United States Environmental Protection Agency



# Response to Comments for the Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

July 2015THIS 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 08110THIS 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 St udy

................................ ................ 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 Qual ity 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

................................ ............................ 88Table 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 Pub lication

................................ ................................ . 109
Section 9.6

– Support for EPA’s New Even

- Year Analyses

................................ .......... 110THIS 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 S ection 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 invitin g comment on the Preliminary 2014 P lan on September 16 , 201 4 ( 79 FR 55472 ). Documents supporting the Preliminary 201 4 Plan can be locat ed 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 review s. 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

- 20 10

- 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 exce rpts 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 comm ent 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 se veral 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

- 201 4

- 0 17 0

- 0 081

- 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 , 201 4 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, demonstr ate 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 fir st 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 pres ented.

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 1.4Index 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 2.11Section 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. C ommenter 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 was tewaters
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 limit ed 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 Ef fluent 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.

Central ized 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 organi cs. 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 it s 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 i ncluding 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 incre ased 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. E PA 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, tot al dissolved solids (TDS) , metals and organics, which are of increasing concern.

EPA is also reviewing the environmental impacts of discharges from CWT f acilities accepting oil and gas wastewaters, including the potential impacts on surface and ground wate r 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 Wate r 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 requ iring 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 scienc e, 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 o nly 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 c ommenter s tates 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 re gulations 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 conduc ting 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 owne d 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 pollu tants 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: C onsultant 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 f or 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 was tewaters 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 produc ed 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 rad ionuclides in accepted oil and gas extraction wastewater and capabilities of treatment technologies to removeSection 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 concer ning 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 exampl e, do they receive wastewaters from more than one source? Are those sources located off

site from facilities providing wastewaters for treatment? Are the facilities not owned by parties providing wastewaters for treatment? If as defined by the effluent gui delines 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 detai led 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

- equivalen ts 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 effl uent 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 efflu ent 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 fo r 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 d efinitions can be found at 40 CFR part 437.2. Furthermore, the CWT study willSection 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 evalu ate 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 h ave 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 4 0 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, ownershi p 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 expect s 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 co mmenter ’ 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 de termination 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 enviro nmental 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 P lan).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 consi derations 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 pla n).
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 wastew ater treatment technologies used by the industry and their p erformance ( http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/cwt/upload/CWT_DD_2000.pdf ).

On the issue of clarif ying 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 fro m 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 wastewa ter 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 g as 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 in creasing 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 i nclude 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 oi l 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.S ection 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 re gulatory 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. Bas ed 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 S eptember 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 Jul y 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 an d Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans. ” (EPA

- 820

- R

- 14

- 001)

Response:

EPA has not yet deci ded 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 i nform 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 appre ciates the assistance and input provided by NORA during development of the current CWT ELGs and welcomes its participation in the current study.S ection 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.

Acc ordingly, NORA and its CWT members welcome the opportunity to meet with EPA as it moves forward with this project.

Response:
See the respo nse 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 lo ngterm 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 ga s 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 in creases.
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 CWT s. 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 informatio n 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 incr easing. 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 e stimate 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 comp rise 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., 2 014; 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 su ggest 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 operatio nal 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 wil l 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 f or 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 dis posal 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., P ennsylvania 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, inclu ding 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 thes e 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, precip itation 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 wat er. 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 a nd applicability of distillation technology differs from reverse osmosis, discussed below, in its ability to treat influent with high TDS levels and since theSection 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 tha t 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

ov ercome 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 stream s 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 30,00 0 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 trea tment 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 sequenc e 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) occu rs 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 s ufficient 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 t hat “ 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 det ermine the presence and concentration of constituents, and the limited information on toxicity of potential constituents ofSection 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 develop ed 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 in dustry (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 wit h 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 Facil ity, 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 lis t 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 chem icals. 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 discharg e 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 disch arge. 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 N ORM 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 i s 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 mos t 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 qua lity 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 t he 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 current ly 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 sh ould 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 & Environme nt ’ 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 wastewate r 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 landfi lls, 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 a nd 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 drill ing 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 Pit tsburgh 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 Pe nnsylvania 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 t hat 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 i ncreased 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 dischar ges 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 characteristi cs 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 a ware 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 y et 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 comp lexity 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 was tewater, 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 to xicities, 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 CWT s 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 tow ards 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 up stream 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, she llfish, 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 detect ion 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). Howe ver, 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 un questionable 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 ste ps 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 amo unt 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 compou nds (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 uncove red, 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, fractio nation, 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 treatm ent 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 sh ed 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 f ormation 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.

Eq ually 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 treat ment 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 in quiry 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 Resour ce 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 robu st 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 eff icacy 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 consultant s 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 analy sis, 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 h uman 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 lik ely 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 like ly 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 d etailed 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 de cision.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 sco pe, 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 reg ulations 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 reg ulations 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 FO R 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 N ATIONAL 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 Partnershi p 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 /chemical

use/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%2 0Gas%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 (201 2)
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, 20 14, 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 Wastewater

Impacted 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 Lesson s 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, E NERGY

- 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 INJECT ION 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 Oi l & 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 Regi onal 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 Manag ement 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 C WT 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 N ame: 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 i t 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 foun d, 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

- 201 0

- 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. EP A 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 Re fining 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

- 200 9

- 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 s ense 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 detai led 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 a nd 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 gui deline 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 Nu mber: 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 u njustified 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 , E PA 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 t o 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 t he 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 th ese 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 t he 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 fo r 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 p resented 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 large

scale 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 h uman 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 reconsid er 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, EP A 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 Petr oleum 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 act ions 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 pet roleum 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 Ele ctric 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 biolo gical 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 rece nt 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 cur rently 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 stringen t 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 discharge s, 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 A s 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 ar e 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 t o 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

w as 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 was testreams 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 t he 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 Associati on/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 processe s. ” 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 ea sily 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 understand ing of the current status of the industry, that information would be helpful to EPA in developing its detai led 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 guideline s 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 Michigan 8 provided the most comprehensive di scussion. 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 c oncerns resulted in the need to conduct bench

scale 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 f or 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 consi dering. 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 informati on 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 categor ies. ” 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 c urrent 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 va riability associated with both wastewater concentrations and treatment system operations?

8 EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2010

- 0170 as document DCN 07831 on regulations.gov at http://w ww.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 treatabil ity 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 h istorical 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 k ey recommendations from the GAO review of the Effluent Guidelines Program. EPA is capturing these performance data in a comprehensive and searchable Industrial WastewaterSection 2

– Petroleum Refining Section 2.5

– Petroleum Refining Treatment Technologies

40 Treatment Technology (IWTT) database. EPA intends to use the IWTT database in its scr eening 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

- 017 0
, 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 ba sed 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

- bas ed 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 devel op 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. R ather, 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, t echnology

- 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 n ation ’ s waters.

1 A s 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 his torical 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, E PA 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 in tention 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

econom ically 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 Secti on 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

r esulted 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 capab ilities. 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 a re 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 c oncentrations 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 unders tands 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 considerati on 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 te chnologies in use at the refinery. Additionally, refiners doSection 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 requir ed 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 metal s 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 prop osing 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 feeds tocks 6 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 refine ries 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 wastew ater 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) C ommenter 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 environme nt 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 wha t 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 federa l 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 y ears). 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 refineri es 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 examine d 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

me thodologies 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 det ected 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 shouldSection 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 c rude 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 t hat “ 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 screening

level analysis that EPA conducted for i ts 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.

E PA 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 dis charges 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 note s that und er 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 ach ievable. 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

- 7 4 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 me tals 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 refine ries 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 num ber 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 befor e? 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 agenc y should examine the Energy Information Administration ’ s U.S. records on crude volumes and types to determine if a high

level correlation can made 5 . 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, b ut 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:

S ee the response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2014

- 0170

- 0087

- 6.Section 2

– Petroleum Refining Sectio n 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 industry 4 . 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 ra tionale 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. Ho w 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 2015U.S. Crude Throughput, MMBPDMetal 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 Sectio n 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 cl osed. 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 abo ve 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 a bove 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 an d 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 weight ing factor (TWF) for each of the 17 dioxin congeners and the n aggregated. The Office of Water calculates TWFs using a combination of t oxic e quivalency f actors (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 petroleu m 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 ML 2 in wastewater discharges, and (2) identifying the specific sourc e 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 a ny data and information provided by all stakeholders and will consider it in preparation of the detailed study.Section 2

– Petroleum Refining Sectio n 2.9

– Petroleum Refining Dioxin Discharges

54 1 TWFs are defined in EPA ’ s Toxic Weighting Factors Methodology: http://www.noticeandcomment.com/Toxic

Weighting

- 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 Numbe r: 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 2 012 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 addressi ng 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 stud y 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 re visions 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 com pounds (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 rece nt data, into consideration during the study.

EPA note s 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 ex ample, 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 non

existe nt 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 a nd 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 whi ch 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 additio nal 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 TR I 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 facilitie s 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 othe r 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 reg ard 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 i s EPA ’ s understanding that mass quantities of a chemical included on the TRI chemical list (including a dioxin or dioxin

- like compound), whichSection 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 Re view 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 degr ees 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 s ignificant 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 t he 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 ha s 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 the m 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, aft er 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 hav e 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 rulem aking 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 Ma nufacturers (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 a bsence 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 Ta ble 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 ca lculating 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 persp ective 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 2010TWPE 

## 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 limitat ions 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 wil l collect and analyze new and additional data and information up on which to base a final decision on whether to revise the ELG s for petroleum refining. Any and all data and information EPA use s in making that decision will be subject to EPA ‘ s data and info rmation 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 consolid ated 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: E PA

- 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. 10 But unfortunately as EPA subsequently noted in its 2012/2014 Report, it “ assumed that the underlying data and information contained i n 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 conc lusions 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 as surance 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 Accountabili ty 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 sourc es 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 da ta 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 disc harge 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 informa tion 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 Wa ter Regulations P rogrammatic 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 n ew 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 ELG s.
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 r eport (see EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2010

- 0824

- 0255 ) S team 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: T rade 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 st atistical 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 tha t are below the analytical method ’ s detection limit.

Response:

See the response s to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2014

- 0170

- 0087

- 2, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2014

- 0170

- 0087

- 4, EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2014

- 0170

- 0087

- 5, and EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2014

- 0170

- 0087

- 11.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2014

- 0170

- 0087

- 17 Organi zation: 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, andSection 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, E PA 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 decisio n 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 ag ency assertions that discharges of metals and dioxin are increasing. Based on the information EPA has provided in Table 5

- 5 3 , the trend in Toxic Weighted Pound Equivalents ( “ TWPE ” ) appears to be decreasing, and not increasing, leading to questions and conf usion 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 response s to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2 014

- 0170

- 0087

- 2
, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2014

- 0170

- 0087

- 4, EPA

HQ

- 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 Typ e: 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 contaminat ed 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 indu stry. 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 e stimates 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 pl anning 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 S ection 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 aSection 2

– Petroleum Refining Section 2.12

– Use of TRI Data for Petroleum Refining

66 potential pollutant concern using DMR or TRI data, EPA subjects t he 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 dat a 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 su ch 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 no t 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 anal yzed 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 d ata 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 especia lly 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 ag ency 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 Wate r 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 availab ility 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 identi fied 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 h igh 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, inappr opriately affects the categorical rankings.
EPA uses both the TRI and DMR data, separately and in combination, when calculating toxic

weighted pollutant loadings and when ranking the industry categories because the TRI data give EPA a better representatio n 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 ba sed 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 offer s a clearer perspective o n 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 datab ases. 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 dataSection 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 t he 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 appro priate. 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 determin e 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 dischar ge 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 mea surement 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 tha t 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 a nd 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 document 1 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 th e 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 concentrationSection 2

– Petroleum Refining Section 2.12

– Use of TRI Data for Petroleum Refining

69 equivalent to ha lf 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

- lik e 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 rep orted 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 d esignated 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.pdfSection 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 th at 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 T RI 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 represen t the best available information EPA has to rank and prioritize industrial discharge categories for further review.

F or 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 mar ginal benefit and marginal cost

effectiveness 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 , w hile 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 fro m 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 di sagrees 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 long

term

. ” 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, t echnology

- 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 n ation ’ 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 N ew 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 th at 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 Fin ishing Section 3.1

– Do Not Support M eta l F inishin g Stu dy

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 practice s 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 S ection 3.1

– Do Not Support M etal F inishin g 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 neces sary to protect human health and the environment.

Response:

See the response to EPA- HQ

- OW -2014-0170-0085-3.

C omment 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. EP A 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 globall y.
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 “ ca ptive” 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 respons e 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 Tech nology 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 tec hnology 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 re moval 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 oper ations 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 technolo gies, which were not in use when existing regulations were developed.” (S ee 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 : s ee 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 cons umption. EPA notes that facilities employing zero liquid discharge, acid recovery, or reduced water consumption can reduce costs by recovering someSection 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 ’ a bility 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.

C omment Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW -2014-0170-0089-2 Organization: Association of Clean Wa ter 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 indicat ed 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. N ew 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 technologi es and better controls on existing treatment have resulted in improved pretreatment. 7

e. T he 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 t he more typical smaller facilities with less than 50 employees. At almost every turn regulators are met with a new type ofmetal 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 be ing 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 pr ecious 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- fo r- ferrous

- and

nonferrous- 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- first

nanoceramic -sur face -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:

Th e 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 evaluati ng 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 (EPA

HQ

- OW -2014-0170, DCN 08107) and the response to EPA- HQ

- OW -2014-0170-0081-4.

C omment 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 refl ect 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 Fin ishing ELGs

81 Section 3.3 – Historical Review of Metal Fin ishing 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 furth er 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 clai med 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 Finishin g ELGs “ is not needed because EPA has already reviewed the finishing industry Effluent Limitation Guidelin es (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 industrySection 3 – Metal Finishing Section 3.3 – Historical Review of Metal Fin ishing 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 gatheri ng 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 con trols 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.

C omment 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 exclu ded, or specifically included only after considering small business impacts. It is our understanding that theseSection 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 typ es 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 co nsistently 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 requireme nts 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 impl ementation 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 a re 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 wash coating 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 takeSection 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.Sec tion 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 sys tem 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 a re 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 achi eved 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 resp onse 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 M etal Finishing industry and to help determine if new or revised effluent guidelines a re 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 ne w treatment technologies.Sec tion 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 POTW s 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

C omment 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 ope rations 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

ons ite 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 Orga nization: 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 nanop ollutants 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 industri al 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 nanomater ials. 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 ofSection 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 nanomateri als, distinguishengineered 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, sedime nt, 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 s upport 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 -constr ained 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/. Access ed 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 wastewa ter 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 inSection 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 nanom aterials.

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 recen t 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 Nanomaterial s 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 consid er 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, n ew 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 O CPSF 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 reflec t 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: Denn is 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 EP A 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 effl uent 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 Prelimi nary 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 Numb er: 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 ex traction 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 pu blic 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 p roposal 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 Prelim inary 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 believ e 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 – Unconvention al Oil and Gas (UOG) Section 8.1 – Support for UOG ELG Revisions

98 Section 8

– Unconvention al 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 con sider 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 propos ed 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 operatio n 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 – Unconvention al Oil and Gas (UOG) Section 8.1 – Support for UOG ELG Revisions

99 C omment 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, an d 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 Wa ter 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.

C omment 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 an d 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

– Unconvention al Oil and Gas (UOG) Section 8.1

– Support for UOG ELG Revisions

100 EDF notes that in the Final 2012 and Prelimin ary 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 c hange, 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

m anpower 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 ( ELG s )

. The proposed rules would prevent the discharge of pollutants in wastewater from onshore UOG extraction facilities to POTW s. EPA will consider the information provided by the commenter in the context of that rulemaking.Section 8 – Unconvention al 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. T he 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 (R CRA), 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 wastewate rs 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 constit uents 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 ofSection 8 – Unconvention al 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 o f 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 disc harge 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 broad er 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 app licable 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 o r 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 thoroughSection 8 – Unconvention al 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 p roduced 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 PO TW 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 te sting 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 s hould 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 – Unconvention al 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 pro ject, “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 wastew ater, 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 extrac tion 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 const ituents 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.Sectio n 9 – General ELG Program Comments Section 9.1 – Sta keholder Collaboration

105 Section 9

– General ELG Program Comments

Section 9.1 – Sta keholder 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 cha racterizing 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 guide lines, 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 curr ently 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 pro cess.
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 Report s ( ARR s) are released in the year for which the report was prepared, or shortly thereafter. With respect to the 2012 and 2013 ARR s, EPA released the reports in conjunction with the combined Final 2012 and Prel iminary 2014 Plans, which were published concurrently in September 2014. Regardless of the timing of the release of its ARR s, 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 tha t 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 E LG P rogram C

ommen ts Section 9.6

– Support

f or E PA ’s New Even -Y

ear A n alyses

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) chemi cals, 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 m ore 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.