Z 

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan

May 2013
This page intentionally left blank. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water (4303T)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

EPA-821-R-12-002 
This page intentionally left blank. 
v 

CONTENTS

Page 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1-1

2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 The Clean Water Act and the Effluent Guidelines Program ............................................ 2-1

2.2 Effluent Guidelines Planning and Review Requirements ................................................ 2-2

2.3 Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Overview ........................... 2-3

2.3.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) — 

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

2.3.2 Best Conventional Pollution Control Technology (BCT) — CWA 

Sections 301(b)(2)(E) and 304(b)(4) .................................................................. 2-5

2.3.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) — CWA 

Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2) .................................................................. 2-5

2.3.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) — CWA Section 306 .................. 2-5

2.3.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) — CWA Section 

307(b) .................................................................................................................. 2-6

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

307(c) .................................................................................................................. 2-6

2.4 Results of the 2010 Annual Reviews ............................................................................... 2-6

3. EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ............................. 3-1

3.1 Summary of the 2011 Annual Reviews Methodology ..................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Annual Reviews Procedure ................................................................................. 3-5

3.1.2 Preliminary Category Review ............................................................................. 3-6

3.1.3 Preliminary and Detailed Studies ....................................................................... 3-7

3.2 Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations .................................................................. 3-7

4. 2011 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND 

STANDARDS AND RANKING OF POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES ........................................ 4-1

4.1.1 Categories for Which EPA Is No Longer Considering Developing or 

Revising ELGs .................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Categories for Which EPA is Currently Revising ELGs .................................... 4-3

4.1.3 Categories for Which EPA Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs ................ 4-3

4.1.4 Discharges Not Categorizable ............................................................................ 4-4

4.1.5 Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE ......................................... 4-4

4.1.6 Results of the 2011 Toxicity Ranking Analysis ................................................. 4-5

4.1.7 Summary of 2011 Preliminary Category Reviews ........................................... 4-10

5. POTENTIAL CATEGORIES OF INDIRECT DISCHARGERS FOR PRETREATMENT 

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

5.1 Evaluation of Pass-Through and Interference of Toxic and Non-Conventional 

Pollutants Discharged to POTWs .................................................................................... 5-1

6. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND INPUT ............................................................... 6-1

7. USE OF OTHER EXISTING DATA IN EPA’S 2012 ANNUAL REVIEWS ............................. 7-1

8. FINDINGS FROM EPA’S 2011 ANNUAL REVIEWS ........................................................... 8-1
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page 

vi 

9. 2012 PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN CONCLUSIONS ............. 9-1

10. INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM ............. 10-1

11. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 11-1
vii 

LIST OF TABLES

Page 

Table 3-1. Overview of SIC and NAICs Code Classification Systems ..................................................... 3-8

Table 3-2. TRI and DMR Data Utility and Limitations ............................................................................. 3-9

Table 4-1. Point Source Categories That Have Undergone a Recent Rulemaking or Review .................. 4-4

Table 4-2. Point Source Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE Discharges ...................... 4-6

Table 4-3. Final TRIReleases2009 and DMRLoads2009 Combined Point Source Category 

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

Table 8-1. Findings from EPA’s 2011 Annual Reviews of Industrial Categories ..................................... 8-1
viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page 

Figure 2-1. Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges .................................................... 2-4

Figure 3-1. Annual Review of Existing ELGs in 2011 .............................................................................. 3-2

Figure 3-2. Further Review of Existing ELGs in 2011 .............................................................................. 3-3

Figure 3-3. Identification of Possible New ELGs in 2011 ......................................................................... 3-4
Section 1—Executive Summary

1-1 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (“Preliminary 2012 Plan”), 

which is being prepared pursuant to Clean Water Act (CWA) section 304(m), identifies any new 

or existing industrial categories selected for effluent guidelines rulemaking and provides a 

schedule for such rulemaking. It also discusses the results of EPA’s 2011 Annual Reviews of 

effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards, consistent with CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 

304(g), 304(m) and 307(b). It presents EPA’s 2011 evaluation of indirect discharges without 

categorical pretreatment standards to identify potential new categories for pretreatment standards 

under CWA section 307(b). Finally, this Preliminary 2012 Plan provides EPA’s findings and 

conclusions on specific effluent guidelines actions that the Agency initiated in prior years and 

introduces the methods used in EPA’s 2012 Annual Reviews. 

This Preliminary 2012 Plan and its conclusions are supported by EPA’s 2011 Annual 

Review Report, which presents the detailed results of EPA’s 2011 Annual Reviews of existing 

effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards (U.S. EPA, 2012a). The 2011 Annual Review 

Report explains how industry discharges were analyzed for the potential need for new or revised 

effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards and provides the basis for the conclusions made in 

this Plan. The Report is a part of the Annual Review record and can be found at 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/304m/index.cfm (DCN 07685). 

During the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA determined that discharges from 17 of the top 20 

ranked industrial categories were not a hazard priority. These 17 categories were removed from 

further analysis primarily because of data errors, which dropped them from the rankings, or 

because the toxic weighted pound equivalent (TWPE) was from one facility and not 

characteristic of the entire category. 

EPA determined that additional review was necessary for three point source categories: 

Pulp, Paper and Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430), Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419), and 

Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432). Therefore, EPA continued to review these 

categories’ discharges during the 2012 annual review period and will report findings for these 

three categories in its Final 2012 Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) Program Plan (Final 

2012 Plan). 

During 2011, a preliminary study was conducted on regenerated cellulose manufacturers, 

which were identified during the 2006 and 2010 Annual Reviews as having high carbon disulfide 

discharges. This study has concluded that a revision to the effluent guidelines for this industry is 

not necessary for controlling discharges of carbon disulfide (CS2). The CS2 discharges are 

primarily a single-facility issue that can be dealt with effectively and more appropriately through 

permitting. 

With respect to ongoing effluent guidelines revisions, EPA is proposing to delist from the 

effluent guidelines plan the chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons (CCH) manufacturing 

industry and to discontinue this rulemaking (See Section 4.1.1). EPA is also proposing to delist 

the coalbed methane extraction industry and to discontinue its rulemaking based on new 

information regarding the declining prevalence and economic viability of this industry, due in 

large part to the extraction of natural gas from other sources. After reviewing financial data 

pertaining to this industry (including natural gas price projections from the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration), wastewater quality/quantity data and the cost of available 
Section 1—Executive Summary

1-2 

wastewater treatment options, it appears that EPA may not be able to identify a wastewater 

treatment technology that would be economically achievable for this industrial subcategory (See 

Section 4.1.1). 

EPA also considered public comments and information submitted by stakeholders in 

response to a solicitation for comments on the Final 2010 Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) 

Program Plan (Final 2010 Plan), published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2011. The 

Final 2010 Plan can be found at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-10-26/html/2011-

27742.htm. 

A total of 31 organizations provided comment on the Final 2010 Plan. Most of the public 

comment and input submitted was focused on expressing opposition or support for the 

announced rulemakings for shale gas extraction, coalbed methane extraction and dental 

amalgam. A few comments provided a small amount of information and ideas on the 304(m) 

planning process in general, nanomaterial discharges, the disposal of unused pharmaceuticals 

and on the ore mining and dressing study report. 

Based on the 2011 Annual Reviews and public comment and input, EPA has concluded 

that no new industrial wastewater discharges present concerns that warrant new or revised 

effluent guidelines at this time. Therefore at this time, EPA is not identifying any existing 

effluent guidelines for revision, nor is EPA identifying any new industries for new effluent 

guidelines, aside from ones currently undergoing rulemakings. EPA is also not identifying the 

need for any new or revised pretreatment standards at this time, excluding those that are 

currently under development. 

EPA conducted its 2012 Annual Reviews during calendar year 2012 and will incorporate 

its findings, along with the results of the 2011 Annual Reviews and respective public comment 

and input, into its Final 2012 Plan. 
Section 2—Background

2-1 

2. BACKGROUND

This section explains how the Effluent Guidelines Program fits into EPA’s National

Water Program, describes the general and legal background of the Effluent Guidelines Program, 

and summarizes EPA’s process for making effluent guidelines revision and development 

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

2.1 The Clean Water Act and the Effluent Guidelines Program

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

under the Clean Water Act (CWA), which enables EPA and the states to protect and restore the 

Nation’s waters. These programs and tools are generally focused on one of two types of controls: 

(1) water-quality-based controls, such as water quality standards and water-quality-based 

effluent limitations; or (2) 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. Water quality standards consist of designated uses for each water body 

(e.g., fishing, swimming, supporting aquatic life), criteria that protect the designated uses 

(numeric pollutant concentration limits and narrative criteria, for example, “no objectionable 

sediment deposits”), and an antidegradation policy. EPA develops recommended national criteria 

for many pollutants, pursuant to CWA section 304(a), which states may adopt or modify as 

appropriate to reflect local conditions. 

On a parallel track to water quality standards, EPA also develops technology-based 

effluent limitation guidelines and standards (ELGs), based on currently available technologies

for controlling industrial wastewater discharges. Permitting authorities (States authorized to 

administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and 

EPA in the few states that are not authorized) then must incorporate these guidelines and 

standards into discharge permits as technology-based effluent limitations where applicable (U.S. 

EPA, 2010). While technology-based effluent limitations in discharge permits are sometimes 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 of its receiving water body. For this reason, the CWA also requires states 

to establish water-quality-based permit limitations, where necessary to meet water quality 

standards. Water-quality-based limits may require industrial facilities to meet requirements that 

are more stringent than those in a national effluent guideline regulation. In the overall context of 

the CWA, effluent guidelines must be viewed as one tool in the broader set of tools and 

authorities Congress provided to EPA and the states to restore and maintain the quality of the 

nation’s waters. 

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 section 101(a), 

33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). Before 1972, the CWA focused principally on water quality standards. This 

approach was challenging, however, because it was very difficult to determine where a specific 

discharger, or combination of dischargers, was responsible for decreasing the water quality of its 

receiving stream.
Section 2—Background

2-2 

The 1972 CWA directed EPA to promulgate effluent guidelines that reflect pollutant 

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

the implementation of available treatment and prevention technologies. 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, under the direction of the statute, EPA 

assesses, for example, (1) the performance and availability of the best pollution control 

technologies or pollution prevention practices for an industrial category or subcategory as a 

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

the affordability of achieving the reduction in pollutant discharge; (3) the cost of achieving 

effluent reductions; (4) non-water-quality environmental impacts (including energy 

requirements); and (5) such other factors as the EPA Administrator deems appropriate. 

Creating a single national pollution control requirement for each industrial category 

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

the potential creation of “pollution havens” and to set the nation’s sights on eliminating the 

discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S., and attaining the highest possible level of water 

quality in the nation’s waters. Consequently, EPA’s goal in establishing national effluent 

guidelines is to ensure 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. 

In addition to establishing technology-based effluent limits, effluent guidelines 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 and standards 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). 

2.2 Effluent Guidelines Planning and Review Requirements 

In addition to establishing new regulations, the CWA requires EPA to review existing 

effluent guidelines annually. EPA reviews all point source categories subject to existing effluent 

guidelines and pretreatment standards to identify potential candidates for revision, consistent 

with CWA sections 304(b), 301(d), 304(g), and 307(b). This document explains how EPA uses 

reported discharge data and other factors to conduct this review. EPA also reviews industries 

consisting of direct-discharging facilities not currently subject to effluent guidelines to identify 

potential candidates for effluent guidelines rulemakings, pursuant to 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 under CWA sections 307(b). 

CWA section 304(m)(1)(A) requires EPA to publish an Effluent Guidelines Program 

Plan (Plan) every two years that establishes a schedule for the annual review and revision, in 

accordance with section 304(b), of the effluent guidelines that EPA has promulgated under that 
Section 2—Background

2-3 

section. EPA’s 2011 Annual Review Report presents the results of the section 304(b) reviews 

(U.S. EPA, 2012a). EPA works to coordinate its annual reviews of existing effluent guidelines 

under section 304(b) with its publication of the preliminary and final plans under CWA section 

304(m). In other words, in odd-numbered years, EPA works to complete its annual reviews upon 

publication of the preliminary plan that EPA publishes for public review and comment under 

CWA section 304(m)(2). In even numbered years, EPA works to complete its annual reviews 

upon the publication of the final plan. EPA’s 2011 Annual Reviews represent the review cycle 

conducted during calendar year 2011. 

EPA is coordinating its annual reviews under section 304(b) with publication of Plans 

under section 304(m) for several reasons. First, the Annual Reviews are inextricably linked to the 

planning effort because the results of each year of review can inform the content of the 

preliminary and final plans (e.g., by identifying candidates for ELG revision for which EPA can 

schedule rulemaking in the plans, or by identifying point source categories for which EPA has 

not promulgated effluent guidelines). Second, even though it is not required to do so under either 

section 304(b) or section 304(m), EPA believes it can serve the public interest by periodically 

presenting to the public a description of the annual reviews (including the review process used) 

and the results of the reviews. Doing so at the same time as publishing the preliminary and final 

plans makes both processes more transparent. Third, by requiring EPA to review all existing 

effluent guidelines each year, Congress appears to have intended for each successive review to 

build upon the results of earlier reviews. Therefore, by describing the 2011 Annual Reviews 

along with the Preliminary 2012 Plan, EPA is able to gather and receive information that can be 

used to inform its 2012 Annual Reviews and the Final 2012 Plan.

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 57 industrial categories; 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. The regulations have prevented the discharge 

of more than 700 billion pounds of toxic pollutants each year. 

2.3 Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards Overview

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 categorical regulations through six levels of 

control: 

1. Best practicable control technology currently available (BPT);

2. Best available control technology economically achievable (BAT); 

3. Best conventional control technology (BCT); 
Section 2—Background

2-4 

4. New source performance standards (NSPS);

5. Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES); and

6. Pretreatment standards for new sources (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 authorities. See CWA sections 307(b) and (c). Figure 2-1 illustrates the relationship 

between the regulation of direct and indirect dischargers. 

Figure 2-1. Regulations of Direct and Indirect Wastewater Discharges 

2.3.1 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. CWA 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). 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. 

NSPS

• Conventional Pollutants

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)

BPT

• Conventional Pollutants

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)

BCT

• Conventional Pollutants

BAT

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)

New 

Sources

Existing 

Sources

Direct Dischargers

PSNS

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)

PSES

• Nonconventional Pollutants

• Priority Pollutants (Toxics)

Indirect Dischargers
Section 2—Background

2-5 

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 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 

place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology can be applied

practically. 

2.3.2 Best Conventional Pollution 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). 

2.3.3 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)(A), (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 such other factors 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). In addition to end-of-pipe wastewater 

treatment, 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. 

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

NSPS reflect effluent reductions 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 takes into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and 

any non-water-quality environmental impacts and energy requirements. See CWA section 

306(b)(1)(B).
Section 2—Background

2-6 

2.3.5 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 wastewater conveyance and sludge disposal. Pretreatment standards are technologybased and are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines. 

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

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

2.3.6 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. See CWA section 307(c). 

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. 

2.4 Results of the 2010 Annual Reviews

EPA published its 2010 Annual Reviews of existing ELGs as part of the Final 2010 Plan 

on October 26, 2011 (76 FR 27742). In view of the annual nature of its reviews of existing 

ELGs, EPA believes that the annual reviews 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 Final 2010 Plan to inform its 2011 Annual 

Reviews. The 2010 Annual Reviews built on the previous reviews by continuing to use the 

toxicity ranking analysis and incorporating some refinements in assigning discharges to 

categories. EPA made similar refinements to the 2011 Annual Reviews. 
Section 3— Effluent Guidelines Planning Process

3-1 

3. EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

This section provides a summary of the process EPA used in the 2011 Annual Reviews to 

identify industrial categories for potential development of new or revised effluent limitations 

guidelines and pretreatment standards (ELGs) and the data sources and limitations used to 

complete this review. In future years in which EPA publishes a preliminary plan (i.e., oddnumbered years), EPA intends to use this same process. This process consists of (1) reviewing 

existing ELGs each year to identify candidates for revision, (2) identifying new categories of 

direct dischargers for possible development of effluent guidelines, and (3) identifying new 

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

components are illustrated in Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-3 and discussed below. 

3.1 Summary of the 2011 Annual Reviews Methodology

In the effluent guidelines 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. 

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. Using this factor enables 

the Agency to prioritize rulemakings to achieve the greatest environmental and health benefits. 

EPA estimates the potential hazard of pollutant discharges in terms of toxic weighted pollutant 

equivalent (TWPE) discussed in detail in Section 3.1.3 of EPA’s 2011 Annual Review Report

(U.S. EPA, 2012a). 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 concentrations of 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— Effluent Guidelines Planning Process

3-2 

Figure 3-1. Annual Review of Existing ELGs in 2011 

Begin annual 

review of existing 

ELGs

Identify 

applicable 

SIC and 

NAICS codes 

for each point 

source 

category

Stakeholder 

recommendations 

and comments

Preliminary Results of Screening -Level 

Review = Combined TRIReleases and 

DMRLoads database rankings (Factor 1)

DMR & TRI 

database tools

When ranked by 

TWPE, does category 

contribute to top 95% 

of cumulative TWPE 

of all categories ?

Are there identified 

implementation and 

efficiency issues 

(Factor 4)?

Are only a very few 

facilities responsible 

for overall category 

TWPE?

 Have ELGs been 

developed or 

revised within the 

past 7 years?

Not a priority 

category; no 

further review 

at this time

Yes

No

Not a priority 

category; no 

further review 

at this time *

Yes

No

Not a priority 

category, but 

consider 

permitting 

support for 

individual 

facilities

Yes

No

Do further review 

(see Figure 3-2)

Yes

No

Possible outcome

•Further review

•BPJ support

• Identify for possible 

revision of existing ELGs

•No action

Yes Stakeholder 

recommendations 

and comments

Not a priority category ; 

no further review at this 

time

No

*If EPA is aware of new segment growth within such a category or new concerns are identified , EPA may do further review .

Are ELG revisions 

currently 

underway?
Section 3— Effluent Guidelines Planning Process

3-3 

Figure 3-2. Further Review of Existing ELGs in 2011 

Further review

• Detailed studies

• Preliminary study

• 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
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process

3-4 

Figure 3-3. Identification of Possible New ELGs in 2011 

Include in annual review 

of existing category (see 

Figure 3-1)

Identify SIC/NAICS 

codes with 

discharges not 

subject to existing 

ELGs

Is the SIC/

NAICS code

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 

or 

further review necessary

Identify other tools

(e.g., permit-based 

support or guidance)

Identify for possible 

new effluent guidelines 

or standards

No identification or 

further review necessary

Stakeholder recommendations 

and comments

DMR 

R 

& TRI 

database tools

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

*Continue further review if not enough data.
Section 3—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 stringent new requirements, EPA might conclude that it would be more 

cost-effective to adopt less stringent, less expensive approaches to reduce 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 Annual Reviews, to decide against revising an existing set of 

effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards where the pollutant source is already efficiently and 

effectively controlled by other regulatory or non-regulatory programs.

EPA has established ELGs to regulate wastewater discharges from 57 point source 

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

toxicity ranking analysis of all categories subject to existing ELGs to prioritize the categories for 

further review. The Agency then conducts another level of review, including possibly an indepth “detailed study,” a somewhat less intense study – a “preliminary study,” or an even less 

detailed “preliminary category review,” to identify existing categories for potential ELGs 

revision. 

3.1.1 Annual Reviews Procedure

The toxicity ranking analysis is the first step in the procedure for EPA’s Annual Reviews, 

which, in prior years, EPA has implemented every year. Starting in 2012, however, EPA began 

conducting the toxicity ranking analysis every other year - only in the odd-numbered years. In 

the even years EPA plans to evaluate public comments submitted on preliminary plans and will 

use additional industrial hazard data sources, treatment technology information and other sources 

of industrial wastewater information to supplement the toxicity ranking analysis to identify 

unregulated industrial discharges or categorical regulations that should be considered for 

revision. Where more data or analyses are needed for specific industrial categories, EPA will 

continue its reviews of categories on an ongoing basis. 

Section 3.2 of this report and Section 3 in the 2011 Annual Review Report provide details 

on the methodology used in the toxicity ranking analysis (U.S. EPA, 2012a). EPA uses this step 

to prioritize industrial categories for potential further review. In conducting the toxicity ranking

analysis, EPA considers the amount and toxicity of pollutants in a category’s discharges and the 

extent to which these pollutants pose a hazard to human health or the environment (Factor 1). 

EPA conducts its toxicity ranking analysis using data from the Toxics Release Inventory 

(TRI) and data from discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) contained in the Permit Compliance 

System (PCS) and the Integrated Compliance Information System - National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES). EPA combines the DMR data from both PCS and ICISNPDES in a database called DMRLoads. The Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for the 

2009 Annual Screening-Level Analysis of TRI, ICIS-NPDES, and PCS Industrial Category 

Discharge Data describes in detail the quality criteria EPA used to evaluate the TRI and DMR 

data (ERG, 2009). TRI and DMR data do not identify the effluent guideline(s) applicable to a 

particular facility. However, TRI includes information on a facility’s North American Industry 
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process

3-6

Classification System (NAICS) code, while DMR data include information on a facility’s 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. Therefore, the first step in EPA’s toxicity ranking

analysis is to relate each SIC and NAICS code to an industrial category.1

 The second step is to 

use the information reported in TRI and DMR, for a specified year, to calculate the annual 

pollutant discharges in pounds, including toxic, nonconventional, and conventional pollutants. 

For indirect dischargers, EPA adjusts the facility discharges to account for removals at the 

POTW. The third step is to apply TWFs2 to the annual pollutant discharges to calculate the total 

discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants (reported in units of TWPE). EPA then sums 

the TWPE for each facility 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 DMR data. EPA combines the estimated discharges of toxic and nonconventional pollutants 

calculated from TRI and DMR data to estimate a single TWPE value for each industrial 

category. EPA takes this approach because it found that combining the TWPE estimates from 

TRI and DMR data 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 4.1.6). As Figure 3-1 shows, 

EPA also excludes from further review categories for which an effluent guidelines rulemaking is 

currently underway or for which effluent guidelines have been promulgated or revised within the 

past seven years. EPA chose seven years because this is the typical length of time 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.

3.1.2 Preliminary Category Review

EPA may conduct a preliminary category review when it lacks sufficient data to 

determine whether a regulatory revision would be appropriate and when it is further assessing 

pollutant discharges before starting a preliminary study or detailed study. During preliminary 

category reviews, EPA typically examines the following: (1) wastewater characteristics and 

 

1 For more information on how EPA related each SIC and NAICS code to an industrial category, see Section 5.0 of 

the 2009 Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Identification of 

Potential New Point Source Categories (U.S. EPA, 2009). 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). 3 Different pollutants may dominate the TRI and DMR TWPE estimates for an industrial category due to the 

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

each category highlights those industries with the most toxic discharge data in both TRI and DMR. 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 is minimal and does not affect the order of the top-ranked 

industrial categories. 
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process

3-7

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 toxicity ranking 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 in the point source category’s wastewater (Factor 2). Finally, and if appropriate based 

on the other findings, EPA considers the affordability or economic achievability of the 

technology, process change, or pollution prevention measure identified using the second factor 

(Factor 3). These assessments provide an additional level of quality assurance on the reported 

pollutant discharges and number of facilities that represent the majority of toxic-weighted 

pollutant discharge. 

During a preliminary category review, EPA may consult data sources including, but not 

limited to: (1) the U.S. Economic Census, (2) TRI and DMR data, (3) trade associations and 

reporting facilities that can verify reported releases and facility categorization, (4) regulatory 

authorities (states and EPA regions) that can clarify 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. 

3.1.3 Preliminary and Detailed Studies 

After conducting the preliminary category reviews, EPA may next conduct either 

preliminary or detailed studies on industry categories to obtain more information on the hazard

posed, availability and cost of technology options, and other factors in order to determine if it 

would be appropriate to identify the category for possible effluent guidelines revision. During 

preliminary or detailed studies, EPA typically examines the factors and data sources listed above 

for preliminary category reviews. However, during a detailed study, EPA’s examination of a 

point source category and available pollution prevention and treatment options is generally more 

rigorous than the analyses conducted during a preliminary category review or a preliminary 

study. 

3.2 Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations

As discussed in Section 2.1, the CWA requires EPA to do an annual review of existing 

ELGs. It also requires EPA to identify industrial categories without applicable ELGs. EPA’s 

methodology for the 2011 Annual Reviews and new point source category identification involves 

several components, as discussed in Section 3.1. 

In performing the toxicity ranking analysis of existing ELGs and identifying industrial 

categories without ELGs, EPA relies on DMR data (contained in PCS and ICIS-NPDES) and 

TRI. This section discusses these databases, related data sources, and their limitations. 

EPA has developed two toxicity ranking tools, the TRIReleases and DMRLoads

databases, to facilitate analysis of TRI and PCS/ICIS-NPDES data. EPA previously explained 

the creation of these tools in the Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing 

Effluent Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories (2009 

Screening-Level Analysis (SLA) Report) (U.S. EPA, 2009). The 2009 SLA Report provides the 
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process

3-8

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

of industrial effluent discharges. 

The two toxicity ranking analyses categorize and calculate pollutant loadings using the 

SIC and NAICS codes and toxic weighting factors (TWFs) in conjunction with DMR and TRI 

data. EPA’s Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division, maintains a Toxics Database 

compiled from over 100 references for more than 1,900 pollutants. The Toxics Database includes 

aquatic life and human health toxicity data, as well as physical and chemical property data. 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. For more information on 

TWFs, see EPA’s Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology (U.S. EPA, 2012d). In its analyses, 

EPA multiplies a mass loading of a pollutant in pounds per year by a pollutant-specific 

weighting factor to derive a “toxic-equivalent” loading. (Throughout this document, the toxicequivalent is also referred to as TWPE.) 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. Table 3-1 provides information on the use of SIC and NAICS codes. 

Table 3-1. Overview of SIC and NAICs Code Classification Systems 

Data Source Primary Purpose Use ELG Applicability

SIC code Developed to help with the 

collection, aggregation, 

presentation, and analysis of 

data from the U.S. 

economy.

System used by many 

government agencies, 

including EPA, to 

promote data 

comparability.

Regulations for an individual point 

source category may apply to one 

SIC code, multiple SIC codes, or a 

portion of the facilities in a SIC 

code. Therefore, EPA linked each 

four-digit SIC code to an 

appropriate point source category.

NAICS code Developed to better 

represent the economic 

structure of countries 

participating in the North 

American Free Trade 

Agreement and to respond 

to criticism about the SIC 

code system.

System used for 

industrial 

classification purposes 

at many government 

agencies, including 

EPA.

Regulations for an individual point 

source category may apply to one 

NAICS code, multiple NAICS 

codes, or a portion of the facilities 

in a NAICS code. Therefore, EPA 

linked each six-digit NAICS code to 

an appropriate point source 

category.

Sources: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/sic.html and http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/. 
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process

3-9

Table 3-2. TRI and DMR Data Utility and Limitations 

TRI DMR

Utility of Data

National scope National scope

Includes releases to POTWs, not just direct dischargers 

to surface waters

Discharge reports are based on effluent chemical 

analysis and metered flows

Includes releases of many toxic chemicals, not just 

those on the facility permit

Includes facilities in all SIC codes

Includes discharge data from manufacturing NAICS 

codes and some other industrial categories

Includes data on conventional pollutants, for most 

facilities

Includes data on nitrogen and phosphorus, for most 

facilities

Limitations of Data

Small establishments and those that don’t meet 

reporting requirements are not included in the database

Data systems contain data only for pollutants in the 

facility permit

Some releases are based on estimates due to TRI 

reporting guidance, some facilities may over- or underestimate releases

Limited discharge data on minorb discharges

Certain chemicals are reported as class, not individual 

compounds,a which can inaccurately estimate the 

toxicity of chemical releases

Data systems do not include data characterizing 

indirect discharges from industrial facilities to POTWs

Facilities are identified by NAICS codes, not point 

source category

The majority of pollutant parameters are reported as a 

group parameter,c not individual compounds; this can 

inaccurately estimate the toxicity of chemical releases

Some data systems do not identify the type of 

wastewater discharged, which may include stormwater 

or non-contact cooling water; pipe identification is not 

always clear

Facilities are identified by SIC codes, not point source 

category

Data may contain errors from manual data entry

Facilities do not always provide average concentrations 

or quantities, which results in an overestimation if only 

maximum values are used

a – Chemicals reported as a class include polycyclic aromatic compounds, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, metal 

compounds. 

b – EPA developed a major/minor classification system for industrial and municipal wastewater discharges. The 

distinction was made initially to assist EPA and states in setting priorities for permit issuance and reissuance.

Facilities with minor discharges must report compliance with NPDES permit limits via monthly DMRs 

submitted to the permitting authority; however, EPA does not require the permitting authority to enter data in 

the PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases. (U.S. EPA, 2010)

c – Pollutants reported as a group parameter include total Kjeldahl nitrogen, oil and grease, etc.

For the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA made no changes to the calculation methodology of 

the TRIReleases and DMRLoads databases. However, EPA identified numerous facility-specific 

corrections for PCS and ICIS-NDPES data during previous toxicity ranking analyses reported for 
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process

3-10

calendar years 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006–2008. The types of corrections previously identified 

apply to the 2009 DMR data, which were used for the 2011 review. The following list presents 

the types of corrections typically made to the DMR data during the annual toxicity ranking 

analysis. For a detailed list of all corrections made to the 2009 DMR data, see Section 3.3.7 in 

EPA’s 2011 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2012a).

• Re-categorization of discharges, based on SIC codes, at a facility or pollutant 

level for a specific point source category;

• Identification and deletion of internal monitoring points to avoid overestimation 

of discharges;

• Identification and correction to the number of days for intermittent discharges to 

avoid overestimation of monthly discharges; 

• Exclusion of pollutant parameters that are reported in units that cannot be 

converted to mg/L or kg/day for the load calculation (e.g., temperature, pH, fecal 

coliform, whole effluent toxicity); 

• Pollutant corrections made to discharges of specific pollutants resulting from 

reasonable checks of the PCS CNVRT4

 output (e.g., mercury total low-level 

concentrations reported with incorrect units); 

• Corrections resulting from evaluation of the completeness, accuracy, 

reasonableness, and comparability of the PCS CONVRT and ICIS_NPDES 

Convert Module outputs, load calculator routines (accuracy checks for database 

queries in the DMR Loadings Tool), and the DMRLoads2009 database output; 

and

• Corrections of facility-specific discharges resulting from the review of previous 

database corrections, checking hand-calculated pollutant loads to determine 

accuracy, and the review of PCS and ICIS-NPDES pipe description from EPA’s 

online Envirofacts data system, ICIS-NDPES supporting tables, or facilities’ 

NPDES permits and permit fact sheets.

Similar to the PCS and ICIS-NPDES data, EPA identified typical database errors in the 

TRIReleases databases through previous years of toxicity ranking analyses from 2002 through 

2008. Several of these corrections similarly apply to the 2009 TRI data, which were used for the 

2011 review. The following list presents the types of corrections typically made to the TRI data. 

For a detailed list of all corrections made to the 2009 TRI data, see Section 3.4.4 in EPA’s 2011 

Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2012a).

• Re-categorization of discharges, based on NAICS codes, at a facility or pollutant 

level for a specific point source category and for facilities that are not identified 

by a specific NAICS code;

 

4 For more information on the PCS CNVRT and ICIS-NPDES model outputs, see Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the 

2009 SLA Report (U.S. EPA, 2009). 
Section 3—The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process

3-11

• Corrections to specific pollutants based on previous screening-level reviews for 

metal compounds, sodium nitrite, and phosphorus (yellow or white); 

• Corrections as a result of a quality review of the TRIReleases database based on 

completeness, accuracy, reasonableness, and comparability; and 

• Facility-specific load corrections resulting from the review of previous database 

corrections, the review of discharges from previous TRI reporting years, the 

review of corresponding DMR data in PCS and ICIS-NPDES, if available, and 

contacting the facility to verify pollutant discharges.

After incorporating the changes discussed above, EPA generated the final versions of the 

TRIReleases and DMRLoads databases used for the 2011 toxicity ranking analysis: 

TRIReleases2009_v2 and DMRLoads2009_v2. Section 4.1.6 provides more detailed information 

on the 2011 final rankings.
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-1

4. 2011 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND 

STANDARDS AND RANKING OF POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES

For the 2011 Annual Reviews, EPA did the following: 

• Conducted the 2011 toxicity ranking analysis and preliminary category reviews.

• Updated the reviews from previous years (i.e., revised the 2010 Annual Reviews 

results with new or corrected data);

• Performed new research (i.e., contacted industry to verify discharges, conducted 

literature searches, and collected additional data from site visits and state 

permitting agencies); and

• Solicited and received information from stakeholders through public comments 

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

For the 2011 toxicity ranking analysis, EPA used the combined results of the 

TRIReleases2009_v2 and the DMRLoads2009_v2 databases, discussed in Section 3.2 of this 

document. When combining the results of these databases, EPA eliminated from further 

consideration the results for the following: 

• Discharges from industrial categories for which EPA is currently developing or 

revising effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs); 

• Discharges from point source categories for which EPA has recently (within past 

seven years) promulgated or revised ELGs; 

• Discharges from facilities that require an NPDES permit but do not fall into an 

existing or new point source category or subcategory (eg, Superfund sites); and

• Discharges from facilities determined not to be representative of their category.

Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.5 discuss the rationale for EPA’s decisions regarding existing 

point source categories. Section 4.1.6 presents the final combined database rankings, which 

represent the results of the 2011 toxicity ranking analysis. 

4.1.1 Categories for Which EPA Is No Longer Considering Developing or Revising ELGs 

In prior year reviews, EPA considered revisions to ELGs for the Organic Chemicals, 

Pesticides, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR 414) and Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing 

(40 CFR 415) point source categories for facilities that produce chlorine and chlorinated 

hydrocarbons (CCH). Concurrent with the Preliminary 2012 Plan, EPA is proposing to 

discontinue a revised ELG for facilities that produce chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons 

(CCH). 

The CCH Manufacturing Industry ELGs development began in March 2005 after being 

selected in the 2004 304m Plan. In the 2004 304m plan, EPA selected the vinyl chloride (a type 

of chlorinated hydrocarbon) manufacturing segment of the organic chemicals industry for 
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-2

possible revision because preliminary analysis showed that the segment discharged significant 

quantities of toxic weighted pound-equivalents. In addition, because many chlorine 

manufacturers are co-located with vinyl chloride manufacturing and because these facilities

discharge significant quantities of TWPEs, EPA also selected the chlorine manufacturing 

segment of the inorganic chemicals industry for possible revision. Also, polyvinyl chloride 

(PVC) manufacturers were considered to be part of the vinyl chloride manufacturing segment

due to frequent co-location. 

As part of the initial industry assessment, both industry and EPA sampled dioxins being 

generated and discharged in the wastewater at CCH facilities. First, EPA completed 13 site visits 

to determine sampling possibilities at facilities with potential BAT wastewater treatment 

technology. Ultimately, four sampling episodes were completed by EPA. Additionally, 12 

sampling episodes were completed by the Vinyl Chloride Producers (VCP) as part of the 

voluntary plan established in February 2007 as an alternative to completing an EPA 

questionnaire or further EPA sampling. EPA designed the sampling plans for each of the 12 

facilities. 

After thoroughly reviewing all of the dioxin sampling data, EPA is proposing not to 

move forward with the development of effluent limitations guidelines for the CCH 

manufacturing industry. Very low TWPE annual discharges were calculated for all PVC 

manufacturers for which data were available. Similarly, very low TWPE annual discharges were 

calculated for all but one of the chlorine manufacturing facilities for which data were collected. 

Although the chlorinated hydrocarbon manufacturers that manufacture vinyl chloride discharge a 

maximum of 1.1 million TWPEs, one facility accounts for the vast majority of this TWPE and 

the associated discharge of dioxins. Also, almost all chlorinated hydrocarbon manufacturing 

facilities that manufacture vinyl chloride already have wastewater treatment technology that 

would potentially represent "best available technology" for the industry. EPA therefore believes

that it would be best to address the few facilities with significant dioxin discharges through 

permitting rather than through the development of national effluent guidelines (U.S. EPA, 

2012b). 

In its Final 2010 ELG Plan, EPA also indicated it was initiating rulemakings to revise 

ELGs for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 135) to address 

discharges from coalbed methane and shale gas extraction. At this time EPA is proposing to 

delist the coalbed methane extraction industry from the effluent guidelines plan based on new 

information regarding the declining prevalence and economic viability of this subcategory, due 

in large part to the increasing prevalence of natural gas extraction from other sources, such as 

shale formations (U.S. EPA, 2013a; U.S. EPA, 2013b). The initial decision to identify this 

industry for rulemaking was based on the results of a detailed industry study and comments from 

the public indicating at that time that coalbed methane extraction was a growing industry and 

that there were available treatment technologies to address pollutants discharged by the industry. 

However, since initiating the rulemaking, the data appear to be indicating otherwise. After 

reviewing financial data pertaining to this industry (including natural gas price projections from 

the U.S. Energy Information Administration), wastewater quality/quantity data and the cost of 

available wastewater treatment options, it appears that EPA may not be able to identify a 

wastewater treatment technology that would be economically achievable for this industrial 

subcategory. Although potential treatment technologies may exist, these technologies do not 

appear to be economically achievable due, in part, to the decrease in gas prices as a result of the 
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-3

recent boom in development of shale gas resources. The data EPA evaluated to come to this 

decision are available for review in the Federal Data Management System Docket EPA-HQ-OW2010-0824, available at www.regulations.gov. 

4.1.2 Categories for Which EPA is Currently Revising ELGs

EPA is currently working to revise ELGs for the Steam Electric (40 CFR 423) Point 

Source Category. Because the Steam Electric rulemaking is underway, EPA excluded discharges 

from these facilities from consideration under the 2011 Annual Reviews. EPA also promulgated 

ELGs for wastewater from airport deicing, a new industrial category and is working on 

pretreatment requirements for discharges of mercury from the Dental industry. 

• EPA also indicated in its Final 2010 ELG Plan that it was initiating two separate 

rulemakings to revise ELGs for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category 

(40 CFR Part 435) to address discharges from coalbed methane and shale gas 

extraction. As discussed in Section 4.1.1 above, EPA is now proposing to delist 

the coalbed methane extraction industry from the effluent guidelines plan. 

The following is EPA’s current schedule for ELG actions: 

Airport Deicing: 

 -Final ELG Rule Issued April 25, 2012 

Steam Electric Power Generation:

 -Proposed Rule April 2013 

 -Final Rule May 2014 

Dental Amalgam: -Proposed Rule TBD

 -Final Rule TBD

Unconventional Extraction in the 

Oil and Gas Industry

 -Proposed Rule 2014 

4.1.3 Categories for Which EPA Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs

For the 2011 Annual Reviews 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 for which EPA decided to 

withdraw the proposal or select the “no action” option. In general, EPA removed an industrial 

point source category from further consideration during a review cycle if EPA established, 

revised, or reviewed the category’s ELGs within seven years prior to the Annual Reviews. This 

seven-year period allows time for the ELGs to be incorporated into NPDES permits. Table 4-1

lists the categories EPA excluded from the 2011 reviews due to this seven-year period. 

Removing a point source category from further consideration in the development of the 

rankings does not mean that EPA eliminates the category from Annual Reviews. If EPA is aware 

of the growth of a new segment within such a category or new concerns are identified based on 

previously unevaluated pollutants discharged by facilities in the category, EPA will more closely 
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-4

scrutinize 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 

Category (40 CFR Part 434) based on comments received on the Preliminary 2006 Plan, 

although the Coal Mining ELGs were revised in January 2002. 

Table 4-1. Point Source Categories That Have Undergone a Recent Rulemaking or 

Review

40 CFR Part Point Source Category Date of Rulemaking

450 Construction and Development December 1, 2009

122 and 412 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) November 20, 2008

4.1.4 Discharges Not Categorizable 

EPA identified discharges that are not categorizable into existing or new point source 

categories or subcategories. In particular, EPA reviewed high TWPE discharges from a 

Superfund site (Auchterlonie, 2009). Direct discharges from Superfund sites, whether made 

onsite or offsite, are subject to NPDES permitting requirements (U.S. EPA, 1988a, 1988b). For 

the reasons discussed below EPA determined that these discharges do not represent a point 

source category and excluded these TWPE from the point source category rankings. 

EPA determined that discharges from Superfund sites are too varied to be categorized 

into a single point source category. In particular, these discharges vary by: 

• Contaminants (e.g., metals, pesticides, dioxin); 

• Treatment technologies (e.g., air stripping, granular activated carbon, 

chemical/ultraviolet oxidation, aerobic biological reactors, chemical 

precipitation); and

• Types of facilities causing groundwater contamination (e.g., wood treatment 

facilities, metal finishing and electroplating facilities, drum recycling facilities, 

mine sites, mineral processing facilities, radium processing facilities).

Moreover, the duration and volume of these direct discharges vary significantly due to 

differences in aquifer characteristics and the magnitude, fate, and transport of contaminants in 

aquifers and vadose zones. Currently at Superfund sites, permit writers determine technologybased effluent limits using their best professional judgment (BPJ). EPA selects the remedial 

technology and derives numerical effluent discharge limits. The permit must also contain more 

stringent effluent limitations when required to comply with state water quality standards. EPA 

finds that the current site-specific BPJ approach is workable and flexible within the context of a 

Superfund cleanup. 

4.1.5 Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE

EPA identified point source categories with significant TWPE where only one facility 

was responsible for more than 95 percent of the TWPE reported to be discharged (see Table 4-2). 

EPA identified 9 source categories where a single facility dominated the TWPE in the category. 
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-5

EPA investigated these facilities to determine if their discharges were representative of the 

category. Based on EPA’s knowledge of the production, practices, raw materials used and 

sources, wastewater characteristics, treatment, sampling data, and other information from the 

literature, along with past examinations and experiences with the industry, EPA determined that 

all of the pollutants discharged from these individual facilities were representative of their 

respective industries. Therefore, the TWPE from those individual facilities were included in the 

TWPE for the industrial category. If EPA had found an individual facility’s releases to not be 

representative of the pollutants discharged by the industrial category, the TWPE from that single 

facility would be subtracted from the total category TWPE and the industrial category’s ranking 

would be recalculated. 

4.1.6 Results of the 2011 Toxicity Ranking Analysis 

After adjusting the category TWPE totals and rankings as described in Sections 4.1.1

through 4.1.5, EPA consolidated the 2009 DMR and TRI rankings into one set using the 

following steps: 

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

DMRLoads2009 TWPE and TRIReleases2009 TWPE5

. 

• EPA then ranked the point source categories based on total DMRLoads2009 and 

TRIReleases2009 TWPE.

Table 4-3 presents the combined DMRLoads2009 and TRIReleases2009 rankings. These 

are the final category rankings, accounting for all corrections made to the databases during the 

2011 toxicity ranking analysis and removal of any categories and discharges as discussed in 

Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.5. 

 

5 EPA notes that this may result in “double-counting” of chemical discharges a facility reported to both PCS/ICISNPDES and TRI, and “single-counting” of chemicals reported in only one of the databases. Further, the combined 

databases do not count chemicals that may be discharged but are not reported to PCS/ICIS-NPDES or TRI. See also 

Footnote #3.
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-6

Table 4-2. Point Source Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE Discharges

Point Source Category

Facility With Over 

95% of Category 

TWPE

Facility 

Location Data Source

Pollutant Driving 

TWPE

Facility 

TWPE

Percentage

of Total 

Category 

TWPE Action

Coil Coating Latasde Aluminio 

Reynolds

Guayama, PR DMR 2009 Sulfur 218 100.0 Did not remove load 

from category TWPE.

Battery Manufacturing New Eagle Picher Tech 

LLC

Joplin, MO DMR 2009 Silver 176 95.3 Did not remove load 

from category TWPE.

Paint Formulating Cook Composites & 

Polymer

North Kansas 

City, MO

DMR 2009 Copper 66 98.4 Did not remove load 

from category TWPE.

Porcelain Enameling State Ind-Ashland Cty Ashland City, 

TN

DMR 2009 Lead 35.1 100.0 Did not remove load 

from category TWPE.

Tobacco Products The Sustainability Park 

LLC

Chesterfield 

County, VA

DMR 2009 Ammonia as N 4.55 100.0 Did not remove load 

from category TWPE.

Asbestos Manufacturing Honeywell Friction 

Materials

Green Island, 

NY

DMR 2009 Aluminum 3.55 97.8 Did not remove load 

from category TWPE.

Industrial Laundries Meritex, Inc - Hilton 

Hotels

Portage, IN DMR 2009 Ammonia as N 0.212 100.0 Did not remove load 

from category TWPE.

Photographic Processing USGS—Eros Data 

Center

Sioux Falls, SD DMR 2009 Ammonia as N 0.0242 100.0 Did not remove load 

from category TWPE.

Ferroalloy Manufacturing Eramet Marietta Inc Marietta, OH TRI 2009 Manganese And 

Manganese 

Compounds

10,400 98.8 Did not remove load 

from category TWPE.

Sources: DMRLoads2009_v2 and TRIReleases2009_v2. 
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-7

Table 4-3. Final TRIReleases2009 and DMRLoads2009 Combined Point Source Category Rankings

40 CFR 

Part Point Source Category

TRIReleases2009

TWPE

DMRLoads2009

TWPE Total TWPE

Cumulative 

Percentage of Total 

TWPE Rank

430 Pulp, paper and paperboard 956,000 287,000 1,240,000 20.4% 1

418 Fertilizer manufacturing 9,550 902,000 912,000 35.5% 2

419 Petroleum refining 436,000 295,000 731,000 47.5% 3

414 Organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers 146,000 541,000 687,000 58.8% 4

433 Metal finishing 86,100 197,000 283,000 63.5% 6

435 Oil & gas extraction NA 238,000 238,000 67.4% 7

420 Iron and steel manufacturing 96,200 134,000 230,000 71.2% 8

445 Landfills 2,750 219,000 222,000 74.8% 9

421 Nonferrous metals manufacturing 40,500 174,000 215,000 78.4% 10

440 Ore mining and dressing 68,900 139,000 208,000 81.8% 11

463 Plastics molding and forming 89,300 87,500 177,000 84.7% 12

415 Inorganic chemicals manufacturing 72,500 51,300 124,000 86.8% 13

429 Timber products processing 29,700 91,200 121,000 88.8% 14

436 Mineral mining and processing 5,430 80,100 85,500 90.2% 15

432 Meat and poultry products 53,800 17,200 71,000 91.3% 16

434 Coal mining 1,010 65,800 66,800 92.4% 17

437 Centralized waste treatment 10,500 40,500 51,000 93.3% 18

455 Pesticide chemicals 35,700 10,000 45,700 94.0% 19

467 Aluminum forming 5,920 33,800 39,700 94.7% 20

410 Textile mills 1,910 37,200 39,100 95.3% 21

444 Waste combustors 10,500 27,900 38,400 96.0% 22

458 Carbon black manufacturing 31,600 66 31,700 96.5% 23

471 Nonferrous metals forming and metal powders 24,700 4,330 29,000 97.0% 24

439 Pharmaceutical manufacturing 6,600 14,400 21,000 97.3% 25

451 Concentrated aquatic animal production NA 18,600 18,600 97.6% 26

411 Cement manufacturing 957 17,000 18,000 97.9% 27

464 Metal molding and casting (foundries) 6,970 6,180 13,200 98.1% 28
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-8

Table 4-3. Final TRIReleases2009 and DMRLoads2009 Combined Point Source Category Rankings

40 CFR 

Part Point Source Category

TRIReleases2009

TWPE

DMRLoads2009

TWPE Total TWPE

Cumulative 

Percentage of Total 

TWPE Rank

469 Electrical and electronic components 2,580 9,660 12,200 98.3% 29

422 Phosphate manufacturing 229 11,200 11,400 98.5% 30

424 Ferroalloy manufacturing 10,500 575 11,100 98.7% 31

428 Rubber manufacturing 7,470 3,510 11,000 98.9% 32

NA Miscellaneous foods and beverages 3,900 6,260 10,200 99.1% 33

409 Sugar processing 215 9,840 10,100 99.2% 34

406 Grain mills 6,190 2,900 9,090 99.4% 35

468 Copper forming 4,730 2,270 7,000 99.5% 36

407

Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables 

processing 4,130 670 4,800 99.6% 37

405 Dairy products processing 3,560 1,110 4,670 99.6% 38

408 Canned and preserved seafood processing 180 3,020 3,200 99.7% 39

413 Electroplating 2,870 NA 2,870 99.7% 40

461 Battery manufacturing 1,680 185 1,870 99.8% 41

NA Printing & publishing 71.2 1,740 1,810 99.8% 42

417 Soap and detergent manufacturing 1,710 88 1,800 99.8% 43

460 Hospital NA 1,760 1,760 99.9% 44

438 Metal products and Machinery 1,390 54 1,440 99.9% 45

442 Transportation equipment cleaning NA 1,360 1,360 99.9% 46

425 Leather tanning and finishing 1,240 6.94 1,250 99.9% 47

443 Paving and roofing materials (tars and asphalt) 744 220 964 99.9% 48

NA Independent and stand alone labs 80 868 948 100.0% 49

457 Explosives manufacturing 22.1 670 692 100.0% 50

426 Glass manufacturing 335 284 619 100.0% 51

465 Coil coating 164 218 382 100.0% 52

454 Gum and wood chemicals manufacturing 52.3 317 369 100.0% 53

NA Food service establishments NA 305 305 100.0% 54
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-9

Table 4-3. Final TRIReleases2009 and DMRLoads2009 Combined Point Source Category Rankings

40 CFR 

Part Point Source Category

TRIReleases2009

TWPE

DMRLoads2009

TWPE Total TWPE

Cumulative 

Percentage of Total 

TWPE Rank

446 Paint formulating 202 67 269 100.0% 55

466 Porcelain enameling 18.7 35.1 53.8 100.0% 56

NA Tobacco products 22.9 4.55 27.5 100.0% 57

447 Ink formulating 4.37 2.06 6.43 100.0% 58

427 Asbestos manufacturing NA 3.63 3.63 100.0% 59

NA Industrial laundries NA 0.212 0.212 100.0% 60

459 Photographic NA 0.0242 0.0242 100.0% 61

NA Photo processing NA 0.0242 0.0242 100.0% 62

Total 2,280,000 3,790,000 6,070,000

Sources: TRIReleases2009_v2 and DMRLoads2009_v2. 

NA: Not applicable.
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-10

4.1.7 Summary of 2011 Preliminary Category Reviews 

EPA identified 20 industrial categories that cumulatively discharge more than 95 percent 

of the combined DMRLoads2009 and TRIReleases2009 total TWPE. Below is a summary of the 

findings from the 2011 preliminary category reviews, as explained in detail in the 2011 Annual 

Review Report, starting with the highest-ranking category TWPE. EPA will incorporate into the 

2012 Annual Review Report and Final 2012 Plan the results of any additional review and 

assessments that it conducted during the 2012 annual review period related to these categories 

where noted below. 

• Pulp and Paper (40 CFR Part 430). EPA identified and corrected database 

errors for discharges of aluminum (a top pollutant). EPA determined that 

discharges of manganese and sulfide were all measured at concentrations below 

treatable levels and do not present a hazard based on current data. EPA continued 

reviewing dioxin for the category. EPA continued to review this category during 

its 2012 annual review, including an assessment of information collected for this 

industry related to the review of air pollution regulations. 

• Fertilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 418). For this category, the top 

pollutant, in terms of TWPE, is fluoride, which results mainly from two facilities 

exempt from ELGs. Therefore, EPA believes these discharges do not represent 

the category as a whole. Excluding these discharges removes the category from 

the top 95 percent category rankings.

• Petroleum Refining (40 CFR Part 419).EPA determined that PACs and sulfide 

(top pollutants) in petroleum refining wastewater discharges were measured at 

concentrations below treatable levels determined during the 2004 detailed study 

and do not present a hazard based on current data. EPA also identified and 

corrected an error in DMR chlorine (a top pollutant) discharges. EPA continued 

reviewing dioxin and metals (top pollutants) during its 2012 annual review. EPA 

also investigated the effect of new air pollution control technologies on 

wastewater streams at petroleum refiners. EPA continued to review discharges 

from the petroleum refining category, including using information collected from 

this industry for air pollution rule development.

• OCPSF (40 CFR Part 414). EPA believes that polychlorinated biphenyls (a top 

pollutant) are a legacy issue and warrant no further review at this time. EPA also 

believes that discharges of hexachlorobenzene (also a top pollutant) are due to 

database errors or are at concentrations that do not present a categorical issue. 

After database corrections, the category TWPE is still high due to the number of 

facilities and types of discharges. EPA therefore continued to review OCPSF 

discharges in its 2012 annual review. Separate from rankings determinations, EPA 

also continued to review a subset of this category for potential discharges of 

perfluorinated compounds. 

— Regenerated Cellulose Manufacturers.As a result of the 2011 preliminary 

study of the regenerated cellulose manufacturers, EPA will categorize 
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-11

these discharges under Part 414, OCPSF, for future annual reviews. The 

preliminary study (DCN 7718) identified seven active regenerated 

cellulose manufacturers in the United States. These facilities use carbon 

disulfide in manufacturing regenerated cellulose. Although the study 

found that carbon disulfide discharges are occurring at only one of these 

facilities, EPA continued to investigate the question of how significant 

concentrations of carbon disulfide (non-detectable concentrations to 17.1 

mg/L) remain in the water, although carbon disulfide is highly volatile 

(430 times more volatile than acetone, for example). 

• Metal Finishing (40 CFR Part 433).EPA identified and corrected database 

errors for cyanide (a top pollutant) and reviewed silver and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (also top pollutants), determining that they are likely accurate. PCBs 

are likely present as a result of remediation activities rather than ongoing 

manufacturing practices. After database corrections, the category TWPE is still 

high due to the number of facilities, however, each individual facility's TWPE is 

low. EPA thus continued to review metal finishing discharges during its 2012 

annual review. 

• Oil and Gas Extraction (40 CFR Part 435).EPA believes that the majority of 

the sulfide discharges are traceable primarily to one facility, and the permitting 

authority has determined that their sulfide discharges are unique to that facility’s 

geologic formation. Excluding this discharger removes the category from the top 

95 percent category rankings. 

• Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 420). EPA identified and 

corrected database errors for chlorine and chromium (top pollutants). EPA also 

reviewed cyanide and aluminum (top pollutants) and determined that compliance 

support or facility-specific permitting is appropriate to manage these discharges. 

For cyanide, EPA found that one facility’s cyanide discharges were beginning to 

exceed their monthly permit limits. As documented in the Annual Review Report, 

the exceedances appeared to continue in 2010 but were resolved in 2011 (U.S. 

EPA, 2012a). For aluminum, the discharges result from stormwater associated 

with industrial activity, not process wastewater. EPA also found that compliance 

assistance was necessary to control aluminum discharges. EPA also reviewed 

fluoride discharges (a top pollutant) and determined that the facility discharges 

were not a hazard priority at this time. For additional details on the facilities 

discharging cyanide, fluoride and aluminum, see Sections 9.4, 9.7, and 9.8 of 

EPA’s 2011 Annual Review Report (U.S. EPA, 2012a). After database 

corrections, the category TWPE is still high due to the number of facilities. EPA 

therefore continued to review iron and steel discharges during its 2012 annual 

review.

• Landfills (40 CFR Part 445).EPA identified database errors for copper, fluoride, 

boron, manganese, and iron (top pollutants). Correcting these errors removes the 

category from the top 95 percent category rankings. 
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-12

• Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 421). EPA identified and 

corrected database errors for molybdenum (a top pollutant). EPA also identified 

fluoride, lead, and calcium (top pollutants) discharges from individual 

facilities. Fluoride discharges result from one facility, Horsehead Corporation, a 

zinc smelter. EPA estimated that concentrations in the final effluent are still 

higher than levels achieved by two-stage chemical precipitation with a lime 

treatment system and is considering facility-specific permitting support to address 

this facility's fluoride discharges. EPA continued to review fluoride discharges 

from Horsehead Corporation.

• Lead discharges result from one facility: Buick Resource Recycling, which 

exceeded its maximum mass-based lead permit limits for all reporting periods in 

2009 for stormwater outfalls 002 and 003. U.S. EPA’s Office of Civil 

Enforcement has identified compliance and operation problems with the Buick 

facility, owned by Doe Run, and is already addressing the lead discharges. 

• Cadmium discharges result from three facilities, Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc., and two 

Doe Run lead smelters (Glover and Herculaneum). EPA’s Office of Civil 

Enforcement already identified compliance and operation problems with the two 

Doe Run facilities and is already addressing these facilities’ discharges. Nyrstar 

exceeded its monthly average permit limits for one month in 2009, and the backcalculated cadmium concentrations are above levels that can be achieved with 

treatment. The existing regulations already set limits for cadmium; therefore, EPA 

recommends facility-specific permitting to control cadmium discharges at this 

facility. 

• Ore Mining and Dressing (40 CFR Part 440). EPA has DMR data for 80 of the 

roughly 2,252 U.S. ore mines. Fourteen of these 80 compose the majority of the 

pollutant loading, and EPA studied these fourteen in 2010 as part of the Ore 

Mining and Dressing Preliminary Study (U.S. EPA, 2011b). The 2009 DMR data 

are consistent with data in the 2010 Preliminary Study, and EPA found that 

discharges for this category (represented by the small number of facilities) are 

best managed through facility-specific permitting assistance (U.S. EPA, 2011b). 

• Plastics Molding and Forming (40 CFR Part 463).EPA reviewed carbon 

disulfide discharges from cellulose products manufacturers as part of a 

preliminary study. As a result of the 2011 preliminary study of the regenerated 

cellulose manufacturers, EPA will categorize these discharges as OCPSF for 

future annual reviews. These discharges are, therefore, being removed from the 

Plastics Molding and Forming category.

• Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 415). For this category, the 

top pollutants, in terms of TWPE, are manganese and dioxin, which result mainly 

from TRI data from three titanium dioxide manufacturing facilities. Two of the 

titanium dioxide manufacturers reported large discharges of manganese in the 

2009 TRI database, accounting for 65 percent of the manganese TWPE (23,300). 

One of these has since shut down many operations, including the process 
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-13

expected to generate manganese and dioxin, and a second facility had a process 

upset in 2009, causing the manganese release. One titanium dioxide manufacturer 

reported dioxin discharges that account for 86 percent (11,700) of the category’s 

dioxin TWPE (13,800) in TRIReleases2009_v2. As part of its NPDES permit, this 

facility has installed additional solids removal and is required to further decrease 

its dioxin releases. Therefore, EPA found that these discharges do not represent 

the category as a whole and would best be managed by facility-specific permitting 

and compliance assistance.

• Timber Products Processing (40 CFR Part 429).EPA identified and corrected 

reporting errors for the top facilities reporting discharges of copper and dioxin 

(top pollutants). Correcting this reporting error removes the category from the top 

95 percent category rankings. 

• Mineral Mining and Processing (40 CFR Part 436).EPA identified and 

corrected database errors for cadmium and chlorine (top pollutants) discharges. 

EPA also reviewed fluoride (top pollutant) discharges from mines in North 

Carolina and Florida. EPA determined that these discharges did not represent the 

category as a whole, and thus no further review is necessary. 

• Meat and Poultry Products (40 CFR Part 432).EPA determined that further 

review of nitrate (a top pollutant) is necessary and, therefore, continued the 

review of this category during the 2012 annual review period. 

• Coal Mining (40 CFR Part 434).EPA identified and corrected flow errors for 

the top facilities reporting discharges of manganese and iron (top pollutants). 

Correcting these errors removes the category from the top 95 percent category 

rankings. 

• Centralized Waste Treaters (40 CFR Part 437).EPA identified and corrected a 

reporting error for the top facility in Louisiana reporting discharges of 

hexachlorobenzene (a top pollutant). Correcting this reporting error removes the 

category from the top 95 percent category rankings. (Also see Section 5.1 for a 

discussion of EPA's concerns regarding the discharge of unconventional oil and 

gas extraction wastewaters from CWTs.)

• Pesticide Chemicals (40 CFR Part 455).EPA identified and corrected a 

reporting error for the top facility in Texas reporting discharges of 

polychlorinated biphenyls (a top pollutant). Correcting this reporting error 

removes the category from the top 95 percent category rankings. 

• Aluminum Forming (40 CFR Part 467).EPA identified and corrected a 

reporting error for the top facility in West Virginia reporting discharges of lead (a 

top pollutant). Correcting this reporting error removes the category from the top 

95 percent category rankings. 
Section 4—2011 Annual Review

4-14

• Textile Mills (40 CFR Part 410).EPA determined that discharges of sulfide (a 

top pollutant) from facilities in the Carpet Finishing and Knit Fabric subcategories 

compose the majority of the discharge TWPE associated with this category. 

Existing regulations for these subcategories include ELGs for sulfide (best 

practicable technology currently available, best available control technology 

economically achievable, and new source performance standards). EPA 

confirmed that the discharged concentrations of sulfide (as high as 25.89 mg/L) 

exceed levels that available treatment technologies can achieve. Facility-specific 

permitting assistance may be warranted to determine if existing ELGs are being 

properly applied. 
Section 5—Pretreatment Review

5-1

5. POTENTIAL CATEGORIES OF INDIRECT DISCHARGERS FOR PRETREATMENT 

STANDARDS

5.1 Evaluation of Pass-Through and Interference of Toxic and Non-Conventional 

Pollutants Discharged to POTWs

All indirect dischargers are subject to general pretreatment standards (40 CFR 403), 

including a prohibition on discharges causing “pass-through” or “interference” (See 40 CFR 

403.5). All POTWs with approved pretreatment programs must develop local limits to 

implement the general pretreatment standards. All other POTWs must develop such local limits 

where they have experienced pass-through or interference and such a violation is likely to recur. 

There are approximately 1,500 POTWs with approved pretreatment programs and 13,500 small 

POTWs that are not required to develop and implement pretreatment programs. 

In addition, EPA establishes technology-based national regulations, termed “categorical 

pretreatment standards,” for categories of industry discharging pollutants to POTWs that may 

pass through, interfere with, or otherwise be incompatible with POTW operations (Clean Water 

Act section 307(b)). Generally, categorical pretreatment standards are designed such that 

wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of 

treatment. EPA has promulgated such pretreatment standards for 35 industrial categories. 

One of the tools traditionally used by EPA in evaluating whether pollutants pass through 

a POTW is a comparison of the percentage of a pollutant removed by POTWs with the 

percentage of the pollutant removed by discharging facilities applying the best available control 

technology economically achievable (BAT). Pretreatment standards for existing sources are 

technology-based and are analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs). In most 

cases, EPA has concluded that a pollutant passes through the POTW when the median 

percentage removed nationwide by representative POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment 

requirements) is less than the median percentage removed by facilities complying with BAT 

effluent limitations guidelines for that pollutant.

This approach to the definition of “pass-through” satisfies two competing objectives set 

by Congress: (1) that standards for indirect dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct 

dischargers and (2) that the treatment capability and performance of POTWs be recognized and 

taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from indirect dischargers. 

The term “interference” means a discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a 

discharge or discharges from other sources, both (1) inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment 

processes or operations, or its sludge processes, use, or disposal and (2) therefore is a cause of a 

violation of any requirement of the POTW’s NPDES permit (including an increase in the 

magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of sewage sludge use or disposal in 

compliance with applicable regulations or permits. See 40 CFR 403.3(k). To determine the 

potential for interference, EPA generally evaluates the industrial indirect discharges in terms of: 

(1) the compatibility of industrial wastewaters and domestic wastewaters (e.g., type of pollutants 

discharged in industrial wastewaters compared to pollutants typically found in domestic 

wastewaters); (2) concentrations of pollutants discharged in industrial wastewaters that might 

cause interference with the POTW collection system, the POTW treatment system, or biosolids 
Section 5—Pretreatment Review

5-2

disposal options; and (3) the potential for variable pollutant loadings to interfere with POTW 

operations (e.g., batch discharges or slug loadings from industrial facilities interfering with 

normal POTW operations). 

If EPA determines that a category of indirect dischargers causes pass-through or 

interference, EPA will then consider the BAT and BPT factors (including “such other factors as 

the Administrator deems appropriate”) specified in section 304(b) to determine whether to 

establish pretreatment standards for these activities. Examples of “such other factors” include a 

consideration of the magnitude of the hazard posed by the pollutants discharged as measured by: 

(1) the total annual TWPE discharged by the industrial sector and (2) the average TWPE 

discharged among facilities that discharge to POTWs. Additionally, EPA would consider 

whether other regulatory tools (e.g., use of local limits under Part 403) or voluntary measures 

would better control the pollutant discharges from this category of indirect dischargers. For 

example, EPA relied on a similar evaluation of “pass-through potential” in its prior decision not 

to promulgate national categorical pretreatment standards for the Industrial Laundries industry. 

See 64 FR 45071 (August 18, 1999). EPA noted in this 1999 final action that, “While EPA has 

broad discretion to promulgate such (national categorical pretreatment) standards, EPA retains 

discretion not to do so where the total pounds removed do not warrant national regulation and 

there is not a significant concern with pass through and interference at the POTW.” See 64 FR 

45077 (August 18, 1999). 

EPA reviewed TRI data in order to identify industry categories without categorical 

pretreatment standards that are discharging pollutants to POTWs that may pass through, interfere 

with or otherwise be incompatible with POTW operations (see DCN 04247). This review did not 

identify any such industrial categories (excluding the industrial categories for which the 

development of pretreatment standards is currently underway). EPA also evaluated stakeholder 

comments and pollutant discharge information in the previous Annual Reviews to inform this 

review. In particular, on the 2004, 2006, and 2008 304m plans, commenters raised concerns 

about discharges of emerging pollutants of concern such as endocrine disruptors and mercury 

discharges from dentists and health care facilities and urged EPA to consider establishing

effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for such discharges. In response to these 

comments, EPA initiated the Health Care Industry Detailed Study in its 2006 Annual Review. 

Since then, EPA announced the dental amalgam rulemaking to regulate mercury discharges from 

dentists’ offices in the Final 2010 Plan. 

In addition, due to new industry developments, EPA announced its intention to develop 

effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for unconventional oil and gas extraction (coalbed 

methane and shale gas extraction) in the Final 2010 Plan. EPA noted in that Plan that when 

injection and re-use are not viable options for unconventional oil and gas wastewater disposal, 

operators may dispose of this wastewater by sending it to private centralized waste treatment 

facilities (CWTs). Many CWTs employ equalization, bulk solids removal and biological 

treatment similar to POTWs. These treatment technologies are not designed to treat high levels 

of total dissolved solids (TDS), naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM), or high levels 

of metals. EPA is concerned that these pollutants may not be getting adequate treatment by 

CWTs. In addition, 90% of CWTs discharge to POTWs there by raising concerns of passthrough or interference at the POTWs. EPA will explore potential approaches for addressing 
Section 5—Pretreatment Review

5-3

these concerns, including appropriate controls on discharges derived from unconventional oil and 

gas extraction wastewaters either to or from CWTs.
Section 6—Public Comments

6-1

6. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND INPUT

EPA’s annual review process considers information provided by stakeholders regarding 

the need for new or revised effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards. Public 

comments received on EPA’s prior reviews and Plans helped the Agency prioritize its analysis of 

existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards during the preliminary 2012 review. 

EPA published the Final 2010 Plan and provided a 30-day public comment period 

starting on October 26, 2011 (see 76 FRN 27742). The public comment period was re-opened for 

an additional 60 days from December 27, 2011 to February 27, 2012. The Docket accompanying 

this notice includes a complete set of all of the comments submitted, as well as the Agency’s 

responses (see DCN 07715). The Agency received 31 sets of comments on the Final 2010 Plan. 

Commenting organizations representing industry included the Silver Nanotechnology 

Working Group, Independent Petroleum Association of America, Coalbed Methane Association 

of Alabama, American Petroleum Institute, Marcellus Shale Coalition, Range Resources, 

LAMNIPipe Inc., Cabot Specialty Fluids Limited, Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., National 

Mining Association, and Reynolds Metals Company. 

Three environmental groups commented, including the Coalition for SafeMinds, Natural 

Resources Defense Council and The Clean Water Action. 

Seven sanitation districts or publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) groups also 

commented, including the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, Los Angeles 

County Sanitation Districts, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, Metropolitan 

Council Environmental Services, National Association of Clean Water Agencies, Southern 

California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works, and Metropolitan Sewer District of 

Greater Cincinnati. 

Five states, municipalities, or state representing organizations, also commented, including 

the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, the State of Alabama Office of the Attorney General, Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, the Geological Survey of Alabama and the Association of 

Clean Water Administrators. 

Four organizations, including a Representative of the U.S. Congress, submitted requests 

for a 60-day comment period extension. EPA received comments from one private citizen, 

addressing oil and gas issues in parts of Southern California as well as other industrial 

discharges. 

Comments were distributed among the following subject areas, in order of abundance: 

• Coalbed Methane and Shale Gas Extraction (16 comments)

• Dental Amalgam (8 comments)

• Nanomaterials (3 comments)

• Health Care Industry – (unused pharmaceuticals) (2 comments) 

• Ore Mining and Dressing (2 comments) 

• Effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) and Plan process in general (1 comment)
Section 6—Public Comments

6-2

• Other (3 comments) 

For coalbed methane, there were four comments that do not support an ELG rulemaking; 

three comments that do support an ELG rulemaking; and one comment that provided details on a 

treatment technology for coalbed methane produced water. 

For shale gas extraction, there was one comment that did not support a shale gas 

extraction ELG rulemaking; five comments supporting a shale gas extraction ELG rulemaking; 

three comments supporting a rulemaking for shale gas extraction pretreatment standards; and two 

comments stating that POTWs alone cannot sufficiently treat shale gas extraction wastewater. Of 

these, one comment urged EPA to consider a faster, non-traditional approach to regulations to 

both protect the environment and prevent market confusion. 

Six commenters asked EPA to consider only best management practices (BMPs) and not 

implement numerical limits for Dental Amalgam in order to minimize the POTW burden. There 

were four comments stating that standards should apply only to POTWs which discharge to 

mercury-impaired receiving waters; four comments stating that dental offices should not be 

classified as significant industrial users (SIUs); two comments stating that dental offices covered 

by existing programs should be grandfathered in; two comments suggesting EPA should take a 

leading role in convening a volunteer National Amalgam Separator Review Committee; two 

comments stating that the federal pretreatment program design is not flexible enough to be 

adaptable to state/local resources and that it should not be used for a dental amalgam rule; and 

one comment stating that state and local programs for regulating dental amalgam already exist, 

and it is unnecessary to change regulations. 

For nanomaterials, there was one comment supporting an ELG to regulate discharges of 

nanomaterials; one comment not supporting an ELG; and one comment providing nanomaterials 

data. 

For the Health Care industry, in particular the management of unused pharmaceuticals, 

EPA received one comment stating that old style ELGs should not be used to regulate discharges 

of unused pharmaceuticals; and one comment that recommended more research on ethyl mercury 

discharges from unused pharmaceuticals. 

For the Ore Mining and Dressing category, there were two comments questioning the 

data presented in the Ore Mining Preliminary Study; and one comment supporting EPA’s 

decision not to move forward with revision to 40 CFR Part 440 ELGs. 

One commenter suggested improvements to the ELGs and 304m process in general, 

including concerns about shifting away from technology-based regulations because total reliance 

on water quality standards is not effective; and that the 304m vision should be expanded because 

all potential problems need to be considered, including those that may be covered by 

departments other than the Office of Water. The commenter also stated that the metal finishing 

category should be reexamined due to significant changes in the industry over the last few years. 

A more detailed summary table of the comments can be found in the 2011 Annual Review 

Report (U.S. EPA, 2012a). EPA carefully considered all public comments and information 
Section 6—Public Comments

6-3

submitted in developing the Preliminary 2012 Plan. A comment response document is also 

available at (DCN 07715). 
Section 7—Other Information

7-1

7. USE OF OTHER EXISTING DATA IN EPA’S 2012 ANNUAL REVIEWS

The current annual review methodology, described in Section 3.1, enables EPA to review 

and rank category discharges on a national level based on the toxicity of their discharges. 

Beginning in 2012, EPA initiated a DMR and TRI toxicity ranking analysis every other year, in 

the odd-numbered years. EPA has determined that the results of the toxicity ranking analysis 

using DMR and TRI data does not vary much from year to year, as would be expected since TRI 

data and DMR data does not change much on an annual basis. For the 2012 Annual Reviews, 

and for subsequent even-year reviews, EPA plans to use additional data sources to enable 

targeted annual reviews of industrial discharges. For example, EPA investigated four new data 

sources for its 2012 annual reviews: 

• ID Pass-Through Pollutants: Sewage Sludge. EPA determined that examining 

sewage sludge for pollutants associated with industrial activity may identify new 

pollutants or industry categories that require further review. EPA reviewed the 

Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey (TNSSS), which includes data on 

pollutants of concern in sewage sludge. EPA examined other pollutants6

discharged to POTWs from industrial dischargers for potential interference (i.e., 

land application denials) based on publicly available data. EPA also examined 

recent contamination issues associated with the beneficial reuse of biosolids (i.e., 

perfluorinated chemicals). For more information on the TNSSS seehttp://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/biosolids/tnsss-overview.cfm. 

• ID New Pollutants/Industries Via EPA's Toxic Chemical Control Programs. 

EPA reviewed data and plans from its Toxic Chemical Control Programs for new 

industrial categories or potential new pollutants of concern not currently 

regulated. 

• Identify New Waste Streams from Air Pollution Control. Recent changes to 

air regulations at the federal, state and local level may lead to new air pollution 

controls. Some air pollution controls have the potential to generate new or 

changed wastewater streams with new pollutants of interest. For example, the wet 

scrubbers for flue-gas desulfurization at steam electric generating plants generate 

a wastewater stream that is not currently regulated by the Part 423 guideline for 

steam electric. In 2012 EPA assessed implementation of current air programs to 

determine any similar trends in wet air pollution control and resulting wastewater 

discharges. 

• Identify New Industries: Potential TRI Expansion Sectors. EPA examined 

TRI Program data and information available as part of the consideration of recent 

expansion sectors. Currently, these sectors include Iron Ore Mining, Phosphate 

Mining, Steam Generation from Coal and/or Oil, Petroleum Bulk Storage, Solid 

Waste Combustors and Incinerators, and Large Dry Cleaning. EPA reviewed the 

 

6 Pollutants to be examined include: benzo(a)pyrene; 2-methylnaphthalene; bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate; fluoride; 

water-extractable phosphorus; polybrominated diphenyl ethers; and pharmaceuticals, steroids, and hormones.
Section 7—Other Information

7-2

collected data with previous reviews of applicable industries to consider if further 

review of these industries is necessary. 

Following this approach in 2012, in 2013, EPA will again use TRI and DMR data in the 

toxicity ranking analysis as the primary basis for the 2013 Annual Reviews. As explained earlier 

in this Preliminary Plan, the Annual Reviews build on the previous year’s reviews, and EPA will 

consider appropriate and available information to fulfill its annual review requirements. 
Section 8—Findings

8-1

8. FINDINGS FROM EPA’S 2011 ANNUAL REVIEWS

For the 57 existing point source categories, Table 8-1 presents the results of the 2011 

annual reviews. EPA uses the following codes to describe the results for each industrial category: 

1. Effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for this industrial category were 

recently revised through an effluent guidelines rulemaking, or a rulemaking is 

currently underway. Or, EPA recently completed a preliminary study or a detailed 

study, and no further action is necessary at this time. 

2. Revising the national effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards is not the best 

tool for this industrial category because most of the toxic and non-conventional 

pollutant discharges result from one or a few facilities in this industrial category. 

EPA will consider assisting permitting authorities in identifying pollution control 

and pollution prevention technologies for the development of technology-based 

effluent limitations during the development of individual permits. 

3. Not identified as a priority based on data available at this time (e.g., not among 

industries that cumulatively compose 95% of discharges as measured in units of 

TWPE).

4. EPA intends to start or continue either a preliminary or detailed study of this 

industry in its 2012 Annual Reviews to determine whether to identify the category 

for effluent guidelines rulemaking.

5. EPA is continuing to conduct a preliminary category review of the pollutant 

discharges because incomplete data are currently available to determine whether 

to conduct a preliminary study, a detailed study or to identify the category for 

possible revision. 

6. EPA is identifying this industry for a revision of an existing effluent guideline.

Table 8-1. Findings from EPA’s 2011 Annual Reviews of Industrial Categories

No. Industry Category (listed alphabetically) 40 CFR Part Findings

1 Aluminum Forming 467 (3)

2 Asbestos Manufacturing 427 (3)

3 Battery Manufacturing 461 (3)

4 Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetable Processing 407 (3)

5 Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing 408 (3)

6 Carbon Black Manufacturing 458 (3)

7 Cement Manufacturing 411 (3)

8 Centralized Waste Treatment 437 (4)

9 Coal Mining 434 (3)

10 Coil Coating 465 (3)

11 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) 412 (1)
Section 8—Findings

8-2

Table 8-1. Findings from EPA’s 2011 Annual Reviews of Industrial Categories

No. Industry Category (listed alphabetically) 40 CFR Part Findings

12 Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production 451 (3)

13 Construction and Development 450 (1)

14 Copper Forming 468 (3)

15 Dairy Products Processing 405 (3)

16 Electrical and Electronic Components 469 (3)

17 Electroplating 413 (3)

18 Explosives Manufacturing 457 (3)

19 Ferroalloy Manufacturing 424 (3)

20 Fertilizer Manufacturing 418 (3)

21 Glass Manufacturing 426 (3)

22 Grain Mills 406 (3)

23 Gum and Wood Chemicals 454 (3)

24 Hospitals 460 (1)

25 Ink Formulating 447 (3)

26 Inorganic Chemicalsa 415 (1) and (3)

27 Iron and Steel Manufacturing 420 (3)

28 Landfills 445 (3)

29 Leather Tanning and Finishing 425 (3)

30 Meat and Poultry Products 432 (5)

31 Metal Finishing 433 (3)

32 Metal Molding and Casting 464 (3)

33 Metal Products and Machinery 438 (3)

34 Mineral Mining and Processing 436 (3)

35 Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders 471 (3)

36 Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 421 (2)

37 Oil and Gas Extractionb 435 (1) and (3)

38 Ore Mining and Dressing 440 (2)

39 Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibersa 414 (1), (2), and (3)

40 Paint Formulating 446 (3)

41 Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt) 443 (3)

42 Pesticide Chemicals 455 (3)

43 Petroleum Refining 419 (5)

44 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 439 (3)

45 Phosphate Manufacturing 422 (3)

46 Photographic 459 (3)

47 Plastic Molding and Forming 463 (3)

48 Porcelain Enameling 466 (3)

49 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 430 (5)

50 Rubber Manufacturing 428 (3)
Section 8—Findings

8-3

Table 8-1. Findings from EPA’s 2011 Annual Reviews of Industrial Categories

No. Industry Category (listed alphabetically) 40 CFR Part Findings

51 Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing 417 (3)

52 Steam Electric Power Generating 423 (1)

53 Sugar Processing 409 (3)

54 Textile Mills 410 (2)

55 Timber Products Processing 429 (3)

56 Transportation Equipment Cleaning 442 (3)

57 Waste Combustors 444 (3)

a

 Codes (“(1”) and “(3)”) are used for this category. The first code (“(1)”) refers to the ongoing effluent 

guidelines rulemaking for the Chlorinated and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CCH) manufacturing sector, which 

includes facilities currently regulated by the OCPSF and Inorganics effluent guidelines. The second code (“(3)”) 

indicates that the remainder of the facilities in these two categories do not represent a hazard priority at this 

time.

b

 Codes (“(1)” and “(3)”) are used for this category. The first code (“(1)”) refers to the ongoing effluent 

guidelines rulemaking for shale gas extraction and coalbed methane sectors of the industry (although EPA is 

proposing to discontinue the ELG revision for coal bed methane). The second code (“(3)”) refers to category 

discharges of the oil and gas extraction industry, excluding coalbed methane and shale gas extraction, that do 

not represent a hazard priority at this time.
Section 9—Conclusions

9-1

9. 2012 PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN CONCLUSIONS

Based on the 2011 reviews and public comments and input, EPA has not identified any 

new or existing industrial wastewater discharges that warrant new or revised effluent guidelines

at this time. Therefore, EPA is not identifying any existing effluent guidelines for revision, nor is 

EPA identifying any new industries for new effluent guidelines, excluding those effluent 

guidelines rulemakings that are currently under development. EPA has also not identified the 

need for any new or revised pretreatment standards, excluding those that were previously 

identified and are currently undergoing effluent guidelines actions. 

In prior year reviews, EPA considered revisions to ELGs for the Organic Chemicals, 

Pesticides, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR 414) and Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing 

(40 CFR 415) point source categories for facilities that produce chlorine and chlorinated 

hydrocarbons (CCH). EPA is proposing to delist the chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons 

manufacturing industry from the effluent guidelines plan and to discontinue the rulemaking for 

this industry as described in more detail in Section 4.1.1. 

EPA also considered revisions to ELGs for Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category 

(40 CFR Part 135) to address discharges from coalbed methane. EPA is also proposing to delist 

the coalbed methane extraction industry from the effluent guidelines plan and to discontinue the 

rulemaking as discussed in Section 4.1.1 and is soliciting public comment on this.

EPA is working together with the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) on an EPAState Pilot on Improving Regulatory Implementation. Through the Pilot, EPA and the States plan 

to work together on the effluent limitations guidelines revisions for unconventional oil and gas 

extraction. The purpose of the Pilot is to identify potential implementation issues early in the 

process of EPA regulation development and to identify opportunities for addressing such issues 

during the regulation development. States are often in a unique position to anticipate such 

implementation issues and opportunities for dealing with them. Opportunities might consist of 

tools, processes, analyses, plans, communications, and/or strategies that can be considered or 

developed during rule development. 

During 2011, a preliminary study was conducted on regenerated cellulose manufacturing,

identified during the 2010 Annual Reviews as having high carbon disulfide discharges. (In the 

2010 Annual Reviews, these facilities were assigned to the Plastic Molding and Forming 

Category (40 CFR Part 463), but were later correctly defined as regenerated cellulose 

manufacturers under the OCPSF category due to their process characteristics). This study 

indicates that a revision to the effluent guidelines for this category is not necessary for 

controlling discharges of carbon disulfide (CS2). The CS2 discharges are primarily a singlefacility issue that can be dealt with more appropriately and effectively through permitting.

EPA conducted its 2012 Annual Reviews during calendar year 2012 and will incorporate 

the findings from the 2012 reviews, along with the findings and results reported in this 

Preliminary 2012 Plan and the 2011 Annual Review Report, and from public comment and input, 

into its Final 2012 Plan. 
Section 10—Innovation and Technology

10-1

10. INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM

Innovation and technology have played key roles in improving the strength of the U. S. 

economy while at the same time vastly improving public health and the environment. The U. S. 

leads the way in the environmental technology arena that has become a worldwide market of 

over $800 billion. The environmental technology sector employs about 1.7 million Americans. 

In October, 2011, EPA released the document entitled; Technology Innovation For 

Environmental and Economic Progress: An EPA Roadmap, (U.S. EPA, 2012c) which is intended 

to accelerate EPA’s actions for leading and enabling environmental technology innovation. The 

Roadmap framed EPA’s vision for technology innovation by stating: 

"EPA promotes innovation that eliminates or significantly reduces the use of toxic 

substances and exposure to pollutants in the environment and that also promotes growth 

of the American economy. Building upon EPA’s history of scientific and technological 

expertise and innovation, the Agency seeks out prospective technological advances that 

have the greatest potential to help achieve multiple environmental goals. Working in 

partnership with EPA’s diverse set of stakeholders, the Agency speeds the design, 

development and deployment of the next generation of environmental technologies, 

creating a cleaner environment and a stronger economy for our nation and the world." 

The roadmap lays out a portfolio of policy, regulatory, financial and other actions that, 

taken together, will institutionalize and promote technology innovation along the entire 

continuum of technology development and deployment. 

This Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Plan represents an opportunity to advance the 

dialogue about ways EPA can foster innovative technologies while fulfilling its obligations under 

Sections 304(m), 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), and 307(b) of the Clean Water Act. EPA is requesting 

public comment and ideas on this subject. EPA seeks public input and comment on the following 

questions and related themes: 

• Are there new, innovative pollution control or pollution prevention technologies 

that can be used by any of the existing 57 categories of industry with effluent 

limitations guidelines?

• Are there innovative manufacturing approaches that can be used by industries to 

reduce or prevent their wastewater discharges?

• How can EPA's effluent limitations guidelines program enhance technology 

transfer to catalyze and harness innovation to solve industrial wastewater 

problems, both now and in the future? 

• How can EPA better foster consideration of innovative technologies through the 

effluent guidelines planning process? 
Section 11—References

11-1

11. REFERENCES

1. Auchterlonie, Steve. 2009. Notes from Telephone Conversation between Steve 

Auchterlonie, Front St. Remedial Action, and Chris Krejci, Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

“RE: Verification of magnitude and basis of estimate for dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds discharges in PCS.” (March 13). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517-0076. 

2. ERG. 2009. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for the 

2009 Annual Screening-Level Analysis of TRI, ICIS-NPDES, and PCS Industrial 

Category Discharge Data. Chantilly, VA. (September). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517-0507. 

3. U.S. EPA. 1988a. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Interim Final. EPA540-G-89-006. OSWER Publication 9234.1-01. Washington, DC. (August). Available 

online at: www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/pdf/540g-89006-s.pdf. 

4. U.S. EPA. 1988b. Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at 

Superfund Sites. OSWER Directive 9283.1-2. EPA-540-G-88-003. (December). 

Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/540g-88003-

s.pdf. 

5. 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. 

6. U.S. EPA. 2009. Technical Support Document for the Annual Review of Existing Effluent 

Guidelines and Identification of Potential New Point Source Categories. EPA-821-R-09-

007. Washington, DC. (October). EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517-0515. 

7. U.S. EPA. 2010. U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual. Washington, DC. 

(September). EPA-833-K-10-001. Available online at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/writermanual.cfm?program_id=45. 

8. U.S. EPA. 2011a. Technical Support Document for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan. Washington, DC. (September). EPA-HQ-820-R-10-021. 

9. U.S. EPA. 2011b. Ore Mining and Dressing Preliminary Study Report. Washington, D.C. 

(December). EPA-821-R-08-012. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517. DCN 07369. 

10. U.S. EPA. 2012a. 2011 Annual Review Report. Washington, DC. (December). EPA-821-

R-12-001. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824. DCN 07685. 

11. U.S. EPA. 2012b. Memorandum to the Record, Subj: Chlorine and Chlorinated 

Hydrocarbon Data Collection and Analysis Summary. (February). EPA-HQ-OW-2010-

0824. DCN CCH00653. 

12. U.S. EPA. 2012c. Technology Innovation For Environmental And Economic Progress: 

An EPA Roadmap. (April). 
Section 11—References

11-2

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100EDIO.PDF. EPA 190-S-12-003. DCN 

07721. 

13. U.S. EPA. 2012d. Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology. Washington, DC. (March). 

EPA-HQ-OW-820-R-12-005. 

14. U.S. EPA. 2013a. Economic Analysis for Existing and New Projects in the Coalbed 

Methane Industry. Washington, DC. (July). EPA 820-R-13-006. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-

0824. DCN CBM00680. 

15. U.S. EPA. 2013b. Technical Development Document for the Coalbed Methane (CBM) 

Extraction Industry. Washington, DC. (April). EPA 820-R-13-009. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-

0824. DCN CBM00669.