Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-0469
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-12-24T05:00Z

Page
1
of
4
Recommendations
from
Commenters
on
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2002/
2003
February
21,
2003
Several
commenters
on
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2002/
2003
identified
specific
industrial
categories
that
EPA
should
consider
as
part
of
the
planning
process
for
future
effluent
guideline
development
or
revision.
Specific
pollutants
were
also
identified
as
causes
of
concern.

Background:
In
June,
2002,
EPA
proposed
its
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2002/
2003.
Recognizing
that
this
Plan
was
likely
to
be
the
last
to
be
published
under
the
terms
of
a
Consent
Decree,
the
Agency
included
in
the
proposal
a
solicitation
for
comments
on
the
future
of
the
Effluent
Guidelines
program,
including
recommendations
on
industrial
categories
for
which
new
or
revised
effluent
guidelines
should
be
considered.
Comments
from
the
Clean
Water
Network
(
CWN)
and
the
Massachusetts
Water
Resource
Authority
(
MWRA)
included
industry­
specific
and
pollutant­
specific
recommendations.
DuPont
Engineering
Technology
also
provided
a
pollutant­
specific
recommendation.
Each
of
these
categories
and
the
information
submitted
by
the
commenter
is
presented
below.
The
pollutant
specific
recommendations
are
also
included.
These
comments
were
originally
discussed
in
the
comment
response
document,
stored
in
the
EPA's
public
record
for
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2002/
2003
item
number
33.

INDUSTRIAL
CATEGORIES
WITHOUT
GUIDELINES
(
ALPHABETICALLY)

Coalbed
Methane
Development
CWN
identified
coalbed
methane
development
as
an
industry
which
has
had
significant
water
quality
impacts
in
the
region
in
which
it
is
prevalent.
In
their
comments,
CWN
states
"
The
practice
of
`
dewatering'
coal
seams
in
order
to
mine
methane
results
in
massive
amounts
of
polluted
water
being
discharged
into
neighboring
waterbodies,
negatively
affecting
wildlife
and
fisheries
in
many
parts
of
the
West.
While
EPA
Region
8
has
taken
action
on
this
issue,
we
believe
EPA
needs
to
develop
national
effluent
guidelines."

Cruise
Ships
CWN
identified
cruise
ships
as
an
industry
which
has
had
significant
water
quality
impacts
in
their
discharges
of
both
wastewater
and
graywater.
In
their
comments,
CWN
writes
"
EPA
is
currently
preparing
its
response
to
a
2000
petition
filed
by
Bluewater
Network
and
42
other
environmental
organizations
documenting
the
agency's
intent
to
address
pollution
from
cruise
ships.
Today's
ships
can
transport
more
than
5,000
passengers
and
generate
more
than
11
million
gallons
of
wastewater
every
day,
as
well
as
carry
significant
amounts
of
hazardous
chemicals
from
onboard
printing,
photo
processing,
and
dry
cleaning
operations.
We
urge
EPA
to
expedite
the
development
of
effluent
limitations
(
mandated
by
Title
XIV
of
the
Labor,
Health
and
Human
Services
Appropriations
Act
(
H.
R.
4577/
106th
Congress),
`
Certain
Alaskan
Cruise
Ship
Operations')
and
to
apply
these
limits
to
cruise
ship
discharges
in
all
U.
S.
waters."
Page
2
of
4
Dental
Facilities
MWRA
identified
dental
facilities
as
an
industry
sector
that
is
a
significant
source
of
mercury.
In
their
comments,
they
state
"
At
the
same
time
that
MWRA
began
trying
to
reduce
mercury
from
medical
facilities,
it
also
began
studying
mercury
in
discharges
from
dental
facilities.
In
1997,
MWRA
completed
a
study
that
estimated
that
dental
facilities
contribute
at
least
13%
of
the
mercury
in
MWRA's
system,
possibly
much
more.
Subsequent
studies
in
many
other
communities
have
reached
similar
conclusions.
Dental
facilities
are
now
recognized
as
a
major
nationwide
source
of
mercury
discharges
to
sewage
treatment
systems."
MWRA
has
provided
EPA
with
a
number
of
supporting
documents,
including
data,
to
support
this
recommendation.

In
addition,
MWRA
states
"
Moreover,
cost
effective
control
technology
is
readily
available
for
dental
facilities.
Recently,
St.
Paul,
Minnesota
published
the
results
of
tests
of
devices
that
remove
dental
amalgam
from
wastewater
discharges.
St.
Paul
found
that
installing
such
devices
in
dental
clinics
reduced
the
mercury
loadings
at
one
of
its
treatment
plants
by
more
than
40%.
St.
Paul
tested
several
commercially
available
devices
and
found
that
all
of
them
are
more
than
90%
effective
in
removing
mercury
from
dental
wastestreams.
The
American
Dental
Association
recently
tested
11
commercially
available
devices
and
found
that
all
of
them
are
more
than
95%
effective
in
removing
amalgam
solids,
using
the
test
established
by
the
International
Standards
Organization
(
ISO
11143).
The
ADA's
results
also
showed
that
mercury
concentrations
in
the
effluent
from
these
devices
could
be
highly
variable,
suggesting
that
concentration­
based
effluent
standards
might
not
be
the
best
approach
to
this
technology.
However,
the
study
did
establish
that
effective
technology
exists,
and
development
of
national
effluent
guideline
could
be
undertaken.
MWRA
therefore
believes
that
this
could
be
an
appropriate
sector
for
federal
effluent
guidelines."

INDUSTRIAL
CATEGORIES
WITH
GUIDELINES
(
ALPHABETICALLY)

Coal
Mining
point
source
category
CWN
identified
the
coal
mining
point
source
category
as
an
effluent
guideline
which
requires
revision.
This
a
source
category
had
an
effluent
guideline
promulgated
in
1985,
portions
of
which
were
revised
in
2002.
In
their
comments
CWN
writes,
"...
the
rainfall
exemptions
for
coal
mining
in
current
ELGs.
...
allow
for
relaxation
of
limits
as
soon
as
it
rains.
The
primary
control
of
mine
drainage
is
the
settlement
basin
which
doesn't
work
very
well
when
it
rains.
EPA
should
consider
effluent
treatment
options
and/
or
an
increase
basin
size
requirements."

Hospitals
&
Related
Health
Care
Facilities
MWRA
identified
hospitals
and
related
health
care
facilities
as
an
industry
sector
that
is
a
significant
source
of
mercury.
This
a
source
category
had
an
effluent
guideline
promulgated
in
1976,
which
was
revised
in
1989
and
1995.
In
their
comments,
they
state,
"
MWRA's
experience
with
hospitals
began
in
the
early
1990s,
when
MWRA
began
attempting
to
secure
compliance
with
an
action
level
for
mercury
of
1
part
per
billion.
As
a
result
of
several
years
of
co­
ordinated
effort
among
the
medical
facilities
in
MWRA's
Region,
the
average
medical
facility's
mercury
discharge
fell
by
83%,
from
Page
3
of
4
approximately
22
ug/
l
(
parts
per
billion)
in
1994
to
2
ug/
l
during
calendar
year
1999.
Today,
the
majority
of
the
facilities
have
been
able
to
comply
with
this
limit,
and
MWRA
expects
most
of
the
remaining
facilities
to
achieve
compliance
in
the
near
future.
...
MWRA
has
found
that
there
are
also
a
significant
potentials
for
cost
effective
pollution
prevention
strategies,
as
well
as
economically
feasible
treatment
options.
There
are
innovative
technology
and
regulatory
strategies
for
these
sectors
that
may
be
more
effective
than
end­
of­
pipe
treatment
technology,
including
group
permitting
and
self­
certification
for
small
facilities,
and
pooling
of
information
on
mercury­
containing
products
to
facilitate
product
substitution
or
special
handling
to
eliminate
discharges."
MWRA
has
provided
EPA
with
a
number
of
supporting
documents,
including
data,
to
support
this
recommendation.

Ore
Mining
and
Dressing
point
source
category
CWN
identified
ore
mining
and
dressing
point
source
category
as
an
industry
which
has
had
significant
water
quality
impacts
in
the
region
in
which
it
is
prevalent.
This
source
category
had
an
effluent
guideline
promulgated
in
1982
and
revised
in
1988,
In
their
comments,
CWN
writes
"
In
1998
Clean
Water
Network
members
with
the
Western
Action
Mining
Project
and
Earthjustice
Legal
Defense
Fund
submitted
comments
to
EPA
with
regards
to
EPA's
decision
to
substantially
reduce
the
applicability
of
Part
440
ELGs
to
discharges
from
waste
rock
piles,
overburden
piles
and
other
sources
of
water
pollution.
EPA
has
not
responded
to
that
request.
Today
we
request
again
that
EPA
again
include
seepage
from
waste
dumps
in
its
Part
440
ELG
definition
of
`
mine
drainage'.
EPA
has
the
data
and
resources
to
regulate
seepage
from
waste
dumps."

POLLUTANTS
OF
CONCERN
(
ALPHABETICALLY)

Lead
MWRA
identified
lead
as
a
pollutant
which
the
EPA
should
address
through
effluent
guidelines.
In
their
comments,
they
state
"
MWRA
is
writing
to
express
its
hope
that
in
developing
its
new
strategy,
[...]
focussing
its
future
efforts
particularly
on
sectors
that
are
known
sources
of
persistent
bioaccumulating
toxins,
particularly
...
lead."

Mercury
MWRA
identified
mercury
as
a
pollutant
which
the
EPA
should
address
through
effluent
guidelines.
In
their
comments,
they
note
"
MWRA
is
writing
to
express
its
hope
that
in
developing
its
new
strategy,
[...]
focussing
its
future
efforts
particularly
on
sectors
that
are
known
sources
of
persistent
bioaccumulating
toxins,
particularly
mercury..."

Nutrients
CWN
identified
nutrients
as
a
pollutant
which
the
Agency
should
address
through
effluent
guidelines.
In
their
comments,
CWN
writes
"[
The
EPA
should]
require
wastewater
treatment
plants
to
use
Biological
Nutrient
Removal
(
BNR)
as
Best
Available
Technology
for
wastewater
treatment
plants.
By
2004
all
states
must
adopt
nutrient
criteria
into
state
water
quality
standards.
Requiring
BNR
would
both
reduce
nutrient
pollution
problems
and
would
help
states
to
meet
new
nutrient
criteria."
They
also
note
"[
The
EPA
should]
Require
pollutant
limitations
for
...
nutrients
for
publicly­
owned
treatment
works.
Again,
states
will
soon
be
required
to
adopt
nutrient
criteria
by
2004
...
Requiring
ELGs
to
keep
pace
with
policy
decisions
Page
4
of
4
makes
sense."
Although
regulating
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)
is
not
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
effluent
guidelines
program,
EPA
intends
to
consider
biological
nutrient
removal
(
BNR)
as
an
option
when
it
evaluates
wastewater
treatment.

Pathogens
CWN
identified
pathogens,
specifically
bacteria
and
viruses,
as
a
pollutant
which
the
Agency
should
address
through
effluent
guidelines.
In
their
comments,
CWN
writes
"[
The
EPA
should]
require
pollutant
limitations
for
bacteria,
[
and]
viruses...
for
publicly­
owned
treatment
works.
...
states
will
also
soon
be
required
to
adopt
EPA's
new
bacteria
criteria.
Requiring
ELGs
to
keep
pace
with
policy
decisions
makes
sense."
Regulating
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)
is
not
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
effluent
guidelines
program.

Persistent
Bioaccumulative
and
Toxic
Compounds
(
PBTs)
DuPont
Engineering
Technology
identified
persistent,
bioaccumulative
and
toxic
(
PBTs)
compounds
as
a
category
of
pollutants
that
EPA
should
address
through
effluent
guidelines.
In
their
comments,
they
write,
"
Persistent,
bioaccumulative
and
toxic
(
PBTs)
compounds
should
be
the
primary
focus
in
terms
of
unregulated
pollutants.
As
EPA
is
well
aware,
PBTs,
as
well
as
nutrients
and
silt­
forming
pollutants
are
the
constituents
of
concern
in
most
remaining
impaired
water­
quality
segments."
In
addition,
MWRA
writes,
"
MWRA
is
writing
to
express
its
hope
that
in
developing
its
new
strategy,
[...]
focussing
its
future
efforts
particularly
on
sectors
that
are
known
sources
of
persistent
bioaccumulating
toxins,
particularly
mercury
and
lead."

Short­
term
Followup:
EPA
will
contact
each
of
the
commenters
to
collect
the
supporting
data
on
which
they
based
their
recommendations.

Long­
term
Followup:
Data
collected
from
commenters
will
be
reviewed
and
analyzed
for
use
in
determining
whether
a
recommended
industry
will
be
investigated
in
more
depth
in
the
second
phase
of
the
planning
process.