Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-0409
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-12-31T05:00Z

1U.
S.
EPA,
2002.
Draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulations,
EPA­
821­
R­
02­
025,
http://
epa.
gov/
guide/
strategy/,
November
2002.

Page
1
of
7
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Modifications
to
EPA's
Effluent
Guideline
Planning
Process
FROM:
Patricia
Harrigan,
USEPA/
OW/
OST
(
202)
566­
1666
(
harrigan.
patricia@
epa.
gov)

TO:
Public
Record
for
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005
DCN
00670
Section
1.2
EPA
Docket
Number
OW­
2003­
0074
(
www.
epa.
gov/
edockets/)

DATE:
December
30,
2003
The
purpose
of
this
memorandum
is
to
describe
modifications
to
EPA's
effluent
guidelines
planning
process
since
publication
of
the
draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulations
("
draft
Strategy).
1
Overview
CWA
Section
304(
m)(
1)(
A)
requires
EPA
to
establish
a
schedule
for
the
annual
review
and
revision
of
all
existing
effluent
guidelines.
Additionally,
CWA
Section
304(
m)(
1)(
B)
requires
EPA
to
identify
categories
of
point
sources
discharging
toxic
or
non­
conventional
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
not
published
effluent
guidelines.
EPA
developed
the
draft
Strategy
in
order
to
provide
interested
stakeholders
 
industry,
academia,
equipment
manufacturers,
States,
POTWs,
environmental
interest
groups,
and
members
of
the
public
 
the
chance
to
consider
how
effluent
guidelines
can
best
meet
the
needs
of
the
broader
national
clean
water
program
in
the
years
ahead.
In
developing
the
preliminary
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005,
EPA
departed
from
the
draft
Strategy
in
several
ways.
This
memorandum
describes
these
changes.

In
the
draft
Strategy,
EPA
identified
four
major
factors
 
based
on
the
statutory
factors
at
Section
304(
b)
 
that
the
Agency
would
examine
to
determine
whether
revision
of
an
existing
effluent
guideline
or
development
of
a
new
guideline
would
be
necessary
and
appropriate
at
the
current
time
and
outlined
the
steps
(
or
phases)
the
Agency
would
take
in
the
planning
process.
See
Attachment
1
for
a
brief
description
of
the
process
as
described
in
the
draft
Strategy.

As
EPA
began
to
implement
the
process
outlined
in
the
draft
Strategy,
the
Agency
learned
that
limitations
in
the
available
data
necessitated
changes
in
the
proposed
process.
EPA
identified
additional
screening­
level
criteria
so
that
it
could
focus
its
efforts
and
collect
and
analyze
data
on
Page
2
of
7
the
industry
categories
potentially
posing
the
greatest
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
EPA
also
learned
that
it
needed
to
address
categories
with
and
without
effluent
guidelines
differently.
These
changes
are
discussed
in
the
following
sections.

Industry
Categories
Already
Regulated
by
Effluent
Guidelines
First­
level
Screening
Review
The
initial
screening
relied
primarily
on
information
gathered
under
Factor
1:
Human
Health
and
the
Environment
(
addressing
discharge
amounts,
toxicity
and
effects)
and
Factor
4:
Efficiency
and
Implementation
(
addressing
efficiency
of
the
guidelines
and
NPDES
permitting
programs,
multi­
media
issues,
etc.).
EPA
found
that
gathering
the
data
needed
to
perform
a
meaningful
screening­
level
analysis
for
Factor
2:
Technology
Innovation
and
Process
Changes
was
much
more
resource­
intensive
than
anticipated.
Data
sources
in
this
area
are
widely
scattered
and
often
lack
sufficient
detail
and
process
specificity
to
be
useful
at
a
screening
level.
They
are
better
suited
to
in­
depth
analysis
of
specific
industries.
Thus,
both
Factors
2
and
3
(
the
availability
and
affordability
of
technology
to
reduce
hazard
or
risk)
were
first
considered,
to
the
extent
possible,
during
an
additional
screening­
level
step
EPA
applied
to
a
limited
set
of
industries
with
relatively
high
estimates
of
potential
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
(
see
below).
As
discussed
in
the
draft
Strategy,
these
factors
will
also
be
considered
more
extensively
in
the
detailed
investigations.

In
evaluating
stakeholder
recommendations
for
guideline
development
or
revision,
EPA
used
available
information
and
data
to
consider
the
extent
to
which
the
pollutants
in
an
industry
category's
discharge
pose
a
hazard/
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
(
see
factor
1)
and/
or
whether
the
recommendation
identified
an
industry
category
to
which
the
effluent
guideline
program
applies
(
see
second­
level
screening
below).

Second­
level
Screening
Review
During
this
screening,
the
Agency
excluded
industries
if:
(
1)
the
industry
was
composed
almost
exclusively
of
indirect
dischargers
in
which
case
effluent
guidelines
planning
is
governed
by
Section
304(
g)
of
the
CWA;
(
2)
the
majority
of
the
estimated
hazard
or
risk
for
one
industry
was
limited
to
only
one
or
a
few
facilities,
in
which
case
permit
writing
support
might
be
a
more
appropriate
approach
to
addressing
the
environmental
problem;
and
(
3)
if
the
estimated
hazard
or
risk
for
an
industry
was
unclear
and
more
data
and
time
would
be
needed
to
make
an
initial
determination
of
the
likely
magnitude
and
extent
of
the
hazard
or
risk
than
is
available
in
this
effluent
guidelines
planning
cycle.
By
using
this
multi­
layered
screening
approach,
the
Agency
attempted
to
concentrate
its
resources
on
those
point
source
categories
that
appeared
to
pose
the
most
hazard
or
risk
concern
while
eliminating
from
further
consideration
during
this
planning
cycle
only
those
industries
which
the
Agency
believes
would
not
be
good
candidates
for
guideline
development
or
revision.
See
the
record
memorandum
titled,
"
Description
and
Results
of
EPA
Methodology
to
Synthesize
Screening
Level
Results
for
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
Page
3
of
7
2004/
2005,"
(
DCN
00548,
Section
3.0),
for
more
information
on
how
these
screens
were
implemented.

Additional
Screening
Step
For
the
industries
that
appeared
to
pose
the
greatest
risks
to
human
health
or
the
environment,
EPA
attempted
to
gather
and
analyze
data
on:
(
1)
the
pollutants
driving
the
hazard
or
risk
estimates;
(
2)
the
geographic
distribution
of
facilities
in
the
industry;
(
3)
the
efficiency
of
treatment
already
in
place;
and
(
4)
any
discharge
trends
within
the
industry.
EPA
performed
limited
quality
assurance
checks
on
the
data
used
to
develop
estimates
of
potential
risk
(
e.
g.,
by
calling
facilities
to
verify
data
reported
to
TRI
and
PCS).

Prior
to
making
a
decision
regarding
whether
to
proceed
with
further,
detailed
investigation
or
an
effluent
guideline
rulemaking,
EPA
anticipates
that
it
will
want
to
consider
information
of
this
nature
and
other
information,
as
needed,
to
address
the
questions
that
may
arise
based
on
the
available
data
and/
or
the
industries
under
consideration
in
future
effluent
guideline
plans.
Thus,
EPA
anticipates
revising
its
draft
Strategy
to
explicitly
provide
an
opportunity
for
gathering
and
considering
this
type
of
additional
screening
information.

Completing
Detailed
Industry
Investigations
Prior
to
Proposing
the
Plan
In
this
first
effort
to
implement
the
draft
Strategy,
EPA
expended
considerable
time
and
resources
identifying,
organizing,
and
learning
how
best
to
analyze
new
data
sources.
As
a
result,
the
process
took
much
longer
than
anticipated
and
the
Agency
has
not
completed
the
detailed
investigations
it
anticipated
finishing
prior
to
proposing
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005.
Thus,
the
proposed
2004/
2005
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
announces
which
industries
the
Agency
will
study
in
a
detailed
review
for
possible
guideline
development
or
revision,
and
does
not
reflect
the
outcome
of
such
a
review.
This
is
not
a
suggested
change
to
the
Strategy
for
use
in
future
planning
processes,
but
is
simply
the
result
of
the
time
expended
to
identify
and
analyze
available
data
sources
in
this
first
planning
cycle
based
on
the
Strategy.

Industry
Categories
Not
Regulated
by
Effluent
Guidelines
The
draft
Strategy
described
a
similar
review
process
and
nearly
identical
decision
factors
for
industrial
categories
regulated
by
effluent
guidelines
and
categories
not
regulated
by
effluent
guidelines.
In
developing
the
proposed
plan,
the
Agency
confirmed
that
it
could
consider
some
issues
similarly.
(
For
example,
whether
a
guideline
is
under
development
or
recently
completed,
whether
the
industry
is
entirely
or
almost
entirely
composed
of
indirect
dischargers,
and
whether
other
parts
of
the
CWA
more
appropriately
and
effectively
regulate
the
category
(
e.
g.,
NPDES
permit
limits
set
by
best
professional
judgment
(
BPJ).)
EPA
also
learned
that,
for
certain
issues,
it
needed
to
address
categories
with
and
without
effluent
guidelines
differently.

In
evaluating
industry
categories
not
regulated
by
effluent
guidelines,
EPA
first
considered
Page
4
of
7
whether
an
industrial
operation
or
activity
is
properly
characterized
as
an
industry
"
category."
EPA
believes
that
the
list
of
"
categories
of
sources"
set
forth
at
section
306(
b)(
1)(
B)
suggests
that
Congress
intended
this
term
to
be
broadly
construed
(
e.
g.,
pulp
and
paper
mills,
organic
chemicals
manufacturing,
steam
electric
powerplants).
EPA
compared
the
processes,
operations,
wastewaters,
and
pollutants
of
unregulated
industrial
activities
to
those
of
point
source
categories
regulated
by
effluent
guidelines.
EPA
addressed
potential
new
subcategories
and
new
pollutants
as
part
of
its
annual
review
of
existing
effluent
guidelines.
See
Section
VIII.
A.
of
the
Federal
Register
notice
for
the
proposed
plan.

EPA
also
considered
whether
discharges
from
unregulated
industrial
categories
are
subject
to
the
CWA's
NPDES
permitting
requirements.
For
example,
some
stakeholders
urged
EPA
to
identify
municipal
stormwater
discharges
for
development
of
effluent
limitation
guidelines.
EPA
believes
that
these
discharges
should
be
addressed
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
for
municipal
and
industrial
stormwater
at
CWA
Sections
402(
p).
Similarly,
EPA
believes
that
technology­
based
standards
for
publicly­
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)
are
addressed
more
appropriately
in
accordance
with
CWA
Section
301(
b)(
1)(
B).

In
considering
the
extent
to
which
discharges
from
industry
categories
without
guidelines
pose
a
risk
to
human
health
and
environment,
EPA
considered
whether
these
categories
discharge
non­
trivial
amounts
of
toxic
or
nonconventional
pollutants.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
it
is
necessary,
nor
was
it
Congress's
intent,
to
develop
national
effluent
guidelines
for
categories
of
sources
that
are
likely
to
pose
an
insignificant
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
Page
5
of
7
Attachment
1
Planning
Process
as
Outlined
in
the
draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulations
The
Four
Factors
The
draft
Strategy
identified
four
factors
that
the
Agency
would
consider
during
the
planning
process.
The
first
factor
is
a
consideration
of
the
extent
to
which
the
pollutants
remaining
in
an
industry
category's
discharge
pose
a
hazard/
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

The
second
factor
to
be
considered
is
identification
of
an
applicable
and
demonstrated
technology,
process
change,
or
pollution
prevention
alternative
that
can
effectively
reduce
the
pollutants
remaining
in
the
industry
category's
wastewaters
and
thereby
substantially
reduce
any
estimated
hazard
or
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
associated
with
those
pollutants.

The
third
factor
encompasses
the
cost,
performance,
and
affordability
of
the
technology,
process
change,
or
pollution
prevention
measures
identified
using
the
second
factor.
If
the
cost
of
the
improvement
is
too
great
in
comparison
to
the
human
health
or
environmental
benefits
associated
with
the
pollutant
reductions
achieved,
or
if
the
financial
condition
of
the
industry
category
indicates
significant
difficulties
in
achieving
the
reductions,
EPA
would
be
reluctant
to
select
the
effluent
guideline
for
revision.
In
this
case,
Agency
resources
would
be
more
effectively
spent
developing
other
more
efficient,
less
costly
approaches
to
reducing
pollutant
loadings.

The
fourth
factor
incorporates
implementation
and
efficiency
considerations
and
recommendations
from
stakeholders.
Under
this
factor,
EPA
would
consider
whether
existing
effluent
guidelines
could
be
revised,
for
example,
to
eliminate
inefficiencies
or
impediments
to
technological
innovation,
or
to
promote
innovative
approaches
such
as
water
quality
trading,
including
within­
plant
trading.
This
factor
might
also
prompt
EPA
to
decide
not
to
revise
an
effluent
guideline
for
an
industry
category
where
the
pollutant
source
is
already
being
addressed
by
another
regulatory
program,
such
as
EPA's
stormwater
requirements,
or
by
non­
regulatory
programs
that
may
more
effectively
address
the
problem.
While
EPA
has
not
tied
this
factor
directly
to
hazard
or
risk,
the
Agency
hopes
that
any
efficiencies
resulting
from
revisions
relating
to
this
factor
would
allow
permitting
authorities
and
industry
to
devote
their
resources
to
other
areas
posing
greater
hazard/
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

First­
level
Screening
Review
As
described
in
the
draft
Strategy,
the
first
phase
of
the
planning
process
is
an
initial
screen
of
readily
available
information.
This
analysis
would
focus
on
the
potential
for
human
health
and
environmental
impacts
(
Factor
1);
technology
advances
and
process
changes
(
Factor
2);
and
implementation
and
efficiency
considerations
(
Factor
4).
In
this
step
EPA
would
evaluate
Page
6
of
7
readily
available,
screening­
level
data
and
stakeholder
information
to
create
an
initial
list
of
potential
categories
for
revision
or
guideline
development
that
might
warrant
further
examination
in
subsequent
steps.
Readily
available
screening
level
data
includes
publicly
available
Agency
databases
and
reports
that
are
broad
enough
to
provide
nation­
wide
information
preferably
on
an
industry
basis.
In
this
way,
EPA
would
be
able
to
screen
the
relevant
industrial
categories
and
select
ones
for
further
review
based
on
the
latest
information
available,
duly
noting
level
of
confidence
in
that
information
and
the
existing
gaps
in
information.

Second­
level
Screening
Review
In
the
draft
Strategy,
EPA
identified
several
criteria
to
help
establish
priorities
among
the
categories
identified
in
the
first­
level
screening
review
to
determine
which
were
possible
candidates
for
further
study
and
which
should
be
removed
from
consideration
at
the
current
time.
The
outcome
of
the
initial
screening
review
and
subsequent
analysis
would
be
a
list
of
industrial
categories
ranked
on
the
basis
of
the
various
factor
analyses.

The
first
criterion
is
whether
rule
making
is
already
underway
for
an
industry
category
identified
by
the
screening
level
process.
If
a
rule
making
is
already
underway,
concerns
identified
during
the
screening
process
would
be
shared
with
the
EPA
rulemaking
team,
and
the
industry
category
would
be
excluded
from
further
consideration
under
the
current
planning
cycle.

The
second
criterion
is
whether
an
effluent
guideline
has
recently
been
promulgated,
but
not
yet
fully
implemented.
In
general,
EPA
would
probably
remove
categories
for
which
effluent
guidelines
have
been
promulgated
within
the
past
seven
years
from
the
lists,
and
not
consider
them
for
further
study
at
the
current
time.
A
seven­
year
time
frame
takes
into
account
the
lag
time
that
occurs
as
effluent
guidelines
are
implemented.
In
addition,
there
are
unlikely
to
be
dramatic
changes
in
an
industry
category
during
the
first
seven
years
after
promulgation
of
a
new
or
revised
guideline.
However,
in
cases
where
EPA
is
aware
of
the
growth
of
a
new
segment
within
a
source
category,
or
in
cases
where
new
concerns
are
identified
for
previously
unevaluated
pollutants
(
such
as
endocrine
disruptors),
EPA
would
continue
to
list
the
subcategory
for
further
consideration.

A
third
criterion
is
whether
the
source
category
has
demonstrated
continual
improvement
through
voluntary
effluent
reductions.
EPA
agrees
with
stakeholders
that
voluntary
efforts
should
be
encouraged
and
rewarded,
especially
where
those
voluntary
reductions
have
been
widely
adopted
within
an
industry
and
have
led
to
significant
reductions
in
pollutant
discharges.
Ultimately,
EPA
may
choose
not
to
revise
an
existing
effluent
guideline
or
develop
a
new
effluent
guideline
for
an
industrial
category
that
has
demonstrated
that
significant
progress
is
being
made
through
voluntary
industry
effort
to
reduce
hazard/
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Page
7
of
7
Further
Investigation
As
described
in
the
draft
Strategy,
when
EPA
identifies
a
subset
of
industrial
categories
as
needing
further
or
detailed
study,
the
Agency
would
verify
the
available
hazard/
risk
data,
collect
additional
information
as
necessary
to
evaluate
of
the
cost,
performance
and
affordability
of
available
technology
(
Factor
3),
and
seek
additional
input
from
stakeholders
(
Factor
4).
More
generally,
the
detailed
investigation
provides
an
opportunity
to
begin
identifying
the
data
gaps
that
need
to
be
filled
and
collecting
and
analyzing
as
much
information
as
necessary
to
the
highest
level
of
confidence
possible
in
the
time
available,
in
order
to
determine
which
industrial
categories
are
the
best
candidates
for
guideline
development
or
revision
at
the
current
time.