

40 CFR PCS 2004 Cumulative P

Part Point Source Category TRI 2004 TWPE TWPE Total TWPE Total TW

409 Sugar Processing 200 11,919 12,118 99.6% 425 Leather Tanning and Finishing 8,832 705 9,537 99.6% 445 Landfills 152 9,087 9,239 99.7% 407 Fruits and Vegetable Processing 6,392 2,457 8,849 99.7% 

461 Battery Manufacturing 2,441 5,169 7,610 99.8% 428 Rubber Manufacturing 5,695 1,667 7,362 99.8% 406 Grain Mills Manufacturing 4,336 2,427 6,763 99.8% 417 Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing 6,156 80 6,236 99.9% 426 Glass Manufacturing 2,822 2,707 5,529 99.9% 

NA Tobacco Products 5,159 2 5,161 99.9% 

405 Dairy Products Processing 3,710 41 3,751 99.9% 

NA Printing and Publishing 177 2,190 2,367 100.0% 

457 Explosives 93 2,273 2,366 100.0% 443 Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and 612 1,313 1,924 100.0% 

Asphalt) 

408 Canned and Preserved Seafood 198 828 1,027 100.0% 

435 Oil and Gas Extraction 596 18 613 100.0% 

NA Independent and Stand Alone Labs 205 269 474 100.0% 

466 Porcelain Enameling 247 7 254 100.0% 

NA Construction and Development — 231 231 100.0% 

446 Paint Formulating 210 — 210 100.0% 

465 Coil Coating 167 — 167 100.0% 447 Ink Formulating 42 — 42 100.0% 460 Hospital — 14 14 100.0% 

Total 11,905,285 6,820,849 18,726,133 

Source: 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 Manufacturing 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 181,818 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 Treaters Preliminary Review TWPE 

438 Metal Products and Machinery Screening-Level Review NA a

439 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 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 effluent guidelines. The “source of 

identification” is only applicable for those 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. EPA 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 Extraction (Part 435) (to assess whether to revise the limits to 

include coalbed methane extraction as a new subcategory), and the Health Services Industry 

(includes Hospitals (Part 460)) as detailed studies 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-level 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 the following: (1) wastewater characteristics 

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

availability of pollution prevention 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 fill in data gaps. 

Next, EPA considers costs and performance of applicable 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 consult in conducting its detailed studies include, 

but are not limited to: (1) the 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 understand how category facilities are 

permitted; (5) NPDES permits and their supporting fact sheets; (6) EPA effluent guidelines 

technical development documents; (7) relevant EPA preliminary data summaries or study 

reports; and (8) technical literature on pollutant sources and control technologies. 

 For more information about the Steam Electric Detailed Study, Coal Mining Detailed 

Study, Oil and Gas Extraction Detailed Study (Coalbed 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 

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

preliminary reviews, EPA generally examines the same items listed above for detailed studies. 

However, EPA’s preliminary review of a category and available pollution prevention and 

treatment options is less rigorous than its detailed studies. While EPA collects and analyzes 

hazard and technology-based information on categories undergoing preliminary review, it 

assigns a higher priority to investigating categories undergoing detailed studies. 
Section 5.0 – 2008 Annual Review 

5-12 

 For its 2008 annual review, EPA selected categories for preliminary review based on 

TWPE in the 2004 PCS and TRI and 2005 TRI databases. In 2007, EPA reviewed the categories 

accounting for the top 95 percent of total PCS 2004 and TRI 2004 combined TWPE, and 

identified 11 point source categories 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 approximately 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 where 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 preliminary reviews of many of the categories 

listed above. Table 5-6 lists these categories and the level of review 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 CWT (40 CFR Part 437) and Waste Combusters (40 

CFR Part 444) from further review in 2003 through 2006, because EPA applies less scrutiny to 

industrial categories with promulgated effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards within the 

past seven years (see Section 5.2.2). 

Table 5-6. Previous Reviews for Point Source Categories Reviewed as Part of the 2008 

Annual Review

40 CFR 

Part Point Source Category 

Level of Review for

2003/2004 

Level of Review for

2005/2006 

Level of Review for

2007/2008 

423 Steam Electric Preliminary Category 

Review 

Detailed Study Detailed Study

434 Coal Mining NA Preliminary Category

Review 

Detailed Study

435 Oil and Gas Extraction 

(Coalbed Methane) 

NA Preliminary Category 

Review 

Detailed Study

460 Hospitals (Health Services) NA Preliminary Category 

Review 

Detailed Study

419 Petroleum Refining Detailed Study Preliminary Category

Review 

Preliminary Category 

Review 

414 OCPSF Detailed Study Preliminary Category 

Review 

Preliminary Category 

Review 

430 Pulp, Paper, and 

Paperboard

Preliminary Category 

Review 

Detailed Study Preliminary Category 

Review 

 

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 Waste Combustors were not reviewed in 2003 through 2006 because the 

regulations were promulgated in 2000. 

NA — 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, Proposed, and Under Development. “Industrial 

Waters Pollution Control.” Available online 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. Washington, 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 Detailed 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 Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437) 

6-1 

6.0 CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT (40 CFR PART 437) 

 EPA selected the Centralized Waste Treatment (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 source category rankings). EPA began 

the preliminary review of this industry in 2007 and published the results as part of the 2008 

Preliminary ELG Plan (72 FR 61335). As part of the 2008 annual review, EPA continued the 

preliminary review by investigating possible pesticide discharges from the CWT Category. EPA 

has determined that no further review of pesticide 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 that 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 and can often be difficult to treat. EPA identified 

CWT facilities by the primary SIC codes in the PCS 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 facilities 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, which will be corrected in future TRI databases. EPA 

contacted facilities and found that two facilities initially identified 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 reported discharging indirectly. 
Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437) 

6-2 

Table 6-2. Centralized Waste Treatment Category 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, which will be corrected in future TRI databases. EPA 

contacted facilities and found that two facilities initially identified 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 separation and dissolved air flotation for 

oily wastes; and 

• Equalization and biological treatment 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 designed, maintained, and operated. 

 Table 6-3 lists the pollutants regulated by Part 437. Pesticides are not regulated in any 

subcategory, as discussed in Section 6-4 of this document. 

Table 6-3. Part 437 Subcategories 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 Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437) 

6-3 

Table 6-3. Part 437 Subcategories 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 wastes received from off-site 

and other CWT wastewater associated 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 subject 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; Development 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 previous annual reviews because the ELG had 

been promulgated recently (December 22, 2000). Table 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 TWPE. 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 

Source: 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 and 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 Waste 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 Category 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 significantly lower than the TRI 2004 or 

2005 TWPE. Therefore, EPA focused the additional review on the TRI-reported 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 (PACs) 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 2008 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 pesticides 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 data from the Pesticides Formulators, 

Packagers, and Re-packagers (PFPR) rulemaking. 
6-5 

Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste Trea

Table 6-5. 2008 Review: CWT Category Pollutants of Concern 

b, d 

PCS 2004 a TRI 2004 T

Number of Number of Number of 

Facilities Facilities Facilities 

Reporting Reporting Reporting 

Pollutant Pollutant Total Pounds TWPE Pollutant Total Pounds TWPE Pollutant 

Zinc 3 103,596 4,857 Sulfide 2 912 2,555 Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2004 Pollutants are 

Cadmium 1 21 493 reported pollutants. 2005 reBarium 2 155,451 309 Arsenic 2 44 176 Diazinon 1 10,282 6,398,170 1 

Malathion 1 10,283 575,931 1 

PACs 1 2,600 261,716 1 

Heptachlor 1 Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2004 9 76,767 1 

reported pollutants. Chlordane 1 35 69,763 Pollutant is not 

repo

Acrylonitrile Pollutant is not in the top five TRI 2004 1 

reported pollutants 

CWT Category Total 4 c 10,465,007,382 8,730 5 c 18,835,213 7,460,703 5 c 

Source: 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 fac

facilities initially identified as CWT facilities are actually waste combustors. These facilities contribute negligible TWPE and thereforeoverall category TWPE or rankings. These changes are further discussed in Section 11.0, “Waste Combustors”. PACs — Polycyclic aromatic compounds. 
Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste 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 CWT 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, EPA 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 directions and precautions (U.S. EPA, 2007). Because 

some CWT facilities are permitted to accept hazardous waste, CWT facilities may receive waste 

diazinon for some time even though it is no longer sold in the United States. 

 Discharges of pesticide chemicals in the TRI 2004 and 2005 databases account for the 

majority of the total category’s TWPE. EPA examined discharges of pesticides from CWTs for 

the preliminary review of this category. EPA contacted five facilities about their pesticide 

discharges reported to TRI in 2004 and 2005, presented in Table 6-6. EPA identified two 

facilities for additional review of their TRI-reported pesticide discharges 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 pesticide releases to TRI based on waste characterization 

reports provided by their clients rather than wastewater monitoring data. Waste characterization 

reports include a list of all possible 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 wastewater) to verify the accuracy of waste 

characterization reports. 

 CWTs use either the midpoint or the maximum 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 reduced by a removal efficiency or destruction 

efficiency to account for the pollutants removed 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 tested for pesticides in their wastewater. Only one 

of these facilities reported detecting pesticides during sampling. 
6-7 

Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste Trea

Table 6-6. Summary of CWT Pesticide Facility Contacts 

Facility Name City 

Facility TWPE 

from TRI 2005

Facility Receives 

Pesticides? 

Facility Detected 

Pesticides? Commen

Vopak Logistics Services USA Inc. 

Deer Park, TX 4,000,309 Yes No Vopak reports releases of a variety 

diazinon (3,634,700 TWPE). Facildiazinon and malathion were incorRs for 2004 and 2005. Contact belto the injection facility, but their mimproperly. Form 2c of the NPDE(submitted by facility) indicates thsample for pesticides. Facility stopwaste shipments in June 2006 (Kr

LNVA — North 

Regional Treatment Plant 

Beaumont, TX 245,555 No No Facility does not receive pesticide

Facility estimates pesticide dischaSARA sampling data, which is noaccording to EPA Test Method SW2008a). 

Dupont Chambers Works 

Deepwater, NJ 26,129 Yes No Facility submitted eight or nine Fo

2001 to 2004 and submitted 14 in both endrin and heptachlor once fr2008c). 

CWM Chemical Services LLC 

Model City, NY 9,193 Yes No Facility reported one pesticide to T

on-site landfill. The facility has tethe past and has not detected the cother pesticides have been receive2008e). 

Clean Harbors Baton Rouge LLC 

Baton Rouge, LA 0 a Yes No The facility does comprehensive p

six months and has never detected detection limit. The facility does nknown pesticides (Krejci, 2008d). 

Source: TRIReleases2005_v2; E-mail communication with Jesse Eastep, LNVA – North Regional Treatment Plant, Beaumont, TX (Kretelephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Rino Wong and Tony Vundick, Vopak Logistics 

(Krejci, 2008b); E-mail communication with Scott Northey, DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ (Krejci, 2008c); Notes from tele

between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Bill Clark, Clean Harbors, Baton Rouge, LA (Krejci, 2008d); Notes from 

between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Jill Banaszak, CWM Chemical Services, Model City, NY (Krejci, 2008e

a — Facility reports zero pounds released or transferred to surface water in the TRI. 
Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437) 

6-8 

6.4.1 Pesticide Discharges for Vopak Logistics Services — Deer Park, TX 

 The pesticide discharges from Vopak Logistics 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 discharges reported to TRI from Vopak for 2002 through 2005. 

Table 6-7. Pesticide Discharges from Vopak 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 facility, EPA believes that Vopak is not 

discharging pesticides to surface water. EPA contacted Vopak as part of the 2007 and 2008 

annual reviews to verify the company’s estimation 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 shipments and currently only treats wastes from the 

co-located Vopak Terminal facility. The Vopak Terminal facility is a storage warehouse for bulk 

chemical products and generates wash down water that the CWT treats. Because Vopak stopped 

receiving outside waste shipments at the CWT facility, the facility no longer receives pesticides. 

Vopak expects that they will likely not report pesticide releases to TRI in the future (Krejci, 

2008b). 

 Furthermore, Vopak identified a possible error in how pesticide releases 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 sent to the deep well injection 

facility, not discharged to surface water. The facility concluded that pesticide discharges were 

mistakenly reported as surface water releases instead 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 TWPE8

 (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 Waste 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 DuPont 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 discharges (Johnston, 2005), and as part of the 2008 

annual review regarding hexachlorobenzene discharges (Krejci, 2008c). Discharges of pesticide 

chemicals in the TRI 2004 and 2005 databases account 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 facilities 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 characterization 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 was not detected in these samples. 

• In 2005, the facility analyzed wastewater at an internal monitoring point prior to 

tertiary treatment system. Hexachlorobenzene 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 hexachlorobenzene release as zero pounds per 

year. 

 Based on information provided by the facility, 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 Environmental Protection [NJ DEP] Web-site), the 
Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437) 

6-10 

facility has detected both endrin and heptachlor in its wastewater at least once (NJDMR, 2008). 

The facility had not detected any of the other 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 chlordane and hexachlorobenzene 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 DuPont 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 concentrations 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 largest contributor to the TWPE discharges from 

TRI 2004 and 2005 for the CWT Category. The PAC discharges 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 PAC discharges were 

reported from this facility prior to 2004. 

Table 6-10. PAC Discharges from LNVA North Regional Treatment Plant Reported to 

TRI 

2004 2005 

Pollutants Total Pounds TWPE Total Pounds TWPE 

PACs 2,600 261,176 2,400 241,584 

Source: TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3. 
Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437) 

6-11 

 EPA 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 detection 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 facility to denote zero pounds per year. 

6.6 CWT 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 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 contributing significant portions of the category TWPE (Vopak and 

DuPont Chambers Works) are estimated using waste characterization reports from 

clients and treatment efficiencies, rather than actual sampling data. 

• Only 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. Based on the information collected from 

DuPont Chambers Works, the amount of pesticides discharged to surface water is 

less than the amounts reported to TRI. Instead of the 26,129 TWPE9 for TRI 

2005, EPA believes the actual pesticide discharges 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 databases, 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 detection limit. In future versions of the TRIReleases

databases, EPA will correct the TRI databases, denoting the discharge as zero 

pounds per year. 

• 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 toxic-weighted 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” column in Table V-1 in 

the accompanying Federal Register notice that presents the 2008 annual review of 

effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards). 

 

9

 EPA changed reported DuPont Chambers Works hexachlorobenzene 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 Waste Treatment (40 CFR Part 437) 

6-12 

6.7 CWT Category References

1. Johnston, Carey. 2005. U.S. EPA. E-mail communication with Ken Wood, DuPont. 

“Chambers Works Pesticides Discharges TRI in 2002.” EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 

05976. 

2. Krejci, Christopher. 2008a. Eastern Research Group, Inc. E-mail communication with 

Jesse Eastep, LNVA — North Regional Treatment Plant, Beaumont, TX. “PACs 

Discharges from LNVA.” (April 1). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05949. 

3. Krejci, Christopher. 2008b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone 

conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Rino Wong 

and Tony Vundick, Vopak Logistics Services, Deer Park, TX. “Pesticides Receipt and 

Possible Discharge from Vopak Logistics.” (March 31). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 

05952. 

4. Krejci, Christopher. 2008c. Eastern Research 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 Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone 

conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern 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 City, 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, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Rino Wong, 

Vopak Logistics Services. “Vopak estimation methods used to report direct discharges to 

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in 2004.” (January 11). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0442. 

8. NJDMR. New Jersey Discharge Monitoring Report. 2008. Discharge Monitoring Report 

Data for DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ downloaded from the NJ DMR data 

system. Available online at: http://datamine2.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 Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, 

and New Source Performance Standards. EPA-821-R-96-019. Washington, DC. 

(September 30). 
Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste 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://epa.gov/guide/cwt/

final/develop/index.html. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2223. 

11. U.S. EPA. 2007. Diazinon: Phase Out of all Residential Uses of the Insecticide. 

Washington, DC. (July 24). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/

factsheets/chemicals/diazinon-factsheet.htm. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05977. 

12. U.S. EPA. 1994. Draft Pesticides Formulators, Packagers, 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 Research Group, Inc. and Jesse Eastep, LNVA —

North Regional Treatment Plant, Beaumont, TX. “LNVA PACs Discharges in TRI 

2003.” EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1115. 
6-14 

Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste Trea

Table 6-11. Pesticides Treatability Data 

Pesticide Structural Group 

Pesticide 

Mfr BAT 

Technology

Hydrolysis 

Half-Life 

(Min.) or %

Rem. Source 

Carbon

Saturation 

Loading (g/g) 

or % Rem. Source 

Ch

Ox

% 

65.5% (b,d) EPA Sampling 86.2% (d) Other 14

4800 (b) Other 0.2159 (e) Other 

17,700 (b) Other 0.04 (c) EPA Bench Study

2760 (b) EPA Bench 

Study

99.99% (d) EPA Sampling

731 Extrapolated 0.168 (d) EPA Bench Study

Atrazine S-Triazine HD, BO 

0.014, 0.13 (g) EPA Bench Study

>5,000,000 

(b) 

Other 99.9% (c) Other 

>99.5% Other

0.25,0.38 (g) Other 

Chlordane Tricyclic NM86

0.065 Other 

5 EPA Bench 

Study

95.2% (d) EPA Sampling 

706 (b) Other 93.2% (d) EPA Sampling706 (b) EPA Bench 

Study

0.14,0.49 (g) EPA Bench Study

0.147 (c) EPA Bench Study

Diazinon Phosphorothioate AC 

84.8% (d) EPA Sampling 

1400 (b) Other 1.22, 0.95 (g) Other 

0.014 Other 

>70% EPA Bench Study

Heptachlor Tricyclic RA 

>99.5% Other

300,000 (b) Other 0.26,0.49 (g) Other 

>99.5% (f) Other 

>99% Other 

Haxachlorobenzene a Lindane AC

0.0195 (c) Other 
6-15 

Section 6.0 – Centralized Waste Trea

Table 6-11. Pesticides Treatability Data 

Pesticide Structural Group 

Pesticide 

Mfr BAT 

Technology

Hydrolysis 

Half-Life 

(Min.) or %

Rem. Source 

Carbon

Saturation 

Loading (g/g) 

or % Rem. Source 

Ch

Ox

% 

0.257 Other 

0.025 Other 

60 (b) EPA Bench 

Study

>98.8% (f) Graph

<30 EPA Bench 

Study

>98.3% (d) EPA Sampling 

99.90% Other 

0.26, 0.22 (g) EPA Bench Study

Malathion Phosphorodithioate HD 

87.5% (f) Other 

Toxaphene Bicyclic AC 5,000,000 (b) Other 0.0034,0.399 (g) 90th 

0.042 Other 

Source: Draft Pesticides Formulators, Packagers, and Repackagers Treatability Database Report (U.S. EPA, 1994). 

a — Transferred from Lindane based on experimental data. 

b — Hydrolysis conditions other than pH 12 and 60°C 

c — Data include multiple runs at varying design and operating conditions; value given is for best treatability performance 

d — 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 parameters K 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 ORGANIC CHEMICALS PLASTICS AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS (40 CFR PART 414) 

 EPA selected the OCPSF Category (40 CFR Part 414) for preliminary review because it 

continues to rank 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 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 facilities does not warrant 

a more detailed review at this time. 

 EPA is currently reviewing discharges from 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 Category is underway, EPA excluded discharges 

from these facilities from further consideration 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 background on 40 CFR Part 414. 

7.1.1 OCPSF Industry Profile 

 The OCPSF Category includes many chemical industries producing a wide variety of end 

products, such as polypropylene, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), chlorinated 

solvents, rubber precursors, styrofoam additives, and polyester. Some OCPSF facilities are 

extremely complex and produce hundreds of chemicals, while others are simpler, producing one 

or two end products. Facilities in the following five SIC codes could perform operations covered 

by the OCPSF ELGs: 

• 2821: Plastic Materials, Synthetic Resins, and Nonvulcanizable Elastomers; 

• 2823: Cellulosic and Other Man-Made Fibers; 

• 2824: Synthetic Organic Fibers, 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 operations 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 reports 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 pollutants 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 potential 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 these 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 2002 U.S. Economic Census by the equivalent SIC 

code. 

 OCPSF facilities discharge directly to surface water as well as to POTWs. Table 7-2 

presents the types of discharges reported by facilities in the 2004 and 2005 TRI databases. The 

majority of facilities reporting to TRI reported 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. 
7-3 

Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plas

Table 7-2. OCPSF Category Facilities by Type of Discharge Reported in TRI 2004 and 2

TRI 2004 TRI 200

Reported Reported Reported R

Reported Only Both Direct Reported Reported Only B

Only Direct Indirect and Indirect No Water Only Direct Indirect an

SIC Code Discharges Discharges Discharges Discharges Discharges Discharges D

2821: Plastic Materials, Synthetic 62 92 18 211 65 92 Resins, and Nonvulcanizable Elastomers 2823: Cellulosic and Other Man-Made 2 0 1 1 3 0 Fibers 2824: Synthetic Organic Fibers, Except 9 14 2 13 7 12 Cellulosic 2865: Cyclic Crudes and Intermediates, 19 28 4 36 18 28 and Organic Dyes and Pigments 2869: Industrial Organic Chemicals, 106 128 26 211 106 118 NEC OCPSF Category Total a 198 262 51 472 199 250 

Potential New Subcategories 

2842: Specialty Cleaning, Polishing, and 1 38 0 98 9 34 Sanitation Preparations 2844: Perfumes, Cosmetics, and Other 0 23 0 16 1 39 Toilet Preparations 2891: Adhesives and Sealants 3 22 1 148 0 20 2899: Chemicals and Chemical 14 88 8 219 4 24 Preparations, NEC 5169: Chemicals and Allied Products 8 36 1 399 15 83 Potential New Subcategories Total 26 207 10 880 29 200 

Source: 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 the OCPSF Category (40 CFR Part 414) on 

November 5, 1987 (52 FR 42568). This category consists of eight subcategories that apply to the 

manufacture of products and product groups, as shown in Table 7-3 with the corresponding SIC 

codes and applicability. Subparts B through H have limitations for BOD5, TSS, and pH. The 

regulation also includes limitations and/or pretreatment standards for certain toxic pollutants in 

three additional subparts: 

• Subpart I — Direct Discharge Point Sources That Use End-of-Pipe Biological 

Treatment; 

• Subpart J — Direct Discharge Point Sources That Do Not Use End-of-Pipe 

Biological Treatment; and 

• Subpart K — Indirect Discharge Point Sources. 

Table 7-3. Applicability of Subcategories 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 chemicals 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 shows 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 decreased 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-Level 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 codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes, 

operations, wastewaters, and pollutants 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 potential 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 these 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. 
7-6 

Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plas

Table 7-5. 2008 Review: OCPSF Category Pollutants of Concern a

PCS 2004 b TRI 2004 c T

Pollutant 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant Total Pounds TWPE

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant

Total 

Pounds TWPE

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant

Hexachlorobezene d 13 62.9 122,529 4 43 84,480 Aluminum 20 3,233,568 209,183 Benzidine 1 23 63,844 

Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2004 

reported pollutants. 

Pollutants are 

2005 re

Chlorine 46 74,952 38,162 21 45,018 22,921 20 Fluoride 12 806,793 28,238 Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2004 

reported pollutants. 

Pollutants are 

2005 re

Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds 

8 0.527 693,358 7 

Hydroquinone 6 13,383 17,051 Pollutants are 

2005 re

Nitrate Compounds 130 21,719,795 16,217 128 PACs 10 Acrylonitrile 

Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2004 

reported pollutants. 

Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2004 

reported pollutants. 28 

OCPSF Category Total 228 e 3,800,000,000 608,000 754 e 35,300,000 957,000 68 e 

Source: 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. How

subcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE. b — Discharges include only major dischargers. c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. d — EPA corrected the PCS TWPE during the 2008 annual review because EPA determined that hexachlorobenzene (HCB) loads were 

pollutant TWF in PCSLoads2004_v3. As a result, the OCPSF Category TWPE increased from 490,000 to 608,000 lb-eq/yr from the 20

2008 annual review.

e — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. PACs — Polycyclic aromatic compounds. 
7-7 

Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plas

Table 7-6. 2006 Review: OCPSF Category Pollutants of Concern a

PCS 2002 b TRI 2002 c T

Pollutant 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant Total Pounds TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Total 

Pounds TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Hexachlorobenzene 13 53 103,420 4 30 59,272 4 Chlorine 58 106,278 54,113 25 56,954 28,999 22 Fluoride 14 910,270 31,859 Benzo(a)pyrene 16 288 28,990Copper 100 33,629 21,348

Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2002 

reported pollutants. 

Pollutants are 

2003 re

Dioxin and Dioxin-like

Compounds

8 0.019 115,132 6 

Nitrate Compounds 131 44,533,702 33,252Hydroquinone 6 13,513 17,217 

Pollutants are 

2003 re

PACs 10 PCBs 

Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2002 

reported pollutants. 

Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2002 

reported pollutants. 2 

OCPSF Category Total 232 d 978,243,371 397,951 791 d 53,973,135 349,429 762 d 

Source: 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. Howsubcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE. b — Discharges include only major dischargers. c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs 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 (HCB) decreased from 2004 to 2005; in 2005, HCB 

was no longer a top pollutant in terms of TWPE. However, the TRI-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 other 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 discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to TRI to determine 

potential process sources and methods used to estimate 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-like compounds TWPE, however, has decreased 

significantly from the 2005 annual review. 

 Table 7-7 shows the OCPSF facilities that reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds to TRI from 2002 to 2005 and how the facilities estimated discharges of dioxin and 

dioxin-like compounds (based on contact with the facilities) (ERG, 2006). One facility, BP 

Solvay Polyethylene in Deer Park, TX contributes more than 95 percent of the total dioxin and 

dioxin-like compound TRI TWPE for the OCSPF Category from 2003 to 2005. In addition to the 

facilities presented in Table 7-7, EPA identified two new facilities reporting 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 information on their basis of estimate or process sources of dioxin and 

dioxin-like compounds for the 2008 annual review. 
7-9 

Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plas

Table 7-7. OCPSF Facilities Reporting Dioxin Releases to TRI 

Facility Name 

(Facility Location)

TRI 2002 

Dioxin 

TWPE 

TRI 2003 

Dioxin 

TWPE 

TRI 2004 

Dioxin 

TWPE 

TRI 2005 

Dioxin 

TWPE 

Basis of 

Estimate 

Was Dioxin 

Detected? Find

Atofina (Total) Petrochemicals Inc. (La Porte, TX) 

57,489 799 799 799 TCEQ 

sampling episode in 1999 

TCEQ detected 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD, OCDD, and OCDF (TCEQ, 2003) 

TCEQ sampled at the final ouNPDES permit and provided orepresented a mixture of dioximultiplies this concentration bfor the outfall. Facility continunumber every year for their TR

BP Solvay Polyethylene N.A. (Innovene) (Deer Park, TX) 

NR 678,344 657,253 480,414 TCEQ 

sampling episode in 2002 

TCEQ detected 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD, OCDD, and 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF (TCEQ, 2003) 

TCEQ sampled at the final ouNPDES permit and provided orepresented a mixture of dioximultiplies this concentration bfor the outfall. Facility continunumber every year for their TR

Celanese Acetate Celco Plant (Narrows, VA) 

941 NR NR NR Worst-case 

scenario engineering estimate 

No Facility uses dissolving-grade 

material. Celanese had review

dioxin content of wood pulp astormwater. Wastewater moniForm 2C application shows alCelanese stopped reporting wain 2004. 

Cytec Industries Inc. (Wallingford, CT) 

13,460 5,982 8,973 NR Engineering 

estimate 

Not monitored Dioxin water release was base

for the operation of an incinerbiosolids. This incinerator is nsite did not report dioxin to TR

Dow Chemical Co. Midland Ops. (Midland, MI) 

25,502 NR 6,542 6,852 Routine 

monitoring conducted by facility 

Yes — Reported all congeners except 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF, and 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD to TRI for 2002/2003. 

Dioxin sources include historimanagement units no longer in very small amount may also cincinerator. The TRI dioxin wthat sums the average congenesamples collected throughout Method 1613B to analyze for concentrations that are below 

DuPont Chambers Works (Deepwater, NJ) 

334 0.580 NR NR Engineering 

estimate 

Not monitored A contaminated ferric chloride 

settling in the wastewater treasource. Du Pont used informadioxin composition of the conestimate their TRI releases. Thusing ferric chloride for settlinincluded in the TRI 2004 data
7-10 

Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plas

Table 7-7. OCPSF Facilities Reporting Dioxin Releases to TRI 

TRI 2002 TRI 2003 TRI 2004 TRI 2005 

Facility Name Dioxin Dioxin Dioxin Dioxin Basis of Was Dioxin 

(Facility Location) TWPE TWPE TWPE TWPE Estimate Detected? Find

Lyondell Chemical 219 NR NR NR Routine Yes – Did not A small amount of dioxin is pCo. (Westlake, LA) monitoring report a hazardous waste incinerator sc

conducted by distribution to TRI dioxin enters the plant with thfacility for 2002. Sabine River. The site monito

effluent for dioxin, then calcuis discharged. The balance is r

Sasol N.A. Inc. 3.26 NR NR NR Routine Yes – Reported Facility formerly operated a ch(Baltimore, MD) monitoring 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- generated dioxin. They began 

conducted by HpCDD and wastewater and final effluent ifacility OCDD to TRI for amounts of OCDD. The dioxi

2002. was based on this single detec

was just above the detection limonitoring for dioxin in 2003 process was shut down. They water releases to TRI. 

Sasol N.A. Inc. 17,183 4,479 4,479 4,479 Sampling Yes — Reported Facility receives wastewater fr

Lake Charles results from 17 congeners to Charles VCM plant. The VCM Chemical Complex studies TRI for 2002/2003. source of dioxin. (Westlake, LA) conducted 

over the years 

Shell Chemical Co. NR 13,967 15,152 10,529 TCEQ TCEQ detected 10 TCEQ sampled at the outfall fDeer Park (Deer sampling dioxin congeners plant and provided dioxin conPark, TX) episode in (TCEQ, 2003) 17 dioxin congeners. Facility m

2003 by the total wastewater flow f

continues to use the TCEQ diotheir TRI reports. Facility treaOxyVinyls EDC/VCM plant, dioxins in their wastewater. Faother process sources that are 

OCPSF Category 115,132 703,572 693,358 503,240 Total 

Source: TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_v2; Telephone conversations with various OCPSF facility representatives and Meghan 

Research 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 Environmental Quality (TCEQ) sampling at three 

facilities, dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges contribute 99 percent of the dioxin and 

dioxin-like compounds TWPE for 2002. TCEQ conducted the sampling to support the total 

maximum daily load (TMDL) study for the Houston Ship Channel, which was placed on the 

Section 303(d) list after the Texas 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, and 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 following facilities for dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds: Albermarle, Atofina, Beechnut MUD, BP Solvay, Clean Harbors, Dow DP, DuPont, 

Equistar, Exxon, GB Biosciences, Newport MUD, OxyVinyls Battleground, OxyVinyls Deer 

Park, OxyVinyls La Porte, Rohm & Haas, Shell 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 facilities use the dioxin 

congener concentrations measured by TCEQ to estimate the releases of dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds that they report to TRI. Each facility updates its TRI releases each year by 

multiplying the same dioxin concentration by the facility’s annual flow. Therefore, increases in 

TRI-reported releases of dioxin and 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 identified 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. Celanese’s estimate was based on theoretical 

contamination of wood pulp, and DuPont’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 dioxin and dioxin-like compounds that the 

facility reports to TRI. EPA is reviewing 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 compounds that was reported to 

TRI for 2002. The facility stated that the amount of dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds discharged by the incinerator scrubber is small (only 219 TWPE in 

Table 7-7). Lyondell has not reported discharges of dioxin 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 discharges 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 reported wastewater releases of HCB to TRI for 2004 

or 2005. HCB discharges ranked second in terms of 2004 TRI TWPE for the OCPSF Category. 

One facility, DuPont Chambers Works, contributed 90 percent of the total HCB TWPE for the 

OCSPF Category. EPA contacted the facility and determined that the HCB discharges were from 

CWT operations at the plant. Therefore, EPA 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 discharged 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 distributed 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 and 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 are below the detection limit. According to EPA 

Method 1625, the method detection limit for HCB is 10 μg/L. Concentrations for HCB range 

from 0.04 to 12, and all but one are less than or equal to the method detection limit. 
7-13 

Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plas

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

NPDES ID Facility Name Facility Location 

Average 2002 

HCB 

Concentration 

(μg/L) 

2002 Pounds 

of HCB 

Discharged 

2002 

HCB 

TWPE 

Average 2004 

HCB 

Concentration 

(μg/L) 

NJ0005100 E I Dupont De Nemours & Co Carneys Point NR NR NR 0.670 a WV0000868 Flexsys America LP Nitro 2.5 10 19,537 2.50 WV0002496 Ripplewood Phosphorus U.S. 

LLC 

Gallipolis Ferry 4.13 a 7.2 14,024 5.00 

WV0001112 Sunoco, Inc. (R & M) Kenova 10 5.4 10,518 5.00 DE0020001 Metachem Products, LLC b Delaware City 3.18 3.25 6,335 10.0 NJ0005045 FERRO CORP Logan Twp NR NR NR 0.683 a AL0002097 Honeywell International Inc Fairfield 4.01 a 0.5 982 12.7 a PA0012769 Rohm and Haas Company Bristol Boro NR NR NR 0.800 WV0004740 Crompton Corporation Morgantown 0.55 0.36 701 0.550 WV0022047 Crompton Corporation Morgantown 0.55 0.036 70.1 0.500 FL0002313 Air Prod & Chem Escam 

Pensacol 

Santa Rosa County NR NR NR NC 

WV0000841 GE Plastics Washington NR NR NR 0.00750 WV0004588 Koppers Industries Inc Follansbee 0.5 0.36 701 0.050 LA0038890 Nalco Company Garyville 4.75 a 6.48 12,621 NR SC0002798 Invista S.A.R.L./Spartanburg Spartanburg 10 7.95 15,493 NR SC0003557 Honeywell Nylon LLC/

Columbia 

Columbia 5.00 a 8.28 16,127 NR 

WV0001279 E I Dupont De Nemours & Co Parkersburg 0.04 2.88 5,609 NR WV0005169 Bayer Materialscience, LLC New Martinsville 0.05 0.36 701 NR OCPSF Category Total 53.1 103,420 

a — 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 the 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 facilities that reported discharges of 

PACs to TRI from 2002 to 2005. 

 In 2004, EPA reviewed the coal tar refining 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: Honeywell 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 Company has closed its Cleveland, OH facility. 

As of 2004, six facilities owned by two companies continued to refine 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 near or at treatable levels. As a result, EPA 

determined that, based on the information available in 2004, it was not appropriate 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 powder coating industry (DSM, 2006); 

• DuPont Chambers Works in Deep Water, NJ produces fluorochemicals, 

elastomers, and hytrel polyester elastomer (U.S. EPA, 2004); 

• DuPont Washington Works in Washington, WV produces polymer products for 

the automotive industry including Delrin®, Crastin®, Rynite®, Zytel®, 

Butacite®, Dymetrol®, Hytrel® and Teflon® (DuPont, 2008); 

• Neutrogena in Los Angeles, CA packages 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 for 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 discharges (Connell, 2006). DSM confirmed that the 

TRI-reported discharge is based on measured concentrations of three PACs congeners: 

benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno-1,2,3-c-pyrene. The facility samples for 

PACs and other priority pollutants once per year. Prior to 2003, the sampling did not include data 

on PACs concentrations. DSM suspects 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 releases reported by DuPont Washington Works. 
Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers

7-15 

Combined, these facilities contribute 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 discharges from the two DuPont facilities. EPA 

found that DuPont Chambers Works’ PAC releases decrease by 87 percent and DuPont 

Washington Works’ PAC releases decreased by 52 percent from 2005 to 2006. EPA will 

continue to monitor increased reports of PAC discharges from these and other OCPSF facilities, 

but EPA concludes that no further review 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 POTWs 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 terms 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 presents 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 obtained 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 terms of TWPE for PCS pollutants for the OCPSF 

Category. EPA reviewed the benzidine discharges and found that they were reported by one 

facility, Rohm & Haas, Bristol, PA. Table 7-12 presents the monthly concentration and load data 

for benzidine that EPA used to calculate the annual 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 single benzidine detect for 2004 may be a dataentry error and that the total benzidine 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 

Source: PCSLoadCalculator2004. 

7.9 OCPSF Category Conclusions

 During the 2008 Annual Review, EPA did not obtain 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 detailed review because of high TWPE in 

the 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 annual reviews. 

• Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds is the highest ranking pollutant in terms of 

TWPE in the TRI databases from 2002 to 2005. EPA contacted the facilities that 

reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in previous reviews, and 

maintains its findings from these reviews: none of these facilities operate a 

manufacturing process that is a major source of dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds. Facilities that did identify a process source of dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds have stopped operating the dioxin-generating process. 

• Ninety percent of the HCB TWPE in TRIReleases2004_v3 result from one 

facility, DuPont Chambers Works. This facility stated that the HCB discharges 

were related to CWT operations at the facility. 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 TWPE, in PCS for the OCPSF Category for 

the 2005 annual review. EPA reviewed monthly 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, and 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 verification of PAC releases reported to 

TRI, including method of estimation, effluent concentrations, and review of 

process sources. 

• Aluminum is the top pollutant, in terms of TWPE, in PCSLoads2004_v4. One 

facility contributes 98 percent of the aluminum TWPE for 2005. EPA verified the 
Section 7.0 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers

7-18 

annual load calculation and reporting units for the aluminum discharges, and EPA 

will continue to monitor this facility’s aluminum discharges during future OCPSF 

Category reviews. 

• Benzidine 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 based 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. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is 

assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is 

marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 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.” (August 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/location_finder.htm. Date accessed: June 21. 

EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2565. 

3. DuPont. 2008. DuPont Washington Works Web Site. Available 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. Telephone conversations with various OCPSF 

facility representatives and Meghan Kandle of Eastern Research Group, Inc. “Basis of 

Estimation for Dioxin Releases Reported 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. Bristol 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 Environmental Quality. Total Maximum Daily Load 

Program. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Dioxins 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 Discharges Subject to Effluent Limitations 

and Standards for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, 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 ORE MINING AND DRESSING (40 CFR PART 440) 

 EPA selected the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 440) for 

preliminary review because it continues to rank high, in terms of TWPE, in point source category 

rankings (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4 for the point source category rankings). EPA has reviewed 

discharges from ore mining facilities as part of its annual reviews 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 (Ore Mining) Category warrant a detailed study. 

EPA plans to continue reviewing the Ore Mining 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 industry 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 SIC 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 reports 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 subject to the Ore Mining ELGs do not translate 

directly to a NAICS code, and EPA could not determine the number of facilities 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 discharges in TRI, only one mine (a gold mine) 

reported having indirect discharges. Table 8-2 presents the types 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 codes. 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. 
8-3 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dr

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

SIC Code 

TRI 2004 TRI 200

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 

R

Bo

and 

Di

1011: Iron Ores NR a NR a NR a NR a NR a NR a 

1021: Copper Ores 5 0 0 15 6 0 

1031: Lead and Zinc Ores 9 0 0 2 8 0 

1041: Gold Ores 7 1 0 22 6 0 

1044: Silver Ores 1 0 0 2 1 0 

1061: Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vanadium 

3 0 0 4 3 0 

1081: Metal Mining Services NR a NR a NR a NR a NR a NR a 1094: Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ores NR a NR a NR a NR a NR a NR a 1099: Miscellaneous Metal Ores, NEC 3 0 0 4 3 0 Total 28 1 0 49 27 0 

Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2. 

a — Facilities in this SIC code are not 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 consists of 12 subcategories, as shown in 

Table 8-3 with the related SIC codes and descriptions of the subcategories’ applicability (U.S. 

EPA, 1982; U.S. EPA, 1988). BAT limitations are set equal to BPT levels for priority pollutants 

for this category. The priority pollutants arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and 

zinc are regulated in at least one subcategory (U.S. EPA, 2005). None of the subcategories 

include PSES or PSNS limitations. 

Table 8-3. Ore Mining Category 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 Category Subcategory Applicability 

Subpart Subcategory Title Related SIC Code(s) Subcategory Applicability

M Gold Placer Mine 1041: Gold Ores Placer deposit gold ore mines, dredges, and mills 

using gravity separation 

Source:

Point Source Category (U.S. EPA, 1982); Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines 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 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). 

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 establish numeric limits or stormwater 

containment/treatment requirements. The MSGP establishes benchmark monitoring for 

pollutants including TSS, pH, hardness, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, 

manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, and uranium.12

 Development 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 discharges from waste rock and overburden piles from the Part 

440 applicability definition of “mine drainage.” Specifically, commenters suggested that EPA 

conduct a rulemaking to address discharges from waste rock piles, overburden 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 the 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 decreased 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, process 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 the 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 overburden 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 information 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 increased 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 and 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 molybdenum TWPE for the Ore 

Mining Category between 2005 and 2006 annual reviews and the 2007 and 2008 annual reviews 

are also the result of one facility for each pollutant. 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 the portion of the ore mining industry that is not 

included in the PCS and TRI databases (Section 8.7). 
8-7 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 8-5. 2008 Review: Ore Mining Category Pollutants of Concern 

b 

PCS 2004 a TRI 2004 T

Number of Number of Number of 

Facilities Facilities Facilities 

Reporting Reporting Reporting Pollutant Pollutant Total Pounds TWPE Pollutant Total Pounds TWPE Pollutant T

Mercury 28 3,768 441,338 Pollutants are not in the top five TRI Pollutants are 

2004 reported pollutants. 2005 re

Arsenic and Arsenic 10 7,651 30,921 5 7,532 30,439 6 Compounds Cadmium and Cadmium 38 911 21,052 6 512 11,840 6 

Compounds Lead and Lead Compounds 40 8,523 19,091 21 9,344 20,930 21 Molybdenum 4 93,117 18,757 Pollutants are not in the top five TRI Pollutants are 

2004 reported pollutants. 2005 re

Silver And Silver Compounds 2 500 8,235 2 

Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2004 Vanadium And Vanadium 3 205,500 7,193 3 

reported pollutants. Compounds 

c c c Ore Mining Category Total 49 2,158,293,854 580,831 29 550,088 88,001 27 

Source: 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. 
8-8 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 8-6. 2006 Review: Ore Mining Category Pollutants of Concern 

2002 PCS a 2002 TRI b 20

Pollutant 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Total Pounds 

Released TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Total Pounds 

Released TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

To

R

Molybdenum 4 770,329 155,174 Cyanide 7 109,018 121,764 

Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2002 

reported pollutants. 

Pollutants are not 

reporte

Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds 

26 2,360 54,556 10 848 19,603 9 

Lead and Lead Compounds 

30 10,406 23,309 25 5,526 12,378 23 

Arsenic and Arsenic Compounds 

11 3,143 12,701 9 3,312 13,383 8 

Silver and Silver Compounds 

2 500 8,235 2 

Vanadium and Vanadium Compounds 

Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2002 

reported pollutants. 3 147,310 5,156 3 

Ore Mining Category Total 

50 c 702,310,349 410,266 35 c 462,061 70,214 32 c 

Source: PCSLoads2002_v4; TRIReleases2002_v4; TRIReleases2003_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. 
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 facility’s discharges, including the facility’s 

NPDES permit and available discharge information. The facility’s permit does not set limits for 

mercury discharges, and Part 440 Subpart A (Iron 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 processes taconite (iron ore) to produce iron 

(Northshore Mining Company, 2006). The Minnesota 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 discharges from taconite processing 

include the following (U.S. EPA, 1995): 

• Blowdown from wet air pollution control equipment controlling emissions from 

crushing and beneficiation; 

• Blowdown from wet air pollution control equipment controlling emissions from 

induration furnaces; 

• Blowdown from wet air pollution control equipment controlling emissions from 

the top gas stack; and 

• Mine drainage. 

 EPA plans to contact this facility as part of the 2009 Annual Review 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 TRI TWPE decreased slightly between 2004 and 

2005. The increases in arsenic discharges do not result from newly reported 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 discharges 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 Copper Mine in Salt Lake City, UT, and Lac 

Minerals (USA) Gold Mine in Lead, SD. Although eight of the 10 facilities reporting arsenic 

discharges to PCS during years of review are gold mining facilities, the top arsenic discharge in 

the Ore Mining Category comes from Kennecott Copper 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 facility reported to TRI from 2002 through 2005. 

In TRI, arsenic discharges from the Ore Mining Category are dominated by three facilities: the 

Newmont Lone Tree Mine in Valmy, NV, the Kennecott Utah Copper Mine in Salt Lake City, 

UT, and the Kennecott Utah Copper Smelter and Refinery 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 plans to review discharges from facilities with 

the majority of the TWPE: copper mines. EPA also plans to review gold mine arsenic discharges, 

because the majority of facilities with arsenic discharges are gold mines. 

8.6 Ore Mining Category Facility Identification

 EPA received comments on previous effluent guidelines program plans stating that 

discharges from facilities in the Ore Mining Category may not be adequately quantified in the 

PCS and TRI databases and that these 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 included 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 discharging but are not in EPA’s databases. Because 

facilities in Subparts A (Iron Ore) 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 databases but are in the USGS 

Mineral Yearbook. 
8-11 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dr

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

Category a

2004 

Type of 

Mine Facility Name Location 

Maximum Arsenic 

Concentration in 

PCSLoads2004_v4 (mg/L) 

Total Pounds 

Released TWPE 

T

Copper Kennecott Copper Co Salt Lake City, UT 0.726 5,051 20,414 Gold Lac Minerals (USA) Inc Lead, SD 0.007 2,512 10,153 Gold Wharf Resources (USA), Inc. Lead, SD 0.136 41 166 Gold Golden Reward Mining Co Lead, SD 0.021 27 108 Gold Homestake Mining Co-Gold Div Lead, SD 0.011 17 70 Silver Platoro Mining Co & Union Gold Conejos County, CO 0.092 3 10 Gold Zortman Mining Inc. Zortman, MT NR NR NR Gold Zortman Mining Inc. Zortman, MT NR NR NR Gold Hecla Mining Co Stanley, ID NR NR NR Copper Phelps Dodge Corp Cottonwood, AZ NR NR NR Total 7,651 30,921 

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4: PCSLoads2002_v4. a — Includes only discharges greater than one TWPE from PCS Majors. NR — Not reported 
8-12 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 8-9. 2006 Review: Arsenic Discharges Reported to TRI from Facilities in the Ore Mining 

2005 2004 2003 

Total Total Total 

Type of Pounds Pounds Pounds 

Mine Facility Name Location Released TWPE Released TWPE Released TWP

Gold Newmont Mining Corp. Lone Tree Valmy, NV 3,400 13,741 3,000 12,124 2,900 11,7

Mine 

Copper Kennecott Utah Copper Smelter & Magna, UT 2,400 9,699 3,400 13,741 2,100 8,4

Refy. 

Copper Kennecott Utah Copper Mine Salt Lake City, 750 3,031 1,100 4,445 750 3,0

Concentrators & Power Plant UT 

Ferroalloy Thompson Creek Mining Co. Clayton, ID 15 61 15 61 15 Lead/Zinc Pend Oreille Metaline Falls, 12 48 NR NR NR N

WA 

Gold Pogo Mine Pogo Mine, AK 5 20 NR NR NR NLead/Zinc Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co. Juneau, AK NR NR NR NR 7 Gold Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. Elko, NV NR NR NR NR NR N

Gold Newmont Mining Corp. Twin Creeks Golconda, NV NR NR 17 69 9 

Mine 

Gold Getchell Gold Corp. Golconda, NV NR NR NR NR 1 Gold Homestake Mine Lead, SD NR NR NR NR 100 4

Total 6,582 26,600 7,532 30,440 5,882 23,7

Source: 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 require

NR — Not reported. 
Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440) 

8-13 

 EPA reviewed technical reports on the ore 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 databases. These reports contain a variety of 

sampling data for groundwater and surface water near ore mine sites, but do not provide 

wastewater discharge data. EPA verified that all of the major sites 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 discharges (larger than 4,000 TWPE) in PCSLoads2004_v4

and compared them to permit limits for the appropriate outfalls the in permits gathered through 

OTIS.13 Table 8-10 lists the discharges 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 discharges separately (see Table 8-7). 

These discharges contribute 76 percent of the category TWPE. The facility’s 

permit requires that mercury be monitored in the wastewater but does not set a 

numerical limit. 

• None of the discharges reviewed by EPA exceeded effluent limits; however, the 

facilities were only required to monitor for the pollutants (i.e., the permit did not 

require numerical limitations for the pollutants). These discharges accounted for 

27 percent14 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 Mining 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. 
8-14 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 8-10. Compliance Status of High TWPE Discharges 

Name Location Parameter Outfall(s) 

Max. Conc. In 

PCSLoads2004_v4

(mg/L) 

Permitted 

Limit (mg/L) 

Total 

TWPE 

Cumu

TW

Climax Fluoride, Total 1 6.7 Monitor Only 8,526 8Molybdenum Company 

Summit County, CO Molybdenum, 

Total 

1 2.42 Monitor Only 18,229 18

Cadmium, Total Recoverable 

1,2,3,4 BDL a Monitor Only 5,080 5

1 0.207 0.264 2,667 3 0.304 Monitor Only 5,732 

Doe Run, Viburnum Mine #35 

Viburnum, MO 

Lead, Total Recoverable 

4 0.005 Monitor Only 245 

8

Aluminum, Total Recoverable 

1,2,3,4,STR 1.27 a Monitor Only 10,852 10

Arsenic, Total 3 0.005 Monitor Only 10,119 Recoverable STR 0.005 Monitor Only 34 

10

2 0.005 0.3 2,782 

Lac Minerals (USA) Inc 

Lead, SD 

Copper, Total Recoverable 3 0.005 0.3 1,987 

4

Source: 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 ore 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 with 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 the level of control of ore mining discharges provided by NPDES 

(Section 8.8.1). EPA analyzed the available monitoring data to investigate 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 

 Table 8-12 at the end of this section summarizes effluent limits for wastewater from the 

Ore Mining Category. The table presents minimum, average, and maximum effluent limits for 

monthly average and daily maximum concentrations, summarized by mine type. All of the data 

in the tables below were gathered from the 28 permits and associated permit fact sheets that EPA 

compiled during the category review. 

 In addition 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 discharges, 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 monitoring 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 maximum 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 monitoring data measured arsenic at 

concentrations above detection (on average). 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 discharges 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. 
8-17 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dr

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

Parameter 

Copper Mines (1) Gold Mines (5) Lead, Zinc Mines (2) Molybdenum Mines (1) 

Avg Conc Max Conc Avg Conc Max Conc Avg Conc Max Conc Avg Conc Max Conc 

Aluminum NR 28 1.9 19 NR NR NR NR 

Arsenic ND ND 0.037 0.22 NR NR NR NR Cadmium NR ND 0.00094 0.0080 0.00050 0.00080 NR NR 

Copper NR 0.53 0.20 12 0.0040 0.0090 0.0035 0.060 

Cyanide NR NR NR NR NR NR .00524 0.040 

Iron NR 33 0.035 1.37 0.030 0.46 NR NR 

Fluoride NR 3.0 NR NR NR NR 4.4 9.2 

Lead NR ND 0.00047 0.003 0.001 0.00040 NR NR 

Magnesium NR 360 NR NR NR NR NR NR Manganese NR 3.0 0.68 5.55 0.65 1.56 0.75 2.7 Mercury NR ND ND 0.00060 ND ND NR NR 

Molybdenum NR 0.050 NR NR NR NR 1.31 2.8 Nickel NR ND 0.013975 0.064 NR NR NR NR Silver NR NR 0.00034 0.00050 ND 0.00013 0 0.000070 Zinc NR 0.28 0.010 0.040 0.11 0.14 0.071 0.90 

Source: 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 Mining Category review are as follows: 

• The high TWPE ranking for the Ore Mining 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 NPDES permit does not set limits for mercury, 

but requires quarterly monitoring, which 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. 

• Pollutants without effluent limits for which 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 information for 398 facilities. PCSLoads2004_v4 and 

TRIReleases2004_v3 represent only 73 facilities (18 percent). 

• EPA intends to continue its review of arsenic discharges from copper and gold 

mines in the 2009 annual review. 

8.10 Ore Mining Category References

1. Finseth, TJ. 2007. Telephone conversation with 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. “Description 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. “Status 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. “NPDES Permits Collected for the 2008 Ore 

Mining Category Preliminary Review (Part 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 Natural 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. Northshore 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. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1346 to 

1352. 

13. U.S. EPA. 2005. Preliminary Review of Prioritized Categories of Industrial Dischargers. 

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. 
8-20 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining Facilities 

Average Monthly Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Maximum 

Type of 

Mine a Regulated Parameter 

ELG Monthly 

Average 

(mg/L) Min Avg Max 

ELG Daily

Maximum

(mg/L) Min 

Bauxite Aluminum, Total 1 1 1 1 2 2 

Iron, Total 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 

Aluminum, Total

Recoverable 

NA 0.98 0.98 0.98 NA 0.75 

Lead, Total 

Recoverable 

0.3 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.6 0.01 

Mercury, Total 

Recoverable 

0.001 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.002 0.002 

Copper 

Zinc, Total Recoverable 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.5 0.38 

Aluminum, Total

Recoverable 

NA 0.071 0.071 0.071 NA 0.14 

Arsenic, Total 

Recoverable 

NA 0.05 0.63 4.4 NA 0.1 

Cadmium, Dissolved 0.0062 0.024 0.05 0.1 0.1 Cadmium, Total 

Recoverable 

0.05 

0.0001 0.026 0.05 0.0002 

Chromium, Total 

Recoverable 

NA 0.008 0.0093 0.011 NA 0.0016 

Copper, Dissolved 0.029 0.073 0.15 0.05 Copper, Potentially 

Dissolved 

0.0036 0.031 0.059 0.0048 

Copper, Total 

Recoverable 

0.15 

0.0019 0.082 0.15 

0.3 

0.0038 

Iron, Total Recoverable NA 0.8 6.4 23 NA 1.6 

Gold 

Lead, Dissolved 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 
8-21 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining Facilities 

Average Monthly Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Maximum 

Type of 

Mine a Regulated Parameter 

ELG Monthly 

Average 

(mg/L) Min Avg Max 

ELG Daily

Maximum

(mg/L) Min 

Lead, Potentially 

Dissolved 

0.00055 0.015 0.03 0.01 

Lead, Total 

Recoverable 

0.3 

0.0005 0.15 0.3 

0.6 

0.0009 

Manganese, Dissolved NA 3.8 3.8 3.8 NA 5.9 Manganese, Total

Recoverable 

NA 0.05 0.05 0.05 NA 0.073 

Mercury, Total 9.8E-06 0.00024 0.001 0.002 0.00002 Mercury, Total 

Recoverable 

0.001 

0.000012 0.00078 0.001 0.0014 

Nickel, Total Recoverable 

NA 0.013 0.28 1.5 NA 0.026 

Silver, Potentially 

Dissolved 

NA 6.9E-06 0.0004 0.0008 NA 0.00019 

Silver, Total 

Recoverable 

NA 0.0002 0.0036 0.02 NA 0.0004 

WAD Cyanide NA 0.0043 0.026 0.08 NA 0.0081 Zinc, Dissolved 0.6 0.68 0.75 1.5 Zinc, Potentially 

Dissolved 

0.54 0.54 0.54 0.6 

Zinc, Total 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00036 

Gold 

Zinc, Total Recoverable 

0.75 

0.018 0.42 0.75 

1.5 

0.037 

Cadmium, Dissolved 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.094 Cadmium, Total 

Recoverable 

0.05 

0.012 0.012 0.012 

0.1 

0.019 

Lead 

Chromium, Dissolved NA 0.17 0.17 0.17 NA 0.28 
8-22 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining Facilities 

Average Monthly Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Maximum 

Type of 

Mine a Regulated Parameter 

ELG Monthly 

Average 

(mg/L) Min Avg Max 

ELG Daily

Maximum

(mg/L) Min 

Copper, Total 

Recoverable 

0.15 0.029 0.07 0.084 0.3 0.047 

Cyanide, amen. to 

chlorination

NA 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 NA 0.022 

Lead, Total 

Recoverable 

0.3 0.18 0.2 0.26 0.6 0.3 

Mercury, Total 0.001 1.2E-06 1.2E-06 1.2E-06 0.002 2.4E-06 Zinc, Dissolved 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.6 

Lead 

Zinc, Total Recoverable 

0.75 

0.34 0.34 0.34 

1.5 

0.56 

Cadmium, Dissolved NA 0.016 0.043 0.057 NA 0.025 Cadmium, Total 

Recoverable 

NA 0.0007 0.0011 0.002 NA 0.0018 

Chlorine, Total

Residual

NA 2.2 2.2 2.2 NA 3.6 

Copper, Dissolved 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.056 Copper, Potentially 

Dissolved 

0.0086 0.018 0.028 0.013 

Copper, Total 

Recoverable 

0.15 

0.000021 0.015 0.051 

0.3 

0.000042 

Cyanide, Total NA 0.004 0.004 0.004 NA 0.009 Lead, Dissolved 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.6 0.037 Lead, Potentially 

Dissolved 

0.3 

0.0026 0.0055 0.009 0.067 

Lead, Total 

Recoverable 

0.3 0.0081 0.098 0.26 0.6 0.02 

Lead, Zinc 

Mercury, Total 0.001 0.00001 0.00022 0.001 0.002 0.00002 
8-23 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining Facilities 

Average Monthly Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Maximum 

Type of 

Mine a Regulated Parameter 

ELG Monthly 

Average 

(mg/L) Min Avg Max 

ELG Daily

Maximum

(mg/L) Min 

Silver, Total 

Recoverable 

NA 0.0016 0.0023 0.0033 NA 0.0027 

Zinc, Potentially 

Dissolved 

0.15 0.26 0.38 1.5 0.15 

Lead, Zinc 

Zinc, Total Recoverable 

0.75 

0.071 0.29 0.75 0.19 

Cadmium, Total 

Recoverable 

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 

Copper, Total 

Recoverable 

0.15 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.3 0.3 

Lead, Total 

Recoverable 

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 

Mercury, Total 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 

Lead, Zinc, 

Silver, Gold

Zinc, Total Recoverable 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 1 

Cadmium, Total 

Recoverable 

0.05 0.0035 0.0093 0.024 0.1 0.0052 

Chromium, Total 

Recoverable 

NA 0.02 0.02 0.02 NA 0.04 

Copper, Total 

Recoverable 

0.15 0.015 0.052 0.15 0.3 0.022 

Lead, Total 

Recoverable 

0.3 0.0083 0.021 0.064 0.6 0.012 

Mercury, Total NA 0.000018 0.00012 0.00032 NA 0.000037 Selenium, Total 

Recoverable 

NA 0.011 0.042 0.11 NA 0.017 

Molybdenum

Silver, Total 

Recoverable 

NA 0.006 0.006 0.006 NA 0.012 

Molybdenum Zinc, Total Recoverable 0.5 0.14 0.33 0.75 1 0.21 Uranium Uranium, Total 2 2 2 2 4 4 

Zinc, Total 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 
8-24 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and Dr

Table 8-13. Summary Statistics of Effluent Limits for Ore Mining Facilities 

Average Monthly Concentration 

(mg/L) 

Maximum 

Type of 

Mine a Regulated Parameter 

ELG Monthly 

Average 

(mg/L) Min Avg Max 

ELG Daily

Maximum

(mg/L) Min 

Cadmium, Total 0.05 0.007 0.025 0.05 0.1 0.033 Copper, Total 0.15 0.062 0.12 0.15 0.3 0.1 Lead, Total 0.3 0.024 0.12 0.3 0.6 0.6 Mercury, Total 0.001 0.00057 0.001 0.002 0.0016 

Zinc 

Zinc, Total 0.75 0.5 0.66 0.75 1.5 0.76 

Source: NPDES Permits (Krejci, 2008b). a — EPA determined the type of ore being mined or processed at the facilities above using information from permit fact sheets. 
8-25 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and 

Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List 

SIC 

Code(s) a NPDES ID TRI ID Name City State Zip

In USG

2005? 

1031

1044

AK0038652 99752-RDDGP-90MIL Teck Cominco Alaska Inc Kotzebue AK 49920 Y 

1031 AK0043206 99801-KNNCT-13401 Kennecott Greens Crk 

Mining Co 

Juneau AK 41730 Y 

1041 AK0049514 Juneau, City & Borough Of Juneau AK 41730 1041 AK0050571 Coeur Alaska Inc Juneau AK 41730 1041 AK0053341 Teck-Pogo Inc Delta Junction AK 22650 1011 AL0071111 Tuscaloosa Steel Mobile Dri Mobile AL 56000 1021 AZ0000035 85237-SRCNC-HWY17 Asarco, Inc Hayden AZ 37370 1021 AZ0020389 Resolution Copper Superior AZ 83250 1021 AZ0020401 85539-BHPCP-HWY60

85539-BHPCP-HWY6A

BHP Copper Miami AZ 52540 Y 

1021 AZ0020516 Phelps Dodge Christmas AZ 16320 1021

1061

AZ0022268 86321-CYPRS-1MAIN Phelps Dodge Bagdad, Inc Bagdad AZ 05550 Y 

1021 AZ0022705 85540-PHLPS-4521U Phelps Dodge Morenci, Inc Morenci AZ 54020 Y 1021 AZ0024112 Carlota Copper Company Miami /T/ AZ 52540 1021 AZ0024546 Phelps Dodge Corp Yavapai County AZ 97100 1021 CA0081876 Mining Remedial Recovery

Co

Redding CA 63540 

1061 CO0000230 80468-CLMXM-19302 Climax Molybdenum

Company 

Grand County CO 38210 

1061 CO0000248 Climax Molybdenum

Company 

Summit County CO 86960 

1031 CO0000591 Res-Asarco Joint Venture Lake County CO 53110 1044 CO0000710 Homestake Mining Company Mineral County CO 62350 1041 CO0024562 80860-CRPPL-2755S Cripple Crk&Victor Gold 

Mining 

Teller County CO 87510 

1041 CO0027529 Gold King Mines 

Corporation

San Juan County CO 80310 
8-26 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and 

Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List 

SIC 

Code(s) a NPDES ID TRI ID Name City State Zip 

In USG

2005? 

1041 CO0032751 Calais Resources Colorado, 

Inc 

Boulder CO 08820 

1031 CO0035394 Climax Molybdenum 

Company 

Gunnison County CO 40870 

1041 CO0037206 Walker Ruby 

Co. 

Trust Mining Ouray County CO 68050 

1041 CO0038334 London Mine Llc Park County CO 69950 

1044 CO0038954 Platoro Mining Co&Union 

Gold 

Conejos County CO 18750 

1061 CO0041467 80438-CLMXM-9MILE Climax Molybdenum Co. Clear Creek County CO 16580 

1041 CO0043168 Hunter Gold Mining, Inc. Gilpin County CO 36210 1041 CO0043648 Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Teller County CO 87510 Y 1041 CO0045756 Specie Ridge Holding Co., 

Inc. 

Dolores County CO 24490 

1041 CO0046167 New Cardinal Llc Boulder County CO 08830 1031 ID0000027 Coeur Silver Valley Inc Osburn ID 67500 

1044 ID0000159 Sunshine Precious Metals Inc Osburn ID 67500 1031 ID0000167 Hecla Mining Co Mullan ID 61750 

1031 ID0000175 Hecla Mining Co Mullan ID 61750 

1061 ID0025259 Noranda Mining Inc Cobalt ID 18700 

1061 ID0025402 83227-THMPS-SQUAW Thompson Creek Mining Co Clayton ID 17750 Y 

1044 ID0025429 Coeur Silver Valley Inc Wallace ID 93750 

1041 ID0026468 Hecla Mining Co Stanley ID 85500 

1041 ID0027022 Meridian Beartrack Co Salmon ID 80250 

1011 LA0103284 American Iron Reduction Convent LA 70723 1011 MI0000094 Empire Iron Mining 

Partnership 

Palmer MI 72900 

1021 MI0006114 Copper Range Co White Pine MI 98830 

1011 MI0038369 Tilden Mining Co Ishpeming MI 47700 
8-27 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and 

Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List 

SIC 

Code(s) a NPDES ID TRI ID Name City State Zip

In USG

2005? 

1011 MI0045063 National Steel-Dober Mine

Cpx 

Stambaugh Twp MI 89350 

1011 MN0046981 Northshore Mining Co;Cliffs

Mn

Babbitt MN 05000 

1011 MN0055301 Northshore Mining/Silver 

Bay P 

Silver Bay MN 86750 

1031 MO0000086 Doe Run, Viburnum Div Viburnum MO 81260 1011 MO0000574 Upland Wings Sullivan MO 77100 1031 MO0001848 63629-BRSHY-HWYKK Doe Run, Brushy Cr Mine/M Viburnum MO 81260 Y 1031 MO0001856 63629-FLTCH-HWYTT Doe Run,Fletcher Mine/Mil Viburnum MO 81260 Y 1031 MO0001872 Cominco, Magmont Mine Bixby MO 06780 1031 MO0100218 Doe Run, West Fork Unit Bunker MO 11280 1031 MO0100226 Doe Run,Viburnum Mine

#35 

Viburnum MO 81260 

1021

1061

MT0000191 59701-MNTNR-600SH Montana Resources Butte MT 12240 Y 

1021 MT0024716 Stillwater Mining Company Nye MT 61920 1041 MT0025020 Montana Gold & Sapphires 

Inc 

Lewis And Clark Coun MT 49400 

1041 MT0030015 M & W Milling & Refining

Inc 

Virginia City MT 88020 

1031 MT0030031 Asarco Inc (Mike Horse) Lewis And Clark Coun MT 49400 1041 MT0030252 Tvx Mineral Hill Mine Jardine MT 43920 1044 MT0030279 Noranda Minerals Corp Lincoln County MT 50300 1021 MT0030287 Revett Silver Company Noxon MT 61740 1021 NM0020435 88043-CHNMN-210CO Chino Mines Co-Hurley Hurley NM 42000 1061 NM0022306 Molycorp Inc - Questa Questa NM 69930 Y 1041 NM0028711 Pegasus Gold Corporation Santa Fe County NM 78970 1031 NY0001791 Balmat Mines & Mill Balmat N Y NY 04600 
8-28 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and 

Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List 

SIC 

Code(s) a NPDES ID TRI ID Name City State Zip 

In USG

2005? 

1031 NY0109126 Pierrepont Mine Pierrepont Manor NY 65400 

1041 SC0040479 Haile Gold Mine Kershaw SC 45300 

1041 SC0041378 Kennecott/Ridgeway Gold 

Mine 

Ridgeway SC 74400 

1041 SD0000043 

SD0025933 

57754-HMSTK-630ES Homestake Mining Co-Gold 

Div 

Lead SD 49680 

1041 SD0025852 57754-WHRFR-TROJA Wharf Resources (Usa), Inc. Lead SD 49680 Y 

1041 SD0026883 Lac Minerals (Usa) Inc Lead SD 49680 1041 SD0026905 Golden Reward Mining Co Lead SD 49680 

1031 TN0001732 Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div. Jefferson City TN 44400 1031 TN0001741 Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div. New Market TN 62160 

1031 TN0001759 Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div. Mascot TN 55560 

1031 TN0004227 Mossy Creek Mining, Llc Elmwood TN 28440 

1031 TN0027677 Asarco, Inc., Tn Mines Div. Jefferson County TN 44410 1031 TN0029360 Mossy Creek Mining, Llc Gordonsville TN 36120 

1031 TN0057029 Mossy Creek Mining, Llc New Market TN 62160 1031 TN0060127 37881-SVGZN-RTE13 Mossy Creek Mining, Llc Thorn Hill TN 85200 1031 TN0061468 Asarco, Inc. Tn Mines Div. Jefferson City TN 44400 1031 TN0064289 Mossy Creek Mining, Llc Carthage TN 13920 

1021 UT0000051 84006-KNNCT-8362W Kennecott Copper Co Salt Lake City UT 77880 Y 

1031 UT0022403 Jordanelle Special Service 

Dis 

Heber /City/ UT 35360 

1031 UT0025259 Lexco, Inc. (E) Vernal UT 91800 

1011 WV0044903 Reiss Viking Fairmont WV 26940 

1031 08857-BLNDR-1JAKE Blonder Tongue Labs Old Bridge NJ 

1061 19720-MRCNM-301PI American Minerals Inc. New Castle DE 

1021 44095-SKLDC-34580 Skrl Die Casting Inc Eastlake OH 

1041 59638-MNTNT-5MILE Apollo Gold Corp. Montana 

Tunnels 

Jefferson City MT Y 
8-29 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and 

Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List 

SIC 

Code(s) a NPDES ID TRI ID Name City State Zip 

In USG

2005? 

1041 59759-GLDNS-453MO Golden Sunlight Mines Inc Whitehall MT 1061 62982-MRCNM-FERRE American Minerals Inc. Rosiclare IL 1031 63638-SWTMM-HIGHW Doe Run Resources Corp. 

Sweetwater Mine/Mill 

Ellington MO Y 

1031 65440-BCKMN-HWYKK Buick Mine/Mill Boss MO 1061 79922-MRCNM-3666D American Minerals Inc El Paso TX 1044 83846-LCKYF-I90EX Hecla Mining Co Lucky 

Friday Mine Unit 

Mullan ID Y 

1021 83873-SLVRV-LAKEG Coeur Silver Valley Inc Wallace ID 1021 84006-KNNCT-12300 Kennecott Utah Copper Mine 

Concentrators & Power Plant 

Copperton UT 

1041 84006-KNNCT-8200S Kennecott Barneys Canyon 

Mining Co 

Bingham Canyon UT Y 

1021 85532-NSPRT-POBOX Phelps Dodge Miami Inc Claypool AZ Y 1021 85603-PHLPS-36WHW Phelps Dodge Mining Co 

Copper Queen Branch 

Bisbee AZ 2004 

1021 1061 

85614-CYPRS-6200W Phelps Dodge Sierrita Inc Green Valley AZ 2004 Y 

1021 85629-SRCNC-4201W Asarco Inc. Mission Complex Pima County AZ Y 1021 85653-SLVRB-25000 Silver Bell Mining Llc Marana AZ 2004 1021 86401-QTRLM-16MIL Equatorial Mineral Park Inc Kingman AZ 2004 1061 88031-MRCNM-2010F American Minerals Inc Deming NM 1021 88065-PHLPS-HWY90 Phelps Dodge Tyrone Inc Tyrone NM Y 1041 89045-SMKYV-1SMOK Smoky Valley Common 

Operation 

Round Mountain NV 

1041 89316-RBYHL-INTER Ruby Hill Mine Eureka NV 1021 89319-BHPCP-7MILE Robinson Nevada Mining Co Ruth NV 1041 89406-KNNCT-55MIL Kennecott Rawhide Mining 

Co 

Fallon NV Y 

1041 89414-GTCHL-28MIN Placer Turquoise Ridge Inc Golconda NV 
8-30 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and 

Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List 

SIC 

Code(s) a NPDES ID TRI ID Name City State Zip 

In USG

2005? 

1041 89414-KNSNY-60MIL Newmont Midas Operations Midas NV Y 

1041 89414-NWMNT-35MIL Newmont Mining Corp Twin 

Creeks Mine 

Golconda NV Y 

1041 89415-SMRLD-28LUC Esmeralda Mine Hawthorne NV 

1041 89418-FLRDC-EXIT1 Florida Canyon Mining Inc Imlay NV 

1044 89419-CRRCH-180EX Coeur Rochester Inc Lovelock NV Y 

1041 89438-GLMSM-3MILE Glamis Marigold Mining Co Valmy NV Y 

1041 89438-NWMNT-EIGHT Newmont Mining Corp 

Trenton Canyon Mine 

Valmy NV 

1041 89438-NWMNT-STONE Newmont Mining Corp Lone 

Tree Mine 

Valmy NV Y 

1041 89801-JRRTT-50MIL Queenstake Resources Ltd. 

Jerritt Canyon Mine 

Elko NV Y 

1041 89803-BLDMN-70MIL Placer Dome Inc. Bald 

Mountain Mine 

Elko NV Y 

1041 89803-BRRCK-27MIL Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc Elko NV 

1041 89820-BTTLM-COPPE Newmont Mining 

Corporation-Copper Canyon Facility 

Battle Mountain NV 

1044 89820-CHBYM-1MCCO Newmont Mining Corp 

Mccoy/Cove Mine 

Battle Mountain NV 

1041 89821-CRTZG-STARA Cortez Gold Mines Crescent Valley NV 

1041 89822-NWMNT-25MIL Newmont Mining Corp 

Carlin North Area 

Carlin NV 

1041 89822-NWMNT-6MAIL Newmont Mining Corp 

Carlin South Area 

Carlin NV 

1041 92227-NWMNT-6502E Western Mesquite Mines Inc Brawley CA Y 

1041 93554-GLMSR-27850 Glamis Rand Mine Randsburg CA 

1041 93562-CRBRG-WINGA Cr Briggs Corp Trona CA Y 1021 97828-PRKSB-331GO Parks Bronze Enterprise OR 
8-31 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and 

Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List 

SIC 

Code(s) a NPDES ID TRI ID Name City State Zip 

In USG

2005? 

1041 99118-CHBYN-2400W K2 Mine Curlew WA 

1031 99153-PNDRL-1382P Teck Cominco American Inc. 

Pend Oreille 

Metaline Falls WA Y 

1041 99166-KTTLR-363FI Kinross Gold Corp. KETTLE 

RIVER OPERATIONS MILL 

Republic WA Y 

1041 99707-FRTKN-1FORA FORT KNOX MINE Fairbanks AK 

1041 99712-TRNRT-1TWIN TRUE NORTH MINE Fairbanks AK 

1031 99752-RDDGP-13MIL DELONG MOUNTAIN 

TRANSPORTATION FACILITY PORT SITE 

Kotzebue AK 

1041 Kinross Gold Corp. Fort 

Knox 

Fairbanks County AK Y 

1021 ASARCO Inc. Ray Pinal County AZ Y 

1021 ASARCO Inc. Silver Bell Pima County AZ Y 1021 BHP Copper Co. Pinto 

Valley 

Gila County AZ Y 

1041 LKA International Golden 

Wonder 

Hinsdale County CO Y 

1061 Phelps Dodge Corp. 

Henderson 

Cleak Creek County CO Y 

1044 Silver Valley Resources 

Corp. Galena 

Shoshone County ID Y 

1031 Doe Run Resources Corp. 

Buick 

Iron County MO Y 

1031 Doe Run Resources Corp. 

Viburnum (#29 and #35) 

Iron County MO Y 

1031 Doe Run Resources Corp. 

Viburnum (#38 and #35) 

Iron County MO Y 

1041 Placer Dome Inc. Golden 

Sunlight 

Jefferson County MT Y 
8-32 

Section 8.0 – Ore Mining and 

Table 8-14. Ore Mining Category Master Facility List 

SIC 

Code(s) a NPDES ID TRI ID Name City State Zip 

In USG

2005? 

1021 1061 

Phelps Dodge Corp. Chino Grant County NM Y 

1041 Barrick Gold Corp. BetzePost Eureka County NV Y 1041 Barrick Gold Corp. Meikle Elko County NV Y 1041 Jipangu Inc. Florida Canyon Pershing County NV Y 

1041 Jipangu Inc. Standard Pershing County NV Y 1041 Kinross Gold Corp. Smoky 

Valley Common Operation 

Nye County NV Y 

1041 Newmont Mining Corp. Mule 

Canyon 

Lander County NV Y 

1041 Newmont Mining Corp. 

Turquoise Ridge 

Humboldt County NV Y 

1041 Placer Dome Inc. Cortez Lander County NV Y 1044 Kinross Gold 

Mountain 

Corp. Round Nye County NV Y 

1044 Newmont Mining Corp. 

Eastern Nevada Operations 

Elko County NV Y 

1021 1061 

Quadra Mining Ltd. Robinson 

White Pine County NV Y 

1021 1061 

Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. Bingham Canyon 

Salt Lake County UT Y 

Source: PCSLoads2004_v3; TRIReleases2004_v4. 

a — EPA determined SIC codes by the mineral type listed in the USGS Minerals Yearbook. 
Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419) 

9-1

9.0 PETROLEUM REFINING (40 CFR PART 419) 

 EPA selected the Petroleum Refining Category (40 CFR Part 419) for preliminary review 

because it continues to rank 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 detailed 

study of this industry, published as part of the 2004 Final ELG Plan (69 FR 53705). EPA has 

also reviewed discharges from petroleum refineries 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 facilities that produce gasoline, kerosene, 

distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, and lubricants through fractionation 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 codes 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 number of facilities in the 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 facilities in the 2004 and 2005 TRI database. The 

majority of petroleum refineries reporting to TRI reported discharging directly. The majority of 

facilities reporting to TRI in SIC codes classified as potential new subcategories reported no 

water discharges, but facilities may be discharging pollutants in wastewater 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 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 these facilities discharge no wastewater and only a 

small number of facilities discharge TWPE greater than zero. 
Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419) 

9-2

Table 9-1. Number of Facilities in Petroleum Refining SIC Codes 

SIC 

2002 U.S. 

Economic

Census 2004 PCS a 2004 TRI b 2005 TRI b

2911: Petroleum Refining 199 144 164 159 

Potential New Subcategories 

2992: Lubricating Oils and Greases 407 21 130 129 

2999: Products of Petroleum and Coal, NEC 74 22 30 35 

4612: Crude Petroleum Pipelines 271 28 0 0 

5171: Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals NA c 481 540 523 

Potential New Subcategories 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 codes. Number of facilities could not be determined. 

NA — Not applicable. 

NEC — Not elsewhere classified. 
9-3 

Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re

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

TRI 2004 TRI 2

SIC Code 

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 

2911: Petroleum Refining 92 21 16 35 90 23 

Potential New Subcategories 

2992: Lubricating Oils and Greases 7 16 5 102 7 16 2999: Products of Petroleum and Coal, NEC 6 0 0 24 7 0 4612: Crude Petroleum Pipelines 0 0 0 0 0 0 5171: Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals 129 20 13 378 134 19 Potential New Subcategories Total 142 36 18 504 148 35 

Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2. 

NEC — Not elsewhere classified. 
Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419) 

9-4

9.1.2 40 CFR Part 419 

 EPA first promulgated ELGs for the Petroleum Refining Category (40 CFR Part 419) on 

October 18, 1982 (47 FR 46446). The five subcategories 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 subcategory. 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 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews 

 Over the years of EPA review, from 2004 through 2008, the TWPE associated with 

petroleum refineries has increased. Table 9-3 shows the screening-level results for the Petroleum 

Refining Category including the potential new subcategory SIC codes from the 2002 through 

2005 TRI and PCS databases. Both the 2004 TRI and PCS TWPEs have increased compared to 

previous years. Also, the 2005 TRI TWPE increased compared to 2002 and 2003, but decreased 

compared to 2004. However, the largest increase in TWPE is in PCS from 2002 to 2004. 

Table 9-3. Petroleum Refining Category 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 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 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 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 Refining (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 remain 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 and dioxin-like compounds (U.S. EPA, 2004; U.S. 

EPA, 2006). Section 9.4 discusses EPA’s review of discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds from petroleum refineries, while section 9.5 discusses EPA’s review of discharges of 

polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) from petroleum refineries. 

9.4 Petroleum Refining Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges 

 The increase in the overall TWPE for the Petroleum Refining Category is largely due to 

increases of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, as reflected in the TRI and PCS databases. The 

discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are from the petroleum refineries (SIC code 

2911), not facilities in the potential new subcategories of the Petroleum Refining Category. 

Therefore, this section focuses on discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from 

petroleum refineries only. 

 EPA examined discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from petroleum 

refineries extensively for its detailed 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 refineries. Of the 163 petroleum refineries, 17 

reported discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to TRI. Of the 17 refineries 

reported discharges in 2002, only five reported discharges based on analytical 

measurements. Only two of these facilities detected dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 

above the Method 1613B minimum level and both of these facilities measured dioxin at 

the point immediately following catalytic regeneration and prior to wastewater 

treatment. 
9-6 

Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re

Table 9-4. 2008 Review: Petroleum Refining Category Pollutants of Concern a

PCS 2004 b TRI 2004 c 

Pollutant 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant Total Pounds TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Total 

Pounds TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds 

1 0.000761 535,673 17 0.0157 558,877 15 

Sulfide 71 41,309 115,724 Chlorine 16 100,888 51,368 Aluminum 9 530,616 34,326 Fluoride 11 432,123 15,124 

Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 

2004 reported pollutants. 

Pollutants a

2005 r

PACs 65 1,027 26,110 63 Lead and Lead Compounds 108 8,905 19,947 120 Nitrate Compounds 63 16,737,280 12,497 61 Mercury and Mercury Compounds 

Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2004 

reported pollutants. 

61 102 11,978 67 

Petroleum Refining Category Total 

113 d 1,717,808,018 818,705 325 d 18,835,213 669,434 331 d 

Source: 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. Howsubcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE. b — Discharges include only major dischargers. c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. PACs — Polycyclic aromatic compounds. 
9-7 

Section 9.0 – Petroleum Re

Table 9-5. 2006 Review: Petroleum Refining Category Pollutants of Concern a

PCS 2002 b TRI 2002 c T

Pollutant 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant Total Pounds TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Total 

Pounds TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Sulfide 77 29,851 83,626Chlorine 17 45,011 22,918Fluoride 12 406,609 14,231 Silver 7 769 12,669Selenium 17 7,560 8,477 

Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 2002 

reported pollutants 

Pollutants are 

2003 re

Dioxin and Dioxin-Like 

Compounds 

16 0.0114 296,024 18 

PACs 61 3,309 85,642 59 Mercury and Mercury 

Compounds 

68 124 14,465 66 

Lead and Lead 

Compounds 

97 5,644 12,643 116 

Nitrate Compounds 

Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2002 

reported pollutants 

62 16,796,417 12,541 61 

Petroleum Refining 

Category Total

118 d 7,606,670,158 165,076 352 d 18,412,828 467,009 343 d 

Source: 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. Howsubcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE. b — Discharges include only major dischargers. c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. PACs — Polycyclic aromatic compounds. 
Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419) 

9-8

 Table 9-8, at the end of this section, lists all of the dioxin and dioxin-like compound 

discharges reported to TRI from 2002 to 2005. The 2004 and 2005 data show the same trend that 

was seen in the previous reviews. Seventeen facilities reported discharges of dioxin or dioxinlike compounds to TRI in 2004 and 15 facilities reported discharges of dioxin or dioxin-like 

compounds to TRI in 2005. The 2004 PCS data include dioxin discharges from one facility, 

Tesoro in Martinez, CA. EPA reviewed the dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges in the 

TRI and PCS databases for the following four facilities, with newly reported, increased, and/or 

high TWPE associated with discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds: 

• Chevron – Richmond, CA; 

• Hovensa LLC – Christiansted, VI; 

• Tesoro – Anacortes, WA; and 

• Tesoro – Martinez, CA. 

 For discharges reported to TRI, as with the previous detailed and preliminary study, new 

or increased dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges are based 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 being investigated by the San Francisco Region Water Quality 

Control Board (SF RWQCB). In the following subsections, EPA discusses its findings on the 

four facilities listed above. 

9.4.1 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Chevron — Richmond, CA 

 The dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges 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 discharges 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 lower calibration limit (LCL), for 

the 2003 and 2004 samples. In the four sampling episodes the following dioxin 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): and 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 than the DL and LCL. Chevron calculated the 

quantities (g/year) of dioxin and 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-pentachlorodibenzofuran (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 Refining (40 CFR Part 419) 

9-9

larger than the 2002 and 2003 TWPEs. Chevron noted that the only process identified where 

conditions exist for dioxin formation and subsequent capture in the process wastewater is 

regeneration of two semi-regenerative catalytic reformers’ catalyst (Lizarraga, 2007). 

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

Dioxin and DioxinLike Compound 

Congener 

Method 1613B 

Minimum 

Level (pg/L) Sample Date 

Concentration 

(pg/L)

Lower 

Calibration

Limit (pg/L) Comments 

5/6/03 5.88 23 

11/10/03 4.17 26 Also detected in

the Method

Blank 

5/5/04 3.29 23 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 50 

11/5/04 12.3 23 

5/6/03 24.8 17 Above the LCL

11/10/03 23.8 26 Also detected in

the Method

Blank; Above 

the LCL 

5/5/04 22.6 17 Above the LCL

OCDD 100 

11/5/04 31.3 17 Above the LCL

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 50 11/5/04 8.34 24 

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 50 11/5/04 5.68 21 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 50 11/10/03 1.11 19 

11/5/04 23.2 26 

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 50 5/6/03 1.76 26 

11/5/04 12.7 26 

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 50 11/5/04 3.81 29 

5/6/03 6.10 28 

5/5/04 1.12 28 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 50 

11/5/04 34.4 28 Above the LCL

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 50 11/5/04 11.6 26 

5/6/03 10.0 17 

5/5/04 4.42 17 

OCDF 100 

11/5/04 30.2 17 Above the LCL

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 Discharges for Hovensa — Christiansted, VI 

 The dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges 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 orders of magnitude larger than the facility 

TWPE from TRIReleases2002. Hovensa has not analyzed their wastewater for dioxin and dioxinlike compounds. 
Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (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 dioxin 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-like 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 the year (U.S. EPA, 2004). 

 The increase in estimated dioxin likely resulted from the change in how discharges are 

estimated, as well as an increased number of regenerations. 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 regenerations during 2005 (Antoine, 2007). Similarly, based on the 1.7 

grams of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds reported to TRI in 2004, EPA assumes that the 

facility performed three regenerations during 2005. The increased numbers of regeneration 

events are likely due to increased production. 

9.4.3 Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Discharges for Tesoro — Anacortes, WA 

 The dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges 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 and studied dioxin discharge data from this facility as part of 

its previous detailed study and found the following information (U.S. EPA, 2004): 

The Tesoro Northwest Refinery (Anacortes, WA) sampled its effluent on two occasions, 

during batch discharges of treated wastewater generated during the regeneration of 

catalytic reformer spent catalyst. 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 were 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 most toxic dioxin forms (2,3,7,8 -TCDD and 

2,3,7,8-TCDF) were not detected in any samples. The refinery has not done an additional 

study to identify the sources of dioxin in its final effluent. At this point, because the dioxin 

concentrations in the upstream source (catalytic 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 assumes nondetects equal zero and high value 

assumes nondetects equal the detection limit). 

 EPA believes that the discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 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 Refining (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 discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds from Tesoro Martinez (i.e., no discharges greater than zero). Tesoro Martinez reports 

monitors TCDD equivalents rather than dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. Table 9-7 presents 

the monitoring data for 2004. 

Table 9-7. TCDD Equivalents 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 wastewater) 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 concentrations 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 Polycyclic 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 discharges contained in PCS are reported as 

individual compounds, and therefore, are not a combined category of pollutants. None of the 

individual PACs were among the top pollutants discharged from petroleum refineries in PCS 

2004. EPA examined reported PAC discharges from petroleum refining facilities extensively for 

its detailed and previous preliminary studies. From these previous studies, EPA concluded that 

(U.S. EPA, 2004): 

9-11
Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419) 

9-12

Petroleum refineries report PACs discharges to TRI; however, these discharges are 

either based on one-half the detection 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 their final effluent. Of these, two discharge 

indirectly to POTWs and receive additional treatment prior to discharge to surface 

waters and the third reported PAC discharges representing 81 TWPE. Therefore, this is 

little evidence that PACs are being discharged to surface waters in concentrations above 

the detection limit. 

 Table 9-9, at the end of this section, lists 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 than 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 reached in the previous studies. 

9.6 Petroleum Refining Category Conclusions

 During the 2008 Annual Review, EPA did not obtain 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 detected dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in 

their process wastewater effluent. 

Of the 164 identified U.S. petroleum refineries (SIC code 2911) in TRI 2004, 17 

report discharges of dioxin and dioxin-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 analytical 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 facilities 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, results from stormwater runoff from an area 

with contaminated soil. The facility’s dioxin discharges are not representative of 

petroleum refining process wastewater. In addition, the SF RWQCB is working 

with the facility to reduce the dioxin discharged from this facility. 
Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (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 refineries that measured PACs in their final 

effluent. Of these, two discharge indirectly to POTWs and receive additional 

treatment prior to discharge to surface waters and the third reported PAC 

discharges representing 81 TWPE. 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. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is 

assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is 

marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table V-1 in the accompanying 

Federal Register notice that presents the 2008 annual review of effluent guidelines 

and pretreatment standards). 
9-14 

Section 9.0 – Petroleum 

Table 9-8. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2

TRI ID Facility Name Location 

2005 2004 2003 

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Basis of 

Estimate 

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Basis of 

Estimate

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Basis of 

Estimate 

00851-HSSLVLIMET Hovensa LLC Christiansted, VI 2.2 180,442 E 1.7 148,653 C 1.1 85,167 C 94802-CHVRN841ST Chevron Products Co. Richmond 

Refinery (a,b) 

Richmond, 

CA 

0.94 121,521 M 1.35 141,106 O 0.68 36,798 O 

98221-SHLLLWESTM Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co Anacortes, WA 1.94 55,248 M 1.95 54,406 M 1.7 47,382 M 70669-CNCLKOLDSP Conocophillips Lake Charles Refinery Westlake, LA 0.539 48,580 O 0.54 48,580 O 0.54 48,580 O 43616-SHLCM4001C Bp Products North America Inc Toledo 

Refinery 

Oregon, OH 0.331 47,084 O 0.34 47,795 M 0.38 54,054 M 

90245-CHVRN324WE Chevron Products Co. Div Of Chevron USA 

Inc. 

El Segundo, 

CA 

0.158 16,221 M 0.2 20,533 M 0.34 35,317 M 

74603-CNCPN1000S Conocophillips Ponca City Refinery Ponca City, OK 0.141 11,601 O 0.28 25,485 O 0.28 21,901 O 

77536-DRPRK5900H Shell Oil Co - Deer Park Refining LP Deer Park, TX 0.114 10,850 M 0.16 15,477 M 0.15 14,581 O 

80022-CNCDN5801B Suncor Energy Commerce City 

Refinery 

Commerce 

City, CO 

0.111 9,104 M 0.037 3,333 M 0.074 5,729 E 

08066-MBLLCBILLI Valero Refining Co New Jersey Paulsboro, NJ 0.0879 7,209 O 0.18 15,838 O 0.088 6,813 O 

39567-CHVRNPOBOX Chevron Products Co Pascagoula Refinery Pascagoula, MS 0.099 4,234 O 0.12 5,217 O 0.099 4,234 O 

62454-MRTHNMARAT Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC Illinois 

Refining Div 

Robinson, IL 0.0404 3,314 O 0.04 3,604 O 0.0404 3,128 O 

00654-PHLPSPHILI Chevron Phillips Chemical Puerto Rico 

Core Inc. 

Guayama, PR 0.0054 443 E 0.0035 318 E 0.00596 461 E 

70602-CTGPTHIGHW Citgo Petroleum Corp Westlake, LA 0.00256 210 E 0.0026 231 E 0.0026 199 E 

19706-TXCDL2000W Premcor Refining Group Inc Delaware City, DE 0.0000965 2 O 0.022 559 O 0.022 559 O 

46394-MCLC -2815I 

Bp Products North America Whiting Business Unit 

Whiting, IN NR NR NR 0.000011 1.8 O NR NR NR 
9-15 

Section 9.0 – Petroleum 

Table 9-8. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2

TRI ID Facility Name Location 

2005 2004 2003 

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Basis of 

Estimate 

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Basis of 

Estimate

Grams 

Released TWPE 

Basis of 

Estimate 

60434-MBLJLINTER ExxonMobil Oil Corp Joliet Refinery Channahon, IL NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.0007 64 O 

99611-TSRLSMILE2 Tesoro Alaska - Kenai Refinery (a,b) Kenai, AK NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.0006 46 M 07036-XXN -1400P 

Conocophillips Co. Bayway Refinery 

Linden, NJ NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

77590-MRTHNFOOTO Marathon Ashland Petroleum L.L.C. Texas City, TX NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

Indirect 90748-NCLLS1660W Conocophillips Co La Refinery Wilmington 

Plant (a) 

Wilmington, 

CA 

NR NR NR 0.27 27,738 M 0.088 9,015 M 

Source: TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2003_v2; TRIReleases2002_v4; Memorandum: Revisions to TWFs for Dioxin and its Congeners and Recalcu

Petroleum 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 to the POTW that is ultimately discharged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 83% removal of dioxi

POTW. The TWPEs in this table were calculated using the 2006 TWFs (the 2006 dioxin and dioxin-like compound TWFs did not change from the August or December 2004 TWFs). 

Refineries reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M — Monitoring data/measurements; C — Mass balance calculations; E — Published emission factors; and O — Other approa
Section 9.0 – Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419) 

9-16

9.7 Petroleum Refining Category References

1. Antoine, Kathleen. 2007. E-mail communication with Kathleen Antoine of Hovensa 

LLC, Christiansted, VI, and Jan Matuszko of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

“Reported TRI Dioxins.” (April 30). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0449. 

2. Lizarraga, Tery A. 2007. Letter to Jan Matuszko of U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, from Tery A. Lizarraga, Chevron 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 Requirements for Tesoro Refining & Marketing 

Company Golden Eagle Refinery NPDES CA0004961. Oakland, CA. (Unknown). EPAHQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05965. 

4. U.S. Census. 2002. U.S. Economic 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. 
9-17 

Section 9.0 – Petroleum 

Table 9-9. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–2005 

2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basi

Estim

96707CHVRN91480 Chevron Products Co - 

Hawaii Refinery 

Kapolei, HI 270.0 6862.6 M 270.0 6863.0 M 261 6629.0 M 

44711SHLND2408G Marathon Petroleum 

Co LLC Ohio Refining Div 

Canton, OH 149.0 3787.1 M NR NR NR NR NR NR 

90245CHVRN324WE Chevron Products Co 

Div of Chevron USA Inc 

El Segundo, CA 137.4 3492.3 M 113.0 2882.0 M 117 2974.0 M 

39567CHVRNPOBOX Chevron Products Co 

Pascagoula Refinery 

Pascagoula, MS 126.1 3205.1 O 115.0 2923.0 O 115 2923.0 O 

55071SHLND100WT Marathon Petroleum 

Co LLC Saint Paul Park Refiner 

Saint Paul Park, MN 

95.7 2431.1 M 24.0 616.0 M NR NR NR 

70075MRPHY2500E Murphy Oil USA Inc 

Meraux Refinery 

Meraux, LA 66.0 1677.5 O NR NR NR NR NR NR 

84116CHVRN2351N Chevron Products Co 

Salt Lake Refinery 

Salt Lake City, UT 

60.0 1525.0 M 59.0 1500.0 M 59 1500.0 M 

70037LLNCRHIGHW ConocoPhillips Co - 

Alliance Refinery 

Belle Chasse, LA 43.8 1114.3 M 49.0 1233.0 M 34.9 887 M 

70669CNCLKOLDSP ConocoPhillips Co 

Lake Charles Refinery 

Westlake, LA 41.0 1042.1 O 43.0 1093.0 O 51 1296.0 O 

79008PHLLPSTATE ConocoPhillips Co Borger, TX 39.0 991.3 M 43.0 1093.0 M NR NR NR 77590MRTHNFOOTO Marathon Petroleum 

Co LLC 

Texas City, TX 34.6 879.4 M 29.0 742.0 M 30 768 M 

60439NCLCR135TH PDV Midwest Refining 

LLC Lemont Refinery 

Lemont, IL 32.1 814.9 M NR NR NR NR NR NR 

62454MRTHNMARAT Marathon Ashland 

Petroleum LLC Illinois Refining Div 

Robinson, IL 24.0 610.0 O 28.0 712.0 O 1 25 O 

70750HLLPTHWY10 Valero Refining Co 

Louisiana 

Krotz Springs, LA 

23.0 584.6 O 22.0 567.0 O 19 483 O 

80022CNCDN5801B Suncor Energy 

Commerce City Refinery 

Commerce City, CO 

19.0 482.9 O 28.0 712.0 O 53 1347.0 O 

94802CHVRN841ST Chevron Products Co 

Richmond Refinery 

Richmond, CA 19.0 482.9 M 19.3 491.0 M 15 376 M 

99611TSRLSMILE2 Tesoro Alaska - Kenai 

Refinery 

Kenai, AK 19.0 482.9 O 18.9 480.0 O 19 480 O 
9-18 

Section 9.0 – Petroleum 

Table 9-9. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–2005 

2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basi

Estim

62084SHLLLRTE11 ConocoPhillips Co 

Wood River Refinery 

Roxana, IL 11.0 279.6 O 11.0 280.0 O 10 254 O 

78410KCHRFSUNTI Flint Hills Resources 

LP - West Plant 

Corpus Christi, TX 

10.6 269.4 M 16.0 412.0 M 8 203 M 

70047TRNSM14902 Valero Refining New 

Orleans LLC 

New Sarpy, LA 9.0 228.8 O 9.0 229.0 O 9 229 O 

74603CNCPN1000S ConocoPhillips Co 

Ponca City Refinery 

Ponca City, OK 8.0 203.3 O 8.0 203.0 O 8 203 O 

70051MRTHNHWY61 Marathon Petroleum 

Corp Garyville 

Garyville, LA 5.0 127.1 C 5.0 127.0 C 5 127 C 

46394MCLC 2815I BP Products North 

America Whiting 

Whiting, IN 3.6 91.5 O 1.0 25.0 O 1 25 O 

19706TXCDL2000W Premcor Refining 

Group Inc 

Delaware City, DE 

3.4 86.4 O 4.0 102.0 O 3.2 81 O 

77017LYNDL12000 Lyondell-Citgo 

Refining LP 

Houston, TX 3.0 76.3 M 0.0 0.0 M NR NR NR 

93420NCLSN2555W ConocoPhillips Co 

Santa Maria Refinery 

Arroyo Grande, CA 

2.0 50.8 O 2.0 51.0 O 2 51 O 

70079MTVNR15536 Motiva Enterprises 

LLC Convent Refinery 

Norco, LA 1.4 35.6 O NR NR NR NR NR NR 

98221PGTSN600ST Shell Oil Products US 

Puget Sound Refinery 

Anacortes, WA 1.0 25.4 O 1.0 25.0 O 0.9 23 O 

08861CHVRN1200S Chevron Products Co Perth Amboy, NJ 0.6 15.3 O 0.9 23.0 O 0.6 15 O 94553TSCCRAVONR Tesoro Refining and 

Marketing Co 

Martinez, CA 0.6 15.3 M 0.5 13.0 M 0.6 15 M 

77592TXSCTLOOP1 Valero Refining - 

Texas LP 

Texas City, TX 0.5 12.7 M 0.2 5.0 M NR NR NR 

78408STHWS1700N Flint Hills Resources 

LP - East Plant 

Corpus Christi, TX 

0.5 12.7 M 0.6 15.0 M 1 25 M 

19061BPLCMPOSTR ConocoPhillips Co. 

Trainer Refinery 

Trainer, PA 0.1 3.6 O 0.2 5.0 O 0.2 5 O 

90749RCPRD1801E BP West Coast 

Products LLC Carson 

Carson, CA 0.1 2.5 M NR NR NR NR NR NR 

42501THSMR501RE Somerset Refinery Inc Somerset, KY NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.08 2 M 59101CNCBL401SO ConocoPhillips Co 

Billings Refinery 

Billings, MT NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.4 10 M 

67042TXCRF1401S Frontier El Dorado 

Refining Co 

El Dorado, KS NR NR NR 0.7 18.0 O 0.7 18 O 
9-19 

Section 9.0 – Petroleum 

Table 9-9. PAC Discharges from Petroleum Refineries Reported to TRI in 2002–2005 

2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basis of Estimate Pounds Released TWPE Basi

Estim

70143TNNCL500WE Chalmette Refining Co Chalmette, LA NR NR NR 1.0 25.0 O 11 280 O 70606CLCSRWESTE Calcasieu Refining Co Lake Charles, LA NR NR NR 2.0 51.0 O 182 4626.0 O 70723TXCRFFOOTO Motiva Enterprises 

LLC Convent Refinery 

Convent, LA NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 51 O 

73098KRRMC906SO Wynnewood Refining 

Co 

Wynnewood, OK NR NR NR 10.0 254.0 O 10 254 O 

74107SNCLR902W2 Sinclair Oil Corp Tulsa 

Refinery 

Tulsa, OK NR NR NR NR NR NR 18 450 M 

82701WYMNG740WE Wyoming Refining Co Newcastle, WY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR N94572NCLSNOLDHI ConocoPhillips San 

Francisco Refinery 

Rodeo, CA NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

Indirect 48217MRTHN1300S Marathon Petroleum 

Co LLC Michigan Refining Div 

Detroit, MI 94.0 175.8 M 98.0 184.0 M 92 172 M 

79905LPSRF6500T Western Refining Co 

El Paso Refinery 

El Paso, TX 54.0 101.0 O 51.0 95.0 O 55 102 O 

90744TXCRF2101E Shell Oil Products US 

Los Angeles Refinery 

Wilmington, CA 7.3 13.7 M 7.6 14.0 M 13 24 M 

93307KRNLRRR677 Kern Oil Refining Co Bakersfield, CA 0.3 0.5 O 0.3 1.0 O 0.28 1 M 36611BLCHRVIADU Gulf Atlantic 

Operations LLC 

Chickasaw, AL 0.0 0.0 M 0.0 0.0 C 0.009 0 C 

77506CRWNC111RE Crown Central 

Petroleum Corp Houston Refinery 

Pasadena, TX NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

77017LYNDL12000 Lyondell-Citgo 

Refining LP 

Houston, TX NR NR NR NR NR NR 155 3928.0 O 

79905CHVRN6501T Chevron El Paso 

Refinery 

El Paso, TX NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

Source: TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2003_v2; TRIReleases2002_v4. 

NR — Not reported. For indirect dischargers, the mass shown is the mass transferred to the POTW that is ultimately discharged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 92.64% removal of P

Refineries reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M — Monitoring data/measurements; C — Mass balance calculations; E — Published emission factors; and O — Other approa

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 PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD (40 CFR PART 430) 

 EPA selected the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (Pulp and Paper) Category (40 CFR Part 

430) for preliminary review because it continues to rank high, in terms of TWPE, in the point 

source category rankings (see Tables 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 year of review, EPA has concluded that wastewater from pulp 

and paper mills does not warrant a more 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 facilities that manufacture pulp from wood and 

other fibers, produce paper and paperboard from pulp, or convert it from paper products. 

Facilities in the following three SIC codes 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 paper 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 facilities in the SIC codes that compose the pulp and 

paper 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. 

 Pulp and paper manufacturers discharge wastewater directly to surface water as well as to 

POTWs. Table 10-2 presents the types of discharges reported by facilities in the 2004 and 2005 

TRI databases. The majority of pulp and paper manufacturers reporting to TRI reported 

discharging directly. The majority of facilities reporting to TRI in SIC codes classified as 

potential new subcategories reported no water discharges. 

 

16 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 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 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, 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. 
10-3 

Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paper

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

TRI 2004 TRI 20

SIC Code

Reported 

Only Direct 

Discharges 

Reported 

Only 

Indirect 

Discharges 

Reported 

Both Direct 

and 

Indirect 

Discharges 

Reported 

No Water 

Discharges a

Reported 

Only Direct 

Discharges 

Reported 

Only 

Indirect 

Discharges 

B

D

2611: Pulp Mills 65 4 1 3 66 3 2621: Paper Mills 78 22 7 33 74 18 2631: Paperboard Mills 47 27 3 19 50 30 2653: Corrugated and Solid Fiber Boxes 0 1 0 17 0 2 2655: Fiber Cans, Tubes, Drums, and Similar Products 

0 0 0 0 0 0 

2656: Sanitary Food Containers, Except Folding 

0 2 0 0 0 1 

2657: Folding Paperboard Boxes, Including Sanitary 

0 2 0 3 0 1 

2671: Packaging Paper and Plastic Film, Coated and Laminated 

0 1 0 43 0 1 

2672: Coated and Laminated Paper, Not Elsewhere 

1 17 0 69 1 15 

2674: Unciated Paper and Multiwall Bags 0 2 0 1 0 2 2679: Converted Paper and Paperboard Products, Not Elsewhere Classified 

0 3 0 22 0 2 

Potential New Subcategories Total 191 81 11 210 191 75 

Source: TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2. 

a — Facilities reporting no wastewater discharges may be discharging chemicals to water that do not meet TRI reporting thresholds. TR

the 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 discharges of polychlorinated dibenzo-(p)-

dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans17 from 104 bleaching pulp mills, including nine 

dissolving pulp mills. While meeting that obligation, 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 Category regulations apply to all facilities in SIC 

codes 2611, 2621, and 2631, the 12 subcategories are 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 these three phases and the 

subcategories EPA planned to address in each phase. 

 In revising the Pulp and Paper Category 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 promulgated the Phase I ELGs at the same time 

as it promulgated National Emissions Standards 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 are 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 report, 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 

I B Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda 

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 Secondary Fiber Non-Deink 

K Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp 

II 

L Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp 

III A Dissolving Kraft 

D Dissolving Sulfite 

Note: EPA promulgated revised ELGs for Phase I, known as the Cluster Rules on April 15, 1998. EPA has not 

promulgated 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 (Subpart A, Dissolving Kraft, 

and Subpart D, Dissolving Sulfite). EPA did not promulgate revised ELGs addressing TCDD 

and TCDF for Phase III in 1998, because the affected companies were undertaking a multiyear 

laboratory study and mill trial to develop alternative bleaching technologies. EPA anticipated 

that final ELGs would be based on different technologies than those that served as the basis for 

the Phase I regulations. As of August 2006, there were only three operating mills in these two 

subcategories. As part of its 2004 and 2006 Effluent 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, December 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 Sulfite (Subpart D) subcategories 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 category 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 mills has decreased. Table 10-4 shows the screeninglevel results for the pulp and paper industry from the 2002 through 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 codes not clearly subject to existing ELGs. EPA concluded that the processes, 

operations, wastewaters, and pollutants 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 new 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 pollutants 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 dioxin 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 total TWPE generally remain the same. The Pulp and 

Paper Final Detailed Study Report discusses EPA’s conclusions about discharges of manganese 

and aluminum (U.S. EPA, 2006a). 
10-7 

Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paper

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

PCS 2004 b TRI 2004 c T

Pollutant 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant Total Pounds TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Total 

Pounds TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant T

Manganese And Manganese Compounds 

Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 

2004 reported pollutants. 

117 4,490,000 316,000 117 

Dioxin And Dioxin-Like Compounds 

1 0.011 8,640 64 0.219 178,000 57 

Aluminum 26 993,000 64,300 Chlorine 22 55,200 28,100 Sulfide 1 5,020 14,100 Iron 12 1,380,000 7,740 

Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 

2004 reported pollutants. 

Pollutants are no

repor

Lead And Lead Compounds 189 27,500 61,600 196 Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 

77 1,270 42,600 76 

Zinc And Zinc Compounds 

Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 

2004 reported pollutants. 

83 346,000 16,200 88 

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Total 

150 d 2,340,000,000 165,000 282 d 23,200,000 669,000 276 d 

Source: 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. Howsubcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE. b — Discharges include only major dischargers. c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 
10-8 

Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and Paper

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

2002 PCS b 2002 TRI c 2

Pollutant 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Total Pounds 

Released TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Total 

Pounds 

Released TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

T

Dioxin and Dioxin-like

Compounds 

1 0.002 1,366,677 61 0.145 1,469,101 60 

Aluminum 29 1,425,308 92,205 Pollutants are not in the top five TRI

2002 reported pollutants. 

Pollutants are no

report

Chlorine 25 47,105 23,984 12 34,442 17,537 11 Sulfide 1 2,442 6,841 Pollutants are not in the top five TRI

2002 reported pollutants. 

Pollutants are no

report

Mercury 15 58 6,838 74 62 7,251 77 Copper 44 8,657 5,496 Pollutants are not in the top five TRI

2002 reported pollutants. 

11 

Manganese and Manganese 

Compounds 

112 4,312,307 303,729 113 

Lead and Lead Compounds 186 29,571 66,240 180 Polycyclic Aromatic 

Compounds 

79 1,341 45,146 76 

Zinc 

Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 2002 

reported pollutants. 

72 309,694 14,520 Pollutants are no

report

Pulp and Paper Category 

Total 

181 d 3,980,000,000 1,537,056 293 d 19,399,504 1,952,130 281 d 

Source: 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. Howsubcategories contribute negligible pounds and TWPE. b — Discharges include only major dischargers. c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs 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. 

 The decrease in TWPE is related to the differences 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. 

 EPA examined discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from pulp and paper 

manufacturers extensively during the detailed study (2005–2006) and previous preliminary 

studies. EPA determined that the dioxin and dioxin-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 reported to TRI were based on pollutant concentrations below 

the Method 1613B minimum levels (MLs), including the congener-specific measurement data 

that NCASI used to develop an emission factor for wastewater discharges (U.S. EPA, 2006b). 

 Table 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-seven facilities reported discharges of dioxin and 

dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2004 and 59 facilities that reported discharges of dioxin or 

dioxin-like compounds to TRI in 2005. Although the TWPE of dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds discharges decreased from 1,470,000 in 2002 to 147,000 in 2005, the total quantity 

of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds discharged increased from 65.77 to 82.10 grams. The 

decrease in TWPE is a direct result of lower reported 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-dioxin (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 dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges in 

the TRI database for Domtar Industries in Ashdown, AR. In 2005, discharges of dioxin and 

dioxin-like compounds from this mill contributed more 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 increased discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds in 2003 because they changed how they estimate dioxin discharges. Prior to 2003, 

Domtar estimated dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges based on total plant flow rate and 

NCASI emission factor of 105.7 picograms (pg) of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds per liter. 

In 2003, the mill sampled for dioxins and dioxin-like 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. Domtar also said that significant change in plant 

flow rate occurred between 2002 and 2003. EPA assumes Domtar is using the same method to 

report dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharges 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 made 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 dioxin-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

 Metals 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. These releases are similar to those observed 

in TRI 2002 to 2004. 

 Aluminum 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 facilities 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 treatment technologies for large plant 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 not obtain any information to change the 

conclusions that have previously been made regarding 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. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is 

assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is 

marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 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 Dioxin 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 Document for Permit Writers: Dissolving 

Kraft and Dissolving Sulfite Pulp Mills. EPA-821R-06-018. Washington, DC. EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-0774. 
10-12 

Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and P

Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2

2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate 

71822-NKSPP-HIGHW Domtar 

Industries Inc Ashdown Mill 

Ashdown, AR 38.4 69,000 M 40.96 73,494 M 40 1,511,611 M 

71635-GRGPC-PAPER Georgia-Pacific 

Crossett Ops. 

Crossett, AR 4.87 8,740 E 5.49 9,850 E 5.49 9,850 E 

71611-NTRNT-FAIRF International 

Paper 

Pine Bluff, AR 

3.7 6,640 O 3.6 6,459 O 0.018 32 E 

36916-JMSRV-ROUTE Fort James 

Operating Co 

Pennington, AL 

3.6 6,460 M 3.3 5,921 M 5.32 9,551 M 

37662-MDPPR-POBOX Weyerhaeuser 

Co Kingsport Paper Mill 

Kingsport, TN 3.45 6,190 M 3.4 6,101 M 2.5 4,486 M 

36769-MCMLLHIGHW Weyerhaeuser USA Inc Pine 

Hill Operations 

Pine Hill, AL 3.36 6,020 E 2.43 4,369 E 2.34 4,197 E 

70791-GRGPC-ZACHA Georgia-Pacific 

Corp Port Hudson Operations 

Zachary, LA 2.77 4,970 E 2.77 4,974 E 3.32 63,803 E 

36545-BSCSC-307WE Boise White 

Paper LLC 

Jackson, AL 2.1 3,770 E 2.1 3,768 E 1.98 3,553 E 

28560-WYRHS-STREE Weyerhaeuser Vanceboro, 

NC 

1.7 3,050 E 1.74 3,119 E 1.82 3,257 E 

98201-SCTTP-2600F Kimberly-Clark 

Worldwide 

Everett, WA 1.33 2,380 C 2.7 4,846 C 3 472,778 C 

32347-BCKYC-ROUTE Buckeye Florida 

Lp 

Perry, FL 1.32 2,380 M 1.3 2,330 M 1.27 2,282 M 

27962-WYRHSTROWB Weyerhaeuser Co Plymouth Plymouth, NC 0.989 1,770 E 0.91 1,638 E 0.82 1,470 E 29512-WLLMTHWY91 Weyerhaeuser Co Bennettsville, SC 0.9563 1,715 O NR NR NR NR NR NR 17362-PHGLT-228SO P. H. Glatfelter 

Co Spring Grove Mill 

Spring Grove, PA 

0.946 1,700 E 0.9 1,616 E 0.92 1,653 E 

98362-DSHWMMARIN Nippon Paper Industries USA 

Co. Ltd. 

Port Angeles, WA 

0.92 1,650 M 1.82 3,266 M 1.8 282 M 
10-13 

Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and P

Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2

2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate 

37309-BWTRS-ROUTE Bowater 

Newsprint Calhoun Operations 

Calhoun, TN 0.87 1,560 M 0.94 1,690 M 0.91 1,626 M 

32533-CHMPN-375MU International 

Paper Pensacola Mill 

Cantonment, FL 

0.8 1,440 E 0.93 1,669 E 0.93 1,669 E 

29442-NTRNT-KAMIN International 

Paper Georgetown Mill 

Georgetown, SC 

0.753 1,350 C 0.75 1,351 C 0.77 1,380 C 

75504-NTRNT-POBOX International 

Paper Texarkana Mill 

Queen City, TX 

0.68 1,220 M 3.87 6,944 M 2.36 4,235 M 

31407-STNCN-1BONN Weyerhaeuser 

Co 

Port Wentworth, GA 

0.679 1,220 E 0.69 1,239 E 0.72 1,284 E 

04694-GRGPC-MILLA Domtar Maine 

Corp 

Baileyville, ME 

0.615 1,100 M 0.82 1,463 M NR NR NR 

32034-TTRYN-FOOTO Rayonier 

Performance Fibers LLC 

Fernandina Beach, FL 

0.56 1,000 M 1 1,794 M NR NR NR 

70775-JMSRV-ENDOF Tembec USA 

LLC 

Saint Francisville, LA 

0.48 861 E 0.502 901 E 0.5 899 E 

12883-NTRNT-SHORE International 

Paper 

Ticonderoga, NY 

0.46 826 E 0.46 834 E 0.46 817 E 

83501-PTLTC-805MI Potlatch Corp 

Idaho Pulp & Paperboard & Cpd 

Lewiston, ID 0.441 792 E 4.18 7,501 E 4.18 7,505 E 

36732-GLFST-HIGHW Rock-Tenn Mill 

Co LLC 

Demopolis, AL 

0.292 524 E 0.32 575 E 0.23 416 E 

71654-PTLTC-HIGHW Potlatch Corp Arkansas City, 

AR 

0.204 365 O 0.97 1,737 O 0.92 1,646 O 

70634-BSSTH-USHIG Boise Packaging 

& Newsprint LLC 

Deridder, LA 0.19 341 E 0.22 395 E 0.26 467 E 

31521-BRNSW-14W9T Brunswick 

Cellulose Inc 

Brunswick, GA 

0.186 335 E 0.19 335 E 0.19 335 E 
10-14 

Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and P

Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2

2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate 

29044-NNCMP-ROUTE International 

Paper 

Eastover, SC 0.183 328 O 0.16 282 O 0.16 290 O 

71220-NTRNT-705CO International 

Paper Co Louisiana Mill 

Bastrop, LA 0.175 314 E 0.16 280 E 0.22 399 M 

04976-SDWRR-RFD3U S.D. Warren Co 

Sappi Fine Paper N.A. 

Skowhegan, ME 

0.168 302 O 0.17 305 O 0.18 323 O 

01238-KMBRL-GREYL Schweitzer 

Mauduit International Inc 

Lee, MA 0.156 280 O 0.17 303 O 0.153 275 O 

98421-SMPSN-801PO Simpson Tacoma 

Kraft Co. 

Tacoma, WA 0.154 277 E 0.135 242 E 0.13 240 E 

98550-GRYSH-23RDR Grays Harbor 

Paper Lp 

Hoquiam, WA 0.142 255 C 0.012 22 C 0.012 21 C 

18629-PRCTR-ROUTE Procter & 

Gamble Paper Products Co 

Mehoopany, PA 

0.087 156 E 0.012 22 C 0.018 33 O 

99363-BSCSC-POBOX Boise White 

Paper LLC 

Wallula, WA 0.083 149 O 0.83 1,496 O 0.14 242 O 

45601-MDCRP-401SP Mw Custom 

Papers LLC 

Chillicothe, OH 

0.0554 99 M 0.082 147 M 0.0858 154 M 

54474-WYRHS-200GR Weyerhaeuser Rothschild, 

WI 

0.042 75 M 0.048 86 M 0.12 206 M 

28456-FDRLP-RIEGE International 

Paper Riegelwood Mill 

Riegelwood, NC 

0.0304 55 E 0.0305 55 E 0.0304 55 E 

98537-WYRHS-700EA Weyerhaeuser 

Pulp Mill 

Cosmopolis, WA 

0.01 18 O 0.01 18 O 0.0093 17 O 

63702-PRCTR-POBOX Procter & 

Gamble Paper Products Co 

Jackson, MO 0.0042 8 O 0.0051 9.2 O 0.0047 8.4 O 

12502-SCHWT-2424R SchweitzerMauduit 

International Inc 

Ancram, NY 0.004 7 E 0.008 14 E 0.02 36 O 

31068-BCKYC-OLDST Weyerhaeuser 

Co 

Oglethorpe, GA 

0.001 2 O 0.0005 0.9 O 0.0005 0.9 O 
10-15 

Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and P

Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2

2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate 

39703-CLMBS-CARSO Columbus Pulp 

& Paper Complex 

Columbus, MS 

0.0007 1 M 0.0007 1.3 M 0.0018 3.2 M 

54308-THPRC-501EA Procter & 

Gamble Paper Products Co 

Green Bay, WI 

0.0003 1 C 0.0005 0.9 C 0.0006 1.1 C 

98632-WYRHS-3401I Weyerhaeuser 

Co 

Longview, WA 

NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.025 45 O 

98607-JMSRV-NE4TH Fort James 

Camas LLC 

Camas, WA NR NR NR NR NR NR 1.06 1,902 E 

97068-JMSRV-4800M West Linn Paper 

Co 

West Linn, OR 

NR NR NR 0.006 11 C 0.35 4,139 C 

39120-NTRNT-312LO International 

Paper - Natchez 

Natchez, MS NR NR NR NR NR NR 1.17 2,099 E 

36701-HMMRMRIVER International Paper Riverdale 

Mill 

Selma, AL NR NR NR 0.108 194 E 0.12 208 E 

36426-CNTNR-HIGHW Smurfit-Stone 

Container Enterprises Inc 

Brewton, AL NR NR NR 2.5 4,486 E 2.2 3,947 E 

35618-CHMPNPOBOX International Paper Courtland 

Mill 

Courtland, AL NR NR NR 0.094 168 E 0.088 158 E 

31558-GLMNP-1000O DurangoGeorgia Paper 

Co. 

Saint Marys, GA 

NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

31520-BRNSW-WEST9 Georgia-Pacific 

Corp. Brunswick Ops. 

Brunswick, GA 

NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

29704-BWTRC-5300C Bowater Coated 

& Specialty Papers Div 

Catawba, SC NR NR NR NR NR NR 5.58 261,826 M 

28358-LPHCL-1000E Buckeye 

Lumberton Inc. 

Lumberton, NC 

NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

23851-NNCMPHIGHW International Paper-Franklin 

Mill 

Franklin, VA NR NR NR 2.28 4,086 E 2.27 4,066 E 
10-16 

Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and P

Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2

2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate 

13142-SCHLL-CENTE Felix Schoeller 

Technical Papers Inc. 

Pulaski, NY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

04462-GRTNR-1KATA Great Northern 

Paper Inc. 

Millinocket, ME 

NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

04239-NTRNT-RILEY International 

Paper 

Jay, ME NR NR NR 0.002 3.6 M 0.02 36 M 

Indirect 55744-BLNDN-115SW Upm Blandin 

Paper Co 

Grand Rapids, MN 

2.261 4,060 M 2 3,599 M 2.21 60 M 

52402-CDRRV-4600C Cedar River 

Paper A Weyerhaeuser Business 

Cedar Rapids, IA 

0.46631 837 O 0.35 636 O NR NR NR 

23860-STNHP-910IN Smurfit-Stone 

Container Corp 

Hopewell, VA 0.221 397 O 0.21 378 O NR NR NR 

32401-STNCN-1EVER Smurfit-Stone 

Container Corp 

Panama City, FL 

0.0782 140 E 0.078 140 E 0.066 119 E 

55720-PTLTC-NORTH Sappi Cloquet 

LLC 

Cloquet, MN 0.04811 86 E 0.044 78 E 0.041 0.18 E 

07407-MRCLP-1MARK Marcal Paper 

Mills Inc. 

Elmwood Park, NJ 

0.02499 45 M 0.00799 14 M 0.014 26 M 

49443-SDWRR-2400L S. D. Warren Co Muskegon, MI 0.023945 43 E 0.042 75 E 0.05 90 E 01236-FXRVR-295PA Fox River Paper 

Co Rising Paper Div 

Housatonic, MA 

0.00697 13 O 0.0073 13 O 0.012 22 O 

31702-THPRC-USROU Procter & 

Gamble Paper Pro Ducts Co 

Albany, GA 0.001989 4 O 0.0036 6.4 O 0.0032 5.7 O 

54308-THPRC-501EA Procter & 

Gamble Paper Products Co 

Green Bay, WI 

0.00034 1 C 0.00051 0.9 C 0.00068 1.2 C 
10-17 

Section 10.0 - Pulp, Paper, and P

Table 10-7. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges from Pulp and Paper Mills Reported to TRI in 2

2005 2004 2003 

TRI ID Facility Name Location Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate Grams Discharged TWPE Basis of Estimate 

93030-PRCTR-800NO Procter & 

Gamble Paper Products Co 

Oxnard, CA 0.0000214 0 C 0.0034 6.1 C 0.0002 0.43 C 

Source: TRIReleases2005_v2; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2003_v2; TRIReleases2002_v4. NR — Not reported. For indirect discharges, the mass shown is the mass transferred to the POTW that is ultimately discharged to surface waters, accounting for an estimated 83 percent removal of 

the POTW. The TWPEs in this table were calculated using the 2006 TWFs (the 2006 dioxin and dioxin-like compound TWFs did not change from the August or December 2004 TWFs). 

Facilities reported basis of estimate in TRI as: M — Monitoring data/measurements; C — Mass balance calculations; E — Published emission factors; and O — Other approac
Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444) 

11-1 

11.0 WASTE COMBUSTORS (40 CFR PART 444) 

 EPA selected the Waste Combustors Category (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 pesticide discharges from the Waste Combustors 

Category. EPA has identified that no further review of pesticide discharges from the CWT 

Category is necessary at this time. 

11.1 Waste Combustors Category Background

 This subsection provides background on the 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 facilities 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 (CWT) 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 facilities reporting SIC code 4953 to identify those that are in the 

Waste Combustors Category rather than the CWT and Landfill Categories. Using information 

from other preliminary studies, Internet searches, and company Web sites, EPA identified 

facilities reporting a primary SIC code of 4953 that should be classified in the Waste Combustors 

Category. Table 11-1 presents the number of facilities in the Waste 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; however, EPA included their discharge 

information in certain tables of this section to augment 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 surface 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 discharges reported by facilities in 

the 2004 and 2005 TRI database. Table 11-2 includes the two facilities that are currently 

included in the CWT Category but are waste combustors. 
Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (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 the CWT Category that are waste 

combustors. These two facilities contribute negligible TWPE and do not affect overall 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 

Reported 

No Water 

Discharges

3 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 b 

Additional Facilities Identified with Discharges Applicable 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 the CWT Category that are waste 

combustors. These two facilities contribute negligible TWPE and do not affect overall 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 Waste 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 Recovery Act. The rule applies 

solely to commercial facilities (i.e., facilities that accept wastes 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. Pesticides are not regulated in any 

subcategory, as discussed in Section 11-4. 
Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444) 

11-3 

Table 11-3. Applicability of Subcategories 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 hazardous wastes received from 

off-site for a fee or other remuneration in the following 

circumstances. The thermal unit 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 excluded 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 from 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 increase 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

2005 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 included 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 pollutants with the highest TWPE in TRIReleases2004_v3, 

TRIReleases2005_v2, and PCSLoads2004_v4 for the Waste Combustors Category. Because EPA 

did not conduct preliminary reviews of the Waste Combustors Category 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 Waste Combustors Category TWPE in PCS for 2004 is significantly 

lower than the TRI TWPE for 2004 or 2005. Therefore, EPA focused the additional review on 

the TRI-reported pollutants. 
Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (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. Benzidine is the most significant pesticide release 

reported to TRI, in terms of TWPE, by the Waste Combustors Category. Benzidine is reported 

by only one facility in 2004, Clean Harbors Deer Park, and no facilities in 2005. Relative 

contributions of other pesticides reported in 2004 and 2005 to TRI remain the same. Section 11.4 

presents EPA’s review of pesticide discharges from waste combustor facilities. 
11-5 

Section 11.0 – Waste Comb

Table 11-5. 2008 Review: Waste Combustors Category Pollutants of Concern 

PCS 2004 b TRI 2004 c 

Pollutant 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Total 

Pounds TWPE 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Pollutant 

Total 

Pounds TWPE 

Number 

Facilitie

Reportin

Pollutan

Copper 2 90 57 Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total (As N) 1 8,622 20 Zinc 2 408 19 Nickel 1 162 18 Chromium 1 173 13 

Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 

2004 reported pollutants. 

Benzidine 1 67 187,680 

Pollutants 

2005 

Toxaphene 1 1 34,520 1 Hexachlorobenzene 1 6 11,901 1 Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds 1 138 3,187 Pollutants 

2005 

Silver and Silver Compounds 2 140 2,304 2 Mercury and Mercury Compounds 2 Chlordane 

Pollutants are not in the top five PCS 

2004 reported pollutants. 

Pollutants are not in the top five TRI 

2004 reported pollutants. 1 

Waste Combustors Category Total 2 d 944,770 155 3 d 5,088 242,879 3 d 

Source: PCSLoads2004_v4; TRIReleases2004_v3; TRIReleases2005_v2. a — After finalizing TRIReleases2005_v02, EPA identified two facilities included in the CWT Category that are waste combustors. Th

contribute negligible TWPE and are not included in this table. For future versions of the TRIReleases databases, EPA will classify these Waste Combustors Category. b — Discharges include only major dischargers. c — Discharges include transfers to POTWs and account for POTW removals. d — Number of facilities reporting TWPE greater than zero. 
Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444) 

11-6 

11.4 Waste Combustors Category Pesticide Discharges 

 EPA reviewed discharges of pesticides from waste combustors because they ranked high, 

in terms of TWPE, in the PCS 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 efficiency 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, EPA collected grab samples of untreated industrial 

waste combustor scrubber blowdown water at 12 hazardous waste combustor 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 combustor samples for the top three pollutants driving 

the TWPE (benzidine, toxaphene, and hexachlorobenzene); none were detected. 

Table 11-6. Sampling Data Summary from Waste Combustors Rulemaking 

Pollutant 

Minimum 

Level (μg/L)

Number of 

Observatio

ns 

Number of 

Detects 

Mean 

(μg/L)

Min. 

(μg/L) Max. (μg/L)

Atrazine 10 14 1 13.8 8.9 35.6 

Dichlorprop 1 11 5 7.2 1.0 47.0 

Dinoseb 1 11 2 1.2 0.5 4.5 

2,4-D 1 11 2 2.5 1.0 8.9 

Non-Detects 

Benzidine 50 27 0 

Diazinon 2 11 0 

Endrin 0 14 0 

Heptachlor 0 14 0 

Hexachlorobenzene 10 27 0 

Toxaphene 5 14 0 

Not Applicable 

Source: Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines 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 TWPE. EPA examined discharges of pesticides 

from waste combustors extensively for the preliminary review of this category. EPA contacted 
Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444) 

11-7 

facilities that reported high-TWPE pesticide discharges (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 findings from each of these calls. 

 Overall, of the six facilities EPA contacted, five use waste characterization reports 

provided by offsite facilities delivering untreated waste for TRI reporting. These facilities use 

removal efficiency estimates to account for the quantity of pesticides removed by their treatment 

processes. Only one facility, Clean Harbors Deer Park, estimates pesticide discharges using 

monthly sampling data. This facility has no pesticide detections on record19 and estimates 

pesticide discharges using half of the method 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 contacting the facilities, the amount of pesticides 

discharged to surface water is less than the amounts 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, contribute 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 Harbors incinerates all of the waste they receive. 

They also have two onsite landfills where they dispose of ash from the incinerator, filter cake 

from the wastewater treatment plant, and construction 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 from the leachate discharged from the onsite landfill. 
Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444) 

11-8 

direct disposal of offsite wastes, but Clean Harbors typically incinerates 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 the onsite wastewater treatment plant. According 

to the point of contact, any pesticides detected in the facility’s wastewater would depend on the 

type of waste being incinerated at that time. 

 EPA obtained wastewater sampling data for toxaphene and hexachlorobenzene for all of 

2006 from Clean Harbors Deer Park. Neither toxaphene nor hexachlorobenzene was detected 

during the 12 months of sampling. For non-detect results, Clean Harbors Deer Park uses half of 

the detection limit for their TRI reporting. Table 11-8 presents the monitoring data provided by 

Clean Harbors. 

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

Sampling Date 

Hexachlorobenzene Toxaphene 

Detected? Concentration (μg/L) Detected? Concentration (μg/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 

Honohan, Clean Harbors, Deer Park, TX (Krejci, 2008a). 

 The facility contact stated that pesticides have been detected in the facility’s wastewater 

in the past; however, the facility does not have any record of these detections. Personnel believe 

that any detection of pesticides in the facility’s wastewater would result from the leachate 

discharged from the onsite landfills. Therefore, the facility has no record of pesticide 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 pesticide release amounts, based 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 concentrations are zero. 
Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444) 

11-9 

The table also shows the values reported to TRI, 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) and 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 

Source: 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 

 The pesticide discharges from Von Roll America in East Liverpool, OH, contribute 

negligible pesticide TWPE to TRI in 2004 and 2005 (331 TWPE and 330 TWPE, respectively). 

However, the facility reported treating approximately 1,000,000 pounds of pesticide waste by 

incineration each year from 2003 to 2005. 

 EPA contacted the facility in 2008 to determine the source of the facility’s wastewater 

discharges and to discuss pesticide management at the facility (Krejci, 2008b). According to the 

point of contact, blowdown from the incinerator’s wet scrubber system is neutralized and 

recycled to the scrubber. Estimates of pesticide discharges reported to TRI are based on 

stormwater discharges, rather than process wastewater. In addition, the treatment 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 disposal, after being tested according to Land Disposal Restriction 

(LDR) standards (40 CFR Part 268). The LDR standards require that the facility test for all 

pollutants on the underlying hazardous constituents list, including a variety of pesticides. The 

facility has never detected any pesticides in its waste ash (Krejci, 2008b). 

 Von Roll America estimates the discharges reported to TRI using waste characterization 

reports submitted by clients in conjunction with periodic testing of waste received to verify the 

characterization reports. The facility has not tested its wastewater for pesticides (Krejci, 2008b). 

 EPA also collected information, where available, on increased receipt of pesticide waste 

receipt resulting from the PFPR ELGs. The PFPR ELGs, Part 455 Subpart C, was promulgated 

in 1996 and requires zero discharge of process wastewater from PFPR manufacturing (U.S. EPA, 

1996). As a result of the zero discharge requirement, PFPR facilities may send their wastewater 

off site, including to incinerators. According to the point of contact, the facility received 

pesticides consistently until 2007, when the overall pesticide receipt increased by approximately 

25 percent (Krejci, 2008b). Therefore, the increase in pesticides receipt does not appear to result 

from the PFPR ELGs. 
Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444) 

11-10 

11.4.3 Pesticides Management at Ross Incineration Services – Grafton, OH 

 Ross Incineration Services in Grafton, 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 incinerator with a wet scrubber system for 

disposal of commercial 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 variety of pollutants, but has never detected any pesticides since it 

began sampling in the early 1990s (Krejci, 2008c). 

 EPA also collected information, where available, on increased receipt 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 wastewater 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 pesticides receipt at the facility, although the increased pesticides 

receipt may result from an overall increase in total waste received (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 time. The conclusions of the Waste Combustor Category review are 

as follows: 

• TRI-reported discharges of pesticides account for the majority of the Waste 

Combustors Category’s TWPE. EPA determined 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 sampling 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 2006 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 detected pesticides in the wastewater from 

their waste combustion operations. The contact 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 available for those detections. The facility 

contact also stated that any pesticide discharge results from one of the onsite 

landfills. As a result, no pesticide discharge results would be regulated by Part 

444, Waste Combustors. In future versions of the TRI databases, EPA will correct 

pesticide discharges from this facility, classifying the discharge under the 

Landfills Point Source Category. 
Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444) 

11-11 

• EPA contacted six waste combustor facilities. Of these, five used waste 

characterization reports provided by offsite facilities 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. Based on the above conclusions, EPA is 

assigning this category with a lower priority for revision (i.e., this category is 

marked with “(3)” in the “Findings” column in Table 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, Inc. Notes from telephone conversation 

between TJ Finseth, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Craig Elam, Clean Harbors. 

“Clean Harbors direct pesticide discharges reported 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. “Clean Harbors Deer Park Pesticides 

Discharges in TRI.” (March 17). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05973. 

3. Krejci, Christopher. 2008b. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone 

conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Steve Lorah, 

Von Roll America, East Liverpool, OH. “Pesticides 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, Grafton, OH. “Pesticides Treatment at Ross 

Incineration Services.” (March 27). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05944. 

5. Krejci, Christopher. 2008d. Eastern Research 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 Receipt 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, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Dan Robley, 

Terris, LLC (aka Clean Harbors El Dorado), El Dorado, AR. “Pesticides Receipt and 

Possible Discharge at Terris.” (April 9). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05943. 
Section 11.0 – Waste Combustors (40 CFR Part 444) 

11-12 

7. Krejci, Christopher. 2008f. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Notes from telephone 

conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Dennis 

Warchol, ONYX Environmental Services Incineration Services (aka Veolia 

Environmental Services), Sauget, IL. “Pesticides 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 Effluent Limitations Guidelines, 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. 
11-13 

Section 11.0 – Waste Comb

Table 11-10. Summary of Waste Combustor Pesticide Facility Contacts 

Facility Pesticides Detected 

Facility TWPE Receives in Treated 

Facility Name City from TRI 2005 Pesticides? Wastewater? Comments 

Clean Harbors Deer Park, 51,858.58 Yes Yes Facility tests for a variety of pesticides as 

Deer Park LP TX Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (T

submitted sampling data for 2006 which dpesticide detections. Facility contact believdetected in the past, but the contact has no pesticides detected at permitted outfalls re(Krejci, 2008a). 

Von Roll East 329.95 Yes No Facility does not discharge process wastewAmerica Inc Liverpool, it is treated and recycled. Residuals are sen

OH Pesticides receipt at the facility in 2007 wa

above normal levels (Krejci, 2008b). 

Onyx Port Arthur, 94.51 Yes No Facility disposes of scrubber blowdown by Environmental TX Facility has not seen a noticeable increase 

Services LLC a recent years (Krejci, 2008d). 

Teris LLC El Dorado, 13.58 Yes No Facility samples approximately 10 percent 

AR various chemicals, including pesticides. Fa

pesticides in the incoming waste shipmentany wastewater. Incinerator uses a dry em(baghouse). For TRI reporting, the facility characterization profiles provided by clien

Onyx Sauget, IL 0.73 Yes No Facility does not generate wastewater (inc

Environmental through a dry scrubber). Facility has not seServices a pesticides receipt in recent years. Facility 

reported to TRI based on waste characterizclients (Krejci, 2008f). 
11-14 

Section 11.0 – Waste Comb

Table 11-10. Summary of Waste Combustor Pesticide Facility Contacts 

Facility Name City 

Facility TWPE 

from TRI 2005

Facility 

Receives 

Pesticides? 

Pesticides Detected 

in Treated 

Wastewater? Comments 

Ross Grafton, OH NA Yes No Facility does not discharge process wastewIncineration Scrubber blowdown is sent to an off-site wServices Inc facility. The facility tests for a variety of p

basis, and has not detected any since they early 1990s. The facility generally uses wareports in conjunction with emissions factofor TRI reporting. Pesticides receipt at the increased in recent years, but total waste reincreased. It is unclear how much the pestiwaste has increased (Krejci, 2008c). 

Source: Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Kevin Honohan, Clean Harb(Krejci, 2008a); Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Steve Lorah, Von RLiverpool, OH (Krejci, 2008b); Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and JeffIncineration Services, Grafton, OH (Krejci, 2008c); Notes from telephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research G

Duncan, ONYX Environmental Services (aka Veolia Environmental Services), Port Arthur, TX (Krejci, 2008d); Notes from telephone Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Dan Robley, Terris, LLC (aka Clean Harbors El Dorado), El Dorado, AR (Krejctelephone conversation between Christopher Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Dennis Warchol, ONYX Environmental Service(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 twthis table because they are waste combustors, but TRIReleases2005_v02 classifies them as CWTs. They contribute negligible TWPE an

rankings; therefore, EPA did not correct TRIReleases_v02. For future versions of the TRIReleases databases, EPA will classify these fa

Waste Combustor Category. NA — Not applicable. Ross Incineration Services Inc 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

12.0 COAL MINING CATEGORY (PART 434) 

 The purpose of this report is to summarize the analytical approach, research activities, 

and findings of the Coal Mining Detailed Study that EPA conducted to evaluate the comments 

received from a public interest group and from states and industry urging revisions to pollutant 

limitations in the Coal Mining Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) (40 CFR 

Part 434) (see 71 FR 76644-76667, December 21, 2006; 72 FR 61342-61343, October 30, 2007). 

 To facilitate this study, EPA identified data 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 Mining, 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 manganese, is most prevalent in these two states. 

 EPA also evaluated the technology basis for the existing Coal Mining ELGs rulemakings: 

chemical precipitation and settling (U.S. EPA, 1976). EPA evaluated 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 assess the potential effects of manganese 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 treatment by examining bonding requirements, past 

bond forfeiture rates, and future potential bond forfeiture rates (see Section 10.0). 

12.1 Summary of Public Comments

 The public interest group, the Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC), asked EPA 

to place more stringent controls on total dissolved solids (TDS) (e.g., sulfates and chlorides), 

mercury, cadmium, manganese, and selenium in coal mining discharges. ELPC referenced a 

study by EPA Region 5 on potential adverse impacts of the discharge of sulfates on aquatic life 

(EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2614 through 2617). 

 The Interstate Mining Compact Commission, which represents mining regulatory 

agencies in 28 states, state mine permitting agencies in Pennsylvania and Virginia, two 

Pennsylvania coal mining companies, and a Pennsylvania coal mining trade association, asked 

EPA to remove the current manganese 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 life 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 chemicals to meet the discharge limits; 

4. EPA 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. 

 Individual state and industry commenters cited the following factors in support of their 

comments: 

1. States enacted more stringent coal mining reclamation bonding requirements after 

the promulgation of SMCRA to control water discharges from mines undergoing 

reclamation; 

2. Studies support their contention that manganese is not harmful 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

 Proper understanding of the following terms is essential to understanding 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 total iron concentration equal to or greater 

than 10 mg/L (40 CFR 434.11(a)). 

• Active mining area. The area, on and beneath land, used or disturbed in activity 

related to the extraction, removal, or recovery 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 iron concentration of less than 10 mg/L (40 

CFR 434.11(c)). 

• Bond release. The time at which the appropriate regulatory authority returns a 

reclamation or performance bond based upon its determination that reclamation 

work (including, in the case of underground mines, mine sealing and 

abandonment procedures) has been satisfactorily completed (40 CFR 434.11(d)). 

• Post-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 prior 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-vegetation (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 promulgated manganese effluent limits only for the 

following subset of coal mining operations 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 acid or ferruginous mine drainage 

discharges (Subpart E – Post Mining Areas). 

There 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 after SMCRA bond release has been granted, nor are 

there national manganese effluent limits for AMD from abandoned coal mines. 

12.4 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. 

12.4.1 Bond Forfeitures 

 EPA clarified states’ comments regarding 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 important because the Part 434 manganese limits only 

apply to a subset of coal mining phases. EPA clarified through discussions 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 manganese 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 every 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 address 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-based 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 standards and Section 5.2.1 for additional information 

on the manganese water quality-based limits. 

 EPA 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) and 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, April 26, 1977), and compliance rates with 

permit limits derived from the Part 434 management limits are high (see Section 5.2). 

 Based on information received from Pennsylvania 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 current 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 identify regional hydrologic impacts associated 

with the coal mining and reclamation operation. The 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 adverse impacts are identified (e.g., AMD) through use 

of the PHC, appropriate protection, mitigation, and rehabilitation plans are developed and 

included in mining and reclamation permit requirements. 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 AMD after land reclamation is complete and the 

SMCRA bond is released. PHC analytical techniques 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, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

anticipates that less than one percent of recently SMCRA permitted mines will develop AMD 

after reclamation and bond release. See Section 10.0 for additional information on the reasons for 

bond forfeitures. 

12.4.2 Potential Environmental Impacts 

 Due to data limitations, EPA was able to conduct 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 potential for human health and 

aquatic life effects of these pollutants. EPA found limited information concerning documented 

environmental impacts. The discharge data provided 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 across 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 identify any discussion regarding promulgating 

manganese effluent guidelines to ensure surrogate removal of other metals. EPA’s review of 

these documents showed that EPA’s rationale for requiring manganese control for a subset of 

coal mines was to address drinking water 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 systems, 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 described above, EPA is not 

proposing revisions to the pollutant limitations in the coal mining 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 guidelines 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 Conference Call with Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement.” (June 26). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2517. 

2. U.S. EPA. 1976. Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards 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 HEALTH SERVICES INDUSTRY AND HOSPITALS CATEGORY (PART 460) 

 EPA identified the Health Services Industry as a candidate for a detailed study in the final 

2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (71 FR 76656, December 21, 2006). The Health Services 

Industry includes establishments engaged in various 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 Services Industry (U.S. Census, 2005). EPA is including the following 

sectors within the Health Services Industry in its detailed study (70 FR 51054, August 29, 2005): 

• Offices and Clinics of Dentists; 

• Doctors and Mental Health Practitioners; 

• Nursing and Personal Care Facilities (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 delivered by trained professionals for the purpose 

of providing health care and social assistance for individuals or animals. These entities may be 

free standing or part of a hospital 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 pretreatment standards for 

indirect discharging facilities. 

 In evaluating the health services industries to date, EPA has found little readily available 

information from EPA databases. Both EPA’s Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Toxics 

Release Inventory (TRI) contain sparse information on health care service establishments. For 

2002, PCS only has data for two facilities that are considered “major” sources of pollutants, and 

only Federal facilities in the healthcare industry are required to report to TRI. 

 Based on preliminary information, major pollutants 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 supplies used in healthcare facilities (Fairfax, 2006; Johnston, 2005). EPA 

found little to no quantitative information on wastewater 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 Services 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 the 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 health service facilities 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 describes 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 mercury disposal? To what 

extent are each of these practices applied? What factors drive current practices? 

• Are there federal, state, or local requirements or guidance for disposal of 

mercury? What are these requirements? 

• How are control authorities currently controlling (or not controlling) disposal of 

mercury via wastewater? 

• To what extent do POTWs report pass through 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) are used as alternatives to wastewater 

disposal and/or to control discharges and is there any qualitative or quantitative 

information on their efficiency? 

• Is there any quantitative or qualitative information on the 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 working 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. According to the 2002 Mercury Source 

Control and Pollution Prevention Program Final Report prepared for the National 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 dental 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 reduce the amount of mercury solids passing into the 

sewer system. However, BMPs and the installation 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 influent concentrations and biosolids mercury 

concentrations. Use of amalgam separators does not always result in reductions in POTW 

effluent, however, since most amalgam particles are removed with biosolids. Mercury that 

partitions to wastewater sludge may be incinerated or disposed to a landfill. 

 States, Regions, and localities have implemented mandatory and voluntary programs to 

reduce dental mercury discharges. Specifically, 11 states and at least 19 localities have 

mandatory pretreatment programs that require the 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 for 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 for its members. On October 2, 2007, the ADA 

updated its BMPs to include the use of amalgam separators (ADA, 2007). The document titled 

Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Dental Amalgam, compiles the information EPA has 

collected to date on existing guidance and requirements for dental mercury (U.S. EPA, 2008a). 

 In 2007 and 2008, EPA focused its efforts on collecting and compiling information on 

current mercury discharges from dental offices, BMPs, and amalgam separators. For amalgam 

separators, EPA looked at the frequency with which they are currently used; their effectiveness 

in reducing discharges to POTWs; and the capital and annual costs associated with their 

installation and operation (U.S. EPA, 2008a). EPA also conducted a POTW pass-through 

analysis on mercury for the industry. 

 EPA received comments from 32 stakeholders on the preliminary 2008 Effluent 

Guidelines Program Plan. Most commenters were 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 development 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. 

 In response to mercury water quality and pollution prevention concerns, there is progress 

at the State and local level as amalgam separators 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 help POTWs reduce the 

amount of mercury in their biosolids and the potential for mercury emissions when biosolids are 

incinerated. Additionally, due to mercury-free fillings and improved overall dental health, the 

use of mercury in dentistry 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 sector for an effluent guidelines rulemaking. As 

previously noted above, industrial categories demonstrating significant progress through 

voluntary efforts to reduce hazard to human health or the environment associated with their 

effluent discharges are a lower priority 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, EPA 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 notes ADA’s recent positive step in revising their 

BMPs to include the recommendation for dentists to use amalgam separators. In particular, EPA 

will examine whether a significant majority of dentists 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 streams (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 entering our waterways and what factors 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 facilities, and veterinary hospitals. 

Unused pharmaceuticals include dispensed prescriptions that patients do not use as well as 

materials that are beyond their expiration dates. Another potential source of unused 

pharmaceuticals is the residuals remaining in used and partially used dispensers, containers, and 

devices. Many of these dispensers, containers, and 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 the 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 disposed 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 differ within industry sectors? 

• What BMPs could facilities implement to reduce the generation of unused 

pharmaceuticals? 
Section 13.0 – Health Services Industry and Hospitals Category (Part 460) 

13-5

• What reductions in the quantities of pharmaceuticals 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. Upon completion of the health services study, 

EPA hopes to understand what factors contribute to unused pharmaceutical disposal methods at 

health service facilities and which disposal methods represent 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 agencies and health care stakeholder groups. 

 The study focused on hospitals and long-term care facilities (LTCFs) because these 

facilities are likely responsible for the largest amounts of unused pharmaceuticals being disposed 

into sewage collection systems within this industry sector. In 2005, there were about 7,000 

hospitals and 35,000 LTCFs in the United 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 regulations, state regulations, nonregulatory factors such as ease of disposal and costs, and difficulties encountered 

during implementation of pharmaceutical take-back programs.

• Some federal regulations may inadvertently encourage disposal of unused 

pharmaceuticals via the sewer. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), enforced 

by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), establishes a closed distribution 

system for controlled substances. The CSA prohibits the return of controlled 

substances from end-users to any person except, in certain cases, a lawenforcement agent and CSA registrants. Disposal of controlled substances by 

CSA registrants is carefully regulated to ensure that the substance is destroyed or 

rendered unrecoverable. One acceptable method of destruction is witnessed 

disposal of controlled substances in a drain or toilet. 

• Some unused pharmaceuticals are regulated as hazardous wastes and subject to 

the nation’s hazardous waste 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 Subtitle C requirements, including many 

special handling and transportation requirements. 

 

• State 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). Many 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 medications 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 states strictly prohibit hospitals and 

LTCFs from reusing pharmaceuticals entirely. These states include Arizona, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas. California allows county health 

departments to collect unused pharmaceuticals from LTCFs, wholesalers, and 

manufacturers and redistribute them for dispensing to the uninsured poor. Some 

State Medicare and Medicaid requirements often deter 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 provides health insurance to elderly and 

disabled Americans, while Medicaid provides health insurance for low income 

Americans, including long-term care coverage (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 treatments when nursing home patients die, are 

discharged, or have their prescriptions changed. In addition, 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 typically 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 medication destroyed, but it is not compensated 

for this service (The Lewin Group, 2004). Therefore, few LTC pharmacies 

participate in these programs. 

• Organization size, ease of disposal and cost are also 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 epinephrine salts are not included in the 

epinephrine P042 listing (since the listing only specifies epinephrine and not epinephrine salts); the salts, therefore, 

would be hazardous only if the waste epinephrine salt exhibited 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 pre-existing contract 

with a hazardous waste hauler to dispose of the pharmaceuticals. In the past, 

public health agencies and health-related non-government organizations guided 

the public to destroy unused medications by flushing them down the toilet. Many 

LTCFs have adopted this method for destruction of unused controlled substances. 

Many LTCFs have also extended this practice to include flushing all unused 

medications – controlled and non controlled substances (Garvin, 2007). 

• Logistics for disposing of unused pharmaceuticals at hospitals are different from 

long-term care facilities. Hospitals typically have on-site pharmacies. It is 

common practice at hospitals to return some unused pharmaceuticals to the 

hospital pharmacy and then on to the manufacturer for credit or disposal. 

However, this option extends only to those 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). 

• Widespread implementation of best management practices may reduce the 

number and quantity of unused pharmaceuticals entering in our nation’s waters 

from disposal. Three organizations provide guidance 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 Organizations (JCAHO). The guidelines provided 

by these organizations all aim to reduce health and environmental impacts due to 

current disposal practices of pharmaceutical waste, as discussed in Section 5.2 of 

the Health Services Industry Detailed 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 hospitals in California, Minnesota, and 

Washington. Waste minimization techniques include maintaining inventories of 

high-use pharmaceuticals and identifying those that are close to expiring. Shortdated pharmaceuticals are redistributed to other areas of the hospitals where they 

are needed. Also, dispensed pharmaceuticals can go unused at a hospital or LTCF 

if the patient has an allergic or adverse reaction to the medication, no longer 

requires treatment, refuses treatment, or the medication expires. Hospitals and 

LTCFs can reduce the amount of pharmaceutical waste generated by limiting the 

amount of pharmaceuticals dispensed to patients 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 Pharmaceuticals (Interim Technical Report) (U.S. EPA, 

2008b). Hospitals and LTCFs have the option of hiring reverse distributors to 

manage their unused and/or expired medication that the facility believes could be 

returned to the manufacturer or wholesaler 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 distributors and controlled 

substances. In most cases, reverse distributors cannot handle controlled 

substances. 

 EPA is concerned about pharmaceuticals in the 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-pronged strategy is aimed at improving science, 

improving public understanding, identifying partnership 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 drinking water. We are 

developing analytical methods to improve detection capabilities. 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 prevention (Grumbles, 2008). Additionally, 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, the inclusion of hazardous pharmaceutical 

wastes in the universal waste rule will also encourage health care facilities to manage all their 

pharmaceutical wastes as universal wastes, even wastes 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 Plan (2006-2011) to meet its goals of clean and safe 

water.21

 EPA continues to study the issue of how health 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 issue 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 Services Industry. To aid its decision-making, EPA 

intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and 

Budget for their review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 33 U.S.C. 3501, et 

seq., in the 2009 annual review. EPA will use this ICR to collect technical 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 visits to facilities to obtain more detailed 

information on how pharmaceuticals are managed, tracked, and disposed as well as influences on 

behavior. In addition, EPA is considering collecting data from other types of health care facilities 

(e.g., medical and dental offices, university and prison health clinics, 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 Equine Veterinary Technicians. “News and 

Events Web-site.” (October 19). Available online at: www.aaevt.org/news_events.htm. 

Date accessed: July 10, 2007. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0322. 

2. ADA. 2007. American Dental Association. “ADA Updates Environmental 

Recommendations for Handling Waste.” (October 2). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0211. 

3. APhA. 2006. American Pharmacists Association. “Re-Distribution of Medications: 

APhA Policy Committee Background Information.” (November). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-

0771-0319. 

4. CMS. Unknown. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services. “CMS Programs and 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.htm. Date accessed: August 31, 2006. 

EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2391. 

6. Garvin, M.G. 2007. Comments on the Preliminary 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 Protection 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 Regions 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. Memorandum to Public Record for the 2008 

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 

(www.regulations.gov). “Subject: Health Services Outreach Meeting with the Center for 

Excellence in Assisted Living (CEAL) Advisory 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 under 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). “Receipts/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 Detailed Study: Dental Amalgam. EPA-821-

R-08-014. Washington, D.C. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05518. 

16. U.S. EPA. 2008b. Health Services Industry Detailed Study: Management and Disposal of 

Unused Pharmaceuticals (Interim Technical 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 online 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 Branch. “Mercury Pollutant Minimization 

Program Guidance.” Chicago, IL. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-0460. 

21. Vandeven, Jay and Steve McGinnis. 2005. Environ International Corporation. “An 

Assessment of Mercury in the Form of Amalgam in Dental Wastewater in the United 

States.” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution (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 OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION CATEGORY (PART 435) 

 EPA identified the coalbed methane (CBM) sector 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 support 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 pollutants discharged in coalbed methane (CBM) 

produced water. 

 CBM extraction requires removal of large amounts of water from underground coal 

seams before CBM can be released. CBM wells have a distinctive production history 

characterized by an early stage when large amounts 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 wastewaters include chloride, sodium, sulfate, 

bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, barium, 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. 

 Controlling the sodicity of the CBM produced waters is equally important in preventing 

environmental damage. Sodicity is often quantified as the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), which 

is expressed as the ratio of sodium 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 through poor soil-water and soil-air 

relations. All of these dissolved inorganic parameters can potentially affect environmental 

impacts as well as potential beneficial 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 waters. 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 dilution capacity or marine waters are less sensitive 

to saline discharges than smaller receiving 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 future 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 produced 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 information from State National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit programs and industry on the current regulatory 

controls across the different CBM basins. 

 CBM extraction activities accounted 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 Administration expects CBM production to remain 

an important source of domestic natural 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 prevention and control technology options; 

3. Category growth and economic considerations of technology options; and 

4. Implementation and efficiency considerations of revising existing effluent 

guidelines or publishing new effluent guidelines. 

EPA will use the CBM ICR to collect technical and economic information from a wide range of 

CBM operations to address these factors in greater detail (e.g., geographical and geologic 

differences in the characteristics of CBM produced 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 range of stakeholders (e.g., industry 

representatives; Federal, State, and Tribal representatives; public interest groups and landowners; 

and water treatment experts) to obtain information on the industry and its CBM produced water 

management practices. EPA’s outreach started with teleconferences and then continued with a 

series of meetings and site visits in the major CBM basins. In total, EPA contacted over 700 

people in eight states during more than 60 outreach and data collection activities in 2007 and 

2008 (e.g., meetings, teleconferences, site visits) (Johnston, 2008; U.S. EPA, 2008a). EPA also 

solicited public comment through two separate Federal Register notices on the draft survey and 

supporting statement (73 FR 4556, January 25, 2008; 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 intends 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 Items Supporting Coalbed Methane Extraction 

Sector Survey: Updated [DCN 05768].” (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). Washington, D.C. EPA-HQOW-2006-0771-1119. 
Section 15.0 – Steam Electric Power Generating Category (Part 423) 

15-1

15.0 STEAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING CATEGORY (PART 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 electricity 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 discharges 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 corresponding industrial operation. 

EPA’s previous annual reviews have indicated that the toxic-weighted loadings for this category 

are predominantly driven by the metals present in wastewater discharges, and that the waste 

streams contributing the majority of these metals are associated with ash handling and wet flue 

gas desulfurization (FGD) systems (U.S. EPA, 2006). 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 limited number of companies, and various secondary 

data sources (U.S. EPA, 2008c). 

 EPA’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 gathers information on the types of wastewaters 

generated by coal-fired steam electric power plants, as well as the methods of managing these 

wastewaters to allow for recycle, reuse, or discharge. EPA conducted site visits at 16 coal-fired 

power plants and is continuing to identify potential 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 options, including facilities achieving zero liquid 

discharge from their wet FGD operations. 

 Between 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 quality from different types of treatment systems 

currently in place at these operations. Samples collected during the five episodes were analyzed 

for metals and other pollutants, such as total suspended solids 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 discuss the specific sample points and analytes, 

the sample collection methods used, the field quality control samples collected, and the 

analytical results for the wastewater samples. 
Section 15.0 – Steam Electric Power Generating Category (Part 423) 

15-2

 EPA is continuing to identify potential sampling candidates to evaluate additional types 

of FGD wastewater treatment systems, including advanced biological metals removal processes 

and chemical precipitation systems. EPA plans to conduct wastewater sampling at one or more 

additional plants in 2008 or early 2009. 

 EPA also collected facility-specific information using a data request conducted under 

authority of CWA Section 308 (U.S. EPA, 2007). In May 2007, EPA distributed 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 sampling effort as it requested facility-specific 

information about wastewaters, and identifies management 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 wastewater sources, air pollution controls, wastewater management and 

treatment practices, water reuse/recycle, and treatment system capital and operating costs. 

 The Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) provided 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 those plants that operate wet FGD systems or 

wet fly ash sluice systems. The database provides facility information, data on facility outfalls, 

process flow diagrams, wastewater treatment information, and intake and effluent characteristics. 

Data are provided for the FGD, ash sluice, and coal pile runoff wastestreams (Aldridge, 2008; 

UWAG, 2008). 

 EPA is also in the process of contacting vendors and conducting literature 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-scale tests on FGD wastewater treatment technologies, including 

chemical precipitation, ion exchange, and biological metals removal. 

 EPA intends to continue its detailed review of the Steam Electric Power Generating 

Category in the 2009 and 2010 annual reviews of effluent guidelines. Wastewater sampling at a 

facility operating a treatment system of interest was delayed by nearly one year due to 

operational conditions at the plant. In addition, several other plants recently began operating a 

new generation of FGD wastewater treatment technology that promises 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 these 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 fully evaluate this data. The 

database provides substantial information on wastewater 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 intends to continue investigating water reuse 

opportunities to assess the degree to which they may yield pollutant 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. Final 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. Final 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. Final Sampling Episode Report, Ohio Power 

Company’s Mitchell Plant. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05834. 

5. ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2008d. Final Sampling Episode Report, Tampa 

Electric Company’s Big Bend Station. (August). EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05816. 

6. ERG. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2008e. Final 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 Generating Industry. (June 12). Washington, D.C. 

EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 DCN 05755. 

8. U.S. EPA. 2008b. Non-Confidential Business Information Version of the Data Request 

Database for the Steam Electric Power Generating 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 Study: 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 Report 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.