United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Response to Comments for the 

Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plan

July 2015
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
ii

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water (4303T)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170

www.regulations.gov

DCN 08110
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Table of Contents

iv

Table of Contents

Response to Comments for the Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (Section 

304(m) of the Clean Water Act)

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

Organization of the Comment Response Document.................................................................. 1

Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)..................................................................... 5

Section 1.1 – Support for CWT Study................................................................................ 5

Section 1.2 – Do Not Support CWT Study ........................................................................ 8

Section 1.3 – Applicability of CWT ELGs to Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewaters......... 9

Section 1.4 – CWT Study Stakeholder Collaboration...................................................... 13

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information...................................................... 15

Section 2 – Petroleum Refining.................................................................................................. 30

Section 2.1 – General Comments on the Petroleum Refining Industry and ELGs .......... 30

Section 2.2 – Do Not Support Petroleum Refining Study................................................ 32

Section 2.3 – Petroleum Refining Wastestream Applicability......................................... 36

Section 2.4 – Petroleum Refining Industry Trends.......................................................... 37

Section 2.5 – Petroleum Refining Treatment Technologies............................................. 38

Section 2.6 – Petroleum Refining Feedstock Metals........................................................ 42

Section 2.7 – General Comments on Petroleum Refining Pollutants............................... 45

Section 2.8 – Petroleum Refining Metals Discharges...................................................... 46

Section 2.9 – Petroleum Refining Dioxin Discharges...................................................... 52

Section 2.10 – Petroleum Refining Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs).......... 55

Section 2.11 – Petroleum Refining Data Quality and Review ......................................... 56

Section 2.12 – Use of TRI Data for Petroleum Refining ................................................. 65

Section 2.13 – TWPE Calculations for Petroleum Refining ............................................ 70

Section 2.14 – Petroleum Refining Water Quality Based Limits..................................... 71

Section 2.15 – Effect of Air Pollution Controls in the Petroleum Refining Industry ...... 73

Section 3 – Metal Finishing ........................................................................................................ 74

Section 3.1 – Do Not Support Metal Finishing Study...................................................... 74

Section 3.2 – Metal Finishing Industry Profile Information ............................................ 76

Section 3.3 – Historical Review of Metal Finishing ELGs.............................................. 81

Section 3.4 – Metal Finishing ELG Applicability............................................................ 83

Section 3.5 – Metals Treatment for Metal Finishing Wastewater.................................... 86

Section 3.6 – Metal Finishing Facility Site Visits............................................................ 88
Table of Contents

v

Section 4 – Engineered Nanomaterials (ENMs)....................................................................... 89

Section 4.1 – Support for EPA’s Review of ENMs ......................................................... 89

Section 4.2 – Additional Information on ENMs .............................................................. 90

Section 4.3 – ENM Treatment Technology...................................................................... 93

Section 5 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) .............................. 94

Section 5.1 – Applicability of OCPSF ELGs to Biodiesel Manufacturing ...................... 94

Section 6 – Coalbed Methane (CBM)........................................................................................ 95

Section 6.1 – Support for CBM Delisting Decision......................................................... 95

Section 6.2 – Do Not Support CBM Delisting Decision.................................................. 96

Section 7 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard................................................................................. 97

Section 7.1 – Support for No Further Review of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 

Industry ............................................................................................................................. 97

Section 8 – Unconventional Oil and Gas (UOG)...................................................................... 98

Section 8.1 – Support for UOG ELG Revisions............................................................... 98

Section 8.2 – Additional Data and Information for UOG and CWT Efforts ................. 101

Section 9 – General ELG Program Comments...................................................................... 105

Section 9.1 – Stakeholder Collaboration........................................................................ 105

Section 9.2 – Current Status of ELGs Under Development........................................... 106

Section 9.3 – EPA Staffing for the ELG Program.......................................................... 107

Section 9.4 – Sharing Information Earlier in the ELG Planning Process ...................... 108

Section 9.5 – Timeliness of Plan Publication................................................................. 109

Section 9.6 – Support for EPA’s New Even-Year Analyses.......................................... 110
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Introduction

1

Introduction

This document contains EPA’s responses to the public comments received on the Preliminary 

2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (Preliminary 2014 Plan). The Preliminary 2014 Plan, 

which EPA is required to develop by Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), describes 

the current status of EPA’s planning for the effluent guidelines program, presents the results of 

EPA’s annual review of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) it has already 

promulgated for industrial categories, and identifies industrial categories that EPA expects to 

investigate further for the possible development or revision of ELGs. EPA published a notice 

inviting comment on the Preliminary 2014 Plan on September 16, 2014 (79 FR 55472). 

Documents supporting the Preliminary 2014 Plan can be located on EPA’s online docket system 

(http://www.regulations.gov) through a search for the online docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2014-

0170.

Throughout a number of the comment responses below, EPA also makes reference to several of 

its more recent 304(m) screening-level reviews. These reports can be found on 

www.regulations.gov using the docket numbers listed: 

• 2011 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report (2011 ARR): EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-

0195.

• 2012 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report (2012 ARR): EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-

0320.

• 2013 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report (2013 ARR): EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-

0077.

Organization of the Comment Response Document

This document contains excerpts from the public comment letters that were parsed into nine 

broad categories and additional sub-issues. The table of contents provides the complete list of 

issues and sub-issues.

EPA provided a response that applies to each excerpt within a given comment excerpt group or 

sub-group. A horizontal line indicates the end of each comment excerpt group or sub-group and 

its associated responses. See the example on the next page.

Also as shown in the example, each comment excerpt is immediately preceded by several 

identifiers: (1) a unique comment number, which consists of the online docket number and four 

numbers that are assigned to the comment letter by the docket (e.g., EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-

XXXX), followed by an additional number that distinguishes between comment excerpts from 

that comment letter; (2) the name of the organization, (3) the person who submitted the 

comment; and (4) the organization type (e.g., private citizen, trade association, advocacy group). 

For example, excerpt number “EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081-1” identifies the first comment 

excerpt from the comment letter 0081 with the online docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170, 

submitted in response to the September 16, 2014 notice.

Index 1 and Index 2 list the public comments received by EPA, sorted by online docket number 

(e.g., EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081-1) and organization name, respectively.
Section 1—Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.1—Support for CWT Study

2

Section 1—Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.1—Support for CWT Study 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0092-9

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

III. CONCLUSION

With the exception of EPA’s proposal to forego CBM wastewater rulemaking, the agency’s Final 

2012 and Preliminary 2014 planning documents demonstrate a commendable commitment to 

preventing surface water pollution by assuring adequate treatment of oil and gas wastewater. The 

agency must now turn this commitment into concrete regulations without delay. The volume of 

oil and gas wastewater requiring treatment is substantial, and increasing. EPA recognizes that the 

current federal and state regulatory regime is out of date and does not adequately address risks 

associated with treatment of compounds found in oil and gas wastewater. Existing science, and 

industry experience, demonstrate discrete hazards and provide support for potential solutions. 

First, we urge the agency to take all necessary steps to finalize the oil and gas ELG rulemaking.

Second, we remind EPA that conducting the CWT study is only a first step towards materially

improving oversight of CWTs that accept wastewater from the oil and gas industry. We look

forward to working collaboratively with the agency as it continues to move forward in this

critical endeavor.

Response:

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0091-1 regarding EPA’s decision to delist the 

CBM extraction industry.

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0092-3 regarding EPA’s proposed pretreatment 

standards for unconventional oil and gas extraction.

Commenter states that the CWT study is only a first step towards materially improving oversight 

of CWTs that accept wastewater from the oil and gas industry. EPA is currently only undertaking 

a study of the industry. EPA has not yet made any decisions regarding whether revisions to the 

regulations at 40 CFR part 437 are appropriate.

Comment 

Excerpt 

Identifiers

A horizontal line denotes the end of each comment excerpt group and related responses.

Heading indicates the issue and sub-issue being presented.

Response corresponds to the excerpt 

directly above the response.
Index 1: Sorted by Comment Number

3

Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan Commenter Index

Index 1: Sorted by Comment Number

Comment Number Organization Name Issue Addressed

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081 CWA Consulting Services, LLC (CWACS) 1.3, 2.3, 2.7, 3.1, 3.4, 4.1, and 5.1

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0082 American Petroleum Institute (API) 1.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.10, 2.12, and 9.1

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0083 Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama (CMAA) 6.1

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0084 American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) 7.1

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085 National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF) 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0086 American Chemistry Council (ACC) Nanotechnology Panel 4.2

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087 American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) 2.1, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, and 2.15

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0088 Valero Companies 2.2, 2.6, 2.8, and 2.11

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0089 Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, and 9.6

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0090 Greenway Products Inc. 4.3

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0091 Clean Water Action, et al. 1.1, 6.2, and 8.1

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0092 Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) 1.1, 1.5, 8.1, and 8.2

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0094 NORA, an Association of Responsible Recyclers 1.2 and 1.4
Index 2: Sorted by Organization Name

4

Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan Commenter Index

Index 2: Sorted by Organization Name

Organization Name Comment Number Issue Addressed

American Chemistry Council (ACC) Nanotechnology Panel EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0086 4.2

American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0084 7.1

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087 2.1, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, and 2.15

American Petroleum Institute (API) EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0082 1.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.10, 2.12, and 9.1

Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0089 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, and 9.6

Clean Water Action, et al. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0091 1.1, 6.2, and 8.1

Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama (CMAA) EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0083 6.1

CWA Consulting Services, LLC (CWACS) EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081 1.3, 2.3, 2.7, 3.1, 3.4, 4.1, and 5.1

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0092 1.1, 1.5, 8.1, and 8.2

Greenway Products Inc. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0090 4.3

National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF) EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5

NORA, an Association of Responsible Recyclers EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0094 1.2 and 1.4

Valero Companies EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0088 2.2, 2.6, 2.8, and 2.11
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.1 – Support for CWT Study

5

Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.1 – Support for CWT Study

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0091-2

Organization: Clean Water Action, et al. 

Commenter Name: Lynn Thorp, et al.

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

EPA should undertake a detailed study of Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities that 

accept oil and gas wastewaters

The undersigned organizations support EPA’s announcement in the 2014 Preliminary Plan to 

undertake a detailed study of Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities that accept oil and gas 

wastewaters. Commenters agree that this study should not be limited to wastewaters from any 

one type of formation or extraction, but rather should include all oil and gas exploration, 

stimulation and extraction techniques which can cause surface or groundwater pollution. EPA 

should expedite this study and revision of Effluent Guidelines:

Effluent Guidelines for Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities are out of date in light of 

developments in oil and gas extraction and related activities: ELGs for Centralized Waste 

Treatment facilities were developed in 2000 and updated in 2003. Developments in oil and gas 

exploration, stimulation and extraction techniques have led to changes in pollutants associated 

with oil and gas wastewater that need to be incorporated into ELGs for CWTs accepting 

wastewaters from this sector.

Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities may not have treatment in place for pollutants found in 

oil and gas wastewaters: Pollutants of increasing concern in oil and gas wastewaters include 

radionuclides, bromide, chloride, total dissolved solids, metals and organics. Current ELGs for 

Centralized Waste Treatment facilities accepting oil and gas wastewaters do not adequately 

account for these and other pollutants in oil and gas wastewater.

Potential impacts on drinking water sources need to be fully considered: In its consideration of 

the environmental impacts of discharges from Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities accepting 

oil and gas waste waters, the Study should include thorough review of potential impacts on 

surface and ground water sources of drinking water including increased public health risk and 

treatment costs. The Study should incorporate and build on findings of EPA’s ongoing study 

on The Potential Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources.

Imminent pretreatment standards for discharges to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works from 

onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction could result in more discharges to Centralized 

Waste Treatment Facilities: Given the likelihood that pretreatment standards currently under 

development will lead to increased discharges to CWTs, EPA should expedite this Study to 

inform revision of ELGs for CWTs accepting oil and gas wastewaters.
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.1 – Support for CWT Study

6

Response:

EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support for a study of CWT facilities accepting oil and gas 

extraction wastewaters. EPA also notes support from the commenter for addressing all oil and 

gas wastewaters in the study. As part of the study, EPA intends to evaluate oil and gas 

wastewater characteristics, and to evaluate pollutants such as radionuclides, bromide, chloride, 

total dissolved solids (TDS), metals and organics, which are of increasing concern.

EPA is also reviewing the environmental impacts of discharges from CWT facilities accepting 

oil and gas wastewaters, including the potential impacts on surface and ground water sources of 

drinking water, such as increased public-health risk and treatment costs. EPA intends to

incorporate and build on the findings of a draft study titled Assessment of the Potential Impacts 

of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources. EPA intends to evaluate 

the environmental and health impacts of these discharges and consider information being 

developed.

EPA has not yet decided whether it would be appropriate to revise the existing CWT regulations 

at 40 CFR part 437. EPA is conducting its study as quickly as possible, in light of the study’s 

goals and EPA’s other priorities. Once completed, the study will help to inform this decision.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0092-9

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

III. CONCLUSION

With the exception of EPA’s proposal to forego CBM wastewater rulemaking, the agency’s Final 

2012 and Preliminary 2014 planning documents demonstrate a commendable commitment to 

preventing surface water pollution by assuring adequate treatment of oil and gas wastewater. The 

agency must now turn this commitment into concrete regulations without delay. The volume of 

oil and gas wastewater requiring treatment is substantial, and increasing. EPA recognizes that the 

current federal and state regulatory regime is out of date and does not adequately address risks 

associated with treatment of compounds found in oil and gas wastewater. Existing science, and 

industry experience, demonstrate discrete hazards and provide support for potential solutions. 

First, we urge the agency to take all necessary steps to finalize the oil and gas ELG rulemaking.

Second, we remind EPA that conducting the CWT study is only a first step towards materially 

improving oversight of CWTs that accept wastewater from the oil and gas industry. We look 

forward to working collaboratively with the agency as it continues to move forward in this 

critical endeavor.
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.1 – Support for CWT Study

7

Response:

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0091-1 regarding EPA’s decision to delist the 

CBM extraction industry.

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0092-3 regarding EPA’s proposed pretreatment 

standards for unconventional oil and gas extraction.

The commenter states that the CWT study is only a first step toward materially improving 

oversight of CWTs that accept wastewater from the oil and gas industry. EPA is currently only 

undertaking a study of the industry. EPA has not yet decided whether revisions to the regulations 

at 40 CFR part 437 are appropriate.
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.2 – Do Not Support CWT Study

8

Section 1.2 – Do Not Support CWT Study

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0094-2

Organization: NORA, an Association of Responsible Recyclers

Commenter Name: Christopher Harris

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

One of NORA’s observations is that the limiting of TDS or any other constituent can be

regulated by a POTW in its pretreatment ordinance. This is typically done to protect the POTW 

operations and discharge to surface waters. This is accomplished on a case-by-case evaluation of 

each POTW that is based on several site specific variables (daily flow, size of receiving stream, 

POTW unit operations, etc.) Therefore, revising the CWT-ELG may not be necessary to address 

this concern.

Response:

At this time EPA is conducting a study of CWT facilities that accept oil and gas extraction 

wastewater. EPA has not yet decided whether it would be appropriate to revise the existing CWT 

effluent guidelines. EPA recognizes that POTWs (publicly owned treatment works) may develop 

and enforce local limits for TDS, or other pollutants, to comply with the National Pretreatment 

Standards. EPA intends to evaluate a number of factors during the course of its CWT study, 

including whether POTWs are adequately preventing the discharge of pollutants from CWTs that 

may pass through or interfere with POTW operations.
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.3 – Applicability of CWT ELGs to Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewaters

9

Section 1.3 – Applicability of CWT ELGs to Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewaters 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081-1

Organization: CWA Consulting Services, LLC (CWACS)

Commenter Name: Curt A. McCormick

Commenter Type: Consultant to Pretreatment Programs for Local Government

Comment Excerpt Text:

CWACS supports EPA evaluating whether or not clarification is necessary. On the East Coast 

and EPA-HQ, facilities that accept oil and natural gas produced wastewaters by truck for 

treatment and discharged to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) are classified as 

CWTs and subject to Categorical Standards (EPA Regional and EPA-HQ on November 18 and 

19, 2013). In western and mountain states, facilities that accept these same wastewaters are not 

covered by CWT regulations because the wastewaters were not considered during the 

development of the CWT regulations. Standards to be applied at BPJ Standards, only 40 CFR 

Part 403 Standards need to be applied (EPA Regional communications on March 3, 2014 and 

December 20, 2013). CWACS does not understand from the Notice whether or not EPA intends 

to correct this inconsistency and whether or not this notice is being made because EPA believes 

that treatment and discharge of fracking or produced wastewaters are not covered by existing 

CWT regulations.

Response:

As a part of its CWT study, EPA intends to evaluate how facilities accepting oil and gas wastes 

have been permitted across the country to better understand permitting authorities’ decisions

about these types of facilities.

EPA has not yet decided whether it would be appropriate to revise the existing CWT regulations 

at 40 CFR part 437. Once complete, the study will help to inform this decision.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0082-5

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)

Commenter Name: Roger E. Claff

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

B. Study of Centralized Waste Treatment Facility (CWT) Point Source Category

The 2014 preliminary plan also calls for EPA to initiate a detailed study of the centralized waste

treatment point source category, for facilities accepting oil and gas extraction wastewater. The

detailed study will include a characterization of total dissolved solids and radionuclides in

accepted oil and gas extraction wastewater and capabilities of treatment technologies to remove
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.3 – Applicability of CWT ELGs to Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewaters

10

these pollutants. EPA’s decision to study the Centralized Waste Treatment Facility (CWT) point

source category raises fundamental questions concerning the criteria for qualifying as a CWT,

the basis for selecting the category for study, and the relationship between this study and the

EPA’s contemporaneous determination of ELGs for shale gas.

1. Criteria for a CWT

Neither the 2012 final plan nor the 2014 preliminary plan offer a description of the centralized

waste treatment point source category, or the constraints upon which the definition is based.

These plans do not clarify key criteria for centralized waste treatment facilities (CWTs). For

example, do they receive wastewaters from more than one source? Are those sources located offsite from facilities providing wastewaters for treatment? Are the facilities not owned by parties

providing wastewaters for treatment? If as defined by the effluent guidelines regulations the

CWTs that receive oil and gas extraction wastewaters are not owned or operated by companies

within the petroleum industry, EPA’s detailed study must target those facilities themselves and

not petroleum industry companies. Likewise, if a dedicated or on-site wastewater reclamation

facility is not a CWT, whether or not that facility is owned or operated within the petroleum

industry, EPA’s detailed study cannot properly include those facilities. To date, EPA has not

offered API a detailed description of the CWTs it intends to include in its detailed study.

2. Basis for selecting the CWT category for study

Neither the 2012 final plan nor the 2014 preliminary plan identify how the CWT point source

category was selected for detailed study. API cannot see any reasonable basis for this detailed

study beyond EPA’s speculative observation that “[m]any CWT facilities do not have treatment

for some pollutants present in oil and gas wastewaters (e.g., TDS, radionuclides),” and EPA’s

claim that its decision is based in part on public comments. Certainly the basis for selection of

CWTs is not an analysis of toxic-weighted pollutant loadings, as the 2012 final plan does not list

CWTs within the top 17 categories in their toxic-weighted-pound-equivalents rankings. API

cannot identify any objective reason for EPA to select this category.

3. Applicable effluent guidelines-Centralized Waste Treatment or Oil and Gas Extraction

EPA is currently investigating shale gas facilities for possible revision of effluent guidelines for

these facilities within the Oil and Gas Extraction point source category. For shale gas facilities

that direct their wastewaters to CWTs, EPA should clarify whether effluent guidelines under the

Oil and Gas Extraction category, or effluent guidelines under the CWT category, apply. Effluent

guidelines between these two categories should be consistent. If Oil and Gas Extraction effluent

guidelines allow shale gas facilities to use centralized waste treatment, the CWT effluent

guidelines for these facilities must be economically achievable.

Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter that the current effluent guidelines are not clear on 

applicability. The applicability of the CWT regulations can be found at 40 CFR part 437.1 and

applicable definitions can be found at 40 CFR part 437.2. Furthermore, the CWT study will 
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.3 – Applicability of CWT ELGs to Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewaters

11

evaluate all 40 CFR part 437 facilities that the Agency is aware of that accept oil and gas wastes.

EPA is aware that there are facilities that accept oil and gas wastes that are permitted for 

discharge under Subpart E of 40 CFR part 435. EPA is also aware that there are facilities that 

accept oil and gas wastes for treatment but do not discharge. While the focus of the study is on 

CWTs as defined by 40 CFR part 437, EPA may evaluate information for other types of facilities 

that accept oil and gas wastes so that it can fully understand how wastes are managed across the 

industry and any implications with respect to the regulations at 40 CFR part 437. This includes 

facilities that have varying numbers of sources, various locations (both onsite and offsite, with 

respect to the oil and gas extraction activities) and various ownership types (producer owned, 

and commercial). EPA may also explore whether existing definitions for CWTs at 40 CFR part 

437 are clear enough to address facilities across the oil and gas extraction industry that are 

accepting wastes for discharge.

EPA does not agree that companies within the petroleum industry should not be evaluated within 

the scope of the study. Indeed, since some of the costs for CWT services may be passed on to 

petroleum industry producers, it is appropriate for EPA to consider how potential changes in 

costs for wastewater services may affect the price for those producers. In addition, ownership 

status of the facility (whether owned by a company whose primary business is oil and gas 

extraction or otherwise) is not determinative of whether a facility is within scope of the study (or 

the regulations at 40 CFR part 437, for that matter); EPA expects that many producers own, 

operate or lease wastewater treatment systems for these wastes and that wastewaters may 

subsequently be discharged to POTWs or to surface waters. Gathering information on (including 

but not limited to) cost and performance from a variety of sources is relevant to the study of 

CWTs accepting oil and gas extraction wastes. Therefore, EPA intends to evaluate facilities with 

a variety of ownership types, discharge status and other factors under the CWT study.

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that neither the 2012 Final Plan nor the 2014 

Preliminary Plan identifies how the CWT point source category was selected for the detailed 

study. Specifically, Section 6.2 of the plan describes EPA’s concerns (and the rationale for those 

concerns) that current CWT regulations at 40 CFR part 437 may not provide adequate controls 

for oil and gas extraction wastewaters. The goal of the study is to determine if revisions to the 

CWT industry ELGs are appropriate. EPA will base this determination on the collection and 

analysis of CWT industry data, including the extent of CWT facilities accepting oil and gas 

extraction wastewater, available treatment technologies (and their associated costs), the types 

and characteristics of discharge, financial considerations, and the environmental impacts of the 

discharges. At this time, EPA has not made any determination about whether to revise the CWT 

ELGs.

The Preliminary 2014 Plan describes a host of factors and considerations that EPA assessed in 

identifying effluent guidelines for possible revision. For example, as part of the ongoing effluent 

guidelines planning process, EPA examined literature and communicated with stakeholders such 

as regions, states, permit writers, industry groups, and environmental organizations. EPA also

identified and evaluated new wastewater discharges or pollutants not previously regulated, and 

identified wastewater discharges that industry can more effectively treat or eliminate (see Section 

3 of the Plan).
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.3 – Applicability of CWT ELGs to Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewaters

12

Furthermore, EPA’s planning process considered opportunities to eliminate inefficiencies or 

impediments to pollution prevention or technological innovation, or opportunities to promote 

innovative approaches (see Section 2.2 of the plan). Both of these factors and considerations 

were relevant to EPA’s decision to select the CWT category for study based on concerns that the 

current CWT regulations may not provide adequate control for oil and gas extraction wastewater. 

On the other hand, as indicated by the commenter, the amount and type of pollutants in the 

industrial category discharge and the relative hazard posed by that discharge was not a 

significant consideration in EPA’s decision, although it was one of the additional factors EPA 

assessed (see Section 6.1 of the plan).

Regarding treatment in place at CWT facilities, EPA refers the commenter to Chapter 8 of EPA’s 

Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized 

Waste Treatment Industry, EPA 821-R-00-020, which describes wastewater treatment 

technologies used by the industry and their performance 

(http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/cwt/upload/CWT_DD_2000.pdf).

On the issue of clarifying whether the effluent guidelines under the Oil and Gas Extraction 

category, or effluent guidelines under the CWT category, apply, EPA notes that the effluent 

guidelines under the Oil and Gas Extraction category (40 CFR part 435) apply to discharges 

from oil and gas extraction facilities. Specific to Subpart C, Onshore Subcategory, 40 CFR 

§435.32 states “there shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants into navigable waters from 

any source....” EPA’s recently proposed pretreatment standards for wastewater from 

unconventional oil and gas (UOG) extraction at 40 CFR §435.32 and 40 CFR §435.33 state 

“there shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants...into publically owned treatment works.”

(Pretreatment standards for wastewater from conventional oil and gas extraction are reserved.) 

The proposed discharge prohibition for wastewater from UOG extraction reflects current 

industry practice; EPA has not identified any existing onshore UOG extraction facilities that 

currently discharge UOG extraction wastewater to POTWs. UOG extraction wastewater is 

typically managed through disposal via underground injection wells and/or reuse in subsequent 

fracturing. The industry also transfers its wastewater to CWT facilities; EPA’s analysis indicates 

that this practice is increasing in some geographic areas (see EPA-821-R-15-003).

The effluent guidelines under the CWT category (40 CFR part 437) apply to discharges from 

CWT facilities. The CWT category includes numeric ELGs for a number of industry 

subcategories and does not include prohibitions on direct and indirect discharges.

EPA’s existing regulations at 40 CFR part 435, as well as the recently proposed revisions to the 

onshore category at 40 CFR §435.32 and 40 CFR §435.33, do not prohibit management of 

wastewaters from oil and gas extraction at CWTs. EPA agrees that the interrelationship between 

these two effluent guidelines (40 CFR parts 435 and 437) is an important consideration with 

respect to revisions to either of these categories.
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.4 – CWT Study Stakeholder Collaboration

13

Section 1.4 – CWT Study Stakeholder Collaboration 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0094-1

Organization: NORA, an Association of Responsible Recyclers

Commenter Name: Christopher Harris

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

Several NORA members also operate Centralized Waste Treatment (“CWT”) facilities that 

process used oil and oily wastewater. Over the past thirty years NORA and its member 

companies have participated in all EPA rulemakings affecting used oil, including the 

development of the used oil management standards (now codified at 40 CFR Part 279), the CWT 

regulations governing used oil and oily wastewater as well as numerous state regulatory 

proceedings.

While NORA can only provide limited observations at this time on EPA’s final 2012 and

preliminary 2014 effluent guidelines program plans, it is NORA’s intention to be closely

involved with any regulatory changes and/or guidelines. Based on our previous experience in the 

CWT regulations governing the processing of used oil and oily wastewaters, NORA recognizes 

that this is a highly complex subject matter that may involve the collection and analysis of 

extensive data.

EPA stated in the September 16, 2014 Notice that the Agency will focus on evaluating oil and 

gas extraction wastewater that are treated by CWTs. Also in a phone conversation between EPA 

(Jesse Pritts, Janet Goodwin and others) and NORA (Scott Parker and Jack Waggener) on July 7, 

2014, EPA indicated that it was considering a study of the CWTs that received this waste stream. 

In this call EPA solicited the assistance of NORA as this process moves forward.

EPA told NORA that it was concerned about the negative impact of the high total dissolved 

solids (“TDS”) of these wastewaters on publically owned treatment works (“POTWs”) or surface 

water, and that there had been at least one incident of concern. This is briefly discussed in the 

September 16, 2014 Notice and the “Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines 

Program Plans.” (EPA-820-R-14-001)

Response:

EPA has not yet decided whether it would be appropriate to revise the existing CWT regulations 

at 40 CFR part 437. Once EPA completes the detailed study, it will help to inform this decision. 

As part of the detailed study of CWT facilities, EPA plans to continue to meet with industry 

representatives, permit writers, and other interested parties to better understand the discharges 

and fill data gaps as appropriate. EPA appreciates the assistance and input provided by NORA 

during development of the current CWT ELGs and welcomes its participation in the current 

study.
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.4 – CWT Study Stakeholder Collaboration

14

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0094-3

Organization: NORA, an Association of Responsible Recyclers

Commenter Name: Christopher Harris

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

NORA believes that any new regulations and/or guidelines for CWT facilities could be aided by 

direct meetings between EPA and NORA’s experts in this field and the operators of CWT 

facilities. It has been NORA’s experience that stakeholder meetings with agencies facilitates 

greater consensus among participants, thereby reducing the risk and expense of unnecessary 

regulations and possible litigation.

Accordingly, NORA and its CWT members welcome the opportunity to meet with EPA as it 

moves forward with this project.

Response:

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0094-1.
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

15

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0092-5

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

II. 2014-2015 CWT Study

EDF strongly supports EPA’s plan to conduct a detailed study of CWT facilities accepting oil 

and gas extraction wastewater in furtherance of future regulation. Ensuring that wastewater from 

the production of oil and natural gas is handled safely, efficiently, and effectively is critical to 

avoiding longterm health threats to communities in production regions, and to avoiding acute and 

chronic ecosystem damage. As EPA has repeatedly stated, current state and federal Clean Water 

Act regulations and guidance do not provide adequate controls for oil and gas extraction 

wastewaters.

Many CWT facilities do not have treatment for some pollutants present in oil and gas 

wastewaters (e.g., [total dissolved solids] TDS, radionuclides) enabling these pollutants 

to pass through the treatment system which may result in discharge to a POTW or surface 

water....Therefore, EPA and some States are concerned about the transfer of oil and gas 

wastewaters to CWT facilities and their subsequent discharge.

(EPA, Findings of the 2013 Annual Review and Preliminary 2014 Plan, 6-2). As the percentage 

and volume of wastewater sent to offsite treatment facilities such as CWTs increases with overall 

oil and gas production, the need for comprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of 

EPA’s regulation of these facilities also increases.

In its call for information, EPA requested data regarding the extent to which CWT facilities 

accept oil and gas wastewater, available treatment technologies, characteristics of discharge, 

financial characteristics, and environmental impacts of CWTs. We submit the following 

considerations and attached bibliography to aid the agency’s review on these matters.

A. Extent to Which CWT Facilities Accept Oil and Gas Wastewater

As with many topics covered by this Final Plan, publically available information regarding the 

extent to which oil and gas wastewater is treated by CWTs is limited, and evolving quickly. 

Available data from academic, private and federal government sources indicate that the volume 

of wastewater treated by CWTs is substantial, and increasing. Five years ago, researchers 

estimated that 21 billion barrels of produced water, or 1.7 to 2.3 billion gallons per day, are 

generated each year in the U.S. (Clark & Veil, 2009). This quantity is expected to increase 

steadily in the near term; one estimate predicts annual produced water production of 30,000 

million cubic meters (25.2 billion barrels) per year by 2020. (Uzelac, 2014).
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

16

According to EPA, 2 billion gallons per day are injected into Class II UIC wells for Enhanced 

Oil Recovery or disposal. (See, GAO-14-555). Class II wells inject brines and other fluids 

associated with oil and natural gas production, in order to dispose of the fluid or to enhance oil 

recovery. (Hydrocarbon storage wells are also permitted as Class II wells, but do not comprise a 

significant percentage of Class II wells; EPA estimates there are approximately 100 nationwide.) 

The increase in wastewater associated with oil and gas production—both produced water and 

flowback water – initially created demand for additional class II wells. From 2005 to 2012, the 

number of class II wells grew from approximately 144,000 to over 172,000. (GAO-14-555. We 

note that more than half of this increase in the number of class II was due to “reclassification” of 

existing wells.).

In 2009, 98% of produced water from onshore facilities was injected underground. (Clark & 

Veil, 2009) However, several factors indicate that use of underground injection as a disposal 

method may decline, escalating the extent to which other methods – including CWTs—are used 

to treat and dispose of oil and gas wastewater. Incidents of induced seismicity in areas where 

stressed geologic structures and underground injection wells overlap have created public concern 

and scrutiny of Class II UIC wells. (See Keranen et al., 2014; National Research Council, 2013). 

Corresponding state regulation intended to address incidents of seismic activity may deter new 

Class II well permit applications, or reduce the volume of water directed to existing wells. Lack 

of geologic suitability for UIC wells has also been said to limit disposal via injection wells in 

certain regions, such as sections of the Marcellus underlying Pennsylvania. Aversion to 

transporting wastewater due to road safety concerns, air emissions, or cost may deter trucking to 

UIC wells. And, mounting public pressure to decrease water use and competition for raw water 

sources similarly incentivize wastewater treatment over underground injection. To the extent 

UIC Class II well use declines, CWTs may expect to handle a larger volume, and proportion, of 

the wastewater created by oil and gas operations.

Although wastewater reuse in subsequent oil and gas exploration and production operations may 

limit the amount of water discharged through CWTs in the short term, discharges will occur and 

escalate in the long term. Some point to the current and growing trend to treat wastewater to 

levels appropriate to allow reuse in subsequent operations as evidence that volumes disposed of 

through facilities such as CWTs will be minimal, and suggest that regulations in this arena are 

not necessary. However, the reuse of wastewater in subsequent operations is a sufficient solution 

to water disposal needs only where there is ample local operational demand for water. As fields 

mature or as operational needs change, operations will become net water producers. (Vidic, 

2013). While the timelines for this transition may vary, the need exists today to ensure a strong 

and protective regulatory program is in place in advance of the growing volumes that will require 

disposal. As early as 2010, reports concluded that more treatment facilities were coming online 

because of increased volume capacity issues. (Veil, 2010). EPA’s CWT study should continue on 

the existing timeline to adequately prepare the agency for this increased demand for treatment 

and discharge through CWTs.

EPA’s CWT is necessary to fill a gap in publically available information regarding CWTs. 

Current figures regarding produced water volume, and the extent to which available treatment 

and disposal methods are used to manage such wastewater, are not well characterized in the 

literature. Wastewater production and management reporting is required by several states (See, 
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

17

e.g., Pennsylvania

https://www.paoilandgasreporting.state.pa.us/publicreports/Modules/Welcome/Agreement.aspx), 

but collecting these reports is difficult for private entities and the states’ reporting methods are

inconsistent. EPA’s 2014 – 2015 CWT study will be of tremendous value by improving 

understanding of produced water, including the overall volume and volumes treated and disposed 

of through CWT.

B. Available Treatment Technologies

Produced water varies in constituent levels by region, within a particular resource formation, and 

with time the well is in production. All of these variables provide challenges to the adequate 

treatment to meet specific effluent standards; EPA has previously acknowledged that “many 

CWTs may not effectively treat [shale gas wastewater]” due to TDS levels which may result in 

process inhibition, precipitation of salts and other constituents which may interfere with residual 

disposal options, or pass through treatment. (EPA Hanlon Memo, 2011).

There is not one treatment technology that can address the entire list of potential constituents in

produced water. As is typical with other waste treatment facilities, a series of treatment 

technologies generally are combined into a treatment process. A complete treatment process can 

consist of a number of the following:

• settling/gravity separation;

• filtration; and

• more robust treatment utilizing more sophisticated technology or combination of 

technologies.

Although it is typical for an industrial wastewater treatment process to consist of multiple 

treatment units, a major challenge of treating produced water is the variability over time of the 

constituents to be removed. A treatment process must be able to effectively, reliably, and 

consistently remove the constituents of concern.

There are a number of treatment technologies theoretically capable of treating produced water.

(Colorado School of Mines, 2009, discussion of technologies and costs). It is important to 

acknowledge that although there are a wide range of treatment technologies and development 

and enhancements of treatment technologies are occurring, it is our understanding that treatment 

processes currently deployed that may adequately treat shale wastewater include a combination 

of distillation and biological treatment.

Distillation is in essence the boiling of the influent stream and condensing the water vapor. 

Although the majority of condensate is comprised of water, it will include constituents that boil 

off with the water and some that may invariably carry over untreated. There are variations of a 

distillation process to increase the efficiently and reduce energy requirements. One such 

variation currently deployed is a vapor-compression distillation. This particular treatment 

technology recovers energy from the condensing vapor to increase the overall efficiency of the 

process. The effectiveness and applicability of distillation technology differs from reverse 

osmosis, discussed below, in its ability to treat influent with high TDS levels and since the 
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

18

technology is based on temperature not the physical properties of a membrane, EDF understands 

that distillation will more consistently remove target constituents of concern.

Reverse osmosis, a pressure driven process utilizing a specially-designed membrane, is 

sometimes deployed to help treat oil and gas wastewater. Hydraulic pressure is applied to 

overcome the osmotic pressure of the influent causing treated water to pass through the 

membrane (permeate) leaving the residual feed stream that is a concentrate of the constituents 

removed. Reverse osmosis is most commonly used for treating influent streams with TDS 

concentrations up to 40,000 mg/l. (See, Colorado School of Mines, 2009, p. 26). EDF 

understands that it is technically possible to use reverse osmosis for wastewater with TDS up to 

50,000 mg/l, but that it is often not cost effective above 30,000 mg/l. The effectiveness of reverse 

osmosis is dependent on the properties of the membrane and these properties must be designed 

specific to the constituents to be removed.

To reflect the variability of oil and gas wastewater and current state of CWT treatment 

capabilities, EPA’s review of appropriate and available technologies for treatment of oil and gas 

wastewater should be representative of actual practice in the industry and, therefore, include an 

evaluation of several technologies deployed in sequence rather than a single, standalone 

treatment mechanism. Due to several factors, including high initial TDS concentrations, 

variability of wastewater over time, and lack of certainty about constituents delivered to CWTs 

in oil and gas wastewater, treatment for discharge will likely entail more than one technology, 

deployed in sequence.

Based on EDF’s review of currently deployed produced water treatment technologies, we 

recommend that EPA consider the combined efficacy of distillation and biological process

(deployed before or after distillation) to treat organics that can pass through the distillation 

process (either evaporated or condensed with the water or present in the carry-over). We assume 

that that basic pretreatment (solids separation/settling) occurs prior to the distillation step; this 

could also be verified in EPA’s study. At this time, it appears to EDF that distillation may treat 

the varying constituents in oil and gas wastewater more effectively than other methods, but is not 

in and of itself sufficient for discharge quality wastewater. (See Colorado School of Mines, 2009, 

p. 58). EPA’s CWT study should evaluate the efficacy of distillation, and determine appropriate 

technologies with which it should be paired.

Further, EPA should bear in mind that “technologies” such as “distillation” and “reverse 

osmosis” are in reality general categories of technology that vary significantly depending on the 

way they are implemented.

C. Discharge Characteristics

i. EDF analysis of compounds in oil and gas wastewater

Characterizing discharge from CWTs that treat oil and gas wastewater is complicated by a 

number of factors, including a large number of constituents of concern potentially present, a 

limited number of standard analytical methods available to determine the presence and 

concentration of constituents, and the limited information on toxicity of potential constituents of 
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

19

concern. As part of our effort to better understand discharge characteristics, and overcome the 

challenges listed above, EDF developed a table presenting what is known and what is not known 

regarding potential CWT effluent constituents. (Potential CWT Discharge Constituents of 

Concern table, attached). We submit this table together with these comments, although EDF 

intends to continue our efforts to develop our understanding in this area and update the table 

accordingly. We specifically encourage EPA to address areas of limited or no information on 

effluent in the CWT study.

The Potential CWT Discharge Constituents of Concern table was compiled as follows. First, an 

initial list of chemicals with CAS numbers was compiled from the following sources:

• FracFocus Well Reports for early 2013;

• EPA’s list of produced water chemicals based on EPA’s review of literature and 2011 

data calls from industry (included as an appendix in the 2012 Progress Report to the EPA 

HF Drinking Water Study);

• Clean Water Act Priority Pollutants (excluding PCBs and pesticide, unless otherwise 

cited in either preceding bullet).

Next, the initial list was augmented with constituents included in effluent monitoring 

requirements from two CWT NPDES permits:

• Eureka Resources LLC facility located in Standing Stone Township, Pennsylvania 

(NPDES Permit #PA0232351) 

o CWT Subpart C NSPS Effluent Limit Guideline constituents 

 Resulted in one constituent being added, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (88-06-2)

o Added constituents additionally identified in the permit application as present in

effluent 

 triethylene glycol

 lithium

 uranium

and

• SEECO, Inc. Judsonia Water Reuse Recycling Facility, Arkansas (NPDES Permit No.

AR0052051) 

o CWT Subpart B NSPS Effluent Limit Guideline constituents 

 n-decane,

 n-octadecane 

• carbazole

o Constituents added not otherwise identified 

 strontium-90

 gross beta

 cyanide (total recoverable)

 sulfates

Additions were made to the list from publications and literature review, including:
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

20

• California Well Stimulation; 2nd Revision of Proposed Regulations 

o radon-222

• NORM measurement 

o Gross alpha

• Degradates of surfactants used in oil and gas extraction and chemicals associated with 

shale extraction 

o Nonylphenol, benzene metadisulfonic acid, benzene monosulfonic acid, p-phenol

sulfonic acid and resorcinol

A few constituents that are not relevant to effluent monitoring were removed from the list. 

Examples include carbon dioxide, talc, and quartz. It is important to note that some duplicates or 

apparent duplicates exist due to different forms of analytes (e.g., “total” versus “dissolved”

metals).

Finally, we conducted research on standard analytical methods using this list of potential 

constituents of concern. The results of this research are shown in the table columns identifying 

the standard analytical methods available for specific constituents.

Results from a rapid, automated chemical hazard screening system were also included in the 

table to aid prioritization of constituents of concern. These results appear in the “List Translator 

Score” (List Trans. Score) column and are further described in the companion document,

Screening Hazard Assessment of Current Use Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals, also submitted 

today with EDF’s comments.

The List Translator identifications shown in the table are as follows:

• LT-1: represents likely high hazard chemicals, e.g., carcinogens, PBTs, etc.

• LT-P1: represents possible high hazard chemicals. These should be reviewed for 

additional data.

• LT-U: represents “unknown” hazard, typically due to no coverage by regulatory 

authorities

The full list of potential produced water constituents with CAS numbers has been compared with 

various regulatory-related lists including TRI chemicals and RCRA designated hazardous 

chemicals. Produced water constituents included in any of these lists are indicated in the table.

The table draws out two fundamental areas where our current understanding of CWT discharge 

could benefit from additional research. First, the number constituents potentially contained in 

CWT discharge far exceeds the number of standard analytical methods. Lack of analytical 

methods inhibits the evaluation and monitoring of technology, and the full characterization of 

discharge. Second, information on the risk to human health and the environment posed by many 

constituents of potential concern is extremely limited. Toxicity data on constituents is useful in 

establishing reasonable limits on discharge. EPA’s CWT study must include efforts to fill these 

critical information gaps.
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

21

ii. Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM)

In evaluating CWT discharge characteristics, another priority consideration should be radioactive

constituents such as NORM and Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive 

Material (TENORM). As mentioned above, in the original development of the CWT ELGs, 

radionuclides were not taken into consideration. Today, however, the presence and impact of 

radionuclides is of wide concern as researchers and regulators address oil and gas waste 

management. For example, flowback and produced water from the Marcellus shale (the region 

most focused on treatment for discharge as a disposal option) is the second saltiest and most 

radiogenic of all sedimentary basins in the US where large volume hydraulic fracturing is used. 

(Vidic, 2013).

While radionuclide contaminated waste is regulated by some states, particularly those with oil 

and gas extraction, EPA has noted that water quality and human health issues associated with 

NORM discharges under NPDES permits were not extensively examined at the time of ELG 

development because oil and gas extraction waste was not discharged in many states. (EPA 

Hanlon Memo, 2011). In establishing the final CWT ELG, EPA concluded that CWTs were not 

designed to remove radionuclides. EPA’s most recent memo on the subject acknowledged that 

few studies were available to identify and explain the issue of NORM in POTW or CWT 

effluent, but recommended that care be taken to address impacts like scale buildup and 

contamination of sludge, and advised that discharge of water from POTWs or CWTs had 

potential to release radioactive contaminants. (EPA Hanlon Memo, 2011).

States and academic institutions are currently taking a close look at radioactive materials 

associated with oil and gas productions such as NORM and TENORM to determine what 

regulations are necessary to protect human health and the environment, and the results of these 

studies and ongoing efforts should be taken into consideration during this CWT study. (See e.g., 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureaus of Radiation Protection study 

of NORM generated during oil and gas activities, Colorado Department of Public Health & 

Environment’s TENORM policy development stakeholder process, and Ohio State University 

Subsurface Energy Resources Center’s Interdisciplinary NORM and Oil and Gas Industry White 

Paper).

Radioactive materials like radium are also of high concern as a component of the residual wastes

created in association with produced water treatment processes. EPA should consider the 

disposal of these side streams and sludges when studying CWT treatment programs and 

establishing limitations. Radium is often removed from wastewater by co-precipitation with 

barium and other alkaline earth metals. One researcher, basing calculations on experimental 

results, concluded that the radium levels in CWT precipitate far exceeded the regulatory limits 

for disposal in municipal sanitary landfills, demonstrating that landfill disposal of the radioactive 

materials requires careful monitoring of allowed source term loading. (Zhang et al. 2014). Other 

researchers, in analyzing wastewater in various capacities, have emphasized the need for 

continued attention regarding the proper disposal and handling of residual waste streams. (See, 

e.g., Warner et al., 2013).
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

22

iii. Studies Focusing on Pennsylvania and Marcellus Oil and Gas Wastewater

Discharge

In addition to generally applicable information on oil and gas wastewater discharge 

characteristics discussed above, we call the agency’s attention to several studies characterizing 

oil and gas wastewater in the Marcellus region. Spanning periods of discharge prior to, and after 

the 2011 PADEP request for drilling companies to cease deliveries of wastewater treatment 

plants, these studies cumulatively found evidence of contaminants such as chloride, bromide, and 

strontium.

Ferrar analyzed effluent discharged from facilities both before and after the 2011 request and 

found that concentrations in effluent for constituents such as barium, strontium, and bromides 

were above water quality criteria before the PADEP request, and many of the constituent levels 

in discharges after the request were either reduced or ceased. (Ferrar, 2013).

Olmstead looked specifically at downstream concentrations of chloride and total suspended 

solids (TSS) from permitted treatment facilities treating shale gas waste in 2011 and found that 

downstream levels of chloride, but not TSS, were raised where discharges occurred. The study 

estimated that an additional 1.5 facilities treating shale gas wastewaters upstream in a watershed 

would result in a 10-11% increase in chloride downstream. (Olmstead, 2013).

A report out of the University of Pittsburgh looked in detail at the discharges from one brine 

treatment facility into a particular creek and discussed implications of discharges, including 

constituent by constituent discussions. (Volz et al., 2011). This, and other reviews and analysis 

of Pennsylvania discharges from 2008 should be analyzed carefully. While many discharges 

have changed or decreased in the region, studies from that time provide extensive information on 

the limitations and concerns relating to oil and gas wastewater treatment that remain valuable to 

today’s practices.

Rahm recently found that wastewater management in the Marcellus has trended in recent years

towards increased reuse as well as reliance on industrial and onsite treatment rather than POTW

utilization, along with increased injection disposal. (Rahm, 2013 (citing Abdalla et al., 2012; 

Maloney & Yoxtheimer, 2010; NRDC, 2012)). In a review, Rahm and Riha concluded that even 

though discharges are subject to regulations, important environmental concerns remain as 

discharges can negatively impact downstream water quality in spite of wastewater treatment. 

(Rahm & Riha, 2014 (citing Ferrar, 2013)).

D. Financial Characteristics

EDF has no specific information or data to provide the agency regarding the financial 

characteristics of CWTs at this time.

However, as a part of EPA’s study of the financial characteristics of CWT facilities, EDF 

suggests that EPA consider how, and to what extent, revenues from the sale of residual wastes 

impact the economic viability of CWTs. EDF is aware that CWTs may seek to bolster the 

economic viability of treatment facilities through the selective recovery and sale of treatment by-
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

23

products. Concentrated brine can be marketed as de-icing fluid. Recoverable salt components 

may include sodium bicarbonate, sodium carbonate (soda ash), and sodium chloride. A CWT 

able to produce, and bring to market, commercially viable quantities of de-icing fluid or salts 

may avoid certain costs associated with residual waste disposal (while perhaps at the same time 

raising questions about the potential contaminants in the products).

E. Environmental Impacts

i. Data and analysis of environmental impacts

The long term environmental and health impact of discharges of both treated and untreated 

produced waters has yet to be adequately observed, understood, or represented in peer reviewed 

literature. The high volumes of wastewater produced by the oil and gas industry (Veil, 2010) and 

the variability in chemical and physical properties (See NETL) contribute to the complexity of 

evaluating the analysis of acute and chronic environmental impacts associated with oil and gas 

wastewater treatment and discharge.

However, sufficient information exists at this time to justify improved regulation of CWTs 

treating oil and gas wastewater, particularly in light of organic substances present, and potential 

toxicity of many of the substances in oil and gas wastewater. (Orem, 2014).

EPA should pay particular attention to halides and organic pollutants in produced water given 

unknown toxicities, and the potential for detrimental impact to downstream drinking water 

treatment processes. Researchers conclude that given the wide and variable range of organics 

potentially present in produced waters, treatment processes developed for use must allow for 

extensive organics removal. (Maguire-Boyle & Barron, 2014). Studies in the past few months 

have concluded that halides are poorly removed by both POTWs and CWTs, and the elevated 

concentrations of bromide and iodide potentially present in surface waters after discharge may 

increase the formation of disinfection-by-products at downstream drinking water treatment 

plants. (Parker et al., 2014). High enrichment factor values of chloride and bromide in discharged 

effluent is critical to these drinking water plants and studies have shown bromide enrichment 

nearing 40 fold of background amounts downstream from discharge points. (Warner, 2013; see 

also Wilson & VanBriesen, 2012). From 2003 to 2009, bromide concentrations measured in 

surface waters near CWTs were up from 72 μg/L to 300 μg/l in Pennsylvania surface waters 

impacted by shalegas development. (Parker et al., 2014).

A recent dilution study showed that percentages of produced water as low as 0.01% discharged 

into river waters altered speciation towards formation of brominated and iodinated 

trihalomethanes and brominated haloacetonitriles during chlorine treatments. Chloramination 

and ozonation also showed effects. (Parker et al., 2014). In light of these studies regarding the 

potential environmental and humanhealth impacts associated with even low levels of 

contaminant discharges, the ability of facilities to properly treat for these constituents and their 

appropriate limitations should be a priority consideration for EPA.

While potential ecological impacts of wastewater on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are not 

well studied (Entrekin, 2011), recent research is providing increasing knowledge on the subject.
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

24

Bioaccumulation in sediment near discharge sites is a significant concern, particularly for

radioactive elements such as radium. In one study in Western Pennsylvania, sediment radium 

levels were 200 times greater than background samples collected upstream and from other rivers. 

The study concluded that the mixing of saline water effluent with upstream low-saline water may 

enhance radium adsorption into sediment. Benthic organisms could be exposed to significant 

ecological risk from radium accumulation. Furthermore, bioaccumulation is known to occur in 

freshwater fish, invertebrates, mollusks, shellfish, and freshwater plants. (Warner, 2013).

In addition to bioaccumulation, we know that some additives used in the fracturing process and

potentially present in flowback and produced waters are persistent in the environment once

discharged. For example, many toxic metals are persistent and bioaccumulative. This 

combination of properties is particularly insidious as these substances may accumulate in 

receiving waters and their biota over time even while their concentrations may be below 

analytical detection limits in effluent.

A variety of organic additive chemicals may also be persistent, such as quaternary ammonium

compounds (QACs), chemicals used to eliminate bacteria in the water that produces corrosive 

byproducts (FracFocus; Stringfellow, 2014). However, there remain gaps in the literature on 

persistence and bioaccumulation for a number of compounds known to be used in the process. 

EPA should give special care to identifying those compounds likely to be in produced waters 

which may enter surface waters through pathways such as discharge.

Although the body of scientific literature addressing environmental impacts of treated oil and gas

wastewater is evolving, the existing data suggests that unmonitored and inadequately regulated

discharges pose unquestionable risks to human and ecosystem health. EPA’s CWT study should 

identify data gaps and spur necessary research into the fate and transport of constituents found in 

wastewater, but be careful not to use these data gaps to avoid taking important steps towards 

regulation. Rather, it is critical that, despite any potential unknowns in content, analysis,

treatment, toxicity, or impact, EPA’s CWT study provide a basis for sound and reasonably 

thorough effluent limitation guidelines based on the ample amount of information that is 

currently known.

ii. EPA should include an analysis of air emissions generated during CWT 

treatment of oil and gas wastewater

Oil and gas exploration and production wastewater contains, among other things, volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), which may escape to the atmosphere during management and treatment

processes. Prior to treatment, wastewater is generally stored in surface impoundments, tanks, and

other containers. Atmospheric exposure can occur if these containers are uncovered, if vents are 

left open, or if containment is poorly maintained, and will result in the volatilization of VOCs 

from the wastewater.

Additionally, organics and other compounds may be vented during treatment of oil and gas 

wastes by distillation, fractionation, and other evaporative processes.
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

25

EDF is not aware of a comprehensive inventory of air emissions for facilities treating oil and gas

wastewater, but believes one would be critically informative. In a recent study, still under review 

for publication by the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, a water treatment and 

recycling facility was found to be a significant source of certain VOCs, particularly toluene and 

m+p-xylene. (Field, 2014). The study also determined that emissions from water treatment 

facilities influenced peak O3 mixing ratios at downwind measurement sites. While this work 

focused on the Pinedale Anticline, the results, as well as data from a nationwide inventory of air 

emissions from CWTs accepting oil and gas wastewater, would shed light on environmental 

impacts of CWTs for use in selection of preferred treatment technologies.

F. Additional Issues Relevant to EPA’s CWT Study

i. EPA should ensure operational, geographic scope of study is representative of 

oil and gas industry and formation composition nationwide.

EDF applauds EPA’s intention to expand the scope of the research into CWTs beyond only

unconventional oil and gas production. Although conventional methods of production may 

produce less wastewater on average than unconventional wells, conventional wells are often 

hydraulically fractured themselves, and the water produced from these wells also needs to be 

managed and disposed of in environmentally protective ways whether or not hydraulic fracturing 

is employed. This scoping decision prevents a gap in knowledge and eventually in regulatory 

coverage, particularly as the distinction between the produced wastewaters and the current 

knowledge regarding treatment and disposal methods does not justify separating the two.

Equally critical to the representative nature of EPA’s evaluation of CWTs will be the agency’s 

ability to collect data from the various oil and gas producing regions. The compositional 

characteristics of produced water, and field conditions under which treatment technologies are 

expected to operate, are highly variable between plays, and even between individual wells within 

a play. We encourage EPA to avoid the temptation to rely solely on the data collected by Region 

3, and instead replicate the Marcellus inquiry nationwide utilizing authority provided in Section 

308 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1318. Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §9604(e), and 

Section 3007(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. §6927(a).

ii. Residual waste stream disposal

Produced water consists of inorganic, organic, and potential NORM constituents and each 

treatment process from initial settling and separation through more robust treatment removes a 

portion of these constituents from the liquid stream, concentrating them in the residual waste 

stream. The appropriate management and disposal of these waste streams present similar 

challenges to treatment and ultimate disposition of the liquid stream, including appropriate 

identification of the constituents of concern and application of best management standards. 

Currently residual wastes are typically disposed either by injection into disposal wells or by 

disposal in a landfill. The waste product derived from treatment of produced water should 

maintain the RCRA Subpart C exemption as long as criteria for that exemption are maintained—

including the waste not being combined with RCRCA Subpart C non-exempt waste.
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

26

With the increased use of CWTs for treatment of produced water, there will be a corollary 

increase in residual waste streams that must be managed. To determine whether residual waste 

streams are properly managed will require an analysis of the constituents of concern and the 

efficacy of management and disposal regulatory programs. These issues are important issues to 

be addressed in the planned CWT study.

iii. Screening Hazard Assessment of Current Use Hydraulic Fracturing 

Chemicals

As described previously, EDF and its consultants have evaluated literature and conducted 

independent analysis to determine compounds likely to be in wastewater from the oil and gas 

industry, and potentially in discharge from CWTs accepting this wastewater. EDF submits with 

these comments one such analysis, the Screening Hazard Assessment of Current Use Hydraulic 

Fracturing Chemicals, that assesses the potential hazards of chemical additives used in hydraulic 

fracturing. The Screening document uses the Wercs GreenScreen List Translator to rank eighteen 

human health and environmental “endpoints” by bringing together data from a large number of 

national and international databases and regulatory lists into a single common evaluation 

framework. The hazard data are used to assign classifications aligned with the GreenScreen for 

Safer Chemicals Methodology:

• LT-1: signifies a high-level of concern; examples include common PBT-list chemicals or 

European Union Substances of Very High Concern,

• LT-P1: signifies a possible high-hazard chemical based on incomplete or less-certain 

data,

• LT-U: signifies an “unknown” level of concern. This may be assigned due to low-levels 

of known hazards, but is due most often to missing data (data gaps).

The overall analysis reveals a large number of LT-1 constituents that pose a high hazard to 

human or environmental health. It is essential that these be prioritized for reduction or 

elimination. Furthermore, assuring treatability of these chemicals in CWTs should be of high 

importance.

The analysis also suggests that regulators have likely not considered the hazards of many 

chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations. While the List Translator results are not based 

on a comprehensive search of all published data, the large number of LT-U values suggest that 

many chemicals have likely escaped regulatory investigation or notice. The EDF analysis 

presented in the attachment to these comments provides significant additional detail on this 

hazard data gap.

Response:

EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support of its decision to conduct a detailed study of CWT 

facilities accepting oil and gas extraction wastewater. At this time, EPA has not yet decided

whether it would be appropriate to revise the existing CWT regulations at 40 CFR part 437.

Once complete, the study will help inform EPA’s decision.
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

27

EPA also acknowledges the commenter’s input and recommendations regarding the extent to 

which CWT facilities accept oil and gas wastewater, available technologies, discharge 

characteristics, financial characteristics, environment impacts, study scope, treatment residuals, 

and potential pollutants of concerns. EPA will consider this information and data in preparing the 

detailed study, as appropriate.

On the question of whether sufficient information already exists to justify revising the current 

regulations for CWTs treating oil as gas wastewater, EPA notes that the goal of the CWT study 

is to collect the information and conduct the analyses needed to determine if revisions to the 

CWT industry ELGs are appropriate. EPA also notes that state-level regulations and policies on 

managing oil and gas extraction wastes at CWTs have also recently been revised, and may need 

to be considered by the study as well.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0092-10

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

Bibliography of Cited Material

Boschee, Pam, OIL AND GAS FACILITIES SENIOR EDITOR, HALLIBURTON, 

PRODUCED AND FLOWBACK WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE: ECONOMICS, 

LIMITATIONS, AND TECHNOLOGY (FEB. 2014), available 

at http://www.halliburton.com/public/multichem/contents/Papers_and_Articles/web/Feb-2014-

Oil-Gas-Facilities-Article.pdf.

Colorado School of Mines, AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR TREATMENT AND

MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCED WATER: Technical Assessment of Produced Water

Treatment Technologies. RPSEA Project 07122-12 (2009).

Clark, C.E. & J.A. Veil, PRODUCED WATER VOLUME AND MANAGEMENT 

PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES. (PREPARED BY ARGONNE NATIONAL 

LABORATORY FOR THE US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF FOSSIL 

ENERGY, NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY) (2009).

Drewes, Jorg E., AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR TREATMENT AND 

MANAGEMENT OF PRODUCED WATER (07122-12). Prepared for Research Partnership to 

Secure Energy for America (2011).

Entrekin et al., Rapid Expansion of Natural Gas Development Poses a Threat to Surface 

Waters,9 FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENV. 503-511 (2011).
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

28

FracFocus, What Chemicals Are Used, FracFocus.org, https://fracfocus.org/chemicaluse/whatchemicals-are-used (last visited Nov. 17, 2014).

GROUND WATER PROTECTION COUNCIL (GWPC), STATE OIL & GAS 

REGULATIONS DESIGNED TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES: 2014 

EDITION, available at

http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/files/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Regulation%20Report%20

Hyperlinked%20Version%20Final-rfs.pdf.

Hanlon, James, Letter to Regional Administrators on Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus 

Shale: NPDES Program Frequently Asked Questions (March 16, 2011) [EPA Hanlon Memo].

Hayes, Thomas, Principal Investigator, GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, SAMPLING AND 

ANALYSIS OF WATER STREAMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF 

MARCELLUS SHALE GAS FINAL REPORT PREPARED FOR MARCELLUS SHALE 

COALITION (FORMERLY THE MARCELLUS SHALE COMMITTEE) (2009), available 

at http://energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/marcellus/2012/11/MSCommission-Report.pdf.

Hayes, Thomas, Principal Investigator, GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, BARNETT AND 

APPALACHIAN SHALE WATER MANAGEMENT AND REUSE TECHNOLOGIES; 

RPSEA REPORT NO. 08122-05 (2012)

Maguire-Boyle, Samuel J. & Andrew R. Barron, Organic Compounds in Produced Waters from

Shale Gas Wells, 16 ENVTL. SCI.: PROCESSES & IMPACTS 2237-48 (2014).

NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY (NETL), Introduction to Produced 

Water, Retrieved July, 2014, from: 

http://www.alrc.doe.gov/technologies/pwmis/intropw/index.html.

Orem et al., Organic Substances in Produced and Formation Water from Unconventional

Natural Gas Extraction in Coal and Shale, 126 INTL J. COAL GEOLOGY 20-31 (2014).

Parkeret al., Enhanced Formation of Disinfection By-Products in Shale Gas WastewaterImpacted Drinking Water Supplies, 48 (19) ENVIRON. SCI. & TECH. 11161-69 (2014).

Rahm, Brian G. & Susan J. Riha, Evolving Shale Gas Management: Water Resource Risks,

Impacts, and Lessons Learned, 16 ENV. SCI: PROCESSES & IMPACTS 1400-12 (2014).

Stringfellow et al., Physical, Chemical, and Biological Characteristics of Compounds Used in

Hydraulic Fracturing, 275 J. Hazardous Materials 37-54 (2014).

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, ENERGY-WATER NEXUS: 

INFORMATION ON THE QUANTITY, QUALITY AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER 

PRODUCED DURING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION, GAO-12-156 (January 2012).
Section 1 – Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)

Section 1.5 – Additional CWT Data and Information

29

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, DRINKING WATER: EPA PROGRAM 

TO PROTECT UNDERGROUND SOURCES FROM INJECTION OF FLUIDS ASSOCIATED 

WITH OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION NEEDS IMPROVEMENT, GAO-14-555 (JUNE 2014)

Uzelac, J. American Water Summit 2014 Pre-Conference Oil and Gas Workshop, Presentation at

Oil and Gas Summit, on Global Water Intelligence, Water for Onshore Oil & Gas: Opportunities 

in Produced Water Management, Hydraulic Fracturing and Enhanced Oil Recovery (Apr 2014).

Veil, J., M.G. Puder, D. Elcock, and R.J. Redweik, Jr., 2004, A White Paper Describing 

Produced Water from Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal Bed Methane.

Veil, John, WATER MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES USED BY MARCELLUS SHALE 

GAS PRODUCERS. PREPARED FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, NATIONAL 

ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY: ARGONNE (2010).

Vidic et al., Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality, SCIENCE 340 (2013)

21

Warner et al., Impacts of Shale Gas Wastewater Disposal on Water Quality in Western

Pennsylvania, 48 (21) ENVIRON. SCI. & TECH. 12552-60 (2013).

Wilson, Jessica & Jeanne VanBriesen, Oil and Gas Produced Water Management and Surface

Drinking Water Sources in Pennsylvania, 14(04) ENVTL. PRACTICE 288-300 (2012).

Zhang et al., Co-precipitation of Radium with Barium and Strontium Sulfate and its Impact on

the Fate of Radium during Treatment of Produced Water from Unconventional Gas Extraction, 

48 (8) ENV. SCI. & TECH. 4596-603 (2014).

Response:

The commenter attached a three-page list of references regarding oil and gas extraction 

information. EPA will consider this information, as appropriate, in developing the CWT study.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.1 – General Comments on the Petroleum Refining Industry and ELGs

30

Section 2 – Petroleum Refining 

Section 2.1 – General Comments on the Petroleum Refining Industry and ELGs

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-1

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

Based on the documented success of these well-established treatment programs, AFPM urges 

EPA to demonstrate to the petroleum refining industry specific concerns with the current effluent 

guidelines so that AFPM and our members can assist EPA in deciding if the petroleum refining 

industry effluent discharge guidelines need revision.

Response:

As the commenter recognizes, at this time, EPA has not decided whether it would be appropriate 

to revise the Petroleum Refining Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs). Under 

Sections 304 and 307 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA annually reviews existing effluent 

limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards, such as those for the Petroleum Refining 

industry, to determine if it would be appropriate to update or revise the regulations to control the 

discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States.

Upon reviewing the Petroleum Refining industry, EPA found, based on Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI) and Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data, that releases and discharges of 

dioxin, dioxin-like compounds and metals appeared to be occurring. (See Section 5.2 of the 2012 

Annual Review Report [ARR], EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0320.)

As described in Section 5.2.3.1 of the 2012 ARR, EPA found that dioxin discharges reported in

TRI were largely driven by one facility, Hovensa LLC, in Christiansted, VI. This facility 

reported estimated values for dioxin and is now closed. EPA also found that dioxin discharges 

reported in DMRs may be due to stormwater. EPA has not yet determined whether dioxin is 

being discharged above the Method 1613B Minimum Level (ML) or identified the primary 

source of dioxin discharge for the Petroleum Refining industry.

For metals, EPA reviewed DMR data from 76 refineries (shown in Table 5-11 of the 2012 ARR) 

for 10 metals commonly found in petroleum refinery wastewater (during the 2004 detailed study, 

EPA concluded that 10 metals are most commonly found in discharges from petroleum refineries 

[EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1346 through 1352]). EPA identified these 10 metals present in most 

petroleum refineries’ discharges that exceeded readily available treatment performance data for 

metals discharges. EPA compared 2010 DMR metals concentrations for petroleum refineries to 

readily available treatability data from three sources:
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.1 – General Comments on the Petroleum Refining Industry and ELGs

31

• Emerging Technologies and Approaches to Minimize Discharges into Lake Michigan 

study (EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0255).

• Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report

(DSR) (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-0004).

• Historical effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) (EPA-HQ-OW-2004-

0032-2223, EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2782).

EPA used these sources to obtain a sense of the treatability of metals using more recent 

technologies, as compared to current metals discharges from petroleum refineries. EPA will 

continue to study metals discharges and potential treatment technologies as part of the Petroleum 

Refinery detailed study.

AFPM and its members are welcome to submit data and other information for EPA’s evaluation 

during the detailed study.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-16

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

We strongly believe EPA has much more research and evaluation to do to demonstrate that there 

is a reason to reopen the refinery effluent limitations guideline. AFPM and its membership 

would like to work with the Agency to address the questions noted above and to ensure that the 

best information is available to assist the Agency with its decisions regarding the possible 

development of an updated effluent limitations guideline for the petroleum refining industry.

Response:

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-1.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.2 – Do Not Support Petroleum Refining Study

32

Section 2.2 – Do Not Support Petroleum Refining Study

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0088-1

Organization: Valero Companies

Commenter Name: Matthew H. Hodges

Commenter Type: Industry

Comment Excerpt Text:

Valero supports and incorporates by reference the comments submitted on November 17, 2014 

by the American Fuels and Petrochemicals Manufacturers Association. Based on the information 

EPA has presented, Valero is concerned that the Agency has not properly considered the data to 

which it has access or fully evaluated the quality of that data. We contend that the underlying 

assertion of increases in discharges of dioxin and metals is not supportable by the data presented. 

We further contend that the Agency’s position that the drivers for such an increase through the 

use of “Canadian crude oil and tar sands”1, is unjustified and fails to consider other, more 

plausible differences such as variations in sector crude processing capability. We believe these 

issues belie the need for a sector-wide study of refinery effluent discharges. We offer the 

following comments to further elaborate and amplify our position.

1 2012 Annual Effluent Guideline Review Report, pg 5-21

Response:

At this time, EPA has not decided whether it would be appropriate to revise the Petroleum 

Refining ELGs. Under Sections 304 and 307 of the CWA, EPA annually reviews existing 

effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards, such as those for the Petroleum 

Refining industry, to determine if it would be appropriate to update or revise the regulations to 

control the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States.

On reviewing the Petroleum Refining industry, EPA found, based on TRI and DMR data, that

releases and discharges of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and metals appeared to be

occurring. (See Section 5.2 of the 2012 ARR). In the 2012 ARR, EPA noted that there may have

been changes in the Petroleum Refining industry over recent years, such as new air pollution 

controls and changes in crude oil feedstocks (such as those from Canadian tar sands), that could 

possibly have caused these pollutants to now be reported.

For dioxin, EPA found that dioxin discharges reported in TRI were largely driven by one facility 

(that reports estimated values) and that dioxin discharges reported in DMRs may be due to 

stormwater. EPA has not yet determined whether dioxin is being discharged above the Method 

1613B ML or identified the primary source of dioxin discharge for the Petroleum Refining 

industry.

For metals, EPA reviewed DMR data from 76 refineries (shown in Table 5-11 of the 2012 ARR) 

and identified metals present in most petroleum refineries’ discharges that exceeded levels that 

more recent control technologies can achieve.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.2 – Do Not Support Petroleum Refining Study

33

EPA is now conducting a detailed study of petroleum refineries to collect and analyze all 

available data and information addressing these pollutants to determine their source, the reason 

for their discharge, potential levels of control, and if the industry warrants new or revised ELGs.

The commenter is welcome to submit any data and other information for EPA’s evaluation 

during the detailed study.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0088-7

Organization: Valero Companies

Commenter Name: Matthew H. Hodges

Commenter Type: Industry

Comment Excerpt Text:

Finally, it should be noted that despite the data presented and assertions made, the Agency has 

not identified a definitive problem for which a refining study would provide a reasonable 

solution. The assertion that refinery discharges are exceeding a “comparable treatment 

performance concentration” amounts to little more than a statement that laboratory test methods, 

using a different chemical process to control discharges, can achieve better control than largescale industrial operating units.7 This finding is hardly surprising and is not an indication of 

inferior technology in use in refineries for controlling discharges. This same finding also fails to 

identify the role the States have in managing their state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit programs. Similar to air permit renewals, states use the NPDES 

program and permit renewals as a means to review technology and compliance history to ensure 

discharges of pollutants are maintained at levels that are protective of the environment. EPA has 

demonstrated neither a threat to human health and the environment though current effluent 

discharges nor sufficient inadequacies of the state programs in managing their NPDES programs 

such that a “problem” can be identified that is in need of a solution. We request that the agency 

reconsider further consideration of any refinery studies unless and until a more robust analysis of 

the data, addressing our concerns cited above, has been performed.

7 2012 Annual Effluent Guideline Review Report, pg. 5-28, footnote c.

Response:

At this time, EPA has not decided whether it would be appropriate to revise the Petroleum 

Refining ELGs. Under Sections 304 and 307 of the CWA, EPA conducts an annual review of 

existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards, such as those for the 

Petroleum Refining industry, to determine if it would be appropriate to update or revise them to 

control the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. EPA is currently conducting 

the detailed study of petroleum refineries to determine if such actions are appropriate.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.2 – Do Not Support Petroleum Refining Study

34

Regarding potentially more effective treatment technology for petroleum refineries (as presented 

in Section 5.2.3.2, Tables 5-9 and 5-11, of the 2012 ARR): during its initial review, EPA 

compared 2010 DMR metals concentrations for petroleum refineries to readily available 

treatability data from the BP Whiting study (Argonne National Laboratory and Purdue 

University study) (see EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0255), performance data for flue gas 

desulfurization wastewater treatment in the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source 

Category: Final Detailed Study Report (DSR) (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-0004), and historical 

ELGs.

1 For the comparison, EPA selected the lowest treatment performance data from the three 

sources listed above (presented in Table 5-9 in the 2012 ARR). Note that EPA states the 

following regarding the comparison of treatability data presented in the Steam Electric DSR:

The Steam DSR represents performance of chemical precipitation and biological 

treatment at power plants, specifically of flue gas desulfurization wastewater treatment 

systems. Although the untreated wastestream differs from petroleum refining wastewater, 

EPA used this readily available data to obtain a sense of the treatability of metals using 

these more recent technologies, as compared to current metals discharges from petroleum 

refineries.

From this initial comparison, EPA found that discharges from petroleum refineries exceed these 

comparable treatment performance concentrations (see Tables 5-9 and 5-11 in the 2012 ARR).

EPA understands that conditions in the studies may vary from full-scale refinery treatment 

operations and will be performing a careful review of treatment performance as part of its 

detailed study of the industry.

Currently, chromium is the only metal regulated by technology-based standards under 40 CFR 

part 419. EPA is conducting the detailed study to determine if technology-based effluent 

limitations and standards may be appropriate for other metals (or other types of analytes) based 

on currently available technologies.

As explained in the Preliminary 2014 Plan, and the 2012 and 2014 ARRs, under the CWA, 

effluent guidelines are technology-based effluent limitations designed to reduce or eliminate the 

discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States based on the best available technology that 

is economically achievable. It is not necessary for EPA to demonstrate that current refinery 

effluent discharges are negatively affecting water quality nationally in order to establish more 

stringent technology-based effluent limitations for the industry.

Finally, states authorized to implement the NPDES permitting program rely on EPA to develop 

and promulgate technology-based ELGs for pollutants to be used in their permitting of industrial 

discharges, such as discharges from petroleum refineries. These ELGs are a key mechanism by 

which states can issue NPDES permits with adequate pollution controls on discharges of 

industrial wastewater. Since the inception of the ELG program, EPA estimates that the states, 

using EPA’s technology-based ELGs, have eliminated the discharge of approximately 700 

billion pounds annually of pollutants to the nation’s waters.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.2 – Do Not Support Petroleum Refining Study

35

1 As a point of comparison, EPA collected data during development of the Metal Products and Machinery ELGs 

(Part 438), Iron and Steel ELGs (Part 420), and Centralized Waste Treatment ELGs (Part 437) in order to evaluate 

metal removals achieved by chemical precipitation systems. EPA concluded that the BP Whiting study and the 

Steam Electric DSR are more current and demonstrate better performance than historical ELGs. Therefore, EPA 

used data from these two sources as the point of comparison for metals removal.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.3 – Petroleum Refining Wastestream Applicability 

36

Section 2.3 – Petroleum Refining Wastestream Applicability 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081-3

Organization: CWA Consulting Services, LLC (CWACS)

Commenter Name: Curt A. McCormick

Commenter Type: Consultant to Pretreatment Programs for Local Government

Comment Excerpt Text:

EPA should also revise the flow model for this sector to include groundwater pump and treat 

operations to clearly define regulated, unregulated and dilute wastestreams. EPA Region 8 did so 

for the now defunct Amoco Petroleum Refinery in Casper, WY. EPA found that for 

wastestreams such as contaminated groundwater, a wastestream would be unregulated if there 

was treatment in-place for the pollutant (e.g. oil and grease) and dilute where there is no 

treatment in-place (e.g. ammonia). If EPA opens this regulation, adding a better discussion of 

non-process flows would allow a more consistent approach on common wastestreams such as 

groundwater recovery (and the rationale could be used for other industries).

Response:

At this time, EPA has not decided whether it would be appropriate to revise the Petroleum 

Refining ELGs. As appropriate, EPA will consider reviewing the definitions of regulated, 

unregulated, and dilute wastestreams and the flow descriptions in the Petroleum Refining ELG, 

as part of its detailed study of the industry.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.4 –Petroleum Refining Industry Trends

37

Section 2.4 – Petroleum Refining Industry Trends

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0082-4

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)

Commenter Name: Roger E. Claff

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

4. Request for information on oil refining processes is vague, speculative, and unrelated to 

effluent guidelines controls

In the Notice EPA requests “information on current and future trends in oil refining processes.”

The petroleum refining industry is a vast chemical process industry and as such is constantly

evolving as new engineering studies are undertaken, completed, and published in the literature.

Trends in oil refining processes are deeply speculative and easily overturned by many factors,

including research, new sources of crude oil, and market forces. Moreover, trends in oil refining

processes are scarcely indicative of trends in effluent composition, treatability, and treatment

cost, the factors that directly influence effluent guidelines. EPA should clarify the specific

information on oil processes it is seeking, and particularly, should directly relate this information

request to the effluent guidelines review and detailed study needs.

Response:

EPA understands that trends in the oil refining industry may not directly correspond to trends in 

effluent composition, treatability, and treatment costs. However, EPA solicited information on 

current and future trends in oil refining processes to be able to better develop a general profile 

for, and understanding of, the industry. If API would like to submit data and information to

further this understanding of the current status of the industry, that information would be helpful 

to EPA in developing its detailed study.

Regardless, EPA will, itself, be collecting data and information on refinery operations, 

wastewater streams, and treatment technologies (in addition to any other available and relevant 

data and information) for the detailed study of the industry and welcomes any data or 

information that the industry would like to provide on these specific areas.

EPA will be assessing and refining the data needs for this industry as part of its detailed study; if 

a decision is made to revise the effluent guidelines for petroleum refining, EPA will collect 

further data and information in support of the regulation.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.5 – Petroleum Refining Treatment Technologies

38

Section 2.5 – Petroleum Refining Treatment Technologies

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-10

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

• Current Wastewater Treatment Technology Performance

Effluent discharge contents will depend on the technologies used at each site, but each site is 

different—whether pretreatment, age of site, local water quality issues, possibly the process units 

at the refinery, water and steam management practices, etc.

With respect to treatment technologies for removal of metals from refinery wastewater, we could 

not find much if any information in the docket showing technologies proven to be viable at full 

refinery scale, and we found no such information on dioxin removal. One document, Emerging 

Technologies and Approaches to Minimize Discharges into Lake Michigan8 provided the most 

comprehensive discussion. Our review of this document indicates that as few as three years ago, 

none of the advanced technologies evaluated had ever been tested on a pilot scale on refinery 

effluent, much less at full scale. Furthermore, the potential need for metals removal technology 

was driven by water-quality based effluent standards. These risk-based standards resulted in 

extremely low effluent concentration limits, some at the limit of analytical detection capability. 

These concentrations were so low that QA/QC concerns resulted in the need to conduct benchscale tests and sample handling in a clean room environment. We fail to see how these could 

possibly be proven technologies for consideration in updating the petroleum refining effluent 

guidelines, especially for removals down to effluent concentrations that would require clean 

sampling techniques and equivalent laboratory controls.

A review of documents available in the docket has yielded little information regarding treatment 

technologies that EPA may be considering. In addition to the above-noted paper we found one 

additional paper in the docket citing Suncor Energy’s Commerce City, CO, refinery.9

o What specific information resources did EPA evaluate to identify potential treatment 

technologies?

o What information has EPA obtained to determine the cost-effectiveness of these 

technologies?

o The 2012 Government Accountability Office report recommended that EPA “improve its 

assessment in the screening phase of treatment technologies that are in use or available 

for use by industrial categories, including better use of NPDES data.” It also 

recommended that EPA “modify the screening phase of its review process to include 

thorough consideration of information on the treatment technologies available to 

industrial categories.” Has the Agency implemented these recommendations and if so 

how were they applied to the petroleum refinery category?
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.5 – Petroleum Refining Treatment Technologies

39

o Historically, water quality criteria have driven effluent limits not technology. Therefore, 

we implore EPA to clearly illustrate if current refinery effluent discharges are affecting 

water quality nationally rather than in only a limited number of surface water bodies, 

which are being addressed through water-quality based limits on a permit-by-permit 

basis.

o It is not clear in the 2012 Report, if the Agency’s analysis of potential treatment options 

examined the performance of new treatment technologies operating on an industrial scale 

and treating wastewater with characteristics similar to if not exactly the same as refinery 

effluent? If not this should be discussed before a final decision to proceed with a 

rulemaking is made.

o Has the Agency estimated the potential incremental pollutant discharge reductions from 

application of these emerging technologies, including consideration of the variability 

associated with both wastewater concentrations and treatment system operations?

8 EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0170 as document DCN 07831 on regulations.gov 

at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0255

9 Due to copyright concerns the actual paper was not provided in the docket.

Response:

At this time, EPA has not made a decision about whether it would be appropriate to revise the 

Petroleum Refining ELGs. Under Sections 304 and 307 of the CWA, EPA conducts an annual 

review of existing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards, such as those for 

the Petroleum Refining industry, to determine if it would be appropriate to update or revise them 

to control the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. EPA is currently conducting 

the detailed study of petroleum refineries to determine if such actions are appropriate.

As discussed in the 2012 ARR, EPA reviewed treatability data from three sources for the 304(m) 

screening-level review: the Emerging Technologies and Approaches to Minimize Discharges into 

Lake Michigan study (EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0255), Steam Electric Power Generating Point 

Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-0004), and historical 

ELGs (EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-2223, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0039).

1 This was an initial 

screening-level review of potential treatment technologies (as recommended by the Government 

Accountability Office [GAO]) to address metals and did not include an in-depth feasibility or 

cost-effectiveness analysis. As part of the detailed study on the petroleum refining category, EPA 

plans to review information on new treatment technologies, including available information that 

allows the assessment of incremental pollutant discharge reductions, to determine if they can 

remove pollutants in petroleum wastewater at full refinery scale to a better degree than the 

technology upon which the current ELG was based. This is one of the primary objectives in

conducting a detailed study.

In addition, EPA has initiated a comprehensive review of technical literature to document the 

performance of new and improved industrial wastewater treatment technologies, which addresses 

one of the key recommendations from the GAO review of the Effluent Guidelines Program. EPA 

is capturing these performance data in a comprehensive and searchable Industrial Wastewater 
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.5 – Petroleum Refining Treatment Technologies

40

Treatment Technology (IWTT) database. EPA intends to use the IWTT database in its screening 

process in future annual reviews and studies to quantify the effectiveness of technologies for 

removing pollutants of concern from specific industrial wastewater discharges. See Section 6.2 

of the 2014 ARR for further information (EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170, DCN 08106).

As explained in the Preliminary 2014 Plan, and the 2012 and 2014 ARRs, under the CWA, 

effluent guidelines are technology-based effluent limitations designed to reduce or eliminate the

discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States based on the best available technology that 

is economically achievable. It is not necessary for EPA to demonstrate that current refinery 

effluent discharges are negatively affecting water quality nationally in order to establish more 

stringent technology-based effluent limitations for the industry.

Finally, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s claim that, historically, water quality criteria have 

driven effluent limits. States authorized to implement the NPDES permitting program have long 

relied on EPA to develop and promulgate technology-based effluent limitations for pollutants to 

be used in their permitting of industrial discharges, such as petroleum refineries. EPA does not 

consider water quality criteria when establishing technology-based effluent limits. Rather, it 

considers technological availability and economic achievability, along with the factors specified 

in Section 304 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1314(b). Over the past three decades, technology-based 

effluent limitations developed by EPA have been an important mechanism by which states are 

able to issue NPDES permits with adequate pollution controls on discharges of industrial 

wastewater. Since the inception of the effluent guidelines program, EPA estimates that the states, 

using EPA‘s technology-based ELGs, have eliminated the discharge of approximately 700 

billion pounds annually of pollutants to the nation’s waters.

1 As a point of comparison, EPA collected data during development of the Metal Products and Machinery ELGs 

(Part 438), Iron and Steel ELGs (Part 420), and Centralized Waste Treatment ELGs (Part 437) to evaluate metals 

removals achieved by chemical precipitation systems. EPA concluded that the BP Whiting and Steam Electric DSR 

are more current and demonstrated better performance than historical ELGs. Therefore, EPA used data from these 

two sources as the point of comparison for metals removal.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.5 – Petroleum Refining Treatment Technologies

41

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-14

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

• Effluent Management at Refineries Background

AFPM believes the waste water treatment technologies employed at our member’s refineries are 

efficient and sufficient to meet the goals of EPA’s effluent guidelines program. To better assist 

EPA in reviewing effluent treatment technologies, AFPM requests that EPA discuss with us the 

technologies being considered as candidates for best available technology economically 

achievable.

Response:

EPA is conducting a detailed study of petroleum refineries at this time and has not yet decided

whether it would be appropriate to revise the Petroleum Refining ELGs. (See the response to 

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-10.) However, while conducting the study, EPA may consider 

any information that industry provides.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.6 – Petroleum Refining Feedstock Metals

42

Section 2.6 – Petroleum Refining Feedstock Metals

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0082-2

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)

Commenter Name: Roger E. Claff

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

2. Objective for examining petroleum refinery feedstock metals

In the 2014 preliminary plan, EPA mentions its intention to examine petroleum refinery

feedstock metal compositions, presumably to determine if refinery crude slate affects the

concentration of metals in refinery wastewaters and final effluents. Yet, EPA’s ultimate objective 

for this analysis is unclear. API maintains EPA’s planned investigation of refinery crude oil 

streams, with the presumed intention of eventually placing restrictions on refinery crude slates, 

exceeds EPA’s legal authority under the effluent guidelines program. The effluent guidelines 

program establishes discharge limits based on the treatment performance of technologies 

economically viable for an industrial point source category. To place constraints not on facility 

effluents but on the facility‘s raw materials or process operations exceeds EPA’s authority under 

the Clean Water Act.

Response:

As discussed in the 2012 ARR, EPA has observed changes in the petroleum industry such as the 

use of different feedstocks (see the Emerging Technologies and Approaches to Minimize 

Discharges into Lake Michigan study, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0255) and changes in air 

pollution controls (see Section 6.3 of the 2012 ARR), which may be leading to the generation of 

new or additional pollutant discharges. EPA is conducting the detailed study of petroleum 

refineries, including examining crude oil stocks, to better understand whether these changes have 

resulted in new wastestreams or wastewater characteristics. EPA is interested in data on refinery 

crude oil wastestreams to evaluate whether they could be contributing discharges that existing 

ELGs do not adequately control. If EPA were to decide to proceed with a rulemaking to revise 

the petroleum refining ELG, it would establish limits on pollutants discharged from refineries; it 

would not place “restrictions on refinery crude slates.”
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.6 – Petroleum Refining Feedstock Metals

43

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-9

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

• Current and Future Trends in Oil Refining Processes

There is not a one-to-one correlation between a particular crude run at a refinery and the metal 

species/concentration in the refinery effluent. Additionally, refiners do not typically run a single 

crude but rather a mix of various crudes to create a feedstock slate that best matches their 

existing refinery capabilities. This scenario significantly complicates attempts to tie water quality 

to a single crude oil:

o Refineries often have multiple, large storage tanks to store several days of feedstocks.

o Different crudes may or may not be segregated. More often, they are mixed in varying 

degrees. Unless a tank has recently been completely cleaned, there will likely be a mix of 

crudes present.

Response:

EPA recognizes that there is not a one-to-one correlation between a particular crude run at a 

refinery and the metal concentrations in the refinery effluent and understands that refiners run a 

mix of crudes to create a feedstock blend. EPA often collects information on raw material inputs 

during data collection for studies of industrial point source categories. EPA understands that 

linking particular crude characteristics to effluent characteristics can be difficult and is also 

reviewing alternatives to collecting detailed crude information. EPA will be reviewing this issue 

and will take the comments above into consideration during its detailed study of the petroleum 

refining industry.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0088-6

Organization: Valero Companies

Commenter Name: Matthew H. Hodges

Commenter Type: Industry

Comment Excerpt Text:

Crude Oil Slates and Alleged Impact on Discharges

There is not a one-to-one correlation between a particular crude run at a refinery and the metal

species/concentration in the refinery effluent. Effluent quality is a strong function of the process

units and the wastewater treatment technologies in use at the refinery. Additionally, refiners do 
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.6 – Petroleum Refining Feedstock Metals

44

not typically run a single type of crude but rather a mix of various crudes due to either economics 

or to create a feedstock slate that best matches their existing refinery capabilities or required final 

product volumes or characteristics. This scenario significantly complicates attempts to tie 

effluent quality to a single crude oil:

• Refineries often have multiple, large storage tanks to store several days of feedstocks

• Different crudes may or may not be segregated. More often, they are mixed in varying

degrees. Unless a tank has recently been completely cleaned, there will likely be a mix of

crudes present.

• Sediments often build in the bottom of these crude tanks. These sediments can contain

metals and it is possible that some metals may leach into a crude oil with a different

concentration due to the gradient, creating a source of contamination and further

compounding the complexity of the analysis.

A single, isolated sample (as the Agency is proposing as part of the overall refinery study) in 

light of these practices will not provide sufficient information to make a meaningful correlation 

between specific crudes and water effluent quality. EPA should reconsider any attempt to 

correlate crude feedstocks6 to pollutant discharges.

6 EPA notes that refineries “are processing heavier feedstock (e.g. Canadian crude, tar sands).”

The Agency should note that due to the impact of the current shale energy renaissance there are 

other new sources of crude (e.g. Bakken and Eagle Ford crudes) that tend to be lighter and 

sweeter than tar sands or crude imported from Nigeria or Venezuela.

Response:

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-9.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.7 – General Comments on Petroleum Refining Pollutants

45

Section 2.7 – General Comments on Petroleum Refining Pollutants

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081-2

Organization: CWA Consulting Services, LLC (CWACS)

Commenter Name: Curt A. McCormick

Commenter Type: Consultant to Pretreatment Programs for Local Government

Comment Excerpt Text:

EPA should include pollutants commonly a problem for many refineries including: benzene, 

sulfides (and sulfide generating compounds) especially for refineries processing sour crude.

Response:

As noted in the Preliminary 2014 Plan, EPA is conducting a detailed study of petroleum 

refineries to determine if the industry warrants new or revised ELGs. EPA plans to continue to 

analyze trends in DMR and TRI data to identify any and all pollutants of interest as part of the 

study. EPA may also obtain sampling data for petroleum refining wastewater as part of the 

detailed study for a variety of analytes, including benzene, sulfides (and sulfide-generating 

compounds).
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.8 – Petroleum Refining Metals Discharges

46

Section 2.8 – Petroleum Refining Metals Discharges

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-6

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

o Metals

Other than chromium, metal limitations are not mandated under the 1982 guidelines.

Notwithstanding, the metals limitations in current refinery NPDES effluent permits are water 

quality based and thus protective of the environment. If a new and potentially costly treatment 

technology is mandated industry-wide for these regulated metals, it will not significantly 

enhance protection for the environment or human health. This issue of “environmental impacts”

is recognized by the Agency in its summary plan for investigating the petroleum refining 

category. 2 This also explains why past Agency analyses have determined there to be no need for 

an updated petroleum refinery category ELG. Today the regulatory driver pushing refinery 

NPDES permit limits lower is not technology, but rather environmental impact/water quality. In 

order to focus the study we urge the EPA to address the following questions:

• To what degree are metals in refinery discharges regulated by States? Has the Agency 

examined how this is driving metals limits in permits?

• The NPDES permit program is heavily regulated by States. To what extent does EPA 

think that there are “gaps” in the federal structure as it relates to the petroleum refining 

industry?

• The Agency alleges an upwards trend in metals concentrations in refinery effluent.

AFPM asks that EPA substantiate this increase by publishing the data and identifying 

those observed discharges that exceed permit limits or directly affect local water quality.

The data from Table 5-7 is charted below. We note that while the linear trend line would 

indicate an increase, there are significant amounts of data missing for multiple years (5 of 

the 11 years). Additionally, the trend line indicates a poor fit to the data (with a standard 

deviation of nearly 34,400). Given the high degree of variability with the data provided, 

further analysis is necessary to support the supposition that metals discharges are in fact 

increasing.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.8 – Petroleum Refining Metals Discharges

47

Table 2:

• To the extent that the Agency contends that metal increases have occurred,, has the 

agency considered the following in reviewing the data sets: 

o Is the total increase in metals a function of a subset of specific refineries in the 

analysis reporting increases or is the increase attributable to the fact that NPDES 

permits have generally become more stringent over time, and there may be an 

increase in the number of facilities required to report metals?

o Has the agency examined how metal discharges vary with total crude processing 

of the refining sector? The “increases” the agency is alleging may be a function of 

total throughput of crude types.

o Has the agency considered the impact from the development of more sensitive test 

methodologies over time, indicating the presence of specific metals where none 

were detected before? This would create a similar effect as discussed above, 

where actual discharge quantities of metals have not changed, but only an 

enhancement in the detection limits has created the perception or illusion of 

increases.

• If EPA believes that certain crudes impact effluent water quality, has EPA evaluated 

changes in effluent quality at those refineries running those crudes? At which specific 

refineries has EPA detected a change? For which metals? The lack of specificity in the 

EPA report in this regard implies that the agency is merely speculating as to the source of 

the alleged trend in metals as noted above. Regarding the Agency’s contention that metal 

discharges are statistically (and significantly) increasing over time, the agency should
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.8 – Petroleum Refining Metals Discharges

48

examine the Energy Information Administration’s U.S. records on crude volumes and 

types to determine if a correlation can made.3

• The chart below is based on the EIA records of crude distillation capacity from 1985 to 

the present. The metal discharges from Table 5-7 have been overlaid on this data to show 

how total processing correlates with metal discharges. As indicated, metal discharges 

track refinery changes well, indicating that “increases” may not be attributable to crude 

types, but rather simply a function of increased production.

2 2013 Report, P. 5-78

3 http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinery capacity/

Response:

As noted in the Preliminary 2014 Plan, EPA is conducting a detailed study of petroleum 

refineries to determine if the industry warrants new or revised ELGs. At this time, EPA has not 

decided whether it would be appropriate to revise the Petroleum Refining ELGs. The screeninglevel analysis that EPA conducted for its 304(m) review, using the DMR and TRI data available 

at the time, appeared to indicate that metals discharges were increasing at petroleum refineries. 

EPA has made the data used in the screening-level analysis available to the public as part of its 

2011 and 2013 ARRs (DCNs 07685 and 07972, respectively). (See referenced 

databases TRIReleases2009_v2 [for 2009 TRI data], DMRLoads2009_v2 [for 2009 DMR data], 

TRILTOutput2011_v1 [for 2011 TRI data], and DMRLTOutput2011_v1 [for 2011 DMR data]). 
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.8 – Petroleum Refining Metals Discharges

49

Furthermore, EPA is compiling the data presented in the 2011 and 2012 ARR into two 

consolidated databases. These databases contain the petroleum data from the databases 

referenced in previous reports including PCS data from 2000 and 2004, DMR data from 2007 

through 2009, and TRI data from 2004 through 2009 (EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170, DCN 08111 

and 08112).

EPA notes that it’s screening-level analysis and the resulting findings were related to metals 

discharges in terms of pollutant loads and toxic-weighted pound equivalents (TWPE). EPA has 

not evaluated trends in metals concentrations in petroleum refinery wastewater. EPA has also not 

evaluated exceedances of permit limits or impacts to local water quality as a result of metals 

discharges as part of its screening-level analysis.

EPA will be investigating the discharge of pollutants, and relevant treatment technologies, more 

thoroughly during the detailed study. The questions and comments raised in this comment 

specifically about metals, including those regarding trends in metal discharges and 

concentrations, will be considered in the context of the detailed study, as EPA analyzes 

additional data and information beyond that which is used in its screening-level analysis during 

its effluent guidelines annual reviews.

EPA notes that under the CWA, effluent guidelines are technology-based effluent limitations and 

standards designed to reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United 

States based, for example, on the best available technology that is economically achievable. It is 

not necessary for EPA to demonstrate that current refinery effluent discharges are negatively 

affecting water quality in order to establish more stringent technology-based effluent guidelines 

for the industry. Effluent guidelines regulations are based on the performance of wastewater 

technology that is technologically available and economically achievable, taking into account the 

factors specified in Section 304 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1314(b).

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0088-5

Organization: Valero Companies

Commenter Name: Matthew H. Hodges

Commenter Type: Industry

Comment Excerpt Text:

Similarly, the Agency has noted that metals concentrations in refinery effluent are trending 

higher. We ask that EPA substantiate this assertion by specifically providing additional data. The 

data from Table 5-74 is charted below. We note that while the linear trend line would indicate an 

increase, there is significant data missing for multiple years (5 of the 11 years). Additionally, the 

trend line indicates a poor fit to the data (with a standard deviation of nearly 34,400 TWPE). 

Given the high degree of variability with the data provided, we contend that further analysis is 

necessary to support the supposition that metals discharges are in fact increasing (see below).
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.8 – Petroleum Refining Metals Discharges

50

To the extent that the agency contends that metal increases are occurring, has the agency 

considered the following in reviewing the data sets:

• Is the total increase in metals a function of the same refineries in the analysis reporting

increases or is the increase of reported metals a function of there being more refineries 

that are reporting metals? NPDES permits have generally become more stringent over 

time, and there may be a general increase in the number of facilities required to report 

metals, as opposed to increase in the amount of any one facility.

• Has the agency considered the development of more sensitive test methodologies over 

time, indicating the presence of metals where none was detected before? This would 

create a similar effect as above, where true discharges have not changed, but only the 

detection methodology creating the perception of increases.

Finally, has the agency examined how metal discharges vary with total crude processing of the

refining sector? The “increases” the agency is alleging may be a function of total throughput as

opposed to crude types. To the extent that the agency’s contention that metal discharges are

statistically (and significantly) increasing over time, the agency should examine the Energy

Information Administration’s U.S. records on crude volumes and types to determine if a highlevel correlation can made5

. The chart below is based on the EIA’s records of crude distillation 

capacity from 1985 to the present. The metal discharges from Table 5-7 have been overlaid on 

this data to show how total processing correlates with metal discharges. As indicated, metal 

discharges track refinery charges well, indicating that “increases” may not be inherently from 

crude types, but simply a function of production.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.8 – Petroleum Refining Metals Discharges

51

4 2012 Annual Effluent Guideline Review Report, pg 5-26

5 http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/

Response:

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-6.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.9 – Petroleum Refining Dioxin Discharges

52

Section 2.9 – Petroleum Refining Dioxin Discharges

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-7

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

o Dioxins

As the Agency notes in its 2012/2014 Report, it has decided to take no action on the 

development of revised effluent limitations guidelines for the pulp & paper industry4. The 

Agency explains that upon further investigation it has determined that “a majority of the 

estimated [pulp & paper] dioxin and dioxin-like compound releases report to TRI were based on 

pollutant concentrations below the Method 1613B ML.”5 This same rationale likely applies to 

reported dioxin discharges for the petroleum refining industry. We therefore respectfully request 

that the Agency conduct this review.

• AFPM questions whether dioxin in effluent should even be considered as part of this 

study. How was dioxin toxicity calculated? Was the assessment based on individual 

chemicals or TEQ?

15.5

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

U.S. Crude Throughput, MMBPD

Metal TWPE

Comparision, U.S. Crude Rates and Metal 

Discharges

Metals TWPE Crude througput (MMBPD)

Linear (Metals TWPE) Linear (Crude througput (MMBPD))
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.9 – Petroleum Refining Dioxin Discharges

53

• According to EPA’s data, only 19 refineries reported dioxin, merely 13% of the industry 

and of that 13%, 65% of the dioxins were from one site, which is currently closed. These 

facts support the conclusion that dioxin discharge is not an industry wide issue and 

therefore does not warrant consideration for the ELG.

• EPA acknowledges that it “has not yet determined whether dioxin is being discharged at 

concentrations above the 1613B minimum level (ML) or identified the primary source of 

the discharge (e.g. storm water or process wastewater . . . )”6

• EPA has determined that further review of dioxin discharges is appropriate to determine 

whether dioxin is being discharged above the 1613B ML and to identify the primary 

source.7 We agree and would like to offer our assistance.

4 2012/2014 Report, P. 5-4

5 2012/2014 Report, P. 5-4

6 2012/2014 Report, P. 4-3

7 2012/2014 Report, P. 6-3

Response:

EPA uses a combination of TRI and DMR data to evaluate target sectors and chemicals for 

purposes of developing new or revising existing effluent guidelines. Specifically, EPA uses a 

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

categories by a TWPE released.1 TWPE is calculated in a similar manner as the TEQ (toxic 

equivalent), which the TRI Program calculates by multiplying the total quantity discharged by 

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

aggregated. The Office of Water calculates TWFs using a combination of toxic equivalency 

factors (from TRI), as well as bioaccumulation factors, aquatic life value, and human health 

value. During the 2011 Annual Review, dioxin discharges from petroleum refineries were 

identified as warranting further review.

As noted in the Preliminary 2014 Plan, EPA is conducting a detailed study of petroleum 

refineries to determine if the industry warrants new or revised ELGs. The questions and 

comments raised in this comment will be considered in the context of that study, as EPA 

analyzes data and information beyond that which it used in its screening-level analysis of the 

petroleum refining category during its effluent guidelines annual reviews. The detailed study will 

assist in (1) determining whether dioxin is present at concentrations above the EPA Method 

1613B ML2 in wastewater discharges, and (2) identifying the specific source of the discharge 

(e.g., stormwater or process wastewater from catalytic reforming and catalyst regeneration 

operations). At this time, EPA has not made a decision about whether it would be appropriate to 

revise the Petroleum Refining ELGs. EPA welcomes any data and information provided by all 

stakeholders and will consider it in preparation of the detailed study.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.9 – Petroleum Refining Dioxin Discharges

54

1 TWFs are defined in EPA’s Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology: http://www.noticeandcomment.com/ToxicWeighting-Factors-Methodology-DCN-07501-fn-56898.aspx

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

the low parts per quadrillion (~ 10 ppq; 10 × 10-12).
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.10 – Petroleum Refining Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs)

55

Section 2.10 – Petroleum Refining Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs)

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0082-3

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)

Commenter Name: Roger E. Claff

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

3. Basis for examining polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs)

In an October 3,2014 meeting with EPA effluent guidelines staff, EPA stated its intention to seek 

refinery effluent monitoring data for PNAs and characterize PNA sources within refineries, even 

though PNAs were not identified as target pollutants in either the 2012 final plan or the 2014 

preliminary plan. API requests EPA provide the basis for its decision to include PNAs in the 

petroleum refining detailed study, along with supporting data and information. Effluent

guidelines studies should be focused on addressing removal of pollutants that untreated might

have adverse effects on human health and the environment. EPA should provide sound technical

reasons for pursuing the pollutants it includes in its effluent guidelines investigations, and should

document those reasons in its 304(m) preliminary and final plans; indeed, that’s the very purpose

for those plans. Absent such reasons, EPA should remove PNAs from inclusion in the detailed

study. Otherwise, API is left to believe the agency is including PNAs in the study merely

because it wishes to, absent any environmental concern whatsoever.

Response:

Effluent guidelines are based on currently available technologies for controlling industrial 

wastewater discharges. As part of the detailed study to determine whether revisions to the 

existing Petroleum Refining ELGs are warranted, EPA plans to review available petroleum 

refining discharge data through 2013 for pollutants that account for the majority of the TWPE. 

As such, EPA may continue to review polycylic aromatic compounds (PACs), which are also 

referred to as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs). EPA reviewed PAC discharges as part 

of the 2011 Annual Review, finding that they did not present a hazard priority. EPA will take 

previous findings, as well as more recent data, into consideration during the study.

EPA notes that under the CWA, effluent guidelines are technology-based effluent limitations and 

standards designed to reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United 

States based, for example, on the best available technology that is economically achievable. It is 

not necessary for EPA to demonstrate that current refinery effluent discharges are negatively 

affecting water quality nationally in order to establish more stringent technology-based effluent 

guidelines for the industry.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.11 – Petroleum Refining Data Quality and Review

56

Section 2.11 – Petroleum Refining Data Quality and Review

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-2

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

AFPM questions whether the EPA has properly considered the data to which it has access and 

fully evaluated the quality of that data. As evidenced in the Agency’s recent analysis of other 

industrial categories (e.g. pulp & paper) and from the experience of the water quality 

professionals employed by the refining industry, data quality plays an important role in 

evaluating the releases to the environment from an industry and the associated impact. Ensuring 

high quality data and minimizing assumptions intended to compensate for low quality or nonexistent data is the critical first step. Basing a decision on “good data” will save the Agency, 

refining industry, and other interested stakeholders substantial time and resources; an Effluent 

Limitation Guideline Rulemaking is a lengthy and expensive process and one done in haste with 

inadequate data does not accomplish the overarching goals of an appropriate degree of 

environmental protection coupled with ensuring cost-effective effluent treatment.

Response:

EPA understands that the quality of the data on which it bases decisions plays an important role.

For the 304(m) screening-level review, EPA used DMR and TRI data (submitted by the industry 

itself) to rank and prioritize industrial discharge categories. (See Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the 2013 

ARR for additional information on EPA’s data sources and limitations and quality review for 

conducting the TRA.) These data sources represent the best available information EPA has to 

rank and prioritize industrial discharge categories for further review.

In regard to TRI data, specifically, the quality of TRI data and related information that is 

submitted to EPA is solely the responsibility of the facilities that are required to submit such data 

and information. The law (EPCRA Section 313) that requires certain facilities to report release 

and other waste management quantities of certain toxic chemicals to EPA’s TRI Program does 

not require that these quantities be measured or otherwise determined experimentally―although 

if measurement is required under other regulations, or is otherwise performed by a facility, these 

“readily available” measured values can also be used for TRI reporting purposes. When 

measured data are not readily available, the TRI regulations only require that facilities determine 

their release and other waste management quantities of TRI-listed chemicals by making 

“reasonable estimates.” When submitting TRI reports, facilities are required to certify that the 

data and information in the reports are complete and accurate as part of the submission.

In regard to TRI reporting of dioxins, over the 2010–2013 reporting year timeframe, the majority 

(57.3%) of reported dioxins and dioxin-like compounds discharge quantities to wastewaters were 

based on periodic or random monitoring data. It is EPA’s understanding that mass quantities of a 

chemical included on the TRI chemical list (including a dioxin or dioxin-like compound), which 
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.11 – Petroleum Refining Data Quality and Review

57

are derived from monitoring data and reported to TRI, are accurate. It is reasonable to expect that 

reported discharges of zero grams for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds are accurate if 

monitoring did not detect the presence of dioxins and if it is reasonable for the facility to expect 

that dioxins would not be present. 

Given the data used in its screening-level analyses, which showed there may be concerns over 

the increased discharge of dioxins and metals at petroleum refineries, EPA decided to conduct a 

detailed study of petroleum refineries to determine if the industry warrants new or revised ELGs.

During the detailed study, EPA will collect and analyze new and additional data and information 

on which to base a final decision regarding whether to revise the ELG for petroleum refining.

Any and all data and information used by EPA in making that decision will be subject to EPA’s

data and information quality guidelines and will be made available to the public through the 

304(m) docket, to the extent appropriate.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-4

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

The FR notice references three new documents and our review of these documents provides the 

primary basis of our comments.

• The 2012 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report (“2012 Report”) – Published in Sept 

2014 –This document only contains data up to the 2009 discharge year.

• The 2013 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report (“2013 Report”) – Published Sept 

2013-Contains a different level of analysis than 2012. Uses 2011 discharge data for some 

analysis, but in other cases is limited to 2009 data (e.g. Table 5-73 – Discharge Monitor 

Report (DMR) metals).

• Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans 2012 Final/2014 

Preliminary – Published Sept 2014 (“2012/2014 Report”) – Primarily uses 2011 data.

We have attempted to review these documents, but it is no exaggeration to say that their 

simultaneous release, each with a different format, using different data, different time frames and 

varying degrees of analysis, and different supporting documents referenced in the docket, make 

for a difficult if not downright confusing review. One fact is clear, EPA acknowledges, and 

AFPM agrees, that the data is incomplete, inconsistent and potentially contains significant 

inaccuracies. These data quality problems prevent affected parties from providing informed 

comment on the program plans. Furthermore, the late release of some of these documents 

strained our ability to conduct a complete and adequate review in the time EPA provided for 

public comment.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.11 – Petroleum Refining Data Quality and Review

58

Response:

EPA does not agree with the commenter that the data it used in its 2012 and 2013 ARRs for 

conducting its annual effluent guidelines reviews is incomplete, inconsistent, or potentially 

contains significant inaccuracies. EPA used the best available data for its screening-level 

reviews, including two different years’ worth of DMR and TRI data, both of which are generated 

and submitted by industry itself. These data sets are the same as those EPA has used over the 

past 10 years or more for this purpose. Furthermore, EPA subjects these data to its data and 

information quality guidelines to determine if it is appropriate for the intended applications; if 

there are any data limitations, EPA explains them fully in its ARRs.

In addition, the two reports (and other supporting documentation) were not released late, but 

were published for public review concurrent with the publication of the Final 2012 Plan and the 

2014 Preliminary Plan, in September 2014, after which a two-month public review and comment 

period was provided.

EPA published two years’ worth of annual review data and information at once in an effort to get 

back on schedule with its biennial effluent guidelines program plans. Although this may have 

been more data and information than EPA typically publishes at once in the effluent guidelines 

planning process, EPA provided a full 60-day public review and comment period. Furthermore, 

EPA has made no decision with regard to whether to initiate a rulemaking to revise the existing 

petroleum refining ELG. EPA anticipates that more data collection and analysis will occur before 

any decision is made on this subject.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-5

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

• Discharge of Metals and Dioxin from Petroleum Refineries

EPA indicated in the documents and in discussions that metals and dioxin discharges have 

trended upward. In the 2012/2014 Report, EPA noted that it reviewed DMR data from 76 

refineries from across the country. 1 AFPM formally and respectfully requests that EPA share 

any and all data, charts, graphs, and other analyses and information that illustrate these trends.

We are interested in the specific numbers for each refinery and the industry as a whole, as well 

as the magnitude of the observed trends. In the absence of these data, we are unable to properly 

evaluate outlier data, the significance of trends, and other relevant factors. AFPM respectfully 

requests access to these data and the necessary time to review and assist the agency with quality 

assurance and investigating the following issues relevant to a potential revision to the ELG:
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.11 – Petroleum Refining Data Quality and Review

59

o What are the potential reasons for an increase in the total estimated Toxic Weighted 

Pounds Equivalent (TWPE) for the petroleum industry between 2009 and 2011, reflected 

in Table 5-70 of the 2013 Report? And, what explains the high TWPE variability 

displayed in Table 5-5 of the 2012 Report? This variability could be indicative not of an 

increase in pollutants discharged, but of an inherent uncertainty in the analytical methods,

lack of statistically significant information, and/or error associated with interpretation of 

the minimum detection limit of analytical methods.

o In light of the inherent error associated with dioxin measurements and reporting, has the 

Agency considered calculating and prioritizing industry TWPE using the pollutants of 

interest excluding dioxin? In particular the Agency should compare discharge monitoring 

reports (DMRs) of refinery metals to that from all other industries to provide a more 

informative perspective of relative risk.

o What percent of the TWPE results from metals and what percent from dioxin? What 

percent results from a handful or even fewer number of facilities?

o Based on the information EPA provided in Table 5-5, the trend in TWPE appears to be 

decreasing, and not increasing, leading to questions and confusion as to how this data 

supports EPA’s supposition (see graph below).

Table 1:

1 2012/2014 Report, P. 4-3

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

TWPE

Refinery TRI and DMR Discharges 2004-2009

TRI TWPE DMR TWPE Linear (TRI TWPE) Linear (DMR TWPE)
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.11 – Petroleum Refining Data Quality and Review

60

Response:

For the 304(m) screening level review, EPA used DMR and TRI data to rank and prioritize 

industrial discharge categories for review based on TWPE released. See Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of 

the 2013 ARR for additional information on EPA’s data sources and limitations and quality 

review for conducting the TRA. These data sources represent the best available information EPA 

has to rank and prioritize industrial discharge categories for further review.

Given the data used in its screening-level analyses, which showed there may be concerns over 

the increased discharge of dioxins and metals at petroleum refineries, EPA decided to conduct a 

detailed study of petroleum refineries to determine if the industry warrants new or revised ELGs.

During the detailed study, EPA will collect and analyze new and additional data and information 

upon which to base a final decision on whether to revise the ELGs for petroleum refining. Any 

and all data and information EPA uses in making that decision will be subject to EPA‘s data and 

information quality guidelines, and will be available to the public, to the extent appropriate.

As agreed to in subsequent meetings with the commenter since this comment was raised, EPA is 

compiling the data presented in the 2011 and 2012 ARR into two consolidated databases. These 

databases contain the petroleum data from the databases referenced in previous reports including 

PCS data from 2000 and 2004, DMR data from 2007 through 2009, and TRI data from 2004 

through 2009 (EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170, DCN 08111 and 08112). Once these data are made 

available, the commenter should have answers to the questions raised here and is welcome to 

advise EPA of any findings to help inform a final decision on whether to revise the guidelines.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-11

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

• Data Quality, Uncertainty and Errors

In the 2013 Report, EPA indicated an understanding of the limitations of the data it used to 

conduct these preliminary categorical evaluations.10But unfortunately as EPA subsequently 

noted in its 2012/2014 Report, it “assumed that the underlying data and information contained in 

state and federal reports . . . were accurate.”11 In this case, as already demonstrated by the pulp & 

paper industry’s experience, assuming that information is accurate without attempting to verify 

and conduct quality assurance can lead to incorrect conclusions and ultimately to a reversal of 

the decision to pursue an updated effluent limitations guideline, thus wasting taxpayer money, 

EPA’s time and resources, and industry time and resources. We have many concerns including 

the following:
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.11 – Petroleum Refining Data Quality and Review

61

o What quality assurance has the Agency performed on the data it used?

o While EPA has considered the TWPE, what other considerations did EPA use to screen 

and rank industries for updating effluent limitation guidelines? A September 2012 Report 

of the Government Accountability Office recommended that EPA identify additional 

sources of data on the hazards posed by the discharges from industrial categories. Did 

EPA address this recommendation?12

o As discussed on P. 3-5 and 3-6 of the 2012/2014 Report, which additional data sources if 

any did EPA utilize from the list in its evaluation of the refining category?

o Representativeness is discussed as an attempt to ensure that the “data provide a national 

perspective and are relevant to and representative of the industry to which the data are 

applied.”13 Can EPA explain how this was accomplished?

10 2013 Report, P. 5-76. “As a result, some of the TWPE may be attributed to data errors.” In 

reference to 2011 TRI and DMR data.

11 2012/2014 Report, P. 3-6

12 September 2012 GAO Report, “EPA Has Improved Its Review of Effluent Guidelines but 

Could Benefit from More Information on Treatment Technologies”

13 2012/2014 Report, P. 3-7

Response:

For the 304(m) screening-level review, EPA used DMR and TRI data to rank and prioritize 

industrial discharge categories for review based on TWPE released. See Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of 

the 2013 ARR for additional information on EPA’s data sources and limitations and quality 

review for conducting the TRA. These data sources represent the best available information EPA 

has to rank and prioritize industrial discharge categories for further review. As stated in this 

report, EPA’s evaluation considered data completeness, comparability, accuracy, and 

reasonableness. The Environmental Engineering Support for Clean Water Regulations 

Programmatic Quality Assurance Project Plan (PQAPP) (see EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598-0367) 

describes the quality objectives in more detail.

In order to evaluate additional information sources (consistent with GAO recommendations), 

EPA initiated a new odd- and even-year annual review methodology beginning in 2012, under 

which it is conducting a TRA based on DMR and TRI data in the odd year, supplemented by 

additional hazard data sources in the even year. The additional hazard data sources may include

data and information gathered from other EPA offices, as well as other sources. This new 

approach will expand EPA’s ability to identify new pollutants of concern and to identify 

wastewater discharges in industrial categories not currently regulated by ELGs.

As part of the 2012 Annual Review, EPA evaluated the following additional data sources for the 

petroleum refining category: the Purdue University Calumet Water Institute–Argonne National 

Laboratory Task Force report (see EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0255) Steam Electric Power 

Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report (see EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.11 – Petroleum Refining Data Quality and Review

62

0004), state regulatory agency data, and supporting documentation to the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Regulations: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

For further information on the quality assurance activities supporting the 2012 Annual Review, 

including a summary of EPA’s data quality, utility, and representativeness evaluation for the 

additional data sources, see Appendix B of the 2012 ARR.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-15

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

AFPM’s primary concern at this time is ensuring that the information upon which the Agency 

bases its analysis is of appropriate quality and accuracy and is used in an appropriate context 

considering statistical variability and significance. As demonstrated in the Agency’s recent 

interaction with the pulp and paper industry, TRI and DMR data are prone to errors during data 

entry and then misinterpretation, especially when examining laboratory results that are below the 

analytical method’s detection limit.

Response:

See the responses to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-2, EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-4, EPAHQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-5, and EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-11.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-17

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

AFPM suggests as the next steps in this process that:

1) The Agency should compile its underlying data and analysis on metals and dioxin and provide 

it to the petroleum refining industry for review and comment, and
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.11 – Petroleum Refining Data Quality and Review

63

2) Convene a meeting between EPA and industry representatives to discuss the data and develop 

a mutually agreeable path forward to verify the accuracy and significance of the information and 

fill data gaps as needed. This discussion would include coordination of potential site visits.

Response:

As agreed to in subsequent meetings with the commenter since this comment was raised, EPA is 

compiling the data presented in the 2011 and 2012 ARR into two consolidated databases. These 

databases contain the petroleum data from the databases referenced in previous reports including 

PCS data from 2000 and 2004, DMR data from 2007 through 2009, and TRI data from 2004 

through 2009 (EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170, DCN 08111 and 08112). Once these data are made 

available, the commenter should have answers to the questions raised here and is welcome to 

advise EPA of any findings to help inform a final decision on whether to revise the guidelines. 

EPA appreciates and will consider the offer for future coordination by the commenter.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0088-2

Organization: Valero Companies

Commenter Name: Matthew H. Hodges

Commenter Type: Industry

Comment Excerpt Text:

Data Quality, Discharges of Metals and Dioxin from Petroleum Refineries

As noted in the 2012 Annual Effluent Guideline Review Report and also during conversations 

with Agency staff, EPA believes it is seeing an upward trend in metals and dioxin discharges. As 

noted in the 2012/2014 Report EPA has reviewed DMR data from 76 refineries from across the 

country.2 It would be beneficial if EPA could provide any and all data, charts, graphs, and other 

specifics that illustrate these trends such that industry can review and assist the agency with 

quality assurance and investigating various questions. In regards to the existing data available 

through the 2012 Annual Effluent Guideline Review Report, it does not appear to support the 

agency assertions that discharges of metals and dioxin are increasing. Based on the information 

EPA has provided in Table 5-53

, the trend in Toxic Weighted Pound Equivalents (“TWPE”) 

appears to be decreasing, and not increasing, leading to questions and confusion as to how this 

data supports EPA’s supposition (see below).
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.11 – Petroleum Refining Data Quality and Review

64

However, regardless of the trend line, the paucity of data belies the ability to make any 

statistically valid assertions regarding the trends in pollutant discharges. The Agency must 

collect additional data and validate assertions regarding pollutant increases before the need for 

refinery studies is considered.

2 2012/2014 Report, P. 4-3

3 2012 Annual Effluent Guideline Review Report, pg 5-22

Response:

See the responses to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-2, EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-4, EPAHQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-5, and EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-11.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.12 – Use of TRI Data for Petroleum Refining

65

Section 2.12 – Use of TRI Data for Petroleum Refining

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0082-1

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)

Commenter Name: Roger E. Claff

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

1. Opposition to the use of TRI data

From calculations and analysis of point source category toxic-weighted pollutant loadings,

obtained in significant part from data submitted through the toxic release inventory (TRI)

program, EPA makes decisions on whether to further investigate the point source categories for

possible revision of effluent guidelines. API objects to this use of TRI data in effluent guidelines

decision-making. The purpose for the TRI program, according to EPA’s web site, is to “raise

public concern about local preparedness for chemical emergencies and the availability of

information on hazardous substances.” The TRI was never intended to provide precise, accurate

wastewater monitoring data on which to base effluent guidelines or other water regulatory

decisions. Data submitted to TRI include many estimates in lieu of monitoring data; indeed, the

2012 final plan states:

EPA found one facility’s reported discharges contributed to the majority (65 percent) of the 

dioxin and dioxin-like compound TRI TWP, however this facility’s reported discharges are 

estimated (based on the number of reformer catalyst regenerations) and not directly measured. 

From the 2010 DMR data for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds EPA only identified one 

refinery reporting discharging detectable concentrations (above the Method 1613B Minimum 

Level (ML)), though available data indicates this facility's dioxin discharges result largely from 

stormwater contaminated via aerial deposition, not the discharge of treated process wastewater.

These sparse and speculative data on dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are not sufficiently

compelling to call for a detailed effluent guidelines study of the petroleum refining industry.

EPA should discontinue its misuse of TRI data in effluent guidelines and other water regulatory

program planning. Decisions concerning water regulatory programs should be based on precise,

accurate facility-specific effluent monitoring data, not on estimates or data of unspecified

quality.

Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter that it misused TRI (or DMR) data in its screening-level 

analyses. EPA also disagrees that TRI data should not be used to help inform the effluent 

guidelines review and planning process. To the contrary, during the effluent guidelines review 

and planning process, TRI (and DMR) data are very useful in helping to screen for new or 

increased levels of pollutants that are possibly being discharged by industry. As described in 

Section 3 of the 2013 ARR, these data sources represent the best available information EPA has 

to rank and prioritize industrial discharge categories for further review. Once EPA identifies a 
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.12 – Use of TRI Data for Petroleum Refining

66

potential pollutant concern using DMR or TRI data, EPA subjects the outstanding data to a 

thorough review and analysis to determine if it actually does represent a new or increased 

discharge issue. This often times involves contacting individual facilities that reported high 

levels of a pollutant to determine if the data were derived from actual sampling and analysis, or 

whether they were derived from estimation techniques. Furthermore, the quality of the data is 

thoroughly reviewed for mistakes in reported units, reported decimal places, and other factors.

Only after such a thorough review of the data will EPA designate a discharge for concern. But 

once again, this is only a screening-level review to determine if an industry might warrant more 

detailed study.

Even after this thorough screening review process, EPA does not typically make a decision to 

revise an effluent guideline until after it has conducted a detailed study of the industry. In a 

detailed study, additional data and information from a variety of sources (including the industry 

itself) are collected and analyzed before a decision about whether to revise the guideline is made.

EPA is now conducting this detailed study. EPA has not yet decided whether it would be 

appropriate to revise the Petroleum Refining ELGs.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-12

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

• TRI Issues

TRI data includes discharges to water, which when combined with an analysis of DMR data 

double counts the pounds of pollutants reported to be discharged to water. We recommend that 

EPA correct this in all data tables as it may inappropriately affect the relative ranking of 

categories. In addition:

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

particularly for dioxin. This is because the EPA guidance instructs the facility to report 

half the detection limit, while in fact the vast majority of DMR-related tests come back 

“non-detect”. For this reason, the numbers in the TRI report do not represent actual 

discharge numbers, and therefore cannot be used for regulatory purposes.

o Industry needs clarification that these are actual discharges and not detection limits being 

reported in TRI especially in light of continuing reductions in detection limits and 

enhancements in analytical technology.

o How is TRI data being used if “ranges” are reported?
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.12 – Use of TRI Data for Petroleum Refining

67

Finally, it should be noted that the TRI data-quality issues have been discussed at-length with the 

agency in the context of evaluating and developing ELGs as far back as 2004. After multiple 

meetings with the agency and industry providing data directly to EPA regarding actual dioxin 

emissions, staff at EPA’s Engineering & Analysis Division, Office of Water recommended to the 

Assistant Administrator for Water that there should be no further action on the Petroleum 

Refining Effluent Guidelines. Indeed, this recommendation was further voiced in the August 29, 

2005 Federal Register notice regarding the availability of the 2006 Effluent Guideline Program 

Plan, which stated:

EPA used the findings, data and comments from the 2004 annual review to inform its 2005 

annual review. For example, in its 2005 review, EPA gathered more data for industrial categories 

identified for future study in the 2004 annual review, and began a detailed study of two of these 

categories (i.e., Steam Electric Power Generation and Pulp, Paper and Paperboard 

Manufacturing). Although the OCPSF and Petroleum Refining categories again ranked high in 

terms of TWPE discharged, EPA did not conduct a new detailed study of these categories, as 

EPA’s 2004 detailed study of these categories had revealed that effluent guidelines revisions 

were not warranted at that time. In 2005, EPA confirmed that its findings in the 2004 annual 

review, which used TRI and PCS data from year 2000, were still applicable based on the 2002 

TRI and PCS data used in the 2005 annual review.14 (Emphasis added)

AFPM urges the Agency to illustrate what has changed since the 2004 and 2005 annual reviews 

with respect to dioxin in petroleum refining effluent that would warrant reviewing it again for 

ELG development at this time?

14 Federal Register Vol. 70. No. 166, Monday August 29, 2005 pg 51042

Response:

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0082-1 regarding the use of TRI (and DMR) data 

in EPA’s effluent guidelines planning process. EPA disagrees with the commenter’s suggestion 

that using both DMR and TRI data, when calculating its toxic-weighted pollutant loadings, 

inappropriately affects the categorical rankings.

EPA uses both the TRI and DMR data, separately and in combination, when calculating toxicweighted pollutant loadings and when ranking the industry categories because the TRI data give 

EPA a better representation of indirect dischargers within an industry category, while DMR data 

cover direct dischargers only. As described in the Section 2.2.2.1 of 2013 ARR, EPA calculates 

two TWPE estimates for each category: one estimate based on data in TRI and one estimate 

based on DMR data. EPA combines these two estimates to generate a single TWPE value for 

each industrial category. EPA takes this approach because it has found that combining the TWPE 

estimates from TRI and DMR data into a single TWPE number offers a clearer perspective on

the industries with the most toxic pollution. EPA notes that 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 theoretically lead to double-counting, EPA’s review of the data 
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.12 – Use of TRI Data for Petroleum Refining

68

indicates that, because the two databases typically focus on different pollutants, double-counting 

is minimal and does not affect the order of the top-ranked industrial categories.

While it is true that, in 2004, EPA reviewed the petroleum refining category and determined that 

no further investigation of the industry was appropriate, 10 years have passed since that time. 

Under Sections 304(m) and 304(g) of the CWA, EPA annually reviews existing ELGs, such as

those for the petroleum refining industry, to determine if revised ELGs are appropriate. Based on 

the latest screening-level reviews using DMR and TRI data, EPA has now determined that the 

discharge of metals and dioxin may be of concern in petroleum refinery wastewaters. A detailed 

study of the industry, as is now underway, will help the Agency determine whether new or 

revised effluent guidelines would be appropriate for the industry.

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s statement:

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

particularly for dioxin. This is because the EPA guidance instructs the facility to report 

half the detection limit, while in fact the vast majority of DMR-related tests come back 

“non-detect”. For this reason, the numbers in the TRI report do not represent actual 

discharge numbers, and therefore cannot be used for regulatory purposes.

The quality of TRI data and related information that are submitted to EPA is solely the 

responsibility of the facilities that are required to submit such data and information. The law 

(EPCRA Section 313) that requires certain facilities to report release and other waste 

management quantities of certain toxic chemicals to EPA’s TRI Program does not require that 

these quantities be measured or otherwise determined experimentally―although if measurement 

is required under other regulations, or is otherwise performed by a facility, these “readily 

available” measured values may also be used for TRI reporting purposes. When measured data 

are not readily available, the TRI regulations only require that facilities determine their release 

and other waste management quantities of TRI-listed chemicals by making “reasonable 

estimates.” When submitting TRI reports, facilities are required to certify that the data and 

information in the reports are complete and accurate as part of the submission.

In regard to TRI reporting of dioxins, over the 2010–2013 reporting year timeframe, the majority 

(57.3%) of reported dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharge quantities in wastewaters were 

based on periodic or random monitoring data.

Also, the commenter incorrectly describes EPA’s guidance for use of half of the limit of 

detection of an analytical procedure for TRI reporting purposes. EPA’s EPCRA Section 313 

Questions and Answers, Revised 1998 Version document1 states:

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

detection of the method, can they report zero releases?

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

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

reportable chemical is below detection is not equivalent to stating that the chemical is not 

present. If the reportable Section 313 chemical is known to be present, a concentration 
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.12 – Use of TRI Data for Petroleum Refining

69

equivalent to half the detection limit should be used. The facility should not estimate 

releases based solely on monitoring devices, but the facility should also rely on its 

knowledge of specific conditions at the plant.

It is EPA’s understanding that mass quantities of a chemical included on the TRI chemical list 

(including a dioxin or dioxin-like compound), which are derived from monitoring data and 

reported to TRI, are accurate. It is reasonable to expect that reported discharges of zero grams for 

dioxins and dioxin-like compounds are accurate if monitoring did not detect the presence of 

dioxins and if it is reasonable for the facility to expect that dioxins would not be present. As 

mentioned above, over the 2010–2013 reporting year timeframe, the majority (57.3%) of 

reported dioxin and dioxin-like compound discharge quantities to wastewaters were based on 

periodic or random monitoring data.

In regard to the commenter’s question on the use of TRI data reported as range quantities rather 

than discreet quantities, EPA has designated dioxins and dioxin-like compounds as persistent 

bioaccumulative and toxic (PBTs) chemicals for TRI reporting purposes. PBT chemicals are 

ineligible for range reporting for onsite releases and transfers offsite.

1 http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/1998qa.pdf
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.13 – TWPE Calculations for Petroleum Refining

70

Section 2.13 – TWPE Calculations for Petroleum Refining

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-13

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

• Toxic Weighting Calculations

It is unclear how EPA calculated the TWPE for the petroleum refining category, the relative use 

and impact of DMR data versus TRI data and the relative contributions of metals and dioxins. 

The dioxin issue is a serious concern as these discharge concentrations are not well understood 

as evidenced by the variation in refinery effluent dioxin reporting. AFPM requests that EPA 

provide their spreadsheet calculations and results of the TWPE for the petroleum refining 

category so that we may better understand these key data and their analysis.

Response:

For the effluent guidelines screening-level review, EPA used DMR and TRI data to rank and 

prioritize for review industrial discharge categories based on TWPE released. See Sections 3 and 

4 of the 2013 ARR for a discussion on how pollutant loads and TWPE for each industrial 

category are calculated. These data sources represent the best available information EPA has to 

rank and prioritize industrial discharge categories for further review.

For further information on how TWFs are developed, see EPA’s Toxic Weighting Factor 

Development in Support of CWA 304(m) Planning Process (EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-1634).
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.14 – Petroleum Refining Water Quality Based Limits

71

Section 2.14 – Petroleum Refining Water Quality Based Limits

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-3

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

In addition, as the investigation proceeds we encourage the Agency to fully recognize that water 

quality based effluent limits are the driving force behind today’s NPDES permit limits and any 

final technology based effluent limitations will have only marginal benefit and marginal costeffectiveness at best over the long-term.

Response:

At this time, EPA has not decided whether to revise the Petroleum Refining ELGs. EPA is 

conducting the detailed study to determine if technology-based effluent limitations and standards 

may be appropriate based on currently available technologies.

As stated in the Preliminary 2014 Plan, while technology-based effluent limitations in discharge 

permits are sometimes as stringent as, or more stringent than, necessary to meet water quality 

standards, the effluent guidelines program is not specifically designed to ensure that the 

discharges from each facility meet the water quality standards of its receiving water body. 

Technology-based limits are based on what is technologically available and economically 

achievable, taking into account the factors specified in Section 304 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.

1314(b). For this reason, the CWA—at 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(C)—also requires authorized states 

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

standards. Water-quality-based effluent 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. EPA will evaluate whether additional technology-based standards may be 

warranted as part of the detailed study.

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s claim that “water quality based effluent limits are the 

driving force behind today’s NPDES permit limits and any final technology based effluent 

limitations will have only marginal benefit and marginal cost-effectiveness at best over the longterm.” States authorized to implement the NPDES permitting program have long relied on EPA 

to develop and promulgate technology-based effluent limitations for pollutants to be used in their 

permitting of industrial discharges, such as discharges from petroleum refineries, and continue to 

do so today. Over the past three decades, technology-based effluent limitations developed by 

EPA have been an important mechanism by which states are able to issue NPDES permits with 

adequate pollution controls on discharges of industrial wastewater. Since the inception of the 

effluent guidelines program, EPA estimates that the states, using EPA’s technology-based ELGs, 
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.14 – Petroleum Refining Water Quality Based Limits

72

have eliminated the discharge of approximately 700 billion pounds annually of pollutants into 

the nation’s waters.
Section 2 – Petroleum Refining

Section 2.15 – Effect of Air Pollution Controls in the Petroleum Refining Industry

73

Section 2.15 – Effect of Air Pollution Controls in the Petroleum Refining Industry

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0087-8

Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)

Commenter Name: Jeff Gunnulfsen

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

• The Effect of New Air Pollution Controls on Wastewater Discharges

Though the Agency speculates that new air pollution controls impact wastewater discharges, has 

it actually examined the levels of metals in air pollution control wet scrubbers and determined 

the percent impact on total metals found in a refinery wastewater discharge? Has the Agency 

looked at the year of installation of wet scrubbers at any refineries and correlated it to a step 

change increase in metals discharged from the refinery? If so, please share that data as well as 

the magnitude and statistical significance of the increase(s).

Response:

As part of the detailed study on petroleum refineries, EPA plans to collect updated industry 

profile information to identify refineries that have installed new air pollution control equipment 

that may generate new or increased levels of pollutants in wastewater. At this time, EPA has not 

examined levels of metals in air pollution control wet scrubbers, or any specific air pollution 

control installation data, as such an examination and analysis is most appropriately done during a 

detailed study. The data collected in the detailed study will be available to the public, to the 

extent appropriate.
Section 3 – Metal Finishing 

Section 3.1 – Do Not Support Metal Finishing Study 

74

Section 3 – Metal Finishing

Section 3.1 – Do Not Support Metal Finishing Study

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081-4

Organization: CWA Consulting Services, LLC (CWACS)

Commenter Name: Curt A. McCormick

Commenter Type: Consultant to Pretreatment Programs for Local Government 

Comment Excerpt Text:

EPA should not reopen this regulation. This regulation covers more industrial users than any 

other Categorical Standard. EPA has done well making Categorical Determinations as a way of 

including or excluding new technology. Opening this regulation will make it vulnerable to 

weakening by special interest groups. 

Response:

EPA has not identified the Metal Finishing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards 

(ELGs) for revision at this time. The Agency is conducting a preliminary study to better 

understand the current profile and operations of the metal finishing industry to help determine if 

new or revised effluent guidelines are warranted. EPA is also specifically evaluating potential 

ELG applicability issues in the preliminary study.

During the 2014 Annual Review, EPA discussed issues pertaining to the implementation of the 

Metal Finishing ELGs with EPA regional pretreatment coordinators, including misapplication of 

limits on permit applications, applicability of metal finishing unit operations, and new source 

criteria development. EPA is continuing to gather information on ELG applicability and 

categorical determinations for the current metal finishing industry.

Section 5.3.4 of the Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan discusses EPA’s plan to 

further review the metal finishing industry as part of this preliminary study (EPA-HQ-OW-2014-

0170, DCN 08107). The preliminary study will include data gathering efforts to identify new 

pollutants of concern, not currently regulated, that are increasingly used in metal finishing 

processes; the prevalence of potential pollutants of concern associated with wastewater generated 

from the use of wet air pollution controls from metal finishing operations; and the application of 

advanced wastewater treatment technologies and the prevalence of zero discharge practices in 

the industry. The information gathered during the preliminary study will inform EPA decisions 

about further actions that may be appropriate. 
Section 3 – Metal Finishing 

Section 3.1 – Do Not Support Metal Finishing Study 

75

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085-1

Organization: National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF)

Commenter Name: Jeffrey S. Hannapel

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group 

Comment Excerpt Text:

Consistent with the comments below, further revisions of the metal finishing point source 

categories for waste water discharges are not necessary to protect human health and the 

environment. 

Response:

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085-3. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085-7

Organization: National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF)

Commenter Name: Jeffrey S. Hannapel

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group 

Comment Excerpt Text:

Although EPA has indicated that it plans to continue a preliminary review of the metal finishing 

ELG, it does not appear to be warranted or necessary. NASF would be happy to work with EPA 

and state officials to identify additional information and practices within the metal finishing 

industry to demonstrate that such a continued review is not needed. 

Response:

EPA has not identified the Metal Finishing ELGs for revision at this time. EPA is continuing a 

preliminary study of the Metal Finishing ELGs to determine if such revisions are appropriate, 

and it is open to working with NASF to develop an updated profile of the metal finishing 

industry. In particular, EPA is interested in gathering more current information on the number of 

metal finishing facilities and the prevalence of certain surface finishing chemistries, wastewater 

management practices, and market applications in the industry. EPA also welcomes the industry 

to provide any new information about new metal finishing operations and treatment 

technologies. For more information about the study, please see Section 5.3.4 of the Final 2014 

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170, DCN 08107). The information 

gathered during the preliminary study will inform EPA decisions about further actions that may 

be appropriate. 
Section 3 – Metal Finishing

Section 3.2 – Metal Finishing Industry Profile Information

76

Section 3.2 – Metal Finishing Industry Profile Information 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085-2

Organization: National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF)

Commenter Name: Jeffrey S. Hannapel

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group 

Comment Excerpt Text:

1. Summary of the Surface Finishing Industry

The NASF has approximately 1,000 members that include metal finishing companies, metal 

finishing suppliers, and individual and professional members. The NASF represents the business, 

management, technical and educational programs as well as the regulatory and legislative 

advocacy interests of the surface finishing industry to promote the advancement of the North 

American surface finishing industry globally. 

The surface finishing industry plays a vital role in the lives of consumers and in the nation’s 

economic future. The industry’s role in corrosion protection alone provides an estimated $200 

billion annual economic benefit to the nation, including significant corrosion protection for 

military equipment that provides national defense. Surface finishing ensures that the products 

people use every day last longer, work better, and look better. 

Metal finishing operations are performed in two ways: 1) as a “captive” operation or department 

of a manufacturing company; and 2) on a job-shop basis where the work is performed under 

contract for the owner of the product or material that is to be finished. Although many 

manufacturers continue to operate metal finishing departments, the increasing trend is to 

subcontract this work to independent firms. This trend is a result of the high operating costs and 

a realization that metal finishing is both a regulatory and process specialty.

Over 80 percent of the job-shops in business employ fewer than 75 people, while nearly 40 

percent employ fewer than 20 people. Most job-shop surface finishing firms are family-owned 

businesses, located in urban areas, with a large percentage of minority employees. 

Response:

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085-3. EPA will consider the information on the 

general profile of the metal finishing industry provided by the commenter during the course of 

the preliminary study.
Section 3 – Metal Finishing

Section 3.2 – Metal Finishing Industry Profile Information

77

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085-4

Organization: National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF)

Commenter Name: Jeffrey S. Hannapel

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group 

Comment Excerpt Text:

III. Achievable Levels of Metals in Waste Water Discharge Are Dependent on Existing

Treatment Technology and Solubility Curves

The process of treating waste water at metal finishing operations and discharging it to POTWs 

has not changed – it is still fundamentally chemical precipitation and sludge removal.

Pretreatment steps such as chromium reduction and cyanide destruction may be needed to 

facilitate the chemical precipitation process. In addition, post treatment technologies such as ion 

exchange can also be used to remove some metals prior to discharge. Nonetheless, the best waste 

water treatment technology for metal finishing operations has not changed. For example, a small 

metal finishing company in Wisconsin recently spent nearly $700,000 to replace the facility’s 

existing waste water treatment system with a new chemical precipitation and sludge removal 

system. The owner indicated that if the company was spending that much money on a new 

treatment system and there was some technology that was superior to chemical precipitation and 

sludge removal, the company would have installed it. Installation of a new waste water treatment 

system can be significantly more expensive for larger metal finishing operations. 

Response:

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085-3. The commenter asserts that “the process 

of treating waste water at metal finishing operations and discharging it to POTWs has not 

changed – it is still fundamentally chemical precipitation and sludge removal.” EPA notes that 

the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) submitted comments stating that there 

are, in fact, “new technologies, which were not in use when existing regulations were 

developed.” (See EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0089-2.) EPA is interested in furthering its 

understanding of current wastewater treatment techniques and practices in the metal finishing

industry. Therefore, as described in the Preliminary 2014 and Final 2014 Plans, EPA is 

conducting a preliminary study to better understand the current profile and operations of the 

metal finishing industry: see Section 5.3.4 of the Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

(EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170, DCN 08107) and the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081-4. 

As part of the study, EPA is investigating wastewater treatment technologies employed by the 

industry via literature review and teleconference calls with vendors and facilities. Through its 

efforts so far, EPA has identified several technologies that are either being used to treat metal 

finishing wastewater or have the potential to treat metal finishing wastewater. These 

technologies include electrodialysis, diffusion dialysis, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, 

electrocoagulation, activated carbon, and ultrafiltration. Also, EPA has learned that some metal 

finishing facilities are using membrane-based technologies to achieve zero liquid discharge, 

recover acids, or reduce water consumption. EPA notes that facilities employing zero liquid 

discharge, acid recovery, or reduced water consumption can reduce costs by recovering some 
Section 3 – Metal Finishing

Section 3.2 – Metal Finishing Industry Profile Information

78

raw materials, reducing water use (thereby reducing water intake costs and wastewater treatment 

costs), and reducing solid waste generation. EPA has learned that treating wastewater generating 

by individual unit operations separately can be more cost-effective than applying treatment after

comingling with other wastewater. This can also enhance the facilities’ ability to reuse water or 

raw materials. EPA plans to add to its knowledge base of wastewater treatment techniques as it 

continues its study of the metal finishing industry.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0089-2

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA)

Commenter Name: Michael Fulton

Commenter Type: State Representing Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

Preliminary Category Review of Metal Finishing

2. In the thirty years since the Metal Finishing rule was promulgated there have been drastic

changes in the industry. In addition to the inherent improvements made by a maturing industry,

various end users are demanding a more environmental friendly product. The fundamental

chemistry used in the processes has evolved.1 As ACWA indicated in its comments on

Preliminary 2012 ELG Plan, states support a fresh look at the metal finishing industry for several

reasons, including the following:

a. New chemical formulas and processes have been developed that result in a different discharge

than was present three decades ago when the existing metal finishing regulations were first

developed. These include: zirconization,2 plaforization,3 citric acid passivation,4 bonderite,5 and

several others.6

b. New technologies, which were not in use when existing regulations were developed.

c. New pollutants of concern from additives that have not been fully evaluated, including

nanoparticles. Recently, EPA did act to eliminate PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) as a fume

suppressant.

d. New treatment technologies and better controls on existing treatment have resulted in

improved pretreatment.7

e. The scope of the metal finishing universe is completely different than it was in the 1970’s and

80’s. There are still large-scale manufacturing operations as well as the more typical smaller

facilities with less than 50 employees. At almost every turn regulators are met with a new type of

metal finisher that is not clearly addressed in the current rule, such as home hobbyists using athome metal finishing kits, jewelry stores performing re-plating during repairs, and exterior

washing of truck fleet vehicles that include corrosion inhibiting chemicals.
Section 3 – Metal Finishing

Section 3.2 – Metal Finishing Industry Profile Information

79

1

 Some examples of the changes: 1) Solvent-based coatings are moving towards water-based 

coatings; 2) Lead solder is being replaced with lead free alternatives that can be heavy in zinc; 3) 

Reuse systems to minimize (or eliminate) waste water; 4)Shift from hexavalent chromium to 

trivalent chromium and other materials; 5) Evolving diversification of coatings that utilize 

precious metals and organic acids; and 6) Nanoparticle development for the use as coatings.

2 See e.g., http://www.metalfinishing.com/webinar/98/zirconization-update-introducing-duboischemicals-duratec-110-nonphosphate-cleaning-and-pretreatment-solutions-for-ferrous-andnonferrous-parts/-Durgms.

3

 See e.g., http://www.cc-lc.com/.

4 See e.g., http://citrisurf.com/wave.htm and http://citrisurf.com/cs2050info.htm.

5

 See e.g., http://www.henkelna.com/press/2005-5834-henkel-introduces-worlds-firstnanoceramic-surface-1838.htm. 

6 See also, “Going Low Temp” available at http://www.pfonline.com/articles/going-low-temp; 

and “Pretreatments: The Next Generation” available at 

http://www.pfonline.com/articles/pretreatments-the-next-generation. 

7

 See e.g., http://www.plymouthtechnology.co/plymouth-mrs.

Response:

The commenter states that “in the thirty years since the Metal Finishing rule was promulgated 

there have been drastic changes in the industry.” As described in the Preliminary 2014 and Final 

2014 Plans, EPA is conducting a preliminary study to better understand the current profile and 

operations of the metal finishing industry, and EPA will consider the issues raised by the 

commenter in the context of that study, as appropriate. EPA is also specifically evaluating 

potential ELG applicability issues in the preliminary study. EPA notes that the commenter lists 

several other relevant issues that may be considered during the study. For more information 

about the study, see Section 5.3.4 of the Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (EPAHQ-OW-2014-0170, DCN 08107) and the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081-4. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0089-7

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA)

Commenter Name: Michael Fulton

Commenter Type: State Representing Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

10. When a metal finisher samples for Total Toxic Organics (TTO), it is typically out of an

abundance of caution. With the reformulations of the process chemistry, this list should be

revised to reflect those toxic organics that are potentially present in modern day processes.

ACWA recommends that EPA conduct a thorough review of the Total Toxic Organics (TTO) list

and make revisions and additions where necessary.
Section 3 – Metal Finishing

Section 3.2 – Metal Finishing Industry Profile Information

80

Response:

Regarding the commenter’s recommendation to “conduct a thorough review of the Total Toxic 

Organics (TTO) list and make revisions and additions where necessary,” EPA’s preliminary 

study of the metal finishing industry will include an evaluation of the available information on 

metal finishing process wastewater characteristics, including organic chemicals and potential 

wastewater discharges. For more information about the study, see Section 5.3.4 of the Final 2014 

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170, DCN 08107).
Section 3 – Metal Finishing

Section 3.3 – Historical Review of Metal Finishing ELGs

81

Section 3.3 – Historical Review of Metal Finishing ELGs

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085-3

Organization: National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF)

Commenter Name: Jeffrey S. Hannapel

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group 

Comment Excerpt Text:

II. Revisions for Finishing ELGs Are Neither Warranted Nor Necessary

As part of the Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, EPA indicated that it plans to 

“continue a preliminary category review of the Metal Finishing point source category (40 CFR 

Part 433).” Such a review is not needed because EPA has already reviewed the finishing industry 

Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) and determined that no further regulation is warranted. 

As part of the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) ELG rulemaking, EPA found that no 

further regulation was necessary for job shop and captive metal finishing operations. EPA 

concluded that metal finishing facilities would continue to be regulated effectively by existing 

wastewater discharge limits under 40 CFR 413 and 40 CFR 433, because metal finishing jobs 

shops are employing best management and pollution prevention practices. EPA further noted that 

local publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) are authorized to enforce more stringent 

pretreatment standards where necessary.

More recently, in response to requests from state water regulatory agencies to consider revisions 

to the metal finishing waste water discharge guidelines, EPA officials took the position that no 

new standards are needed for metal finishing operations. The state agencies claimed that the 

finishing industry was using new “green” chemistry and treatment technology to remove more 

toxics from the waste stream, but provided no credible evidence to support the need for revised 

standards. NASF met on several occasions with state and EPA officials and confirmed that the 

industry is not using new process or treatment technologies that would suggest the need to revise 

the applicable ELGs for metal finishing. 

Response:

EPA disagrees with the commenter that a review of the Metal Finishing ELGs “is not needed 

because EPA has already reviewed the finishing industry Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) 

and determined that no further regulation is warranted.” 

Under Section 304(m) and 304(g) of the CWA, EPA annually reviews existing effluent 

limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards, such as the Metal Finishing ELGs. The Metal 

Finishing ELGs were promulgated in 1983. EPA revisited the regulation during the development 

of the Metal Products and Machinery rulemaking in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It has been 

over 10 years since EPA last studied the Metal Finishing ELGs. As noted in the Final 2014 

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, EPA is conducting a preliminary study to evaluate existing 

metal finishing operations and wastewater management practices for the metal finishing industry 
Section 3 – Metal Finishing

Section 3.3 – Historical Review of Metal Finishing ELGs

82

(EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170, DCN 08107). At this time, EPA has not identified the Metal 

Finishing ELGs for revision. EPA agrees that, under the existing Metal Finishing ELGs, POTWs 

are authorized to enforce more stringent pretreatment standards where necessary. However, EPA 

is required to review the effluent guidelines regulations. As a result of that annual review, EPA 

decided it would be appropriate to conduct a preliminary study. Section 5.3.4 of the Final 2014 

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan discusses EPA’s plan to further review the metal finishing 

industry as part of this preliminary study (EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170, DCN 08107). The 

preliminary study will include data gathering efforts to identify new pollutants of concern, not 

currently regulated, that are increasingly used in metal finishing processes; the prevalence of 

potential pollutants of concern associated with wastewater generated from the use of wet air 

pollution controls from metal finishing operations; and the application of advanced wastewater 

treatment technologies and the prevalence of zero discharge practices in the industry.
Section 3 – Metal Finishing

Section 3.4 – Metal Finishing ELG Applicability

83

Section 3.4 – Metal Finishing ELG Applicability

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081-5

Organization: CWA Consulting Services, LLC (CWACS)

Commenter Name: Curt A. McCormick

Commenter Type: Consultant to Pretreatment Programs for Local Government 

Comment Excerpt Text:

If EPA does reopen this regulation, it should exclude facilities that [manufacture/produce] iron 

phosphate mild steel (non-galvanized metals) and that do not perform any other core process. 

EPA should also exclude facilities that only use Citric or other weak organic acids for cleaning 

parts. There is significant inconsistency between EPA Region 9 and most other EPA regions 

regarding when acid triggers coverage under these regulations (cleaning vs etching). EPA 

Region 9 states that any contact of metal and acid is a core process, regardless of the actual effect 

on the metal.

Response:

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081-4. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0089-5

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA)

Commenter Name: Michael Fulton

Commenter Type: State Representing Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

f. There is a desire to merge the metal finishing (40 CFR Part 433) and electroplating (40 CFR

Part 413) regulations due to issues in determining applicability, and to move away from a four

day average limitation in 40 CFR Part 413. For example, if an electroplating facility subject to 40

CFR Part 413 makes piecemeal upgrades to its plant over time it is difficult to determine at what

point the facility becomes a new source and then subject to 40 CFR Part 433. The issue of

delineating when a facility becomes a new source is discussed below.

The four day average is also problematic because it is based upon four consecutive sampling 

days. However, the samples can be months apart or on consecutive days. There is no fixed period 

like in other ELG limits. Total toxic organics are seldom used, yet there is a requirement to 

develop a toxic organics management plan, or to monitor. 

3. Small insignificant operations such as: the use of Bonderite wipes or etching pens prior to

painting; or rhodium plating of white gold at jewelry stores, should be excluded, or specifically

included only after considering small business impacts. It is our understanding that these
Section 3 – Metal Finishing

Section 3.4 – Metal Finishing ELG Applicability

84

operations are technically both core metal finishing processes and subject to categorical 

regulations. Theoretically, if any of the other 40 types of wastewater are discharged (e.g., 

cleaning or rinse water) then this type of facility would be a metal finisher. This categorization is 

problematic as it could greatly expand the number of categorical industrial users if these small 

operations were consistently regulated as metal finishers.

4. Information related to tank passivating needs clarification across all applications, not just

pharmaceutical manufacturing.

5. Clarification on Existing Source vs. New Source: Implementation of the existing metal

finishing rule often requires an enormous amount of effort in determining if a facility constitutes

an existing source or a new source. For electroplating in particular, the production lines are often

a series of tanks. This configuration readily allows the facility to upgrade the entire production

line “tank-by-tank” thus avoiding a “new source” classification. The question of the piecemeal

replacement was previously addressed in the 1980’s and a 1988 Federal Register notice contains

EPA’s response at the time. The examples EPA provided at that time represent extremes that are

impractical to use as a basis for determinations.8 EPA’s assertion that “substantially replaces” is

redundant to the current language of “totally replaces” has caused particular confusion with

regards to the metal finishing industry. Many metal finishing operations are extremely small and

do not employ individuals trained specifically in environmental regulations as such the rules are

taken at face value. Thus, the definition of new source (40 CFR Part 403.3(m)(1)(ii)) is typically

interpreted by the industry as replacing every single piece of equipment at the same time to

trigger the new source requirements. EPA states that the new source requirements were intended

to apply where new construction allows for flexibility to incorporate new pollution control

technology. For metal finishers in particular, this delineation is exceptionally difficult to

implement. This in turn leads to variability in implementation across the regions.

6. Most states also support the concept of requiring all existing users to meet new source

standards after a predetermined period of time, as was recently proposed in the Dental Amalgam

ELG. EPA should adopt a sunset provision on the 40 CFR Part 413 electroplating rule that would

require eventual compliance with the 40 CFR Part 433 Metal Finishing rule.

7. Making a categorical determination of a potential metal finishing industry can be very

resource intensive. The following are some examples of grey areas that have led to

inconsistencies in classifications across the country:

a. Etching vs. Cleaning: The rule of thumb often used is to check the amount of metals before

and after the process. If metals are increased, then it is deemed an etching process. However,

states are now encountering situations where a galvanized steel subcomponent will leach zinc

into the rinse water even if there are no detergents or dispersing agents added.

b. Coating vs. Absorption: The process of washcoating is used in the manufacturing of

catalysts. In this process, the active catalyst formulations (wash coats) are manufactured from

high purity alumina (Al2O3) or titania (TiO2) raw materials. Precious metals (Pt, Rh and/or Pd)

in the form of salts are applied to the wash coats using solutions purchased from precious metal

suppliers. The salt is said to be absorbed into the oxide layer and no chemical reactions take
Section 3 – Metal Finishing

Section 3.4 – Metal Finishing ELG Applicability

85

place. Typically no wastewater is generated by this process, but often these facilities perform one 

of the forty ancillary processes on site that would generate wastewater.

c. Phosphate Coating vs. Phosphate Cleaning: In March 1995, draft guidance for 

distinguishing between phosphate coating and phosphate cleaning was circulated.9 It does not

appear that this document was ever adopted or endorsed by the ELG group. However, it is 

occasionally used by industries to contest the categorical determination.

8. ACWA recommends that EPA review all metal finishing categorical determinations

completed by the agency in order to better understand the implementation issues.

9 “Draft Guidance for Distinguishing between Phosphate Coating and Phosphate Cleaning 

Operations for the Purpose of Regulation under 40 CFR, Part 433 – Metal Finishing.” (March 23, 

1995).

Response:

As noted in other comment responses, EPA has not identified the Metal Finishing ELGs for 

revision. The Agency is conducting a preliminary study to better understand the current profile 

and operations of the metal finishing industry and to help determine if new or revised effluent 

guidelines are warranted. EPA will consider these comments as it proceeds with its preliminary 

study.
Section 3 – Metal Finishing

Section 3.5 – Metals Treatment for Metal Finishing Wastewater

86

Section 3.5 – Metals Treatment for Metal Finishing Wastewater

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085-5

Organization: National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF)

Commenter Name: Jeffrey S. Hannapel

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group 

Comment Excerpt Text:

With respect to chemical precipitation treatment systems, the amount of metals that can be 

removed from waste water depends on certain chemical and physical properties. For example, 

each metal has a different solubility factor and will precipitate out of solution at different pH 

levels. Accordingly, each metal has an optimal pH level that will achieve maximum 

precipitation. The problem is that the solubility curves for common metals overlap and have 

different optimal pH levels. Waste water treatment operators must select a pH level that will 

remove the maximum amount of total metals from the waste water, even though the pH level 

may not be optimal for all metals.

The best way to increase the removal of metals from the waste water discharge is to segregate 

waste water and treat individual metals or groups of metals at separate pH levels. While this may 

decrease the amount of metals in the waste water discharge, it is not practical because of the 

expense associated with segregating waste water. In essence, a separate waste water treatment 

system is needed for each segregated waste water stream. This would increase the cost of the 

waste water treatment system by two, three or four times depending on the number of segregated 

waste streams that must be treated. For example, a system with three segregated waste streams 

may cost more than $2,000,000 as opposed to $700,000. 

Consequently, most treatment systems are designed to remove metals at the pH level that is the 

optimal level for all of the metals in the waste water. While the system can be modified to target 

a single metal or a group of metals, the maximum removal for all metals cannot be realistically 

achieved simultaneously. The current ELGs reflect this reality and are based on the best 

management and pollution prevention practices in the metal finishing industry. Thus, a new 

metal finishing ELG is neither warranted nor necessary. 

Response:

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085-3. EPA is conducting a preliminary study to 

better understand the current profile, operations, and wastewater treatment practices of the Metal 

Finishing industry and to help determine if new or revised effluent guidelines are warranted. 

EPA will consider the information on metal finishing wastewater treatment provided by the 

commenter during the course of the preliminary study. See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-

0170-0085-4 for information that EPA has already gathered on new treatment technologies.
Section 3 – Metal Finishing

Section 3.5 – Metals Treatment for Metal Finishing Wastewater

87

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085-6

Organization: National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF)

Commenter Name: Jeffrey S. Hannapel

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group 

Comment Excerpt Text:

IV. POTWs May Impose More Stringent Discharge Limits to Address Specific Concerns

As discussed above, EPA concluded in the MP&M rule that no further federal regulation was 

needed for waste water discharges from metal finishing facilities, in part, because local POTWs 

can impose more stringent local limits when necessary. In a situation where a POTW may be 

particularly concerned about a single metal in its discharge permit, then it may be forced to 

impose a more stringent pretreatment limit for that metal. It could be possible for a metal 

finishing operation to adjust its treatment system with a pH level that would more optimally 

remove that metal, provided the limits in the federal ELG could still be achieved. Such an 

approach appears to be more targeted to achieve a specific local environmental goal, and much 

more appropriate than wholesale revisions to the federal metal finishing waste water discharge 

limits.

Response:

See the response to EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0085-3. 
Metal Finishing

Section 3.6 – Metal Finishing Facility Site Visits

88

Section 3.6 – Metal Finishing Facility Site Visits

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0089-6 

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA)

Commenter Name: Michael Fulton

Commenter Type: State Representing Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

9. ACWA recommends that EPA send ELG personnel into the field during routine investigations

of metal finishers to obtain a better understanding of the real world processes.

Response:

EPA agrees with the commenter that additional onsite review of metal finishing processing and 

wastewater management operations would improve EPA’s understanding of the current industry 

processes and wastewater management practices. As part of the preliminary study, EPA is 

reaching out to industry trade groups and individual facilities that are willing to participate in 

onsite reviews. Through its efforts so far, EPA has visited three metal finishing facilities in the 

Washington, D.C., area by observing an audit of DC Water’s Industrial User Wastewater 

Discharge Permits program. The facilities EPA visited included two small independent plating 

shops and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing’s facility in Washington, D.C. 
Section 4 – Engineered Nanomaterials (ENMs)

Section 4.1 – Support for EPA’s Review of ENMs

89

Section 4 – Engineered Nanomaterials (ENMs)

Section 4.1 – Support for EPA’s Review of ENMs

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081-6

Organization: CWA Consulting Services, LLC (CWACS)

Commenter Name: Curt A. McCormick

Commenter Type: Consultant to Pretreatment Programs for Local Government

Comment Excerpt Text:

CWACS supports all efforts by EPA to more fully characterize discharge of nanopollutants to 

POTWs and the environment and evaluate BAT and other technology to reduce their occurrence 

in wastestreams.

Response:

EPA is continuing to collect and analyze data and information on engineered nanomaterials and 

will do so in future annual reviews. EPA is collecting information about their toxicity, fate and 

effects, risks, treatment, and discharges to surface waters and POTWs. A summary of EPA’s 

current knowledge of (and outstanding data gaps related to) engineered nanomaterials in 

industrial wastewater discharges can be found in Section 6 of EPA’s 2014 Annual Review 

Report (ARR).
Section 4 – Engineered Nanomaterials (ENMs)

Section 4.2 – Additional Information on ENMs

90

Section 4.2 – Additional Information on ENMs 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0086-1

Organization: American Chemistry Council (ACC) Nanotechnology Panel

Commenter Name: Jay West

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

1. Nanomaterials are a diverse group of substances that should not be considered as a single class

of substances or a single industrial category. The term “nanomaterials” is a broad, generic term

that denotes materials having one or more dimension or structure at the nanoscale. In reality, the

group “nanomaterials” includes a diverse array of organic, inorganic, and polymeric substances

that possess an equally diverse array of physical, chemical, and toxicological properties. In

addition, nanomaterials are used in a variety of industries, so their manufacture, processing, and

use should not be treated as a single industrial category. The panel urges EPA to report its

methodology and interim findings in a way that recognizes both the diversity of nanomaterials

and their applications across multiple industries. Doing so will produce a report that is more

informative and useful than a report that treats nanomaterials as a single class of materials or

industrial category.

2. EPA’s New Chemicals Program has strictly regulated the releases of nanomaterials to water.

EPA’s New Chemicals Program has promulgated Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) under

Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act for multiple nanomaterials.3 A common feature of

these SNURs is prohibiting the “predictable or purposeful release” of the material in a

manufacturing, process, and/or use stream.4 The panel requests that the Office of Water

coordinate closely with the New Chemicals Program to understand the degree to which the

release of new nanomaterials to the waters of the United States is regulated through the use of

SNURs.

3. EPA should note the extensive work on the environmental fate and transport of nanomaterials

has been published and is in development. Detecting and quantifying the concentrations of

engineered nanomaterials in the environment are two related issues raised by stakeholders and

investigated extensively by industry, academics, and government agencies. Studies of the impact

and elimination of nanomaterials in wastewater or wastewater treatment facilities have been

conducted. Of particular note is a series of peer-reviewed papers developed by a consortium of

industry and academic scientists that provide perspective on state-of-the-art sampling strategies

and instrumentation that could be used to detect and quantify engineered nanomaterials in the

environment. The papers were published in 2013 in a special issue of Environmental Engineering

Science. While not all of them focus on wastewater, the panel believes the discussion of

analytical techniques across various media can inform EPAs efforts. The Environmental

Engineering Science papers and other relevant sources are in the attached list of papers we hope

the Agency will find useful. The panel would like to bring to EPA’s attention that the

Environmental Engineering Science articles will be included in a New Work Item Proposal

(NWIP) in the ISO Technical Committee 229 (Nanotechnologies) that was proposed by the ACC

Nanotechnology Panel representative to the committee. The NWIP proposes the development of
Section 4 – Engineered Nanomaterials (ENMs)

Section 4.2 – Additional Information on ENMs

91

an ISO technical report that will provide strategies and methodologies for collection and analysis 

of environmental samples that can detect engineered or manufactured nanomaterials, distinguish 

engineered or manufactured nanomaterials from background levels of naturally occurring nanoscale particles, and quantify the concentrations of engineered or manufactured nanomaterials in 

the environment (ambient air, surface water, sediment, and soil). The focus is on engineered or 

manufactured nanomaterials, not on incidental particles such as combustion byproducts (except 

as they impact background measurements). The panel believes the ISO project will complement 

EPA’s research and provide an opportunity to share information and engage in additional 

stakeholder dialogue on the topic. 

4. Nanomaterials hold promise for treating wastewater more efficiently and providing clean

drinking water. Access to clean, reliable sources of water has been identified as a global

sustainability challenge by multiple organizations.5

 The panel would like to take this opportunity

to recognize that some nanomaterials might be used to enable better, more efficient wastewater

treatment technologies and therefore support the global goal of cleaner water.6 While the EPA

report is constrained to looking at nanotechnology through a lens of concern, the panel urges

EPA to also consider the potential of nanotechnology as a tool for addressing an increasingly

water-constrained world.

In summary, the ACC Nanotechnology Panel urges EPA to: 

• Report its methodology and interim findings in a way that recognizes both the diversity

of nanomaterial substances and their applications;

• Work with the New Chemicals Program to understand the degree to which nanomaterial

releases to waters have are regulated;

• Consider the extensive work done or underway in this area; and

• Recognize the potential for nanotechnology to provide new and improved tools for

wastewater treatment.

3 See for example 10 final SNURs noticed in 78 Fed. Reg. 78, 38210 (June 26, 2013). 

4 See 40 CFR 721.90 (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1). 

5 See for example: National Academy of Engineering. NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering. 

http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/8996/9142.aspx. Accessed Nov. 12, 2014; United 

Nations. Global Issues. Water. http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/water/. Accessed Nov. 10, 

2014; and U.S. Agency for International Development. Grand Challenges for Development. 

http://www.usaid.gov/grandchallenges. Accessed Nov. 10, 2014. 

6

 See for example: Qu X, Alvarez PJJ, Li Q. Applications of nanotechnology in water and 

wastewater treatment. Water Res. 2013; 47:3931-3946; Wang X, Guo Y, Yang L, et al. 

Nanomaterials as sorbents to remove heavy metal ions in wastewater treatment. J Environ Anal 

Toxicol. 2012; 2:154; Xu P, Zeng GM, Huang DL, et al. Use of iron oxide nanomaterials in 

wastewater treatment: a review. Sci Total Environ. 2012 May; 424:1-10. 

Response:

Section 6 of the 2014 ARR summarizes EPA’s current knowledge of, and outstanding data gaps 

related to, characterizing and quantifying the presence and impact of engineered nanomaterials in 
Section 4 – Engineered Nanomaterials (ENMs)

Section 4.2 – Additional Information on ENMs

92

industrial wastewater discharges. EPA’s review does not classify engineered nanomaterials as a 

single group of substances, but recognizes the diversity of the materials that are produced. To 

date, however, EPA’s review has focused on three main classes of engineered nanomaterials—

silver, titanium dioxide, and carbon nanotubes—since researchers advised EPA that these are 

produced in the largest quantities and are most often used in industrial, commercial, and 

consumer products. In addition, research has more fully characterized the impacts of these three 

classes on human health and the environment relative to other types of engineered nanomaterials 

(for which there is less information).

EPA also does not consider nanomaterial manufacturing to be a single industrial category, and 

recognizes the many potential beneficial uses and applications of engineered nanomaterials. As 

part its review, EPA sought information about the full universe of facilities manufacturing and 

processing engineered nanomaterials.

EPA’s Office of Water is coordinating with the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics’ New 

Chemicals Program to gather and analyze any and all information or data about nanomaterial 

releases in industrial wastewater collected through the recent SNURs (Significant New Use 

Rules).

Finally, EPA is aware of the sources of information the commenter cited on engineered 

nanomaterials and has reviewed the references mentioned. EPA appreciates this and any 

additional relevant information from the public. EPA plans to monitor and review the standards 

and projects under the responsibility of ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 

Technical Committee 229, as well as the research and other work being conducted by the 

National Nanomaterials Initiative (NNI), and other organizations, as part of future annual 

reviews.
Section 4 – Engineered Nanomaterials (ENMs)

Section 4.3 – ENM Treatment Technology

93

Section 4.3 – ENM Treatment Technology

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0090-1

Organization: Greenway Products Inc.

Commenter Name: Bryan Holt

Commenter Type: Industry 

Comment Excerpt Text:

We are currently testing a coagulant/flocculent/filter aid that has shown a viable level of success 

settling nano-particles, Ecoli, Phosphorous and other particulates. Our product contains no 

reportable cancer agents and is NSF/ANSI 60 certified for use in potable water. Studies are 

required for specific uses and conditions. Nov 14, 2014. 

Response:

EPA is currently developing an IWTT database as described in the 2012 ARR and 2014 

Preliminary Plan. EPA is soliciting any new treatment technology data and information and will 

consider compiling the information submitted by commenters as a part of this database.
Section 5 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)

Section 5.1 – Applicability of OCPSF ELGs to Biodiesel Manufacturing

94

Section 5 – Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)

Section 5.1 – Applicability of OCPSF ELGs to Biodiesel Manufacturing

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0081-7

Organization: CWA Consulting Services, LLC (CWACS)

Commenter Name: Curt A. McCormick

Commenter Type: Consultant to Pretreatment Programs for Local Government 

Comment Excerpt Text:

CWACS requests that biodiesel manufacturing be added to the list of industrial sectors to 

evaluate. On August 11, 2008, EPA inappropriately and incorrectly excluded biodiesel 

manufacturing from coverage under the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (40 

CFR Part 414) regulations. This was done even though the specific chemical reaction involved 

was included in the Development Document. EPA believed that to be covered, the term biodiesel 

must be part of the Development Document and not the organic chemical reaction that is the 

basis for coverage of other manufacturing activities. Biodiesel production has increased from 25 

million gallons in 2004 to 1800 million gallons in 2013 (www.biodiesel.org). 

Response:

EPA disagrees that it “inappropriately and incorrectly excluded biodiesel manufacturing from 

coverage under the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (40 CFR part 414) 

regulations.” EPA’s August 11, 2008, memorandum titled “Applicability of Effluent Guidelines 

and Categorical Pretreatment Standards to Biodiesel Manufacturing” correctly concludes that 

“there are no national effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, or 

categorical pretreatment standards that regulate process wastewater discharges from the biodiesel 

manufacturing process.” As stated in the memorandum, “biodiesel manufacturing does not 

utilize the same raw materials as OCPSF process chemistry, which uses petroleum derived 

materials as raw materials” and therefore would not be expected to produce and discharge the 

same pollutants. EPA therefore stated that “site-specific, technology-based effluent limitations 

are to reflect the best professional judgment (BPJ) of the permit writer, taking into account the 

same statutory factors EPA would use in promulgating a national effluent guideline.” For these 

reasons, EPA is not going to reevaluate biodiesel manufacturing at this time. 
Section 6 – Coalbed Methane

Section 6.1 – Support for CBM Delisting Decision

95

Section 6 – Coalbed Methane (CBM)

Section 6.1 – Support for CBM Delisting Decision

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0083-1

Organization: Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama (CMAA)

Commenter Name: Dennis Lathem

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group 

Comment Excerpt Text:

Producers in Alabama currently utilize NPDES permits for coalbed methane discharges 

developed according to the best professional judgment (BPJ) by the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management. These permits are based on the factors specified in 40 CFR 

125.3(c)(2). 

The CMAA supports the EPA proposal to delist coalbed methane as a new subcategory under the 

Oil & Gas Extraction Category (40 CFR Part 435). We believe the EPA was not able to identify 

a new wastewater treatment technology that would be economically achievable for this industrial 

subcategory. 

Response:

EPA acknowledges receipt of comments on its final decision to delist Coalbed Methane 

Extraction from the effluent guidelines plan and to not pursue developing a revised ELG, as 

announced in the Final 2012 Plan. However, EPA did not re-solicit public comment on this final 

decision. Public comments were solicited on this decision when it was proposed in the 

Preliminary 2012 Plan on August 7, 2013. (See Section 6 of EPA’s Response to Comments for 

the Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0318). 
Section 6 – Coalbed Methane

Section 6.2 – Do Not Support CBM Delisting Decision

96

Section 6.2 – Do Not Support CBM Delisting Decision

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0091-1

Organization: Clean Water Action, et al. 

Commenter Name: Lynn Thorp, et al. 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Comment Excerpt Text:

EPA should reconsider its proposal to de-list coalbed methane and discontinue ELG

rulemaking

EPA should reconsider its 2012 Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan decision to delist 

coalbed methane and discontinue ELG rulemaking for the following reasons, noted in October 7, 

2013 comments from nine organizations:1

1. Coalbed methane extraction produces large volumes of wastewater characterized by the

presence of numerous contaminants at potentially high concentrations. Inadequate treatment and

discharge of these wastes jeopardizes the integrity of surface water, can lead to increased public

health risks from drinking water, threatens fish and wildlife and causes other negative

environmental impacts.

2. EPA’s proposal to delist the coalbed methane extraction industry and to discontinue

rulemaking is premature. EPA should reconsider this proposal in light of clear evidence that

there are inevitable shifts in gas prices, demand, and costs of wastewater treatment.

3. The Congressional intent underlying the Clean Water Act’s Effluent Guidelines and

Limitations-setting process included prevention of “pollution havens.” Coalbed methane

extraction ELG’s are necessary and affordable treatments are available to avoid this outcome in

places where coalbed methane extraction is occurring.

1 Clean Water Action et al Comments on Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, 

October 7 2013

Response:

EPA acknowledges receipt of comments on EPA’s final decision to delist Coalbed Methane 

Extraction from the effluent guidelines plan and to not pursue developing a revised ELG, as 

announced in the Final 2012 Plan. However, EPA did not re-solicit public comment on this final 

decision. Public comments were solicited on this decision when it was proposed in the 

Preliminary 2012 Plan on August 7, 2013. (See Section 6 of EPA’s Response to Comments for 

the Preliminary 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824-0318). 

Regardless, EPA determined the commenter has submitted no new information regarding the 

decision to delist Coalbed Methane. 
Section 7 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard

Section 7.1 – Support for No Further Review of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry

97

Section 7 – Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 

Section 7.1 – Support for No Further Review of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0084-1

Organization: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

Commenter Name: Jerry Schwartz

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group 

Comment Excerpt Text:

First, AF&PA would like to thank the agency for reaching out to industry representatives and 

providing an opportunity to correct the data in the record. EPA and the industry have a strong 

interest in ensuring the integrity of the data used by the agency to make regulatory decisions and 

we appreciate the cooperative approach EPA has taken to ensure data integrity. Second, AF&PA 

supports EPA’s decision in the Final 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan that no further 

review of the pulp and paper category is necessary and its decision not to include the category 

for review in the Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. We believe these decisions 

are well supported by the data in the record. 

Response:

EPA agrees with the commenter that further investigation of discharges from the Pulp, Paper, 

and Paperboard Category is not appropriate at this time for the reasons set out in the Preliminary 

2014 Plan. 
Section 8 – Unconventional Oil and Gas (UOG)

Section 8.1 – Support for UOG ELG Revisions

98

Section 8 – Unconventional Oil and Gas (UOG)

Section 8.1 – Support for UOG ELG Revisions

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0091-3

Organization: Clean Water Action, et al. 

Commenter Name: Lynn Thorp, et al. 

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Comment Excerpt Text:

On-going revisions to pretreatment standards for discharges to publicly-owned treatment 

works need to reflect changes in oil and gas exploration, stimulation and extraction.

Environmental and Public Health Non-Governmental organizations are on record urging EPA to 

fully consider potential environmental impacts of potential discharges to POTWs in light of 

changes in the composition and volume of wastewaters associated with onshore oil and gas 

activities. 2

2

 Cite Earthjustice et al 2010, NRDC et al 2012, CWA/Univ. of Pittsburgh 2012 at least 

Response:

EPA’s proposed pretreatment standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction point source category, 

published on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18557), reflect recent changes in oil and gas exploration, 

stimulation, and extraction. The proposed rules would prevent the discharge of pollutants in 

wastewater from onshore UOG extraction facilities to POTWs. As discussed in Section XII.E.4 

in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule, EPA found that UOG extraction wastewater 

constituents are not typical of POTW influent wastewater. Therefore, some UOG extraction 

wastewater constituents can be discharged, untreated, from the POTW to the receiving stream; 

can disrupt the operation of the POTW (e.g., by inhibiting biological treatment); can accumulate 

in biosolids (sewage sludge), limiting their use; and can facilitate the formation of harmful 

disinfection byproducts (DBPs). 
Section 8 – Unconventional Oil and Gas (UOG)

Section 8.1 – Support for UOG ELG Revisions

99

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0092-1

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Comment Excerpt Text:

Since 2011, EPA has proactively investigated the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking 

water resources, and EDF welcomes this latest step in EPA’s continued progress towards 

understanding and regulating the industry. 

Response:

EPA recently published a draft study titled Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic 

Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources. More information about this study is 

available at http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy. EPA will consider the results of this study as it 

conducts future planning efforts, particularly those addressing discharges of unconventional oil 

and gas extraction wastewaters.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0092-3

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Comment Excerpt Text:

As oil and gas development ramps up in the United States, so too does the volume of wastewater 

produced and potentially discharged. (Uzelac, 2014). In the Marcellus for example, wastewater 

generation in the region increased by an estimated 570% since 2004, which researchers conclude

overwhelmed the wastewater disposal infrastructure capacity. (Lutz, 2013). Each unconventional 

well requires between 2 million and 6 million gallons of water, which, together with proppant, 

makes up 95- 99.5% of the fluid used to fracture a horizontal well. (GWPC, 2014). Chemical 

additives such as friction reducers, biocides, surfactants and scale inhibitors make up the 

remaining portion of fracturing fluid. (Boschee, 2014). During and after the hydraulic fracturing 

process, water from the formation returns to the surface, together with a portion of the fluids and 

additives. The flow of produced water will continue for the productive life of the well and 

comprises the largest volume by-product or waste stream associated with oil and gas exploration 

and production (Clark & Veil, 2009), averaging nearly 10 barrels of water for each barrel of oil 

(Veil et al, 2004) and up to 1,200 barrels per mmcf of gas (Clark & Veil,2009). (The GAO 

opined in its 2012 report, Energy-Water Nexus, GAO-12-156, that the 2009 Clark & Veil figures 

underestimate the total volume of produced water generated today, due to the dated data time 

frame and inconsistent source data collected by state regulatory agencies.)
Section 8 – Unconventional Oil and Gas (UOG)

Section 8.1 – Support for UOG ELG Revisions

100

EDF notes that in the Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, EPA 

committed to producing a proposed rule for discharges related to unconventional extraction in 

the oil and gas industry by October of 2014. We understand that published schedules for ELG 

action are subject to change, and in some cases out of the exclusive control of the agency. 

However, due to the urgency of this issue and potential severity of the consequences if 

discharges too significantly outpace regulation, we strongly urge EPA to devote all resources and 

manpower necessary to keep this proposed rule as soon as reasonably possible.

Response:

EPA’s proposed pretreatment standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction point source category 

were published on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18557). Publication of the proposed pretreatment 

standards is the next necessary step toward finalizing this revised effluent limitations guidelines

and standards (ELGs). The proposed rules would prevent the discharge of pollutants in 

wastewater from onshore UOG extraction facilities to POTWs. EPA will consider the 

information provided by the commenter in the context of that rulemaking.
Section 8 – Unconventional Oil and Gas (UOG)

Section 8.2 – Additional Data and Information for UOG and CWT Efforts

101

Section 8.2 – Additional Data and Information for UOG and CWT Efforts 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0092-4

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson

Commenter Type: Environmental Organization 

Comment Excerpt Text:

B. Additional Data Sources and Documents for Consideration in Future Iterations of

Effluent Limitations Guidelines Planning

The oil and gas wastewater treatment industry is changing rapidly in response to increasing 

demand for sophisticated treatment and disposal methods for growing volumes of flowback and 

produced water. The universe of peer-reviewed literature and other data sources describing the 

efficacy and impacts of these treatment technologies is evolving at a similar clip. EDF first and 

foremost encourages EPA to take advantage of its information gathering authority under Section 

308 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) 33 U.S.C. § 1318; Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e); and 

Section 3007(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6927(a) 

to stay abreast of developments in this field. EPA Region 3’s Section 308 investigation of 

Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) accepting oil and gas wastewater resulted in a 

significant and invaluable expansion in the amount of accessible information on wastewater 

treatment practices and state regulatory responses, and the agency should consider similar 

investigations in other regions. 

In conducting future planning efforts, particularly those surrounding regulation of oil and gas

wastewater, EPA may also wish consider the following resources, including scientific work 

facilitated by EDF and comments and suggestions provided to EPA by the OIG in a recent 

report. 

i. EDF working to address the environmental impacts of oil and natural gas development

through collaborative efforts with academia

EDF was recently funded for, and will begin work implementing, our project, “Addressing the 

Environmental Impacts of Oil and Natural Gas Development: Wastewater Treatment and End 

Uses.” This represents the first step in our efforts to catalyze increased collaborative scientific 

work to provide a clearer understanding of the character of produced waters, the efficiency of 

current treatment systems, and the amount of current and future wastewaters requiring 

management. The first phase of this project will entail emerging issues workshops engaging ten 

to twenty leading scientists in targeted discussions focusing on characterization and treatment of 

oil and gas wastewater. The workshops will result in the identification of tangible research 

projects for deeper scientific inquiry, and initial publications. This will lay the foundation for 

future work on key considerations such as wastewater toxicity evaluation, the fate and impact of 

residual constituents of treated wastewaters after discharge into the environment, and potential 

associated human health effects. EDF will keep EPA apprised of our progress, and the results of 
Section 8 – Unconventional Oil and Gas (UOG)

Section 8.2 – Additional Data and Information for UOG and CWT Efforts

102

EDF’s efforts towards gaining a more accurate understanding of the content and character of 

produced waters and the capabilities of technologies utilized to treat these waters for potential 

discharge to the environment. 

ii. Office of Inspector General Report No. 14-P-0363 on Hazardous Chemicals

In September, 2014, the U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General published Report No. 14-P0363, More Action is Needed to Protect Water Resources from Unmonitored Hazardous 

Chemicals. While this OIG Report did not directly address Centralized Waste Treatment (CWTs) 

or oil and gas wastewater, many of the key observations and recommendations are applicable to 

EPA’s planning in this context. Specifically, the OIG indicated that certain management 

processes created fundamental problems identifying the appropriate constituents for inclusion in 

POTWs discharge permits, and undermined the agency’s ability to track treatment performance. 

EPA should avoid recreating these problems by taking two critical steps recommended by OIG: 

(1) expanding the agency’s consideration of constituents likely to be found in oil and gas

wastewater, and (2) assuring Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing and follow up actions are

regularly performed and tracked.

First, the OIG recommended that EPA develop a list of chemicals beyond the priority pollutants 

list for consideration and inclusion in permits, in order to correct what the OIG characterized as 

EPA’s unduly narrow focus on the priority pollutants list when developing permit limits. 

Discharge permits remain more focused on the priority pollutants list than on the CWA’s broader 

authority to regulate any pollutant that impairs water quality. As a result, other chemical 

discharges not included on the priority pollutants list, such as many RCRA hazardous wastes, are 

not monitored. 

OIG Report, p. 10. This phenomenon is equally applicable to permit writing for CWTs treating 

oil and gas wastewater; hundreds of chemicals used in oil and gas exploration and development 

may be present in wastewater treated by CWTs, but do not appear on the priority pollutant list. 

EPA has acknowledged that the current CWT effluent guideline development process did not 

consider certain pollutants likely to be in shale gas extraction wastewater, such as radionuclides 

(EPA Hanlon Memo, 2011). This leaves permit writers with the task of establishing case-by-case 

technology limits based on their best professional judgment, increasing workloads and opening 

the possibility for inconsistency with the constituents covered in CWT permits and their 

limitations. One hundred and thirty two chemicals have been detected utilizing EPA approved 

methods as present in flowback fluids and produced water. (EPA, The Potential Impacts of 

Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report, Table A-3 (Dec. 2012)). 

Of these, only sixty are on EPA’s priority pollutant list (40 C.F.R. pt. 423, Appx. A), and the 

existing CWT ELG contains limits for less than thirty pollutants (40 C.F.R. pt. 437). The few 

NPDES permits addressing treatment of oil and gas wastewater obtained and reviewed by EDF 

to date specifically limit or monitor on average less than thirty pollutants. 

To remedy this disconnect, it is imperative that EPA evaluate and narrow the gap between 

known constituents and regulated constituents. This will, at a minimum, require a thorough 
Section 8 – Unconventional Oil and Gas (UOG)

Section 8.2 – Additional Data and Information for UOG and CWT Efforts

103

understanding of the quality and quantity of produced water. EPA should reference information 

and data gathered in connection with other oil and gas related work, including the agency’s 

drinking water study and the development of future proposed pretreatment regulations regarding 

produced water characterization. The USGS Produced Water Database is an additionally helpful 

site for information and publications pertaining to oil and gas wastewater. (See e.g., Orem et al. 

2014). In recent years, a growing number of academics have also undertaken research in this 

area, with much of the work focusing on the Marcellus shale. (See, e.g., publications from the 

Gas Technology Institute, including Hayes, 2009 and the Hayes, 2012, GTI RPSEA Report). A 

study of wastewater delivered to CWTs- that goes beyond the priority pollutant list- is essential 

to lay the foundation for reasonable regulation regarding treatment technology and effluent 

limits.

Second, in its September report, the OIG also observed that WET tests were too rarely required 

as a POTW discharge permit condition, and the results of such tests not tracked and underused to 

address performance. The OIG noted that although EPA developed WET tests to detect toxic 

chemicals lacking established monitoring methods or with cumulative (i.e., compounding) 

effects, WET tests are not required for all permits, and are not tracked by EPA to verify 

conformance.

Given the make-up of oil and gas wastewater, which tends to be inadequately characterized and 

includes constituents for which analytical methods do not exist, WET tests are strongly indicated 

to evaluate treatment performance. As part of EPA’s CWT study, the agency should 

systematically survey CWT discharge permit conditions, and identify whether WET testing is a 

required condition. Where WET testing is not required, WET testing generally should be 

performed pursuant to other authority on discharge to evaluate performance, and EPA should 

evaluate whether the omission was appropriate. Where WET tests are required by permit or this 

CWT study, EPA should analyze and track results over time. By incorporating regular WET 

testing in this study, the agency will gain a better understanding of the efficacy of CWT 

performance, and avoid replicating the missteps identified by the OIG.

iii. Targeted Survey of CWT Residual Waste

As a part of its CWT study or future planning, EPA should consider undertaking a survey of 

CWTs to gather more information about the composition of residual waste streams and identify 

pollutants of concern. As part of EPA’s 2012 Annual Review, EPA reviewed the Targeted 

National Sewage Sludge Survey (TNSSS) and indirect discharges from the 2009 Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI) database to “develop national estimates of the concentrations of selected 

analytes” and “assess if exposures to analytes were occurring and whether the concentrations in 

sewage sludge may be of concern for public health and the environment.” EPA also used the 

TNSSS to identify new pollutants of concern. 

Although EPA’s TNSSS was conducted in connection with the agency’s obligations under 

Section 405 of the CWA, a similar survey of residual waste generated by CWTs treating oil and 

gas wastewater would be extremely beneficial. As with POTWs, treatment at CWTs generate 

residual waste streams composed of constituents removed from the wastewater, often in high 

concentrations. Residual waste streams are not well characterized in peer-reviewed literature, 
Section 8 – Unconventional Oil and Gas (UOG)

Section 8.2 – Additional Data and Information for UOG and CWT Efforts

104

perhaps even less so than POTW residuals. To remedy this information gap, EPA should 

undertake a national survey of existing CWTs accepting oil and gas wastewater to: (1) broaden 

the agency’s understanding of the composition of residual waste from CWTs; (2) identify new 

pollutants of concern in wastewater discharges from the oil and gas industry; and (3) evaluate 

whether, and to what extent, the constituents in oil and gas wastewater impact the beneficial use 

of residuals. EPA should consider, among other things, all three of these factors in evaluating the 

efficacy of CWT treatments.

Response:

EPA acknowledges the commenter’s suggestion that the Agency should use various existing 

authorities to collect data and will consider these and other data collection strategies during its 

study of CWTs. EPA appreciates the commenter’s offer to keep the Agency apprised of EDF’s 

ongoing project, “Addressing the Environmental Impacts of Oil and Natural Gas Development: 

Wastewater Treatment and End Uses,” as updates are available.

EPA’s CWT study effort includes the review of existing information and literature on oil and gas 

extraction wastewater, including the EPA Office of Research and Development’s 

(ORD) Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on 

Drinking Water Resources; data in the proposed rulemaking record for the pretreatment 

standards for UOG extraction wastewater discharges to POTWs (80 FR 18557); and the recent 

USGS Produced Water Database (Blondes et al., 2014; 

see http://energy.usgs.gov/EnvironmentalAspects/EnvironmentalAspectsofEnergyProductionand

Use/ProducedWaters.aspx#3822349-data).

EPA will also consider the Office of Inspector General’s report More Action Is Needed to 

Protect Water Resources from Unmonitored Hazardous Chemicals as part of its study of CWTs. 

EPA agrees that it would be valuable to compare known constituents to constituents currently 

regulated in CWT discharges, and it intends to evaluate a number of permits and data sources as 

part of the CWT study. EPA also agrees that WET testing may play an important role in 

evaluating the toxicity of discharges from CWTs. EPA intends to evaluate data on WET, and 

from other toxicity testing, as part of the CWT study. 

EPA acknowledges the commenter’s suggestion that the Agency should undertake a survey of 

the CWT industry as part of the study in order to evaluate residual waste streams, identify new 

pollutants of concern in wastewater discharges from the oil and gas industry, and evaluate 

whether constituents in oil and gas wastewater impact the beneficial use of residuals. The 

Agency agrees that these are important topics for consideration in the study and will explore 

methods for collecting such data, including surveys. 
Section 9 – General ELG Program Comments

Section 9.1 – Stakeholder Collaboration

105

Section 9 – General ELG Program Comments

Section 9.1 – Stakeholder Collaboration 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0082-6

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)

Commenter Name: Roger E. Claff

Commenter Type: Trade Association/Industry Group 

Comment Excerpt Text:

C. Continued engagement and communication with EPA

EPA has already contacted API to request collaboration in providing relevant information on 

wastewater compositions and amounts, treatment technologies, and financial data on the 

petroleum refining industry and CWTs owned or operated within the petroleum industry. API 

recognizes its status as a significant stakeholder in the detailed studies EPA is planning. API and

its member companies are prepared to work with EPA to not only provide the requested data, but 

to offer expertise in characterizing the point source categories and the feasibility of regulatory 

options. API requests a process of open communication with EPA and is looking forward to this 

collaboration. 

Response:

EPA agrees that, in developing and implementing effluent guidelines, early and ongoing 

engagement with stakeholders is valuable to all involved. 
Section 9 – General ELG Program Comments

Section 9.2 – Current Status of ELGs Under Development

106

Section 9.2 – Current Status of ELGs Under Development

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0089-1

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA)

Commenter Name: Michael Fulton

Commenter Type: State Representing Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

Final 2012 ELG Program Plan

1. ACWA’s October 2013 comments on the Preliminary 2012 ELG Program Plan included a

recommendation that EPA include the current status of ELGs under development in future Plans.

ACWA appreciates the inclusion of the section in the Final 2012 plan that provides a status of

the ELGs that are currently in the development stage at EPA (see Section 5.4).

Response:

EPA agrees with the commenter that, where possible, including information about the current 

status of effluent guidelines rulemakings under development in Effluent Guidelines Plans is 

appropriate and may be valuable to the public. 
Section 9 – General ELG Program Comments

Section 9.3 – EPA Staffing for the ELG Program

107

Section 9.3 – EPA Staffing for the ELG Program 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0089-8

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA)

Commenter Name: Michael Fulton

Commenter Type: State Representing Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

11. States remain concerned by the reduction of EPA staff working on ELGs and pretreatment

standards. This reduction has impacted the Agency’s ability to address ELGs and pretreatment

standards that are in need of updates and/or would benefit from additional guidance and technical

support materials. ACWA recommends that EPA increase the staff allocated to working on

ELGs.

Response:

EPA does not agree that there has been a reduction in EPA staff that has impacted the Agency’s 

effluent guidelines program. Under current congressionally authorized budgets, EPA has 

assigned an appropriate number of staff to the planning and development of new or revised 

effluent guidelines, as well as development of guidance and technical support materials, where 

warranted. For example, there are currently four regulations under revision or development (i.e., 

Dental, Steam Electric Power Generation, Alaskan Seafood Processing, and Unconventional Oil 

and Gas Extraction) and three ongoing category studies (i.e., Centralized Waste Treatment, 

Metal Finishing, and Petroleum Refining). Further, EPA also expanded its annual review process 

in 2012 to include an odd- and even-year annual review cycle to more cohesively and 

comprehensively address the factors laid out in EPA’s draft National Strategy. This approach 

includes EPA’s screening review of industrial dischargers through a toxicity rankings analysis 

(TRA) and a review of additional hazard data sources aimed at identifying industrial categories 

for review beyond those that traditionally rank high in the TRA. 
Section 9 – General ELG Program Comments

Section 9.4 – Sharing Information Earlier in the ELG Planning Process

108

Section 9.4 – Sharing Information Earlier in the ELG Planning Process 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0089-9

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA)

Commenter Name: Michael Fulton

Commenter Type: State Representing Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

12. The 2012 and 2013 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Reports were released in conjunction

with the 2014 Preliminary ELG Plan. This highlights a core problem with the process in that

EPA shares information too late in its process, particularly the valuable information contained in

the Annual Review Reports. ACWA recommends that EPA consider releasing the factual

information contained in the Annual Review Reports earlier in the planning process.

Response:

EPA does not agree that it has shared information with the states or other stakeholders too late in 

the effluent guidelines planning process. EPA strives to make information available for public 

review as soon as it becomes available, and as appropriate. Typically, Annual Review Reports 

(ARRs) are released in the year for which the report was prepared, or shortly thereafter. With 

respect to the 2012 and 2013 ARRs, EPA released the reports in conjunction with the combined 

Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Plans, which were published concurrently in September 2014. 

Regardless of the timing of the release of its ARRs, given the type of information contained in 

the reports, EPA considers the information still useful even after the year for which a report was 

prepared. EPA’s 304(m) industrial wastewater review process is a continuous year-to-year 

process.
Section 9 – General ELG Program Comments

Section 9.5 – Timeliness of Plan Publication

109

Section 9.5 – Timeliness of Plan Publication

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0089-10

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA)

Commenter Name: Michael Fulton

Commenter Type: State Representing Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

13. ACWA commented on the 2012 Preliminary plan regarding the lack of timeliness of the

development and publication of that plan. ACWA appreciates the lost time that EPA has made

up by publishing the 2014 Preliminary Plan (released in September 2014) just a year following

publication of the 2012 preliminary plan (released in August 2013). ACWA recommends that

EPA continue this progress and make up the remaining lost time to get the planning schedule

back on track where preliminary plans are published the year prior to the year addressed in the

plan.

Response:

EPA agrees with the commenter that timely publication of ELG Plans is the preferred approach, 

and EPA continues to aim to publish Final Plans in their corresponding calendar year, after 

providing an opportunity for public review and comment on a Preliminary Plan, consistent with 

CWA Section 304(m), 33 U.S.C. § 1314(m). To maintain this schedule, EPA is publishing its 

Final 2014 Plan as soon as possible and will follow up with publication of the Preliminary 2016 

ELG Plan, for public review and comment, as soon as possible thereafter. 
Section 9 – General ELG Program Comments 

Section 9.6 – Support for EPA’s New Even-Year Analyses 

110

Section 9.6 – Support for EPA’s New Even-Year Analyses

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170-0089-11

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA)

Commenter Name: Michael Fulton

Commenter Type: State Representing Organization

Comment Excerpt Text:

14. ACWA commends EPA for the new annual review methodology used in the 2012 Annual

Review Report, specifically the use of the following 6 new methodologies: identification of

industrial pollutants in sewage sludge, use of the Industrial wastewater treatment technology

(IWTT) database, review of chemical action plans’ (CAPs) chemicals, review of air regulations,

review of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) sectors expansion, and review of analytical methods.

Use of these methods significantly expanded the information available upon which to base ELG

planning decisions beyond the TRI, and provided credible evidence that supported new

determinations for detailed study, preliminary category review, and no action, while in other

cases supported previous determinations for no action at this time. ACWA encourages EPA to

continue use these new methodologies.

Response:

EPA agrees with the commenter that the new annual review methodologies are beneficial to the 

304(m) planning process, and plans to continue to investigate additional industrial hazard data 

sources, whenever available, to enable more comprehensive annual reviews of industrial 

wastewater discharges. EPA plans to also continue using its traditional TRA using Discharge 

Monitoring Report (DMR) and TRI data for analyzing the existing industrial categories. By 

combining both approaches, EPA will be better able to identify unregulated industrial pollutants 

that may warrant consideration, including pollutants other than toxics, during its annual reviews.