Search
Regulatory Alert - RA 05-09

Member Pipeline - Regulatory - Alert (RA 05-09)

To: Members & Affiliates
From: National Office, Pretreatment & Hazardous Waste Committee
Date: September 2, 2005
Subject: EPA PRELIMINARY 2006 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN
Reference: RA 05-09

print Printer friendly version

Action Please By:
October 14, 2005

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) released for comment its preliminary 2006 effluent guidelines program plan in the August 29 Federal Register. The Agency’s 2005 review of existing effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) and pretreatment standards accompanied the program plan ( 70 Fed. Reg. 51,042 ). The Agency also evaluated indirect industrial dischargers that do not have categorical pretreatment standards to determine whether such standards are needed.

Mary Smith, the director of the Engineering and Analysis Division in the EPA Office of Water, and other Agency officials briefed NACWA staff and Pretreatment and Hazardous Waste Committee leaders September 1 on the preliminary ELG plan and other issues. The plan singles out the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard and the Steam Electric Generation source categories for detailed review of their ELG and pretreatment standards to determine if changes are needed. The Agency also identified the tobacco products industry as a possible new category for which ELG and pretreatment standards may need to be developed.

Smith said the preliminary 2006 plan takes a little different tack from previous plans in that it looks at both direct and indirect dischargers, a reference to the Agency’s evaluation in the preliminary plan of indirect dischargers that do not have their own categorical standards.

Comments are being sought on both the preliminary 2006 ELG program plan and the evaluation of indirect dischargers. NACWA intends to file comments on the evaluation of indirect dischargers and the 2006 ELG program plan by the October 28 deadline. In addition, the Association will participate in an EPA public meeting on the plan scheduled for September 20 in Washington, D.C.

Evaluating Need for Pretreatment Standards from Seven Industrial Sectors
In the process of determining whether national pretreatment standards are needed for certain types of indirect dischargers that do not currently have categorical standards, EPA established seven industrial categories of indirect dischargers for evaluation:

Included in the Health Services Industry are independent and stand-alone medical and dental labs, dental and medical clinics and offices, nursing homes and personal care facilities, veterinary clinics, and hospitals. The Agency seeks comment on its grouping of these activities under the Health Services Industry category.

In the August 29 notice, EPA said it evaluated the “pass-through potential” of pollutants from these seven industrial categories, but was unable to gather the data needed to analyze the availability and performance of treatment or process technologies that may reduce toxic pollutant discharges beyond what is being accomplished by existing controls. To rectify this problem, EPA sought to look at the pass-through potential by comparing total “toxic weighted pound equivalents” (TWPEs) discharged by the industrial sector as a whole with the TWPEs from facilities that discharge only to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Using information from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), the Permit Compliance System (PCS), and other databases, EPA found a low pass-through potential for toxic discharges from four of the seven industrial categories and concluded no pretreatment standards are needed at this time. Those four categories are Food Service Establishments, Industrial Laundries, Photoprocessing, and Printing and Publishing. It should be noted that EPA issued a final rule in 1999 in which it decided not to set effluent limits and pretreatment standards for industrial laundries. The Association was heavily involved in those discussions.

EPA is still evaluating the Industrial Container and Drum Cleaning category using data from its 2002 “Preliminary Data Summary: Industrial Container and Drum Cleaning Industry.” However, not enough data was available for EPA to make any conclusions regarding the pass-through potential for toxics from Independent and Stand Alone Laboratories and Health Services Industries, although the Agency said it would continue to evaluate them and conduct more detailed studies if necessary in the 2007-2008 planning cycle. EPA is soliciting comment on whether these or other industrial activities discharge pollutants that might pass through POTWs.

Evaluation of Interference Potential from Seven Industrial Categories
The Agency also looked at potential interference with the operation of POTWs from pollutants that fall within these seven categories. EPA relied in part on its August 2004 Report to Congress on the Impacts and Control of Combined and Sanitary Sewer Overflows to gather information about interference issues. Grease from restaurants, homes, and industrial sources is the most common cause of blockages in the collection system followed by grit, rock, and debris and roots, EPA said.

The potential of pollutants from the seven categories to interfere with the operation of POTWs is not significant enough to warrant national pretreatment standards, EPA said. Moreover, local treatment authorities are relying increasingly on provisions in the general pretreatment regulations to set more stringent permit limits to reduce interferences at POTWs. In addition, interference issues tend to be local in nature and vary among individual POTWs. EPA suggested that a better way to deal with interference issues would be through improved oversight and enforcement rather than through national standards. The Agency seeks comment on whether there are industrial sectors discharging pollutants that may interfere with a POTW that cannot be addressed through general pretreatment standards.

In March 2004, NACWA commented that the most valuable tool for evaluating the need for more pretreatment standards is the “50 POTW Study” (Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works, September 1982) and that the study needs to be updated. NACWA is currently working with EPA and has met with key Agency officials in defining the scope and specifics of an updated study (see August 26, 2005 FaxAlert at http://www.nacwa.org/private/faxalerts/082605.cfm).

EPA to Review Further Two ELGs for Possible Revision, Consider New ELG for Tobacco
The August 29 notice also discussed the 2005 review of ELGs and the preliminary plan for 2006. As a result of the 2005 screening level review, EPA will pursue more detailed studies to determine whether the existing ELGs and pretreatment standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard and the Steam Electric Power Generation point source categories warrant revision. These two point source categories discharge more toxic and non-conventional pollutants than the other industry sectors the Agency reviewed in the 2005 screening, EPA said. The Agency also is undertaking a detailed review of tobacco products industries, a sector for which categorical ELGs have not been previously set.

The Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard point source category was included in the 2005 review because it “ranked highest in terms of toxic and non-conventional pollutant discharges” among the source categories that were analyzed, EPA said. The most recent changes to this ELG were promulgated in the 1998 “cluster rules” for several subcategories. The agency will focus its detailed 2006 review on dioxin discharges for certain types of mills.

Steam Electric Generation point sources ranked second in terms of toxic and non-conventional toxic discharges in the 2005 screening, EPA said. The latest ELG and pretreatment standards for this category were promulgated in 1982. The Agency will look at whether new technologies or process changes have come available that may serve as the basis for a revised ELG. In addition, EPA wants to look into whether new analytical methods for measuring mercury better quantify the amounts of the pollutant being discharged.

The need to look more closely at the tobacco products industry arose out of comments on the 2004 preliminary ELG plan. Specifically, some commenters raised concerns about the quantity of toxics and carcinogens that may be released in wastewater from cigarette manufacturing plants. The tobacco products industry is divided into four sectors encompassing cigarette manufacturing, cigar manufacturing, makers of chewing and smoking tobacco and snuff, and facilities engaged in stemming and redrying tobacco. EPA estimates that there are about 114 tobacco products facilities, many of which discharge to POTWs. However, little data is available about the facilities in this sector.

While only two existing industrial sectors were singled out for a more detailed review in 2006, EPA said it will continue to evaluate 11 others that were identified as having potentially high TWPE discharges. These sectors are Fertilizer Manufacturing, Inorganic Chemicals, Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing, Ore Mining and Dressing, Pesticide Chemicals, Petroleum Refining, Plastic Molding and Forming, Porcelain Enameling, Rubber Manufacturing, and Sugar Processing.

Comments Sought on Equivalent Mass-Based Limits
The August 29 notice also contains a discussion and seeks comment on whether it should undertake a rulemaking that would give permit writers the flexibility to “retain mass-based permit limits on current wastewater flows for direct dischargers” to facilitate the adoption of water conservation technologies. EPA said it proposed and may make final provisions in the pretreatment streamlining rule that would allow concentration-based limits to be converted to mass-based limits so that facilities would not be penalized for adopting water conservation measures. NACWA was one of the groups that has consistently voiced its support of this added flexibility in 2004 comments on the preliminary 2004/2005 ELG program plan regarding the effluent limits for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) point source category. Further, NACWA continues to advocate for EPA to include the provisions in the pretreatment streamlining rule that would allow permit writers to convert concentration-based limits to mass-based limits. EPA said it “strongly supports water conservation and encourages all sectors, including municipal, industrial, and agricultural, to achieve efficient water use” and “does not intend for its regulations to present a barrier.”

NACWA plans to submit comments on the draft 2006 ELG plan by the October 28 deadline and encourages its members to do the same. Areas in which EPA seeks comments include:

NACWA members are encouraged to submit copies of their comments to the NACWA Regulatory Affairs staff by October 14 in order to provide time for them to be incorporated into the Association’s comments. Please contact Susan Bruninga, NACWA Manager of Regulatory Affairs, at (202) 833-3280 or at sbruninga@nacwa.org for more information.